Brief History of the Origin of the Project: The Needs that it Strives to Meet
As far as the gender/feminist studies education is concerned, a shared feature in the region of Southeastern Europe is its virtually utter absence from the institutions of the official higher education. Or, in the brighter cases (e.g., the University of Sofia where there is an integral postgraduate program, or University of Skopje offering several courses), one can speak of this field’s radical marginality, consisting in a low position on the scale of power relations (poor funding, invisibility, etc.) In many countries of SEE, the feminist scientific and theoretical thought and the production of knowledge have functioned on an informal level, in alternative spaces, and, by doing so, have represented a corrective, alternative and supplement to the formal higher education. Nevertheless, the official production of knowledge and of what is considered competent professional formation rigidly maintains its ban to – according the dominant discourses - the “non-scientific” gender studies: “non-scientific” since knowledge is still deemed to be irrevocably universalistic, “neutral” - thus, genderless/sexless.
Such belief implies also the following, more generally conservative position, according to which - the nature of knowledge and scientific truths being “irrevocably universal” - science and “true knowledge” are above culture and history. This is also one of the reasons why even in those universities where there is formal existence of the field, one can still claim its radical marginality and neglectedness. In sum, the institutionalized higher education in the region is in pressing need for the introduction of critical thinking from the aspect of identity (of the subject of knowledge) vis-à-vis the ideological backdrop/historical-cultural context of the presented “scientific truths”. In other words, we do not see critical thinking as solely and exclusively a teaching method (approach I the technical sense of the word “teaching”), but also as a perspective in the creative processes of the original research-based syllabus and curriculum fashioning. Thus, what is most gravely lacking in the existing ruling concepts of institutionalized academic formation is the critique from the standpoint of identity and difference. Without this, there can be no convincing introduction into the universities of SEE of the values and topics such as multiculturalism, civic society, democracy, etc. as well as of the un(self-)censored theoretical debate on these notions.
Thus, one should argue that not only the gender studies need access to the university, but also – and even more so – that the universities in Southeastern Europe need gender studies as legitimate constituent of their system/s of higher education.
The trend of increasing debate in the region on the question of the inherent specificity/s of feminist thinking with regards to the cultural context of the Balkans speaks of the need to situate the on-going discussions on curriculum development within their particular contextual framework. Namely, science and knowledge cannot exist independently from the cultural, historical and geo-political context. The context generates its own order of thematic priorities, methodological approach and language. The substantial issues that are the most at stake with regard to the contextualization are precisely the language (how we name things, and consequently, what kind of discourses are created) and the local/regional history of intellectual production. In order to preserve, enrich and understand this heritage one has to do a more focused effort to situate the knowledge and memory in its regional context.
The national cultural/historical framework is a priori transcended for several reasons (creating a certain chain of inference): it is impertinent to attempt to identify national cultural contexts since, whatever they might represent, they are but aspects of the regional one, which is an inherently cultural one. (This is relevant perhaps even more generally, but in the Balkan case - particularly so.) Insisting on national identity constructions has proven destructive in the Balkans, having brought divisions and antagonisms. In addition to this, the already existing national myths are in themselves overly exclusive of the other, and for that reason – even if they do not show a destructive effect, they would, quite probably, have an isolating one. Moreover, the preponderance of regional projects to the national, the intensive communication and inter-connectedness of individual scholars, groups and centers, shows that the context of the gender/feminist studies in this region has always already been a principally regional instead of a national one.
Furthermore, in the light of the processes of European integration, this regional identity needs to rethink its political positioning with respect to the EU as political and cultural space. What is more important, the strategies for the gender/women's studies’ institutionalization in SEE should be harmonized with the tendencies and current, feasible initiatives (in the same field) taking place in the EU (lead by initiatives/associations such as ATHENA and AOIFE). In the context of the on-going government-conducted reforms of the higher education according to the EU standards, the gender/women’s studies ought to make its way into the institutions in coordination with this academic realm’s critical re-positioning within the EU university-context/s.
This harmonization concerns not only policy, but scholarship issues as well. As for the latter, we argue that the East and the West of Europe have common problem-areas that need to be addressed in a collaborative way from the both sides of the invisible European divide in the form of a wider academic discussion and research investigation. For example, the notions of “race”, “racism” or “ethnicity” and “multiculturalism” in both Eastern (or more specifically South-Eastern) and Western European vocabularies have similar meanings that are critically different from the ones referred to in the US academic and political language, which is often uncritically “imported” in the European academia. (See: Gabriele Griffin’s “Race, Ethnicity, Migration and Gender in Europe” in The Making of European Women’s Studies, Vol. II, pp.103-116 published by ATHENA-Utrecht University). Furthermore, the maintaining of the theoretical (translated into scientific and political) language of the Balkans as the Other of the EU’s Europe, in the vain of Maria Todorova’s discourse, has gradually resulted into self-fixation of the SEE academic/intellectual subject as this Otherness. The stabilization of this otherwise productive critical view has deprived the SEE academia of the possibility for an emancipated and equal position in the discussion of the European identity, and, therefore, of the whole idea of European integration. Applying, for example, the specifically feminist approach of the “methodology of the standpoint”, or, e.g., of the ethics of care, can dramatically contribute to this undertaking of an emancipation that concerns not only the feminist but the entire academia of the region.
This particular project will build on numerous previous experiences, among which the regional seminar on “Strategies for curriculum development” organized in spring 2002 by RCGS. The seminar was a follow-up activity of the first regional HESP supported summer school in gender studies for young faculty: “Reading the Balkan Subject and Its Genders” (2001). Most significantly, it will be an inevitable “extension” of the discussion/initiatives that will take place at the regional conference “Strategies for the Gender/Women’s Studies in Southeastern Europe” that will take place in February 2004, organized by the “Euro-Balkan” Center for Gender Studies-Skopje and the Belgrade Women’s Studies Center.
|
