Advertisement

Representations of Equality: Processes of Depoliticization of the Citizen-Subject

  • Sara Edenheim
  • Malin Rönnblom
Chapter
Part of the Citizenship, Gender and Diversity book series (FEMCIT)

Abstract

Present demands for inclusion within the feminist movement are not new; since the 1970s, mainstream feminism has been criticized for giving white, heterosexual women a privileged position. This critique gave rise to the formation of marginalized groups both within feminism and in society in general. Today, however, we argue that the effects of this critique have changed due to changes in political forms of governing; that is, the logic of the market is increasingly replacing the logic of the political and this shift has consequences for feminist politics. Within gender-equality policies in Sweden, political demands are turned into administrative or bureaucratic techniques, depoliticizing gender by turning gender equality policies into checklists and tool kits in order to fit the policy to the prevailing systems of audit and quality assessments. Among feminist activists, the reaction to such depoliticizing moves seems to be a retreat to a stable and safe identity whose political activity consists of demands for ever-more-specific recognitions and inclusions into this very audit system. As feminist activists make claims that fit neatly into a liberal rights discourse, even the activist-subject is turned into a self-regulating subject managing its own success or failure—only here success and failure are based on recognized identities, and hence, different identities are cast into a struggle against each other. Our conclusion is that the depoliticized production of rights claims does not generate challenges to the prevailing political order; rather, there is a risk of re-producing this order, where right-wing identity politics is mobilized as a response to left-wing identity politics, and vice versa.

Keywords

Gender Equality Liberal Democracy Subject Position Identity Politics Feminist Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Åse, C. (1997). Individ utan innehåll. Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, 96(2), 138–152.Google Scholar
  2. Björk, N. (2014). Ingen makt är större än den ekonomiska makten. Dagens Nyheter, 12 November.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, W. (1995). States of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, W. (2005). Edgework: Critical essays on knowledge and politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  6. Echeverría Quezada, M., & Palmström, J. (2014). Drama i repris. Bang, 4.Google Scholar
  7. Edenheim, S., & Rönnblom, M. (2012). Tracking down politics and power in neo-liberal society. NoraNordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, Special issue “Neo-liberalism and Tolerance – Scrutinizing Politics and State Regulations”, 20(4), 227–229.Google Scholar
  8. Eduards, M. (2002). Förbjuden handling: Om kvinnors organisering och feministisk teori. Liber ekonomi.Google Scholar
  9. Feministisk initiativ. (2013). För en feministisk politik. FI Party Platform.Google Scholar
  10. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hill Collins, P. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. Hyman.Google Scholar
  12. Jónasdóttir, A. G. (1991). Love, power and political interests: Towards a theory of patriarchy in contemporary western societies. Göteborg: Studies in Politics.Google Scholar
  13. Kiros, J. (2014). Identitetspolitk och vänterpolitik är inte antipoler. Dagens Nyheter, 10 November.Google Scholar
  14. Linderborg, Å. (2014). Det ska fan vara politiskt korrekt. Aftonbladet, 7 November.Google Scholar
  15. Lister, R., Williams, F., Anttonen, A., Bussemaker, J., Gerhard, U., Heinen, J., et al. (2007). Gendering citizenship in Western Europe: New challenges for citizenship research in a cross-national context. Bristol: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Manin, B. (2002). The principles of representative government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Martinsson, L., & de los Reyes, P. (2015). Största problemet är diskriminerande strukturer. Feministiskt perspektiv, 28 February.Google Scholar
  18. Moberg, E. (1961). Kvinnans villkorliga frigivning. Unga Liberaler: Nio inlägg i idédebatten. Stockholm: Bonnier.Google Scholar
  19. Mol, A. M. (1999). Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 74–89). Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review.Google Scholar
  20. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the world politically. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  22. Philips, A. (1993). Engendering democracy. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Philips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Gloucestershire: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rancière, J. (2004). Introducing disagreement. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 9(3), 3–9.Google Scholar
  25. Ramnehill, M. (2014). Som en plusmeny, Bang (4).Google Scholar
  26. Rönnblom, M. (2011). Vad är problemet? Konstruktioner av jämställdhet i svensk politik. Tidskrift för genusvetenskap (2–3), 35–55.Google Scholar
  27. Scott, J. W. (1996). Only paradoxes to offer: French feminists and the rights of man. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. SOU 2010: 83. (2010). Rapport XI från Delegationen för jämställdhet i skolan (Delegation for gender equality in schools). Stockholm.Google Scholar
  29. Spivak, G. C. (1993). Outside in the teaching machine. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Spivak, G. C. (2005). Use and abuse of human rights. Boundary 2, 32(1), 131–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Squires, J. (1999). Gender in political theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  32. Westerstrand, J. (2015). Egofokus försvårar universitetsstudier. Dagens Nyheter, 10 February.Google Scholar
  33. Zizek, S. (1999). The ticklish subject: The absent centre of political ontology. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Edenheim
    • 1
  • Malin Rönnblom
    • 1
  1. 1.Umeå Centre for Gender StudiesUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations