For my paper, I’m wanting to explore the intersection between police response towards protests and gender. I think that global cultural differences create differences in policing, due to different status quo objectives. Essentially, policing of protests escalates as the perceived power/threat of the protest increases (against the status quo). For example, while in the U.S. women’s marches do not seem to hold much power/threat towards perpetuating status quo (White supremacy, keeping elites in their positions, etc), in other countries, women’s rights could be perceived as directly dismantling their society – as seen in Iran.
While trying to identify the amount of power women’s rights activists/movements have in Iran, I came across an article in UCJC Business and Society Review by Pilar Rodriguez Martinez. This article explores the relationship between culture and how much confidence citizens have in women’s organizations, indicating how much power those kinds of organizations have in those areas. The author explains in addition to cultural differences, economic differences play into the equation as well, stating that there are survival and self-expression value differences amongst these countries. Places that have survival values are more traditional, while places that have self-expression values are more secular (essentially, a discussion around postmaterialism and it being tied to places with higher economic and physical security/stability).
This feeds directly into my paper, showcasing that places that have survival values are more traditional and economically unstable/insecure would view women’s protests as more controversial and threatening, as these views would directly dismantle their whole value system. This would lead to a more aggressive police response than what would be seen in more stable places who hold self-expression values.
Citation:
Rodriguez Martinez, Pilar. 2023. “Culturalist Explanations and Confidence in Women’s Organizations According to the World Values Survey (2017-2020).” UCJC Business and Society Review Volume 20: 114-159.