Feminism by Elaine Showalter: [Elaine Showalter (b. 1941). Along with Nina Baym’s, Woman’s Fiction, Fiction, (197), Showalter’s The New Feminist Criticism Criticism,, (19!) an" Speaking of Gender (199) ha#e arg$e" %or, a s&e'i%i'ally, ’ female framework framework for the analysis analysis of women’ women’ss literature literature.. er boo, A boo, A iterature iterature of Their Their !wn (1977), *$i'ly establishe" itsel% as an a$thoritati#e st$"y o% its s$b+e't an" a stan"ar" tet boo in the ra&i"ly b$rgeoning %iel" o% women’s st$"ies. Showalter’s wor has &ioneere" %rame wor on 'reating a woman-'entere" literary history as well.
Introduction:
/eminist literary 'riti'ism is essentially line" to the &oliti'al mo#ement %or the sees an" an en" to "is'rimination against women. /eminist 'riti'ism sees to $n'o#er the i"eology o% &atriar'hal so'iety in wors o% art. 0t &lea"s %or the the re&resentations o% women an" arg$es that these re&resentations mas so'io-&oliti'al o&&ression o% the 'ategory o% women, b y +$sti%ying these o&&ressions an" nat$raliing them. /or %eminist, the tet is a b attle gro$n" where a't$al &ower relations between men an" women are &laye" o$t. Origins and Historical Background:
2riters lie 3arry 2ollstone'ra%t in A in"i'ation o% the 5ights o% 2omen, (1796), male a$thors lie . S. 3ill in 8he S$b+e'tion o% 2omen, (19), an" /rie"ri'h Engels in 8he :rigin o% the /amily, (14), wrote o% the nee" to rethin the role o% women an" so'ial o&&ression against them. 0n the early 6;th 'ent$ry, :li#e S'hreiner, irgi irginia nia 2ool% 2ool% an" later Simone "e Bea$#oir ha#e written on the gen"er *$estions %rom the &ers&e'ti#e o% women an" oriente" women towar"s iss$es lie e"$'ation, marriage, e'onomi's, se an" morals. 2ith 19;s the women’s mo#ement be'ame a ma+or &oliti'al %or'e, while the mo#ement too #ario$s iss$es %or the gen"er "ebate, in'l$"ing s'ien'e, &oliti's, e'onomi's, '$lt$res, an" e&istemology.
Feminist Criticism in Wilderness: 0n /eminist >riti'ism in 2il"erness, %irst &$blishe" in >riti'al 0n*$iry, in 191, she %in"s %eminist 'riti'ism no more $ni%ie", b$t more a"#ent$ro$s in assimilating an" engaging with theory= “it now appears that what looked like a theoretical impasse was actually an evolutionary
phase.”
She s$b-"i#i"es her essay into si s$b-"i#isions, an" ea'h "i#ision has s$btitles also. 0n these, si "i#isions she "is'$sse", at length, the #ario$s as&e'ts o% women writing. 8hey are as %ollows?
"luralism and the Feminist Criti#ue$ Showalter begins with *$oting
/$rther she says, re%erring to Arnol" that literary 'riti's might &erish in the wil"erness be%ore they rea'he" the &romise" lan" o% "isintereste"ness. A''or"ing to her, %eminist literary 'riti's are still wan"ering in the wil"erness. ere, she mentions @eo%%rey artman’s, >riti'ism in the 2il"erness’, (19;), where no women 'riti's are "is'$sse", b$t artman "oes "es'ribe a %eminine s&irit 'alle", the m$se o% 'riti'ism. 3oreo#er, she s$ggests that the wil"erness o% theory lies between %eminist i"eology an" the liberal i"eal o% "isintereste"ness. Cntil #ery re'ently she says? “feminist criticism has not had a theoretical basis; it has been an empirical orphan in the theoretical storm.”
Showalter arg$es with Dolo"$y’s &oint o% #iew that %eminist 'riti'ism m$st altogether aban"on its ho&e “…of establishing some basic conceptual model.”
Showalter a#ers that i% women 'riti's see their 'riti'al +ob as inter&retation an" reinter&retation, they m$st be 'ontent with F&l$ralism’ as their 'riti'al stan'e. B$t i% they wish to as *$estions abo$t the &ro'ess an" the 'ontets o% writing, i% they gen$inely wish to "e%ine themsel#es to the $ninitiate", they 'annot r$le o$t the &ros&e't o% theoreti'al 'onsens$s at this early stage. She 'on'l$"es the %irst &ortion with ass$m&tion that, %eminist 'riti'ism m$st %in" its own s$b+e't, its own system an" its own #oi'e. G He%ining the /eminine I @yno-'riti's?
Showalter belie#es that /eminist >riti'ism has gra"$ally shi%te" its 'entre %rom re#isionary rea"ing to a s$staine" in#estigation o% literat$re by women. ere, 'alling %or new mo"els base" on the women’s e&erien'e rather than a blin" a""i'tion to an" a"a&tation o% mas'$line theories an" mo"els. Showalter la$n'he" the sear'h %or gyno'riti's. @yno-'riti'ism sho$l", in Showalter’s "es'ri&tions, loo at “the history, style, themes, genres, and structures of writing by women; the psychodynamics of female creativity”
She arg$es that it is this in" o% 'riti'ism that rein%or'es &atriar'hal str$'t$res o% &owers. 8he 197;s ha#e been mare" by a shi%t o% 'riti'al attention %rom s$'h e#i"ently &atriar'hal an" an"rotets to Fgynotets (i.e. tet by women). G 2omen’s 2riting an" 2omen’s Bo"y? “…more body, hence, more writing.”
I >io$s. Showalter asserts that %eminist 'riti'ism whi'h itsel% tries to be biologi'al to write %rom the 'riti'’s bo"y has been intimate, 'on%essional, o%ten inno#ati#e in style an" %orm. /$rther, she states that the &ro'ess o% literary 'reation is analogi'ally m$'h more similar to gestation, labo$r an" "eli#ery that it is to insemination. ere, Showalter ra"i'ally ass? “If to write is metaphorically to give birth from what organ can males generate tets!”
owe#er, she 'on'l$"es this &ortion o% the essay by *$oting 3iller’s wor"s, who so$ght the "i%%eren'e o% women’s literary &ra'ti'e in,
“…the body of her writing and not in the writing of her body”
2omen’s
similarity.”
:n the other han", Annie
5ather than wishing to limit women’s ling$isti' range Showalter says that %eminist 'riti's m$st %ight to o&en an" eten" it. She 'on'l$"es with saying that women’s literat$re is still ha$nte" by ghosts o% re&resse" lang$age an" $ntil those ghosts wo$l" be eor'ise" it o$ght not to be the lang$age on whi'h %eminist 'riti's base their theory o% "i%%eren'e. G 2omen’s Ksy'he? Ksy'hoanalyti'ally oriente" %eminist 'riti'ism lo'ete" the "i%%eren'e o% women’s writing in the a$thor’s &sy'he an" in the relation o% gen"er to the 'reati#e &ro'ess. She s$ggests that in &sy'hoanalyti' terms Fla'’ has tra"itionally been asso'iate" with the %eminine, altho$gh
:n the one han", /re$" maintaine" that the $nsatis%ie" "reams an" "esires o% wo men’s are 'hie%ly eroti'= these are the "esires that sha&e the & lots o% women’s %i'tions in the 'ontrast, the "ominant %antasies behin" men’s &lots are egoisti' as well as eroti'. :n the other han", re%erring to Nan'y >ho"orow, Showalter says that 'hil" "e#elo&s 'ore gen"er i"entity 'on'omitantly with "i%%erentiation b$t the &ro'ess is not the same %or boys an" girls. A boy m$st learn his gen"er i"entity negati#ely as being not I %emale, an" this "i%%eren'e re*$ires 'ontin$al rein%or'ement. 0n 'ontrast, a girl is 'ore gen"er i"entity is &ositi#e an" b$ilt $&on sameness, 'ontin$ity an" i"enti%i'ation with the mother. Showalter s$ggests that to 'onsi"er all these iss$es, %eminist 'riti' m$st go beyon" &sy'hoanalysis to a more %leible an" 'om&rehensi#e mo"el o% women writing, whi'h &la'es it in the maim$m 'ontets o% '$lt$re.
2omen’s >$lt$re? “I consider women#s literature as a specific category, not because of biology, but because it is, in a sense, the literature of the coloni"ed.” % &hristiane 'ocheford.
A '$lt$ral theory a'nowle"ges that there are im&ortant "i%%eren'es between women as writers= 'lass, ra'e, nationality an" history are literary "eterminants as signi%i'ant as gen"er. Nonetheless, women’s '$lt$re %orms a 'olle'ti#e e&erien'e within a '$lt$ral whole? an e&erien'e that bin"s women writers to ea'h other o#er time an" s&a'e. 0t is in the em&hasis on the bin"ing %or'e o% women’s '$lt$re that this a&&roa'h "e%ers %rom 3arists theories o% '$lt$ral hegemony. @er"a
/$rther,
Summing !: Showalter s$ms $& her essay with h$mble 'on%ession that the Kromise"
