1) McRobbie constructs postfeminism as term
that indicates (1) feminism’s successful completion and (2) a newly structured
utopia wherein the ascertaining of personal empowerment is wholly achievable. McRobbie
charts this development across eras: first, how notions of personal success
intrinsic to second-wave feminists intrinsically identified an “end-point” for
feminist goals; second, to embodiments of that perceived success conjuring
images of feminism’s completion; third, to the disavowal/rejection of feminism
resulting from its completion; fourth, the ideological formation of postfeminism,
which relies on neoliberal ideals of actualization via self-management,
consumerism, and self-starterism. McRobbie’s project, and her engagement with
the term “postfeminism,” is to unpack and define the ideologies that fill the
gap left by feminism’s disavowed by postfeminism.
Banet-Weisner engages the term
"postfeminism" to cite the definition from McRobbie's article
specifically, which she largely agrees with and tries to expand. Similarly to
McRobbie, Banet-Weisner argues postfeminism is the "'undoing of
feminism'...by appearing to participate in an inclusion of feminist
ideologies" (204). She invokes McRobbie's definition to apply it
intersectionally to race and ethnicity, drawing a comparison between the
popular misnomers of "postfeminist" and "postracial"
society. She argues definitions of both of these terms "are framed around
generational differences" (204), but that in contemporary society they are
tied by neoliberal commodification of both feminism and ethnicity. Her
overarching question: if race and feminism are represented as commodities
"in precisely the mainstream [they] were meant to challenge, can we still
talk about [them] as political?" (208).
Butler
historiographically situates views of postfeminism as either a linear
continuation of earlier feminist moments (beginning with prefeminism, then
feminism and now postfeminism), a rejection of feminism (most specifically the
essentialist ideology of second-wave feminism), or a sex-positive ideology. She
then explains how each of these ideas is a misreading of feminism, either due
to pure misunderstanding and mischaracterization, or incomplete
historicization. She posits that postfeminism includes
“one or more of the following
characteristics: that it
1.
implies
that gender equality has been achieved and feminist activism is thus no longer
necessary;
2.
defines
femininity as a bodily property and revives notions of natural sexual
difference;
3.
marks
a shift from sexual objectification to sexual subjectification;
4.
encourages
self-surveillance, self-discipline, and a makeover paradigm;
5.
emphasizes
individualism, choice, and empowerment as the primary routes to women’s
independence and freedom; and
6.
promotes
consumerism and the commodification of difference” (44).
In this
definition Butler seems to take a broader approach that earlier conceptions of
postfeminism avoided, possibly for the purposes of either
rejecting/marginalizing the concept or to be more specific in a sea of unmoored
discourse. This allows for a more respectful tone about the squishiness of the frequently non-verbal
discourse and its chaotic omnipresence. It seems Butler is quite interested in
post-feminist media, be it outwardly ironic or frustratingly un-self-aware, and
her definition allows her to pull specific useful elements from such texts.
2)
McRobbie:
“It
was, in a sense, taking feminism into account by showing it to be a thing of
the past, by provocatively “enacting sexism” while at the same time playing
with those debates in film theory about women as the object of the gaze.”
This is the fundamental conception of
post-feminism as a cultural discourse according to McRobbie. Post-feminism
demonstrates a sort of ambivalence by citing feminism as a referent (indeed as
one that may have been necessary for women to gain prominence in society), yet
dismisses it as a concern of the past, one which is passe and, for lack of a
better term, uncool for a modern, self-assured woman.
“There
is a quietude and complicity in the manners of generationally specific notions
of cool and more precisely and uncritical relation to dominant commercially
produced sexual representations which actively invoke hostility to assumed
feminist positions form the past in order to endorse a new regime of sexual
meanings based on female consent, equality, participation, and pleasure, free
of politics.”
Here McRobbie brings in notions of “coolness”.
Post-feminism, in its discourse with the gains of feminism, relegates feminism
to the past and thus relegates it as uncool. Post-feminist media (in this case,
a provocative billboard) is in a discourse with assumed feminist positions, if
only to antagonistically mock the perceived constraining nature of feminism and
create a distinction between sexism and a detached, ironic “sexism” that allows
the advertisers to engage with explicitly sexist iconography while shielding
themselves from criticism with ironic distance.
“With
the burden of self-management so apparent, Bridget fantasies tradition.”
Self-management is one of the fundamental
principles of post-feminist neoliberalism according to McRobbie. Chronic
dissatisfaction, too, is a theme that crops up frequently in these
post-feminist texts. In the case of Bridget Jones, the burden of post-feminism
is such that she transports herself to an idealized vision that feminism
dictates (according to the post-feminist discourse) is verboten and outdated,
without the burden of self-management and self-reliance. And yet, this scene
itself is highlighting feminism’s passe nature, leaving a generation of women
socially empowered, but perpetually dissatisfied (according to the
post-feminist media).
Banet-Weiser:
“Postfeminism,
understood in this manner, is thus a different political dynamic than third
wave feminism, which is positioned more overtly as a, kind of feminist
politics, one that extends the historical trajectory of first and second-wave
feminism to better accommodate contemporary political culture and the logic of
consumer citizens. Postfeminism, on the other hand, is as McRobbie puts it,
"feminism taken into account," a process in which feminist values and
ideologies are acknowledged only to be found dated and passe and thus negated.”
(206)
In
this aspect, Banet-Wieser clearly establishes the difference between third-wave
feminism and postfeminism. Both reject the work of first and second-wave
feminism, but using McRobbie, she notes that postfeminism simply dismisses the
work as “old.” The values of feminism are simply seen as part of the
generational transition that is losing its power. The postfeminist value is not
as much entirely rejecting those
elements but taking them as simply part of a sphere of cultural values without
resonance.
“Words such as identity and multiculturalism, in the 1980s, code words for race; in the
early-twenty-first century, these same terms are code words (especially for the
consumer market) for "hip," "urban," and "cool."
Race, like gender, as a political identity has been appropriated (at least in
part) in the dominant culture through the brand identity of the urban and
postfeminism. Within this context, I do not want to romanticize a definition of
politics as something stable and immediately meaningful-or, conversely, to
vilify brand identity as exclusively superficial and ephemeral — but I do want
to shift the cultural frame through which youth empowerment is understood.”
(215)
Here,
Banet-Wieser sets up the relationship between post-feminism and post-racial, in
which the crucial political salience of the discourses are neutralized in a
capitalist appropriation. In part, she uses the historical mode of the 1980s
related to race to imply a similar change in discourse in how postfeminism
co-opted feminist politics in the 1990s. Banet-Weiser makes a careful distinction,
however, not to entirely attack this position but show how this is part of a
generational shift related to brand identity becoming the dominant mode of a
younger generation in dominant culture.
“Yet in programs
such as Dora the Explorer, which confront
stereotypes as they simultaneously reformulate them for a shifted market, the
stereotype that is reconstituted is one that is not necessarily intended for an
ethnic niche market but is meant to appeal to a broader (more
"global") audience. Using this strategy, Nickelodeon can claim that
the network is committed to diversity despite the fact that this progressive
ideology works as a more general market imperative. This strategy works hand in
hand with postfeminist politics, where Dora, as a strong, smart, female
character, is clearly a product of a culture that recognizes the importance of
"positive" gender representations yet does not call attention to any
kind of feminist politics other than the politics of representation. Thus, the
challenges to dominant stereotypes that Dora the Explorer poses are framed
within normative social conventions so that the challenge is contained and made
palatable for a media audience.” (222)
Banet-Weiser’s
summary of Nickelodeon’s strategies related to feminism and racial politics in Dora the Explorer demonstrates her
argument of how elements of the discourse become culturally appropriated
elements that have become political neutral. She notes how Dora both acknowledges both feminism and cultural representation as
essential to its success, but notes how these are simply “stances” the show
uses as part of its brand, a way to become palatable for larger audiences that
works in producing the post-feminist and post-racial discourses—they elements
are not denied by simply made as a set of options a show can take without any
political resonance.
Butler:
“While
neoliberalism is neither universal nor homogeneous in outcome (see Dubal 2010;
Ong 2006), the shift to neoliberal forms of governance in the West nonetheless
provides fertile ground for the development of discourses that emphasize
consumer citizenship, personal responsibility, and individual empowerment. It
is within this complex social, cultural, economic, and political environment
that postfeminism emerges as a contemporary gender ideology. Propped up by the
(imagined) success of the women’s movement, a sex-positive (and racially
exclusive) feminist legacy, and the ever-expanding neoliberal celebrations of
autonomy, individualism, and consumer choice, postfeminism surfaces as a more
attractive alternative to previous forms of gender politics.” (41)
One
of the key elements of Butler’s reading of postfeminism is framing and defining
exactly what is meant by neoliberalism. Neoliberalism as its developed as a
dominant discourse has emphasized the individualized element of the consumer.
Thus, when understanding postfeminism not as a direct response to second-wave
feminism and only in conversation with the history of feminism, but as an
alternative made out of part of the fact that neoliberal discourses as a new
mode of discourse.
“Postfeminism,
as I understand it, is not (just) a resentful retaliation against earlier
generations of feminists, nor is it (just) an empty celebration of feminine
consumption. It is not that young women have suddenly retreated into a space of
“traditional” feminine domesticity, nor is it true that they have somehow
accepted gender inequality and women’s objectification as inevitable. The
“post” of postfeminism does not signify feminism’s death. Rather, postfeminism
becomes a kind of substitute for or displacement of feminism as a radical
political movement…Rather than defining postfeminism as simply linear,
backlash, or sex-positive or as a quasi-politicized subjectivity akin to
third-wave feminism, a more productive impulse is to analyze it as a complex,
broad, and increasingly hegemonic ethos, sensibility, or discursive formation.”
(44-45)
One
of the key parts of this quote is for Butler to establish postfeminism a
discursive formation as opposed to simply its classification as simply
anti-feminist. Instead of viewing postfeminism as a natural backlash against
feminist ideals, she simply sees it as a growing alternative discourse that
displaces its political valiance. While third-wave feminism clearly engages
with second-wave feminist ideals, postfeminism is simply a larger cultural
discourse that thus allows it to seep into larger consumer discourses that
feminism could not with larger, less concrete ideals than complex set of
discussions that incorporate a range of women’s issues that are not just
inherently in conversation with second-wave feminism.
“Clearly, the
versatility of postfeminism functions as a double-edged sword with regard to
women of color: on the one hand, it allows nonwhite women to participate in its
deployment and enjoy its rewards, albeit in narrowly circumscribed ways; on the
other, it works to conceal the underlying power relations that reproduce
hegemonic ideas about race, gender, sexuality, and class. And, just as it does
for white women, postfeminism requires its nonwhite participants to reject
political activism in favor of capitalist consumption and cultural visibility.”
(50)
One
of the key parts of Butler’s reading of postfeminist is to not assign it as
entirely lacking intersectionality. However, what she notes that because of its
function within the neoliberal sphere, the choices allow for women of color
but only within a certain sect of spheres that ignore the various hegemonic
power relations that postfeminism fails to recognize. Thus, women of color are
not entirely excluded, but they must conform to postfeminism’s white ideals in
order to enjoy its very narrow rewards.
3)
In
this scene, we see Meredith and Christina discussing male impositions of
monogamy, complaining that the men in their lives are behaving like “1950s
debutantes”. Both of these characters are engaging with Butler’s notions of
post-feminism (following Gill), specifically her third and fifth points that
it “marks a shift from sexual
objectification to sexual subjectification” and “emphasizes individualism,
choice, and empowerment as the primary routes to women’s independence and
freedom”. The women discuss their discontent with the expectations of monogamy
placed upon them by the men in their lives. This scene, in another era, would
be a place where their mutual choice for sexual independence would be judged in
negatively. Instead, within the context of the show, this is seen as an
empowering discourse, one in which the women find self-actualization and agency
through their own sexuality and their own independence. The scene is
superficially apolitical, yet suggests deeper political on reappraisal.
