After reading For the
Etruscans by Rachel DuPlessis, many readers would agree that they walked
away having problems understanding the text.
Interestingly enough, confusing the reader was likely one of DuPlessis
primary goals. DuPlessis’ text
interrogates the difficulty of creating a female aesthetic when women still
struggle to gain power over language. In her essay she quotes Frances Jaffer:
“Stein says we no longer
have the words people used to have so we have to make them new in some way but
women haven’t had them at all and how can you deconstruct a language you never
constructed or it was never constructed by others like you, or with you in mind”
(DuPlessis, 273).
For
DuPlessis language is male, white and western. Her essay becomes a space to not
only examine the problematic relationship that women have with language; it
also serves as an example of a woman (DuPlessis herself) taking control of
language. DuPlessis’ essay is confusing because it is creating its own version
of the female aesthetic. The structure of the essay seems chaotic. Paragraphs
have no logical order; quotes follow quotes with no explanations, words are
written bold for no particular reason.
DuPlessis tries to create a piece of writing that is as scattered as the
female mind. The female aesthetic should, “[blur] art and life, [blur] social
creativity and ‘high’ art, [blur] between one’s journal and one’s poem, blur
between the artifact and the immersion in experience” (DuPlessis, 282). By
blending genres and ignoring convention women create a language that is all
their own.
DuPlessis also remarks that the issues involved with creating a
female aesthetic resonate with other marginalized groups. By complicating
language, groups composed of women, minorities and other marginalized
communities can develop a unique voice. At various points during the semester
we have engaged in discussion about the standards used in teaching English. For
example the five paragraph essay. DuPlessis is clearly advocating that certain
groups must ignore convention or risk being voiceless.
While educators should work to provide students with the tools necessary
for them to write, speak and communicate effectively, DuPlessis reminds us that
there are reasons a writer may need to break from convention. I would like to
use this first post to discuss benefits/costs of breaking convention. Can
educators teach students how to follow the rules without limiting their ability
to be experimental?
My
next post will discuss the preservation of voice and I would ultimately like to
discuss how technology influences language.
