Women's Caucus Member of the Month: Jade Higa
1. How did you become interested in eighteenth-century studies in particular?
Two words: Laura Engel. Long ago, when I was in my first year of the MA program at Duquesne University, I took a class that Laura taught called “Gothic Bodies.” In it we read a number of eighteenth century Gothic novels and we looked at the function, movement, and significance of bodies in those uncanny spaces. Although I already had a deep love of literature in general, Laura and her own passion for eighteenth-century literature and culture helped me realize how thrilling it could be to explore this time period with a critical eye. As I’ve continued in my career, other eighteenth-century scholars doing incredible work continue to be the fuel behind my own love of this delightfully bizarre era.
2. What are you working on right now?
I’m currently finishing up an article-length version of the paper I gave at ASECS 2017 that reads Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park using Sarah Ahmed’s theories on queer comfort. In it, I argue that the (greatly unsatisfying) heteronormative ending is not a failure in the text; rather, it is an opening that exposes the queer potential present between Mary Crawford and Fanny Price. And I suggest that we might use this theory to look at other seemingly heteronormative eighteenth-century novels. I’m also putting together a book proposal for a project that examines bisexuality and female desire within eighteenth century figures.
3. How do you approach or incorporate gender or women's studies in your work?
The roots of my work are built out of questions about female desire. This foundation can branch off into multiple directions and certainly includes a deep love of queer theory, and my work consistently addresses the concepts of women and sexuality as well as the complexities and contradictions that exist within that intersection.
4. What is one book or article that you are reading now that gets your creative and/or analytic side going? Why? (eighteenth-century studies, scholarship, anything)
I just finished an article by Mary Beth Harris entitled “Upsetting the Balance: Exposing the Myth of Masculine Virtue and Desire in Eliza Haywood’s Philidore and Placentia” which was published in the most recent edition of The Eighteenth Century. It’s a brilliant reading of Haywood’s work and her ability to manipulate concepts of Enlightenment masculinity and homosocial relationships. Harris’ playful language and fascinating argument are uplifting, and her article inspires me to keep going with my own work.
5. What more can we do to support women in academia? In ASECS?
This is a tough question because so much of what we need for women in academia involves systemic changes and paradigm shifts. My first thought is to create as many opportunities as possible to support scholarship by and about queer women and trans women.
1. How did you become interested in eighteenth-century studies in particular?
Two words: Laura Engel. Long ago, when I was in my first year of the MA program at Duquesne University, I took a class that Laura taught called “Gothic Bodies.” In it we read a number of eighteenth century Gothic novels and we looked at the function, movement, and significance of bodies in those uncanny spaces. Although I already had a deep love of literature in general, Laura and her own passion for eighteenth-century literature and culture helped me realize how thrilling it could be to explore this time period with a critical eye. As I’ve continued in my career, other eighteenth-century scholars doing incredible work continue to be the fuel behind my own love of this delightfully bizarre era.
2. What are you working on right now?
I’m currently finishing up an article-length version of the paper I gave at ASECS 2017 that reads Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park using Sarah Ahmed’s theories on queer comfort. In it, I argue that the (greatly unsatisfying) heteronormative ending is not a failure in the text; rather, it is an opening that exposes the queer potential present between Mary Crawford and Fanny Price. And I suggest that we might use this theory to look at other seemingly heteronormative eighteenth-century novels. I’m also putting together a book proposal for a project that examines bisexuality and female desire within eighteenth century figures.
3. How do you approach or incorporate gender or women's studies in your work?
The roots of my work are built out of questions about female desire. This foundation can branch off into multiple directions and certainly includes a deep love of queer theory, and my work consistently addresses the concepts of women and sexuality as well as the complexities and contradictions that exist within that intersection.
4. What is one book or article that you are reading now that gets your creative and/or analytic side going? Why? (eighteenth-century studies, scholarship, anything)
I just finished an article by Mary Beth Harris entitled “Upsetting the Balance: Exposing the Myth of Masculine Virtue and Desire in Eliza Haywood’s Philidore and Placentia” which was published in the most recent edition of The Eighteenth Century. It’s a brilliant reading of Haywood’s work and her ability to manipulate concepts of Enlightenment masculinity and homosocial relationships. Harris’ playful language and fascinating argument are uplifting, and her article inspires me to keep going with my own work.
5. What more can we do to support women in academia? In ASECS?
This is a tough question because so much of what we need for women in academia involves systemic changes and paradigm shifts. My first thought is to create as many opportunities as possible to support scholarship by and about queer women and trans women.
