Page 74 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, št. 3-4: K paradigmam raziskovanja vzgoje in izobraževanja, ur. Valerija Vendramin
P. 74
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 3–4
positive meanings and falsely positioning them as liberating to women. In
this sense, postfeminism undermines feminist ethics.
Nonetheless, there is a potential to transform postfeminism to a no
tion that embraces the work of feminist foremothers and builds a strong
foundation for the future of feminism, providing we understand it as a
conceptual tool and use it accordingly. This process does not call for a
redefinition of postfeminism and the end result most certainly is not a
new, renamed version of the concept. It simply marks a different episte
mological approach to the concept of postfeminism, defined by a critical
reflection of gendered structural mechanisms of inequality it perpetuates.
Transtemporal interaction seems particularly useful here, since it reminds
us of precisely those core feminist values and ethics that have been forgot
ten in postfeminism. It can help us understand that patriarchy is sadly not
a thing of our past, but rather very much the present state of our society.
Focusing on the field of education specifically, transtemporal interaction
can help us grasp how the dominant gendered educational discourse cre
ates divides and isolates particular groups of students as the most margin
alised as a means for competing for educational resources (see Ringrose,
2013). Transtemporal interaction utilises postfeminism as an analytical
category, and such an outlook can serve as a gateway to thinking about
the ways the future can be different.
One way this can be done is by establishing transgenerational conti
nuity and actively engaging in the conversations about key feminist eth
ics. Yes, feminism is an umbrella term that incorporates different – in
deed often opposing – schools of thought, as Becky Francis (2001: p. 162)
argues. However, she goes on to say that “there remain unifying themes
central to all feminist perspectives” (ibid.) and that these are the ones we
need to keep in mind. Francis lists some of them: “a concern with gen
der; a perception of women as generally disadvantaged in gender relations
(while often viewing men as requiring liberation too); a perception of this
gender inequality as wrong; and consequently an aim to change things for
the better” (ibid.). Kavka (2002: p. 33), meanwhile, argues that this inher
ent appeal to ethics is precisely the reason why feminism cannot have a
linear history and should be understood as a name “for the pursuit of jus
tice, unifying the multiple histories of particular struggles that sometimes
overlap with and sometimes work against one another.” In the context of
transtemporal interaction, that is by keeping in mind the underlying eth
ics, common goals and values of cooperation, postfeminism can be recon
ceptualised to become a fusion of “different spaces and moments, history
and futuricity of feminist engagements with education /…/ used to trou
ble our ideas about what feminism has been, is and can be in relation to
72
positive meanings and falsely positioning them as liberating to women. In
this sense, postfeminism undermines feminist ethics.
Nonetheless, there is a potential to transform postfeminism to a no
tion that embraces the work of feminist foremothers and builds a strong
foundation for the future of feminism, providing we understand it as a
conceptual tool and use it accordingly. This process does not call for a
redefinition of postfeminism and the end result most certainly is not a
new, renamed version of the concept. It simply marks a different episte
mological approach to the concept of postfeminism, defined by a critical
reflection of gendered structural mechanisms of inequality it perpetuates.
Transtemporal interaction seems particularly useful here, since it reminds
us of precisely those core feminist values and ethics that have been forgot
ten in postfeminism. It can help us understand that patriarchy is sadly not
a thing of our past, but rather very much the present state of our society.
Focusing on the field of education specifically, transtemporal interaction
can help us grasp how the dominant gendered educational discourse cre
ates divides and isolates particular groups of students as the most margin
alised as a means for competing for educational resources (see Ringrose,
2013). Transtemporal interaction utilises postfeminism as an analytical
category, and such an outlook can serve as a gateway to thinking about
the ways the future can be different.
One way this can be done is by establishing transgenerational conti
nuity and actively engaging in the conversations about key feminist eth
ics. Yes, feminism is an umbrella term that incorporates different – in
deed often opposing – schools of thought, as Becky Francis (2001: p. 162)
argues. However, she goes on to say that “there remain unifying themes
central to all feminist perspectives” (ibid.) and that these are the ones we
need to keep in mind. Francis lists some of them: “a concern with gen
der; a perception of women as generally disadvantaged in gender relations
(while often viewing men as requiring liberation too); a perception of this
gender inequality as wrong; and consequently an aim to change things for
the better” (ibid.). Kavka (2002: p. 33), meanwhile, argues that this inher
ent appeal to ethics is precisely the reason why feminism cannot have a
linear history and should be understood as a name “for the pursuit of jus
tice, unifying the multiple histories of particular struggles that sometimes
overlap with and sometimes work against one another.” In the context of
transtemporal interaction, that is by keeping in mind the underlying eth
ics, common goals and values of cooperation, postfeminism can be recon
ceptualised to become a fusion of “different spaces and moments, history
and futuricity of feminist engagements with education /…/ used to trou
ble our ideas about what feminism has been, is and can be in relation to
72
