1
Latin America has experienced abuse and violence. The colonial project that attacked the land, its peoples (especially women) and cultures is historically reinforced by fake independence events chanted in glorious and heroic hymns, military dictatorships that are from time to time praised as peace and order keeping, and capitalist neoliberal economic political agendas that are made irresistible through sophisticated and elaborate media advertisement and propaganda that makes all exploitation look mainstream. The “motherland” (madre tierra), in the many meanings it takes on, is raped again and again through the extraction of natural sources (transformed into goods), the subjugation of workers through predatory employment practices, and the perpetuation of social relations based on discrimination, injustice, and inequality led by national and international elites. But there has been and there continues to be resistance and struggle.
Decolonial studies and emancipatory practices have shown the intricate and persistent element of “coloniality” in Latin American societies, even in so-called post-colonial contexts. Even after epically described independence processes promised sovereignty and freedom from oppression, the overthrow of military dictatorship regimes by popular and revolutionary movements, the signing of internal and external peace agreements, the implementation of (re)democratization and elections (mostly representative and not really participatory), the region remains a conflict zone. Many interests are being played out—not for the wellbeing of the people, especially not for the most poor and vulnerable. Capitalism, racism, and patriarchy in the current colonial experiences color the realities of the continent, notwithstanding the plurality and diversity of countries, cultures, and historical processes throughout the region. In recent events, gender and sexuality, articulated in religious discourse and practice, have once again shown how those issues are key to understanding and confronting matters of violence and oppression (at an individual and communal level, but also in broader political and economic processes).
Gender-based violence in Latin America is epidemic and well-documented, as is its relation to economic and religious discourses and practices. The same can be said about homophobic, lesbophobic, and transphobic violence (with the rising figures and cruelty around transfeminicides). There are several organizations, campaigns, initiatives, laws, and public policies that have, in different contexts, denounced and confronted this reality. The movement #NIUNAMENOS is one powerful example of such a cry for justice and an end to gender-based violence. Although an Argentinian example, this campaign resonated throughout the Americas. “The movement that started in 2015 in Argentina and gathered millions, crossed the borders reaching several Latin-American countries such as Chile, Uruguay, Ecuador, etc., and every June 3rd, day of the death of Páez, the march is repeated and the struggle for the end of feminicide and for gender equality continues.”
Thirteen years earlier, also in Argentina, the “National campaign for the right to safe and free abortion” was created and, in 2018, had its most important win. That June, the House of Deputies approved the law that would allow for the interruption of pregnancy up to the 14th week. The law was later rejected by the Senate, but the “green wave” ran through all of Latin America and echoed in similar movements all over the continent. The #NIUNAMENOS movement certainly gave momentum and strength to this renewed movement for reproductive rights.
It is no coincidence that in this same context a strong oppositional force emerged. After a heavy campaign to counteract any movement, reflection, academic study, public policy in favor of sexual and reproductive health and rights, the expression “gender ideology” became part of common and everyday conversations in Latin America. With a very conflated and imprecise meaning, the term questioned the presence of sexual education, discussed diversity and equality in schools, and promoted political right-wing agendas in governments and electoral processes. However, under the premise of defending “the family,” groups sponsored and continue to sponsor attacks on anything related to gender. Such groups mix up religious discourses and practices (either because the group members themselves are identified as religious or because public figures that make use of and replicate this expression are somehow identified with religion–mostly Christian).
In Brazil, the “moral panic” around the so-called “gender ideology” resulted in removing the words “gender” and “diversity” from the National Education Plan, as well as many state and municipal plans. The idea of a “gender ideology” also played a significant role in the 2018 electoral process, as it was used by several candidates and spread through the fake news disseminated through social media. The notion that “gender ideology” threatened families and the country was associated with left-wing candidates and governments (many times called “communists”) and resulted in a wave of death threats that affected people in many ways.
In recent years, Colombia has had peace negotiations with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Those were meaningful moments for a society that, for more than 60 years, lived in armed conflict. The expectations of the peace process permeated all levels of social life. In schools and universities, it meant adopting language about reconciliation and peace. It is important to acknowledge how difficult the process of negotiation has been and how difficult it has been to implement the peace agreements made between the government and the demobilized guerrilla. The greatest challenge is to build new scenarios for peace and reconciliation for everyone. The current context has suggested the potential of imaginaries of peace and reconciliation, which are distant from the Colombian population. Nonetheless, those imaginaries are weak. The legacy of violence has been so strong that it has polarized the society. But, even so, the people are tired of the violence and are committed to forging a peaceful existence together. In this context, the “gender ideology” campaign also influenced the vote of people who said “no” to the peace agreement in 2016.
This book does not specifically deal with those events or its consequences. The articles, in different ways, however, deal with the issues that lie at the heart of peaceful reconciliation and its challenges to theological research and knowledge. This book, thus, adds a twofold contribution to those debates. On the one hand, it offers valuable method...