In her article “Virginia Woolf and Androgyny,” author Marilyn Farwell explores the issue of what it Woolf is getting at in her use of the term “androgyny” in feminist criticism. Farwell writes that one of the issues complicating the matter of Woolf's use of androgyny is the myriad of definitions critics have used to describe Woolf's criticism. Proposed definitions of Woolf's androgyny have encompassed everything from the balance between “the poles of intuition and reason, subjectivity and objectivity, anima and animus, heterosexuality and homosexuality, and finally manic and depressive.” Farwell's list intrigued me, for I had really only considered sexual androgyny, in terms of the different sensibilities of men and women, to be the meaning of the word Woolf used in her critical examination, “A Room of One's Own.”
For Farwell, however, androgyny as used by Woolf is either a fusion of distinct elements or the interplay between two disparate ideas, and the differences between these two definitions are, in Farwell's opinion, crucial to the understanding of Woolf's criticism. In avoiding a definitive use of androgyny, Woolf creates an ambiguous term that has continued to intrigue critics. Despite Woolf's own perceived ambivalence in defining the term, however, Farwell defines the androgyny of a writer as a “width of perception rather than by a single, universal mode of knowing.”
I find Farwell's definition of the term androgyny to be an intriguing one, particularly in light of Woolf's own writing abilities. The idea of androgyny as spanning the width of two disparate ideas, rather than a joining of the two, represents Woolf's own musings on the straightforward nature of a man's writing vs. the indirect writing of females. Woolf's androgyny, then, would seem to be the ability to be both indirect and straightforward, whatever that may look like.
All of this leads me to wonder if this sense of androgyny is needed in successful writing. Must one be able to span two disparate ideas or thoughts skillfully to achieve significant, important art? Though I don't believe I have yet discerned this answer myself, I'm intrigued by this idea of androgyny as something that spans ideas rather than joining them. Androgyny seems to offer a greater intellectual freedom, and perhaps this is what Woolf strove for after all.
1 comment:
Emily,
Interesting research you have done. When I read Woolf's essay I wasn't completely sure what she was trying to get at. I am happy to know I am in the company of critics who are also unsure. Ok...I feel like this post is scattered- sorry I have like a million IMs going right now- didn't we talk about something like that in class- multitasking at its best- ah IM drives me nuts- anway- I felt like Woolf also contradicted herself bc. near the end of her essay she talks about how as a woman she can't fully understand or interpret a mans work. Well if that is the case then how does she expect a woman to be able to write like a man and visa versa? Also, it almost seems like she is suggesting that we become like neuter or something- I don't necessarily think that a man can think the same as a woman or that a woman can or has the ability to think like a man...hmmmm...I just don't know about Woolf- those were interesting ideas the other critics had though- certainly possibilities- I suppose Woolf wasn't the best at writing a "critical essay"- she left us all a bit confused =P
Post a Comment