Voices of Power: Female Political Discourse and Authority in Romanian Modernity (1890–1940) – Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi

Voices of Power: Female Political Discourse and Authority in Romanian Modernity (1890–1940) – Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Voices of Power: Female Political Discourse and Authority in Romanian Modernity (1890–1940) – Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi Simona Camelia Fer¹, Laurențiu Petrila² This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9543157/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This article examines the construction of female political discourse and authority in Romanian modernity (1890–1940), focusing on the voices of Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi. Drawing on Habermas’s theory of the public sphere, Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic capital, and perspectives from cultural psychology, the study analyzes the strategies through which women negotiated influence, social recognition and cultural identity within a male-dominated political landscape. Each figure operated within a liminal cultural space, constructing a distinct feminine identity that challenged dominant gender norms: Nădejde exemplifies intellectual-polemical authority, Văcărescu embodies transnational-symbolic authority and Negruzzi illustrates juridical-institutional authority. By articulating a typology of female political discourse, the article highlights how these women actively constructed and negotiated their identities as public subjects, claiming psychological and cultural legitimacy in a peripheral European context. This research contributes to cultural psychology, historical and communication sciences, and gender studies by offering an integrative framework for understanding how female selfhood, identity and voice emerged within — and against — patriarchal structures in interwar Romania. female political agency political discourse Romanian modernity cultural psychology identity construction liminal subjectivity Introduction The article covers the period from 1890 to 1940, the core of first-wave feminism, marking the transition of women from the exclusively domestic sphere into the public, social and political sphere — a crucial phase in the consolidation of women’s presence in the political sphere in Romania. By examining a society deeply structured by patriarchal norms and situated at the periphery of Western European centers of modernity, this article explores the development of women’s political rhetoric and authority through the voices of three prominent figures: Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi, highlighting their distinct yet convergent contributions to the emergence of feminist political consciousness in Romania. Guided by Habermas’s notion of the public sphere and Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic capital, the study analyzes the methods through which these women negotiated visibility, influence and cultural identity within male-dominated political and cultural arenas. From the perspective of cultural psychology, each of these figures can be understood as navigating a liminal space between exclusion and recognition, constructing a sense of self and public subjectivity in conditions of structural constraint. Nădejde exemplifies intellectual-polemical authority, Văcărescu embodies transnational-symbolic authority and Negruzzi illustrates juridical-institutional authority, highlighting the diverse strategies women used to assert their political presence and forge distinctive cultural identities. By situating their contributions within Romania’s peripheral modernization and patriarchal constraints, the article highlights the ways in which these emblematic figures produced public conversations, leveraged social and professional networks, and strategically used print culture and institutional platforms to legitimize women’s political agency and expand the boundaries of civic participation, thereby contributing to the evolution of political culture and female selfhood in interwar Romania. Methodology The research adopts a qualitative historical and political approach emphasizing discourse analysis and relies on primary materials including manuscripts, published writings, speeches and petitions of Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi, selected for their historical significance and representativeness of female political engagement in Romania between 1890 and 1940. Archival materials were consulted systematically, with attention to authenticity, provenance and contextual relevance. Additionally, relevant scholarly perspectives in the field of women’s political discourse, gendered communication and cultural psychology were reviewed in order to contextualize and interpret the discursive strategies identified in this study. Cultural psychology’s attention to meaning-making, identity negotiation and the role of cultural context in shaping selfhood provided an interpretive lens through which to understand how each woman constructed her public persona and sense of agency. A comparative framework was adopted in order to identify both recurring rhetorical patterns and context-specific variations in the articulation of female authority and identity. The discourses were interpreted within their historical, political and social contexts, considering contemporaneous debates on nationalism, suffrage, education and civic participation. The table included in this study presents a comparative analytical framework designed to systematize and operationalize the main dimensions of female political discourse identified in the study. Drawing on a qualitative, interpretive approach, the discourses associated with Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi were coded along a set of theoretically informed categories derived from political science literature, including type of discourse, arena of expression, relation to power and form of political agency. These dimensions were selected to capture both the content and the function of discourse, allowing for a structured comparison across different socio-professional contexts. The table synthesizes recurring patterns and divergences, facilitating the identification of broader mechanisms through which informal political participation and discursive practices contributed to the construction of authority and the expansion of the public sphere in Romanian modernity. Literature Review In recent decades, historians and researchers from other fields have begun to explore the history of women in Romania. Some of them have published studies on the feminist movement, while others have started to integrate gender into social and political analyses of the recent past. The period between 1890 and 1940 in Romania witnessed significant, though sometimes contested, developments in women’s engagement in cultural and political life. Scholarship on this era emphasizes that women were increasingly present as intellectuals and social activists, yet their contributions were frequently marginalized by prevailing gender norms and institutional structures. Literary critics, historians and sociologists have highlighted the way in which women faced systemic barriers in gaining recognition for their intellectual and creative work, reflecting wider societal beliefs that intellectual and political authority were predominantly male domains. Researchers and feminist theorists note that despite these obstacles, Romanian women actively participated in educational initiatives and social-political reform movements, establishing opportunities for participation and impact. However, their activities used to be framed as secondary or “exceptional,” rather than fully legitimate within the dominant cultural and political hierarchies. Studies also draw attention to the subtle mechanisms of exclusion, such as symbolic violence and normative expectations, that limited women’s access to positions of authority and cultural legitimacy. Overall, the literature underscores both the persistence of structural gender inequalities and the gradual emergence of women as active agents in building Romania’s cultural and political landscape during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Scholarship on the history of women’s rights in Romania has emphasized the predominance of difference-based arguments, which valorized women’s specific moral and social qualities, particularly their roles as caregivers and educators of both family and nation. Such perspectives framed women’s claims within a discourse of complementary gender roles rather than strict equality. However, a closer examination of nineteenth-century sources reveals a more nuanced ideological landscape. Especially in debates concerning girls’ and women’s access to education and employment, one can also identify arguments consistent with what has been termed “individualist” feminism, advocating for personal development and intellectual cultivation. As early as 1837, Ion Heliade Rădulescu ( 2002 ) justified the founding of his journal — Curier de ambe sexe— by explicitly situating women’s rights, at least in their cultural dimension, within the broader framework of universal human rights. Acknowledging that “half of contemporary humankind belongs to the fair sex,” he argued that women, too, could claim within society the rights pertaining to their human condition. Ion Heliade Rădulescu also urged Romanian men not to forbid or restrict women’s “right” to education, arguing that “ignorance is an evil, a deadly plague upon human happiness.” “Femeile sau cugetul acestei foi” (Women or the Reflections of This Journal) is a programmatic article written by I.H. Rădulescu and explains the rationale behind the journal’s title, arguing that women represent “half of contemporary humankind” and that their education and emancipation are essential to social progress. Such interventions complicate the narrative of a purely maternalist or difference-based early feminist discourse and suggest the coexistence of egalitarian and individualist strands within Romanian political thought. Amicul familiei (Family friend) was one of the earliest Romanian periodicals under female leadership and played a formative role in early feminist discourse in Romania. Edited by Constanța Dunca-Schiau ( 1878 ), a well-educated pedagogue and early advocate for women’s rights, the journal addressed issues central to women’s social position at a time when female public voices were rare. It promoted women’s education and instruction as essential foundations for social progress and argued that unequal educational opportunities contributed to the broader inequality of the sexes. Dunca-Schiau’s activism through the journal connected pedagogy with calls for expanded opportunities and recognition of women’s capacities, positioning education reform as an early feminist claim for greater female participation in public life. Maria Rosetti, a participant in the 1848 revolutionary movement, was the first female journalist in Romania and the founder of the first Romanian-language periodical dedicated to women. Unlike contemporary women’s magazines, hers did not separate femininity from the maternal vocation, being titled Mother and Child. She organized relief committees to help the population during the famine of 1866–1867, and during the War of Independence she led the Women’s Committee, which raised funds to establish the hospital in Turnu Măgurele and for the infirmaries behind the front lines. Her initiatives highlighted her commitment to raising and educating the younger generation and promoting the rights and responsibilities of mothers (Rosetti, 1865 ). The facts about Maria Rosetti align with a series of clichés of the feminine ideal: the simplicity of her attire, which evokes traditional and therefore enduring values, and her spiritual beauty, expressed above all through an angelic kindness, are attributes commonly found in the dominant discourse about respectable women. These qualities were generally recovered and emphasized by the nationalist ideologies of the 19th century. The female figures that appear in nationalist ideals, often transformed into myths and integrated into the national imagination, are women distinguished by purity and modesty, devotion and sacrifice for their family and their country (Băluță, 2000 ). In Ambasadoarea, Camil Petrescu ( 1928 ) frames Elena Văcărescu as a paragon of Romanian national and cultural identity, emphasizing her “truest Romanian blood” and her ability to honor both Romanian and French literatures. While this praise highlights her literary and cosmopolitan achievements, Petrescu also situates her firmly within the nationalist and gendered ideals of the time, and frames Văcărescu not just as an artist but as a cultural emissary, a bridge between cultures. A critical reading suggests that such discourse both celebrates her contributions and constrains them, privileging her symbolic role as a cultural ambassador over her political and diplomatic agency (Petrescu, 1928 ). Over the past hundred years, the academic research concerning Nădejde, Văcărescu and Negruzzi has undergone significant evolution. Early interwar studies, such as those by Eugen Lovinescu and George Călinescu, primarily positioned these women within modernist literary frameworks, offering contextual references without explicitly addressing gender or feminist concerns. During the communist period, critics continued to reference Văcărescu and early feminist figures, though interpretations were sometimes filtered through ideological priorities. The most nuanced analyses emerge in post-1989 feminist and gender historiography, with scholars such as Mihaela Miroiu, Maria Bucur, Alin Ciupală and Eliza Gheorghe foregrounding women’s civic activism and contributions to Romanian liberal and feminist movements. Women’s intellectual abilities and their participation in cultural and political life were systematically marginalized within dominant social structures. Intellectual competence was coded as masculine, while women’s engagement in public debate and political discourse was dismissed as secondary, derivative or emotionally driven. As a result, women’s cultural labor was either rendered invisible or framed as exceptional, but not necessarily legitimate. This marginalization was not merely social but structural, embedded in institutional practices, critical discourse and the mechanisms that regulated access to cultural and political authority. As E. Lovinescu remarked to one aspiring female writer, “literature is not a female vocation, but an eminently masculine one” (Lovinescu, 1970 ), reflecting the prevailing attitudes of the time. In a women’s publication from 1938 called Jurnalul doamnei, Lovinescu ( 1938 ) stated that “in public opinion there is a prejudice against women’s literature, which naturally stems from a broader prejudice against women’s very intellectual faculties.” Such statements reinforced structural barriers, discouraging women from pursuing writing as a profession and limiting their access to recognition, critical legitimacy, and professional networks. The phenomenon of exclusion functions to uphold masculine dominance by creating and perpetuating symbolic violence. This is achieved through the naturalization of socially constructed gender roles, which are accepted and internalized by the dominated group (Bourdieu, 2002 ). According to Gisèle Sapiro’s extension of Bourdieu’s theory, symbolic violence serves to mask the ideology of the dominant group by embedding it within the very symbolic structures that define literature (Sapiro, 2007 ). Within the framework of Jürgen Habermas’s views, the public sphere is theoretically a space open to all, where individuals can participate in rational-critical debate on matters of common concern (Habermas, 1991 ). In practice, however, historical and structural inequalities meant that women were widely excluded from this sphere, confined instead to domestic and private roles. Recognizing this tension allows us to analyze how female intellectuals and activists such as Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi negotiated these constraints, asserting their voices within public debates and contributing to the gradual emergence of feminist political consciousness in Romania. According to Mihaela Miroiu and co-authors of The Birth of Democratic Citizenship: Women and Power in Modern Romania, feminists oriented toward education pursued radical goals, including increasing public spending on women’s education and fighting for women to have access to a variety of new professions associated with the modern state. In particular, after the 1890s, the struggle for education and professional equality among women in Romania, Western Europe, and America showed remarkable similarities (Bucur & Miroiu, 2019 ). Between 1918 and 1939, the Chronological Dictionary of the Romanian Novel records sixty women prose writers who published novels, a considerable number of whom were newcomers to the literary scene. This suggests a visible process of feminization within the field during the interwar period. However, this development occurred against the backdrop of a limited integration of women into literary professions, which continued to be regarded as consecrated and predominantly male domains (Popa et al., 2003 ). Focusing in the following pages on representative examples and contributions of Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi, the analysis will highlight the ways in which Romanian women negotiated social and political constraints, contributed to the emergence of feminist consciousness and interacted with European discourses on gender roles and modernization processes. Assertive Voices of Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi in Cultural and Political Spheres The modernization of Romanian society in the second half of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth unfolded through profound political, institutional and cultural transformations: the consolidation of the national state, the expansion of public education, the development of parliamentary structures and the gradual integration of Romania into European diplomatic and intellectual circuits. Yet these processes were marked by a striking paradox. While the language of citizenship, rights, and progress gained increasing prominence, women remained largely excluded from political participation, higher education and the legal professions. The extension of modern institutions did not automatically entail gender equality; rather, it frequently reproduced older hierarchies in new forms. Within this context, the struggle for women’s rights in Romania did not take the shape of a single linear movement, nor did it unfold exclusively through organized suffrage campaigns. Instead, it developed across multiple arenas: journalism, literature, education, diplomacy and law, where women gradually demanded recognition and exposed structural discrimination. Among the figures who decisively contributed to this transformation, three stand out for the distinct but complementary ways in which they viewed Romanian society: Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi. Each of them operated in a different sphere — intellectual debate, international cultural diplomacy and juridical activism — but all three contributed decisively to expanding women’s rights and redefining women’s role in Romanian public life. Their significance lies not necessarily in being “firsts” or exceptions, but in how their work altered regimes of validation. They challenged prevailing assumptions about women’s intellectual capacity and professional competence, opening access to domains from which women had been systematically excluded, and also reconsidering public discourse about gender equality. This section examines, therefore, three distinct modalities through which women in modern Romanian history constructed and exercised authority in contexts that systematically restricted their formal access to power. Rather than treating these women simply as “pioneers,” this chapter conceptualizes them as producers of differentiated forms of authority and identity within the constraints of a gendered public sphere. Each negotiated exclusion differently, constructing her cultural self through distinct strategies of meaning-making, and in doing so expanded the foundational terms of authority available to women. Sofia Nădejde: The Intellectual Emancipation and the Politics of Argument In late 19th century Romania, the exclusion of women from political and academic life was frequently justified through appeals to science. Biological determinism, social Darwinism and pseudo-medical theories about female inferiority circulated widely in European intellectual culture and were adopted by Romanian thinkers seeking to rationalize gender hierarchy. Against this context, the interventions of Sofia Nădejde were both radical and foundational. Born in Botoșani county in 1865, Sofia Băncilă-Gheorghiu became a journalist, prose writer, playwright and feminist activist, and her work carried enormous weight in the process of women’s emancipation at the time. Sofia made her debut in the Bucharest feminist publication Femeia Română (The Romanian Woman), edited by the writer Maria Flechtenmacher, which advocated for the civic rights of women in Romania and reported on the process of women’s emancipation abroad. In her column “The Condition of Women Through the Centuries,” she gathered theories and materials examining the situation of women in both the past and the present. In 1895, she joined the Bucharest Workers’ Club as a lecturer. The series of 55 speeches under the title Traces of Sacrifice Among Romanians later brought her recognition, when she was elected president of the 4th Congress in 1897 as a member of the PSDMR (Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Romania), becoming the first woman in Romania to hold the position of president of a political Congress. Nădejde was not just a participant in public debate but a systematic critic of the epistemological foundations of women’s exclusion. Through journalism, essays and public lectures, she challenged arguments claiming that women were biologically unsuited for higher education or intellectual labor. In polemics with prominent male intellectuals of her time, she dismantled assertions that women’s brains were smaller or inherently less capable, exposing the circular reasoning and selective evidence underlying such claims. The pages of the publication Contemporanul record a sharp and spirited exchange of arguments between the essayist Titu Maiorescu and Sofia Nădejde. In a lecture delivered at the Romanian Athenaeum in 1882, Maiorescu declared: “Man must drive culture; he must lead or support the state, make the arts flourish, expand the realm of ideas and facilitate the well-being of humanity through daily discoveries and improvements applied to practical life. Meanwhile, woman is reduced to a much more limited role in the movement of cultured societies” (Maiorescu, 1883 ). To contradict the great Maiorescu, especially as a woman, was unthinkable at the time. Yet Sofia Nădejde had the courage to publicly challenge his scientifically unsupported arguments: “If we compare the cranial cavity of primitive humans with that of modern humans, we find a decrease in capacity and volume in both men and women” (Nădejde, 1881–1882). This statement not only disproved Maiorescu’s claim that women’s brains were inherently smaller, but also highlighted her reliance on empirical observation rather than social prejudice. Sofia Nădejde’s journalistic discourse is highly crafted. She is aware that her only weapon is the word, which she wields forcefully, using a radical tone. In another article, “Woman and the Law” (Nădejde, 1882 ), she commented on provisions in the Constitution concerning the status of women in relation to men: Article 195, “The man is obliged to protect the woman, the woman to obey.” In her novel Robia banului (Slavery to Money), a critique of avarice and materialism, Sofia Nădejde presents a deeply personal complaint that functions as a critique of women’s social condition in nineteenth century Romania. From a cultural psychology perspective, the speaker’s despair reveals the psychological cost of identity foreclosure in a patriarchal society: her selfhood is entirely dependent on institutional recognition through marriage. Having failed to become a “respectable” married woman, she finds herself in a humiliating liminal state, “neither married nor among the maidens,” revealing how rigidly society defined female identity. Her lament about not receiving even “a scrap of paper” underscores women’s exclusion from education, legal rights and property ownership. The proverb “if you have schooling, you have a share” suggests that access to education is directly tied to autonomy and social participation, yet women are denied this opportunity (Nădejde, 1906 ). The work Nădejde translated in 1891, The Woman Question and the Working Women of Today, belongs to Clara Zetkin, the woman thanks to whom International Women’s Day was celebrated for the first time. Sofia Nădejde’s involvement in promoting women’s chances of emancipation, alongside other women around the world, justifies her inclusion in a recent publication, Biographical Dictionary of Women’s Movements and Feminisms in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, 19th and 20th Centuries (Mihăilescu, 2006 , pp. 360–362). From the standpoint of cultural psychology, Nădejde’s trajectory illustrates a process of active identity construction: by entering intellectual debate on equal rational terms, she was not merely making political claims, but forging a new kind of female selfhood — one grounded in reason, agency and public voice rather than domestic role. By participating in the development of a socialist and reformist press, she contributed to the formation of a public sphere in which women’s issues could be debated as matters of social policy. Moreover, Nădejde advocated concretely for women’s access to education, insisting that denying girls higher education perpetuated inequality and deprived society of intellectual resources. Her contribution to Romanian society can therefore be summarized in three interrelated achievements: discrediting scientific arguments for female inferiority, situating feminist claims within extended social reform movements and legitimizing women’s participation in intellectual and political discourse. Elena Văcărescu: Ambassador of Romanian Letters and Diplomacy Elena Văcărescu (1864–1947) distinguished herself as a Romanian writer, poet, playwright, translator and diplomat, whose work gained recognition across Europe. In 1925, she became the first woman to be elected as a foreign honorary member of the Romanian Academy, marking a historic breakthrough in a male-dominated institution. In her reception speech she declared: “Born from the purest Romanian soil, raised generation after generation in the swirl of Romanian centuries, I have breathed the fragrant breeze of our springs […] I have served the Romanian idea, I have sought to spread abroad the fame of the Romanian people, and I have promoted the expansion of the Romanian spirit in the world” (Văcărescu, 1989 ). Elena Văcărescu was convinced that “a nation cannot understand its own tradition, its own being, its own destiny except by comparing itself with other nations […] I believe that the true position of an enlightened and responsible patriot can only result from a lucid and balanced combination of the national factor with the international factor” (Văcărescu, 1989 ). Respect among peoples and a dignified attitude were other guiding principles of her activity. She completed her studies in Paris, where she deepened her knowledge of philosophy, poetic art and history, attending courses at the University of the Sorbonne. Among her teachers were Sully Prudhomme, Leconte de Lisle and José-Maria de Heredia. There she founded a literary salon attended by important literary and cultural figures, such as Marcel Proust, Miguel de Unamuno, Aristide Briand, Sarah Bernhardt and Paul Valéry. In January 1919, Elena Văcărescu became a member of Romania’s delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, and she was also elected secretary-general of the Romanian Association to the League of Nations (Văcărescu, 1941 ). In 1928, Camil Petrescu noted that “there, in the capital of France, we have a Romanian woman of the truest Romanian blood (…) who proudly asserts her Romanian origin and spirit (…). Elena Văcărescu carries out an immense activity to make it known that she is Romanian” (Petrescu, 1928 ). Trusting in the ability to build a better world through more active engagement of the intellectual movement, she advocated for the triumph of intellectual solidarity. Contemporary with the horrors of the First World War, Elena Văcărescu never ceased to fight for peace. Retired in Cannes in the free zone during the Second World War, she condemned with full firmness, alongside the French intellectual community, the Nazi occupation. She also advocated for Romania’s alliance with France, England and the United States. Elena Văcărescu died in Paris in 1947. Part of her will drawn up in 1945 stated: “Although I was forced, due to the unfortunate circumstances of my life, to live far from Romania, my heart has never ceased for a single moment to beat for her. Nearly half a century of my activity has been devoted to the interests of our nation, seeking to strengthen the ties between France and Romania, which was for me a second homeland” (Radu, 1966 ). Her trajectory exemplifies a form of transnational identity construction: operating between cultural systems, she forged an authoritative female self that was simultaneously Romanian and European, national and cosmopolitan. Ella Negruzzi: The Struggle for Women’s Equality in Romanian Law Granddaughter of the modern prose writer Constantin Negruzzi, Ella Negruzzi was born in 1876 at the family estate in Hermeziu, Iași county. She attended the Faculty of Law of the Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, graduating in 1913. She was one of the founding members of the National Orthodox Society of Romanian Women, Iași branch, in 1911, and contributed to the drafting of the association’s programs, regulations and statutes. Ella Negruzzi was the first woman admitted to the Bar Association and granted the right to plead, after a long series of lawsuits against the Iași Bar Association, which had denied her entry on the grounds that, being a woman, she did not have the right to vote, and as a lawyer she would have had to possess this right. In the end, she won the right to plead at the bar alongside men and became a member of the Baroul Covurlui-Galați and later of Ilfov, continuing to fight against the mentalities and prejudices of her time. She became an activist for the rights and emancipation of Romanian women. Together with Maria Baiulescu and Elena Meissner, she founded the Emancipation of Woman Association, of which she was the president (Maftei, 1972 ). The right to vote and the right to stand for election for women were her ideals, and in 1917, she signed the Petition of Romanian Women to the Senate of Romania, which called for the granting of political and civil rights to women (Mihăilescu, 2002 ). In 1929 she joined the National Peasants’ Party, and in the local elections of spring 1930 she ran and was elected as a local councillor in Bucharest. Asked, “Why does woman demand the right to vote?”, Romania’s first woman pleading lawyer replied: “Because women work, because they pay taxes, because it is unjust that in a democratic country, where all citizens take part in choosing the government, women should not exercise this right” (Marcu & Ilinca, 2012 ). In 1936, Ella Negruzzi initiated the Women’s Front, aiming to defend women’s rights and promote their involvement in all areas of society, in order to protect the institutions of the democratic regime against the fascist threat. Ella Negruzzi illustrates juridical-institutional authority. As the first woman admitted to the Romanian Bar and a founder of feminist legal activism, she did not merely argue against exclusion — she contested it structurally, embodying a form of identity construction through institutional action. Her struggle to practice law exposed the legal codification of gender discrimination, and her eventual professional recognition marked a shift from discursive contestation to institutional transformation. In her trajectory, authority becomes formalized: it is embedded in law, office and bureaucratic legitimacy. From the standpoint of cultural psychology, Negruzzi’s trajectory exemplifies how identity can be forged through goal-directed action in liminal conditions: her persistence in the face of institutional exclusion was simultaneously a legal strategy and a profound act of self-definition, asserting the possibility of a female professional self within a system that denied its existence. Ella Negruzzi’s work can be summed up as a breakthrough on two fronts: professional and civic. She challenged a major barrier by becoming the first woman in Romania admitted to the Bar, after repeated rejections and nearly six years of court battles, showing that discrimination could be confronted through persistence and legal argument. She then turned her own experience of exclusion into organized activism for women’s rights, channeling her success into organized advocacy for other women, especially those with fewer opportunities, and pushing for lasting institutional change. Table 1 Comparative features of female political discourse in Romanian modernity (1890–1940) Analytical Dimension Sofia Nădejde Elena Văcărescu Ella Negruzzi Type of discourse Explicitly political, polemical, ideological Cultural-symbolic, diplomatic, indirect Legal-political, institutional, pragmatic Primary arena of expression Press, socialist circles, public debates Literature, international diplomacy, elite networks Courts, professional organizations, civic associations Thematic focus Gender equality, education, labor rights, social justice National identity, cultural legitimacy, representation Legal equality, civil rights, political inclusion Relation to power Contestatory (challenging dominant norms) Adaptive (negotiating within elite structures) Transformative (seeking institutional change) Form of political agency Discursive activism (counter-hegemonic) Symbolic authority (soft power) Institutional engagement (legal and organizational) Target of intervention Public opinion, ideological frameworks International perception, cultural prestige Legal system, state structures Strategic approach Confrontation and critique Mediation and representation Reform and advocacy Constraints Limited institutional access; ideological marginalization Elite expectations; limited radicalism Structural legal barriers; slow reform processes Contribution to political development Expansion of public debate and feminist consciousness Normalization of female presence in public/diplomatic roles Advancement of legal rights and civic participation Discussion The political implications of Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi offer a rich lens through which to examine the construction of female authority and cultural identity in Romanian modernity between 1890 and 1940. Approached through the framework of cultural psychology, these three figures can be understood not only as political actors but as subjects engaged in a continuous process of identity construction within — and against — the symbolic and institutional limits of their society. While women’s formal political power was limited, their speeches and published writings demonstrate the way in which the discourse itself became a medium of influence, negotiation and self-definition. Their rhetorical and linguistic strategies illuminate the ways in which women articulated legitimacy, constructed a sense of public selfhood and formulated social critique in a predominantly male political sphere. It should be acknowledged that the presentation of women’s roles and movements in this study is necessarily selective and partial. Like all research, it reflects both the interests and theoretical orientations of scholars in the field, as well as the political and cultural contexts in which prior studies were conducted. Moreover, the historiography of Romanian women’s movements remains limited, with few comprehensive studies and only recently emerging collections of archival sources. Notably, there is still no critical-analytical study encompassing women’s movements in the Romanian provinces and in Greater Romania, which underscores both the novelty and the exploratory nature of the present analysis. Despite these limitations, this study contributes to a growing body of research that seeks to uncover the voices and influence of women in Romanian modernity. By examining the discourses of figures such as Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu, and Ella Negruzzi, it is possible to trace patterns of rhetorical innovation and engagement that were crucial in creating public debates and expanding the space for female political agency. Furthermore, this research highlights the potential of discourse analysis as a methodological tool for understanding gendered leadership and civic participation, offering new perspectives on both historical and contemporary feminist scholarship. Conclusions The history of women’s rights in Romania cannot be reduced to a single legislative act or suffrage milestone. It is the cumulative result of intellectual courage, symbolic visibility and institutional persistence. Through her polemical brilliance, Sofia Nădejde reshaped public discourse on gender and education. Through her international cultural and diplomatic engagement, Elena Văcărescu expanded the visibility and legitimacy of Romanian women in global arenas. Through her legal activism, Ella Negruzzi transformed the juridical boundaries of professional inclusion. Together, they demonstrate that feminist progress in Romania was achieved not only by protesting exclusion but by occupying and institutionalizing spaces of authority, and by constructing new cultural identities that made female public selfhood thinkable and livable. Their contributions remind us that modernization without gender equality is incomplete and that the expansion of women’s rights was central, not peripheral, to the making of modern Romanian society. These three figures map a progression — not chronological but structural — in the modalities through which women accessed public power and fashioned their cultural identities. From polemical discourse to institutional inscription, they reveal that female authority in modern Romania was neither linear nor homogeneous. Viewed through the lens of cultural psychology, their trajectories illuminate the diverse ways in which human beings construct meaning, identity and agency in liminal conditions — navigating between denial and recognition, between the private and the public, between inherited norms and emergent possibilities. Although their authority frequently remained symbolic rather than institutional, their initiatives opened tangible spaces for female leadership and set the stage for later generations of women activists. Declarations Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Ethics Approval: This research is based exclusively on published and archival historical sources. No human participants were involved in data collection; therefore, ethics committee approval was not required. Funding: No funding was received for conducting this study. Author Contribution We contributed equally!All authors reviewed the manuscript. Data Availability Statement: The primary archival materials analyzed in this study (manuscripts, published writings, speeches and petitions of Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi) are available at the Romanian Academy Library, the Romanian National Archives and the Archives of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. References Agrigoroaiei, I. (2016). De la mutarea Capitalei la Iași, la epopeea de la Mărășești. In Ştiriți I. (Ed.), ‹Orașul Iași. Capitala rezistenței până la capăt (1916–1917)› (pp. 45–67). Editura Junimea. Băluță, I. (2000). Imaginea femeii în spațiul public: între realitate şi simbol. A doua jumătate a secolului al XIX-lea. ‹Annals of the University of Bucharest. Political Science Series› , 2 , 21–33. Berciu-Drăghicescu, A. (2018). ‹Eroinele României Mari. Destine din linia întâi› . Muzeul Literaturii Române. Bourdieu, P. (2002). ‹Masculine domination› (R. Nice, Trans) . Stanford University Press. Bucur, M., & Miroiu, M. (2019). ‹Nașterea cetățeniei democratice. Femeile şi puterea în România modernă› . Humanitas. Chilom, A. (2014). April). Ella Negruzzi, prima femeie avocat din Estul Europei . ‹Legal Magazin›. Dunca-Schiau, C. (1878). ‹Amicul familiei› (Year I, No. 9) . Gherla şi Cluj. Habermas, J. (1991). ‹The structural transformation of the public sphere› . The MIT Press. Lovinescu, E. (1938). ‹Jurnalul Doamnei› (No. 3). Lovinescu, E. (1970). ‹Aqua forte. Memorii› (Vol. 3). Editura Minerva. Maftei, I. (1972). ‹Personalități ieșene› (Vol. I). Comitetul de Cultură şi Educație Socialistă al județului Iași. Maiorescu, T. (1883). ‹Patru conferințe› . Tipografia Ștefan Mihălescu. Marcu, G., & Ilinca, R. (2012). ‹Enciclopedia personalităților feminine din România› . Editura MERONIA. Mihăilescu, Ş. (2000). ‹Din istoria feminismului românesc. Antologie de texte (1838–1928)› . Editura Polirom. Mihăilescu, Ş. (2002). ‹Din istoria feminismului românesc. Antologie de texte (1838–1929)›. Polirom. Mihăilescu, Ş. (2006). Sofia Nădejde. In de F. Haan, K. Daskalova, & A. Loutfi (Eds.), ‹Biographical dictionary of women’s movements and feminisms in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe, 19th and 20th centuries› (pp. 360–362). Central European University. Miroiu, M., & Dragomir, O. (2002). ‹Lexicon feminist› . Editura Polirom. Nădejde, S. (1881–1882). Răspuns D-lui Maiorescu în chestia creierului la femei. ‹Contemporanul› (Year I). Nădejde, S. (1882). Femeia şi legea. ‹Contemporanul› (Year I). Nădejde, S. (1906). ‹Robia banului› . Libraria C. Sfetea. Petrescu, C. (1928). March 4). Ambasadoarea . ‹Universul›. Popa, M., Modola, D., et al. (2003). ‹Dicționarul cronologic al romanului românesc de la origini până la 1989› . Editura Academiei Române. Radu, A. (1966). Aspecte româneşti în opera Elenei Văcărescu . ‹Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai›. Radu, G. G., & Bulei, D. (1998). Personalități ale culturii române în corespondența Elenei Văcărescu. ‹Valachica. Studii şi cercetări de istorie şi istoria culturii›, 16. Rădulescu, I. H. (2002). Femeile sau cugetul acestei foi. ‹Curier de ambe sexe, 2›. Reproduced in Ş. Mihăilescu, ‹Din istoria feminismului românesc. Antologie de texte (1838–1929)› (pp. 55–59). Polirom. Rosetti, M. (1865). ‹Mama şi copilul›. C. A. Rosetti (Ed.). Sapiro, G. (2007). Pour une approche sociologique des relations entre littérature et idéologie (p. 2). ‹COnTEXTES›. Stăvăruş, I., & Văcărescu, E. (1974). ‹Ambasadoarea sufletului românesc› . Editura Univers. Stăvăruş, I. (1975). Prefață. In E. Văcărescu (Ed.), ‹Scrieri alese› . Editura Minerva. Văcărescu, E. (1941). Projected beyond political horizons [Lecture delivered in Cannes, March 18, 1941]. Văcărescu, E. (1989). Discursul meu de primire la Academia Română. ‹Memorii› (cap. VI) . Editura Dacia. Văcărescu, E. (2023). ‹Viața mea›. [Selected memoirs, modern edition]. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 12 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 06 May, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 28 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 28 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 27 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9543157","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":638913010,"identity":"918bd856-d630-4087-af43-b187d721bf8e","order_by":0,"name":"Simona Camelia Fer¹","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Oradea","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Simona","middleName":"Camelia","lastName":"Fer¹","suffix":""},{"id":638913011,"identity":"4cb6e6c2-f007-48bc-a2eb-029f182b1afd","order_by":1,"name":"Laurențiu Petrila²","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Oradea","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Laurențiu","middleName":"","lastName":"Petrila²","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-27 14:25:55","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9543157/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9543157/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109338736,"identity":"e30922a7-d346-444f-ade3-3556fd27df67","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-15 17:59:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":200199,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9543157/v1/5a5031d3-749d-46cf-ac04-470ad8a679ca.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Voices of Power: Female Political Discourse and Authority in Romanian Modernity (1890–1940) – Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe article covers the period from 1890 to 1940, the core of first-wave feminism, marking the transition of women from the exclusively domestic sphere into the public, social and political sphere \u0026mdash; a crucial phase in the consolidation of women\u0026rsquo;s presence in the political sphere in Romania. By examining a society deeply structured by patriarchal norms and situated at the periphery of Western European centers of modernity, this article explores the development of women\u0026rsquo;s political rhetoric and authority through the voices of three prominent figures: Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi, highlighting their distinct yet convergent contributions to the emergence of feminist political consciousness in Romania.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuided by Habermas\u0026rsquo;s notion of the public sphere and Bourdieu\u0026rsquo;s theory of symbolic capital, the study analyzes the methods through which these women negotiated visibility, influence and cultural identity within male-dominated political and cultural arenas. From the perspective of cultural psychology, each of these figures can be understood as navigating a liminal space between exclusion and recognition, constructing a sense of self and public subjectivity in conditions of structural constraint. Nădejde exemplifies intellectual-polemical authority, Văcărescu embodies transnational-symbolic authority and Negruzzi illustrates juridical-institutional authority, highlighting the diverse strategies women used to assert their political presence and forge distinctive cultural identities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy situating their contributions within Romania\u0026rsquo;s peripheral modernization and patriarchal constraints, the article highlights the ways in which these emblematic figures produced public conversations, leveraged social and professional networks, and strategically used print culture and institutional platforms to legitimize women\u0026rsquo;s political agency and expand the boundaries of civic participation, thereby contributing to the evolution of political culture and female selfhood in interwar Romania.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe research adopts a qualitative historical and political approach emphasizing discourse analysis and relies on primary materials including manuscripts, published writings, speeches and petitions of Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi, selected for their historical significance and representativeness of female political engagement in Romania between 1890 and 1940. Archival materials were consulted systematically, with attention to authenticity, provenance and contextual relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, relevant scholarly perspectives in the field of women\u0026rsquo;s political discourse, gendered communication and cultural psychology were reviewed in order to contextualize and interpret the discursive strategies identified in this study. Cultural psychology\u0026rsquo;s attention to meaning-making, identity negotiation and the role of cultural context in shaping selfhood provided an interpretive lens through which to understand how each woman constructed her public persona and sense of agency. A comparative framework was adopted in order to identify both recurring rhetorical patterns and context-specific variations in the articulation of female authority and identity. The discourses were interpreted within their historical, political and social contexts, considering contemporaneous debates on nationalism, suffrage, education and civic participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe table included in this study presents a comparative analytical framework designed to systematize and operationalize the main dimensions of female political discourse identified in the study. Drawing on a qualitative, interpretive approach, the discourses associated with Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi were coded along a set of theoretically informed categories derived from political science literature, including type of discourse, arena of expression, relation to power and form of political agency. These dimensions were selected to capture both the content and the function of discourse, allowing for a structured comparison across different socio-professional contexts. The table synthesizes recurring patterns and divergences, facilitating the identification of broader mechanisms through which informal political participation and discursive practices contributed to the construction of authority and the expansion of the public sphere in Romanian modernity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLiterature Review\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn recent decades, historians and researchers from other fields have begun to explore the history of women in Romania. Some of them have published studies on the feminist movement, while others have started to integrate gender into social and political analyses of the recent past.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe period between 1890 and 1940 in Romania witnessed significant, though sometimes contested, developments in women\u0026rsquo;s engagement in cultural and political life. Scholarship on this era emphasizes that women were increasingly present as intellectuals and social activists, yet their contributions were frequently marginalized by prevailing gender norms and institutional structures. Literary critics, historians and sociologists have highlighted the way in which women faced systemic barriers in gaining recognition for their intellectual and creative work, reflecting wider societal beliefs that intellectual and political authority were predominantly male domains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearchers and feminist theorists note that despite these obstacles, Romanian women actively participated in educational initiatives and social-political reform movements, establishing opportunities for participation and impact. However, their activities used to be framed as secondary or \u0026ldquo;exceptional,\u0026rdquo; rather than fully legitimate within the dominant cultural and political hierarchies. Studies also draw attention to the subtle mechanisms of exclusion, such as symbolic violence and normative expectations, that limited women\u0026rsquo;s access to positions of authority and cultural legitimacy. Overall, the literature underscores both the persistence of structural gender inequalities and the gradual emergence of women as active agents in building Romania\u0026rsquo;s cultural and political landscape during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScholarship on the history of women\u0026rsquo;s rights in Romania has emphasized the predominance of difference-based arguments, which valorized women\u0026rsquo;s specific moral and social qualities, particularly their roles as caregivers and educators of both family and nation. Such perspectives framed women\u0026rsquo;s claims within a discourse of complementary gender roles rather than strict equality. However, a closer examination of nineteenth-century sources reveals a more nuanced ideological landscape. Especially in debates concerning girls\u0026rsquo; and women\u0026rsquo;s access to education and employment, one can also identify arguments consistent with what has been termed \u0026ldquo;individualist\u0026rdquo; feminism, advocating for personal development and intellectual cultivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs early as 1837, Ion Heliade Rădulescu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) justified the founding of his journal \u0026mdash; Curier de ambe sexe\u0026mdash; by explicitly situating women\u0026rsquo;s rights, at least in their cultural dimension, within the broader framework of universal human rights. Acknowledging that \u0026ldquo;half of contemporary humankind belongs to the fair sex,\u0026rdquo; he argued that women, too, could claim within society the rights pertaining to their human condition. Ion Heliade Rădulescu also urged Romanian men not to forbid or restrict women\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;right\u0026rdquo; to education, arguing that \u0026ldquo;ignorance is an evil, a deadly plague upon human happiness.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Femeile sau cugetul acestei foi\u0026rdquo; (Women or the Reflections of This Journal) is a programmatic article written by I.H. Rădulescu and explains the rationale behind the journal\u0026rsquo;s title, arguing that women represent \u0026ldquo;half of contemporary humankind\u0026rdquo; and that their education and emancipation are essential to social progress. Such interventions complicate the narrative of a purely maternalist or difference-based early feminist discourse and suggest the coexistence of egalitarian and individualist strands within Romanian political thought.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmicul familiei (Family friend) was one of the earliest Romanian periodicals under female leadership and played a formative role in early feminist discourse in Romania. Edited by Constanța Dunca-Schiau (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1878\u003c/span\u003e), a well-educated pedagogue and early advocate for women\u0026rsquo;s rights, the journal addressed issues central to women\u0026rsquo;s social position at a time when female public voices were rare. It promoted women\u0026rsquo;s education and instruction as essential foundations for social progress and argued that unequal educational opportunities contributed to the broader inequality of the sexes. Dunca-Schiau\u0026rsquo;s activism through the journal connected pedagogy with calls for expanded opportunities and recognition of women\u0026rsquo;s capacities, positioning education reform as an early feminist claim for greater female participation in public life.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaria Rosetti, a participant in the 1848 revolutionary movement, was the first female journalist in Romania and the founder of the first Romanian-language periodical dedicated to women. Unlike contemporary women\u0026rsquo;s magazines, hers did not separate femininity from the maternal vocation, being titled Mother and Child. She organized relief committees to help the population during the famine of 1866\u0026ndash;1867, and during the War of Independence she led the Women\u0026rsquo;s Committee, which raised funds to establish the hospital in Turnu Măgurele and for the infirmaries behind the front lines. Her initiatives highlighted her commitment to raising and educating the younger generation and promoting the rights and responsibilities of mothers (Rosetti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1865\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe facts about Maria Rosetti align with a series of clich\u0026eacute;s of the feminine ideal: the simplicity of her attire, which evokes traditional and therefore enduring values, and her spiritual beauty, expressed above all through an angelic kindness, are attributes commonly found in the dominant discourse about respectable women. These qualities were generally recovered and emphasized by the nationalist ideologies of the 19th century. The female figures that appear in nationalist ideals, often transformed into myths and integrated into the national imagination, are women distinguished by purity and modesty, devotion and sacrifice for their family and their country (Băluță, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Ambasadoarea, Camil Petrescu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1928\u003c/span\u003e) frames Elena Văcărescu as a paragon of Romanian national and cultural identity, emphasizing her \u0026ldquo;truest Romanian blood\u0026rdquo; and her ability to honor both Romanian and French literatures. While this praise highlights her literary and cosmopolitan achievements, Petrescu also situates her firmly within the nationalist and gendered ideals of the time, and frames Văcărescu not just as an artist but as a cultural emissary, a bridge between cultures. A critical reading suggests that such discourse both celebrates her contributions and constrains them, privileging her symbolic role as a cultural ambassador over her political and diplomatic agency (Petrescu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1928\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOver the past hundred years, the academic research concerning Nădejde, Văcărescu and Negruzzi has undergone significant evolution. Early interwar studies, such as those by Eugen Lovinescu and George Călinescu, primarily positioned these women within modernist literary frameworks, offering contextual references without explicitly addressing gender or feminist concerns. During the communist period, critics continued to reference Văcărescu and early feminist figures, though interpretations were sometimes filtered through ideological priorities. The most nuanced analyses emerge in post-1989 feminist and gender historiography, with scholars such as Mihaela Miroiu, Maria Bucur, Alin Ciupală and Eliza Gheorghe foregrounding women\u0026rsquo;s civic activism and contributions to Romanian liberal and feminist movements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen\u0026rsquo;s intellectual abilities and their participation in cultural and political life were systematically marginalized within dominant social structures. Intellectual competence was coded as masculine, while women\u0026rsquo;s engagement in public debate and political discourse was dismissed as secondary, derivative or emotionally driven. As a result, women\u0026rsquo;s cultural labor was either rendered invisible or framed as exceptional, but not necessarily legitimate. This marginalization was not merely social but structural, embedded in institutional practices, critical discourse and the mechanisms that regulated access to cultural and political authority.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs E. Lovinescu remarked to one aspiring female writer, \u0026ldquo;literature is not a female vocation, but an eminently masculine one\u0026rdquo; (Lovinescu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1970\u003c/span\u003e), reflecting the prevailing attitudes of the time. In a women\u0026rsquo;s publication from 1938 called Jurnalul doamnei, Lovinescu (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1938\u003c/span\u003e) stated that \u0026ldquo;in public opinion there is a prejudice against women\u0026rsquo;s literature, which naturally stems from a broader prejudice against women\u0026rsquo;s very intellectual faculties.\u0026rdquo; Such statements reinforced structural barriers, discouraging women from pursuing writing as a profession and limiting their access to recognition, critical legitimacy, and professional networks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe phenomenon of exclusion functions to uphold masculine dominance by creating and perpetuating symbolic violence. This is achieved through the naturalization of socially constructed gender roles, which are accepted and internalized by the dominated group (Bourdieu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). According to Gis\u0026egrave;le Sapiro\u0026rsquo;s extension of Bourdieu\u0026rsquo;s theory, symbolic violence serves to mask the ideology of the dominant group by embedding it within the very symbolic structures that define literature (Sapiro, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin the framework of J\u0026uuml;rgen Habermas\u0026rsquo;s views, the public sphere is theoretically a space open to all, where individuals can participate in rational-critical debate on matters of common concern (Habermas, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e). In practice, however, historical and structural inequalities meant that women were widely excluded from this sphere, confined instead to domestic and private roles. Recognizing this tension allows us to analyze how female intellectuals and activists such as Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi negotiated these constraints, asserting their voices within public debates and contributing to the gradual emergence of feminist political consciousness in Romania.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to Mihaela Miroiu and co-authors of The Birth of Democratic Citizenship: Women and Power in Modern Romania, feminists oriented toward education pursued radical goals, including increasing public spending on women\u0026rsquo;s education and fighting for women to have access to a variety of new professions associated with the modern state. In particular, after the 1890s, the struggle for education and professional equality among women in Romania, Western Europe, and America showed remarkable similarities (Bucur \u0026amp; Miroiu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetween 1918 and 1939, the Chronological Dictionary of the Romanian Novel records sixty women prose writers who published novels, a considerable number of whom were newcomers to the literary scene. This suggests a visible process of feminization within the field during the interwar period. However, this development occurred against the backdrop of a limited integration of women into literary professions, which continued to be regarded as consecrated and predominantly male domains (Popa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocusing in the following pages on representative examples and contributions of Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi, the analysis will highlight the ways in which Romanian women negotiated social and political constraints, contributed to the emergence of feminist consciousness and interacted with European discourses on gender roles and modernization processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAssertive Voices of Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi in Cultural and Political Spheres\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe modernization of Romanian society in the second half of the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth unfolded through profound political, institutional and cultural transformations: the consolidation of the national state, the expansion of public education, the development of parliamentary structures and the gradual integration of Romania into European diplomatic and intellectual circuits. Yet these processes were marked by a striking paradox. While the language of citizenship, rights, and progress gained increasing prominence, women remained largely excluded from political participation, higher education and the legal professions. The extension of modern institutions did not automatically entail gender equality; rather, it frequently reproduced older hierarchies in new forms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin this context, the struggle for women\u0026rsquo;s rights in Romania did not take the shape of a single linear movement, nor did it unfold exclusively through organized suffrage campaigns. Instead, it developed across multiple arenas: journalism, literature, education, diplomacy and law, where women gradually demanded recognition and exposed structural discrimination. Among the figures who decisively contributed to this transformation, three stand out for the distinct but complementary ways in which they viewed Romanian society: Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach of them operated in a different sphere \u0026mdash; intellectual debate, international cultural diplomacy and juridical activism \u0026mdash; but all three contributed decisively to expanding women\u0026rsquo;s rights and redefining women\u0026rsquo;s role in Romanian public life. Their significance lies not necessarily in being \u0026ldquo;firsts\u0026rdquo; or exceptions, but in how their work altered regimes of validation. They challenged prevailing assumptions about women\u0026rsquo;s intellectual capacity and professional competence, opening access to domains from which women had been systematically excluded, and also reconsidering public discourse about gender equality.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis section examines, therefore, three distinct modalities through which women in modern Romanian history constructed and exercised authority in contexts that systematically restricted their formal access to power. Rather than treating these women simply as \u0026ldquo;pioneers,\u0026rdquo; this chapter conceptualizes them as producers of differentiated forms of authority and identity within the constraints of a gendered public sphere. Each negotiated exclusion differently, constructing her cultural self through distinct strategies of meaning-making, and in doing so expanded the foundational terms of authority available to women.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSofia Nădejde: The Intellectual Emancipation and the Politics of Argument\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn late 19th century Romania, the exclusion of women from political and academic life was frequently justified through appeals to science. Biological determinism, social Darwinism and pseudo-medical theories about female inferiority circulated widely in European intellectual culture and were adopted by Romanian thinkers seeking to rationalize gender hierarchy. Against this context, the interventions of Sofia Nădejde were both radical and foundational. Born in Botoșani county in 1865, Sofia Băncilă-Gheorghiu became a journalist, prose writer, playwright and feminist activist, and her work carried enormous weight in the process of women\u0026rsquo;s emancipation at the time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSofia made her debut in the Bucharest feminist publication Femeia Rom\u0026acirc;nă (The Romanian Woman), edited by the writer Maria Flechtenmacher, which advocated for the civic rights of women in Romania and reported on the process of women\u0026rsquo;s emancipation abroad. In her column \u0026ldquo;The Condition of Women Through the Centuries,\u0026rdquo; she gathered theories and materials examining the situation of women in both the past and the present. In 1895, she joined the Bucharest Workers\u0026rsquo; Club as a lecturer. The series of 55 speeches under the title Traces of Sacrifice Among Romanians later brought her recognition, when she was elected president of the 4th Congress in 1897 as a member of the PSDMR (Social Democratic Workers\u0026rsquo; Party of Romania), becoming the first woman in Romania to hold the position of president of a political Congress.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNădejde was not just a participant in public debate but a systematic critic of the epistemological foundations of women\u0026rsquo;s exclusion. Through journalism, essays and public lectures, she challenged arguments claiming that women were biologically unsuited for higher education or intellectual labor. In polemics with prominent male intellectuals of her time, she dismantled assertions that women\u0026rsquo;s brains were smaller or inherently less capable, exposing the circular reasoning and selective evidence underlying such claims.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe pages of the publication Contemporanul record a sharp and spirited exchange of arguments between the essayist Titu Maiorescu and Sofia Nădejde. In a lecture delivered at the Romanian Athenaeum in 1882, Maiorescu declared: \u0026ldquo;Man must drive culture; he must lead or support the state, make the arts flourish, expand the realm of ideas and facilitate the well-being of humanity through daily discoveries and improvements applied to practical life. Meanwhile, woman is reduced to a much more limited role in the movement of cultured societies\u0026rdquo; (Maiorescu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1883\u003c/span\u003e). To contradict the great Maiorescu, especially as a woman, was unthinkable at the time. Yet Sofia Nădejde had the courage to publicly challenge his scientifically unsupported arguments: \u0026ldquo;If we compare the cranial cavity of primitive humans with that of modern humans, we find a decrease in capacity and volume in both men and women\u0026rdquo; (Nădejde, 1881\u0026ndash;1882). This statement not only disproved Maiorescu\u0026rsquo;s claim that women\u0026rsquo;s brains were inherently smaller, but also highlighted her reliance on empirical observation rather than social prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSofia Nădejde\u0026rsquo;s journalistic discourse is highly crafted. She is aware that her only weapon is the word, which she wields forcefully, using a radical tone. In another article, \u0026ldquo;Woman and the Law\u0026rdquo; (Nădejde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1882\u003c/span\u003e), she commented on provisions in the Constitution concerning the status of women in relation to men: Article 195, \u0026ldquo;The man is obliged to protect the woman, the woman to obey.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn her novel Robia banului (Slavery to Money), a critique of avarice and materialism, Sofia Nădejde presents a deeply personal complaint that functions as a critique of women\u0026rsquo;s social condition in nineteenth century Romania. From a cultural psychology perspective, the speaker\u0026rsquo;s despair reveals the psychological cost of identity foreclosure in a patriarchal society: her selfhood is entirely dependent on institutional recognition through marriage. Having failed to become a \u0026ldquo;respectable\u0026rdquo; married woman, she finds herself in a humiliating liminal state, \u0026ldquo;neither married nor among the maidens,\u0026rdquo; revealing how rigidly society defined female identity. Her lament about not receiving even \u0026ldquo;a scrap of paper\u0026rdquo; underscores women\u0026rsquo;s exclusion from education, legal rights and property ownership. The proverb \u0026ldquo;if you have schooling, you have a share\u0026rdquo; suggests that access to education is directly tied to autonomy and social participation, yet women are denied this opportunity (Nădejde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1906\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe work Nădejde translated in 1891, The Woman Question and the Working Women of Today, belongs to Clara Zetkin, the woman thanks to whom International Women\u0026rsquo;s Day was celebrated for the first time. Sofia Nădejde\u0026rsquo;s involvement in promoting women\u0026rsquo;s chances of emancipation, alongside other women around the world, justifies her inclusion in a recent publication, Biographical Dictionary of Women\u0026rsquo;s Movements and Feminisms in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, 19th and 20th Centuries (Mihăilescu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, pp. 360\u0026ndash;362).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the standpoint of cultural psychology, Nădejde\u0026rsquo;s trajectory illustrates a process of active identity construction: by entering intellectual debate on equal rational terms, she was not merely making political claims, but forging a new kind of female selfhood \u0026mdash; one grounded in reason, agency and public voice rather than domestic role. By participating in the development of a socialist and reformist press, she contributed to the formation of a public sphere in which women\u0026rsquo;s issues could be debated as matters of social policy. Moreover, Nădejde advocated concretely for women\u0026rsquo;s access to education, insisting that denying girls higher education perpetuated inequality and deprived society of intellectual resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHer contribution to Romanian society can therefore be summarized in three interrelated achievements: discrediting scientific arguments for female inferiority, situating feminist claims within extended social reform movements and legitimizing women\u0026rsquo;s participation in intellectual and political discourse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eElena Văcărescu: Ambassador of Romanian Letters and Diplomacy\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElena Văcărescu (1864\u0026ndash;1947) distinguished herself as a Romanian writer, poet, playwright, translator and diplomat, whose work gained recognition across Europe. In 1925, she became the first woman to be elected as a foreign honorary member of the Romanian Academy, marking a historic breakthrough in a male-dominated institution. In her reception speech she declared: \u0026ldquo;Born from the purest Romanian soil, raised generation after generation in the swirl of Romanian centuries, I have breathed the fragrant breeze of our springs [\u0026hellip;] I have served the Romanian idea, I have sought to spread abroad the fame of the Romanian people, and I have promoted the expansion of the Romanian spirit in the world\u0026rdquo; (Văcărescu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eElena Văcărescu was convinced that \u0026ldquo;a nation cannot understand its own tradition, its own being, its own destiny except by comparing itself with other nations [\u0026hellip;] I believe that the true position of an enlightened and responsible patriot can only result from a lucid and balanced combination of the national factor with the international factor\u0026rdquo; (Văcărescu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). Respect among peoples and a dignified attitude were other guiding principles of her activity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eShe completed her studies in Paris, where she deepened her knowledge of philosophy, poetic art and history, attending courses at the University of the Sorbonne. Among her teachers were Sully Prudhomme, Leconte de Lisle and Jos\u0026eacute;-Maria de Heredia. There she founded a literary salon attended by important literary and cultural figures, such as Marcel Proust, Miguel de Unamuno, Aristide Briand, Sarah Bernhardt and Paul Val\u0026eacute;ry. In January 1919, Elena Văcărescu became a member of Romania\u0026rsquo;s delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, and she was also elected secretary-general of the Romanian Association to the League of Nations (Văcărescu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1941\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn 1928, Camil Petrescu noted that \u0026ldquo;there, in the capital of France, we have a Romanian woman of the truest Romanian blood (\u0026hellip;) who proudly asserts her Romanian origin and spirit (\u0026hellip;). Elena Văcărescu carries out an immense activity to make it known that she is Romanian\u0026rdquo; (Petrescu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1928\u003c/span\u003e). Trusting in the ability to build a better world through more active engagement of the intellectual movement, she advocated for the triumph of intellectual solidarity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContemporary with the horrors of the First World War, Elena Văcărescu never ceased to fight for peace. Retired in Cannes in the free zone during the Second World War, she condemned with full firmness, alongside the French intellectual community, the Nazi occupation. She also advocated for Romania\u0026rsquo;s alliance with France, England and the United States.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eElena Văcărescu died in Paris in 1947. Part of her will drawn up in 1945 stated: \u0026ldquo;Although I was forced, due to the unfortunate circumstances of my life, to live far from Romania, my heart has never ceased for a single moment to beat for her. Nearly half a century of my activity has been devoted to the interests of our nation, seeking to strengthen the ties between France and Romania, which was for me a second homeland\u0026rdquo; (Radu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1966\u003c/span\u003e). Her trajectory exemplifies a form of transnational identity construction: operating between cultural systems, she forged an authoritative female self that was simultaneously Romanian and European, national and cosmopolitan.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eElla Negruzzi: The Struggle for Women’s Equality in Romanian Law\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGranddaughter of the modern prose writer Constantin Negruzzi, Ella Negruzzi was born in 1876 at the family estate in Hermeziu, Iași county. She attended the Faculty of Law of the Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, graduating in 1913. She was one of the founding members of the National Orthodox Society of Romanian Women, Iași branch, in 1911, and contributed to the drafting of the association\u0026rsquo;s programs, regulations and statutes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eElla Negruzzi was the first woman admitted to the Bar Association and granted the right to plead, after a long series of lawsuits against the Iași Bar Association, which had denied her entry on the grounds that, being a woman, she did not have the right to vote, and as a lawyer she would have had to possess this right. In the end, she won the right to plead at the bar alongside men and became a member of the Baroul Covurlui-Galați and later of Ilfov, continuing to fight against the mentalities and prejudices of her time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eShe became an activist for the rights and emancipation of Romanian women. Together with Maria Baiulescu and Elena Meissner, she founded the Emancipation of Woman Association, of which she was the president (Maftei, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e). The right to vote and the right to stand for election for women were her ideals, and in 1917, she signed the Petition of Romanian Women to the Senate of Romania, which called for the granting of political and civil rights to women (Mihăilescu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). In 1929 she joined the National Peasants\u0026rsquo; Party, and in the local elections of spring 1930 she ran and was elected as a local councillor in Bucharest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAsked, \u0026ldquo;Why does woman demand the right to vote?\u0026rdquo;, Romania\u0026rsquo;s first woman pleading lawyer replied: \u0026ldquo;Because women work, because they pay taxes, because it is unjust that in a democratic country, where all citizens take part in choosing the government, women should not exercise this right\u0026rdquo; (Marcu \u0026amp; Ilinca, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In 1936, Ella Negruzzi initiated the Women\u0026rsquo;s Front, aiming to defend women\u0026rsquo;s rights and promote their involvement in all areas of society, in order to protect the institutions of the democratic regime against the fascist threat.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eElla Negruzzi illustrates juridical-institutional authority. As the first woman admitted to the Romanian Bar and a founder of feminist legal activism, she did not merely argue against exclusion \u0026mdash; she contested it structurally, embodying a form of identity construction through institutional action. Her struggle to practice law exposed the legal codification of gender discrimination, and her eventual professional recognition marked a shift from discursive contestation to institutional transformation. In her trajectory, authority becomes formalized: it is embedded in law, office and bureaucratic legitimacy. From the standpoint of cultural psychology, Negruzzi\u0026rsquo;s trajectory exemplifies how identity can be forged through goal-directed action in liminal conditions: her persistence in the face of institutional exclusion was simultaneously a legal strategy and a profound act of self-definition, asserting the possibility of a female professional self within a system that denied its existence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eElla Negruzzi\u0026rsquo;s work can be summed up as a breakthrough on two fronts: professional and civic. She challenged a major barrier by becoming the first woman in Romania admitted to the Bar, after repeated rejections and nearly six years of court battles, showing that discrimination could be confronted through persistence and legal argument. She then turned her own experience of exclusion into organized activism for women\u0026rsquo;s rights, channeling her success into organized advocacy for other women, especially those with fewer opportunities, and pushing for lasting institutional change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparative features of female political discourse in Romanian modernity (1890\u0026ndash;1940)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalytical Dimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSofia Nădejde\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElena Văcărescu\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElla Negruzzi\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eType of discourse\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExplicitly political, polemical, ideological\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural-symbolic, diplomatic, indirect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal-political, institutional, pragmatic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary arena of expression\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePress, socialist circles, public debates\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiterature, international diplomacy, elite networks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCourts, professional organizations, civic associations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThematic focus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender equality, education, labor rights, social justice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational identity, cultural legitimacy, representation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal equality, civil rights, political inclusion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelation to power\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContestatory (challenging dominant norms)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdaptive (negotiating within elite structures)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransformative (seeking institutional change)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForm of political agency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiscursive activism (counter-hegemonic)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSymbolic authority (soft power)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional engagement (legal and organizational)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTarget of intervention\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublic opinion, ideological frameworks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational perception, cultural prestige\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal system, state structures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrategic approach\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConfrontation and critique\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMediation and representation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReform and advocacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstraints\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited institutional access; ideological marginalization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eElite expectations; limited radicalism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStructural legal barriers; slow reform processes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eContribution to political development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpansion of public debate and feminist consciousness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNormalization of female presence in public/diplomatic roles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvancement of legal rights and civic participation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe political implications of Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi offer a rich lens through which to examine the construction of female authority and cultural identity in Romanian modernity between 1890 and 1940. Approached through the framework of cultural psychology, these three figures can be understood not only as political actors but as subjects engaged in a continuous process of identity construction within \u0026mdash; and against \u0026mdash; the symbolic and institutional limits of their society. While women\u0026rsquo;s formal political power was limited, their speeches and published writings demonstrate the way in which the discourse itself became a medium of influence, negotiation and self-definition. Their rhetorical and linguistic strategies illuminate the ways in which women articulated legitimacy, constructed a sense of public selfhood and formulated social critique in a predominantly male political sphere.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt should be acknowledged that the presentation of women\u0026rsquo;s roles and movements in this study is necessarily selective and partial. Like all research, it reflects both the interests and theoretical orientations of scholars in the field, as well as the political and cultural contexts in which prior studies were conducted. Moreover, the historiography of Romanian women\u0026rsquo;s movements remains limited, with few comprehensive studies and only recently emerging collections of archival sources. Notably, there is still no critical-analytical study encompassing women\u0026rsquo;s movements in the Romanian provinces and in Greater Romania, which underscores both the novelty and the exploratory nature of the present analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these limitations, this study contributes to a growing body of research that seeks to uncover the voices and influence of women in Romanian modernity. By examining the discourses of figures such as Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu, and Ella Negruzzi, it is possible to trace patterns of rhetorical innovation and engagement that were crucial in creating public debates and expanding the space for female political agency. Furthermore, this research highlights the potential of discourse analysis as a methodological tool for understanding gendered leadership and civic participation, offering new perspectives on both historical and contemporary feminist scholarship.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe history of women\u0026rsquo;s rights in Romania cannot be reduced to a single legislative act or suffrage milestone. It is the cumulative result of intellectual courage, symbolic visibility and institutional persistence. Through her polemical brilliance, Sofia Nădejde reshaped public discourse on gender and education. Through her international cultural and diplomatic engagement, Elena Văcărescu expanded the visibility and legitimacy of Romanian women in global arenas. Through her legal activism, Ella Negruzzi transformed the juridical boundaries of professional inclusion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTogether, they demonstrate that feminist progress in Romania was achieved not only by protesting exclusion but by occupying and institutionalizing spaces of authority, and by constructing new cultural identities that made female public selfhood thinkable and livable. Their contributions remind us that modernization without gender equality is incomplete and that the expansion of women\u0026rsquo;s rights was central, not peripheral, to the making of modern Romanian society.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese three figures map a progression \u0026mdash; not chronological but structural \u0026mdash; in the modalities through which women accessed public power and fashioned their cultural identities. From polemical discourse to institutional inscription, they reveal that female authority in modern Romania was neither linear nor homogeneous. Viewed through the lens of cultural psychology, their trajectories illuminate the diverse ways in which human beings construct meaning, identity and agency in liminal conditions \u0026mdash; navigating between denial and recognition, between the private and the public, between inherited norms and emergent possibilities. Although their authority frequently remained symbolic rather than institutional, their initiatives opened tangible spaces for female leadership and set the stage for later generations of women activists.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEthics Approval:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research is based exclusively on published and archival historical sources. No human participants were involved in data collection; therefore, ethics committee approval was not required.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo funding was received for conducting this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe contributed equally!All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability Statement:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary archival materials analyzed in this study (manuscripts, published writings, speeches and petitions of Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi) are available at the Romanian Academy Library, the Romanian National Archives and the Archives of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgrigoroaiei, I. (2016). De la mutarea Capitalei la Iași, la epopeea de la Mărășești. In Ştiriți I. (Ed.), \u0026lsaquo;Orașul Iași. Capitala rezistenței p\u0026acirc;nă la capăt (1916\u0026ndash;1917)\u0026rsaquo; (pp. 45\u0026ndash;67). Editura Junimea.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBăluță, I. (2000). Imaginea femeii \u0026icirc;n spațiul public: \u0026icirc;ntre realitate şi simbol. A doua jumătate a secolului al XIX-lea. \u0026lsaquo;Annals of the University of Bucharest. \u003cem\u003ePolitical Science Series\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e, 21\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBerciu-Drăghicescu, A. (2018). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Eroinele Rom\u0026acirc;niei Mari. Destine din linia \u0026icirc;nt\u0026acirc;i\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Muzeul Literaturii Rom\u0026acirc;ne.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBourdieu, P. (2002). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Masculine domination\u0026rsaquo; (R. Nice, Trans)\u003c/em\u003e. Stanford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBucur, M., \u0026amp; Miroiu, M. (2019). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Nașterea cetățeniei democratice. Femeile şi puterea \u0026icirc;n Rom\u0026acirc;nia modernă\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Humanitas.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChilom, A. (2014). \u003cem\u003eApril). Ella Negruzzi, prima femeie avocat din Estul Europei\u003c/em\u003e. \u0026lsaquo;Legal Magazin\u0026rsaquo;.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDunca-Schiau, C. (1878). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Amicul familiei\u0026rsaquo; (Year I, No. 9)\u003c/em\u003e. Gherla şi Cluj.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHabermas, J. (1991). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;The structural transformation of the public sphere\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e. The MIT Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLovinescu, E. (1938). \u0026lsaquo;Jurnalul Doamnei\u0026rsaquo; (No. 3).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLovinescu, E. (1970). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Aqua forte. Memorii\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 3). Editura Minerva.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaftei, I. (1972). \u0026lsaquo;Personalități ieșene\u0026rsaquo; (Vol. I). Comitetul de Cultură şi Educație Socialistă al județului Iași.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaiorescu, T. (1883). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Patru conferințe\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Tipografia Ștefan Mihălescu.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarcu, G., \u0026amp; Ilinca, R. (2012). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Enciclopedia personalităților feminine din Rom\u0026acirc;nia\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Editura MERONIA.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMihăilescu, Ş. (2000). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Din istoria feminismului rom\u0026acirc;nesc. Antologie de texte (1838\u0026ndash;1928)\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Editura Polirom.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMihăilescu, Ş. (2002). \u0026lsaquo;Din istoria feminismului rom\u0026acirc;nesc. Antologie de texte (1838\u0026ndash;1929)\u0026rsaquo;. Polirom.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMihăilescu, Ş. (2006). Sofia Nădejde. In de F. Haan, K. Daskalova, \u0026amp; A. Loutfi (Eds.), \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Biographical dictionary of women\u0026rsquo;s movements and feminisms in Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe, 19th and 20th centuries\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 360\u0026ndash;362). Central European University.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMiroiu, M., \u0026amp; Dragomir, O. (2002). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Lexicon feminist\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Editura Polirom.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNădejde, S. (1881\u0026ndash;1882). Răspuns D-lui Maiorescu \u0026icirc;n chestia creierului la femei. \u0026lsaquo;Contemporanul\u0026rsaquo; (Year I).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNădejde, S. (1882). Femeia şi legea. \u0026lsaquo;Contemporanul\u0026rsaquo; (Year I).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNădejde, S. (1906). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Robia banului\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Libraria C. Sfetea.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePetrescu, C. (1928). \u003cem\u003eMarch 4). Ambasadoarea\u003c/em\u003e. \u0026lsaquo;Universul\u0026rsaquo;.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePopa, M., Modola, D., et al. (2003). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Dicționarul cronologic al romanului rom\u0026acirc;nesc de la origini p\u0026acirc;nă la 1989\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Editura Academiei Rom\u0026acirc;ne.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRadu, A. (1966). \u003cem\u003eAspecte rom\u0026acirc;neşti \u0026icirc;n opera Elenei Văcărescu\u003c/em\u003e. \u0026lsaquo;Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai\u0026rsaquo;.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRadu, G. G., \u0026amp; Bulei, D. (1998). Personalități ale culturii rom\u0026acirc;ne \u0026icirc;n corespondența Elenei Văcărescu. \u0026lsaquo;Valachica. Studii şi cercetări de istorie şi istoria culturii\u0026rsaquo;, 16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRădulescu, I. H. (2002). Femeile sau cugetul acestei foi. \u0026lsaquo;Curier de ambe sexe, 2\u0026rsaquo;. Reproduced in Ş. Mihăilescu, \u0026lsaquo;Din istoria feminismului rom\u0026acirc;nesc. Antologie de texte (1838\u0026ndash;1929)\u0026rsaquo; (pp. 55\u0026ndash;59). Polirom.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosetti, M. (1865). \u0026lsaquo;Mama şi copilul\u0026rsaquo;. C. A. Rosetti (Ed.).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSapiro, G. (2007). \u003cem\u003ePour une approche sociologique des relations entre litt\u0026eacute;rature et id\u0026eacute;ologie\u003c/em\u003e (p. 2). \u0026lsaquo;COnTEXTES\u0026rsaquo;.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStăvăruş, I., \u0026amp; Văcărescu, E. (1974). \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Ambasadoarea sufletului rom\u0026acirc;nesc\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Editura Univers.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStăvăruş, I. (1975). Prefață. In E. Văcărescu (Ed.), \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Scrieri alese\u0026rsaquo;\u003c/em\u003e. Editura Minerva.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVăcărescu, E. (1941). Projected beyond political horizons [Lecture delivered in Cannes, March 18, 1941].\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVăcărescu, E. (1989). Discursul meu de primire la Academia Rom\u0026acirc;nă. \u003cem\u003e\u0026lsaquo;Memorii\u0026rsaquo; (cap. VI)\u003c/em\u003e. Editura Dacia.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVăcărescu, E. (2023). \u0026lsaquo;Viața mea\u0026rsaquo;. [Selected memoirs, modern edition].\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"human-arenas","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"huar","sideBox":"Learn more about [Human Arenas](http://link.springer.com/journal/42087)","snPcode":"42087","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/42087/3","title":"Human Arenas","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"female political agency, political discourse, Romanian modernity, cultural psychology, identity construction, liminal subjectivity","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9543157/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9543157/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis article examines the construction of female political discourse and authority in Romanian modernity (1890\u0026ndash;1940), focusing on the voices of Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi. Drawing on Habermas\u0026rsquo;s theory of the public sphere, Bourdieu\u0026rsquo;s concept of symbolic capital, and perspectives from cultural psychology, the study analyzes the strategies through which women negotiated influence, social recognition and cultural identity within a male-dominated political landscape. Each figure operated within a liminal cultural space, constructing a distinct feminine identity that challenged dominant gender norms: Nădejde exemplifies intellectual-polemical authority, Văcărescu embodies transnational-symbolic authority and Negruzzi illustrates juridical-institutional authority. By articulating a typology of female political discourse, the article highlights how these women actively constructed and negotiated their identities as public subjects, claiming psychological and cultural legitimacy in a peripheral European context. This research contributes to cultural psychology, historical and communication sciences, and gender studies by offering an integrative framework for understanding how female selfhood, identity and voice emerged within \u0026mdash; and against \u0026mdash; patriarchal structures in interwar Romania.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Voices of Power: Female Political Discourse and Authority in Romanian Modernity (1890–1940) – Sofia Nădejde, Elena Văcărescu and Ella Negruzzi","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-15 17:59:46","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9543157/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"208033030609572521995187336108454354145","date":"2026-05-12T10:17:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"302948751302015077356507683815845644303","date":"2026-05-08T11:58:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"339494969343014937384710963062826777173","date":"2026-05-08T10:57:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"5788963243451875926447173844486537696","date":"2026-05-07T04:42:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"54502870759921911180923935004458639486","date":"2026-05-06T14:05:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"277510241072331234229425840020444299032","date":"2026-05-06T11:00:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"302013042853698010955362964034529670744","date":"2026-05-06T10:40:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"136328836907054812811023049934653456225","date":"2026-05-06T10:39:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-05-06T10:33:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-28T07:51:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-28T07:50:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Human Arenas","date":"2026-04-27T14:09:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"human-arenas","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"huar","sideBox":"Learn more about [Human Arenas](http://link.springer.com/journal/42087)","snPcode":"42087","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/42087/3","title":"Human Arenas","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ed12331c-5478-4986-81e7-07c037546254","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 15th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"208033030609572521995187336108454354145","date":"2026-05-12T10:17:24+00:00","index":97,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"302948751302015077356507683815845644303","date":"2026-05-08T11:58:06+00:00","index":90,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"339494969343014937384710963062826777173","date":"2026-05-08T10:57:26+00:00","index":89,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"5788963243451875926447173844486537696","date":"2026-05-07T04:42:12+00:00","index":82,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"54502870759921911180923935004458639486","date":"2026-05-06T14:05:28+00:00","index":77,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"277510241072331234229425840020444299032","date":"2026-05-06T11:00:41+00:00","index":67,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"302013042853698010955362964034529670744","date":"2026-05-06T10:40:33+00:00","index":64,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"136328836907054812811023049934653456225","date":"2026-05-06T10:39:49+00:00","index":63,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"58","date":"2026-05-06T10:33:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-15T17:59:46+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-15 17:59:46","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9543157","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9543157","identity":"rs-9543157","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}