Page 26 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 26
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
from accessible to everyone within academia: “other feminists in the same
situation might stay because they cannot afford to leave” (Ahmed, 2016b).
However, the first two responses as discussed by Murray (2018) can
be approached as two sides of the same coin as feminist resistance to and
in the educational setting and its baggage of masculine domination in-
volves both managing the challenging as well as challenging the manag-
ing. Namely, as another similar study shows (Perger, 2016), it is impor-
tant to recognise the toll that challenging and resistance takes and the
strategic,12 almost instant adjustments of resistant practices to situation-
al circumstances, such as particular power relations (i.e. challenging the
faculty’s dean or a colleague) in a given situation and the nature of the ob-
viousness of the problem at stake which may make it easier or harder for
a killjoy to pinpoint a problem. Thus, managing the challenging refers to
shielding oneself from being constituted as a problem due to the naming
and exposing of a problem (Ahmed, 2015) that happens within a “stuck
place” (Lipton & Mackinlay, 2017, p. 86), in a moment of hesitation, not
only in relation to institutional agents but also in relation to the student
population, where (feminist) lecturers may take into account the “spec-
tre of bad student feedback” that is hanging over the classroom (Murray,
2018, p. 168), the threat of students’ “dissatisfaction”, which may discour-
age killjoys from (fully) challenging students’ taken-for-granted attitudes
to gender. It contains a situationally-adjusted feminist toolbox, ranging
from raised eyebrows and a cynical smile through to direct confrontation.
Despite functioning as a shielding strategy aimed at providing conditions
that enable feminist resistance without risking too much, managing the
challenging may at the same time constitute feelings of guilt, of constant
self-surveillance, feelings of not being (vocal, resistant, persistent) enough
and/or feelings of being too much (self-managed, self-disciplined and
self-silenced) (see also Lipton & Mackinlay, 2017, pp. 85–113). Thus, man-
aging the challenging may prove to be an issue due to the “after-effects of
silencing”: “I should have stood up, I should have said more, I should have
opened my mouth” (ibid., p. 71). Stated differently, it may lead to a par-
ticular kind of an (activist) imposter syndrome (Murray, 2018, p. 173).
The conditions which make it practically reasonable for feminist
killjoys to manage one’s feminist practices of resistance in order to avoid
various kinds of sanctions, that is, the conditions “making unbearable /of/
the consequences of not willing what someone wills you to will” (Ahmed,
2014, p. 55) are those that need to be challenged. It is these conditions that
12 We refer to the “strategic” element of one’s practices in a Bourdieusian sense, meaning a prac-
tical reason, a feel for the game rather than a conscious calculation (Bourdieu, 2008, p. 159).
24
from accessible to everyone within academia: “other feminists in the same
situation might stay because they cannot afford to leave” (Ahmed, 2016b).
However, the first two responses as discussed by Murray (2018) can
be approached as two sides of the same coin as feminist resistance to and
in the educational setting and its baggage of masculine domination in-
volves both managing the challenging as well as challenging the manag-
ing. Namely, as another similar study shows (Perger, 2016), it is impor-
tant to recognise the toll that challenging and resistance takes and the
strategic,12 almost instant adjustments of resistant practices to situation-
al circumstances, such as particular power relations (i.e. challenging the
faculty’s dean or a colleague) in a given situation and the nature of the ob-
viousness of the problem at stake which may make it easier or harder for
a killjoy to pinpoint a problem. Thus, managing the challenging refers to
shielding oneself from being constituted as a problem due to the naming
and exposing of a problem (Ahmed, 2015) that happens within a “stuck
place” (Lipton & Mackinlay, 2017, p. 86), in a moment of hesitation, not
only in relation to institutional agents but also in relation to the student
population, where (feminist) lecturers may take into account the “spec-
tre of bad student feedback” that is hanging over the classroom (Murray,
2018, p. 168), the threat of students’ “dissatisfaction”, which may discour-
age killjoys from (fully) challenging students’ taken-for-granted attitudes
to gender. It contains a situationally-adjusted feminist toolbox, ranging
from raised eyebrows and a cynical smile through to direct confrontation.
Despite functioning as a shielding strategy aimed at providing conditions
that enable feminist resistance without risking too much, managing the
challenging may at the same time constitute feelings of guilt, of constant
self-surveillance, feelings of not being (vocal, resistant, persistent) enough
and/or feelings of being too much (self-managed, self-disciplined and
self-silenced) (see also Lipton & Mackinlay, 2017, pp. 85–113). Thus, man-
aging the challenging may prove to be an issue due to the “after-effects of
silencing”: “I should have stood up, I should have said more, I should have
opened my mouth” (ibid., p. 71). Stated differently, it may lead to a par-
ticular kind of an (activist) imposter syndrome (Murray, 2018, p. 173).
The conditions which make it practically reasonable for feminist
killjoys to manage one’s feminist practices of resistance in order to avoid
various kinds of sanctions, that is, the conditions “making unbearable /of/
the consequences of not willing what someone wills you to will” (Ahmed,
2014, p. 55) are those that need to be challenged. It is these conditions that
12 We refer to the “strategic” element of one’s practices in a Bourdieusian sense, meaning a prac-
tical reason, a feel for the game rather than a conscious calculation (Bourdieu, 2008, p. 159).
24
