Page 69 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, št. 3-4: K paradigmam raziskovanja vzgoje in izobraževanja, ur. Valerija Vendramin
P. 69
a. mladenović ■ conceptualising postfeminisim
transcends the need for gender equality – that is, as a quality of post-gen
dered society, rendering feminist ideas obsolete –, we define it as an ideal
towards which to strive. It is unfortunately apparent that contemporary
society is far from this ideal and at times seems to be drifting even fur
ther from it. Postfeminism, if conceptualised in its temporal form, can
not be understood as anything else but a historical break with feminism
and thus signifies the end of feminism as we know it. However, as Kavka
reminds us, the problem with such conceptualisation is that feminism is
not dead, though specific projects of feminism might have come and gone.
Feminism today is very much alive, and we know this “not least from the
existence of the very debates about the meaning of ‘postfeminism’” (ibid.:
p. 31).
By moving past a teleological understanding of feminist history,
postfeminism is seen neither as a continuation of feminism nor as a his
torical break with it: it is not a new wave or the next phase, but rather be
comes something else entirely. Defining postfeminism ontologically, it is
the reflexivity about core feminist values, investments and goals that come
to the fore. Nevertheless, even when focusing on substance alone, the very
meaning of postfeminism is highly contentious, as Kavka (2002: p. 32)
argues:
The media has claimed it for the ‘backlash’ girls of conservative fem
inism; the Third Wave claims it for a younger generation of culturally
savvy feminists /…/ ; poststructuralist academic feminists claim it for a
pluralistic theoretical feminism that repudiates the supposed essential
ism of the second wave; and ‘I’m not a feminist but...’ latecomers often
claim it for a performatively wry and even light-hearted attitude to the
self-serving proclamations of the masculine order. In social terms, there
is also the complicitous form of ‘postfeminism’, in which women’s sense
of empowerment is tied directly into what could be called old patriarchal
institutions /…/ The most worrying definition of ‘postfeminism’, howev
er, belongs to that group of mostly younger women /…/ who believe that
feminism has already done its work by achieving as much social equality
for women in the home and workplace as one could hope or even wish
for.
If we focus on “the most worrying” (ibid.) definition, the one po
sitioning postfeminism in relation to feminism, it becomes evident that
feminism cannot be understood as redundant in today’s society. On the
contrary, what contests this notion that feminism is no longer needed is
precisely the new visibility and prominence of feminism. Emergent femi
nist issues, celebrity-sponsored campaigns (such as HeForShe), and topics
67
transcends the need for gender equality – that is, as a quality of post-gen
dered society, rendering feminist ideas obsolete –, we define it as an ideal
towards which to strive. It is unfortunately apparent that contemporary
society is far from this ideal and at times seems to be drifting even fur
ther from it. Postfeminism, if conceptualised in its temporal form, can
not be understood as anything else but a historical break with feminism
and thus signifies the end of feminism as we know it. However, as Kavka
reminds us, the problem with such conceptualisation is that feminism is
not dead, though specific projects of feminism might have come and gone.
Feminism today is very much alive, and we know this “not least from the
existence of the very debates about the meaning of ‘postfeminism’” (ibid.:
p. 31).
By moving past a teleological understanding of feminist history,
postfeminism is seen neither as a continuation of feminism nor as a his
torical break with it: it is not a new wave or the next phase, but rather be
comes something else entirely. Defining postfeminism ontologically, it is
the reflexivity about core feminist values, investments and goals that come
to the fore. Nevertheless, even when focusing on substance alone, the very
meaning of postfeminism is highly contentious, as Kavka (2002: p. 32)
argues:
The media has claimed it for the ‘backlash’ girls of conservative fem
inism; the Third Wave claims it for a younger generation of culturally
savvy feminists /…/ ; poststructuralist academic feminists claim it for a
pluralistic theoretical feminism that repudiates the supposed essential
ism of the second wave; and ‘I’m not a feminist but...’ latecomers often
claim it for a performatively wry and even light-hearted attitude to the
self-serving proclamations of the masculine order. In social terms, there
is also the complicitous form of ‘postfeminism’, in which women’s sense
of empowerment is tied directly into what could be called old patriarchal
institutions /…/ The most worrying definition of ‘postfeminism’, howev
er, belongs to that group of mostly younger women /…/ who believe that
feminism has already done its work by achieving as much social equality
for women in the home and workplace as one could hope or even wish
for.
If we focus on “the most worrying” (ibid.) definition, the one po
sitioning postfeminism in relation to feminism, it becomes evident that
feminism cannot be understood as redundant in today’s society. On the
contrary, what contests this notion that feminism is no longer needed is
precisely the new visibility and prominence of feminism. Emergent femi
nist issues, celebrity-sponsored campaigns (such as HeForShe), and topics
67
