Untitled Page

Morality and Maidens: The Ethics of Women in Literature by Joanna Johnson Background Background for Teachers What is the literary "canon"? This depends on different contexts, but in principle it's an agreed (authoritative) list of works of literature that are renowned or considered to be great in some way. But the controversy and difficulty that arises here concerns the words "agreed" and "renowned" or "great." Who is doing the "agreeing" and by what criteria are the works "renowned"? Historically, the literary canon has included few women authors, and even though more recently many more have been included, the proportion of women is low. Why should this be so? One distinguished academic, Harold Bloom, who is a well-known authority on the literary canon, has compiled his own list, which can be seen in his book The Western Canon; The Books and School of the Age. Bloom's list does include women, but he argues that women are not (should not be) included just because they are women, for the sake of being "fair." The work has to be of equal merit. Recent schools of thought that aim to promote equality, such as feminism, he brands "the school of resentment." But what does "equal merit" mean, exactly? Critics who would like to see more women included might argue that it is men with male values that are judging these works. For example, most works in the canon are one of three genres: poetry, prose (novels/short stories) or drama. But women critics of the canon say that traditionally "female" discourses (ways of writing) might include journals, or letters, yet these forms of writing are less valued by the rules of the canon. Do women stand a fair chance of entering the canon if the criteria favor male writing? Only 34 out of 777 winners of the total Nobel prizes are women, and 11 out of 104 in literature. Bloom's canon list reads much the same. But as Bloom himself would say, great works need to be great on their own merit, not because of a cultural agenda. Here is a comment taken from the web, which sums up common opinion towards women writers: Although it isn't pc, the truth is that women writers as well as those of other cultures or ethnicity, cannot be included in that group of historically influential literature proposed by Bloom's canon. Reality is that the literature produced by 'white men' has been for most of history the only literature published, read, studied, analyzed, etc. It was the main influence on society in the past. It may not be 'right' but it is true. In the 20th and 21st centuries that is changing, slowly, but it is changing and the 'canon' for the future will be quite different than that of the past. (http://classiclit.about.com/b/2006/08/20/the-canon-western-literature-beyond.htm) But how much can this situation be changing, if evaluations of what gets into the canon are "male" ones? To what extent does the canon prescribe or define who has the power, and to what extent does it merely reflect it? There is no dispute that women are underrepresented in the canon (and for that matter, other minority groups), but why? Are women not as good as men at writing? Is it opportunity (or lack thereof)? Should we include more women using the same criteria, even if they don't match up, or should we reevaluate what we consider worthwhile in the canon? Are we evaluating the canon on male criteria? Should we rethink what kinds of values we place on books? For example, Hamlet has female figures, but they are peripheral to the main action-but we can still read their roles in certain ways-as merely peripheral, or we can assign more significance to them, also. Is great literature "outside" political agendas? The literature canon exists, according to academic Toril Moi, cited here from the Victorian Web, because "all ideas of a canon derive from the humanist belief that literature is an excellent instrument of education" and that the student becomes a better person by reading great works. "The great author is great because he (occasionally even she) has managed to convey an authentic vision of life." But, is the literary canon of "great literature" one whose "representative experience" one that is selected by male bourgeois critics, and as such transmits to future generations, rather than those deviant, unrepresentative experiences discoverable in much female, ethnic, and working-class writing." (www.victorianweb.org) What about novels that deal with "women's" issues, i.e., domestic spheres. Why is Little Women a "female" novel-is it just because it's about women, or are their issues universal? Conversely, a great play such as Hamlet is supposed to be universal, even though it's "about" a man, and women feature no less than men do in Little Women. Does continued inclusion in the Canon of women in inferior, or subservient, or oppressed roles (examples in the Canon might include the portrayal of Nora in Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House, even though at the end of the play Nora leaves, or Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter) somehow give credence to such unequal power relations? Isn't there a danger that students today will just dismiss such representation as being unbelieveable because it is "out of date," or do these works of literature deserve their place in the canon precisely because of what we can learn from them?

Morality and Maidens: The Ethics of Women in Literature

by Joanna Johnson

Background

Background for Teachers

What is the literary "canon"? This depends on different contexts, but in principle it's an agreed (authoritative) list of works of literature that are renowned or considered to be great in some way. But the controversy and difficulty that arises here concerns the words "agreed" and "renowned" or "great." Who is doing the "agreeing" and by what criteria are the works "renowned"?

Historically, the literary canon has included few women authors, and even though more recently many more have been included, the proportion of women is low. Why should this be so? One distinguished academic, Harold Bloom, who is a well-known authority on the literary canon, has compiled his own list, which can be seen in his book The Western Canon; The Books and School of the Age. Bloom's list does include women, but he argues that women are not (should not be) included just because they are women, for the sake of being "fair." The work has to be of equal merit. Recent schools of thought that aim to promote equality, such as feminism, he brands "the school of resentment."

But what does "equal merit" mean, exactly? Critics who would like to see more women included might argue that it is men with male values that are judging these works. For example, most works in the canon are one of three genres: poetry, prose (novels/short stories) or drama. But women critics of the canon say that traditionally "female" discourses (ways of writing) might include journals, or letters, yet these forms of writing are less valued by the rules of the canon. Do women stand a fair chance of entering the canon if the criteria favor male writing? Only 34 out of 777 winners of the total Nobel prizes are women, and 11 out of 104 in literature. Bloom's canon list reads much the same. But as Bloom himself would say, great works need to be great on their own merit, not because of a cultural agenda.

Here is a comment taken from the web, which sums up common opinion towards women writers:

Although it isn't pc, the truth is that women writers as well as those of other cultures or ethnicity, cannot be included in that group of historically influential literature proposed by Bloom's canon. Reality is that the literature produced by 'white men' has been for most of history the only literature published, read, studied, analyzed, etc. It was the main influence on society in the past. It may not be 'right' but it is true. In the 20th and 21st centuries that is changing, slowly, but it is changing and the 'canon' for the future will be quite different than that of the past. (http://classiclit.about.com/b/2006/08/20/the-canon-western-literature-beyond.htm)

But how much can this situation be changing, if evaluations of what gets into the canon are "male" ones?

To what extent does the canon prescribe or define who has the power, and to what extent does it merely reflect it?

There is no dispute that women are underrepresented in the canon (and for that matter, other minority groups), but why? Are women not as good as men at writing? Is it opportunity (or lack thereof)? Should we include more women using the same criteria, even if they don't match up, or should we reevaluate what we consider worthwhile in the canon?

Are we evaluating the canon on male criteria? Should we rethink what kinds of values we place on books? For example, Hamlet has female figures, but they are peripheral to the main action-but we can still read their roles in certain ways-as merely peripheral, or we can assign more significance to them, also.

Is great literature "outside" political agendas? The literature canon exists, according to academic Toril Moi, cited here from the Victorian Web, because "all ideas of a canon derive from the humanist belief that literature is an excellent instrument of education" and that the student becomes a better person by reading great works. "The great author is great because he (occasionally even she) has managed to convey an authentic vision of life." But, is the literary canon of "great literature" one whose "representative experience" one that is selected by male bourgeois critics, and as such transmits to future generations, rather than those deviant, unrepresentative experiences discoverable in much female, ethnic, and working-class writing." (www.victorianweb.org)

What about novels that deal with "women's" issues, i.e., domestic spheres. Why is Little Women a "female" novel-is it just because it's about women, or are their issues universal? Conversely, a great play such as Hamlet is supposed to be universal, even though it's "about" a man, and women feature no less than men do in Little Women.

Does continued inclusion in the Canon of women in inferior, or subservient, or oppressed roles (examples in the Canon might include the portrayal of Nora in Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House, even though at the end of the play Nora leaves, or Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter) somehow give credence to such unequal power relations? Isn't there a danger that students today will just dismiss such representation as being unbelieveable because it is "out of date," or do these works of literature deserve their place in the canon precisely because of what we can learn from them?