Simone de Beauvoir`s Influence in the Works of Latin American

Simone de Beauvoir’s Influence in the Works of Latin American Women Writers
María Claudia André
Hope College
Holland, MI
“What woman has not read The Second Sex?” “What woman hasn’t found it
inspiring? Hasn’t as a result, perhaps, become a feminist?” Indeed, we have to agree with
Luce Irigaray’s introductory remarks to Je, Tu, Nous regarding Simone de Beauvoir’s
masterpiece, as The Second Sex is undoubtedly the most influential and fundamental
reference on feminism and feminist theory of our times (2).1
By now, even the French
critics detractors have come to admit that, in spite of its narrow interpretation on the
women’s socio-cultural condition, Beauvoir’s manuscript was among of our century’s
groundbreaking studies in evaluating the extent of women’s subjection to sexism,
oppression and discrimination worldwide.2 Moreover, Beauvoir’s foundational text on
feminist philosophy not only laid the first steps towards the development of a feminine
perspective, but also provided some of the basic terminology for women to critically
discuss and analyze issues related to their own lives and their own needs.
As Elizabeth
Mac Nabb notes, “In creating a space in which many textual daughters may be born, The
Second Sex gives birth to the possibility of feminist criticism and theory on a scale never
seen before in this country or any other. Therefore it is appropriate that The Second Sex
be considered the metaphorical ‘mother of the feminist family (26).”3
Ascribing to Mac Nabb’s comment, in this essay I will examine precisely the great
impact that Simone de Beauvoir’s works had on Latin American women writers and
artists, as it is a fact that, thanks to The Second Sex’s radical and controversial
perspectives on the condition of women, that we are nowadays able to discuss, critically
analyze, and even develop theoretical approaches based on gender. In my analysis I will
also focus on the many ways in which Beauvoirs’ discourse not only influenced most
well-known writers of her generation, but also the ways in which the works of these
writers (whom I consider Beauvoir’s spiritual and intellectual daughters) have expanded
the vision of Latin American feminist literary discourse today.
Latinamericanist critic Naomi Lindstrom considers that Simone de Beauvoir’s
writings drastically transformed and influenced women: “By expressing profound
dissatisfaction with the way in which our society apportions what is properly male and
what female, Beauvoir’s work initiated a widespread, productive discussion. Sex-role
analysis and debate assumed an important place in social writings of the fifties and sixties
(1).”4 Throughout Latin America, Beauvoir’s beliefs on women’s freedom almost
immediately permeated the literary and the intellectual world, spreading onto the sociopolitical realm.
Perhaps a key idea that ignited such an unexpected revolution was
Beauvoir’s unprecedented vision on women’s rights and their capacity to confront or
even challenge the patriarchal status quo since, at this time, most feminist organizations
in
Latin
America were not daring or extreme enough to question women’s
discrimination.
In countries such as Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay, The Second Sex was
avidly read by middle and upper class women, either because a friend had recommended
it or because most educated or intellectual women were acquainted with the works and
political commitment of Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre.
Another crucial factor that
sparked women’s immediate interest in this text was, Beauvior’s theory of women as “the
Other,” for it is particularly applicable to Latin American reality where women are not
only defined by men, but are also trapped in traditional images that a Catholic and
patriarchal society imposes on them. In fact, during the 50’s, with the expansion of
education, many women who had acquired some sort of professional degree felt deeply
displaced and frustrated as they faced an unexpected paradox: the same society that had
encouraged their intellectual growth was unwilling to accept their participation within the
public sphere.
By then, educated middle-upper class women had already begun to
develop critical thinking and were willing to fully participate in that society that had
promised so much and given them so little.
Yet, another a relevant factor in the success of Beauvoir’s feminist vision was the
emergence of postwar leftist orientation, embraced by most bourgeois and middle class
intellectuals who viewed themselves as mediators for freedom and social equality
between the proletariat and the ruling class. Particularly relevant at this time was the
concept of the New Man, the romantic revolutionary hero and utopian individual who
would equally cherish reason and emotion, production and reproduction, culture and
political ideology.
The revolution, however, had failed to consider or even allow for
women’s equal participation in social and political affairs.
In this sense, Beauvoir’s
theories served as an eye opener for the female activist ready to express her mauvaisse
and her dissatisfaction towards gender discrimination.5
As Toril Moi examines in the
50’s and 60’s, The Second Sex was the only book women could turn to for a
nonconformist message. “Crushed by the family oriented ideology of the 50s, many
women found Beauvoir’s insistence on the oppressive effects of marriage and
motherhood liberating.” Where patriarchy insisted that they were to blame if they did not
feel fulfilled, Beauvoir retorted that their feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction were
natural reactions to the constraints placed on their individual freedom (313).
South American progressive writers such as Argentines Silvina Bullrich (translator of
Mémoires d’ une fille rangée, 1958), Marta Lynch, and Silvina Ocampo, along with
Chilean Marta Brunet, Mexican Elena Garro, and Costa Rican Carmen Naranjo were
some of the first to formulate and reflect upon the perpetual state of economic and
psychological dependence of upper and middle class housewives.6
Most female
characters in the novels written by Latin American women during the 50’s and 60’s either
dream of leaving or attempt to leave their domineering husbands in search for personal
freedom only to face the fact that they are unable to survive independently in the manner
to which they have become accustomed. According to Ernest Lewald, “In other words,
their sheltered bourgeois past had conditioned them to reject an uncertain future that
might involve hardship, loneliness and a daily struggle to maintain their desired freedom
and dignity (21).”
Among the several writers highly influenced by Beauvoir’s work was Mexican
feminist critic, poet and novelist, Rosario Castellanos (1925-1974).7
Like Beauvoir,
Castellanos had been raised within a Catholic middle-upper class family.
After
graduating with a master’s degree in philosophy from the National University of Mexico,
she received a fellowship from the Rockefeller foundation that allowed her to write her
first novel, Balún-Canán (translated as “The Nine Guardians”), a narrative based in
personal experiences on women’s marginal position within Mexican society.
For this
first work, the author received the prestigious Mexican Critics’ award for best novel of
1957. Through the years, Castellanos wrote for several journals and magazines and held
visiting professorships in Latin American literature. In 1967, she lectured at several
universities in the United States (University of Wisconsin, Indiana and Colorado), and in
1971, she was appointed ambassador to Israel, where she also taught Latin American
literature at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.8
Castellanos was among the first Latin American feminists who perceived the need to
develop a theory of gender with which to promote social and political equality between
men and women. This was, in fact, something that Beauvoir had helped develop.
According to Maureen Ahern, “Castellanos’ rejection of a biological determinism in
women’s role is closely aligned with that of Beauvoir, who had argued that one is not
born a woman but rather becomes a woman for it is civilization as a whole that produces
this creature” (The Second Sex, 301) that culture determines all gender values, roles, and
false myths that distort the images of women. Undoubtedly, these readings inspired
Castellanos to apply them to her own social reality (41).” Endorsing Beauvoir’s views on
maternity and marriage, in her essays, poetry and narrative writing, Castellanos renders
an account of her own life while reflecting on the ways in which the myth of femininity
has suppressed most Mexican women of her generation. The issue of love and marriage
was of particular interest for middle and upper Latin American women as the
glorification of motherhood and chastity (as reflected in the notion of marianismo9 as
opposite to machismo), was till then a very powerful moral guideline with which most
respectable and honorable women were forced to comply.
As María Elena Valdés
explains, “In Mexico, women have not just been cast in the role of sex object, the role so
prevalent in first world cultures; rather, they have been taught that their purpose in life is
to serve and obey their father and their husband. No one in Mexican letters has been more
lucid in understanding and putting into practice a social feminist critique than Rosario
Castellanos. She gave Mexican feminism the direction and sense of purpose it required to
survive in the 1970s (16).” Indeed, in her essay “Self-Sacrifice Is a Mad Virtue,”
Castellanos analyzes the reasons why, the female identity is in perpetual state of crisis as
the social image though which women are to establish their social identity is constantly
being undermined by that of the male. In this match for legitimacy and recognition,
women’s aspirations or needs are never equally validated or even considered.
It is not just- and therefore neither is it legitimate- that one of the who persons
who make up the couple gives all, yet does not expect anything in return. It is
not just- thus it is not legitimate- that one of them has the opportunity to develop
intellectually, while the other has no alternative but to remain subject to
ignorance. It is not just -and for the same reason it is not legitimate - that one of
them finds not only a source of wealth through work, but also the joy of feeling
useful through creativity while the other carries out duties not worthy of
remuneration, that barely reduce the feeling of superficiality and isolation:
duties, which by their very nature are short-lived and never ending. It is not just
-therefore is not legal- that one of them is master of his own body and disposes
of it at will, while the other reserves her body, not to derive benefits, but to
unwillingly have it acted upon. (260).10
Upon comparing both authors' ideology and political commitment as reflected in
their own essays and autobiographical narratives, latinamericanist critics perceive that the
Mexican writer’s vision of women is more altruistic and less intellectually egocentric
than the one of the French writer (Graf 40). Like Beauvoir, however, in her essays
Castellanos sustains that not only men, but women as well are responsible of perpetuating
the structures of oppression, since by accepting their subordinate position, women
condone and perpetuate their own subjection. In this sense, as Myralyn Allgood remarks,
Castellanos is considered “The Simone de Beauvoir of Mexico as she reaffirms the
notion that traditional ideologies perpetuate oppression and that the oppressed are so
conditioned that they willingly consent their own oppression (xxxii).” The main interest
and critical research of Castellanos focus in debunking the rhetoric of the sanctity of the
family as she wants women to become aware that such discourse is the base of women’s
objectification and submission throughout Latin America.
Moreover, Beauvoir’s notion of Otherness was immediately embraced by her
Mexican contemporary, as previous perspectives on women’s participation in society had
never been openly or seriously questioned. It was in Beauvoir’s work where Castellanos
first encountered female reality discussed not as social or biological destiny, but as
internal choices heavily influenced by religious, moral, and intellectual factors backed up
by economic and patriarchal interests. Many critics of Castellanos acknowledge that the
origins of her creativity lie in the tension between self and the other, an image that
underscores all her verse and prose. In her poem “The Other” (from Al pie de la letra,
1959), the poet extends the notion of otherness to women, indigenous cultures, language,
and even writing itself. “Look around you,” she writes, “There is the other, always the
other, he breathes what chokes you, He eats your hunger, he dies with the purest half of
your death (quoted in Ahern 83).”11
In all four critical essays that Castellanos wrote on Beauvoir, we are able to realize
that the French feminist occupies a privileged space.12
Indeed, ascribing to Beauvoir’s
philosophy and writings, Castellanos continues a literary tradition of the feminine which,
according to Jennifer Estrella's “proposes a type of writing that functions within
masculine discourse but deconstructing it from within in order to transcend the signifiers
and symbols of the oppressive discourse. They place themselves within the masculine to
refute stereotypes of women by using irony and parody of patriarchal values (85).”13
Along these lines, Castellanos imitates the academic and authoritarian tone of masculine
writing to construct a discourse that is seen as rational and objective, however, it
incorporates a high dose of sarcasm and a touch of humor in order to demonstrate the
irrationality behind men’s prejudice against feminine writing.
In Latin America as well as throughout the world, the socialization process of the
feminine subject has not only been reflected in literature, but in other areas of cultural
representation such as film.
Within this field, Argentine filmmaker, producer, Oscar
Nominee, and perhaps one of de Beauvoir’s most avid fans, María Luisa Bemberg, stands
as an exemplary figure. In a personal interview with Caleb Bach, Bemberg explains, “I
entered film for ideological motives. Since childhood I had felt a sense of frustration, a
double standard between my brothers and me. This was a rebellion I had had since being
a girl, and it manifested itself especially after reading Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second
Sex, which was like an explosion in the minds of the majority of women of my age. I will
never be able to adequately express my appreciation for that book. It was like a dam that
burst (Bach 22).”14 In fact, during the seventies, years later after her well known aunt
Victoria Ocampo had begun voicing the first feminist concepts and ideology among the
highly educated elites of Buenos Aires, Bemberg founded Argentina’s first Feminist
Youth Organization in 1970.15
Through the years, she worked sporadically in several
theater productions as a costume and set designer; however, due to the domestic
responsibilities of raising four children on her own, she was unable to begin her
screenwriting
and
filmmaking
vocation
professionally
until
she
was
almost
60.
Throughout her life and artistic career, Bemberg remained active in the feminist cause,
tirelessly pursuing the worthy task of changing women’s subjectivity within the social
and political sphere. As the director indicated in several interviews, her primary intention
was to show women different ways to channel their emotions and passion into political
struggles and to set an example through her films and through her own personal lifestyle
for younger generations of women to follow.
In particular, Bemberg’s first scripts
Crónica de una Señora (Chronicle of a Lady, 1972)16 , Mundo de Mujeres (Women’s
World, 1972), Triángulo de cuatro (Four-sided Triangle, 1974), and Señora de nadie,
(Nobody’s Wife, 1982) present a sharp ideological standpoint as well as an identifiable
autobiographical element as they reflect on the hardships of women dealing with marital
infidelities and divorce in the extremely judgmental society of the Argentine upper-class.
The product of such society, Bemberg felt the topic of marriage needed to be questioned,
as she felt that “Marriage has always been a form of prostitution, disguised under the
illusion of love and care. Divorce will change this. Women will not be able to feel safe in
marriage. They
will
not
consider their marriage license as a kind of B.A. or a meal
ticket (Torrents 172).” In her later productions, Bemberg’s so called femme films deal
with the lives of defiant and exemplary women who dare to challenge and question
patriarchal canons of their times. Camila (1982), a groundbreaking production that would
gain Bemberg worldwide recognition for its Oscar nomination as Best Foreign Film. The
story is based on the dramatic true story of the forbidden love of Camila O’Gorman, an
aristocratic young woman who, after eloping with her confessor, is caught and executed
without a trial for her disregard to society’s pivotal institutions: church, family, and state.
Miss Mary (1987), another distinctive example of patriarchal rule, explores the subjection
and repression of bourgeois women in Argentina during the 40’s. In this semiautobiographical co-production, Bemberg recreates the life of a British governess who,
while packing her bags to return to England in 1945, reminisce the summer of 1938,
when she was hired as a tutor of two young upper-class girls. Apart from recreating the
historical events that lead to Juan Domingo Peron’s presidency, the film explores a
variety of socio-political issues dealing with Argentine oligarchy’s delusional and
eccentric behavior. As Mark Szuchman notes, the film explores the antinomies of
asserted values and behavioral practices. “This central opposition is manifested in various
ways but always within the frame of ethical opposites, of morality and lasciviousness, of
conservatism in public and licentiousness private, of affinity for Fascist hierarchies in the
thirties and support for liberal democracies in the forties. Bemberg explored these dyads
through longitudinal portrayals of Argentine mores (190).” Seeing how upper class
values affected the middle class, Bemberg felt compelled to examine those mechanisms
that led to the institutionalization of women’s subjection as well as sexual repression,
which in fact, she considered to be utterly the foremost repression, “It is very hard to
imagine how a person can be free if s/he is sexually repressed (Torrents 173).”
In 1990, by then a well-known film writer and established director, Bemberg began
her third and last historical film, Yo, la peor de todas (I, Worst of All) based on the
biographical work of Octavio Paz (1988), Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz; O, Las trampas de
la fe (The Traps of Faith).17 True to historical accounts, Bemberg’s production recreates
the life of Juana Inés Ramírez de Asbaje (1651-1695), Latin America’s first feminist
writer, a woman of remarkable genius who rejects the glamorous life of the seventeenth
century Spanish court to enter the convent of the Jeronymite Order in order to pursue her
academic interests.18 In proposing female characters who dare to confront their inner
selves in the quest for autonomy, the Argentine director reflects on the self evolutionary
process followed by women in the deconstruction of a patriarchal system that seeks to
suppress their intellectual development.
As a true artist and feminist, Bemberg has
portrayed women ahead of their times, who, in seeking to defend their basic need for self
development, have been forced to confront the male social and political forces:
Inquisition, Rosism, Peronism or Militarism, etc.19 Joining in the common preoccupation
of her contemporaries, Bemberg explores identity issues that clearly relate to gender,
politics, and history.
Like herself and Beauvoir, Bemberg's heroines are audacious and
energetic women who are able to overcome their own insecurities and fears, each of them
serving as a role model for anybody who dares to be different. As the director explains,
“Most women waste their youth as love junkies, in constant need of that fix of adoration
and passion. What I want to explore now is how to use that need in the interest of women
themselves. There’s nothing wrong with passion, it just should not be allowed to
consume our lives, or it should be channeled into political struggles (Jahene 11).” Indeed,
previous representations of women both in literature and films produced by men have
mostly portrayed female characters that ascribe to traditional phallocratic perceptions of
love (in which a woman is only complete through her total surrender or subjection to a
man, as the masculine subject grants transcendence to the feminine objectified other);
however, Bemberg’s productions constantly subvert and deconstruct romantic or
hegemonic visions of the feminine in favor of more autonomous and independent gender
relations in which women either refuse to be the Other to the male subject, or they
embrace their alterity without falling victims of hierarchical subordinations.20
Younger feminist writers like Argentine Luisa Valenzuela, Mexican Angeles Mastretta,
and Puerto-Rican Rosario Ferré have not only embraced, but also expanded some of the
feminist concepts introduced by Beauvoir.21
Assigning new values to the feminine
experience in Latin America, several novelists like Ferré perceive the act of writing as a
means to reinvent the individual’s perception of the world, particularly women’s: “I write
to reinvent myself and to reinvent the world. My need to write has a destructive quality
as an attempt to annihilate myself and annihilate the world. One must castrate oneself
into writing. Letting go and overcoming the signs of sexual opposition as a way of
defeating the Western tendency to emulate men (138).” Under the lights of this new
empowering scenario, the female subject becomes not only a part of the writing process
but also a full sign, she is “at once the signifier and signified. And as sign, she acquires
creative as well as critical value (Ahern 57).”22 In this position, she is able to challenge
phallocentric constructs of class, race, and gender, and at the same time, efface the
defining lines between high and popular literature and art. Avoiding the elitist tradition
which calls upon a “higher literature” to mirror society’s defects, and more prone to
support activist or sociopolitical work, Latin American women writers have refrained
from using complex literary tropes or allusions characteristic of the écriture féminine;
coinciding with Beauvoir’s perception that “écriture feminine is an inappropriate way to
do feminist political work, which would be more effectively accomplished by using
everyone’s language, ordinary language... (Whitford 10).” Born out of the popular weave,
this polydiscursive feminist literature taps into the tradition of testimonial from which it
collects the various strands of oral history that will thread into the text. As writers have
searched for codes, tropes, and models of representation closer to Latin American
women’s needs and concerns, they have become aware of the extent to which the cultural
identity and traditions rely upon oral narrativity and autobiography.
Along these lines,
the oral tradition has served as a cultural connector between personal and collective
testimonies maintaining the social matrix that keeps Latin Americans’ cultural identity
alive.
No longer subjected to patriarchal canons or restricted by oppressive social politics,
newer generation of women writers explore the limits of the feminine through a variety of
genres through which they challenge the nature of power and expose the hypocrisy of
traditional notions of gender. In this sense, many women authors call for the
transcendence of sex altogether, thus agreeing with Monique Wittig’s vision of a sexless
society in which binary restrictions are resolved (and dissolved) through the proliferation
of genders.23
The poetic, dramatic, and narrative discourse of Latin American, Latinas
and Chicanas writers today more than ever continue to ascribe to Beauvoir’s feminist
vision by developing innovative strategies and techniques that adjust to the mutations of
the feminine subject and her forever changing roles within modern society.24 As a
consequence to ideological and political shifts within the social systems, and certainly
following Beauvoir’s call for individuality and freedom, Latin American women have
definitively broken free from patriarchal assumptions by constructing a positive vision of
the feminine no longer related to the marginal, but interpreted as an independent
vindicatory symbol of spirituality and transcendence.
Notes
1
Perhaps, Irigaray's opinion on the value of this text is overly enthusiastic, since we can
never assume that "every woman" has read The Second Sex, and we can only hope that
every "educated" woman has done so.
2
Several Anglo-American and European critical interpretations to Beauvoir’s feminist
standpoint claim that she is too hasty in blaming women who do not seize the chance to
emancipate themselves, thus disregarding socio-cultural mechanisms that may prevent
women’s liberation in certain societies. For some critics, the French writer ignores the
idea of a community of women while failing for provide collective solutions by/for
women; furthermore, many consider that her interpretation of the feminine essence is
founded within a patriarchal and almost misogynist standpoint. Yet, Latin American
feminists are less inclined to judge her work so hastily as they consider that Beauvoir’s
works and feminist discourse have provided them with the necessary tools to begin to
think objectively about their own social and cultural situation.
3
Unquestionably, The Second Sex should be considered for its critical interpretation of
women’s role and participation in society within the 60’s frame. Indeed, we must be able
to take a certain perspective and distance ourselves from the postmodern interpretation,
and perhaps compare Beauvoir’s work with other feminists texts written at this time to
appreciate the text’s intrinsic value.
4
Even though Lindstrom’s appreciation regarding Beauvoir’s text is correct, in Latin
America, however, Beauvoir can be read only and placed within the same level of upperclass bourgeois women as her voice has not had an impact on the lower classes who are
still being subjected to other systems of oppression. The idea of questioning the depth of
existence is, for many, a luxury for those who have means and education.
5
Political implications of The Second Sex are interesting to consider as the book came
out during the McCarthy years (1946-1954); by then, Beauvoir’s vision was seen as a
Marxist for it questioned society’s hegemonic institutions.
6
Silvina Ocampo (1903-1993): La Furia (The Fury, 1959), Las invitadas (The Invited
Ones 1961), and Los días de la noche (The Days of the Night, 1970); Silvina Bullrich
(1915-1990): Bodas de cristal (Crystal Wedding Anniversary, 1951), Mañana digo basta
(I’ ll Rebel Tomorrow, 1968), and Historias Inmorales (Immoral Stories, 1965); Marta
Brunet (1897-1967): Humo hacia el sur (Smoke Towards the South, 1946) and María
Nadie (María Nobody, 1957); Marta Lynch (1925-1985): La alfombra roja (The Red
Carpet, 1962), La Señora Ordóñez (Mrs. Ordóñez, 1967), and Los cuentos de colores
(Colorful Stories, 1971); Elena Garro (1917-1998) La semana de colores (The Week of
Colors, 1964) and Recuerdos del porvenir (Recollections of Things to Come, 1966); and
Carmen Naranjo (1930-): Los perros no ladraron (The Dogs Didn’t Bark, 1966),
Sobrepunto (Overpoint, 1985), and Ondina (1985). It is interesting to note, that in the
works written by women during the 30’s and 40’s, feminine characters escape their
reality through visions and dreams as the only means by which they can cope with their
feelings of entrapment within an unwanted or restrictive marital relation.
7
Apart from novels, poetry, and drama, Castellanos wrote four volumes of critical
essays: Juicios sumarios: ensayos (Mexico: Universidad Veracruzana, 1966), Mujer que
sabe latín… (Mexico: SepSetentas, 1973), El uso de la palabra (Mexico: Excelsior,
1974), and El mar y sus pescaditos (México: SepSetentas, 1975), and a dissertation
thesis: Sobre la cultura femenina (Mexico: Ediciones América, 1950).
8
Unfortunately, her life was cut short when she died in 1974 electrocuted in her living
room while switching on a lamp after stepping out of the shower.
9
Marianismo is a cultural and societal perception that marriage and childbearing are a
women’s ultimate destiny, a destiny that justifies them as human beings. The binarism
Mother-Virgin or Whore (as an alternative), is still a concept very much in circulation
within traditional segments of society.
10
This essay was translated by Ahern and edited in her anthology in pps. 259-263;
however, the original essay was published in Diorama Excelsior, February 21, 1971,
and translated by Laura Carp Solomon.
11
[Mira a tu alrededor: hay otro, siempre hay otro./ Lo que él respira es lo que a ti te
asfixia,/ lo que come es tu hambre./ Muere con la mitad máspura de tu muerte.] Another
reference to Otherness is seen in Poesía no eres tú (You Are Not Poetry, 1972). "Because
if you existed/ I too must exist. And that is a lie. [Porque si tú existieras/ tendría que
existir you también./Y eso es mentira.] For a bilingual edition of some of Castellanos
poems consult Stephen Stapcott's, Twentieth-Century Latin American Poetry (Austin,
TX: Austin University Press, 1996).
12
In her essays, Castellanos reconstructs the genealogy of feminine writing by focusing
on the works of Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, Simone de Beauvoir, Virginia Woolf, Doris
Lessing, Simone Weil, Betty Friedan among several other feminist writers.
13
My own translation of Estrella's interpretation of Mary Jacobus's essay, The Difference
of View. Women’s Writing and Writing About Women (New York: Barnes and Noble,
1979) 10-21.
14
Also consult An Argentine Passion: María Luisa Bemberg and Her Films, edited by
John King, Sheila Whitaker, and Rosa Bosh (New York and London: Verso, 2000).
15
Cecilia Grierson, Argentina’s first female doctor, founded First Feminist Party in 1919
and in March 1936, Victoria Ocampo, María Rosa Oliver, and Susana Larguía founded
the Argentine Women’s Union. Months later, Ocampo, considered by many the most
influential women of letters and cultural icon, delivered “Woman and her Expression”, an
poignant address in which she calls for gender equality.
See Doris Meyer, Victoria
Ocampo: Against the Wind and the Tide (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press,
1990). According to Leila Guerriero, Bemberg’s biographer, it was in these meetings
where she began the path of self-discovery and empowerment which finally transformed
her into a true feminist. Leila Guerriero, “María Luisa Bemberg,” in Mujeres argentinas:
el lado femenino de nuestra historia (Buenos Aires : Alfaguara, 1998).
16
As Catherine Grant notes, “Interestingly, there are some explicit references to the
feminist movement made in Crónica de una señora. About 30 minutes into the film, Fina
(the main character) is shown studying Beauvoir’s Le deuxième sexe, a perfectly
‘acceptable’ example of the elite French culture, on the surface at least, to which
someone of Fina’s educational background might be exposed (76).” See “Intimista
Transformations: María Luisa Bemberg’s First Feature Films,” in An Argentine Passion:
María Luisa Bemberg and Her Films, pp. 73-108.
17
Yo, la Peor de Todas (I, ther Worst of All) was produced by Gilbert Marouani and Lita
Stantic. The script was written by Bemberg and Antonio Larreta. See Octavio Paz, Sor
Juana, or The Traps of Faith, (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, Harvard University,
1988). Orig. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz; O, Las trampas de la fe (Barcelona: Seix Barral,
1982). For critical interpretations of this film see Emilie Bergmann’s, “Abjection and
Ambiguity: Lesbian Desire in Bemberg’s Yo, la peor de todas,” in Hispanisms and
Homosexualities, eds. Sylvia Molloy and Robert McKee Irwin (Durham and London:
Duke University Press, 1998), 229-247. Also consult Susan E. Ramírez, “I, The Worst of
All,” in Based on a True Story: Latin American History at the Movies, edited by Donald
Stevens (Wilmington: SR Books, 1997) 47-62.
18
In 1690, Sor Juana was commissioned by an anonymous person to write a critique on a
sermon delivered in 1650 by the Portuguese Jesuit, Antonio de Vieyra. In this essay,
later published under the title of Carta Atenagórica (Athenagoric Letter, named for its
excellence worthy of Athena, Roman Goddess of Wisdom) Sor Juana not only questioned
but she also challenged Father Vieyra’s theological views. The bishop of Puebla, Manuel
Fernández de Santa Cruz, replied to Sor Juana’s letter with another of his own, signed
under the pseudonym of Sor Filotea de la Cruz. The letter reveals his admiration towards
the nun’s erudition and rhetorical dexterity, but it aims to discourage her interest in
profane literature. This attack brought up Sor Juana’s famous autobiographical essay,
Respuesta a Sor Filotea de la Cruz (1691). Here, the Mexican nun tactfully, yet
sarcastically, justifies her scholarly vocation as a natural impulse that God laid upon her,
while at the same time, she admits that conventual life was the most appropriate path she
could follow since she felt total abhorrence towards marriage. In this first-hand account,
Sor Juana reveals several aspects of her personality vehemently defending women’s
rights to receive an education.
19
The term "Rosism" refers to the historical period in which Argentina was ruled by Juan
Manuel de Rosas, a political leader who was governor (1835–52) of Buenos Aires and
excercised dictatorial powers. Rosas' 17-year dictatorship, although professing to be
federalist, was in fact centralist and noted for its law and order through tyranny. His spies
and secret police intimidated all opposition, so that by 1840 few dared to oppose him. He
also ordered the display of his portrait in public places and churches as a sign of his
supreme command. Finally a coalition of Brazilians, Uruguayans, and native
Argentinians, under the leadership of Justo José de Urquiza, overthrew Rosas at the
Battle of Caseros (Feb. 3, 1852). Rosas was forced to flee to England. Consult
Encyclopedia Britannica <http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=65727>.
20
In the nature of love and transcendence, Bemberg's perception endorses Beauvoir's
ideology as manifested in The Second Sex's chapter xxiii, "The Woman in Love," 642669.
21
For further reading consult Luisa Valenzuela (1938-): Cambio de armas (Other
Weapons, 1985), El gato eficaz (The Efficient Cat, 1984), and Como en la guerra (He
Who Searches, 1977); Ángeles Mastretta (1949-): Arráncame la vida (Mexican Bolero,
1989) and Puerto Libre (Free Port, 1993); and Rosario Ferré (1942-): Papeles de
Pandora (Pandora’s Papers, 1976) and Sitio a Eros (Besieging Eros, 1980).
22
In this context, as Ahern notes, Castellanos vision of language as an instrument of
domination precedes by a decade most of the notions developed by the French critics
such as Hélène Cixous and Luce Irigaray. See from Castellanos “An Attempt at SelfCriticism” (1966), “If Not Poetry, Then What?” (1973), and “Language as an Instrument
of Domination” (1973) in Ahern’s, A Rosario Castellanos Reader (1988).
23
For an excellent critical interpretation of this topic, see Judith Butler’s “Variations on
Sex and gender: Beauvoir, Wittig, and Foucault.” In Feminism as Critique edited by
Seyla Benhabib and Drucilla Cornell (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press,
1987) 128-142.
24
For further reference on Chicana and Latina authors consult, Debra A. Castillo, Talking
Back: Toward a Latin American Feminist Literary Criticism. Ithaca and London: Cornell
University Press, 1992. Also see Tey Diana Rebolledo and Eliana S. Rivero, eds. Infinite
Divisions: An Anthology of Chicana Literature. Tucson and London: University of
Arizona Press, 1993. From Gloria Anzaldúa and Cherrie Moraga editors, This Bridge
Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color. Watertown, MA: Persephone
Press, 1981 and also from Anzaldúa, Making Face, Making Soul: Haciendo Caras:
Creative and Feminist Perspectives by Feminists of Color. San Francisco: Aunt Lute
Books, 1990.