AFEA NEWS: Specters of Feminism in the Work of Joyce Carol Oates<\/p>\n
Joyce Carol Oates has not generally sought to promote either herself or her work as feminist. In non-fiction essays, such as \u201c(Woman) Writer: Theory and Practice,\u201d she has pointed out the inherent problem of aligning a writer\u2019s work with their gender. In the 1982 article \u201cStories That Define Me,\u201d Oates states, \u201cI am not a radical feminist.\u201d That is not to say that she disavows any adherence to feminism. Rather, she prefers to qualify herself as a feminist \u201cthat does not raise its voice\u201d and has been careful to qualify her feminist literary vision. In this article, she associates her more moderate feminist views with her childhood experience of attending a one-room country schoolhouse, where younger and weaker children of both genders were persecuted by the older and stronger ones: \u201cBut my feminism isn\u2019t radical, or cannot at any rate automatically define the masculine as an enemy, since the cruelest persecutions at that rural school house were reserved for an older classmate of mine, a boy who wore glasses.\u201d
\nAlthough Oates may not have raised her voice to promote her work as feminist, critics have not had the same qualms. Malcolm Bradbury has remarked that her work contains \u201cstrong feminist overtones\u201d (276). Greg Johnson, Oates\u2019s biographer, has written that \u201cthe dramatic trajectory of Oates\u2019s career, especially her amazing rise from an economically straitened childhood to her current position as one of the world\u2019s most eminent authors, suggests a feminist, literary version of the mythic pursuit and achievement of the American dream.\u201d The experimental novels of the 1980s have frequently been analyzed as feminist in approach. In a 1987 study, Eileen Teper Bender categorized A Bloodsmoor Romance (1982) as \u201ca rich feminist parody of the nineteenth-century conduct book\u201d (8). Perry Nodelman considers that in Bellefleur (1980), Oates revitalizes masculine form by combining it with a more feminine conception of time, something he refers to as Oates\u2019s \u201csense of unending.\u201d Gavin Cologne-Brookes, in his 2005 study, sees the late 1970s and 1980s as a transitional period for Oates, a phase of blatant parody and experimentation with genre which \u201calso reveals a new consciousness of gender that helps us to align Oates with other feminist revisionists\u201d (15).
\nIn the 1990s and early 2000s, some declared Oates\u2019s work to be entirely feminist in nature. Marilyn C. Wesley considers Oates\u2019s work to be built upon the notions of the \u201cfeminist unconscious\u201d and the \u201ctransgressive other\u201d character. Brenda Daly claims that Oates\u2019s overall vision is a feminist one (despite the fact that Oates\u2019s fiction does not always present strong, independent female characters) which poses itself in opposition to the patriarchal literary canon \u2013 through parody and experiments with literary conventions \u2013 and patriarchal conventions of society \u2013 by presenting traditional social hierarchies as unjust. For Daly, the final phase of Oates\u2019s feminist evolution is the period of \u201ccommunal authorship\u201d in the 1980s and early 1990s in which she began to \u201ccreate feminist communal narrators\u201d (xxiv). Ellen G. Friedman also chronicles a feminist evolution over the course of Oates\u2019s career, this time with regards to her treatment of masculine characters, especially father figures. Friedman outlines the way in which the relegation of fictional fathers to the periphery of Oates\u2019s narratives parallels the evolution of masculine cultural roles within society.
\nIn recent years, the gap between the author\u2019s self-confessed reluctance to be associated with feminist theory and the critics\u2019 appreciation of her gender politics seems to have narrowed as Oates\u2019s social media posts have often been unequivocally supportive of the feminist cause. Though she may still not be a \u201cradical\u201d feminist, it may no longer be true that she is a feminist who \u201cdoes not raise their voice.\u201d Her prolific tweets and retweets cover a wide variety of issues, of which feminism is one. In two randomly-selected extremely recent examples, Oates writes \u201cgood for feminism to acknowledge that female & male can be \u201cequal\u201d in all ways including shameless self-aggrandizement & hucksterism\u201d (1 January 2023) and facetiously comments \u201c(but we must not say that Marilyn Monroe was abused & exploited, that will be \u201coffensive\u201d to those who wish to remember her dancing in stilettos & smiling forever.)\u201d (30 December 2022). How to account for this social media production is an issue that has not yet been satisfactorily solved amongst scholars.
\nAs can be seen from this general overview of Oates\u2019s work and its critical reception through the lens of feminist studies, Oates\u2019s critics, as well as the author herself, have often been tempted to use the word \u201cfeminism,\u201d but they have failed to address its multifarious meanings and its gradual construction within Oates\u2019s work. The conference to be held in Aix-en-Provence will seek to explore this by reconsidering Oates\u2019s long writing career in relation to the various waves of feminisms and her very singular way of responding to feminisms in and through her work. We would like to invite participants in this event to build upon and update this established framework by looking into the notion of specters of feminism. The question is no longer simply whether Oates\u2019s work exhibits feminist characteristics and treats feminist themes, but rather to examine whether or not notions related to feminism are present in perhaps less obvious ways and how her current outspokenness about these issues reflects back upon some, if not all, of her fictional texts. We invite paper proposals on any aspect of specters of feminism in Joyce Carol Oates\u2019s work, including, but not limited to, those listed below:<\/p>\n
\u00b7 How is Joyce Carol Oates\u2019s work haunted by feminist ideas, in which she is well-versed, though she does not want her fiction to be read as militant or serving the cause? (Wild Nights!; The Falls; Mudwoman; Black Dahlia & White Rose)
\n\u00b7 How are feminist discourses passed on through her work, in intended as well as perhaps unintended ways? (Rape: A Love Story; The Gravedigger\u2019s Daughter; Middle Age: A Romance)
\n\u00b7 Are any of her characters constructed on ideas on feminism, or in reaction to ideas on feminism? (Blonde; Black Water; My Sister, My Love; Faithless: Tales of Transgression)
\n\u00b7 Do her transgressive norm-breaking female characters do any disservice to the advancement of feminism? (The Female of the Species, Mudwoman, The Tattooed Girl)
\n\u00b7 Is there something inherently feminine\/feminist about Oates\u2019s style? Particularly the elliptical, repetitive style of some of her mature work? (Beasts, I Am No One You Know, Little Bird of Heaven)
\n\u00b7 Does Oates\u2019s non-fiction writing shore up a particularly feminist vision of her artistic aesthetic? (essays on fellow woman writers; essays such as \u201c(Woman) Writer: Theory and Practice\u201d and \u201cPseudonymous Selves\u201d)
\n\u00b7 It might also be interesting to discuss whether the feminist qualities of Oates\u2019s work mentioned above have remained stable throughout her career, or whether there have been additional evolutions of note.<\/p>\n
Short proposals of approximately 300 words should be submitted by June 30, 2023. Please send your proposals to both Nicolas Boileau and Tanya Tromble-Giraud: nicolas.boileau@univ-amu.fr, tanya.giraud@univ-amu.fr<\/p>\n
Source: Tanya Tromble-Giraud <tanya.tromble@gmail.com><\/p>\n