Nancy Armstrong

Nancy ArmstrongIntro: This was another assignment on a certain article and there Literary Theory. Of all the different theories we studied I felt I related closest to hers, as a feminist. I also liked looking into the other theories her writing related to.Nancy Armstrong and the Politics of DomesticityIn Nancy Armstrong’s paper, “Some call it fiction: On the politics of Domesticity, she questions what we look to for representing history, focusing on novels, especially novels written by women. She begins by questioning the relationship between history and literature. Why wouldn’t it be logical to look to fiction novels of various time periods to gain an insight on the way of life in various time periods? Don’t we now even have fiction writers who write historical fiction to teach about characteristics of previous time periods? In fact I can recall many important lessons being taught by novels and films that were fact based, but added a story to follow, making it fiction. In history class most students cannot escape the movie roots, based on events, but a fictional story all the same. There are lessons through which an entire curriculum of history is taught through historical fiction novels, making the stories more personal to the reader, allowing them to relate, regardless of the gap in time which we live.Perhaps we must begin, as Armstrong did in questioning why this has not been looked at until now as “history”. In her writing she states that “the assumption that history consists of economic or political events as if these were essentially different from other cultural events.” (Armstrong) Don’t most economic or political decisions begin with a personal one? One must decide to marry their love, live in the environment they were born into, be raised by the class of people your parents belonged. Until one day you decide to make a change. Rather than your older brothers who left school to work on the family farm, you remain in school and pursue an education, changing your status economically and politically. But it all started with your personal decision on how you direct your life. Your decisions affect your community you live in, whether you farm the country and provide food for them, or become a Doctor caring for those who help provide for you. Ultimately the personal choices we make may somehow reflect on those around us, our politics, our economics, and our history. Armstrong sites Ian Watts, author of The Rise of the Novel (Watt) in which he describes the socioeconomic characters that Defoe and Fielding wrote about, and credit them with giving rise to the novel. But Watt goes on to credit Jane Austen with talent, attributed to nature, and a good eye for detail, no recognition of the amazing grasp Austen had for the dealings of various classes in the early 1800’s. Where is the credit due Austen, who not only had an amazing talent but had the courage to write such personally invested novels in a time when the world was dominated by men? Her writings in fact have proven the test of time, in that she has had such an influence and a grasp on such matters that they still relate in today’s world. Because of that relation they are as popular now as when first written, movies of her novels have been made with such great actresses as Kiera Knightley in Pride and Prejudice, Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow, and Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson. As well as several others made for A&E and the BBC, and the latest being about the life of Austen herself. Does this make women more personal writers? Because they are able to create more relatable characters, that can stand the test of time. Is this fact why they struggle so to keep economic and political history separate, even more superior to personal? With this new and emerging writing of personal history the middle class emerges from such works. But Watt and Williams, who helped define the difference between political and cultural writings, neglect to give due credit to the women writers of the times. (Williams)We have tried to collaborate on the political and economical history throughout time, here in the states as well as throughout the world, and throughout time. But we will always fall short on our complete look into our past because of the restraints we as a people have placed on women throughout this history. We have limited our knowledge to what we the powerful men of the time think important, not the middle class citizen, or women. Perhaps if we had listened to what women had to say we could have had more insight to various turning points in history? Maybe a more personal reference to the accounts of wars and uprisings could have prevented future mistakes. In an article Armstrong referenced, it showed just how little value they placed on women in the late 1700’s. (McBurney) An article in Addison’s Spectator, Mr. Spectator advised that women “be in a particular Manner how they meddle with Romances, Chocolates, Novels and the like inflamers, which I look upon to be very dangerous to be made use of during this great Carnival of Nature.” (McBurney) If we as women cannot even be trusted with chocolate how are we to be trusted in preserving history? In the reference in the text it also refers to the fact that as women novelist emerged, Women were encouraged to read these novels that “celebrated the same domestic virtues and saw the same form of Domestic happiness as the ultimate reward for demonstrating these virtues.” (Brown) From this statement it sounds as though the women of the time were being trained like one would train a pet or raise a child. Have we as women not yet proven our worth, or is the personal value we apply to our work that greatly devalued?With the fact that women were becoming more educated, and reading, soon the emergence of etiquette guides emerged. It gave distinct jobs to the men and women of the household. Men’s jobs seemed to pertain more towards duties outside the home, acquire goods, be entertaining, seek a living etc. While women’s duties were within the home, gather goods, keep house, boast of silence. (Cleaver)Now as times have changed, we still in general look at the jobs of the sexes in a similar manner, but we as women have taken on some of the men’s duties as well. Now we may look at these and get a laugh out of what was once expected out of women at the time these were written, Even as recently as the 1940’s magazines were advising readers what makes a good marriage, and the importance of personal appearance and a happy marriage, (Welshimer) but we still have these writings today, Good Housekeeping, October 2007 highlights “Add sizzle to your sex life,” and “Fixes for sagging skin”. Why we are as women “instructed” on what is expected of us? Why do the powerful women who edit these magazines profit by pointing out men’s flaws in women? True we have come a long way in how we are treated on the surface, but have we as women truly broken free of the bonds men have bound us with. It appears as though we have only loosened them. Why, though would we as women help hold on to these sexist expectations? Is it perhaps because we have simply accepted them, or embraced them. Why else would beautiful women justify taking off there clothes for men’s entertainment? But then again, would not these women too be looked down upon, regardless of what time we talk about. While we know they are out there, don’t those who have been raised “properly” pretend they do not exist? So not only do we raise the bar for us as women, we classify ourselves as well.For example, Armstrong quoted Bronte’s Shirley, when she is teaching the French men how to be more English, by reading Shakespeare. (Bronte) Not only are men more superior to women, but English men more superior to Belgium. Or Mother’s more to Strippers, and Business women more to mothers? Or some other absurd rise in ranks that we ourselves have placed on women and our culture. In Bronte’s Shirley, Carolyn is charged with making Robert, who is half Belgian half English, “Completely English” as to imply that English is more superior to the Belgians. We as a culture have assigned the task of providing the proper upbringing to our children, teaching them what is expected of them, and knowing right from wrong. Do we not question the mother’s role in a child’s behavior when we see a child act–up? We as women have been given this great role as being in charge of our children and how the act towards other adults, and then towards their future wife, as well as how they adapt to society, whether they are proper citizens or fall through the cracks. So why when there have been mother’s throughout history, who have proven just how effective we are at encouraging positive actions from our offspring, did society not until recently recognize the role we had in recording effective history? But the point is we have. Women have made a great contribution to history and citing it. We just need to recognize it for what it is.While Austen’s works are enjoyable and still applicable today, it is her characters that are believable and realistic. And they fit so well into the various classes of her time, and they still find their place in today’s world. We are a creative group, women and we continue to express ourselves through writing, and not only had those articles pressed upon us in the grocery store lines. But we truly have brilliant writers who have related to us as people through their believable characters as Bronte and Austen once did. I think part of what made them great writers is recognizing other great writers. We are not only recognizing great literature through Essays such as Armstrong’s and Fetterleys’s, but these classic writing continually reappear in new novels. Armstrong cited Bronte's Shirley, where she is making him read Shakespeare to improve his English, and mannerisms. Even Shakespeare referenced the bible in passing in several of his works. Now we have new emerging writers such as Stephenie Meyer, who in her Twilight series referenced Austen's Mansfield Park, and Bronte's Wuthering Heights, as well as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. (Meyer) So are these classics only now becoming references for history, whether romanticized or fact based. It is amazing to me how these great writers often refer to other great writers. I think this is simply because they can relate to them through there characters, as well as the fact that great writers must be inspired by what they read.So in our society, have we finally come to terms with the fact that women can be as effective if not more so in preserving history? Haven’t we proven ourselves as writers to be held to the same expectations as men? Or have we been so mesmerized by the heading of magazines telling us where we fall short that we still have hurtles to overcome before we as women can be considered for historical views on time.Armstrong, Nancy. "Some Call It Fiction: On the Politics of Domesticity." Richter, David H. The Critical Tradition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1990. 1419.Bronte, Charlotte. shirley. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974.Brown, Homer Obed. Institutions of the English Novel from Defoe to Scott. Philidelphia: University of Pennslyvania Press, 1997.Cleaver, John Dod and Robert. "A Godly Forme of Householde Gouernment." London, 1614. 1427.McBurney, William H. "Four Before Richardson: Selected English Novels, 1720-1727." Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1963. 1421.Meyer, Stephenie. Twilight. New York: Little, Brown and company, 2005.Watt, Ian. "The Rise of the novel." Berekeley: University of California Press, 1957. p.57.Welshimer, Helen. ""My Husband Says-"." Good Housekeeping February 1940.Williams, Raymond. "The Long Revolution." New York: University of California Press, 1961.