Mills ‘suspicious’ reading of Fuller’s Valentine poem discussed above is a result of her exposure to feminist writings such as those of Fetterley and Burton, and allows her to suggest that feminist readers are more similar to one another than to readers who are not feminist. The predisposition to be aware of certain codes or to recognise textual cues suggests a more ‘direct’ relationship between the feminist author and feminist reader, (i.e., between implied author and implied reader), than between the same author and a non-feminist reader. The feminist reader, Mills argues, has additional member’s resources due to her (or his) ability to recognise certain themes which are familiar.
32
[...] not only is there the construction of a shared knowledge between the text and the reader [. . . ] but there may be a code or private language which is being developed between the feminist text and the feminist audience, where it is assumed that the reader will be able to decode the language [... ]
Feminist writing may be considered that writing which contains clear signals to the reader that certain knowledge is shared. (Mills, 1994.31)
Again, this is not a new insight; Culler argues similarly that readers acquire knowledge of the codes and conventions which are necessary in order to read, becoming competent in interpreting texts due to their familiarity with other texts (Culler, 1983). However, Mills argues for a distinction between, what might be termed ‘ordinary’ readers, and those who read as/like a feminist;
[.. . ] the degree to which you identify yourself as a feminist plays a significant role in the way that you read. (Mills, 1994:34)
There may be differences between men and women readers in this respect, since reading ‘like’ a feminist is a reading strategy which men and women alike can adopt, whereas reading ‘as’ a feminist is more likely to be a specifically female activity. In addition, reading ‘as’ a feminist is a reading strategy which may be more or less apparent, may be at variance with the feminism evident in the text, or may be absent altogether.
Similarly, while it is possible for readers to read ‘like’ a woman or man,
‘acting out a particular reading position’, this is distinct from reading ‘as’ a woman or man, which ‘assumes that you are that particular gender position’ (Mills, 1994:33). For women who are also feminists there may be a closer relationship between the implied author of feminist fiction and the implied reader, who is a feminist, and does not have to assume that position. In order to investigate the extent to which these differences may affect reading responses, Mills asked readers to complete questionnaires illustrating their responses to a poem whose subject matter was
menstruation, pregnancy and witchcraft; due to its topic, she felt that it ‘seemed to be indirectly addressing a female/feminist reader’ (Mills, 1994:35).
Most of Mills’ informants were able to recognise the ‘dominant’ reading of the poem, yet there appeared to be sex differences in response. Mills claims that men tried to ‘universalize’ its meaning, whereas women related it to their personal experience. Women readers
[...] recognized the subject position proffered by the text and either gained pleasure from identifying a closeness between that position and themselves, or they rejected the position. Male readers seemed in a more difficult position, where their pleasure in the poem was not related to their recognition of subject positions. (Mills, 1994:39)
Mills offers no information about why some of the women rejected the subject position offered by the poem. However, Mills’ comment that the men’s responses were unrelated to their recognition of subject positions at first seems odd. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that male readers are unable to adopt Jane’s subject position in Jane Eyre and read ‘like’ women, just as Fetterley argues that women have frequently had to read ‘like’ men. It is more likely therefore that it is the topic of the poem which is responsible for differences between the men and women readers in Mills’ study. It is evident that the differing experiences of men and women on such topics of menstruation and childbirth are inevitably going to produce different types of response, and it is perhaps not surprising that the men were apparently unable to respond to the poem on a ‘personal’ level, and commented on the unusual nature of the subject matter. Therefore, although Mills’ work is useful in that it demonstrates that there are a variety of potential subject positions offered by a text, and incorporates the notion of ideology to suggest the ways in which readers are presented with the ‘obviousness’ of social roles, the empirical data which are used to support her claim that men and women read differently are less convincing. The findings are
34
disappointing and perhaps predictable, given the nature of the subjects discussed by the poem.
In addition, Mills argues that the speaker in the poem addresses a female audience, yet this does not appear to be borne out by the responses of the men. Their comments, Mills claims, are attempts to ‘universalize’ its meaning since it poses difficulties for them in terms of subject position. However, the poem may be
compared to the situation found in first-person narratives; the speaking T details her thoughts and feelings about menstruation and pregnancy, which does not necessarily preclude the male readers from understanding her experience. It may be more useful to investigate differing responses from men and women in relation to aspects of social life which are shared between us.
However, the fact that there are differences in response among the female readers is more revealing. The majority of the women thought the poem was feminist, while the majority o f the men thought that it was not. Mills argues that the women’s interpretation of the poem as ‘feminist’ is a result of their recognition of a code which predisposes them to read it in this way, since menstruation and pregnancy are common
subjects in feminist writing. The theme of biological differences from the angle of celebration or complaint is an area which is probably more familiar to some women than to some men, leading to differences in interpretation between these readers and others. Thus the unexpectedness of the subject material was only apparent in the responses o f those readers who were unfamiliar with ‘feminist’ topics. However, the men differ in their perception of the poem, arguing that the theme can be extended to incorporate other areas of experience with which anyone can identify, and which are not exclusively feminist (Mills, 1994:38/9).
Since the questionnaire consisted of a number of fairly closed questions, the informants were limited in the range of possible responses. Mills suggests that
Male readers sometimes seem to be put in an uncomfortable position by texts which are written overtly for women, since they assume that the address does not include them, unlike the seemingly universal masculine address.
(Mills, 1995:33)
Yet, anecdotal evidence suggests that men do not have difficulty in reading texts by which they are not directly addressed, women’s magazines, for example. By contrast, there are many genres which employ technical jargon which do exclude the non-initiated reader, for example, those which discuss computing, mountaineering, classical music, DIY, or any which are addressed to specific sections of the
population. Again this suggests that it is not only gender which influences response, but that experience and training are important factors.
Mills suggests that the differences among female readers themselves is a consequence o f feminist politics (or lack of it) on interpretation, resulting from the distinction between those who read only (!) as women and those who read as/like feminists. The classification of the poem as ‘feminist’ by the women suggests that their responses may be related to their familiarity with such themes, causing them to apply a framework for reading which is partially informed by feminist writing. This is sometimes referred to as a ‘narrative schema’, and Mills suggests that such a schema helps to explain why certain ideas are familiar and recognisable, triggering a response to certain ‘codes’ (e.g., menstruation), which may explain the women’s claims that the poem is feminist. (Such aspects are further considered in my discussion of schema theory in section 2. 6 (i).
The very mention of menstruation in this poem as ‘woman’s blood’ and the questioning of the need for pregnancy seemed to constitute for the majority of the female readers a ‘code’ that the poem was feminist and that it was directed at a female audience. (Mills, 1995:37)
36
Such ‘codes’ will be picked up by some readers and not others according to the schemata available to them, and may account for the men’s response that the poem is not feminist. There is no reason why men cannot read ‘like’ feminists however, and it is strange that this predisposition is absent in the men’s responses, given the
awareness of feminist writings in academic teachings. It is also not inevitable that a feminist poem only addresses a female audience, as is illustrated by the way in which feminist ideas have been appropriated by some gay male readers. 4
The discussion so far has focused on the relationship between implied author and implied reader, and has noted the potential for resistance to a text due to a mismatch between the reader and the implied reader. The possibility for resistance to the reading position offered by a text has been illustrated by my discussion of the work of feminist scholars. However, I have noted some criticisms, namely the lack of attention to linguistic detail in the work of Fetterley for example, and Mills’
concentration on gender as the primary factor which distinguishes among readers. The two areas which are the concern of this thesis, namely the relationship between text (i.e., point of view) and the responses of real readers, so far remain separate. Before discussing point of view issues in detail, (the textual dimension) I will consider some of the empirical work which has been undertaken (the reader dimension).