INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has baan rapreducad from tha microfilm mastar.UMI fHms the taxt diracUy from tha original or copy sutxnitlad. Thus, soma thesis and dissertation copies are In typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. Tha quality of this raproducdort is dependant upon the quality of ttte copy submMad. Broken or Indistinct print, cdorad or poor quality Illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affsct reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not sendUMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unautfwrized copyright material had to be removed, a note wB Indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (eg ., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right In equal sections with smaH overlaps. Plictographs included In the original manuscript have been reproduced xarographlcally In this copy. Higher quality 6* x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or Illustrations appearing m this copy for an additional charge. ContactUMI directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and l-eamlng 300 North Zaeb Road, Ann Arbor, Mt 48106-1346 USA 800-621-0600 UMT UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE FOLKLORE MOTIFS IN PERSUASIVE GENDER WRITINGS: AN INTERROGATION A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By W. EVERETT CHESNUT Norman, Oklahoma 2000 UMI Number 9975788 UMI* UMI Microform9975788 Copyright 2000 by Beil & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition Is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 © Copyright by W. EVERETT CHESNUT 2000 FOLKLORE MOTIFS IN PERSUASIVE GENDER WRITINGS : AN INTERROGATION A Dissertation APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE COLLEGE BY ____ Or. BcttyJUûrfcis. chair Dr. Mmrggg#t Bander, «dviaor Dr. ürs A cknowledgments There are a number of people who have helped me get through this doctoral program these past six years, and I would like to honor their faith and support. I wish to give my thanks publicly : to John Traugnr, one of the noblest people I have ever met, for his wisdom and encouragement, and for never letting me forget my dreams when they were overwhelmed by the incessant university bureaucracy to Michelle Braun, for both her listening ear and her perceptive advice the many times I needed either to Kevin Clark, for his counsel and inspiration through both good times and bad and also (in alphabetical order) to Mark "Oisin" Aldridge Stuart McFeeters Shirley Chesnut Stephen Mercer Ori Cohen Carolyn Romersa Sheryll Chesnut-Costenbader Stephen Siard Kevin Gaab Ben Smith Andrew Henninger Robert "Bobby" Steele Mark '‘Marcus" Humphrey Jonathan Wenger iV Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s Title Page Signature Page Copyright Page Acknowledgments iv Table of Contents v Abstract vi Ch.l Introduction 1 Ch.2 Function of Folklore 10 Ch.3 Gender Movements 50 Ch.4 The Phenomenon of Subjective-Narrative Discourse 86 Ch.5 Methodology 96 Ch.6 Textual Analysis: Discourse But Not Subjective-Narrative Discourse 123 Ch.7 Textual Analysis: Subjective-Narrative Discourse 132 Ch.8 Conclusion 186 Bibliography 189 A b s t r a c t One of the difficulties faced by modern gender writers and scholars stems from the fact that modern conventions of what constitute valid modes of rhetoric and reasoning and valid scientific and scholarly paradigms were developed during a time when both women and so-called feminine attributes were excluded from intellectual participation and consideration. A number of feminists have argued that these conventional modes and paradigms embody patriarchal values and approaches, what Hélène Cixous calls phallogocentrism, a mode which is grounded in the rationalist paradigm apotheosized by the Enlightenment in Europe. Phallogocentrism privileges the intellectual conceit of detached neutrality and so-called objectivity over an affective and subjective awareness of the human lifeworld; it privileges the totalizing impulse towards universal absolutes over the specific, particularizing approach which avoids ethnocentrism; and it privileges atomistic, analytic logic over holistic, associative or connective logic. Many feminists regard this exclusion of subjective experience, of emotions and the human lifeworld, and of associative or connective reasoning as simultaneously denying the modes through which women interact with reality and privileging the modes through which patriarchal men interact with reality. VI In response to these concerns, some gender scholars and writers have begun using a specific form of narrative discourse as an alternative epistemological and communicative mode to the phallogocentric mode. This particular mode has many labels; I have settled upon the label of sub]ective-narrative discourse. I have discovered that what allows subjective-narrative discourse to encompass ethos while avoiding ethnocentrism is that it utilizes folklore motifs; like most motifs in folklore, these folklore motifs may be imperceptible to both author and audience yet can be discerned and analyzed through the techniques of folklore studies. Subjective-narrative discourse involves the use of this particular form of narrative as a persuasive epistemological and communicative mode co-equal with phallogocentrism. In doing so, subjective-narrative discourse embodies the principles of some gender studies/movements. However, subjective-narrative discourse also deals in archetypal universais without ethnocentric totalizing and generalizing. vii C h a p t e r 1 Introduction We are human beings studying other human beings, and we cannot leave ourselves out of the equation. We choose to answer certain questions, and not others. (Slocum 37) . One of the difficulties faced by modern gender writers and scholars stems from the fact that modern conventional notions of what constitute valid modes of rhetoric and reasoning and valid scientific and scholarly paradigms were developed during a time when both women and so-called feminine attributes were excluded from intellectual participation and consideration. A number of feminists have argued convincingly that these conventional modes and paradigms embody patriarchal values and approaches. Mary Daly describes the discomfort many modern feminists have with the conventional epistemological and communicative mode, which she labels methodolatry: The tyranny of methodolatry hinders new discoveries. ... The worshippers of Method have an effective way of handling data that does not fit into the Respectable Categories of Questions and Answers. They simply classify it as nondata, thereby rendering it invisible. ... Under patriarchy. Method has wiped out women's questions... Women have been unêüsle even to experience our own experience. (11-2) Hélène Cixous has given the label phallogocentrism to this authorized mode of communication and inquiry, a mode which is grounded in the rationalist paradigm apotheosized by the Enlightenment in Europe. Phallogocentrism is a blended term formed from combining Jacques Derrida's terms logocentrism, the predominance of abstract logic and taxonomic language (to the exclusion of the emotional and personally-experienced lifeworlds), and phallocentrism, the socioculturally implicit privileging of men. Phallogocentrism privileges the intellectual conceit of detached neutrality and so-called objectivity over an affective and subjective awareness of the human lifeworld; it privileges the totalizing impulse towards universal absolutes over the specific, particularizing approach which avoids ethnocentrism; and it privileges atomistic, analytic logic over holistic, associative or connective logic. Many feminists regard this exclusion of subjective experience, of emotions and the human lifeworld, and of associative or connective reasoning as simultaneously denying the modes through which women interact with reality and privileging the modes through which patriarchal men interact with reality. Many feminists regard this totalizing impulse, with universal absolutes, as an ethnocentrism which sanctions its own forceful dissemination, enabling a culture to rationalize an aggressive assimilatory stance by essentializing its idiosyncratic paradigms as endemic to a ll cultural settings and even to reality itself. However, simply discarding this mode is problematic for gender scholars and writers, for historically all scientific and scholarly inquiry has been formulated and substantiated through this mode. Gender scholars and writers and their audiences have been trained to assess arguments using this mode. Furthermore, discarding phallogocentrism involves discarding universal absolutes, a dangerous prospect in that it risks situational ethics and moral relativism, both of which would problematize the right of gender activists of one culture to seek to end the oppression of women (or men) in other cultures. In response to these concerns, some gender scholars and writers have begun using a specific form of narrative discourse as an alternative epistemological and communicative mode to the phallogocentric mode. This particular mode counters the defects of phallogocentrism in a fashion not otherwise possible, for not only is it subjective and