I want to clarify that the contradiction I see in Ingram's essay is not between self-interest and expanded market opportunities (certainly, as Ingram points out, the logic of a market economy), but rather between the satirical and status-quo rejecting critic Ingram seems to paint Whitney as at the beginning of her essay, and the seeker-for-place-in-that-status-quo she paints her as at the end. My point that this shift is predicated on the presuppositions of the subfield - the necessity of her speaker's "failure" and attendant seeking - has nothing to do with a connection between women writers and a moral economy, nor indeed with a connection between women writers and economy in general. Rather, it has to do with some of the argumentative means by which Ingram arrives at her final claim that Whitney wants a piece of the pie, the suppositions about the social and literary reasons she would understand herself as always already being in a (gendered) position of membership-seeking rather than commoning rejection.
| Go to this issue's index. |
