In my thesis, I engage with recent scholarship in Mad Studies directed towards introducing a Mad reading practice or Mad theory to the discipline of English and academia more broadly. I utilize Mad theory and feminist literary criticism in order to frame my analysis of two forgotten queer Madwomen—British author Ann Quin (1936-1973) and American author, artist, and activist Kate Millett (1934-Present). I consider how Quin’s novel Three (1966) and Millett’s autobiography Flying (1974), as experimental texts exploring bisexuality and polyamory que(e)ry heteronormative monogamy and patriarchal literary convention. I also posit that Quin’s “The Unmapped Country” (1973) and Millett’s The Loony-Bin Trip (1990) deconstruct a perceived tension in feminist literary criticism surrounding whether the figure of the Madwoman is a subversive or silenced figure. In using a Mad reading practice, my analysis focuses on the intersections of sanism with other forces of oppression, as well as how sanist epistemic violence dissuades critically analyzing Mad individuals’ creative or personal narratives as theoretical and political texts. Moreover, I gesture towards the overlooked social exclusions produced by sanist epistemic violence, such as forced institutionalization, unemployment, criminalisation, and homelessness, which suggests the ethical importance of incorporating Mad theory into everyday practice. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)

Today, feminist theory, instead of accompanying a movement or being generated by a movement, is out there on its own. There is no large-scale social movement to complement it and to act on it. The energy and excitement of collective action is what many feminists miss and what is implied through critiques of contemporary feminist theory. The lament is for unity, for what was conceived of as “sisterhood” and what emerges as a myth. Many feminists share a nostalgia for a time that was filled with the potential for and intensity of social revolution. When we look at the theory of early second wave feminism and the theory of more recent years, the differences are negligible. What is different, and glaringly so, is the social climate. Theory is not to blame; we are. Theory is not the culprit. Theory is just as impacting and politically useful as it ever was, but it is missing its partner. This realization should be no cause for alarm, however, because there still exist many opportunities for activism, albeit different sorts of activism, based on different sorts of political issues that complement our present needs and abilities. / Master of Arts