These are the research questions I've outlined in the current incarnation of my PhD proposal:
My initial avenue of enquiry was to weigh the normalising function of certain therapeutic, self-help approaches against opposing feminist aims of radicalism and liberation. I was asking whether or not ‘happiness’ is something feminist women (should) want. Now I realise I also need to ask if ‘liberation’ is something women should strive toward. One could argue that feminism critiques the norms and ideals of patriarchy, whilst at the same time setting up a new (and arguably, equally restrictive) set of norms to which (feminist) women must adhere and conform. In wading through the conflicting pressures to be both an individual and to approximate the norm (so as to be identified as part of a group and to have a sense of belonging in the world) – I must ask which set of standards – those of feminism or mainstream women’s culture industry – should I follow and what are the points of connection between them? What happiness is there to be had in approximating norms or evading them? What relationship to power can be achieved in identifying with norms verses defying them? Once women have (some) power (or happiness or autonomy) how do we then relate to one-another? Since independence, autonomy and self-determination are valorised tropes for feminism and self-improvement, what value do interdependence, relationality and solidarity have?
Self-improvement is often judged as antithetical to socio-political transformation, is this really a simple binary or does feminist agency/ethics require a two-pronged approach incorporating both individual and group work? Suggesting that a woman needs to work on herself might be construed (by feminists) as blaming the victim, which leads me to another double-whammy question: Why do I feel the urge to self-improve and why do women more generally seem to be in need of a makeover? What is at stake in these transformations? Demystified of the commonly-held assumption that self-transformation reveals the authentic inner self and unlocks one’s true potential, what is the value in discovering one’s inner clichés and then divulging them? What if I take myself seriously as a cliché or as a joke? Once the idea of the subject as masterful, rational and coherent is debunked, what use do self-transformations have?
The private becomes the public (or the personal becomes the political and juxta-political) in feminist consciousness raising sessions and through mainstream media representations of women’s lives. Confessional modes of address are ubiquitous in these varying contexts, which leads me to wonder which modes of self-representation or truth-telling are more or less effective in taking up a position to power? Are certain confessional modes more helpful than others in navigating personal/political ethical conundrums? Because I use humour and parody in my work, I have a vested interest in questioning how comedy can be used to address serious issues of socio-political inequality. How might humour and other ‘light’ affects reveal complexities that earnestness might elide?