Postfeminism and Organization

Patricia Lewis, Yvonne Benschop, Ruth Simpson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781315450919
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

This edited book inserts postfeminism (PF) as a critical concept into understandings of work and organization. While the notion of PF has been extensively investigated in cultural and media studies, it has yet to emerge within organization studies - remaining marginal to understandings of work based experiences and subjectivities. Understanding PF as a discursive cultural context not only draws on an established epistemological orientation to organizations as discursively constructed and reproduced but allows us to highlight how PF may underpin and be underpinned by other discursive regimes

This book, as the first in the field, draws on key international authors to explore: the contextual 'backdrop' of PF and its links with neo-liberalism, transnational feminism and other hegemonic discourses; the different ways in which this backdrop has infiltrated organizational values and practice through the primacy attached to choice, merit and individual agency as well as through the widespread perception that gender disadvantage has been 'solved'; and the implications for organizational subjectivity and for how inequality is experienced and perceived.

This book introduces postfeminism as a critical concept with contemporary importance for the study of organizations, arguing for its explanatory potential when:

• Exploring women's and men's experience of managing and organizing;





• Investigating the gendered aspects of organizational life;





• Analysing the contemporary validation of the feminine and the associated feminization of management/leadership and organizations;





• Tracing the emergence of new femininities and masculinities within organizational contexts.

The book is ideal reading for researchers working in the area of Gender and Organization Studies but is also of interest to researchers in the areas of Cultural Studies, Media Studies, Women's Studies and Sociology.

Part I

Introduction

Postfeminism

Negotiating Equality With Tradition in Contemporary Organisations

Patricia Lewis, Yvonne Benschop and Ruth Simpson

Feminist Traditions and Postfeminism

These are certainly interesting times for feminism and feminists. For many years, negative stories dominated the public discourse about feminism; self-identifying as a feminist was inconceivable for many women, and authors recurrently claimed that feminism was obsolete, especially in the popular press. This latter phenomenon has been analysed as the specific genre of ‘false feminist death syndrome’ (Smith, 2003, in Tyler, 2005), and it has proven false indeed. The tide is turning, and feminism has been rehabilitated but in a moderate form (Dean, 2010). Feminism is now embraced by celebrity feminists (from Beyoncé and Emma Watson to Sheryl Sandberg and former Euro commissioner Neelie Kroes) and is nurtured by social media discussions and activist blogs that reclaim the importance of gender equality. As observed by Sarah Banet-Weiser (cited by Pruchniewska 2017: 1), ‘Feminism is on the cultural radar … we are moving beyond a wide cultural resistance to the “F” word, especially among younger women’. However, we argue that this new discourse and representation of feminism has a strong affinity with postfeminism, challenging core feminist traditions of collective and political action against gender inequality. Postfeminism has supported the selective take-up and restrained implementation of the feminist values of choice, empowerment and agency. As Banet-Weiser and Arzumanova (2012, cited in Pruchniewska, 2017: 5) argue the feminist principle of empowerment now manifests as entrepreneurship and ‘in this context, the empowered feminist voice shifts to the confessional postfeminist voice, seeking out visibility through consumption and a continually normalized feminine subjectivity’. This book considers the effect of this transformation within the field of management and organisation studies. It explores how postfeminism and its associated valorisation of a feminism which promotes the empowerment of individual women while eschewing a broader critique of gendered inequalities impacts on organisations and those who work within them.

Concerning the tradition of collective action, there is an influential representation of feminism as a social women’s movement that comes and goes in waves. Several waves of feminism are usually distinguished (Wrye, 2009), even though the very notion of waves is in itself contested as confusing, excluding and overly oppositional (Evans and Chamberlain, 2015; Springer, 2002). In the first wave at the turn of the twentieth century, the suffragette movement called for political change and women’s right to vote. In the second wave around the 1960s and 1970s, the women’s movement put women’s liberation, violence against women, the body, reproductive rights and labour market inequalities on the agenda. The third wave was dominated by a younger generation of feminists, who, in the media-saturated culture of the 1990s, emphasised sex-positive girl power, inclusion, intersectionality and the queer multiplicity of identities (Snyder, 2008). Some authors even see the contours of a fourth wave emerging from the technological opportunities provided by social media, encompassing grassroots activism, an engagement with global politics and ecology, a focus on intersectionality and an emphasis on redistribution (Bell et al., 2015; Wrye, 2009).

The wave metaphor suggests a temporality with one distinct wave after the other, but it is more helpful to see the feminist waves as particular approaches then to pin them to distinct periods in time. Evans and Chamberlain (2015: 399) note, ‘The fact that the second, third and fourth waves exist simultaneously, but have been defined through their dissimilarities, exacerbates arguments between the three, and creates confusion surrounding what constitutes each wave’. This means that there is not only a tradition in feminism of multiple issues and concerns, but also one of debate and controversy between different feminists over the importance of those issues and who they may concern. For instance, one of the key debates between the second and third waves is around inclusivity and the intersectionality of gender with race, class, sexuality and age. The second wave with its attention to the detrimental effects of the public-private divide and women’s access to the workplace is accused of a profound white, middle class bias. This inspired the earliest calls for a third wave by women of colour interrogating racialised positions of privilege and marginality within the workplace and the family (Holvino, 2010). Nevertheless, the third wave became equated with the ‘girl power’ of young, white, well-educated women and so again with the more privileged positions (Snyder, 2008; Evans and Chamberlain, 2015).

The multiplicity in feminism is not only restricted to representations of the women’s movement but also pertains to the different academic strands of feminism. There are of course connections between the waves and the strands of feminist theory. For instance, the time period of the second wave coincides with the development of liberal, radical, psychoanalytical and socialist feminist thought, but it is beyond the scope of this introduction to provide a detailed analysis of these connections. Within management and organisation studies, there tends to be more attention to different strands of feminist thought than to different waves of feminism. The different positions of women and men, constructions of masculinity and femininity in the labour market and gender inequalities connected to work and organisation are typically cast as second-wave issues, but it is clear that the persistent inequalities in this major domain of life continue to influence feminist thinking. In an influential book chapter written in the 1990s and revised ten years later, Calás and Smircich (1996, 2006) analyse how liberal, radical, psychoanalytical, socialist, poststructuralist/postmodern and transnational/postcolonial strands of feminism have influenced thinking about gender in organisations in organisation studies. Another decade after, Benschop and Verloo (2016) discuss the contributions of four strands of feminist thought, (neo)liberal feminism, socialist feminism, social construction feminism and poststructuralist feminism, to contemporary management and organisation theories. We situate postfeminism, the focus of this book, as deeply enmeshed with a neoliberal feminism that emphasises individualistic, entrepreneurial, empowered women who embrace the full responsibility for their own lives and careers (Rottenberg, 2014).

In this array of feminist thought, the tradition of the community and collectivity of women is both a common denominator and a battleground. As a common denominator, the ‘category of women’ foregrounds the idea that women have something in common as women, that women as a group differ from men as a group, and that women share experiences of identity with other women, giving rise to collective action to improve the situation of women as a group. Gender is presented as a fundamental organising principle in all spheres of social life (Jaggar, 1983; Ridgeway and Correll, 2004) meaning that all social relations in patriarchal society are structured by hierarchical differences between women and men. In some strands of feminist theory, notably in radical feminism and to an extent also socialist feminism, the emphasis on the collective is strong, with women uniting in their desire to change the gender order and to get to cultural, economic, psychological and social equality in the public and private spheres (Tyler, 2007). To accomplish this change, the consciousness-raising groups of radical feminism served as a place for women to collectively interrogate their experiences in light of systematic male domination (Calás and Smircich, 2006). In loosely organised women’s groups, collectives or alternative women’s organisations, women discussed their personal experiences with each other as a basis from which to develop political analysis and alternative feminist values such as equality and community. Interestingly, the Lean In circles connected to Sheryl Sandberg’s book of the same name, which seek to support women in their individualist pursuit of career success, are described by McRobbie (2015: 133) as ‘a ghostly version of its more overtly feminist predecessor the consciousness-raising group of the 1970s’. Socialist feminism developed a critique of the patriarchal capitalist system, with a pronounced focus on classed, gendered and racialised divisions of labour both in work organisations and in the family. As a feminist perspective, it emphasizes the systemic and structural dimensions of capitalist inequality regimes, showing how these work to marginalize and oppress particular groups of employees (in particular lower-class and migrant women). Recently, the increasing insecurity and instability of employment relations of the ‘precariat’ are said to lead to ‘an emergent class in the making’ (Standing, 2011). The collective empowerment of this emergent class is a socialist feminist ideal.

As a battleground, the ideal of female community forms the basis for strong disagreement among feminists regarding the ontological and epistemological assumptions which underpin the notion of collective. There are strands of feminist theory that reject the ideas of a collective identity or a community of women as a central characteristic of feminism. Poststructuralist feminism, for instance, questions the ontological basis of gender categories and challenges the identity politics based on these categories: What are the universal experiences that all women allegedly share? What constitutes this identity of ‘woman’ that makes it so fundamentally different from the identity of ‘man?’ The immense variety between women of different classes, races, ages, sexualities and all the possible intersections of such categories problematise the significance of the single category of women. Poststructuralist feminism aims to deconstruct the binary logic of gender, to disrupt the gender order and to call attention to the situatedness, fluidity and multiplicity of gender as a performative social practice (Butler, 1990; Poggio, 2006). For entirely different reasons and notwithstanding the phenomenon of Lean In circles, the idea of a community of women bears no relevance in neoliberal postfeminism either. In this strand, the individual takes centre stage; there is no role for the collective or the community. In the guise of corporate feminism, equal opportunities for (elite) women are propagated within a neoliberal capitalist system that emphasises the market value and the personal responsibility of individual enterprising women for their own success. The postfeminist emphasis on individualism, choice and empowerment has led some to ask ‘Who put the “me” in feminism?’ (Tyler, 2005). The collectivist feminist battle against patriarchal oppression and male dominance is traded in for the axiom of individual female power and freedom of choice. With postfeminism, we thus witness the surfacing of a restrained form of feminism which abandons the search for collective solutions to the shared problems of ongoing gendered inequalities and systemic male dominance (Lewis, Benschop, and Simpson, 2017). Thus, it is the individualisation of postfeminism which makes feminism more palatable than before, because it has traded in social criticism for self-criticism (Benschop, van den Brink, and Verloo, 2015).

A more in-depth analysis of the dichotomy between collectivist and individualist feminism shows a more complicated relationship between feminism and individualism, which is relevant for our understanding of the place of postfeminism in the feminist tradition. Calás and Smircich (2006: 286) argues that feminist theories are always critical of the status quo and therefore always political (italics in original), even when the scope and nature of the politics varies across different perspectives. This brings us to the second core tradition in feminism, the tradition of feminist political action. As we have argued earlier, one significant feature of postfeminism is its lack of social critique and thus its lack of a political agenda. Whereas its predecessor liberal feminism used the liberal ideals of individual freedom, choice, opportunity and equality to critique gender inequalities in wages and positions of authority, the feminism attached to postfeminism does nothing to critique the neoliberal capitalist system. This lack of critique leads Fraser (2009: 108) to speak of a ‘disturbing convergence’ of neoliberal capitalist and feminist ideas, when the cultural recognition of identity and difference in feminism prevails over the redistribution of economic resources. The co-optation of feminism in capitalism takes place through popular business case arguments for gender equality and empowerment projects for women, integrating feminism into the neoliberal ideology of market, free choice and, prominently, individualism. While the ‘business case’ is seen as creating urgency and legitimacy for gender equality in organisations, it comes at the high cost of making feminist ideals subsidiary to competitive advantage (Noon, 2007). Prügl (2015) argues that liberal feminism has always been the hegemonic strand of feminism, something that certainly resonates with the impact of liberal feminism in management and organisation studies. The liberal feminist emphasis on equal opportunities for women and men allows only a limited social critique of capitalism, accepting race- and class-based exploitations in the home and in the workplace. For Williams (2013: 627) it has become clear that a feminism that is divorced from a critique of capitalism will only make things worse for most women.

The ideology of individualism in (neo)liberal postfeminism may be devoid of a political agenda, but individualism in feminism is not always apolitical. Notably, the consciousness-raising groups of radical feminism organised around ‘the personal is political’, politicising women’s private feelings, challenging traditional femininities of being-for-others and the unequal distribution of power in their everyday lives (Tyler, 2007). Radical feminism thus was redefining what counts as politics (Tyler, 2005). Yet, the identity politics in ‘the personal is political’ is often downplayed in order to highlight the personal part of feminism. This focus on the personal, the individual, made feminism vulnerable to being scorned for selfishness, narcissism and navel-gazing. One of the central arguments of the cultural narcissism of feminism is that the political project degenerates into individual quests for self-awareness and self-realisation (Tyler, 2007: 180).

Instead of raising the collective, of improving the situation of women as a group, the selfish feminist is only thinking of herself. This representation of the radical, selfish feminist provided fertile ground for a backlash towards and dis-identification with what is perceived as an ‘excessive’ feminism. The renewed popularity of feminism today is also based on an individualised approach, but selfishness has been embraced and encouraged by the capitalist consumer culture (‘because you are worth it’ as the L’Oréal advertisements have it). It thus seems that key to the popularity of contemporary postfeminism and its subdued feminism is exactly its aversion to politics. In reaction to radical ‘excessive’ feminism, modern feminists have patented free choice. In choice feminism (Hirshman, 2006), the most important achievement of feminism is that it provides the freedom for women to make any choice they want. Staying at home, 100-hour working weeks—anything goes—and importantly, no choice can be denounced as not properly feminist. Feminism thus becomes inclusive, non-threatening and non-judgmental, but also void of political power losing the potential for political change (Ferguson, 2010).

Postfeminism and Gender Identities

We have argued that the discursive phenomenon of postfeminism challenges the two core traditions of feminism: the traditions of collective and political action. The history of individualism in radical feminism however gives rise to some optimism, as it shows how individualism or narcissism can be political (Tyler, 2005) when used to develop a feminist politics about identity. Yet a recent consideration of how self-defined feminist online writers reconcile individualistic self-promotion with collectivist feminist values indicates that such radical individualism is currently muted. While being well-versed in the feminist language of ‘patriarchy’, ‘micro-aggression’ and ‘standpoint’, the self-identified feminist respondents redefined feminism in general to align with the postfeminist values of choice, empowerment and individualism, to secure the required reconciliation. The respondents’ claim to a feminist subjectivity co-exists with the traditional feminine norm of non-confrontation as they sought to make feminism more ‘palatable’ such that they ‘could be said to be ‘sneaking’ feminism into their audience’s lives’ (Pruchniewska, 2017: 11). This is indicative of one of the most notable features of a postfeminist gender regime which has reshaped feminism into a moderate form—the rapprochement between feminism and femininity.

Increasing attention (e.g. Kauppinen, 2013; Lewis, 2014; Sullivan and Delaney, 2017) has been directed at this détente, showing how postfeminism has contributed to the complex reshaping of female and male subjectivities which form the basis of women’s and men’s inclusion in contemporary organisations. In the construction of postfeminist subjectivities, there is an interdependence between postfeminist masculinities and postfeminist femininities, with the important caveat that the discursive processes for constituting each may vary and that it is not a single act of constitution which brings a subject into being (Dow, 2006; Kolehmainen, 2012; Rumens, 2017). In a postfeminist context, these subjectivities can be seen to undermine traditional gender relations—seemingly allowing greater agency, particularly for women in the individualised pursuit of success—whilst at the same time reinforcing conventional gender based norms (Adkins, 2001). Undoubtedly, the cultural phenomenon of postfeminism has influenced the shaping of contemporary male and female subjectivities but there are variations in how the postfeminist reconfiguration of gender identities is interpreted, which can be summed up in one of three ways: negative (men lose and women gain leading to a reinvigoration of traditional masculinity), positive (both men and women gain through a de-traditionalisation of gender)...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• About the Contributors
• Part I Introduction
• Part II Postfeminism and Organization
• Part III Future Directions in Postfeminism and Organization
• Index