Feminism and the Politics of Resilience E-Book

Angela McRobbie

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Seitenzahl: 280

Beschreibung

In this short and provocative book, cultural studies scholar Angela McRobbie develops a much-needed feminist account of neoliberalism. Highlighting the ways in which popular culture and the media actively produce and sustain the cultural imaginary for social polarization, she shows how there is substantial pressure on women not just to be employed, but to prioritize working life. She fiercely challenges the media gatekeepers who shape contemporary womanhood by means of exposure and public shaming, and pays particular attention to the endemic nature of anti-welfarism as it is addressed to women, thereby reducing the scope for feminist solidarity. In this theoretically rich and deep analysis of current cultural processes, McRobbie introduces a series of concepts including 'visual media governmentality' and the urging of women into work as 'contraceptive employment'. Foregrounding a triage of ideas as the 'perfect-imperfect-resilience' McRobbie conveys some of the key means by which consumer capitalism attempts to manage the threats posed by the new feminisms. She proposes that 'resilience' emerges as a compromise, as hard-edged neoliberalism proffers the option of a return to liberal feminism. A lively and devastating critique, Feminism and the Politics of Resilience offers a much-needed wake-up call. It is essential reading for students and scholars of cultural studies, media, sociology, and women's and gender studies.

Leseprobe

Contents

Title page

Copyright page

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Notes

1 Feminism, the Family and the New Multi-Mediated Maternalism

The Maternal–Feminine

Revolutionary Road?

The Nursery as Socialist Ideal

Good Housekeeping: The Biopolitics of the Family

Visual-Media Governmentality, Maternity and ‘Neoliberal Feminism’

Notes

2 Feminism and the Politics of Resilience

The Profit from Feminism?

Competitive Femininity

The Politics of Resilience

Red

and Resilience

Critique of Resilience

‘The Violence of Regulatory Norms’ (Butler 1997)

Conclusions

Notes

3 Out of Welfare: Women and ‘Contraceptive Employment’

‘Sleeping off a Life on Benefits’

16

Feminism and New Public Management

Gender and Anti-Welfarism

Notes

4 ‘Breaking the Spell of the Welfare State’: Gender, Media and Poverty-Shaming

Reality TV as Social Worker?

Little Britain

Abjection

White Dee

Black Women, ‘Welfare Queens’ and Anti-Welfare Media

Some Brief Conclusions

Notes

References

Index

End User License Agreement

Guide

Cover

Contents

1 Feminism, the Family and the New Multi-Mediated Maternalism

Pages

iii

iv

vi

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

125

126

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

127

128

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

129

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

130

131

132

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

Feminism and the Politics of Resilience

Essays on Gender, Media and the End of Welfare

Angela McRobbie

polity

Copyright page

Copyright © Angela McRobbie 2020

The right of Angela McRobbie to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published in 2020 by Polity Press

Polity Press

65 Bridge Street

Cambridge CB2 1UR, UK

Polity Press

101 Station Landing

Suite 300

Medford, MA 02155, USA

All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-2506-5 (hardback)

ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-2507-2 (paperback)

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: McRobbie, Angela, author.

Title: Feminism and the politics of resilience : Essays on Gender, Media and the End of Welfare / Angela McRobbie.

Description: Medford : Polity, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “A captivating analysis of neoliberal culture’s hold on womanhood from the leading voice in cultural studies”-- Provided by publisher.

Identifiers: LCCN 2019041734 (print) | LCCN 2019041735 (ebook) | ISBN 9781509525065 (hardback) | ISBN 9781509525072 (paperback) | ISBN 9781509525102 (epub)

Subjects: LCSH: Feminism. | Neoliberalism. | Popular culture--Political aspects.

Classification: LCC HQ1155 .M377 2020 (print) | LCC HQ1155 (ebook) | DDC 305.42--dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019041734

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019041735

Typeset in 10.5 on 12pt Sabon

by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk, NR21 8NL

Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon

The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.

Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.

For further information on Polity, visit our website: politybooks.com

Acknowledgements

My thanks are due to the Carl von Ossietzky University, Oldenburg, for the Mercator Fellowship 2017, which allowed me to complete the work for this volume. I presented an early version of Chapter 3 at Oldenburg University Selbstbildung Project and wish to thank the colleagues there, especially Thomas Alkemeyer, for their support. I presented Chapter 3 in the Department of Sociology at Vienna University in 2017; thanks are therefore due to Elisabeth Holzleithner, Birgit Sauer and Eva Flicker for inviting me. At Goldsmiths I tried out that chapter at the Centre for Feminist Research 2017; especial thanks to Lisa Blackman for encouraging me to do this. Thanks to Sarah Banet-Weiser for inviting me to present Chapter 2 at the London School of Economics in May 2019.

As ever, I am indebted to Goldsmiths, University of London, and my colleagues in the Department of Media, Communications and Cultural Studies for their enthusiasm and good cheer. I was also able to complete the manuscript thanks to a period of sabbatical leave in 2018. Thanks also to the team at Polity Press for their friendly professionalism and patience.

Chapter 1 appeared in New Formations, 81 (2013). I am grateful to the publishers for permission to reprint in this current volume.

Introduction

This short book of just four chapters seeks to develop a feminist account of some contemporary dividing practices associated with our current times of neoliberalism.1 Each of the essays examines, in different ways, how social polarization is enacted through popular culture2 and media, and how highly normative ideals of femininity play a role in promoting an increasingly fragmented and splintered society. In a vaguely Butlerian gesture, I understand femininity as a series of historically embedded and institutionally endorsed crafting processes, which take shape and are realized in a wide range of textual and visual practices. These bestow, in ritualistic fashion, modes of recognition on bodies that come to be marked, in their conduct and behaviour as well as appearance, as female. These are also then boundary-marking practices ensuring the perpetuation of heterosexual masculine domination, while also confirming male bodies as in a binary relation with their female counterparts. These crafting processes separate and differentiate the female subject according to class and ethnicity. Femininity, as it is created in the imaginations of the cultural intermediaries of the consumer culture, as well as by various professionals and administrators of the state, is put to use as a mechanism for producing a whole world of distinctions and ‘society of inequality’ (Bourdieu 1984; Foucault 2006). For example, as shown in Chapter 2, the familiar and quite mundane idea of ‘having it all’, a staple feminine lifestyle topic of women’s magazines and discussion point for high-profile women, which Catherine Rottenberg has subjected to strenuous feminist analysis, becomes an elite call to high-income, mostly young, and almost exclusively liberal-minded white women to separate themselves off, to pull further away, so as to protect their social cachet by finding uniquely middle-class solutions to the predicaments of sustained gender inequities at the upper end of the social spectrum (Rottenberg 2018). We come to know and recognize this privileged class status primarily by visual means and through familiar repertoires which draw attention to slimness, perfected grooming techniques, designer wardrobes, elegant accessories and so on. To be within reach of ‘having it all’, is already to be significantly and unambivalently upper middle class. Femininity, more so than before, becomes a finely tuned instrument of social calibration; its focus is on the measurement of goals and the meeting of daily objectives.

To an extent, these norms of femininity emanating from consumer culture and from the contemporary polity mark out a continuity with what I described as the field of post-feminism, led by ambitious and competitive ‘top girls’, for whom feminism as a mass movement was deemed no longer needed, for the reasons of government being seemingly well-disposed to such women as those who might benefit from meritocratic measures, introduced according to the logic of the level playing field (McRobbie 2008; Littler 2017). But this continuity is now interrupted, and in this book I highlight two new elements (there are, of course, many others) that impact on the hegemony of the gender meritocracy and its myth of mobility and opportunity. One is the remarkable and joyful presence of the new feminist campaigning, led primarily by young women, and more typically associated with a left-wing social agenda, and the other is the coming to visibility of women’s poverty, revealing what I label the feminine incarceration effect that comes into play for those women who are propelled downwards, and who find themselves locked into a bleak grey landscape from which social mobility becomes virtually impossible. What I have aimed to do across these four essays is to offer an account of the way in which contemporary neoliberal culture operates at an everyday level for women, according to the gradations of class and ethnicity, systematically undoing and ideologically de-legitimizing previous structures of support that had been born in an (albeit short-lived) era where feminists in the 1970s and 1980s had defended non-stigmatizing welfare and where the model of the white, heterosexual family unit was less uncritically embedded; indeed, when feminist academics talked about the ‘tyranny of the family’ (Barrett and McIntosh 1982). Much of the discussion that follows pivots around questions of work and family life for women in the UK today, as these are refracted through the multi-mediated landscape of entertainment and popular culture. The unifying thread of the contemporary governmentality of young women is the priority of paid work and the significant, but nevertheless secondary, status to be given to family life and intimacy in the guise of what I refer to in Chapter 3 as ‘contraceptive employment’. Just to offer an inflection here: for poor, working-class women, including of course those from ethnic minorities, paid employment is a requirement and a prescribed feature of status and identity; for their middle-class counterparts there is the privilege of ‘choice’, with family, lifestyle and career options interwoven as markers of female success.

The logic of competitive femininity and the loss of a compassionate welfare ethos have led to more openly antagonistic relations visible right across the social fabric, often taking the form of expressions of hatred, cruelty and aggression, as is the case with what has come to be known as the ‘poverty-shaming’ mechanisms of the tabloid print media and Reality TV. Some early signs of this could be found in television programmes dating back almost twenty years, when upper-middle-class white television presenters such as Trinny Woodhall and Susannah Constantine sneered at the bad taste choices of the working-class women who came forward to be ‘made-over’ (McRobbie 2008). More recently, feminist media scholars have focused their attention on Reality TV programmes that seek to scandalize more well-heeled viewers through the genre of what de Benedictis et al. label ‘Factual Welfare TV’, a format that shines a stigmatizing light of media publicity on sectors of the population, typically female, who are poor and reliant on welfare payments (de Benedictis et al. 2017). The success of these programmes, with their huge audiences, has led feminist scholars to interrogate their social meaning, to foreground the injustice of these shaming practices, and to emphasize the highly exploitative formats that portray poor people, mostly poor women, as the victims of their own ‘bad choices’. Drawing on this work, my aim here is to propose a stronger connection between critical social policy studies and feminist media and cultural studies, something already outlined in the recent work by Tracey Jensen, who in turn refers back to the path-breaking book by Stuart Hall et al. (Jensen 2018; Hall et al. 1978). The symbolic meaning of social incarceration that unfolds from within the landscapes of Reality TV programmes (such as Benefits Street) exposes the fallacy of the mobility ethos inscribed within the idea of meritocracy, while absolutely consolidating and confirming the forms of social polarization that several decades of neoliberal economics and anti-welfare agendas have created. Across Chapters 3 and 4 I reflect on the chasm of social and economic difference that has opened up, and on how previous structures of opportunity have been removed. This incarceration effect could be seen most vividly in yet another Reality TV programme recently broadcast by Channel 4, facetiously titled Skint: Friends Without Benefits,3 which pitched itself, as if in debate with the changes in circumstances to poor communities brought about by the Conservative government’s welfare reforms, including the now notorious Universal Credit. Among others, the programme featured a young single mother who was required, as part of her access to benefits, to walk round local shops asking if they had any vacancies. That in every case the answer was a resounding no merely confirmed her abject status, something that encircled all who took part in the programme.

What I am foregrounding here is a kind of cultural analysis that pays attention to how normative femininity articulates a world of small intra-class distinctions, which compel women to endorse and realize ideas of respectability and self-responsibility; and how women who fail to adhere to these principles are subjected to widespread forms of punishment meted out through the instruments of visual media governmentality. The exposure of the bodily failings of profoundly disadvantaged women is accentuated by the new media interfaces, which pitch experts in self-help and make-over culture as mentors, in favour of the more traditional and qualified social workers trained in equal opportunities and in women’s rights. Such tactics as these, operating within popular culture, elide entirely the profound material effects of social polarization and incarceral femininity, which have made it well-nigh impossible for poor working-class women, and especially mothers, to improve their situation, on the basis of multiple factors, from the high cost of childcare, to reliance on casual work with unpredictable hours, both of which make it difficult to gain more skills. Again, it is the small details that enforce this state of entrapment; for example new job applications in the lower skill sectors are nowadays pre-filtered by online systems, and recruitment for jobs such as basic office work and administration are outsourced to agencies that oversee the first stage of online applications, so that the chances of being called for an interview, and with this the opportunity perhaps to shine face-to-face, are inevitably curtailed. This acts against women with low levels of qualifications in a wider context, where women in general have acquired higher qualifications, including further and higher education degrees and diplomas. So this sense of failure and of being locked out of opportunities is all the more apparent.

Focusing on the media and popular culture as a favoured public space for debates about liberal feminism in Chapter 1 (which was written in 2012 and first published in 2013), I trace a passage from liberal feminism to neoliberal feminism through the prism of family life and maternity. Where work and employment for women have emerged across the polity as the defining mark of status and womanhood, anxieties that family and parenting must now take second place have led to an intensification, within the world of entertainment, leisure and consumer culture, of attention to family life. So alluring and enjoyable are the new pleasures of the hearth that it becomes incumbent on women to double their efforts after work to become a new kind of ‘angel in the house’.4 This pathway is given a feminist gloss by figures such as Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Facebook, who is author of the best-seller titled Lean In, and who goes so far as to encourage younger women to look for a pro-feminist type of husband who will willingly do his fair share of household duties and childcare (Sandberg 2012). These ideas play a role in precipitating new seemingly up-to-date models of conservative feminism, of the type endorsed by the former UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, who, at the time of writing Chapter 1, was Home Secretary. This is a resoundingly white middle-class cultural formation of women’s citizenship, which, as I show in the chapter, has its historical roots in the late nineteenth century when virtuous white middle-class women were encouraged to envisage their good housekeeping acumen as a kind of professional task and, in so doing, also taking responsibility for the ‘future of the race’. I come back in Chapter 4 to the question of colonial power and how that gets to be subsumed into the edifices of the British welfare state. The main argument in Chapter 1 is concerned with this modern-day injunction, realized by means of what I label ‘visual media governmentality’, to middle-class young women to extend their enthusiasm for their careers, with the proviso that the home too becomes the site of new domestic pleasures, this time with a vaguely feminist gloss, ensuring a shared division of labour in the home. As part of what Wendy Brown refers to as neoliberal rationality, this emphasis on the family as an enterprise that can be worked on for better and more enjoyable ‘returns on investment’ eliminates all traces of earlier socialist feminist attempts to socialize the family through state investment in nursery provision for all (Brown 2015). No longer is it possible to refer to household duties as drudgery; the task at hand is to find so many new pleasures of the hearth, meanwhile allocating those tasks that entail repetitive and unrewarding labour to low-paid migrant women. In short, I am arguing that privileged middle-class women will aim for leadership jobs in order to crash through the glass ceiling, while also showing themselves to excel in parenting and in creating and maintaining a beautiful home. Their working-class and materially disadvantaged counterparts must prioritize earning a living and taking care of their children as best they can.

In Chapter 2, written some six years later than Chapter 1, there is something of a reversal of neoliberal leadership-feminism, as popular culture proposes what could be envisaged as a move back towards liberal feminism, in the light of the pathologies that contemporary life has exacted on the female subject. The chapter reflects also on two interrelated changes that have interrupted the competitive dynamics of neoliberal rationality as it is directed towards young women. One of these is the anti-capitalist feminism, which has had a remarkable impact, and with this is the specific dilemma that the new era of feminism then poses to the world of consumer culture. Has there been a significant drop in sales of so many beauty products? How does the magazine industry respond to the new demands of seemingly feminist consumers? The other change is the perceived high cost to female ‘well-being’, which is wrought by the punitive regime of the self-monitoring subject. Sarah Banet-Weiser, extending her previous co-authored work on ‘commodity feminism’, has undertaken an exhaustive account of how feminism has found its way into the heartland of popular culture, often through the activities of well-known female celebrities who have also welcomed the #MeToo movement (Mukherjee and Banet-Weiser 2012; Banet-Weiser 2018). A whole landscape opens up of female empowerment, which becomes the motif that permits capitalism to make some moves towards welcoming, or even appearing to embrace young women’s commitment to feminism.

In Chapter 2, I ponder two related points, asking how far can feminism go in its incursions into the landscape of capitalism’s consumer culture before it meets its limits, before it is defined merely as a fad about to pass its sell-by date; before it is once more shunned? If the new feminism mounts an attack on capitalism, what is the response? Banet-Weiser rightly points to the rise of popular misogyny spearheaded by an online culture dominated by young men. I pursue a different tack in this chapter by outlining the emergence of a set of discourses that seek both to supplant and supplement feminism by means of a kind of palliative offering in the form of what I call the ‘perfect-imperfect-resilience’ or p-i-r, which steps forward to offer young women a popular therapeutic strategy that permits some aspects of feminism to be retrieved and drawn upon for support.

With this high visibility of feminism I also draw attention to the argument of Boltanski and Chiapello, who examine the ways in which capitalism has revitalized itself by absorbing elements of the anti-capitalist movements of the late 1960s (social critique or artistic critique) on the basis of their potential for innovation (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005). This leads me to propose that new feminist research projects might look closely, with ethnographic detail, at the cultural producers, including the gatekeeper, editors and other decision-makers; in particular those people who are charged with this task of translation.

The second issue I reflect on connects with the perceived harms to women of competition and endless self-assessment. Here I draw attention to the politics of resilience, which in turn entails a scaling down of the principles of neoliberal ‘leadership-feminism’ in favour of a more ordinary and less exceptional set of expectations. Liberal feminism proves itself to be more accommodating to the management of self for the modern-day middle-class gender regime. With such an emphasis on the widespread mental ill health of the female subject I also query the absence of a feminist psycho-analytical vocabulary, which would interrogate the basis of this female complaint and the prevalence of self-beratement. The writing of Adam Phillips and also Judith Butler permits a pathway away from the tyranny of the sovereign self in favour of a more relational and dependent idea of the subject who asks, from the start: ‘Who are you?’

Chapter 2 brings together, then, three specific themes: the displacement function played by the p-i-r; the profit from feminism; and the need for an ethics of care and of vulnerability by means of a psychoanalytical feminism, which de-centres the sovereign self, opening up an unstable female subjectivity as livable in her relation to others. Overall, the chapter reveals some of the tensions that emerge in relation to the driving force of a neoliberal leadership-feminism that has gripped hold of so many popular discourses and textual artefacts directed at women.

In Chapter 3, the focus of attention is on what is required for a feminist cultural studies perspective on the social polarization effect born out of more than three decades of neoliberalism in the UK. This entails a critique of the work of prominent Marxists David Harvey and Wolfgang Streeck for their inattention to sociologically important changes to the gender regime. The writing of Stuart Hall provides a stronger steer for investigating the way in which political economy is translated at ground level to transform the vocabularies that prevail in the workplace, the home and the local neighbourhood. It is everyday language, in particular that deployed by the tabloid press, which implants a new terminology of welfare and which provides a groundswell for public approval to cuts to benefit payments on the grounds of claimants being typecast as feckless, cheating and lazy. Women, especially single mothers, are poverty-shamed, and this drives a further wedge not just between these working-class women and their middle-class counterparts but also at an intra-class level. This suggests that the anti-welfare agenda comprises a moving horizon to target the majority of the low paid who are also current recipients of in-work benefits. There is a war of attrition reminding us of how key to neoliberal rationality is the attack on social democracy as the guarantor (within limits) of welfare. (In fact, social democrats have been at the forefront of the drive to reduce welfare since the mid 1990s, but it has proved even more integral to the neoliberal project to get rid of any lingering traces.) There is substantial pressure on women not just to be employed, but also to prioritize working life and to abide by the rules of ‘contraceptive employment’. If there is a shaming effect on single mothers as they come to embody all the failings of welfare dependency, the logic is to avoid this status except under exceptional circumstances, such as an abusive relationship. The stigmatizing stereotypes and the demeaning images are also boundary-marking activities, which enact a vernacular of social polarization on a day-to-day basis.

In Chapter 4, I more fully interrogate the landscape of poverty-shaming, looking specifically at Reality TV, where I also pay attention to racializing logics, which append whiteness at that point at which working-class women lose the privilege of being deemed without race on the basis of their downward mobility. The figure I consider, who starred in the series Benefits Street, was named White Dee to differentiate her from her friend and neighbour, who was black (Dee Samora). The programme demonstrates so many of the microscopic tensions and contradictions of popular culture to which I referred in note 2 of this introduction. Even as she is shamed, White Dee embodies proud, unbowed working-class femininity. She asserts herself as someone with moral capacity supporting her neighbours by escorting them to hospital or helping them with benefit problems. She also challenges the stereotypes of the welfare scrounger heaped upon herself and her neighbours by the tabloid press and by wider audiences providing online comments. Following through on the politics of race within debates on welfare, I conclude the chapter by referencing the work of so many black scholars who have drawn attention to the positioning of black people as outside welfare in its entirety and seen as undeserving subjects, whose labour is nevertheless required in order for the welfare apparatus to operate for the benefit of white British society. This racial logic of the British welfare state forces a rewriting of any even vaguely rosy account of the achievements of social democracy in this respect, forcing also reconsideration of the times of the so-called ‘affluent worker’ (Shilliam 2018; Virdee 2019).

I end this book with some brief ruminations on social polarization and the intensification of poverty, which are all but disguised by the emphasis, now so firmly established in the popular imagination, on welfare cheats and benefit ‘scroungers’. Arguably women who do rely on benefits, in or out of work, now find themselves more emphatically symbolically incarcerated than was the case in the past. The precarious lives they are forced to lead must be done so without the trained advisers and support workers who might have been able to utilize a non-stigmatizing vocabulary, which was in place from the mid 1970s, before being replaced by the new system of public management some twenty years later. Thus, we see neoliberalism proceed by multiple processes of substitution and displacement. Kinder words and more equal encounters are edged out of social interactions with vulnerable sectors of the population. Spaces,5 images and words are made to comply with the requirements of the boundary-marking practices that enforce stricter social polarization, giving rise to new forms of daily antagonism and aggression. To undo this whole terrain of everyday life and institutional culture, feminist scholars and activists would need to imagine a new and quite different social field predicated on reparative and restorative welfare and a municipal commons comprising public spaces that would counter the incarceration effect. Alongside this we might also envisage forms of media and popular culture that would refute the genres which currently continue to degrade those who have suffered from the intensification of poverty.

Notes

  1

  I draw loosely on Foucault and Wendy Brown here, understanding neoliberalism as a form of governmental rationality, which, coming forward to pervade the UK polity in the Thatcher years, applies the rules of the market to the major social institutions of Western capitalist society, urging privatization of state assets (Foucault 2006; Brown 2015). This ethos is also concerned with bodies and populations who are encouraged not just to envisage themselves as human capital but also to develop an entrepreneurial attitude towards the self, which means bolstering personal conduct so as to maximize assets and audit the self with the help of various monitoring devices designed to enhance competitiveness. Neoliberalism sweeps across the terrain previously associated with social democracy, including welfare, organized labour, education and social care sectors, stripping them bare and proposing instead various entrepreneurial, innovation and leadership programmes.

  2

  I take my lead here regarding the definition of popular culture, rather loosely reworking both Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams, as symbolic practices, which retain vernacular elements of belonging and identity from subordinate social groups, classes and minorities, while at the same time providing fertile ground for the global entertainment and media industries able to extract and leverage maximum value from seemingly authentic affective and emotional expressions and investments. The formal qualities of popular culture are massified and commodified. Participation is managed and calibrated through algorithmic demographics of audiences, populations, participants, users or consumers. Little remains of potential for struggle, posing new challenges to scholars of ‘pop culture’.

  3

  Aired through February and March 2019.

  4

  The popular Victorian image of the ideal wife/mother came to be known as the ‘angel in the house’. She was expected to be devoted and submissive to her husband, while creating a beautiful home, so that he would have no reason to seek pleasures elsewhere.

  5

  Here we might point to the increasing privatization of housing and play spaces in the London property market. Attention has been drawn to the phenomenon of the ‘poor door’ in developments where social tenants are forced to enter the building through an unlit alleyway back door and without the trappings of a well-designed entrance hall. More recently, groups of women have revealed playground rules that bar the children of social tenants from the bigger and well-planned space allocated for the children of those who own properties in these new-build developments.

1Feminism, the Family and the New Multi-Mediated Maternalism

The Maternal–Feminine

In this first chapter1 I trace a line of development from liberal to neoliberal feminism, which is, I claim, being at least partly realized and embodied through the ubiquitous figure of the middle-class, professional wife and mother. Following on from a comment by Stuart Hall on the centrality of the ‘middle class’ to the neoliberal project, I overlay this with the additional categories of gender and maternity (Hall 2011). This emergent image of motherhood not only displaces, but also begins to dismantle, a longstanding political relationship, which in the UK has linked post-war social democracy with maternity, while simultaneously providing the political right with a new, more contemporary script that allows it to take the lead in the current debate on family life. The analysis I offer is restricted, more or less, to contemporary Britain, with several references to US popular culture and to US liberal feminism, for the reason that these have provided so much of a steer for the way in which the neoliberal agenda in the UK has addressed motherhood and domestic life. This agenda is quite different from the now out-of-date conservative mantra of ‘family values’. The right-wing newspaper the Daily Mail in its ‘Femail’ section has been particularly forceful in its championing of a style of affluent, feminine maternity. This idea of active (en route to the gym), sexually confident motherhood marks an extension of its pre-maternal equivalent, the ambitious and aspirational young working woman or ‘top girl’ (McRobbie 2008). It is also consistently pitched against an image of the abject, slovenly and benefits-dependent single mother, the UK equivalent of the US ‘welfare Mom’. (The political role of this imaginary of welfare maternity is explored in more detail in Chapters 3 and 4 of this volume.) Only in academic feminism do we find a more critical and empathetic response to the difficulties faced by out-of-work single mothers.2