Thursday, March 12, 2009

Phase 3 - Mulock-Craik's preface

The preface to Mulock-Craik’s book, A Woman’s Thoughts about Women, serves as an example of a “womanly” rhetoric. She begins by saying that her thoughts are “only Thoughts” and continues to explain that they do not by themselves solve society’s problems (Mulock-Craik iii). She further says, “They do not even attempt an originality, which in treating of a subject like the present, would be either dangerous or impossible” (iii-iv). With this modest introduction, Mulock-Craik positions herself as a feminine writer by understating the persuasive power of her message. In Man Cannot Speak For Her: A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric, Karlyn Kohrs says, “speaking was competitive, energized by the desire to win a case or persuade others to one’s point of view” (295). By placing her opinions in a neutral position, Mulock-Craik is able to downplay the masculine qualities of powerful persuasion in her argument. According to Campbell, women writers had to balance their “masculine” rhetorical ideas with their feminine influence in order to create effective rhetoric (296).

Campbell also says that feminine style usually invites audience participation, which Mulock-Craik accomplishes by saying, “many women will find simply the expression of what they have themselves, consciously or unconsciously, oftentimes thought” (iv). Through this, she invites women to consider this statement and examine their own thoughts to decide whether or not they can agree. If they do agree, then they may feel that they are more than simply readers; if they have had similar thoughts as the author, then they also can view themselves as having a role in creating the writing. Mulock-Craik also connects the private roles of women with the public sphere by emphasizing the importance of “thinkers, talkers, and doers” working together (iv). In this manner, she persuades women that they can act without completely changing their lifestyles. Campbell says that with “the traditional concept of womanhood, which emphasized passivity, submissiveness, and patience, persuading women that they could act was a precondition for other kinds of persuasive efforts” (297). In her preface, Mulock-Craik sets up the premise that women can act, and act together, in order to set a persuasive foundation for the rest of her book.

In the end of her preface, Mulock-Craik both exemplifies her femininity and asserts the main purpose of her writing. Campbell says that women have been traditionally viewed as “pure, pious, domestic, and submissive” (294). Mulock-Craik says that she would not have published her book “Had it not been planned and completed, honestly, carefully, solemnly, even fearfully, with a keen sense of all it might do, or leave undone” (v). She also states that she believes it will “effect some good” and bring about a positive change; however, she says that she cannot predict how much good it will do, and she leaves it in the readers’ hands (v). Mulock-Craik’s personal, feminine tone throughout her preface positions her as a kind-hearted woman, but she is nevertheless able to assert her belief that the results of her book will be positive ones. In this manner, the preface serves as an example of the balance that women writers had to find between their rhetorical goals and their feminine positions.

Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. Excerpt from Introduction.” In Man Cannot Speak For Her: A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1998. 294-299.

Mulock-Craik, Dinah Maria. A Woman’s Thoughts about Women. London: Hurst and Blackett, 1858.

2 comments:

  1. I think that this is an excellent post! You did a great job of explaining and conveying how Mulock-Craik uses feminine style in her preface. I definitely got the same feel of an assertive but motherly style when I read the preface myself. She is incredibly skilled at downplaying her more confident and empowering ideas with the more feminine devices of audience participation and modesty.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Mollie...this is an awesome post!

    There seems to be some similarity between Grimke's assertions of the tangible actions of which women are capable and Mulock-Craik's appeal to women to do something. Both argue that women and public action are not incompatable - Grimke by appealing to the Bible and Mulock-Craik by appealing to women's daily lives.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.