Page 103 - CULTURE IN THE COMMUNICATION AGE

MIRJA LIIKKANEN

early 1980s. So, the Marimekko shirt represents left-wing intellectuals and
Marxist critical theorists of the Vietnam War era. The Matti & Teppo jacket
reminds Finns of the transition from the 1970s to the 1980s, and to the rehabili-
tation of research in popular culture. The third piece of clothing mentioned in
the interview refers to a contemporary situation – the pin-striped jacket you
often see in television interviews in northern Europe. This last reference
underscores the recent transformation of sociologists, among many other pro-
fessions in modern society, into ‘mediatized experts’. The characterizations of
the professional researcher described by Jari Aro explicitly make clear the
gender of ‘the sociologist’.
Being a Finnish sociologist myself, my feelings were contradictory when I
read this newspaper article. My bodily figure, my gendered style, is certainly
different from what I was reading. I do not have a beard. I have never had a
Marimekko shirt, a Matti & Teppo jacket, or a striped jacket I keep handy
for television appearances. If I were to be interviewed, I am not at all sure
that I would sit behind a desk, and I would not put my hand in my pocket
if I stood up. All this leads me to ask: do I really belong to the community
of European sociologists? Is the Finnish feminist author Suvi Ronkainen
right when she claims that the ‘place of the abodily and placeless expert is
not open to all bodily subjects. It rejects the female body (or female experi-
ence), and favors the male body (human experience) of the androcentric
tradition’ (Ronkainen 1999: 156)? Then again, could it be that there is also
something inherently Finnish in this setting, perhaps something quite
exceptional? Would a male sociologist from Britain, for instance, or Japan, or
the United States define his profession in the same sort of national and
masculine terms?
About the same time in 1999 Helsingin Sanomat also published a series of
women’s diaries in celebration of Mother’s Day (Aaltonen and Härkönen
1999). The invited writers were well-educated women of different ages with
varying feminist commitments. Below I will re-present some extracts from
their published diaries. None of the writers appears to be non-heterosexual.
Most of them speak in one way or another about families that are made up of a
woman, a man, and children, or about childless heterosexual couples. The
writers are clearly in touch with the present day, and are well aware of the
norms for ‘gender definition’:

Riikka Kaihovaara (eighteen years old, student, Anarcho-feminist Union,
Friends of the Earth): It seems that again the Parliamentary elections are
a battlefield for middle-aged men. I suppose to me it makes no differ-
ence whether the candidates are men or women, I’m just annoyed that
all women candidates are just that in these elections: women. Woman-
hood defines their existence. They’re there as beautiful young women,
as competent women, as mothers, etc. Why don’t men have to justify
their candidacy in any way?. . .

92