The Madwoman and Her Languages: Why I Don't Do Feminist Literary Theory
"The Madwoman and Her Languages: Why I Don't Do Feminist Literary Theory"
thesis:Woman's death is not good things.
Background: Nine cannot ignore the work Bronte has put into definding Bertha out of humanity.
The creature(Bertha)
is wholly hateful, and no wonder :she has stolen Jane's man. Jane's
rage against Rochester , one might say, is deflected to what a feminist
might well see as innocent victim.
The woman ,rather than man, becomes her adversary;that woman's death is necessary as Rochester's blinding for Jane's liberation.
Nina Baym.The Madwomwn and Her Languages:Why I Don't Do Feminist Literary Theory. University of Tulsa.(1984):45-59
1 comment:
I don't think the central thesis is that "a woman's death is not a good thing". The paper notes that some critics have said that Bertha's death is necessary for Jane to advance, but that is not the central purpose of the paper.
This paper was written in 1984. It does not have a clear thesis statement near the beginning in the way most recent academic papers do. However, the author gives a hint in the title; the paper is against feminist literary theory.
The second paragraph of the paper sums up the author's position. The paragraph begins:
"Feminism has always been bifurcated by contention between pluralists and legalists."
That is to say, there are two types of feminists:
"Pluralists anticipate the unexpected, encourage diversity; legalists locate the correct position and marshal women within the ranks."
OK, so which type of feminism does the author of this paper support? She says:
"Theory is, by nature, legalistic; infractions - the wrong theory, theoretical errors, or insouciant disregard for theoretical implications - are crimes; theory is a form of policing."
The title of the paper is that the author doesn't "do" literary theory, so we can suppose that she is against theory because it is a kind of "policing" of people's thoughts.
She goes on to say:
"Pluralists 'dance'; theorists 'storm' or 'march.'"
Now it is clear! The theorists are the legalists, in contrast to the pluralists. The author favours the pluralists, and attacks the legalists/theorists. She says:
"This repetition of authoritarian structure betrays an infatuation with male forms and deconstructs the feminist project."
That is to say, the "legalists" are imposing an "authoritarian structure" on feminism. That kind of authoritarian structure is, for her, typical of men, and such thinking deconstructs - destroys - feminism.
There is no clear thesis statement at the beginning of the paper, but it is clear what the author thinks. At the end of the paper, she says:
"I am, evidently,a pluralist."
She is against the kind of feminism that wants to make all feminists think the same way. She wants feminism to have variety, with women free to think in new and creative ways. That is what her paper is about.
Post a Comment