The vigorous reinstallation of mediated feminist-subjective activity, and the compulsive quest for salvaging the “subversive” European feminist project by remediating alterity, precisely marks the moment where such alterity gets usurped in the myth of transparent communication that undergirds neoliberal acceleration and disenfranchisement.
This remediation of alterity currently runs through romantic feminist recuperations of “Muslim women” and “female migrants” – as if these groups somehow intrinsically challenge neo-liberalism.
The calls sought to overcome the sense of dejection and (the fear of) a certain vacillation in an admirable attempt to reground the feminist project of gendered justice.
At the time of the Polish Gender Conference, I found it significant that these two sentiments – the forlorn nostalgia and the call for vigorous mediated action – occurred at a time in a European Union marked by the expansion of its institutional and neoliberal borders eastward.
The superficial clash between nostalgia and techno-salvation is really a derivative of a more fundamental clash in feminist theory, namely that of the conceptual (non-)difference of the .
Therefore, if feminist theories of the subject want to remain meaningful in the face of these formidable calamities of global capitalism, they will have to start with a thorough questioning of how its own adversarial debates may relate to such calamities.
For an excellent reading of Kellner’s misinterpretation of and Morris’s more interesting engagement with Baudrillard, see Gane (1991, 2000)].
This criticism makes some sense: Baudrillard’s major mistake has in my opinion been his caricaturizing of feminism as mere emancipation.
I propose that Braidotti’s nomadic and Butler’s Lacanian-poststructuralist subjects are today actually two sides of the same coin.I do however suggest that the feminist critiques on Baudrillard have thrown out the metaphorical baby with the bathwater.His suggestions about politics, the media and seduction, could greatly help raising the versatility of feminist theory in light of techno-neo-liberalism.On the other hand, calls from other feminists for a vigour even stronger than that of that second wave were raised in an effort to efface this nostalgia.At that same Gender Conference, these calls to action pressed for a more abundant use of the new technologies for feminism.
Also, Butler incessantly expresses her weariness regarding Braidotti’s optimism – a weariness she again voiced at the aforementioned Gender Conference.