Page 67 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, št. 3-4: K paradigmam raziskovanja vzgoje in izobraževanja, ur. Valerija Vendramin
P. 67
a. mladenović ■ conceptualising postfeminisim
with other “post” movements and to propose connections with the Third
Wave, as Rosalind Gill (2016: p. 612) reminds us. Highlighting the social
changes and the fact that feminism has a new visibility in popular cul
ture, Jessalynn Keller and Maureen Ryan call for new understandings on
the ways in which “emergent feminisms” pose a “challenge to postfeminist
media culture” (2015, in Gill, 2016: p. 611). They question the usefulness of
the concept of postfeminism in a world where feminism no longer seems
to be in retreat. Ann Brooks, meanwhile, understands postfeminism as
an “expression of a stage in the constant evolutionary movement of fem
inism /that/ has gained greater currency in recent years” and is now seen
as a “useful conceptual frame of reference encompassing the intersection
of feminism with a number of other anti-foundationalist movements in
cluding postmodernism, post-structuralism and post-colonialism” (2003:
p. 1). Angela McRobbie, on the other hand, defines it as a “gender regime”
undoing feminism (2009) or “an active process by which feminist gains
of the 1970s and 80s come to be undermined”, making feminism a “spent
force” (2004: p. 255). Building on this and answering to concerns voiced
by Keller and Ryan, Rosalind Gill, who defines postfeminism as a “sen
sibility, deeply enmeshed with neoliberalism” (2016: p. 611), sees its rele
vance as an analytical category and believes it has a lot to offer in reading
the current moment, aiming to show how some of the popular mediated
feminism circulating is distinctively postfeminist in nature (ibid.).
Focusing on postfeminism in education, Jessica Ringrose (2007)
shows how certain postfeminist discourses draw from liberal feminist
theory. Liberal feminism’s attention to equal rights was based on evi
dence of girls’ underachievement in education. It campaigned for change,
but change within the existing system and “with minimal disruption”
(Weiner, 1995: p. 67). The primary goal of liberal feminism has been to
alter attitudes, to change the treatment of girls in schools and to do so
using legal practices (Acker, 1994, in Kohli and Burbules, 2013: p. 84).
According to Weiner (1995: p. 54), liberal feminism has been the most
generally accepted and long-lasting of all feminisms due to its modern ter
minology and focus on legal terms and mainstream values (such as equal
access, equal opportunities and equal rights).
Simply by looking at the vast body of research regarding the ongoing
moral panic about boys’ underachievement in education (see Epstein et
al., 1998; Francis and Skelton, 2005; Ringrose, 2007, 2013), it would seem
that liberal feminism succeeded in its demands. The girls are discursive
ly positioned as the winners of today’s education systems and compared
with the boys as the losers on the other side of a binary opposition. By nar
rowing the focus of gender debate in education solely on performance,
65
with other “post” movements and to propose connections with the Third
Wave, as Rosalind Gill (2016: p. 612) reminds us. Highlighting the social
changes and the fact that feminism has a new visibility in popular cul
ture, Jessalynn Keller and Maureen Ryan call for new understandings on
the ways in which “emergent feminisms” pose a “challenge to postfeminist
media culture” (2015, in Gill, 2016: p. 611). They question the usefulness of
the concept of postfeminism in a world where feminism no longer seems
to be in retreat. Ann Brooks, meanwhile, understands postfeminism as
an “expression of a stage in the constant evolutionary movement of fem
inism /that/ has gained greater currency in recent years” and is now seen
as a “useful conceptual frame of reference encompassing the intersection
of feminism with a number of other anti-foundationalist movements in
cluding postmodernism, post-structuralism and post-colonialism” (2003:
p. 1). Angela McRobbie, on the other hand, defines it as a “gender regime”
undoing feminism (2009) or “an active process by which feminist gains
of the 1970s and 80s come to be undermined”, making feminism a “spent
force” (2004: p. 255). Building on this and answering to concerns voiced
by Keller and Ryan, Rosalind Gill, who defines postfeminism as a “sen
sibility, deeply enmeshed with neoliberalism” (2016: p. 611), sees its rele
vance as an analytical category and believes it has a lot to offer in reading
the current moment, aiming to show how some of the popular mediated
feminism circulating is distinctively postfeminist in nature (ibid.).
Focusing on postfeminism in education, Jessica Ringrose (2007)
shows how certain postfeminist discourses draw from liberal feminist
theory. Liberal feminism’s attention to equal rights was based on evi
dence of girls’ underachievement in education. It campaigned for change,
but change within the existing system and “with minimal disruption”
(Weiner, 1995: p. 67). The primary goal of liberal feminism has been to
alter attitudes, to change the treatment of girls in schools and to do so
using legal practices (Acker, 1994, in Kohli and Burbules, 2013: p. 84).
According to Weiner (1995: p. 54), liberal feminism has been the most
generally accepted and long-lasting of all feminisms due to its modern ter
minology and focus on legal terms and mainstream values (such as equal
access, equal opportunities and equal rights).
Simply by looking at the vast body of research regarding the ongoing
moral panic about boys’ underachievement in education (see Epstein et
al., 1998; Francis and Skelton, 2005; Ringrose, 2007, 2013), it would seem
that liberal feminism succeeded in its demands. The girls are discursive
ly positioned as the winners of today’s education systems and compared
with the boys as the losers on the other side of a binary opposition. By nar
rowing the focus of gender debate in education solely on performance,
65
