Embodied Pedagogies: Femininity, Diversity, and Community in Anthologies of Women's Writing, 1836–2009

IF 0.2 3区 文学 0 LITERATURE, AMERICAN
LEGACY Pub Date : 2009-06-01 DOI:10.1353/leg.2009.a317060
Karen L. Kilcup
{"title":"Embodied Pedagogies: Femininity, Diversity, and Community in Anthologies of Women's Writing, 1836–2009","authors":"Karen L. Kilcup","doi":"10.1353/leg.2009.a317060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With the production of several new collections of American women's writing, a timely moment has arrived to appraise the more than 150-year history of such projects and, in particular, to inquire how that history may have informed new work. The revolution in technology, particularly the development of the Internet and Google Books, has, from one perspective, fostered ease in anthologizing: More material is more available to more people more cheaply than ever before. (1) However, the plenitude of texts presents formidable challenges of conceptual understanding and selection for readers and instructors. Although physical research may now seem antiquated, we can only begin to imagine the effort required to compile the first anthologies of American women's writing, yet we should look to these groundbreaking efforts to understand current projects and the work remaining for their successors. What were editors' goals? How did they embody \"the pressures [that] immediate political and cultural ideologies ... exerted on the formations and re-formations of the American canon\" (Gould 306)? How did they conceive their readerships, a distinction bearing heavily on the production, reception, and, ultimately, reputation and durability of these publications? My own entry into the anthology business--a deliberate word--was accidental and fortuitous. (2) Working in an \"old\" English university in the early 1990s, and dissatisfied with the limited availability of texts by American women writers, like so many feminist precursors, I created photocopied course packs. Lunching with my colleague Angela Leighton one day, I learned of her work on Victorian Women Poets; Angela suggested that I write a proposal for an American project and send it to Blackwell. I had no idea what I was in for. A work of love--and expensive, both in time and resources--Nineteenth-Century American Women Writers consumed the greater part of four years, including a summer at Yale's libraries in pre-air-conditioned 100-degree heat. Friends and colleagues, especially senior colleagues, reacted to a snail-mailed questionnaire with astonishing generosity and kindness, inspiring in me courage to read thousands of texts by hundreds of authors. I photocopied only a tiny proportion of what I read, but the unused materials alone fill a four-drawer filing cabinet gathering dust in my mother's barn. For the most part, anthology editing in the last several decades has been thankless, both financially and professionally unrewarding, especially for editors of American women's and other \"outsider\" writing, which has required decades of scholarship to comprehend, appreciate, and explain. As Jeffrey R. Di Leo observes, anthologies are still \"second-class citizens of the academic world\" (\"Analyzing\" 10), ostensibly fostering superficial textual understandings and eliminating challenging materials. (3) As I have demonstrated in an earlier essay, selection criteria vary widely, with changing emphases on excellence, representativeness/comprehensiveness (which can also signify diversity), and interest--all debatable characteristics (Kilcup, \"Poetry\" 113). But as Paul Lauter has argued, a focus merely on traditional aesthetics, including genre, militates against ethnic writers (\"Taking\" 19-20); we could say the same of working-class, multilingual, imprisoned, and otherwise outsidered writers. (4) Despite their putatively inferior status, anthologies dramatically impact canon formation. (5) Collections of traditionally minoritized or excluded voices, including those of women--ostensibly special interest topics--pressure editors of general anthologies to transform and broaden their offerings, as they have done especially in the last twenty years, when such volumes have become primary texts in university literature survey courses populated by many non-majors. Although specialist anthologies may not appear directly on syllabi, they exert a cumulative effect, as we have seen first with the emergence of the Heath Anthology of American Literature and the substantial, compensatory revisions of the Norton Anthology. …","PeriodicalId":42944,"journal":{"name":"LEGACY","volume":"26 1","pages":"299 - 328"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2009-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LEGACY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/leg.2009.a317060","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, AMERICAN","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

With the production of several new collections of American women's writing, a timely moment has arrived to appraise the more than 150-year history of such projects and, in particular, to inquire how that history may have informed new work. The revolution in technology, particularly the development of the Internet and Google Books, has, from one perspective, fostered ease in anthologizing: More material is more available to more people more cheaply than ever before. (1) However, the plenitude of texts presents formidable challenges of conceptual understanding and selection for readers and instructors. Although physical research may now seem antiquated, we can only begin to imagine the effort required to compile the first anthologies of American women's writing, yet we should look to these groundbreaking efforts to understand current projects and the work remaining for their successors. What were editors' goals? How did they embody "the pressures [that] immediate political and cultural ideologies ... exerted on the formations and re-formations of the American canon" (Gould 306)? How did they conceive their readerships, a distinction bearing heavily on the production, reception, and, ultimately, reputation and durability of these publications? My own entry into the anthology business--a deliberate word--was accidental and fortuitous. (2) Working in an "old" English university in the early 1990s, and dissatisfied with the limited availability of texts by American women writers, like so many feminist precursors, I created photocopied course packs. Lunching with my colleague Angela Leighton one day, I learned of her work on Victorian Women Poets; Angela suggested that I write a proposal for an American project and send it to Blackwell. I had no idea what I was in for. A work of love--and expensive, both in time and resources--Nineteenth-Century American Women Writers consumed the greater part of four years, including a summer at Yale's libraries in pre-air-conditioned 100-degree heat. Friends and colleagues, especially senior colleagues, reacted to a snail-mailed questionnaire with astonishing generosity and kindness, inspiring in me courage to read thousands of texts by hundreds of authors. I photocopied only a tiny proportion of what I read, but the unused materials alone fill a four-drawer filing cabinet gathering dust in my mother's barn. For the most part, anthology editing in the last several decades has been thankless, both financially and professionally unrewarding, especially for editors of American women's and other "outsider" writing, which has required decades of scholarship to comprehend, appreciate, and explain. As Jeffrey R. Di Leo observes, anthologies are still "second-class citizens of the academic world" ("Analyzing" 10), ostensibly fostering superficial textual understandings and eliminating challenging materials. (3) As I have demonstrated in an earlier essay, selection criteria vary widely, with changing emphases on excellence, representativeness/comprehensiveness (which can also signify diversity), and interest--all debatable characteristics (Kilcup, "Poetry" 113). But as Paul Lauter has argued, a focus merely on traditional aesthetics, including genre, militates against ethnic writers ("Taking" 19-20); we could say the same of working-class, multilingual, imprisoned, and otherwise outsidered writers. (4) Despite their putatively inferior status, anthologies dramatically impact canon formation. (5) Collections of traditionally minoritized or excluded voices, including those of women--ostensibly special interest topics--pressure editors of general anthologies to transform and broaden their offerings, as they have done especially in the last twenty years, when such volumes have become primary texts in university literature survey courses populated by many non-majors. Although specialist anthologies may not appear directly on syllabi, they exert a cumulative effect, as we have seen first with the emergence of the Heath Anthology of American Literature and the substantial, compensatory revisions of the Norton Anthology. …
体现教学法:女性写作选集中的女性气质、多样性和社群,1836-2009
随着几部新的美国女性写作作品集的问世,一个及时的时机到来了,我们可以对这类项目150多年的历史进行评估,尤其是探究这段历史如何影响了新作品。从一个角度来看,技术革命,尤其是互联网和谷歌Books的发展,促进了选集的便捷性:更多的材料可以比以往任何时候都更便宜地提供给更多的人。(1)然而,丰富的文本对读者和教师的概念理解和选择提出了巨大的挑战。虽然物理研究现在看起来已经过时了,但我们只能开始想象汇编第一批美国女性写作选集所需要的努力,然而我们应该看到这些开创性的努力,以了解当前的项目和留给他们的继任者的工作。编辑的目标是什么?它们是如何体现“当下政治和文化意识形态的压力……施加于美国正典的形成和重新形成”(古尔德306)?他们是如何构思自己的读者群体的?这一区别在很大程度上取决于这些出版物的生产、接受程度,以及最终的声誉和持久性。我自己进入选集行业——这是一个有意为之的词——是偶然和偶然的。(2) 20世纪90年代初,我在一所“老”英国大学工作,对美国女作家的作品(像许多女权主义先驱一样)有限的可用性感到不满,于是我制作了影印的课程包。有一天,我和同事安吉拉·雷顿(Angela Leighton)共进午餐,我了解到她对维多利亚时代女性诗人的研究;安吉拉建议我为一个美国项目写一份建议书,然后寄给布莱克威尔。我不知道我要面对什么。《19世纪美国女作家》是一部充满爱的作品,在时间和资源上都很昂贵,她花了四年的大部分时间,包括在耶鲁大学图书馆里度过的一个夏天,那里有100华氏度的空调。朋友和同事,尤其是资深同事,以惊人的慷慨和善意回应了一份蜗牛邮寄的问卷,激励我有勇气阅读数百位作者的数千篇文章。我只复印了我读过的一小部分,但那些没用过的材料填满了我母亲谷仓里一个积满灰尘的四抽屉文件柜。在过去的几十年里,选集编辑在很大程度上是吃力不讨好的,无论是经济上还是职业上都没有回报,尤其是对美国妇女和其他“局外人”写作的编辑来说,这需要几十年的学术才能理解、欣赏和解释。正如Jeffrey R. Di Leo所观察到的,选集仍然是“学术界的二等公民”(“分析”10),表面上促进了肤浅的文本理解,并消除了具有挑战性的材料。(3)正如我在之前的一篇文章中所展示的那样,选择标准差异很大,对卓越、代表性/全面性(这也意味着多样性)和兴趣的强调不断变化——所有这些都是有争议的特征(基尔cup,“诗歌”113)。但正如保罗·劳特(Paul Lauter)所说,仅仅关注传统美学,包括体裁,不利于少数民族作家(《掠取》(Taking) 19-20页);对于工人阶级的、说多种语言的、被监禁的以及其他被排斥在外的作家,我们也可以说同样的话。(4)尽管人们认为选集的地位较低,但选集对正典的形成产生了巨大的影响。(5)传统上被少数人或被排斥的声音,包括女性的声音——表面上是特别感兴趣的话题——迫使普通选集的编辑改变和扩大他们的内容,就像他们在过去二十年所做的那样,当这些卷已经成为大学文学调查课程的主要文本时,许多非专业的人都参加了。虽然专业选集可能不会直接出现在教学大纲上,但它们会产生累积效应,正如我们首先看到的《希思美国文学选集》和《诺顿选集》的实质性补偿性修订。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
LEGACY
LEGACY LITERATURE, AMERICAN-
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书