Sedwick's discussion of a female continuum which "links lesbianism to the other forms of women's attention to women" (1685) and her conclusion that this unity 'between women loving women and women promoting the interests of women'" benefited all women(1685) contrasted with the patriarchal continuum spelled out by Hartmann where males come together "through hierarchal, establish or create interdependence and solidarity among men that enable them to dominate women" (1685).
Lilly's essay "The Love Poetry of the First World War" (Barry,144) suggests, another male continuum within the intense emotional experience of war. This becomes a literary outlet for the exploration of men loving men with "a frequent motif in these poems is to see 'same-sex love as superior to men's love for women'" (145).
The military, especially during war is seen as representing all that is "a collective symbol of the controlled virility and power of the society itself"(145). With the advent of the DADT policy initiated by the Clinton administration, we could have it both ways.
I am finally beginning to appreciate post-structuralism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see this as another example of women tending to build stable community through shared power, and men tending to build temporary community for the purpose of acquiring personal power. The military will never be about power sharing--at least not any time in the forseeable future. Laws and policy might be made, but it will be generations before attitudes reflect those legislations. Trickle-down is a lengthly process.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the center in structuralism is built around the bigoted patriarchy that is intent on maintaining the status quo. I want to know what is so great about the way that things are! According to the HRC, 13,000 GLBT men and women have been booted from the military since that policy began, and it's still legal in 29 states to fire someone for being homosexual. Our society is so backward it's embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteI think that this theory, this way of looking at literature in a way that pulls us further from the structures that keep us crouched in their tiny boxes, is just what we need as scholars in order to begin looking for ways of change through writing.
Excellent tie-in for the homosocial connections between men at war vs. the modern Sedgwick example of Reagan & Helms! It seems that there must be a definitive context (ex., during the war only) for men to exist in the continuum, but it is unnecessary for women. Does this suggest that men connect with men during "elevated" events while women are relegated to mundane settings?
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I always found Adrienne Rich's notion of the lesbian continuum to be way to coop advances made on behalf of feminists in order to bring greater visibility (and therefore greater legitimacy) to lesbians. It seems to me that if lesbianism is viewed as legitimate in its own right, the continuum is not only unnecessary, but undermines the value of lesbian relationships by ranking them on a sliding scale of (platonic to sexual) affection.