Feminist literary criticism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The feminist literary criticism (English Feminist literary criticism is) a form of literary criticism , when it comes to hegemonic power relations in texts, but also in the literary world in general, uncover. Feminist literary criticism is not about a uniform concept of interpretation or an independent method, but the various procedures are united by the question of “male” supremacy.

history

The examination of the systematic oppression of women by patriarchal society began in the first wave of feminism . Simone de Beauvoir's Le Deuxième Sexe (German: The opposite sex ) and Virginia Woolf's A Room Of One's Own (German: A room for yourself ) are the key texts for later theories . Feminist literary criticism as a separate field emerged in the second wave of feminism in the 1970s. Two different currents can be distinguished at different places of origin and with different approaches.

Anglo-American school

Due to the increasing social resonance of the women's movement , so-called women's studies found their way into American educational institutions in the 1970s . The "feminist literary criticism" arose from the criticism of social exclusion and oppression of women. This is about the inclusion of specifically female experiences as a contrast to the traditional science of de-subjectified objectivity . The prevailing systems of thought are exposed as patriarchal and oppressive structures and an alternative to subversive and self-empowering writing and reading is drawn up. The “feminist literary criticism” does not represent a uniform theoretical model, but is rather a revisionist perspective: literature is viewed from a female perspective.

Elaine Showalter

The literary scholar Elaine Showalter is considered one of the founding mothers of “feminist literary criticism” . She established the term " gyno criticism ", which means the scientific study of women as authors. Gyno criticism is about a literary criticism based on a specifically female experience. According to Showalter, previous literary history has been male-dominated due to phallogocentrism . With gyno criticism, she therefore strives to reconstruct a female literary tradition. As a result of Showalter's efforts, many female authors (and other artists) were rediscovered and the discussion about literary historiography was sparked. Showalter also tries to filter out specifically female aesthetics and poetics with the gyno criticism, which is problematic as the division into “male” and “female” literature is continued, only that women are now involved in the classification. Gynocritic therefore runs the risk of reproducing essentialist and binary thinking. Nonetheless, Showalter's approach was very productive until the 1990s. Criticism of Showalter's approach also comes from African-American Studies , which accuse gyno criticism of continuing exclusive literary science and history insofar as only the white point of view is considered here and no different positions and characteristics of discrimination are discussed. Criticism of the Anglo-American school also comes from European feminism. The empirical cultural studies approach is seen by the post-structuralist feminists, who were particularly active in France , as remote from theory and unscientific.

French school

While feminist literary criticism in the USA was strongly influenced by the political women's movement, the European current was formed from the theories of post-structuralism . In France in particular, many theorists were concerned with “ female writing ” (see also écriture féminine ). Based on Jacques Derrida 's deconstruction is applied to defined meanings in the post-structuralism faith. Language is no longer a closed system, but the ambiguity of linguistic signs and the simultaneous presence and absence of meaning is revealed (see différance ). The most important representatives of French feminism include Hélène Cixous , Luce Irigaray and Julia Kristeva . These theorists apply the post-structuralist method to show that the hegemonic tradition of thought and language is male-dominated - the “feminine” is excluded and therefore remains due to the dualism that can only define “feminine” in the delimitation of “masculine” , always also the "other" (other). The French theorists criticize the binary ordering system and thinking in opposition and advocate a discourse of difference. It is important to raise awareness of the ambivalence of language.

Toril Moi

Above all, Anglo-American feminism criticized the post-structuralist literary studies as too abstract and too detached from social reality. In 1985, in her work Sexual / Textual Politics , Toril Moi tried to make the theories of French feminism more accessible by taking stock of the second wave of feminism. At the same time she criticizes Elaine Showalter's Anglo-American approach; this would concentrate too much on the content of the texts, the linguistic and stylistic features would escape it. By contrast, Moi sees the subversive potential of literature, following Kristeva, in the break with symbolic language. Through the influence of Toril Mois, among other things, post-structuralism increasingly influenced Anglo-American feminism in the 1980s. At the beginning the focus was on the constitution of female subjectivity and identity, now the subject is questioned - it comes to a dissolution.

Methods

Feminist literary criticism, which as a result also becomes a criticism of the canon itself, enables through its "re-vision", through its "new" view, the realization that everything that has been accepted as generally valid up to now is a product of the male point of view ( male gaze ) is. The feminist literary criticism deals with the visualization of these hierarchies , whereby there is no uniform interpretation concept, but different methods.

Resistance to the text

At the beginning of feminist literary criticism there was a fundamental resistance to the text. Judith Fetterley recognized in 1978: "the first act of the feminist critique must be to become a resisting rather than an assenting reader". This early approach to feminist literary criticism rejects the authority of the text - it is read against the grain. The criticism comes from the subjective perspective of the reader, whereby not only previous assessment schemes are called into question, but also subjectivity and the female subject itself should be upgraded.

Images of women within the text - the male gaze

This type of criticism is directed against the one-dimensional representation of female figures within texts. The aim is to examine literary works indiscriminately for realistic images of women in order to point out the female oppression - misogyny , marginalization and victim role - that results from the male gaze. This type of feminist literary criticism sees the stereotyping of women in extreme couples as particularly problematic. The woman as a construct of the “saint” or the “whore” forms a marginal position in a system in which the male is at the center. While there are definitely stereotypical male figures, these - in contrast to the two-part female identity - face a variety of alternatives.

Making the specifically female experience visible

Elaine Showalter's gyno criticism focuses on female characters in literary texts in order to gain knowledge about the images of women represented and to point out strategies within the text that exclude women and female experiences. Gynocritic is therefore an approach that is critical of ideology , as the supposedly gender-neutral texts are exposed as “male” ideology. The focus here is on making visible the patriarchal structures and power mechanisms on which a seemingly neutral text is based, and on enhancing the specifically female experience.

Images of women outside the text - criticism of the male-dominated literary criticism

Here, literary criticism itself is examined and recognized as male-dominated. The evaluation of literature is therefore not neutral, but takes place from a male perspective. This is particularly problematic because literary criticism naturally also determines the canon to a certain extent, because literary criticism is the first to make a work accessible and readable for the public. For example, Cynthia Ozick criticizes the fact that literary reviews always have to emphasize the gender of women. She concludes from this that gender plays a role in the evaluation and that texts by women are therefore evaluated differently than those by men. By making the author's womanhood explicit in a critical interpretation, the incompatibility of femininity and authorship is suggested. As a further example, Elaine Showalter notes that the works of women writers in the 19th century were not measured against the artistic ideal, but against the prevailing image of women at the time . The works of female authors were automatically read autobiographically. “Feminine” writing, with all its ascriptions, was considered less valuable in literary criticism than “masculine” writing. The condemnation of those authors who did write “masculine” proves that this is not due to an overarching aesthetic of “male” writing. This contradiction in the evaluation of literature meant that many female authors wrote under a male pseudonym . This form of literary criticism aims at enhancing “feminine” writing (also called écriture féminine ) and focusing on previously neglected text features.

Look at women authors

A targeted look at female authorship reveals a history of hindrances. The fact that the works of women authors can only be found in small numbers in the canon is due to various difficulties with which women writers had to struggle. Virginia Woolf already recognized in her essay A Room Of One's Own that women were prevented from writing and publishing both by a lack of capital and by a lack of training - they were often denied access. The production of literary texts was also not an activity that girls and women were encouraged to practice, and the texts that were produced, according to phallogocentrism, often did not meet general artistic standards. The specific look at female authors is intended to point out the disadvantages with which female authors were associated, as well as to draw attention to forgotten female authors and their works.

Science-critical / deconstructivist method

In the science-critical approach it is argued that the rationality and abstraction demanded by science are based on “male” ideology . In this current (literary) science itself is examined for mechanisms that consolidate and reproduce this male hegemony . Using deconstructivist methods, supposed truths are exposed as the results of the prevailing phallogocentrism and consequently rejected. With regard to texts, this approach means a permanent questioning of “truths” - the deconstruction reveals power structures within texts, but also in the literary business itself.

Intersectional approach

The intersectional approach goes back to Kimberlé Crenshaw , who for the first time no longer investigated discrimination only in relation to gender , but assumed an interlinking of various forms of discrimination. Depending on the context , characteristics such as race , class , gender but also age, disability ( handicap ), sexual orientation , etc. can favor disadvantages. In intersectional feminism, attempts are made to no longer consider these forms of discrimination separately from one another, but rather as each specific interaction (derived from the English “intersection”). For example, a white, cis woman in a wheelchair experiences very different discrimination than a black, trans woman who does not need a wheelchair. In relation to feminist literary criticism, an intersectional approach means the recognition of a wide variety of individual experiences of discrimination, to which the gaze should be drawn both within and outside the text. This always happens in the awareness of one's own privileges and one's own positioning within a discourse. An attempt is made to work out a context-related reading and to draw attention to the various possible interpretations - depending on the position of the various readers. The focus is on the view that there is a variety of positions and identities, but none of them is automatically “worth more”.

criticism

In particular, the early feminist literary criticism, which was primarily about upgrading and making specifically female experience visible, is often confronted with the accusation of essentialism . Both the Anglo-American and the French currents were also accused of a certain biologism and idealization of the feminine. Dealing with a specifically female letter also runs the risk of continuing the division into “male” and “female”. Today's third wave of feminism uses deconstruction to make it clear that gender binary is a construct and as a result assumes a spectrum of gender identities. Criticism of feminist literary criticism also comes from Black Feminism , which brings in the charge of one-sided and undifferentiated view. Feminist literary criticism therefore emerges from a "white gaze" without being aware of one's own privileges and positioning within the field. Colonialist ideas and white hegemony are thus continued. The intersectional approach attempts to draw attention to different individual experiences of discrimination and to practice feminism beyond the reproduction of binary and racist power relations. By enhancing individual experiences and emphasizing diversity , the aim is to achieve non-discriminatory literary criticism.

influence

The achievement of feminist literary criticism can be seen above all in the range of new readings and evaluation criteria. Feminist literary criticism was instrumental in developing a critique of the hegemonic power system - within but also outside of literature - and in phallogocentric (literary) science. Nevertheless, the still patriarchal social structure has a great influence on literary criticism, as feminist critics also fall victim to phallogocentrism and their publications are ignored by many colleagues in general literary criticism. Feminist literary criticism has established itself in the field of cultural studies , but at the same time it is marginalized because there is a lack of resonance and platforms outside the field. Feminist literary criticism therefore struggles with the problem of moving further and further away from mass society and increasingly interacting exclusively in its own field.

Feminist literary studies have also had only limited influence on the reading habits of general society. Because works by women continue to be read and discussed primarily by women. While men hardly deal with the literature of female authors, women do read the works of male authors and identify with the male characters in the text, which shows the still prevailing phallogocentrism of the literary business. Feminist literary criticism is in close contact with feminism in general; In recent years there has also been an increasing network, especially with Black Feminism and Queer Studies .

In German-speaking countries

In German-speaking countries, there is hardly any theoretical discussion about literary criticism, and there are just as few attempts to define it to establish feminist literary criticism as an independent method. Feminist literary criticism is to a certain extent established in German-speaking countries, but here too there is the problem of marginalization. Feminist literary criticism is largely published in feminist literary magazines - such as Virginia or WeiberDiwan - and therefore only reaches a certain group of people - namely those who are already dealing with the topic. Magazines that deal with feminist topics in general - such as Emma or an.schlag - also offer a platform for feminist literary criticism. The focus of these magazines is on making specifically non-male experiences visible and valued, which is why only reviews of books that have been written by women and non-fiction books that deal with topics considered relevant for women are published here. Here, too, there is the danger of falling into essentialism; In addition, the problem is reproduced that books by women are only read by women or are considered “for” women. Publication in feminist media therefore contributes to so-called “ othering ”, whereby non-male persons - i.e. all genders beyond the male - are seen as something “different”, outside the norm. So there is a discrepancy between the content of feminist literary criticism, which deals with the diversity and equivalence of experiences, and the possibilities of publication , outside of feminist literary criticism , which contribute to a reproduction of the "othering".

In the German-speaking world, Ruth Klüger's Women Read Differently (1996) had a particularly strong influence on feminist literary criticism. Klüger expresses himself critical of phallogocentrism within literature itself, but also in the literary business in general.

The conflict between the literary critic Sigrid Löffler and Marcel Reich-Ranicki , which escalated in the cultural program Das Literäre Quartett in 2000 to such an extent that Löffler left the program , also made waves . In the discussion about the book Dangerous Beloved by Haruki Murakami , Reich-Ranicki unceremoniously denied the critic's sexuality after expressing a dissenting opinion on the quality of the book . Löffler himself: “It was the purest lesson in misogyny . Following the example: If I dare to claim technical competence in contradiction to Reich-Ranicki, then something can be wrong with my femininity. By devaluing me as a woman, I should be damaged as a critic ”. The discussion in the literary quartet shows that literary criticism is not only about evaluating texts, but also about defending values and positions of power.

literature

  • Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity . New York: Routledge 1999.
  • Cixous, Hélène, Esther Hutfless u. A. [Ed.]: Hélène Cixous. The Laughter of Medusa along with current posts . Vienna: Passagen Verlag 2013.
  • de Beauvoir, Simone: The opposite sex. Woman's Customs and Sex . Rowohlt, Hamburg 1951.
  • Klüger, Ruth: Women read differently . Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag 1996.
  • Kristeva, Julia: The revolution of poetic language . Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1978.
  • Moi, Toril. Sexual / Textual Politics . London: Routledge 1985.
  • Showalter, Elaine. "Towards a Feminist Poetics," Women's Writing and Writing About Women . London: Croom Helm 1979.
  • Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One's Own . London: Hogarth Press 1931.

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Tilmann Köppe, Simone Winko: Literary feminism and gender studies. In: Thomas Anz (Hrsg.): Handbuch Literaturwissenschaft. Volume 2: Methods and Theories. JB Metzler, Stuttgart 2007, pp. 358-360, here: p. 358.
  2. ^ Sacrificial man, Susanne: "The feminist view of literature". In: Gerhard, Ute / Rauscher, Susanne / Wischermann, Ulla (eds.): Classics of feminist theory. Basic texts. Volume 2 (1920-1985). Königstein / Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag 2010, pp. 303–332, here: p. 305.
  3. ^ Sacrificial man, Susanne: "The feminist view of literature". In: Gerhard, Ute / Rauscher, Susanne / Wischermann, Ulla (eds.): Classics of feminist theory. Basic texts. Volume 2 (1920-1985). Königstein / Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag 2010, pp. 303–332, here: pp. 305–306.
  4. ^ Sacrificial man, Susanne: "The feminist view of literature". In: Gerhard, Ute / Rauscher, Susanne / Wischermann, Ulla (eds.): Classics of feminist theory. Basic texts. Volume 2 (1920-1985). Königstein / Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag 2010, pp. 303-332, here: p. 306.
  5. ^ Sacrificial man, Susanne: "The feminist view of literature". In: Gerhard, Ute / Rauscher, Susanne / Wischermann, Ulla (eds.): Classics of feminist theory. Basic texts. Volume 2 (1920-1985). Königstein / Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag 2010, pp. 303-332, here: p. 307.
  6. ^ Sacrificial man, Susanne: "The feminist view of literature". In: Gerhard, Ute / Rauscher, Susanne / Wischermann, Ulla (eds.): Classics of feminist theory. Basic texts. Volume 2 (1920-1985). Königstein / Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag 2010, pp. 303-332, here: p. 307.
  7. ^ Sacrificial man, Susanne: "The feminist view of literature". In: Gerhard, Ute / Rauscher, Susanne / Wischermann, Ulla (eds.): Classics of feminist theory. Basic texts. Volume 2 (1920-1985). Königstein / Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag 2010, pp. 303-332, here: pp. 323-324.
  8. ↑ Gürtler, Christa: "Feminist literary criticism or: Do women read differently?". In: Schmidt-Dengler, Wendelin / Streitler, Nicole Katja: literary criticism. Theory and practice. Innsbruck: Studien Verlag 1999, pp. 95-108, here: p. 97.
  9. ↑ Schwenk, Karin: Politics of Reading. Stations of feminist canon criticism in the USA. Berlin: Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft 1996, p. 132.
  10. ↑ Köppe, Tilmann / Winko, Simone: “Literary Feminism and Gender Studies”. In: Anz, Thomas (ed.): Handbuch Literaturwissenschaft. Volume 2. Methods and Theories. Stuttgart: Verlag JB Metzler 2007, pp. 358-360, here: p. 358.
  11. ^ Fetterley, Judith: The Resisting Reader. A Feminist Approach to American Fiction. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press 1978, pp. Xxii.
  12. ↑ Schwenk, Karin: Politics of Reading. Stations of feminist canon criticism in the USA. Berlin: Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft 1996, pp. 112–113.
  13. ↑ Schwenk, Karin: Politics of Reading. Stations of feminist canon criticism in the USA. Berlin: Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft 1996, pp. 114–115.
  14. ↑ Schwenk, Karin: Politics of Reading. Stations of feminist canon criticism in the USA. Berlin: Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft 1996, pp. 118–119.
  15. ↑ Köppe, Tilmann / Winko, Simone: “Literary Feminism and Gender Studies”. In: Anz, Thomas (ed.): Handbuch Literaturwissenschaft. Volume 2. Methods and Theories. Stuttgart: Verlag JB Metzler 2007, pp. 358-360, here: pp. 360-361.
  16. ^ Sacrificial man, Susanne: "The feminist view of literature". In: Gerhard, Ute / Rauscher, Susanne / Wischermann, Ulla (eds.): Classics of feminist theory. Basic texts. Volume 2 (1920-1985). Königstein / Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag 2010, pp. 303–332, here: pp. 305–306.
  17. ↑ Schwenk, Karin: Politics of Reading. Stations of feminist canon criticism in the USA. Berlin: Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft 1996, p. 123.
  18. ↑ Köppe, Tilmann / Winko, Simone: “Literary Feminism and Gender Studies”. In: Anz, Thomas (ed.): Handbuch Literaturwissenschaft. Volume 2. Methods and Theories. Stuttgart: Verlag JB Metzler 2007, pp. 358-360, here: p. 361.
  19. ↑ Schwenk, Karin: Politics of Reading. Stations of feminist canon criticism in the USA. Berlin: Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft 1996, p. 124.
  20. ↑ Schwenk, Karin: Politics of Reading. Stations of feminist canon criticism in the USA. Berlin: Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft 1996, pp. 124–126.
  21. ^ Woolf, Virginia: A Room Of One's Own. London: Grafton Books 1985 (1929), p. 105.
  22. ^ Woolf, Virginia: A Room Of One's Own. London: Grafton Books 1985 (1929), p. 46.
  23. ↑ Schwenk, Karin: Politics of Reading. Stations of feminist canon criticism in the USA. Berlin: Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft 1996, p. 129.
  24. ↑ Schwenk, Karin: Politics of Reading. Stations of feminist canon criticism in the USA. Berlin: Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft 1996, p. 124.
  25. ↑ Köppe, Tilmann / Winko, Simone: “Literary Feminism and Gender Studies”. In: Anz, Thomas (ed.): Handbuch Literaturwissenschaft. Volume 2. Methods and Theories. Stuttgart: Verlag JB Metzler 2007, pp. 358-360, here: p. 361.
  26. ^ Sacrificial man, Susanne: "The feminist view of literature". In: Gerhard, Ute / Rauscher, Susanne / Wischermann, Ulla (eds.): Classics of feminist theory. Basic texts. Volume 2 (1920-1985). Königstein / Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag 2010, pp. 303-332, here: p. 307.
  27. ^ Sacrificial man, Susanne: "The feminist view of literature". In: Gerhard, Ute / Rauscher, Susanne / Wischermann, Ulla (eds.): Classics of feminist theory. Basic texts. Volume 2 (1920-1985). Königstein / Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag 2010, pp. 303-332, here: p. 307.
  28. ↑ Schwenk, Karin: Politics of Reading. Stations of feminist canon criticism in the USA. Berlin: Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft 1996, p. 126.
  29. ↑ Gürtler, Christa: "Feminist literary criticism or: Do women read differently?". In: Schmidt-Dengler, Wendelin / Streitler, Nicole Katja: literary criticism. Theory and practice. Innsbruck: Studien Verlag 1999, pp. 95–108, here: p. 102.
  30. ↑ Gürtler, Christa: "Feminist literary criticism or: Do women read differently?". In: Schmidt-Dengler, Wendelin / Streitler, Nicole Katja: literary criticism. Theory and practice. Innsbruck: Studien Verlag 1999, pp. 95–108, here: p. 101.
  31. ↑ Gürtler, Christa: "Feminist literary criticism or: Do women read differently?". In: Schmidt-Dengler, Wendelin / Streitler, Nicole Katja: literary criticism. Theory and practice. Innsbruck: Studien Verlag 1999, pp. 95–108, here: p. 101.
  32. ↑ Gürtler, Christa: "Feminist literary criticism or: Do women read differently?". In: Schmidt-Dengler, Wendelin / Streitler, Nicole Katja: literary criticism. Theory and practice. Innsbruck: Studien Verlag 1999, pp. 95-108, here: pp. 97-98.
  33. ↑ Gürtler, Christa: "Feminist literary criticism or: Do women read differently?". In: Schmidt-Dengler, Wendelin / Streitler, Nicole Katja: literary criticism. Theory and practice. Innsbruck: Studien Verlag 1999, pp. 95-108, here: pp. 101-102.
  34. ↑ Gürtler, Christa: "Feminist literary criticism or: Do women read differently?". In: Schmidt-Dengler, Wendelin / Streitler, Nicole Katja: literary criticism. Theory and practice. Innsbruck: Studien Verlag 1999, pp. 95–108, here: p. 102.
  35. ↑ Klüger, Ruth: Women read differently. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag 1996.
  36. ↑ Schreiber, Mathias, Susanne Beyer: "It was a serious break". In: Der Spiegel, August 7, 2000, pp. 93ff.