Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Explorations in Media Ecology
  4. Volume 22, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1539-7785
  • E-ISSN: 2048-0717

Abstract

As a purposefully enacted form of praxis, this article represents a feminist methodological approach guided by the author’s personal introduction into choice works of feminist scholarship. By employing feminist epistemologies, this article demonstrates that each of our realities of understanding is made possible by our own differing subjective situations and our resonance towards difference. Throughout the piece, multiple parallel philosophical and ontological orientations are suggested in efforts to theoretically connect a broad array of feminist theories and praxis with canonic tenants of media ecology (such as language play, creation of counter-environments and breakdowns as breakthroughs). Written prior to the ‘Gender and Media Ecology’ invited Special Issue of , Dr. bird provides their own survey of ‘Gender and Media Ecology’, suggesting foundational means of future critical pursuits. The ultimate aim of this work is to invite future, even more expansive critical media ecological scholarship to continue similar efforts, which would provide even more holistically intersectional and invaluable means of challenging taken-for-granted institutional and societal norms inside the field of media ecology and beyond.

© 2023 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/eme_00172_1
2023-11-29
2026-03-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, C. J. (2010), The Sexual Politics of Meat (20th Anniversary Edition): A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, London: A&C Black.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Alcoff, L. (1991), ‘The problem of speaking for others’, Cultural Critique, 20:5, p. 5, https://doi.org/10.2307/1354221.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Anthym, M. (2018), ‘Now you see me: A Black feminist authoethnographic poetic polemic of radical reflexivity and critical arts-based inquiry’, Ph.D. dissertation, Denver, CO: University of Denver, https://search-pro-quest-com.du.idm.oclc.org/docview/2089400106?accountid=14608. Accessed 10 April 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Banet-Weiser, S. (2018), Empowered: Popular Feminism and Popular Misogyny, Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. de Beauvoir, S. (1997), The Second Sex, New York City: Random House.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. de Beauvoir, S. (2011), The Ethics of Ambiguity, New York City: Open Road Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowen, B. A. (2021a), ‘WhatNext: Political implications of the #MeToo campaign aftermath’, in M. B. Marron (ed.), Misogyny across Global Media, Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Lexington Books, pp. 1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowen, B. A. (2021b), ‘Poetry’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 20:2, pp. 221–25, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme_00086_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bowen, B. (2021c), ‘That’s miss[ed] diagnosis to you, Sir: Mediated grieving over the neurodivergent gender gap’, In Media Res, 21 August, https://mediacommons.org/imr/content/thats-missed-diagnosis-you-sir-mediated-grieving-over-neurodivergent-gender-gap. Accessed 14 August 2023.
  10. Bowen, B. (2022), ‘From the boardroom to the bedroom: Sexual ecologies in the algorithmic age’, Ph.D. dissertation, Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bowen, B. (2023a), ‘Car as extension of whiteness: Not everyone’s skin is extended equally’ (Funded by: MEA / Urban Communication Foundation Graduate Student Research Grant), Explorations in Media Ecology, 22:2, pp. 141–67, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme_00158_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bowen, B. (2023b), ‘Requirement politics: Poetry as feminist response to institutional reluctance and dismissal’, Art/Research International: A Transdisciplinary Journal, 8:1, pp. 205–44, https://doi.org/10.18432/ari29637.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Broich, J. (2019), ‘The difference between “left” and “liberal” – And why voters need to know’, The Conversation, 30 July, https://theconversation.com/the-difference-between-left-and-liberal-and-why-voters-need-to-know-120273. Accessed 20 January 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Brown, H. (2018), ‘Simone de Beauvoir and Jean Paul Sartre: An existential love story’, Literary Ladies Guide, 26 July, https://www.literaryladiesguide.com/literary-musings/simone-de-beauvoir-and-jean-paul-sartre-an-existential-love-story. Accessed 17 August 2023.
  15. Chemaly, S. (2018), Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger, New York City: Simon & Schuster.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cohen, P. (1998), ‘Beauvoir emerges from Sartre’s shadow; Some even dare to call her a ... Philosopher’, New York Times – Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos, 26 September, https://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/26/books/beauvoir-emerges-from-sartre-s-shadow-some-even-dare-to-call-her-a-philosopher.html. Accessed 17 August 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Collins, P. H. (1996), ‘What’s in a name? Womanism, Black feminism, and beyond’, Black Scholar, 26:1, pp. 9–17, https://gseweb.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/bromley/classes/theory/collins.htm. Accessed 20 January 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Collins, P. H. (2000), Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, London: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Columbia Law School (2017), ‘Kimberlé Crenshaw on intersectionality, more than two decades later’, 8 June, https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality-more-two-decades-later. Accessed 27 December 2022.
  20. Crenshaw, K. (2018), ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics [1989]’, Feminist Legal Theory, 1989:1, pp. 57–80, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500480-5.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Daly, M. (2015), Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Daly, M. (2016), Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Daly, M. and Caputi, J. (1994), Websters’ First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language, New York City: Harper Collins.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Daly, M., Caputi, J. and Rakusin, S. (1994), Websters’ First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language, New York City: Harper San Francisco.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Davies, C. B. (2008), Left of Karl Marx: The Political Life of Black Communist Claudia Jones, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Davis, C. (2021), ‘Sampling poetry, pedagogy, and protest to build methodology: Critical poetic inquiry as culturally relevant method’, Qualitative Inquiry, 27:1, pp. 114–24, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419884978.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Dowd, J. (2016), Educational Ecologies: Toward a Symbolic-Material Understanding of Discourse, Technology, and Education, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Faulkner, S. L. (2020), ‘Trigger warning: Poetry as feminist response to media headlines’, Qualitative Inquiry, 27:3&4, pp. 325–33, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420917408.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Flowers, R. (2015), ‘Refusal to forgive: Indigenous women’s love and rage’, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4:2, pp. 32–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Frye, M. (1983), The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory, New York City: McGraw Hill Professional.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Gould, S. J. (1981), The Mismeasure of Man, New York City: W. W. Norton.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Griffin, S. (2015), Woman and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her, New York City: Open Road Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Halfhide, C. (2022), ‘Famous bis: Simone de Beauvoir’, Bi.org, 21 August, https://bi.org/en/articles/simone-de-beauvoir. Accessed 17 August 2023.
  34. Harding, S. (1995), ‘Strong objectivity: A response to the new objectivity question’, Synthese, 104:3, pp. 331–49, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01064504.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hatfield, J. E. (2021), ‘Trans* media ecology: The emergence of gender variant selfies in print’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 20:2, pp. 151–74, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme_00082_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Higginbotham, E. B. (1994), Righteous Discontent: The Women’s Movement in the Black Baptist Church, 1880–1920, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hildebrand, J. M. and Richmond, J. C. (2021), ‘Gender and media ecology: An invited special issue’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 20:2, pp. 119–29, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme_00080_2.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Hildebrand, J. M. and Sheller, M. (2018), ‘Media ecologies of autonomous automobility’, Transfers, 8:1, pp. 64–85, https://doi.org/10.3167/trans.2018.080106.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Hoagland, S. L. and Frye, M. (2000), Feminist Interpretations of Mary Daly, University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Hochschild, A. R. (1983), The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling, Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. hooks, b. (2014), ‘Selling hot pussy: Representations of Black female sexuality in the cultural marketplace’, in The Politics of Sexuality, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, PA: Routledge, pp. 1–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Irigaray, L. (1985), This Sex Which Is Not One, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Lorde, A. (1979), ‘An open letter to Mary Daly’, History is a Weapon, https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/lordeopenlettertomarydaly.html. Accessed 20 January 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Martel, S. (2022), ‘Dear incubator’, in S. Sharma and R. Singh (eds), Re-Understanding Media: Feminist Extensions of Marshall McLuhan, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Mayer, C. W. (2022), Dear Fellow Time-Binder: Letters on General Semantics, Institute of General Semantics.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. McLeod Rogers, J. (2021), ‘Susanne Langer, Marshall McLuhan and media ecology: Feminist principles in humanist projects’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 20:2, pp. 131–49, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme_00081_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. McLuhan, M. (1951), The Mechanical Bride: Folklore of Industrial Man, New York City: Vanguard.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. McLuhan, M. (1969), ‘Marshall McLuhan interview from Playboy’, Playboy Magazine, March, pp. 1–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. McLuhan, M. (1997), Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, 5th ed., Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. McLuhan, M. and McLuhan, E. (1988), Laws of Media: The New Science, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Meighan, P. J. (2022), ‘Colonialingualism: Colonial legacies, imperial mindsets, and inequitable practices in English language education’, Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 17:2, pp. 146–55, https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2022.2082406.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Miroshnichenko, A. (2014), Human as Media: The Emancipation of Authorship, Moscow: Andrey Miroshnichenko.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Nystrom, C. L. (1973), ‘Toward a science of media ecology’, Ph.D. dissertation, New York: New York University.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Nystrom, C. L. (2021), The Genes of Culture: Towards a Theory of Symbols, Meaning, and Media, vol. 1, Bern: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Ong, W. J. (2003), Orality and Literacy, Philadelphia, PA: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Peterson, V. V. (2010), ‘Birth control an extension of “Man”’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 9:1, pp. 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme.9.1.1_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Postman, N. (1976), Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk: How We Defeat Ourselves by the Way We Talk and What To Do about It, New York: Delacorte.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Postman, N. and Weingartner, C. (1971), Teaching as a Subversive Activity, London: Delta.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Redman-MacLaren, M. (2020), ‘Pacific women, HIV, and me: A positioned critical poetic inquiry’, Qualitative Inquiry, 27:6, pp. 700–05, https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420934141.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Risam, R. (2019), ‘What passes for human? Undermining the universal subject in digital humanities praxis’, in E. Losh and J. Wernimont (eds), Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and the Digital Humanities, Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled-4e08b137-aec5-49a4-83c0-38258425f145/section/34d51cdb-2a89-4e4b-9762-bf6461cf0bb7#ch03. Accessed 19 January 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Ritzer, G. (1993), The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Sharma, S. (2011), ‘The biopolitical economy of time’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 35:4, pp. 439–44, https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859911417999.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Sharma, S. (2017), ‘Exit and the extensions of man’, Art & Digital Culture, 8 May, https://archive.transmediale.de/content/exit-and-the-extensions-of-man. Accessed 19 February 2023.
  64. Sharma, S. (2020), ‘A manifesto for the broken machine’, Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies, 35:2, pp. 171–79, https://doi.org/10.1215/02705346-8359652.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Sharma, S. and Singh, R. (2022), Re-Understanding Media: Feminist Extensions of Marshall McLuhan, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Shlain, L. (1998), The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image, New York: Viking Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Sparrow, M. (2020), Spectrums: Autistic Transgender People in Their Own Words, Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Spender, D. (1982), Invisible Women: The Schooling Scandal, London: Womens Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Stanton, E. C. (1895), The Woman’s Bible, Crete: European Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Strate, L. (2000), ‘The ecology of association: President’s address delivered at the inaugural Media Ecology Association convention’, Media Ecology Association, 16–17 June, https://www.media-ecology.org/resources/Documents/Proceedings/v1/v1-01-Strate.pdf. Accessed 17 August 2023.
  71. Strate, L. (2004), ‘A media ecology review’, Communication Research Trends, 23:2, pp. 1–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Strate, L. (2016), ‘Media ecology’, in K. B. Jensen and R. T. Craig (eds), International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect137.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Toles-Patkin, T. (2021), ‘Gender reveal parties and the construction of the prenatal gendered environment’, Explorations in Media Ecology, 20:2, pp. 175–93, https://doi.org/10.1386/eme_00083_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Towns, A. R. (2022), On Black Media Philosophy, Oakland, CA: University of California Press, https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1525/9780520976016/html. Accessed 12 January 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Wilson, B. D. and Meyer, I. H. (2021), ‘Nonbinary LGBTQ adults in the United States’, Williams Institute, 28 October, https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/nonbinary-lgbtq-adults-us. Accessed 25 October 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/eme_00172_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): critical media ecology; epistemologies; feminism; gender; identity; language; race

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test