feminist: Is a feminist critique still valid if it

Brown Eyed Girl (

caramel1980) wrote in

feminist,
@ 2005-04-20 13:43:00

Is a feminist critique still valid if it's critiquing something that's not modern and Western European? At what point do we say, "This culture has no conception of feminism and therefore we should not be criticizing its literary works?"

I ask this because I've recently heard many people say things such as, "You can't say that John Milton was sexist - you have to read him within his historical and cultural context." However, if we looked at everything in its historical and cultural context, we would not be able to say that ANYTHING is sexist, because all forms of sexism exist within a context of patriarchy, regardless of time or place.

Thoughts?

EDIT: I was thinking specifically about a modern Japanese (and hence, non-western) writer, Haruki Murakami, not John Milton. Although I like Murakami's work, I personally think that he portrays women as inscrutable and mysterious. Any comments on a feminist reading of Murakami very welcome as well!

(Post a new comment)

athenagrace
2005-04-20 01:17 pm UTC (link)

Well, feminist critque in itself is a rather new phenomena (as compared to, say, Russian Formalism) so it is a bit difficult to apply it to other areas. Kind of like trying to make a typewriter work using a Microsoft program -- they just don't fit because there is no context in which is COULD fit.

Granted, if Cixous (sp? it's been a while) read those words she would probably skin me alive, and Foucaut (sp? as well? Lit Crit was 5 years ago) might be a bit peeved too.

I think that feminist criticism can exist and actually flourish in older pieces, or else we wouldn't have people making a killing doing feminist critque of Chaucer . . . Ovid . . . etc.

However, on a personal note, I believe that all of this has to be taken with a grain of salt (which, to be fair, ALL criticism needs some salt ;) ) because we have no idea of authorial intent.

That being said, I have no idea how relevant it is so analyze the wife of Bath as a struggling lesbian character (great paper, if I remember the title I'll post it) because maybe Chaucer meant to do it . . . or maybe not, but if it makes people read, and think, and then maybe apply the same ideas to MODERN LIFE then, hey, success!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	pressed_flowers 2005-04-20 01:33 pm UTC (link)
	because we have no idea of authorial intent The new critics would skin you alive for saying this. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	athenagrace 2005-04-20 01:58 pm UTC (link)
	Huh? Actually, New Criticism dictates that you do ignore authorial intent, do some close reads, and basically go from there. With New Criticism, history, sociology, political tensions at the time are all extraneous. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	pressed_flowers 2005-04-20 03:14 pm UTC (link)
	That's why I was saying the New Critics would skin you alive for saying we have to take it with a grain of salt because we don't know authorial intent. New Critics don't care what about history, politics, what the author meant; it all should be in the text. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	rocketgeek 2005-04-21 08:18 am UTC (link)
	Which is probably the number one reason to deposit the New Critics in the nearest rubbish heap. It's obvious nonsense by a group that's clearly too lazy to do the mental legwork required to understand the historical and social contexts of the works they read. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	bethanthepurple 2005-04-20 01:24 pm UTC (link)
	"...is mysogynist and from a modern reading would be considered sexist/antifeminist.."? Mysogyny is a pretty straight definable phrase that can exist or not, like sheep or pingpong balls. Whereas feminism is more of a cultural reaction to an age-old problem. Hm... interesting :) (Reply to this)(Thread)

	meredith_mae 2005-04-20 02:58 pm UTC (link)
	I agree. You can certainly evaluate a writer's attitude towards women. In some cultures and time periods, misogynism will obviously be more common, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because most people in America in 1850 thought blacks were inferior because of the way they were conditioned doesn't mean you can't call them racist. (Reply to this)(Parent)

pressed_flowers
2005-04-20 01:32 pm UTC (link)

We're doing feminist theory in my critical theory class right now and it's not really based on flat out calling a writer sexist but more or less giving a feminist reading to his work. He was actually an example in one of the essays we read, a feminist reading would question the treatment of Eve in "Paradise Lost." Another example would be to look at Ophelia instead of Hamlet. I don't think it's fair to call writers of the past sexist because they were people of their time but that doesn't mean we can't do feminist readings of their work.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	rocketgeek 2005-04-21 08:20 am UTC (link)
	I think calling past writers misogynist or sexist is fine (as long as its accurate, obviously), but condeming them for it isn't particularly fair, because they were by and large inside their contemporary cultural context, with all of its hangups and prejudices. (Reply to this)(Parent)

morgan32
2005-04-20 01:48 pm UTC (link)

At what point do we say, "This culture has no conception of feminism and therefore we should not be criticizing its literary works?"

But that's the wrong way to put it.

Accepting (only for the sake of argument) that a culture exists in which the concept that women have value is entirely alien, we can still view the creative works of that culture in a feminist way, because they will demonstrate that lack.

What we perhaps shouldn't do is condemn that culture for it.

It's a bit ridiculous to take specific 21st century feminist issues and try to apply them to texts 500+ years old. That doesn't mean that the core of feminism: woman have value, doesn't apply. I wouldn't condemn Milton's stance on abortion (assuming I could find one in his text), but I can certainly condemn his perpetuation of the myth that Eve caused the Fall and is therefore to blame for all ills (which isn't quite the way I read PL, but you cited Milton as your example, so I'm continuing it).

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	cimadness 2005-04-20 02:25 pm UTC (link)
	What we perhaps shouldn't do is condemn that culture for it. Why not? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	morgan32 2005-04-20 02:56 pm UTC (link)
	Well, I did say perhaps. I'm talking about an entirely hypothetical thing here, as I don't think there does exist a culture where women have no value. No status, sure, but that's not the same thing. But in that hypothetical and entirely non-existent culture...well, it would sort of be of the same order as condemning lions for not being vegetarian. (Reply to this)(Parent)

towanda
2005-04-20 02:47 pm UTC (link)

I see this as simply an issue of common sense. There is a fairly easily distinguishable line between modern feminist concepts and feminist critique. Of course you don't want to criticize John Milton for not using inclusive language or Victorian authors for perpetuating the anatomical mystery of the vagina. These are more modern concepts of equality.

But the concept of equality itself is simple and timeless. You can look at any work in any time period and ask the question, "How are women treated?" You can look at in context of the culture (i.e., in relation to the allowances of the time period, are the female characters strong? respected? meek? battered? etc.) and outside the context of the culture (i.e., is the overall message of this work implying that all sexual women are whores?). You can also ask, how does this work contribute to our modern ideas of gender and equality? I mean, I would say that Jane Austen's work has had tremendous impact on our society's modern ideas of courtship and love.

So yes, you can have feminist critique in any time period. You simply have to examine the relationship between matriarchal and patriarchal structures within the culture and how they relate to one another and how they relate to our culture's concepts and ideas.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

radgeek
2005-04-20 05:41 pm UTC (link)

Of course you don't want to criticize John Milton for not using inclusive language or Victorian authors for perpetuating the anatomical mystery of the vagina. These are more modern concepts of equality.

Well, why wouldn't you want to criticize them for this? If positing men as the default is bad for women now it was bad for women then, too, wasn't it?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

My thoughts on Murakami

nein09
2005-04-20 03:49 pm UTC (link)

Caveat: I've never really studied literature formally past high school, so I don't have much to add to the other part of the discussion; I just like to read books.

1. He writes the same story over and over again- man is attached to a woman, woman leaves under bizarre and mysterious circumstances, man is lost, another woman comes and doesn't quite sort things out for him but kind of patches things up or influences him while he figures things out.

2. The women in his stories almost seem like deus ex machinae to me- the men are sort of adrift and working around these inscrutable creatures (yeah, inscrutable is a good word for it). It's as though the men in his stories have to find themselves in spite of the women. Their 'otherness' is very apparent.

3. I think that some of these things come from Murakami making the man who is the main character in each of his books so much like himself (I don't know what Murakami is like, but it gives an autobiographical vibe to me)- women are 'other' because he isn't a woman.

3. He also seems to be obsessed with moles and earlobes on women, and describes such things in great detail. I find this really weird.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: My thoughts on Murakami caramel1980 2005-04-20 04:20 pm UTC (link)
	You've knocked the nail on the head! I think it is the Otherness of Murakami women that bothers me. It is problematic that he is perpetuating the Victorian stereotype of what women represent. And by the way, I think you're very insightful - you don't need post-high school training to analyse literature! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: My thoughts on Murakami caramel1980 2005-04-20 04:28 pm UTC (link)
	You might be interested in this post http://www.livejournal.com/community/murakami/115032.html (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: My thoughts on Murakami nein09 2005-04-20 04:49 pm UTC (link)
	That's a very interesting discussion- thanks! And thank you for the compliment- I agree that I don't need post-high school training to discuss literature, but I felt as though I should warn people that if they started talking about schools of literary criticism and things like that (as they have in other comments), I would be completely at sea. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	artistboi 2005-04-20 04:46 pm UTC (link)
	i would agree with you, Murakami is a great writer, but he does treat women with a slightly Japanese attitude. Though not outwardly sexist towards the characters, they do seem to be rather submissive. I'm thinking specifically about Norwegian Wood. (Reply to this)

widowblade
2005-04-20 05:49 pm UTC (link)

I'll have to check out Murakami's works now...

but aside from that, I think it's fair to call authors of the past sexist, simply because that's what they were and needs to be taken into account. It just has to also be recognized that in Milton's time, for instance, it wasn't sexist, and to him was perhaps just another fact of life.

towanda said it much better ^^; it's just a matter of comparing cultural standards rather than expecting modern ones to apply or have the same meaning to works of the past.

(Reply to this)

cookieavalanche
2005-04-20 08:01 pm UTC (link)

I think there's a really big misconception that women's movement-- those called feminism and those who chose not to use the word-- are all Western or Western influenced. That is such a fallacy, and it's racist and Eurocentric (not saying you are at all, just that this common idea is.)

There have always been women's and feminist movements, in many different cultures and countries, many of them completely untouched by the West. Many of them are influenced by Western feminist thinking, but... so what? They have the right to do with those ideas what they wish. Many of them have ideas and tactics which are now influencing western feminist thought/movements, such as Chandra Mohanty, Vandana Shiva, and Uma Narayan.

There's also the issue of complete cultural reletavism; the idea that we absolutely cannot judge things from other countries and cultures and contexts. This idea, while some of it's intentions are good, can often border on being racist and colonialist. This is something that's been written about a lot by non-western feminists such as Uma Narayan. I recommend checking out the community

globalfeminisms, where there have been a couple really informed debates about this.

It is true that Western feminism has issues with being colonialist and invalidating issues of race, class, capitalism, and nation. This needs to be recognized. In recognizing this, though, one of the things we have to do is validate and learn from feminist and women's movements in other countries and cultures.

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs