Jan Matonoha
– a comparatively longer view of the fifties and sixties is relevant for the reading of the seventies and eighties as well – can be summed up as following: from a short-lived attempt at dismantling the traditional gender order in the 1950s, through a reflection on gender roles in the 1960s (of which part was both a critical reflection on gender and a re-emergence of anti-emancipatory discourses), to a return to a conservative gender discourse in the 1970s and 1980.40 In the literary dissent scene of the 1970s and 1980s, a backlash toward the official regime (and as an unintentional side effect, a backlash against the emancipation achieved so far) went – as said before, paradoxically enough – hand in hand with the official literary scene and the political regime that the dissent movement went against: The State’s change of attitude toward the gender order resonated with the traditionalist gender discourse (now-canonical) dissent/alternative actors, so that at the moment of the communist regime’s demise these two large actors, who stood in opposition to each other in other areas of politics, concurred on gender politics.41 Thus as we would see below (in more detail), literary evolution in individual decades, as far as literature is concerned, follows general gender developments as summarized above. In literary fiction, pro-gender voices can be thus tracked in a period prior to dissent, in the 1950s (pre-war as well as post-1948 communist authors and feminists, such as Marie Majerová and Marie Pujmanová)42 and namely in the 1960s (e.g., Alena Vostrá, Zdena Salivarová)43 while – at least in comparison – pro-gender voices were rather absent during the 1970s and 1980s (when, for instance, in works by Iva Pekárková, Zuzana Brabcová, Tereza Boučková, Alexandra Berková, and Lenka Procházková gender dimensions are undervalued or absent entirely); a somewhat more palpable presence of these pro-gender topics can arguably be detected in novels by Eva Kantůrková or Eda Kriseová. Overall though, the given view rather confirms the theory of “expropriated voice,” as put forward by Hana Havelková,44 in which – in my words – a pro-gender stance
40
Havelková and Oates-Indruchová, “Expropriated voice,” p. 18.
41
Ibid.
42
As to the need of rediscovering pre- as well as post-WWII communists and feminists, cf. for instance the work of Dana Nývltová (2011) or the case of Wanda Wasilewska in an article by Agnieszka Mrozik (2017). 43
I consider her presence on the list as warranted – which is, however, somewhat paradoxical, given the highly troublesome gender-dimension of the literary works of her husband, Josef Škvorecký (see Matonoha, “Dispositives of Silence,”; Matonoha, “Dispozitivy mlčení”). Perhaps it could be seen as a case when partners could not and should not be expected to share common (or all) values. 44
Havelková and Oates-Indruchová, “Expropriated voice.”
98
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS296960
A Preliminary Survey of the Near Past
became a part of the official paradigm, having been dispossessed by the official regime from feminists proper (and their voice having been suppressed or much transformed).45 Thus I am still very hesitant to speak of “feminist” or at least pro-gender engagements in the seventies and especially the eighties in literature. One cannot rid himself – or herself – of certain doubts, even in views voiced by a prominent dissident and (from the nineties onwards) a feminist, Jiřina Šiklová (who, for instance, quotes Věra Jirousová disproving the theory of women only being transcribers): “As in here [i.e., in samizdat and dissent activities] or in exile, women who were politically engaged exercised equally important agency as men did, only – let’s say – different in terms of its technology” (my own translation and emphasis).46 To which one might also contrast the words from A Czech Dreambook by Ludvík Vaculík: “When I find a pair of a capable female hands, I will have to have the text transcribed.”47,48 Although I should add here, for the period of the seventies and eighties, that names such as Eva Kantůrková, Věra Jirousová, Eda Kriseová, Zdena Tominová, and others stand as an important exception to this prevailing tendency to disregard for feminist tenets (that is, to what I find as the logic of injurious attachments). For instance, I cannot skip the fact that Eva Kantůrková, whose mother was a pre-WWII feminist,49 populated her arguably most well-known novel, My Companions from a Bleak House / (Mé) Přítelkyně v domě / z domu smutku (1984), with female characters. At the same time, though, two 45
The feminist voice was suppressed often violently, as the aforementioned example of a politician – but also a feminist – Milada Horáková, executed in a public show trial, demonstrates. See Bahenská, Heczková, and Musilová Iluze spásy, and Vodrážka, Rozumí české ženy vlastní historii?; but a number of other less dramatic yet far-reaching examples could be mentioned, cf. the transformation and eventual closure of the Council of Women, headed by Milada Horáková, and subsequently, after her execution, called the Council of Czechoslovak Women, and finally, until 1967, the Czechoslovak Women’s Committee, a much smaller organisation consisting mostly of Czechoslovak Communist Party members and controlled by the Communist Party. See Denisa Nečasová, “Women’s Organizations in the Czech Lands, 1948–1989: An Historical Perspective,” in Hana Havelková and Libora Oates-Indruchová, The Politics of Gender Culture under State Socialism: An Expropriated Voice (London: Routledge, 2014), pp. 58–67. 46
In the original: “Jak zde, tak v exilu stály politicky se angažující ženy spíše vedle svých partnerů a vykonávaly stejně významnou činnost jako muži, jen řekněme technicky jinou,” Jiřina Šiklová, “Podíl českých žen,” p. 43. 47
In Ludvík Vaculík Český snář (samizdat edition Petlice, 1981). A translation of A Czech Dreambook appeared in 2019 (with an important afterword by Jonathan Bolton). Also cf. Jan Matonoha “Ženám inženýrství nevěřím,” A2 11 (2015), no. 16, p. 5.
48
Cf. also, as Libora Oates-Indruchová points out, “feminist writings were not included, or at least not enough to affect awareness in nonconformist intellectual circles, as Šiklová, herself a member of the book-smuggling network, noted.” Oates-Indruchová, “Unraveling a Tradition, or Spinning a Myth?” p. 942, referring to Jiřina Šiklová, “Únava z vysvětlování,” in Marie Chřibková, Josef Chuchma, and Eva Klimentová (eds.), Feminismus devadesátých let českýma očima (Prague: One Woman Press, 1999), p. 133. 49
Straková and Linková Bytová revolta, p. 99.
99
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS296960
Jan Matonoha
points of doubt could be raised here. 1. From a feminist view, one can find the choice of female characters there (mostly petty criminals) a little counterproductive. The choice made, of course, is not her own, as the novel was based upon particular inmates she encountered during her politically motivated imprisonment in Prague-Ruzyně Prison,50 and of course, a reader cannot and should not expect to encounter some sterile, middle-class characters in the novel.51 Thus female heroines of one of the most well-known novels of dissent era recruit from petty criminals. 2. From a post-structuralist view, a doubt can be raised by her sticking to the discourse of universalist humanism rather than (particular forms of) feminism52 to capture specific life stories of the novel’s individual female characters, which was further underscored by Václav Havel’s preface to the book.53 Importantly, though, in 1980, Kantůrková published a collection of interviews, among other reasons, as a response to Jiří Lederer’s book České rozhovory (Czech interviews, 1978), where Eva Kantůrková, as she points out, was the only woman in the collection.54 This prompted her to complement it with interviews by women: in the collection of interviews with women, entitled Sešly jsme se v této knize (We have come together in this book), maybe not downright feminist but surely pro-gender voices can be heard, albeit in somewhat hushed tones (e.g., in an interview with Věra Jirousová where she doubts the masculine pre-given appropriation framework of reality).55 As to Eda Kriseová, she took part in international women’s conferences in the early 1990s where she met, among others, Betty Friedan.56 This, however, does not pertain to her novels from the 1970s, where feminism (in Kriseová’s own fiction – to my mind – as well as in general) was mostly absent.57
50
This novel is the best known of the comparatively large number novels she wrote; a well-received TV series, based upon her novel, was filmed in 1992. 51
Cf. novels by Jean Genet, for instance, the difference being that Jean Genet transcended his petty criminal career through his writing, while the characters populating Kantůrková’s novel in question do not. 52
What I have in mind here is an opposition (presented, for instance, by thinkers such as Donna Haraway, Sandra Harding, and Helen Longino) raised to the concept of a rather daring claim for a supposedly universal humanism that obscures a reality of speaking from a particular, always situated standpoint, and we can sense a critique going alongside similar lines much earlier, for instance in Gadamer’s hermeneutics too. 53
See Hron, “Word Made Flesh.”
54
Straková and Linková, Bytová revolta, p. 111.
55
See Eva Kantůrková, Sešly jsme se v této knize (Prague: Toužimský a Moravec, 1991 [1980]), p. 95. But I still harbour certain doubts about the pro-gender engagements of voices expressed in these interviews. These doubts, however, go beyond the scope of this article and shall be addressed elsewhere. 56
Straková and Linková, Bytová revolta, p. 156.
57
I will address this ambiguity in more detail in future research, where I also will address the work of Mirek Vodrážka in the samizdat journal Vokno in the 1980s.
10 0
Ukázka elektronické knihy