Associate Professor, Spanish Centre, School of Languages, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.  

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

Volume 2, Number 1, features a range of interviews and articles in English and Spanish that address contemporary issues of gender. First, there is an interview with Nora Domínguez, one of Argentina’s most influential feminist literary critics, whose work has transformed our understanding of gender, maternity, and corporeality in national literature. In conversation with Lucía Caminada Rossetti, she considers the political imperative of feminist historiography and the silences surrounding maternal figures. This issue also features an interview with Dr Daniela Alaattinoglu, the 2025 Nils Klim Laureate, whose award represents a turning point in Nordic feminist legal studies. Alaattinoglu, who has been recognised for her innovative work in socio-legal studies, gender and law, and human rights, discusses her intellectual journey, from her early experiences in corporate law to her groundbreaking studies on femicide, involuntary sterilisation, and Indigenous rights. In conversation with Pragati Das, she discusses her concept of law as a contested space in which feminist activism and critique can redefine justice, as well as her prize-winning monograph and joint projects.

The research article “Gender-Based Violence During and Post-Apartheid: Rewriting a Gendered History in War Zones” by Claudia Zucca reclaims women’s voices from the periphery of South African history and highlights the structural nature of violence ingrained in both daily life and state repression. Zucca’s piece questions prevailing narratives and draws attention to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s silences, as its framework frequently neglected to account for gendered injustices. In “Unwritten Power: Reimagining Female Leadership in Italian Literature,” Barbara Gabriella Renzi explores how female characters, rather than traditional positions or rhetoric, embody alternative forms of leadership through resilience, care, cultural memory, and intellectual identity. Renzi shows how female protagonists in the works of Manzoni, Morante, Ginzburg, and Maraini challenge patriarchal systems by developing moral fortitude and interpersonal strength, drawing on feminist theory.

The aticle “La Haka de Protesta: un análisis feminista en tres niveles” by Diana Karina Mantilla Gálvez and Anel Martínez Aquino explores the haka as a feminist act of cultural reclamation and resistance in New Zealand. The authors show how indigenous traditions are viewed differently across contexts, genders, and power relations by contrasting them with the renowned performances of the All Blacks rugby team. They contend that the haka represents a decolonial feminist language of protest that opposes colonial institutions and global hegemonies through a three-level analysis: personal, state, and systemic. The article “Entre lo profano y lo sagrado, la irrupción femenina en el psicoanálisis: Melanie Klein y Karen Horney” by Juan Manuel Rivera Ramírez examines how these two trailblazing intellectuals challenged Freud’s phallocentric framework and redefined psychoanalysis from feminist perspectives. Klein and Horney created new avenues for the integration of psychoanalysis with gender studies by emphasising the maternal figure, reinterpreting the Oedipus complex, and challenging Freud’s theory of female psychology.

The article “Beyond Tokenism and Exoticism: British Women in the Native Literature (1858–1947)” by Ritushree Rudra explores how British women were portrayed in colonial-era Indian texts as complex characters who represent social, political, and cultural tensions rather than just as exotic outsiders or symbolic figures. By going beyond crude stereotypes to expose nuanced interactions with colonial power and reformist goals, the study reframes the presence of British women in native literature as a site of negotiation and critique.

I hope the topics explored in this issue will spark intellectual curiosity and advance equality and gender issues.

Ritushree Rudra   
Delhi University 

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

Abstract

This paper primarily examines the imagery of British women in Colonized Literature from 1858 to 1947 to demonstrate that their portrayal was not limited to tokens of difference or seen solely as exotic figures. Moving beyond the memsahibs as exotic symbols and markers of difference reveals a complex, layered persona, as interpreted through five texts discussed in this article: Nil Darpan (1859) by Dinabandhu Mitra, Inglonde Bango Mahila (1885) by Krishnabhabini Devi, A Visit to Europe (1902) by Trailokyanath Mukerjee, Ghare Baire (1916) by Rabindranath Tagore, and India Calling (1935) by Cornelia Sorabji. By exploring themes beyond exoticism and tokenism, this article also highlights how the representation of British women in Colonized Literature is redefined, with stereotypical notions surrounding the memsahibs being continually challenged and questioned.

Keywords – Exoticism, Tokenism, British Women, Native Literature, Colonial Period

Juan Manuel Rivera Ramírez   
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo (UAEH)-México.

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

Resumen

Dentro de los paradigmas teórico-epistemológicos que configuran la práctica clínica en psicología, el psicoanálisis se constituye como una de las corrientes más influyentes, en tanto que articula una propuesta explicativa sobre el funcionamiento de la mente humana y, de manera paralela, una praxis terapéutica. Esta corriente, desarrollada por Sigmund Freud a finales del siglo XIX, continúa siendo objeto de práctica, revisión y debate por parte de psicoanalistas en diversas latitudes. No obstante, la mayoría de sus constructos teóricos fueron elaborados desde una perspectiva masculina, lo cual derivó en una concepción parcial de la subjetividad humana, identificada frecuentemente como “falocéntrica”. Este concepto remite a un referente simbólico en el que el poder social se encuentra asociado al falo y, por extensión, al orden patriarcal. Frente a ello, diversas autoras han problematizado, reformulado y ampliado los postulados freudianos, proponiendo lecturas alternativas que incorporan la experiencia femenina y cuestionan la centralidad del falo como eje de interpretación de la vida psíquica. En este marco, destacan los aportes de Melanie Klein y Karen Horney, dos psicoanalistas que, pese a no coincidir temporal ni geográficamente, realizaron contribuciones fundamentales al debate contemporáneo sobre los feminismos psicoanalíticos. Klein problematizó el desarrollo del Complejo de Edipo en las niñas y propuso reflexiones originales en torno a la figura de la madre, mientras que Horney elaboró una crítica sistemática a la concepción freudiana de la psicología femenina, introduciendo categorías analíticas que cuestionaron la naturalización de la inferioridad femenina. Porlo expuesto, el presente trabajo tiene como objetivo examinar desde el enfoque teórico-crítico del feminismo, los aportes de Klein y Horney, con la finalidad de profundizar en la intersección entre el psicoanálisis y los estudios feministas de género, aportando una perspectiva crítica frente al falocentrismo que caracteriza los planteamientos originales de Freud..

Palabras clave: Horney, Klein, psicoanálisis feminista, sexualida femenina, teoría psicoanalítica crítica.

Abstract

Within the theoretical and epistemological paradigms that shape clinical practice in psychology, psychoanalysis remains one of the most influential approaches. It offers both an explanatory model for understanding the functioning of the human mind and, simultaneously, a therapeutic practice. This approach, developed by Sigmund Freud at the end of the 19th century, continues to be a subject of practice, revision, and debate among psychoanalysts across different regions. However, most of its theoretical constructs were developed from a masculine perspective, which led to a limited understanding of human subjectivity, often described as “phallocentric.” This term refers to a symbolic framework where social power is linked to the phallus and, by extension, to the patriarchal order. In response, various female authors have questioned, reformulated, and expanded upon Freud’s ideas, proposing alternative interpretations that incorporate female experiences and challenge the centrality of the phallus as the main lens for understanding psychic life. In this context, the contributions of Melanie Klein and Karen Horney are particularly noteworthy—two psychoanalysts who, despite not sharing the same time or location, made fundamental contributions to current debates on psychoanalytic feminism. Klein examined the development of the Oedipus Complex in girls and proposed original reflections on the maternal figure, while Horney developed a systematic critique of Freud’s view of female psychology, introducing analytical categories that questioned the naturalisation of female inferiority. Therefore, this work aims to explore, from a feminist theoretical-critical perspective, the contributions of Klein and Horney, seeking to deepen the connection between psychoanalysis and feminist gender studies, while offering a critical view of the phallocentric bias present in Freud’s original theories.

Diana Karina Mantilla Gálvez^1* & Anel Martínez Aquino^2
1,2Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, México. *Corresponding author.

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

Resumen

En las últimas décadas, los estudios feministas se han erigido como un lente de análisis de suma relevancia para reinterpretar los diversos procesos de la política internacional, especialmente desde los enfoques interseccional y decolonial. Además, la globalización ha hecho más evidente la interrelación de las luchas anticoloniales al respecto de las intersecciones del género, la etnia y la clase. El estudio de caso del presente artículo, Nueva Zelanda, ofrece un contexto heterogéneo donde las reivindicaciones de los pueblos polinesios como el maorí adquieren una dimensión significativa a nivel internacional. El caso aquí planteado, está centrado en el uso de la haka como forma de protesta, en este caso, usada por la diputada mujer más joven del Partido Patriota Maorí, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, y en contraste a la respuesta negativa frente a esa protesta, la aceptación de la haka cuando la realiza el equipo de rugby All Blacks, en las contiendas internacionales. De fondo, el análisis se centra en la confluencia de los aspectos culturales y políticos como desafíos al poder y las narrativas hegemónicas contra las resistencias culturales de los pueblos (Orange, 1987; Smith, 1999), ello nos permite situar desde el análisis de los tres niveles en relaciones internacionales: personal, estatal y sistémico, a la haka como una protesta que desde la lente del feminismo se convierte en un lenguaje de resistencia, reivindicación de la agencia y desafío de la estructura colonial  del pueblo maorí y de la justicia restaurativa en favor de los pueblos indígenas en el mundo.

Palabras clave: haka, protesta, feminismo, Relaciones Internacionales, derechos indígenas

Abstract

In recent decades, feminist studies have emerged as a highly relevant lens for analysing various processes in international politics, especially from intersectional and decolonial perspectives. Furthermore, globalization has made the interconnections between anti-colonial struggles and issues of gender, ethnicity, and class more apparent. The case study of this article, New Zealand, presents a diverse context where the claims of Polynesian peoples, such as the Māori, gain an internationally significant dimension. The focus here is on the use of the haka as a form of protest—specifically by Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, the youngest female MP of the Māori Patriot Party. While this protest received negative responses, the haka is generally accepted when performed by the All Blacks rugby team in international competitions. The analysis highlights the confluence of cultural and political factors as challenges to power and hegemonic narratives, serving as a form of cultural resistance against colonial structures (Orange, 1987; Smith, 1999). This allows us to explore, from the perspective of three levels in international relations—personal, state, and systemic—the haka as a language of resistance rooted in feminism, asserting agency and challenging the colonial legacy of the Māori people, while advocating for restorative justice for indigenous peoples worldwide.

Keywords: haka, protest, feminism, International Relations, indigenous rights.

Barbara Gabriella Renzi 
Berlin School of Business and Innovation (BSBI), Germany.

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

Abstract

This paper examines how Italian literature reimagines female leadership by focusing on characters whose authority does not stem from social status or rhetorical skill, but from their ability to endure trauma, offer emotional support, preserve cultural memory, and develop an intellectual identity. The analysis employs a feminist theoretical framework that combines Carol Gilligan’s ethics of care, Judith Herman’s trauma theory, and Hélène Cixous’s concept of écriture féminine, along with models of transformational and servant leadership (Bass & Riggio; Greenleaf). The study highlights five key female figures: Gertrude (the Nun of Monza) and Lucia Mondella from The Betrothed, Ida Ramundo from *History: A Novel*, Marianna Ucrìa from *The Long Life of Marianna Ucrìa*, and the maternal voice in Natalia Ginzburg’s *Family Lexicon*. Each protagonist opposes patriarchal norms not through direct rebellion but via alternative forms of resistance: moral resilience, cultural transmission, inner intellectual life, and maternal leadership. By linking literary character analysis with leadership theories and trauma-informed critique, this paper advocates for redefining leadership as a relational, ethical, and contextually grounded practice—shaped as much by silence, care, and memory as by vision or speech.. 

Keywords: Italian literature, female leadership, feminist literary analysis, transformational leadership, servant leadership, caretaker leadership, gender and power, historical trauma, resilience, moral authority, cultural heritage, emotional strength, ethical clarity, women’s agency

Claudia Zucca 
Professor of English in International Relations and Primary Education, University of Cagliari, Italy.

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

Abstract

This article investigates gender-based violence (GBV) in South Africa during the Apartheid era, examining how intrastate conflict and the restrictive policies of the Apartheid regime contributed to its prevalence. Utilizing newly accessed archival sources, the study situates GBV within the broader geopolitical context of the Cold War and explores the involvement of other African states in domestic political movements. Applying a critical gendered framework, the study engages with existing literature, empirical data, and statistical evidence to explore the structural and systemic nature of gender-based violence and its enduring legacies in post-Apartheid South Africa. Central to this inquiry are the lived experiences of women, documented through personal testimonies and narratives that reveal the extent and nature of gendered violations under the Apartheid regime. Furthermore, the article critically evaluates the role of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in addressing GBV, questioning the extent to which gender-sensitive approaches were integrated into its mandate. By centering women’s voices and embodied experiences, this study seeks to recover a gendered history in war zones in South Africa, challenging dominant narratives and contributing to the ongoing project of historical redress and gender justice. 

Keywords: Gender-based violence, Apartheid, South African History, Politics, the African National Congress, Intrastate Warfare, Cold War, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Human rights, United Nations.

The Nils Klim Laureate (2025)

Pragati Das 
Faculty, Dept of English, Bhatter College, Dantan & Convenor, CGSN

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

The Conversation

PD: We are privileged to feature you in the Critical Gender Studies Journal. First and foremost, congratulations on being awarded the prestigious 2025 Nils Klim Prize. This distinguished honour recognises your exceptional contributions to socio-legal studies and your tireless efforts to advance critical conversations on gender, law, and human rights.

The Nils Klim Committee Chair, Professor Ástráður Eysteinsson, commended the future impact of your research on “a good number of relevant legal, social, and political spheres on the international scene.”[1] Similarly, the Norwegian Minister of Research and Higher Education, Sigrun Aasland, underlined the significance of your work in addressing “the rights and status of excluded groups in society.”[2] The whole world is celebrating your achievement and trying to grasp your thoughts. 

At the Critical Gender Studies Journal, we are excited to engage with a pioneer of our time. Your scholarship holds immense potential for transcending disciplinary boundaries and making meaningful, global change. How do you feel about being recognised for your contribution? How will it inspire you to do new research?

DA: Thank you very much – this recognition means a great deal to me personally. In many ways, it feels like an affirmation that I am part of a global conversation on law and society, and law and gender. At the same time, it feels a little daunting, as I still consider myself a fairly junior scholar. I take this recognition more as an encouragement to continue my work, rather than an award for concluded research, because I still have much to learn and contribute. I also hope that my most interesting work is still ahead of me.

More broadly, in a time of growing backlash against human rights, the humanities, and gender studies in particular, I think it is especially important that research in these areas is recognised and valued. I hope this moment can contribute to keeping these fields visible, relevant and engaged with global concerns.

PD: We are very curious about your beginning, the budding of your interest in the field of law, and the progress of your interests toward socio-legal studies and gender issues. How did the journey start? Were there any defining moments? Did any mentor, teacher or family member significantly define your career path?

DA: I began studying law because I was interested in questions of social justice—and because law seemed to offer solid career prospects. However, during my first year of law school, I seriously considered quitting. The curriculum focused heavily on areas like contract and business law, which felt far removed from the issues that initially drew me to the field. At one point, I found myself wondering whether lawyers did anything other than help the rich get richer – and whether I really wanted to spend my working life doing that.

Everything changed in my second year, when I encountered the sociology of law for the first time. The course was taught by my now long-time mentor, Johanna Niemi, who also introduced me to the field of law and gender. That was the moment I knew I had found my intellectual and professional ‘home’.

Later, during my time as a PhD researcher at the European University Institute, I had the privilege of being supervised by Ruth Rubio-Marín. She became another key mentor, and her scholarship and our discussions have offered me important conceptual and methodological tools for studying gender and law. Both Johanna Niemi and Ruth Rubio-Marín have been central intellectual and inspirational figures for me—particularly in the way they bring feminist questions and concerns about gender and power into legal scholarship and, through that, broaden the field itself.

Having feminist legal trailblazers like these, whose scholarship demonstrates that gender is highly relevant to the law, has been very important for younger scholars such as myself. In addition, I think that representation matters: having seen leading scholarly figures and women professors in law – a traditionally male-dominated academic field – has been very inspirational for me.

PD: As a scholar whose work intersects socio-legal studies, gender, and human rights, how do you reflect on the intellectual environments and discussions that formed your critical vision? Were there particular academic or social debates, experiences, or collaborations that ignited your passion for this field? How do you recall the intellectual climate? 

DA: My critical vision has been shaped through a combination of lived experience, transnational academic engagement and participation in both scholarly and activist conversations. Living, studying, visiting, working and participating in discussions in a range of countries—including Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Turkey, Italy, Australia, Estonia and Germany—has allowed me to engage with multiple legal and political contexts, and to reflect comparatively on the ways law intersects with structures of power, marginalisation and resistance.

A particularly formative influence has been my engagement with feminist movements and socio-legal scholars in Turkey. The vitality and persistence of feminist legal mobilisations there, especially in the face of increasing authoritarianism, have left a lasting impression on me—both politically and intellectually. These experiences challenged and deepened my understanding of how law and courtrooms can function as both a tool of domination and a site of contestation (for example through feminist sit-ins at trials),[3] and underscored the importance of contextual, grounded approaches to legal critique.

More broadly, my thinking has been shaped by critical feminist, socio-legal and intersectional approaches to the law. I am very fortunate to be part of an academic community where I can continue learning through dialogue and collaboration, and where research can still be animated by a commitment to social justice and collective transformation.

PD: Your work engages with the complex intersection of law and society and addresses their mutual influence and evolution. Could you share your strategies or frameworks to untangle these complex dynamics? How do you ensure that your research remains relevant to both academic discourse and the real-world challenges individuals and communities face?

DA: In practice, my research is often driven by real-world challenges and gaps in scholarly attention. I tend to begin with concrete problems that seem under-explored and I often do so in collaboration with others, since these are questions that benefit from multiple perspectives. For example, my work on trans legal parenthood emerged from a collaboration with Alice Margaria, an expert in legal parenthood and family law. She brought my attention to recent developments in Nordic legislation on trans parenthood—an area with surprisingly little academic commentary. At some point, we simply thought: someone needs to write about this, and decided that we would take it on.

In terms of method, I often start from the ‘inner layers’ of law—statutory frameworks, case law and doctrinal interpretation. But I aim to go beyond this, engaging with the ‘outer layers’ of law: the broader social, political and historical contexts in which law operates. This involves asking what drives legal change, how legal norms evolve over time, and why certain issues become the focus of legal mobilisation while others remain marginal.

By weaving together doctrinal and socio-legal methods and by remaining attuned to lived experiences and activist insights, I try to ensure that my work remains relevant both to academic debates and to the complex challenges faced by individuals and communities today.

PD: Your research tackles deeply sensitive and historically significant issues, such as involuntary sterilisation and castration. Could you elaborate on the methodologies you employ to deal with these topics with academic rigour and ethical sensitivity? 

DA: As a human rights lawyer, a central task is to assess what constitutes a human rights violation, according to the legal standards and principles in place. However, as a contextual legal scholar, I aim to extend this inquiry. I ask not only what constitutes a human rights violation, but also why certain violations are framed as such, why some remain surrounded by impunity, and how concepts like state responsibility evolve in response to changing legal, social and cultural norms.

For example, in the case of historical sterilisation and castration laws—many of which were introduced in the context of eugenics—it is easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to dismiss these practices as products of ignorance or pseudoscience. However, this anachronistic perspective risks overlooking the historical, political, and legal contexts that shaped these laws. It is crucial to understand that scientific research practices evolve over time, and that many of the assumptions and dynamics from these earlier debates still resonate today. For example, contemporary discussions still grapple with issues of which groups are viewed as ‘costly’ to society versus those considered ‘productive’, and these categorisations continue to affect how we position and treat certain individuals or communities.

In approaching these topics, I strive to engage with them by exploring the legal and societal forces that shaped and continue to shape such practices. This means considering both historical contexts and contemporary implications with careful attention to power dynamics, social attitudes and evolving legal principles.

PD: Your research goes beyond the disciplinary limits in the legal, social, and cultural areas and engages with interconnected yet distinct aspects of human experiences. How do you handle the challenges in conducting interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research? Additionally, how do you address potential tensions or contradictions that may arise when combining diverse academic traditions and methodologies?

DA: Much of my work fits within the category of ‘law in context’ – and context is, of course, inherently complex. Disentangling it often requires drawing on multiple methodologies. Hilary Charlesworth has described feminist methodologies in international law as an ‘archaeological dig’, and I think that this metaphor captures how my approach works in practice—different challenges and sets of questions require different tools. Research, in other words, is often about finding the appropriate methods and conceptual tools to address the specific questions at hand.

Interdisciplinary research, in this sense, also requires ongoing dialogue. It’s a reminder that research is ultimately a collaborative and social process. Engaging with scholars from different disciplines helps ensure that one not only understands the tools being used, but also considers the assumptions and limitations of various academic traditions. When tensions or contradictions arise, I find it crucial to engage with them openly, reflecting on how different methodologies can be productively combined and how potential contradictions might reveal deeper insights into the issues studied.

PD: Your doctoral studies at the European University Institute in Florence must have been an enriching experience. Could you take us through your PhD journey? How did you conceptualise and proceed with your research topic? What was the role of your supervisors in shaping your research and leading to the eventual conclusions? Looking back, how has this project influenced your intellectual trajectory and approach to socio-legal studies?

DA: My PhD journey was shaped by collaboration with my supervisor, Ruth Rubio-Marín. We spent a lot of time discussing possible approaches to researching the legal regulation of gender violence, with a particular focus on violence affecting marginalised groups and the dynamics between supranational and national legal frameworks. Ruth strongly encouraged me to venture into the unknown, to explore comparative legal analysis and to integrate insights from various legal fields and disciplines (also those I was initially quite unfamiliar with) in order to address my research question. This interdisciplinary approach was pivotal in my development as a legal scholar.

At the European University Institute, I also had the opportunity to engage in enriching discussions with my peers and participate in seminars and conferences, which helped me to refine my academic identity and broaden my intellectual horizons. Looking back, I recognise how fortunate I was to have five fully funded years to focus on research, supported by the Research Council of Finland. Without the pressures of teaching or administrative duties, I had the freedom to explore new avenues in my research and gather rich data.

Yet, witnessing the current academic climate in Finland—and beyond—where doctoral programs are being shortened and structured in ways that prioritise speed over depth, I am concerned that this may discourage riskier but potentially more rewarding approaches to research. The space and time I had during my PhD were crucial to the creative and intellectual freedom that allowed me to tackle such complex issues.

PD: During your tenure as an Icelandic Research Fund Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Iceland, what were the key findings and outputs of your project? How did this research allow you to expand or move beyond the foundations laid in your previous work? Did the project inspire you to develop new methodologies or innovative approaches to address its objectives?

DA: My postdoctoral project, generously funded by the Icelandic Research Fund (2020–2022), examined the regulation of non-therapeutic medical interventions on children with variations in sex characteristics. The project centred on the 2020 Icelandic ban on non-consensual, non-therapeutic interventions — a legal development that has received very limited scholarly attention. In a forthcoming article co-authored with Kári Hólmar Ragnarsson, we analyse the human rights-motivated establishment and the implementation challenges of the Icelandic ban, highlighting how these mirror difficulties seen in other jurisdictions (such as Malta). Our research discusses how such bans may struggle to traverse the legal-medical boundary they aim to regulate, revealing persistent tensions between formal legal change and medical practice.

This project enabled me to expand both thematically and geographically, moving beyond the focus of my earlier work by engaging a new national context and a distinct yet related field of rights-based regulation. Methodologically, I combined doctrinal legal analysis with insights from social movement studies and empirical approaches. The research also challenged my initial hypothesis — that legislative bans would have a direct and immediate impact on clinical practice — and taught me to stay responsive to the complexities revealed in the data. This openness has inspired me to think more critically about the role of law in shaping practice, and to explore more interdisciplinary and context-sensitive methods in future work.

PD: Your monograph Grievance Formation, Rights and Remedies: Involuntary Sterilisation and Castration in the Nordics, 1930s–2020s (Cambridge University Press 2023) has received widespread acclaim for its groundbreaking exploration of involuntary sterilisation and castration in the Nordics. What inspired you to focus on this profoundly sensitive and historically significant topic? What are the implications of the key findings of the book for contemporary debates on human rights, reparations, and legal remedies?

DA: What inspired me to focus on this topic was a deep concern with how certain harms, such as involuntary sterilisation and castration, have remained at the margins of legal and public recognition, particularly in the Nordic context. I was particularly interested in how individuals and groups who had experienced these interventions came to frame their experiences as injustices — and how, over time, their claims have been heard (or not heard) by legal and political institutions.

The book develops three key arguments. First, I argue that international human rights law has offered a weak master frame for conceptualising involuntary sterilisation and castration in the countries examined — both legally and in terms of reparations. Second, I show how rights have functioned not only as legal tools but also as ideas of sociocultural entitlements. This dual role has been crucial in shaping how victims form individual and collective identities, and ultimately, how they gain public and institutional recognition. Finally, I introduce the concept of grievance formation to capture the processes through which states have responded — or failed to respond — to the demands for recognition and remedies made by different victim groups.

The findings have important implications for contemporary debates on human rights, reparations and transitional justice. They suggest the need to rethink how legal frameworks engage with historical harms and how recognition and remedy are shaped not only by law, but by social movements, collective memory and political will.

PD: As a co-editor of Contesting Femicide: Feminism and the Power of Law Revisited, you have explored feminism and legal frameworks in addressing gender-based violence. How do you view the role of law in combating such violence? Are there particular legal approaches or reforms you believe are most promising in creating accountability and justice?

DA: In Contesting Femicide: Feminism and the Power of Law Revisited, co-edited with Adrian Howe, we explore feminist engagements with law to challenge femicide across diverse geographical and legal contexts. A key theme throughout the book is Carol Smart’s Feminism and the Power of Law (1989), in which she famously warned feminists against placing too much faith in legal reform as a path to gender justice. This critique has sometimes been misinterpreted as discouraging all legal engagement, but we wanted to revisit Smart’s argument 30 years later and examine how contemporary feminist legal mobilisations — for example, around femicide laws and the abolition of provocation defences in intimate partner violence cases — continue to grapple with the tensions she identified.

I see law as playing an important, though ultimately limited, role in addressing gender-based violence. Instruments such as the 2011 Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention) demonstrate how legal frameworks can support coordinated action and establish important normative standards. At the same time, legal reforms alone cannot guarantee gender justice. Law can also be used in ways that entrench patriarchal norms or marginalise certain groups.

In my view, the most promising legal approaches are those that are accompanied by broader structural and institutional change — for example, reforms that centre survivor voices and address the systemic failures of law enforcement. Accountability and justice require more than legal tools; they require political will, intersectional analysis and sustained social movement pressure.

PD: You have published widely in scholarly journals. Are there specific publications that you feel have had the most profound impact on advancing the field of socio-legal studies or influencing public policy? Could you elaborate on how these works have influenced academic discussions or brought about tangible changes in societal or legal frameworks?

DA: I would like to highlight two examples of my work that have contributed to socio-legal scholarship and, in different ways, influenced policy discussions. One is my study on period-tracking applications and the meaning of ‘explicit consent’ under the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), where I combined feminist legal theory with data protection scholarship.[4] This research illuminated how seemingly neutral data practices can have gendered implications, especially in relation to reproductive autonomy and digital surveillance. The study contributed to emerging debates in data ethics and feminist technology studies and has become increasingly relevant in light of growing concerns about how menstrual and fertility data could be used in jurisdictions with restrictive abortion laws, such as the United States. While I am far from the only person who has influenced these discussions, the work adds to the socio-legal understanding of how rights and risks are distributed in digital health contexts.

The second example, which had a more direct policy impact, is a study I co-authored with Heini Kainulainen and Johanna Niemi for the Finnish Ministry of Justice in 2019–2020. We examined why a high proportion of reported rape cases in Finland were being closed during the criminal process. Our findings — including how the legal definition of rape was being very narrowly interpreted in legal practice — were discussed and cited in the public and political debate. They also fed into the legislative process which resulted in a major reform of the Finnish Criminal Code in 2022, which adopted a consent-based definition of rape and other sexual offences. This reform brought Finland into closer alignment with international human rights standards and signalled a broader cultural and legal shift in how sexual violence is understood and addressed.[5]

PD: You have received numerous research grants internationally. Looking back on your previous research grants and visiting fellowships, how have these experiences impacted the evolution of your scholarly focus and methodologies? 

DA: As I mentioned earlier, the various encounters and experiences along my scholarly journey — supported through international research grants and visiting fellowships — have been deeply formative, and I hope there are still many more ahead. These opportunities have allowed me to explore new national contexts, engage with diverse scholarly communities, and refine my methodological approaches.

Grants and fellowships have enabled me to conduct interviews, collaborate with activists and legal practitioners and study legal mobilisations from the ground up. These experiences have strengthened my understanding that we risk missing important contextual insights if we are confined to desk-based research only — for example, why certain legal strategies are chosen over others, or how rights claims are framed and reinterpreted in practice.

Rather than adopting new methodologies for their own sake, I have found that empirical engagement has deepened the analytical rigour of my work and helped bridge the gap between legal texts, civil society engagement and institutional practice.

PD: Your new project Margin to the Centre: Rights Development, Transitional Justice and Indigeneity in the Nordics (MARCEN), funded by the European Research Council (Starting Grant, 2025–2029), is going to be a very promising one as it explores rights development, transitional justice, and indigeneity in the Nordics. Could you share your vision for this project and its expected contributions to socio-legal studies and public policy? 

DA: With MARCEN, my aim is to establish a theory of legal inclusion and exclusion, with a specific focus on the legal governance of indigeneity in the Nordic countries. The project will analyse the three contemporary truth and reconciliation commissions in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, which examine historical (and, to some extent, also ongoing) discriminatory practices against the Sámi people. These commissions — and the potential for state recognition and redress of these wrongs — represent a crucial opportunity for advancing legal inclusion for Indigenous peoples.

A key aspect of the project will be to conduct a comparative and historical analysis of the evolving legal frameworks and governance of the Sámi people. The increasing legal mobilization by Sámi civil society and the recognition of Sámi rights in high-profile legal cases is an interesting example of how settler legal systems are used in Indigenous struggles for justice.

Through this project, I aim to push the boundaries of socio-legal theory by bringing Indigenous rights and the redress of colonialist practices to the forefront of legal research and teaching in the Nordics. Conceptually, the project will develop new frameworks for understanding legal inclusion and exclusion, with implications not only for legal theory but for practical policy debates on how states can acknowledge historical wrongs and facilitate meaningful redress.

PD: As the co-founder of the research environment Law, Space and Justice at the Turku Law Faculty, your work connects scholarship with activism. How do you balance the demands of academic rigour with the call for social and legal activism?

DA: I would characterise my own work as more scholarly than activist. My primary focus is on advancing academic knowledge, and I do not really have the resources to consider the best strategies to push for certain political goals, for example. This said, activism and social movements are a significant influence on my research. Much of my work is informed by the study of civil society mobilisation, and I make a concerted effort to acknowledge the contributions of activists in the field.

I also try to bridge the gap between scholarship and activism by publishing policy-oriented texts and blog posts, aimed at communicating my research to a broader audience. These efforts allow me to participate in contemporary public discussions, ensuring that my work reaches beyond academia and contributes to ongoing debates in society and law.

PD: You are a transnational scholar and have worked in many countries. How do such wide-ranging travels contribute to a greater understanding of the issues in broader contexts? 

DA: Having the privilege of working in multiple countries and engaging with diverse academic contexts has been incredibly enriching. It provides new ways of thinking and gives you the distance needed to see beyond divisive national debates, understanding that there is rarely a singular ‘right’ approach to legal or social problems. Experiencing different academic environments and languages also offers fresh perspectives and new topics for exploration.

In my engagement with comparative legal studies, I have observed that issues viewed as legally fundamental in one legal context or jurisdiction may be considered irrelevant or less urgent in another. This diversity of perspectives is intellectually stimulating and, on a personal level, reassuring. Since my days as a law student, I have often grappled with the idea of finding the ‘correct’ legal answer to a problem, but through transnational work, I have come to appreciate that the answers – and, perhaps most importantly, the questions raised – are often context-dependent.

This notion reminds me of the tale of Nils Klim, from which the Nils Klim Prize takes its name. As Klim embarks on his subterranean travels, he gains a unique perspective on the social morals and virtues of his time. This theme of shifting perspectives, influenced by travel, resonates with my own experiences in legal scholarship: encountering different legal cultures opens up new ways of thinking and provides valuable insight into the forces that shape legal systems and practices in different places.

PD: As the co-editor of Retfærd, the Nordic Journal of Law and Justice, you have valuable professional experience and expertise in advancing the impact of a journal. Our journal, the Critical Gender Studies Journal, is a relatively new yet ambitious platform. Would you recommend your words of wisdom so that it can establish itself as a platform for impactful scholarship?

DA: In addition to maintaining rigorous standards for scientific research, open accessibility is crucial for establishing a journal as a platform for impactful scholarship, and I am glad to see that your journal already prioritises this. Open access publishing is not just about disseminating research findings; it is a more democratic approach that makes better use of (often public) research funds and ensures research reaches a broader audience, beyond the confines of wealthier institutions. This makes scholarly work more accessible to those who might not have institutional access, and it encourages wider participation in academic discussions.

From my experience with Retfærd, I have found that prioritising open access allows a journal to have a broader impact and greater visibility. It also aligns with the values of inclusivity and public engagement, which are especially important in fields like gender studies. Additionally, publishing in multiple languages adds significant value, as it enables the journal to reach even more diverse communities and perspectives. By making your work accessible and encouraging open dialogue, you position your journal to make a lasting contribution to the scholarly community.

PD: You have been a passionate advocate for increasing representation and supporting underrepresented groups in academia. Based on your experience, what guidance would you offer to young scholars from marginalised backgrounds who are aspiring to build a career in socio-legal studies? How can they overcome structural barriers, find mentorship, and cultivate their unique voices in a field that often demands perseverance and resilience?

DA: It is essential to acknowledge that global inequality significantly influences whose voices are heard in academia. Personal resilience is of course important, but it cannot always overcome the structural barriers that many marginalised groups face. If we are to make academia more just and egalitarian, it is crucial to not only remove these obstacles but also ensure that new barriers aren’t introduced.

For example, in Finland, tuition fees were introduced for certain non-EU/EAA students a few years ago, and the fees have increased since, with ongoing discussions about extending them to all students. These changes – in a country which takes pride in its education system – effectively make higher education less accessible, especially for people from working-class or poor backgrounds.

For young scholars from underrepresented groups in academia, I think it can be important to seek out mentors who are supportive and committed to supporting marginalised voices, to create a strong sense of community (through existing organisations or by establishing new networks), to leverage your own unique perspective (perhaps especially when it differs from dominant narratives!) and to render visible and challenge systems of inequality.

PD: We are deeply grateful for your time and insights. We hope your scholarly journey and insights will encourage many emerging scholars in the field. We look forward to more interactions with you in the future.

Notes

[1] University of Turku. (2025). Assistant Professor Daniela Alaattinoglu awarded with the prestigious Nils Klim Prize for excellent research. Retrieved April 10, 2025, from https://sites.utu.fi/marcen/news/assistant-professor-daniela-alaattinoglu-awarded-with-the-prestigious-nils-klim-prize-for-excellent-research/

[2] Holbergprize.org. (2025). Holberg Prize to Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Retrieved March 30, 2025, from https://holbergprize.org/news/holbergprize-to-gayatri-chakravorty-spivak/

[3] I have written about this with Cemre Baytok in Daniela Alaattinoğlu and Cemre Baytok, ‘Fighting femicide in Turkey – feminist legal challenges’ in Howe and Alaattinoğlu, Contesting Femicide: Feminism and the Power of Law Revisited (Routledge 2019).

[4] See Daniela Alaattinoğlu, ‘Rethinking Explicit Consent and Intimate Data: The Case of Menstruapps’ Feminist Legal Studies 30 (2022) 157-179.

[5] We discuss some of the findings of the study In English in the article Daniela Alaattinoğlu, Heini Kainulainen & Johanna Niemi, ‘Rape in Finnish criminal law and process – A discussion on, and beyond, consent’ Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 8 (2020) 33-53.

Pragati Das is a faculty member of the Postgraduate Department of English at Bhatter College, Dantan, West Bengal, India. She oversees academic relations and research for the Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities and is the Convenor of the Critical Gender Studies Network. Her areas of interest include critical gender studies, Western rock music, and technology and cultural productions.

Representations of Motherhood and Mothering in Contemporary Italy

Edited by
Dr Veronica Frigeni
Visiting Scholar in Residence in Gender Studies, Central European University, Vienna, Austria & Virtual visiting scholar, Centre for Feminist Research, York University.

Building on Adrienne Rich’s pioneering distinction between motherhood as an institution and mothering as lived experience, this special issue invites contributions that explore and question representations of motherhood and mothering in response to the growing politicisation of the maternal role in contemporary Italy.

This special issue seeks to investigate how mothering and motherhood are depicted and enacted across diverse media—cinema, literature, graphic novels, visual arts, television, and social platforms—particularly considering the increasing public debates on reproductive rights, family policies, and gender roles. It encourages interdisciplinary approaches, drawing, for example, from feminist and queer theories, sociology, cultural studies, and political analysis. Contributors are invited to consider how traditional ideals of motherhood and mothering coexist or clash with more subversive or intersectional narratives.

Key questions include:

• How do these representations reflect or resist the institutionalisation of motherhood within Italy’s political and cultural discourse?
• In what ways do they engage with issues of class, race, and gender?
• How do new digital platforms contribute to amplifying or contesting these debates?
• How do contemporary works by women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other marginalized voices challenge dominant narratives of motherhood?
• What role do historical and transnational perspectives play in shaping contemporary Italian imaginaries of mothering?
• How does motherhood intersect with issues of labor, migration, and precarity in Italy?
• In what ways do alternative family structures and non-normative maternal identities emerge in contemporary cultural production?

We encourage submissions that address these topics through case studies, comparative analyses, theoretical explorations, and methodological innovations. Contributions that engage with recent cultural productions or historical continuities and ruptures are particularly welcome.

This issue addresses these questions and aims to illuminate the dynamic and contested roles of motherhood and mothering within Italy’s contemporary cultural and political landscape. It offers fresh insights into how maternal identities are constructed, negotiated, and challenged in an era of shifting societal norms and policies.

Proposals are welcomed from scholars at all career stages, across disciplines and methodological approaches.

Submission Guidelines

• Please submit an abstract (300-500 words) and a short bio (150 words) to contact@cgsjournal.com with a CC to veronica.frigeni@gmail.com.
• Deadline for the submission of abstracts: May 30, 2025.
• Deadline for the submission of full paper: July 30, 2025. 
• The issue will be published in Continuous Mode.
• The word limit for full articles is 5000-7000 words, including the Reference section.
• For formatting and referencing, please follow :https://cgsjournal.com/guidelines>>

Ed. Mala Shikha Shukla, PhD
Profesora Asistente, Departamento de Estudios Hispánicos, Universidad de Doon, Uttarakhand, India. Correo electrónico: editor@cgsjournal.com

El Tema

Dado que nos acercamos al final del primer cuarto del siglo XXI, es imperativo considerar el futuro de los Estudios de Género. Diversos factores, incluyendo interacciones sociales, tecnológicas y globales, influirán en su dirección. La integración interdisciplinaria seguirá siendo central, ya que los estudios de género se nutren de la sociología, psicología, historia y ciencias políticas. La globalización traerá nuevos desafíos y oportunidades, impactando los roles y las identidades de género. Los avances tecnológicos, particularmente en inteligencia artificial, biotecnología y redes sociales, redefinirán las dinámicas de género, planteando preguntas sobre el sesgo algorítmico y el refuerzo de estereotipos de género. Los cambios en políticas y legislación serán vitales para moldear los estudios de género, enfocándose en la igualdad, derechos reproductivos y anti-discriminación. La interseccionalidad seguirá siendo central en la resolución de las desigualdades de género, mientras que las preocupaciones ambientales ganarán prominencia en la investigación de género. Los cambios culturales formarán nuevas perspectivas sobre la masculinidad, feminidad e identidades no binarias, y las disparidades de género y salud se explorarán con mayor profundidad. Factores económicos como las dinámicas del mercado laboral y las oportunidades educativas serán cruciales para examinar las desigualdades de género y desarrollar estrategias para un crecimiento equitativo. Las representaciones mediáticas continuarán influyendo en las percepciones públicas del género, mientras que las representaciones artísticas y mediáticas deben seguir normas civilizadas y evitar el sensacionalismo con fines lucrativos. Los estudios de género se alinearán con los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) de las Naciones Unidas, en particular el ODS 5, centrado en lograr la igualdad de género y empoderar a las mujeres y niñas. Esto incluye analizar los impactos específicos de género de otros ODS, como la pobreza (ODS 1), la salud (ODS 2), el bienestar (ODS 3) y la educación (ODS 4).

Áreas y temas sugeridos

1. Integración interdisciplinaria en los estudios de género
2. Sociología: Instituciones sociales, roles e identidades de género, e interseccionalidad
3. Psicología: Diferencias de género en el desarrollo cognitivo y emocional
4. Historia: Género en narrativas históricas e historiografía.
5. Ciencias Políticas: Política de género en gobierno y formulación de políticas
6. Literatura: Crítica literaria feminista y su impacto en los estudios de género
7. Artes Visuales: Representación de género en los medios visuales por artistas femeninas.
8. Cine y Medios: El papel de la cultura popular en las actitudes sociales hacia el género.
9. Artes Escénicas: Dinámicas de género en teatro, danza y artes escénicas.
10. Narrativas Culturales: Identidad de género en folclore, mitos y narrativas culturales.
11. Globalización y estudios de género
12. Intercambio Cultural: Globalización y nuevas identidades de género.
13. Dinámicas de Migración: El papel de los migrantes en la reconfiguración de las dinámicas de género en las sociedades anfitrionas.
14. Factores Económicos Globales: Dimensiones de género en los cambios del mercado laboral
15. Movimientos feministas transnacionales en la defensa de la igualdad de género.
16. Género y Medios Globales
17. Gobernanza Global y Políticas de Género
18. Género y Problemas Ambientales GlobalesIssues

III. Avances tecnológicos y dinámicas de género

1. Inteligencia Artificial y Dinámicas de Género
2. IA y Robots Humanos: Implicaciones Éticas
3. Biotecnología y Género
4. Redes Sociales: Activismo en línea y movimientos por la igualdad de género.
5. Alfabetización Digital: Estrategias para promover programas de alfabetización digital inclusivos de género.
6. Cambios políticos y legislativos en estudios de género
7. Igualdad de Género y Defensa: Medidas legislativas para promover la igualdad de género.
8. Interseccionalidad y Marcos Legales
9. Derechos Reproductivos y Políticas de Salud
10. Políticas Económicas e Igualdad de Género
11. Cambios culturales y estudios de género
12. Representación y reconocimiento de identidades no binarias y de género fluido.
13. Género, Salud Física y Mental
14. Investigación Médica y Género: La importancia de la investigación médica inclusiva de género.
15. Normas Culturales y Valores de Género
16. Factores económicos y desigualdades de género
17. Dinámicas del Mercado Laboral y Género
18. Oportunidades Educativas y Género
19. Políticas Económicas y Equidad de Género
20. Participación de Género en la Fuerza Laboral

VII. Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) de las Naciones Unidas y estudios de género

1. Lograr el ODS 5: Igualdad de Género y Empoderamiento

Idiomas de Publicación: Aceptamos artículos escritos en inglés y español.

Fecha Límite de Envío: 15 de abril de 2025.

Directrices de Envío: https://cgsjournal.com/guidelines

Corporalidad, Maternidades y Género en Literatura

Lucía Caminada Rossetti 
Profesora Catedrático, Universidad Nacional del Nordeste, Argentina

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

La Conversación

LC: Estamos muy orgullosxs de poder contar con tu aporte para la revista y que puedan divulgarse tu trabajo y tus ideas de forma mundial. Quisiera saber ¿cómo surge tu interés por los estudios de la corporalidad y las maternidades en la literatura? ¿y cómo cruza el género esos discursos?

ND: Ese impulso inicial de elección del tema de la maternidad estaba ligada a pensarla en relación con la literatura: qué decisiones textuales de representación y enunciativos traía esa pregunta; qué presencias o ausencias determinaba en una literatura como la argentina. Eran los años noventa, predominaba dentro de los feminismos una posición contra los biologismos y la relación con el cuerpo, había que evitarla o pensar muy sutilmente como hacer ingresar al cuerpo teóricamente. Leía a Irigaray, Cixous y Kristeva con mucho interés y muy seducida por sus ideas y propuestas. Las tres eran calificadas por otros grupos feministas muy rápidamente como esencialistas. Yo, traté de entrar a sus discursos por tangentes. El cuerpo a cuerpo con la madre de Irigaray me permitía pensar la relación entre dos mujeres; el nacimiento como una hecatombe sobre la identidad de la mujer que estudia Kristeva en “Stabat Matter” me llevaba a ver el corte material y simbólico de la relación entre los cuerpos, los textos de Cixous me enfrentaban a un campo de metáforas del cuerpo de la madre que eran extraordinarias. Es decir, buscaba como vías indirectas para obviar el cuerpo. Tal vez esa tangente me hizo perder tiempo, no lo sé. En los años siguientes el cuerpo se convirtió en el centro de reflexiones antropológicas, filosóficas, políticas, activistas y pasó a ser el eje sobre el cual armar líneas, rastros, capas de sentidos Si uno lee textos que dan cuenta de la experiencia de la maternidad, una perspectiva muy extendida en escritoras actuales, el cuerpo y sus transformaciones  y zonas de contacto son centrales como objeto narrativo o el desarrollo sobre la teoría del tacto o sobre la voz –para dar solo dos ejemplos- rodean y ponen al cuerpo en primer plano. Pero en esa época, yo no leía solo a las escritoras y una de mis hipótesis primeras fue que la madre era la gran ausente de la literatura argentina.

LC: En los estudios de género centrados particularmente en la literatura, en Argentina eres una referente sobre el tema ¿quiénes han influido en tu trabajo e investigaciones ? ¿Cuales han sido tus preferencias de lectura y análisis a la hora de determinar criterios de construcción del genéro/genéros?

ND: Mi referente principal fue Josefina Ludmer.  Fue mi maestra de teoría literaria. Ella traía al grupo en el que estaba las primeras lecturas sobre crítica literaria feminista: Gilbert y Gubar,  Armstrong, Nancy Miller. Simultáneamente leí a las criticas latinoamericanas. El libro de Francine Masiello sobre las mujeres y la política en la literatura y el periodismo entre 1830 y 1930 fue un libro de una densidad crítica e histórica deslumbrante.  También en el cambio de siglo, Jean Franco y su libro sobre las conspiradoras que recorría la literatura mexicana no podía obviarse para encontrar allí modelos de análisis. Otra de mis favoritas fue Sylvia Molloy. Cada una de sus lecturas desde el género se convirtieron en fundamentales, en objeto de enseñanza; esos modos de diseccionar un procedimiento textual y convertirlo en político como hace con los cisnes ensangrentados de Delmira Agustini o el peluquero afeminado de uno de los Viajes de Sarmiento, tienen un espesor teórico necesaria para producir una lectura paradigmática sobre los géneros.  Actualmente o desde hace unos años  me interesa en particular el pensamiento de Nelly Richard, sus articulaciones de memoria, cuerpo, literatura y política.

LC: Estas dirigiendo una colección de tomos de Historia feminista de la literatura argentina ¿Cómo piensas y organizas cada tomo? ¿Cómo son tus ideas sobre el impacto de este proyecto?

ND: Lo primero que tengo que decir es que es un trabajo colectivo. El impulso de llevarlo adelante, el diseño del proyecto, sus temas, determinadas decisiones acerca de periodizaciones, elecciones de autores, fue en todos los casos resultados de profundas discusiones grupales. Fue muy estimulante el trabajo en sus diferentes etapas, también trabajoso porque lo hicimos prácticamente sin fondos. Salvo la decisión de la editorial EDUVIM de hacerse cargo de publicar cinco volúmenes de casi mil páginas cada uno. Un esfuerzo editorial, descomunal en etapas de  falta de presupuesto universitario.  Adoro a este proyecto y a todas las compañeras que lo hacemos. Recibimos muy buenas recepciones; es una apuesta políticamente jugada y novedosa. Creo que tal vez las lecturas más sustanciosas irán llegando en estos años que  vienen y espero que también los impactos sobre los modos de pensar la historia literaria.

LC: En tu libro El revés del rostro. Figuras de la exterioridad en la cultura argentina (2021) trabajas cuestiones ligadas a femicidios y violencias no tanto centrado en el cuerpo sino particularmente en el rostro. ¿podrías contarnos el proceso del libro?

ND: La idea del rostro como objeto de análisis surgió de un relato de Silvina Ocampo. Coincidió con los últimos pasos que estaba dando sobre la maternidad y literatura. En este libro aparecen embrionariamente dos de las imágenes que desarrollé en El revés del rostro: la del rostro como objeto de invención literaria de una madre y la cara de su hijo y el rostro femenino como superficie de una crueldad patriarcal casi innombrable: el rostro atacado, deformado y destruido por el ácido en El desierto y su semilla de Jorge Barón Biza. Esos dos textos me deslumbraron cada uno con una fuerza literaria diferente que me despertaron el deseo de trabajar sus procedimientos textuales. Luego otros temas se fueron anudando y conformando como series de rostros: la belleza-no belleza femenina, el rostro reproducido de Eva Perón o la tensión de clase expresada en los rostros enfrentados de amas y criadas. Así, indirectamente, llegué a toparme con las diferentes violencias sobre los rostros de mujeres.

LC: Tu reconocida obra De donde vienen los niños. Maternidad y escritura en la cultura argentina, estudia cuestiones en relación con maternidades posibles tanto en la literatura como en discursos culturales. Recientemente hay un estallido del tópico de las maternidades en la literatura latinoamericana  ¿cómo lees esto?

ND: Todavía no tengo una respuesta concreta. Sigo asombrada por la irrupción del tema no solo en la literatura argentina sino latinoamericana y española e, incluso internacional. Seguro que el desarrollo y avance de los feminismos han dejado marcas en los temas que se han alcanzado a las escritoras, en el descubrimiento de un campo imaginario con muchas posibilidades narrativas. La presencia masiva de los feminismos cambió las subjetividades, alentó transformaciones sociales, políticas, personales y la literatura se nutrió y nutrió a esos cambios. Lo que es sin duda una constatación es la enorme cantidad de estos textos, su heterogeneidad narrativa y una calidad notable aunque desde ya no absoluta.

LC: ¿Cómo piensas las políticas feministas en contexto de extrema derecha? ¿cómo afecta el estudio y el avance de la ciencia?

ND: Estoy muy afectada por el avance y establecimiento de las derechas. Miro el presente y el panorama general y no salgo de mi asombro. Tenemos que tratar de encontrar lecturas que nos permitan entender, escuchar y mirar todo lo que se dice y se hace. Y aun no sé cómo vamos a reaccionar como feministas. Sin duda la salida es colectiva, de acciones y pensamiento colectivos. Un ámbito que habrá que analizar y cuidar es el del aula, la transmisión de nuestras ideas.

LC: Has trabajado con diversas  instituciones universitarias. ¿Cómo crees que se construyen las corporalidades y el género desde esos ámbitos?

ND: Creo que las instituciones universitarias en la Argentina han sido sede de una cantidad de cambios en la docencia, en los planes de estudio, en el dictado de seminarios temáticos, en la creación de centros o cátedras para regular y combatir las violencias. Han sido más o menos eficaces. Los centros de estudiantes han sido muy premeables a los cambios de la concientización de las políticas de género.  Dicté seminario sobre género desde 1991 y formé estudiantes que desde hace muchos años dan sus propios cursos. Las políticas de investigación también han sido permeables al desarrollo de estos temas.

LC: Nos gustaría si pudieras darnos algunos ejemplos de cómo realizas tu  trabajo de investigación, cómo seleccionas corpus, qué lleva a delinear líneas para pensar el gender en el presente¿

ND: Mis trabajos actuales difieren de los modos de proceder que desarrollé con mis libros donde buscaba cierta exhaustividad o un planteo novedoso del tema. Siempre pienso teóricamente. A veces es una novela que me despierta una pregunta analítica y a partir de ella establezco relaciones con otras o con un eje teórico. En mi último libro Traer el mundo al mundo. Panoramas,  publicado por la editorial Vera Cartonera volví al tema de la maternidad ya con la idea de cerrarlo pero la elección de las novelas fue decididamente porque las tres que elegí me gustaron mucho, aportaban a nuevas maneras de pensar lo materno a pesar de que alguno de los personajes no eran madres sino madres temporales y sustitutas como la de Mugre rosa de Fernanda Trías o una maternidad en la calle en un contexto poshumano con neonatos fuera del cuerpo como Sumar de Diamela Eltit. En este libro sí que trabajo los cuerpos. Leí mucho de lo que se había publicado pero finalmente me quedé con tres novelas que para mí planteaban modos novedosos sobre el imaginario de la maternidad. En este libro y con este tema estaba dentro del campo del gender. Nunca aplico ideas sino siempre trato de que sean las capas y sentidos de los textos los que me llevan a pensar y buscar material teórico para que dialogue con las novelas o cuentos.

LC: Por último, quisiera agradecerte por tu valioso aporte y asimismo que nos cuentes un poco de tu investigación actual¿

Estoy tratando de escribir un capítulo para el último tomo que va a salir de la Historia feminista, el referido a las primeras décadas del siglo XX. Estoy tratando de pensar el concepto de personaje, en este caso femenino que no sea de una manera tradicional. En ese desafío estoy.

También estamos armando con otras dos compañeras un glosario conceptual que rastree los tomos y sus modos de pensarlos.

Lucía Caminada Rossetti es catedrática de Literatura Argentina II en la Universidad Nacional del Nordeste. Es directora del Proyecto y grupo de Investigación Manifestaciones y narrativas en Argentina: literaturas y culturas . Como profesora invitada dictó seminarios y cursos en India, Italia y España y realizó estancias de investigación en la Universidad de París 8 y Università di Padova y Perugia. Es autora de los libros La mirada dislocada. Literatura, imagen, territorios , Prometeo, Caba, 2020 y junto con Ricardo Peréz Martínez En la interzona . Ensayos de estudios culturales. UNAM, México, 2023 al igual que dos tomos de políticas y narrativas del cuerpo (2022, 2024, Ledizioni Milán).