1987•Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooksRequires access

Woman’s Art as Servant of Patriarchy: the Vision of Aurora Leigh

Deirdre David

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

One of the most vexed questions raised by feminist literary criticism is the degree to which women writers may be said to possess a voice of their own. Reduced to its fundamentals, the question is twofold: is there such a thing as a women’s language, and if there is, what is the relationship between that language and the one employed by those who, in one way or another, have possessed the social and cultural power to create the language against which, and within which, women may be said to define their own? If women writers have worked within the context of male-dominated systems of discourse, then how is women’s discourse to be defined? Is it, for example, to be discovered in symbolic forms which betray, even in the texts most consciously propitiative of male authority, an unconscious and angry subversion of dominant linguistic modes? These are large, and at this developed point in feminist literary criticism, rather obvious questions, yet they are clearly related to my examination of the ways in which women intellectuals in the Victorian period create and understand their own literary and intellectual performances.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

One of the most vexed questions raised by feminist literary criticism is the degree to which women writers may be said to possess a voice of their own. Reduced to its fundamentals, the question is twofold: is there such a thing as a women’s language, and if there is, what is the relationship between that language and the one employed by those who, in one way or another, have possessed the social and cultural power to create the language against which, and within which, women may be said to define their own? If women writers have worked within the context of male-dominated systems of discourse, then how is women’s discourse to be defined? Is it, for example, to be discovered in symbolic forms which betray, even in the texts most consciously propitiative of male authority, an unconscious and angry subversion of dominant linguistic modes? These are large, and at this developed point in feminist literary criticism, rather obvious questions, yet they are clearly related to my examination of the ways in which women intellectuals in the Victorian period create and understand their own literary and intellectual performances.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

One of the most vexed questions raised by feminist literary criticism is the degree to which women writers may be said to possess a voice of their own. Reduced to its fundamentals, the question is twofold: is there such a thing as a women’s language, and if there is, what is the relationship between that language and the one employed by those who, in one way or another, have possessed the social and cultural power to create the language against which, and within which, women may be said to define their own? If women writers have worked within the context of male-dominated systems of discourse, then how is women’s discourse to be defined? Is it, for example, to be discovered in symbolic forms which betray, even in the texts most consciously propitiative of male authority, an unconscious and angry subversion of dominant linguistic modes? These are large, and at this developed point in feminist literary criticism, rather obvious questions, yet they are clearly related to my examination of the ways in which women intellectuals in the Victorian period create and understand their own literary and intellectual performances.

Key concepts: Patriarchy, Subversion, Servant, Criticism, Literary criticism, Power (physics), Context (archaeology), Sociology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Woman’s Art as Servant of Patriarchy: the Vision of Aurora Leigh — Research Paper | ScholarLens