шш in review DISCOURSE OF THE OTHER - University of British ...

BOOKS IN REVIEWtricia Young's view of domesticity is notonly closer to home, but also far lessfamiliar and more exciting.OVER & OVERANDREW TAYLORBARBARA K. LATHAM & ROBERTA J. PAZDRO,eds., Not Just Pin Money — Selected Essayson the History of Women's Work in BritishColumbia. Camosun College, $12.00.RICHARD THOMAS WRIGHT, Overlanders. WesternProducer Prairie Books, n.p.THESE TWO BOOKS appear to have littlein common and essentially this is true.Pin Money is entirely about women'sexperiences in British Columbia; Overlandersis 99.99% about men's experiencesin the Gold Rush days. Overlandersis more or less a continuous narrativebased on diaries, news items, and letters;Pin Money is a collection of papers givenat the Women's History in British ColumbiaConference in 1984. Overlandersis more sure of its goal and for that reasonis more successful; Pin Money editorsadmit that "its audience is neither homogeneousnor predictable." Still, sinceboth deal with history, I found readingthem together enlightening if only becausethe fact that history is largely amale account of the past is the raisond'être of Pin Money and is self-consciouslyalluded to in Overlanders. Moreabout that later.I read Pin Money first and wentthrough various stages of deep interest,annoyance, and frustration. It is a veryuneven collection and it is far too long.I am beginning to have doubts about theacademic habit of publishing conferencepapers anyway. Orally presented papersthat anticipate audience participation aredifferent from articles or essays preparedfor journals. But perhaps the biggestproblem is that the editors, in this case,have included materials that differgreatly in quality and kind. The so-called"essay" on women MLA's, for instance,is not an essay. It consists of brief biographieswith photos but lacks focus oranalysis; "Postscript: Women in WhoseHonour B.C. Schools Have BeenNamed," described as "tables" by theauthor and "preliminary results of aproject" (though I don't know how itcan be both pre- and post-), seems inappropriatein this collection because itis without context. Other essays sufferbecause they repeat the obvious. Perhapsthe authors would respond that what tosome is obvious is news to others, but(although my knowledge of women'sstudies is not profound) I came acrosslittle that surprised or informed me.What I kept hoping for and all too oftendidn't find was interpretation or analysisor any sort of theoretical approach to thematerial. A lot of groundwork has beendone (and must continue) but where dothe historians go from there? What dothey make of their findings? Now thatthere is proof that women have beenexploited, disenfranchised, abused, deniedfundamental rights, have most oftendone this or that depending on race andclass and era, what comes next? Dowomen just go on collecting more andmore data?The essay "When You Don't Knowthe Language. . . ," on the history ofNative Indian women, was one of theessays that for various reasons was worthpublishing (which is not to say otherswere not worth presenting at a conference). Mitchell and Franklin alert thereader to the importance of an analyticalapproach to historical information. "Criticalassessment" and "new directions"are announced as goals by the authors.The remark that "matriarchies were concoctedby males to provide justificationfor the way the world is and ought to be— truly patriarchial and male dominated"challenges assumptions and sugr99