In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Conclusions “I shall speak about women’s writing:about what it will do,”Hélène Cixous says.“Woman must write her self:must write about women and bring women to writing, from which they have been driven away as violently as from their bodies—for the same reasons, by the same law, with the same fatal goal.Woman must put herself into the text—as into the world and into history—her own movement.1 The border autobiographies created by Jovita González, Cleofas Jaramillo , Eva Antonia Wilbur-Cruce, and Mary Helen Ponce represent a continuum of information or knowledge that coexist and that can be understood as an attempt on the part of the Mexican American female autobiographer to “put herself into the text” and thus write her experience into existence.2 Furthermore,each narrative functions as a signifier of a common heritage that emanates from a distinct geographical space in the Southwest and that focuses on a life course during the period prior to the Chicano movement.It is through the study of this corpus of texts that I have attempted to arrive at a more clear understanding of the individual life course that took shape within a particular context and that involves a cultural memory that points to personal and collective history as well as social practices that are reflected within the discourse of the border autobiography. All utterances involve an indeterminate meaning that must be interpreted .The border autobiography can be considered a type of utterance in which the autobiographical“I”interprets her life and the lives of those who share her cultural experience. Because each autobiographer is an observer of her own life, and because she strives to situate herself as a “new subject of history,”3 she has chosen certain aspects to set before the reader so as to highlight their value and meaning. Interpretation, then, contributes meaning to texts, and because the corpus of works considered here involves multi-structured or multilayered meanings,they merit a deep analysis of purpose and perspectives concerning the life and the world that is presented within each narrative. Throughout this study, I have undertaken a process of interpretation ConClUsions 191 that began with a brief survey of the three phases of criticism concerning autobiography.As we have seen, the genre of autobiography has traditionally been limited by notions of gender and the celebration of the lives of “great men.” One of the most glaring limits of this phase of criticism is its emphasis on facts and truth telling concerning the life course of model male figures considered to be important because of their contribution to public history. Ultimately this type of perspective, which focuses on autobiography as the highest and most instructive form for understanding the “phenomenal” male life, is responsible for excluding other types of narrative practice, such as letters, journals, or memoirs, especially those written by women. From this viewpoint autobiography is considered useful only in terms of understanding the significance of religious meditation and conversion,self-revelation,or the political deeds of great men. Because autobiography is necessarily representative of a period, any other type of writing, especially that which takes its form from other branches of literature and deals with average,everyday life,is considered inferior or superficial. The second phase of theoretical perspectives recognizes that the subtleties of the unconscious contribute to an understanding of the genre of autobiography as creative and involving fictive metaphors as well as the use of allegorical language to refer to the autobiographical“I.”Here autobiography is perceived as art,yet we still find vestiges of the exclusionary aspect of the first phase of criticism; that is, autobiography is essentially considered to be a Western and Christian literary form where selfhood and individuality are emphasized. On the basis of Derrida’s questioning of the limits placed on this genre, as well as Foucault’s perspective concerning discursive systems of control and power, we find a viewpoint that contests the“will to truth”that marked the notion of autobiography presented by theorists such as Dilthey and Misch. Derrida’s perspective also contests the dominant position of the primary text, or the grand narratives;furthermore,the“I”does not necessarily take on a central role within structures,or,as is the case with the present study,within the border autobiography.Of primary importance in this third phase of criticism are feminist and ethnic studies that focus on the relevance of cultural practice that does not emanate from the...

Share