If we turn from these useful theoretical mappings to the critical practice
they chart we begin to understand the accomplishments of feminist criticism and
how much there is in this tradition to be learned from and to be taught to our
students, thus contributing to the continuation of successful efforts. There is very
Iitde objection to the introduction of women writers in foreign literatures
syllabi. The problem is slighdy more perceptible in Brazilian literature where the
kind of arguments reported in Anglo-American feminist criticism can crop up:
why not teach the old great male writer’s canon? It is precisely at this point that
feminist theory can help clarify the terms of the argument, demonstrating the
power structures that really operate in canon formation. But on the whole, and
judging by twenty years of practice, I would say that Brazilian universities tend
to be more open to change than American or British universities. The reasons
for this remain to be analyzed: maybe the leftist leaning of most Brazilian
intellectuals is part of the explanation, or, the grimmer prospect, this could
simply be a case of society not putting any pressure on academic activities,
viewed as alien to concrete social issues.
Whatever the case may be, in the concrete classroom or postgraduate
seminar situation, we have to turn to an examination of the socio-political
oudook informing those descriptions of feminist criticism, its objects and aims.
It is at this point that we begin to doubt their ability to help bring about a
situation in which they will no longer be necessary. Or, in other words, when we
turn from the question of‘what to do’ to the other necessary question to be
directed to any avowedly committed theory of ‘why we do it’ we begin to
establish some grounds for dissension.
Both Kolodny,s and Stimpson’s positions presuppose the existence of a
democratic society where all we need is to learn and teach each other that all
voices should be equally heard and valued.This is hardly tenable in the American
context. In Brazil, where inequality is the rule, this is outright idealistic. Stimpson
ends her essay by claiming feminist criticism should take into account the
‘multiplicity of tongues and discourses’ and she approvingly quotes Mary
Jacobus’s contention that feminist criticism should be a movement, ‘a getting
together, and getting across... its itinerary incomplete, its destination
deferred,(267). Similarly, Kolodny believes that feminists should firmly side with
pluralists and concludes that ‘our task is to initiate nothing less than a playful
pluralism, responsive to the possibilities of multiple critical schools and methods,
but captive of none...’(161).
Since she is not a naive reader or critic, Kolodny concedes there might
be some difficulty in retaining this pluralist stance: ‘The very idea of pluralism
seems to threaten a kind of chaos for the future of literary inquiry while at the
same time it seems to deny the hope of establishing some basic conceptual model
which can organize all data - the hope that always begins any analytical exercise’
(161).
177