La escritura feminista de Charlotte Perkins Gilman: hacer una pausa para el cronotopo

THE FEMINIST WRITING OF CHARLOTTE PERKINS GILMAN: PAUSING FOR THE CHRONOTOPE Ca olina Núñez Puen e Uni e sidad de la Co uña RESUMEN El p opósi o de es e a ículo es al menos iple. En p ime luga , espe a mos a un diálogo uc í e o en e las pe spec i as c í icas eminis a y baj iniana. Segundo, median e una lec u a c ono ópica de la saga de C. P. Gilman, He land-Ou land (1915-6), el a ículo explo a que Gilman u o que ans o ma cie os c ono opos baj inianos (e.g. el c ono opo del idilio, el c ono opo del cas illo), como ambién que in en a o os (e.g. el c ono opo de la iolación, el c ono opo de la ma e nidad), pa a desa olla una c í ica eminis a-dialógica de la sociedad de su iempo. Te ce o, el a ículo a a las di e en es pe spec i as en e las eminis as de la ‘p ime a ola,’ como Gilman, y las eminis as de la ‘ e ce a ola’ ac ual. Po úl imo, se espe a que los/as lec o es/as que hagan una lec u a c í ica de Bakh in y Gilman ap endan ace ca de las ca ac e ís icas dialógicas de las elaciones au én icamen e in e subje i as/é icas en e las pe sonas. Palab as cla e: eminismo, no ela, c ono opo, géne o ( emenino), sociología. ABSTRACT The pu pose o his pape is a leas iple- old. Fi s o all, i hopes o show a ui ul dialogue be ween eminis and Bakh inian c i ical app oaches. Second, by means o a ch ono opic eading o C. P. Gilman’s saga, He land-Ou land (1915-6), he pape explo es ha Gilman had o ans o m ce ain Bakh inian ch ono opes (e.g. he ch ono ope o idyll, he cas le ch ono ope), and also o in en new ones (e.g. he ch ono ope o ape, he mo he hood ch ono ope), in o de o de elop a eminis -dialogic c i ique o he socie y o he ime. Thi d, he pape ouches upon he di e en poin s-o - iew be ween ‘ i s -wa e’ eminis s like Gilman and he eminis s o he ongoing ‘ hi d wa e.’ Finally, i is expec ed ha eade s, who pe o m a c i ical eading o Bakh in and Gilman, lea n abou he dialogical ea u es o uly in e subjec i e/e hical ela ions be ween people. Keywo ds: eminism, no el, ch ono ope, gende , sociology. I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 86 Ca olina Núñez Puen e Be ween he yea s 1915 and 1916, Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman se ialized He land and i s Sequel, Wi h He in Ou land in he own pe iodical, The Fo e unne . In 1979, He land was eedi ed in one olume sub i led “A Los Feminis U opian No el.” One is inclined o a i m ha , e y p obably, Gilman would disag ee wi h he wo d ‘no el’ in his sub i le, gi en he opinion ha she did no w i e ha kind o “li e a u e.”1 In spi e o Gilman’s disag eemen , his a icle is in ended o mainly e alua e he eminis and no el-like quali ies o he He land-Ou land saga. To do so, I ha e chosen o ead Gilman’s ex h ough he ch ono ope, a c i ical ool o app oach he no el de eloped by he Russian hinke Mikhail M. Bakh in.2 In “Fo ms o Time and o he Ch ono ope,” Bakh in de ined he ch ono ope as an “o ganizing cen e[ ] o he undamen al na a i e e en s [,] … whe e he kno s o he na a i e a e ied and un ied … [T]o [i ] belongs he meaning ha shapes he na a i e” (1937-8: 250). Since ch ono opes a e also “ he basis o dis inguishing gene ic ypes” (250-1), Bakh in associa ed a speci ic gen e wi h a speci ic ch ono ope, e.g.: he Go hic wi h he ‘cas le ch ono ope,’ ealism wi h he ‘pa lo -salon ch ono ope.’ I is i al o acknowledge ha ch ono opes change o e ime, hence he sub i le o he essay, “No es owa d a His o ical Poe ics.” I o he Bakh in’s Ci cle “gen es a e nei he se s o ules no accumula ions o o ms and hemes” bu o ms o hinking ha allow he eade o iew he wo ld in a speci ic way (Mo son & Eme son 1997: 185), hen hey a e o m-shaping 1 In he closing a icle o The Fo e unne , Gilman explained ha “[ ]he subjec ma e [o my pe iodical] … is no o be ega ded as ‘li e a u e,’ bu as an a emp o se o h ce ain iews o li e which seemed o he au ho o eal impo ance o human wel a e” (“Summa y” 1916: 286). In o he w i ings, Gilman c i icized he ac ha li e a u e was being u ned in o a “‘business’” (1890: 105) and ha he “[s]ocial philosophy” migh ha e ep esen ed/sold li le in such a ma ke (1935: 303-4). 2 Bakh in has been p oclaimed he g ea es dissemina o o “dialogics.” I would be absu d (no o say an i-dialogical) o de ine/con ine he e m dialogics, which changes meaning h oughou Bakh in’s own oeu e, as well as h ough he Bakh inians’ in e p e a ions. As ob ious as i seems, “dialogics” comes om “dialogue” and poin s ou a ela ion be ween languages-(con) ex s; an in e ac ion be ween au ho and eade , speake and lis ene . In his a icle, I call “dialogic/al” he ( ic ional) people and ex s ha s i e o dialogue in an in e -subjec i e manne . O cou se, so ha a dialogue is eally dialogical, all pa ies mus ha e equi alen pa icipa i e igh s o i . Conside ing he cu en social sphe e— he con inuing acism, sexism, and so on—, one can deduce he di icul ies in ol ed in he exis ence o dialogical condi ions, a deduc ion ha e eals he u opian cha ac e o Bakh in’s hough . I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 The Feminis W i ing o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman... 87 ideologies. In he ligh o his, i masculinis ch ono opes a e ep oduced h oughou li e a y his o y, hey con ibu e o he pe pe ua ion o pa ia chy. Th oughou his a icle, I explain why Gilman, a eminis hinke , had o pa ody some ch ono opes as well as o in en eminis ones in o de o deal wi h some o he p oblema ics o gende —such as ‘gende iolence’ and he need o a ‘social(ized concep ion o ) mo he hood.’ Bakh in ne e w o e abou women w i e s o discussed ch ono opes p o agonized by emale cha ac e s, some hing I y o o se he e.3 Th oughou my eading o Gilman’s saga, I in e p e he eminis ( e)w i ing/gende ing o a se ies o ch ono opes, which had no been gende ed by Bakh in— he ch ono ope o he oad, he idyll ch ono ope and he cas le ch ono ope, o name a ew—, and he eminis c ea ion o ‘new’ ch ono opes un hough o by Bakh in—such as he ch ono ope o es angemen , he ch ono ope o eal(is ic) lo e and he ch ono ope o ape, among o he s. Fu he mo e, pa aph asing Ga y Saul Mo son (1991), Bakh in’s li e a y he o was no simply he no el bu he ealis no el. Th oughou his a icle, I also show why Gilman had o al e ealism and add elemen s o u opia o he no el in o de o con inue o de elop he eminis c i ique. One mus no o ge ha Gilman was a i s -wa e eminis and a sociologis wi h deep in e es s in he didac ic e ec s o he w i ings—see Gilman: 1913. Bakh in and his Ci cle had deep in e es s in he soci(ologic)al aspec s o li e a u e oo, hence hei heo iza ion o a Sociological Poe ics (Med ede & Bakh in: 1978). Impo an ly o eminis s, Bakh in a gued o e he “con inual enew[al] o he wo k [o a ] h ough he c ea i e pe cep ion o … eade s” (1937-8: 254). Tha is, u u e eade s will be able o de ec (and gende ) ch ono opes ha we e unimaginable o i s con empo a ies. Gi en my exis ence as a eade in a di e en ime-space/ch ono- ope o ha o Bakh in, a ch ono ope cu en ly known as he hi d wa e o eminism, I would like o in oduce a ‘new’ idea by which he ch ono ope is a me apho ical ‘pause’ wi hin dialogics. Tha is, om a eminis dialogical pe spec i e, gende ed ch ono opes can p o ide w i e and eade wi h a me apho ical ‘pause’ ha in ol es a eminis c i ique o his-he own socie y. The hope is ha he ‘pause’ in ques ion can be he i s s ep o end he cons uc ion o hie a chies be ween men and women. The idea o he 3 Lynne Pea ce has exp essed suspicion o he no ion o ch ono ope as “gende neu al” (1994: 119). He c i ique belongs o a school o eminism named ‘ eminis dialogics’ by Pea ce he sel . Among he eminis s who e ead, challenge and expand upon Bakh in’s w i ings a e: Baue : 1988, Baue & McKins y: 1991, Hohne & Wussow: 1994, He mann: 1989, Howa d: 1994, Li le: 1996, Yaege : 1988, and, lea ing modes y aside, mysel oo. I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 88 Ca olina Núñez Puen e ch ono ope as p o iding a eminis eading ‘pause’ is applied in my close eading o Gilman’s wo-pa no el, in which I ‘pause’ o e hink women’s p oblems. I will begin my ch ono opic eading wi h an o e iew o Gilman’s cha ac e s, who can c ea e hei own ch ono opes, as he ogue, he clown and he ool did o Bakh in (1937-8: 159).4 Al eady in he ea ly wen ie h cen u y, Gilman p o es ed: “No wonde [woman] has no place in a —she has had no exis ence be o e. Women as pe sons, human beings [...] a e qui e new o us” (“Coming” 1915: 124). S ill in he la e wen ie h cen u y, Joanna Russ has asse ed ha an as ic ex s allow au ho s o w i e s o ies ha a e no “abou men qua Man and women qua Woman” (1995: 91). Acco ding o Russ, he an as ic is he only gen e whe e one may ep esen “Woman as In ellec ual” (83), which is o say, as a subjec . In Gilman’s u opian/ an as ic no el, he h ee emale p o agonis s (Ellado , Celis and Alima) a e “ o es e s” (He land 1915: 124), a p o ession usually associa ed wi h physical s eng h. Fu he mo e, he He lande s’ in ellec ual abili ies a e p aised h oughou : hei “genius [...] sub le unde s anding” (28), hei “ eshness o mind [... and] in ellec ual powe ” (Ou land 1916: 62). The so-called ‘masculine’ ea u es cha ac e izing hese h ee emale pe sonali ies a e pa o he p ocess o decons uc ing he idea o “woman.” Mo e speci ically, in he ea ly wen ie h cen u y, each He lande migh s and o a ch ono ope o he New Woman, who was “an i he ical o he Vic o ian s e eo ype o he p ope lady and he angel in he house” (Mille 1994: 14). Fo hi d-wa e eminis eade s, he p oblem is ha all He lande s ep esen he same (New) woman o a woman ha is whi e, middle-class, he e osexual, educa ed, and so on. This e eals ha he concep o he New Woman was biased and ha Gilman ga e no p o agonism o he women ha we e no included in i . I will come back o his ques ion. Acco ding o Elaine Showal e (1988), he male cha ac e s c ea ed by he no elis s o he “Feminine Pe iod” ollow a adi ion o bina y opposi ions 4 In an in oduc o y no e o Ou land, he second pa o he saga, Gilman p o ided he ollowing “Synopsis” o He land, he i s pa : “Th ee Ame ican young men disco e a coun y inhabi ed solely by women, who we e Pa henogene ic, and had bo ne only gi l child en o wo housand yea s; hey ma y h ee o he women. Two o he men and one woman lea e he coun y o He land o e u n o Ame ica; Je Ma g a e emaining wi h his wi e, Celis, a willing ci izen; Te y O. Nicholson being expelled o bad conduc ; and Ellado elec ing o go wi h he husband, Vandyck Jennings” (Ou land 1916: 61). Ou land deals wi h M . and M s. Jennings’ isi o se e al places in Eu ope, Asia and Ame ica, which a e ‘lands’ o ‘ou ’ known wo ld (Ou land). As expec ed, he people o He land a e called ‘He lande s’ and, hose o Ou land, ‘Ou lande s.’ I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 The Feminis W i ing o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman... 89 simila o he one applied by male w i e s on o emale cha ac e s. Thus, Showal e has con ended, in he ea lies adi ion o women w i e s, ‘meek’ and ‘b u e’ male cha ac e s p oli e a ed mainly as he cle gyman- and Roches e - ypes (143). O he h ee male p o agonis s o He land, Je Ma (-)g a e is a se ious man, who can ep esen he ‘meek,’ and Te y O. Nicholson ce ainly is he mos ‘ e es ial’ o ‘b u e’ o he h ee. In addi ion o hese wo, Gilman c ea ed a hi d in e media e cha ac e , Vandyck Jennings, whom I ha e decided o call he ‘dialogic man,’ and who may s and o a new ch ono ope. Gilman’s b eak wi h he hie a chical model o ep esen a ion indica es a li e a y abili y o go beyond es ablished pa ame e s. Van is he mos dialogical cha ac e o he saga, no only because o his abili y o alk and lis en, bu also due o his openness o change (Bakh in 1941: 10, 34). Though open-minded, a he beginning o he saga Van has deep- oo ed pa ia chal ideas: “ his is a ci ilized coun y! [...] The e mus be men” (He land 1915: 11).5 A e his s ay in He land and h ough his ela ionship wi h Ellado , Van p og essi ely changes his mind especially wi h espec o women. I is no a all su p ising ha Gilman, who has been iden i ied as a adical eminis (Humm 1999: 111), would w i e a u opian no el. In He land, he e is no need o a el e y a in space (such as o ano he plane ) o in ime (such as o he u u e). He land is si ua ed in some hidden place o he Ea h, some ha e sugges ed in Sou h Ame ica—e.g. Annas: 1981, Peyse : 1998—, and in a ime con empo aneous wi h ha o i s i s eade s’. Su p isingly hough, he inhabi an s o his land descend om an “A yan s ock” (He land 1915: 54), which co obo a es Gilman’s exclusi e conce n wi h whi e people. Acco ding o Annie C anny-F ancis, one o he con en ions o u opian ic ion is “es angemen ,” o se ing he s o y in ano he ime and place (1990: 110), so ha he eade “is posi ed o see he /his own socie y om a di e en pe spec i e” (emphasis mine). C anny-F ancis has commen ed ha “es angemen ” has been used by eminis s, “[s]o eade s and w i e s a e eed om he es ic ions o a ealis eading, which ends o es ic ep esen a ion o an imi a ion” (193). This libe a o y impulse is consis en wi h Gilman’s wish o al e ealis no ms, which she p ac ised h oughou he oeu e, he mos amous being he “Yellow Wallpape .” Following C anny-F ancis and b inging oge he he ‘ch ono- opic’ 5 In He land-Ou land, he e is an obsessi ely ecu en bina y opposi ion be ween ‘ci ilized’ and ‘sa age’ (He land 1915: 26, 29, 52, 87, 135; Ou land 1916: 75, 95-96, 99, 103, 178). As expec ed om a ex o he so-called in-de-siècle, being ‘ci ilized’ he e means being educa ed in he bes Eu ocen ic and pa ia chal ashion. I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 90 Ca olina Núñez Puen e o igin o ‘u- opia’ and i s in insic cha ac e is ic o es angemen , I would sugges ha a eminis u opian saga such as He land-Ou land c ea es a gende ed ‘ch ono ope o es angemen ’ in o de “ o cons uc a eminis eading posi ion as a s a egy in he p oduc ion o a eminis subjec ” (C anny-F ancis 1990: 125)— hus he “c ea i e ch ono ope” ha occu s be ween au ho and eade (Bakh in 1937-8: 254). In o de o u he c i icize he li e a y es ablishmen , Gilman s a ed by e using o “ ollo[w] masculine canons” a an la le e (“Masculine” 1911: 122), which she summa ized in “ wo main b anches … he S o y o Ad en u e, and he Lo e S o y” (119). Bo h ‘ad en u e’ and ‘ omance’ can be con en ions o he u opian gen e (C anny-F ancis 1990: 200, Donaldson 1989: 376, Fe ns 1998: 24) and Gilman ew o e hese wo ic ional o ms in He land. Ale a Cane has ead he i s pa o he saga as a eminis esponse o he male ques omance. Mo e conc e ely, Susan S. Guba (1983) has poin ed ou He land is a ew i ing o H. Ride Hagga d’s She. He land s a s wi h h ee men (Van, Je and Te y), who decide o explo e a my hical “Woman Land” (He land 1915: 2), which has “a s ic ly Amazonian na u e” (5). Con a y o hei d eams o coloniza ion, ‘explo e s’ a e ‘explo ed,’ ‘mas e s’ a e ‘ augh ,’ and ‘conque o s’ a e ‘conque ed’—Van by Ellado , Je by Celis, Te y by Alima. Th ough he undoing o he con en ions o impe ialis na a i es, Gilman e ealed ha male au ho s ha e always been “monopolizing his o m o a [li e a u e] wi h special a o … [so] hey ha e gi en he wo ld a masculinized li e a u e” (“Masculine” 1911: 116), ha is, w i en by and o men. In He land, he na a o emphasizes ha he s o y is no abou he men’s “expedi ion” (2) and insis s in chap e V, pu pose ully en i led “A Unique His o y:” “I is no use o me o y o piece ou his accoun wi h ad en u es. I he people who ead i a e no in e es ed in hese amazing women and hei his o y, hey will no be in e es ed a all” (49).6 Tha is, he na a ion o ces eade s o ‘pause’ and ques ion hei p ejudice be o e con inuing hei eading. I hey con inue, eade s will lea n o see women di e en ly, as co esponds o he kind o i s -wa e eminis w i ing (Lane: 1979). Gi en he saga’s gende ing o he masculinis “S o y o Ad en u e,” he g ea es ad en u e he e is mee ing he women hemsel es—an ad en u e Ellado and Van con inue in Ou land. In ac , he whole saga can be ead h ough he ‘ch ono ope o ad en u e,’ meaning he ad en u e o ge ing o know he o he 6 Apa om being he male p o agonis , Vandyck becomes He land-Ou land’s ex adiege ic homodiege ic na a o — o cla i ica ion o his e minology, see Gene e: 1990. I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 The Feminis W i ing o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman... 91 h ough he ‘ oads’ o dialogue. This explains why a dialogue o ma is used in mos chap e s. As Bakh in con ended, he “majo ch ono ope” o ad en u e- ime is “ he oad” (1937-8: 120), hence “ he impo an ole o he oad in he his o y o he no el” (244).7 Bakh in u he elabo a ed ha , when he ‘ oad’ and he ‘encoun e ch ono ope’ appea oge he , he combina ion is ca ni alesque as “[p]eople who a e no mally kep sepa a e by social and spa ial dis ance can acciden ally mee ” (243). The i s He lande s me by he men a e h ee young women in a ee op (He land 1915: 14-5). The men’s climbing he ee wi h g ea di icul y o speak wi h hem becomes a eminis e o mula ion o he ‘encoun e ch ono ope.’ This ch ono ope is gende ed in his way o e e se he lowe posi ion ha women occupy in pa ia chy. In o he wo ds, placing he women cha ac e s in a supe io posi ion, a he op o he ee, implies an explici c i ique o he hie a chy ‘(hu)man/gende .’ This scene is he i s o a se ies o ole- e e sals, all o which place woman in he subjec posi ion. The isi o s’ cou eous g ee ing—“do [ing hei ] ha s” (15)—is idiculed by he He lande s’ laugh e in esponse. Gilman seemed o be playing he ole o he ‘ ool’ (no elis ), who has he igh o mock (gende ) no ms o beha iou . Bakh in ag eed ha “one o he mos basic asks o he no el [is] he laying-ba e o any so o con en ionali y, … o all ha is … alsely s e eo yped in human ela ionships” (1937-8: 162). A mo e symbolic eading o his scene eminds us o he Biblical ee o emp a ion. Te y ies o a ac he He lande s by aking “a necklace” ou o a “box” and “swinging his b igh emp a ion” be o e hem (He land 1915: 16). B idge Benne has compa ed he naked a m o Te y, who is “de ilishly handsome,” o he se pen o Eden (1998: 45). I would like o add ha he a m- plus-necklace compound can ep esen his desi e o he phallus o his p e- ma u i y, bo h sexual and cogni i e, as he a i ed he e al eady “a med wi h a heo y” (He land 1915: 20). As we will con inue o see, he desi e o he phallus— he iden i y be ween signi ie and signi ied—is con inuously unsa is ied 7 Bakh in should ha e made a gende dis inc ion as ollows: when i is no a me apho , he ‘ oad’ plays a c ucial ole in he no els w i en by men, since hey a e he ones who usually enjoy (social) mobili y—hence he i ali y o he ‘ oad’ in he Bea gene a ion. Unsu p isingly, all he examples Bakh in ga e a e om male w i e s’ no els. O he ic ional o ms ( he ‘domes ic no el,’ he dia y o m) ha e been a ou ed by emale w i e s. In e es ingly enough, he male p o agonis s o He land-Ou land a e middle- and uppe -class men, who, as pa o hei leisu e, decide o sea ch o ad en u es in he “Woman Land” (He land 1915: 2). I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 92 Ca olina Núñez Puen e by Gilman’s playing a ound wi h all classi ica ions. The men’s si ua ion, “in he o k o a g ea limb” (15), is ankly uns able: Van “nea ly los [his] balance” (15), Te y “made his sna ch [o Alima’s a m], qui e ainly, almos losing his posi ion” and “wi h inconcei able apidi y, he h ee b igh c ea u es we e gone” (17). I appea s ha he He lande s do no le hemsel es be apped by phallocen ic concep ions. No e en by he na a o , who calls hem “women” o he i s ime on page 19. In his way, he Ou lande s—i.e. he h ee male cha ac e s ep esen ed and all o us eade s—a e equi ed o pause and e lec upon he ‘new’ kind o ‘women’ he He lande s s and o . As al eady ad anced, he c ea ion o Gilman’s He lande s was in luenced by he deba es on he New Women o he in-de-siècle, a pe iod ha acco dingly shel e ed deba es on he ‘c isis’ o masculini y (Heilmann: 2000). In He land, he male isi o s ha e o be educa ed by he olde women be o e hey a e allowed o deal wi h he emale p o agonis s, who a e among he younges .8 A ‘good’ i s -wa e eminis , Gilman belie ed in he powe o educa ion and aining o he imp o emen o socie y. This educa ional p ocess akes place in a comic eminis ec ea ion o he ‘cas le ch ono ope.’ Bakh in iden i ied he o igin o he ‘cas le ch ono ope’ in he Go hic gen e—a gen e ha has no been e y kind owa d women cha ac e s and eade s. In he Go hic, “ he cas le is sa u a ed h ough and h ough wi h [...] he ime o he his o ical pas [... and whe e] human ela ionships in ol [e] dynas ic p imacy and he ans e o he edi a y igh s” (1937-8: 245-6)—sa u a ions ha a e o cou se pa ia chal. I seems Gilman enjoyed he Go hic, which she p ac ised in sho s o ies such as “The Yellow Wallpape ,” “The Gian Wis e ia,” and “The Rocking Chai .” As in o he o he wo ks, in his saga, Gilman’s allusions o a pas ime o m pa o he pa ody, since she was mo e in e es ed in he u u e ( esul s). Once in He land, he Ou lande s spend a o al o “nine mon hs” (He land 1915: 58) amongs he olde women, “six” o which hey a e con ined 8 The men’s second encoun e occu s wi h he middle-aged women, who appea o hem “as cool as cucumbe s” (He land 1915: 21). The phallic o e ones o he compa ison indica e ha he men a e powe ully imp essed by hem. Tha migh be why he na a o can only desc ibe hem in nega i e e ms: “They we e no young. They we e no old. They we e no … beau i ul. They we e no … e ocious…” (19). Gilman u he pa odied he h ee explo e s’ pa ia chal assump ions, by which hey imagined ha in he new coun y all “ he women [...] would be young [...] and [...] cha ming” (20). This was pa o Gilman’s c i icism o ageism, hence also he emale cha ac e s ha a e only able o de elop hei whole po en ial a an old age—“A Su plus Woman,” “Th ee Thanksgi ings,” “M s. Hines’s Money,” “The Widow’s Migh .” I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 The Feminis W i ing o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman... 93 in “a so o cas le” (53, 29). On he one hand, he male explo e s appea suddenly in an all-women socie y, which has no had con ac wi h he ou side wo ld o wo housand yea s, and which explains why he He lande s ake p ecau ions. On he o he , i could be a gued ha he aining p ocess o e en he cas le is a me apho o he womb since i is expec ed ha , when he h ee ad en u e s lea e i , hey a e e-bo n as new men. I would a gue ha he He lande s’ p ojec o beginning “a new kind o men” (Ou land 1916: 189)—e.g. in e es ed in p ac ising a he hood—s a s wi h he ‘cas le ch ono ope’ o He land and is culmina ed by he bi h o Van and Ellado ’s “son” a he end o Ou land (193). In o de o explain why Van, Te y and Je end up in such “[a] [p]eculia [i]mp isonmen ” (He land 1915: 24), I need o elabo a e upon hei encoun e wi h he middle-aged women, whom Te y ies o swindle by o e ing hem imi a ion jewelle y. The olde women e use he o e and, a e a while, a e app oached iolen ly by he isi o s. No o igh wi h he a elle s, he He lande s espond by applying “anes hesia” o hem (23). Suppo ing my a gumen on he bi h o he new men, he na a o desc ibes his awakening om he d ug as a ue ebi h (24). In he ic ional wo k, Gilman was especially keen o po ay men who ain and ( e)awaken a some poin , as i she wan ed o li e ally awaken he male eade s (Smi h 1989: 129). Fo example, “The Yellow Wallpape ” ends wi h a male cha ac e , John, who ain s. Since eade s a e dep i ed o his awakening, nume ous ques ions ha e been aised on a mos dis u bing open ending. In he p esen case, as Vandyck u ns in o a ( e y) dialogic man p og essi ely h oughou He land-Ou land, one would like o hink he is he John o “The Yellow Wallpape ” being ebo n.9 So ha hese Ou lande s could be ho oughly e-educa ed, Gilman made hem unde go some kind o in an iliza ion i s . Thus, Te y wakes up complaining: “They ha e aken away all ou clo hes [...] We ha e been s ipped and washed and pu o bed like babies—by hese highly ci ilized women” (He land 1915: 24). His complain sugges s a new mani es a ion o he se ies o ole e e sals ( e)placing women in he subjec posi ion. O he signs o he Ou lande s’ masculini y a e e ased as well: he unics in which hey a e d essed make hem look “like a lo o neu e s” (26) and hei ha s look “like hose [... o ] he p ince in he ai y ale, lacking he plume”—a “plume” ha seems o allude 9 In a di e en eading, Minna Doskow (1999) has in e p e ed ha he male p o agonis o Mo ing he Moun ain, Gilman’s i s u opian no el, is he an eceden o he Van o He land. I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 100 Ca olina Núñez Puen e o pee in o he his o y o li e a u e o know how he ‘ch ono ope o mo he hood’ has (o has no ) been ep esen ed. As in he gende ed ch ono opes examined so a , he ‘ch ono ope o mo he hood’ p o ides us wi h a dialogical pause o e hink mo he s’ ac i i ies. I would like o a gue ha showing all hese mo he s in open, public spaces— “ [u]n[ning] ou o he houses” and “ga he [ing] in om he ields” (He land 1915: 11)—is a mani es a ion o he F eudian uncanny. Tha is, in pa ia chy, he mo he , who ‘was amilia ’ o us, has been kep ou o sigh (in he p i a e sphe e) and, in He land, he mo he comes back o ligh . In he wo ds o Rosema y Jackson he uncanny “unco e s wha is hidden and, by doing so, e ec s a dis u bing ans o ma ion o he amilia in o he un amilia ” (1991: 65). Dialogical eminis s ha e also a gued ha , by de amilia izing a concep (he e ‘mo he ’) ha o ms pa o he “exis ing li e a y and social no ms [...] in addi ion occu s he o ma ion o a new ideology, a plan o esis ance agains he con en ions” (Baue 1988: 161). The eminis uncanny o he ‘mo he hood ch ono ope’ le s eade s see mo he s di e en ly— hey wo k as educa o s o hei child en and pe o m se e al unc ions ou side he home. In sum, Gilman’s He lande s wo k o socialize he mo he , o make he a pa icipan in he symbolic wo ld. Th oughou he saga, He lande s and Ou lande s discuss ma e nal ques ions h ough and h ough. Such (uncanny) discussions imply making public/b inging o ligh he mo he he sel . The e o e, we lea n ha no only he space o discussion, bu he ‘space’ o mo he hood i sel is also public. In o de o deal wi h i s ‘ ime,’ I need o highligh he He landian dis inc ion be ween “mo he hood” and “ma e ni y.” Whe eas he la e e m alludes o he “bea [ing o ] a child,” he o me is ela ed wi h he “highes a ” o “educa ion” (He land 1915: 82). Tha is, in He land: Each mo he had he yea o [ he] glo y [o ma e ni y]; he ime o lo e and lea n, li ing closely wi h he child, nu sing i p oudly, o en o wo yea s o mo e [...] Bu a e [wa ds ...] he mo he was no so cons an ly in a endance [...] She was ne e a -o , howe e , and he a i ude owa d he co-mo he s [ he child’s educa o s], whose p oud child-se ice was di ec and con inuous, was lo ely o see (103). I ag ee wi h Ru h Le i as ha Gilman had no ai h in he wonde s a ibu ed o ma e nal ins inc , i.e. ha a woman can gi e bi h o a child does no imply I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 The Feminis W i ing o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman... 101 ha she can b ing he /him up all by he sel . Wi h he in oduc ion o he co- mo he s, Gilman was an icipa ing kinde ga ens o he exis ence o o he ca e ake s ha help mo he s in child en’s upb inging. Ano he ques ion is ha , in Gilman’s ic ion, women cha ac e s usually ind a way o sol e hei p oblems by hemsel es. In se e al o he wo ks, women o ganize hemsel es o look a e child en among hemsel es o h ough he kinde ga ens hey hemsel es un— see Gilman: Dian ha 1910. The ein, Gilman has been accused o no ad oca ing men’s pa icipa ion in childca e (Gough: 1995, Kessle : 1995, Le i as: 1990). On he con a y, Gilman ad oca ed bo h sexes’ co-ope a ion in he ca e o child en in he sho s o ies—“Ga den” 1909, “Housekeepe ”1910—and did so oo in He land-Ou land. Then, he c ucial ques ion o be answe ed is, why did she decide o ic ionalize a wo ld o pa henogene ic women? Gilman’s w i ing on pa henogenesis could be in ended as a ew i ing o he Genesis (Guba : 1983), in which woman would be he o igin o li e. As Gilman he sel disclosed (Man-Made 1911: 3), he in e es in pa henogenesis was encou aged by a wo k o Les e Wa d, “[T]he Gynaecocen ic Theo y o Li e.” Gilman belie ed in pa henogene ic heo y and epea edly s a ed ha he emale was he ‘ ace ype’ and he male, a ‘ a ian ’ (see Man-Made 1911, Religion 1923, Women 1898). F om a gynaecocen ic poin o iew, in he beginning i was he emale who helped he male o become “mo e human” (1898: 132). Gilman blamed he ins i u ion o pa ia chy which, mainly h ough ma iage, u ned women ( he p ima y p oduce s) in o me e consume s, whose “ma e nal ene gy” was app op ia ed by men (125-6). To do away wi h he ‘male (wo k)/ emale (domes ici y)’ hie a chy, Gilman c ea ed he pa henogene ic socie y o He land, whe e daugh e s de i e hei iden i ies exclusi ely om hei mo he s, and which supposes a challenge no only o eligious bu also o scien i ic ex s—i.e. F eud’s. Con a y o i s adi ional s e eo ype, mo he hood is p oli ic e en beyond ( e)p oducing human beings. P ac ising he alliance be ween ‘p oduc ion’ and ‘ ep oduc ion,’ he He lande s had “de eloped all his close in e -se ice in he in e es s o hei child en. To do he bes wo k hey had o specialize, o cou se; he child en needed spinne s and wea e s, a me s and ga dene s, ca pen e s and masons, as well as mo he s” (He land 1915: 68). In he ew i ing o he Wes e n adi ion, Gilman would e ise his o y as well as li e a u e in o de o include women’s deeds—spinning, wea ing, a ming, and so on—, o which we ha e almos no eco ds (Reed: 1975). Only when we lea n o acknowledge he mo he I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 102 Ca olina Núñez Puen e as a (social) subjec , Gilman would p opose o hen u n bo h mo he and a he in o ca e ake s.12 One o he easons why he He lande s a e happy wi h he men’s isi is he possibili y o mo e on om pa henogenesis o he e osexual ep oduc ion. They belie e such a mo e supposes an imp o emen , which u ns hem in o wha hey cu iously call “a bi-sexual ace” (He land 1915: 89, 119, 135; Ou land 1916: 63-4, 88).13 Playing on Nancy Chodo ow’s amous i le, I will call he men ioned mo e ‘ he ep oduc ion o he e osexuali y.’ Gilman was indeed a e olu iona y eminis , bu she was inally unable o en ision a socie y whe e women could choose o ha e child en wi hou he need o consen ing o he e osexual ela ionships. Appa en ly Gilman was mo e in e es ed in c i icizing he male con empo a ies’ lack o in ol emen in childca e. C ea ing a “dual pa en age” (He land 1915: 119) o a “‘New Mo he hood’ ” (140) implied demanding a he s’ ull pa icipa ion in child- ea ing. As s a ed abo e, o he He lande s ma e ni y’s ime-space is limi ed and belongs o he biological mo he . Bu mo he hood’s ime-space can be occupied by o he ca e ake s, so why no he a he ? A isiona y as she was, he e Gilman was o eseeing cu en discou se on sha ed pa en hood—see no e 12. Tha u u e place (ch ono- ope) can be achie ed, as Ellado con ends, “[i] we, in He land, can begin a new kind o men!” (Ou land 1916: 189). Tha is, a land peopled by Celis, Je , Vandyck, Ellado , and hei descendan s would eally be a bo h-He land-and-Hisland, a ‘ch ono ope o pa en hood.’ This leads me o again c i icize ha some people a e pu pose ully excluded om Gilman’s (pa en al) p ojec . The He lande s a e in e es ed in making wha hey hink is “ he bes kind o people” (He land 1915: 59) and, al hough epelled by he idea o abo ion (70), hey p ac ise eugenics. Being pa henogene ic, hey ha e managed o “b eed ou [...] he lowes ypes” (82). As Somel ( u o ) explains, whene e he e is a gi l showing “bad quali ies [...] we appea[l] o he [...] o enounce mo he hood” (82). Consequen ly, in He land child- ea ing “is en us ed only o he mos i ” (83). Fi s -wa e eminis 12 Gilman’s insigh is use ul o e ine mo e ecen w i ings on sha ed pa en hood—e.g. Balbus: 1987, Chodo ow: 1978, Ma kus: 1987. Ins ead o b inging a he s ‘ igh away’ in o he adi ional mo he ’s e ain, Gilman wa ned us o ‘ i s ’ e-place woman’s image in ou cul u al imagina y. Tha is, unlike con empo a y schola s, Gilman had li le ai h ha woman’s image could change in people’s minds igh a e a he s s a ed o ca e o hei child en. 13 The a gumen on his ‘imp o emen ’ has o do wi h he e olu iona y heo ies in ec ing Gilman’s eminism—see Gabnocsik-Williams: 1998, Hausman: 1998, Magne : 1978, Peyse : 1998. I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 The Feminis W i ing o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman... 103 Ma ga e Sange also said: “mo e child en om he i , less om he un i ” (quo ed by Kline, 2001: 2). Wendy Kline has connec ed Gilman’s insis ence on women’s esponsibili y as make s o men wi h Theodo e Roose el ’s and Edwa d E. Ross’s p eoccupa ion wi h ( he whi e) “ ace suicide” and he ac ha Roose el blamed he New Woman o no wan ing o ha e child en (10-1). No wonde , when Ellado a i es in Ou land she hinks ha “such limi ed women [as mos Ou lande s] canno p oduce a noble ace” (Ou land 1916: 97).14 The mos de es able side o Gilman’s ideal(ized) mo he hood lies in he ejec ion o he people ha we e no assimilable o he p ojec —basically e e yone who was no whi e, educa ed, he e osexual, middle-class and did no hink acco ding o Gilmanian eminism. Such a Eu ocen ic app oach goes agains he p o- democ acy spi i o dialogics and mus be de ini ely abandoned in he ongoing hi d eminis wa e. In Wi h He in Ou land (1916), eade s expe ience a new ‘ch ono ope o es angemen ’ h ough he eyes o Ellado , who is now M s. Jennings, while she and he husband (Van) a el a ound Ou land. Mos impo an ly, eade s a e o hink abou he wo ld om a woman’s iewpoin , which gende s he ‘es angemen ch ono ope,’ con ibu ing eno mously o Gilman’s eminis p ojec . Bakh in w o e (and Gilman seemed o ag ee wi h i ): “In he ealm o cul u e, ou sidedness is a mos powe ul ac in unde s anding. I is only in he eyes o ano he cul u e ha o eign cul u e e eals i sel ully and p o oundly” (1970: 7). In Ou land, M s. Ellado Jennings is he o eigne ha p o ides a compa a i e analysis and we ( eade s) a e expec ed o ‘es ange’ ou sel es h ough he eyes in o de o see cul u e mo e ‘ ully and p o oundly.’ Reade s a e supposed o be as al e ed as Van, who “beg[i]n[s] o ge a new pe spec i e” (Ou land 1916: 87) as he is “[g]oing abou wi h Ellado , among amilia condi ions, and [as he is] seeing hings [he] ne e d eamed we e he e” (159).15 I appea s as i , besides Ellado , all eminis s we e ‘ o eigne s’ in pa ia chy, since we need o disiden i y ou sel es om i so as o p oduce a eminis c i ique. And i gen es a e o ms o hough /ways o seeing (Bakh in 1934-5: 367), eminis schools o eminisms mus be gen es—see below. I mus be accoun ed ha Ellado ’s poin o iew is nei he neu al no he bes , al hough Van comes o 14 The saga employs he e m “noble” and i s de i a i es o excess—(He land 1915: 57, 68, 82, 90, 99; Ou land 1916: 64, 68, 72, 97, 102)—, some hing which is connec ed wi h Gilman’s eli is p e e ences. 15 These quo a ions e idence ha , al hough Vandyck is he saga’s na a o , he ue ocalize is Ellado — o ocaliza ion, see Gene e: 1990. I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 104 Ca olina Núñez Puen e belie e in i blindly (Ou land 1916: 87). Ac ually, M s. Jennings’ opinions a e in ec ed by xenophobia and o he phobias, as any gen e/any eminism migh dange ously be. The couple’s limi ed ways o seeing a e pe haps mos e iden in du ing he ip o Asia, whe e Ellado blames O ien al women o oo binding (92-3) and Vandyck e e s o “women in he Eas ” as i hey we e all he same (101). Opinions like hese ha e lead cu en c i ics o denounce he acial, e hnic and class- ela ed p ejudices o Gilman’s “mixed legacy” (Knigh 1999: 168)— hence he wo ks o Ceplai : 1999, Ganobcsik-Williams: 1998, Gilbe & Guba : 1999, Lane: 1979, Lanse : 1989, Newman: 1999, Peyse : 1998, and S impson: 1991.16 To a emp a conclusion o his a icle, I hope o ha e p o ed ha only a ‘di e en ’ eading o Bakh in’s ch ono ope wo ks a use ul ool o app oach a eminis ‘gen e.’ The e o e, I wish o sugges such ‘di e en ’ usage o he ch ono ope so as o app oach ‘gende ,’ which is also ch ono opic. In saying his I mean ha gende is a ela i e concep depending on he ch ono- ope ( ime- space) i occupies. Fu he mo e, we should conside a leas wo le els o analysis wi hin i , so as o mo e om ‘gende ’ o “gende s”—a e m coined by B own: 1997. The use ulness o hese wo le els can be ske ched ou as ollows: al hough in pa ia chy women a e subo dina ed by gende disc imina ion (1s le el o gende analysis), no all o hem expe ience i in he same way (2nd le el). In he i s eminis wa e, Gilman e e ed o women as being all he same, p o iding a gende analysis o he 1s le el—e.g. 1898: 40-1. Wi h con empo a y eminis s, I ag ee ha he ocus o c i ical heo y should begin wi h ‘gende ’ and hen mo e o ‘gende s’ since, usually, gende subo dina ion is complica ed by o he ac o s. In o he wo ds, he s udy o a woman mus always be con ex ualized wi hin he ch ono ope in which she li es. Such a ch ono opic s udy o gende helps us o unde s and he di e ences amongs women acco ding o ace, class, e hnici y, sexual o ien a ion, physical-men al (dis)abili ies, eligion, na ionali y, educa ion, p o ession, poli ical ideology, and amily s a us, among o he s. Th oughou his a icle I ha e e e ed o he ch ono ope as a li e a y e en ha p o ides a ‘pause,’ an opening o e lec ion and c ea i i y. Reade s who ead 16 Apa om hese opinions, Van and Ellado a emp o sol e he p oblems o many Ou lande s—Blacks, immig an s, Jews, Na i e Ame icans, women—wi hou ac ually alking o hem. F om wha we ha e seen, Gilman’s wo-pa no el is e y ich in ch ono opes (especially He land). Howe e , i ead om Bakh in’s essay on “Discou se,” he saga su e s om being qui e monologic (especially Ou land). Those in e es ed in he con as s o e ed by a discu si e analysis, see Núñez Puen e 2006 (pp. 73-121). I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 The Feminis W i ing o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman... 105 in di e en ch ono opes can eaccen ua e a si ua ion/ ex o en ich i wi h new meanings. This is he kind o c ea i e e en ha acili a es he dialogue among pe iods and also among cul u es (Bakh in 1937-8: 254). I ha e also in oduced he idea o eminisms as Bakh inian ‘gen es’ o ‘ways o seeing.’ Tha is, since exis ence/ ision is ch ono- opic o dependen on ime-space, each eminis cu en / eminism sees a pa o he so-called woman’s p oblem, o sees i di e en ly, and all o hem cons i u e a dialogical whole. Bakh in e e ed o he he e oglossia o inco po a ed gen es as a majo cha ac e is ic o he no el (1934- 5: 320). In he ligh o his, I sugges ha we see and p ac ice he eminis communi y as a dialogical no el, con aining many di e en gen es, in he o m o consciously o ganized he e oglossia. My p oposal calls o a no simple mo e om ‘ eminis dialogics’— he c i ical pe spec i e deployed he e— o a ‘dialogical communi y o eminisms.’ In such communi y/‘gen e,’ a woman’s oice should be able o e eal he (dis)con en , le us say in a di e en ‘s yle,’ so as o be lis ened o and esponded o e ec i ely by he co-membe s. An example o his migh help o cla i y hings. Un o una ely, al eady in 1995, in a con e ence on Gilman a he Uni e si y o Li e pool, sugges ing ha Gilman migh ha e been lesbian o bisexual “was sac ilege” (Benne 1998: 50). This e en mus be aken as an ins ance o eminis s who we e no ‘lis ening’ o each o he dialogically, o o he amoun o lea ning s ill o be done by us in o de o become dialogic enough. Gi en Gilman’s Eu ocen ic ideas, i would be un ai no o con ex ualize he hough in he own ime and I ha e done so epea edly. Mo eo e , a ch ono opic eading o He land-Ou land shows ha Gilman deal wi h many hemes conce ning women—sis e hood, p o essional wo k, he e osexuali y, educa ion, ape, he law, lo e, mo he hood, and so on—in a li e a y and sel - conscious manne . Gilman made use o he He lande s, especially o Ellado , o ‘speak up’ o women. A ue ep esen a i e o he New Women, Ellado alks unin e up edly while Van jus lis ens pa ien ly (Ou land 1916: 128-129, 134, 190). F om a (Bakh in-de i ed) ‘discu si e’ poin o iew, He land-Ou land can be quali ied as poo in dialogics—see no e 16. In spi e o ha , a (Bakh in-de i ed) ‘ch ono opic’ poin o iew on Gilman’s saga o e s a di e en in e p e a ion. I , due o his o ical easons, 1915-6 was i s -wo ld women’s ime o alk, i is now ou ime o lis en. In he hi d eminis wa e, we mus acknowledge he ch ono opici y o gende , and also mo e beyond i , in o de o open he dialogue o mo e people. Dialogical eminis s ha e inally ejec ed a eminism ha igno es he exis ence o o he opp essed peoples and encou age o open he dialogue o many mo e speake s—“Hispanics, lesbians and gay men, A ican and I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 106 Ca olina Núñez Puen e Na i e Ame icans, and o he ma ginalized peoples” (Hohne & Wussow 1994: xi). Taking in o accoun all hese o he speaking subjec s would su ely lead o a adical es uc u ing o ‘ou lands.’ All in all, h ough Gilman’s p oposals, eminis s and non eminis s can s ill ‘pause’ and lea n ha mo ing owa d dialogue mus de ini i ely occupy ou cu en ch ono ope. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES ANNAS, P. J., Re . o He land, Women’s S udies, 4, 3, 1981, pp. 385-7. BAKHTIN, M. M., The Dialogic Imagina ion. Fou Essays, ans. Ca yl Eme son & Michael Holquis , Aus in, U o Texas P, (1981) 2000. BAKHTIN, M. M.., “Discou se in he No el,” (1934-5) Bakh in 2000. BAKHTIN, M. M., “Epic and he No el,” (1941) Bakh in 2000. BAKHTIN, M. M., “Fo ms o Time and o he Ch ono ope in he No el. No es owa d a His o ical Poe ics,” (1937-8) Bakh in 2000. BAKHTIN, M. M., “Response o a Ques ion om he No y Mi Edi o ial S a ,” (1970) Speech Gen es and o he La e Essays, ans. Ve n W. McGee, Aus in, U o Texas P, (1986) 1999. BALBUS, I. D., “Michel Foucaul and he Powe o Feminis Discou se,” Benhabib & Co nell, pp. 110-27. BARR, M. S., Feminis Fabula ion. Space/Pos mode n Fic ion, Iowa Ci y, U o Iowa P, 1992. BAUER, D. M., Feminis Dialogics. A Theo y o Failed Communi y, New Yo k, S a e o New Yo k P, 1988. BAUER, D. M. & S. JARET MCKINSTRY, eds., Feminism, Bakh in and he Dialogic, Albany, S a e U o New Yo k P, 1991. BENHABIB, S. & D. CORNELL, eds., Feminism as C i ique: on he Poli ics o Gende , Minneapolis, U o Minneso a, 1987. BENNET, B., “Pocke s o Resis ance: Some No es Towa ds an Explo a ion o Gende and Gen e Bounda ies in He land,” Gough & Rudd, pp. 38-53. BROWN, E. B., “ ‘Wha Has Happened He e.’ The Poli ics o Di e ence in Women’s His o y and Feminis Poli ics,” The Second Wa e. A Reade in Feminis Theo y, ed. Linda Nicholson, New Yo k, Rou ledge, 1997, pp. 288-99. CANE, A., “Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman’s He land as a Feminis Response o Male Ques Romance,” Jack London Jou nal, 2, 1995, pp. 25-38. I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 The Feminis W i ing o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman... 107 CEPLAIR, L., “In oduc ion,” Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman: A Non- ic ion Reade , New Yo k, Columbia UP, 1999, pp. 1-8. CHODOROW, N., The Rep oduc ion o Mo he ing. Psychoanalysis and he Sociology o Gende , Be keley, U o Cali o nia P, 1978. CRANNY-FRANCIS, A., Feminis Fic ion. Feminis Uses o Gene ic Fic ion, Ox o d, Poli y, 1990. DONALDSON, L. E., “The E e o De-s uc ion: Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman and he Feminis Rec ea ion o Pa adise,” Women’s S udies, 16, 1989, pp. 373- 87. DOSKOW, M., “In oduc ion o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman’s U opian No els: Mo ing he Moun ain, He land, and Wi h He in Ou land,” Gilman 1999, pp. 9-35. FERNS, C., “Rew i ing Male My hs: He land and he U opian T adi ion,” Gough & Rudd, pp. 24-37. FREUD, S., “Lo ominoso,” (1925) Sigmund F eud. Ob as Comple as. Tomo XVII, ans. José L. E che e y, Buenos Ai es, Amo o u, (1976) 1988. GABNOCSIK-WILLIAMS, L., “The In ellec ualism o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman. E olu iona y Pe spec i es on Race, E hnici y, and Class,’’ Gough & Rudd, pp. 16-41. GENETTE, G., Na a i e Discou se Re isi ed, ans. Jane E. Lewin, I haca, Co nell UP, (1988) 1990. GILBERT, S. M. & S. S. GUBAR. “ ‘Fecunda e! Disc imina e!’ Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman and he Theologizing o Ma e ni y,” Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman. Op imis Re o me , eds. Jill Rudd & Val Gough, Iowa Ci y, Iowa UP, 1999, pp. 200-16. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, F om “Ap opos o Li e a u e,” (1890) Knigh 1997, pp. 104-5. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, F om “Coming Changes in Li e a u e,” (1915) Knigh 1997, pp. 125-32. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, Wha Dian ha Did, (1910) P ojec Gu enbe g: The Online Books Page. Comp. Ch is ophe Hapka. In e ne . 6-11-2001. <h p://ibiblio.o g/gu enbe g/e ex 02/ dian 10. x >. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “A Ga den o Babies,” (1909) Kessle , pp. 129-36. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “The Gian Wis a ia,” (1891) Gilman, pp. 1995. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, He land, (1915) New Yo k, Pan heon, 1979. I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 108 Ca olina Núñez Puen e GILMAN, C. PERKINS., “M s. Hines’s Money,” (1913) Gilman 1995. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “He Housekeepe ,” (1910) Kessle , pp. 147-58. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, The Li ing o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman. An Au obiog aphy by Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman, (1935) Wisconsin, The U o Wisconsin P, 1991. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, The Man-Made Wo ld o , Ou And ocen ic Cul u e, (1911) New Yo k, Cha l on Co., 1971. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “Masculine Li e a u e,” (1911) Knigh 1997, pp. 116- 24. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, Mo ing he Moun ain, (1911) Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman’s U opian No els. Mo ing he Moun ain, He land and Wi h He in Ou land, Madison, Teaneck Fai leigh Dickinson UP, 1999. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, Wi h He in Ou land. Sequel o He land, (1916) Wes po , G eenwood, 1997. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, His Religion and He s. A S udy o he Fai h o Ou Fa he s and he Wo k o Ou Mo he s, (1923) Wes po , Hype ion, 1976. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “The Rocking-Chai ,” (1893) Gilman 1995. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “A Summa y o Pu pose,” The Fo e unne , 7, 2, Dec., 1916, pp. 286-90. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “A Su plus Woman,” (1916) Gilman 1995. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “Th ee Thanksgi ings,” (1909) Gilman 1995. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “An Unna u al Mo he ,” (1895) Gilman 1995. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, Unpunished, (1929) New Yo k, The Feminis P, 1997. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “The Widow’s Migh ,” (1911) Gilman 1995. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, Women and Economics. A S udy o he Economic Rela ion be ween Women and Men, (1898) New Yo k, P ome heus, 1994. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “Why I W o e ‘The Yellow Wallpape ’,” (1913) Golden, pp. 51-3. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “The Yellow Wallpape ,” (1899) Golden, pp. 24-42. GILMAN, C. PERKINS, “The Yellow Wall-pape ” and O he S o ies, Ox o d, OUP, 1995. GLASPELL, S., T i les, (1920) The Hea h An hology o Ame ican Li e a u e. Volume II, eds. Paul Lau e e al, Lexing on, Hea h & Co., (1990) 1994, pp. 1169-79. I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111 The Feminis W i ing o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman... 109 GOLDEN, C. J., ed., The Cap i e Imagina ion. A Case Book on “The Yellow Wallpape ,” New Yo k, The Feminis P, 1992. GOLDEN, C. J.& D. D. KNIGHT, “A e wo d,” Gilman 1997, pp. 213-33. GOUGH, V., “Lesbians and Vi gins: The New Mo he hood in He land,” An icipa ions. Essays on Ea ly Science Fic ion and i s P ecu so s, ed. Da id Seed, Li e pool, Li e pool UP, 1995, pp. 195-211. GOUGH, V.& J. RUDD, eds., A Ve y Di e en S o y. S udies on he Fic ion o Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman, Li e pool, Li e pool UP, 1998. GUBAR, S. S., “She in He land: Feminism as Fan asy,” Coo dina es: Placing Science Fic ion and Fan asy, eds. Geo ge E. Slusse e al, Ca bondale, Sou he n Illinois P, 1983, pp. 139-49. HAUSMAN, B. L., “Sex Be o e Gende : Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman and he E olu iona y Pa adigm o U opia,” Feminis S udies, 24, 3, Fall, 1998, pp. 488-510. HEILMANN, A., New Woman Fic ion. Women W i ing Fi s -Wa e Feminism, London, MacMillan, 2000. HERRMANN, ANNE, The Dialogic and Di e ence. An/O he Woman in Vi ginia Wool and Ch is a Wol , New Yo k, Columbia UP, 1989. HOHNE, K. & H. WUSSOW, “In oduc ion,” Hohne &Wussow, pp. ii-xxiii. HOHNE, K. & H. WUSSOW, eds., A Dialogue o Voices. Feminis Li e a y Theo y and Bakh in, Minneapolis, U o Minneso a P, 1994. HOWARD, J., Reading Go hic Fic ion. A Bakh inian App oach, Ox o d, Cla endon, 1994. HUMM, M., The Dic iona y o Feminis Theo y, London, Ha es e Whea shea , (1989) 1999. JACKSON, R., Fan asy: The Li e a u e o Sub e sion, London & New Yo k, Rou ledge, 1991. JOHNSTON, G., “Th ee Men in He land: Why They En e he Tex ,” U opian S udies IV, eds. Lise Leibache -Ou a d & Nicholas D. Smi h, New Yo k & London, Lanham, 1989, pp. 55-9. KESSLER, C. FARLEY, Cha lo e Pe kins Gilman. He P og ess owa d U opia wi h Selec ed W i ings, Li e pool, Li e pool UP, 1995. KLINE, W., Building a Be e Race: Gende , Sexuali y, and Eugenics om he Tu n o he Cen u y o he Baby Boom, Be keley, U o Cali o nia P, 2001. I.S.S.N. 1132-0265 Philologia Hispalensis 20 (2006) 85-111