The three readings this week on postfeminism are not only constantly in conversation with each other but also present postfeminism in relation to the proliferation of neoliberal thoughts and consumerism. All three authors see danger in labeling feminism (or any other “ism”) using the word “post-“, and as Sarah Banet-Weiser puts it: “this prefix implies that whatever it modifies is somehow over—postfeminism, for instance, suggests (and at times insists) not only that feminism is passe but also, more obliquely, that whatever goals feminism sought have been accomplished” (214). While the readings agree with each other on the definition of postfeminism, they took different ways to analyze this social phenomenon—Banet-Weiser’s piece discusses “diverse” children’s television; McRobbie’s speaks from a UK perspective and Butler’s talks about race and ruptures in postfeminism. These diverse approaches to the same topic of postfeminism in turn prove the ambivalence of this concept and its permeative nature.
What I find most fascinating and most relevant today is Jess Butler’s theorization of the relationship between postfeminism and neoliberalism as well as the role race plays in rupturing postfeminism. Butler writes on the similarity between neoliberalism and postfeminism saying “both are structured by a ‘current of individualism’ that undermines notions of the social or political; both demand an autonomous, self-regulating, active subject” (45). This emphasis on “self-regulating, active subject” reminds me of the McCarthy article we read a while ago on governmentality where she invokes the “pastoral responsibilities of the state” in the discussion of reality television under neoliberalism (25). This connection is not hard to see since both authors recognize the increasing emphasis on individualism in today’s media climate, but this emphasis is definitely more devastating when Butler connects it with postfeminism. While the first and second waves of feminism were collective and political movements that brought women together, postfeminism (and part of third-wave feminism) seems to disintegrate the structure and connection made in the first two feminist movements. Although much of the Western society today is moving towards neoliberal individualism, I think women are especially vulnerable to neoliberal ideas precisely because the neoliberal influence is largely masked by postfeminism, where it claims buying certain products and having certain “flava” mark the success of feminism and confirm their individual identities.
Another interesting point Butler made is the fact that race could be the incision point into disturbing the idea of postfeminism. Butler calls for “a complex, dynamic, and multilayered analysis” to unpack the multifaceted environment of postfeminism today (54). She identifies Nicki Minaj as one of the examples to disrupt the postfeminism that only includes middle-class white women and heterosexuality while excluding or assimilating any racial differences. While I think this is a great starting point to further the discussion on race and postfeminism, I also wonder if this example is enough. What exactly could be categorized as non-postfeminism in today’s media climate? All three readings today talk about the definition and even specific ways to identify postfeminism in popular culture, but rarely do they (except Butler) mention ways to combat this harmful concept. Does anti-postfeminism exist, if so what does it look like? Butler theorizes Nicki Minaj as someone who cannot be labeled by dominant ideologies thus rupturing postfeminism, but not-labeling also brings up questions and problems. Does “not-labeling” equal liberation or is it just another kind of label? How can we, as media scholars, separate feminism from postfeminism? These are questions I’m still pondering myself. What’s more, I think the readings slightly glossed over a very important discussion of postfeminism in relation to neoliberalism—class. While all of the authors recognize class as a factor in the conversation of postfeminism, none of them really goes into talking about how class factors into the formation of postfeminism; especially how class difference may render certain demographics more susceptible to the images of postfeminism.
Lastly, on a bit of a digressive journey, I would like to think briefly about the idea of postfeminism outside the Western world. All three authors today emphasize the generational difference between each wave of feminisms, but this generational difference is specific to the US or to the Western world. What would postfeminism look like when it is manifested in a country that did not experience the same waves of feminism, but, rather, just entered its first grass-roots feminist movement while it is also under a market economy? In this particular case, I’m thinking about China and the “me too” movement on Weibo that started alongside its Western counterpart in 2017. This movement opened some possibilities for Chinese women to discuss the inequality they experience in their everyday lives, and it also snowballed into a widespread discussion of feminism that has never happened before. Speaking from someone who still pays great attention to this movement (which is still going and has progressed quite a bit), I think this movement has raised great awareness on gender equality but it has also intertwined with the market economy and commercialism in China. Many brands and studios, after recognizing the size of this movement, have made efforts to change their slogans, to produce “female celebration” ads, and so on. These efforts, seemingly harmless, positive, and extremely well-received, do remind me of the idea of postfeminism where “feminism” becomes a commodified concept to be used in selling products. How can we reconcile this wonderful grass-roots feminist movement with the postfeminism ideals embedded in them? Can feminism exist outside commercialism in the Chinese context? These are questions I kept asking myself when reading this week’s readings. One last thing I wanted to mention before I stop rambling is the recent court case of Xianzi VS. Zhujun. This is one of the first sexual harassment cases where the defendant is a celebrity that went to court. While this case is still in progress and there is only a glimpse of hope in Xianzi winning, it has sparked small but resonant support nationwide. It is political actions like this that give me hope in combating postfeminism in today’s China.
CORE RESPONSE #1
ReplyDeleteAnn, I also was drawn to the discussion regarding 'post' and 'post' terminology related to ism's and movements in general. I agree that there is danger in applying post, and in the case of market economy, neo, as a pre-title to these movements. Rather, the existence of post movements is interesting--we have to clarify, through a massive cultural movement, that we are now passed something our older generations created. It seems negative to me, more so than it should be. I also am thinking of Post-Modernism in the same context--applying the idea of post as a term to define almost an anti-movement, one that acknowledges and disregards the elements of the movement before it. Interesting perspectives on 'the culture.'