Feminist Models Of Text.docx

may be seen to represent tendencies in various types of analysis. CONTRASTING MODELS: A TRADITIONAL MODEL OF TEXT The first model to be described is a traditional stylistic one, which is based on a model of language and communication used in linguistics. This has been termed the code model of understanding (Crystal 1988). Here, language is seen as largely about transaction, the exchange of information between two people. One of the participants, the speaker, has a thought which s/he encodes into words; this message is then transmitted through speech, which the other participant hears and decodes. As Sperber and Wilson point out: ‘the view of linguistic communication as achieved by encoding thoughts in sounds is so entrenched.

Feminist Models of Text MODELS OF LANGUAGE AND TEXT: IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT In stylistic analysis in general, the model of text and language which is used is rarely made explicit. That is, the text itself is assumed to exist in some self-evident state whereby it contains meanings which the critic and reader discover or uncover; the critic does not need to explain this to the reader, because it is taken as commonsense knowledge about texts in general which both the reader and the critic share. As I argued in the Introduction, many of the stylistic analyses which have been undertaken have used a text-immanent model of meaning; that is, they have assumed that what the critic ‘finds’ in the text is located in the text itself, rather than perhaps being more the result of a negotiation between the reader and the text. There are various models of language; for example, language can be seen as a form of information transfer—the most commonsense and simplistic view; language can be viewed as a form of social networking or social bonding, or as the site where power relations are negotiated and enforced; language can also be seen as a set of mutually exclusive choices in a closed system. The type of analysis undertaken is assumed to be objective, little attention is paid to questions such as gender, race and class, which, stylisticians assume, would necessarily bias the analysis. Stylistic analysis is thus posed as outside such questions, constituting a ‘neutral’ form of reading. The purpose of the analysis is rarely made clear and the function of the critic and the analysis produced by the critic are rarely discussed. There is an underlying assumption that readers are supposed to learn the techniques and skills described in order to be able to come to perform ‘better’ readings than they currently do. This lack of explicitness about the assumptions an analysis is based upon, is a serious failing in much traditional stylistic work. It explores two models of text, one the traditional stylistic model and the other a feminist model of text, to show what differences the choice of model makes on analysis. These are not the only models of text available to stylisticians or feminists, but they exemplify limit-cases of the models drawn upon, and

The assumptions underlying this model, since this model implicitly forms the theoretical basis for many theories of literary production.  First, it is assumed that thought precedes the production of words and speech, that thought is somehow separate from language and exists outside language.  Second, it is assumed that the message which is encoded in language is exactly the same as the message which is decoded, that is, that there are no impediments to communication and there are no misunderstandings. This is an idealized form of communication where words have meaning in an unproblematic and simple way. In the same way that we all assume a shared knowledge for words such as ‘table’, we are to assume that, within this model, when we say words with more abstract meanings, such as ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom’, we can be sure that we will be understood by the hearer as we intended.  Third, it is assumed that the normal mode of language-use is between two participants, 1

speaking face to face, one of whom is the speaker and one of whom is the listener. It is fairly obvious that in most conversations, these roles are not so clearly allocated (except for within very stratified power relations, we normally shift from speaker role to hearer role with great facility).  Finally, it is assumed that the speaker has perfect control over language and can choose to express whatever s/he wishes; there are no pressures or constraints which the language exerts on what can be said. Language here is seen simply as a transparent medium which is used for the transmission of thoughts or information. There are several problems with this model as is evident from these comments; first, although most people do manage to make some sense of what is said to them, perfect communication is rarely achieved. Most speakers and readers tolerate a remarkable amount of ‘fuzziness’ in both their production and reception of speech and writing. Second, the listener plays an active role in trying to make sense of what the speaker is saying and makes hypotheses and inferences as the conversation progresses, rather than being a passive recipient of a message from the speaker. Finally, it is clear that speakers produce meanings within the confines of their linguistic system; whilst each speaker has a measure of control over what s/he says, the degree of flexibility and ‘freedom’ is limited. The linguistic system fixes the parameters of the meanings available to the speaker and hearer.

be the result of conscious choices on the part of the author to ‘play’ or experiment with the medium itself. Within this model of text, the author is in control of the material s/he produces, that is, there are patterns and effects within the text which the author decides upon and which it is the job of the stylistician to detect. The problems with the code model of communication:  First, the writer is clearly not in complete control of her/ his material. In larger discourse terms, as Michel Foucault has shown, there are constraints on the way we use language and organize information, which derive from largescale rules and regulations which are part of the changing nature of discursive formations and structures (Foucault 1972).  A second problem with this model of literary texts is associated with the role of the critic. A linguistic model is simply taken by the stylistician and ‘applied’ to the text as an aid to interpretation. The analysis is notably smallscale, focusing on words and possibly clauses; rarely does analysis of language go beyond the level of the sentence. As Martin Montgomery states: ‘Stylistics has traditionally been concerned pre-eminently with the differences between or within texts, and those differences have commonly been explored in terms of the formal parameters of lexico-grammar’ (Montgomery 1988:2). It is only recently with the advent of discourse stylistics that there seems to be a move in the direction of the analysis of context and the relations between features within texts and extra textual factors. Discourse stylistics is concerned with descriptions of features within the text which are not limited to relations between clauses.  A third problem with the model is that there is little reference to context, and even where context—the extra textual—is referred to, it is largely in terms of the processes of production (that is, focused on the author). Stylistic analysis has so far shown itself to be largely uninterested in the world outside the text except for the role of the author who plays a determining role in the production and

The author takes on the role of the speaker, and as such is seen as a producer of ideas which are encoded in the text. The role of the reader in this model is passive: she is simply the receiver and decoder of the ideas contained in the text. The text is taken as a given; it is treated as if it existed in its own right and is analysed with little reference to factors or constraints outside it—the socioeconomic factors of gender and race, for example. The text is also seen, yet again, as a transparent medium which ‘carries’ the ideas of the author. Language is recognized as having a material identity only when it is considered by stylisticians to 2

explanation of the linguistic devices which are ‘discovered’ in the text. Feminist stylistics is a move away from text-immanent criticism to a theorized concern with those factors outside the text which may determine, or interact with, elements in the text. Used in this sense, the term ‘context’ itself needs revision, since even though gender can be seen as extratextual.

or the final manuscript stage. Publishers have clear ideas about what they can market and are likely to try to fit the works within their ‘list’ to this notion of what can be sold. Sociohistorical factors can also affect the production of texts, since in times of repression, certain types of writing are more likely to appear; for example, the samizdat publications, or suppressed writings, in the former Soviet Union. On the reception side of the model, there is the intended audience, the general community of readers to whom the book will be marketed. In some ways this needs to be also listed under the production side, since it is a factor which is borne in mind by authors and publishers alike. The factors on the side of production should not be seen in isolation from factors on the side of reception; it is clear that there is a complex interchange between the process of production and that of reception, and it is equally clear that the literary text is not simply influenced by these factors. It is a two-way process whereby the text itself determines the type of constraint on production which exerts an influence on future texts.  First, in the traditional ‘code’ model, it is not possible to describe the processes of discrimination which affect the way that a text is produced .  Second, in the traditional model, the author is seen to be responsible for what is in the text.  Third, the reader is seen in the traditional model as isolated and as producing an individual response to the text  Fourth, for the feminist reader it is important to see the text not as a container of meanings but as a site for negotiation; the language which is used is not in that sense fixed, but rather is a series of potentially ambiguous traces which are left and which the reader then has to interrogate. As feminist readers, therefore, we need two kinds of information to construct the possible readings of a text which might be arrived at.  First, we need to make a close textual analysis of the text, identifying certain features of form—literary conventions, syntax, lexis, genre and so on: the cues to interpretation.

CONTRASTING MODELS: A FEMINIST MODEL OF TEXT The following model of the text avoids some of the problems described and broadens our definition of context. There are two facets to context within this model: that of production and that of reception. On the context of-production side of the model are listed some of the many factors which go into the production of a text, literary and non-literary. First, there are the large-scale general language and discourse constraints, mentioned earlier as limiting the range of ideas which can be expressed within each sociohistorical conjuncture, and also the form which these ideas can take when expressed. Literary conventions governing form, and also choice of language and genre, clearly have considerable influence over the type of text produced.

Another factor on the production side of the model is that of affiliations: the conscious links which individuals make to situate themselves as individuals; for example, as Black, as straight, as a member of a political party, and so on. Publishers particularly in the 1990s can affect the way that books are written, since they can often ask for books to be reworked and they certainly play a major role in the process of editing the text, either at the draft 3



of developing new ways of analysing texts, it is to be hoped that an awareness of the model of text which is used in analysis will aid stylisticians to ask themselves questions about their own practice and to develop more theoretically challenging analyses of texts, particularly in relation to gender.

Second, we need to make some generalized predictions about groups of readers’ background knowledge—of language, of literary conventions—and of their models of the world. The advantage of this model is that textual production and reception are considered not simply as the context of production, which is the way in which texts are conventionally analysed. Rather the reception of the text is part of context. A second advantage is that the reader’s role is given more prominence: it is clear that the reader is addressed by the text, and that s/he is affected by and can influence the interpretation of the text. S/he is an active participant, negotiating with the meanings which are being foisted on to her/him, and resisting or questioning some of those meanings. This is in direct contrast to the passive recipient of the text. The theorist would also examine the ways that the text attempts to force the reader to collude in the production of this knowledge as self-evidently natural, as in the use of questions which the reader is supposed to be asking/being asked. The feminist stylistician, drawing on this model of text, would also look outside the text itself to the context in which this text is consumed. For the feminist theorist, this text need not be forced to make sense, in the way that most stylistic analysis assumes that analyses of texts, just like texts themselves, need to be coherent—in fact, it is its incoherence as text which is most interesting. Humour in this newspaper is often a result of extended metaphors which are not logical under sustained analysis. If analysed in detail, the meanings of particular items become less self-evident. The text’s primary purpose is entertainment of male readers, rather than information-transfer, and its referential meaning is ambiguous or obscure. Thus, it is clear from the analysis of this text that the choice of a model of language and textuality is not simply a question which is of theoretical interest, but is also important in terms of the type and scale of the analysis which is made. The type of analysis which feminist models of text allow is of greater complexity and explanatory power than those conventionally used in stylistics. Whilst stylistics is clearly in the process 4