Research, Emancipation and Activism Toward Shared Power

Susann Hofbauer, Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg

This blog post explores diverse versions of feminist futures as theoretical and political imaginaries, epistemic critiques, and lived practices. It connects theoretical debates with concrete events such as the Amnesty International conference, showing how feminist futures are not only imagined but collectively enacted.

§1 Introduction: Utopian Versions of Feminist Futures

“Feminist futures” describes a heterogeneous field of political imaginaries, epistemic interventions, and transformative practices around the world.¹ They ask how futures can be envisioned beyond patriarchal, colonial, extractivist, and technocratic orders. They function as diagnoses of the present, critiques of existing power structures, activist interventions, and arenas in which hope and futurity are negotiated within particular historical and political contexts. Rather than treating the future as a neutral horizon of progress, feminist approaches understand it as a contested terrain shaped by power, knowledge, and relationality.  Feminism has increasingly been brought into dialogue with future studies in order to rethink how power, knowledge, and social transformation shape possible futures. Feminist research itself is “inevitably futuristic,” as Ivana Milojević stated (Milojević 1998; Coleman & Jungnickel 2024).² Mathilde Vaerting (1884–1977), regarded as the first feminist educational researcher in Germany, also described a “pendulum movement” between patriarchal and matriarchal social orders³—a theory that later became influential during the matriarchy debates within second wave feminism and gained international resonance.

Future scenarios and guidance can also be a product of research, as exemplified by the Feminist Killjoy Handbook (2003), which translates critical theory into practical (mindset) tools for the everyday and aims to sustain longstanding resistance.⁴ One important mode of feminist futurity is the Manifesta (2000). It frames the future of feminism as a generational and (pop)cultural project.⁵ Feminism is not narrated as a completed historical wave but as an ongoing negotiation of bodily autonomy, representation, and political agency. Similarly, Feminist Futures (Bhavnani, Foran, & Kurian, 2003)⁶ shifts the perspective from national equality debates towards transnational development, global justice, and cultural transformation. Here, the future is conceptualized as a collective project that links gender justice with economic and geopolitical restructuring.

Manifestos do not merely describe futures—they enact them. Ecofeminist thought connects the domination of women with the exploitation of nature, arguing that both are embedded in patriarchal and capitalist logics. From this perspective, feminist futures are not technological accelerationist visions, but rather relational reconfigurations of care, responsibility, and ecological coexistence. In Staying with the Trouble, Donna Haraway (2016) resists both apocalyptic fatalism and techno-utopian salvation. Her concept of “making kin” in the Chthulucene proposes a future grounded in multispecies entanglements and shared vulnerability. The future is not a distant endpoint, but rather an ongoing practice of becoming-with. Ecofeminist futures thus reimagine politics as ecological kinship.⁷

From the perspective of Science and Technology Studies (STS), feminist futures interrogate how knowledge and technological systems structure possibilities. Haraway’s notion of situated knowledges destabilizes claims to universal objectivity, while Rosi Braidotti in The Posthuman (2013) challenges the liberal western humanist subject at the center of modernity. Braidotti proposes a posthuman ethics in which the subject is not autonomous and self-contained but relational, embedded in networks of technology, bodies, and environments. Within this framework, feminist futures require us to rethink agency, vulnerability, and responsibility beyond anthropocentrism and‚—furthermore—western postmodern feminism and its focus on humanism.

Such discussions give rise to alternative ideas of interpersonal relations, to the search for social and educational alternatives, and to the creation of other spaces—eutopias and heterotopias (Milojević 2005)—in which different forms of living and learning can be imagined and practiced. These spaces are not merely theoretical constructs: they materialize in concrete encounters and collective gatherings. One such moment of translation from feminist futurity into political practice became visible in a recent meeting of Amnesty International, where questions of rights, solidarity, and global responsibility were negotiated in real time.

§2 “Together into a feministic future”: Amnesty International Conference Switzerland

On November 22, 2025, Amnesty International Switzerland (Frauenrechtsgruppe Zürich) hosted the conference “Together into a Feminist Future” in Zurich — a full-day gathering dedicated to feminist solidarity, strategy and collective imagination – in response to current changes. Bringing together activists, scholars, political actors, and representatives from civil society, the event created a space for not only discussion but also meaningful encounters with the most dedicated to community spirit, care and collective responsibility. At a time when feminist achievements are increasingly challenged and gender equality remains deeply contested across political and social spheres, the conference positioned itself as both response and proposition: a response to persisting inequalities, and a proposition for building stronger, interconnected feminist futures.

The programme deliberately brought together diverse voices from politics, academia, cultural institutions, activism, and organisational leadership. In doing so, the conference highlighted that feminist futures are not forged in isolation but through networks, shared reflection, and sustained dialogue across different fields of practice. It underscored the importance of community-building as a feminist practice in its own right — a reminder that solidarity is not merely a political demand, but something that must be actively cultivated, sustained and continually reimagined.

§2.1 The Politics of Feminist Progress

The morning session was opened and moderated by Susanne Aebischer, CEO of OEIA Organisational Development. She framed the day around three interlinked realities of feminist work: struggle, setbacks, and the necessity of allies as sources of strength and inspiration. Feminist progress, she emphasised, has never been linear; it advances through collective resilience. Her introduction set the tone for a series of ten-minute short contributions that combined political analysis, practical experience and normative reflection.

Anna-Béatrice Schmaltz, municipal councillor for the Greens and expert in the prevention of gender-based violence at FRIEDA, addressed the urgent reality of gender-specific violence and femicides in Switzerland. She outlined the different forms violence can take and highlighted existing protection and support structures, including prevention campaigns against domestic, sexualised, and gender-based violence⁸, such as the annual “16 Days Against Violence” campaign (November 25 to December 10, 2025). At the same time, she drew attention to the imbalance between the societal significance of the issue and its financial prioritisation within broader security agendas. She also criticised the inadequate state of research data, particularly concerning the intersections of gender, disability and violence.

Mandy Abou Shoak, cantonal councillor for the Social Democratic Party, social worker, and representative of Brava, spoke about responsibility and burden-sharing within political structures. She argued for structural frameworks that do not force those affected by violence into the position of supplicants. Empowerment, she suggested, must be understood as an educational mandate for society as a whole. Solidarity is not merely a moral appeal, but a structural precondition of protection. Reliable support systems and power-sharing as a leadership principle are essential components of feminist political practice.

Returning in her capacity as an organisational coach, Susanne Aebischer introduced practical models such as “Women for Impact” and concepts of regenerative economics. She described circular organisational structures based on consent and tolerance, open elections, and double-linking systems. Central to her approach were what she called the four dimensions of the heart: trust, the foundation for innovation, experimentation and risk-taking; attitude, an inner quality of listening, silence, humility and willingness to share power; source, an inner connection to something larger or awareness of being part of a collective; and resonance, the genuine encounter with others that releases shared energy.

Alexandra Karle, Executive Director of Amnesty International Switzerland, expanded on the idea of feminist leadership. For her, it manifests in the reduction of hierarchy, power-sharing, dismantling structural discrimination, and fostering psychological well-being through trust. “Without trust, there is no speaking,” she suggested, linking participation to a shared responsibility grounded in the self.

Tabea Fröbel, cultural mediator at the Gosteli Archive, reminded the audience that “archiving is feminist.” Documents tracing women’s struggles and social movements are easily lost; resisting forgetting was itself one of the central battles of the Swiss women’s movement. Preservation becomes a political act.

Last, Katrin Meyer, philosopher and Professor of Gender Studies at the University of Zurich, turned to the ambivalences within academic institutions. She reflected on universities’ involvement in the dissolution of peaceful protests and reading groups under the pretext of trespassing or security concerns. This, she argued, reveals a paradox between the university’s educational mission and its occasional obstruction of student-led discussion grounded in scholarly argument. Universities, she suggested, carry an obligation to defend spaces of critical debate. Activism is worthy of archiving and is often a response to silence — even silence within the academic mainstream. Understanding oneself as part of history entails reflecting on the epistemological orientation of one’s research interests and their ethical dimension.

§2.2 Feminist Pasts and Futures

After an intensive session of speed networking, the programme shifted towards a historical perspective with journalist and publicist Yvonne-Denise Köchli. Drawing on her own biographical experiences of devaluation, she introduced her book Eine kurze Geschichte der Frauen – von 1791 bis 2024 (“A Short History of Women – from 1791 to 2024”). She began with the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen (1791), written as a response to the French Revolution — a revolution in which women played a decisive role in advancing human rights, yet were ultimately excluded from the very rights they had helped to articulate. Köchli posed a provocative question: who actually benefits from the achievements of feminism? While approximately one billion women have profited directly from feminist gains, she argued, three billion still do not.

She described what she termed “the end of male interpretative sovereignty,” yet warned that this shift has also been accompanied by new spectacles of mutual questioning and criticism, particularly within academic institutions. Referring to #MeToo cases at universities — including at ETH Zurich — she spoke of broken hopes and structural dependencies that continue to silence those affected. Mansplaining, the influence of populist politics (including figures such as Donald Trump), and developments in jurisprudence all reveal the ongoing tension between speaking and acting.

Zita Küng — lawyer, coach and long-standing activist — offered a historical overview of the status of women’s rights and the development of gender equality in Switzerland. She challenged simplified understandings of equality by asking: who is being made equal to whom? Legal systems, she noted, frequently categorise individuals according to biological markers, thereby revealing underlying essentialist assumptions. At the same time, the state is expected — broadly speaking — to treat like cases alike and unlike cases differently. This principle generates a persistent tension: biological distinctions are formalised in law, particularly in areas such as reproductive regulation, while gender itself is shaped by social and cultural constructions. Yet, as she insisted, “being a woman is not a programme.”

Küng outlined contemporary feminist challenges, insisting that the category of gender remains necessary as a comparative framework; without it, structural inequalities risk disappearing under an abstract rhetoric of equality. At the same time, gender equality must expand towards a broader equality that addresses all forms of discrimination. Feminist struggles, she concluded, are not only struggles for rights, but also struggles for attention and for funding — battles over visibility, recognition, and the allocation of societal resources.

Helena Trachsel, gender equality expert, closed by shifting the conference’s focus towards the question of agency: How do we become self-effective? Drawing on concepts of empowerment and social learning, she emphasised the importance of recognising one’s own capabilities as a foundation for action. Self-efficacy, she suggested, grows from not only individual confidence, but from collective processes as well: from model learning, from witnessing others act and succeed, and from social persuasion expressed in enabling language.

§3 Sharing Power

Throughout the conference, several central themes emerged from discussion apart from the contributions of individual speakers. First, the conference articulated feminism as a collective response to current political and societal shifts. The gathering was not merely descriptive, but also strategic: it asked how feminist solidarity can be strengthened at a time when rights are contested, funding is unevenly distributed, and public discourse is increasingly polarised. A second key thread was the structural dimension of protection and equality. From the discussion of gender-based violence and femicide in Switzerland to the legal paradoxes surrounding equality and biological categorisation, speakers emphasised that rights alone are insufficient without reliable infrastructures. Protection requires sustained funding, sound research data, and political accountability. Equality, as several speakers stressed, cannot mean simple assimilation; it requires critical reflection on who is being made equal to whom and under which conditions.

Third, and repeatedly invoked throughout the day, was the principle of power-sharing. Whether in political leadership, organisational development, or activist practice, reducing hierarchy and redistributing decision-making authority emerged as a core feminist strategy. Power-sharing was framed not as symbolic inclusion, but as a structural necessity: without shared power, there can be no genuine participation, no trust, and no sustainable solidarity. This idea arose repeatedly in discussions about feminist leadership, circular organisational models, consent-based decision-making, and the willingness to share authority as an ethical stance.

Closely connected to the need for power-sharing was the importance of trust and self-efficacy. Trust was described as the precondition for speaking, innovating and taking risks. Speakers observed that self-efficacy grows not in isolation, but through collective processes — through modelling, encouragement, and the articulation of shared concerns. Feminist futures, in this sense, depend as much on relational practices as on legal reform.

A further recurring concern pertained to the politics of memory and voice. Archiving feminist struggles was presented as a political act against forgetting. At the same time, activism was described as worthy of preservation, particularly when it arises in response to institutional silence. The question of speaking versus acting — and the tension between rhetoric and structural change — remained present throughout the discussions.

Finally, the conference confronted a difficult but pressing question: how do feminist movements practise tolerance in times of growing intolerance? In an increasingly polarised climate, where populist politics and anti-gender narratives gain visibility, the challenge is not only to defend rights, but to do so without abandoning democratic principles. Feminist practice, therefore, must continually negotiate the boundary between inclusivity and the clear rejection of exclusionary ideologies.

Taken together, the conference suggested that a feminist future will not emerge automatically from historical progress. It must be actively organised: through shared power, structural solidarity, institutional courage, and the ongoing cultivation of trust.

Feminist futures are therefore not primarily predictive. They are performative. They intervene in the present in order to reconfigure what becomes thinkable — and in doing so, they inevitably entail additional labour, constant negotiation, and the weighing of alternatives. They require extra work: revisiting established narratives, challenging dominant epistemic orders, and navigating institutional resistances, as well as speaking (up) while reflecting practices of silence and silencing in contexts shaped by the anticipation or threat of retaliation. At the same time, they demand vigilance — an ongoing attentiveness to where new lines of exclusion may emerge in the very process of critique and transformation.

---

1. Aneja, U. (2019). Feminist visions of the future of work: Perspectives from Asia. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. ↩︎
2. Milojević, I. (1998) Feminism, Futures Studies and the Futures of Feminist Research. https://www.metafuture.org/feminism-futures-studies-and-the-futures-of-feminist-research/; See also Milojević, I. (2005). Educational Futures. Dominant and contesting visions. London & New York: Routledge; Coleman, R., & Jungnickel, K. (2024). Introduction to creating feminist futures: Research methodologies for new times. Australian Feminist Studies, 38(115–116), 1–13. ↩︎
3. Vaerting, M. & Vaerting, M. (1923). The dominant sex: A study in the sociology of sex differentiation. George Allen & Unwin. Vaerting, M. (1921). Die weibliche Eigenart im Männerstaat: Eine soziologische Untersuchung der Geschlechtsunterschiede. C. H. Beck. ↩︎
4. Ahmed, S. (2023). The feminist killjoy handbook: The radical potential of getting in the way. Allen Lane. ↩︎
5. Baumgardner, J., & Richards, A. (2000). ManifestA: Young women, feminism, and the future. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ↩︎
6. Bhavnani, K.-K., Foran, J., & Kurian, P. A. (Eds.). (2003). Feminist futures: Reimagining women, culture, and development. Zed Books. ↩︎
7. Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press. ↩︎
8. “Domestic, sexual, and gender-based violence: Launch of the first national prevention campaign” (2025). Federal Office for Gender Equality. https://www.ebg.admin.ch/de/newnsb/314nB6nQ73y0Y4NXQj0pT ↩︎