You are here

Home » Content

The Penelopiad’ı Irigaray ile Okumak : Dişi Öznenin Yeniden Yazımı

Reading The Penelopiad through Irigaray: Rewriting Female Subjectivity

Journal Name:

  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2017

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
This article analyzes Margaret Atwood’s 2005 novel The Penelopiad in the light of Luce Irigaray’s argument of female subjectivity and re-interpretation of mythology as the site of the representation of patriarchal power turnover and suppression of matriarchal cultures. Giving subject positions to silent agents and using various genres, The Penelopiad brings together gender, genre and language in such a way that results in a paradigm shift in conceptualizing subjectivity and sexuality in a similar vein that Luce Irigaray calls for. Reconstructing the silent characters such as Penelope and her twelve maids whom Odysseus murders upon his return to Ithaca in The Odyssey, Atwood unfolds the traces of a previous socio-economic structure’s existence and its suppression in the epic. Revealing history in myth and myth in history, she criticizes patriarchy through its exclusions and suppression of female traditions that indicate a different construction of sexuality and subjectivity in prepatriarchal cultures. The novel destabilizes the foundations of the male subject, which occasions revisiting the controversial issue of female subjectivity that has produced an immense amount of literature since the 1990s with the rise of deconstructionist criticism. Atwood’s text shows that women’s claim to a subject position helps produce a different language and literature that allows for the exploration of suppression and representation.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu makale Margaret Atwood’un 2005 yılında yayınladığı The Penelopiad adlı romanını Luce Irigaray’ın dişi özne ve ataerkil ve anaerkil kültürlerin çatışma alanı olarak mitolojinin yeniden okunması tartışması bağlamında inceleyektir. The Penelopiad Penelope’ye ve Odysseus’un Ithake’ye dönüşünde katlettiği Penelope’nin on iki hizmetçisine özne konumunu verir ve epik şiiri bir de onların dilinden bakış açısından dinleriz. Odesa’daki sessiz karakterlerin kalemi eline aldığı, çeşitli yazın türlerinin bir kolajı olan bu romanda, tür, cinsiyet, dil sorunsalları bir araya gelir ve yeni bir özne ve cinsiyet paradigması ortaya çıkar. Bu yeniden yazımda ortaya çıkan Odesa anlatısının bastırdığı, varlığını inkar ettiği farklı bir özne ve cinsiyet kavramına işaret eden ataerkil kültür öncesi anaerkil bir toplum yapısıdır. Bu yeni özne anlayışı da Luce Irigaray’ın, hümanizmin erkek egemen, tekil ve tek sesli öznesine alternatif olarak sunduğu dişi özne anlayışına benzer; çoğul ama cinsiyet farklılığının farkında olan bir öznedir. Roman böylece erkek egemen öznenin dayandığı temelleri sarsar ve bizi bir kez daha 1990’larda başlayan, feminist eleştirmenlerle ve Derrida’nın izinden giden yapısökümcü eleştirmenleri karşı karşıya getiren dişi özne tartışmalarını gözden geçirmeye davet eder. Margaret Atwood bu romanında, kadınların özne konumuna erişmelerinin temsil ve güç ilişkilerini sorgulamaya olanak sağlayan yeni bir dil ve edebiyat üretebileceğini gösteriyor.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-penelopiadi-irigaray-ile-okumak-disi-oznenin-yeniden-yazimi.pdf
  • 1
205
217
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Alcoff, L. (1988). Cultural Feminism Versus Post-structuralism: The Identity Crisis in Feminist Theory. Signs.
13.3: 405-436.
Armour, E. T. (1997). Questions of Proximity: “Woman’s Place” in Derrida and Irigaray. Hypatia 12.1: 63-78.
Atwood, M. (2006). The Penelopiad. Edinburgh: Canongate Books.
Bachofen, J.J. Myth, Religion and Mother Right: Selected Writings of J.J.Bachofen. (1967). New York: Bollingen
Foundation.
Baig, M. M. Z. (2014). The Suitors Trove: Un-/ Re-inscribing of Homer’s Penelope in Margaret Atwood’s The
Penelopiad. of Critical Inquiry 12. 1: 65- 84.
Berger, A. E. (2005). Sexing Differances. Differences: Derrida’s Gift 16.3: 52-67.
Bronte, C. (1992). Jane Eyre. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble. Tenth Anniversary Edition. London, GBR: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2009). Frames of War: When is Life Grievable. New York: Verso.
Byat. A.S. (1993). Morpho Eugenia. Angels and Insects. London: Vintage.
Collins, S. C. (2006). Setting the Stories Straight: A Reading of Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad. Carson
Newman Studies XI.1: 57- 66.
Collins, W. (1994). The Woman in White. London: Penguin.
Curti, L. (1998). Female Stories Female Bodies: Narrative, Identity and Representation. London: Macmillan
Press Ltd.
De Lauretis, T. (1984). Alice Doesn’t: Feminism, Semiotics, Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Derrida, J. (1979). Spurs: Nietzsche’s Styles. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Derrida, J. (1985). Choreographies. In The Ear of the Other: Otobiography, Transference, Translation: Texts and
Discussions with Jaques Derrida (pp. 163- 185). Trans. Peggy Kamuf. Ed. Christie McDonald. Schocken
Books Inc.
Dickens, C. (1996). Great Expectations. London: Penguin.
Elam, D. (1994). Feminism and Deconstruction. Florence: Routledge.
Graves, R. (1966). The Greek Myths. Maryland: Penguin Books Inc.
Grosz, E. (2005). Derrida and Feminism: A Remembrance. Differences: Derrida’s Gift 16. 3, 88-94.
Haraway, D. J. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial
Pespective. Feminist Studies 14.3: 575-599.
Homer (2003). The Odyssey. Trans. E.V. Rieu. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Hutcheon, L. (1989). Politics of Postmodernism. Florence: Routledge.
Ingersoll, E. G. (2008). Flirting with Tragedy: Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad, and the Play of the Text.
Intertexts 12. 1-2: 112- 129.
Irigaray, L. (1985a). The Speculum of the Other Woman. New York: Cornell University Press.
Irigaray, L. (1985b). This Sex Which Is Not One. New York: Cornell University Press.
Irigaray, L.(1994). Thinking the Difference for a Peaceful Revolution. Trans. Karin Montin. London: The Athlone
Press Ltd.
Jacobs, A. (2007). The Potential of Theory: Melanie Klein, Luce Irigaray, and the Mother-Daughter Relationship.
Hypatia 22. 3: 175- 193.
Jardine, A. A. (1987). Gynesis: Configurations of Woman and Modernity. New York: Cornell University Press.
Kamuf, P. (2002). Derrida and Gender: The Other Sexual Difference. In Ed. Tom Cohen. Jaques Derrida and the
Humanities: A Critical Reader (pp. 82- 107). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kruks, S. (1992). Gender and Subjectivity: Simone de Beauvoir and Contemporary Feminism. Signs 18.1: 89-110
Khalid S. and Irshad Ahmad Tabassum (2013). The Penelopiad: A Postmodern Fiction. Journal of Humanities
&Social Sciences XXI.1: 17-28.
Lacan, Jacques (1982). The Meaning of the Phallus. In Ed. Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose. Trans. Jacqueline
Rose. Feminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan and école freudienne (pp. 74- 85). New York: Macmillan Press.
Nash, K. (1994). The Feminist Production of Knowledge: Is Deconstruction a Practice for Women. Feminist
Review 47: 65-77.
217
Hatice YURTTAŞ
Omari, K. (Moh’d Khair) A. A. and Hala Abde Razzaq A. Jum’ah. (2014). Language Stratification: A Critical
Reading of Margaret Atwood’s The Penelopiad According to Mikhail Bakhtin’s Concept of “Heteroglossia.”
Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4. 12: 2555- 2563.
Poovey, M. (1988). Feminism and Deconstruction. Feminist Studies 14. 1: 51-65.
Rosen M. J. (2013). Minor Characters have their Say: The Imaginary and Actual Politics of a Contemporary Genre.
Contemporary Literature 54.1: 139- 174.
Rhys, J. (1997). Wide Sargossa Sea. London: Penguin.
Slapkauskaite, R. (2007). Postmodern Voices from Beyond: Negotiating with the Dead in Margaret Atwood’s The
Penelopiad. Literatura 49. 5: 138-146.
Steals, H. (2009). The Penelopiad and Weight: Contemporary Parodic and Burlesque Transformations of Classical
Myths. College Literature 36. 4: 100-118.
Suzuki, M. (2007). Rewriting the Odyssey in the Twenty-First Century: Mark Zimmerman’s Odyssey and Margaret
Atwood’s Penelopiad. College Literature 34. 2: 263-278.
Waters, S. (2003). Fingersmith. London: Virago.
Waters, S. (1998). Tipping the Velvet. New York: Riverhead.
Whitford, M. (1991). Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the Feminine. New York: Routledge.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com