FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2017846113> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2017846113 endingPage "13" @default.
• W2017846113 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2017846113 abstract "SUSAN M. GRIFFIN The Discourse Within: Feminism and Intradisciplinary Study In this essay, I want to bring the history of feminist theory and scholarship to beat on a specific problem in literary studies, a problem symptomatic of a larger pattern in academic discourse. In particular , I will argue that there is a relation between the structuring of the academic discipline of American literary studies and the way American literary texts are understood and valued. Although feminism has become a part of academic discourse only in the last few decades, feminists have tried since theit initial entry into the academy to change its structure. From its inception, feminist study has been interdisciplinary. The 1976 inaugural issue of Signs, for example , states that its first purpose is to publish the new scholarship about women from both the United States and other countries (Stimpson, et al. ?). Having defined this comparativist task, the editors continue, Signs has a second purpose as well: to be interdisciplinary (v). Women's histories, literature, culture, and lives had fallen between the cracks of traditional academic disciplines; interdisciplinary study would allow scholars to recapture them. In addition, an interdisciplinary perspective would foster new attention to, and critical evaluation of, the methodologies employed by various disciplines. This critique of methodology proved especially important in the humanities where the very use of method was often unacknowledged. The results of the feminist call for a broad restructuring of traditional disciplines and approaches have been widespread. For example, the new literary history that has Arizona Quarterly Volume 44 Number 4, Winter 1989 Copyright © 1989 by Arizona Board of Regents ISSN 004-1610 Susan M. Griffin been recently embraced by American critics owes a real debt to feminism's program of historicizing our reading of literature and of tracing the wotking of ideology in texts and theit critical treatment. I think that the interdisciplinary nature of feminist studies can be used to address a particular problem in American literary criticism. The specific case I wish to investigate is that of the nineteenth-century novel. Critical discussion of these texts has been structured around a dichotomy described by Nina Baym in an article which has been crucial to feminist understanding of both American literature and American literary studies, Melodramas of Beset Manhood. Baym argues that for American literary critics the quality of Americanness,' whatever it might be, constituted literary excellence for American authors (126). Through a study of major critics and their influential wotks, Baym shows that this definition of literary excellence as 'Americanness is not only subjective, circular, and in some sense nonliterary or even antiliterary, but also excludes wotks by women writers from the literaty canon (129). What comes to count as 'Ametican for these critics is the presence of a particular myth: The myth narrates a confrontation of the American individual, the pure American self divorced from specific social circumstances, with the promise offered by the idea of America. . . . The myth also holds that, as something artificial and secondary to human nature, society exerts an unmitigatedly desttuctive pressure on individuality (131-32). Further, and crucially for Baym, In these stories, the encroaching, constticting, destroying society is represented with particular urgency in the figure of one or more women (133). In this melodrama of beset manhood, the entrapper is female, as is her unthreatening counterpart, the all-accepting, nurturing landscape. Critics assume that all serious American novels tell the story of this myth of escape and rebellion; other fictions are merely popular stories which replicate, and thus teinfotce, prevailing societal values. Since to qualify as a great American novel, a fiction has to follow a misogynist pattern, it is, as Baym points out, no accident that no woman has written a great American novel. Recent feminist scholarship and criticism have helped to modify this paradigm of serious male novel of individual rebellion vs. popular, conservative female fiction of society both by expanding the field of Ametican literary study and by changing its methodology. Books like Freibert Feminism and lntradisciplinary Study and White's critical anthology of the works of nineteenth-century women novelists have made previously hard-to-find texts available. And, feminist analyses by critics like Baym, Fetterley, Kolodny, and Tompkins of..." @default.
• W2017846113 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2017846113 creator A5001807773 @default.
• W2017846113 date "1989-01-01" @default.
• W2017846113 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2017846113 title "The Discourse Within: Feminism and Intradisciplinary Study" @default.
• W2017846113 cites W1489814651 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W1508671760 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W1543916428 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W1965103780 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W1970063777 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W1989426475 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W1997147016 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W1999669256 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2000138195 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2013309016 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2020427682 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2024982824 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2038108378 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2051507357 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2061989017 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2070308094 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2087598601 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2088178287 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2102207363 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2105355424 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2117227319 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2329742518 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2330301927 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2500470633 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2801099414 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W2802712177 @default.
• W2017846113 cites W652432546 @default.
• W2017846113 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/arq.1989.0003" @default.
• W2017846113 hasPublicationYear "1989" @default.
• W2017846113 type Work @default.
• W2017846113 sameAs 2017846113 @default.
• W2017846113 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2017846113 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2017846113 hasAuthorship W2017846113A5001807773 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C142932270 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C2775969163 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C2777688943 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C74916050 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C107993555 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C124952713 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C142362112 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C142932270 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C144024400 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C17744445 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C199539241 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C2775969163 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C2777688943 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C2778061430 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C36289849 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C74916050 @default.
• W2017846113 hasConceptScore W2017846113C95457728 @default.
• W2017846113 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2017846113 hasLocation W20178461131 @default.
• W2017846113 hasOpenAccess W2017846113 @default.
• W2017846113 hasPrimaryLocation W20178461131 @default.
• W2017846113 hasRelatedWork W1524176759 @default.
• W2017846113 hasRelatedWork W1987351853 @default.
• W2017846113 hasRelatedWork W1993260869 @default.
• W2017846113 hasRelatedWork W2013382030 @default.
• W2017846113 hasRelatedWork W2017846113 @default.
• W2017846113 hasRelatedWork W2055842080 @default.
• W2017846113 hasRelatedWork W2090087402 @default.
• W2017846113 hasRelatedWork W3009881976 @default.
• W2017846113 hasRelatedWork W4298269718 @default.
• W2017846113 hasRelatedWork W4367460243 @default.
• W2017846113 hasVolume "44" @default.
• W2017846113 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2017846113 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2017846113 magId "2017846113" @default.
• W2017846113 workType "article" @default.