Being reasonable, telling stories

Rita Felski’s 2000 article in Feminist Theory intervenes in core debates about forms of knowledge in feminist theory. As a distinguished feminist literary critic and theorist, Felski explores the relationship between “rational argumentation” and “storytelling,” challenging the traditional binary that opposes them and providing important reflections for feminist epistemology.

Reason-Narrative Tension in Feminism

The background to Felski’s article is ongoing debates within feminist theory about forms of knowledge:

Critique of Enlightenment Rationality

Feminism has long critiqued Enlightenment rationalist traditions:

• Abstract universalism ignores concrete differences
• “Objective” rationality often masks male perspectives
• Reason/emotion binary denigrates qualities associated with women
• Argumentative forms themselves may be exclusionary

Many feminists question rational argument’s status as the only legitimate knowledge form.

Epistemological Value of Narrative

Correspondingly, feminism values narrative knowledge:

• Personal experience and stories as theoretical resources
• “The personal is political” slogan emphasizes experience’s theoretical significance
• Consciousness-raising groups produce theory through sharing stories
• Testimony, autobiography, literary creation as knowledge production

But this raises questions: Can narrative replace rational argument?

Theory vs. Story Binary Opposition

In literary criticism and cultural studies emerged:

• “Theory” viewed as abstract, obscure, elitist
• “Story” viewed as concrete, accessible, democratic
• “Death of theory” declarations and opposition to “theory jargon”
• Calls to return to narrative and experience

Felski questions this simple opposition.

Felski’s Synthetic Position

Felski advocates neither pure rationalism nor anti-theoretical narrativism:

The Necessity of Reason

Felski argues feminism cannot abandon rational argumentation:

Analytical and Critical Functions:

• Rational argument reveals hidden structures and mechanisms
• Provides critical distance and analytical tools
• Identifies patterns and systemic problems
• Challenges common sense and naturalized assumptions

Without analytical frameworks, we can only stay at surface descriptions.

Universality Claims:

• Feminism needs to make claims that transcend specific situations
• Argumentative structures support theoretical generalization
• Universality need not be abstract or decontextualized
• But needs some capacity to transcend individual cases

Communication and Persuasion:

• Argument is a tool for cross-difference communication
• Provides common standards of reasoning
• Makes critique and counter-critique possible
• Constructs knowledge communities

Political Effectiveness:

• Political debate requires argument and evidence
• Legal and policy change needs rational justification
• Opponents won’t be persuaded by stories, need arguments
• Public sphere requires debatable claims

Felski warns that completely rejecting reason would weaken feminism’s political power.

Narrative’s Unique Value

But Felski equally values narrative’s irreplaceable role:

Concreteness and Context:

• Stories provide rich concrete details
• Display complexity, contradiction, ambiguity
• Preserve contextual uniqueness
• Resist overgeneralization and simplification

Theory often sacrifices detail for generalization; narrative preserves these details.

Experiential Authenticity:

• Personal stories carry experiential weight and authority
• Embodied knowledge conveyed through narrative
• Emotion and subjectivity are components of knowledge
• Testimony reveals realities theory might overlook

“Statistics show women experience violence” has different epistemological and emotional force than “This is my story of violence.”

Identification and Resonance:

• Stories create emotional connections and resonance
• Foster identification and understanding
• Build connections across differences
• Mobilize emotional and ethical responses

Stories can move hearts, while abstract arguments may leave people cold.

Accessibility and Democratization:

• Narrative forms are more accessible
• Don’t require specialized theoretical training
• Break down academic elitism
• Expand who participates in knowledge production

Not everyone can master highly abstract theoretical language.

Their Complementarity

Felski’s core argument is that reason and narrative aren’t opposed but complementary:

Reason Needs Narrative:

• Theory needs concrete illustration and application
• Abstract concepts need stories to become comprehensible
• Arguments without examples are dry and unconvincing
• Case studies make theory accessible and testable

Narrative Needs Reason:

• Stories need frameworks to interpret their meaning
• Without analysis, stories may be misread or misused
• Theorization helps us see patterns in individual stories
• Critical frameworks prevent narrative naturalization

Intertwining in Practice:

• The best feminist writing fuses theory with narrative
• Theoretical texts use examples, metaphors, narratives
• Personal narratives contain implicit theoretical claims
• The two are difficult to completely separate in practice

Felski opposes pitting them against each other or hierarchizing them.

Contributions to Feminist Epistemology

Felski’s discussion enriches feminist epistemological debates:

Beyond Binary Oppositions

Felski’s position transcends several false binaries:

Reason vs. Emotion:

• Rational argument can be passionate
• Narrative can contain analytical thinking
• Emotion itself has cognitive dimensions
• The two aren’t mutually exclusive

Abstract vs. Concrete:

• Theory can be context-sensitive
• Narrative can reveal universal patterns
• Need to move between different levels of abstraction
• “Abstract” doesn’t equal “decontextualized”

Universal vs. Particular:

• Universal claims can emerge from particular experiences
• Particular stories can have universal significance
• Need dialectical movement between the two
• Reject simple either/or

Complexity of Situated Knowledge

Felski’s position resonates with Haraway’s “situated knowledges”:

• Acknowledging all knowledge’s situatedness
• But not abandoning objectivity and universality pursuits
• Situatedness doesn’t equal pure relativism
• Partial perspectives can have strong objectivity

Both reason and narrative are knowledge forms produced from specific positions.

Epistemological Pluralism

Felski advocates epistemological pluralism:

• Different knowledge forms have different strengths
• Different purposes require different methods
• There shouldn’t be a single legitimate knowledge form
• A rich epistemological ecology is valuable

This isn’t “anything goes” but acknowledging diversity’s value.

Implications for Literary Critical Practice

As a literary critic, Felski is particularly concerned with theory-narrative relations in literary studies:

Critiquing Critiques of “Theory”

Backlash against “theory” since the 1990s:

• “Death of theory” declarations
• Criticizing theory’s obscurity and jargonization
• Calls to return to texts and reading pleasure
• Claims of “post-theory” era

Felski is reserved about this backlash.

Theory’s Role in Literary Criticism

Felski argues theory is indispensable to literary criticism:

• Provides tools for critical reading
• Reveals texts’ ideology and power relations
• Connects literature with broader sociocultural contexts
• Makes literary studies participate in interdisciplinary dialogues

But theory shouldn’t overwhelm texts themselves.

Literature as Theory

Felski might argue:

• Literature itself is a form of theory production
• Novels, poetry provide complex thought experiments
• Literary imagination expands theoretical possibilities
• Literary criticism should value literature’s theoreticity

This goes beyond viewing literature as theory’s “application” object.

Critical Writing Style

Felski’s position inspires:

• Critical writing can be both analytical and narrative
• Academic prose can be elegant and readable
• Clarity doesn’t mean simplification
• Critical depth doesn’t require obscurity

Her own writing style embodies this synthesis.

Significance for Feminist Politics

Felski’s discussion also has political implications:

Communication in Movements

Feminist movements need:

• Personal stories to build community and identification
• Theoretical analysis to understand oppression systems
• Both combined to mobilize and educate
• Different occasions need different strategies

Grassroots organizing may rely more on narrative, policy advocacy more on argumentation.

Cross-Difference Alliances

Building alliances requires both:

• Stories: Listening to different experiences, building resonance
• Arguments: Negotiating common goals, formulating strategies

Both are tools for solidarity across differences.

Confronting Anti-Feminism

In political debates:

• Personal stories have emotional impact
• But also need data and arguments
• Opponents will demand evidence and logic
• Feminism can’t rely only on stories

Legal and Policy Change

In institutional transformation:

• Legal arguments need rational frameworks
• But testimony and stories are also legal evidence
• Policymaking needs data analysis
• But personal stories influence public opinion

Effective change strategies combine both.

Connections to Contemporary Debates

Felski’s discussion illuminates contemporary issues:

Narrative in Social Media Era

Social media facilitates:

• Massive sharing of personal stories
• Movements like #MeToo mobilizing through stories
• But also risks of “story fatigue” and simplification
• Still needs theoretical frameworks to understand patterns

Felski’s synthetic position is valuable here.

”Cancel Culture” and Testimonial Politics

Controversies about testimony:

• Whose stories are believed?
• Where does testimony’s authority come from?
• How to adjudicate between conflicting narratives?
• Needs critical frameworks rather than just “believe all women”

Data Feminism

Contemporary emphasis on data and quantification:

• “Data activism” and visualization
• Big data revealing systemic patterns
• But also needs qualitative research and narrative
• Combining numbers with stories

Academic Activism

Debates about academic writing style:

• Should radical scholarship be accessible or rigorous?
• How to balance depth with readability?
• Academic journals vs. public writing?
• Felski provides middle path

Possible Critiques

Felski’s synthetic position may face criticisms:

Idealism?

Critique: Difficult to balance in practice:

• Academic institutions reward theory not narrative
• Political movements may value one over the other
• Different audiences need different forms
• “Both” may be unrealistic

Response: Acknowledging tensions doesn’t mean abandoning synthesis as ideal.

Blurring Differences?

Critique: Overemphasizing complementarity might:

• Blur real differences between reason and narrative
• Ignore their different epistemological statuses
• Avoid necessary choices between them

Response: Acknowledging differences doesn’t require hierarchizing.

Centrism?

Critique: Middle path lacks critical edge:

• Doesn’t challenge rationalism or anti-theoreticism
• Tries to please everyone
• May fall into unprincipled compromise

Response: Synthesis isn’t compromise but a more complex position.

Felski’s Broader Contributions

This essay reflects Felski’s broader intellectual project:

Beyond Feminist Aesthetics

In earlier work, Felski explored:

• Social functions of feminist literature
• Relationships between identification and reading
• Hierarchies between popular and high literature
• Diverse methods of feminist literary criticism

Literature After Feminism

In later work, she asks:

• How has feminism changed literary studies?
• How does gender affect reading and writing?
• How has the concept of women authors changed?
• What’s the relationship between literary and political value?

The Limits of Critique

In recent work, Felski critiques:

• Academic criticism’s “hermeneutics of suspicion”
• Overreliance on exposure, deconstruction, critique
• Neglect of literature’s affirmative dimensions (attachment, enchantment, pleasure)
• Calls for “post-critical” reading practices

These works consistently seek to transcend simple binaries.

Conclusion

Rita Felski’s “Being reasonable, telling stories” provides an important and nuanced intervention in feminist epistemology. She refuses to oppose rational argumentation and narrative knowledge, arguing that both are indispensable in feminist theory and practice and should be viewed as complementary rather than opposed.

Felski’s synthetic position avoids two extremes: neither falling into abstract rationalism that denies women’s experience, nor falling into experientialism that abandons critical analysis. She demonstrates how to be both “reasonable” and “tell stories,” how to conduct theoretical analysis while maintaining connection with concrete experience.

In the contemporary moment, as social media amplifies personal narratives’ power while concerns about “post-truth” and “alternative facts” increase, Felski’s balanced position is especially relevant. We need both to value marginalized people’s testimony and stories, and critical frameworks to understand systemic oppression. We need both emotional resonance and rational analysis. We need both concreteness and generalizing capacity.

Felski reminds us that feminism’s most powerful knowledge practices often fuse multiple epistemological resources rather than limiting themselves to a single mode. This epistemological richness and flexibility is the source of feminist theory’s ongoing vitality.

This article was written by AI assistant based on Rita Felski’s 2000 essay in Feminist Theory, incorporating her long-term contributions to feminist literary criticism and theory to explore the relationship between reason and narrative in feminist epistemology.