Summary Of Women's Literary History By Devoney Looser

In her scholarly article “Why I’m Still Writing Women’s Literary History”, Professor Devoney Looser astutely asserts that women’s literary history is a field that is alive and thriving and therefore deserves to be treated as such. Her argument centers around addressing concerns expressed by various colleagues of hers that the academic field of women’s studies is now “passe” due to taking a “separatist” approach. Looser explicitly states that her article is therefore “a credo that has its origins in defense” (Looser 222). The article address the reasons why people may hold this belief, and Looser presents reasons that show the contrary. Looser eloquently refutes claims that women’s studies are passe by considering the other side of the argument, …show more content…
From the very first few sentences, Looser establishes her credibility by making evident that early modern women’s writings is one of her “areas of expertise” (220). Her ethos continues to develop throughout the essay through her formal, captivating argumentation. She references many relevant works and it is evident that she is familiar with the subject matter she presents. Looser also employs a great deal of logos throughout the essay. She appeals to the audience’s logic by presenting evidence that women’s literary history still has a great deal of unfinished business and calls for further study. After essentially proving that the field is alive and well she states that it would be irrational and disappointing to write the field off prematurely, as it has happened before in history. There are several points in the essay where Looser’s wittiness appeals to the audience’s emotions and therefore this pathos further engages the audience and furthers her argument. Her analogy of her colleagues questions to “Are you still beating your wife” is both an example of logos and pathos in the essay. My favorite example of her unique, engaging use of pathos is when she cites a book from 1962 and parenthetically jests that it’s publishment date makes it irrelevant: “Or, ‘How does a literary methodology come to be perceived as old, and why does it’s age matter?’ (Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of the Scientific Revolutions offers an interesting take, but it was published in 1962, so do with that what you will.)” (221). The irony that Looser points out here appeals to both the audience’s logic in an engaging humorous way. Looser’s use of rhetorical devices reinforce her strong argument and engage the audience to make the essay convincing and