Applying principles

Just a perspective on something that one might find disturbing:

“Ecofeminism is a movement that makes connections ... Ecofeminism seeks to recognize ... ecofeminism approaches the problems of ... Ecofeminism claims that ... ecofeminism clarifies that ... " (Andrea's blog). In other words, 'Ef' is made up by a group of people who agrees on a certain perspective (on the world?), a certain set of values and proscriptions, congregates, sort of like a church or a colonial power, and hence, in terms of literary criticism, aplly those principles in their reading and interpretation of literature. That must be what Andrea means and intends.

I remember being taught that doing that was a big no-no. I.e., essentially, that if you have already 'made up your mind' before you start reading you are not able to keep your mind open to the dynamics of the text, to the simple fact that, perhaps, it isn't unifiable under a (or your) proscriptive heading. That is, essentially, you would be behaving like the 'psychoanalytical feminist' of my satirical piece on "The Little Mermaid."

Must we accept the notion 'critical lense' in the sense that we have to committ ourselves to one fairly narrowly defined 'set of rules' before reading, most likely to the detriment of the text? Do we have any other options? If we take the satire out of Donna's piece on "The Uggly Duckling" (which of course to a Dane is practically a national anthem), her interpretation rides a similar (here: 'post-colonial') mission: squeeze everything into a pre-conceived, colonial-interpretive framework.

Just to play the Devil's advocate, I wouldn't be surprised if 50 to 100 years from now those people might consider the colonial time-period, of which we still seem to be part, one of the great achievements of human history, as essentially within a couple of hundred years mankind leapt forward from, let's say, the torturous, gut-spilling, public executions Foucault describes, to communicating blissfully on laptops. That wouldn't have happened without the, shall we say: enthusiastic expansion of cultures onto various continents. I have no expectations that any potential, future people will be less inept at empathetically distilling the past than we are now.

It seems, a literary interpretive angle has to formulate itself more broadly, more inclusively, more openly. Otherwise, one might fear we would bind ourselves to an endless amok-run of perspectival exclusivity, which in its parts so easily falls prey to satire.