RESEARCH ARTICLE
F iendship, hope and communica ion du ing second-wa e
and pos eminism: Gillian E. Hanscombeʼs Be ween F iends and
Sally Rooneyʼs Con e sa ions wi h F iends
[ e sion 1; pee e iew: 2 app o ed]
And ea Anđelinić
Facul y o Humani ies and Social Sciences, Uni e si y o Zag eb, Zag eb, 10000, C oa ia
Fi s published: 07 Aug 2025, 5:228
h ps://doi.o g/10.12688/open eseu ope.20794.1
La es published: 07 Aug 2025, 5:228
h ps://doi.o g/10.12688/open eseu ope.20794.1
1
Abs ac
Hanscombe's 1982 epis ola y no el Be ween F iends o e s insigh in o
he main ideas, con lic s and blind spo s o Anglo-Ame ican second-
wa e ( adical) eminism. Highly con es ed by i s successo s, he
second wa e o eminism in he Anglo-Ame ican con ex ie cely
deba ed issues, such as sex and class, emale sepa a ism and poli ical
lesbianism. These a e he ma e s Be ween F iends add esses ia a
hea ed discussion be ween ou women on ma e s such as misogyny,
au ohomophobia, mo he hood and quee lo e. The answe s hey
ad oca e o , such as o ming a u opian lesbian encla e, abandoning
all male child en, and abo ing male e i, show he endency o
second-wa e eminis s o seek g and, albei educ i e, solu ions o he
issues posed by he pa ia chal capi alis sys em. The p o agonis s o
Sally Rooney's 2017 no el Con e sa ions wi h F iends seem o be jus as
pain ully awa e o hei own class and gende hind ances as hei
second-wa e sis e s, bu he one o hei con e sa ions is skep ical o
20 h-cen u y me ana a i es and e ains om o e ing any so o
solu ion o hei social posi ioning. The discon inui y and
inconsis ency o (digi al) communica ion be ween he cha ac e s in
he no el e lec s he unce ain y and aimlessness cha ac e ising hei
pu sui o lo e, social success and economic s abili y. This esea ch
aims o compa e hese wo app oaches o iendship and eminism by
in e p e ing bo h he ideas he cha ac e s ep esen and hei modes
o communica ion as a consequence o he shi s in eminis heo ies
caused by la e capi alism and i s e ec s.
Keywo ds
second-wa e adical eminism, pos eminism, neolibe alism,
epis ola i y, communica ion, hope
Open Pee Re iew
App o al S a us
1 2
e sion 1
07 Aug 2025 iew iew
Madugula Raju, B V Raju Ins i u e o
Technology, Medak, India
M unalini Sasanka, B V Raju Ins i u e o
Technology, TELANGANA, India
1.
Vishnu Kuma Sha ma , JECRC Uni e si y,
Jaipu , India
2.
Any epo s and esponses o commen s on he
a icle can be ound a he end o he a icle.
Open Resea ch Eu ope
Page 1 o 14
Open Resea ch Eu ope 2025, 5:228 Las upda ed: 01 OCT 2025
Co esponding au ho : And ea Anđelinić ([email p o ec ed])
Au ho oles: Anđelinić A: Concep ualiza ion, Me hodology, W i ing – O iginal D a P epa a ion, W i ing – Re iew & Edi ing
Compe ing in e es s: No compe ing in e es s we e disclosed.
G an in o ma ion: This p ojec ecei ed unding om he Eu opean Union’s Ho izon Eu ope Resea ch and Inno a ion P og amme
unde g an ag eemen No. 101094658 (CAPONEU. The Ca og aphy o he Poli ical No el in Eu ope).
Copy igh : © 2025 Anđelinić A. This is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License,
which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed.
How o ci e his a icle: Anđelinić A. F iendship, hope and communica ion du ing second-wa e and pos eminism: Gillian E.
Hanscombeʼs Be ween F iends and Sally Rooneyʼs Con e sa ions wi h F iends [ e sion 1; pee e iew: 2 app o ed] Open Resea ch
Eu ope 2025, 5:228 h ps://doi.o g/10.12688/open eseu ope.20794.1
Fi s published: 07 Aug 2025, 5:228 h ps://doi.o g/10.12688/open eseu ope.20794.1
This a icle is included in he Ho izon Eu ope
ga eway.
This a icle is included in he The Poli ical No el
Th ough he Lens o Gende collec ion.
Open Resea ch Eu ope
Page 2 o 14
Open Resea ch Eu ope 2025, 5:228 Las upda ed: 01 OCT 2025
In oduc ion
Gillian E. Hanscombe’s 1982 epis ola y no el Be ween
F iends1 cen e s on ou women – Meg, F ances, Jane and Amy
– engaged in li ely, albei w i en con e sa ion abou hei
day- o-day li e and ela ionships, as well as a li elie deba e
abou eminism, which is he main opic o all o hei le e s.
The eade wi nesses hei ela ionships o ming, e ol ing and
dissol ing du ing he cou se o he no el, mos ly because
o hei di e en ela ions o eminism and he consequences
hose ela ions ha e on hei li e choices. The ou main cha ac e s
could be said o ep esen ou di e en app oaches o he opic
o eminism in hei e e yday li es: Meg is a lesbian eminis
ponde ing adical ideas, bu unwilling o gi e up he son in
o de o succumb o hem; F ances is an educa ed and success ul
an i eminis in a ela ionship wi h a misogynis , Jane is a adi-
cal eminis ad oca ing o sepa a ism and li ing in a lesbian
commune and Amy is a he e osexual ally p ac ising p og es-
si e eminis ideas in he day- o-day li e wi h he pa ne Tim.
These ou women ep esen qui e li e ally di e en app oaches o
a opic as di iding as eminism a a ime when hese di e ences
hold he po en ial o cause hea ed, opinion, and li e-changing
discussions among eminis s. The main cha ac e o Sally
Rooney’s 2017 no el Con e sa ions wi h F iends2, F ances,
on he o he hand, is a well-educa ed bu economically
unde p i ileged young poe li ing in Dublin. She and he
h ee iends – Bobbi, Nick and Melissa – ep esen a di e en
kind o communi y. No as igh ly kni as Hanscombe’s, hese
cha ac e s’ con e sa ions a ely de elop in o discussions,
a ely cen e on social subjec s, and a e cha ac e ised by in e -
mi en , i onic communica ion s yles. F ances he sel can be
iewed as a pos eminis 3–5 subjec whose ela ionship and
communica ion s yles e lec he socioeconomic posi ion as
well as he dominan s uc u e o eelings6 ha eme ged du -
ing he de elopmen o la e-s age capi alism in con empo a y
Wes e n socie y.
These wo ypes o cha ac e s and communi ies ela e o hei
his o ical and poli ical con ex s, bo h eme ging a a ime o
speci ic social clima e: Hanscombe’s can be obse ed as a
de elopmen s ongly ela ed o he poli ics o he eminism o
he second wa e and Rooney’s as a na a i e ela ed o he com-
plex sociopoli ical con ex o he 21s cen u y. The o mal analy-
sis o hese na a i es shows exac ly how hese ideological
ci cums ances a ec he na a i e ou comes o hese no els:
he epis ola i y o Hanscombe’s Be ween F iends ela es o he
hope ul, engaged second-wa e subjec communica ing and
discussing in a de o ed, con inuous manne , while Rooney’s
Con e sa ions wi h F iends’ usage o sho , discon inued o ms
such as e-mails and ex s embody he aliena ed, cynical sub-
jec o pos eminism. Despi e hese con ex ual and ex ual
changes, he endings o bo h no els seem o a ou hope and
communi y o e he indi idualis ic supe io i y o i ony. These
no els show, consequen ly, ha hope, lo e and iendship
eme ge in di e en poli ical clima es, a e pe o med and alued
di e en ly, bu hey none heless ep esen in eg al pa s o
one’s iden i y and pu sui o a ‘be e ’ u u e, wha e e i
may en ail o each o hem as indi iduals and as pa s o
communi ies.
Is iendship (jus ) pe sonal? Theo ising eminism
and communi y in Gillian E. Hanscombe’s Be ween
F iends
The co espondence o he ou cha ac e s o Hanscombe’s
Be ween F iends migh o e insigh in o second-wa e eminism,
a pe iod o eminis hough and ac ion anging om he la e
1960s o he la e 1980s, gaining i s now amilia shape
p ima ily in he US and he UK. I is impo an o no e ha
eminisms o he second wa e ad oca e o di e se ideas, bu i
is, howe e , as Judi h E ans a gues in he 1995 s udy Feminis
Theo y Today: An In oduc ion To Second-wa e Feminism, ag eed
upon ha he b oades dis inc ion in he second wa e o he
eminis mo emen is ha be ween libe al and adical
eminism1. E ans de ines hese an i he ical posi ions bu also
aces he dispa i y be ween wha we g oup as adical eminis
oices and hei policies. Ne e heless, she manages o ou line
he main a gumen s o hese app oaches, ocusing mos ly on
he plu ali y o ideas we oday label as ‘ adical’. Libe al
eminism, on one hand, ejec s sexual di e en ia ion and
emb aces simila i y as an a gumen o equali y. I aims o e o m
he exis ing social sys em in o de o i o be pe meable o
women, belie ing ha jus ice is possible unde exis ing social
condi ions (7 on page 29–33). Radical eminisms in he second
wa e ejec ed his no ion.2
Al hough adical eminisms o he second wa e di e in e ms
o unde s anding womanhood, social inequali y, means and
goals o social change, hey ag ee ha adical social change
– going “ o he oo o hings“ (8 on page 2) – is necessa y
in o de o e e build a jus socie y. Ideas ha eme ged
du ing his pe iod a e deemed simplis ic and e en laughable – such
as lesbian sepa a ism, poli ical lesbianism and he abandonmen
o all men, including male child en, and se e as an indica o
o how second-wa e eminism belie ed in he possibili y o
e olu iona y change, e en i i did no always know wha ha
change would look like. This belie caused hem also o neglec
di e ences – such as acial o class backg ounds ha en-
de ed he ques ion o libe a ion much mo e complex and non-
educible o dissol ing only pa ia chal s uc u es ha opp ess
women – bu , on he o he hand, hei insis en us in uni y made
possible he ype o p oduc i e en husiasm he eminis mo e-
men has no been able o ep oduce since. This is he social
clima e con ex ualizing Gillian E. Hanscombe’s no el Be ween
F iends which, al hough published in 1982, se es as a so o
e-examina ion o he ea lie decade – he se en ies – ma ked
1 I is also impo an o no e ha Ame ican-based heo is s o en lea e
Socialis o Ma xis eminism ou o his di ision, placing i somewhe e close
o adical eminism8, bu also ailing o acknowledge i s impo ance in he
B i ish con ex : he B i ish Women’s Libe a ion Mo emen “eme ged, o a
la ge ex en , om he B i ish New Le , om Socialis and Ma xis g oups in
which women’s issues had o en been dismissed as pe sonal ones“ (9 on
page 1).
2 I would he e like o no e ha adical eminism o he second wa e di e s
om oday’s ans-exclusiona y adical eminism ha has gained momen um
in he 21s cen u y, e en i hey ely on some simila sou ces and somewha
simila poin s, as some adical eminisms o he second wa e a e essen ialis 7.
Fo mo e on ans-exclusiona y adical eminism see, o example, 10.
Page 3 o 14
Open Resea ch Eu ope 2025, 5:228 Las upda ed: 01 OCT 2025
in he Wes by g owing social jus ice mo emen s and hei
success in acqui ing space in he public discou se. Feminism
and he Gay Libe a ion Mo emen a e some o he mos
p ominen o he mo emen s ha eme ged in he 1960s Eu ope
and he US (9 on page 1), and eminism especially eme ged “ou
o he an i-impe ialis New Le as a adical challenge o he
pe asi e and ocen ism o s a e-led capi alis socie ies in
he pos wa e a” (11 on page 209). The en husiasm and hope
cha ac e ising hese decades we e ho oughly de ea ed
du ing he e u n o conse a ism in he 1980s, bu he ic-
ional wo ld o Be ween F iends keeps he u opian sen imen o
second-wa e eminism and he Feminis Libe a ion Mo e-
men s ali e, as we will show, e e encing i bo h ex ually and
con ex ually.
As we ha e s a ed, h ee cha ac e s in he no el – Meg, Amy
and Jane – embody di e en b anches o adical eminism in he
second wa e. F ances’ iew, howe e , di e s g ea ly om
he iends’ and he pe sonal li es yle and li e decisions allow
he o ejec eminism al oge he . Claiming ha she is libe a ed
as i is, li ing in an in o mal union wi h a man she is no
economically dependen on and cha ac e ises him as p og essi e
and libe al, F ances is con inced ha eminism has no hing
le o do o he . He pa ne Jim is he one who did no wan
ma iage, insis ed on he inancial independence, and did no
wan any child en – he is he pic u e o a con empo a y man.
She is he woman libe al eminism eaches us we can
become – she is p oo , o he sel a leas , ha by he 1980s,
eminism has ul illed mos o i s goals. She celeb a es eminis
accomplishmen s such as he igh o o e, he igh o an abo -
ion and pay equali y, enjoys he ui o o he women’s labo ,
bu e uses o en e ain he possibili y ha gende ed social
injus ice is s ill a p oblem in mos women’s li es. “I mus ha e
been igh all he ime” – she says in a le e o Meg (1 on page 14)
– “in spi e o all you in ellec ualisa ions – eminism is jus ano he
name o lesbianism, when i comes down o i . I suppo
women’s issues, as you know – abo ion, equal pay, all he
es o i – bu I don’ suppo he ejec ion o men as human
beings, which i seems o me is wha lesbians do“ (1 on page 14).
F ances is an emancipa ed, independen woman who e uses
o see any link be ween he pe sonal and poli ical – “I wan ou
iendship o be pe sonal – no o e laid and wis ed abou
and dis o ed and in ellec ually manipula ed by a c eed ha is
no my own” (1 on page 8), she ells Meg. F ances’ e usal o
admi Meg’s sexuali y bo he ed he as well as he e usal o
Meg’s iendship a e Meg was aped by F ances’ pa ne show
how pe sonal and poli ical a e a odds in F ances’ mind. Ins ead
o s anding in solida i y wi h he sexually iola ed closes
iend, F ances chooses o isola e and succumb o he ea o
lesbianism, s aying wi h he pa ne , and e using any le e s o
p oo o he husband’s in ideli y. The e o e, he pe sonal ea s
p omp ed he o make wha is in ac a poli ical decision: o
s ay quie abou sexual assaul and con inue suppo ing he man
esponsible o i . The libe al eminis ideal o he emancipa ed
woman is e ealed in Be ween F iends as plagued exclusi ely
wi h sel -in e es and unwilling o o e solida i y wi h o he s,
dependen en i ely on he com o libe al socie y secu es o one
playing by i s ules.
On he o he hand, Meg, Jane and Amy o m hei own
pe spec i es on he eminis ideas o he second wa e. While
Jane ad oca ed o sepa a ism, Amy was mo e o a e o mis ,
belie ing in he abili y o eminism o eshape he s uc u es
o powe as well as hose ein o cing hem. Meg unc ions as
a na a i e b idge be ween hese wo concep ions o adical
eminism, always asking ques ions and eage o o ge a middle
pa h, bu ne e ques ioning he necessi y o ex eme socie al o
poli ical change in building a mo e jus eali y.
F iends exchange leng hy le e s documen ing no only hei
di e en s ances on social jus ice bu also hei e ou and
en husiasm wi h which hey app oach social change. Theo y
and p ac ice a e shown in Be ween F iends no o be exclusi e
bu o co-exis : o heo ise – o w i e, discuss, speak is, o
hese cha ac e s, a e olu iona y p ac ice. Thei daily li es
e lec his p ac ice: Meg li es in a homosexual pa ne ship
and has a child concei ed ia IVF, a me hod in which she has
become an expe and uses his expe ise o e ilise o he
women (mos ly lesbians). Amy and he husband Tim
p ac ice sex wi hou pene a ion, and bo h belie e ha
pene a ion is a p ac ice ha en o ces male dominance o e
women. Tim is a e o med sexis , pa o a male an i-sexis g oup
unlea ning male beha iou s ha ensu e hei unjus ea -
men o women. Jane is a di o ced poli ical lesbian li ing in a
sel -su icien lesbian communi y whose ac i i y ocuses on
a ious modes o o ganising o educa e and poli icise women.
They all belie e in he e olu ion, alk abou i , w i e o i , and
dedica e hei li es o i , al hough wi h di e en in ensi ies.
Thei pe sonal li es e lec hei c ea i e, open-ended eminis
heo ies: hey exclude men (excep o hose willing o change
and be e hemsel es); hey con ibu e o he imp o emen o
he li es o women, seeking no only o educa e o he s, bu o
educa e hemsel es, always posing and answe ing ques ions,
and always in ellec ually and emo ionally cu ious. They come
up wi h g and ideas and plans o execu e hem: hey mo e in
a house o li e oge he , o ming hei own li le communi y
ha os e s he ideals o second-wa e adical eminism. They
plan and o ganise a big p o es agains ma iage wi h housands
o women – and some men – bu ning hei ma iage ce i ica es
and/o di o ce pape s, as hey all belie e he end o ma iage
will end in a ce ain kind o opp ession. They con e se, bu
hey also ac , choosing o s ongly belie e in he powe o
eminism o change he wo ld, o b ing abou ‘ he e olu ion’.
This u opian sen imen cha ac e ises he adical eminism o he
second wa e and i ideologically co ela es wi h mode nism, such
as Jameson12 desc ibes i , and i s belie in p og ess as one o
he big me ana a i es o ou wo ld.
Wi hin his ic ional uni e se i is possible as well as necessa y
o en ision a be e e sion o eali y, and his eali y is shaped
wi hin he con ex o a communi y – a concep ha signi ies
no only a g oup o people bound by “a sense o oge he ness
and sha ed alues” (13 on page VII), bu also by a p ocli i y o
‘ hink’, o heo ise he e y concep and he alues hey a e
hough o sha e (14 on page 98, 13 on page XII). This is
exac ly he communal ac ion cha ac e ising he iendly
co espondence o Be ween F iends: hey heo ise hei own
exis ence wi hin he s uc u es o socie y, shaping hei alues
Page 4 o 14
Open Resea ch Eu ope 2025, 5:228 Las upda ed: 01 OCT 2025
in he symbolic communal space o le e w i ing whe e
communica ion and discussion a e welcome and ui ul, e ec-
i ely making hem a communi y. This is also a symbolic space
ha emphasises empa hy and ca e as c ucial ac o s o eminis
poli ics: when Meg is aped, he iends no only w i e le e s
o show hei compassion and o e com o , bu hey also
each ou o F ances, he woman whose husband aped Meg,
o o e hei suppo . They insis on w i ing o he e en
when he eplies make he denial and comple e disconnec ion
om he opic o he pa ne ’s guil ob ious. Jane e en goes so
a o seduce Jim, pho og aph i and send i o F ances, an
ac she in e p e s as “unci ilised” and “des uc i e” (1 on
page 170), ailing o ecognise his as an a emp o adical
solida i y on Jane’s pa . “Unci ilised” and “des uc i e” a e
o Jane necessi ies in building a be e wo ld by he s anda ds,
so he c i e ia o he he e ono ma i e, libe al socie y
ad oca ing o ci ili y and cons uc i e e o m a en’ wha she
adhe es o. These s anda ds a e no wha a adical eminis
communi y makes, so by ejec ion o ci ili y and by
emb acing des uc ion as a guiding p inciple which makes
e olu iona y change possible, Jane no only heo ises he
‘communi y’, bu shows how i s p inciples wo k in p ac ice o
ac i ely ejec he alues i ebels agains . She is “des uc i e”,
bu as a means o helping he iends, as a means o p o ing
wha she deems jus . As a communi y heo is , Jane is exclusi e;
he idea o a communi y excludes men o all ages and
backg ounds. To o m a communi y, hen, o Jane, means no
only o include ( hose who belong) bu also o exclude hose
who do no , and no e en by hei choices o alues, bu by
hei gende alone. This c i e ion deems heo ising u he
impossible i done by men: i is de e minis ic in he same way
misogyny is, bu ha ing i s logic e e sed and b ough o an
ex eme migh , o he eade (be i he inside (le e ) eade
o he ex e nal (no el) eade ), enabling unmasking i s weak-
nesses. Meg and Amy, on he o he hand, adhe e o s anda ds o
“ci ili y” and ejec Jane’s “des uc i e” p inciples, heo ising
hei communi y as a symbolic space ha cul i a es g ow h and
change, e en wi hin men. They iew hemsel es, as well as
men, as “p ocessual” beings (15 on page 56), who a e always
able o de elop and e ise hei p e ious e sions. By placing
hope in he p ocess o human de elopmen , bo h heo e ically
(by w i ing) as well as p ac ically (by doing and by
w i ing-as-doing), Amy and Meg se e o p o e ha he subjec
o he second-wa e eminism is no jus a laughable sepa a is ,
bu a (sel -)conscious indi idual willing o ac as well as
heo ise, c ea ing a symbolic (and also li e al) space whe e
‘communi y’ is – jus like an indi idual hemsel es – an
open-ended, con inuously o ming and e ol ing o ganism.
This p ocessual idea o communi y p o es ic o ious a he end
o he no el, when cha ac e s mo e in o a house oge he wi h
hei communi y membe s, and e en Jane, a e a leng hy dis-
cussion, e ol es o a less “des uc i e” e sion o he sel , one
which concedes o lo e and elinquishes he de e minis ic
p inciples by joining a communi y ha includes men: “yes o
you, yes o Simon, yes o mo ing o London, yes o li e” (1 on
page 175), she concludes, choosing, a las , o li e. Because o
li e, in his communi y, is o e ol e.
“Mo e com o able wi h c i ique han
endo semen ”: he making o a ic ional
pos eminis subjec in Sally Rooney’s
Con e sa ions wi h F iends
The shi be ween mode nism and pos mode nism, be ween
he insis ence o a single me ana a i e and he awa eness o
hei mul iplici y, p ecedes and explains o a deg ee changes
in eminis heo ies. Radical eminism o he second wa e has
no ye abandoned me ana a i es, unlike so-called pos eminism.
As Ba ba a C eed explains:
Whe eas eminism would a emp o explain ha c isis
[o legi ima ion ha Lyo a d has desc ibed] in e ms o
he wo kings o pa ia chal ideology and he opp ession o
women and o he mino i y g oups, pos mode nism looks
o o he possible causes – pa icula ly he Wes ’s eliance
on ideologies which posi uni e sal u hs – Humanism,
His o y, Religion, P og ess, e c. While eminism would
a gue ha he common ideological posi ion o all hese
‘ u hs’ is ha hey a e pa ia chal, pos mode n heo y
would be eluc an o isola e a single majo de e mining
ac o . (16 on page 52)
Rosalind Gill, a heo is o pos eminism, a e m used o
desc ibe he plu ali y and o en imes con adic o y iews on
eminism in con empo a y Wes e n socie y, quali ies i no as
a mo emen o a heo y, bu as a sensibili y adjacen o
neolibe alism, which dic a es i 4. Acco ding o Gill, he
p inciples o neolibe alism, mos o all he e ishisa ion o
indi iduali y and indi idual esponsibili y, ha e impac ed
mains eam eminism, gi ing i he shape i has oday4,5. This
esul s in passi eness ha cha ac e ises ou poli ical clima e:
hope is sca ce in a wo ld ixa ed on pe sonal esponsibili y and
psychology, and wi h all g and na a i es abandoned, wi h big
social mo emen s and he social cha ge hey b ough abou ad-
ing, he u opian wo ld o second-wa e eminism seems o be
no only dis an and impossible, bu laughable. This is he cli-
ma e – sensibili y – cha ac e ising Sally Rooney’s 2017 no el
Con e sa ions wi h F iends. This is also a connec ion dis-
cussed ho oughly in José Ca egal-Rome o’s 2023 a icle i led
“Unspeakable Inju ies and Neolibe al Subjec i i ies in Sally
Rooney’s Con e sa ions wi h F iends and No mal People”,
which in e p e s he causes o cha ac e s’ beha iou s as in lu-
enced by neolibe al subjec i i y. Rooney’s cha ac e s engage in
con e sa ions on adical poli ics and al e na i e li es yles, bu
hey none heless s uggle wi h emo ional in imacy, and hei
ela ionships a e a ec ed by neolibe al cons ain s such as
class-based dis inc ions and p ejudice, as well as gende and
sexual hie a chies o en es ablished h ough (sel -)objec i ica ion”
(17 on page 214).
Con e sa ions wi h F iends ocalises he main cha ac e and
na a o , F ances, a young s uden , a poe , a Ma xis , as some
cha ac e s in he no el claim, wo king p eca iously o li e -
a y agency du ing he i s pa o he no el, a e which she
is unemployed. He ela ionships wi h he iends – Bobbi,
Melissa and Nick – a e a a c y om he communal s uc u es
Page 5 o 14
Open Resea ch Eu ope 2025, 5:228 Las upda ed: 01 OCT 2025
buil by Hanscombe’s cha ac e s. Despi e being he closes
iends, F ances inds no abili y o alk o hem openly and
ea nes ly abou he inancial dis ess, se ious heal h issues she
is expe iencing o he emo ional s a e. She communica es in
a discon inued, occasional manne , enclosing he sel in a p i-
a e wo ld o sel -in lic ed su e ing. F om Ca egal-Rome o’s
pe spec i e, he neolibe al sel is aliena ed no only om
o he s, bu also om i sel , and he powe lessness o change
hose modes o a icula ing (o no a icula ing) emo ion o ces
i in o silence (17 on page 218). O he cha ac e s sha e his
cha ac e is ic, a leas o a deg ee, also no ing ha F ances is he
one o ne e alk openly abou he emo ions. F ances’ isola ion
du ing he endome iosis ou b eak and diagnosis eaches
such a deg ee ha she s uggles o ind any alue in he li e,
causing he o ha m he sel and close o o o he s e en mo e
d as ically. “I was a damaged pe son who dese ed no hing”
(2 on page 213), she concludes while delibe a ing dea h. This
accen ua ed wo hlessness and dep ession should be ead as
a symp om o F ances’ social posi ion: e en hough she is a
success ul poe and an educa ed young woman, he sense o
wo h s ems om wha she could no achie e – inancial s abili y,
subs an ial, s able ela ionships wi h o he s, open communica ion,
a sense o communi y. She, in spi e o p i ileges se ing he
up o a ‘good’, ‘success ul’ adul li e, has been ende ed
unable o achie e his ‘success’ due o he emo ional and
physical di icul ies3 as well as, mo e impo an ly, by he
p eca ious li es yle. She is hen, in his way, a p oduc o con-
ex , and decisions impac ing he ela ionships wi h o he s a e
g ea ly in luenced by he social posi ion and inancial s a us.
He decision o publish he i s sho s o y, one abou he iend
Bobbi, is mos ly in luenced by he ac ha she is li e ally
s a ed o ood. Thus, he ca ee as well as he ela ionship
wi h a long ime iend and lo e ha e bo h been made economic
a he han pe sonal o in e pe sonal decisions. F ances’ s o y
once again shows exac ly wha was shown when in e p e ing he
namesake’s decisions in Hanscombe’s no el – ha he pe -
sonal and he poli ical a e no only in e wined, bu dependen
upon one ano he . Rooney’s F ances, ha ing o isk be aying
a alued iendship o su i e, shows, in pa , how ‘communi y’
has le he down (because ‘communi y’, o F ances, was
ne e an op ion o begin wi h). The hough o bo owing
money, le alone o li ing communally o sha ing esou ces – all
ideas Hanscombe’s cha ac e s a gue o and make ue in hei
li le ‘commune’ a he end o Be ween F iends – has no e en
c ossed he mind. These kinds o p ac ical solida i y a e no a
pa o Rooney’s F ances’ eminism anymo e. They a e long
gone, eplaced by a g owing insis ence on indi iduali y and he
dis us in social change in he age o neolibe alism and
pos eminism, bo h o which insis on laying he blame o lack
o success on an indi idual unable o endu e he “compe i i e“
social ela ions o ced upon hem (18 on page 948), masking he
e ec s o he “a ec i e“ powe o neolibe al ideology o e an
indi idual’s choices and social posi ion19.
Al hough he cha ac e s in he no el, which some in e p e
as ypically millennial and in luenced by he In e ne 17, ne e miss
a chance o label hemsel es as ‘ his and ha ’, F ances doesn’
label he sel as eminis , and nei he do o he cha ac e s in
he no el. This is no o say ha hey do no sha e eminis
ideas – hey ouch upon di e en eminis opics and F ances
does disclose ha she is a pa o a eminis uni e si y
g oup – bu he idea o labelling onesel as eminis seems
somehow educ i e o hese cha ac e s. I seems as hough i is
implied, gi en hei opinions and commen s, ha hey a e
(all?) eminis s, bu he e seems o be no need o p oclaim
one’s eminism, o ponde change, le alone ‘ he e olu ion’.
The e is no en husiasm abou social change, no big ideas
being h own a ound in con e sa ion – he cha ac e s ouch
upon poli ical subjec s all he ime, bu hey do so in a de ached,
almos i onic way, eluc an o adhe e o any na a i e,
emb acing only hei skep ical pos mode nis logic. “Mo e
com o able wi h c i ique han endo semen ” (2 on page
241), is how F ances desc ibes he a i ude owa ds poli ical
issues, cap u ing he dominan sensibili y o he gene a ion.
She has no hope o g and plans o he u u e, and she no es:
“I had no plans as o my u u e inancial sus ainabili y:
I ne e wan ed o ea n money o doing any hing. (...)
I ce ainly ne e an asised abou a adian u u e whe e I
was paid o pe o m an economic ole” (2 on page 23). She is
indi e en o money as long as he p ima y needs a e me , and
she claims he “disin e es in weal h” is “ideologically heal hy”
(2 on page 23). Howe e , as was al eady men ioned, when
aced wi h he ac ha he pe o mance o an ‘economic
ole’ isn’ a choice o be made, bu a ma e ial obliga ion o be
ul illed, F ances is o ced o dismiss he i ony and accep he
ole in spi e o che ished “ideological heal h”. Thus, Žižek’s
conclusion ha “cynical dis ance is jus one was o blind
ou sel es o he s uc u al powe o ideological an asy: e en
i we do no ake hings se iously, e en i we keep an i onical
dis ance, we a e s ill doing hem” (20 on page 30), ings pa icu-
la ly ue in ou he oine’s case. He iend Bobbi who, on he
o he hand, a one poin p oclaims “dep ession is a esponse o la e
capi alism” (2 on page 124), p o ing o be comple ely
awa e o he e ec s o socioeconomical con ex on he
indi idual – jus as F ances is – bu choosing a a he di e -
en app oach han he . Bobbi is a p oac i e, ocal pa icipa-
o and leade in uni e si y g oups ( o example, she lea es a
eminis uni e si y g oup a e hey in i e a speake ha sup-
po s he in asion o I aq, whe eas F ances, e en hough p i a ely
ag eeing wi h Bobbi, emains a pa o he g oup (2 on pages
63–64)). This ac i e and o en imes o e -con iden posi ion
Bobbi akes can in pa be a e lec ion o he uppe -class back-
g ound F ances deemes made he poli ics seem pe o ma i e
o hose o he same class as “o he weal hy people ecog-
nised he as one o hei own” (2 on page 95). While F ances
p oclaims he sel “ ea ul” and “ou o place” (2 on page 95),
she sees Bobbi’s posi ion as an uppe -class in ellec ual wi h
wo king-class poli ics as some hing ha can p o ide he
wi h enough cul u al capi al o make he sel eel welcome in
any social con ex . The p oac i eness and abili y o imagine a
di e en , be e wo ld o he sel and o he s, hen, in F ances’
eyes, s ems om one’s own socioeconomic backg ound: o
3 Endome iosis, as a gende ed illness associa ed wi h psychological
symp oms and wi hou a p ope ea men , is hen an exempla y choice o
show how connec ed emo ional and physical s a es a e o gende and social
class.
Page 6 o 14
Open Resea ch Eu ope 2025, 5:228 Las upda ed: 01 OCT 2025
imagine weal h, you ha e o ha e expe ienced i , eel com o -
able in i , and li e i . You canno ha e only heo ised i , as ha
would only make you “ all silen ” (2 on page 96) in he ace o
injus ice.
The e o e, F ances, as well as o he cha ac e s in he no el
– such as Nick – seem o be pain ully awa e o hei own social
con ex s and he injus ices ha a ise om hem, bu hey
show no in en o change hei social si ua ions and no se o
poli ical belie s ha would compel hem o belie e in mean-
ing ul social change. They seem o be in a s a e o “ e lexi e
impo ence” (21 on page 21), unable o ac o e en imagine sig-
ni ican ly di e en li es o hemsel es. F ances- he-na a o
ne e del es in o he de ails o hei con e sa ions, and all
hei ema ks emain a he su ace le el, always p esen ed
ma e -o - ac ly. Thei discussions a e mos ly concluded wi h
i onic commen s, which pose hem a sa e dis ance om
he ma e hey a e discussing. Gill4 conside s his ‘i onic dis-
ance’ o be one o he cha ac e is ics o a pos eminis subjec ,
while Ca egal-Rome o concludes his mechanism is mos ly
damaging o Rooney’s cha ac e s: hei i ony is exposed in
Con e sa ions wi h F iends as a s a egy ha “equals
(sel -)decep ion, and only becomes a symp om o unease and
discom o ” (17 on page 219). I seems ha hei con e sa-
ions and discussions se e no o lea n om one ano he , bu o
humilia e one ano he in ellec ually, and hus socially, as hey
all co-exis in a social en i onmen ha alues in ellec ualism
– and indi idualism – abo e all. A hose imes, hese mecha-
nisms a e p o en u ile and dange ous o he cha ac e s ha new
possibili ies eme ge: “change is p oduced on in e pe sonal
le els, when cha ac e s con on hei sel -abjec ion, [and]
achie e posi i e human connec ion” (17 on page 215). Ou aim
is o u he in e p e he ways in which his human connec ion
is hinde ed wi hin he no el and he mechanisms used o shape
his kind o inabili y o communica e, a ibu ed o he e ec s
o neolibe alism and pos eminism on hese cha ac e s.
As silence is conside ed o be F ances’ main communica i e
s a egy, we would also like o explo e wha na a i e models
ame F ances’ in e pe sonal habi s when she is ac i ely y-
ing o con e se and how he communica ion s yle changes, as
well as compa e he communica ion s yles and na a i e
s uc u es o Con e sa ions wi h F iends wi h i s p edecesso ,
Be ween F iends.
“You can’ jus say you’ e ‘an i’- hings”: na a i e
s a egies and hei implica ions in Gillian E.
Hanscombe’s Be ween F iends and Sally Rooney’s
Con e sa ions wi h F iends
Rooney’s no el, besides classical i s -pe son na a ion, also
inco po a es ex messages and emails cha ac e s sen o one
ano he . These messages ange in opics om li ing o philo-
sophical commen s, bu hey a e always only b ie and passing;
o en wi y one-line s ha se e mos ly F ances’ need o
ha e con ol o e he own image. This connec s o he neo-
libe al and pos eminis impe a i e o sel -su eillance and
con ol Gill4,5 claims ha people ha e in e nalised o be e
i hei ole in he wo ld o la e capi alism.4 F ances’ unwill-
ingness o pa icipa e in o al discussions (whe e she is almos
always quie , bu lis ens closely as Bobbi de ends he poin s,
which a e, one p esumes, sha ed) and he o e eage analysis
o ex messages be ween he and Nick and he and Bobbi con-
ibu es o he conclusion she is a mo e p eoccupied wi h
main aining a ce ain image ( ha o a sma , educa ed pe -
son, a good w i e e c.) han wi h ac ually discussing social o
philosophical issues. This insis ence on sel -su eillance and
sel -image con ol makes F ances a pos eminis subjec pa
excellence. (Tha being said, all he sel - e lexi i y se es
no o dis inguish he om his model and p o e he o be a
“pos -ideological” subjec (20 on page 30), bu o show ha
he cynicism and i ony a e only masking he ac his is an
“(unconscious) an asy s uc u ing ou social eali y“ (20 on
page 30)).
This is he di e ence be ween Rooney’s and Hanscobe’s
con e sa ions – Rooney uses hem as an insigh in o he
cha ac e s’ ea s and compulsions, whe eas Hanscombe uses
con e sa ions o o m cha ac e connec ions. The le e s
Hanscombe’s cha ac e s w i e o one ano he – he e o
ha goes in o hem, he passion hey display owa ds one
ano he , as well as o he opics hey a gue – a e ca e ully
w i en, de ailed and long; hey exhibi con inui y, which is
in line wi h he ideas hey a gue and suppo . The idea ha i
is wo h explaining onesel , p o ing you poin s o o he s,
w i ing ano he le e when one emains unanswe ed, going
abo e and beyond o ‘ge h ough’ o someone – his is he
idea ha e en eminism has no been nu u ing enough la ely.
This is he idea we ha e abandoned in he e a o pos eminism,
whe e we a e some imes oo aliena ed om one ano he and oo
conce ned wi h sel -image o engage in meaning ul, po en ially
ui ul con e sa ions. “We canno de elop communal com-
mi men s because we canno hink o ou sel es as ci izens—as
ac i e, in ol ed, ca ing poli ical beings” (22 on page 340).
Thus, i we do no conside ou sel es ci izens – do no conside
social change a leas pa ly ou esponsibili y – we lose he
need o engage in he con e sa ions Hanscombe’s cha ac e s
insis on in he i s place.
The epis ola y o m Hanscombe uses in he no el is a adi-
ionally emale ype o w i ing – one belonging o he in ima e
sphe e, one o en ocusing on emo ions, one ha does no
egula e s eams o hough bu encou ages i , o i is exac ly
his kind o seemingly ee- lowing hinking and sha ing ha is
mos bene icial o he eme gence o new ideas. I is exac ly ia
le e s, as Ma ga e a Jolly concludes in he 2008 s udy, In Lo e
and S uggle. Le e s In Con empo a y Feminism23, eminis s
exchanged ideas and o med bonds wi h one ano he . The
exchange o le e s be ween ou iends makes his ex a
space whe e dialogue and communica ion become no only a
possibili y, bu also a necessi y in o de o con inue belie ing
4 And is also discussed u he in Ca egal-Rome o (2023).
Page 7 o 14
Open Resea ch Eu ope 2025, 5:228 Las upda ed: 01 OCT 2025
in and b inging abou social change. I he e is space o dia-
logue, he e is space o hope, and hope is some hing ha
adical eminism o he second wa e is abundan . The epis o-
la y o m, in e nally cohe en and agmen ed a he same ime
(24 on page 183), is used in Be ween F iends as a means o
jux aposi ioning pe spec i es, making i possible o examine
each cha ac e ’s a gumen s and mo i es side by side. By using
his app oachable and clea na a i e s a egy, Hanscombe made
i possible o he le e s o se e no only as a ic ional plo
bu also as a kind o in oduc ion o p ac ical eminism,
including all o i s pi alls and s ong places, he s onges o
which is exac ly he one examined du ing his analysis: he
po en ial o making las ing iends we can lea n om as well
as educa e, making hose small in e pe sonal s eps in he g and
wo ld-changing na a i e o second-wa e eminism. The ou
au odiege ic na a i e pe spec i es enable he ex o decen al-
ise a single cha ac e as well as he plo and o make he co e o
i s in e es he con e sa ion i sel . While Rooney’s au odiege ic
na a i e ocuses on a single cha ac e , making he a he o
– albei a aul y, haun ed one – who is enclosed in he na ow
ic ional uni e se o he own making, Hanscombe’s decision o
make he no el a ou -pe son na a i e comple ely de o ed o
es ablishing and explo ing he cha ac e s/na a o s’ commu-
nica ion wi h one ano he ga e way o making iendship and
communi y seem possible among hese cha ac e s. I p o ided
hem – as well as he eade – wi h he na a i e con inui y
and mu uali y necessa y o c ea ing hope and in e pe sonal
happiness and gi ing hem a happy ending in hei own e ms.
Rooney’s choice o inco po a e only sho ex s and e-mails
in o he na a i e o Con e sa ions wi h F iends unc ions
as p oo o he p o agonis ’s inabili y and ea o communica-
ion, which can be in e p e ed as a ea o ulne abili y ha
p e en s he om connec ing o o he s. We a gue ha his
na a i e discon inui y and inconsis ency o communica-
ion be ween cha ac e s shows no only a ea o ulne abili y
bu can also be in e p e ed as a socioeconomically condi ioned
ine i abili y. The discon inui y and inconsis ency o (digi al)
communica ion be ween F ances and he o he cha ac e s in
he no el e lec he unce ain y and aimlessness cha ac e ising
he pu sui o lo e, social success and economic s abili y in
a neolibe al socie y o he 21s cen u y. I is, we mean o say,
no only he con en o he messages, bu also he me hod
o communica ion she adop s ha indica es he kind o
ela ionship F ances has o hope o and o iendship. “Capi alism
ha nesses lo e o p o i ” (2 on page 180), F ances s a es in
one o he messages o Bobbi, a guing ha human connec ions
ha e as such become commodi ied in ways ha aliena e peo-
ple om one ano he . This aliena ion is no some hing ha can
be nego ia ed wi hin he bounda ies o adi ional ela ionships,
so ins ead o discussing i – as Hanscombe’s cha ac e s mos
likely would – F ances and Bobbi cu hei con e sa ion sho
a e F ances’ claim she is “an i-lo e as such” (2 on page 180)
and Bobbi’s e o she can’ jus say she is “an i- hings” (2
on page 180). This shows an unwillingness o discuss and a
endency o p oclaim, a ai suppo ing u he alienisa ion
o hese cha ac e s, e en i he impulse o e hink con en ional
ela ionships is one hey sha e.
The discon inui y o he w i en communica ion in he no el,
hen, e lec s F ances’ ambi alen s ance on lo e (o human
connec ion) in he age o la e capi alism: she indulges in
communica ion, bu cu s i o ab up ly, o en eplying o
messages b ie ly and la e; she is insis en on o ming bonds
wi h o he s, bu cu s hem o when she deems he sel in an
emo ionally o economically ulne able posi ion. She seeks
o he sel and he iendships a e ain ha would enable a
sha ed ulne abili y possible only unde condi ions ha ela e
as li le as possible o p ede e mined gende oles, class hie -
a chies and he e ono ma i e p ac ices imposed by mains eam
socie y. This becomes possible, as was al eady no ed, owa ds
he end o he no el, as F ances no only chooses o exp ess
he sel emo ionally, bu also becomes mo e economically
independen and akes con ol o he own poe ic oice by
publishing he wo k. In his way, he pe sonal and he poli ical
a e once again p o en o be dependen on one ano he : in o de
o o m and main ain heal hy, ul illing human connec ion,
F ances needs i s o claim some economical and cul u al capi al:
he need o ‘open up’ o o he s becomes no only an
acciden al e ec o ‘sel -g ow h’ such as la e capi alism would
ha e you belie ing necessa y and only achie able h ough
he means o close pe sonal ‘wo k’. This sel - he apeu ic
p ac ice and he impe a i e o pe sonal g ow h seems o be
ano he ins ance o he pos eminis and/o neolibe al subjec , a
pa o a discou se ha has “made us abandon he g ea ealms
o ci izenship and poli ics and canno p o ide us wi h an
in elligible way o linking he p i a e sel o he public sphe e
(…), eplacing his con en wi h a na cissis ic sel -conce n”
(25 on page 2). Con e sa ions hen p o e his insis ence
o be insu icien in making a happie pe son and a heal h-
ie communica o : i is h ough economic s abili y and
cul u al capi al (in his case) ha F ances can inally begin
o claim he sel -hood and he be e men . This s abili y can
s a gi ing he ample space o b ea he unde he condi ions
o la e capi alism, opening up he pe sonal and in e pe sonal
e ec s o his change. The economic and (in e )pe sonal a e,
once again, joined oge he in making possible wha is deemed
F ances’ “e olu ion om a sel -obsessed o a mo e open and
ca ing indi idual” (17 on page 217).
By joining hese aspec s – he economic and (in e )pe sonal
– he ex shows how he e ec s o neolibe al sensibili y canno
be o e come by ea ing hem as sepa a e phenomena. In
he same way, he meanings in e wo en in he ex canno be
ea ed simply as a p oduc o poli ical and/o cul u al con ex bu
as e ec s o ex uali y. I is no only wha F ances says o does
no say, bu how she says and when she says i ha should
in e es us. I is, hen, symp oma ic o dwell on he ending o
he no el, he momen F ances’ “e olu ion” is in ‘ ull e ec ’.
The no el ends wi h F ances and Nick, he cha ac e whom
she has a sexual and iendly ela ionship wi h h oughou
he no el (a ela ionship ha ende s isible mos o he
insecu i ies ega ding he economic posi ion and body image),
alking on he phone. The one o hei con e sa ion is op imis-
ic and ull o possibili y – a a c y om hei ex s o e-mails
h oughou he no el. Nick’s economic (he comes om an
uppe -class amily) and cul u al (he is an ac o ma ied o Melissa,
Page 8 o 14
Open Resea ch Eu ope 2025, 5:228 Las upda ed: 01 OCT 2025
who is a e y success ul au ho ) capi al inally ceases o ende
F ances wo hless in he own eyes, as she has mo ed om
a hopeless, i onic pe spec i e on money, labou and c ea ion
o a s ill p eca ious, bu changing, encou aging posi ion o a
published and p aised au ho . In his new posi ion, which
helps make ca e and openness possible, he communica ion
s yle has changed. The ex ual choice o ha e he inal chap e o
he no el na a ed h ough a phone call, and no a message, hen
se es as a signal o his ambi alence be ween he simul aneous
desi e o human con ac and aliena ion being esol ed in
a o o communica ing.5 The inal wo ds o he no el: “Come
and ge me, I said” (2 on page 321) emphasise his choice:
F ances, as well as he ex i sel , chooses o con e se and
pa icipa e a he o aliena e, o he implica ions o he la e
a e a bleake : hey lea e one a me cy o he neolibe al Sel
and i s su eillance.
Conclusion
Hope and iendship go hand in hand o Hanscombe’s cha ac e s
who se e as li e a y p oo ha pe sonal is poli ical – hei pe -
sonal iendships shape hei poli ical belie s, o ming hem in o
a communi y ueled by hope o a be e wo ld o all women.
This u opian sen imen ell la in 2017 and oday, bu iendship
is s ill a so o kinship wi h hope: i is exac ly h ough
iendship and o he kinds o close in e pe sonal ela ionships
ha he p o agonis o he no el e eals he alue o li e. O en
ead as a Bildungs oman exac ly o his eason, Con e sa ions
wi h F iends, jus as Be ween F iends, inds hope in he
communi y. Bo h no els a e ocused on ein e p e ing adi-
ional communi ies and ela ionships: Hanscombe’s h ough a
u opian, somewha sepa a is lens o s a ing new communi ies
unbu dened wi h pa ia chal ela ionships ha de ine ou soci-
e y, and Rooney’s h ough a e hinking o monogamy and
con en ional bounda ies be ween iendship and omance,
such as i is de ined in ou socie y.6 Bo h no els ques ion wha
i means o communica e, con e se, wha i means o be ulne -
able among hose whose lo e and espec we seek, and wha i
means o be poli ical in di e en his o ical con ex s. The a imes
o e bea ing in ensi y o Be ween F iends is jux aposed o
he cold i ony o Con e sa ions wi h F iends, he o me ’s
wo dy le e co espondence o he la e ’s b ie and
discon inued messages, signaling a shi in he way we com-
munica e, bu no in wha d i es us o con e se and o connec
o each o he . The necessi y o human con ac seems o inci e
bo h o hese modes o communica ion despi e he way alues,
social posi ions, and he his o ical momen ha e changed.
E hics and consen
E hical app o al and consen we e no equi ed.
Da a a ailabili y
No da a associa ed wi h his a icle.
5 This is pa icula ly signi ican when we ake in o conside a ion F ances
only calls Nick once: on he e ening she is hospi alised because o he
endome iosis. This is a much less hope ul con e sa ion: F ances quickly
ends i , o e ing no explana ion, a e Nick’s agi a ion and su p ise abou an
unannounced 2 a.m. call (24 on page 168). 6 Fo mo e on he ea men o non-monogamy in he no el see 26.
Re e ences
1. Hanscombe GE: Be ween iends. Sheba Feminis Publishe s, 1983.
Re e ence Sou ce
2. Rooney S: Con e sa ions wi h F iends. Fabe , 2017.
Re e ence Sou ce
3. Coppock V, Haydon D, Rich e I: The illusions o ‘pos - eminism’: new women,
old My hs. Taylo & F ancis, 1995.
Publishe Full Tex
4. Gill R: Pos eminis media cul u e: elemen s o a sensibili y. Eu J Cul S ud.
2007; 10(2): 147–166.
Publishe Full Tex
5. Gill R: The a ec i e, cul u al and psychic li e o pos eminism: a
pos - eminis sensibili y 10 yea s on. Eu J Cul S ud. 2017; 20(6): 606–626.
Publishe Full Tex
6. Williams R: S uc u es o eelings. In: Ma xism and Li e a u e. Ox o d Uni e si y
P ess, 1978.
7. E ans J: Feminis heo y oday: an in oduc ion o second-wa e eminism.
SAGE Publica ions L d, 1995.
Re e ence Sou ce
8. Douglas CA: Lo e and poli ics. Radical eminis and lesbian heo ies. ism
p ess, 1990.
Re e ence Sou ce
9. Bina d F: The B i ish women’s libe a ion mo emen in he 1970s: ede ining
he pe sonal and he poli ical. Re ue ançaise de ci ilisa ion b i annique.
XXII- Ho s sé ie(ho s-sé ie), 2017.
Publishe Full Tex
10. Vincen B, E ikainen S, Pea ce R: TERF wa s: eminism and he igh o
ansgende u u es. The Sociological Re iew Monog aphs. 2020; 68(4).
11. F ase N: Fo unes o eminism: om s a e-managed capi alism o
neolibe al c isis. Ve so, 2013.
Re e ence Sou ce
12. Jameson F: Pos mode nism, o , he cul u al logic o la e capi alism. New Le
Re iew. 1984; 146(July–Augus ): 59–92.
Re e ence Sou ce
13. Lyall S: P e ace: in sea ch o communi y. Communi y in mode n Sco ish
Li e a u e. Sco ish Cul u al Re iew o Language and Li e a u e. 2016; 25: VII–XIV.
Re e ence Sou ce
14. Cohen AP: The symbolic cons uc ion o communi y. Rou ledge, 2015.
Re e ence Sou ce
15. Se enhuijsen S: Ci izenship and he e hics o ca e. Feminis conside a ions
on jus ice, mo ali y and poli ics. Rou ledge, 1998.
Re e ence Sou ce
16. C eed B: F om he e o mode ni y: eminism and pos mode nism. Sc een.
1987; 28(2): 47–68.
Publishe Full Tex
17. Ca egal-Rome o J: Unspeakable inju ies and neolibe al subjec i i ies in
Sally Rooney’s Con e sa ions wi h F iends and No mal People. In: Na a i es o
he Unspoken in Con empo a y I ish Fic ion. Silences ha Speak. New Di ec ions in
I ish and I ish Ame ican Li e a u e. Palg a e Macmillan, 2023.
Publishe Full Tex
18. Becke JC, Ha wich L, Haslam SA: Neolibe alism can educe well-being by
Page 9 o 14
Open Resea ch Eu ope 2025, 5:228 Las upda ed: 01 OCT 2025
