U1 Gendering THE Canon - Tema 1 del libro \"FEMINISM & WOMEN\'S WRITING\", de Riley and Pearce PDF

Preview

Summary

Tema 1 del libro "FEMINISM & WOMEN'S WRITING", de Riley and Pearce...

Description

UNIT 1 “GENDERING THE CANON” This chapter explores the historical formation of the literary canon, looking at the ways it has been defined and shaped, and examining how its boundaries have been excluding women. This incorporates discussion of the emergence in Victorian Britain of the concept of a canon of ‘great literature’. It also examines the arguments made around literary ‘gatekeeping’ and the problems presented by a maledominated review press, taking as a case study the Modern Classics Series published by feminist press Virago. Feminism has always sought to empower women through the production, distribution and consumption of the written word. The emergence during feminism’s first wave of a range of pro-suffrage presses was mirrored in the 70s and 80s by a raft of second—wave feminist publishers, who transformed the literary landscape and succeeded not olnly in individual authors but also whole literary genres.

THE CANON The contemporary formulation of the literary canon is built on a set of principles first explicated by the 19th schools inspector and poet Arnold. Arnold’s premise was that literary worth was located in a text’s ability to communicate truth(s), and that the consumption of ‘great’ literature should illuminate moral certainties, leading to a more civilised society. He is clear that is a task for men, reflecting the naturalised assumptions that women were intellectually inferior. Literary scholarship was deemed unsuitable work for Victorian women. The idea of a ‘canon’ of great literary works was instituted at a time when women were largely excluded from the academy, and from intellectual and public life. In Cambridge did no tallo women to receive degrees until 48’; at Oxford, women could sit exams from 1884, but would not be allowed to received a degree until 20’). The University of London was the first to admit women to its degree programmes in 1878. This limited incursion weighted heavily in favour of male academicians — and for lower-middle and working-class women, even a rudimentary education was a privilege. The boundaries of the canon were largely drawn to exclude women, with one or two honourable exceptions: Eliot and Austen. Challenging the hegemony of this male literary canon became an important target of second-wave feminist activity in the late 60s and 70s, revealing that the canon was not representative of all great literature. Critiquing this male bias, with Millett’s Sexual Politics (1969) and Greer’s The Female Eunuch (1970) both using literary analysis to show the confinement of women in culture, economics, politics and elsewhere.

As the 70s got underway, feminist scholars in the US also began to point out the omission of female writers from the canon. Showalter’s solution was to teach new syllabuses of female-authored texts. The British writer Watt claims that Women’s engagement with literature was only ever as readers, not writers. Against this long history of exclusion, then, texts like Sheila’s Hidden from History (1973). The conclusión she drew – that the literary records of women’sn lives had been lost, devalued, omitted or overlooked - was a call to second-wave feminists. It was argued the women’s limited role in public life throughout history had not limited their scope as writers, but had in fact allowed them to flourish. Rediscovering historical literatura became a vital task. One of the ways this was effected was through the republishing of “lost” historical works by women (Virago’s Modern Classics). Women had always written, had written well, and had enjoyed success and some acclaim in doing so. Their disappearance from view was because of this very success, a backlash against their dominance of the literary scene. Lynne, developed a theory of literary ‘gatekeeping’ to show that canonical inclusion was protected by reviewers and scholars whose interests were served by the texts they granted entry. Bestsellings were derided by male critics, ensuring its exclusion from serious discussion as a canonical text by unfavourable review coverage. The consequence was to limit women’s achievement of the market, as well as to perpetuate a general view of literature as ‘male’. On this point it is important to recognise that the bias in review coverage continues to impact on women in these ways, and to thus subtly affect the shape of the canon. [less than a third] Gilbert and Gubar’s 1985 collection The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women were among the first to give students a new set of literary texts. Courses on women writers were also gradually added to English literatura programmes and syllabuses were rewritten to include more female authors. Inclusion in these curricula meant female writers attained cultural authority and influence. The canon was thus interrogated and altered by the emergence of the second-wave feminist literary criticism in the 70s and 80s. The incursion of women into the academy — as writers, readers, researchers and teachers — thus remains an ongoing challenge in continuing the project of achieving genuine canonical equality.

GETTING INTO PRINT: PUBLISHERS, PUBLICITY AND PRIZES The canonisation of a literary text dependens on academic endorsement. There are more practical factors that affect the production and reception of a text, and subsequently influence the ways that it is received both in the academy and literary culture, as well as by a more general readership. The mechanics of the publishing industry — including marketing and publicity, all have an effect on which books are chosen for production. Simone Murray first- and second-wave printing and publishing enterprises. Pro-suffrage presses and Woman’s Press were established to take control of the means of the production in ensuring their messages could be conveyed without interference or censorship. Virginia Woolf, who cofounded the Hogarth Press in 17’, articulated the need for women to empower themselves in this way. The second-wave feminist publishers set up a feminist publishing house. Companies like Virago, The Women’s Press, Pandora and Onlywomen challenged the history, structures and practices of the industry. Proving there was a market for literature written by women and it worth as much as literatura written by men. They also changed perceptions of women in business, demonstrating formidable prowess as entrepreneurs while challenging the domination ofn the publishing industry by “gentlemen in trousers”. By the time the 3rd wave gathered in 1990, there was a glut of powerful female executives running not just feminist companies but also mainstream publishing houses. This movement of women into the top publishing roles; it has an effect on which books are chosen for production. Installing women at the top of the industry is an immediate challenge to the ‘great tradition’ that helped shape a canon dominated by male writers. The blossoming of feminist publishing ventures during the second wave, and the incursion of women into mainstream companies during the third wave, have been crucial factors in shifting the parameters of the canon by including women’s choices as editors and publishers. Goodings’s observation on another important aspect of the publishing industry, has a powerful effect on book selection and production: The advance of publishing houses toward monolithic consolidation continues inexorably, leaving almost no independent companies of large dimension operating today. This has an effect on the formation of the canon. The same names that routinely make it on to schools and university syllabuses. It is their marketability as would call ‘star authors’ that has impacted on their sales, and subsquently enabled their becoming canonical. The cult of celebrity and its intersection with consumerism defines all the aspects of contemporary UK culture.

Star authors ‘have the potential to be commercially successful and penetrate into mainstream media, but are also perceived of as in some sense culturally “authoritative’”. For women readers and writes, this shift is more welcome, since they have historically been shut out of the traditional literary networks. It is, of course, also problematic: focussing on good-looking and thus “marketeable” individuals, regardless of the quality of their work....