Summary Of For What It's Worth By Mary Poovey
Mary Poovey’s article "For What It 'S Worth .." contrasts with Catherine Gallagher’s “Marxism and The New Historicism” and Judith Lowder Newton’s “History as Usual? Feminism and the “New Historicism.”’ Gallagher discusses how New Historicism veers away from Marxism and aligns more with new left wing circles. Gallagher’s argues three main points, “new historicisms formalism, its problematization of representation, and its dual critique and historicization of the subject” (38). Gallagher elaborates on the issues with Marxism, the middle class, and aesthetics while chronologically planting the seeds for new historicism. Towards the end of the article, Gallagher provides counterclaims to the success of new historicism but does not include Poovey’s
idea that the success of New Historicism has been overstated. In addition, Gallagher points out the battling schools of thought and theory, while Poovey advocates for collaboration leading to growth. Likewise, contrasts between Newton and Poovey prevail in the beginning as Newton examines the importance of acknowledging “feminist literary/historical work (155). Newton also discusses divides between genders, social classes, and literary theory. However, Newton cites some of Poovey’s work. Specifically, Newton contrasts Poovey’s ideology with that of Armstrong’s regarding the role women held in Victorian middle-class society. Overall, Poovey’s article builds from the other two articles in advocating for collaboration instead of separate or opposing critical theories. Poovey supports the idea that knowing something of the past about an individual, culture, or nation is vital to growth in the future; additionally, through collaboration, inquiry to these issues will advance.
Questions: Is Mary Poovey considered a feminist? Does she support feminist literary criticism?
In addition to New Historicism, does literary criticism and cultural theory interact any other schools of thought?
How does Gallagher feel about the feminist approach to literary criticism?
Can feminist literary criticism stand alone or does it have to be connected to new historicism?
idea that the success of New Historicism has been overstated. In addition, Gallagher points out the battling schools of thought and theory, while Poovey advocates for collaboration leading to growth. Likewise, contrasts between Newton and Poovey prevail in the beginning as Newton examines the importance of acknowledging “feminist literary/historical work (155). Newton also discusses divides between genders, social classes, and literary theory. However, Newton cites some of Poovey’s work. Specifically, Newton contrasts Poovey’s ideology with that of Armstrong’s regarding the role women held in Victorian middle-class society. Overall, Poovey’s article builds from the other two articles in advocating for collaboration instead of separate or opposing critical theories. Poovey supports the idea that knowing something of the past about an individual, culture, or nation is vital to growth in the future; additionally, through collaboration, inquiry to these issues will advance.
Questions: Is Mary Poovey considered a feminist? Does she support feminist literary criticism?
In addition to New Historicism, does literary criticism and cultural theory interact any other schools of thought?
How does Gallagher feel about the feminist approach to literary criticism?
Can feminist literary criticism stand alone or does it have to be connected to new historicism?