Um... I really don't have anything to say off the bat so I'm just going to jump right into the questions.
• How have you tended to define feminism in your own life, and how does thinking about feminist theoretical perspectives and approaches affect your personal definition?
I've never given feminism a negative connotation or seen it simply as men-haters who burn their bras, but I haven't really gone into the theoretical perspective of feminism at all or examined how the patriarchy works. I guess studying the theory just gives me a more precise look at feminists as opposed to a changed perspective.
• Does it make sense to approach texts and culture with this kind of political agenda? Why/why not? Is doing so limiting or does it open up new possibilities? Some combination of the two?
I don't know if it'd call it a political agenda. It's more a mindset, just as Marxism doesn't have to be about wanting to be a Communist because it's a whole mindset that encompasses a variety of texts. As far as the second part of this question... well any theory can open something up and limit it at the same time. You have to follow the guidelines of a certain theory when using it to examine something but at the same time you're using it as a new perspective. You can also use theories in conjunction with other theories, such as Marxist Feminism. And sometimes a theory is just a gateway drug to another theory as well, and sometimes that new theory goes against the previous theory.
• Who can “do” feminist theory? Who can be a feminist? Why do you think so?
Everyone. You don't have to be a woman to fight for female equality and notice the patriarchy within language itself, do you?
• How does feminist theory interrogate and extend other theoretical perspectives you've examined this semester?
I think it goes along with other theories we've looked at that look at language itself like structuralism and post-structuralism.
• Is Mantissa a “feminist” text? How would different feminist theoretical approaches influence a reading of the novel?
Okay, well, I didn't come to conclusion in my presentation about this but I would say it is. It shows women being degraded in a satirical way that to me says the author wants to poke fun at conventions to point out that they're wrong. I think it's easiest to sympathize with Erato and that in the end she is victorious, yet ultimately still at the mercy of Miles' male voice because she is simply a muse.
Me
Here I am.
Blogroll
Video Bar
About Me
- Max Pacheco
- I'm not going to be the most or least serious blogger in the class. I'm here to actually reflect on what we've read but by the nature of my writing I'm bound to slip into the world of comedy and satire. I'm probably going to say a lot of things that are way off from what we were supposed to have learned but I'm trying so just stay with me and we'll both make it out of here alive. Here's looking at you, kid.
Blog Archive
4 comments:
Max,
Thanks for your comments! To respond, I first think it's important to make a distinction between political systems and political theories and ideologies. While it is true that to practice Marxist criticism doesn't necessarily mean that a person is a Communist, that *does not* mean that Marxist criticism is apolitical. The whole point of practicism Marxist criticism is to expose how structural inequalities related to class operate - in society, in literary texts, in art, etc. That is a political project. the point of doing that kind of criticism is a political one - it's not just an exercise. Similarly, feminist criticism, while not necessarily bound to a formal political system or agenda (such as the ERA) is about exposing structural inequalities that emerge from our cultural notions about gender, sex, and sexuality. Such theories and critiques are inherently political as they challenge the status quo and aim to offer alternative ways of organizing power in our culture. That's not an apolitical task. I would argue that if one attempts to take the politics out of such theoretical modes that it ultimately changes those theories in ways that make them without substance.
I feel like I'm going on and on, so I'll close for now. I would enjoy hearing more about your ideas about Mantissa. I don't agree that it is a feminist book, per se, because, ultimately, Erato is Miles Green's creation. She has no agency because the author writes her into being. To take this one step further, she is Fowles' creation, the creation of a "real" male author. I have trouble buying that she exemplifies a feminist perspective, though I do think that it's possible to apply feminist perspectives to the novel in fruitful ways. At any rate, I would be interested in hearing more about why you think that the book is feminist.
I would say that I'm still undecided about feminism in Mantissa. All I know is that at the end, part of me was rooting for Erato. This leads me to believe there must be some feminist elements to her that are worth rooting for.
Groovy!
Post a Comment