Page 17 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 17
n. perger, m. mencin, v. tašner. ■ teaching feminism ...
integrated at the level of curriculum throughout higher education and
how are these feminist practices perceived at the level of “intra-institu-
tional” everyday life, that is, how do they cope with and within the insti-
tutions of higher education that are marked and burdened by gendered
power relations. To answer this, a brief sketch of the social conditions that
shape feminist practices and movements is needed.
Teaching Feminism: A Brief Introduction to Uneasiness, Dilemmas,
Obstacles
Feminists often criticise academic feminism as if it has lost sight of actual
human relations; that theory is no longer tied to the feminist movement
and that it “even undermines the feminist movement via depoliticization”
(hooks, 2000, p. 22). bell hooks, for example, claims that by the late 1980s
in the feminist thinking:
/p/ractice received less attention than theory that was metalinguistic,
creating exclusive jargon; it was written solely for an academic audience.
/... / It was as if a large body of feminist thinkers banded together to form
an elite group writing theory that could be understood only by an “in”
crowd. Women and men outside the academic domain were no longer
considered an important audience (hooks, 2000, p. 22).
In short, academic feminism is often seen as a betrayal of the femi-
nist movement.
However, differences, discrepancies, divergences and splits exist not
simply between institutionalised feminism and feminist movements, but
also within academic feminism and within feminist movements. They
concern conceptualisations of sex, gender and gender identity and its con-
stitution; understanding of the subject, i.e. a woman; understanding the
relationship between equality and differences, inequality and sameness,
between different axes of subordination (e.g. class/race/ethnicity/sexual
orientation/gender); epistemology and research methods; strategies and
tactics to realise gender equity. These differences/discrepancies/divergen
ces/splits are also reflected in the field’s naming: sociology of gender, an-
thropology of gender, psychology of gender; women’s studies, gender studies,
feminist theory. Changing the field’s name to Gender Studies, for example,
reflects “the expansion of the field’s objects of study,” but also represents
“a loss of its founding feminist ideals” (Wiegman, 2016, p. 86). Namely,
Gender Studies, as Wiegman points out, is often considered (even in ac-
ademic discussions) as “an alternative to Women’s Studies, undermining
the primacy of women as the field’s proper object of study” (Wiegman,
15
integrated at the level of curriculum throughout higher education and
how are these feminist practices perceived at the level of “intra-institu-
tional” everyday life, that is, how do they cope with and within the insti-
tutions of higher education that are marked and burdened by gendered
power relations. To answer this, a brief sketch of the social conditions that
shape feminist practices and movements is needed.
Teaching Feminism: A Brief Introduction to Uneasiness, Dilemmas,
Obstacles
Feminists often criticise academic feminism as if it has lost sight of actual
human relations; that theory is no longer tied to the feminist movement
and that it “even undermines the feminist movement via depoliticization”
(hooks, 2000, p. 22). bell hooks, for example, claims that by the late 1980s
in the feminist thinking:
/p/ractice received less attention than theory that was metalinguistic,
creating exclusive jargon; it was written solely for an academic audience.
/... / It was as if a large body of feminist thinkers banded together to form
an elite group writing theory that could be understood only by an “in”
crowd. Women and men outside the academic domain were no longer
considered an important audience (hooks, 2000, p. 22).
In short, academic feminism is often seen as a betrayal of the femi-
nist movement.
However, differences, discrepancies, divergences and splits exist not
simply between institutionalised feminism and feminist movements, but
also within academic feminism and within feminist movements. They
concern conceptualisations of sex, gender and gender identity and its con-
stitution; understanding of the subject, i.e. a woman; understanding the
relationship between equality and differences, inequality and sameness,
between different axes of subordination (e.g. class/race/ethnicity/sexual
orientation/gender); epistemology and research methods; strategies and
tactics to realise gender equity. These differences/discrepancies/divergen
ces/splits are also reflected in the field’s naming: sociology of gender, an-
thropology of gender, psychology of gender; women’s studies, gender studies,
feminist theory. Changing the field’s name to Gender Studies, for example,
reflects “the expansion of the field’s objects of study,” but also represents
“a loss of its founding feminist ideals” (Wiegman, 2016, p. 86). Namely,
Gender Studies, as Wiegman points out, is often considered (even in ac-
ademic discussions) as “an alternative to Women’s Studies, undermining
the primacy of women as the field’s proper object of study” (Wiegman,
15
