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
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
