End of Theory

Of course, theory has already ended right.
I found the last class discussion on this topic to be extremely interesting. I have always tried to see theory as an everchanging process and to believe that my attempts at learning a topic which is in fact 'dead' may have been a fruitless endeavor. However, after further thought, I decided that even dead theory is only a theory and this proves that theory is in fact still evolving.
Humans are critics and there will always be a new way to critique life. Analyzing patterns in texts is not a repetitive process, something new is always being churned up--new ideas, new discoveries, new theories.
The vastness of human expression has an outlet that applies to literature, philosophy, gender, politics, life in general--whether it had a name or not, theory has been used by humans for as long as our minds have had the power to analyze. Particular criticisms are the path on which theory has evolved, but the basics of theory is thinking critically and applying such thought to something, commonly referred to now as a 'text'.
The day that theory truly dies will be the day that humans turn over the world to machines. yet even in the Matrix, free expression found a way to survive.
I am a writer and I have always seen myself as an analytical person. Yet, after spending this semester reading other theorists I have realized that my level of critical thinking was far below par. Authors like Fowles who can turn a page into a lifetime, causing the reader to enhance their powers of comprehension and really think about what is being said.
I am forcing myself to reevaluate my writing and analyze it from different perspectives, not necessarily the marxist or structuralist criticism but I am now certainly questioning myself, 'why I did this' or 'what was I thinking when I wrote that'. It is not all about the story but underlying influences that cause the story to follow the path it is on.
I feel like I am really taking something away from this semester.

Feminism in Feminist Theory

I have alw2ays considered myself a feminist, at least on the most basic level of believin that women and men should both share equal rights thoguhout the world. I know that expecting this to happen worldwide, and expecting it to be accepted by even a large portion of the United States population will never be an easy step for the human race and I know that it will take more than just the actions of myself, and those other feminists I know.
Being a feminist in this fashion does not deter me from my other beliefs on theory, yet, I believe that this theory for literature--and for politics--is important and influential to many other practices.
The fact that the United States has still not given women equal rights under the constitution is appalling and sadly I found this information to be quite expectable. Women have rights whether they are defined within the Bill of Rights or not, perhaps it is because the E.R.A. has not been passed that many people, myself included, try to show that women should and must be treated fairly, as fairly as one would treat any man--instead of acting upon the differences between gender, I try to treat all people the same. I dislike specific types of people, but this is not determined by the fact that they are a man or a woman, black or white, old or young; it is the personality that creates tension between myself and that person and surely my personality is not acceptable to all people. However, a true feminist, or even someone calling themselves a feminist by nature, does not have to put women on a pedastal, treating them better than they would a man--for, in truth, this may be nice but it is just as discriminating.
I do not feel that the problem of equal rights has a density of any kind for the patriarchal society that has formed throughout our world, and has therefore gained control of the Canon of great literature, is one that bases importance on the type of genitalia between a person's legs. All other arguments against the E.R.A stem from this idea that anyone with a penis is stroner, smarter, and better than anyone with a vagina.
Think about the argument that women should not be given equal rights because this will then make the fact that a man supports a woman a discriminating factor. This is untrue, a woman under the E.R.A would have the choice of supporting herself or being supported by a man, just as a man has the choice to support that woman or be supported by her. The real, hidden, argument is that a man who is supported by a woman will lose his manliness in the eyes of other men. And since our society is so male oriented, the concern of a man over losin his manhood is the important part of his argument and he, meaning any or all men, will find an excuse that protects his manhood.
When Krouse discusses a woman's inability to create, I see that as the subjected position of women in today's society. It is the responsibility of both men and women, together, to create an atmosphere of equality. This ambivalence for female writers in literary theory becomes a contradiction since the idea of women becoming a part of the literary canon is so against the norms of our patriarchal society. This must be broken and it will take the combined effort of an egalitarian culture, one that is not concerned with genitalia, but with the heart, mind, and soul of each and every individual.