Reimagining Woman and Nature Beyond Dualism in Ann Jellicoe’s The Rising Generation

Year 2022, Volume: 39 Issue: 2, 381 - 391, 30.12.2022

Işıl Şahin Gülter

https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.860929

Abstract

Ecofeminist philosophy has developed sophisticated critiques of the structures in western patriarchal culture that contribute to the continuing domination and oppression, not only of women but of nature as well. Drawing on ecofeminism’s critique of dualist structures as its principle guiding paradigm, this paper aims to explore how Ann Jellicoe comes to terms with the anti-dualist insights of ecological feminism in The Rising Generation (1969). The central issues that occupy and motivate ecofeminists, including the domination of women by men and humanity’s misappropriation of nature, are also Jellicoe’s primary concerns in the play. Jellicoe endeavors to depict characters and settings in a manner that rejects dualisms and embraces multiplicity, offering the basic conditions required for alternative representations of all the categories concerned, ‘woman,’ ‘man,’ ‘nature,’ and ‘culture’. In doing so, Jellicoe reconceptualizes the female/male and nature/culture relationships in configurations other than the traditional oppositions produced by the dualist strategy. In light of those preliminary observations, this paper indicates that in The Rising Generation, Jellicoe adopts an anti-dualist strategy to promote an egalitarian and pluralistic point of view through which all oppressive forms of domination within a culture can be unlocked.

Keywords

British drama, domination, dualism, ecofeminist literary criticism, nature, women, Ann Jellicoe, The Rising Generation

Ann Jellicoe’nun The Rising Generation Oyununda Kadını ve Doğayı Düalismin Ötesinde Yeniden Düşünmek

Abstract

Ekofeminist felsefe, batılı ataerkil kültürde var olan, yalnızca kadınların değil aynı zamanda doğanın da süregelen tahakküm ve baskılara maruz kalmasına katkıda bulunan yapılara yönelik sofistike eleştiriler geliştirmiştir. Kavramsal çerçevesine, ekofeminizmin düalist yapı eleştirisinin rehberlik ettiği bu makale, Ann Jellicoe’nun The Rising Generation (1969) adlı oyununda oyun yazarının ekolojik feminizmin anti-düalist öngörüleri ile nasıl uzlaştığını incelemeyi amaçlar. Erkeklerin kadınları tahakküm altına alması ve insanlığın doğayı kötüye kullanması dahil olmak üzere ekofeministleri meşgul ve hatta motive eden temel sorunlar, Jellicoe’nun adı geçen oyundaki temel ilgi alanıdır. Jellicoe, ‘kadın,’ ‘doğa,’ ‘eril,’ ve ‘kültür’ ile ilgili tüm kategorilerin farklı tasvir edilebilmesi için gerekli temel koşulları sunarak karakterleri ve mekânları, ikilikleri reddeden ve çoğulculuğu kucaklayan bir şekilde sunmaya çalışır. Bunu yaparken, Jellicoe, düalist stratejinin ürettiği geleneksel karşıtlıklar dışında, kadın/erkek ve doğa/ kültür ilişkilerini yeniden kavramsallaştırır. Bu ön gözlemlerin ışığında, bu makale, The Rising Generation adlı oyununda Jellicoe'nun, toplum içindeki tüm baskıcı tahakküm biçimlerinin kilidini açabilecek daha eşitlikçi ve çoğulcu bir bakış açısını teşvik etmek için ikilikçi olmayan bir düşünce anlayışını benimsediğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

Britanya tiyatrosu, tahakküm, düalizm, ekofeminist edebi eleştiri, doğa, kadın, Ann Jellicoe, The Rising Generation.

References

• Alaimo, S. (2000). Undomesticated ground: Recasting nature as feminist space. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
• Archambault, A. (1993). “A critique of ecofeminism.” Canadian Woman Studies 13.3:19-22.
• Bolar, G. M. (1984). The sunday night productions without decor at the royal court. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Louisiana State University.
• Douglas, A. V., & Mickey, S. (Eds.). (2018). Literature and ecofeminism: Intersectional and international voices. Oxon: Routledge.
• Gaard, G. (1993). Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Gaard, G., & Murphy, P. D. (Eds.). (1998). Ecofeminist literary criticism: Theory, interpretation, pedagogy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Gaard, G. (2011). “Ecofeminism revisited: Rejecting essentialism and re-placing species in a material feminist environmentalism.” Feminist Formations 23.2: 26–53.
• Gaard, G., Estok, S. C. & Oppermann, S. (Eds). (2013). International perspectives in feminist ecocriticism. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Gates, B. T. (1998). “A root of ecofeminism: Ecoféminisme.” In Greta Gaard & Patrick Murphy (Eds.), Ecofeminist Literary Criticism: Theory, Interpretation, Pedagogy (pp. 15-22). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Glotfelty, C. (1996). Literary studies in an age of environmental crisis. In C. Glotfelty and H. Fromm (Eds.), The Ecocritical Reader: Landmarks in Literary Ecology (pp. xv- xxxvii). Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.
• Goodman, L. (1993). Contemporary feminist theatres: To Each Her Own. London, UK: Routledge.
• Hekman, S. J. (1990). Gender and knowledge: Elements o f a postmodern feminism. Oxford: Polity Press.
• Innes, C. (2002). Modern British drama: The twentieth century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Jellicoe, A. (1969). The rising generation. In Alan Durband (Ed.) Playbill Two (pp. 41-66). London, UK: Hutchinson Educational.
• Keyssar, H. (1984). Feminist theatre: An introduction to plays of contemporary British and American women. New York, NY: Macmillan Education.
• King, Y. (1989). The ecology of feminism and the feminism of ecology. In J. Plant (Ed.), Healing the Wounds: The Promise of Ecofeminism (pp. 18-28). Santa Cruz: New Society Publishers.
• Madsen, D. L. (2000). Feminist theory and literary practice. London: Pluto Press.
• Mayer, S. (2006). Literary studies, ecofeminism and environmentalist knowledge production in the humanities. In C. Gersdorf and S. Mayer (Eds.), Nature in literary and cultural studies: Transatlantic conversations on ecocriticism (pp. 111-128). New York: Rodopi.
• Mellor, M. (1997). Feminism and ecology. New York: New York University Press.
• Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology and the scientific revolution. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
• Mies, M., & Shiva, V. (1993). Ecofeminism. Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publications.
• Murphy, P. D. (1995). Literature, nature, and other. New York: State University of New York Press.
• Philips, M., Rumens, N. (2015). Introducing contemporary ecofeminism. In M. Philips and N. Rumens (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on Ecofeminism (pp. 1-16). London: Routledge.
• Plumwood, V. (1991). Nature, self, and gender: Feminism, environmental philosophy, and the critique of reason. Hypatia 6.1: 3-27.
• Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. New York: Routledge.
• Rabey, D. I. (2003). English drama since 1940. London, UK: Longman.
• Rosemary, R. R. (1975). New woman, new earth: Sexist ideologies and human liberation. New York: Seabury Press.
• Slicer, D. (1998). Towards an ecofeminist standpoint theory: Bodies as grounds. In Greta Gaard & Patrick Murphy (Eds.), Ecofeminist Literary Criticism: Theory, Interpretation, Pedagogy (pp. 49-71). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Snyder, L. (2000). From the royal court to the Colway community plays: Ann Jellicoe’s theatrical innovations. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation) Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
• Taylor, J. R. (1969). The angry theatre: New British Drama. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
• Warren, K. (1990). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environmental Ethics 12: 125-146.
• Warren, K. (2000). Ecofeminist philosophy: A western perspective on what it is and why it matters. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.