Susan Gubar, "Reading in the Waiting Room"
(page 3 of 4)
That for quite some time intellectuals in general, and feminist
critics in particular, have devised aesthetically diverse strategies - not
only within the parameters of the memoir - is transparently apparent. From
Plato's Symposium to Hazlitt's "My First Acquaintance with Poets"
and Wilde's "The Critic as Artist," after all, philosophical texts and
aesthetic meditations have employed characters, settings, dialogues,
plots, and symbols. And in the history of feminist criticism, Virginia
Woolf was not alone in honing a series of personae whose meditations
required storytelling about, in her case, the fictional Judith
Shakespeare imagined by one Mary Beton after a lunch at Oxbridge,
followed by a visit to the British Museum. Noteworthy and experimental
texts replete with lyrical repetitions, mystic images, and parodic
parables have been produced by quite a few pioneers in the so-called
second wave, including Gloria Steinem, Tillie Olsen, Audre Lorde, June
Jordan, Margaret Atwood, Alice Walker, Adrienne Rich, Joanna Russ,
Angela Carter, Gloria Anzaldúa, Luce Irigaray, Hélène Cixous, and Jane
Tompkins. Ruth Salvaggio's The Sounds of Feminist Theory and
Linda Garber's Identity Poetics illuminate aspects of this
phenomenon. Why shouldn't we - who study poems and novels, biographies and
films, plays and memoirs - learn how to tap the aesthetic pleasures that
drew us toward literature in the first place?
What, during the conference proceedings, Ann Douglas called the
"extraordinary imperial candor" of Carolyn Heilbrun can still be
experienced by readers of her detective fiction as well as her
biographical, autobiographical, and critical books, all of which in
various ways demonstrate her attempts to engage an audience beyond the
academy. There is much to be learned, too, from the feminist journalists
we all enjoy reading, writers like Katie Roiphe and Barbara Ehrenreich.
In these reactionary times, warfare and welfare, religion and globalism,
bioengineering and ecological disasters require the scrutiny feminists
inside and outside literature departments have trained themselves to
bring to such tangled but crucially important matters. Not just the
topics and the forms, but the prevailing attitude toward publication
itself needs scrutiny. The very structure of the Columbia conference - at
which critics read from books in print - deviated from academic business
as usual, since at a typical conference one is pretty much forbidden to
read what is already in print, pretty much expected to churn out
something new. More like a creative writing event, the format of the
celebration honoring Carolyn testified to the ongoing value of the
work that had been produced, the need to hear what might have been read
before so as to be surprised by new meanings or renewed shocks at what
must be apprized somewhat differently.
"Things vanish when you don't write them down," Mary Ann Caws
explains in her memoir. And I believe that some of the things that have
vanished from feminist criticism could be preserved by more innovative
and capacious approaches to it. Teaching, the classroom, our
relationship to the undergraduates in our discussion sections or to the
graduate students in our dissertation seminars: these are subjects that
could be more fully integrated into feminist criticism, as could our
relationships with each other as colleagues on committees, editorial
boards, and institutes, especially during a period when the hierarchical
structures of the academy are exerting pressures detrimental to the
equality for women that feminists always seek to foster. Given the
downsizing of the humanities, feminists need to enter into conversations
about education that will inevitably impinge on gender and sexuality
studies classes within traditional departments but also in women's and
gender studies programs and departments. What in particular the teaching
of literature means could involve us, too, in discussions about the
largely unaddressed subject of aesthetics - not just its ideological
significance, but its affective import for people from various
backgrounds and with divergent tastes and values.
|