- Email: [email protected]
Organising Feminisms: The Micropolitics of the Academy
Book Reviews
Julian’s study of refugee women in Australia shows how while many men, unemployed, ‘retreat into the home and take refuge in each other’s support’, women go out and tackle the institutions and bring home the bread. Julian suggests therefore ‘it would seem more appropriate to conceptualize victim and agent as alternatives within a framework of multiple, shifting subject positions’ (p. 208). There is much pain, humiliation and loss between the covers of this book, but women’s courage, imagination and energy is visible too. Cynthia Cockburn Department of Social and Human Sciences City University London United Kingdom PII S0277-5395(00)00100-X
ORGANISING FEMINISMS: THE MICROPOLITICS OF THE ACADEMY, by Louise Morley, viii 1 215 pages. Macmillan Press, Basingstoke and London, 1999, £17.99 paper. This book is about the ways that power is embedded in everyday practices in the academy, to undermine and exclude women from access to resources, influence, career opportunities and academic authority. Louise Morley details the minutiae of social relations–political and personal strategies for effecting or resisting change–drawing on interviews with feminist academics and post-graduate students in the UK, Sweden and Greece. It is Morley’s contention that feminists in the academy are change agents who bring the micropolitics of the academic organisation to light. As part of her discussion Morley considers the politics of enquiry, and what constitutes ‘knowledge’. This includes the relationship between feminism and postmodernism; also a micropolitical issue. Morley characterises it as: ‘a homeopathic relationship, with small doses of postmodernism mobilising feminist antibodies. While it initially feels poisonous, it can be successful in sharpening and strengthening our theory-building’ (p. 14). She argues that both feminist and postmodern theorising are concerned with reconceptualising ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’, with postmodernism enabling her to look at the dispersed nature of power from a feminist standpoint. I’m not sure that the homeopathic analogy works well. If, for example, one viewed postmodern theory as a headache suffered by a feminist, then the feminist would take a homeopathic remedy that contained postmodern theory, but the end result would be that the headache/postmodern theory went away. This is not what happens to Morley. Nevertheless, feminists within the academy, of whatever theoretical persuasion, will find much of interest in her analysis; indeed, you will probably see your own experiences. Morley enters into her unpacking of the micropolitics of the academy with a discussion of the macropolitical context in which this takes place. She overviews political and organisational change in higher education, particularly focusing on the UK, pointing to the shift to
375
market driven mass expansion and new managerialism, and the implications for feminist academics and students. We are given a picture of quite a modernist context within which postmodern dispersed power is exercised. Morley then turns to considering the relationship between feminism and equity work in the academy. Her overall contention is that equity discourses by and large are not theoretically informed by feminism and do not operate as resistance to the relentless reproduction of class, gender, racial and other privilege in the academy. Equity policies merely enter into existing patterns and practices of inequality, generating new inequalities around old structures of social and hierarchical relationships. The micropolitics of the academy’s organisational culture–its atmosphere and ethos, networks and coalitions, and so on–mean that it is difficult for feminists to get situations defined as oppressive and unfair, and to effect change through equity policies. Thus, Morley argues, feminists often concentrate their efforts on knowledge production and pedagogic interventions, including through women’s studies courses. Nevertheless, as she elaborates through a critique of empowerment, this political project is subject to its own micropolitical contradictions and tensions. Throughout these discussions, Morley draws on material from her interviewees. Indeed, she essentially treats her interviewees as theorisers and knowers–in effect, they are the analysts of the detailed constitution of Morley’s micropolitical framework. Her two penultimate chapters focus on their experiences as, respectively, students and academics. We see the difficulties of taking on a stigmatised identity as ‘feminist’ even for women’s studies students, and how feminist academics can be sidelined, drained and devalued. But we also see how feminism and women’s studies has transformative potential and can be exhilarating. Morley shows the need for feminists to evolve support systems, and the benefits of these, but also the demands and exhaustion of supporting each other within the structures of the academy. Interestingly, in these two chapters, while she utilises the viewpoints of academics alongside those of students to unpack and define the experience of being a feminist student, there is no reciprocal view from her student interviewees in her chapter on feminist academics. Across the three diverse national locations in Morley’s study, there are similar concerns around the subordination of women in the academy. But Morley does not give–indeed, explicitly avoids–what she regards as rationalist recipes for intervention and change. This is because, as she sees it, a postmodern stance challenges any meta-narrative of change, while small scale change can be reformative and ameliorative, retaining existing frameworks. Rather, Morley’s contribution is to highlight, and through this add to, the micropolitical competencies that enable feminists to survive the headaches of the academy. Rosalind Edwards Department of Social Policy South Bank University London United Kingdom PII S0277-5395(00)00099-6
Julian’s study of refugee women in Australia shows how while many men, unemployed, ‘retreat into the home and take refuge in each other’s support’, women go out and tackle the institutions and bring home the bread. Julian suggests therefore ‘it would seem more appropriate to conceptualize victim and agent as alternatives within a framework of multiple, shifting subject positions’ (p. 208). There is much pain, humiliation and loss between the covers of this book, but women’s courage, imagination and energy is visible too. Cynthia Cockburn Department of Social and Human Sciences City University London United Kingdom PII S0277-5395(00)00100-X
ORGANISING FEMINISMS: THE MICROPOLITICS OF THE ACADEMY, by Louise Morley, viii 1 215 pages. Macmillan Press, Basingstoke and London, 1999, £17.99 paper. This book is about the ways that power is embedded in everyday practices in the academy, to undermine and exclude women from access to resources, influence, career opportunities and academic authority. Louise Morley details the minutiae of social relations–political and personal strategies for effecting or resisting change–drawing on interviews with feminist academics and post-graduate students in the UK, Sweden and Greece. It is Morley’s contention that feminists in the academy are change agents who bring the micropolitics of the academic organisation to light. As part of her discussion Morley considers the politics of enquiry, and what constitutes ‘knowledge’. This includes the relationship between feminism and postmodernism; also a micropolitical issue. Morley characterises it as: ‘a homeopathic relationship, with small doses of postmodernism mobilising feminist antibodies. While it initially feels poisonous, it can be successful in sharpening and strengthening our theory-building’ (p. 14). She argues that both feminist and postmodern theorising are concerned with reconceptualising ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’, with postmodernism enabling her to look at the dispersed nature of power from a feminist standpoint. I’m not sure that the homeopathic analogy works well. If, for example, one viewed postmodern theory as a headache suffered by a feminist, then the feminist would take a homeopathic remedy that contained postmodern theory, but the end result would be that the headache/postmodern theory went away. This is not what happens to Morley. Nevertheless, feminists within the academy, of whatever theoretical persuasion, will find much of interest in her analysis; indeed, you will probably see your own experiences. Morley enters into her unpacking of the micropolitics of the academy with a discussion of the macropolitical context in which this takes place. She overviews political and organisational change in higher education, particularly focusing on the UK, pointing to the shift to
375
market driven mass expansion and new managerialism, and the implications for feminist academics and students. We are given a picture of quite a modernist context within which postmodern dispersed power is exercised. Morley then turns to considering the relationship between feminism and equity work in the academy. Her overall contention is that equity discourses by and large are not theoretically informed by feminism and do not operate as resistance to the relentless reproduction of class, gender, racial and other privilege in the academy. Equity policies merely enter into existing patterns and practices of inequality, generating new inequalities around old structures of social and hierarchical relationships. The micropolitics of the academy’s organisational culture–its atmosphere and ethos, networks and coalitions, and so on–mean that it is difficult for feminists to get situations defined as oppressive and unfair, and to effect change through equity policies. Thus, Morley argues, feminists often concentrate their efforts on knowledge production and pedagogic interventions, including through women’s studies courses. Nevertheless, as she elaborates through a critique of empowerment, this political project is subject to its own micropolitical contradictions and tensions. Throughout these discussions, Morley draws on material from her interviewees. Indeed, she essentially treats her interviewees as theorisers and knowers–in effect, they are the analysts of the detailed constitution of Morley’s micropolitical framework. Her two penultimate chapters focus on their experiences as, respectively, students and academics. We see the difficulties of taking on a stigmatised identity as ‘feminist’ even for women’s studies students, and how feminist academics can be sidelined, drained and devalued. But we also see how feminism and women’s studies has transformative potential and can be exhilarating. Morley shows the need for feminists to evolve support systems, and the benefits of these, but also the demands and exhaustion of supporting each other within the structures of the academy. Interestingly, in these two chapters, while she utilises the viewpoints of academics alongside those of students to unpack and define the experience of being a feminist student, there is no reciprocal view from her student interviewees in her chapter on feminist academics. Across the three diverse national locations in Morley’s study, there are similar concerns around the subordination of women in the academy. But Morley does not give–indeed, explicitly avoids–what she regards as rationalist recipes for intervention and change. This is because, as she sees it, a postmodern stance challenges any meta-narrative of change, while small scale change can be reformative and ameliorative, retaining existing frameworks. Rather, Morley’s contribution is to highlight, and through this add to, the micropolitical competencies that enable feminists to survive the headaches of the academy. Rosalind Edwards Department of Social Policy South Bank University London United Kingdom PII S0277-5395(00)00099-6