“‘I am not a Tree with My Root in the Soil’: Ecofeminist Revisions of Tree Symbolism in Sylvia Plath’s Poetry”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on ecofeminist theories, the paper argues that Sylvia Plath’s poetic vision is often captured by the dialectics between the tree and its roots, a dialectics which encodes the integrative powers of the tree to unite opposites, and which thus embodies a potential for relocation of oppositional dualities that structure Western thought. The argument integrates a critical response to Ted Hughes’s vision of Plath’s poetic foliage, which he presents in terms of a hierarchical comparison to that of established male literary figures. It is claimed that such a phallocentric perspective on a woman poet’s relationship to the poetic tradition is embedded in envisioning woman’s relationship to culture in terms of the nature/culture dualism. Continuing this line of argument, it is highlighted that the lack of empowering models of female literary predecessors cause gender ambivalence in a woman creator, which in turn generates a self-depreciative attitude to the aesthetic value of her art. The analyzed poems reveal the intensity of depleting self-doubt and dependence on the approval on those who judge her art (or the muse). What emerges from Plath’s poetic exploration of the gender meanings of the tree metaphor is that the dialogue with Nature, which occurs within the context of the male-dominant literary tradition, contains an implicit negotiation with dominant discourses, which unavoidably shape woman’s self-identification within the nature/culture dualism, and instigates an effort to re-imagine conventional significations. It is maintained that a re-vision of Plath’s poetic elaborations of the tree and root in light of ecofeminist tenets offers a locus for the relocation of nature/culture hierarchies and a delineation of potentialities for alternative visions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".