Showing posts with label compulsory heterosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label compulsory heterosexuality. Show all posts

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Paper Proposal

The assignment from Dr. Logan:


Call for Papers!  LIT 6216:  Unruly Women in Early American Literature.

The organizers of the LIT 6216 Scholars Group announce a call for papers to be presented at its final graduate student conference on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 from 7-9:50 p.m.  The conference will explore representations of women as transgressive or unruly; “unruly” is understood in a broad sense in the context of early American gender norms.  Topics might include women whose experiences were out of the ordinary (captivity, travel, etc.), women who broke laws or defied dominant cultural mores and/or values, cross-dressing women, etc.  Exploration of different textual forms  is welcome, including sentimental or historical novels, speeches, conversion narratives, crime and execution narratives,  short fiction, autobiography (including diaries memoirs, journals), biography, letters, poetry, etc.  Papers should engage with the scholarly conversation in early American literary studies, including a knowledge of the historical and cultural context in which the text was produced.   Please send questions and/or submit your abstract to Dr. Lisa M. Logan by 10/22/10.

Conference format:  Papers for this conference will be circulated beforehand and discussed (rather than read) at the conference meeting. 

See Research Project Components for more details.


[Submitted 24 October 2010]

Jay Jay Stroup

Graduate Student, UCF
jayjaystroup@knights.ucf.edu


Bonds of Intimacy: 
Locating the Female Homosocial & Lesbian Continuum in Milcah Martha Moore’s Book

The modern critical edition of Milcah Martha Moore’s Book, published in 1997, exposes previously ignored women’s writing in early American literature.  Moore’s commonplace book, an unpublished, non-traditional format, is now accessible to all scholars.  While Catherine Blecki and Karin Wulf provide invaluable scholarship regarding the culture of the Philadelphia, as well as manuscript and print culture during the Revolutionary era, there is no mention of Queer or Feminist theory.  The possibility of locating the female homosocial and lesbian continuum in MMMB is hinted at through Blecki’s and Wulf’s multiple references to female friendship, but not made explicit.  It is my intent to strengthen these references through the use of Queer and Feminist theories, and explore the physical object of Moore’s commonplace book as a site of the female homosocial and lesbian continuum in early American literature.     

Moore’s commonplace book simultaneously preserves the work of Susanna Wright, Hannah Griffitts, and Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson and establishes a female homosocial presence through the dominance of female authorship within the text.  Out of the one hundred and twenty six entries, sixty three of them are authored by Griffitts (exactly fifty percent of the entries), twenty five are authored by Wright, and three by Graeme Fergusson.  Though other themes are represented, the text opens with “An Essay on Friendship” by Griffitts, thereby signaling the tone and theme of the work as a whole.  Through the use of Susan Stabile’s scholarship on the relationship between memory and the archive, and commonplacing as a distinctly feminized art I argue that not only does the text operate on the lesbian continuum, it also transgresses normative female behavior for colonial America in terms of reading and authorship.  I am relying on the scholarship of Kevin J. Hayes (A Colonial Woman’s Bookshelf) to provide evidence of normative and transgressive reading experiences of women during colonial America.   

Adrienne Rich’s "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" highlights the way in which behavior not ascribing to strict hetero-normative standards is punished, the concept of which is transferable to MMMB: Griffitts and Wright refuse to marry, Moore is thrown out of the Society of Friends for marriage to a cousin, and Graeme Fergusson’s secret marriage to a Tory ruins her economically, socially, and politically.  While Carroll Smith-Rosenberg’s "The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations between Women in Nineteenth-Century America" deals with literature and behavior of the 1800s, there are markers of the female homosocial and lesbian continuum that are also applicable to MMMB, specifically in the entries dealing with female friendship.  

By focusing the lens of Queer theory on a commonplace book from early American literature, strategies of defiance and non-compliance by women in regards to their sexuality, readership and authorship are brought to light.  It is the strategies of defiance contained within that classify MMMB as an unruly text, authored and edited by unruly women.  Re-identifying the commonplace book as a site of the female homosocial expands, rather than contracts, the possibilities for future scholarship.  This identification invites and encourages the co-mingling of other schools of theory – feminist, racial, cultural, historical, economical and more.  

Monday, October 11, 2010

Give Me All Your Lovin’

This postcard was sent to PostSecret, and posted on the site October 3, 2010 (I think, I’m pretty sure it was last week).  (An unofficial archive of the submitted secrets is hosted on Tumblr here).  As soon as I saw it, it reminded me of Adrienne Rich’s concept of compulsory heterosexuality.  And since today is National Coming Out Day, I thought it would be appropriate material for a blog post.  I have to wonder, are there lesbian and homosexual versions of Cosmopolitan magazine?  I honestly don’t know.



[click for a larger image]
On a slightly related note, check out this short film by Don Hertzfeldt of Bitter Films, titled “Ah, L’Amour.”






Crazy, right?  This film is begging to be examined through the lens of the female grotesque.  The women literally turn into absurd, caricaturized monsters that violently kill, dismember, stab, rip off skin, set on fire, and eat the man.  Their replies are composed of stereotypical feminist / male-hating rhetoric: “stop smothering me,” “I need my space,” “I just want to be friends,” “—“ (no verbal response, just a gunshot, and “no means no, you bastard.”  The fat woman is passed over and ignored, because she is fat, ugly and therefore not sexually appealing.  The last woman, upon hearing that the man has money, simply replies with “I love you!” insinuating that women are motivated by money, which implies prostitution.


That being said, I laughed my ass off the first time I saw this cartoon, probably at the Enzian’s Florida Film Festival back in high school.  They used to present Spike & Mike's Sick and Twisted Animation Festival at midnight showings.  Anyways, as I watched “Ah, L’Amour” before putting it on this page, I laughed again.  Does it make me a bad feminist that I laughed?  I personally don’t think so.  I just think of this cartoon as another text to be explored, examined, and cataloged.  For those not familiar with Hertzfeldt’s work, check out his other films on YouTube and provide yourself with some context - "Rejected" and "Billy's Balloon" are my favorites.  No subject matter is safe from ridicule and absurdity, and they’re all hysterically funny.  At least, in my opinion. 

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Quickie

This post will be a quickie, just two more definitions that are meant to help me better understand the Queer theory I’ll be using for my project.

Definition of lesbian continuum from The Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism:

A term introduced by Adrienne Rich in her essay on COMPULSORY HETEROSEXUALITY, lesbian continuum refers to the broad spectrum of intimate relations between women, from those involving the experience of or desire for genital sexuality, to mother-daughter relationships and female friendships, to ties of political solidarity – all of them “forms of primary intensity between and among women.”  Rich associates such bonds, within each woman’s life and throughout the course of history, with resistance to heterosexuality and male domination.  The concept is similar to what Carroll Smith-Rosenberg and Eve Sedgwick describe as “female homosocial” ties, including but not limited to explicitly lesbian ones.  It has been part of the feminist critical project to call attention to such ties as a theme in literary texts and as a pattern of influence among women writers.  See also HOMOSOCIAL, LESBIAN CRITICISM.

Rich, Adrienne.  “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.”  In Blood, Bread, and Poetry: Selected Prose 1979-1985.  New York: Norton, 1986.
Sedgwick, Eve.  Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire.  New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.
 

Smith-Rosenberg, Caroll.  “The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations Between Women in Nineteenth-Century America.”  In Disorderly Conduct: Visions of Gender in Victorian America.  New York: Knopf, 1985.

This definition is fascinating, and the use of the term broad spectrum reminds me of the Kinsey scale, a sliding scale of sexuality.  Specifically, it reminds me of the idea that the boundaries between heterosexuality and homosexuality are not necessarily solid and/or impenetrable. 

A point that I’m not sure I agree with is the idea that these feminine bonds are formed within the framework of “resistance” to heterosexuality and male domination.  Why does the lesbian continuum have to be pressed against a framework of resistance, instead of working independent of male domination?  Is this resistance to heterosexuality the only way to reveal these bonds between women?  If so, why? 

After reading this definition, I realize that I really, really, really need to read Rich’s article.  It is also pretty clear to me that Rich’s stance is rather radical.  The benefits of a radical stance is, in my opinion, that it breaks open the issue, tearing it open to a broad spectrum of responses.  I will also try to track down the reviews of Rich’s article, which should help gauge the reaction of her peers at the time of publication -which, incidentally, was in 1980, a year before I was born.