The chronicle of an “offensive” publication
The editorial team
Following up on your electronic response (e-mail July 24, 2017) to the Editorial Board of the journal Feministika2, we would like to notify you of the decision of the Editorial Board and the publisher of the journal, the Centre for Research on Women’s Issues “Diotima”, to withdraw our journal from the EKT platform and, thus, for the Framework of Collaboration we signed with EKT to not go into force.
On the part of the Editorial Board, we are opposed to the terms that you have set regarding the publication of the particular video and more generally the policy that those terms portend. Contradicting every academic protocol for review and production of critical discourse, a supposedly “open” platform, “supported by all the taxpayers of Greece” (as you have reminded us in oral communication), instead of “hosting content” has proceeded to make interpretations, have opinions and arrive at decisions circumventing the peer review process and the decisions of the Academic and Advisory Boards, as well as those of the Editorial Board.
In conclusion we consider that the Editorial Board has been subject to discrimination as regards equal access to public assets and services, such as the public platform provided by EKT –for indeed we too are Greek “taxpayers”. Ironically, this exemption was effected through the very practices of exclusion, stigmatization, sexism and racism to which our journal aims to draw attention. Finally, we would like to inform you that given the political sensitivity of this matter, we plan to publish this letter in the first issue of our journal and to submit this matter to the test of public dialogue.
The Editorial Board of the journal
We have yet to receive a response to our letter from EKT. Οn the occasion of this “event”, we could not but reflect on the long genealogy of stigmatization of feminist, queer, anti-sexist, anti homophobic and anti transphobic discourse through the tactical and normative invocation of the “offence” and “disruption” of the standards of public discourse (at times, also of “public morality”). These are practices of delimitation and preemptive normalization of public discourse, through which the possibility for critique is reduced. It is not at all coincidental that these practices foster a public discourse that conceals and reproduces naturalized gendered and sexual norms and biases. At the same time, these practices make imperative a critical approach to the process by which the “offensive” is defined. Why indeed is the publication of an anti-homophobic video automatically deemed offensive and its non-publication not considered offensive? Which subjects are considered here as “offended” and possibly affected? Is it not actually offensive that the field of critique of heteronormative mono-logue is being circum scribed? Which gendered categories delimit the “admissible” in public discourse and which operate to exempt it from probable future critical conflicts and challenges? In response to the banal restriction of the non-heteronormative, we assert and perform our right to public presence and critical publicity.
1 In our initial communications with EKT we referred to our collective as an ‘Editorial Board while in our original agreement with EKT the Centre for Research on Women’s Issues “Diotima” had assumed the (required by EKT) role of our ‘publisher’. After we decided to withdraw the journal from the EKT platform and in the course of applying for an ISSN from the National Library of Greece, we were informed that we could publish the journal independently but would need to assume the role of publisher ourselves. Hence, the current appellation of our editorial collective as ‘Publishing Team’.
2 Φεμινιστικά/Feministika was the original name of the journal. After withdrawing the journal from the EKT platform, the Publishing Team decided to change the name to φεμινιστιqά/feministiqά.