Page 81 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, št. 3-4: K paradigmam raziskovanja vzgoje in izobraževanja, ur. Valerija Vendramin
P. 81
v. vendramin ■ celebrities, consumerism, empowerment ...
Celebrities, Individualism and Consumerism
Feminism changed pop culture and media and it even, as writes Andy
Zeisler, got cool and, perhaps even more importantly, sellable. It is no
longer dismissed “in the realm of the angry, the cynical, the man-hating,
and the off-puttingly hairy” (Zeisler, 2017).5 This is a recent development
indeed, as some years ago we were still hearing the somehow hidden but
nevertheless present aversion and/or unease with the word itself.
These changes might be, at least partly, attributable to the so called
“celebrity feminism”, which—yes—did put the word feminism on the
map, but often in a much watered-down form, like one of the best known
celebrity feminists, Beyoncé,6 and some others who were previously per
haps better known for
their expression of postfeminist attitudes and disavowal of the need for
or importance of feminism, now publically embrace the label “feminist”.
Each have gone from expressing their concerns over what being a “femi
nist” entails, whilst simultaneously extolling the virtues of “girl power” or
women’s economic success and independence and thus aligning them
selves with a distinctly postfeminist sentiment, to publicly embracing
and promoting, if not entirely unproblematically, a feminist cause (Riv
ers, 2017: p. 7).7
It hardly requires mentioning that the main hue of this kind of fem
inism is economic success (which is indeed important), but, at the same
time, feminism is becoming a marketing tool and a trademark, not avail
able to all.8 This is, by the way, the point where Chimamanda Ngozi
Adichie’s work has gone wrong: her book We Should all be Feminists
5 I am unable to give page numbers because I am using the Kindle edition. This goes for all
references to Andi Zeisler and Sara Ahmed.
6 The theme of Beyoncé and feminism is present in virtually every single debate on celebrity
feminism: is she or isn’t she a true/good enough/etc. feminist or is she just a “feminist lite”?
I cannot go deeper into this because it would need a separate essay and is well beyond the
scope of this article.
7 This is not to say that individual celebrities might not genuinely care about feminism, it is
just that “their knowledge of actual feminist issues is inversely proportional to the reach
of their voices”, says Andi Zeisler (2017). It could be also argued, as Nicola Rivers does
(2017: p. 59), that there just might be exceptions to this rule and that Andi Zeisler’s view on
the role that celebrity feminism is playing in shaping the current resurgence of interest in
feminism is somewhat limited. It remains to be seen what kind of image of feminism will
emerge from this.
8 As says Nicola Rivers: “Thus the focus of such feminism is invariably on individual experi
ences and women’s ‘potential’, rather than an analysis of what may limit or restrict such po
tential, insisting that women adapt to a one-size-fits-all feminism instead of promoting an
understanding of feminism and women’s success that is broad enough to accommodate a
multiplicity of women” (Rivers, 2017: p. 62).
79
Celebrities, Individualism and Consumerism
Feminism changed pop culture and media and it even, as writes Andy
Zeisler, got cool and, perhaps even more importantly, sellable. It is no
longer dismissed “in the realm of the angry, the cynical, the man-hating,
and the off-puttingly hairy” (Zeisler, 2017).5 This is a recent development
indeed, as some years ago we were still hearing the somehow hidden but
nevertheless present aversion and/or unease with the word itself.
These changes might be, at least partly, attributable to the so called
“celebrity feminism”, which—yes—did put the word feminism on the
map, but often in a much watered-down form, like one of the best known
celebrity feminists, Beyoncé,6 and some others who were previously per
haps better known for
their expression of postfeminist attitudes and disavowal of the need for
or importance of feminism, now publically embrace the label “feminist”.
Each have gone from expressing their concerns over what being a “femi
nist” entails, whilst simultaneously extolling the virtues of “girl power” or
women’s economic success and independence and thus aligning them
selves with a distinctly postfeminist sentiment, to publicly embracing
and promoting, if not entirely unproblematically, a feminist cause (Riv
ers, 2017: p. 7).7
It hardly requires mentioning that the main hue of this kind of fem
inism is economic success (which is indeed important), but, at the same
time, feminism is becoming a marketing tool and a trademark, not avail
able to all.8 This is, by the way, the point where Chimamanda Ngozi
Adichie’s work has gone wrong: her book We Should all be Feminists
5 I am unable to give page numbers because I am using the Kindle edition. This goes for all
references to Andi Zeisler and Sara Ahmed.
6 The theme of Beyoncé and feminism is present in virtually every single debate on celebrity
feminism: is she or isn’t she a true/good enough/etc. feminist or is she just a “feminist lite”?
I cannot go deeper into this because it would need a separate essay and is well beyond the
scope of this article.
7 This is not to say that individual celebrities might not genuinely care about feminism, it is
just that “their knowledge of actual feminist issues is inversely proportional to the reach
of their voices”, says Andi Zeisler (2017). It could be also argued, as Nicola Rivers does
(2017: p. 59), that there just might be exceptions to this rule and that Andi Zeisler’s view on
the role that celebrity feminism is playing in shaping the current resurgence of interest in
feminism is somewhat limited. It remains to be seen what kind of image of feminism will
emerge from this.
8 As says Nicola Rivers: “Thus the focus of such feminism is invariably on individual experi
ences and women’s ‘potential’, rather than an analysis of what may limit or restrict such po
tential, insisting that women adapt to a one-size-fits-all feminism instead of promoting an
understanding of feminism and women’s success that is broad enough to accommodate a
multiplicity of women” (Rivers, 2017: p. 62).
79
