Understanding the Interpretation of Bakhtin’s Ideas in Feminist Theory

In recent years, M. Bakhtin's concepts have garnered increasing recognition in Western academic circles, finding applications in diverse fields ranging from linguistics to psychiatry. This belated recognition might appear peculiar without an appreciation for the particular historical context in which Bakhtin's ideas were introduced to the West. Their initial introduction was deeply intertwined with the evolution of feminist theory, feminist criticism, and discussions surrounding gender identity. Notably, the first English rendition of some of Bakhtin's thoughts appeared in Julia Kristeva's “Word, Dialogue and Novel” in 1966, a seminal work in feminist theory. Subsequent to this introduction, for over two decades, Bakhtinian concepts such as “voice”, “dialogism”, “hybrid construction”, “heteroglossia”, and “carnival” were predominantly employed in feminist interpretations by renowned feminist theorists, including J. Kristeva, W. Booth, and D. Bauer. This persisted even after direct translations of Bakhtin's works emerged in the 1980s. For many, this association might appear unexpected and even counterintuitive, given that Bakhtin himself did not address feminist concerns or gender topics directly, nor did he reference female authors in his literary critiques. In this article, I will examine the feminist appropriation of central Bakhtinian notions and explore how Bakhtin's theory offers a fertile ground for feminist interpretive strategies. I further contend that while this feminist embrace significantly propelled the spread of Bakhtinian concepts in the West, it simultaneously restricted their broader adoption by employing them as a “Bakhtinian toolkit” to address theoretical deficiencies and circumvent challenges in feminist theory. Often, this led to a simplistic and reductive understanding of Bakhtinian ideas. Additionally, I posit that this issue stems from a core challenge illuminated by Bakhtin's own work: translations and interpretations of the same ideas across languages are not equivalent, as they are influenced by distinct dialogic systems.