Academic attainment and feminism?

[suwoo]

I have wanted to start this thread all day but have been scared that it is stupid or I will be flamed. I want to ask if people feel there is a correlation between academic attainment and feminist principles. Is that a valid question?
I had no idea that I was a feminist. I knew I had these thoughts and principles but didn't know what they were or the significance of them until we did feminist literary theory this semester- it was like an epiphany and my whole world made sense

Had I not gone to uni at the grand old age of 35, maybe I would never had these revelations.

What do you think? Those of you that identify as a feminist, what level of education do you have?

Yes, Dworkin's writing is literary (cue snake eating its tail moment where one could argue that all writing is literary... ), though I do not believe that its literary qualities are the most important feature; Dworkin does not use style in the way that, say, Cixous does to exemplify Écriture féminine.

Kristeva is refuting the collective political identity of all groups there. Since she does not name feminism at that point, thought you have logically inferred it, I could equally logically infer that she is aiming her comments at male collective identity, or male supremacy, as well.

In the context of a seminar on feminism with students, I would discuss the "early" Kristeva and her influence on feminism; I could then use this article (plus whatever work this totalitarian stuff is alluding to - do you know?) to demonstrate how she is no longer a feminist - or any "-ist" - and what this means for contemporary feminism, etc.

Psychoanalysis has been understood as a very plural body of ideas, and many feminists have appropriated its ideas. I know you reject this feminism, so I won't bother to go on about that any more, but this is, as you know, the context for Kristeva's and Cixous' psychoanalytical work.

Sorry, didn't respond to your point about Berger's, etc., admiration for Dworkin. Well, yes, sadly...

"And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house." Matt.13:57

You: "what concrete political effects does their work have? In other words in what way does their work improve things for women?"

Me: Concrete? None, I suppose. But I have certainly found what I learned there to be helpful and provocative, and it has coloured my world-view, so inasmuch as I engage in the world as a feminist, I would say that I have drawn from it. Students of mine have responded similarly. So if they all go out into the world having taken something from reading Cixous, Irigaray, etc?... ("The horror!", I hear you exclaim... ).

You: "So for example, Dworkin's book Pornography provides a set of tools to address pornography, and in fact may persuade many readers to reject pornography as harmful to women (that's what she did for me)."

Me: Me too. At 20yo, it (and "In Harm's Way") was one of the most horrifying things I'd ever read.

You: "I think we're back to this different viewpoints thing again. I'm looking at this through a political lens, in other words what will improve the condition of women, whereas you seem to be seeing these authors purely through the lens of literary criticism, so the work really stays on the page and in the classroom or in the head at the most. Certainly I don't know of any concrete improvements to women's lives that Cixous or Kristeva's work has led to - maybe the opportunity for a few PhD students to write theses or some teaching and conference opportunities - but smashing the patriarchy, no. But do tell me if I'm wrong about them."

Me: Well, this is the age-old criticism levelled against all literature, philosophy, etc. What difference does it really make? Why bother? Etc.

I guess I would respond in part with what i said before, that this shouldn't be a zero-sum game where one brand of feminism inevitably pushes out another.

But I would also say that just because one cannot measure obvious, concrete improvements (such as those following or inspired by MacKinnon & Dworkin contra porn), this does not mean that the cumulative effect of reading feminist literature and philosophy cannot have some kind of effect. Both - concrete and indirect - can be feminist - in my opinion.

You: "(Did you see Dworkin's explanation of her style that I posted upthread. Very exciting stuff)"

Me: Yes, and yes!

Night.

Sorry - that took me ages to write, and I cross-posted with your last message. I'll respond properly tomorrow. Night again.

" I wonder if English academics wanted to get their own back when the feminists took some of their beloved misogynists to pieces and so decided to attempt to do the same to feminism. It wouldn't surprise me if that was at work at some level."

Can't catch up with this fascinating thread, but OMG at this! It does look like that's what's happened.

the op of this thread is (the horror) an eng lit student.

how terrible that her eng lit course enabled her to realise her feminist identity.

how terrible that however imperfect, these damn eng lit courses are still churning out feminists. how very dare they.

damn them.

don't they know they are in the wrong department?

Madwoman, I had exactly the same thought, and that makes me sad.

If we start defining which departments can credibly engage with feminism, that can only be a limitation. Loving your work Penthe, you have helpd my aged brain remember what it used to know, though to be fair that is true of the feminism section as a whole.

I am not denying the exclusion of radical feminism BTW, just think that we actually want a robust feminist engagement across all departments and schools of thought.

I think that second wave of feminists has made a big difference to what gets taught and what gets researched. It's unlikely that you would take a degree in literarture now that was all about DWM.

I think it's certainly true that some academics really take feminism as a personal attack on 'their' territory and 'their' books. But trying to make distinctions between what's political and what's literary seems a bit pointless to me, they're too dependent on each other, and I think it's good they are dependent.

It seems to me one of the important things to do to fight misogyny isn't to insist on separating feminism and lit. crit., it's to show just how natural that pairing is. I'm thinking I can teach maybe Chaucer alongside some pieces of Dworkin, because I think it will help my students to articulate what they feel about the way that text talks about rape, but also because it may get some of them who wouldn't have thought of reading Dworkin or anyone else 'feminist', to read a bit more. Lots of students choose lit. degrees who don't think of themselves as especially political; maybe this is a good opportunity.

The real difficulty with this will be the number of academics (in some institutions it would be a lot, in others maybe none) who would sneer at any teaching of anything that looked like 'feminism'. In fact there are still departments where some academics will, in fact, sneer at the very fact that a woman is teaching or researching at all. In 2011. There are lots of students who will take rape myths on trust, or who will object to studying women because they have been fed a false version of history that tells them women never said anything worthwhile, and there will be lots of students who feel they are less clever or less entitled to express an opinion than others in the class, purely because they're female. In 2011.

I just find this gobsmackingly awful.

swallowed, my problem is that, when I tried to explore ways I might teach some Dworkin (and she is a rad. fem., not 'depoliticized'), the response seemed to me to be to attack lit. crit. as a discipline. I hope I'm wrong about that, but that's why I feel there needs to be more effort made not to throw up our hands and give up on academia/lit.crit. just because it's not perfect.

Penthesileia - I am aware that Cixous' various origins are highly formative of her identity. Of the many strands there, I suspect that "Algerian" is the one that is least defining. There are so many thinkers (or tortured souls, perhaps?) in France of North African Jewish descent, and it is their self-perception as "second class" French Jews that tends to define their thinking, rather than their North African origins (which can hardly be called roots, as they came from displaced communities in any event).

Of course, Cixous has the social and intellectual advantage of an Ashkenazy mother, and a German mother at that. I can only hypothesise (don't know enough about it) that her confidence as a female intellectual must be massively boosted by that...

i do actually agree with that. but just thought that it might be worth pointing out that the op is a real living example of a situation which might be imperfect, but is nevertheless still doing a valid job of 'creating' feminists who are then reading more widely of their own volition.

improvements are always welcome. but credit where it's due, and all that.

so, whoever suwoo's tutors are, they are obviously doing a good job with the limited tools available. now if suwoo goes back and discusses how the course could be further improved, and gets her fellow students to do the same on their course critique forms, and make a bit of a noise, the tutors can slowly influence the course content. (as some here are trying to do)

and then find some political science types and start in on them. because this isn't going to be fixed by haranguing eng lit, as you say. they do make a nice easy target though, as the main area engaging with the issue. a burden, indeed.

fwiw, i haven't been near an eng lit department in about 15 years, at which point it was teeming with fems. i crossed over to social science later, and was visibily shocked that the overwhelming majority of post-grads didn't see any gender inequalities. at all. the initial discussion was led by a male prof, and i often wonder whether it would have gone differently if it was a woman. i listened for about five minutes and then exploded. all i remember is the entire cohort peering at me with their mouths hanging open.

so, my apologies for any inherent bias - in terms of nurturing a feminist outlook, i would agree that eng lit is pretty much carrying the can.