Page 70 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, št. 3-4: K paradigmam raziskovanja vzgoje in izobraževanja, ur. Valerija Vendramin
P. 70
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 3–4

of sexism and sexual harassment (culminating in the #metoo movement)
are all prominently featured in the media, and so are two specific versions
of feminism that Gill (2016: p. 616–617) names “celebrity and style fem­
inism” and “corporate or neoliberal feminism”, which offers work on the
self as a solution to injustice, diminishing the significance of mutual coop­
eration in achieving social and political transformation. But even though
feminism is currently a popular term, or – perhaps better – precisely be­
cause of that, we have to be aware of the fact that “alongside all these dif­
ferent iterations of contemporary feminism is an equally popular misog­
yny” (ibid.: p. 616). This is why we have to think about the nature and
values of these newly visible forms of feminism, and the ethics behind
them, while also keeping in mind the ever-present misogynies. And it is
here that a notion of postfeminism could prove itself useful, providing we
understand it as “an object of critical feminist analysis” (Gill and Scharff,
2011: p. 4) and a critical analytical category, designed to capture empirical
regularities in the world (Gill, 2016: p. 621).

As such, postfeminism is an object of analysis, not a position or a per­
spective (ibid.). It can be understood as a “set of dominant discourses that
infuse and shape the zeitgeist of contemporary culture” (Ringrose, 2013:
p. 5), rather than a continuation of feminism or a new version of it. If we
define postfeminism in these terms rather than focusing on its teleolog­
ical dimension, we can better understand and critically examine certain
postfeminist trends embedded in the field of education. These position
girls as the winners of globalisation and promote notions of female pow­
er and success (Ringrose, 2013). The “new sexual contract” (McRobbie,
2007) constructs girls as subjects of capacity. By entering the public
sphere, women and girls become the object of government attention and
concern, while being addressed as though they are already “gender aware”,
as a result of equal opportunities policies in the education system. With
this presumed feminist influence behind them, they are expected to be in­
dependent and self-reliant (Budgeon, 2001; Harris, 2004, in McRobbie,
2007: pp. 722–723). These female individualisation processes entail con­
stant self-monitoring and require that young women put themselves at the
centre of attention (McRobbie, 2007: p. 723). Women are thus “intensive­
ly managed subject/s/ of post-feminist, gender-aware biopolitical practic­
es of new governmentality” (Rose, 1999, in ibid.).

The postfeminist discourse about “girl power” (Ringrose, 2007)
claims that girls now have the capacity to do, be and have anything they
want – if only they invest enough personal effort (Pomerantz and Raby,
2011: p. 550). Successful girls are offered as convincing evidence that girls
today are not limited by structural constraints and gender inequality

68
   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75