Erin's response to Bressler chapters 5 &7

Erin Walsh

ENGL 601

3/19/12

Bressler’s chpt. 5 and 7

            It seems as thought the titles for genres, or maybe rather, classificatory time periods of literature, were based more upon the natural, observed course of societies progression, with the actual texts of the time having only marginal affect on the overall decision.  To put this another way, it would more so seem that labels such as romanticism, modernism, or postmodernism and so on, were given to the literature created, for the most part within the time frame of the naming, based upon outside factors that fueled society, rather than because of the actual writing itself.  (My repetitive attempts at defining this idea is because I am still myself trying to entirely form it…)

            Before ever reading Bressler’s chapter 5, devoted to Modernity and Postmodernism, I had always been under the impression that those who were in charge of the naming, so to say, of “Modernity” and “Postmodernism’s” times were not quite thinking it all the way through.  Afterall, what will come next?  Post-Postmodernism?  And considering the definition of Postmodernism could in a simpler sense be seen as a questioning of its predecessor, couldn’t it have been called ”Modernism?” instead? 

            The next point in chapter 5 that stood out to me was the way in which Bressler somewhat paired Structuralism with Deconstruction.  In a sense, considering the questions that were proposed in a way of defining both theories, Deconstruction seemed more as just a follow up, or second step in the process of Structuralism.  So rather, maybe Deconstruction should be called something like “Post-structuralism…”

            Moving on to chapter 7 on Feminism in Bressler’s book, I suppose my main response to this chapter is that my personal interpretation on the concept of Feminism remains the same even after reading this section on it.  This interpretation would probably be considered biased due to the fact that almost everything about Feminism comes across as annoying to me but I will try to explore it, in reference to Bressler’s text, for the sake of this short response. 

            First off, the term Feminism seems to be too broadly spread, in that pretty much anything written, read, reviewed, criticized, etc. by a female, can be considered Feministic.  I realize that is not exactly what the definition of “Feminism” states but in my opinion, I will say that this term is thrown around too loosely.  Also, it seems as though Feminism can not stand independently on its own as an empowerment of the females voice in literature, but rather depends upon men in order to have something to compare itself too, and dare I say it, complain about.  This, I would think, is the opposite to the Feministic aim, and therefore, even after reading Bressler’s chapter, I remain somewhat puzzled on the whole concept.  I am hoping today’s discussion of this chapter will help me to gain a better perspective and appreciation for the Feminism theory and help me to see it less as just an argumentative (and quite annoying) stance against men, and more as an autonomous and authoritative voice of women.