Re: “Gender studies’ narrow lens”

Alex Carlisle’s recent piece on the gender studies frame (“Gender studies’ narrow lens”) is precisely why we still need this field, even in the face of its flaws.

First of all, let me acknowledge those flaws. Gender studies is and remains a product of the post-modern movement. A full critique of post-modernism is well beyond what I can do in this space.

These flaws are not unique to gender studies. What is unique to gender studies is the way it has addressed a number of assumptions Carlisle makes — and has found them wanting.

Gender and queer theorists have successfully argued that one does not need to identify as a “homosexual” for that to define other parts of their identity.

Just because no character identifies as queer, that does not preclude it from subtext. If literary analysis is not on subtext, there wouldn’t be a whole lot to comment on.

Further, we live in a time when women make three-quarters what men do, are underrepresented in politics, and are facing restrictions on their access to health care on the grounds they cannot be trusted to make decisions about their health. Is Carlisle honestly suggesting that patriarchy is dead? If anything, you don’t need a formal lens like gender studies for this!

That’s without pointing out several of the works he mentioned are from before first-wave feminists had achieved any significant victories against patriarchal institutions.

It is critics like Carlisle who are the ones quick to narrow their lens.

If the queer persona is not word-for-word acknowledged or the sexism not overt, should we just not look for it? Should we eschew lenses that look deeper?

Not if we want to claim a broad perspective. Societal norms that let people like Carlisle casually dismiss sexism and homophobia do quite enough of that already, thank you!

Gender studies is not a perfect lens — and I would actually join Carlisle in critiquing certain aspects of it.

Yet, most of his editorial reveals a profound misunderstanding of what gender theorists have contributed to discussions about identity. Perhaps he should broaden his lens.
­
— Rick Stark