Reply to comment

My initial reaction to Sonoski is that I don't quite identifiy with his theories of the relationsip between a reader and the text as much as I identified with Scweickart's theories. His theory about the "mindless man-driven machine" certainly approached what feminist literary theory is from a much different perspective than Schweickart did- he explicitly examines literary theory from the underlying and already-existant structure in place that reinforces the patriarchical nature of the field of literary theory.

He also observes and grounds much of his argument in the realities of the work, the competitive nature, the desire instilled early on by professors and bosses to suceed in a "vertical" manner (i.e. climbing the ladder to success), to win awards and recognition, etc. It is this desire to suceed that leads to what Sonoski terms "falsificity" (pg. 41) in the field of literary criticism. Critics feel they cannot admit error because to admit error is to admit to being wrong, and therefore they must always insist upon their own argument as always being the correct one. Sonoski points out the seemingly obvious problem with this tendency on the part of the literary critics to never admit thier own errors or even recognize the flaws in thier arguments. Knowledge must and should be gained, according to Sonoski, through communal effort. Much as Schweickart called for a community of feminist readers and writers, Sonoski is calling for a community of differences composed of literary theorists and critics. Sonoski, however, sees the differences as precisely the best part about the communal effort whereas Schweickart seemed more intent on the "togetherness" aspect of community.

As different as the two arguments are, I don't think they're entirely in opposition. However, I think it's easier to identify with Schweickart's essay much more because she is writing so explicitly from the perspective of a woman, which I obviously can relate to as I self-identify as a female, and also her argument is stronger because she acknowledges the dominating patriarchy of the literature field while at the same time actively resisting it thoruhgout, whereas Sonoski focuses his entire essay around the problems within the patriarchy. I suppose a simple characterization of Sonoski's essay would be that it's from the "insider" perspective, written from within the very patriarchy it considers flaws, while Schweickart writes from the "outsider" perspective, consciously focusing on the meaning of a feminist literary community (which would of course have to operate outside the patriarchy).