This article summarized the major arguments that have been developing over the last forty years in feminist literary criticism and theory. The article really doesn’t posit any ground-breaking new ideas; instead, it reminds the reader of the long and difficult struggle that women have faced in achieving an equal voice in society. Feminist historiography in composition and rhetoric reveals the silencing of female voices throughout the literary tradition. Criticism of the early aspects of this approach is that “feminist methods are highly interpretive, difficult to identify, and often only implied” (57). Over the last couple of decades, approaches to and opinions of feminism in the literary field have grown tremendously and have become much more diversified.
One assertion that I found particularly interesting was brought up by Patricia A. Sullivan. Tasker and Holt-Underwood explain that “Sullivan argues that women’s cognitive functions are different than men’s” (58). I would be interested to hear an explanation of exactly what these differences are. The debate between Biesecker and Campbell was also particularly interesting. The two argue about historical methodology and both claim the other is further silencing women’s voices. I agree with Campbell that not all women (or individuals) have “equal rhetorical ability;” there are innumerable factors that determine one’s abilities, and no two individuals are exactly alike. One of the things that is made the clearest in this article is the notion of pluralism in feminist methodology. Every individual has her own experiences, methods, and agendas creating endlessly diverse perspectives. That “pluralism thrives” (67), is a notion that is central not only to feminist research methodologies, but to all of theory and criticism in general.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel sorry for us...Don't you?
ReplyDeleteI think it's strange that silence can prove something. I do not believe that women have ever been, as a whole, mentally deficient, we must, of course, have had ideas and expressions that were never set down, but what does silence prove, other than the presence of oppression? I thought this argument was the same as saying there is a God because there is no proof there isn't.
I wonder, too, what Sullivan meant. After all, it was thought, in Chaucer's day, that men were the more spiritual and emotional of the two sexes and that women were the more logical ones--cold and calculating (of course, the men's traits were revered then as better, too). Now it is just the opposite. Perhaps different is just that. They are not set differences, but no matter how one side evolves, the other side evolves along it's own, different axis, in response, and in opposition, to the other.
And wherever this evolution leads, it is always grounded in a struggle for power. I guess just the simple acknowledgement that there are differences between the sexes is enough to create conflict.
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteI want to take some time to answer your question about the differences between male and female cognitive functions. For years I had heard that men and women think in entirely different manners and I just assumed the claim was part of that larger men-are-from-Mars-women-are-from-Venus stance. However, while minoring in Psychology during undergraduate school, I took a class with Dr. Sandra Frankmann which explicated that such a claim is actually rooted in neurological fact.
Connections in the brain and nervous system are formed through synapses between neurons. When the brain and nervous system communicate, they send small electrical impulses through these neurons, which jut a chemical reaction along the sodium-potassium pumps of the axon. From there, this chemical reaction sets off an electrical charge which activates neurotransmitters to send a signal to the receptors of the next neuron (this is the synapse). The next neuron does the same thing and passes that message on until this domino effect reaches the desired destination. This allows communication within the brain. The reason this is so important to the difference between male and female cognition, in turn, is the fact that women have more synapsical connection between the prefrontal cortex, the portion of the brain responsible for rational thought, and the limbic system, the portion of the brain which controls emotion. Because of this, women are more able to analyze an idea or problem with both the logical and rational portions communicating at the same time. Men, on the other hand, have fewer synapses and, therefore, cannot utilize both the limbic and prefrontal cortex to quite the same degree at once. Hence, we analyze information either logically, emotionally, or in a far-less-powerful collaboration of the two.
Granted, I am not a neuroscientist myself; however, if you would like to learn more on the subject, I would recommend the works by the same author that Dr. Frakmann did: Leonard Shlain. Shlain is a neuroscientist at the California Medical Center in San Francisco who specializes in laparoscopic surgery. He has three books which explain the vast and complex workings of human cognition in an approachable and easy-to-read sense. “Sex, Time, and Power: How Women’s Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution” (New York: Viking Press, 2003) discusses that same information I have given in further detail. Also, I would recommend his “The Alphabet Versus The Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image” (New York: Viking Press, 1998). This work discusses how such elements as psychological schemas and evolution have shaped, altered, and contradicted language and our perception of it (a perfect text for us English nerds).
Thomas
This is some really fascinating stuff Thomas. The notion that women are better able to combine logical and emotional appraoches to external stimuli opens up some interesting interpretational possibilities. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
ReplyDelete