Notes on Feminist Literary Criticism in the University Workshop, 1974, page 5
V - , . 'f: c~uWﬁ - "ﬂak . 4 Printed history, however, suffers from a time-lag, aggravated now by theﬁk financial crisis in the publishing world. The signs of the future (and" this is an inprcssion that grew out of the workshop) are to be found in 7 ,, :..§*=_.sf ' the classroom. The creation of Women's Studies concentrations/majors/ departwents,.pensenally.designed courses liberated from the canon of . ... V. -...s.. tradition/are providiqg_inmediate implementation of feminist approaches within the university. No single methodology has emerged; rather, a proliferation of options. Problems remain, however. As one participant (Elizabeth StarEevié() aptly put it, we are “searching for the new while still using the tools of the old." I Claude Lévi-Strauss's term bricolave has been used to describe the The old, of course, can still serve. .._..._—_._...._..—3._ activity of the literary critic: a bricoleur putters around, doing what he can with whatever tools are at his disposal. Since only divine creation occurs Q; nihilo, and the writer's text is always the recreation of a pre-existent text, we must begin by using the tools ﬁe have to build a meta-text of our own. Footnotes 1.This was the missing element in the E3 definition cited by Denna Startun I above; without a counter-bias, feminist critics are no‘ more than literary detectives, unearthing clues to textual/sexual discrimination. 2.From her essay, "On Reading the Writings of Women," Colymbia Foggy‘, I Fall 1959, cited in the N.Y. Times Book Review , May 5, l9?#, p.4. 3. I would like to thank the following feminists and scholars who shared their impressions with us, in person and in writing, and who gave me a text to build from: Silvana Buccianti, Marie Collins, Helene HedyA~ Ehrlich, Jane Grace, Madelyn Gutwirth, Ellen Silber, Bonnie Scott, it Ann Snitow, Elizabeth Stareevic, Gloria Waldman, Joan Wiemer.