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).

In (M)other Words: Writings on Mothering and Motherhood, 2009-2024 by Andrea O’Reilly

Demeter Press, May 2024, pp. 533, ISBN: 978-1-77258-527-8.

Review and Interview by
Veronica Frigeni 
Visiting Scholar in Residence in Gender Studies, Central European University.

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

The Review

Andrea O’Reilly’s anthology, In (M)other Words: Writings on Mothering and Motherhood, 2009-2024, stands as a landmark contribution to the field of maternal scholarship, offering a comprehensive examination that spans a quarter-century of thought and discourse. Comprising twenty-five meticulously selected essays, this anthology navigates the intricate terrain of maternal theory, praxis, identity and representation with nuanced sophistication. O’Reilly adeptly orchestrates a discourse that traverses a diverse spectrum of themes, from the theoretical underpinnings of motherhood studies, maternal theory, matricentric feminism and matricritics, to the lived experiences of mothering, including outlaw, queer, pandemic, ambivalent and joyful mothers. These themes emerge as the guiding leitmotifs in her anthology, capturing crucial moments in her dialectical articulation of the emergence of motherhood as a scholarly inquiry, where recuperation and revolution of motherhood intersect, illuminating the transformative potential of maternal agency amidst patriarchal hegemonies. Throughout the book, O’Reilly engages in dialogues with scholars and practitioners from around the world, offering insights gleaned from interviews and collaborative endeavours in the context of matrilineal and mothering solidarity.

Notably, the book begins and ends with two thought-provoking interviews, which serve to contextualise and frame the collection as part of a dynamic dialogue that encourages readers to engage with its content in a personal and interactive manner. The first interview, conducted by Zita Kārkla in Latvia, in 2024, offers insight into O’Reilly’s reflections on matricentric feminism, as well as on the trajectory of motherhood studies over the past decades. This introductory conversation sets the stage for the subsequent, rich and multifaceted exploration, providing valuable insights into the author’s motivations and perspectives. Furthermore, as the last piece to be composed, it gives a reflective bookend to the entire collection. This provides O’Reilly with a chance to revisit and expand upon key themes and insights, leaving readers with a renewed sense of purpose in their own explorations of motherhood and feminism. The concluding essay features a thought-provoking conversation with Sara Ruddick from 2009, prompting readers to reflect on maternal thinking and mothering as a verb, as a form of work, rather than as an identity. These dialogues serve to elucidate the nuances of key issues pertaining to motherhood and mothering, and their contemporary relevance to maternal and feminist thought and activism. Moreover, they reveal how articulating and examining mothering words is an embodied effort which directly speaks to one’s lived experiences and subject positionalities.

At the heart of O’Reilly’s theoretical framework lies the foundational feminist principle that “the personal is political,” which deeply influences the thematic fabric of the anthology. This principle underscores the idea that personal experiences are inherently intertwined with broader socio-political dynamics. In the context of motherhood, it sheds light on two key aspects. Firstly, it reveals how personal experiences of motherhood are often subjected to unequal power dynamics. Secondly, it emphasizes the importance of examining a diverse array of individual experiences, rather than essentializing them, in order to understand the social and political power wielded by mothers.

One of the book’s strengths lies in its intersectional approach, which acknowledges the diverse experiences of mothers across race, class, age, sexuality, and other social dimensions. O’Reilly’s exploration of African American mothering, for example, illuminates the resilience and resistance embedded within maternal practices in marginalised communities. Similarly, O’Reilly is cognisant of the gendered nature of motherhood and the ways in which societal norms and expectations shape maternal experiences. She navigates this complexity by employing a language that is both inclusive and sensitive to the gendered realities of mothering. This entails acknowledging the distinctive challenges confronted by women who mother as a marginalised group, while also acknowledging the diversity of experiences within motherhood, including those of non-binary and trans parents. By striking this balance, O’Reilly ensures that her anthology is accessible and relatable to a wide range of readers while also remaining attuned to the specific gendered dynamics at play within the realm of motherhood. This nuanced approach allows her to create a space where mothers feel seen, heard, and understood, while also inviting critical reflection on the ways in which gender shapes our understanding of maternal experiences.

It is my opinion that O’Reilly’s writing represents an intricate textual configuration, resonating with Walter Benjamin’s notion of constellations as a multitude of points collectively forming a discernible yet contingent and transient pattern. In The Origin of German Tragic Drama, Benjamin proposes that “ideas are to objects as constellations are to stars” (1985, p. 34), to imply that, in a manner analogous to the perception of constellations, they facilitate the comprehension of relationships between cultural objects and socio-political phenomena. This is a suggestion that I think O’Reilly’s anthology invites readers to engage with through its non-linear thematic organisation around motherhood as institution, practice, subjectivity and representation. This is why the reading of In (M)other Words is not a linear process; rather, it is a temporality of interruption, iteration, and backwards meditation, mingled with present activism and future desire. The text beckons readers to engage with it as a dynamic projectuality, where each encounter with a fragment opens up new pathways of understanding and interpretation.

In summation, In (M)other Words emerges as a seminal text within the field of motherhood studies, offering a sophisticated and thought-provoking exploration of maternal theory, praxis, and representation. Whether one is an academic scholar, activist, or lay reader, O’Reilly’s anthology constitutes an indispensable resource for engaging with the complexities and nuances of motherhood in the twenty-first century.

The Conversation with Andrea O’Reilly

In the book, a tension is present, although it does not paralyse ‒ it works to clear the ground and it turns into a call to action. As O’Reilly observes, “as I reflect on the triumphs and tribulations of feminist mothering, I question whether my research and that of feminist scholarship on motherhood more generally have truly and fully actualized Demeter’s maternal power and fury” (169). It is from this perspective that I initiate my dialogue with her.

1. What defines Demeter’s maternal power and fury, and how can scholars of motherhood further efforts to realize it?

I discovered the Goddess when I was a young woman. I’ve always had a fascination with Greek mythology long before I was a mother. And I was always awed and amazed by Demeter’s narrative. And then of course, when I became a motherhood scholar and, in 2006, founded a press dedicated to motherhood studies, I, of course, had to name it in her honour: Demeter Press.

I believe Adrienne Rich brought Demeter to the attention of motherhood scholars who may not have been familiar with Greek mythology. She became an icon, a symbol, a trope in motherhood studies. Rich talks about the power of Demeter. And it’s something that is so rare in patriarchal cultures, in life or literature, to have an image and a narrative of a mother woman who says, basically, “No, I’m not going to do that. I’m angry and I’m pissed off and you’re going to see my rage”. Women, as we know, are not allowed to be angry and act upon anger, and particularly not mothers.

That is one of the ultimate taboos of mothering, is to be an enraged mother. I really think it’s a power that is breathtaking as she actually stands up to the Head God and says, “No, I am not going to have the seasons come. I’m not going to have spring arrive and produce a harvest until you return my daughter to me”. And I think that resonates with so many women because we have so few resources as mothers to stand up, to talk back, to resist. And I think that’s why Adrienne Rich honored, celebrated and circulated that image of this enraged mother, to show how much rage can empower, how much rage can result in resistance. And yes, I know it is often more complicated than that.  But I think it’s a trope or a symbol. It’s very empowering, very energizing. Now, how do we enact this in real life? Well, many, many books have been written on that. But it is a trope that keeps circulating in motherhood studies decades after Rich’s book. When I share the story with my students it is often a revelation. In Canada, many students don’t know about Greek mythology. I’m not sure how they got a high school diploma without knowing that but I share that story to them. And they are really impressed to go, wow, like I didn’t know about. And then, there’s a lot more about Demeter’s mysteries and the secrecy of it and how she empowered women and mothers in particular. And of course, it honoured the mother and daughter connection, and it was the daughter that she stood up for.

It’s a very empowering narrative and image. Now, what we do with it on the ground in real life, I’m not sure. But I think we need those stories. I think we need those images to sustain us, and to motivate us, and to enrage us, and to maybe bring about real change our day-to-day life. To show how rage can be powerful, empowering, and also a tool for activism. And I think patriarchal culture knows that. And I think that’s why there’s such shame and guilt around maternal rage.

When I honour rage, I am obviously not advocating losing it on your children. That’s not what I’m talking about, but rather to channel maternal rage for social change. Adrienne Rich, in Of Woman Born, talks a lot about the possibilities and power of maternal range. In the Foreword the 2021 edition Eula Biss returns to Rich’s concept of maternal rage and links it, with Audre Lorde’s concept. Since female rage is often seen as a second wave concept, I think we’ve kind of essentialized and forgotten about its power, but I think we need to return to it.

What does it mean to get really mad and to do something with that anger? And I think we saw that certainly, in Chile and Argentina with the disappeared, how the mothers took up public space and said “I’m not standing here and letting it happen. I’m going to talk back and whether anything comes of it, but I think it often does”. Certainly, in that case, there was change, there was response. What does it mean to be angry and to enact that anger? I think if women did that, mothers in particular, and collectively, I think we would see phenomenal social change. If we really got mad and went to the streets, right? But how can we do that in our busy, complicated lives, I’m not sure. We’re in a different context in 2025, but I think we’ve forgotten the power and the possibility of maternal rage at patriarchy and the institution in particular of motherhood.

2. You conclude the Introduction “calling for a new maternal narrative that acknowledges the joys of motherhood alongside its sorrows” (17). However, in contexts like Italy, where I am currently situated, this notion may be misconstrued and disregarded due to the prevailing narrative portraying motherhood as the ideal choice for women, particularly under the leadership of Giorgia Meloni, the country’s first-ever female-led government. What obstacles and opportunities exist in crafting a positive narrative of motherhood that isn’t overshadowed and patronised by conservative, illiberal politics and ideology?

That is such a good and hard question. First, as I write in the book, and drawing on Sara Ruddick’s work, I believe we finally have permission, and that took a long time, to talk about the tabooed topics of motherhood, whether that be regret or ambivalence or rage. We are having books published on that. A deluge of novels now coming out in North America, in particular, on the dark side of motherhood. We may consider that unsurprising, but it’s radical. Even 20 years ago, we weren’t seeing that. Certainly, when I had my children in the 80s there was little, if any, representation of maternal regret, ambivalence, and rage. So that is movement. We are opening up a space to speak the unspoken.

But I still agree with Ruddick that we can’t speak the pleasures of motherhood and I think we know why. It’s precisely what you just said. It is now okay to rant and say motherhood is oppressive. That’s kind of cool. But to speak about the love, and the joy, and the pleasures of mothering, it’s very dangerous because it can be so immediately co-opted. We see that certainly in Italy. We see that in the United States. How quickly that can be re-domesticated and co-opted. So, I don’t know. I think we have to go back to Demeter. We have to define it on our own terms. We have to say, yes, mothering can be empowering. Mothering can be emancipatory. Mothering can be absolutely joyous and beautiful.

But we have to be very careful when we make those statements and I appreciate your comment because particularly in your Italian context, how quickly the Right can say, see, told you all along, that the real meaning of life is motherhood and you’re unfulfilled, incomplete as a woman if you don’t have children. Told you all along, what’s wrong with you? So, I believe it this has a silencing effect, a self-censoring effect. I think mothers are very reluctant and nervous to speak about the joy of motherhood, the love of it, alongside the hard, because of it will be essentialized and sentimentalized.

I think we have to reclaim motherhood as feminist, as political. I’ll just share a story relative to our discussion here. At my university, they used to do a story for Mother’s Day and I was always interviewed. And I would always position my talk as political and talk about mothers’ rights, I wouldn’t talk about flowers and cards and breakfast. I’d say we need to claim the origins of Mother’s Days as a political day and it’s time to imagine feminist empowered mothering where we support mothers. However this year my university made a decision no longer to celebrate Mother’s Day with a media story because they worried that a story on motherhood could be seen as essentialist and conservatizing. And I wondered, have we reached a point where motherhood and Mother’s Day are no longer discussed or profiled at a university of 65,000 students due to fears it would be seen as essentialist or trans-exclusive? But I thought that’s not what we’re talking about. We have silenced a possibility when mothers can take a day, when we can demand our rights and draw attention to the issues. So, what I’m saying is that I think people are very apprehensive in today’s climate. They don’t want to say anything that possibly could be misread or misused or appropriated. There’s a lot of censorship, self-censorship going on, a lot of silencing. And that concerns me greatly.

I think we should have Mother’s Day, but not with cards and breakfast. I think we should have it as a radical day of action, right? So, I appreciate the concern. And I don’t have an answer per se, other than you put an asterisk after everything, and say when I use the word motherhood I do NOT mean the heteronormative, conservative view of motherhood. I’m talking about an empowered feminist mother-centered view of motherhood. So, I don’t have an answer other than we have to figure out a way to talk about motherhood honestly and authentically, without it being co-opted and used against us, particularly, as you say, in contexts like Italy. Because I do worry that my writing in the wrong hands could be completely misrepresented.

And I think you’re absolutely right, particularly with the plummeting birth rates in Italy. And we’ve joined you. Canada has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. I was just interviewed on this topic two weeks ago. So, yes, we are in a real pro-motherhood and pronatalist space. And we have to tread very carefully. We have to honour and celebrate and empower women who have chosen motherhood absolutely completely and unequivocally, AND also celebrate and honour the women who have chosen not to be mothers.

3. The text introduces a linguistic endeavour marked by the concept of “inclusion without exclusion” (67) through its reappropriation and reevaluation of terminology like “mother” and “mothering.” This prompts contemplation of linguistic performativity, echoing the scholarly discourse inspired, among others, by Judith Butler and Eve Sedgwick, and its ramifications for power dynamics and potential avenues of subversion. To what extent can (m)other words be construed as performative? If so, in what manner, and what implications does this hold?

Yes, this is about the limitations of language. I’ve been interviewed by scholars and activists who speak languages other than English, and even the term motherhood is contested. They don’t distinguish between mothering and motherhood. And in motherhood studies, that is the most important distinction, going back, of course, as we always do, to Adrienne Rich. We know that motherhood is the institution. We know there are rules and regulations that tell us how to be a mother, when to be a mother, with whom to be a mother, so on and so forth. That’s what’s oppressive, that’s what’s restrictive, that’s what’s wrong. But also, as Rich emphasizes, there is the possibility of mothering, which is mothering on our own terms, raising children as we wish, when we want, with whom we want. So how do we make those distinctions in languages that don’t distinguish between mothering and motherhood? So, I agree with you, there is a real limitation of language; we can only think in the language that we have. We can’t think outside of language.

We think in language, right? So how do we think in a language constrains and restrains; how do we imagine, how do we envision? I agree with you that mothering, of course, is performative, right? Everything is ultimately performative, and there’s nothing inherent, or inevitable, or intrinsic, or biological. Everything is culturally filtered and determined, or overdetermined.

But going back to language, it has been a constant struggle. When I first did my book on matricentric feminism, now eight years ago, though I certainly was thinking about it long before then, I used the word mothers. I refused to use the term parents, and I think the answer is obvious, particularly in the English language. A parent is not a mother, right? And my students get that right away. I ask: when we say parent, what comes to mind? And what comes to mind is not mothering in the sense of nurturing, being child-centered, caring for your children. I say just say, look it up both words in the dictionary, right? There are very two different meanings of parent and mother. So, we all agree we can’t use the term parent to talk about women’s oppression in the institution of motherhood. We understand that. The word parent is not going to cut it. And I don’t think many people argue against this.  So, then what are we left with? Female parent, male parent: that still doesn’t really capture what is mothering. Mothering is more than being a mother, as we know. Mothering is the verb: all the work, the mothers do in the first, second, and third shifts: all the work we have to do as caring for our children. I still don’t have an answer. So, what I did in this collection, and then in my longer version of it, my book, on Matricentric Feminism, I tried to think about how we can use the terms mothering and mothers, but always with that asterisk, to be very clear that we are talking about. Going back to Sara Ruddick who said anyone can be a mother. You do not have to be a cisgender biological parent of a child born to you. That means men can be mothers,  trans people can be mothers. Mothering is determined by anyone who puts the raising of children at the center of their life and sees this work as integral to who they are, and how they live in the world.

Now, in patriarchal cultures, of course, it’s women, and generally cisgendered women, who take up mothering and are then penalized for doing so. So I still struggle with it. But I think we can reclaim terms as I talk about in my book. We’re constantly reclaiming terms. And I don’t know how it works in Italian. But in the English language, for example, words like “queer” have been reclaimed by the community. Queer is now a positive term. The word “Breeder” has been reclaimed by a lot of young African American women, it was very much a disparaging comment, a breeder. The word “slut” has been reclaimed. I was very involved in the slut walk movement here in Canada.

I think it’s about reclaiming and repositioning words. And as someone with a PhD in English, I’m interested in language and words and where they come from. And what do they mean? And in what context? So, I think if we reclaim mothering, as a verb, as something that’s open to all, than I think we can use the word mother. But I think, we will always need that footnote. And every time I write, I have the asterisk, right? It is cumbersome, but necessary. But I don’t have another word. So, when I teach, I sometimes say to my students, what could be a word in English language we can use: nurturer, caregiver? That doesn’t cut it. Right? So, I appreciate that struggle. And I think having this conversation publicly and in academic spaces is what we need to do. We need to keep using the word mother. There is no institution of patriarchal fatherhood, for example. So, we have to honor and recognize that it is women who overwhelmingly do mother work, and who pay the price for doing so. And it’s disingenuous to use the term parent. Men are not oppressed by fatherhood as women are oppressed by motherhood. But until we get a better word in English language, we have to use the word mother to honor that, but not to essentialize it. It’s a fine line to walk.

4. Lastly, what do you anticipate readers will glean from their engagement with In (M)other Words?

It’s a conversation. And I wish now I had used as the title of my book “Conversations on Mothering and Motherhood” because I think the collection is a conversation. I think all writing is a conversation: you put something out into the world as a writer, and you hope somebody picks it up, thinks about it and brings it back into the world with their input. I think the fact that we are having this conversation is so radical and revolutionary, especially in the context of Italy. I don’t think we would have been having this conversation twenty years ago. When I started my work on motherhood in the early 90s you could count on one hand how many books you could read to resist normative motherhood. Of course, Adrienne Rich opened the way, but I don’t think it was until this century that motherhood studies made possible these conversations. And we are slowly but surely shifting the North-American bias. It is a legacy that we need to undo. And motherhood studies is not unique in this because all feminisms are trying to undo and trouble the USA-centric monolithic understanding of what feminism is, and of what motherhood means in relation to feminism. I hope readers read my book and say “Oh, this book is missing this … this book should have talked about this or should have done this”. This book, and my work more generally, is certainly not definitive or absolute. The collection is simply my thoughts on mothers, mothering, and motherhood over the past 15 years. I see the collection as a beginning. I hope people will read the collection as an invitation for further dialogue, reflection and research.

Olga Vlasova 
Ukrainian State University of Science and Technologies, Ukraine.

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

Abstract

The article aims to conceptualize the architectonics of the feminist philosophy under the theoretical conditions of metamodernism. In this context, it emphasizes the importance of the multidisciplinary research methods. By adopting a gender-differentiated methodology we accentuate the stable relationship between women and the problem of subjectivity, which is still mainly based on the ideology narratives and discourses. As the concept of gender identity is becoming more and more multilateral, it is obvious that its problematizing is closely linked with the concept of identification, which is considered more valid under the conditions of metamodernity. Social identity is still one of the grand narratives in social, political, and philosophic sciences: in contrast to single-hypothesis theories, it is complex and dynamic – gender identification is by all means under the metamodern “umbrella,” too. In contrast to gender identification, feminist approaches are logically straight, being based on the dichotomy “male-female”. The metamodern “pendulum” has swung in the opposite direction to question the postmodern principles, yet the fundamentals of the postmodern philosophy and feminist studies stay remarkably stable. Concerning a certain misunderstanding of feminist philosophy in traditional academic circles, it should be emphasized that it seems an exaggeration to talk about completely different conceptions and meanings of feminist philosophy and gender studies: the main problem remains with the concept of the human nature of men and women.

Keywords: theoretical mutations, multidisciplinary research, gender identification, discursive practices.

Tetiana Vlasova 
Ukrainian State University of Science and Technologies, Ukraine.

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the peculiarities of post-postmodern discourses of interpretation with the accent on their recent gender intersections. Theoretical basis: At the beginning of the XXI century, postmodernist theory, losing its importance and a certain `political correctness’, still leaves its key principles of interpretation and relativism unshakable. The appeal of the recent publications is determined by the fact that acts of interpretation permeate all post-postmodern narratives; allegedly, gender narratives are included per se. By interpreting, we bring our own meanings into everyday life, creating our own narratives, which are essentially gender “stories” with the representation of gender discourses. Interpretation is both “fixed” and “open,” but the narratives are not “open”: the process of constructing narratives is enriched by “natural interpretation,” usually with a focus on the cultural and gender constructs. Scientific novelty: With its tendency to change, interpretation is becoming a symbol of the post-postmodern “normalization of change”. The subjectivity of interpretation is not a transparent boundary between human beings and the world around them: the “better” the interpretation, the more objective our stories seem, and the stronger the constructs conditioned by society, gender, and ideology become. Conclusions: In a world where everything and everyone is seen as a text, interpretation becomes a crucial issue of theoretical problems. In the absence of a “perfect language,” the paradox is that the text simultaneously makes the reader believe in his or her own understanding of its meaning and, by virtue of interpretation, makes this understanding impossible. The influence of language on the being and the being on language is realized in various ways: feminist readings of texts, for example, have both had a huge impact on gender theory and are currently creating a new metamodern wave of the feminist movement. The “work” of interpretation is multivalent and often opaque, but it is the work that conditions the concepts and constructs of culture, society, and gender.

Keywords: biconditional, conditional, History of Women, mental models, possibilities.

Liliane Steiner, Ph.D   
Principal Research Assistant, The Arnold and Leona Finkler Institute of Holocaust Research, Bar- Ilan University, Israel. Hemdat College of Education..

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

Abstract

The female experience of the Holocaust delineates loss, de-feminization, and desecration of the feminine Jewish body. Abject and silence impose their conceptual framework on female Holocaust memoirists, resulting in a fragmentary representation that allows a partial glimpse into the (inner) past-experience of these female survivors. In a feminist act, these survivors settle scores with their perpetrators and subtly recount the story of the perpetual assault inflicted upon the Jewish feminine body during the Holocaust and, in many cases, during the post-war period. This study aims to stress the poetics of this writing, that I call the poetics of catastrophe.

Keywords: silence, abject, settling of scores, poetics of catastrophe, feminine body.

Leyla Torres-Bravo^1* & Miguel López-Astorga^{2  
1,2}University of Talca, Chile, Avenida Lircay s/n.

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

Abstract

From the theory of mental models, it has been proposed that the sentences with ‘if’ can refer to ten different interpretations. Those interpretations are related to the situations in which their clauses are possible. On the other hand, a study suggests that two of those interpretations seem to predominate in academic psychology texts: the conditional and biconditional interpretations, that is, those that logic links to ‘if’. Using sentences from two Women’s History papers, the present work shows a new study trying to move forward in this direction. It also addresses the importance of how historical inquiries relating to women in different contexts can reveal the possible clauses used in their drafting and interpretation. The results are not very different from the previous study. The consequences related to the predominant tendency to the use of ‘if’ as a conditional or biconditional in human and social sciences are discussed.

Keywords: biconditional, conditional, History of Women, mental models, possibilities.

María José Gómez Arrieta 
Becaria de doctorado, Universidad de Osmania (becaria del ICCR), Hyderabad, India.
País de origen: Venezuela

^{Full-Text PDF Issue Access}

Resumen

Abordar los temas relacionados con el feminismo implica afrontar una multicomplejidad de factores que influencia la discusión sobre el rol de la mujer tanto en el escenario global como en cada región del mundo, cuyo imperativo de lucha es integrador, continuo y movilizador en favor de re – empoderar (nos) y dignificar (nos) – a la mujer- dentro de una sociedad altamente cambiante y violenta. El presente artículo corresponde a una sistematización introductoria para comprender los rasgos distintivos del feminismo en la India, cuyo debate actual entre tradicionalismo – modernidad, confronta a un país que busca un equilibrio entre su vertiginoso ascenso como potencia emergente, frente a la necesidad de superar las contradicciones sociales que persisten en su interior que afectan directamente a las mujeres. En este sentido, desde las miradas del sur global, el rol de la mujer en India debe superar las narrativas impregnadas de estereotipos sociales, entendiendo que existe una realidad común que une a las mujeres para alcanzar la justicia social y la configuración de democracias más inclusivas en el ámbito del Sur Global.

Palabras clave: Feminismo, India, Sur Global, desarrollo, pensamiento postcolonial.