the sort of thing one thinks of while writing term papers
I've been turning thoughts over in my head about the integration of chromatic feminist theory/writing into other work, and I wanted to hear all your thoughts, o people of the interwebs, for verily y'all are smart.
In writing about an Old Book by a white woman, I wouldn't hesitate methodologically to bring up some contemporary feminist theory. I mean, if it were very contemporary, primarily concerned with our current world, I'd maybe have to tapdance a little - but I would still do it. Right? We've all been swanning around applying Judith Butler to George Eliot for a while now. But what if the theory that I want to nudge up against Old Books by white women is Black feminist work? Is it sound to apply Cherrie Moraga to the critique of education in Jane Eyre? Or does it disrespect chromatic feminism to appropriate it for the tales of the travails of white girls?
On the one hand, I love seeing Audre Lorde get play, because I seriously worship her brain, and part of me doesn't want her stuck in a feminist ghetto. Part of me feels like the flexibility and play involved in porting theory about is a good thing. But I also have no desire to steal away from chromatic feminism what isn't mine to take - or my cultural heritage's. Both Eliot and Brontë have some racism going on; would using minority feminism to talk about the other aspects of their novels be deeply inappropriate, or kind of a cool re-valuation?
Right now I'm working up a prospectus for looking at double-voiced irony in women's rhetoric. When I actually write the paper, it'll probably focus on white women in the nineteenth century, because I did sign on for this Victorian thing and I've been trying to make myself stick to it, no matter how much I want to write about Cherrie Moraga and Sor Juana. But in limiting my scope, I'm wondering, do I have to give up all the unspeakably brilliant things feminists of color have said about silence and double meaning? Or can I port them in the same way I'm intending to do with LeGuin and Adrienne Rich and Virginia Woolf?
Thoughts?
In writing about an Old Book by a white woman, I wouldn't hesitate methodologically to bring up some contemporary feminist theory. I mean, if it were very contemporary, primarily concerned with our current world, I'd maybe have to tapdance a little - but I would still do it. Right? We've all been swanning around applying Judith Butler to George Eliot for a while now. But what if the theory that I want to nudge up against Old Books by white women is Black feminist work? Is it sound to apply Cherrie Moraga to the critique of education in Jane Eyre? Or does it disrespect chromatic feminism to appropriate it for the tales of the travails of white girls?
On the one hand, I love seeing Audre Lorde get play, because I seriously worship her brain, and part of me doesn't want her stuck in a feminist ghetto. Part of me feels like the flexibility and play involved in porting theory about is a good thing. But I also have no desire to steal away from chromatic feminism what isn't mine to take - or my cultural heritage's. Both Eliot and Brontë have some racism going on; would using minority feminism to talk about the other aspects of their novels be deeply inappropriate, or kind of a cool re-valuation?
Right now I'm working up a prospectus for looking at double-voiced irony in women's rhetoric. When I actually write the paper, it'll probably focus on white women in the nineteenth century, because I did sign on for this Victorian thing and I've been trying to make myself stick to it, no matter how much I want to write about Cherrie Moraga and Sor Juana. But in limiting my scope, I'm wondering, do I have to give up all the unspeakably brilliant things feminists of color have said about silence and double meaning? Or can I port them in the same way I'm intending to do with LeGuin and Adrienne Rich and Virginia Woolf?
Thoughts?
no subject
At the same time, if the theory you're talking about is explicitly framed as a phenomenon of sexism intersecting with racism, then I'd query how applicable it could be to your white woman's Old Book.
So I think it depends. :D
no subject
no subject
no subject
It's possible to read the domestic novels by the great 19th century novelists as microcosmic critiques of sexism and classism, without placing them in their colonialist context. But you lose something that way.
no subject
no subject
This reflects my own bias from my own graduate school experience in another field, but term papers need to be larded with secondary readings. You have to find out what other people have done with this material. The problem with applying feminists of color who were writing about something completely different is that it ignores the feminists of color who wrote about your own text!
I know, you have to pick one thing to write about in each paper, but my bias is toward reading the stuff in your own field.
no subject
no subject
That's a really good point. I suppose I was thinking of situations where colonialism isn't the immediately apparent issue, or when you aren't talking about colonialism in the first instance. (I'm not very good on the specifics of 19th century novels - I'm a classicist, not an English student - so this may be impossible, in which case I'll shut up.)
no subject
It terms of applicability, Audre Lorde said a lot of things about the intersection of sexism and racism, and those two things are rarely if ever separable in her work. But she also, more broadly, said some dang smart things about the kind of anger you get when people are oppressed - and those things, maybe, you could carry off to any instance of oppressed anger. Maybe to anger caused by sexism without racism, or classism without either. Or so the theory goes.
no subject
If it can't, I'm screwed.
Less facetiously, I think that in general terms theory both can and should leave its frame--keeping theory framed up just contributes to the periodization and balkanization of scholarship, which ultimately reifies the status quo and all its problem(atic aspect)s. Specifically, I think it's critical to keep these questions and doubts in your mind as you go, but that you absolutely should go. (While, as other people have said, reading where other people have already gone, of course.)
no subject
This is my feeling as well - but sometimes I get the sick feeling of remembering all the ways in which academia maintains the status quo, and I get worried about taking the insights of peoples traditionally marginalized by academia and using them in my own academic career, yanno?
no subject
no subject
Oops, sorry - what I meant to say is that I think it's important to question to what extent you can re-apply that/any theory to something other than its original situation without changing to many of the factors that make it work. In Classics you might apply modern theory after modern theory to the ancient world, but you've always got to remember to put it through a filter, because otherwise you come to conclusions that are nonsense. Queer theory, for example, is a great way of looking at society, but the fact is neither the Greeks or the Romans had opposing constructs of homo- and heterosexuality, so you have to re-work a lot of the models. I'd agree with
no subject
no subject
Yes, I'd say so. Make your readers read their books!
no subject
That assumption needs to be questioned and unpacked, definitely.
Something that might help is to think about is how you've left yourself as the reader out of the equation of literary theory: i.e. you have "will use Theory X to analyze Text L," but what if you framed the question as something along these lines: "how do theorists M and J with their ideas about silence and double meaning allow me as Reader L to develop a reading of Text E and B." It's not as if you can read as one of the contemporary readers of the authors could have done (and there would of course have been a range of readings): you are living in your time and period and you are reading as a reader of this time and period. I'm not saying erase the bodies/beings of theorists of color, but acknowledge that their ideas are applicable to texts by authors who are not just like them, if that makes sense.
I.E. one way to think about theoretical insights/methodologies is as a lens which allows certain questions to be asked: if the questions that these theorists allow you to ask are useful, then ask them!
no subject
no subject
And, yeah, Foucault was very much part of what I was trying to think through above, because we so rarely seem to question the idea that he can go wherever we want him to - unless we're questioning theory as a whole, that is. And that don't seem right :)
no subject
I guess what I'm saying is, no you shouldn't be applying critiques of intersectionality from political feminism to literary works, you should be reading critics who have already applied those critiques and engaging their arguments. Because otherwise the problem isn't that you're appropriating, it's that you're reinventing the wheel.
no subject
no subject
no subject