prospectus

Last fall, when I was taking a literature course for my own personal edification, I blogged about my final paper. It seems fitting that I should post the content of my prospectus for this fall’s literature course.

Feminism is intended to influence and improve the lives of every woman, man, and child; however, feminist discourse is often too academic for the average person to understand. Feminist theorists like bell hooks provide examples of how to present feminist discourse in language that does not exclude less educated women. There are other academics who criticize these writers for not using academic traditions in their writing, yet despite these criticisms, there is an increasing demand for these theorists to be included in academic courses. Clearly, there is a need for this type of discourse, although it is not necessary for all academic discourse to follow that path.

My own experience in reading feminist theory has prompted my interest in this subject. My first scholarly encounter with women’s studies was a feminist literary criticism course that had been mislabeled in the catalog as women’s literature. I was given the opportunity to drop the course without penalty, but having had no experience with literary criticism, I foolishly believed I would have no difficulty with the course content. I quickly became aware of that foolishness, particularly after a long struggle through a Judith Butler essay.

Since that first encounter with scholarly literature, I have run across both difficult and amazingly simple styles of writing about complex concepts. In my not so humble opinion, all theorists should write two versions of their ideas: one for the academics and one for the masses. In the course of my research for this paper, I have run across arguments for scholarly writing and against scholarly writing, and I have come to conclude that there is a place for both. Also, I believe that the non-scholarly writing of academic discourse should be respected by the academy for the role that it plays by including the less educated (such as myself) in the conversation.

This is important to the area of women’s studies, and women writers courses in particular, because when syllabuses are being created, it would be easy for a less academic writer to be excluded from the course, even if they have important things to contribute. If those writers are not included in some way, students of literature and theory will not be exposed to this alternative form of expressing ideas. Also, they might become discouraged, particularly those who are not as versed in the language of scholarship. At a university such as this one where many students come from poor educational backgrounds, it would be unfair to allow heavy scholarly discourse to pass them by without even one ounce of understanding, when there are other authors who choose to write scholarship in such a way that these students can comprehend.