PhD Assignment Paper 2 - Literary Theory - "Reading: Gender Perspective"

Assignment

Ph.D. Coursework

Research Scholar: - Vaidehi Hariyani

Registration no. :- 1845

Subject: - English

Subject Paper 2:- Literary Theory

Topic : Reading: Gender Perspective

Institute: - Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

Guide: - Dr.Dilip Barad

 Reading: Gender Perspective

Reading is the most pleasurable thing when it comes to students of Literature.  Reading has wonderful power to enhance the language abilities as well as the human survival. We know much about Importance of reading. For each and every individual the reading as well the interpretation differs. For example Harry Potter is said to be fantasy book for Children, but if we read we find something that is related to everyone’s life. But then why some readers don’t find it fascinating? The answer might be about one’s interpretation according to their perspective. Similarly when a man and woman reads it differs. In this assignment we will try to explore two articles which will help us to get answer about this question.

The articles are:-

1.)  Reading as a Woman - Jonathan Culler

2.)  ‘Reading like a Man’ - Men in Feminism – Robert Scholes

Before beginning the exploration of the articles, we can see that words ‘as’ and ‘like’ in the title. It highlights the major difference. ‘As’ means you are and ‘like’ you are trying to be like them. When you are and when you try it totally differs.

Reading as a Woman - Jonathan Culler

Reading and Interpretation are based on Individual.

So, what about a woman reader? Is a woman reader born or made? Is being a 'woman reader' a biological phenomenon or a product of prolonged social conditioning? In a male-dominated world, almost all walks of life witness this marginalization of the female. One of the pivotal concerns of feminist study is to construe the way in which a woman reads. It must not be forgotten that 'woman' here is not just confined to a specific gender or sexual identity. Far beyond appealing to a sexual identity, 'reading like a woman' concerns itself with associating the eclectic and holistic range of experiences that one has undergone.

By reading between the lines or by tracing the undercurrent symbolic structures within a text, one would develop a theoretical position as a woman, relying on the fact that she has been living the life of a woman. Culler then remember Virginia Woolf's oft-quoted remark of women's inheritance in the form of difference of view or difference of standard. However, this difference is not always given or 'inherited' so to say, it must be produced. It can be produced by differing.

There is no denial of the fact that feminist criticism is concerned with the appeal to the authority of women's experience and a female reader's experience. It also has a lot to do with the metamorphosis (transformation) in the hypothesis of a female reader. That would, in turn, alter one's approach to a text. This entire process ultimately awakens us to the relevance of sexual codes in a text.

In the age of reader-oriented criticism, earnest endeavor is to be made for taking the road less travelled by bringing into limelight the female experience; that female experience which has hitherto been subservient if not non-existent. As Showalter puts it, this process of changing our apprehension of a given text can be done by the hypothesis of a female reader. Due to the paramountcy of male-centric analysis, this structure of female experience has been hibernated for ages. This structure can surface quiet loud and clear in the feminist criticism provided it addresses the issue of women not always reading as woman.

Now the question arises that "Why do women not read as women?" This can be convincingly answered by the fact that reading, just like any other socio-cultural activity, has been colored by male-centered programming. Hence, the gender-politics or marginalization of female existence has affected reading experience as much as it has affected other human activities. Consequently, women have been directed to identify with male characters even against their own interest as women. This may also happen on a quiet subconscious level - way beyond one's realization.

The critic exemplifies 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow' to argue that the universality of a text is also determined by male-oriented parameters. In the case of a text where a male is considered a hero for fighting against the prominence of women, a female reader is conditioned to identify with that character. If she approaches the same text from a female perspective which is more likely, probable or convincing in her case; she would never be able to identify with such a male character.

Similarly, 'A Fairwell to Arms' has also been brought under the scanner of aforementioned theoretical concepts. This classic text presents a world with male prominence. In such a world, a good woman does not exist at all. Appreciating this literary work by turning blind eye to its jaundiced perspective would be not just unjust but unacceptable.

Feminist criticism, thus, aims at changing the way one reads, consequently changing the way one thinks. Feminist interpretation of reading practices is followed by altering the same.

Instead of being an asserting reader, a feminist critic has to be a resisting, non-conformist reader. Such an approach would ignite the process of eliminating the male-centric thoughts and behavioral patterns which have dominated human mind for quite a long time. (Culler)

In reply to Johnathan Culler’s, Robert Scholes comes up with ‘Reading like a Man’ - Men in Feminism.

Following Culler, he begins by rewriting a quote borrowed by Derrida.

“If we consider for example what is called a reading man – for example me, to the extent that I’m supposed to be a man – then reading as a woman should be less reading as a woman than reading from or on the basis of what comes to me from a feminine place.”

He raises a question Where is this feminine place and how does a man have access to it. To this problem he quotes Derrida’s statement.

“I too have learned from the ecoute of women, from listening to the degree I can to a certain feminine voice.” (Scholes)

So here a question might come that what is it that sets a limit to Derrida’s ability to hear “a certain feminine voice.”? Scholes adds a few more questions to this statement. Why does Derrida need to suggest that he hears this voice less well than he hears other voices? What can it be other than his own membership in the class of males, with all that implies in the way of experience?

It can be seen that the earlier concept of Experience which was rejected earlier is now accepted.

Scholes observes that Derrida tries to complicate the question of gender to deconstruct it.

“Because it’s not such simple thing when we say that whoever bears a masculine proper name, is anatomically male, etc. is a man. This feminine voice can pass through trajectories that are extremely multiple… In other words, on the other side, and even in the most feminist women, the masculine voice is not silent.”

Here the text is indicated as ‘Laughter’. Scholes read this laughter as symptomatic. Feminism and Feminist have been put to their own place again. Whenever women speak up, it is the phallocentric male voice speaking through them. When they read actively and aggressively as member of the class, woman, are they then reading through male eyes as well? Or are they finally reading as women conscious of their own experience as a member of a class who share that experience?

Scholes simplifies this problem through another sets of questions. Is there any difference between reading as a woman and reading like a woman? Can women actually read as women because she is a women, or she can only read like a woman because no individual can ever be woman? Can man read as woman? Or either one of them can read as woman? What is the difference between man and woman?

According to Scholes, until no one notices or cares about the difference we had better not pretend it isn’t there. No man should seek in way to diminish the authority which the experience of woman gives them in speaking about the experience, and every women should be very vary of critical systems that deny or diminish that authority.

To conclude the topic he writes, Experience sets limits even as it confers authority. If time or space separate us from our own experience, this separation is never complete. We are subjects constructed by our experience and truly carry traces of it in our mind and on our bodies. Those who are male cannot deny this as well. With the best will in the world we shall never read as a woman or not like a woman.

At last he quotes, “For me, born when I was and living where I have lived, the very best I can do is to be conscious of the ground upon which I stand: to read not as but like a man.”

By reading both the articles we can find out that the reading of any gender mainly is based on individual experiences which sets up the preconceived notion about anyone. This experience brings out the difference between reading as woman and reading like Man. It all depends on the human experiences rather than being gender biased.

Works Cited

1. Culler, Jonathan. "'Reading as a Woman'." Eagleton, Mary. Feminist Literary Theory A reader. A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.,Publication, 2011. 291. Print.
2. Scholes, Robert. "'Reading like a Man'." Eagleton, Mary. Feminist Literary Theory A Reader. A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.,Publication, 2011. 294. Print.