Page 75 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, št. 3-4: K paradigmam raziskovanja vzgoje in izobraževanja, ur. Valerija Vendramin
P. 75
a. mladenović ■ conceptualising postfeminisim
the sexual politics of education and schooling”, as Ringrose (2013: p. 5) so
aptly puts it.
Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to point out some of the inconsistencies that
arise if we define feminism and postfeminism exclusively in temporal
terms. This does not mean, however, that the idea of “transgeneration
al continuity” within feminism as van der Tuin (2015) conceptualises it
is inconceivable in any way. On the contrary, it is essential precisely be
cause it allows us to build upon the teleological understanding of fem
inist history. Feminist history can be utilised as a platform for creating
a feminist future, defined primarily by feminist ethics and characterised
by the diversity of conceptual meanings. Such a future is inconceivable
without transgenerational continuity, which itself is not merely temporal
ly defined. Indeed it encompasses the need to pose feminist questions, to
search for answers, and to generate new ideas, fueled by the powerful fem
inist heritage.
Transtemporal interaction is a useful concept when examining the
history of feminism because it allows us to reconceptualise it in a way that
highlights the commonalities and differences in feminist ideas and re
minds us of basic feminist ethics, values and goals. It shifts focus from
temporality to substance, so that feminism can best be thought of as “mul
tiple practices that share historical links to an umbrella term” (Kavka,
2002: p. 33). In this light, the “post” in postfeminism becomes an emp
ty space, without a beginning or an end, telling us “not that feminism is
over but that it is out of time” (ibid.). Its history becomes something that
Kavka (ibid.) names an “ethical history”, a utopian rather than a temporal
history, “for feminism is and has been driven by the promise of the world
becoming a different place.”
By losing its temporal grounds, postfeminism gains the potential to
generate new meanings, especially when applied as a critical analytical cat
egory. Focusing on the field of education, this allows us to critically exam
ine and reflect upon the different gendered discourses positioning certain
groups of students as successful and others as in desperate need of help,
while ignoring the effect of structural inequalities on students’ lived ex
periences in school. Furthermore, applying postfeminism as a critical an
alytical category unmasks the intricate ways in which, as Ringrose (2013:
p. 139) says, certain presumptions of gender equality “obscure on-going is
sues of sexual difference and sexism” that girls and, indeed, all students ex
perience in the classroom and beyond.
73
the sexual politics of education and schooling”, as Ringrose (2013: p. 5) so
aptly puts it.
Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to point out some of the inconsistencies that
arise if we define feminism and postfeminism exclusively in temporal
terms. This does not mean, however, that the idea of “transgeneration
al continuity” within feminism as van der Tuin (2015) conceptualises it
is inconceivable in any way. On the contrary, it is essential precisely be
cause it allows us to build upon the teleological understanding of fem
inist history. Feminist history can be utilised as a platform for creating
a feminist future, defined primarily by feminist ethics and characterised
by the diversity of conceptual meanings. Such a future is inconceivable
without transgenerational continuity, which itself is not merely temporal
ly defined. Indeed it encompasses the need to pose feminist questions, to
search for answers, and to generate new ideas, fueled by the powerful fem
inist heritage.
Transtemporal interaction is a useful concept when examining the
history of feminism because it allows us to reconceptualise it in a way that
highlights the commonalities and differences in feminist ideas and re
minds us of basic feminist ethics, values and goals. It shifts focus from
temporality to substance, so that feminism can best be thought of as “mul
tiple practices that share historical links to an umbrella term” (Kavka,
2002: p. 33). In this light, the “post” in postfeminism becomes an emp
ty space, without a beginning or an end, telling us “not that feminism is
over but that it is out of time” (ibid.). Its history becomes something that
Kavka (ibid.) names an “ethical history”, a utopian rather than a temporal
history, “for feminism is and has been driven by the promise of the world
becoming a different place.”
By losing its temporal grounds, postfeminism gains the potential to
generate new meanings, especially when applied as a critical analytical cat
egory. Focusing on the field of education, this allows us to critically exam
ine and reflect upon the different gendered discourses positioning certain
groups of students as successful and others as in desperate need of help,
while ignoring the effect of structural inequalities on students’ lived ex
periences in school. Furthermore, applying postfeminism as a critical an
alytical category unmasks the intricate ways in which, as Ringrose (2013:
p. 139) says, certain presumptions of gender equality “obscure on-going is
sues of sexual difference and sexism” that girls and, indeed, all students ex
perience in the classroom and beyond.
73
