Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

Abby's picture

  While I find much of

  While I find much of Schweickart's arguments intriguing and even helpful in clarifying what a feminist theory of reading looks like, I would like to ask a few questions related to her discussion of the awareness of androcentricity in literature and the necessity of the feminist or woman reader to resist.

  On page 49 of her essay Shweickart makes quite clear the correct choice for every feminist reader when it comes to approaching an "androcentric" text.  "The reader can submit to the power of the text, or she can take control of the reading experience.  The recognition of the existence of a choice suddenly makes visible the normative dimension of the feminist story: She should choose the second alternative." (49)  Okay, fine.  I guess I can accept that we have a responsibility as feminist readers to choose to take control.  While reader-response theory is grounded in a notion of essential relationship between text and reader, the feminist voice seems to be saying: "Yes, there's a relationship.  But WE have to be the subject." 

  I think my puzzlement is made more clear when I read on page 50 of the essay that  "Because patriarchal constructs have psychological correlates, taking control of the reading process means taking control of one's reactions and inclinations."  I suppose my question here is "Does a feminist reading require one to suppress her instincts?  Or at least, to always be wary of what she feels and thinks, fearing it may be laced with the stain of "patricarchal constructs?"  I'm not sure.  This kind of reading can be useful.  Skepticism is the friend of academia.  But I wonder at what point this resisting reaches levels of paranoia?  Or is the notion of a paranoid reader too outrageous and comical to warrant any real concern?  Feel free to tell me that it is!

  I think what I am grappling with here ultimately comes down to the definition and purpose of feminism.  Does feminism include the benefit of all people, or just women?  Are those two things synonymous?  Can men become savvy feminist readers too?  If the feminist reading endeavor drives us to isolate ourselves too much, are we sacrificing a bit of our humanity? 

  I would love to know what everyone else thinks:)

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
4 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.