(No part of this reinterview may be published elsewhere without written permission from victor j. vitanza and
lynda haas.) --Full Copyright notice at end of each file, starting with haas1 file.
The PreText Conversations held a Re/In/View with Lynda Haas, beginning July, 1997. The subject of the reinvw is/was her article
"The Daughter's Seduction; or, Writing with the Rhetors,"
forthcoming in PRE/TEXT 15: 3-4.
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:36:01 -0500 When I said "I can see that there can be no "women's" writing given that language is inherently patriarchal," I meant that I understand/recognize that argument. What is still puzzling me is the body/writng thing in relation to something called "women's writing". I can see "women's writing" as a codified style that can be copied, but not as something essentially connected to bodies and that can be generalized into a style. I like a few of the things that have been said that refer to individual/partular "body's writing" that encompasses a wide variety of factors. But I cannot see how this infinite variety of things can be generalized into something called "women's writng" that is directly connected to bodies. Bodies are too multiple to be generalized and hence I can't conceive of something called "women's writing" that is not genered rather than sexed. B.
One of the problems, on the other hand (on *my* other hand), with anti-essentialism is this predeliction to problematize issues, to fragment loci/foci of power, so as to leave objects(subjects) of power little room (foundations?) to complain. I remember an interesting quote from Mary Daly, "Womyn are the only oppressed group who are not allowed to Name their oppressors." You know, that kind of knee-jerk "patriarchy is evil, but my man is okay" that seemed/seems so pathetically apologetic. It simply occurs to me that by problematizing gender (in writing, in 'fact') we are simply finding one more way in which to silence the objects/subjects of intense forces. Maybe. Maybe we are undercutting them. But, personally, I think such a move (undercutting, I mean), while possible in our western contexts, is completely useless (even harmful) once we consider the other 3 billion womyn on the planet who aren't even allowed to write or read (or have their genitals remain intact, or their bodies nourished, etc.). _________I am wondering, therefore, whether what Linda means when she says her experience of corporate writing is *thoroughly* (didn't she say something like that?) gendered is that certain performative expectations are demanded (and or best avoided) among members of her corporate context on the basis of implicit gender ideologies in the workplace? How do these differ (or do they) from acadamnia? Isn't this, in fact, an effective, pragmatic means of addressing social forces of power at play upon the site/cite of the body? _________Also, couldn't 'writing the body' mean also (although I know it hasn't meant this) *precisely* those social forces inscribing gender on the body-without-organs? -TheVoid(?)Boy(?)
To Byron & others perhaps: How then men and women's writing differs is a tough and nearly impossible question and one I'm not sure I'd like to find the answer to because it is reductive. As a writer myself, I feel liberated to know/think that when I read poetry or write, that gender may not always be a relevant factor. In other words, knowing whether the author is male or female may actually hinder my reading or inform it inappropriately, just as many feminists might argue that knowing the sex of the author is tantamount to a "real" or "authentic" reading. True and not true. My position here is also partly informed by the fact that many writers of color have problematized the notion that there writing is perceived as interesting/intriguing because it may (despite the fact that it may not) reflect that writer's ethnicity. I would hate to think that as a writer I can only write from the perspective of a half Puerto Rican/German, female (I could add other differentiating factors but I think my point is made). I am a writer first and as a feminist I know too well that language is problematic and that the fact that I'm a woman from a particular cultural, socio-economic background informs how my writing takes shape. If someone were to read my work and eschew those bits of information, then yes, that reading wouldn't be what I'd call "fully informed," and yet to read a piece looking for only those bits can be just as problematic. The result will be two very different readings that, despite their different approaches, will hopefully provide solid textual grounds for that particular reading. Are they right or wrong? Neither, though I realize here that no knowledge of say Adrienne Rich's "politics" is going to make for a weaker reading, despite whatever textual grounds a reader relies upon. I think what's needed here is a sensitivity to reading, wherein we take into account the fact of culture, economics, politics, gender, etc. and then from those make an informed reading about what issues/ideas/etc. may reveal themselves as most important for that particular reading. Bakhtin's term for this is "heteroglossia." What does it mean to write as a woman? How does my text differ from "Joe's?" I haven't the faintest clue until I'm sitting in front of a particular piece of writing, and even then, I certainly wouldn't dare to make generalizations about women's writing or writing as women. I'm also uncertain that an answer is going to help or hinder readings of women's and men's work. Darlene M. Pagan
Hello all,
Have a good one,
Edward Schiappa wrote:
>
Byron Hawk wrote:
Hi. Delurking now... I am not sure I understand the second half of [Vadim's] post; however, I wanted to say that (taking a certain perspective) the presumption of the dead author is not contradictory with the notion of gendered language. If, against Foucault and Barthes, the intention of the person writing/speaking remains the final determinant of the meaning of language spoken, than the gender of the language cannot be questioned. If I am male, my language is male. Rupaul's language is the language of a man pretending to be a woman. Only when we recognize that language structures and complicates itself with only cursory regard for the individual speaker, can we start to speak of language having gender (or other marks of identity) in its own right. With a dead author, anyone could come to the text and use their set of reading strategies to assign the language genders and whatever else, with no regard for an AUTHORity. If the author is still alive (in the since that HE functions to limit the meaning of HIS text), then the reader is disempowered. HE must read in a certain way, with due regard for the proper way of reading established by those who teach us how to read, say the literary biographical historians. My point is that the death of the author paves the way for the recognition of ideological structures in language. Having said this, I hope I haven't put words in your mouth, because, afterall YOU are not dead. thanks for reading, mal (another ex-academic, escaped not to the corporate world, but to the land of free jazz) MATTHEW LEVY
Hi Lynda On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Haas, Lynda G. (EXCH) wrote:
> computer to help count them. But why is writing about the affects of
The question you ask could be generalized: The answer to this question seems obvious in applied fields such as medicine or agriculture; it is obvious that citrus farmers have a stake in university research in medfly sterilization. Even in the sciences, however, the split between pure and applied research has left pure science exposed to ever-reduced funding in a culture committed to the practical. Never mind that any glace at the history of invention will show a direct connection between our marketable gizmos and pure research: two practical results of Einstein's theories, for example (for which he saw no possible use) were nuclear energy and TV tubes. Now we come to the Humanities. I know you know all this line of argument but I am rehearsing it anyway since it is the way I understand the relevance of my university research to the general welfare of the society that pays for it. When I started teaching I was in a Humanities Department responsible for General Education "Western Civilization" core course. The rationale for requiring this course of every student was that of traditional humanism: what distinguishes humanity from the animals is language (a border much blurrier now); language therefore is that which is most human; the highest use of lanugage is literature; therefore appreciation of literature puts one in relation to that which is best in themselves. I served on many committees with colleagues across the divisions of knowledge andthe great majority of them supported the core requirement as a necessary part of preparing students to realize their fullest potential (part of the humanistic credo). As you know,this harmony among the faculties, not to mention between the faculties and the state, was upset somewhat by the culture wars. Part of the ammunition used in the culture wars was based on research done in specialized humanistic disciplines regarding the ideological hierarchy governing institutional arrangements that privileged the norms of behavior of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Heterosexual Middle-Class Masculine Men. You may recall the uproar surrounding E. D. Hirsch's __Cultural Literacy__ in which the WASP (to oversimplify a bit) cognitive style was represented as "neutral," open to everybody, and just the way we do things in America. Why the uproar? Again, it has to do with the tradition of Humanism; Humanists and Marxists may be at odds on some things, but they agree on the emancipatory "grand meta-narrative"--the justifying story of the Enlightenment tradition, in which "the truth shall make you free." The research conducted by university scholars was showing that schooling itself favored children socialized in the WASP style; it also showed that non-WASP (to use this shorthand) children had considerable language and reasoning abilities that were not drawn upon by established pedagogies (I am thinking of the work of Shirley Brice Heath). Perhaps I have spelled out the argument excessively, but I have in mind your colleagues for whom the background rationale for why they had to take gen ed courses may not be so clear. The bottom line, as we like to say in our society, is that the use value of knowledge about ideological norms organizing institutional power is ethical and political. This sort of knowledge when brought to bear on the marketplace may actually be detrimental to profits. Consider the arguments against laws requiring handicap access (add "able-bodied" to the list of identity preferences) to public facilities: too expensive.
best
Lynda: As a fairly new graduate student to Arts & Humanities (at UT-Dallas), and having come from the corporate world, I, too, grapple with the question of the particular "academic" writing required of me and its relationship to the "real world." I have also run into the same difficulties when having co-workers, family members, etc. read my "academic" writing. It's not relevant to them and the language is a definite barrier. It seems this style of writing is confined to the academic community and simply circles the community, whether local or globally. I don't have many answers but I wonder if the academic community were to connect to the corporate community, without the academic language barrier, perhaps we'd have a better chance of linking resources and funding between the two. Just a thought . . . . Claire Rich
Both your response and Greg Ulmer's to Lynda's question, the "so what?" of which I'm not sure I heard, make me wonder if we forget how the movement from "pure" or "technical" or "esoteric" [many more words would work] to a supposed "public" or "corporate" discourse is not capable either of total blockage or of a linerar, up to down?, description. I'm thinking of a number of points that Greg makes at least tacitly. For instance, the newish design of companies 'in search of excellence," pace Tom Peters, surely takes much from pomo theory--small group meeting spaces to address ad hoc projects with new methods of taking whoever can contribute into a goal-oriented, temporary concept space. This sounds a lot like Lyotard actualized, and others, to me, although it may not seem so to the companies who hear and do this re-designing of workspaces. Maybe one has to be 'old' to see the changes in such arrangements as changes, and academic to connect them to 'theory,' but surely it also works recursively the other way. Why does Derrida, e.g., take on Searle? Pure philosophical problem of language? Competition? Many "real world" reasons. As you see, I think the question and some of the points in the answers, not all, are tied to a dichotomy and teleology that aren't "true." I'm most struck by how it was academics who started culture wars, in my many experiences during which "new" theory produced quite apoplectic rage in those who heard it, and by how the rightists on many campuses became the NAS with ties to the media [ties is kind for they know how to get their ideas published overnight, because the people who own the media are also rightists, for which I can't blame them but can point out that this was no uni-directional "response" to "weird thinking" but an interaction among institutions]. The productivity of humanistic disciplines is much more politically direct than I think Greg's accurate representation of the codes used to articulate it as indirect shows. So if you don't think that academic discourse is relevant to the real world, that both Shakespeare AND theory are the sites where hegemoic values are reproduced, how else do you explain the rage, bewilderment, fury, and actual damage to individuals [like, e.g., Linda Brodeky when at Texas] and now to our future in making us safer 'temporary' appointments, is coming from? I think the acceptance of the question as being about a real is diversionary, that is. We make a tremendous difference to people who do or do not think that Dead Poets' Society is about the universal / individual's exemption from social forces, e.g. We have a tremendous cultural power, usually expressed as teaching "just" grammer or "just" theory, or "just" good literature, actually felt as circumscribing the range of images available to the majority we teach and what can and cannot be said. If we changed what we do, again, at all, the response would remind us of that power, as it just recently should have. Susan Miller
these questions of akademic style bubble up at some point in almost every pretext discussion. why write unlike newspapers and corporate memos? because we can! i don't mean because we are better writers, but that in the best forums, writers find themselves under a different set of constraints, which allow writers to write as an activity of listening to language. writing in service to who. writing in service to who? academic structures, of course, are increasingly another kind of business. i'm reminded of the russian politician who said that everything would be alright if the superpowers continued to act with transparent self-interest. where is this self with interests? the answer for me is that it is dispersed in language, unlocalized (though playing peekaboo with itself in our eyes), and many-gendered. pointless writing, vain writing, idle writing, brutal writing, and linguistic buggary should all be celebrated, in my way of thinking. the pretext conversation about the insulated nature of academic discourse was bouncing around in my head today as i met with two of my bandmates, one of whom is a well-read, sometimes-buddhist street musician, and the other of whom is a philosopher, ex-junkie trumpeter. i am telling you! the three of us speak of all of these subjects discussed here, but with a much hightened atmosphere of humor (past the edge of lunacy). the most annoying thing about akademic talk is the hammer of morality that waits at each moment to strike at a target deemed irresponsible. who could be responsible? for what?! while we talk the same issues on the street, that street language can't be spoken here. when people complain about the exclusivity of akademic talk, mostly they are talking about the difficulty of the language. They say: "If only there would be no more jargon, then everyone could read it." But, as I see it, the problem isn't that we fail to rule out jargon and multiplicity (the many-handled style of parentheses and slashes, the pointed ambiguities and ambivalences), but that we too fascistically rule out so much of what could be said.... mal
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, susan miller wrote:
> I think the acceptance of the question as being about a real is Ima B. Student sits in back of the class. S/he listens to the comp teacher. S/he dots the I's, questions the subject, perks up for the leading questions concerning the ferretting out of nodes of ideological inconsistency, double-checks comma placement, but keeps one eye (or would that be I) peeled on the grade at all times. S/he knows what side the bread is buttered on. S/he needs a job, eventually. When class is over s/he listens to the Spice Girls, Led Zeppelin, Gang of Four, Hole, Geggy Tah, Milli Vanilli, and Snoop Doggy Dogg, in that order. S/he watches television. S/he goes out shopping with the significant other, likes some of the great new stles, but really hated the blue thing in the window and makes jokes all night about it as they head to the local scene to hang out and get a bit wasted. The blue thing joke is about worn out, but later that night after some great sloppy sex with the SO, in the afterglow, s/he makes a final coup with it that incorporates the ole english comp instructor into the mix. Hilarity ensues, again. S/he didn't think much about comp, didn't think much about ideological conflict, didn't wonder about the powerful constraints put upon him/her. S/he is aware of the powers s/he possesses. ___________ We make powerful assumptions about how much we influence students. I wonder how much we may overstate the case, sometimes. My question, for Linda, would be: being now in the corporate workforce, how much would you say the comp course effects your co-workers? What that was taught them manifests itself, and in what ways? (I am deliberately keeping the question quite open-ended, as I am not looking for any particular orientation RE gender, patriarchy, coded language, etc.) Thomas Rickert
|
(Copyright. 1997. PRE/TEXT. Victor J. Vitanza, the Publisher/Editor, and Lynda Haas, the author. All rights reserved. Anyone should feel free, however, to link to this page for educational purposes, but do not publish otherwise in part or whole without prior written consent from copyright holders. You may also establish a link to this or any REINVW discussion.)
To Part 5, Haas Reinvw, forthcoming
To Part 1, Haas Reinvw
To Part 2, Haas Reinvw
To Part 3, Haas Reinvw
To REINVW Archives
To PRE/TEXT List