Page 46 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 46
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
profits on the subjugation and exploitation of human lives and devasta-
tion of the human environment, feminist engagement in its acts must un-
dergo a radical re-adjustment (Spivak, 2012) and transformative process.
In one of her articles against the threatening conjunction of femi-
nism and capitalism, Nancy Fraser (2013) draws attention to unfolding
the three contributions of feminism to neoliberal development. First, by
insisting on the goods of individual advancement, increased choices and
family wage, feminism has in fact helped with “flexible capitalism”, its de-
creasing job security, precarity and low-waged work, and female-headed
households. Second, by turning to identity politics and sexism, “politiciz-
ing the personal” and “rejecting economism” (ibid., 2013), feminism coin-
cides with the rising neoliberalism that is repressing both social equality
and all memory of social equality. Third, by its continuous critique of wel-
fare-state paternalism, feminism has contributed to free-market (corpo-
rate/financial) fundamentalism (via micro credits, among others), which
adds extremely to inequality and poverty, especially among women.
It is therefore no coincidence that Marxist feminism has become
all the more the domain for exploration in the Centre’s programme, and
shaped its syllabuses in the last few years. At the same time, it has become
a place of confusion and often misunderstanding since the Centre’s edu-
cators have not as a rule theoretically articulated this issue (Marxist politi-
cal economy, precisely), or been deeply tempted by more specific economic
inquiries that come out of neoliberal social realm(s). Since the programme
has been shaped more around the interests of both scholars and students,
mainly at the crossroads of cultural studies and feminist activism in a
wider sense, but against violence against women in particular, and phil-
osophical entries into the many venues of feminist knowledge, there are
new challenging concerns that must be discussed. Besides the problematic
points around “queering gender” and how it resonates with lesbian issues,
women-oriented agenda or patriarchy, for example, there are fresh trou-
bling questions that need to be answered.
How can we confront commodity feminism? How can we fight ce-
lebrity-branded feminism in which the voices of women emanate from
the celebrity machine based on generally unquestioned gender/sex ine-
quality? Or, how can we create feminist explanatory models that effec-
tively resist women’s job precarity are but some of these questions.
In this regard, a fruitful point of departure for feminism as critical
agency right now might involve how we can articulate the importance of
a subjugated perspective in rethinking the conceptual educational frame-
work behind the dominant practices (economic/political/cultural), if I
try to rephrase Kincheloe’s concern (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 53), and at the
44
profits on the subjugation and exploitation of human lives and devasta-
tion of the human environment, feminist engagement in its acts must un-
dergo a radical re-adjustment (Spivak, 2012) and transformative process.
In one of her articles against the threatening conjunction of femi-
nism and capitalism, Nancy Fraser (2013) draws attention to unfolding
the three contributions of feminism to neoliberal development. First, by
insisting on the goods of individual advancement, increased choices and
family wage, feminism has in fact helped with “flexible capitalism”, its de-
creasing job security, precarity and low-waged work, and female-headed
households. Second, by turning to identity politics and sexism, “politiciz-
ing the personal” and “rejecting economism” (ibid., 2013), feminism coin-
cides with the rising neoliberalism that is repressing both social equality
and all memory of social equality. Third, by its continuous critique of wel-
fare-state paternalism, feminism has contributed to free-market (corpo-
rate/financial) fundamentalism (via micro credits, among others), which
adds extremely to inequality and poverty, especially among women.
It is therefore no coincidence that Marxist feminism has become
all the more the domain for exploration in the Centre’s programme, and
shaped its syllabuses in the last few years. At the same time, it has become
a place of confusion and often misunderstanding since the Centre’s edu-
cators have not as a rule theoretically articulated this issue (Marxist politi-
cal economy, precisely), or been deeply tempted by more specific economic
inquiries that come out of neoliberal social realm(s). Since the programme
has been shaped more around the interests of both scholars and students,
mainly at the crossroads of cultural studies and feminist activism in a
wider sense, but against violence against women in particular, and phil-
osophical entries into the many venues of feminist knowledge, there are
new challenging concerns that must be discussed. Besides the problematic
points around “queering gender” and how it resonates with lesbian issues,
women-oriented agenda or patriarchy, for example, there are fresh trou-
bling questions that need to be answered.
How can we confront commodity feminism? How can we fight ce-
lebrity-branded feminism in which the voices of women emanate from
the celebrity machine based on generally unquestioned gender/sex ine-
quality? Or, how can we create feminist explanatory models that effec-
tively resist women’s job precarity are but some of these questions.
In this regard, a fruitful point of departure for feminism as critical
agency right now might involve how we can articulate the importance of
a subjugated perspective in rethinking the conceptual educational frame-
work behind the dominant practices (economic/political/cultural), if I
try to rephrase Kincheloe’s concern (Kincheloe, 2008, p. 53), and at the
44
