Many contemporary literary critics distrust universals. By “universals,” I mean here claims that something is necessary, natural, desirable, or reasonable for all people. Among the several developments contributing to this suspicion of universals, feminist criticism has played a major role. Feminist criticism first began making an impact on academic literary criticism in the 1970s partly because critics like Elaine Showalter, Sandra Gilbert, and Susan Gubar successfully argued that seemingly universal definitions of knowledge and aesthetic value were in fact slanted to fit the point of view and reward the social privileges of men. Debunking fraudulent universals went hand in hand with affirming the differences that these universals had kept in check. Anne Phillips describes the suspicion resulting from “these moves against transcultural, transhistorical, transcendent rationality”:

From this point of view, universals invariably function as smokescreens for male domination.

In my opinion, this assault on universals has enabled advances and brought problems. Among the advances, I would count broadening the canon to include writing denigrated by supposedly disinterested aesthetic criteria (such as the ambiguity, complexity, and irony championed by the New Criticism).