Abstract
The first issue of this Journal was published in Spring 1994. Thirty years later, we have found it both interesting and instructive to reflect on what was discussed in the inaugural editorial, contemplating what has changed and what has remained the same with regard to the preoccupations of women’s/gender/feminist studies in the landscapes we call ‘Europe’.
As the authors of that first editorial explained, the main catalyst for launching this Journal was the 1989 fall of the Berlin wall, which many viewed as the beginning of a new era of (potential) unity and peace in Europe. The Journal’s initiators considered that ‘the ideological transformation of Europe [. . .] may offer feminism increased scope for social intervention’ (Editorial, 1994: 6). What is uncanny is that the same sentiment, those same words, could be applied to the present moment. There have been many changes to political landscapes across Europe since the Journal was launched, with the last decade ushering in perhaps the most consequential ‘ideological transformation’. Over the last few years, more and more countries across Europe have seen the rise of far rightwing, populist political parties winning ever greater percentages of electoral votes. Far right, populist politicians have taken centre stage in formal politics at the highest levels of political power in countries including Hungary, Italy, Sweden and – most recently – the Netherlands.
Our predecessors suggested that the post-1989 political transformations offered ‘a considerable space for the construction of a feminist agenda which addresses issues about the nature of the “new” Europe’ (Editorial, 1994: 7). In contrast, the ideological shifts of the present moment are accompanied by a well-organised and well-resourced global anti-gender, anti-feminist, anti-LGBTIQ+, anti-rights movement. Focusing their analysis on the situation in Poland, but with an eye on the rest of Europe and beyond, Graff and Korolczuk (2022) have argued that ‘people committed to gender equality, pluralism and democracy have begun to share a sense of danger, perhaps even doom’ (p. 2).
It is striking, therefore, to sense the excitement of the writers of that first editorial three decades ago, as they expressed their hope that the Journal would be a forum for exchanging ideas and information that would ‘make possible the construction of a political agenda which will bring about the establishment, in the public world, of a politics by and for women’ (Editorial, 1994: 7). From the very beginning, the Journal was to exclusively publish articles that centre Europe, both as a geographical location and as a political landscape with shifting ‘boundaries and certainties’. At the Journal’s 10-year anniversary Conference, aptly titled ‘Passing on Feminism’ and addressing concerns about backlash against the field, Gloria Wekker (2004) reflected on the ‘need to be self-critical and acknowledge some persistent and serious shortcomings that plague the discipline’, particularly in relation to ‘certain culturally constructed blind spots, located in the legacies of modernity and the imperial project, which were both significantly propelled by ideas about “race,” this pernicious fiction, which is so very real in its consequences’ (p. 489). This reflection called for a critical focus on ideas about ‘race’ and the ongoing impact of European imperial legacies, which has not ceased to plague our times.
Reflecting on what ‘Europe’ means within the title of the Journal, previous editor, Gail Lewis (2011), suggested that the Journal ‘locates Europe and the European in a configuration of historical and contemporary global hierarchies and entanglements marked by competing angles of vision on those entanglements and alternative metaphysics of being and connection’ (p. 4). Likewise, in her last editorial, long-term editor of the Journal, Kathy Davis (2017) argued for the importance of bringing a more transnational perspective to the Journal when discussing ‘European issues’: [w]hile we started out with the rather tentative mission of providing a contrasting European voice to US American feminism by offering a platform for European women’s studies from North to South and East to West, we later began to critically interrogate the notion of Europe itself. This meant a theoretical and political rethinking of where we draw the boundaries of Europe and what we mean by ‘European’ issues. (p. 110)
The importance of such self-reflection for feminist studies is as keenly felt today as it ever was – working in and on the European context as feminists requires that we continue reflecting on the ways in which women’s/gender/feminist studies remain stuck in the coloniality of power. As Black and postcolonial feminists have long shown, feminist tools that have been developed within the coloniality of power will never be able to bring about real epistemic change (Emejulu, 2022; Emejulu and Sobande, 2019; hooks, 1984; Lorde, 1987 [1984]; Mohanty, 1988; Olufemi, 2020; Oyewumi, 1997). Similarly, Eastern European feminist scholars have in recent years become considerably more visible in their work on decentring Western feminisms (Grabowska, 2012; Koobak et al., 2021; Koobak and Marling, 2014; Kulawik and Kravchenko, 2020; Mudure, 2007; Suchland, 2011). Some of the concepts embraced or critiqued by different strands within Western feminist scholarship, such as ‘patriarchy’, ‘equality’, ‘empowerment’, ‘the family’ and ‘rights’ have often been deemed to be universal, when, in fact, there is a long and layered history of erasure, denial and silence of ‘Other’ and othered voices and experiences.
Over the three decades, articles published in the Journal have been part of the political grammar of feminist intellectual storytelling (Hemmings, 2011) and contributed to the conceptualisation of the academic field of women’s/gender/feminist studies. Looking back to the founding gestures within the Journal, we note that time might also be ripe to probe the word ‘women’ in the Journal’s name, posing, once again, the question of how our field is named and who gets to do the naming. Or at the very least, the times call for a reflection on what having this word in the title of the Journal means.
The first issue of the Journal began with an article ‘Theorizing Women’s Studies, Gender Studies and Masculinity: The Politics of Naming’, raising questions about the challenges of naming the field and concerns about – at the time – the increasing use of the category ‘gender’ to analyse sexual divisions, coupled with a fear that such developments might lead to ‘a narrower political and theoretical agenda in terms of analyses of women’s experience’ (Richardson and Robinson, 1994: 11). Later on, in the wake of debates around the incoherence of the category of ‘woman’ at the end of the 1990s, many women’s studies’ departments in Europe and the United States were rushing to change names from ‘women’s studies’ to ‘gender studies’. For better or worse, this Journal retained its initial name.
This is telling of the 1990s, when insisting on the term ‘women’s studies’ was seen as important and strategic, and a way for feminist academics to resist institutional pressures that seemingly aimed to ‘dilute their commitment to radical analysis’ (Aaron and Walby, 1991: 65). This does not mean, however, that the debates and discussions in the articles published in this Journal have remained centred around ‘women’. According to past editor, Dubravka Zarkov (2017), [t]he words ‘Women’s Studies’, for a long time now, do not indicate that the journal contributors deal with women’s lives only – as much as improving those lives remains a central concern to feminist political projects. Instead, in the EJWS, under the Women’s Studies umbrella one can find a plethora of sophisticated and critical articles addressing gendered practices, structures, institutions and discourses. . . (p. 311)
A 30th birthday is often a time for deep reflection. In these times when gender itself has ‘become a matter of extraordinary alarm’ (Butler, 2024: 4), we cannot avoid posing some of these questions once again: what are we talking about when we talk about ‘women’s studies’? Who is included? Who is left out? Why is it important . . . or is it important?
We would like to use this editorial to invite our readers to a conversation in the pages of this Journal, in which we can perhaps reflect together on the status quo. As our current Open Forum editor, Ulrika Dahl (2023), stated, ‘a journal with “women” in its title must continue not only to do the work of interrogating and unpacking what we mean by feminism (. . .) and “women’s studies” but also to examine the very category “woman”’ (p. 272).
This is an invitation to reflect on the role of women’s/gender/feminist studies in the world, as well as on our internal conversations about what our field of study is and how we name it. It is a call to persist, to look forward, to envision a future, as much as it is a call to scrutinise this particular moment in time, to offer a diagnosis of the field. This is not a call for us to engage in collective navel gazing! We are living in times characterised by global pandemics, the ever-deepening climate crisis, multiple colonial occupations, wars and humanitarian crises involving millions of harmed, displaced and killed people across the globe, not to mention the growing power of conservative and far right political powers. This is the complex background to the conversation you are all invited to join.
This is about the work of thought: how to think hard and how to think about hard things; none of this is easy. As Donna Haraway (2016: 47) writes, if we are going to be at all ‘response-able’ to the present, ‘we must think’. We must learn how to ask questions that might have many answers, or none. In that sense, reflecting on our own situatedness, becoming accountable for our own knowledge claims, is about posing questions that may not have obvious answers. It is about realising that it is intellectually irresponsible not to ask these questions.
*****************************
It is our pleasure to welcome Dr Joelin Quigley Berg, who became our new Managing Editor at the start of Spring. In her regular day-to-day job, Joelin is Communications Officer at the Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University, where she works to increase visibility for, and engagement with, gender research, and to broaden the understanding of gender studies as a subject. In 2015, she defended her PhD thesis, ‘Issues of Harm and Offence: The Regulation of Gender and Sexuality Portrayals in British Television Advertising’, at the University of Warwick, UK. Joelin’s background in sociology and gender studies, with a particular interest in how we navigate gender and sexuality in contemporary media and popular culture, will help us maintain and further enrich our day-to-day work of the Journal. We are very excited to work with Joelin and wholeheartedly welcome her to our team.