The Persistence of Bias in German Eighteenth-Century Studies

Abstract

The Persistence of Bias in German Eighteenth-Century Studies Margaretmary Daley In my recent book on German women novelists around 1800, I argue that a canon of German literature around 1800 exists, whether scholars desire it or not. Optimists might counterargue that there are multiple canons, multiple methods by which titles are selected. A more pessimistic view would look at the field of German studies and see the persistence of a gendered, not to say sexist lens, despite at least three waves of change brought on by feminist literary critics and theorists. Opinion is certainly divided. In this think piece, I take the pessimistic view that yes, we have a canon and despite inroads and new research, it unfortunately skews persistently toward male bias. I put forth this viewpoint in hopes of stimulating discussion and contributing actively to positive change in the field. To support my opinion, I argue as a scholar for other scholars and begin by looking back at the same relevant issues of canonicity and period themselves and measure both how times have changed and how they have not, comparing the specific case of women authors in German literature to more general developments in the humanities overall. In 1783, Sophie von La Roche published the passage below in her journal, Pomona für Teutschlands Töchter, addressing her readers directly, speaking as a woman to women about women: Ich hoffe meine Leserinnen sind mit mir zufrieden, daß ich sie vorerst mit den Verdiensten unsers Geschlechts bekannt mache, weil ich sie dadurch ihre eigene [sic] Fähigkeiten näher kennen lehre, und vielleicht den edlen Ehrgeitz erwecke, auch in ihrer Art und nach ihren Umständen Vorzüge des Wissens und der Beschäftigungen zu erwerben.1 I hope that my readers are satisfied with me, in that I shall first make them familiar with the accomplishments of our sex, because through this, I can make them aware of their own capabilities, and perhaps arouse in them the noble ambition to acquire the advantages of knowledge and of occupation, each in her own way and according to her situation. Here, in the context of a think piece for the Goethe Yearbook, I wish to draw attention to multiple aspects of La Roche's direct apostrophe of her readers and the passage overall. First, La Roche's implicit pedagogical strategy notes that an effective preliminary step to a critical understanding of [End Page 63] literature recognizes how important identity politics are. It takes into consideration how individuals learn by seeking out similar people and identifying as a group—here, female readers with female authors. Second, the educational project of Pomona2 can remind us of the sometimes not obvious pedagogical impact of our own contemporary academic journals.3 For example, reading articles published in the Yearbook implicitly continues the education of the reader, even though, unlike Pomona's readers, many of these are peers of the article authors, with expertise as profound as that of the contributors. When speaking of and to her readers from 250 years ago, La Roche theorizes ways of reading that implicitly acknowledge a power differential between men—who had more frequent and open access to a wide range of texts—and women, who read through a less privileged lens as mere "female readers." While new approaches in academic publications are exciting, they continue to school their readers and may bear implicit bias. Finally, because the quotation stems from 1783, it exemplifies two general challenges for contemporary scholars of German literature around 1800. The first challenge is the age of the text: for example, the use of the word "Geschlecht" in 1783 differs from its use in 2022. The second challenge occurs at the level of the persistence of culturally biased valorization. One instance is the negative judgment against the original text, with the author's dropping of the secondary ending on the adjective "eigene." Had Pomona long been treated as an important contribution to all literary history and not merely women's literary history, a standardized modern, critical edition of the journal might exist. Had there been centuries of unbiased respect, such an edition might note the conditions of female education in the...