unconventional feminisms: or, postmodern narcissism in the third-wave.

I think we’ve all read the newspaper reports that (negatively) call this generation the most selfish, the most apathetic, the most self-entitled. And also think that most feminist bloggers would agree that nothing could be further from the truth. But I have to admit, I am fascinated by the concept of narcissism – which I do think is increasing. The difference is that when I use the term narcissism, and especially when I use it in a postmodern context, I don’t utilize the negative connotation that perhaps older generations are incinuating. We are living in a world that is unstable, dangerous, and uncertain. Former structures of stability are gone, future structures of stability are uncertain. Narcissism has become a necessity in this world. Furthermore, The third-wave has been influenced by postmodernism narcissism. This is my attempt to explore how. 

This paper explores the blogosphere through a lens of postmodernism. The reason I wanted to write this paper, and the reason that I’m posting it here, is because I’m really very interesed in postmodernism, narcissism, and their relationships to the third-wave. The concept for this paper was almost exclusively inspired by Sean Conroy’s article, “The Nightmare of Clever Children: Civilization, Postmodernity, and the Birth of the Anxious Body.”

I would L-O-V-E feedback on this. If you take the time to read, thank you – please let me know your thoughts. And yes, my abstract overlaps a bit with the introduction.

Abstract:

Using unconventional language and technological spaces, American third-wave feminism is forging new ground. Increases in the number of women’s studies programs nationally, as well as increases in nonacademic feminist discourses through the blogosphere, have produced a multidimensional brand of young third-wave feminism. However, the postmodern situation has created unchartered ground for feminism. Acknowledging the deconstruction of normative frameworks of stability, the death of god, and the implications of identity formation without structure or security, I will explore how postmodernity and inevitable postmodern narcissism are influencing the third-wave. Included in this discussion will be the third-wave’s distinction from second-wave feminism and academia, choosing instead to construct a plural and dialectical feminism which rejects former icons and dismisses overarching hegemonies. Specifically, this creation of feminist plurality will be discussed through the tool of the internet blogosphere, a space of self-creation and reimagination that has irrevocably revolutionized third-wave feminist identity formation. I will discuss the blogosphere as a space of modern consciousness-raising, as well as a space of postmodern identity construction and a new embodiment of individualistic feminist ideology. Ultimately, I will ask whether the influence of postmodern narcissism has strengthened feminism by allowing it fluidity and plurality, or if instead it has divided feminism and lost definition.

one more time..

Not to seem redundant, but I wanted to provide links to a few interesting articles regarding the future of women’s studies programs, since it seems that David Horowitz sparked some interesting dialogue on the subject with his recent article, “No Ideologue Left Behind“. In it, Horowitz claims that women’s studies programs grew out of the women’s liberation movement, and that their purpose is more politically oriented than intellectually relevant:

“Women’s Studies, then, is equipping women not only to enter society as whole, as productive human beings, but to transform the world to one that will be free of all oppression. This is the statement of a political cause not a program of scholarly inquiry.” (source)

While Horowitz prefers to oversimplfy the women’s studies programs for the sake of his own argument, what he fails to recognize is that while these programs may have found their opportunity for formation in the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s and 70s, women’s studies programs today are not merely political training ground for feminist activists without scholarly intention or intellectual relevance. The very notion that women’s studies programs are interdisciplinary programs suggest the scholarly relevance of significant proportions that Horowitz chooses to ignore. The premise of women’s studies programs is not to train political activists, but to challenge the modern assumption of the one-dimensional, ahistorical white man’s version of history, sociology, psychology, theory and philosophy, among many other different disciplines. To recognize that these disciplines are contextual, that perspectives across all subject matter are gendered, historical, and socially affected and constructed  – to ME, this is the very height of scholarly inquiry – and women’s studies provides the tools with which to participate in such inquiry.