What does the exclusion of women from models of the encyclopaedic novel tell us about this narrative style and its correlation with knowledge and power?
By Margaret
The encyclopaedic novel is a narrative style that seeks to encompass a vast range of knowledge and information about a specific culture, often claiming to present a comprehensive view of it. Encyclopaedic novels attempt to identify ‘the ideological perspectives from which that culture shapes and interprets its knowledge’[1], meaning that most novels of this kind are perceived to be highly representative of a culture’s identity and knowledge in their entirety. However, this genre of literature has been dominated largely by white, male authors since its first appearance following the American Civil War. This exclusion of women, as well as other minority or marginalised groups of American society, presents a range of important questions about knowledge and power in the context of encyclopaedism: what they mean, who they represent and how they can be challenged.
The genre of encyclopaedism has long been associated with the identity of the United States. The Great American Novel (GAN) was the ‘brainchild of a bygone era’[2] following the American Civil War in the mid-19th century. The GAN sought to allow the nation to find its literary voice in the wake of this fading era and presented a strong desire to define America’s identity and solidify its values[3]. At this time in history, the US was experiencing rapid and radical cultural, social and technological development, the result of which was a nationwide eagerness to establish its own ideological and stylistic identity. The encyclopaedic novel was a direct result of this dynamic cultural climate, which placed great emphasis on the ‘great’ and the ‘bold’. This could be seen in America’s increasing ‘imperial expansionism, corporate consolidation [and] aesthetic style’[4], all of which were examples of the US’ growing cultural maturity as a great Western power. However, these progressions were not equally represented by all groups of American society. It was primarily white men who pioneered and advanced in these areas, not due to any intrinsic superior quality in this group, but to the ingrained suppression and marginalisation of other groups, such as women and black people. Overtime, this resulted in the increasing association of US identity with ‘bigness and greatness’[5], and, in turn, of ‘size [with] masculinity’[6]. This idea was solidified following the Second World War, as the US asserted its position as a dominant world power[7]. Thus, as the US established its national identity on the international scene- particularly on the intercultural literary scene- it was already closely associated with masculinity. The US literary body was predominantly made up of male authors, specifically of the GAN, therefore, their ideological perspectives and values were taken to be representative of the nation as a whole. These authors consisted mainly of white Protestant males, who did ‘not attempt to be inclusive’[8] and ‘avoided the individuation of ethnic, gay [or] female experience’[9]. This is not to say that this was an intentional attempt to discredit the perspectives and experiences of such groups (although that may be argued), but it is clear that the encyclopaedic novelists of this era were primarily concerned with presenting the ‘American spirit’[10] and identity in an abstracted form, ‘[sensing] the country as a whole’[11]. However, it is clear that there are groups of American society which are not and cannot be represented by the novelists of this time, the majority of which represent a very small portion of American society and thus a very large ideological bias[12]. It has become increasingly obvious overtime that the widely accepted idea of US identity in encyclopaedic literature is no more the true US identity than the male identity is the female, or the white person’s the black. The encyclopaedic genre has been dominated by only a select few ‘American’ perspectives since its origination, meaning the criteria for this type of novel has become ‘inherently prejudicial’[13] to perspectives considered ‘un-American’. Writers outside of the white, male demographic have long been denied the ‘luxury of examining the whole of American… culture… from the perspective of full membership’[14], the latter concept being that of complete, uninhibited access to the rights and privileges on offer within a given society. Thus, the encyclopaedic novel has come to be associated with a very specific idea of US identity, as it seeks to capture the essence and totality of the ‘knowledge and beliefs of a national culture’[15], particularly during times of great cultural development[16]. Due to the predominant authorship of this genre, US identity has largely been represented by the white, male section of American society, excluding the perspectives of other groups such as women and ethnic minorities.
Nevertheless, the authorship of the encyclopaedic genre has not remained exclusively male nor exclusively white throughout its history. Neither has the idea of US identity remained constant overtime. For example, Leslie Marmon Silko’s 1991 novel, ‘Almanac of the Dead’, contrasts the experience of Native Americans with that of their European colonisers. Neither of these perspectives would be perceived by the conventional encyclopaedists as truly ‘American’, yet Silko challenges this idea. In one scene of the novel, the character of Bartolomeo (a white, Cuban communist), asserts that ‘“Jungle monkeys and savages have no history!”’[17], referring to the Native Americans. As obnoxious as it sounds to the contemporary sensibility, this can sometimes be the mindset of encyclopaedism. In particular, ‘Eurocentric paradigms that imagine a single modernity are incommensurate with… diverse and unpredictable forms of sociocultural organisation’[18], meaning that the encyclopaedic attitude can discount non-Eurocentric societies as having an ‘artificial’ identity[19]. However, ‘Almanac of the Dead’ argues the importance of recognising identity and maturity in a culture, even one that is not seen as ‘modern’ or ‘developed’ by the Western powers. Silko’s character Angelita condemns Bartolomeo and other European colonisers for trying to ‘omit and destroy’[20] the history of the Native American people, entreating her fellows to ‘“Listen to the history that Europeans… hope we… will forget!”’[21] Indeed, much of the philosophy behind Western literature could be accused of having something of a superiority complex, believing that post colony or underdeveloped nations need ‘to catch up along a single, predetermined path to modernization’[22]. Silko presents the idea that ‘modernization’ is not inherently better than all other forms of ‘sociocultural organisation’[23], and that it is erroneous to believe so. The glorification of US identity in ‘modernization’ and the ‘imperial nation-state’[24], which is often a theme in the encyclopaedic novel, fails to recognise the value of non-mainstream ideas about American culture and life. In addition to challenging established ideas of US identity from the perspective of ethnic minorities, novels by women also present the female perspective of US identity. This can be seen in Lucy Ellmann’s 2019 novel ‘Ducks, Newburyport’, which focuses on the viewpoint of an Ohio housewife. In her internal monologue, which forms the narrative of the novel, she discusses anxieties about climate change, gun violence, political division and the erosion of traditional family values. This more contemporary picture of US identity is not so much ‘a mirror of the world above the play of… individual interests’[25], than a mirror of the world through the lens of individual interests. In this way, Ellmann’s novel is not one of conventional encyclopaedism, which aspires to ‘render the full range of knowledge and beliefs of a national culture’[26], but one of personal encyclopaedism, seeking to present an individual’s life with completely honest ideological idiosyncrasy. Ellmann’s unnamed narrator expresses seemingly random thoughts, such as ‘the fact that Anne Elliott thinks about her mom every time she plays the piano, and that’s… how I feel all the time’[27], which both engages the reader with its accessible tone and alienates them with its peculiarity. In representing the immense diversity of one individual’s perspective on American culture and national life, Ellmann also speaks for the immense diversity of the female perspective on the same subjects. This has often been excluded from the largely male encyclopaedic narrative, which presents only a narrow perspective on American culture and national life. Novels by women demonstrate an alternative viewpoint to this, which often breaks ideological conventions about US identity which have been established by men throughout the encyclopaedic novel’s history.
The exclusion of women from models of the encyclopaedic novel shows several things about its narrative style and its correlation with knowledge and power. First, the narrative style of the encyclopaedic novel has been closely associated with masculinity since its origination. It’s ‘fixations… on information and knowledge’[28] and the ‘lure of detailedness’[29]experienced by its authors, are concepts that are traditionally perceived as masculine. This could be due to many things, such as the stereotype of men being more capable of producing intellectual literature than women, or the historical limitations on women in education and intellectual nourishment and exercise. If ‘maximalism [is seen] as a mindset’[30], then it seems women have not historically been thought capable of possessing this mindset. Thus, the exclusion of women from models of the encyclopaedic novel shows that the criteria for such a novel is prejudiced against those with viewpoints not considered ‘truly American’[31], i.e., the viewpoints of non-white-Protestant-males[32] (chiefly). Second, knowledge and power are essentially considered the two greatest themes of encyclopaedic literature[33]; ‘knowledge is intimately connected with power’[34], meaning power comes as a product of knowledge. The encyclopaedic novel’s treatment of ‘knowledge as an arcane possession’[35] implies that, as it is a possession given only to a few, it allows only those few to have access to power. The problem arises when it is assumed (and accepted) that only men may possess knowledge, and thus power. The established association of encyclopaedism with masculinity and of encyclopaedism with knowledge and thus, power, results in an inevitable correlation between masculinity, knowledge and power. Indeed, this correlation may be found in innumerable places in international society, to say nothing of US society or identity specifically. Thus, once again, it is apparent that women are excluded from this ideological triangle, along with many other groups in American culture. The question is then obliged to be raised: what does this show about the nature of encyclopaedism? It is clear that both its narrative style and correlation with knowledge and power are inherently bound to the concept of masculinity, which is, itself, inherently bound to the concept of US identity. Women are excluded from models of the encyclopaedic novel because they do not fit in to the predetermined, intrinsically prejudiced cycle of masculinity, US identity, knowledge, and power.
In conclusion, the exclusion of women from models of the encyclopaedic novel shows much about this narrative style and its correlation with knowledge and power. Due to the strong cultural association of encyclopaedism with masculinity, and of masculinity with US identity (which is the central focus of the GAN), women are excluded from opportunities of building their own version of this narrative. This exclusion is maintained by gender stereotypes, societal norms, and the traditional view of the role and intellectual capabilities of women. The encyclopaedic genre, particularly the GAN, is marked by ‘the expectation of something momentous perpetually waiting to be born’[36]; if women are not considered capable of bringing this ‘momentous’[37]thing into being through intellectual literature, then they are naturally excluded from models of the genre. Therefore, it is only when the necessity for diversity and variety of perspective in encyclopaedism can be seen by all, when female authors assert their presence in the ideological forum, and when it is accepted that US identity is and should be made of a myriad of perspectives and experiences, that the narrative style and correlation with knowledge and power of encyclopaedism will truly reflect and include the American female ethos.
[1] Mendelson, Edward, ‘Encyclopaedic Narrative: From Dante to Pynchon’, 1976
[2] Buell, Lawrence, ‘The Dream of the Great American Novel’, 2014
[3] Ibid.
[4] Boddy, Kasia, ‘Making it long: men, women, and the great American novel now, 2019
[5] Buell
[6] Ibid.
[7] Boddy [quoted]
[8] Karl, Frederick R., ‘American Fictions: The Mega-Novel’, 1985
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Lorber, Judith, ‘Gender Inequality- Feminist Theory and Politics’, 2005
[13] LeClair, Tom, ‘The Art of Excess’, 1989
[14] Ibid.
[15] Mendelson
[16] Buell
[17] Marmon Silko, Leslie, ‘Almanac of the Dead’, 1991, p.527
[18] Saint-Amour, Paul, ‘Tense Future: Modernism, Total War, Encyclopaedic Form’, 2015
[19] Ibid.
[20] Marmon Silko
[21] Ibid.
[22] Saint-Amour
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Clark, Hilary, ‘The Fictional Encyclopaedia’, 1990
[26] Mendelson
[27] Ellmann, Lucy, ‘Ducks, Newburyport’, 2019, p.27
[28] Levey, Nick, ‘Maximalism in Contemporary American Literature’, 2017
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] LeClair
[32] Karl
[33] Mendelson
[34] Clark
[35] Ibid.
[36] Buell
Comments
Post a Comment