I’ve honestly never been much acquainted with feminism. Nevertheless, I am beginning to understand some facets of it. For one thing, I’m noticing in different areas of study that one task some feminists take it upon themselves to accomplish is that of trying to uncover voices of women in history that have been drowned out by male-dominated societies. This search takes place in literature, in history, in religion, and in rhetoric.
It is interesting that the texts we read this week highlighted Aspasia and Sappho, though we have no texts from Aspasia and Sappho is primarily classified as a poet. It seems they had influence in rhetoric; for instance, Aspasia is often given credit for one of Pericles’ speeches and Socrates acknowledges her hand in some of his arguments. But here I feel that I must agree at least a little bit with Steve when he finds it troublesome that feminists sometimes seem to make past women more influential than they were. How much influence did either of these women really have? Are we trying too hard (belatedly) to give them a hand in the formation of classical rhetoric?
Though I am no rhetoric scholar, it seems from the evidence given that it would be a stretch to say that Sappho and Aspasia were powerful figures in the history of rhetoric. But does that make it less important to study them? I don’t think so. It is difficult to have influence in a hostile climate; even a great mind might not be appreciated in those circumstances.
These women are indeed significant in the history of rhetoric, partly because they are examples of women who might have been more influential in a less chauvinistic environment. And part of looking at this section of history is being honest with ourselves and seeing this past for what it really was—imbalanced—instead of trying to change it.
1 comment:
Who Writes History: Nietzsche vs. Eliot
I entirely understand your and Steve's critique of those who would change the historical record. Nevertheless, I would like to try to get both of you to think about the whole problem differently than the way you seem to be envisioning it. Here's what I mean: when you say that we should be cautious about claiming someone had more influence than they actually did or about trying to change history rather than look at it as imbalanced (and accept the way it was), I think you are either assuming that 1) the historical record or a literary canon are (a la T. S. Eliot) impersonal forces, the "tradition," and just kind of fall into place on their own and we just have to sort of accept however it ends up or 2) that even if there is an element of personal decision involved, the decisions have already been made and we can't change them now. Keep in mind that the historical record, and any canon of "great texts" or "authors," is always changing and it changes as a result of the political power of those who make decisions and can convince others to support these decisions. Shakespeare was not frequently even read until the Romantics revived him in the early 1800s. Likewise, accounts of historical events are always changing, not just as a result of more information being discovered, but also as a result of a prioritizing, i.e. not so much decisions about the facts as decisions about what aspects of an historical event should be highlighted and which ones put in the background or even deleted. The point is, if it is politically useful to reclaim Sappho and Aspasia and to claim they are influential, then why not do it? If it is true that any account of history is the result of politically motivated decisions by someone, somewhere, then to criticize feminists for wanting in on this game is to buy into those who are doing the same thing (making politically motivated) decisions about the canon and history but trying to claim that these decisions are made by some Eliotesque transcendental force called "tradition."
Post a Comment