The study of feminist criticism focuses on the role of women
in society searching for a breakthrough of equality. The constraints place on
women has been shaped by the historical setting of the specific time period in
which these women were placed. The goal is to ultimately break away from the
notion of essentialism, which defines a woman according to her externals, such
as laws and the general social norms. The limitations placed on women in
society forces them to take on a particular role in creating their own unique
style of writing, perceiving themselves differently from that of men.
Campbell addresses this feminist criticism throughout her
article, “Agency: Promiscuous and Protean.” At first, I found the article
somewhat difficult to completely comprehend. It seemed that she did not
believe a woman could truly be an agent of her speech due to the many aspects
one must fulfill in order to take on the role of agency. However, after
thoroughly reading it over, I came to the conclusion that she believes it is
very much possible for a woman to become an agent of a specific act, despite these
limitations. “Agency is linked to and effected through artistry or artfulness;
it is learned.” (Campbell, 6) Campbell believes that it is possible for a woman
to find her mark in society by simply taking on an act that is both unique and
recognized. Although the words of a woman may filtered and never directly
captured identical to the moment in which they were said, they ultimately play
a role in highlighting the link between speech and author of that speech. In
doing so, the woman becomes an agent.
We can observe this through Campbell’s example of Sojourner
Truth’s speech. Although her words were changed to suit that of a more educated
woman, there is no denying that she delivered her speech and had “the capacity
to act.” According to Campbell, agency is “communal and participatory.”
(Campbell, 3) I take this as one must participate in a specific act in order to
become an agent, which is what Sojourner did as she spoke in front of a hostile
audience with both confidence and dignity.
When we observe Heilbrun’s article, it becomes evident that
she takes on a slightly different approach to this theory. She feels that the
role of women can never truly be recognized because it is shielded by the
superior patriarchal roles in society. Women are simply additions to the male
population; their acts are completed through the perspective of a man. In doing so, the authentic identities of women are completely
lost, hindering them to receive acknowledgement for their acts. Women writers’ are forced to develop a unique
style of writing, but this too must be filtered and edited. For example, the
composition of their autobiographies must be edited to suit that of what would
be expected of them, rather than their emotions and negative feelings towards
how they truly feel. “Women do not feel able to openly write openly about themselves;
they do not feel entitled to credit for their own accomplishment, spiritual or
not.” (Heilbrun, 24) Heilbrun seeks out a new way in which women can hold an
identity that is both recognized and respected. She helplessly searches for
women to find a sense of individuality so they can be represented through their
works in a true light, rather than a masked one. “Women who acquire power are more likely to be criticized for it than the
men who have always had it. Men were born with it; women have to earn it
themselves.” (Heilbrun, 17) Can women ever really earn power though? It is
obvious that Heilbrun does not believe these underprivileged women can become
agents, differing from that of Campbell.
The shift of women’s rhetoric has become obvious in today’s
society due to the social norms that have been changed as a whole. Women have
transgressed according to the views of the society; their roles have been
placed in a much higher and respected light, allowing them to be recognized as
authoritative figures. For example, Oprah is an extremely powerful woman that
all of the general public views as a respected figure. A number of women
celebrities in general are recognized by their audiences for playing a noteworthy
role in empowering others. Self magazine
is specifically designed for women to enable them to feel a sense of confidence
and freedom throughout their everyday lives. This clearly underlines the
evolvement of women’s rhetoric; they are officially agents of their works. I feel that Heilbrun especially would be startled
by just how much the roles of women have become changed over the course of
time- through literature, rhetoric, and social norms in society.
-Vanessa Coppola
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. “Agency:
Promiscuous and Protean.” Communication
and Critical/ Cultural Studies. 2.1 (2005): 1-19.
Heilburn, Carolyn. “Introduction.”
In Writing a Woman’s Life. New York:
Norton, 1988. 11-24.
Hi Vanessa,
ReplyDeleteI found your analysis of Campbell and Heilbrun quite intriguing.The discussions that Campbell and Heilbrun lead definitely contribute to a feministic society that we ourselves are involved in today. I can agree with you in thinking that the constraints placed on women has been shaped by the historical setting of the specific time period in which these women have been placed. History composes literature and literature has evolved (thank goodness).
Similarly, I found the Campbell article difficult to perceive and couldn't grasp what exactly she meant until she spoke of Sojourner Truth. Agency is communal and participatory and I think this played a great factor in her speech. In class, we discussed how her speech was altered to a more understood language. I think this is where the question of agency and audience would raise eyebrows. I liked how you said, "I take this as one must participate in a specific act in order to become an agent, which is what Sojourner did as she spoke in front of a hostile audience with both confidence and dignity." I found Sojourner's speech one of significance.
At the end of your post you speak about Oprah Winfrey and Self magazine. I found that quite interesting how you compared two modern entities to Campbell and Heilbrun. I definitely wouldn't have thought of that. I thoroughly enjoy Self Magazine so it made me understand the final meaning of Campbell and Heilbrun.
Overall, great read.
--Anjelica MacGregor
Vanessa I find your article very interesting, I wrote on a similar topic. The constraints on women from then and now. You said that “the limitations placed on women in society forces them to take on a particular role in creating their own unique style of writing, perceiving themselves differently from that of men.” I couldn’t agree with you more. I actually also argued the effects of modern societies effect on women’s agency. Like you said, magazines like Self, and women like Oprah are positive women rhetorical agents. But now that the social norm of women is evolving rapidly; is it going in a progressive way? Younger women are looking up to celebrity figures more than actually positively influential rhetors. Helibrun might have thought that women will never gain power, but clearly she was wrong. Celebrities are able to effect a culture in a huge way. Now with social media being a vast as it is, women follow trends that these artist do. You definitely hit a lot of strong points from both Campbell’s theory and Heilbrun’s theory. I feel like you blog could definitely be expanded into a full journal.
ReplyDeleteGreat job.