“Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio

“Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio first appeared in the Autumn 1988 issue of Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature (Volume 7, No. 2, pp. 261-282), published by the University of Tulsa. Salvaggio’s essay explores the intersection of feminist theory and spatial conceptualization, arguing that women writers and theorists have historically redefined the notion of space through their unique experiences and articulations. Drawing on figures like Virginia Woolf, Julia Kristeva, and Elaine Showalter, Salvaggio examines how feminist theory challenges traditional metaphysical and structuralist frameworks, which often codify space as masculine. Instead, feminist theorists create “feminine spaces” that are fluid, open, and generative, reshaping the intellectual and aesthetic contours of theory itself. The essay is significant for its critical analysis of how space and gender intersect in the production of knowledge, offering a transformative perspective on the roles of women in literary theory and beyond. Salvaggio’s work remains a cornerstone in feminist literary studies, emphasizing the importance of reclaiming and reimagining space as a domain of both representation and resistance for women.

Summary of “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio

• Historical Silence of Women in Theory: Salvaggio explores the historical absence of women in the realm of literary theory, attributing this silence not only to exclusion by male-dominated traditions but also to women’s unique conceptualization of space (Salvaggio, 1988, p. 261). Unlike male theorists, whose frameworks often emphasize enclosed and totalized structures, women envision space as fluid and transformative.
• Feminist Theory and Spatial Concepts: Feminist theory emerges as a distinct category, contrasting traditional and postmodern theories with its grounding in women’s lived spatial experiences. Women’s spatial theorizing does not reshape masculine spaces but brings feminine spaces into discourse, challenging traditional metaphysical and postmodern constructs (p. 262).
• Masculine and Feminine Spatial Boundaries in Theory: Salvaggio highlights the “masculine” tendencies of traditional theories, with their focus on bounded, static forms such as the formalist “well-wrought urn.” Feminist theories, in contrast, emphasize dispersive and open-ended spaces, aligning with what Alice Jardine describes as “coded as feminine” (p. 263).
• Women’s Transformative Spatial Engagements: Women’s spatial engagement in theory blurs boundaries and redefines theoretical landscapes. For example, theorists like Julia Kristeva explore “Women’s Space” and “Women’s Time,” integrating feminine subjectivity and challenging patriarchal symbolic orders (p. 271).
• Margins and Feminist Revisions of Space: Salvaggio adopts Teresa de Lauretis’s concept of “space-off,” representing women’s marginal, invisible positions in traditional discourse. Women reclaim these marginal spaces, transforming them into sites of resistance and reconstruction. These efforts create spaces for feminist perspectives that embrace multiplicity and reject hegemonic constraints (p. 273).
• Embodied Spaces and Feminist Writing: The essay discusses the body as a critical site for feminist theorizing, referring to works such as Hélène Cixous’s écriture féminine. Writing through the body dissolves rigid theoretical boundaries, reflecting the fluid, generative nature of feminine spaces (p. 275).
• Fluidity and the Feminine Abyss: Salvaggio employs metaphors of water and fluidity to describe women’s theorizing as transformative and boundary-defying. Drawing from Adrienne Rich and Luce Irigaray, she highlights the dissolution of oppositional binaries and hierarchical structures in feminist spaces (p. 276).
• Challenges to Traditional Spatial Constructs: Feminist theory, as discussed by Salvaggio, redefines spatial constructs by rejecting fixed, patriarchal metaphors and embracing dynamic, liquid spaces. This transformation extends beyond literary theory to influence broader cultural and philosophical discourses (p. 278).
• Intersections of Theory, Writing, and Identity: The work concludes by emphasizing the revolutionary potential of feminist theory to reshape traditional disciplines. By inhabiting and transforming theoretical spaces, women create new avenues for discourse, resisting oppressive symbolic orders and fostering inclusivity (p. 281).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio

• Women’s Poetics and Silence in Theory:
  • Explores the historical “silence” of women in literary theory, attributing it to spatial and metaphysical constructs dominated by male theorists like Aristotle and his intellectual descendants.
  • Reference: “The very notion of space has been foregrounded by a long tradition of men who deal in both the spatial concept of metaphysics and, more recently, in its spatio-temporal deconstruction” (p. 261).
• Feminist Theory as Spatial Reimagination:
  • Feminist theory reconfigures traditional notions of space by foregrounding women’s lived experiences and the spaces they occupy, rather than adapting to pre-existing “masculine” spaces.
  • Reference: “Instead of shaping masculine space into something feminine, these women bring feminine space to life by writing from, through, and about the spaces women themselves have occupied” (p. 262).
• Spatial Criticism and Masculine Constructs:
  • Discusses “space critics,” such as Joseph Frank, J. Hillis Miller, and Paul de Man, who conceptualized literary theory within spatial dimensions like “closure,” “gaps,” and “symbolic unities.”
  • Reference: “Their attempt to chart the spatial dimensions of literature…sought to measure off and stake out the territory that literary discourse might legitimately be said to occupy” (p. 263).
• Structural and Poststructural Space:
  • Structuralism frames space as systematic and bounded (e.g., Roman Jakobson’s linguistic frameworks), while poststructuralism, through theorists like Derrida, dismantles such boundaries by emphasizing “spacing” and “difference.”
  • Reference: “Poststructuralist theory…regards [space] in the opposite way as the temporal gaps, the spaces between, that make cohesion impossible” (p. 267).
• “Space-off” and Marginality:
  • Borrowing from Teresa de Lauretis’s film theory, the “space-off” refers to women’s marginal positions within discourse and their ability to reconstruct from this vantage.
  • Reference: “De Lauretis explains women’s marginality in terms of ‘the space not visible in the frame but inferable from what the frame makes visible’” (p. 273).
• Ecriture Féminine (Writing the Body):
  • Influenced by Hélène Cixous, feminist writing emphasizes the transformative potential of writing through the female body, disrupting rigid, patriarchal spatial frameworks.
  • Reference: “Woman must write her body…must burst partitions, classes, and rhetorics, orders and codes” (p. 275).
• Fluid Space and Feminist Transformations:
  • Describes feminine spaces as fluid, generative, and boundary-defying, in contrast to static masculine spaces. Feminist theorists like Luce Irigaray emphasize the dissolution of fixed spatial constructs.
  • Reference: “Perhaps woman’s space is water…Woolf’s ‘uncharted sea’ or that Derrida leaps across, but in which Cixous prefers to swim” (p. 276).
• Maternal and Generative Spaces:
  • Drawing from Adrienne Rich and Julia Kristeva, Salvaggio highlights maternal spaces as central to feminist theory, emphasizing fluidity, transformation, and resistance to static metaphors.
  • Reference: “The fluidity of both woman’s body and writing seems inseparable from the fluid dimension of her theorizing” (p. 276).
• Gynesis and Feminine Spatial Coding:
  • Alice Jardine’s concept of “gynesis” describes the feminization of theoretical spaces by male postmodern theorists, though Salvaggio critiques its reliance on male-coded depictions of femininity.
  • Reference: “Jardine uses the term ‘gynesis’ to describe this ‘woman-effect,’…freely coded as feminine” (p. 268).
• Temporal and Spatial Juxtaposition in Feminist Theory:
  • Julia Kristeva’s dual concepts of “Women’s Time” (historical participation) and “Women’s Space” (symbolic, nonlinear configurations) encapsulate feminism’s multifaceted engagement with space.
  • Reference: “Kristeva also delineates these two concepts of space, using them to explore potential transformative effects in both” (p. 271).

Contribution of “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio to Literary Theory/Theories

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Reference
Women’s Silence in Theory	Historical lack of women’s voices in literary theory due to male-dominated metaphysical and spatial constructs.	“The very notion of space has been foregrounded by a long tradition of men…” (p. 261).
Feminist Theory as Spatial Reimagination	Redefines traditional spatial boundaries by integrating women’s experiences and perspectives.	“These women bring feminine space to life by writing from, through, and about…” (p. 262).
Spatial Criticism (Masculine Constructs)	Male theorists like Frank, Miller, and de Man mapped literary theory onto spatial dimensions like gaps and unity.	“Their attempt to chart the spatial dimensions of literature…” (p. 263).
Structural Space	Conceptualizes space as systematic, bounded, and hierarchical (e.g., linguistic structures).	“Structural critics gave us the key to a much larger…room of mental design” (p. 265).
Poststructural Spacing	Emphasizes temporal gaps and differences that challenge cohesive, bounded spatial constructs.	“Regarded…as the temporal gaps, the spaces between, that make cohesion impossible” (p. 267).
“Space-off” and Marginality	Women’s position in discourse as marginalized, allowing them to reconstruct dominant narratives.	“De Lauretis explains women’s marginality in terms of…‘the space not visible in the frame’” (p. 273).
Ecriture Féminine (Writing the Body)	Writing through the female body to disrupt patriarchal spatial orders and create transformative discourse.	“Woman must write her body…must burst partitions, classes, and rhetorics…” (p. 275).
Fluid Space	Feminine spaces depicted as fluid and generative, in contrast to rigid masculine spatial constructs.	“Perhaps woman’s space is water…uncharted sea…” (p. 276).
Maternal and Generative Spaces	Draws from maternal symbolism to highlight transformation and fluidity in feminist theory.	“The fluidity of both woman’s body and writing…inseparable from theorizing” (p. 276).
Gynesis	Feminization of theoretical spaces by male postmodern theorists, emphasizing dispersive and non-cohesive spaces.	“Jardine uses the term ‘gynesis’ to describe this ‘woman-effect’…” (p. 268).
Temporal and Spatial Juxtaposition	Kristeva’s concepts of “Women’s Time” (historical engagement) and “Women’s Space” (nonlinear, symbolic space).	“Kristeva also delineates these two concepts of space…” (p. 271).

Examples of Critiques Through “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio

Literary Work	Critique Through “Theory and Space, Space and Woman”	Key Theoretical Concepts Applied
Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own	Highlights Woolf’s argument for a woman’s physical and metaphorical space for creative work, aligning with Salvaggio’s idea of women reimagining space in theory.	Women’s Space: Woolf’s “room” mirrors Kristeva’s “Women’s Time” and “Women’s Space” as transformative and resistant to linear structures.
T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land	Examines Eliot’s fragmented narrative as a masculine spatial form, where women’s experiences are often marginalized or relegated to “space-off” positions.	Masculine Spatial Criticism: The poem’s reliance on structured fragmentation aligns with the “bounded” spaces critiqued by Salvaggio.
Adrienne Rich’s Diving into the Wreck	Reflects the transformative power of feminine space and fluidity, as Rich dives into the “abyss” to challenge spatial and gender boundaries.	Fluid Space and Ecriture Féminine: Salvaggio’s concepts of liquid space and transformative writing echo Rich’s metaphorical journey.
Ezra Pound’s Cantos	Critiques Pound’s use of mythic and totalizing spatial constructs as reflective of masculine control, contrasting it with women’s dispersive, lived spaces.	Structural Space: The Cantos’ emphasis on unified myth is analyzed as a masculine tendency to define space systematically.

Criticism Against “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio

• Overgeneralization of Gendered Space: Critics might argue that Salvaggio overly dichotomizes “masculine” and “feminine” spaces, reducing complex theoretical developments into binary categories.
• Limited Intersectionality: The essay’s primary focus on gender may overlook the ways race, class, and sexuality intersect with spatial theories, potentially narrowing its applicability across diverse feminist perspectives.
• Abstract Theoretical Constructs: Salvaggio’s emphasis on metaphysical and deconstructed spatial concepts might be criticized as inaccessible or overly theoretical, limiting practical engagement or application.
• Reliance on Western Feminist Theories: The essay’s focus on theorists like Kristeva, Cixous, and Rich could be seen as privileging Western feminist discourses, neglecting contributions from non-Western or decolonial feminist frameworks.
• Insufficient Practical Examples: While it extensively critiques theoretical spatial constructs, the essay might be criticized for providing insufficient examples of how these concepts directly affect material realities for women.
• Critique of Postmodern Ambiguity: The essay’s embrace of postmodern “fluidity” and resistance to boundaries could be critiqued as reinforcing ambiguity, making it challenging to propose concrete feminist strategies.
• Overemphasis on Literary Theory: Some might critique its heavy reliance on literary criticism, suggesting that it underexplores other domains where spatial theories might apply, such as political geography or architecture.
• Exclusion of Male Feminist Contributions: By focusing predominantly on male theorists’ limitations in spatial theory, the essay might overlook contributions by male feminists who align with feminist spatial critiques.
• Neglect of Historical Materialism: Critics rooted in materialist feminism might argue that Salvaggio’s focus on theoretical space neglects the economic and social systems that materially structure women’s spaces.

Representative Quotations from “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“If we can at least understand the nature of their ‘abandonment,’ he suggests, we might begin to give the daughter theorist ‘a space of her own.’” (p. 262)	Salvaggio references Lipking’s idea of “abandonment” to highlight how the historical silencing of women in theory necessitates the creation of their own theoretical space. This is a call for reclaiming and redefining intellectual spaces for women.
“The spatial configurations fundamental to the production of theory are not at all the kinds of spaces occupied and described by women.” (p. 264)	Salvaggio critiques traditional theoretical spaces as inherently masculine. She underscores that women’s experiences require different spatial frameworks, challenging the norms of how theory is constructed.
“Instead of shaping masculine space into something feminine, these women bring feminine space to life by writing from, through, and about the spaces women themselves have occupied.” (p. 264)	Salvaggio celebrates feminist theorists like Kristeva and Woolf, who create new spaces rooted in women’s lived experiences rather than merely adapting existing patriarchal frameworks.
“Postmodern theory is discontinuous rather than unified; its spatial contours are feminine rather than masculine.” (p. 267)	Postmodernism’s rejection of totalizing narratives aligns with feminist critiques. Salvaggio observes how the fragmented, fluid nature of postmodern theory mirrors women’s diverse and often marginalized experiences.
“Woman’s body, as it becomes a writing subject, necessarily moves beyond the spatial enclaves of metaphysics.” (p. 275)	This quote asserts that when women write about their bodies, they challenge the rigid boundaries of traditional metaphysical constructs, introducing new ways of understanding identity and space.
“The interval, the distance, the gap, the space, the difference—these are all terms that echo throughout poststructuralist theory.” (p. 267)	Salvaggio explores how poststructuralist theory conceptualizes space not as fixed but as a dynamic interplay of gaps and intervals, aligning with feminist efforts to rethink traditional binaries and hierarchies.
“It is through this Other space, I believe, that women are breaking with both traditional and postmodern concepts of space.” (p. 262)	Salvaggio introduces the notion of “Other space” as a feminist alternative to both traditional and postmodern spatial theories, allowing for the inclusion of women’s unique perspectives and experiences.
“Woman must write her body, must make up the unimpeded tongue that bursts partitions, classes and rhetorics, orders and codes.” (p. 275)	Quoting Hélène Cixous, Salvaggio emphasizes the transformative potential of women writing their bodies to disrupt and reshape dominant discourses.
“The sea is another story.” (p. 277)	Using Adrienne Rich’s metaphor, Salvaggio reflects on the fluid and transformative potential of feminist theory, which navigates uncharted territories, challenging rigid theoretical boundaries.
“The feminine configurations shaped by these men signal an important break with unified systems of theory.” (p. 267)	Salvaggio acknowledges the contribution of male theorists like Barthes and Derrida in introducing feminine elements to theoretical discourse but critiques their limited engagement with women’s authentic experiences.

Suggested Readings: “Theory and Space, Space and Woman” by Ruth Salvaggio

1. Salvaggio, Ruth. “Theory and Space, Space and Woman.” Tulsa Studies in Women’s Literature, vol. 7, no. 2, 1988, pp. 261–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/463682. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
2. Gwin, Minrose. “Space Travel: The Connective Politics of Feminist Reading.” Signs, vol. 21, no. 4, 1996, pp. 870–905. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3175027. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
3. Grosz, Elizabeth. “Deleuze, Theory, And Space.” Log, no. 1, 2003, pp. 77–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41764951. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.