In her 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, and perhaps a common concern many others hold, that the academic field of women’s studies is now “passe” due to taking a “separatist” approach. The article address the reasons why people may hold this belief, and Looser presents her reasons for believing that the field is still relevant and thriving. In this article, Looser refutes claims that women’s studies is passe and instead argues that it is au courant. Looser explicitly states that
…show more content…
She backs this point by explaining how the academic field has experienced a great amount of development since the 1980s. Looser argues that one of the most influential factors for this growth was the publication of Margaret Ezell’s Writing Women’s Literary History (1993). Although originally poorly received by one critic for being “ahistorical” Looser points out the irony in this statement by saying “it now seems almost amusing” (222) that a more nuanced perspective of women’s literary history is cast off as being wrong. Looser brings this up because she wants to show how new insight into the field is often “productively contentious” (222), and not every feminist was openly receptive to Ezell’s new work. Ezell challenged established scholarly patterns and encouraged scholars to look outside of the “then-dominant feminist critical models” (222) because it does the academic field a great injustice to simply label women writers of the past as feminist heroines or patriarchal victims. By discussing this recent work and it’s influence on the academic field, Looser effectively demonstrates how new developments are still presenting themselves in the field and therefore argues against those that believe gender studies is superior stating that :“now is not the time to fold the study of women’s writing back into some larger, indiscernible gender-mass”
She backs this point by explaining how the academic field has experienced a great amount of development since the 1980s. Looser argues that one of the most influential factors for this growth was the publication of Margaret Ezell’s Writing Women’s Literary History (1993). Although originally poorly received by one critic for being “ahistorical” Looser points out the irony in this statement by saying “it now seems almost amusing” (222) that a more nuanced perspective of women’s literary history is cast off as being wrong. Looser brings this up because she wants to show how new insight into the field is often “productively contentious” (222), and not every feminist was openly receptive to Ezell’s new work. Ezell challenged established scholarly patterns and encouraged scholars to look outside of the “then-dominant feminist critical models” (222) because it does the academic field a great injustice to simply label women writers of the past as feminist heroines or patriarchal victims. By discussing this recent work and it’s influence on the academic field, Looser effectively demonstrates how new developments are still presenting themselves in the field and therefore argues against those that believe gender studies is superior stating that :“now is not the time to fold the study of women’s writing back into some larger, indiscernible gender-mass”