What guides insight into this research area is the question concerning the (re)structuring of gender relations and their order under conditions of transnationalization. Gender relations have recently been set into motion worldwide. However, the changes are marked by ambivalence and contradictions, as, on the one hand, the erosion of the hegemonial, traditional gender order becomes visible (Honegger 1992; Lenz et al. 2007), and, on the other, at the same time processes of consolidation and retraditionalization have become apparent. In the meantime, one can no longer refer to “the sole universally existent gender order,” as processes of transnationalization have taken effect at various levels (global, national, regional, and local) and lead to the opening up and diversification of gender orders (Becker-Schmidt 2003; Castro Varela/Dhawan 2010). This has given rise to the emergence of a variety of heterogeneous forces and developmental paths which shape gender relations in the 21st century (Lutz 2009).

Gender orders are historically variable, complex combinations of principles, norms, institutions, and practices as well as their symbolic representations that relate the genders to one another through forms of the division of work, relations of dependency, as well as social and symbolic processes of exchange. Post-colonially inspired criticism of the “Eurocentrism of Western feminism (e.g., Mohanty 1988, 2006) has convincingly deconstructed the assumption of a worldwide, uniformly structured gender order. Thus, for the examination of gender orders the issue of the gain or loss of the significance of gender in various societies and social transformation processes has moved into focus. From a global perspective, an analysis of intersectional interdependencies (e.g., Crenshaw 1991; Yuval-Davis 2006) and the question of how gender is combined with other dimensions of social inequality have become inevitable (Lenz et al. 2007).

Unlike terms such as “globalization” (Beck 1997), which denotes the structure of capital, labor, markets, consumer goods, and means of communications extending beyond previous boundaries, as well as the term “denationalization,” whose approach begins at the level of international political relationships and institutions (Zürn 2005), the transnationalization approach addresses the social and cultural consequences of economic transformation processes as well as the appropriation processes of transnational cultural transfers at a local level (Lutz 2002; Robertson 1998; Hannerz 1996): going beyond the assumption of a “deterritorialization” or “delocalization” (Castells 2004a, 2004b) of products, information, and representations and without neglecting the continued importance of nation-state borders, transnationalization focuses on the transnational bonds between groups, practices, products, stores of knowledge, technologies, organizational forms, etc., as well the asymmetric power relationships associated with these bonds (Smith/Guarnizo 2006; Guarnizo 2003). An analysis based on transnational phenomena concentrates on the function and significance of such spatial relationships for actors as an essential structure of reference for the formation of social relations and social positioning (Pries 2008; Faist 2000a, 2000b; Sassen 2001; Guarnizo et al. 2003; Portes et al. 1999; Glick-Schiller et al. 1992). “Transnationalization” subsequently denotes the process of the constitution of a transnational, relatively permanent interlocking of social and cultural relationships which leads to the development of transnational social spaces (Pries 2001).

A perspective that systematically combines transnationalization and gender research has not yet been developed either in the German or in the Anglo-American debate. While the former has hardly taken gender relations into consideration, the transnational perspective is just gradually expanding into gender research (Lutz 2009). The research area situated in the nexus of these two approaches harbors three fields of investigation in which relevant research gaps and desiderata are taken up:

a) “Normativity and Gender Equity” explores the debates on just gender relations in the new arenas of normativity spawned by processes of transnationalization. Central questions concern the impact of social and political developments as well as specific contexts on the transformation of existing gender orders in the course of the transnationalization of law. Subsequently, one may ask to what extent new normative standards of (gender) equality become necessary, and in which way actors in civil society, organizations, and social movements participate in the transformation of these normative standards.

b) “Transnational Social Spaces and Lifeworlds” examines the changes to the gender order caused by transnational migration. The focus is on transnational social spaces as well as forms of cooperation and ways of life that develop in the course of transnationalization processes. However, attention will also be directed toward the conflicts that arise, on the one hand, among new patterns of migrant mobility and the associated gender-specific horizons of expectation and, on the other hand, the social gender and migration regimes and state intervention.

c) “Transnational Knowledge and the Reformation of the Gendered Body” examines the relevance of the global genesis, proliferation, and application of biomedical knowledge and biotechnological methods for the normative and symbolic bases of the gender order. What is important is the relation between current options of medical diagnosis, treatment, and prevention on the one hand, and on the other hand the construction of new (disease) risks and risk management practices. Furthermore, the question arises of whether the use of biotechnological options does not contribute to the reification of existing gender stereotypes and the reproduction of the asymmetric gender distribution of requirement profiles and responsibility loads.