IN A BIND, BUT REFUSING TO BE BOUND: A FEMINIST ANALYSIS
OF MARGARET "MIDGE" COSTANZA'S PERSONAL NARRATIVES
_______________
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
San Diego State University
_______________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
in
Women's Studies
_______________
by
Kaitlyn K. Elliott
Summer 2012
iii
Copyright © 2012
by
Kaitlyn K. Elliott
All Rights Reserved
iv
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to Midge Costanza and the people who use humor for
revolution.
v
Twenty-five years ago, it was the words of Edward Everett Hale who helped me make my
choice when he said: “I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something.” What I can do, I ought to do. And what I ought to do, by the grace of God, I
will do.
--Midge Costanza
vi
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS
In a Bind, But Refusing to be Bound: A Feminist Analysis of
Margaret "Midge" Costanza's Personal Narratives
by
Kaitlyn K. Elliott
Master of Arts in Women's Studies
San Diego State University, 2012
This thesis is an exploration of two mediums of personal, autobiographical narratives:
chapters from an incomplete written autobiography and a selection of speeches. These
personal narratives belong to Margaret “Midge” Costanza, who, in 1977, became the first
female Assistant to the President in President Jimmy Carter’s administration. This study,
through its use of literary, political, and feminist theories and methodologies, seeks to
evaluate a feminist pioneer’s autobiographical construction. Midge Costanza experienced
great political and personal successes, which provided her with a platform upon which she
encouraged her multitudinous publics and audiences to seek for themselves equality, success,
existence, and political recognition. Costanza illustrated through her autobiographical
narratives the importance of being willing to fight—and for her, without a fight, human
dignity and human rights were impossible to obtain.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................x
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 Finding Midge..........................................................................................................1 So, Who Was Midge Costanza, Anyway? ...............................................................3 About This Study .....................................................................................................5 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................7 Autobiography .........................................................................................................7 Speechmaking ........................................................................................................14 3
METHODOLOGIES ...................................................................................................19 Introduction to the Methodologies .........................................................................19 Description of the Sampling Process .....................................................................19 Overview of Chosen Methods ...............................................................................22 4
A WOMAN IN POLITICS ..........................................................................................26 Sexism as a Blanket Antagonist .............................................................................29 Costanza’s Performance of Identities and Methods of Identification....................32 Performance of Gender ..........................................................................................36 Conclusion .............................................................................................................39 5
SPEECHES ..................................................................................................................40 Introducing Midge Costanza as Speechmaker and Speechwriter ..........................40 Midge Versus Sexism ............................................................................................41 Building Rapport ....................................................................................................45 Midge as Mentor ....................................................................................................50 Conclusion .............................................................................................................53 6
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................55 viii
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................59 ix
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1. Listing of Autobiography Chapters Analyzed ...........................................................20 Table 2. Listing of Speeches Analyzed....................................................................................21 x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I’d like to thank the Academy...oh, this isn’t an acceptance speech?
Nevermind.
Really, it would be insincere to thank anyone else before thanking Midge. Over the
course of one year and half, I grew to know Midge Costanza. I spent months transcribing her
speeches, organizing boxes of documents, and searching for chapters of her autobiography. I
found a collection of pictures of each of her pets; I learned that we both had Samoyeds.
Importantly, I learned that she really wanted the Catholic bishop in New York to know that
she was practicing celibacy, and that she almost, almost had it down.
It is Dr. Doreen Mattingly I owe for introducing me to Midge, and I’m grateful for
her guidance, encouragement, and honesty throughout this process. To my committee
members—Drs. Betsy Colwill and Clare Colquitt—thank you for trusting me with this task
and during the writing process. I am honored to have worked with you both. Through this
thesis and my relationships with each of my committee members and other professors, I have
grown from a student into a scholar (although it feels entirely too weird to consider myself
one!).
To my cohort—did you know that the Oxford English Dictionary defines a “cohort”
as either “an ancient Roman military unit,” “a group of people banded together,” or “an
accomplice or conspirator?” I didn’t, but it’s safe to say we embody all three definitions.
We’ve done our fighting (against worthy adversaries fashioned as Harry Potter villains, of
course), we are concretely banded together (but without shared access to the “Super GA”
office), and we have all been equal conspirators in, well, a lot of things (but mainly eyerolling and being snarky). We grew into supportive, honest, and musically gifted...friends?
Yes, friends. Thank you.
One of my “Roman military unit” companions explained that a Master’s thesis may
be an inappropriate place to thank one’s dogs, but my Australian Shepherds consider
themselves humans, so it totally works. Kody and Kassie, thank you for distracting me with
xi
your model-perfect poses on furniture, requiring my assistance to solve personal issues, and
providing constructive criticism by sitting there and simply listening.
I am grateful for my not-so-furry family members, too. I wanted for so long to be
dramatic and cliché by describing my move back to the family home as “dreadful”, “uncool”,
and “embarrassing”, but it has been a wonderful and developmental experience, and for this I
am unimaginably thankful.
Lastly, I must thank my partner, Eric. Two years ago, as I worked toward completing
my undergraduate thesis, he expressed his inability to tolerate the word “thesis” any longer:
“Thesis, thesis, thesis!” he cried. Eric, thank you for your encouragement, and I promise,
this is the last thesis. Or is it...
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
FINDING MIDGE
In the summer of 1978, Margaret “Midge” Costanza was in a bind. As the first
female Assistant to the President, she was recognized nationally for her work with the
underserved and for her humor, but major disagreements and conflicts regarding policy,
outreach, and her outspokenness forced Costanza to reevaluate her position in President
Carter’s administration. Costanza was powerful—an unapologetic, public feminist and
activist—but suddenly, she had to negotiate her power with feelings of being discriminated
against, victimized, and weakened. This negotiation took place prominently in Costanza’s
process of resigning from the Carter Administration, but Costanza, it seems, was never
content with the terms of her departure.
History books do not teach about Midge Costanza, and until my first year in my
Master’s program, I knew neither who she was nor what she accomplished. In high school
and university curriculum, United States political history has forgotten Midge Costanza, and
she remains absent from a large swath of United States feminist history, too. That fall, I
committed to emphasizing Costanza’s rightful place in United States’ political and feminist
histories. Recognizing the hazards of speaking for another, I aimed to let Midge Costanza
speak for herself, just as she always did. I intended to reinforce her rightful place in the
canons of political and feminist histories.
At the onset of this process, I expected that I would maintain distance between my
research subject, Costanza, and myself as the researcher. Even though my research was
limited to the contents of Costanza’s personal archives, these documents, photographs, and
artifacts presented a very real representation of Costanza. Without ever meeting her, I felt as
if I knew her, which reinforced my motivation for this thesis. This paper soon became a
project of helping Costanza (re)write herself into history. I learned how loved Costanza was
by her friends and family who committed to funding and operating her archive after her
death, and I was encouraged by her friend (and my advisor) Dr. Doreen Mattingly’s promise
2
to write Costanza’s biography. I could not resist getting to know someone who was and is so
cherished, popular, yet enigmatic. The process of reading the chapters of her unfinished
autobiography and listening to her speeches presented a Costanza who, while public and
honest about her life, was mysterious. Living through her life (as she always explained in her
speeches) and utilizing her personal experiences for the benefit of others became her identity
and seemed to be all that mattered to her.
In some capacity, Midge Costanza always acted autobiographically. Her political
speeches, which amount to hundreds, relied upon her private life experiences, and her nevercompleted autobiography, Midge: A Woman in Politics, aimed to capture her life narratives
in print. Rather than begin writing from her childhood and progress to her experiences in
politics, Costanza started writing with her fateful 1978 resignation. In this chapter, she
describes her hesitance to leave the Carter Administration and her ultimate determination to
do so. In her letter of resignation to President Carter, Costanza (n.d.f) explained, “If we
could declare a recess and stop the wheels of government so that we could reconcile our
diverse methods, we could perhaps come out ahead and serve the people at the same time”
(para. 11). Post-White House, Costanza never stopped serving the people, and she flourished
as a motivational speaker in the later years of her life. Finding similarities between herself
and her diverse audiences, Costanza (n.d.f) identified with different marginalized groups—
and everyone—including President Carter. She sought to bridge their politics in her
resignation letter, as she appealed to their commonalities—“serv[ing] the people” (para. 11).
Costanza’s life stories are important because she insured that her personal narratives were
told in a fashion that inspired, united, and motivated her collective audience toward a similar
good.
Women’s narratives, autobiographies, and memoirs are valuable in the formation of
personal and political identities; in theory, writing autobiographically ensures an altruistic
portrait of one’s life, but in practice, the process is immensely more complicated. For
women, external forces, historical contexts, and intersections of identity challenge the
detailing of political or activist lives. Women have written autobiographically for centuries,
yet what women divulge in such narratives changed dramatically in the mid-1900s. Before
this time, women of stature, power, and fame disguised their non-domestic sphere successes
3
with humility, passivity, and qualities of aloofness, while others have conveyed life stories in
ways and with tropes that destabilize the traditional conception of autobiography.
Although she attempted to shape her historical and autobiographical identities in
Midge: A Woman in Politics, Costanza completed only four chapters of the autobiography by
her death in 2010. In theory, the composition of an autobiography facilitates the
autobiographer’s privacy for reflection and interpretation of one’s life. Autobiographies are
calculated constructions of identities. This medium of a written, personal narrative troubled
Costanza; in her speeches, she confessed to disliking writing or reading life narratives.
Midge Costanza’s autobiographical chapters feature a protagonist who struggles with writing
herself. The drafts of her autobiography reveal a Costanza who questioned her self-control,
autonomy, and power. Costanza wrote Midge: A Woman in Politics at different points in her
life and in collaboration with different people. She began writing in the 1980s, sporadically
attempting to finish the book before her death. Writing one’s life allows for different
narratives and perceptions of lived experiences to arise, but it can restrict the autobiographer
in terms of content, description, and words. While autobiographies may be written privately,
ultimately, the goal of Costanza’s writing was to publish for an audience.
If the task of writing daunted her, Costanza was the epitome of confidence as a public
speaker. Speechmaking allowed Costanza to perform physically her stories through her
presence. Before, during, and after the Second Wave of United States feminism, Midge
Costanza posited publicly her feminist sentiments and politics, and this earned her both a
cavalcade of supporters and throngs of dissenters. As Assistant to the President for Public
Liaison in the Carter Administration, Costanza collected innumerable stories, lessons, and
experiences, and these collections contributed to her identities, anecdotes, and politics. In
writing and speaking, Costanza utilized these artifacts for her specific agendas. Costanza’s
storytelling, through her writing and speeches, conveyed a fluidity of identity. The audiences
of Costanza’s speeches, the envisioned audiences of her autobiography, and her personal
politics helped shape the narratives she told.
SO, WHO WAS MIDGE COSTANZA, ANYWAY?
Margaret “Midge” Costanza was born on November 28, 1932 near Rochester, New
York, in the small town of LeRoy. She was born during the Great Depression into a large
4
family of Catholic, Italian-Americans, who were primarily working-class immigrants.
Costanza was a first-generation American, and she began working full-time while still in
high school. Costanza and her family had no money to afford college tuition, so she worked
as an executive secretary for Blue Cross-Blue Shield before joining John Petrossi’s
construction company in 1953. She credits Petrossi for nurturing her political inclinations.
Costanza was always politically conscious, and in the 1960s, she involved herself in the
campaigns of the Robert and John Kennedy. In 1973, she campaigned successfully for a
position in the Rochester city council. Prior to this campaign, the top vote-getters and
mayors in the city were always male. As a woman, she received the most votes in the history
of the city, but despite this sweeping victory, she was installed as Vice-Mayor. A campaign
for Congress in 1974 was unsuccessful, even with the endorsement of burgeoning Georgia
Governor Jimmy Carter. Costanza and Carter forged a friendship despite her political loss,
and she became the co-chair of the governor’s New York State Carter for President
Committee. Carter’s presidential campaign faired significantly better than Costanza’s
Congressional run, and soon she was offered a position in the developing Carter White
House. After a phone conversation with Carter the day after Christmas, Midge Costanza was
offered a position in his cabinet. She was appointed Assistant to the President for Public
Liaison two weeks before Carter’s inauguration.
In the Carter White House, Midge Costanza took great responsibilities and held
herself accountable for mediating the relationship between underserved Americans and the
Presidential administration. Due to her dedication to the marginalized, Costanza was
controversial. In one of her most contentious moves in her twenty months in the White
House, Costanza held a much-publicized meeting with the National Gay Task Force on
March 26, 1977. Her tenure in the White House was not without tumult, and she voiced
actively and loudly her discontent with decisions or statements that displayed the
Administration’s goals as exclusionary or misguided. To the disappointment of Costanza,
other cabinet members, and women’s rights activists, in July 1977, President Carter espoused
anti-abortion sentiments, famously explaining that life is not fair. Feeling betrayed, on July
13, 1977, Costanza composed a letter to Jimmy Carter about his remarks, voicing her
dissatisfaction. Her tenure in the Administration would end nearly one year later, after her
office was infamously moved to the White House basement and she was replaced with Ann
5
Wexler. Her title was revised to encompass only women’s issues, which were deemphasized
by the Administration. Costanza resigned from the Carter Administration on July 31, 1978
after a turbulent—but incredibly productive—twenty months as Assistant to the President.
After Costanza left Washington D.C. and the Carter White House, she moved to
California, where she began a career in Hollywood. She did not lose her political
inclinations with her move; she found new ways to incorporate politics into her life. Her life
in California found her working with of Shirley Maclaine and various television and film
production companies. This phase of her life found Costanza courting offers for a television
show and motion picture about her life—with a character named “Kate Rossi” modeled after
Costanza. There were a couple manuscripts for both the movie and television show, but
these productions never materialized. Later in her life, Costanza moved to San Diego,
California, where she was involved with local government and motivational speaking. Her
life as a speechmaker never slowed, and she flourished professionally in San Diego. Also in
San Diego, Costanza founded the Midge Costanza Institute for the Study of Politics and
Public Policy, where her documents and possessions from her time in the Carter
Administration are housed. Although her structured education ended with her graduation
from high school, Costanza assisted in the co-teaching of college courses with Dr. Doreen
Mattingly at San Diego State University before her death in 2010.
ABOUT THIS STUDY
This thesis is an exploration of Midge Costanza’s personal narratives and her use of
autobiographical stories for political gains. The first chapter of analysis is dedicated to
Costanza’s autobiography, and the second chapter focuses on a selection of her speeches.
The conclusion to this thesis serves as both a results chapter and a final evaluation of her
narratives. I analyze the differences in her narratives, explore the effects of those
differences, and reassert her position as an invaluable feminist, politician, advocate, and
speechmaker.
The research questions I devised are as follows:
1. How did Costanza confront, handle, and resolve injustices in both her autobiography
and her speeches?
2. How did Costanza perform her identities, and in which ways to she attempt to
identify with her audiences?
6
3. What role did the performance of gender play, if any, in Costanza’s personal
narratives?
When I began the research process, I knew that Costanza was considered a political
activist, and I was interested in deciphering how her activism affected her abilities within and
out of public office. Did the Carter Administration restrict her activism and silence her
politics, and how did she approach such censoring in her narratives? Could Costanza resolve
injustices in her autobiography and speeches, or could she only try? As the Assistant to the
President for Public Liaison, Costanza was responsible for connecting the American people
with the President’s administration. This station required her to identify with her public, and
how did she continue to identify these groups after her White House tenure? What were her
methods of identification? As retold her life story, did she portray herself within conventions
of gender, or did she subvert stereotypes?
To answer these questions, I worked first-hand with recordings of Costanza’s
speeches, the transcriptions of her speaking engagements, and the existing chapters of her
incomplete autobiography. As the transcriber of decades-old cassette tapes, I risked
misunderstanding Costanza’s speeches due to issues of quality, but the speeches I chose
assisted in my avoidance of such a problem. Given the unorganized condition of her
archived materials, I risked of missing valuable chapters in my pursuit of her autobiography,
but I am confident that I included each of the existing chapters in my research. Additionally,
the primary sources with which I worked were immensely informative, but finite. Since
Costanza is no longer living, my research was limited to what was available. I took great
care to ensure that this study was limited to Midge Costanza’s autobiography and speeches.
It is possible to evaluate Costanza for her authenticity or believability as an autobiographer or
personal narrator through such a process as this thesis, but I maintained my focus on
analyzing Costanza as an autobiographical storyteller, wordsmith, and influential public
figure. I understood that for being such a public person, Costanza was very private and
protected many aspects of her life like her sexuality, which will not be discussed in this thesis
for political and ethical reasons. The written autobiography and verbalized speeches contain
different representations of Costanza. Midge: A Woman in Politics features a Costanza who
is protected and private, yet compassionate. Her speeches present her as public and vocal.
She utilized both mediums for different political purposes.
7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
To answer my research questions about Midge Costanza’s autobiography and
political speeches, I pulled from theories, criticism, and analysis of both forms of personal
narratives. Generalized theories about autobiographies informed this literature review, as did
feminist theories of women’s autobiographical writing and feminist autobiographies.
Linguistic theories and feminist concepts of language directed my analysis of Costanza’s
speeches, and I incorporated into this analysis scholarship about political discourse. The
following is a review of the scholarship and literature, divided according to the medium of
personal narrative.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY
Scholarship on autobiography is plentiful, but the diversity of its early pioneers, as
with many other crafts, is limited to white, Anglo men. As the study of autobiography
progressed, scholars of autobiography became more diverse in their assessments and
identities. The study of autobiography saw great reformation in its breadth and scholars
during the mid-1990s. Philippe Lejeune (1975) was and remains one of the discipline’s most
influential presences, and many theories of autobiography are based on his early scholarship.
In On Autobiography, Philippe Lejeune declares that autobiographies exist only after the
1770s, which Lejeune credits with the definition of the craft. This definition “does not claim
to cover more than a period of two centuries,” but represents how personal writing has been
rethought and shaped into what is presently considered autobiography (Lejeune, 1975, p. 4).
According to Lejeune (1975), autobiography is a “[r]etrospective prose narrative written by a
real person concerning his own existence, where the focus is his individual life, in particular
the story of his personality” (p. 4). Autobiography, in Lejeune’s sense, is more about an
individual’s personality and characteristics than it is about that person’s accomplishments or
failures. In the late-1900s, the definition of autobiography expanded to include other forms
of narrating life experiences and qualities of the self, but readers are still critical forces in
8
deciding whether or not a text is an autobiography. Readers and critics are responsible for
making texts function as they ascertain whether or not texts categorized as
“autobiographical” fall into that precise category. In what Lejeune termed the
“autobiographical pact,” the autobiographer is at once author, narrator, and protagonist,
which the reader of autobiography then trusts (Eakin, 1999; Lejeune, 1975; Olney, 1980a).
In the study of autobiography, there are few to no rules (Olney, 1980a; Watson, 1999,
p. 21). Autobiography is fluid, so long as autobiographers maintain the pact of an identical
author, narrator, and protagonist (Lejeune, 1975; Olney, 1980a). Given the scarce criteria for
autobiography, readers, scholars, and critics are faced with the complexities of how to
evaluate autobiographies, and some critics contend that all literature is, in fact,
autobiographical (Olney, 1980a, p. 4). While early, dominant concepts and theories about
autobiography focus primarily on European men and their autobiographies, researchers and
scholars began acknowledging the need to include women and non-European peoples into
their evaluation (Olney, 1980a). James Olney (1980b), in Autobiography: Essays
Theoretical and Critical, argues that the study of autobiography has experienced a lapse in its
scholarship by excluding other, marginalized autobiographers and autobiographies. Feminist
readers and scholars of autobiographies deduced this lapse, and in the 1980s, there was a
push by feminist scholars to reform theories and understandings of autobiography. As
exemplified in feminist scholarship of autobiography, autobiographies differ by their authors’
varying identities and social locations. The art of autobiography can be a useful and
subversive tool for particular movements and groups of people.
Scholars of autobiography have asserted that the writer of autobiography writes for
only one person—a perceived reader (Olney, 1972, p. 37; Watson, 1999, p. 78). The
autobiographer is constructed as knowledgeable and authoritative because the subject is the
self; scholars identify this as authorial wisdom, which readers trust for information (Watson,
1999, p. 78). Readers of autobiographies respect the authors for their accomplishments and
stories, and most often autobiographies are written at the end of a person’s career or life.
This indication of seniority or success can affect what readers expect to learn through
autobiographies, and they can expect “to gain insights and perhaps wisdom” (Watson, 1999,
p. 79). from the autobiographer. Composers of autobiography are writing at younger ages,
and memoirs have begun serving roles as loosely autobiographical narratives written by
9
people as young as adolescents. Even though the writer of autobiography may write
popularly at the end of a period of significance or success in her or his life, cultural
understandings of success influence the readers’ expectations and evaluations of the
autobiographer’s life. Readers are attracted to and inspired by the autobiographer’s
accomplishments. Ultimately, the reader deems a life as either exceptional or acclaimworthy (Wagner-Martin, 1994).
The feminist study of autobiography, biography, and memoir has witnessed
increasing popularity and feminist scholarship from the 1970s to the present. Feminist
studies of women’s autobiography and memoir are framed by the likes of Carolyn Heilbrun’s
(1988) Writing a Woman’s Life, Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson’s (2001) Reading
Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting Life Narratives, Leigh Gilmore’s (1994)
Autobiographics: A Feminist Theory of Women’s Self-Representation, and Martha Watson’s
(1999) Lives of Their Own: Rhetorical Dimensions in Autobiographies of Women Activists.
These texts are foundational to feminist scholarship of autobiography because they question,
reexamine, and reframe earlier, masculinist, and exclusive theories about autobiography.
According to these architects, gender roles affected women’s abilities as autobiographers.
Women who were public figures in the late-19th and 20th centuries emphasized their
femininity in their autobiographies in order to be persuasive to their critics and audiences
(Heilbrun, 1988; Watson, 1999, p. 108). Early feminist analyses of women’s
autobiographies excluded race and class as identities that affect the writer’s womanhood or
femininity. In more recent analytical literature, these intersections of identity have been
more readily addressed. The autobiographies of Bell Hooks (1996), Audre Lorde (1982), and
Gloria E. Anzaldúa (1987), among others, have influenced feminist concepts of
autobiographies.
Although faulty, Second Wave-era theories of autobiographies are still foundational.
Feminist scholars identified a paradigmatic shift in women’s autobiography and memoir
beginning in 1973, with the release of May Sarton’s memoir, Plant Dreaming Deep.
Women’s writing about their lives changed in the 1970s, and within the second wave of
United States feminism, as women began portraying themselves as confident agents instead
of passive characters in autobiography (Heilbrun, 1988). Women and feminists who wrote
autobiographies experienced tensions between the power of life writing, being a woman, and
10
feminism. Many feminist-identified women struggled with balancing their power and
influence as autobiographer. Given personal narratives place emphasis on the self, the craft
of autobiography is sometimes exclusionary and a site of epistemic violence (Spivak &
Morris, 2010).
Feminist critics of autobiography take care to identify the differences between
women’s and men’s autobiographies, noting the influences of differences in gender identity,
socialization, and contexts in the writing of one’s life. A foundation of feminist scholarship
of autobiography is the notion that men’s autobiographies feature their subjects as living
outwardly, while women tend to live inwardly (Wagner-Martin, 1994). This gendered
pattern of autobiography has shifted, as have definitions of “autobiography.” Scholars of
feminist autobiography sought to ascertain the differences in autobiographical narratives,
and, identifying differences, established three types of personal narratives: life writing, life
narrative, and autobiography (S. Smith & Watson, 2001, p. 3). Life writing is understood “as
a general term for writing of diverse kinds that takes a life as its subject” (S. Smith & Watson
2001, p. 3). Life narrative is a verbal, autobiographical account and the act of writing
autobiographically; the life narrative is fluid and “[...] engage[s] the past in order to reflect on
identity in the present” (S. Smith & Watson, 2001, p. 3). Lastly, autobiography celebrates
autonomy, individual life and through the life a universalizing life story (S. Smith & Watson
2001, p. 3). While autobiography is commonly used to refer to both life writing and life
narratives, it is an inadequate term according to some feminist scholars. Autobiography does
not recognize “extensive historical range and the diverse genres and practices of life
narratives and life narrators in the West and elsewhere around the globe” (S. Smith &
Watson, 2001, p. 4). Most commonly, books that are advertised as autobiographies are both
life narratives and autobiographies because they celebrate autonomy and utilize identities and
experiences of the autobiographer’s past. In essence, autobiography is more appropriate for
describing the life writings first focused upon and analyzed by scholars: those of Western,
white, and upper-class men, which excluded subaltern, devalued life stories (Gusdorf, 1965).
While the classifications of life writing, life narrative, and autobiography suffice for
some forms of personal narratives, other feminist scholars of autobiography and women’s
writing use the term “autobiographics” to describe autobiographical literature (Gilmore,
1994). The creation of the self in relation to systems such as “legalistic, literary, social, and
11
ecclesiastical discourses of truth and identity” best explains “autobiographics” (Gilmore,
1994, p. 42). Since personal narratives are constructed in reaction to or under the influences
of other discourses, it is inadequate to describe as “naturalized” the processes of
identification and representation of the self: these are replications of “rhetorics of
unproblematized realism” (Gilmore, 1994, p. 79). Additionally, feminist appropriations of
confessional discourses are dangerous because some feminists intend to create authentic
selves, which counter the notion of autobiographics by silencing contexts of oppressions
(Felski, 1989). Feminist processes of writing the self are also classified as
“biomythography” (Lorde, 1990, p. xi). Biomythography is defined as identities, histories,
and characteristics having mythic qualities, which destabilizes the privileging and assertion
of authenticity in autobiographies or personal, life narratives.
Inherent in the composition of autobiography is the writer’s sense of individuality and
self-worth. According to feminist scholars, women who compose autobiographies become
rhetorical agents and develop personas that attract and empower their readers (Watson, 1999,
p. 105). As rhetorical agents, women autobiographers portray themselves as devoted, but
this devotion can assume very different shapes. As Heilbrun (1988) argues, women have
written historically in agreement with feminine stereotypes and gender codes. In addition to
writing their devotion to family and home life, women also have written autobiographically
(and differently) about their devotion to politics, causes, and the people they represent. Some
women relate their dedication to challenging gender stereotypes, while others defy notions of
women’s life narratives and autobiography. Women autobiographers are not limited to
portraying their ranging devotions, and many capture their personal courage in writing. This
tactic is strategic and appealing to the audience, as these women autobiographers illustrate
their “persistence and strength of character in pursuit of goals” (Watson, 1999, p. 109). An
accompaniment of writing their acts of courage is often women writing about both their
disappointments in life and events that have held them back from their achievements or goals
(Watson, 1999, p. 110). Women’s autobiographies are no longer sites of complacency.
Through the depiction of such struggles, women can convey themselves as truthful, resolute,
and having personal integrity and responsibility.
As explained earlier, the reader of autobiography is powerful in the relationship
between the autobiographer and audience. The autobiographer performs her or his life
12
through stories and personal narratives, which are constructed in ways that attract readership.
This performance, or what is called the performative self, is a representation of the external
or visible self (Wagner-Martin, 1994, p. 8). Although men’s autobiographies have been
evaluated historically as outward, women’s autobiographies convey women who promote
their visible selves. The concept of performance in autobiography is twofold: the subject’s
life activity and her understanding of her own life. These qualities hold true for biographies,
too, and it is the responsibility of biographies and autobiographies to present both (WagnerMartin, 1994, p. 8). It is a feminist understanding that evaluates current autobiographies as
both life narratives and autobiographies, as emphasis on an individual history (life narrative)
is classified as life activity, and recognitions of autonomy are comprehensions of the
autobiographer’s life. If the autobiographer evaluates her life as important, valuable, and
inspiring—or as both life narrative and autobiography—her performance can be utilized as a
source and site of activism (Borland, 1991; S. Smith, 1998; Watson, 1999). Scholars of
women’s autobiographies have dedicated research and analysis to women autobiographers
who were activists. Activists take great care to assert the importance of their causes, and just
as activists must be convincing, so must women autobiographers (Watson, 1999, p. 115).
According to scholar Martha Watson (1999), “In establishing the meaningfulness of their
lives, [women activist autobiographers] have to demonstrate that the issues they address are
salient and merit attention. To provide the reader with an understanding of why they became
activists, these women show that the social situation they confronted was problematic” (p.
115). Similarly, other scholars of women’s autobiographies note that this genre of literature
presents specific narrative structures and “symbolic representation” (Chanfrault-Duchet,
1991). Chanfrault-Duchet (1991) explains that women autobiographers relate their lives in
relation to women’s larger conditions and representations; women’s autobiographies are
complicated by intersections of their identities (p. 78). Autobiography, for feminist activists,
becomes a tool for handling injustices and systemic, shared inequalities (Borland, 1991; S.
Smith, 1998; Watson, 1999). The autobiographical speaker or writer becomes “a
performative subject” (S. Smith, 1998, p. 108; Wagner-Martin, 1994) utilizing her stories to
combat injustices such as gender, sex, race, class, age, and ability discrimination.
Autobiographies reflect not only narratives and experiences, but also politics and agendas.
13
While feminists perform through the acts of writing autobiographically, their
performances are affected by their abilities to remember. Memories are critical to the
composers of autobiographical, personal narratives. The act of “remembering” has been
posited as an implement used to reconstruct histories and alter portrayals of unjust characters
and oppressive forces (Watson, 1999). Remembering is both a reflex and a conscious action,
and the autobiographical life narrative features incarnations of both types of remembering.
By “remembering,” women in personal narratives establish new characters for themselves,
and these identities are capable of opposing the injustices that have served as obstacles. In
addition to the incorporation of history complicating a life narrative, the politics of the
autobiographer’s life affect the narrative and the autobiographer’s processes of remembering
(S. Smith & Watson, 2001). The performance of remembering in women’s autobiographies
is embedded in the author’s belief in the value of her life, autonomy, and agency (Watson,
1999, p. 15). Readers of autobiography should heed the different identities portrayed in
personal narratives, and critics and scholars have determined the importance of
differentiating between voices present in narratives. These voices reveal how the
autobiographical storyteller has evolved, and this evolution is important in understanding
how the autobiographer relates histories of injustice (Larson, 2007).
Although autobiographical narratives are political tools to be used by the women
portraying their lives, the narratives are implements for audiences and interpreters, too. In
analyzing both oral and autobiographical narratives, interpreters glean and construct stories
and events that can be politicized and used for the promotion of an agenda. Those who
study, deconstruct, and analyze women’s autobiographies are confronted with the dilemma of
portraying and emphasizing the importance of the woman on whom they focus without
guiding that woman’s narratives or diminishing her autobiographical agency. Once
narratives are interpreted, they no longer belong to the original teller—they’re the
interpreter’s (Borland, 1991). Autobiographical, life narratives, then, are both the writer’s
and the reader’s. The autobiographer and the reader share reciprocal trust in the telling of
and the reception to a life story.
14
SPEECHMAKING
To begin my study of speechmaking, I referenced literature about linguistics, which
contributes to my understanding of the processes before speechmaking. There are different
linguistic schools of thought and theorists, ranging from Noam Chomsky to Georges
Gusdorf. These theorists dissect the processes of language, the reasons for speaking, and the
methods of speech. Linguists posit that “personal initiative” must exist in order for a person
to perform a speech act (Gusdorf, 1965, p. 35); language cannot exist without the speaker
imagining or speaking it, and this will comes from the self. Using this logic, the speaker
must exercise the same initiative to espouse personal and political sentiments and beliefs.
While it is contended that speech acts are resultant of personal initiative, the act of speech is
reactionary to contexts, politics, and social standards. Sounds are produced and language
expelled upon the speaker being prompted to speak. The mechanics of speaking or creating
language connect basic speech acts such as conversing or expressing oneself to
speechmaking. Linguists have deduced that speech has the capability to oppress, injure, and
malign, but it has liberatory characteristics that can undo, repair, and combat its dangers.
Language, then, is both a response to and a mechanism of expression, and it must be
negotiated delicately to produce equitable changes of its own.
Similar and successful forms of revolutionary speech were components of the Second
Wave of United States feminism. In the United States, feminists envisioned and began
working toward revisions of pedagogies, politics, business, and other masculinized, unequal
institutions. In the 1970s and 1980s, feminists began experimenting with new pronouns that
defied gender and sexual binaries (Gibbon, 1999). This change was simultaneously a
reaction to sexism and a feminist reinvention of language and communication. Feminist
forms of language—and the ability to perform these acts—lend to speakers “creative power”
(Gusdorf, 1965, p. 67). As earlier linguistic theorists maintained, language is reactionary and
in response to various contexts. Feminist scholars of language interpreted language as
responsive to forms of dominating, oppressive, and exclusive communications. “[L]anguage
does not exist in a social vacuum. Before any utterance is made or sentence written, there is
a set of circumstances—a context—operating” (Gibbon, 1999, p. 21). Feminist forms of
communication and language, such as the title “Ms.”, were developed as forms of resistance.
Speech acts are always “[a]uthentic” and “interven[ing] in a given situation as a moment of
15
that situation or as a reaction to that situation” (Gusdorf, 1965, p. 36). The notion of
authenticity is complicated by context, and the act of intervention is not destructive in the
argument regarding women’s speeches. Intervention is a powerful narrative tool. Speaking,
and by extension, women’s autobiographical narratives, is not inauthentic because it is in
response to “context[s]” (Gibbon, 1999, p. 21).
The performance of speechmaking is a result of many diverse and complex speech
acts. The concepts and sentiments communicated in women’s speeches are affected
tremendously by their context and delivery; women’s methods for speech delivery vary
depending on the speech’s setting, and the author’s status (Gibbon, 1999, p. 21). Certain
women are considered appropriate public figures, such as white, middle-class women who
appear non-threatening (Gibbon, 1999). Stereotypes of women’s speeches, as of women’s
autobiographies, feature women discussing their private, home lives in adherence to gender
and economic stereotypes. These lives, however, are not the only ones women live, as
women’s experiences are never-ending in their range of difference. If women are
uncomfortable with speaking about their political, stereotype-disabling lives, then they may
censor the content of their speeches and speak within the confines of class status, gender, and
race. For many women speechmakers, the process of speaking is influenced by conventions
of gender and class. As other scholars of feminist autobiography have noted, women
speechmakers and autobiographers are, in some cases, concerned about the authenticity of
their life stories (Gluck & Patai, 1991, p. 206). Audiences may also debate a speech’s
authenticity, and the same audiences are often responsible for evaluating a speech’s success.
The feminist listeners, transcribers, and critics of women’s autobiographical speeches are left
with the responsibility to, as Lejeune (1975) posited, make the speeches function. Listeners
of women’s speeches, through feminist frameworks, dialogue with the speechmakers. The
audience projects its validation of the speech as a response. Analysts, by engaging with
women’s speeches, shape what the speaker conveys through their own perceptions,
approaches, and analyses (Gluck & Patai, 1991, p. 206).
Women’s political discourse and speeches have increased in the twentieth-century
because of women’s greater and more visible involvement in politics, policy-making, and
processes of government (Mayhead & Marshall, 2005, p. 19). Scholars of women’s political
involvement contend women’s capabilities as speechmakers in the United States
16
“demonstrate” their “commitment to issues of public importance” (Mayhead & Marshall,
2005, p. 20). As speechmakers and politicians, women can subvert stereotypes of femininity,
partisanship, and “the private sphere” (Mayhead & Marshall, 2005, p. 20). The processes of
public speaking and political involvement require women to violate standards of femininity,
but many political women are able to balance their roles as politicians with feminine
stereotypes. For example, when Sarah Palin campaigned for Vice President, she defied
gender stereotypes (by speaking) while reinforcing them (with her politics). This is not to
say that anti-feminist political women are not revolutionary or submissive to gendered
practices; the act of oration requires women to negate several gender stereotypes, and there
are several conflicts associated with speechmaking. Political women straddle two very
contrasting realms: the private, home life, and the public, political life. The requirements of
femininity are considered disjointed from the “social definitions of competence and
leadership” (Anderson & Sheeler, 2005, p. 6). Political women have been described as
determined, wise, pragmatic, and hard-working pioneers, and their power as pioneers
influences their speeches. Gender stereotyping does exist in women’s speeches, and when it
does arise in women’s political speeches, strategies to avoid such conventions are devised.
In fact, some women can manipulate these stereotypes to their personal and political
advantages (Anderson & Sheeler, 2005, p. 192). To political women’s detriment, stereotypes
of femininity cultivated and perpetuated through the media often are limiting because they
reinforce systems of oppression such as sexism, racism, and classism (Anderson & Sheeler,
2005, p. 2). Femininity and power are not mutually exclusive, and pioneering political
women either emphasize this or disregard gender in its entirety.
Scholars of women’s political speeches have analyzed the implementation of certain
literary devices as they have the incorporation of gender into speechmaking. Literary devices
are used both strategically and unknowingly in political speeches, and certain scholars have
analyzed women’s political speeches for their specific uses of metaphors. According to
Anderson and Sheeler (2005), metaphors can serve “both as constraints and rhetorical
resources for political figures” (p. xi). Metaphors can be used politically and according to
the speaker’s agenda, but metaphors can be used accidentally as a result of social
constructions of language, experience, and storytelling. It has been argued that women
politicians can manipulate stereotypes for their political advancement, and the use of
17
metaphors in political speeches is a rhetorical strategy for the achievement of set goals (p. 2).
The employment of various literary and linguistic devices can enhance women’s political
speeches by enhancing or emphasizing qualities of the woman speaking, but using metaphors
can act as language or linguistic barriers for political women by binding them to certain
gendered codes of behavior, experience, politics, and speech (Anderson & Sheeler, 2005;
Mayhead & Marshall, 2005).
As explored previously, feminist scholars of women’s autobiographies have deduced
that autobiographers are aware of and performing for their audiences; in speeches and written
autobiographies, women employ identities to establish connections to audiences (S. Smith,
1998). It is the goal of speechmakers to be convincing, but women speakers, especially in
politics, are required to attract, motivate, and earn the trust of their constituents or people
they hope to represent. Politicians campaign and address their public for political
advancement, so the forum of a speech fosters the audience’s decision to pledge or withdraw
support. Politicians, especially women politicians, must be convincing, balanced, and
relatable. For these speakers, experience influences the reflection of life and identity, and
vice versa. The identification of shared experiences with a movement or a larger group of
people gives the speaker a greater sense of agency. The self is not solitary, isolated, or
ostracized if it relates to a larger movement, which can comfort the autobiographical,
political speaker (Scott, 1998). If women are engaged in activist movements or politics, it is
likely that an interested, supportive audience exists (Scott, 1998; S. Smith & Watson, 2001).
Additionally, for speechmaking women, there are two types of “events” in the oral personal
narratives: “narrated” events are experiences from the woman’s life that she explores through
story-telling, and “narrative” events are a woman’s actions of telling her life to particular
audiences (S. Smith & Watson, 2001). This relation to the audience is not limited to
orations; similarly, women autobiographers, in addition to realizing their self-worth, perform
their personal narratives for the sake of social movements, politics, and groups (Scott, 1998).
Women autobiographers and political speechmakers utilize these events to attract and relate
to audiences and listeners. Narrative events, which include some oral, autobiographical
speeches, are affected by the listener’s experience of the narration. The listeners seek to
identify with the speaker as she narrates her life to them (Borland, 1991).
18
Although this literature review has included literature about women as
autobiographers and political speakers, it is limited. Scholarship about women in politics
relies upon an umbrella term: women. This identity is employed to represent shared
identities and struggles, but the scholarship rarely accounts for intersecting identities such as
race, class, ability, sexuality, and age. Women’s experiences are not identical, and the
scholarly analysis of gender in political speeches is ethnocentric because it generalizes all
political women without acknowledging differences of nation, class, sexuality, race, ability,
or age (Mohanty, 1991; Spelman, 1988; Young, 1997, p. 13). The scholarship available is
not perfect, but it is foundational, which allows for critique, enhancement, and revision.
19
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGIES
INTRODUCTION TO THE METHODOLOGIES
This thesis is an exploratory analysis of Margaret “Midge” Costanza’s unfinished
autobiography and a selection of her political speeches. Although the two mediums of
personal narratives are very different, my research questions are applicable to both. To
review, the questions are:
1. How did Costanza confront, handle, and resolve injustices in both mediums?
2. How did Costanza perform her identities, and in which ways to she attempt to
identify with her audiences?
3. What role did the performance of gender play in Costanza’s autobiography and
speeches?
The methodologies available for such analyses are plentiful and varied, and I utilized
forms of narrative analysis in my exploration of both forms of personal, autobiographical
narratives.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLING PROCESS
Before beginning the research process, I was fortunate enough to be invited to intern
at the Midge Costanza Institute for the Study of Politics and Public Policy. At the time, I was
uncertain about my research concentration, but the archives at the Midge Costanza Institute
attracted me to Costanza’s political life and accomplishments. Prior to her departure from
the Carter White House, Costanza, with a group of friends, relocated her documents and
office belongings, including memos to and from the President and his cabinet, from the
White House. Typically, such materials are taken by the national archives and stored in
presidential libraries. Costanza subverted this regulation, and working in the Midge
Costanza Institute allowed me the opportunity to interact with and analyze primary
documents from Costanza’s political career in conjunction with her personal narratives. My
research into Costanza’s life benefited from my ability to evaluate and organize other, nonnarrative sources at the Institute, as well. My research was affected by Costanza’s death
20
because, unlike my colleagues at the Midge Costanza Institute, I was unable to meet or get to
know her. My only impressions of Costanza were gleaned from her personal, archived
materials and others’ stories of her. I am not only inferring her personality, character, and
personhood through her own words, but also through others’ stories of her.
Before she died in 2010, Midge Costanza completed four chapters of an unpublished
autobiography. These chapters and their corresponding drafts and notes are available at the
Midge Costanza Institute, where I have read and analyzed their contents. Along with the
four chapters to which I have access is an outline of the proposed book’s chapters, and this
outline will be used in my analysis of Costanza’s autobiography as well. Table 1 contains
the chapter names and descriptions.
Table 1. Listing of Costanza’s Autobiography Chapters Analyzed
Chapter Names and Numbers
Chapter Descriptions
“Early Life”
Costanza describes her childhood, young
Chapter 1
adult life, and political awakening.
(n.d.a)
“Resignation”
Incomplete; writing about the process of
Chapter 20
composing resignation letter.
(n.d.b)
“Wexler Leak”
Costanza is replaced by Anne Wexler;
(n.d.c)
chapter details the scandal and the
betrayal of Costanza.
“The President’s Woman, or, If You Can’t
Events leading up to Costanza’s
Fight ‘Em, Leave ‘Em ”
resignation; debacle regarding the
(1981)
cancellation of a “Good Morning
America” appearance.
The outline of the autobiography chapters serves to fill in the void of Costanza’s missing
chapters. Costanza planned to write an autobiography with twenty-five chapters, and
although I possess only four, I have a representation of the conceived autobiography.
As the researcher, I was presented with challenges regarding which speeches to
transcribe. Costanza was popular for her enthusiastic speeches, and in three decades she
21
frequented countless conferences and events, speaking to many varying audiences. She made
a career out of speechmaking. Costanza moved every recording of her speeches and
interviews to the Midge Costanza Institute, where research assistants catalogued the
recordings, handling hundreds of tape cassettes. Many of Costanza’s speeches have not been
transcribed; in the summer of 2010, I transcribed a series of tapes in hopes of gathering
material for my thesis. During the transcription process, I noticed the repetition of certain
stories utilized by Costanza, and narrowed my sample by eliminating repetitious speeches. I
noted the differences in the purposes of her speechmaking, and decided to analyze the
speeches made by Costanza in what I call “political contexts.” I use the term “political
contexts” to describe the audiences, locations, and time periods of “political” speeches made
by Costanza. In searching for political speeches, I chose orations delivered to political action
groups, university students, unions, and similar organizations. If the audience, location, and
time of the speeches were unknown, I assessed their levels of politicization based on content.
In total, I selected six speeches to analyze within this thesis; Table 2 illustrates the speeches’
classifications, dates, locations, and audiences.
Table 2. Listing of Costanza’s Speeches Analyzed
Speech Titles
Dates
Locations
Audiences
“American
Psychological
Association”
“1989”
August 22, 1982
Washington, D.C.
Doctors,
psychologists
1989
California
Young, adult women
“NARAL”
January 21, 1979
Connecticut
Members of
NARAL; pro-choice
“Does Anybody
Care?”
N/A
(Likely in the 1980s)
Unknown
Possibly before a
political organization
“International
Women’s Year”
November, 1977
Houston, Texas
“Harry the Cab
Driver”
N/A
(Likely in the 1980s)
Unknown
IWY attendees
(politically active
women, feminists)
Unknown
22
The contents of these speeches have similarities and differences; although Costanza discusses
similar stories in each speech, I posit that her narrative strategies change depending on the
speech location and audience. In her addresses to women’s groups, Costanza emphasizes
women’s political issues such as reproductive rights, the Equal Rights Amendment, and fair
pay. To the American Psychological Association, Costanza utilizes her audiences’
positionalities as doctors to air her grievances with the political system and social
inequalities. In other contexts, she utilizes humor and anecdotes to establish a connection
between her and her audiences. The locations of these speeches reflect Costanza’s varied
careers. Even though she was not always in elected office, she had continuous, significant
political impact.
OVERVIEW OF CHOSEN METHODS
Narrative analysis took precedence in my research. According to Charles P. Smith
(1994) in “Content Analysis and Narrative Analysis,” “[n]arrative analysis permits a holistic
approach to discourse that preserves context and particularity” (p. 327). When I worked with
Costanza’s speeches and autobiography, it was crucial to preserve “context and
particularity,” as my research goals posit that both affected her story-telling and
autobiographical narratives. Narrative, as C. P. Smith contends, “is used to refer to accounts
of personal experiences” (p. 328). In Costanza’s personal narratives, not only do stories
exist, but also “frames.” C. P. Smith describes “frames” as referring to “(a) external
influences on the narrator, (b) ways in which the narrator constructs the narrative, and (c)
characteristics of the resulting texts” (p. 328). Narrative analysis as portrayed by C. P. Smith
can be used in the analysis of both verbal, spoken narratives and written narratives. In
“Making Sense of Stories: A Rhetorical Approach to Narrative Analysis,” Feldman,
Skoldberg, Brown, and Homer (2004) discuss narrative analysis, their own interpretations of
narrative analysis, and others’ uses of it. “The information presented in the narrative is
valuable” (p. 148), Feldman et al. write. “Through the events the narrative includes,
excludes, and emphasizes, the storyteller not only illustrates his or her version of the action
but also provides an interpretation or evaluative commentary on the subject” (p. 148). I
searched for such interpretations and commentary in Costanza’s mediums of personal
narrative. Given the different accounts and personal stories Costanza presents through her
23
speeches and autobiographical writing, the opportunity existed for me, as the researcher, to
document the qualities of and silences in Costanza’s storytelling through the recognition of
both “frames” and “events” (Feldman et al., 2004; C. P. Smith, 1994).
Although narrative analysis was appropriate in my exploration of both mediums of
Costanza’s personal narratives, the process was different for her speeches and autobiography.
Using C. P. Smith’s methodologies, I gleaned from Costanza’s speeches the frames of her
narratives, identifying how stories were affected by each speech’s location in time, historical
context, audience, and theme. From the “characteristics of the resulting texts,” I discerned
how Costanza evaluated and qualified the forces in her life, and I searched for characters,
symbols, and tropes (C. P. Smith, 1994, p. 328). Conducting a narrative analysis of
Costanza’s speeches encouraged an evaluation of her role in these narratives, and required an
examination of Costanza’s self-characterizations.
Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson’s (2001) Reading Autobiography: A Guide for
Interpreting Life Narratives, was helpful as well, especially the chapter “A Tool Kit: Twenty
Strategies for Reading Life Narratives.” S. Smith and Watson provide frameworks for
reading women’s autobiographies, and their system of analysis is an extension of Charles P.
Smith’s (1994) “frames” for narrative analysis. Using S. Smith and Watson’s (2001) “tool
kit,” I weighed Costanza’s authorship and the historical moments when she writes; I
discerned from her autobiography the identities she addresses and conveys. S. Smith and
Watson call this analyzing “models of identity,” which complicates flat identities with
historical moments. For both her speeches and autobiography, I contextualized every
identity Costanza portrays or assumes. In their methods for narrative analysis, S. Smith and
J. Watson detail tools to be used by the reader of autobiography—or for the purposes of this
thesis, myself. Of their tools, I utilized the following: “Authorship and the Historical
Moment,” “The History of Reading Publics,” “Identity,” “Audience and Addressee,”
“Memory,” “Evidence,” “Authority and Authenticity,” “Experience,” “Body and
Embodiment,” and “Agency” (p. 165). “Authorship and the Historical Moment” provides
context to the author’s history preceding the moment of writing and the historical impact of
the author’s writing. The tools “The History of Reading Publics” and “Audience and
Addressee” enhance the analyst’s understanding of the autobiographer’s audiences,
explaining the types of “reading publics.” “Identity,” “Experience,” and “Body and
24
Embodiment” explore processes of identification, and assisted in my analysis of Costanza’s
use of her experiences borne of personal identities and her gendered descriptions of her body.
Costanza acts as a speechmaker and appears physically before her audiences, and as an
autobiographer, she constructs a second body in and with the text. This entire thesis explores
Costanza’s negotiations of agency as a political woman, and with the evidence she provides
of her successes, I evaluated whether or not Costanza fulfills her role as agent in varying
contexts and social locations.
Furthermore, the authors emphasize the importance of considering “cultural
meaning[s] of ‘authorship’” (S. Smith & Watson, 2001, p. 165). As the reader, I sought
understandings of the contexts in which Costanza’s autobiography is written and within
which she lived. I “historicized” practices of writing autobiographically and the publishing
of such works, as those acts are influenced by several, varying factors, or Charles P. Smith’s
(1994) “frames.” Understanding “the reading public” required me as the reader to “ask [...]
[w]ho made up the reading public or consumers of the life narrative at the time it was
written?” (S. Smith & Watson, 2001, p. 166). “Reading publics” encompass not only
audiences, but also publishers and promoters of the autobiography. According to S. Smith
and Watson (2001), an analysis of “models of identity” (p. 168) is important in the evaluation
of autobiography. As the reader and analyst of Costanza’s autobiography, I considered types
of identities that were available to Costanza the autobiographer; I analyzed as well as her
negotiations of “fictions of identity” and constraints of identity” (p. 168).
As I mentioned in my discussion of the narrative analyses of Costanza’s speeches, the
“multiple audiences” of autobiography are important in understanding Costanza’s intentions
to write. Given her intentions to publish, I posited that Costanza wrote not only for her
potential readers of popular autobiographies, but also for editors and publishers. The readers
of autobiography are encouraged to question the types of audiences and the processes of
addressing these groups (S. Smith & Watson, 2001, p. 171). S. Smith and Watson (2001)
present the shifts in memory and the autobiographer’s processes of remembering. I address
in the chapters of analysis how Costanza remembers in her autobiography, and which
characters enable or portray memories. Through these memories and recollections, I
analyzed Costanza’s “evidence” (p. 173). Within the framework of S. Smith and Watson, I
deciphered whether or not Costanza seeks the validation of her stories, and “what is at stake”
25
for her as author. In continuation of my analysis of Costanza’s evidence, I explored
Costanza’s depictions of authority and authenticity. S. Smith and Watson encourage an
understanding of how these are addressed, and, using their tools, I analyzed how Costanza
seeks to prove herself and her stories as authoritative and authentic (p. 174). Also, I deduced
the relationship of authority to gender, and sought to learn if Costanza genders her authority
or lack thereof. S. Smith and Watson conceptualize the process of “writing back” as
constructing one’s life with agency (p. 176). As I processed Costanza’s autobiography, I
addressed her abilities to “write back” by looking for passages in which she portrays herself
as agent, assertive, and independent.
Finally, I investigated how Costanza’s body is portrayed in her autobiography, paying
attention to portions of text in which Costanza goes into great detail about her body,
emphasizing femininity and womanhood. Writing her self was a task of similarly writing her
body. S. Smith and J. Watson (2001) explain the use of bodies in personal narratives, and
illustrate the body as a medium of communication and autobiography. I adopted this
framework in my analysis of both Costanza’s speeches and autobiography because I posited
that Costanza utilized her body as a means of communication and identification.
Although I believe the methods I chose to implement in this thesis were appropriate
and ultimately useful in my analysis of Midge Costanza’s written and spoken personal
narratives, there are some changes that I would make for future scholarship. Regarding my
sampling process for speeches, I would select a wider sample of speeches for future research.
Additionally, I would dedicate more analysis to the audio copies of Costanza’s speeches,
conducting an examination of her speaking voice, tone, intonation, pace of speech, and
volume. If I could, I would analyze video recordings of Costanza’s speeches, too, to explore
her use of her body as a speechmaker. At the onset to my research process, I intended to
include the television and film manuscripts based on Costanza’s life, which she co-wrote and
were never produced. This thesis is complete and successful without those additions, but I
am interested in exploring them in future studies and research.
26
CHAPTER 4
A WOMAN IN POLITICS
In the last few decades, it has become increasingly commonplace for women
politicians and activists to pen autobiographies or memoirs, and Margaret “Midge” Costanza
was not alone in her desire to create such a text. In a three-decade attempt to write her
autobiography, Costanza amassed hundreds of pages of notes, dozens of drafts, one book
deal, but only four incomplete chapters. In 1981, and less than three years after her departure
from the Carter Administration, Costanza began her first chapter. During and after the years
she held political office, Costanza incorporated her life experiences and stories into public
and private speeches, which were delivered to myriad audiences. Costanza was determined
to write herself into history. Her decision to write an autobiography “[was] rooted not only
in [her] awareness of her individuality but also in her belief that her life [was] either
significant or meaningful” (Watson, 1999, p. 15). In 1981, Costanza committed to creating a
second body—a body of literature. She intended to write herself into text. What resulted
from these efforts, although small, is illuminating, informative, and important.
The working title of the autobiography was Midge: A Woman in Politics, and the four
existing chapters vary in their content and completion. I have listed the chapters nonchronologically, but in accordance to my discovery of each chapter. The first, “The
President’s Woman, or, If You Can’t Fight ‘Em, Leave ‘Em,” (Costanza, 1981) is the most
complete chapter. This chapter captures Costanza’s waning position in the White House, her
reassignment, and the Administration’s cancellation of Costanza’s planned “Good Morning,
America” appearance. The second chapter is what will be referred to as “Early Life”
(Costanza, n.d.a). This chapter lacks a distinct title, but it focuses on Costanza’s family
history, young adulthood, and early political activity. The book outline drafted by Costanza
and her co-writer Caroline Elias indicates that this chapter would span three complete
chapters in the eventual book, but it exists only in 70 pages. The third chapter, called
“Resignation,” (Costanza, n.d.b) features the processes, events, and feelings that preceded
Costanza’s resignation from the White House in 1978. The fourth chapter, “Wexler Leak,”
27
(Costanza, n.d.c) details the scandal regarding Costanza’s demotion and replacement by Ann
Wexler. These four chapters represent Costanza’s steps toward her autobiography’s
completion.
The qualities of these four chapters are distinguishable along lines of tone, voice, and
use of dialogue. For instance, Costanza experiments with different writing styles in each
chapter. In “The President’s Woman,” (Costanza, 1981) she writes directly, relying on a
basic structure. Her writing features few jokes—her signature comedic tones silenced—and
she writes herself as dreary, near exhaustion, and powerless in the Administration. As the
chapter progresses, Costanza relies heavily on dialogue for the advancement of plot and her
story. This chapter ends abruptly and unclearly, in the middle of a conversation. “Early
Life” focuses initially on Costanza’s (n.d.a) childhood, family life, and upbringing. The style
of writing in this chapter keeps the story moving, and Costanza includes many jokes to speed
its advancement. While this chapter is grounded in Costanza’s narration of her youth, it
focuses on Costanza’s life, politics, and work before the White House. There is little to no
dialogue in this chapter, and for covering four decades of her life, it is brief, seemingly
rushed, and unfulfilled. The next chapter, called “Resignation” (n.d.b) is incomplete and
identified as “Chapter 20”. In the manuscript left by Costanza, there are pages from different
drafts that compose her resignation story. The book outline specifies that Chapter 20 would
focus on International Women’s Year and the Administration’s wavering support for the
Equal Rights Amendment. Chapter 20 is about Costanza’s (n.d.b) resignation and is driven
by dialogue. Like the “Early Life” (n.d.a) and “The President’s Woman” (1981) chapters,
“Resignation” (n.d.b) reads as rushed and incomplete, and the unfinished pages reveal
Costanza’s difficulties writing it. She meanders through several incarnations of the same
story, never arriving at a complete narration. Finally, the chapter “Wexler Leak” (n.d.c) has
the most momentum of all four chapters, and the manuscript bears the writing of someone—
possibly Elias—reminding her to “check [the] tape [of Costanza’s narration] for accuracy of
swear words” (n.d.c, p. 14). This chapter manuscript lacks a conclusion, also, but it is one of
the most organized.
As mentioned, Costanza worked closely with a co-writer named Caroline Elias.
Together, Costanza and Elias made a chapter outline for the book, wrote a synopsis of the
autobiography, and compiled a pamphlet of background information about Costanza. The
28
autobiographical outline illustrates the plan for the book, and it sheds light on the
organization of the chapters. There is no date accompanying this outline. In an
accompanying press release entitled “Who is Midge Costanza?”, Costanza and Elias (n.d.)
highlight Costanza’s political and personal accomplishments, and advertise the eventual
autobiography. These documents most explicitly elucidate Costanza’s goals for the book,
and provide an understanding of her direction in and reasons for writing. As either she or
Elias wrote, Costanza was “one of the most complex, yet down to earth characters in national
politics,” and her “story is an important historical chronicle” (Costanza & Elias, n.d., p. 4).
This autobiography is Costanza’s revenge. It was Costanza’s chance to write her own life
story.
Explaining through her autobiography that her “ascendance to power was no
accident,” Costanza (Costanza & Elias, n.d., p. 4) ensured that her stories—her life—would
be remembered. As scholar Jane Marcus contends, the autobiographies of “[t]he first women
of achievement in their fields [...] represent a re/signing of their names in women’s history”
(Costanza & Elias, n.d., p. 114). It is evident that Costanza (n.d.a) saw her life as deserving
of documentation, as she explains in the chapter “Early Life.” “It’s a miracle that I did what
I did and became who I am” (n.d.a, p. 2), she writes. This understanding of her own personal
importance fostered her efforts to encourage others to see themselves as equally special. She
sought to construct herself as a model for the groups with which she identified, shared
common ground, and found safe, collaborative spaces. Costanza was remarkable because
she incorporated activism into a Presidential Administration that was otherwise reluctant to
be seen as activist. Her autobiography itself is an act of protest because it, like Costanza did,
linked the people with their government. I describe the autobiography as a form of protest
because in it, Costanza airs out the dirty laundry of the Carter Administration. She discloses
the injustices she experienced as a member of the Administration, and writes to an audience
with a similar passion for human, women’s, and equal rights. Midge: A Woman in Politics is
Costanza’s attempt to have the final word and attract allies who are as outraged and
politically motivated as she.
As the Assistant to the President for Public Liaison, Midge Costanza held an
intermediary role. She was to connect the American public with their government and the
Executive Branch. Perhaps no other position in the Carter Administration was better suited
29
to Costanza’s politics and passion for public. In this capacity, “[Costanza’s] duties included
meeting with representatives of virtually every special interest group in America [...] and
bringing their message to the Administration” (Costanza & Elias, n.d., p. 1). Through these
meetings, Costanza gathered information about Americans’ diverse dissatisfactions, desires,
and expectations. She reported to the President and his cabinet with the goal of resolving the
expressed inequities, and she held countless meetings in the White House including her
landmark conference with the National Gay Task Force. Costanza realized that certain
groups of Americans and human rights causes did not have priority within the United States
political processes, and she hoped to change this in the Carter Administration. Her efforts to
accomplish systemic changes in politics and policymaking were silenced, stunted, and
prevented when she served in the White House. Costanza explored her frustration and
sought out its causes in the autobiography, and she designed her protagonists and antagonists
as both characters and characteristics. Within this chapter, I will analyze the four segments
of Costanza’s autobiography, and decipher pertinent themes, performances, and qualities.
The style of an autobiography lent Costanza a forum to confront, handle, and resolve
injustices, and through her performances of identity and her methods of identification,
Costanza waded calculatingly through both adversity and success.
SEXISM AS A BLANKET ANTAGONIST
If Midge Costanza’s autobiography indeed serves as medium through which Costanza
confronts injustices, it is only proper that she is presented as the story’s protagonist. In the
autobiography, Costanza has a clear moral code—to treat everyone equally and truthfully—
and she emphasizes her morality and others’ lack of it. As the protagonist, Costanza depicts
herself as a selfless hero and her position as the Administration’s ethical compass. Costanza
employs her personal character as a symbol for her feminist and equal rights causes. In the
chapter “The President’s Woman,” Midge Costanza (1981) wrangles with President Carter’s
aides regarding her controversially cancelled “Good Morning, America” appearance.
According to Costanza, Jerry Rafshoon, an advisor to President Jimmy Carter, instructed
Costanza to both cancel her appearance and lie about her reasoning behind the cancellation.
Costanza (1981) fashions Rafshoon as the untruthful antagonist to her honest, moral
protagonist. She writes, “‘I didn’t think Jerry’s request to lie was acceptable, whatever the
30
reasons or circumstances” (p. 24). As the first chapter that Costanza (1981) wrote, “The
President’s Woman” establishes her character; the chapter is foundational in her creation,
development, and maintenance of a heroic identity. The first chapter of any book is
foundational. In “The President’s Woman,” the reader of Costanza’s (1981) autobiography
is aware of her declarations of personal and professional honesty, and it is for this quality,
she writes, among others, that the antagonists in the White house sought to expedite her
departure.
An antagonist in Midge Costanza’s life, as in many other women’s, was sexism, and
she was never oblivious to its oppressive and insidious force. Born in 1932, Costanza
matured in an environment that valued traditional Western gender roles. As an actor in the
Second Wave of feminism in the United States, Costanza contested gender constructions and
stereotypes, even engaging in politics before the movement of feminism saw resurgence.
Costanza’s personal and political feminisms predated her joining of the Carter
Administration, and, even as the Second Wave sought to quash sexism, Costanza still faced
discrimination and unequal treatment in her political life. In 1973, Midge Costanza ran for a
city council position in Rochester, New York. Of the sexism she experience during her
campaign, Costanza (n.d.a) writes in “Early Life”,
When the tally came in, I had not only won, but I was the leading vote-getter.
There is an unwritten law in Rochester, that the person elected to the City Council
who gets the most votes becomes mayor – unless apparently, she’s a woman.
They were so proud of my victory they changed the rules for me. They made me
Vice Mayor of Rochester. (p. 11)
Given its effect on her life, it is only fitting that Costanza utilizes sexism as a character in her
autobiography. While formidable, Costanza illustrates that sexism can be conquered.
Although it is largely present in her narratives as a shapeless, insidious character, sexism
emerges as the most prominent antagonist in Costanza’s autobiography, and Costanza writes
herself as struggling to overcome its daunting challenges. Instead of leaving the force of
sexism as shapeless, Midge Costanza personifies it through the characters of Hamilton
Jordan, Jody Powell, and Jerry Rafshoon—all assistants or advisors to President Carter.
The most prominent characterization of sexism in the White House occurs in “Wexler
Leak.” In this chapter, Costanza (n.d.c) confronts the media’s depiction of her office’s
relocation, her position’s revision, and the President’s substitution of Anne Wexler as the
Assistant to the President for Public Liaison. It is within this chapter that Costanza expresses
31
the most anger, and she rails against the influence of sexism in the White House. Ann
Wexler campaigned for Carter and other Democrats, and Costanza (n.d.c) mentions that
Wexler was hailed as a rising star within the party. Costanza assesses her feelings for both
Wexler and the Administration, but she struggles to convey her feelings of anger and hurt
toward the correct antagonist—the President’s advisors. There are moments in the chapter
when it appears as though Costanza is blaming Ann Wexler for the Administration’s
discriminatory policies and organization. Costanza (n.d.c) admits possessing distaste for
Wexler, calling her an “opportunist” (p. 7).
This moment represents a challenge to Costanza’s feminism, as she is inclined to hold
Wexler responsible for the scandal. Rather than participating in the very system against
which she works, Costanza portrays Wexler as a pawn—as an unknowing, innocent
bystander in a game of masculinism. Establishing herself as a wiser authority, Costanza
(n.d.c) takes pity on Wexler: “She let herself be used in the old boys [sic] game of woman
versus another woman” (p. 4). Costanza divulges her dissatisfaction with the tokenization of
women in the Carter Administration. Tremendous progress could have been accomplished
had both Costanza and Wexler been placed in different, equitable Senior Staff positions in
the administration, but the leak constituted disappointment for Costanza and regression for
women’s incorporation in politics.
It was a sad day for Ann and me and the women of this nation. The appointment
of the second woman ever as Assistant to the President could have been a giant
step for womankind. One woman, that’s good, but two women, that’s real good.
Instead it was just a planned leak (by Jody Powell as I later learned) that caused
the first two women on the White House Senior Staff to be cancelled out by one
another. (Costanza, n.d.c, p. 16)
Costanza insinuates that Wexler was influenced wrongly by Powell and others, a victim of
sexism and a mentality that considered women in politics disposable, easily manipulated, and
powerless. Costanza (n.d.c) explains,
It wasn’t that another woman was joining the Senior Staff. That was good. It was
the way it was announced to the public. A leak to the press made it appear that
there was something underhanded about the whole thing—that a woman was
pushing out another woman, that somehow Ann and I were pitted against each
other. Pitting woman against woman is a weapon that men in power have used
time and time again to keep women down. (p. 6)
The “old boys’ game” that Costanza describes has many players, but until “Wexler Leak,”
Costanza (n.d.c) hesitates to proclaim President Carter as one of them. Throughout her
32
autobiography, Costanza characterizes sexism as other members of the Senior Staff, which is
why her announcement of President Carter as an oppressive force is shocking. “‘He won’t
get away with this!’ I shouted. For the first time in the White House I said, ‘He.’ Not
Hamilton, not Jody, not them, not they, not her, him, but ‘He’ won’t get away with this”
(Costanza, n.d.c, p. 4). Costanza’s relationship with the President is portrayed elsewhere in
her autobiography as endearing and friendly; Costanza and President Carter were fond of
each other as friends. “Wexler Leak” presents a Costanza (n.d.c) who is incapable of
reconciling her feelings of alienation with her relationship with the President. An analysis of
Costanza’s motif of the “old boys [sic] game” results in the positioning of Costanza as one
against many, a David among Goliaths, and a woman against sexism. Costanza demonstrates
that she is “the center of the historical pictures [she] assemble[s],” and that she is “interested
in the meaning of larger forces [...] for [her] own stories” (S. Smith & Watson, 2001, p. 11).
COSTANZA’S PERFORMANCE OF IDENTITIES AND
METHODS OF IDENTIFICATION
The processes of identification led Costanza to straddle two very different, at-odds
groups: marginalized and underserved Americans and members of the Carter Administration.
As a feminist who promoted human rights not only in the United States but also globally,
Costanza was faced with dilemmas regarding her own personal and political identities.
Costanza’s position as the Assistant to the President required her to operate effectively as
both a public representative of the Carter Administration and a citizen, and this informed
Costanza’s policies and practices as a liaison between the White House and its public. In her
autobiography, Costanza goes to great lengths to perform collective identities. As both a
feminist activist and politician, Costanza “articulated a model of selfhood for others to
emulate,” which is quite apparent in her autobiography (Watson, 1999, p. 2). A form of her
activism is “the autobiographical act,” which “construes lived experiences into a pattern. For
a person deeply involved in a cause [...] writing a life is an accounting for decisions and
actions. [...] [T]hese authors depict themselves as agents who act in specific ways (agency)
in particular circumstances (scene) to accomplish a clear end (purpose)” (Watson 1999, p.
103). In her autobiography, Midge Costanza identifies with larger collectives to corroborate
and support her life experiences and political decisions.
33
In the “Early Life” chapter, Costanza (n.d.a) emphasizes her family’s immigrant
story. She writes about her father’s work ethic and the progress he made as a working-class
businessman, which culminates with Costanza explaining how her father invented, then gave
away, the formula for Clorox (p. 1). Costanza details how important her mother’s work was
within the family home, and she highlights her family’s roots in Rochester while reminding
her readers of her family’s immigrant experience. The inclusion of her family’s history and
story is important to Costanza’s construction of herself as a member of a immigrant,
working-class communities—of something bigger than herself. There are qualities of her
family’s that influence her behavior, Costanza (n.d.a) writes, and among them are “a strong
sense of decency, loyalty, honesty, and a deep respect for hard work” (p. 5). “These traits,”
she continues, “have been both my strength and, ironically, my downfall” (p.5). As part of
an autobiographical revelation, Costanza accents her heroic and fallible characteristics. Her
Achilles heel is that she cares. The chapter “Early Life” establishes Costanza (n.d.a) as
committed to her family, and, by extension, her public and causes. Her family history
provides reasons for her dedication to human rights and feminist causes, which legitimizes
her policies and goals even as they come under fire from her adversaries inside and outside
the White House.
Such criticisms from White House advisors and the President himself are illustrated
in the chapter “The President’s Woman.” In this chapter, Costanza (1981) contests the
Administration’s efforts to keep her from discussing, among other topics, the Equal Rights
Amendment on the morning television news show “Good Morning, America.” In her
portrayal of a heated telephone conversation with Carter advisor Jody Powell, Costanza
(1981) discusses the White House’s lack of support for the Equal Rights Amendment.
“‘[Y]ou moved the issues to the basement. [...] [I]f you haven’t heard, we’re fighting for the
ratification of the ERA, and I wanted a chance to talk about that issue on national television’”
(p. 25). Drawing connections between her basement office within the Carter Administration
and the efforts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment nationally, Costanza bridges realms.
She is both a woman in the United States and a woman working in a powerful, national post.
Costanza writes about her reactions to being excluded from the policy process, and as her
position was redefined to focus on women’s, minority, and human rights issues, her office,
like “the issues”, was moved from next to the President’s to the basement. To Costanza, this
34
change reflected the Carter administration’s disregard for the issues she was charged with
highlighting and for which she and the President should seek resolution. Costanza accused
President Carter of ignoring women’s issues and the ratification of the Equal Rights
Amendment, which sparked contentious sentiments between her and the President. Midge
Costanza took the erasure of women’s needs to heart; in the chapter “Wexler Leak,”
Costanza (n.d.c) opines, “You get more sensitive about other people’s feelings when yours
are going through a ringer, at least I do” (p. 10). She saw herself as fiercely connected to the
issues of the groups for which she advocated, and viewed attacks on her and her policies as
attacks on the underserved groups who sought equal representation and parity.
Costanza’s private and public transition from Assistant to the President for Public
Liaison to her position as an authority on women’s and human rights issues was tumultuous,
as Costanza adduces. Although press releases were sent out to the media regarding the
change, news outlets reported the shift in a discriminatory, sexist light; the Washington Post
classified Costanza’s new placement as a “demotion,” and this infuriated Costanza. She
vocalizes her anger in “Wexler Leak”, and rationalizes her reasons for why her position was
not a demotion:
I said to [the Washington Post writer], “How can you call the issues that touch
51% of this population, 51% of 218 million Americans, how do you call that a
demotion? That’s not what the President thinks it is, that’s not what I think it is
and if you think it is, then you’d better start answering to your readers why you
think that the issues relating to the majority in this country are not important. And
domestic human rights. That involves all 218 million. Do you want to call that a
demotion? It’s not my problem, it’s not the President’s problem. Obviously it’s
yours.” Now, I knew he wouldn’t print that, but at least I turned him around and
he softened the demotion thing. (n.d.c, p. 15)
Here Costanza employs the collective to emphasize the importance of her personal work and
her political position. Women constitute the majority of Americans, writes Costanza, and
their well-being is as valuable as men’s. “Domestic human rights,” as Costanza maintains,
are equally as important, as they affect every single American. Costanza conveys that this
fact should validate the necessity of her position, and utilizes the condition of “218 million
Americans” to disprove the Washington Post reporter and the institutions of racism, sexism,
and classism. President Carter’s support, although described elsewhere as wavering, is
similarly a bolster.
35
As demonstrated by Costanza, causes may be advocated through autobiography, and
activist women’s life stories “[reflect] the growth and strength of a movement” (Watson,
1999, p. 2). As a feminist in a prominent political office, Costanza brought her awareness of
social inequalities and ills with her to Washington. Even though other feminists joined her in
the Carter Administration, Costanza desired the approval of the people for whom she
worked. Through advocating for reproductive rights, civil rights, and the Equal Rights
Amendment, Midge Costanza intended to be the mouthpieces of women’s and human rights
groups in government. As explored in her autobiography, Costanza wanted simply to
represent and serve her constituents, following what Susan Abrams Beck (2001) calls “the
model of a woman representative” (p. 50). It can be argued that Costanza saw herself more
as “public servant[s] than as…politician” (p. 50), but as evidenced in her autobiography, she
worked carefully to straddle the two realms of the represented and the representative. Her
ability to place herself within liberatory movements provides Costanza with a greater sense
of agency; the self is not solitary if it relates to a larger movement, and she incorporates this
stance skillfully into her autobiography. Through her actions as Assistant to the President for
Public Liaison, which were affected by her personal politics, Costanza provides visibility to
underserved and marginalized groups, and this “exposes the existence of repressive
mechanisms” (Scott, 1998, p. 59).
In a different take on identifying with the collective, Costanza utilizes her shared
experiences and relationships with all White House staff in times when her authority, insight,
and participation are questioned. Just as Costanza identifies with the marginalized to
advance her politics, she uses her position in the White House to reinforce her personal and
political agency. In “The President’s Woman,” Costanza (1981) details the Carter
administration’s efforts to lessen her public visibility. In her account of a phone conversation
with Jerry Rafshoon, Costanza places herself within the collective of White House staff,
explaining that the debacle over her “Good Morning, America” appearance is the
responsibility of every staff member involved—the President, Mr. Rafshoon, and Costanza.
Costanza deflects the blame from herself and David Hartman of “Good Morning, America”
to the whole of the White House senior staff. “‘Jerry, I can’t do that,’” writes Costanza
(1981, p. 9), “‘[...] I realize your directive is important, but it isn’t worth canceling this
appearance. That’s our problem, and just because we didn’t get our act together is no reason
36
why David should have to pay for it” (p. 9). Silenced by members of the Administration,
Costanza retaliates, arguing the whole of the White House Senior Staff is to blame.
Midge Costanza’s autobiography depicts her reliance on collective experience to
persevere and overcome sexism and discrimination in the White House and media.
Conversely, when situations are undesirable or threatening, there are instances when
Costanza portrays herself as fighting against the collective. At times, it is hazardous for
Costanza to identify with the White House, and she seeks to separate herself from its
policies. In “The President’s Woman,” Costanza (1981) exclaims to her assistants: “‘They
don’t give a fuck about honoring one’s word. They wanted me to lie to [David Hartman]
because they think we’re so important in this place that it doesn’t matter what we say to
anyone’” (p. 11). Although she takes care to illuminate the White House staff’s collective
responsibility, Costanza is still very much an individual. She uses and relies on the collective
when it is convenient in her narratives, or when she seeks validation and corroboration. That
said, however, Costanza constantly reminds both her reader and herself about the importance
and usefulness of communal, shared experiences and identities.
PERFORMANCE OF GENDER
By setting out to write an autobiography, Costanza was literally writing her life onto a
new body, the text. It is within this second body that Costanza writes frequently about her
physical, living body during times of conflict in the narrative. For an outspoken feminist
who was rebellious and boundary bending, Costanza’s emphasis on her own personal body
complicates an autobiography that focuses very much on the shared, collective experience.
Costanza did not avoid characterizing her physical body, and among embellished, sometimes
sensual references to femininity lay stereotype-busting descriptions. Carolyn Heilbrun
(1988) posits that women who write autobiographically are “caught in the conventions of
their sex” (p. 111). There are times in Midge: A Woman in Politics that Costanza portrays
how she, too, is “caught.” Costanza recounts her experiences in the White House through her
body, and she chooses to foreground her femininity in interesting ways. In the chapter
“Resignation,” Costanza (n.d.b) writes about the events and processes that led up to her
resignation. On the day she planned to resign, Costanza (n.d.f) details her act of dressing for
her meeting with President Carter. “I dressed more slowly” (p. 3), Costanza expresses, “but
37
with more purpose than usual, choosing my clothes carefully. I chose a white skirt with
pockets, I always do much better when I’m pacing with my hands in my pockets.” She
continues: “I chose a soft colored blouse to wear with my skirt, and, determined that I looked
feminine yet professional, I dressed for effect and for comfort” (p. 4). With her tenure in the
White House coming to its conclusion because Costanza was too much of an activist for the
administration’s preferences, relating her body through gendered terms and the process of
dressing allows Costanza to fall back on something normal, or conventional gender norms.
“Normal” is subjective, but in the context of a conservatively moderate presidential
administration, Costanza struggled to blend in, as evidenced by her goals and
accomplishments as Assistant to the President. Describing her dressing process as slow and
the selection of her wardrobe as careful, Costanza not only emphasizes her physical body
through descriptions of dressing, but also her textual, autobiographical body. She is not
different if she presents herself within stereotypes of femininity. Costanza recognizes the
impact of her body, as she “dresse[s] for effect” (p. 4). This also represents how the writing
of her autobiography is a methodical, mindful practice.
In “Wexler Leak,” Costanza (n.d.c) once again finds herself as the center of the
administration’s conflict, and in this chapter Costanza repeats her description of “dressing
slowly” (p. 1): “I was dressing slowly, moving slowly, but moving” (p. 1). This scene finds
Costanza oddly vulnerable. Throughout the autobiography, Costanza characterizes herself as
strong, fast-moving, and energetic to be deficient. Costanza (1981) finds herself vulnerable
again in “The President’s Woman,” as she dreads public humiliation. “I felt sick” (p. 14),
she writes, “More public humiliation to stimulate my image of weakness that the
announcement of the Presidential directive was meant to erase. So much for progress” (p.
14). Costanza is aware that the media was interested in portraying her as weak, and the
cancellation of her appearance on “Good Morning, America” affirmed, Costanza implies,
that she was ineffective. Although she does not reveal herself as incapable here, she
anticipates how others would convey her in such a light.
The performance of femininity allowed Costanza to manage how threatening she was.
In some places, Costanza describes how she did not follow gender stereotypes. In
compelling contrast to her feelings of weakness and sickness, Costanza utilizes her emotions
to legitimize her positions. Unlike many other women autobiographers, Costanza does not
38
shy away from vocalizing anger. According to the framework of Carolyn Heilbrun (1988),
Costanza “sought an escape from gender” (p. 111). After her argument with Jerry Rafshoon
in “The President’s Woman,” Costanza (1981) objects to the Administrations decisions
regarding “Good Morning, America”: “I slammed down the receiver. I was angry. I started
to pace, flailing my arms and shouting, ‘FUCK, FUCK, FUCK’” (p. 11). Expressions like
this in the autobiography reveal Costanza’s desire to command and exercise power. Midge
Costanza’s (1981) narrative of anger progresses throughout “The President’s Woman.” “I
could feel the rage within me erupting” (p. 22) Costanza writes. “I had reached a saturation
point. I knew that I could no longer control what I would say or how. Enough is enough” (p.
22). This is perhaps Costanza’s most explicit rejection of gendered forms of expression, and
as she denounces the Carter Administration’s tokenization and silencing of women in the
Senior Staff, she refuses standards of femininity.
Although Costanza writes herself as powerful and capable of utilizing her anger for
progress, she includes references to the sacrifices she makes on behalf of others and the
social standards that governed those sacrifices. According to Conway, Ahern, and
Steuernagel (2005), “Most party politicians [in the 1960s and 1970s] viewed women as party
cheerleaders and campaign workers who performed well the menial tasks associated with
secretarial work…but who should not be involved in making strategic political decisions” (p.
95). Costanza began her political activism and engagement in the political process in the
early-1950s; in “Early Life,” she refers to herself and her fellow women volunteers as “party
cheerleaders”: “[Women] went into volunteering with a Florence Nightingale syndrome: ‘I
must save all that is bad around me or hurts around me and I must be there to do my tour of
duty” (n.d.a, p. 6). Costanza (1981) describes her urge to “save all that is bad” (p.12) around
her in “The President’s Woman,” too. “I hung up the phone and wanted so much to call
David [Hartman] back. To give him all the facts. I didn’t, but I wondered why I continued
to protect [the administration] from their errors at my own expense” (p. 12). This example of
feminized sacrifice baffles Costanza; she expresses her bewilderment at her gesture of
protecting the very people who have sought to eliminate her position in the White House.
Gender will always exist in some capacity, and Costanza’s autobiography is a navigation of
her performances and perceptions of gender. Her physical body was bombarded with notions
39
of femininity, and her literary body, the autobiography, illustrates Costanza’s negotiation of
selfhood in the contexts of social and gender stereotypes and politics.
CONCLUSION
Margaret “Midge” Costanza never finished her autobiography. I can only speculate
as to why the autobiography remained unfinished. I do know that Costanza was very busy up
until her death, serving as a motivational speaker, consultant, and a professor, among other
roles. I also know that the archive she left behind was not organized, and if other chapters
exist, they have not been located yet. Perhaps Costanza “overflow[ed]” with experience and
narratives. As Helene Cixous (1994) examines in The Laugh of the Medusa “[M]y desires
have invented new desires, my body knows of unheard-of-songs” (p. 348). Costanza’s body
knew “of unheard-of-songs,” and it is possible that the act of committing these songs to paper
was impractical.
What is most pressing, I believe, is what it means to never complete an
autobiography. If “autobiography” means writing the self into a body of text or existence,
what can be said about Costanza’s unfinished autobiography? How does this affect her
“body”? There is no doubt that Costanza most certainly left her mark on feminism and
politics, and I posit that the four chapters of Midge: A Woman in Politics are assertions of her
rightful place in history. Costanza’s speeches act as fillers for the gaps in her autobiography,
and each speech serves as a new projection of Costanza’s life and autobiographical
narratives. Through the medium of speechmaking, Costanza was granted more fluidity and
freedom with her life narratives than in her autobiography, but she left behind just as rich a
body of stories.
40
CHAPTER 5
SPEECHES
INTRODUCING MIDGE COSTANZA AS SPEECHMAKER
AND SPEECHWRITER
The only time you stop mattering is when you stop believing that you matter.
--Midge Costanza
For politicians, the act of speechmaking is a crucial tool used to gain the public’s
support, create visibility, and broaden an image beyond politics. Margaret “Midge” Costanza
was naturally outgoing and gregarious, and her acts of public speaking reflected these
qualities. Speaking, for Costanza, was an instinct, and speechmaking was her forte. She was
a favorite of both news media and her constituents during her time in public office, and up
until her death in 2010 she toured the United States as a motivational and political speaker.
Costanza was also a fan of recording her speeches, and she amassed a collection of hundreds
of speech recordings that were not catalogued until the end of her life. The speeches were
not transcribed until Costanza formed the Midge Costanza Institute for the Study of Politics
and Public Policy. To date, only a slight percentage of speeches have been transcribed.
As a speechmaker, Costanza spoke at various events and to many different audiences.
In the selection of speeches for this thesis, three of the speeches are lacking contextual
information such as date, event, and audience. While I can only speculate about these
audiences, the three remaining speeches are clearly identified and their audiences known. In
keeping with chronology, the first speech is entitled in this thesis “International Women’s
Year” (Costanza, 1977). For four days in November 1977, “[t]housands of women”
descended upon Houston, Texas for the National Women’s Conference (Why Houston?
1977). Costanza attended and spoke on behalf of the Carter Administration at this
conference, which aimed to encourage equality for women nationwide. Shortly after her
departure from the White House, on January 21, 1979, Costanza spoke at an event with the
Connecticut branch of the National Abortion Rights Action League. This speech will be and
has been referred to in this thesis as “NARAL”. On August 22, 1982, Costanza gave a
41
speech to the American Psychological Association in Washington, D.C., and the speech is
identified as “APA”. The next three speeches are difficult to describe, although, given
Costanza’s references to time in each speech, it is identifiable that these speeches were made
after her tenure in the White House ended. I estimate their order to be the following: “Does
Anybody Care?” (n.d.d), “Harry the Cab Driver,” (n.d.e) and “1989” (which refers to the
year—the only identifiable context of this speech).
I narrowed my selection to six speeches because of time constraints. Each speech
comes from a different era in Costanza’s political life, but interestingly in each speech, she
used similar patterns and stories. For a woman who aimed to capture her life’s stories in the
form of an autobiography, it is not surprising that Costanza utilized her personal narratives in
her speeches. Personal and autobiographical narratives were important components and
influences in the formation of her identities and performances as speechmaker. As analyzed
in the previous chapter, Costanza cared about her life and her stories enough to document
them; she was eager for people to know her, and attempted to know her audiences and
constituents. In her body of speeches, but most explicitly in the addresses selected, Costanza
placed emphasis on her first name. In her speeches, she implored people to call her “Midge”,
which lent senses familiarity and comfort. In the speech “Harry the Cab Driver,” Costanza
(n.d.e) relates her interaction with a cab driver, aptly named Harry: “‘What’s your name
again?’” [Harry asked.] “‘Midge Costanza—but you can call me Midge,’ I said” (p. 1).
“Midge” recognized her capabilities as speechmaker and the promise of reaching new,
diverse audiences. She seized the opportunity to speak before thousands of people in her
lifetime, and performed as a speechmaker with political goals in mind. By portraying herself
as relatable, Midge Costanza sought to bring all Americans closer to their government,
thereby instilling desires for justice and activism in people who felt disconnected from
political processes.
MIDGE VERSUS SEXISM
Immediately in her speeches, Costanza resolves to live through her life—not simply
exist through it. Before her audiences, she quickly ascribes to herself agency, autonomy, and
power. She is the protagonist. Notably, Costanza talks about her decision processes and how
she “decide[s]”. This process is integral in each speech, allowing Costanza to convey herself
42
as an authority in her own life. She is strong and invincible, and as evidenced in Midge: A
Woman in Politics, her autobiography, Costanza portrays herself as the hero in her speeches.
While Costanza relays her making of decisions in the speeches, the content of her decisions
changes, but she maintains her role as protagonist. Unlike in the autobiography, sexism is
not the only antagonistic force. At times, the antagonist shifts depending upon the context of
Costanza’s narratives; for example, in Costanza’s speech at International Women’s Year in
1977, the antagonist has five characteristics: sexism, racism, classism, war, and imperialism.
While sexism as an antagonist is embodied by certain characters in her autobiography, it is
presented in her speeches as a ubiquitous evil against which women of the world and nation
can unite to fight other systemic forces such as racism.
In a fashion similar to her autobiography, in her speech to the American
Psychological Association in 1982, Costanza identifies President Ronald Reagan and the
religious, conservative movement in the United States as threats to civil liberties, equality,
and justice.
Right now, I am concerned as a woman that my right to choose on an issue of
abortion is being eroded, removed, threatened. We have a President of the United
States. We have a leader of right-wing religious fanatic[s]. We have Senators
and Congressmen who would dare make that decision for me and for every other
woman in this country and I reject it. I reject the notion that they have a right to
make that decision for us. [...] It’s the right to choose my own destiny to live up
to my full potential as a human being. (p. 3)
While Costanza begins by saying that her personal “right to choose” “is being eroded,
removed, threatened,” she clarifies that every other “woman in this country” has the right to
the same choice. Seven years later, in front of an audience of young women, Costanza
identifies that the forces that threatened equality in the early-1980s exist in 1989. Assuming
an authoritative tone with her audience, as if to forewarn or caution, Costanza (1989)
proclaims that the injustices facing women earlier in the decade are still present:
Do you understand that eleven years have gone by and women are still not
legalized in the Constitution of the United States through the Equal Rights
Amendment? Do you understand that? Do you understand that every single one
of you will graduate from college and have an opportunity that I did not, and that
you will be better trained that I, you will have more knowledge than any group of
people to-date, and your brother will make more money than you will when you
do the same and equal job? (p. 3)
43
She connects herself with her audience as she proclaims that sexism is an antagonist that
seeks to oppress all women. As a speechmaker, Costanza was more confrontational than she
presents herself in her autobiography. She levied her experiences as models for her
audiences—what affected her, affected everyone. She constructed herself as serious,
knowledgeable, mature, and authoritative. Costanza experienced injustice in her political
career, and her audience should heed her warnings and advice and prepare to fight like she
herself has been forced to do.
In juxtaposition to the serious tone she assumes when warning her audiences of
injustices that affect them, Costanza also utilizes humor to combat inequalities. In her speech
to the American Psychological Association, Costanza (1982) satirizes her experience in the
Carter White House and exaggerates her history to highlight the disparity in treatment and
responsibilities for female White House staff members. “[A]s a woman and as a
Northeasterner and the probably only liberal on the White House staff,” Costanza (1982, P.
1) begins, “I knew that I would be treated differently” (p.1). This description reflects her
experience in the White House while establishing her joke: “I had no idea, however, until I
was invited to one of those fancy White House dinners where heads of states of other
countries were invited and I thought how glamorous, how wonderful that I’m being invited to
one of those until I realized that I had to cook for 500 people” (p. 1). She takes the
stereotype of women as domestic and cooks and turns it on its head. She recognizes
prejudices, and utilizes stereotypes comically to advance her positions. Costanza jokes about
the status of women in the Carter Administration and the President’s commitment to gender
parity, and she identifies and emphasizes humorously the imbalance of power and rights
along gendered lines. Not one to pass up on getting the last laugh, Costanza (1982)
continues, “And though I fixed them, I made spaghetti sauce from their ribs” (p. 2). Humor
provides Costanza with the upper hand; her comedic sensibilities bolster her strengths and
messages and render injustices as funny yet serious.
Additionally, Costanza utilizes her sense of humor to confront tokenism. For
Costanza, humor is a weapon. A fan of incorporating satirized dialects into her speeches,
Costanza imitates President Carter’s southern drawl and the working-class, New York
accents of her city council opponents and adversaries. Costanza relays conversations with
President Carter when she hopes to elicit laughs from her audiences, and she speaks in an
44
exaggerated Southern vernacular. In “1989,” Costanza remembers receiving a phone call
from then-Governor Carter: “‘Hih, Ahm Jimmy Cartah’” (p. 1) she begins. This story
appears throughout most of Costanza’s narratives, as does her telling of her history in
Rochester, New York. In her personal narratives, both written and spoken, Costanza places
importance on the story of her City Council career in Rochester. There are many versions of
this story, and Costanza uses it to exhibit the gender inequalities she experienced in her
pursuit of local political office. In her speech to the Connecticut NARAL, Costanza (1979)
reveals how Rochester party leaders and politicians tokenized her. Her candidacy was not
taken seriously, but Costanza uses that history to ridicule those who discriminated against her
and sought to delegitimize her political aspirations:
“Hey honey, why don’t you run for city council? We don’t think you’re gonna
win. I mean, you know, everybody’s looking for women to run for office, and
we’d like you to run for office, but you’re not gonna win. You’re not married,
you are running in the city, the blue collar males will not vote for you.” And I
decided that I was going to run, and I did. And I won. (p. 1)
This narration features Costanza mocking the men who discriminated against her, and she
parodies their roles in government while affirming her own abilities and successes. She
concludes with the ultimate punch line—“I won.” While it is unknown whether or not
Costanza had a conversation like this with local government official, her claims of being
tokenized and trivialized are very real. Costanza was the leading vote getter, but was
assigned the position of Vice Mayor, although the winner was traditionally inaugurated as
Mayor. Costanza’s election was a very real threat to a white, patriarchal political order. She
maintains the upper-hand by joking about the experience and belittling, through vernacular
and performance, the discriminatory men who doubted her qualifications and attempted to
mute her politics.
In the short speech “Harry the Cab Driver,” Costanza (n.d.e) incorporates her sense of
humor once again; masterfully, she executes a punch line as the final sentence of the speech.
Detailing a recent cab ride in an unknown city, Costanza listens to her cab driver’s
dissatisfaction with pay inequities and high inflation. As Costanza (n.d.e) relates,
“So my wife, she had to go out to work—it wasn’t a choice anymore. I don’t like
it, but we gotta pay the bills. So she gets this job, see, and you know what those
shlunks did to her, honey, to my wife, huh? She’s working as hard as two other
guys there, two other guys workin’ the same job—they get twice as much as she
45
gets, the same job—twice as much. [...] So what does that make me?” “Harry,” I
said, “That makes you a feminist.” (p. 2)
With this joke, Costanza destabilizes notions of feminism and stereotypes of masculine,
working-class men such as Harry, the cab driver. The format of a joke, and the inclusion of
the punch line, brings humor to a conversation that could be very humorless. To the feminist
audience, this is ironic. The audience understands that Harry’s sentiments are feminist and
anti-sexist, but only Costanza and her audience know why this is feminism. This is not a
joke on Harry—it’s a stab at stereotypes and misguided understandings of feminism.
Skillfully, Costanza addresses civil rights issues with comedy; she illustrates in her speeches
her knowledge of her constituents, the people she aims to help as a public servant, and her
natural sense of humor. The punch line is Costanza’s way to get the final word, and it
enables her to display agency and power. Telling jokes and incorporating humor into her
speeches is also a defense mechanism for Costanza. She deflects oppression with humor.
BUILDING RAPPORT
Through her position as speechmaker, Midge Costanza was given unique
opportunities to identify with her audiences, and her ability to relate to her listeners was a
tremendous political success. Costanza incorporated facets of her personal life and
experiences into her speeches, and this resulted in Costanza building rapport with many of
the Americans she intended to represent in politics. As she does in her autobiography,
Costanza connects her life to the experiences of everyone, or to the collective. She may have
recognized that she would not be able to address every American, but she sought to appeal to
as many diverse groups as possible and she targeted her audiences strategically. Each speech
features Costanza stating and supporting her empathy, but her methods for identifying vary.
In her speech to the APA in Washington, D.C., Costanza (1982) associates her experiences
with serving on the city council in Rochester, New York with her position as Associate to the
President in President Carter’s administration. She divulges to the crowd, “The only thing
going through my mind was that here I was in the most powerful, political office in the world
and that the issues that I would be addressing were no different in the White House than they
were in my position as Vice Mayor of Rochester, New York” (p. 4). In this speech,
Rochester is a microcosm for the entire United States. Costanza knew how to help
Rochester, and her city council experience there is used to insinuate that she is capable of
46
assisting the rest of the nation. In her NARAL speech, Costanza (1979) incorporates a
similar history: “[T]wenty-five years ago in the community of Rochester, New York, I
decided that I was going to do something for a community that had been very kind to me” (p.
1). In this example, Rochester is once again representative of the whole United States, thus
Costanza is able to portray how all Americans have “been very kind to [her],” and therefore
by “do[ing] something,” she bolsters the entire nation.
While she saw many things as sources for witticism, Costanza took very seriously
human rights and dignity. In the speech from 1989, Costanza speaks to a group of young
women and enforces how important human dignity is: Costanza explains, “Human dignity—
it’s really what underlies everything. Human dignity. Peace, justice, personal freedom,
equality. All it means is that when you reach inside and discover who you are, and you care
about what you find, if you love who you are, then you will be able to love somebody else”
(p. 3). Costanza refers to human dignity as possessing compassion for oneself and others,
positing that in order to fight for human rights and dignity, one must first find self-worth.
Enthusiastically, she relates human rights as pertinent to the individual; to be self-aware and
conscious of one’s privileges cultivates human dignity. “If anybody’s rights are challenged,”
she contends, “Nobody’s right are secure” (p. 3). Transposing her analysis of human rights
as growing from the discovery of self-worth, Costanza asserts that it is everyone’s
responsibility to ensure and enforce human rights and dignity. Her role as speechmaker,
although individual, is to serve her collective audience. The function of her speeches is to
encourage others to fight like she does. Increasing the visibility of movements for equality is
an important component of Costanza’s speeches, and through this she attracts and represents
others. Costanza does her part in fighting for justice, peace, and equality by standing steadily
behind her decisions, policies, and initiatives. She is unapologetic for being compassionate,
and she seeks to persuade her audiences to share a similar empathy and promote tolerance.
Midge Costanza is similarly unapologetic for her accomplishments as the Assistant to
the President for Public Liaison. She exhibits strength, confidence, and dedication in her
speeches, and she intends for these qualities to be sources of empowerment for her publics.
She does not fold in the face of oppression or injustice, and through her speeches, she
promotes a comparable resilience among her audiences. On March 26, 1977, Costanza met
with representatives of the National Gay Task Force in the White House. Although rights-
47
based, this meeting was very controversial, and Costanza faced criticism from Democrats and
Republicans alike. Later that year in November, Costanza spoke at International Women’s
Year in Houston, Texas; to her audience, Costanza (1977) justifies her meetings with
organizations like the National Gay Task Force: “I will never apologize for allowing people
to participate in a government they help select and that belongs to them” (p. 2) she explained.
This action, for Costanza, is integral in fighting for human rights and dignity. Later in her
International Women’s Year speech, Costanza’s tone shifts as she continues to address
criticism. In response to a question asked by a female audience member about Costanza’s
ability to attract media attention and incite anger, Costanza (1977) recognizes her ability to
polarize people: “I cannot even breathe without my name being attached to it and I think that
anybody who wants to criticize me can do so openly unless they’re frightened to and I think
what they’re frightened of is their own lack of courage” (p. 4). In this speech, she is
unrepentant for being outspoken and courageous. Costanza’s ability to attract both
opponents and supporters illustrates and affirms her work as a human rights advocate and a
steadfast politician.
As depicted in her International Women’s Year address, Costanza recognizes her
responsibilities to underserved and marginalized groups of Americans, and she portrays
herself as motivated for good of the collective. It is in contrast with her personal and
political dedication that Costanza (1977) criticizes other politicians and national figures.
Costanza laments, “Too many times we have honored the tradition of the chair, the desk, and
the walls, and not enough have we had reverence for the decisions that are made by the
person who sits there that affects every single one of us on every single level” (p. 4).
Politicians holding power and stature trivialized the holding of public office, according to
Costanza. By comparing herself to these politicians, Costanza contrasts her passion and
reverence for her responsibilities with others’ selfish interests in titles and names. Five years
later, in front of the American Psychological Association, Costanza (1982) revisits her
argument from the International Women’s Year speech: “It’s easy to be so awed with being
in such a tremendous place of power that you lose sight of the fact that the responsibility of
the title is more important than the title itself” (p. 4) she explains.
The preceding excerpts of speeches symbolize Costanza’s scolding of other
dispassionate, lackluster, and selfish holders of public office. These statements serve as
48
another way for Costanza to distinguish herself from other politicians. According to
Costanza, she is different because she genuinely and altruistically cares for those whom she
represents. In her speech before Connecticut NARAL in 1979, Costanza elaborates on her
claims of caring for her constituents; in this speech she expresses grappling with self-doubt
and her ability to serve dutifully: “I saw myself in the White House wondering whether or
not I could measure up to what would be required to serve the President, and through him,
218 million Americans” (p. 2). She continues,
So while he was walking up Pennsylvania Avenue, I went through the White
House. I needed to get rid of that awe, wanted to get it out of me, away from me,
because I knew then why some of those people who’d preceded me would be
willing to pay any price to keep the title of Assistant to the President, never
putting as much importance on the responsibility of the job, but always the
importance on the title and what it meant in the valuation on levels of power.
(p. 2)
Again, Costanza alludes to her trustworthiness and sensibility as a member of the Carter
Administration, and she describes her processes of “get[ting] rid of that awe” regarding titles.
Holding public office, to Costanza, meant fulfilling one’s responsibilities to the people and
the enforcement of human rights, rather than possessing the title out of self-interest. This
emphasis on being responsible to the collective, or each of 218 million Americans,
transcends each speech analyzed in this thesis. As will be evidenced, Costanza implemented
methods of identification with each audience that facilitated her understanding of diverse
citizens and causes.
It is apparent through analysis of her speeches and their contexts that much of Midge
Costanza’s service was intended to benefit women of the United States and the world. Her
outspoken feminism earned her many fans and supporters, but it is for her feminist politics
that she was also very contested. Costanza criticized the sexism, racism, and classism of
United States politics in the 1970s and 1980s, and her career as a speechmaker fostered her
development and declaration of empowerment. In her speech from 1989, Costanza addresses
presumably a group of young women. She identifies her audience as “we”, which expresses
a shared level of identity between Costanza and her listeners. This speech is laden with
messages of encouragement, equality, and liberation, and Costanza (1989) speaks as a
representative for all women in the United States. She begins, “[W]e allow people to tell us
that it’s okay because we were born women, that we are inferior, that we cannot be President
49
of the United States, that we cannot easily be elected to the United States Senate? That all
you are is capable of raising children and cooking? Give me a break!” (p. 4). Drawing from
personal experiences with sexism and discrimination in politics, Midge Costanza utilizes her
personal narratives to relate to and motivate other women. She continues:
You see, it is not what you choose, it’s not wrong to be a housewife and a mother,
it’s not wrong to want to raise children and have them, it’s not wrong to want to
be a good cook, it is not wrong to get into the traditions—whatever that means
anymore!—of family life. It is only wrong when that’s the only choice you
have!” (1989, p. 4)
Costanza illustrates that she is critical of stereotypes, but supportive of women’s decisions to
live within these roles. The content of this speech is similar to that of Costanza’s speech
from International Women’s Year in 1977, which was a conference attended by women from
around the nation. In this address, Costanza explains her personal strengths as a woman in
politics, and urges her audience to find self-worth and political motivation like she did. For
these speeches, Costanza (1977) incorporates a phrase found in many of her other speeches:
“[...] I was just a [...] woman who felt that government affected every single second we live,
directly and indirectly” (p. 1). Humbly, Costanza highlights her accomplishments and
reasons for engaging in politics, and, more directly, Costanza (1989) encourages the women
in her audience to realize their full potential and political activism: “And don’t you ever
forget who you are, how important you are, and how you have a right to demand that
everything that life can give to you, and a government that belongs to you should never, ever
be in the position of placing obstacles to your goals—ever” (p. 1). Each woman, she
explains, is capable of tremendous successes and advancements, like Costanza herself.
Midge Costanza, through her speeches, sought to promote women’s rights in the midst of the
second wave of United States feminism. In this speech, she intends to motivate and inspire
other women to activism. Costanza, in both “1989” and her address from International
Women’s Year, portrays herself and the collectives of women to which she speaks as
interchangeable, similar, and connected.
Elsewhere in Costanza’s speeches, she illustrates her unrelenting dedication to equal,
reproductive, and women’s rights. In her address to the Connecticut NARAL organization,
Costanza (1979) illuminates—again through humor—the necessity of women’s collectives
and groups. “The reason I’m here today” (p. 2), she begins, “is because I’ve made a
commitment that I would never charge a women’s group...for any speech that I would ever
50
make” (p. 2). The recording of this speech conveys her audience’s laughter, and Costanza
creates a joke out of her personal politics and her profession. What is not funny, according to
Costanza, is her passion for equality and feminism; through her speeches, she depicts the
extent to which she cares about each of her audiences. Costanza slyly lets on that she cares
too much for many causes, and for this reason she will not be a rich speechmaker. Wealth is
not her chief concern, as this speech illuminates. Costanza portrays her self-sacrifice for the
women’s group for whom she works; she constructs herself as a role model for the
communities she represents.
Midge Costanza donned many hats during her life—as politician, human rights
advocate, motivational speaker, and businesswoman. A specific performance that was at
times very present and others absent is that of gender, especially feminine self-sacrifice. In
only one speech of the six selected does Costanza actively gender herself by employing
feminine stereotypes. In the 1989 speech to an audience of women, Costanza (1989) presents
herself as a mother-figure: “I have made contributions that should help you to freely make
those decisions for yourself. I have not stopped” (p. 1). Although she describes her
processes of self-sacrifice elsewhere in her speeches, Costanza directs her efforts toward
certain people: women. She is unrelenting in her work, and she emphasizes that this is for
the benefit of young women, or others like her. Also in this address, Costanza (1989) depicts
her procedures of self-realization. She illustrates similar experiences in other addresses, but
in this speech her description is noticeably gendered: “I had to reach inside myself and say, ‘I
like what I find, I’ll accept my faults, I’ll celebrate my virtues, but I will live with who I am
and function, and make an impact!” (p. 1). “[C]elebrat[ing] virtues” is a feminine way to
qualify positive personality traits and characteristics, and in this speech to women Costanza
chooses to use this expression. Elsewhere Costanza “accept[s] [her] faults,” but the language
is not as gendered.
MIDGE AS MENTOR
In “Does Anybody Care?” Costanza (n.d.d) details that she cares about the wellbeing
of the United States and its citizens, and, if the framework of Costanza as symbolic of every
American is applied here, then, by association, it is every American’s responsibility to be
equally concerned with the nation’s advancement as she is. Costanza (n.d.d) explains to her
51
audience, “Electing a President is a huge responsibility and it’s our responsibility to make
that choice based on the issues. [...] And the candidates must let us know that they care as
deeply as we do” (p. 2). Prefacing that statement, Costanza (n.d.d) urges Americans to
understand that they possess influence on national issues: “We must let the candidates know
that it’s our White House, it’s our Presidency, it’s our government” (p. 1). Costanza (n.d.d)
combats political apathy and disinterest in “Does Anybody Care?”, and motivates her
audience to political action. Costanza’s choice for a title for this speech reinforces her
message. “Does anybody care?” Costanza (n.d.d) proves that she does, and that others
should, too. On the same, over-arching theme of duty, Costanza asserts the collective’s
responsibility for its peers and community members. To her audience of psychologists in the
APA speech, Costanza (1982) implores her listeners to consider humanity in place of selfish
interests. “You may be scientists,” she contends, “But you’re also human beings. I feel you
have a responsibility even if you don’t speak out on the issues to at least understand them”
(p. 4). Again, Costanza emphasizes the necessity of equality and rights, and she encourages
a specific community—but as evidenced in her other speeches all communities—to be
similarly compassionate and knowledgeable. This specific audience is comprised of
members of a very privileged community of Americans—doctors—and she instructs the
APA members to use their powers for good, so to speak—to implement strategically their
privileges on behalf of others.
While Midge Costanza fashions herself as a leader in her speeches, she was an
underdog in politics, and notably in the Carter White House. She was powerful, but fellow
senior staff members sought to routinely undermine her position. She was not oblivious to
the power she possessed, which is evidenced by the watershed meeting between her and the
National Gay Task Force, and she understood that she was threatening. In her speeches,
however, she employed the trope of an underdog to denote perhaps that she was just like
everyone else—faulted and imperfect. Costanza’s speech before the APA finds her revealing
her personal process for preparing for her job as Assistant to the President. Although the
content of her speeches and autobiography relates a Costanza who worked confidently for
human rights, placing others’ interests before her own, the APA address captures a Costanza
who admits her self-interest. Costanza (1982) explains, “Human dignity and human rights
has been at the bottom of every concern that I have ever felt from the day I decided to live
52
through my life instead of just exist through it. You see when I made that decision twentyfive years ago, I really did have to put a value on my life before I could put a value on
anyone else’s” (p. 1). This confession is a disclosure of Costanza’s humility and
imperfections, but also a portrayal of her dedication to the Americans she served. For
Costanza, and as evidenced in this speech, her compassion acted as both her Achilles Heel.
Her self-described weaknesses take shape in other forms, too. Costanza’s (1989) selfdisclosure of her personal faults is evident in her 1989 speech: she divulges, “I am a pith [sic]
sometimes! But it’s who I am, and I feel okay. I’m also great sometimes. So why can’t I
accept—why is it so difficult for us to accept the bad parts of us, which by the way, are still
us!” (p. 2). In this context, Costanza describes her efforts to remain honest with herself and
others. Calling herself “a pith” in front of this audience is an interesting choice for Costanza;
as explored previously, she presents calculatingly her station as role model before these
women, which is why an admission of weakness is fascinating. She emphasizes her agency
and power throughout her speeches and in her autobiography, but this disclosure of her
imperfections is used to foreground Costanza’s honesty, which is possibly the most valuable
characteristic for Costanza.
The act of confession is present in other speeches, as well, and Costanza used this
medium of personal narrative as a form of repentance. Her address to the Connecticut
NARAL finds Costanza (1979) apologizing for discriminating against Southerners, most
notably President Carter. While she remembers being approached by Jimmy Carter, she
reveals,
I found that I was one of those Northeastern liberals who somehow felt that we
had the market cornered on liberalism, and this wonderful quality of life that we
in the Northeast, in a very patronizing way, applied to those who had not based on
what we thought was good for them. And I learned that in the South there were
changes taking place, represented by people like Jimmy Carter. (p. 3)
Five years later, in 1989, Costanza admits to this prejudice again: “I found that he was a new
reflection of politician from the South—that I didn’t think that I possessed any level of
discrimination, and what did I discover? That indeed I did. It was a discrimination, subtly,
against the South!” (p. 2). Although Midge Costanza utilized many of the same stories,
phrases, and formats in her collection of speeches, she did so with purpose. She cultivated a
format of speech that highlighted both her strengths and weaknesses; the repeated revelation
of her bias against Southern politicians, and thereby her faults, promotes a Costanza who is
53
aware of downfalls and seeking to improve upon herself. This desire of self-improvement
and strengthening is evident in the International Women’s Year speech, too. To her audience
of women Costanza (1977) exclaims, “[...] I looked around the Oval Office where I was
standing and I was scared. You bet I was scared” (p. 1). For such a visible and powerful
figure, Costanza strives to represent normalcy or the “everywoman”, and she employs the
feeling of fear to emphasize her imperfections. Elsewhere, Costanza elaborates upon her
resolution to polish her politics and personality. In the APA address, Costanza (1982)
constructs herself as a patient to her audience. She jokes,
I would like to treat this as an appointment with you to share with you some of
things I care about, what I’m thinking, what I’m feeling and what I feel a lot of
these, a lot of the people in this country are saying they need. I want to share with
you and since they’ve given me fifty minutes, which I thought was very
coincidental, I’d like to tell you who I am. (p. 1)
Costanza places herself in front of her audiences to be scrutinized, and she is critical of
herself. She isn’t special—she’s just like everyone else—which, for her, is perhaps her
greatest fault.
CONCLUSION
Familiarizing herself with her audiences by using humor, building rapport, and being
a mentor, Midge Costanza fulfilled a greater purpose: being motivational. She explained
thoroughly in her speeches that her political motivations in life had been family, friends, and
inequalities, but most importantly, the very audiences to which she spoke. She constructed
her public, speaking identity within these speeches as motivated by marginalized,
underserved communities. Out of hopes for social changes, Costanza conveyed certain parts
of her identity and self as a method to encourage others to become politically active. It is
possible that she created certain stories as “autobiographical” in order to illustrate certain
points and agendas.
Margaret “Midge” Costanza’s body of speeches is arguably more complete than her
autobiography, Midge: A Woman in Politics. With hundreds of speeches stored in her
archives, Costanza left behind more personal narratives in the form of speeches than she did
in the autobiography. I posited earlier in this thesis that the format of speeches would allow
Costanza more ways to relate her life narratives and develop her identities, but through
analysis of six, contextually different addresses, it is clear the Costanza utilized repeatedly
54
and strategically certain stories for desired effects. At the beginning of the research process,
I set out to use very different speeches with varying narratives. As the research process
developed, I realized I was limited in the availability of content because Costanza relied upon
a core of stories to appeal to her audiences. Also, I expected Midge Costanza to use more
gendered language in her speeches given the proliferation of such language in her
autobiography, but the speeches I selected contained less than anticipated. Given she spoke
in person to the audiences of her speeches, the necessity to gender herself was not as
important as in the autobiography, where her physicality was concealed or hidden behind her
words. These spoken, life narratives were considerably important to Costanza, and signify
the possibility that these may have been the only stories Costanza ever intended to use.
Perhaps these few stories and the contexts and reasons for their delivery became her life.
55
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
Thank you for letting me experience today; the one thing that I really thought was the biggest
pay-off—political pay-off that I have ever experienced in my life—it was the opportunity to
touch, to deal with, meet the greatest resource of this nation—its people.
--Midge Costanza
In this thesis’s introduction, I explain that Midge Costanza once found herself “in a
bind.” This phrase assumes new meaning, as Costanza resisted the binding of her life into a
book. Throughout the course of her life, she found herself in many dilemmas, “binds”, and
predicaments. The most notable and fluid predicament within both mediums of life
narratives is the fact that Costanza was simultaneously powerful and victimized. As the first
female Assistant to the President, she worked in a high profile, visible, and influential
institution—the White House, as a member of the elite Senior Staff—and even though she
seized control of her position by developing agendas based on inclusion, human rights, and
dignity, she struggled to maintain agency in an administration that worked to silence her.
This conundrum found itself on the center stage in Costanza’s personal narratives. I
hypothesize that Costanza herself never understood this duality, and she attempted to work
through being both influential and oppressed. She was faced with the task of negotiating her
positionalities at a very fundamental level. At each stage of her life, and with each audience,
Midge Costanza’s identity evolved. She became her publics, her audiences—assuming and
embodying their struggles and successes. In the process of committing her life to paper,
Costanza could not do each of her identities justice. An autobiography is about a person’s
singular life, but Costanza lived many more than one.
A close, feminist analysis of Midge Costanza’s personal narratives is important
because her story is nearly impossible to contain in one format. In fact, it is nearly
impossible to discern her story. My goal for this project was to evaluate Costanza’s methods
and reasons for identification. Through the process, this goal evolved into figuring out why
she represented her life through others. The answer was always present—Midge Costanza
existed through her performances, her audiences, and her spoken words. She projected
56
herself onto others as a pioneer, a fighter, someone with compassion, and this ensured that
her life transcended her physical body, her self. This multidimensional projection of her life
rendered it impossible for her to complete one, limiting autobiography. She was much more
than a few hundred pages of text.
Feminists have dedicated endless scholarship to reevaluating women’s
autobiographies, and Midge Costanza’s life is an example of the craft’s ever-shifting form.
Life exists within the text, yes, but it exists outside in the forms of spoken words, stories,
performances, and audiences. Costanza’s life was not confined to one body, just as her
autobiography was not constrained within one book or body of text, but left fluid in many
shapeless bodies and forms.
The disjunctive format of Costanza’s autobiography may signify her rejection of
order in her life. This is not to say that she was disorderly, unorganized, or sloppy—she was
indeed very calculated. She began writing her autobiography with a chapter about her
resignation from the Carter Administration. This event was momentous in her life; in an
undated, untitled note, Costanza (n.d.g) writes about resigning, “Here I am, forty-five years
old, having spent most of my life building an identity, [and] now I have several hours to lose
it” (p. 1). The resignation chapter finds Costanza (n.d.b) negotiating with her efforts to
“[build] an identity,” but she built more than one, singular identity or character. The
challenges that Costanza faced within the Carter Administration caused a usually confident
and composed Costanza to express doubt. This exclamation was not intended for inclusion
in the book or in her other narratives; it was written on a scrap of paper and set into a filing
cabinet, as it was a private note to a private self. She found confidence in front of her
audiences; speaking was both her gift and self-enforced responsibility.
The method of making public speeches did not require Costanza’s adherence to
chronology in the telling of her stories. In speeches, Midge Costanza could express herself
fluidly and unbound. In person, Costanza (1989) engaged with her audiences, or as she
explains, they were always “touch[ing]”. The performance of life narratives, for Costanza,
was not about writing or speaking primarily for herself—it was about conveying the integrity
and value in everyone’s life. Costanza valued her own life tremendously and explains in
both her autobiography and speeches that she needed to understand herself before she could
help others; this self-understanding is a representation of Costanza’s personal integrity. In
57
being honest with herself, she could better serve her audiences as a motivator, mentor, and
model. She fought to understand herself for the sake of others, just as she fought for
equality, civil rights, and universal prosperity. She was beyond caring, compassionate,
interested—she was a fighter, and a component of personal integrity, for Costanza, was
fighting for equal rights and representation.
Some scholars, critics, and readers of autobiography evaluate narrators based on
criteria of reliability. Narrators’ and autobiographers’ legitimacy as storytellers is questioned
and interrogated for fictions, lies, and impossibilities. This form of literary scholarship
devalues the autobiographical life narrative in pursuit of truth—or what is perceived to be
truthful. Feminist literary scholars moved to eliminate evaluations of honesty and
authenticity, and instead privileged the autobiographer’s writing of experience, character, and
stories.
Since this thesis is a feminist analysis of Midge Costanza’s autobiography and
political speeches, it would be unethical and futile for me to evaluate Costanza’s personal
narratives and Costanza herself for their “reliability”—at least in its non-feminist, literary
sense. I will, however, explore the ways in which Costanza’s autobiography is unreliable
compared to her speeches. Midge Costanza valued personal integrity over being a reliable
autobiographer, and her speeches capture her pride in and hopes for humanity. Her speeches
became her life—she spent three decades addressing cherished audiences—and through her
speeches, Costanza most honestly and ardently offered her life as an example—a model—for
others.
Margaret “Midge” Costanza was a consistent orator and storyteller. Her speeches
followed similar patterns, but she specialized her addresses for each audience. A select
number of anecdotes populated her speeches, yet her life was not limited to those tales. Each
speech was a new chapter in her life story, and each audience new characters. Given her
ability to customize her speeches for her audiences, Costanza was capable of establishing
special, unique relationships with her listeners and encouraged them to value their lives and
their human potentials. Costanza inscribed her life onto each audience member—composing
countless, shifting, and affecting autobiographies, which is why her decades-long attempt to
pen a “traditional” autobiography failed. The verbose Costanza, when attempting to write,
was out of words, but not voiceless.
58
Midge Costanza could not finish her autobiography possibly because by the time she
began writing, which was before she turned fifty-years-old, her life had become so much
more than about herself. It could not be contained in one, linear, and self-focused book. She
dedicated and used her life to empower her audiences—this was her life’s purpose, her
calling, and nothing else mattered. Her greatest activism was encouraging others to be
fighters like she was. Costanza was never complacent and always restless. Speechmaking
allowed her the opportunity to engage thousands of people, convincing them they mattered—
that their voices counted, that they controlled the government. The format of an
autobiography stunted Costanza’s fighting and activism by limited her voice and her life to
pages in a book.
Just as Midge Costanza found herself struggling to conclude her autobiography, I find
myself reluctant to end this exploration of her personal narratives. As the researcher, it
would be naïve to claim that I have not been affected by either my research or by Costanza.
She renewed in me a passion to fight and to create, which proves what I have hypothesized:
Living or dead, speaking or silent, Costanza’s narratives, motivations, and passions still exist
and are found within her audiences, friends, and family. Her legacy is lasting and her spirit
finds itself reincarnated with each reader or listener of her narratives.
59
BIBLIOGRAPHY
WORKS CITED
Abrams Beck, S. (2001). Acting as women: The effects and limitations of gender in local
governance. In S. J. Carroll (Ed.), The impact of women in public office (pp. 49-67).
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Anderson, K. V., & Sheeler, K. H. (2005). Governing codes: Gender, metaphor, and
political identity. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Anzaldúa, G. E. (1987). Borderlands/La frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt
Lute Books.
Borland, K. (1991). ‘That’s not what I said’: Interpretive conflict in oral narrative research.
In S. B. Gluck & D. Patai (Eds.), Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral
history (pp. 63-76). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chanfrault-Duchet, M. F. (1991). Narrative structures, social models, and symbolic
representation in the life story. In S. B. Gluck & D. Patia (Eds.), Women’s words: The
feminist practice of oral history (pp. 77-93). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cixous, H. (1994). The laugh of the Medusa. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Conway, M. M., Ahern, D. W., & Steuernagel, G. A. (2005). Women and public policy: A
revolution in progress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Costanza, M. (n.d.a). Chapter 1: Early life. [Unpublished manuscript]. Archives of the
Midge Costanza Institute, San Diego, CA.
Costanza, M. (n.d.b). Chapter 20: Resignation. [Unpublished manuscript]. Archives of the
Midge Costanza Institute, San Diego, CA.
Costanza, M. (n.d.c). Chapter 22: Wexler leak. [Unpublished manuscript]. Archives of the
Midge Costanza Institute, San Diego, CA.
Costanza, M. (n.d.d). Does anybody care? [Audiotape of keynote speech (Transcribed by
author)]. Archives of the Midge Constanza Institute, San Diego, CA.
Costanza, M. (n.d.e). Harry the cab driver. [Audiotape of keynote speech (Transcribed by
author)]. Archives of the Midge Constanza Institute, San Diego, CA.
Costanza, M. (n.d.f). Resignation letter. [Unpublished letter to Jimmy Carter]. Archives of
the Midge Constanza Institute, San Diego, CA.
Costanza, M. (n.d.g). Untitled note. [Unpublished note]. Archives of the Midge Constanza
Institute, San Diego, CA.
Costanza, M. (1977, November 20). International women’s year. [Audiotape of keynote
speech, Houston, TX (Transcribed by author)]. Archives of the Midge Constanza
Institute, San Diego, CA.
60
Costanza, M. (1979, January 21). NARAL. [Audiotape of keynote speech, Cromwell, CT
(Transcribed by author)]. Archives of the Midge Constanza Institute, San Diego, CA.
Costanza, M. (1981). The president’s woman, or, if you can’t fight ‘em, leave ‘em.
[Unpublished manuscript]. Archives of the Midge Constanza Institute, San Diego,
CA.
Costanza, M. (1982, August 22). American Psychological Association. [Audiotape of
keynote speech, Washington, DC (Transcribed by author)]. Archives of the Midge
Costanza Institute, San Diego, CA.
Costanza, M. (1989). 1989. [Audiotape of keynote speech, CA (Transcribed by author)].
Archives of the Midge Costanza Institute, San Diego, CA.
Costanza, M., & Elias, C. (n.d.). Who is Midge Costanza? [Unpublished manuscript].
Archives of the Midge Constanza Institute, San Diego, CA.
Eakin, P. J. (1999). How lives become stories: Making selves. Ithaca, NY: Cornel University
Press.
Feldman, M. S., Skoldberg, K., Brown, R. N., & Homer, D. (2004). Making sense of stories:
A rhetorical approach to narrative analysis. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 14(2), 147-170.
Felski, R. (1989). Beyond feminist aesthetics: Feminist literature and social change.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gibbon, M. (1999). Feminist perspectives on language. London, England: Longman.
Gilmore, L. (1994). Autobiographics: A feminist theory of women’s self-representation.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gluck, S. B., & Patai, D. (1991). Women’s words: The feminist practice of oral history. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Gusdorf, G. (1965). Speaking (la parole). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Heilbrun, C. G. (1988). Writing a woman’s life. New York, NY: Norton.
Hooks, B. (1996). Bone black: Memories of girlhood. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Larson, T. (2007). The memoir and the memoirist: Reading and writing personal narrative.
Athens, OH: Swallow/Ohio University Press.
Lejeune, P. (1975). Le pacte autobiographique. Paris, France: Éditions du Seuil.
Lorde, A. (1982). Zami: A new spelling of my name. Berkeley, CA: Crossing.
Lorde, A. (1990). Introduction. In J. M. Braxton & A. N. McLaughlin (Eds.), Wild women in
the whirlwind: Afro-American culture and the contemporary literary renaissance (p.
xi). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Mayhead, M. A., & Marshall, B. D. (2005). Women’s political discourse: A twenty-first
century perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
61
Mohanty, C. T. (1991). Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practicing
solidarity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Olney, J. (1972). Metaphors of self: The meaning of autobiography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Olney, J. (1980a). Autobiography and the cultural moment: A thematic, historical, and
bibliographical introduction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Olney, J. (1980b). Autobiography: Essays theoretical and critical. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Sarton, M. (1973). Plant dreaming big. New York, NY: Norton.
Scott, J. W. (1998). Experience. In J. Watson & S. Smith (Eds.), Women, autobiography,
theory: A reader (pp. 57-71). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Smith, C. P. (1994). Content analysis and narrative analysis. In H. D. Reis & C. M. Judd
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 313335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, S. (1998). Performativity, autobiographical practice, resistance. In J. Watson & S.
Smith (Eds.), Women, autobiography, theory: A reader (pp. 108-115). Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Smith, S., & Watson, J. (2001). Reading autobiography: A guide for interpreting life
narratives. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Spelman, E. (1988). Inessential woman: Problems of exclusion in feminist thought. Boston,
MA: Beacon Press.
Spivak, G. C., & Morris, R. C. (2010). Can the subaltern speak?: Reflections on the history
of an idea. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Wagner-Martin, L. (1994). Telling women’s lives: The new biography. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Watson, M. (1999). Lives of their own: Rhetorical dimensions in autobiographies of women
activists. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Why Houston? (1977). Why Houston? [Brochure]. National Women’s Conference, 1977.
Archives of the Midge Costanza Institute, San Diego, CA.
Young, I. M. (1997). Intersecting voices: Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy, and
policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
WORKS CONSULTED
Alpern, S., Antler, J., Isreals Perry, E., & Winther Scobie, I. (Eds). (1992). The challenge of
feminist biography: Writing the lives of modern American women. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Baxandall, R. F., Gordon, L., & Reverby, S. (Eds.). (1995). America’s working women: A
documentary history, 1600 to the present. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
62
Braden, M. (1996). Women politicians and the media. Lexington, KY: University of
Kentucky Press.
Brennen, B. (2001). For the record: An oral history of Rochester, New York, newsworkers.
New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
Brodzki, B., & Schenck, C. M. (Eds.). (1988). Life lines: Theorizing women’s autobiography.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Burrell, B. (2006). Political parties and women’s organizations: Bringing women into the
electoral arena. In S. J. Carroll & R. L. Fox (Eds.), Gender and elections: Shaping the
future of American politics (pp. 143-168). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
Buss, H. M., & Kadar, M. (2001). Working in women’s archives: Researching women’s
private literature and archival documents. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University
Press.
Cixous, H., & Sellers, S. (1994). The Hélène Cixous reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
Corey, S., Boe, J., & Markman, M. (Eds.). (1999). Writing women’s lives: American
women’s history through letters and diaries. St. James, NY: Brandywine.
Donnell, A., & Polkey, P. (2000). Representing lives: Women and auto/biography. New
York, NY: St. Martin’s.
Duerst-Lahti, G., & Kelly, R. M. (1995). Gender power, leadership, and governance. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Eakin, P. J. (1985). Fictions in autobiography: Studies in the art of self-invention. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ellerby, J. M. (2001). Intimate reading: The contemporary women’s memoir. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University Press.
Evans, S., & Nelson, B. (1995). Comparable worth. In R. F. Baxandall, L. Gordon, & S.
Reverby (Eds.), America’s working women: A documentary history, 1600 to the
present (pp. 327-329). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Fishburne Collier, J. (1984). Women in politics. In L. Lamphere & M. Zimbalist Rosaldo
(Eds.), Woman, culture and society (pp.89-96). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Flint, A. R., & Porter, J. (2005). Jimmy Carter: The re-emergence of faith-based politics and
the abortion rights issue. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35(1), 28-51. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2004.00234.x/full
Flynn, E. A. (2002). Feminism beyond modernism. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Gertzog, I. N., & Simard, M. M. (1981). Women and ‘hopeless’ congressional candidacies:
Nomination frequency, 1916-1978. American Politics Research, 9(4), 449-466.
Retrieved from http://apr.sagepub.com/content/9/4/449.short
63
Hargrove, E. C. (1988). Jimmy Carter as president: Leadership and the politics of the public
good. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
Hole, J., & Levine, E. (1973). Rebirth of feminism. New York, NY: Quadrangle.
Krook, M. L., & Childs, S. (2010). Women, gender, and politics: A reader. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Lanser, S. S. (1992). Fictions of authority: Women writers and narrative voice. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Lixl-Purcell, A. (1994). Memoirs as history. Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, 39(1), 227-238.
Retrieved from http://leobaeck.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/1/227.extract
Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. (Eds.). (1983). This bridge called my back: Writings by radical
women of color. New York, NY: Kitchen Table, Women of Color Press.
Murdock, M. (1990). The heroine’s journey. Boston, MA: Random House.
Murdock, M. (2003). Unreliable truth: On memoir and memory. New York, NY: Seal.
Olney, J. (Ed.). (1988). Studies in autobiography. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Perloff, R. M. (1988). Political communication: Politics, press, and public in America.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Romaine, S. (1999). Communicating gender. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sproule, J. M. (1997). Speechmaking: Rhetorical competence in a postmodern world.
Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.