Page 24 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 24
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
teachers) or a sexist incident? The answer to the question was to be pro-
vided through a debate between the protesting group, the faculty’s lead-
ership and the student group that had made the poster. Answering the
question is not of our main concern here as we are more interested in the
conditions and settings in which the public debate was held, especially the
positionality of the table around which the debate was held. In the words
of S. Ahmed, we approach the table as an institution’s “orientation device
that keeps things in place” (Ahmed, 2006a, p. 134). It does so by providing
the ways in which the seats are taken up, thus the ways in which the po-
sitions of speaking up and the potential of being (un)heard were distrib-
uted and written into the institutional space even before the debate had
taken place. Put differently, in the public debate, the seats were distribut-
ed as an extension of institutional orientation (towards sexisms and fem-
inisms). The leadership – representing institution by delegation, incorpo-
rating institutional signs that act as “calls to order” (Bourdieu, 1991, p.
123) – was placed in a frontal-lecturing way alongside the general student
group, while the protesting group was placed in front of them, facing the
institution, its walls, barriers and its representative actors as if in in a hear-
ing, in defence.
It was a feminist stance, the protest against sexism – rather than
masculine domination and sexism – that needed to defend itself. Thus,
the question mentioned before was silently answered before any speak-
ing took place: the poster is a joke, misunderstood as sexism by lesbians.
Despite the table being round-shaped, the way the actors gathered around
it – the positionality of the table and agents’ orientation towards the table
– revealed the sharp edges of institutional power relations. It made visi-
ble “the surface of institutional space” (Ahmed, 2006a, p. 113) alongside its
hidden depth, usually covered up by lip servicing to gender equality at the
level of speeches and recommendations8 that do not (necessarily) translate
into concrete institutional practices (see also Murray, 2018) and as such
primarily serve as “institutional success stories” (Ahmed, 2012, p. 10) that
hide the “permanence in and through change” (Bourdieu, 2001, p. 91).
The anecdote of the poster affair makes visible the following: 1) the
“chilly climate” of the institutional setting9 (David, 2014, p. 174) in which
feminist practices take roots; and 2) reservations towards feminism by the
8 S. Ahmed (2006b) calls such institutional speech acts that do not do what they say, name
and commit to (i.e. gender equality, antiracism) nonperformatives. Not only they fail to enact
what they say, these speech acts also hinder or disable the recognition of still-persisting prob-
lems (i.e. gender inequality, racism).
9 Despite academic field enjoying a relative autonomy, it is still significantly shaped by “exter-
nal forces expressing themselves according to the specific logic effective inside this space”
(Bourdieu, 2020, p. 237).
22
teachers) or a sexist incident? The answer to the question was to be pro-
vided through a debate between the protesting group, the faculty’s lead-
ership and the student group that had made the poster. Answering the
question is not of our main concern here as we are more interested in the
conditions and settings in which the public debate was held, especially the
positionality of the table around which the debate was held. In the words
of S. Ahmed, we approach the table as an institution’s “orientation device
that keeps things in place” (Ahmed, 2006a, p. 134). It does so by providing
the ways in which the seats are taken up, thus the ways in which the po-
sitions of speaking up and the potential of being (un)heard were distrib-
uted and written into the institutional space even before the debate had
taken place. Put differently, in the public debate, the seats were distribut-
ed as an extension of institutional orientation (towards sexisms and fem-
inisms). The leadership – representing institution by delegation, incorpo-
rating institutional signs that act as “calls to order” (Bourdieu, 1991, p.
123) – was placed in a frontal-lecturing way alongside the general student
group, while the protesting group was placed in front of them, facing the
institution, its walls, barriers and its representative actors as if in in a hear-
ing, in defence.
It was a feminist stance, the protest against sexism – rather than
masculine domination and sexism – that needed to defend itself. Thus,
the question mentioned before was silently answered before any speak-
ing took place: the poster is a joke, misunderstood as sexism by lesbians.
Despite the table being round-shaped, the way the actors gathered around
it – the positionality of the table and agents’ orientation towards the table
– revealed the sharp edges of institutional power relations. It made visi-
ble “the surface of institutional space” (Ahmed, 2006a, p. 113) alongside its
hidden depth, usually covered up by lip servicing to gender equality at the
level of speeches and recommendations8 that do not (necessarily) translate
into concrete institutional practices (see also Murray, 2018) and as such
primarily serve as “institutional success stories” (Ahmed, 2012, p. 10) that
hide the “permanence in and through change” (Bourdieu, 2001, p. 91).
The anecdote of the poster affair makes visible the following: 1) the
“chilly climate” of the institutional setting9 (David, 2014, p. 174) in which
feminist practices take roots; and 2) reservations towards feminism by the
8 S. Ahmed (2006b) calls such institutional speech acts that do not do what they say, name
and commit to (i.e. gender equality, antiracism) nonperformatives. Not only they fail to enact
what they say, these speech acts also hinder or disable the recognition of still-persisting prob-
lems (i.e. gender inequality, racism).
9 Despite academic field enjoying a relative autonomy, it is still significantly shaped by “exter-
nal forces expressing themselves according to the specific logic effective inside this space”
(Bourdieu, 2020, p. 237).
22
