John Bishop Jr.

Literary Criticism
Feminist Summary Essay
10/25/11

Feminism How Should We Read It?

A womans writing is always feminine; it cannot help being feminine; at its best it is most
feminine; the only difficulty lies in defining what we mean by feminine.
-Virginia Woolfe

Unlike many of the earlier schools of literary criticism, such as new critical;
structuralism; and reader response, the feminist school is nowhere near as coherent. It is
generally accepted that men and women are different. But what exactly is the difference? And
furthermore, how does this difference translate into interpreting literature? These are the main
questions that feminist critics have been attempting to answer for the past forty or fifty years.
Unfortunately, no single answer has yet been offered. Instead, different subgroups have
formed and developed within the larger school. Some groups pay more attention to the specific
literarily works that are widely studied, while others concern themselves with a more feminist
reading of a particular text, while even still others clamor for a separate category all together.
The first of these groups, which I refer to as canonites, are first and foremost interested in
what is labeled as canonical literature. This idea of a set of books every educated person must
read seems to have originated around the time of higher education in general. Of course, for the
first couple of hundred years, the number of books (I use the term books lightly to include
other types of written works which were more prevalent in earlier days) was very small. It was
possible to, in a sense, have read and, at least, attempted to understand everything in a particular
language. Humans seem to have this desire to categorize and condense, which is what I believe
continued the idea of most import set of books idea. In more contemporary times, this
understanding of the English discipline became The Great Books program. The problem with
this approach, according to some feminists, is the heavily if not entirely masculine emphasis.
This is not necessarily a difficult idea to validate. How many epic poems that are primarily
centered on a womans adventures are commonly taught in the classroom, even today? Of
course, the answer is none.
Along with this problem are two almost equally valid, but never the less difficult,
solutions. The first of which is to include more females into the canon. Literary critics need to
go out and find more works by women in order to provide more balance and diversity to the
group. This not so radical approach seems to have been somewhat adopted, as evident by the
inclusion of writers such as Virginia Woolfe, the Bron sisters, Emily Dickenson, &c in some
college survey courses (which are mostly canonically based). Admittedly, I have not taken every
canonical literature survey course, but it has been my experience that even if a few female
writers are included, there is no balance. The emphasis on male writers still far out weights that
of female writers. The reasons for this could vary between anything from the limited space on a
course syllabus to the lack of available female penned texts.
In order to address this problem, other feminist critics have approached the notion of
simply doing away with the canon. This more radical notion stems from the what Lillian
Robinson points out is the problem for incorporating works by women into the established
canon, which is that the least threatening way to do so is to follow the accustomed pattern of
making the case for individual writers one by one (Robinson 156). This is an incredibly arduous
process that then invites even more philosophical discussion surrounding what makes something
worthy of becoming part of the canon. Partly because of the difficulty surrounding the entire
process, other feminists have suggested that the notion of the canon itself, not just authorial
inclusion, needs to be called into question (157). This approach presents the idea that one, first of
all, cannot truly condense great literature into a small collection and that, more importantly, one
cannot necessarily compare male and female literature. Thus, any sort of grouping methodology
is ultimately fundamentally flawed.
Putting the canon debate into a different light, feminists also have varied methods of
looking at particular texts. One group of critics, in an argument that resembles that of reader
response criticism, argues that, as Annette Kolodny eloquently states, insofar as we are taught
to read, what we engage are not texts but paradigms (Kolodny 304). In essence, Kolodny is
indicating that a reader develops a particular reading style out of the cultivation of interpretive
strategies, which tend to favor literature with which a reader connects (304305). This
connection is heavily influenced by life experiences. For instance, a sailor, one would assume
knows his profession inside and out. This means he is comfortable with the terminology, the
logic of how a vessel should operate, and is also acquainted with the emotions and desires of a
seaman. This background will allow him to develop a particular reading style with will then
translate into how he will approach any text. Kolodny uses this understanding of reading to also
argue that men and women necessarily develop different reading styles, as the experience of
living as one gender or the other (306). Yet, unlike a reader response critic, Kolodny also argues
that men will be better readers, or appreciators, of womens books when they have read more of
them (as women have always been taught to become astute readers of mens texts) (307). So
better and more widely understanding of female literature, which is the ultimate goal of
feminism, is something that can be taught with more attention given to female authors, thus a
need of more female writers in the canon is crucial.
Another way of looking at the cognitive differences between men and women is to pay
more attention to authorial injections. This approach would, of course, be scoffed at by many
critics writing earlier than the 1960s but Elaine Showalter argues that true feminist critics must
also look at women as writers. The subjects of such an approach include:
The history, styles, themes, genres, and structures of writing by women; the
psychodynamics of female creativity; the trajectory of the individual or collective female
career; and the evolution and laws of a female literary tradition. (Showalter 184185).
She calls this approach to female literature gynocriticism. By critically looking at a text
through the gynocritical method, one can develop a better understanding at what exactly makes
up the definition of female literature. This approach is similar to Kolodnys understanding of
reading but it extends the male-female dynamics much deeper into the text. Showalter is
completely isolating females into a different category. Her methodology subtextually seems to
suggest that there is little hope for men to cross over into a better understanding of female
writing because of gender differences.
This no hope approach is what I find particularly troubling with Showalters approach.
If biological and self-identifications differences are so great between men and women, then how
have women managed to read and understand literature by men for hundreds of years? When
writing a formal paper, I would never think of checking a particular critics gender before
incorporating his or her ideas because it has simply never matter. If the critic has interesting
insight into a literary work, then the critic simply has interesting insight into a literary work.
Of all of the subgroups of feminism, only Kolodnys approach seems to rationally apply
to how people, regardless of gender, approach literature without being trained otherwise. As a
man, I acknowledge that there are aspects of females that I cannot truly understand.
Menstruation, for example, is something that I can study and learn the biological processes
behind but I can never fully comprehend the entire physical and emotion package that truly
makes up the monthly occurrence. Yet, the more I read about it, the closer I can get to a feminine
understanding. That being said, I find it difficult to believe that, above all else, the human
condition is not enough of a unifying experience that men and women cannot read each others
work with understanding. The lack of a unified feminist school shows that even feminist critics
have a hard time explaining exactly why that is not possible. In my opinion, we are different, but
not that different.

Works Cited
Kolodny, Annette. Dancing through the Minefield: Some Observations on the Theory, Practice,
and Politics of a Feminist Literary Criticism. Falling Into Theory. 2nd ed. New York:
Bedford/St. Martins, 2000. 302-309. Print.
Robinson, Lillian. Treason Our Text. Falling Into Theory. 2nd ed. New York: Bedford/St.
Martins, 2000. 153-166. Print.
Showalter, Elaine. Feminist Criticism in the Wilderness. Critical Inquiry 8.2 (1981): 179-205.
Print.