Re is a de Es udios No eame icanos 16 (2012). Se ille, Spain, ISSN 1133-309-X, 191-194
FEMINISM AND DIALOGICS: CHARLOTTE
PERKINS GILMAN, MERIDEL LE SUEUR, MIKHAIL
M. BAKHTIN. Ca olina Núñez Puen e. Valencia:
Uni e sidad de Valencia, Se icio de Publicaciones,
2006. pp. 212. ISBN: 8437064562 ISBN-
13: 9788437064567.
FATEMEH SABER
Uni e si y o Malaya
.sabe @siswa.um.edu.my
Ca olina Núñez Puen e is an associa e p o esso in he English Depa men
a he Uni e sidade da Co uña (Spain). She has published on and beyond Gilman,
Le Sueu and Bakh in, as can be seen in he selec ion included in Wo ks Ci ed. In
he book, Ca olina Núñez Puen e p oposes a ‘ eminis dialogics’ pe spec i e on he
wo ks o Mikhail Bakh in, Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman, and Me idel Le Sueu . The
book does no p esen a me e “applica ion” o Bakh in’s heo ies o Gilman and Le
Sueu bu a dialogue be ween he h ee hinke s. Mikhail Bakh in is a espec ed
c i ical heo is wi h complica ed and challenging concep s, which can be use ul o
di e en ields o s udy, pa icula ly o li e a y c i icism. His main heo y,
dialogism, has unde gone conside able deba es and c i ical s udies; in ac , i e en
wo ks as an umb ella e m in e ac ing wi h his o he heo ies such as hose on he
no el and Bildungs oman, and his key e ms polyphony, he e oglossia,
ca ni alesque, and ch ono ope. Núñez Puen e ocuses on issues conce ning gende ,
gen e and o he emale(- ela ed) subjec s in Gilman’s and Le Sueu ’s ic ion, as well
as dialogism, ch ono ope and Bildungs oman bo h in Bakh in and a ew selec ed
wo ks by Le Sueu and Gilman.
Núñez Puen e’s Feminism and Dialogics: Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman, Me idel
Le Sueu , Mikhail M. Bakh in has h ee main pa s; he i s pa is on he ‘sho
s o y’, he second on he ‘no el’ and he hi d one on ‘gen(d)e ic pa icula s’. In he
i s pa , he au ho selec s wo sho s o ies, Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpape ”
(1892) and Le Sueu ’s “Annuncia ion” (1935), and s udies hem unde he ligh o
Bakh in’s dialogism and Hélène Cixous’ eminine éc i u e. Th ough a dialogue
c ea ed be ween Bakh in’s ideas and eminism, Núñez Puen e a gues ha Le Sueu
in en ed a gende ed ch ono ope which is a ‘pause’ o c i icize and e hink gende
issues in socie y. La e she s a es ha Gilman and Le Sueu c ea ed hyb id gen es;
Gilman in “The Yellow Wallpape ” in en ed a new gen e, he ealis -go hic, in o de
192 Fa emeh Sabe
Re is a de Es udios No eame icanos 16 (2012). Se ille, Spain, ISSN 1133-309-X, 191-194
o exp ess he oice(s) o (a) gende while Le Sueu ’s “Annuncia ion” de i es i s
gen e inno a ion om he combina ion o ealism, biblical discou se, and eminine
w i ing, among o he gen es. Gilman’s and Le Sueu ’s a is ic hyb idiza ions
symbolize hei e usal o be con ined wi hin one gen e/gende . A he same ime,
he p o agonis s o hese s o ies challenge adi ional ideas o subjec i i y, o
example ( e)p esen ing he eme gence o he emale subjec . Núñez Puen e conside s
bo h ‘sho s o y’ and ‘gende ’ as Bakh in’s blind spo s since hey we e almos ne e
discussed by him. S udying he sho s o ies o women w i e s, and conside ing
gende issues, while eading e e y hing om a Bakh inian pe spec i e in ol es a
new app oach, no only o Le Sueu and Gilman, bu also o Bakh in.
In pa wo, Núñez Puen e commen s upon Gilman’s He land-Ou land saga—
ha is He land (1915) and i s sequel Wi h He in Ou land (1916) — and Le Sueu ’s
The Gi l (1978), h ough Bakh in’s no ions o gen e and Bildungs oman. Bo h
Gilman’s He land-Ou land saga and Le Sueu ’s eminis Bildungs oman, The Gi l,
se e o expand and modi y Bakh in’s heo ies. Th ough bo h a ch ono opic and
discou se-o ien ed analysis, Núñez Puen e decons uc s dialogism in Gilman’s
ic ion; he He land-Ou land saga is conside ed bo h as a no el and no a no el. In
ac , i is Bakh in’s decons uc ing o he no el, discussed in “Epic and he No el”,
which is emphasized and de eloped h ough he p ac ical e idence gi en by Núñez
Puen e. Then, she goes on o s udy he ch ono ope in he He land-Ou land saga
h ough bo h a sociological and li e a y lens. Fu he mo e, Núñez Puen e specula es
and p o es ha The Gi l can i in o he ype i e Bildungs oman, a concep which
was only ske ched ou by Bakh in. Núñez Puen e a gues ha his emale
Bildungs oman is necessa ily a cen i ugal gen e, since he emale p o agonis s a e
speaking subjec s who belong o he subal e n and, he e o e, sub e he s a us quo.
Finally, The Gi l is conside ed as a model o a Bakh inian no el o becoming, no
inalized and no monologic.
In he hi d pa o he book, Núñez Puen e compa es he e ms ‘ emale’ o
‘gen e’ and ‘male’ o ‘s yle’, and discusses mo e abou Gilman, Le Sueu and hei
c ea ed eminis u opias. Núñez Puen e examines he emale u opian communi ies
c ea ed and ic ionalized bo h by Le Sueu and Gilman; she concludes he book
encou aging a mo e om ‘ eminis dialogics’ o a ‘dialogical (p ac ice o )
eminism,’ in which all eminis pe spec i es appea as a mul iplici y o oices in
dialogue wi h each o he . Since his is he pa whe e Núñez Puen e’s heo iza ions
come all oge he , I will come back o discuss i below.
Feminism and Dialogics: Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman, Me idel Le Sueu , Mikhail
M. Bakh in is an enligh ening book ega ding Bakh inian concep s and he eminis
c i icism o Gilman’s and Le Sueu ’s wo ks. Bakh in’s umb ella concep o
dialogism has in ol ed many c i ics in analyzing and de eloping he cu en o
hough known as “ eminis dialogics”. This eminis cu en was ounded by Dale
M. Baue and was conside ed as a “new school o c i icism” by Lynne Pea ce in
Re iew o Feminism and Dialogics 193
Re is a de Es udios No eame icanos 16 (2012). Se ille, Spain, ISSN 1133-309-X, 191-194
1994. Among he e y ew sou ces which ead Bakh in and eminism, Núñez
Puen e’s book qui e in e es ingly de elops om “ eminis dialogics,” explo ing
dialogism in Gilman and Le Sueu ’s wo ks. Feminis dialogics s ems om Bakh in’s
igno ing gende , his blind spo , which leads o a deepe in es iga ion in o de o ind
how his hough can be use ul in a eminis e alua ion o li e a u e. Núñez Puen e
succes ully expands he connec ions be ween ‘gende ’ and ‘gen e’ as she sugges s
some new concep ualiza ions such as: he ‘dialogic man’, he ch ono ope as a
dialogic pause, he ‘p egnancy ch ono ope’, he o he he e oglossia o women’s
oices, and he pa ia chal au ho i a i e wo d e sus he eminis ‘inne ’ oice.
Fu he mo e, as I show below, Núñez Puen e mo es om ‘ eminis dialogics’ o
‘dialogical eminism’.
Bo h Le Sueu ’s The Gi l and Gilman’s He land-Ou land saga ic ionalize
women’s communi ies, de eloping he concep o sis e hood. Howe e , Núñez
Puen e inds ha bo h w i e s disc imina e among di e en g oups o women:
Gilman p e e ing whi e women o e women o colou and Le Sueu middle-class
women o e wo king-class ones. Needless o say ha Gilman’s acism has been
unde a g ea deal o c i icism be o e Núñez Puen e men ions i in he book. Núñez
Puen e inds ha Gilman’s He land communi y is nei he polyphonic no
he e oglossic; Gilman’s acial, e hical and class p ejudices do no allow he o
conside o he women as well. Some oices, such as hose o he “O e Mo he s”
and he “Temple Mo he s” lead and domina e he o he s. Besides, Ellado , he
emale p o agonis o Ou land, has no dialogue wi h he women o lowe classes.
Núñez Puen e s a es ha ‘dialogics’ has o include all indi iduals, no a special
g oup o hem. Thus, she mo es om ‘ eminis dialogics’ o ‘dialogical eminism’
which implies a sel -consciousness and ole ance o he plu al eminis
communi ies/ eminisms. Acco ding o he ,‘dialogics’ equi es o ha e ‘bo h-andism’
a he han he ‘ei he -o ’ bina y opposi ion. Núñez Puen e in en s such in e es ing
compound wo ds o exp ess he ideas ega ding emale communi ies in a democ a ic
manne . On he whole she ies o e eal ha eminism and dialogism a e in
dialogue, p oducing hyb id gen es.
Núñez Puen e’s Feminism and Dialogics: Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman, Me idel
Le Sueu , Mikhail M. Bakh in is in aluable in i s skill ul in e wea ing o social and
eminis analysis, as well as in i s explo a ion o Bakh in’s concep s. The book is
clea ly w i en and Núñez Puen e lea es no s one un u ned in he analysis o he
men ioned hinke s (Gilman, Le Sueu , and Bakh in). I is w i en in a luid s yle and
add essed o an academic audience in e es ed in eminism, li e a u e and linguis ics.
Abo e all, he book is a use ul sou ce in Bakh inian eminis c i icism as he au ho
s udies Bakh in’s no ions in Gilman’s and Le Sueu ’s ex s c ea ing a dialogue
be ween Bakh in, e en hough he is conside ed misogynis by some eminis s, and
wo eminis w i e s, Gilman and Le Sueu . Finally, apa om p esen ing an
enligh ening and con incing Bakh inian c i ical analysis and in e p e a ion o
194 Fa emeh Sabe
Re is a de Es udios No eame icanos 16 (2012). Se ille, Spain, ISSN 1133-309-X, 191-194
Gilman’s and Le Sueu ’s ic ion, Núñez Puen e makes he own con ibu ion o his
ield o esea ch, pa icula ly h ough he in oduc ion and coining o he new
concep s desc ibed abo e.
WORKS CITED
BAUER, Dale M. Feminis Dialogics. A Theo y o Failed Communi y. New Yo k:
S a e o New Yo k P ess, 1988.
KNIGHT, Denise D. “Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman and he Shadow o Racism.”
Ame ican Li e a y Realism 32:2Win e 1999: 159-169.
NÚÑEZ PUENTE, Ca olina. “Can os de sanación. Una en e is a con Rena o
Rosaldo, an opoe a.” Az lán: A Jou nal o Chicano S udies. Sp ing 2012.
37:1 (217-227)
___.“C i icism on he Ma gins: Bakh inian (and Feminis ) Responses o E hics,”
Pe iphe y and Cen e III. Eds. Rubén Ja azo Ál a ez y Lidia M. Mon e o
Amenei o. A Co uña: UDC, 2008. 87-99.
___. “The Dialogics o he Sexual-Ma e nal: Mul iple Bi hs in Gilman and Le
Sueu ,” F om he Pe sonal o he Poli ical: Towa ds a New Reading o
Ma e nal Au obiog aphies. Eds. And ea O'Reilly & Sil ia Capo ale
Bizzini. Susquehanna, PA: Susquehanna UP, 2009. 156-169.
___. “Thousands o Li ing Yea s, o Lo ing Rela ions, om D yden o Cisne os
and Beyond,” In e p e ing he New Milenio. Eds. José An onio Gu pegui y
M. Ca men Gómez Galis eo. Newcas le: Camb idge Schola s Publishing,
2008. 40-47.
___. “The Yellow Hyb ids: Gende and Gen e in Gilman’s Wallpape ,” Sho S o y
Theo ies: A XXIs Cen u y Pe spec i e. Ed. Vio ica Pa ea. Ams e dam &
New Yo k: Rodopi, 2012. 139-154.
PEARCE, Lynne. Reading Dialogics. London: Edwa d A nold, 1994.