The Extra 263
To the theory of feminist criticism, is the feminist questioning of our criteria of aesthetic value. This questioning is at the heart of the feminist project. It is also its most dangerous procedure.
Notice the interesting ambiguity in Showalter’s formulation. Does feminism mean to question the specific criteria that are in place or the use of any aesthetic criteria (as opposed to other kinds, e.g., cultural, political) to determine the canon? The answer depends on the feminists seem to want revised criteria, while more radical feminists demand an end to aestheticism as the informing principle of our literary histories. I think that Annette Kolodny represents the more moderate position, while Jane Tompkins speaks for the more radical view. In each case, however, our most cherished notions about the aesthetic value of texts are obviously under siege.
All feminists start with the assumption that “every text can be seen as in some sense a political gesture and more specifically as a gesture determined by a complex of assumptions about male-female relations, assumptions we might call sexual poetics.” Because this is true, and because all claims to “universal” aesthetic values are wishful thinking, critics such as Kolodny insist that we must reconsider the standards by which we make our canons: “since the grounds upon which we assign aesthetic value to texts are never infallible, unchangeable, or universal, we must reexamine not only our aesthetics but, as well, the inherent biases and assumptions informing the critical methods which (in part) shape our aesthetic responses.” As the quotation that heads this section would suggest, however, Kolodny does not think this reexamination will necessarily do away with all the old masters, nor does she argue that we should abandon aesthetic questions altogether. Instead, we should reshape our aesthetic views in the light of what we now believe about “the inherent biases and assumptions” that inform our methods. Such revision will lead to a more comprehensive canon, not an altogether new one. Referring to the Columbia and Cambridge histories
Sandra M. Gilbert, “What Do Feminist Critics Want? A Postcard from the Volcano,” in The New Feminist Criticsm, p. 31.
Annette Kolodny, “Dancing Through the Minefield: Some Observations on the Theory, Practice, and Politics of a Feminist Literary Criticism,” in the New Feminist Criticism, p. 151.