intro mc robbie

From the late 1990s, myattention, as a feministsociologist, was repeatedlydrawn to media imagesintended to provoke some

imagined group of (alwayshumourless) feminists. These imagesappeared, in celebratory fashion, toreverse the clock to some earlier pre-feminist moment, albeit in a tongue-in-cheek way. The prevailing use ofirony aimed to exonerate the culpritsfrom the crime of offending what wascaricatured as a kind of extreme, andusually man-hating, feminism (whileimplicitly acknowledging that other,more acceptable, forms of feminismhad entered the realms of commonsense).

The famous ‘Hello Boys’Wonderbra billboard advertisementwas the most obvious example of thisshift. The rhetoric of this imageindulged the deviant pleasure of being‘politically incorrect’ with force andenergy. The old feminism wasaddressed implicitly, as women whosought to limit the pleasures of the‘rest of us’. Thank goodness, theimage suggested, we can now, onceagain, enjoy looking at the bodies ofbeautiful women with impunity. Withits use of postmodern irony, the imagesought to produce a generationaldivide: the younger female viewer isnot made angry, unlike her older

counterpart. She appreciates themultiple layers of meaning and, mostimportantly, she gets the joke.

Since then, this new kind ofsophisticated anti-feminism hasbecome a recurring feature across thelandscape of both popular andpolitical culture. It upholds theprinciples of gender equality, whiledenigrating the figure of the feminist.We see this approach in variousguises: the gentle upbraiding of thefeminist figures in Bridget Jones’s Diary;the rise of lap-dancing clubs; the‘sexist’ jokes of Ricky Gervais, RussellBrand and Jonathan Ross; theubiquitous hen parties; theproliferation of ‘lads mags’; thesexualisation of young girls; and theretro-styled garden barbeque stagedduring the Obamas’ visit to the UK.At its most extreme, there is thespectacular and unapologetic hatespeech of Silvio Berlusconi, who alsoclaims to have supported the careerambitions of young glamorouswomen (while showering older womenwho challenge him with torrents ofverbal abuse). These are all examplesof something socially significantunder the surface of contemporarycultural life.

I see this phenomenon as a form ofsymbolic power which can beunderstood as ‘post-feminist’. There isa double entanglement, across the ©

201

1 T

he A

utho

r. Pu

blic

Pol

icy

Res

earc

h ©

201

1 IP

PR

ppuubblliicc␣␣ppoolliiccyy␣␣rreesseeaarrcchh␣␣––␣␣SSeepptteemmbbeerr––NNoovveemmbbeerr␣␣22001111 117799

Beyond␣post-feminismOutlining␣the␣terms␣of␣a␣‘new␣sexual␣contract’,␣AAnnggeellaa␣␣MMccRRoobbbbiiee traces␣the␣trajectory␣of␣feminism␣and‘sophisticated␣anti-feminism’␣across␣the␣last␣twodecades␣of␣political␣and␣cultural␣change.

socio-political universe, as feminism istaken into account in order that it canbe understood as having passed away.What once may have had some roleto play on the historical stage is nolonger needed: feminism is associatedwith the past and with old andunglamorous women (like GermaineGreer in the UK or Alice Schwartzerin Germany). This encourages a ‘dis-identification’ with feminism on thepart of young women. Indeed, it is amark of the cultural intelligence of

young women who renounce ordisavow the need for a new sexualpolitics – to this extent, young womenhave been expected to become bothquiet and quiescent. This makes thefeminist ‘backlash’ referred to bySusan Faludi (2006) even morecomplex. Post-feminism registers, timeand again, the seeming gains andsuccesses of the second wave of thewomen’s movement, implying that‘things have changed’, so feminism isnow irrelevant.

It is important to ponder how andwhy this has happened. SociologistsLuc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello(2007) have shown how contemporarycapitalism has replenished itself bytaking on board many of thecriticisms levelled at it by the left,especially those associated with thestudent movements of the late 1960sand early 1970s. Their argumentcould be extended to include some ofthe critiques provided by second-wavefeminism. The writers associated withthe Italian neo-Marxist Operaismo

school (such as Hardt and Negri) offera different perspective, suggesting thatthe left – in their case, the workers’movement – won victories on thefactory floor, forcing capitalism tomake a range of concessions. Thisincluded permitting workers a degreeof autonomy and even self-expressionwithin what had been the unremittinggrind of ‘labour discipline’.

Similarly, it could be argued thatthrough sheer force of struggle, thewomen’s movement made someinroads in addressing the scale ofgender inequalities which existedacross society from the late 1970s.The novelty in each of theseinfluential arguments, by Chiapelloand Boltanski and also by Hardt andNegri, is that some grounds are foundfor countering the often relentlessvarieties of ‘left pessimism’. However,what weakens them is theiranachronistic inattention to gender,sexuality, the body, and the distinctivespheres of power which circulateprimarily outside the field of workand the ‘factory floor’.

Instead, I would recast the debateabout the current status of women interms of what Foucault famously callsday-to-day ‘governmentality’, ratherthan simply focusing on themetastructures of capital and labour. Iwould argue that the recontouring ofdebate about contemporary youngwomanhood (as having benefited fromthe struggle for gender equality) marksout the horizon of a more profoundhegemonic process. Under thisformulation, the granting of somedegree of freedom or liberation for(western) women actually becomes anexpression of a new form of captureor control. This is not a question of‘one step forward and three back’ –rather, it is the creation of a new stageof entrapment made possible througha spurious and superficial ‘sense ofequality’, as the philosopher Jean-LucNancy has described.

ppuubblliicc␣␣ppoolliiccyy␣␣rreesseeaarrcchh␣␣––␣␣SSeepptteemmbbeerr––NNoovveemmbbeerr␣␣22001111118800

© 2

011

The

Aut

hor.

Publ

ic P

olic

y R

esea

rch

© 2

011

IPPR

There␣is␣a␣doubleentanglement,␣across␣the␣socio-political␣universe,␣as␣feminismis␣taken␣into␣account␣in␣orderthat␣it␣can␣be␣understood␣ashaving␣passed␣away

Political␣culture,␣popularculture␣and␣young␣women␣Remaking modern youngwomanhood in this way, so as tosuggest that feminism has indeed beentaken into account, required theactive participation of media andpopular culture. However, suchsources of cultural power do not actsimply or mechanically. Instead, thecomplex intersections and flows ofmedia and political discourses must beexamined. These spread – andsometimes intersect – in unpredictableways, across the whole social fabric.Looked at in this broadly‘Foucauldian’ manner, we see patternsof similar vocabularies and clusters ofexpressions and ideas. Nikolas Rose(1999) has subjected the wholegrammar of New Labour to closeexamination, finding a new focus onself-reliance, individualisation, self-entrepreneurship, talent andcompetition. This was most evident inCharles Leadbeater’s book, Living onThin Air (2000), which carried anendorsement by Tony Blair himself.

The argument I proposed in TheAftermath of Feminism was that youngwomen occupy a key position in thepassage to a new form of neoliberal‘governmentality’ – indeed, theybecame exemplary subjects(McRobbie 2008). One reason for thisis that within the realms of sex andpower, women (in their subordinate ordependent status) have long beendeemed particularly malleable or even‘docile subjects’. There is nothing newabout casting the feminist, or indeedthe lesbian, as the archvillain whoseanger and hostility stems from somepersonal inadequacy. What changedin the new neoliberal era, embarkedupon by New Labour, was a joiningup of forces across the media andpolitical life. This had the effect ofintervening in the space wherefeminism had previously done itswork, making young women in

particular the object of intense‘attention’.

In one example, in light of concernabout the rise of eating disorders, thegovernment sat down with editors ofmagazines aimed at women – as well asthe world-famous feminist SusieOrbach – to try to establish a code ofpractice discouraging the use of size-zero models in fashion and beautyimages. Few feminists would dispute thevalue of such an event, but this kind ofgathering is quickly forgotten by theeditors and journalists themselves.Goodwill and social concern is oftenshort-lived. A few months later, theglossy magazines were once againshowing pictures of models withskeletal legs. And the underlying issues,rather than being interrogated withdepth and rigour, are sidelined – solong as government steps in every sooften at times of moral panic.

Under this new gender regime,popular and political discourse isrepeatedly framed along the lines offemale individualisation. Rather thanstressing collectivity or the concerns ofwomen per se, this replaces feminismwith competition, ambition,meritocracy, self-help, and the rise ofthe ‘alpha girl’ (much loved by theDaily Mail). The young woman isaddressed as a potential subject ofgreat ‘capacity’. As Anita Harris(2004) puts it, she is a ‘can-do girl’. Ina proliferation of faux-feministgestures, girls are celebrated andsupported for their potential and forwhat they ‘can do’ in the world.Across the field of corporate culture,initiatives to support the ‘global girl’become a mark of compassion andconcern as well as ethicalresponsibility.

Charging this attentive spotlight – orwhat Deleuze would call a ‘luminosity’,which lights up and frames the imagesof the highly successful girl1 – is a subtleprocess of marketisation, whereby thepotential of young women comes to be ©

201

1 T

he A

utho

r. Pu

blic

Pol

icy

Res

earc

h ©

201

1 IP

PR



© 2

011

The

Aut

hor.

Publ

ic P

olic

y R

esea

rch

© 2

011

IPPR

attached to a new form of consumercitizenship. This governing strategy,designed to give a bigger place toconsumer culture in the politics ofeveryday life, recognised the power ofmedia and popular culture in forging aworld of cohesive values. But it wasalso a neoliberal strategy of offloadingthe work of government onto a marketthat is given more leeway to shape theneeds of the population, in this caseyoung women. Then, when things go abit too far, government steps back in topull free-market forces back into line.This can be seen in David Cameron’sfocus on the sexualisation of childhoodand the range of fashion and beautyproducts targeted at small girls, oftenunder the age of five.

The␣new␣sexual␣contractMy focus of interest in The Aftermath ofFeminism was in what I termed ‘a newsexual contract’. This was ahegemonic process aiming at whatStuart Hall would call a kind of(gender) settlement regarding thestatus and identity of young women.They were to be encouraged toachieve in school, at university and inthe world of work – and in each ofthese spheres they could rightly expectnorms of gender equality to prevail.Government would (at that time atleast) provide support and incentivesto achieve and to aim for the financial

independence of the monthly salary.This marked a shift away fromeconomic dependence on the malebreadwinner model, promisingwomen greater freedom while alsoideally removing from the state theburden that followed maritalbreakdown or divorce.

The young woman could alsoexpect, as a result of herhardworking outlook and capacity, togain some tangible sexual freedomsin the form of access to leisureculture and to a sex life which neednot be tied to marriage and havingchildren. It was also to be marked bya new climate in which the sexualdouble standard was to be removed,so that the young woman couldheartily enjoy sexuality with impunity– indeed, she could also now getdrunk and even behave badly, withincertain limits (witness Bridget Jonestumbling out of a taxi into the streetafter a long night in the wine bar).So long as she did not become asingle mother reliant on welfare, shecould gain access to sexual pleasureswhich in the past had always beenthe privilege of men (hence the newfemale market for soft pornographyand the growth of so-called ‘pornchic’). This new sexual contract tiedwomen to enjoying the freedom toconsume, to earning her own wage(triggering the enormous explosion ofthe female fashion and beautycorporations), while also offering herthe rather nebulous idea of‘consumer citizenship’.

What was omitted wasencouragement to a more active formof political participation. During theBlair years, political life wasincreasingly linked with the pursuit ofa narrow professional career inWestminster, best left to those few forwhom this was a life-choice. Grass

1 The philosopher Gilles Deleuze uses the term ‘luminosity’ to reflect on what he perceives as an intensifica-tion of Foucault’s notion of visibilities.

It␣was␣a␣neoliberal␣strategyof␣offloading␣the␣work␣ofgovernment␣onto␣a␣marketthat␣is␣given␣more␣leeway␣toshape␣the␣needs␣of␣thepopulation

roots or community politics – andwider democratic participation inpublic life and civic society – wasdowngraded in a context where self-improvement and the need forconstant makeovers were consideredthe best kind of extracurricularactivities for young women. Manycommentators and social scientists atthe time referred to the decline ofpolitical engagement. My point is thatwithin the sphere of this new sexualcontract, the idea of a revivedwomen’s movement was somehowunthinkable: it was certainly notsomething which the so-called ‘Blairbabes’ could encourage, given thedistaste the prime minister was said tohave for the ‘f word’. This is what Imean by the de-democratising effectof ‘feminism undone’.

After␣post-feminism?Coalition␣gender␣politicsThere is a double-edge, and indeed adanger, to the still-patriarchal statusquo invoking (not to say unleashing)young women’s capacities, giving riseto a series of tensions or socialanxieties. It would be fair to say thatTony Blair was haunted by the ‘fword’, because various forms offeminism were indeed within his orbit(from his involvement in the Labourparty, perhaps even in his marriage).One does not need to be a Derrideanto know that in endlessly conjuring upa demon that must be extinguished (inthis case feminism), that demondemonstrates something of its lingeringafterlife and its ghostly power.

Women’s power to contest theterms of political power is substantialand for this reason it is constantly,though often in a behind-the-scenesway, subjected to interventionsdesigned to limit its potential.Patriarchal power is stealthily handedover to the self-punishing regime ofthe fashion and beauty industry,

which has the added value ofpromoting the idea that women self-police and have become their owntoughest judges. When this apparatusis combined with a cultural milieuwhich disparages the feminist as aman-hating harridan, the wind istaken out of the sails of the youngwoman who wishes somehow to venther anger. How is it possible in thepublic sphere of political discourse tospeak out angrily as a womanobjecting to, for example, the kind ofsexual hate speech at which someonelike Berlusconi is so adept, withoutseeming to be anti-men? When theolder feminist does so, well, that isbecause she is of ‘that generation’.

In the Coalition government headedby David Cameron we see somethingslightly different. On the one hand, hehas a modern wife and his publicimage suggests that he is a hands-onfather. But taken unawares, he betrayshis own total unfamiliarity with whatfeminism has meant in political life, byreferring in the House of Commons toLabour MP Angela Eagle derogatorilyas ‘my dear’. In this moment heshowed just how intact and unchangedsexual hierarchies are within thepresent government. Likewiseeducation secretary Michael Gove, in arecent BBC Newsnight discussion aboutthe summer riots, found himselfrepeatedly referring to his opponent,Labour deputy leader HarrietHarman, as ‘Harriet’ or ‘dear Harriet’.He did this so repeatedly that itbecame visible to everyone watching asan unmistakeable and old school(Oxford Union) way of reducing asubstantial female politician to(symbolically at least) the status of anover-enthusiastic schoolgirl.

Other examples demonstrate justhow much ground is lost to womenwhen active feminism goes intoabeyance, as it has done so in recentyears, for all the reasons I havedescribed: the statements of Ken ©

201

1 T

he A

utho

r. Pu

blic

Pol

icy

Res

earc

h ©

201

1 IP

PR



© 2

011

The

Aut

hor.

Publ

ic P

olic

y R

esea

rch

© 2

011

IPPR

Clarke on a supposed disparitybetween different levels ofseriousness of rape, or the claim byDavid Willets that the lack of socialmobility among young men incontemporary Britain is partlyaccounted for by so-called middleclass girls taking advantage of theexpansion of university places.

Without a strong and vocalwomen’s movement – with all thefactions and internal disputescharacteristic of a popular movement– the clock does indeed turnbackwards. There is a rise in the ‘de-crime-ing’ of rape and sexualviolence; there are new permutationsof domestic violence, such as the riseof so-called ‘boyfriend violence’, and– surprise, surprise – there areattempts to undo the terms andconditions of women’s reproductivefreedoms. At the same time, in theclimate of post-feminism, wherefeminism has been taken into account,there is an instrumentalism of sexual

politics by many western governmentsin their pronouncements to less‘progressive’ regimes. The message isclear: that women in the west haveindeed won their freedom. They candress as they please, enjoypornography if that is their ‘choice’and fall drunkenly out of taxiswithout repercussions.

Angela McRobbie is professor ofcommunications at Goldsmiths, University ofLondon, and a leading feminist thinker andauthor.

Boltanski L and Chiapello E (2007) The New Spirit ofCapitalism, Verso

Faludi S (2006) Backlash: The Undeclared War AgainstAmerican Women, New York: Broadway Publishers

Harris A (2004) Future Girl: Young Women in the TwentyFirst Century, London: Routledge

Leadbeater C (2000) Living on thin air, London:Penguin Books

McRobbie A (2008) The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender,Culture and Social Change, London: SagePublications

Rose N (1999) ‘Inventiveness in Politics’, Economyand Society, 28(3)

intro mc robbie

Documents