Opportunities to convey one’s ideas to society through literature are effective tools that allow not only leaving a personal mark on history but also indicating an individual position on a specific topic or issue. However, when taking into account modern social norms and foundations, not all the categories of the population can count on such a privilege. In particular, out about women and their ambiguous possibilities to express and declare themselves through autobiographical literature. As a basis for the analysis, Felman’s arguments are cited that female inability to express personal experiences openly is a characteristic feature of modern society (344). Although the author’s opinion is straightforward and affects all women without exception, her idea of the importance of self-consciousness expressed in an autobiographical form deserves attention as a problem raised due to public ignorance.
The presented idea of the significance of expressing women’s individual views in literature is reflected in modern feminist theories. For instance, according to Swank and Fahs, the consciousness of this class “functions as the ideas that lead to collective gender rebellions” (3). In other words, feminist ideas are initially opposed to generally accepted norms of social interaction and male dominance. As Felman argues, women have the right to count on the freedom of expression of personal ideas not only in addresses to one another but also in the public environment, in particular, in literature (343). This call is objective because, while taking into account the author’s words that women cannot count on objective criticism of their creativity, gender inequality can be traced directly (Felman 344). However, certain aspects are not thoroughly disclosed to confirm the objectivity of the proposed reasons comprehensively.
The description of the impossibility of expressing a personal position in an autobiographical form is a limited thesis. Felman links this gap to gender inequality and defines “our sexual difference and our autobiography as missing” (344). Nevertheless, from the standpoint of equality, creative expression is unlikely to have boundaries, and if desired, people can present their personal opinions differently. Moreover, at the time of the publication of this article, information technology had already been sufficiently advanced to be used as a means of promoting reading for women and about women. Therefore, the emphasis on the problem of the impossibility of expressing female views in autobiographies is rather the author’s subjective position, which, nevertheless, is possible in the context of censorship in printed literature.
At the same time, this approach reveals the proposed problem in detail. Swank and Fahs note that any manifestation of feminist consciousness is associated with movements for rights (5). In this regard, Felman’s ability to build an argument on the idea of limited participation in the literary sphere allows drawing attention not only to this issue but also to the entire aspect of gender inequality in general. Therefore, addressing the problem carries significance as a call to pay attention to the existing democratic gaps in society.
The reading considered is valuable in the context of an opportunity to evaluate the author’s position on the indicated problem and its manifestations in relation to an individually selected environment. To develop Felman’s ideas, more attention could be paid to assessing the existing female autobiographical works and analyzing their message and background. Studying these aspects can help confirm or, conversely, refute the author’s thoughts concerning the impossibility of expressing a personal position in such prose.
Works Cited
Felman, Shoshana. “What Does a Woman Want? Reading and Sexual Difference.” Feminist Literary Theory: A Reader, 10th ed., edited by Mary Eagleton, John Wiley & Sons, 2010, pp. 343-346.
Swank, Eric, and Breanne Fahs. “Understanding Feminist Activism Among Women: Resources, Consciousness, and Social Networks.” Socius, vol. 3, 2017, pp. 1-9.