Constructing Global Feminism*

Sperling, Valerie, Myra Marx Ferree, and Barbara Risman, "Constructing Global Feminism: Transnational Advocacy Networks and Russian Women's Activism," Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 26(4): 1155-86.

Reprinted from Signs published by the University of Chicago Press, copyright 2001 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair use provisions of US and international copyright law and agreement, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires both the consent of the authors and the University of Chicago Press.

Abstract

Social movements in civil society are increasingly taking on a global form. Transnational advocacy networks constitute a central part of this globalizing civic activism. Using data from a set of U.S.-funded seminars aimed at fostering women's movement activism, and run by a joint American-Russian team in several cities across Russia, we show that transnational organizing is not unidirectional. Reciprocal benefits accrue to both local and extra-local activists and organizations; ideas and resources flow "in" to local movements from abroad, but also "out" into the transnational arena. The seminars also suggest three conceptual insights that may be applicable to transnational women's movement organizing in general. First, civic activism is the "housework" of politics. Unlike "high" politics, it is low-paid, low prestige, and often female-dominated; moreover, despite the fundamental contributions it makes, it is often unacknowledged as being a significant aspect of politics. Second, activists in transnational advocacy networks act as both "diplomats" and "entrepreneurs," roles that support enhanced communication and new understandings of feminist concepts, but also create conflicts of interest and give rise to organizational and interpersonal tensions. Third, reliance on transnational resources, while fostering otherwise unaffordable activism, also carries unintended and undesirable side effects, including jealousy, fragmentation, exclusivity and organizational hierarchy. We conclude that, despite the complexities and inequalities inherent in transnational organizing, the globalization of the women's movement creates opportunities for local activists, giving them voice beyond their local arena.

Recent scholarship on social change emphasizes the importance of transnational advocacy networks and a globalizing civil society, in which borders between states become permeable to international political activism (Keck and Sikkink 1998; Della Porta, Kriesi, and Rucht 1999; Tarrow 1999). Such transnational organizing has blossomed within the women's movement, as elsewhere, and has affected the types of resources and discourses available to activists. Efforts to produce change in gender relations can now rely heavily on elite and expert social networks, in which women's organizing has become increasingly professionalized and "NGO-ized" (Alvarez 1997; Ray 1999; Silliman 1999). Local feminist activists now participate self-consciously in international forums, share a common discourse, and construct a women's movement understood as being both local and global (Bystydzienski and Sekhon 1999). This change in political activity has occurred at the same time as a global decline in women's mass mobilization and in the use of contentious forms of public protest (Freeman and Johnson 1999).

In this article, we examine the nature and meaning of the transnational mobilization of women's movements, using as a specific case study a set of seminars sponsored by U.S. women activists and intended to support women's political activism in Russia. Our main argument is that transnational organizing is not a unidirectional process. At the point of intersection between the local and the global, where these seminars take place, resources and discourses become objects of struggle, which neither the Russian nor the American women's movement activists unilaterally control. Moreover, reciprocal benefits accrue to both local and extra-local activists and organizations; ideas and resources flow "in" to local movements from abroad, but they also flow "out" into the transnational arena. Assuming complexity in the interactions between global and local levels of women's movement activity, our research asks how feminism as a global movement, expressed through the medium of specific transnational advocacy networks, affects the development of local women's movements in Russia in the mid-1990s. We look at the negotiated process out of which Russian women's activism emerges and at the shared values and discourses that are constructed with the advice and material support of American activists. By looking at how these specific transnational encounters actually operate on the ground, we connect abstract concerns about the globalization of civil society to the concrete political practices of women working for change.

We begin this discussion with a definition of our terms, being particularly concerned with how transnational advocacy networks are related to social movements, what our use of the labels feminism and women's movement convey to the reader, and how resources are understood. For background to this case, we then offer a short description of the situation faced by Russian women in this decade and their recent history of mobilization. After presenting an overview of the seminars from which we draw our data, we use this case study to explore the interaction of Russian and American activists' ideas and resources. Our data illustrate three patterns we then suggest can apply to transnational women's movement organizing more generally -- namely, the practical challenges posed by civic activism's position as the housework of politics, the conflicts of interest produced by activists' diplomatic and entrepreneurial roles, and the unintended organizational and interpersonal effects of reliance on transnational resources.

Defining terms

Transnational advocacy networks and social movements.
A transnational advocacy network is a set of "relevant actors working internationally on an issue who are bound together by shared values, a common discourse and dense exchanges of information and services. . . . Activists in networks try not only to influence policy outcomes but to transform the terms and nature of the debate" (Keck and Sikkink 1998, 3). Transnational advocacy networks typically identify themselves with social movements, such as environmentalism or feminism, as a means of naming the values, discourses, and objectives that bind them together. Some would even consider them social movements (e.g. Della Porta, Kriesi, and Rucht 1999). This identification with social movements hides certain of their distinctive features. Whereas social movements have traditionally been characterized as involving mass mobilization, contentious and confrontational tactics, and efforts to carry politics out of conventional venues into the streets (Freeman and Johnson 1999), advocacy networks mobilize smaller numbers of individual activists who use more specialized resources of expertise and access to elites. Such networks offer new information to political leaders and reframe issues for elites in an attempt to gain the support of powerful institutions for their ideas (Keck and Sikkink 1998, 30), rather than relying on demonstrations of mass public support and overt confrontations with authorities. Such tactical distinctions are important.

However, like social movements, transnational advocacy networks are principled actors committed to social change -- that is, they are bound together by a common set of values and objectives that challenge the status quo. In this regard they differ from other international actors such as governments and transnational corporations (Keck and Sikkink 1998, 30), and they often work in and with broader-based social movements that share the same principles. Any given social movement may contain a transnational advocacy network within it; in turn, transnational advocacy networks contain formal organizations, informal grassroots associations, and individuals who, at times, may also engage in more disorderly forms of politics. While there is an important conceptual distinction between social movements and transnational advocacy networks based on their tactics, there is also a commonality between them based on their goals. In practice, the line between them is necessarily fluid, since one important persuasive resource that advocacy networks can use is the threat (actual or implied) of their members' recourse to more contentious tactics.

Women's transnational advocacy networks organized around principles of challenging gender hierarchy and improving the conditions of women's lives have been among the earliest and most influential of such global mobilizations. Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, in their influential account of the growth and significance of contemporary transnational advocacy networks, look to women's international mobilizations for suffrage and against the practice of footbinding in China as important historical precedents to current developments. Women's suffrage, protective legislation, violence against women, and reproductive rights are just some of the issues for which women's international nongovernmental organizations and specifically feminist transnational advocacy networks have mobilized effectively (Berkovitch 1995). Transnational advocacy networks, organized in the early twentieth century around struggles for peace and women's suffrage, provided organizational legacies that were influential in the remobilization of an international women's movement in the 1970s (Rupp 1997; Ferree and Gamson 1999).

"Feminism" and women's movements.
Paradoxically, while feminism as a term identifies a shared principled commitment to challenging gender hierarchy that defines activist networks mobilized around specific issues, feminist is itself one of the most contested terms within and among these networks. Indeed, many women who mobilize to contest social arrangements that they find oppressive do not conceptualize their activism as "feminist" for a variety of reasons (Basu 1995). For analytical purposes, we need to make the principles underlying our own usage of this label explicit.

We see women's movements as the broader category of activism, which includes all mobilization of women as social and political actors that invokes and reflexively creates the politicized identity of "women." Organizing women as women, for any number of possible political goals, creates women's movements. Within this broader context, we define feminist action as that in which the participants explicitly place value on challenging gender hierarchy and changing women's social status, whether they adopt or reject the feminist label. In our view, then, feminist groups are those organizations that say they are concerned with gender relations as a target of social and political change. These groups are but one part of the larger women's movement.

No "traveling discourse," or set of terms, values and ideas, feminism included, is received and used in identical fashion everywhere it goes (Gal 2001). Indeed, "global" (often "Western") ideas are not themselves homogeneous or abstractly Western but anchored into their own national-historical and class-specific contexts. White, middle-class, Western feminism is not one idea or program of change. Not only are feminist ideas characterized by tensions and contradictions within every country, be it India (Ray 1999), France (Jenson 1990) or the United States (Ferree and Hess 2000), but the focus of feminist movements can differ dramatically across Western countries, as shown in an earlier study (Ferree 1987) for the United States and West Germany and as Vappu Tyyskä (1999) shows for Canada and Finland. In addition, certain types of political systems, such as state socialism, may produce a similar set of effects on feminism in highly diverse national settings. Prejudging the uniformity of Western or third world or eastern European feminist values and issues erases the actual complexity that is being negotiated in transnational advocacy networks, where multiple versions of feminism are present and where contradictions arise within as well as between groups defined by nationality.

Every transnational feminist network event is thus simultaneously an encounter between two (or more) specific and concrete types of local feminism and also about constructing something that is new, different, and self-consciously more globally framed than either was initially (see Rupp and Taylor 1999). This is a process of mutual transformation, not on a basis of equality and not without conflict. Outside actors will probably have more resources than local ones, and definitions of what is important to challenge about hierarchical gender relations, of the most effective tactics to use to do so, and of the other as "not feminist" will probably produce controversy. Yet it is not just ideas from outside that strike a chord and mobilize local participants (an outside agitator model), nor is transnational feminist organizing a process in which indigenous ideas and organizers simply recruit support from outsiders with funds in order to do what they would do anyway (a resource mobilization model). We argue that the importance of transnational feminist organizing lies precisely in the fact that imported ideas and practices constructively interact with local contexts and emerge significantly altered.

Resources for activism.
An overly narrow view of resources as merely financial may also distort the picture of how transnational organizing works. Resources certainly include money, but also may include access, reputation, influence, and other intangible benefits. Resources for transnational organizing also flow in two directions: the "West" provides money and ostensible expertise; the "East" provides opportunities for "feminist moral entrepreneurs" to work for change in the way their principles lead them to want to do and to build careers in the process. We define moral entrepreneurs as those who contribute to building organizations and discourses that have moral implications.1 Their work is targeted at changing political principles, and in the process they develop a greater or lesser degree of international prominence and credibility. As Keck and Sikkink (1998) point out, because transnational advocacy networks are based on principles and values and are organizationally decentralized and flexible, individuals committed to a cause to "make a difference" have considerable latitutde within the amorphous realm of transnational political action. Achieving a reputation as effectively exercising influence is itself a resource that activists can use to leverage action and material benefits from others in the future. Local activism provides an arena in which transnational advocacy networks can achieve an "international profile" and thus contribute to their own organizational growth.

In addition to furthering their own interests, in many cases transnational advocacy networks also foster the development of local movements. In some cases, they may spur and subsidize grassroots mobilization, offering opportunities for consciousness-raising experience and networking as well as models for effective local action (Subramaniam 2000). However, in other instances, the elite-focused tactics of the network may conflict or compete with alternate local strategies that seek to develop grassroots mobilization or protest activities instead.2 Thus, resources injected by the transnational network may support elite-based tactics at the expense of developing a more mass-based movement for social change.

The set of seminars analyzed in this case study offers insight into the complex ways in which feminism as a global movement interacted with the development of the Russian women's movement in the mid-1990s. Below, we explore several of the ways in which Russian and American activists shaped each other's ideas and provided each other with resources within a transnational context. Our data illustrate the multidirectionality of influence within a transnational advocacy network and shed light on the dynamics of transnational advocacy in general. We turn first, however, to an overview of the Russian activist setting.

Russian feminism in a transnational context

The Russian women's movement is a good example of a local movement that has seen many of its activists and organizations become part of a transnational advocacy network. The feminist transnational advocacy network includes sister-to-sister feminist organizations such as the Network of East-West Women (NEWW); "joint-venture" civic organizations that serve as channels for foreign funding, such as the United States-Newly Independent States (US-NIS) Women's Consortium; local groups that are funded in part by foreign foundations (such as the Moscow Center for Gender Studies); as well as feminist moral entrepreneurs such as Shana Penn (NEWW), Martina Vandenberg (Women's Consortium), and Elise Smith (Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development) (see Hrycak 1999). These and other feminist advocates have positions in American foundations, universities, and government, and they direct their expertise and other resources toward women in Russia. They have become deeply involved in Russian feminist politics, spending a great deal of their individual time and energy engaged in Russian issues, and in the process developing extensive local networks as well as ties with American and international funding organizations.

Transnational feminist networks have no shortage of issues on which to focus their attention. Indeed, the problems of postcommunist societies are gendered, whether or not they are successfully framed as such. Research on women in post-Soviet Russia consistently shows that the transition to a market economy has exacerbated gender inequality in the labor market.3 In 1992, 74 percent of unemployed people with a higher education were women (Zdravomyslova 1994). Indeed, women's unemployment is often ideologically justified by claims that women's emancipation was an aspect of communist ideology that should be replaced with traditional nationalistic values, including the notion that mothers should stay at home rather than go to work outside the home (Posadskaya 1994). Other gendered problems include a decline in social services (including low-cost child care), an emphasis on childbearing as creating families for the nation, the heightened "machismo" of men released from the control of the tutelary state, and advertising that offers Western sexist stereotypes as a pattern of gender relations to be emulated.4 In short, post-Soviet women are facing a situation in which much of the market for their intellectual or manual labor has evaporated, while the market for their commercially sexualized bodies has boomed.

These negative consequences of the transition toward a market economy have been accompanied by an increase in political opportunities and democratic freedoms. Under the Soviet regime, there was only one legal forum for women's organizing: the Soviet Women's Committee, designed to serve party goals, and its local branches (zhensovety). The population widely viewed these organizations as "window dressing," and they did little to improve women's status in Soviet society. Attempts to broaden the spectrum of women's organizations met with defeat, and women concerned with their own freedoms had nowhere to turn (Buckley 1989). But in the late Gorbachev era, glasnost and perestroika swiftly altered the opportunities available to women who wished publicly to express dissent over their treatment as women in Russian society. Under Gorbachev's new policies, it became legal to assemble in public, to organize groups, to register such organizations with the state and then open bank accounts for them, to publish newsletters and journals, and even to start independent political parties.

In this new political context, women's ability to share experiences of oppression and express anger at being treated as second-class citizens grew. In the late 1980s, the seeds of this dissidence took root and flourished in tiny feminist organizations, especially in Moscow. In the early 1990s, a wave of women's organizing took place impelled by the growing economic crisis and rapid reduction in the social welfare benefits women had come to rely on during the years of Soviet power. A vast number of self-help groups and employment-training organizations formed, trying to fill the gap that the collapse of the centrally planned welfare state created. One atypical, highly placed woman working as the director of an Institute in the Russian Academy of Sciences, Natalia Rimashevskaya, created a small niche for feminist research in her Institute of Socio-Economic Population Issues, putting Anastasia Posadskaya and Valentina Konstantinova on its payroll. Both were involved also in the autonomous feminist group, LOTOS, or League for the Elimination of Social Stereotypes. The Moscow Center for Gender Studies, the name given to this small research group, became a key activist organization as well.

Partly through its leadership, in March 1991, the first independently organized women's conference was held, bringing together two hundred women representing over forty new women's organizations. Called the First Independent Women's Forum, the conference slogan was "Democracy Minus Women Is Not Democracy." In 1992, the second such conference hosted five hundred women from nearly seventy groups and was funded by a combination of domestic and international sponsors. By 1995, hundreds of women's organizations were operating in Russia, many of them actively engaged in attempting to raise women's social, economic, and political status. These organizations ranged from small, local groups to larger national organizations with regional subdivisions; they also included several national level networks of women's groups headquartered in Moscow. The activists leading these women's organizations described themselves as part of a small, emergent women's movement, advocating on women's behalf.5

As all these accounts demonstrate, this emergent movement did not develop in isolation. Indeed, contacts with foreign women and their organizations, the availability of Western feminist literature, a plethora of Western-sponsored seminars for women, the growing knowledge of international laws and standards regarding discrimination against women, the appearance of Western funding for women's organizations in the 1990s and Russian activists' opportunities to travel to the West, and participation in international conferences on women's issues all fed into the development of the Russian women's movement, including its feminist organizations. Significantly, the Russian women's movement, in its struggle to frame issues of discrimination, adopted the language of international documents, such as International Labour Organization (ILO) and UN resolutions. This use of international human rights and discrimination language offered the women's groups and their demands a certain amount of legitimacy with the Russian government, a classic example of what Keck and Sikkink call a "boomerang" effect (1998, 12). By taking up language that already had credibility with international organizations, Russian activists could use the respect and recognition that the Russian state accorded to these international actors to apply leverage on their own country (Sperling 1999).

Had Russia's Soviet-style near absence of contact with Western and international organizations and documents persisted into this decade, a completely different contemporary women's movement in Russia would have developed, if one had emerged at all. Our argument is not, however, that Russia lacked a women's movement or awareness of feminist issues until these contacts with the West. On the contrary, the Russian women's movement at the turn of the last century was a very strong and viable one that has received considerable scholarly attention in the West (Stites 1978; Clements 1997). Its history, however, is only just beginning to receive attention in Russia, along with attention to early Russian feminists and their work. This rediscovery - a process of research and reevaluation that is not unlike the recuperation of feminist texts and foremothers in the United States and Western Europe in the 1970s - is also part of a struggle about whether feminism is "Russian" or "foreign."

The current wave of Russian feminism is occurring in a global context quite different than that which existed for any women's movement in the early 1970s. Feminist organizations are now active in many countries. Transnational feminist advocacy networks already have put gender issues on the agenda of the United Nations via recurrent conferences and non-governmental organization (NGO) forums. With such globalization, the emergence of feminist grassroots organizations and activities can not be seen as isolated events nor merely as local developments. An earlier study (Sperling 1999) shows that many Moscow-based women's organizations found support for their activities from abroad very early in their development, from private foundations and governments eager to support manifestations of civic organizing. Jane Gottlick (1999) describes a similar process in St. Petersburg. We now turn to a closer examination of this transnational process in the case of one series of U.S.-sponsored training seminars for Russian women activists.

Case study data: Seminars for women activists

In 1994 we began a study of women's activism in Russia in conjunction with a series of three-day seminars for women activists organized by an American self-identified feminist and her Russian colleague. The American organizer had extensive previous experience in the Washington, D.C., women's lobby and had been doing other work as a feminist moral entrepreneur in Russia for several years when the seminars began. The Russian seminar leader had a history of involvement in the zhensovety but had reformed her organization into an autonomous women's group. In each seminar an expert team consisting of two American women's movement activists, the Russian seminar leader, and four or more Moscow?based women's movement activists took part. Some of the seminars included additional invited speakers, either American (e.g., activists and employees of various funding agencies) or Russian (e.g., politicians and political analysts). The purpose of the seminars was to develop a "woman's agenda" in each region that could be implemented by a coalition of women's groups. The techniques discussed in the seminars involved conducting media relations, lobbying elected officials, and building coalitions.

These seminars, funded by the Eurasia and MacArthur Foundations, were organized by a joint Russian-American team. With the cooperation of this team, in fall 1994 we developed an attitude survey and biographical data form to administer at the seminars and had observers (usually both a Russian-speaking American and an English-speaking Russian) at each seminar take field notes. These observers also conducted focus groups with participants on the participants' understanding of feminism and women's status. These seminars and focus groups provided the basic data for our case study, supplemented by interviews with the seminar leaders and two of the site coordinators.

The data on participants were collected at eight seminars in 1995 and 1996. Three were in the Moscow region (two at Zhukovsky and one at Obninsk) and five in more outlying areas: Ekaterinburg in the Sverdlovsk oblast, Cheboksary in the Republic of Chuvashia, Novocherkassk in the Don region, Tver in the Tver oblast, and Izhevsk in the Republic of Udmurtia. The seminars in Zhukovsky and Obninsk gathered together women from various Russian regions; the regional forums were just for women living in those regions. In each region, local site coordinators recruited other participants who were either already involved in parliamentary politics as elected officials or candidates, leaders of formally organized women's associations, or influential in informal women's networks actively concerned with women's status.

The seminar participants were a highly educated elite of predominantly professional women (in engineering and physical sciences as well as social sciences and medicine), representing over fifty organizations. Some organizations were quite large and had chapters in different regions, but others were as small as the three people present in the seminar. The types of women's organizations represented varied dramatically, ranging from umbrella organizations (e.g., Ural Association of Women), local autonomous women's groups (e.g., Women's Light in Tver), zhensovety (e.g., Union of Women of Sverdlovsk), autonomous groups that stem from zhensovety (e.g., Prologue), explicitly political groups (e.g., Women for a New Russia in Tver), and academic feminist groups (e.g., Moscow Center for Gender Studies). There were representatives from at least eight different chapters of the Russian Association of University Women, twelve charity and social services groups (ranging from the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers to the Popular Movement for Sobriety), six business-focused groups (including several Federations of Business Women from different regions), as well as a sprinkling of other types of women's organizations (e.g., an ecology group, the Society of Book Lovers in Tver, and a youth group in Ekaterinburg). The participating groups were part of a Russian "women's movement" in that they were all self-consciously mobilizing women as women, but only some of the groups targeted changes in gender relations as their objective and thus were what we are labeling feminist.

There were differences between the regional seminars, in part reflecting differences in the extent of Western influences (e.g., substantial in Tver, minimal in Chuvasia), as well as differences between women with histories of involvement in the zhensovety (who described themselves as "long-term activists in the women's movement") and the women who were active in more recently formed autonomous groups. The latter were the only ones to describe themselves as "feminists," although not all of them did so. Katherine Hyde's (1996) quantitative analyses of our survey data and a nationally representative sample of Russian women suggests that the seminar participants held less conservative views toward gender than did a random sample of Russian women. The seminar participants differed in the extent to which they saw women as adding a distinctive, maternalist tone to political action. The belief that women had a special, natural responsibility for children was prevalent, but it was not connected to an expectation that this should limit women's participation in the labor market or in political activity (see Ferree et al. 1999). These mixed attitudes toward gender issues are consistent with those found in a random sample of families in three Russian cities (Vannoy et al. 1999).

As reported in an earlier study (Sperling 1999), seminars were a common form of women's movement action in mid-1990s Russia, and the differences she found between Moscow-based activists and those in other regions make the breadth of recruitment for these particular seminars an advantage. The seminars also offered the advantage of involving Russian activists at all levels of prominence in the movement: some had established international reputations, some were respected regional leaders, and some were grassroots organizers. In addition, many participants were recruited from successors to the traditional Soviet women's organizations (zhensovety) as well as from the newer types of autonomous women's groups, several of them more directly dependent on Western funding. This diversity among Russian activist women made the seminars a place where we could observe different visions of feminism and activism being directly negotiated among Russians as well as between Russians and these particular Western feminists.

Observing feminism and movement goals in negotiation

The very term seminar evokes an image of hierarchy, with the women from the United States teaching their Russian "students" to understand feminism in a particular way and to develop a particular model of change in gender relations. While this dynamic was clearly present in some of the structure and process of the seminars, other crosscurrents were also visible. The American seminar leader repeatedly insisted that the the participants' own experiences had to inform the issues raised and discussed. More experienced Russian activists also had leadership roles in the seminar and explicitly invoked the American 1970s "consciousness-raising" group as a mod el of self-discovery. The discussion was structured to insure that all participants had a chance to speak. Every person taking part in the seminar spoke in turns about herself and her own experiences, and formal presentations from "experts" (both U.S. and Russian activists) were mixed with actively participatory sessions, such as making lists of priority issues in the region. While from an American perspective (as evidenced by consistent comments in the fieldnotes from our research team) the seminar form seemed considerably more hierarchical than the organizers' rhetoric claimed, from the viewpoint of the Russian participants it was a dramatic step away from the hierarchical and bureaucratic Soviet model of public organizations, such as the zhensovety.

The definition of the seminar as a nonhierarchical process was itself a political argument in the Russian context. Some participants came to the seminars with feminist identities and already defined themselves and their organizations by contrast to and in rejection of the "old-style" women's movement run by the state during the Soviet era. These new-style activists were openly disparaging of the zhensovety, which they saw as "top down" groups, and had deliberately created new organizations "without hierarchy" in opposition to them. The participants from the "old-style" groups were in the minority except in Cheboksary, but seminar leaders supported their participation. One important dynamic of local tension was the extent to which a local seminar really achieved a mix between new- and old-style activists as well as the degree of explicit conflict between them. One of the participants in the Cheboksary seminar who was new to activism, was asked if there was anything hindering cooperation between local women's groups. She responded: "Possibly the influence of the older set of women activists [i.e., from zhensovety], which might hinder the establishment of a principally new kind of organization. If the people who are already in power positions enter this [new] organization, it won't come out ahead, maybe. Though it's hard to say. They'd end up making the organization like all the others have already been." Nora Jung (1999) suggests that in Hungary, this rivalry between new- and old-style activists is often misperceived or overlooked by Western feminists, who are more easily able to recognize themselves in the new groups (which call themselves feminist, cite Western feminists, and endorse values such as antihierarchical organizational structure that are drawn from Western models). These new-style feminist organizations intentionally mix scholarship and activism. As an "expert" from the Moscow Center for Gender Studies put it during the seminar in Tver, "My life during the past four years has been the life of an activist. . . Instead of being a researcher, I became a professional revolutionary!"

The new-style groups often developed in academic contexts, since Western feminist writings already circulated before 1989 in these privileged circles. One of the local site coordinators, a professor as well as a self-identified feminist activist, told us that she had been allowed to write a dissertation on women's history and was profoundly influenced by American feminist writings. But she also found information on the Russian women's movement in her university archives that helped her to "understand that these feminist ideas weren't exclusively foreign," and she said that it was "a very empowering feeling of having such a history behind you." While she was proud that Russian women had been involved in first-wave feminism, she also spoke with pride about her experience with Western feminist literature since "the West" was often seen as advanced and emancipated on gender issues. She provided the justification for a local new-style summer school project she had organized this way: "In the feminist movement there are advocates . . . of the idea of [a] human being's totality. . . . It means equality of difference and difference of equals. In conclusion, I'd like to quote from Shulamith Firestone's book: 'Nature has made a woman different from a man, society has made her different from a human being.' To overcome this inequality was the purpose of our summer school." Whether she means to quote Firestone or Simone de Beauvoir is unclear, and her framing of the issue as "equality of difference and difference of equals" is hardly specific to any one feminist author. Instead, the citation seems more designed to legitimate her perspective on gender relations by invoking a Western "authority."

While the self-identified feminists stressed the appropriateness of nonhierarchical interaction, the other participants drew the most benefit from these participatory aspects of the seminars. The experience-sharing mode of the seminar provided a consciousness-raising experience that the women with less prior exposure to feminist ideas valued highly. As one participant put it: "To fight alone, to think about something alone, to organize something alone, is very hard. I realize this. I was struggling for three years in order to comprehend this in two days. Therefore, it would be very nice to have more of these seminars, many more. . . . Because when you feel this real support, you really want to work and live." Also speaking to this need for self?knowledge, another woman commended the seminar form by saying, "for me, a value re-evaluation took place. If before there was something . . . somewhere in the back of my mind, now it's come forward. That is, I re-evaluated my values . . . In a sense, I have re-evaluated myself."

Although our fieldnotes indicate that participants often recognized some personal stake in challenging gender expectations, they did not share the feminist identity that some brought to the seminars. In postsocialist society the word feminism is contested terrain. For many women active in challenging gender relations in eastern Europe, feminism means only what they perceive to be a specific western European version of women's emancipation, and they would rather say that they are not feminist than embrace this self-definition (Tatur 1992; Siklova 1994; Grünberg 2000). The need to affirm men as fellow citizens (who have also been exploited by the state), anger at the one-sided emphasis of state socialism on "productive labor" (wage work), and sheer exhaustion with their double shift (working full time and doing all domestic labor) have made many women skeptical of fighting men for the declining number of paid jobs. One participant in the Cheboksary seminar, for instance, shared her frustration on the subject in response to a survey question: "Anything can be written on paper, but if a woman in our Russian society . . . has to be a multi-machine operator, and is run off her feet at home and at work, like a squirrel in a cage, then equal opportunities are out of the question. A woman can achieve something at work or in her social life only at the expense of neglecting her own health, her personal time, and her home and family." Thus, Russian women's movement participants, like those in eastern Europe, do not necessarily define employment as liberation, as they often perceive American feminists to do (Havelkova 1993, 1997; Gal and Kligman 2000).

In these seminars, the use of the word feminism was problematic, but it did not separate those with a commitment to challenging gender relations from those with interests in mobilizing women's activism for other goals. In Zhukovsky, one Russian sociologist brought in as an "expert" argued against the use of the term feminism because of its negative connotations, saying: "Other words need to be used . . . Feminist should be avoided." Yet even in avoiding the word, she argued for a feminist definition of issues: "From my point of view the main priority is to change the stereotypes of social consciousness which still push women to the back of social and political life, and which do not allow them to take a single step. That is, we are dealing with a vicious circle. Breaking it is the main task, the main priority."

Not all groups chose challenging gender relations as the purpose of women's mobilization as women. In fact, we observed several quite dynamic and successful negotiations between the Russian seminar attendees and the American-led experts about the goals of the groups. In Novocherkassk, the Russian and American "team leaders" wanted to follow their usual model of having participants develop a prioritized list of local "women's issues," but the attendees resisted. Insisting that their sole priority was "to organize the women in the Northern Caucasus against the war in Chechnya," they successfully redirected the seminar time to focus on that one task. This redirection shows dramatically that the relationship between local movements and transnational activists evolves through a negotiated process rather than in a unidirectional fashion, where "global" ideas are imposed at the local level. Other shifts, less comprehensive and dramatic, unfolded in other seminars.

Community activism and politics in civil society

The decision to focus on feminist or other goals was rarely a serious point of conflict between the seminar leaders and participants. Both leaders and participants defined general economic issues; care and financial support for mothers, children and families; and the overall breakdown and insecurity of society as appropriate concerns, and they took a broad view of "women's issues."6 However, the American co-leader of the seminars tended to see a "women's agenda" as more family policy and employment centered as well as more specific and immediately achievable than the Russians in the seminar did. The Russian participants framed their concerns more in terms of a wider community. For many women at the seminars, the endemic economic and social disorder was something that women needed to confront from the grassroots up. As one activist argued, "the point is to create a basis for the rule of law . . . Without solving this problem, without constructing a law?abiding state, women's social problems cannot be solved, but the goal is so big that in the nearest future it cannot be attained . . . We should look for and take the first steps in this direction." Thus these women mobilized a political identity as women in order to build voluntary organizations at the local level that would address a variety of needs (combating alcoholism, promoting peace, cleaning up environmental hazards). This broad and inclusive scope of women's mobilization as women defined women as having special needs and competencies in constructing a more just society in general and thereby assigned women and women's movements a particular role in building "civil society."

In this regard, their self-definition accorded well with that of many funding organizations active in Russia and eastern Europe. International networks fund this "civic" level of activism with the idea of "strengthening civil society." Such activism is typically defined as "apolitical" because it is often nonpartisan, based in local voluntary organizations, and encourages grassroots participation rather than party growth. We suggest that it is not coincidental that such transnational support often flows to women's groups, because civic activism is a gendered form of politics. Civic activism, whether in Russia or elsewhere, is political activity, although participants (whether funders or activists) do not necessarily define it that way. This reflects the fact that politics itself is defined on a gendered basis. Institutional politics, dominated by men and organized in and through male gender relations, is often the only type of activity that counts as political. Unless politics is carried on in and through such formal institutions as legislatures, courts, and government ministries and agencies, it can slip from view entirely. In that sense, community activism is to politics as housework is to work. Because it is female dominated, it tends to be devalued and rendered invisible, despite being important, necessary, and honorable work (Ferree 1997).

Recognizing this directs our attention as analysts toward the forms of nonstate politics that, as Linda Christiansen-Ruffman argues, are "closeted" (91995, 386) -- do not openly claim an identity as politics -- because they are not part of state institutions. Indeed, women in many countries have long occupied spaces at the boundaries between public and private, spaces that have now begun to be recognized by acquiring the name civil society. Yet it is also important to note that women doing this political work do not usually name it as politics, just as many women doing housework have long said, "I don't work, I'm home with my kids." The mothers on welfare and ethnic-Acadian women that Christiansen-Ruffman (1995) studied in Canada, the grassroots activists in the "war on poverty" that Nancy Naples (1998) interviewed in U.S. urban neighborhoods, and the women dissidents in the former East Germany that Ingrid Miethe (1999) studied all say emphatically, "I don't do politics; I work for my community." Based on her interviews with women's movement activists in St. Petersburg, Gottlick similarly notes that "when these women leaders talk about politics, however, they generally define political behavior much more narrowly and even deny the politics of their own work" (1999, 246). Women, especially women in some degree of opposition to their governments, do not always see their local, practical resistance as politics. Just as housework is made invisible as work even to its own practitioners, civil society's practical grassroots politics is made conceptually invisible as politics, even though it may be the very fabric from which democratic politics is constructed.

The question of whether institutional politics or grassroots community activism was the best route for women's activism was answered differently in each region. The seminar leadership gave mixed messages on this, on the one hand emphasizing the value of lobbying, making concrete demands on specific elected officials, and campaigning for office, while, on the other hand, also encouraging participants to form local organizations, chapters of national organizations, and informal networks of activists at the community level. In Tver, the seminar group readily accepted the leaders' encouragement to focus on making demands on the state, perhaps because a number of stable groups already populated their local movement. By contrast, one of the seminar groups in Zhukovsky clashed with the trainers and rejected their argument that institutional politics should be an important focus, seeing this approach negatively as too state-centered and putting their emphasis more on consciousness raising at the local level. Transnational activists, with their predominant focus on elites, then, may come into conflict with activists' goals at the local level where community organizing and grassroots mobilization may have a higher priority.

In general, the participants most often criticized the American "experts" for not sufficiently comprehending how little infrastructure existed in Russia, a lack of understanding that, without competent formal institutions, the strategies for political activity under discussion were impractical. Participants often reminded the visiting experts and seminar leadership how rarely laws were actually implemented, how pointless it was to lobby politicians who lacked the power to do what was requested of them, and how little access to the media meant when no one trusted its output. As one Russian participant put it, in America "the bicycle is already made. But somebody (in Russia) would have to begin to make the bicycle from the beginning" before anyone could learn to ride it.

Nonetheless, the participants saw the seminars as teaching them how to build an infrastructure for democratic participation, the "bicycle" they needed for their work. Indeed, the main benefit of the seminars, mentioned in every location in slightly different words, was in teaching participants what one site coordinator called "the technology to unite us." This technology included techniques for speaking in groups, listening to each other, forming networks around a concrete issue, and thinking strategically at the grassroots level about specific actions. These skills are perhaps unrecognized as such in Western societies long accustomed to self-organized local groups and, like the invisible skills called for in doing housework, may be naturalized as simply "something women are good at." The American seminar leaders, however, clearly understood that such skills could not be taken for granted in this context and actively set about teaching them. This was generally appreciated. As one Russian participant stressed, "if you speak about [changing] the social and economic situation of women in general, the feedback you will get is, 'tell us how.'"

Thus, while the label feminism is a controversial import from Western discourse, the transformation of self through consciousness raising in small groups and the "technology" of facilitating such interaction and doing grassroots community organizing were both imported ideas that found a warm reception in Russia. The confluence of funders' interests in "strengthening democracy" and participants' desires to mobilize as women to confront a variety of community problems posed a challenge to the American organizer's and experts' tendency to think of "women's issues" in family policy or employment terms. At later seminars, the American organizer increasingly put her focus on technology transfer rather than promoting a particular set of projects. Local conditions thus spurred a modification in the original "Western" plan.

While such shifts show that the Western influence on the local women's movement is not wholly unidirectional, this fact does not suggest that the distribution of power between the Western activists and their Russian counterparts is an equal one. The West remains the source of the funding, and, to a great extent, the existence and priorities of such projects are still largely determined in the West, even if influenced by interactions with local activists over time. While the participants could and did debate the nature of the women's agenda, the idea of having such an agenda at all was not open to discussion.

Significantly, the seminars provided an opportunity to explore the extent to which challenging gender hierarchies was a priority issue in the Russian context. Discussions at the seminars revealed differences in emphasis between American and Russian participants on this topic, but they just as importantly exposed a division among the Russian participants themselves over the degree to which an agenda of challenging gender relations (whether or not it was labeled as feminist) reflected their priorities. It would be simplistic and misleading to cast the Americans as feminists and the Russians as rejecting feminism, when many of the Russians put a higher priority on consciousness raising around gender oppression than the Americans did. Also, the American leader's encouragement of women claiming support for their work as women (via family or employment policy) was not necessarily any more (or less) directed at challenging gender relations than the Russian women's interest in peace or crime reduction. On the whole, the organizing agendas that emerged from the seminars reflected Russian local priorities, albeit expressed through a format (a women's agenda) provided by the Western-funded seminar leaders. The seminars also expressed a transnationally shared but contradictory definition of community activism as both "not politics" and "fundamental to politics" that reflects its gendered position as the housework of politics. Examining transnational advocacy networks on the ground provided us an opportunity not only to explore how local and imported ideas and priorities combine to produce new syntheses, but also to examine the multi-directional flow of resources and their effects on organizing. It is to this complex series of interactions that we now turn.

The paradox of resources

With the structural change in the Russian polity and economy at the end of the 1980s, not only ideas but material resources could and did flow across borders. Money for building civil society in Russia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union began to flow in, and women's groups tapped into this stream. For example, between 1994 and 1996 the Ford Foundation granted $250,000 to the Russian Inform Center of the Independent Women's Forum; $200,000 to the U.S.- NIS Women's Consortium; $75,000 to the Moscow Center for Gender Studies, which held a summer school for the purpose of developing a gender studies curriculum; and $50,000 to Ecojuris-WLED (Women Lawyers for the Environment and Development). The Eurasia Foundation (created by the State Department and funded through USAID) awarded grants totaling approximately $900,000, for working with Russian women and women's organizations, between May 1993 and May 1996.

Feminist transnational advocacy networks also reached into Russia, not only to contribute their money and organizational resources to help mobilize local activists but also to bring local activists out of Russia to speak to and participate in the transnational movement. Resources coming from the West could be vital for Russian activists' own personal survival as well as for their success in getting an organization off the ground. Similarly, experience and involvement in Russia could serve to build the institutional profile of specific Western individuals and organizations involved in feminist transnational advocacy networks. Thus there was a process of moral entrepreneurship on both sides in which principled actors built careers and organizations via a process of transnational interaction.

Several of the Russian activists involved in these seminars were part of a growing network of internationally experienced actors. Several of the site coordinators had been invited to the United States for conferences under the auspices of organizations such as the League of Women Voters, the American Association of University Women, Zonta International, and the International Federation of Professional and Business Women. Others had experience in the United States or western Europe that had come through invited lecturing tours, visiting professorships, collaborative research grants, or grant-supported travel to conferences (such as the Berkshire Conference on Women's History) and research meetings sponsored by universities and academic consortia.

On the one hand, the Russian activists functioned in these roles essentially as diplomats; that is, they represented women of their country, their issues, and their movement to a foreign audience in order to create understanding and alliances across the differences of nationality and experience. The American activists sometimes took a similar diplomatic role in Russia, explaining their own personal understanding of feminism and describing what they perceived to be the contours of the American women's movement in general to a curious Russian audience. One context in which the diplomatic role was particularly stressed by Russian activists was in their participation in the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Forum associated with the United Nations' 1995 Beijing conference on women. Although Western funds allowed these Russian women's movement activists to attend the Beijing conference, they were very conscious of representing their country and their movement. One activist who attended the Beijing conference complained that there were only two hundred Russian women activists participating in Beijing "but 10,000 Americans." In articulating her desire for more international recognition and representation for Russia, she was both claiming a place on the world stage and advocating abroad on behalf of Russian women, which Keck and Sikkink (1998) describe as key work of transnational activists. While the Americans who are frequently in Russia working on developing the infrastructure of women's activism there are indubitably transnational activists, they are not the only ones in this role. The Russians who travel abroad frequently are themse lves transformed into transnational activists, and they are already adding their version of feminist thought to the international mix.

On the other hand, the Russians involved in transnational advocacy networks also act entrepreneurially -- that is, they both import and export the resources, ideas, and strategies that they see as valuable for women in their countries, their organizations, and their own careers. The Russian activists we observed were very aware of their own entrepreneurial role and its obligations. They used the seminars in part to look for opportunities to identify new resources for their groups as well as to find a means to ensure their own economic support. What seemed relatively trivial amounts of support to the Western organizers and some of the better-established Russians, such as the meals provided at the conference site or a modem for continued communication with the organizers afterward, were important to the seminar participants. The economic collapse in Russia in the 1990s has meant that many academics and professionals lead a hand-to-mouth existence, and the connections established to Western groups make a vital difference in activists' ability to meet basic survival needs.

Not only as individuals but also as leaders of local organizations, Russian participants were dependent on finding a source of support in the West. There is no routine state subsidy for these organizations and no domestic tradition of "checkbook activism" to support voluntary associations and their work. In fact, over half of all the women's groups interviewed in Moscow received foreign funds as of mid-1995, and few received any type of local funding. Domestic funding was more prevalent in remoter regions, such as Ivanovo and Cheboksary, than in Moscow (Sperling 1999). While American movement entrepreneurs can and do look to domestic funding collected in small amounts from many individuals to build mass membership organizations (Staggenborg 1988), this type of entrepreneurship is alien to Russian activists. American organizers encouraged the Russian activists to do both domestic and international fund-raising, as Gottlick also found true of the women's movement in St. Petersburg. She discusses how Russian activists there saw American seminar organizers as teaching them to overcome their perception of fund-raising as "humiliating" and to see it instead as "a positive and necessary part of organization." She cites one Russian activist as saying, "We realized that no one would give us something for nothing, so we got licensed to do international work, to organize cooperation. We can sell our knowledge and earn the money ourselves." (1999, 254). Knowing how to do such entrepreneurial fund-raising is both a skill that global conditions now demand of local Russian movement activists and also a skill that is transmitted transnationally.

The American organizers of the seminar series also found themselves frequently in an entrepreneurial role, writing grants and persuading foundations to support their activities, continually concerned with demonstrating to funders (as if to stockholders) that their performance was strong. Their personal credibility as well as the institutional profile of the organization sponsoring their work rested on their successes in "strengthening democracy." These successes were largely indirect, in that the organizers relied on the Russian activists whom they were supporting to go home and do the work of organization and coalition building that would reflect well on them as trainers. Thus there was some pressure from the American side to tie support to performance, create standards of accountability, and monitor the effectiveness of the Russian activists on their own home ground. The Russian participants sometimes resisted such demands, leaving some of the Americans involved feeling, as one said, as if she were a "cash cow" being milked to support individual Russians and their organizations.

However, because of the gulf in standard of living between the Americans and the Russians, the local participants sometimes suspected that they were the ones being milked to build the foreigners' careers, including the research careers of academic women such as ourselves. Although the Americans involved reaped only minimal financial rewards from their participation in the seminar process, they certainly gained increased credibility among sponsors and reputation building that could be transferred to their own related activist or academic enterprises. When resources are not understood merely as narrowly economic, it is easier to see that the career- and organization-building effects of such transnational involvements are typically reciprocal.

A large share of Western money goes toward funding conferences, training groups and seminars such as the ones we observed. As noted in an earlier study (Sperling 1999), women's movement conferences were a constant feature of the Russian landscape in the mid-1990s; indeed, networking at conferences has been one of the only opportunities for Russian women activists to meet each other, exchange information about their projects, and develop further joint activities. Conferences financed by foreign grants can afford to bring activists in from cities located a considerable distance from Moscow, who would otherwise be stranded and isolated. Participants in the Zhukovsky seminars, for example, came from areas as distant as Siberia and the Caucasus. Without Western funding, the frequency and reach of such seminars and conferences would be considerably smaller, and networking and information exchange would be even more restricted.

Although Western resources are vital for individual support, organizational growth, and cross-regional networking, they also produce problems. The ability to use seminar participation to get connected to Western resources led to competition and controversy among the Russian participants themselves. There were recurrent, sometimes literally tearful, struggles over which local organization was more legitimate or deserving of Western funds as well as over which particular individual could be said to be the president or secretary or other formal representative of a specific group. One such struggle occurred when an American involved in one of the Zhukovsky seminars expressed an interest in starting local branches of an international women's organization. She had a small grant available to help the launch the Russian affiliate organization, which would take the form of an umbrella organization. Two branches of the incipient organization, one in Moscow and one in St. Petersburg, knew generally that certain resources were available, but not exactly what or how to access them. A portion of the seminar broke down into recriminations over what money might have been spent on organizing activities for a third group and whether the first two groups would now be left out of the loop. The anger and enmity were palpable.

In effect, the presence of scarce and valued resources fosters jealousy. For this reason, women's groups that succeed in obtaining foreign grants are often accused of trying to monopolize or hoard their Western contacts. An activist interviewed in a wider sample in Moscow expressed the logic behind such sentiments: "Various groups are in competition with each other for the same Western funding. If the Western foundations support MY idea, I'll get funding for it. People end up saying, "We're more worthy than THEM - fund US!" This creates competition and disunity, which is exacerbated by the conditions of poverty." Animosity related to competition for funding is a feature of any social movement; the mutual suspicion that grows under such circumstances has clearly hampered cooperation between women's organizations in this case. Other side effects of the transnational resource base, observed in an earlier study (Sperling 1999) in the wider movement, include organizational fragmentation, exclusivity in membership, and external control over organizational rules. These issues could be seen in the composition and dynamics of the seminars as well.

Fragmentation is the most obvious outcome of depending on extra-local resources, despite some granting agencies' efforts to mitigate this effect (Sperling 1998, 1999; Richter 2000). With the exception of travel and research grants, foreign funders in Russia give grants to organizations, not to individuals. Since usually only the leaders of the recipient organization receive a salary from the grant, the logic of the situation demands fragmentation into myriad small organizations, each with its own leaders who can draw an individual salary. This complicates the movement-building process, since it is clearly in the interest of groups to maintain an individual identity rather than collaborate with other groups and risk being absorbed. Despite the seminar organizers' urging local groups to form networks and coalitions at the local level, this reluctance was evident in some of the seminars, as was the existence of tiny (three- or four- person) organizations in all the seminars.

Another problem is exclusivity. When networking between women's groups and activists occurs, a frequent critique is that odni i te zhe (the same old people) appear at each conference and seminar. Familiarity with particular Western funders or organizers creates an inside track to support, and outsiders have a hard time breaking into these circles. The word-of-mouth recruitment procedures that characterized the seminars we observed, along with the competitive atmosphere for funding, encourage activists to remain in small and closed networks rather than bring in new and more diverse participants.

Finally, a third problem for the local movement is that structural rules may encourage organizational hierarchy. We do not deny the existence of formal hierarchy between extralocal funders and local recipients, as Western government and foundation funding was, especially initially, given to Western women's movement organizations to manage on behalf of their Russian "partners." However, we particularly note how hierarchy is encouraged within individual Russian organizations, as funders demand accountability in a way that presumes more bureaucratic structures, such as formal office holding and budgets. Indeed, funding agencies make similar demands on social movement organizations within their own borders. Bureaucratization is not without its local supporters, who see it as a pragmatic necessity that does not demand more than a superficial compliance, and local opponents, who see it as transforming the goals and processes of the movement in fundamental and undesirable ways. Similar conflicts emerged within the American anti-rape and battered women's movements as granting agencies pressed for formal budgets and leadership hierarchies (see Ahrens 1980; Matthews 1995). In Russia, such conflicts may feed back into the tensions between zhensovety veterans and "new-style" organizations discussed earlier.

The problems of funding sources and the strings they attach are complicated in the context of transnational advocacy networks, but it should be clear from the above case that the transfer of resources is not just a one-way street. Rather, it is an interaction between indigenous and foreign activists and organizations out of which emerges a relationship in which benefits and costs are debated on an ongoing basis, within as well as across nationality lines.

Conclusions

By using this case study to look closely at the dynamics of interaction between transnational feminists and local women's movement activists in Russia, we see how a global advocacy network operates on the ground. Such transnational issue networks have become a central forum for women's movement activism and a major vehicle through which not only feminist ideas but also feminist practices and organizations travel around the world. While there are beneficial consequences of the ease and frequency with which such transnational connections are forged, there is also an increased controversy about women's movement priorities and competition over resources into the entire global system. In the transnational realm of women's movement ideas, feminism is a much disputed term, but consciousness-raising about women's oppression and learning to facilitate participatory group processes are highly valued practices. In the realm of material infrastructure, supporting activists, building local organizations, and facilitating regional and national networks are clearly beneficial consequences, but jealousy, fragmentation, exclusiveness, and hierarchy are costs associated with the influx of transnational resources that we also observed at these seminars.

We particularly want to highlight three potentially general aspects of transnational women's movement politics that we saw in this Russian-American case that bear further investigation in other contexts: the ambiguous status of grassroots community organizing as the "housework" of politics; the combination of diplomatic and entrepreneurial roles taken by activists; and the paradoxical effects of resources in building advocacy networks while perhaps undermining mass mobilization.

First, just as housework is often not recognized as work at all, so too community organizing is rarely recognized as politics, because it occurs outside of formal, male-dominated economic and political institutions. Community organizing may appeal to women who reject the values of the dominant system while simultaneously providing a marginalized and precarious means of participation in that system. Through such participation, the groundwork of "civil society" is constructed, making women's civic activism an integral part of democracy building. The interest of transnational funders in civil society and its role in strengthening democracy in post-socialist countries has allowed women doing grassroots community organizing in Russia to find unusual access to recognition and funding for their work.

Feminists involved in transnational advocacy networks were influential in making the connection between Western funding sources interested in civil society and Russian women's interest in community activism. These transnational feminist moral entrepreneurs often saw Russian women's organizing activities as a step toward building a specifically feminist social movement in Russia. While we see evidence that there are feminists and feminist organizations in Russia, we also think the support channeled to other women doing grassroots organizing as women is important for building a broader women's movement. In this movement, organizations challenging gender relations are only one part. By supporting women organizing as women, transnational resources help to produce a politicized identity for women and to recognize community activism, "the housework of politics," as a gendered activity, even when the issues raised are not directly about gender oppression. In this way, all women's movements, even non-feminist ones, subvert gender hierarchy.

Second, the influences and opportunities afforded to activists in the transnational system are reciprocal. The assumption of such widely influential arguments as that of Maxine Molyneux (1985) is that activists from outside bring higher-level, strategic considerations into the local situation. We argue instead that transnational encounters enlist both local and extra-local activists in diplomatic and entrepreneurial roles and that their influence on each other is reciprocal, albeit unequal. As diplomats in the transnational system, both the Russian and the American activists represented their own versions of women's identities and needs to the participants in other countries. This happened when they traveled abroad, participated in conferences, and wrote books and articles about their experiences. Russian women who are active in transnational politics thereby expand the definitions of feminism, activism, and other concepts circulating within the transnational advocacy network. Additionally, in this diplomatic role, activists from each country may have an interest in presenting their movement favorably, possibly downplaying internal conflicts, and in having their local definitions of the situation be recognized and valued internationally.

Transnational activists in both countries often also take an entrepreneurial role. For American activists, convincing funders of their success in "training" and supporting the development of local organizations is a means to legitimate claims for future support and to secure a reputation for effectiveness that can serve to further the development of their own careers and organizations. For Russian activists, securing transnational funding can be a matter of individual as well as organizational survival. In these entrepreneurial interactions, a competitive struggle within each national arena as well as between donors and recipients occurs. As social movement entrepreneurs, the activists on both sides deal in the import as well as export of ideas, strategies, and practices that they find helpful to their organizations.

The entrepreneurial role is an essential one, since someone has to do the work of actual movement building both domestically and transnationally, and identifying and consolidating resources for organizational development is inevitably part of this task. Russian participants valued such skills and saw building participatory organizations as important work for which they wanted to import the techniques as well as the funds. Thus it is too simple to see globalization as merely fostering elitism at the expense of grassroots mobilization. But the competitive struggle for resources is also a major source of suspicion and disunity both within and between countries. Thus, the entrepreneurial role also undercuts the kind of internal solidarity and transnational understanding that, in their diplomatic role, the participants wish to construct.

Nonetheless, our analysis of the paradoxical effects of resource transfers may help explain some of the shift toward transnational issue advocacy networks and away from mass mobilization and contentious politics observed in the feminist movement today. The effects of transnational funding that we saw in Russia were both positive--to build local organizations and to increase regional and national networking--and negative--to fragment organizations, foster jealousy and exclusiveness, and encourage bureaucratization. Certain types of domestic funding produce similar effects in more affluent countries as well, even if perhaps they are not as starkly apparent as they were in this case. Resources inevitably carry donor intentions and limitations, recipient meanings, and strategic implications such as a desire for formal structures of accountability and competitive pressure to demonstrate effectiveness. Resources that come from above, whether domestic or transnational in origin, may diminish rather than enhance grassroots participation (see Piven and Cloward 1992), even when both local and global organizers would prefer otherwise.

In sum, the interaction of Russian and American women's movement activists in Russia in the mid-1990s provides a useful window not only on how the global context affects the local movement in this particular case but also on the dynamics of how transnational networks and women's movement activism develop globally. Transnational movement interaction always involves encounters between two or more specific movements, but it is also an arena in its own right. In this arena, the give and take across national borders has consequences for the development of movements across the globe. By paying attention to the ways in which mutual influence was exerted in this one case, we identified several issues that we expect can be found more generally. Although we have particularly highlighted the significance of community organizing as the housework of politics and the tensions produced by multiple roles and competitive struggles for resources, we stress that such issues arise in a context in which both sides of a transnational exchange are active and thoughtful participants with diverse interests that vary within as well as between countries.

Despite the inequalities of such exchanges, we contend that, through the process of globalization, local movements learn from and build on each other's successes. They value the opportunities and ideas -- not only the material resources -- that transnational organizing makes available to them. Especially in situations of social disorganization, such as contemporary Russia, women may seek out "the technology to unite us" and foster grassroots community organizing as the first steps toward accomplishing their own transformative goals. Thus, to regard globalization as a solely top-down process paints local activists in such encounters as more homogeneous, powerless, and silenced than we found them to be. As the Russian co-leader of the seminars put it, "We understand that we need to learn from the world's experience, and the world also needs to learn something from us. But to find a way to do this is very hard." More research on the similarities in the organizational issues confronting all feminists who work in the transnational arena, as well as the differences in their goals and ideologies, could be helpful to all who are navigating this perilous but potentially productive terrain.

References

Ahrens, Lois. 1980. "Battered Women's Refuges: Feminist Cooperatives Vs. Social Service Institutions." Radical America 14(3): 41-47.

Alvarez, Sonia E. 1997. "Altered States? Dilemmas of Gendered Citizenship in Post-Authoritarian Latin America." Paper presented at Harvard Center for European Studies, Cambridge, Mass., March 15.

Bacchi, Carol Lee. 1999. Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Basu, Amrita, ed. 1995. The Challenge of Local Feminisms: Women's Movements in Global Perspective. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.

Berkovitch, Nitza. 1995. From Motherhood to Citizenship: The Worldwide Incorporation of Women into the Public Sphere in the Twentieth Century. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.

Best, Joel, ed. 1989. Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Buckley, Mary. 1989. Women and Ideology in the Soviet Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Bystydzienski, Jill, and Joti Sekhon, eds. 1999. Democratization and Women's Grassroots Movements. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Christiansen-Ruffman, Linda. 1995. "Women's Conceptions of the Political: Three Canadian Women's Organizations." In Feminist Organizations: Harvest of the New Women's Movement, ed. Myra Marx Ferree and Patricia Yancey Martin, 372-393. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Clements, Barbara Evans. 1997. Bolshevik Women. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Della Porta, Donatella, Hanspeter Kriesi and Dieter Rucht, eds. 1999. Social Movements in a Globalizing World. New York: St. Martins Press.

Einhorn, Barbara. 1993. Cinderella Goes to Market: Citizenship, Gender and Women's Movements in East Central Europe. New York: Verso.

Ferree, Myra Marx. 1987. "Equality and Autonomy: Feminist Politics in the United States and West Germany." In The Women's Movements of Western Europe and the United States, ed. Mary Katzenstein and Carol Mueller, 172-195. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

---. 1997. "Globalization and Women's Movements." Invited paper presented at Thematic Session, Gender and Globalization, annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Toronto, August.

Ferree, Myra Marx, and William A. Gamson. 1999. "The Gendering of Abortion Discourse: Assessing Global Feminist Influence in the United States and Germany." In Della Porta, Kriesi and Rucht 1999, 40-56.

Ferree, Myra Marx, and Beth B. Hess. 2000. Controversy and Coalition: The New Feminist Movement. 3d ed. NY: Routledge.

Ferree, Myra Marx, Barbara Risman, Valerie Sperling, Tatyana Gurikova, and Katherine Hyde. 1999. "The Russian Women's Movement: Activists' Strategies and Identities." Women and Politics. 20(3): 83-109.

Freeman, Jo, and Victoria Johnson, eds. 1999. Waves of Protest: Social Movements since the Sixties. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Funk, Nanette, and Magda Mueller, eds. 1993. Gender Politics and Post-Communism: Reflections from Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. New York: Routledge.

Gal, Susan. 2001. "Movements of Feminism: The Circulation of Discourses about Women in East Central Europe." In Recognition Struggles, ed. Barbara Hobson, forthcoming.

Gal, Susan, and Gail Kligman, eds. 2000. Reproducing Gender: Politics, Publics and Everyday Life after Socialism. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Gottlick, Jane Berthusen. 1999. "From the Ground up: Women's Organizations and Democratization in Russia." In Bystydzienski and Sekhon, 1999, 239-61.

Grünberg, Laura. 2000. "Women's NGOs in Romania." In Gal and Kligman 2000, 307-336.

Havelkova, Hana. 1993. "A Few Prefeminist Thoughts." In Funk and Mueller, 1993, 62-73.

---. 1997. "Transitory and Persistent Differences: Feminism East and West." In Transitions, Environments, Translations: Feminisms in International Politics, ed. Joan Scott, Cora Kaplan and Debra Keates, 56-72. New York: Routledge.

Hrycak, Alexandra. 1999. "Voluntary Associations and the Formation of a Post-socialist Civil Society: The Continued Relevance of the State." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, August.

Hyde, Katherine. 1996. "Feminist Consciousness and Gender Ideology among Russian Women Activists." Unpublished Master's thesis, North Carolina State University.

Jenson, Jane. 1990. "Representations of Difference: The Varieties of French Feminism." New Left Review 180 (March/April)s: 127-60.

Jung, Nóra. 1999. "Feminist Discourse on Eastern and Central Europe: Hungarian Women's Groups in the Early 1990s as a Case Study." In Emigré Feminism: Transnational Perspectives, ed. Alena Heitlinger, 95-114. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Lapidus, Gail. 1993. "Gender and Restructuring: The Impact of Perestroika and Its Aftermath on Soviet Women." In Moghadam, 1993, 137-161.

Lipovskaya, Olga. 1997. "Women's Groups in Russia" In Perestroika and Post-Soviet Women: From the Baltic to Central Asia, ed. Mary Buckley, 186-199. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Matthews, Nancy. 1995. "Feminist Clashes with the State: Tactical Choices by State-Funded Rape Crisis Centers." In Feminist Organizations: Harvest of the New Women's Movement, ed. Myra Marx Ferree and Patricia Yancey Martin, 291-305. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Miethe, Ingrid. 1999. "From 'Mother of the Revolution' to 'Fathers of Unification: Concepts of Politics Among Women Activists Following German Unification" Social Politics. 6(1): 1-22.

Moghadam, Valentine. 1993. Democratic Reform and the Position of Women in Transitional Economies. Oxford: Clarendon.

Molyneux, Maxine. 1985. "Mobilization without Emancipation? Women's Interests, the State, and Revolution in Nicaragua." Feminist Studies 11(2): 227-54.

Naples, Nancy. 1998. Grassroots Warriors: Activist Mothering, Community Work, and the War on Poverty. New York: Routledge.

Nelson, Barbara J., and Najma Chowdhury, eds. 1994. Women and Politics Worldwide. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard Cloward. 1992. "Normalizing Collective Protest." In Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, ed. Aldon Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller, 301-25. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Posadskaya, Anastasia, ed. 1994. Women in Russia: A New Era in Russian Feminism. New York: Verso.

Racioppi, Linda and Katherine O'Sullivan See. 1995. "Organizing Women Before and After the Fall: Women's Politics in the Soviet Union and Post-Soviet Russia." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 20(4): 818-50.

---. 1997. Women's Activism in Contemporary Russia. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Ray, Raka. 1999. Fields of Protest: Women's Movements in India. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Richter, James. 2000. "Citizens or Professionals?: Evaluating Western Assistance to Russian Women's Organizations." Report prepared for the Columbia University Project on Evaluating Western NGO Strategies for Democratization and the Reduction of Ethnic Conflict in the Former Communist States. Available on-line at: .

Rupp, Leila. 1997. Worlds of Women: The Making of an International Women's Movement. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Rupp, Leila, and Verta Taylor. 1999. "Forging Feminist Identity in an International Movement: A Collective Identity Approach to Twentieth Century Feminism." Signs 24(2): 363-86.

Siklova, Jirina 1994. "Factors inhibiting the Development of Feminism in the Czech Republic." Paper presented at the "Crossing Borders" Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, May.

Silliman, Jael. 1999. "Expanding Civil Society, Shrinking Political Spaces: The Case of Women's Non-governmental Organizations." Social Politics 6(1): 23-53.

Sperling, Valerie. 1998. "Foreign Funding of Social Movements in Russia." Program on New Approaches to Russian Security (PONARS) Policy Memo Series no. 26, Davis Center for Russian Studies, Harvard University.

---. 1999. Organizing Women in Contemporary Russia: Engendering Transition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Staggenborg, Suzanne. 1988. "The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization in the Pro-Choice Movement" American Sociological Review 53 (4): 585-605.

Stites, Richard. 1978. The Women's Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism, and Bolshevism, 1860-1930. . Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Subramaniam, Mangala. 2000. Social Empowerment through Collective Process: The Local-Global Interface in the Case of Mahila Samakhya Kartataka (India). Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Connecticut.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1999. "International Institutions and Contentious Politics: Does Internationalization Make Agents Freer or Weaker." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, August 6.

Tatur, Melanie. 1992. "Why Is There No Women's Movement in Eastern Europe?" In Democracy and Civil Society in Eastern Europe: Selected Papers from the Fourth World Congress for Soviet and East European Studies, Harrogate, 1990, ed. P.G. Lewis, 61-75. London: Macmillan.

Tyyskä, Vappu. 1999. "Western Feminism? Problems of Categorizing Women's Movements in Cross-National Research." In Emigré Feminism: Transnational Perspectives, ed. Alina Heitlinger, 252-67. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Vannoy, Dana, Natalia Rimashevskaya, Lisa Cubbins, Marina Malysheva, Elena Meshterkina, and Marina Pisklakova. 1999. Marriages in Russia: Couples during Economic Transition. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Waters, Elizabeth. 1993. "Finding a Voice: The Emergence of a Women's Movement." In Funk and Mueller, 1993, 287-302.

Watson, Peggy. 1993. "The Rise of Masculinism in Eastern Europe." New Left Review 198 (March/April): 71-82.

Zdravomyslova, Olga. 1994. "The Position of Women in Post-Soviet Russia." Paper presented at the thirteenth World Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany.

*The authors express their gratitude to the editors of Signs and to the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. The authors have contributed equally in the production of this paper. The order of authorship is rotated on different articles being produced from the larger project, of which this article is but one part.

1. Moral entrepreneurship is a term widely used to describe the framing of public issues by interested parties. For the social construction of policy problems by moral entrepreneurs in general, see Best 1989; and for the application of this perspective to feminist policy debates in particular, see Bacchi 1999. Return to text.

2. For international cases, see Nelson and Chowdhury 1994; Basu 1995; Alvarez 1997; Bystydzienski and Sekhon 1999; Silliman 1999. Return to text.

3. See Lapidus 1993; Waters 1993; Posadskaya 1994; Zdravomyslova 1994; Sperling 1999. Return to text.

4. See Einhorn 1993; Funk and Mueller 1993; Moghadam 1993; Watson 1993; Posadskaya 1994; Sperling 1999. Return to text.

5. For discussions of these groups and their leaders see Posadskaya 1994; Racioppi and See 1995, 1997; Lipovskaya 1997; Gottlick 1999; Sperling 1999. Return to text.

6. Western feminist organizers vary in the issues they regard as priorities. Some, for instance, prioritize combatting violence against women or trafficking in women, and some Russian organizers share that agenda. Other Russian activists criticize such priorities; as one seminar participant noted, speaking generally about Western funding, "Our so-called independent, autonomous women's movement is dependent on Western funding. They finance what they understand, not necessarily what we really need. Right now crisis centers are popular. How do we as a Russian women's movement evaluate that?" Return to text.