UNITY vs. DIVISIVENESS
Is a text inclusive or divisive? Does it serve to unify ideas through common forms and archetypes, or does it use standard literary devices (such as the Other and the Feminine Myth) as a means of identifying the differences among people? Critics have positioned themselves on both sides of this issue, to persuasive effect regardless of where on the continuum the critic chooses to position hum or herself. This paper will first address the critical position of inclusiveness, then the polar opposite of divisiveness. Then it will address whether a synthesis of these two extremes can be achieved. In what ways does a text function as a comprehensive mechanism? On the most basic level, in order to communicate clearly with another, common agreement on meanings and terms is required: A common unitary language is a system of linguistic norms" (Bakhtin,1198). But in order for literature to function on a higher level it must be Intergrated in such a way that all the parts serve the whole.
