unleash, bob, et al,

i'll try to respond to your posts about pastoralism, but i'm not exactly
sure how you are defining the term.  but, as i understand it, here's my
input:

in literature, the pastoral refers to a mode historically and
conventionally associated with shepherds and country living. there's
nothing inherently sexist or environmentally damaging in that definition
(well, unless you get into the idea of shepherding!), but, looking at
much of the pastoral literature, i do see some disturbing connections
between objectifying women's bodies and the landscape.  for example, in
ben jonson' "to penshurst" (not exactly a "pastoral poem" but certainly
an exaltation of county living) descriptions of an edenic, idealized
country setting present nature as "giving up her bounty" for the people,
the fish throwing themselves into the net, the deer coming forth to be
killed.  women figure as part of that bounty, giving themselves as
brides or lovers as part of the natural order of the place.  the
messiness of labor is also effectively erased by the presence of women
who "naturally" do the cooking, cleaning, etc. (seemingly without effort
or sacrifice). the utopia is only experienced by the males present.

when talking about native american literature, however, one gets a very
different sense of the pastoral.  when earth is feminized, it (she) is
respected and revered (i'm thinking of joy harjo, leslie marmon
silko.).  no surprise that women seem to occupy a more equal status in
the political and social affairs of the first nations.

the effect of using of the pastoral as a mode (of literature, of living)
seems to have a lot to do with the the position of women in that
society. i don't know if every culture draws a connection between women
and the environment, but it seems that the ones that do
(western/european or native american, the examples i've used) either
empower or oppress women by the values ascribed to the earth.

sorry if i've stated the obvious or if i've totally misunderstood your
posts!  just adding some thoughts to the discussion....

beth





Reply via email to