WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF

15 Pages·2015·0.86 MB·English

WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF ?
FEMINIST READINGS OF WOOLF*
TorilMoi
onabriefsurvey,the answer tothe question posedinthetitleofthispaper
wouldseemtobe:quiteafewfeministcritics.Itisnotofcoursesurprisingthat
many male critics have found Woolf a frivolous bohemian and negligible
Bloomsbury aesthete,buttherejectionofthegreatfeministwriterbysomanyof
herAnglo-American feminist daughtersrequires furtherexplanation.Adisting-
uished feminist critic like Elaine Showalter for example, signals her subtle
swerve away from Woolf by taking over yet changing Woolfs title. Under
Showalter's penARoom ofOne's OwnbecomesALiteratureofTheirOwn, asifshe
wished to indicate her problematic distancetothe traditionofwomenwriters
she lovingly uncovers inher book.
InthispaperIwillfirstexamine somenegativefeministresponsestoWoolf,
particularlyasexemplified inElaineShowalter'slong,closelyarguedchapteron
Woolf inA LiteratureofTheirOwn. Then I will indicate somepoints towards a
different, more positivefeminist reading ofWoolf, before finally summing up
the salient features ofthe feminist response toWoolfs writings.
The Rejection ofWoolf
ElaineShowalterdevotes mostofherchapteronWoolftoasurveyofWoolfs
biography and a discussion ofARoom ofOne's Own. The title ofher chapter,
"VirginiaWoolfand theflight intoandrogyny", isindicativeofhertreatmentof
Woolfstexts.She setsouttoprovethatfor Woolftheconceptofandrogynywas
a"myththathelped her evadeconfrontation withher own painful femaleness
*Part IfromSexuallTextual/Politics.FeministLiterary Theory Methuen(Forthcoming.
TORILMOI
and enabled her to choke and repress her anger and ambition" (264). For
Showalter, Woolfsgreatestsin againstfeminism isthat"eveninthe momentof
expressing feminist conflict, Woolf wanted to transcend it. Her wish for
experiencewasreally awishtoforgetexperience" (282). ShowalterseesWoolfs
insistenceonthe androgynous nature ofthe greatwriterasaflight awayfroma
"troubled feminism" (282) and locatesthe moment ofthisflight inRoom.
Showalter starts her discussionofthis essayby stating that:
Whatismoststrikingaboutthebooktextuallyandstructurally
is its strenuous charm, its playfulness, its conversational
surface . . . Thetechniques ofRoom arelikethoseofWoolfs
fiction, particularly Orlando, whichshewaswritingatthesame
time: repetition, exaggeration, parody, whimsy, andmultiple
viewpoint. On the other hand, despite its illusions ofspon-
taneity and intimacy, A Room of One's Own is an extremely
impersonalanddefensive book.
(282)
Showalter here givesthe impressionthatWoolfs use of"repetition, exaggera-
tion, parody, whimsy and multiple viewpoint" in Room only contributes to
creating animpressionof"strenuouscharm", andtherefore somehow distracts
attention fromthe message Woolfwantstoput forward inthe essay. Shethen
goesontoobjecttothe"impersonality"ofRoom,animpersonalitywhichsprings
fromthefactthatWoolfsuseofmanydifferentpersonaetovoicethe narrative
"I"resultsinfrequentlyrecurringshiftsandchangesofsubjectposition,leaving
thecriticnosingleunified position but amultiplicityofperspectivestograpple
with.Furthermore, Woolfrefuses torevealherownexperiencefullyand clearly,
butinsistsondisguisingorparodying itinthetext, obliging Showaltertopoint
out for usthat"Fernham" really is Newnham College, that"Oxbridge"really is
Cambridge andsoon.
The steadily shifting and multiple perspectives built up through these
techniques evidently exasperate Showalter, who endsup declaring that: "The
entire bookisteasing, sly,elusive inthisway; Woolfplayswithher audience,
refusing to be entirely serious, denying any earnest or subversive intention"
(284). For Showalter, the only way a feminist can read Room properly is by
remaining"detached fromitsnarrative strategies" (285); andifshe manages to
doso, she willsee thatRoom is inno way a.particularlyliberatingtext:
IfonecanseeARoomofOne'sOwnasadocumentintheliterary
history offemaleaestheticism, andremain detachedfromits
narrativestrategies,the conceptsofandrogynyandtheprivate
room are neither as liberating nor as obvious as they first
appear.Theyhaveadarker sidethatisthesphereofthe exile
and the eunuch.
(285)
VIRGINIA WOOLF
For Showalter, Woolfs writing continually escapes the critic'sperspective,
always refusing to be pinned down to one unifying angle of vision. This
elusiveness isthen interpreted asadenial ofauthentic feminist states ofmind,
namely the "angry and alienated ones" (287), and as a commitment to the
Bloomsbury idealofthe"separation ofpolitics and art" (288).This separationis
evident, Showalter thinks, inthe fact thatWoolf"avoided describing her own
experience" (294). Since this avoidance makes it impossible for Woolf to
produce really committed feminist work, Showalter naturally concludes that
ThreeGuineasas well asRoom fail abysmally asfeminist essays.
My ownview is that"remaining detached from the narrativestrategies" of
Room is equivalent to not reading it at all, and that Showalter's impatient
reactions to the essay are motivated much more by its formal and stylistic
featuresthan by the ideasshe extrapolates asits content.But in ordertoargue
this point more thoroughly, it is necessary first to take a closer look at the
theoreticalassumptions aboutthe relationshipbetween aesthetics and politics
which can bedetected inShowalter's chapter.
Showalter's theoreticalframework is nevermade explicit inA Literatureof
TheirOwn. From what we have seen so far, however, it wouldbe reasonable to
assumethatshe believes thattextsshould reflect the writer's experience, and
thatthemore authenticthe experienceisfelt to bebythe reader, the betterthe
text. Woolfsessays failtotransmitany direct experienceto thereader,accord-
ingto Showalter largely because Woolfdid not asanupper-class womanhave
thenecessarynegativeexperiencetoqualifyasagoodfeministwriter.'Showalter
implicitly defines effective feminist writing as work whichoffers a powerful
expression of personal experience in a social framework. According to this
definition, Woolfsessays can'tbe verypolitical either.Showalter's positionon
this point in fact strongly favours the form of writing commonly known as
critical or bourgeois realism, precluding any realrecognition of the value of
VirginiaWoolf's modernism.Itisnot acoincidence thattheonly majorliterary
theoretician Showalter alludes to in her chapter onWoolfisthe Marxist critic
Georg Lukacs (296). Given that Showalter herself can hardly be accused of
Marxist leanings,thisalliancemightstrikesome readers ascurious.ButLukacs
was the great champion of the realist novel, which he saw as the supreme
culmination ofthe narrativeform. For Lukacs, the greatrealists, like Balzac or
Tolstoy, succeeded in representing the totality of human life in its social
context, thus representing the fundamental truth of history: the "unbroken
upward evolution ofmankind" (Lukacs 3). Proclaiming himself a "proletarian
humanist", hestates that"theobject ofproletarian humanism isto reconstruct
the complete human personality and free it from the distortion and dis-
membermenttowhichithas beensubjected in classsociety" (5).Lukacs reads
the greatclassicaltraditioninart asthe attempttouphold this idealofthetotal
human being even under historical conditions which prevent its realization
outside art.
Inartthenecessarydegreeofobjectivityintherepresentation ofthehuman
subject,both asaprivateindividualandasapubliccitizen,canonlybe attained
through the representation oftypes. Lukacs states thatthe type is "a peculiar
TORILMOI
synthesiswhichorganicallybindstogetherthegeneral andtheparticularbothin
charactersand situations"(6). Hethengoesontomakethepointthat"truegreat
realism"is superiorto allotherart forms:
True greatrealism thusdepicts manandsociety as complete
entities, instead ofshowing merely oneor the otheroftheir
aspects.Measuredbythiscriterion,artistictrends determined
by either exclusive introspection or exclusive extraversion
equally impoverish and distort reality. Thusrealism meansa
three-dimensionality, an all-roundness, that endows with
independent life characters and humanrelationships.
Given this view of art, it follows that for Lukacs any art which exclusively
represents"thedivisionofthe complete humanpersonalityintoapublic anda
privatesector"contributetothe "mutilationoftheessence ofman"(9).Itiseasy
toseethatpreciselythispointofLukacs aestheticswouldhavegreatappealto
manyfeminists.The lackofatotalizingrepresentation ofboththeprivate and
the working life ofwomen is, for instance, Patricia Stubbs's main complaint
against all novels written bothbymenandwomeninthe period between 1880
and1920,andStubbsechoesShowalter'sobjectiontoWoolf's fictionwhenshe
states thatinWoolf"there is no coherent attempt to create new models, new
images ofwomen"andthat"thisfailuretocarryher feminismthrough intoher
novels seemstostem,atleastinpart,fromheraesthetictheories" (231).Butthe
demand fornew, realistic images of women takes it for granted that feminist
writers should wanttouse theformoftherealist novelinthe firstplace.Thus
bothStubbs and Showalterobjecttowhattheysee asWoolf's tendencytowrap
everything in a "haze ofsubjective perceptions" (Stubbs 231), thusperilously
echoing Lukacs' Stalinist views of the "reactionary" nature of modernist
writing.
Modernism, Lukacs held, signified an extreme form of the fragmented,
subjectivist, individualistpsychologism typicalofthe oppressed and exploited
humanbeingliving undercapitalism.2 For him, futurism aswellassurrealism,
JoyceaswellasProust,weredecadentandreactionarydescendants ofthegreat
anti-humanist, Nietzsche, andtheir art therefore lent itselfto exploitation by
fascism.Onlythroughastrong andcommittedbeliefinthevalues ofhumanism
couldartbecomeanefficientweaponinthestruggleagainstfascism.Itwasthis
emphasis onahumanist, totalizingaestheticswhichledLukacs toproclaim as
late as 1938 that the greatwriters ofthe first partofthe 20th century would
undoubtedly turnout tobeAnatole France, Romain Rolland andThomas and
HeinrichMann.
Showalter is not of course, like Lukacs, aproletarian humanist. Evenso,
thereisdetectablewithin her literarycriticismastrong,unquestionedbeliefin
thevalues,notofproletarianhumanism,butoftraditional bourgeoishumanism
of the liberal-individualist kind. Where Lukacs sees the harmonious
development ofthe "whole person" asstunted and frustratedbythe inhuman
VIRGINIA WOOLF
socialconditionsimposedby capitalism,Showalterexaminestheoppression of
women'spotentialbythe relentless sexism ofpatriarchalsociety.Itiscertainly
truethatLukacs nowhereseemsto show anyinterest in thespecificproblems of
women's difficulties in developing as whole and harmonious human beings
under patriarchy - no doubt he assumed that once communism had been
constructed, everybody, includingwomen, wouldbecome freebeings. But it is
equallytruethatShowalterin hercriticismtakesnointerestinthe necessitiesof
combattingcapitalism andfascism.Herinsistenceontheneedforpolitical artis
limitedtothe struggle against sexism. Thusshe gives Virginiawoolfnocredit
whatsoever for having elaborated a highly original theory of the relations
between sexism andfascism inThreeGuineas, nordoes she seem to approve of
Woolfsattempts tolinkfeminism to pacifism inthe same essay, ofwhichshe
merely comments that:
Three Guineas rings false. Its language, all too frequently, is
empty sloganeering and cliche: the stylistic tricks of
repetition, exaggeration, and rhetorical question, so amusing
inARoom ofOne'sOwn, become irritating andhysterical.
(295)
Showalter's humanist individualism surfaces clearly enough when she first
rejects Woolfforbeingtoo subjective,too passive and for wanting to flee her
femalegenderidentityby embracingtheideaofandrogyny, andthengoes onto
reproach DorisLessing for merging the "feminine ego" intoagreatercollective
consciousness inher later books(311). Bothwritersare similarly flawed: both
haveindifferentwaysrejectedthefundamentalneedfortheindividualtoadopt
aunified, wholeandintegratedself-identity.Both WoolfandLessing radically
undermine the notion of the unitary self,the central concept of individualist
humanism andonethus crucial to Showalter's feminism.
The Lukacsian line implicitely defended by Stubbs and Showalter holdsthat
politics is amatter ofthe rightcontent beingrepresented inthe correctrealist
form.VirginiaWoolfisunsuccessfulinStubbs'seyesbecauseshefailsto givea
"truthful pictureofwomen",apicturewhichwouldincludeequalemphasis on
the private and the public. Showalter for her part deplores Woolfs lack of
sensitivity to"theways inwhich[femaleexperience] hadmade [women] strong"
(285). Implicitinsuchcritical comments isthe assumption thatgoodfeminist
fiction wouldpresent truthful images ofstrong womenwith whichthe reader
may identify. Indeed it is this which Marcia Holly recommends in an article
entitled "Consciousness and Authenticity: Towards a Feminist Aesthetic".
According to Holly,thenew feminist aestheticmust move"awayfromformalist
criticismandinsistthatwejudgeby standardsofauthenticity"(40). Holly, again
quoting Lukacs, also argues that asfeminists:
Wearesearchingforatrulyrevolutionary art.Thecontentofa
givenpieceneednotbefeminist,ofcourse, forthatpiecetobe
TORIL MOI
humanist, and therefore revolutionary. Revolutionary art,is
thatwhichrootsouttheessentialsaboutthehumancondition
rather than perpetuating falseideologies.
(42)
For Holly, this kind of universalising humanist aesthetic leads straight to a
search for the representation ofstrong, powerful womeninliterature, asearch
reminiscent of The Soviet Writers' Congress' demand for socialist realism in
1934. Instead of strong, happy tractor drivers and factory workers, we are
presumablytodemand strong,happy womentractor drivers fromnow on. More
seriously, Hollymakesexplicitoneofthefundamentalrequirements ofthekind
of realism both she, Stubbs and Showalter seem to favour. She states that
"Realism first of all demands a consistent (noncontradictory) perception of
those issues (emotions, motivations, conflicts) to which the work has been
limited"(42).We areinotherwordsagainconfronted with Showalter's demand
foraunitaryvision,withherexasperationat Woolf's useofmultiple and shifting
viewpoints, with her text;the argument has come full circle.
Rescuing WoolfforFeminist Politics:
Some Points Towards anAlternative Reading
So far we have been discussing various aspects of the crypto-Lukacsian
perspective implicitinmuch contemporary feminist criticism. The major dis-
advantage of this approach is surely the factthatitproves itselfincapable of
appropriatingforfeminismtheworkofthe greatestBritishwomanwriterofthis
century, despite the fact thatWoolfnot only was anovelist of considerable
genius but adeclared feministanddedicatedreader ofotherwomen'swritings.
Itissurelyarguable thatiffeministcritics can'tcomeupwith apositivepolitical
andcritical appreciation ofWoolfs writing, the faultmay lie with theircritical
and theoretical perspectives, rather than with Woolfs texts. But do feminists
have an alternativetothis negativewayofreadingWoolf?HereImustembarras-
sedlyadmitthatIhavefoundnocriticaltextatallwhichtakesupthischallenge.3
Thereare however some partial, minorattempts at amorepositive appraisal of
her work, and Iwill refer tothese in this section of my paper. But my main
concernhere istoindicate some elementsofatheoreticalapproach whichwill
allow us to accomplish the urgent task at hand: the task ofrescuing Virginia
Woolffor feminist politics.
Showalter wantstheliterary texttoyieldthereaderacertainsecurity, afirm
perspectivefromwhichtojudgetheworld.Woolf, ontheotherhand,seemsto
practise what we mightnow call a"deconstructive" formofwriting, onewhich
engages and exposes the duplicitous nature of discourse. Inher own textual
practice, Woolfexposes theway inwhichlanguagerefuses to bepinneddownto
anunderlying essentialmeaning. Ifthe French philosopher Jacques Derrida is
right, language isstructuredasanendless deferralofmeaning, and any search
for or belief in essential and absolutely stable meaning, must therefore be
considered metaphysical. There is nofinal element, nofundamental unit, no
VIRGINIA WOOLF
transcendentalsignifier, whichismeaningfulinitselfandthusescapestheceaseless
interplayofdeferral anddifference.Thefreeplay ofsignifierswill neveryielda
final, unifiedmeaningwhichinturnmightexplainalltheothers.4 Itisinthelight
ofsuch textualandlinguistictheorythatwecan read Woolfsplayfulshifts and
changes ofperspectiveinboth herfictionand inRoom assomethingrathermore
than awilful desireto irritate the serious-minded feminist critic. Through her
conscious exploitation of the sportive, sensual nature of language, Woolf
rejects the metaphysical essentialism which forms the basis of patriarchal
ideology, which hails God, the Father or the phallus as its transcendental
signifyer.
But Woolfdoes more than practiseanon-essentialist form ofwriting. She
alsorevealsadeeply sceptical attitude totheclassical concept ofanessential
humanidentity. For whatcan this self-identical identity be ifallmeaning is a
ceaseless play of difference, ifabsence and not presence is the foundation of
meaning? The concept ofidentity isalso challengedby psychoanalytic theory,
whichWoolfundoubtedly knew. TheHogarth Presspublished thefirstEnglish
translationsofFreud'scentralworks, and when FreudarrivedinLondonin1939
VirginiaWoolfwenttosee him.Freud, weareintriguingly informed, gave hera
narcissus.ForWoolfasforFreud,theunconsciousdrivesanddesiresconstantly
exertpressureonourconsciousthoughtsandactions.Forthepsychoanalystthe
humansubjectisacomplex entity, ofwhichtheconscious mindisonly asmall
part. Once one has accepted this view of the subject, however, it becomes
impossibletoarguethatevenourconsciouswishesandfeelingsoriginatewithin
a unified self, since we can have no knowledge of the possibly unlimited
unconscious processes which shape our conscious throught. Conscious
thought, then, must be seen as the overdetermined manifestation of a
multiplicity ofstructureswhichintersect toproduce thatunstable constellation
the liberal humanists call the "self'. These structures encompass not only
unconscious sexual desires, and unconscious fears and phobias, but also
conflicting material, social, political and ideological factors of whichwe are
equallyunaware. It isthis highly complexnetworkofconflictingstructures,the
anti-humanist would argue, which produce the subject and its experiences,
ratherthan the other way round. This does not of course render individuals'
experiences inany sense illusory orinsignificant, but itdoes mean that such
experiencescannotbeunderstoodotherthanthroughthestudyoftheirmultiple
determinants - determinants ofwhich conscious thought is only one, anda
potentiallytreacherous oneatthat. Ifthesameapproach istakento theliterary
text, if follows that the search for a unified individual identity (or gender
identity) orindeed"textualidentity" intheliteraryworkmustbeseenasahighly
reductive andselectiveapproach to literature.
This,then,iswhatImeantwhen Isaidthattofollow Showalter and "remain
detached fromthenarrativestrategies" ofthetextisequivalenttonotreadingit
atall.Foritisonlythrough acarefulexaminationofthedetailedstrategiesofthe
textonall itslevels thatwewillbeabletouncoversome oftheconflicting and
contradictory elements which contribute to make it precisely this text, with
precisely thesewordsandthisconfiguration. Thehumanist desireforunity of
TORILMOI
visionorthought(or asHollyputsit, fora"noncontradictory perceptionofthe
world")is, inotherwords, ademandforasharplyreductivereading oftheliterary
text,areading which,not leastinthe caseofanexperimentalwriterlikeWoolf,
canhavelittlehopeofgraspingthecentralproblemsposedbyherkindoftextual
production. A "noncontradictory perception ofthe world", for Lukacs' great
Marxist opponentBertoltBrecht, is precisely areactionary one.
TheFrench feministphilosopher JuliaKristevahas arguedthatthemodern-
ist poetry ofLautreamont, Mallarme and others constitute a "revolutionary"
formofwriting.Themodernist poem,withit'sabrupt shifts, ellipses, breaks and
apparentlackoflogicalconstruction isakindofwritinginwhichtherhythms of
thebodyandtheunconscious havemanagedtobreakthroughthestrictrational
defencesofconventional social meaning. SinceKristevaseessuchmeaningas
the structure which sustains the whole ofthe symbolic order - that is, all
humansocialandculturalinstitutions -thebreakdownofsymboliclanguage
in modernist poetry comes to prefigure for her a total social revolution. For
Kristeva, that is to say, there is a specific practice of writingwhich in itself is
revolutionary, analogous tosexual andpoliticaltransformation, andwhichby
itsveryexistencetestifiestothe possibilityofbreaking downthe symbolicorder
fromthe insides one mightargue in thislightthatWoolfs refusal tocommit
herselfinher essays toaso-called rational orlogical formofwriting, freefrom
fictional techniques, indicates a simiar breakwith symbolic language, as of
coursedo manyofthe techniques she deploys inher novels.
Kristeva alsoargues thatmanywomenwillbeabletolet whatshe callsthe
"spasmodic force" ofthe unconscious disrupttheirlanguage because oftheir
stronger links with the pre-oedipal mother-figure. But if these unconscious
pulsationsshould takeoverthe subject entirely, the subject willfallbackinto
pre-oedipal orimaginary chaos and develop some formofmental illness. The
subjectwhoselanguage letssuchforces disrupt the symbolic orderisinother
wordsalsothe subjectwhorunsthegreaterriskoflapsingintomadness.Seenin
thiscontext,Woolfsownperiodicattacksofmentalillnesscanbelinkedbothto
hertextualstrategiesandtoherfeminism.Forthesymbolicorderisapatriarchal
order, ruledbytheLaw oftheFather,and anysubjectwhotriestodisruptit,who
lets unconscious forces slip through the symbolic repression, puts him- or
herself in a position of revolt against this regime. Woolf herself suffered
patriarchal oppression particularly acutely at the hands of the psychiatric
establishment, andMrs.Dallowaycontainsnot onlyasplendidlysatirical attack
onthatprofession(asrepresentedbySirWilliamBradshaw),butalsoabrilliantly
perspicaciousrepresentationofamindwhichsuccumbsto"imaginary"chaosin
the character ofSeptimus Smith. Indeed Septimus can beseenasthe negative
parallel toClarissaDalloway, who herselfsteersclearofthethreateninggulfof
madness only atthe priceofrepressingher passionsand desires, becoming a
coldbutbrilliantwomanhighlyadmiredinpatriarchalsociety.InthiswayWoolf
disclosesthe dangersofthe invasionoftheunconscious pulsionsaswellasthe
pricepaidbythesubjectwho successfullypreserves hersanity,thusmaintaining
a precarious balance between an overestimation of so-called "feminine"
madness, and atoo precipitaterejection ofthe values ofthe symbolic order6.
(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)
VIRGINIA WOOLF
Itisevident thatforKristevaitisnotthe biologicalsex ofaperson, butthe
subject position heor she takes up, which determines theirplacewithin the
patriarchalorder.Her viewsonfeministpoliticsreflectthisrefusalofbiologism
and essentialism. Thefeministstruggle, she argues, mustbe seenhistorically
andpolitically asathree-tieredone,whichcanbeschematicallysummarizedas
follows:
1. Womendemand equalaccess tothesymbolic order.Liberalfeminism.
Equality.
2. Women reject the male symbolic order in the name of difference.
Radical feminism. Femininityextolled.
3. (And this is Kristeva's own position.) Women reject the dichotomy
between masculine andfeminine as metaphysical.
The third position is one which has deconstructed the opposition between
masculinityandfemininity,andthereforenecessarily challengetheverynotion
ofidentity. Kristeva writes:
In the third attitude, which I strongly advocate - which I
imagine? -theverydichotomyman/woman asanopposition
betweentwo rivalentitiesmay beunderstoodasbelongingto
metaphysics.Whatcan"identity", even"Sexual identity",mean
inanewtheoreticalandscientificspacewheretheverynotion
ofidentity is challenged?
("Women's Time", 33-34)
Therelationshipbetweenthesecond andthethirdpositionshererequires some
comment. Ifthe defence ofthe third position implies atotalrejectionofstage
two(which Idonotthinkitdoes), thiswouldbeagrievouspoliticalerror.Forit
still remains politically essential for feminists to defend women aswomen in
ordertocounteractthepatriarchaloppressionwhichpreciselydespiseswomen
aswomen. But an"undeconstructed" formof"stagetwo"feminism,unawareof
the metaphysical nature ofgender-identities, runs the risk of becoming an
inverted form of sexism by uncritically taking over the very metaphysical
categories setupby patriarchy in ordertokeepwomen intheirplace, despite
attempts toattach newfeministvalues totheseold categories. Anadoptionof
Kristeva's "deconstructed" form of feminism therefore in one sense leaves
everythingasitwas-ourpositions inthepoliticalstrugglehavenotchanged-
butinanother senseitradically transformsour awareness ofthe nature ofthat
struggle.
Here, I feel, Kristeva's feminismechoes the positiontakenupbyVirginia
Woolf some sixty years earlier. Read from this perspective, To the Lighthouse
illustrates the destructive nature ofametaphysicalbelief instrong, immutably
fixedgenderidentities-asrepresentedbyMr.andMrs.Ramsay-whereasLily
Briscoe (an artist) represents the subject who deconstructs this opposition,
perceives itsperniciousinfluence insociety, and triesasfaraspossibleinastill
TORIL M01
rigidly patriarchal order to live as her own woman, without regard for the
cripplingdefinitionsofsexual identitytowhichsocietywouldhaveherconform.
Itisinthiscontext thatwemustsituate Woolfs crucialconcept ofandrogyny.
This is not, as Showalter argues, aflight from fixed gender identities, but a
recognitionoftheirfalsifyingmetaphysicalnature.Farfromfleeingfixedgender
identities because she fearsthem, Woolfrejects them because she has seen
themforwhattheyare.She has understoodthatthegoalofthefeministstruggle
must precisely be to deconstruct the death-dealing binary oppositions of
masculinity andfemininity. For Woolfto havethought her feminism inthese
terms, intuitively rather than theoretically to be sure, is nothing less than
astonishing.
In her fascinating book Towards Androgyny, published in 1973, Carolyn
Heilbrunsetsoutherowndefinitionofandrogyny inverysimilartermswhenshe
describes itasaconceptofan"unboundedandhencefundamentallyindefinable
nature" (xi). Whenshe later finds it necessary todistinguish androgyny from
feminism, andtherefore implicitlydefines Woolf as anon-feminist, I believe
this distinction to be based on the belief that only the first two stages of
Kristeva's three-tiered struggle could "count" as beingfeminist. She doesfor
exampleadmitthat in present-day society itmight bedifficult to separatethe
defenders ofandrogyny fromfeminists,"because ofthepowermen now hold,
andbecauseofthepolitical weakness ofwomen" (xvi-xvii), but refuses todraw
the conclusion that feminists can in fact desire androgyny. As opposed to
Heilbrun here, I would stress with Kristeva thatatheory whichdemands the
deconstructionofsexualidentityaswecan finditinWoolfsessays and novels,
must obviously be seen as feminist. In Woolfs case the question is rather
whetherornot her astonishingly advanced understanding ofthe objectivesof
feminisminpracticepreventedherfromtakingupaprogressivepoliticalposition
inthefeministstrugglesofherday.Inthe lightofThreeGuineas(andofARoomof
one'sown) Iwouldanswernotothisquestion.itseemstomethatthe Woolfof
ThreeGuineasshowsanacuteawarenessofthedangers ofbothliberalandradical
feminism (Kristeva's positions 1 and2), and argues instead for a"stage three"
position,butdespiteherobjections, she comesdowninthe endquitefirmlyin
favourofwomen'srighttofinancialindependence, education and toentryinto
the professions - all central issues forfeminists ofthe 1920s and '30s.
NancyTopping Bazinsees Woolfs concept of androgyny as the union of
masculinity andfemininity-preciselythe opposite, infact,ofseeing itasthe
deconstructionoftheduality.ForBazin,masculinityandfemininityareconcepts
whichinWoolfretaintheirfull, essentialist chargeofmeaning. She therefore
arguesthatLilyBriscoe inTotheLighthouse mustbereadasjustasfeminine as
Mrs. Ramsay, and that the androgynous solution of the novel consists in a
balance ofthe masculine and the feminine "approach to truth"(138). Herbert
Marder, ontheotherhand,presses inhisFeminismandArtthetriteandtraditional
casethat Mrs.Ramsay mustbe seenasan androgynous ideal inherself:"Mrs.
Ramsay aswife,mother, hostess, isthe androgynous artist inlife, creatingwith
the wholeofher being" (128).Heilbrunrightlyrejectssuchareading whenshe
claims that: