Page 73 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, št. 3-4: K paradigmam raziskovanja vzgoje in izobraževanja, ur. Valerija Vendramin
P. 73
a. mladenović ■ conceptualising postfeminisim
fellow feminists and looking back at the complex tradition of the Second
Wave, it becomes evident that the foundations of postfeminist ideology
are problematic.
One example of this can be observed in the field of education, where
gender-binary conceptions of educational achievement are “easily recu
perated into individualizing neo-liberal discourses of educational equal
ity, and consistently conceal how issues of achievement in school are re
lated to issues of class, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship and location”
(Ringrose, 2007: p. 471). This sentiment goes against some of the core
feminist ideas and goals, as discussed in the works of prominent authors
such as Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991) and Patricia Hill Collins (1990), who
formulated and utilised the important – but nowadays unfortunately
somewhat overused and often misinterpreted4 – concept of intersection
ality. The postfeminist climate creates concerns about virtually every as
pect of educational experience and outcomes, focusing on issues of agen
cy and choice, success, aggression, sexuality, and sexualisation in schools.
None of these are subject to critical assessment, because postfeminism
fails to take into account gendered relations of power, instead making
judgements and creating moral panic.
By engaging in transtemporal interaction, we make sure to always
keep in mind the important feminist legacy but also to constantly ques
tion it. In this sense it is not just a process of adopting, but rather a genera
tive practice. If we lose touch with the feminist past, if we fail to cooperate
with contemporary feminists and to engage in conversations with young
feminists, we actively hurt the future of feminism. The result of trans
temporal interaction is a complex conglomerate of various feminist reflec
tions, mindful of core feminist ethics. But what exactly are these?
The goal of feminist ethics is to eliminate or at least alleviate the
oppression of any group of people, but most particularly women (Jaggar,
1992). Emancipation and empowerment are thus desired outcomes.
Breanne Fahs, for example, wrote that one of the most troubling and dan
gerous patterns is the cultural tendency to twist and corrupt empower
ment discourses, making them become clichéd, commodified, detri
mental and ultimately disempowering (2011, in Gill, 2016: pp. 623–624).
Postfeminism does just that. It restructures the relations and practices es
tablished as patriarchal in the Second Wave by ascribing to them new,
4 For an insightful thematisation of the current use of the concept, see Sara Salem’s (2016)
text on intersectionality as travelling theory. Her thoughts on the subject are an excellent
example of what transtemporal interaction as a generative practice entails – it is not simply
about adopting a certain concept and using it without criticism, but rather truly under
standing what our feminist foremothers had in mind and then building on it.
71
fellow feminists and looking back at the complex tradition of the Second
Wave, it becomes evident that the foundations of postfeminist ideology
are problematic.
One example of this can be observed in the field of education, where
gender-binary conceptions of educational achievement are “easily recu
perated into individualizing neo-liberal discourses of educational equal
ity, and consistently conceal how issues of achievement in school are re
lated to issues of class, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship and location”
(Ringrose, 2007: p. 471). This sentiment goes against some of the core
feminist ideas and goals, as discussed in the works of prominent authors
such as Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991) and Patricia Hill Collins (1990), who
formulated and utilised the important – but nowadays unfortunately
somewhat overused and often misinterpreted4 – concept of intersection
ality. The postfeminist climate creates concerns about virtually every as
pect of educational experience and outcomes, focusing on issues of agen
cy and choice, success, aggression, sexuality, and sexualisation in schools.
None of these are subject to critical assessment, because postfeminism
fails to take into account gendered relations of power, instead making
judgements and creating moral panic.
By engaging in transtemporal interaction, we make sure to always
keep in mind the important feminist legacy but also to constantly ques
tion it. In this sense it is not just a process of adopting, but rather a genera
tive practice. If we lose touch with the feminist past, if we fail to cooperate
with contemporary feminists and to engage in conversations with young
feminists, we actively hurt the future of feminism. The result of trans
temporal interaction is a complex conglomerate of various feminist reflec
tions, mindful of core feminist ethics. But what exactly are these?
The goal of feminist ethics is to eliminate or at least alleviate the
oppression of any group of people, but most particularly women (Jaggar,
1992). Emancipation and empowerment are thus desired outcomes.
Breanne Fahs, for example, wrote that one of the most troubling and dan
gerous patterns is the cultural tendency to twist and corrupt empower
ment discourses, making them become clichéd, commodified, detri
mental and ultimately disempowering (2011, in Gill, 2016: pp. 623–624).
Postfeminism does just that. It restructures the relations and practices es
tablished as patriarchal in the Second Wave by ascribing to them new,
4 For an insightful thematisation of the current use of the concept, see Sara Salem’s (2016)
text on intersectionality as travelling theory. Her thoughts on the subject are an excellent
example of what transtemporal interaction as a generative practice entails – it is not simply
about adopting a certain concept and using it without criticism, but rather truly under
standing what our feminist foremothers had in mind and then building on it.
71
