In her lecture ‘Transnational Justice and Gendered Vulnerability: Feminist Politics and (Im)possible Solidarities’, Dhawan examined the role of global social movements as (re-)producers of social inequalities and their interrelations with the state and government.

Transnational solidarity in a globalized world

Transnational social movements are based on the idea that all individuals world-wide should be provided with equal rights and justice. That idea emerges from conceptions of global unity that promote a cosmopolitan world in which all individuals are connected independent from actual personal interactions. Based on the concept of global unity, responsibilities are considered to exist beyond state boundaries and are transformed into collective global responsibilities. Due to current global developments such as climate change, the world population is thought to be united in sharing the same risks. Such world-wide interconnectivity is thought to result in a new transnational alliance and the global emergence of compassion that is shared with all parts of the world. The concept of transnational social movements that can function as global collective change agents emerged from that perception of current global developments. As Dhawan argues, however, those social movements must be understood as embedded within existing structures of global inequalities and power relations.

Social movements as (re-)producers of hegemonic relationships

The relationship between different actors within and around social movements, for example between those that provide help and those that receive help, is often unequal and marked through differences regarding available resources and possibilities. Therefore, Dhawan argues that cosmopolitan compassion is inherently embedded within and reproduces neoliberal structures of social inequality. Even though individuals might face similar global risks, the actual impact and effect of those risks depend strongly on the opportunities and positionality of the respective individual. The popular claim that social movements represent a global unit of people based on an open and horizontal structure is, thus, considered problematic. Dhawan emphasizes the need to question current representations within social movements such as ‘Who can speak for whom?’ and ‘Who is left out?’ Even though social movements might perceive themselves as a public manifestation of people’s power that can reclaim democracy, in reality civil society does not always live up to its emancipatory self-image.

Agency and resources within social movements

Civil society and social movements do not operate in an empty space but are instead interrelated with the state. Whilst social movements aim for radical political change, the question remains how effective those movements finally are in changing existing structures of social inequality and diminishing postcolonial power distributions. Dhawan argues that social movements are marked through an intrinsic ambivalence. On the one hand, social movements create alternative forms of power. On the other hand, they reproduce the marginalisation of specific groups and societies. Only few agents possess the opportunities and resources that allow them to resist and protest. Others cannot afford such agency, due, for example, to demanding working conditions. Such ambivalence can be illustrated by public manifestations following a rape in India. Dhawan argues that not all bodies are equally satisfactory to disrupt civil society, as only specific rape cases resulted in public indignation while similar incidents in poorer neighbouring areas did not lead to ensuing protests. Speaking and protesting in the name of someone else is accompanied by skewed distributions of power and agency, because individuals possess different amounts of power and resources to mobilize and stand up for civil rights.

The relationship between civil society and the state

As Dhawan argues that civil society cannot be the only agent for political change, she turns towards the role and possibilities of the state and government. The relationship between the state and civil society is often perceived as a dichotomy between ‘good’ civil society that stands in contrast to the ‘evil’ state. Dhawan rejects that merely negative conception of the state and emphasizes the need to reconsider which role the state can take in promoting civil rights and supporting actual change. Disregarding the state and its power through perceiving civil society as the only instrument for successful change proves counterproductive. Instead of positioning oneself only for or against the state, Dhawan argues for the necessity of a rigorous passionate critique of the state and government.