Bowers, Alcott and Fuller

Both Alcott and Fuller are advancing the move towards gender equality in the writings we’ve looked at this week, but I think (no disrespect intended toward our fearless leader) that we should resist the push to label one ‘more feminist’ than the other. They’re clearly doing different things, both of which are important.

Fuller is obviously more politicized. Without the deliberate, explicit argumentation for equal rights for women, from women, there’s little chance we’d have come as far as we have today. We also shouldn’t pass lightly over the quality of her writing as we talk about its style; Fuller’s language is rich and poetic, it’s deft and clever. Political language, both content and delivery, is important – compare the effects of Kennedy’s or Obama’s speeches to, say, Nixon.

Alcott’s work is important as a feminist text in a subtler way. Fiction and poetry that compellingly imagine different possibilities lay the groundwork for the action it takes to achieve them. In an oppressive system, the few and inspired may have the intrinsic strength to agitate for their cause; most people, though (I’m inclined to believe) could use some help in breaking through the imaginative and emotional walls that resist our movements toward change.
Instead of ‘who’s the better feminist’ or ‘who’s the better writer,’ let’s use a more feminine/-ist trope to look at the two: how do their projects function collaboratively and cooperatively in opening the door to equality?