Interpretation of Jane Eyre with Specific References to French Feminist Theory - Essay Example

How do the French feminists’ ideas about the female body and its relationship to power structures get manifested in the written text? Provide a closereading of Jane Eyre, supporting your interpretation with specific references to French feminist theory Providing feminism with a holistic definition is a tough task, explanations regarding feminism and feminist have been offered at different times by different thinkers. However, these multiple approaches have had certain limitations, like politics and emotions.1 Feminism is an ideology that enshrines status of women equal to that of men; it negates all the traditions of phallocratic social orders. According to the feminist perspective, women must have the same status as men in the social hierarchy. They should enjoy the same powers as men. There should be no social hurdle based on gender. Gender stereotyping must be eliminated from society, and women should have the freedom to make their own decisions. Equal opportunities must be offered to both genders, and quality education is everyone’s basic right. Women should have equal participation in all the fields of life, whether it is politics, business or domestic matter. All these demands make sense, but why societies struggle to provide woman with her dues and why ideologies like feminism come into form? According functionalists, society tends to resist change in social hierarchy. It takes help of various institutions that establish an acceptable social order. By “acceptable” it refers to the acceptance by the elite class of a society. As they have the control over most of the economy, they want to maintain their positions as well as they do not want any competition. To maintain monotony, they have various institutes at their proposal, for instance they can create or delete job opportunities, they can bribe law enforcement agencies, they can begin or snub political activities and they can also buy and sell beliefs. The divergence in opinion among the feminists gave birth to different classes of feminism, such as familial feminists, social feminist and Christian feminism. The conflict among different schools of thought of feminism gave rise to another debate that which feminism is true and which is false, and who can be called as a feminist. Feminism is an ideology that propagates the idea of rebalancing power between men and women in all spheres of life whether economic, social or political. After comparing the chronological development of feminism in West, Offen has suggested three criteria for nominating anyone as a feminist, they are: (1) they recognize the validity of womens own interpretations of their lived experience and needs and acknowledge the values women claim publicly as their own (as distinct from an aesthetic ideal of womanhood invented by men) in assessing their status in society relative to men; (2) they exhibit consciousness of, discomfort at, or even anger over institutionalized injustice (or inequity) toward women as a group by men as a group in a given society; (3) they advocate the elimination of that injustice by challenging, through efforts to alter prevailing ideas and/or social institutions and practices, the coercive power, force, or authority that upholds male prerogatives in that particular culture.2 Hence, confrontation to phallocentric society becomes an eligibility criterion for feminists.3Gender inequality has always proved successful in performing its function, and that is for creating a male dominant society. In this regard feminism is an ideology that denounces the existing social setup, where women are left as helpless and dependent on men. The term feminism became common among people after the French Revolution; however, there were always voices that raised the slogan for women freedom and gender equality. Though, the concept of equity between the two genders has always been treated with alienation, but over the course of history, there have been several developments, for instance women have the right to vote, they have a variety in selecting their occupations, and they can make decision about themselves to some extent. However, there are still loop holes in the equation. With all these socio-political developments in the favor of women, one must not overlook the contribution of literature to this cause. Ideas precede every form, and one could sense concern for women’s social status even in the writings of de Pisan. Literature has proved itself as a useful tool for spreading mass awareness among the masses, especially in days when no other media was available to express one’s view to general public. Some of the authors, who never claimed to be associated with feminist movements in Europe, expressed their views in their writings regarding women’s social status and injustice they are dealt with, their rights and the potentials they possess by the virtue of being humans.4 By the twentieth century, feminism became a well renowned phenomenon, and there were different schools of thought that grew under the umbrella of feminism. The differences were based on geography and history, social and political setup. During this time, the writings and theory of feminists became more directional, and it received a boost from the fact that women participation in critical matters of state and economics were acknowledged. Twentieth century witnessed some of the very first female public representatives, there were women working in field of science and technology, however, this was the case in very few example. Overall, the picture did not changed, women were still suffering at the hands of their family members and society, they were deprived of their basic rights, and in majority of the cases, women were not even aware of developments made by others who shared the same gender. From 1970s onwards there was a change in the approach of feminist writers; they shifted their focus from attaining the material gains, towards changing the mentality of people. They believed that the main issue that hindered the growth of an unbiased society was centuries old stereotyping and phallocratic setup. Simone Beauvoir was the forerunner of the French Feminist Theory, in her book the Second Sex, she refers to the stereotypes about women, and she tried to define that how female infants are transformed into women by society and its oppression against them.5 To take it further Helen Cixous in her work mentions the various extremes that are used to sort out women, she emphasized on the fact that women are human beings like men and they should not be classified discreetly as good or bad.6 Meanwhile, Irigaray took a much bold step, when she published her work “The Sex That is Not One”.7 In her thesis she refers to the independence of woman and how her comfort zone is intruded by presence of a man. Feminist critics’ of women authors often refer to dual tone of their writings. The concept of autoertoticity coined by Irigaray, the element of split subjectivity in Lacanian psychoanalytical approach, the portrayal of Victorian female authors regarding the anxiety of authorship in conforming with existing standards yet breaking out, and Elaine Showalter’s assumption about the simultaneous existence of a loud and a mute theme. Duality is figured as both feminine and feminist. As a strategy for negotiating differences between and within male and female, center and margin, inside and outside, public and private, realism and romance.8 Novels like the Mill on the Floss, the Little Women, the Pride and the Prejudice, and Jane Eyre were the products of nineteenth century also known as the Victorian era. It was a matriarchal crown, however, it social setup was no different from a patriarchal one. The female protagonists in these novels were quiet alien to the existing conditions of that time. Their authors were women, their ideas were in agreement with feminist ideology, but they never tagged themselves as feminists. There have been several misconceptions about feminism, such as it’s an anti-man agenda; it is against the natural order and so on. Most of these misconceptions do not have anything to do with the true spirit of feminism; they are controversy theories against the arguments offered by feminism. However, feminism is not a monolith; there are conflicts among feminist circles. Some argue over theory, some criticize others’ methodology and some are entirely different when it comes to practice. Diversity of school of thought is important for progress but it has a great risk of making things fall apart “Above all, I wouldn’t want people to think that I want to prove anything. I don’t want to prove anything; I merely want to live.”9 These are the lines by Tolstoy’s female protagonist Anna Karenina. This is a wish that is shared by all those women, who want to do things for their own sake but they are restricted by society. For instance there are so many things that a woman might want to do, but she is not allowed to do it, like pursuing higher education in a repressed society or taking on a field job to earn her life. Breathing, eating, moving and reproducing are biological traits of a living organism, however, the purpose of life is to live it, and by “living it”, it refers to execution of your own desires to the extent that it does not harm anyone else. Though, Tolstoy may not belong to the league of feminists but his works definitely indicate the changing trends among the literary circles. There is clear indication of the fact that life is more than just biological processes, and an important factor is intellectual development. At times when women take on a task that is usually carried by men, society takes it negatively, and it offers resistance and criticizes women for challenging the superiority of men. Even though when women take on such task they might not have desire of competing. Sometimes women want to help male family members, but the only hurdle that they face is not a natural one, but they are made handicapped just for being a woman. Jo March one amongst the Little Women by Alcott expresses her sadness as following: Its bad enough to be a girl anyway, when I like boys games and work and manners! I cant get over my disappointment in not being a boy; and its worse than ever now, for Im dying to go and fight with Papa, and I can only stay at home and knit, like a poky old woman.10 Jo March’s state can be understood by Beauvoir’s claim that woman is a product of society. She is bound to follow what society orders her to do, her potentials are neglected and there are very few opportunities to come her way. Despite, their willingness to take on tougher jobs, they are imprisoned within walls of social stereotypes. Moreover, feminists also argue that women have always been quoted as lame, lazy and passive individual of society. The overall mentality of society eventually forces females to hate themselves and aspire for becoming males. This aspiration of a woman to be a man is actually shameful for society as a whole. One must not consider it as regret on the part of women, but it is their response to the social setup that has been established through religious and cultural instruments11. Despite, the opposition of people there are characters like Elizabeth Bennet from the Pride and the Prejudice that claim their stubbornness against the odds of the social order. “There is a stubbornness about me that never can bear to be frightened at the will of others. My courage always rises at every attempt to intimidate me.”12 Elizabeth has shown her contentment for survival and her eagerness to live her life the way she wants to. She is open to challenges and is not afraid of hurdles that will come in her way. Most of the people would say that it is very unlikely for a woman to say such a thing, but if the same lines would have come from a male protagonist, they would have been much more acceptable. Underestimating a woman’s potential is criminal, because apart from difference in biological features, she has all the qualities of a human being, who is among on the top of evolutionary ladder. Considering women as a subordinate of man is not right thing to do, on the holistic scale it is a mistake. The phallocratic disposition of society has been dependent on several harsh pillars that have resisted fluctuations in social orders. Patriarchal setups have been supported throughout history by different social institutions like religion, law, family and economic activities. There have been numerous successful attempts at neutralizing the dominance of men; however, what have been achieved until now is still far behind the ideal social equity. The cruel criterion of assigning gender roles on primitive stereotypical grounds has been the cornerstone for propagating the concept of female dependence on their male counterparts. When men are portrayed as providers or bread-winners, they automatically step onto a higher degree of social status, while women in any of their assigned roles remain as a subject. The concept of conformity resists the upheaval even at the cost of life; every social institution is bound to work in a harmonious pattern such that status quo remains unaltered. The overall effect of assigning gender roles has led to strengthen the psyche of dependence among majority of females. Women, just for the sake of acceptance, limit their intellectual development, they do not struggle to improve their social status, and rather they try to achieve more material benefits by submitting themselves as slaves to men. In attempt to gain the favors of their master they tend to put stress on trivial matters like skin colour, body mass, hair style and so on. When women spend their energies in transforming their attires according to the demand of others, they eventually get off the track towards actualizing their potentials. They shut their eyes and tend to look at themselves through the eyes of strangers. This leads to the loss of self-awareness, and thus restricts their development as an individual. The cumulative effect of this type of unawareness results in stagnation among masses and specifically among women. The lack of understanding regarding their personal matters leaves women at the mercy of patriarchal setups. Women are definitely at the wrong footing when they rely on others for their own decisions; however, society and its associated tools of exploitation are equally culpable. Latter players are perhaps more liable for fortifying self-destructive environment for women, as they do not have much options for themselves. All they can do it that they opt for slower and less painful death. The love affair of Jane Eyre and Rochester reflects the classical settings of Victorian era. The desire of a younger woman like Jane, for a middle aged man like Rochester indicates two important elements of patriarchal society, that are social inequality and insecurity on the part of women. Jane was an orphan, she had lost her uncle, after losing two dominant males from her family at an early age, and she was in need of a person who could act like a shelter to her. Fathers are usually very close to their daughters, and the relationship between the two is often very strong and selfless. Jane who was deprived of a fatherly figure in her life was attracted towards Rochester who was almost twice as old as her. A man who has seen the world and has years of experience is definitely a safer option for a woman who is to stand against the odds of society. At this point in the novel, one can undermine the balance that Jane has maintained in channelizing her passions through maturity. Jane defies the material and social parameters for defining humans, and while arguing to Rochester she says: "Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain and little, I am soulless and heartless? You think wrong! - I have as much soul as you, - and full as much heart!"13 these words by Jane indicate the freedom of her mind; she is not ready to give in, just because she is neither rich nor pretty. She is confident for whom she is, and there are no second thoughts in her mind regarding herself. While speaking her mind and translating her thoughts to Rochester, she puts the whole concept of social norms aside and stand for her. She is neither tempted by Rochester’s wealth, nor feels pity for her state. She knows what she wants, and why she wants it. She also does not want that Rochester betrays his previous wife for her; therefore, she leaves him and goes to his cousins. However, she returns to her love, when he has lost what his house and health to the fire caused by Bartha’s madness. Despite the fact that Rochester was handicapped and blind, she still chooses him over much younger option St. John. The reasons behind her decision are love for Rochester, margin for freedom and a sense of equal responsibility as Rochester was not fit to act as a sole provider for the family. Jane Eyre’s rejection of St. John’s proposal indicates her approach towards religion; she was exhausted by the ill dealings of religion and associated hypocrisy. Christendom definitely lost its grip over the politics, but it was still used as a tool of exploitation in the Victorian times. Religion is one of the institutes that have been involved in fortifying male dominance. Despite its moral codes of equity, it has never come to the help of people under sufferings. The operations of religion have always restricted the growth of women, and it has deprived them from freedom that they were worthy off. Jane, who has had experience with people following religion in different ways, rejects the whole idea of spending a life under the dogma of religion. She wanted a world where she could face the music by herself, and devise methods to solve the problems that came her way. Why would any woman want to live with a man who is handicapped? This is a question that several readers of Bronte would have asked themselves. The nature of this question is quiet tricky, but this act of Jan Eyre actually define who she really is, and this indicates the contrast between traditional feminine approach and feminist approach. Jane wanted to take hold of her life, make her own decisions, and she wanted to actively participate in socio-economic matters within her family. If Rochester have had not lost his health and wealth, Jane would have to spend her life in subjugation to his commands. Now that Rochester became dependent on Jane, she gains the authority to exercise her power, and take the driving seat. Jane is not afraid for not getting married. The reason for not being horrified for being alone is that for most part of her youth she has been on her own. At a very early age she became an orphan, after that she has moved a lot from one place to another in search of people who could own her, but all this experience has been troublesome. Now that she was a grown up, she was well equipped to live by herself for the remaining part of her life. Her mind was conditioned in such a manner that she did not require anyone to help her out, and she was happy for being independent. Obviously this was against the Victorian traditions, but it was not at all strange for Jane, who has been alone for all her life. The feministic traits in Jane’s character are quite visible. She is a person who is independent, she does not need any one else to make a decision. She is simple when it comes to her looks. There is a balance in her personality as she is not carried away by her emotions, but she also uses her brain to entertain her passions. All these characteristics of Jane Eyre are far from an ideal woman. People in Victorian era would expect a woman to be totally dependent on her male family members. The duty of a girl as daughter and a sister were to follow the orders of her father and respect her brother. As a wife her life was restricted within the four walls of her house, and she could not ask for her rights. After her marriage, there was very small chance of inheriting her father’s property. Apart from just depending on others to carry out everyday business, she was also not allowed to use her understanding even in her personal matter. The presence of others was so great, that woman was to look at herself through societal binoculars. She was bound to follow the traditional fashion, which at times was not liked by her. However, still she was forced to follow it, because an ideal woman must look like an angel who is ready to offer herself as a prey to malevolent males. Followers of Beauvoir argue upon the gender distinction made by society. They argue that women are not docile biologically, but their behavior is conditioned in such a manner that they bound to depend on others. This brings in the conflict of nature and nurture, so when women are provided with an environment that restrict their growth intellectually, they are left with no other alternative, other than giving in to their masters. In this pretext Jane’s choice become much more relevant towards grasping opportunities offered by nature, and standing against what is enforced onto her by society. Bibliography Alcoff, L, Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. 1995. Alcott, L M, Little Women. Waare: Wordsworth Classics, 1993. Austen, J, Pride and prejudice, Oxford University Press, 2008. Bronte, C, Jane Eyre. 1849. BompaCrazy.com, 1949. Cixous, H, Sorties, An extract from La Jeune Née “The Newly Born Woman” 1975 in Modern Criticism and Theory, ed. David, L & N Wood, Longman: Harlow, 2000. De Beauvoir, S, Introduction to The Second Sex [1949], trans. H. M. Parshley. London: Penguin 1972; also available in electronic form: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/index.htm Irigaray, L, This Sex which is not One 1977, in Feminisms: An Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism, ed. Robyn, RW & DP Herndl, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1993. Offen, K. ‘Defining feminism: A comparative historical approach’, Signs, 1988: 119-157. Offen, KM, European Feminisms: 1700-1950 : a Political History, Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ. Press, 2000. Spivak, G C, ‘French feminism in an international frame’, 1981. Tolstoy, L, Anna Karenina, trans., R. Edmonds. Harmondsworth, 1954, 2003. Warhol, RR, ‘Double gender, double genre in Jane Eyre and Villette’, Studies in English Literature, 1500-19001. 1996, pp. 857-875. Read More