Women Writing Men: Female Victorian Authors and Their
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WOMEN WRITING MEN: FEMALE VICTORIAN AUTHORS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIONS OF MASCULINITY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY DANIEL LEWIS DISSERTATION ADVISOR: DR. JOYCE HUFF BALL STATE UNIVERSITY MUNCIE, INDIANA MAY 2011 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am greatly thankful for the invaluable help of Dr. Joyce Huff who has guided me through this process from initial idea to finished dissertation with wisdom, patience, and positivity. I am equally grateful for the equally invaluable help from my committee. Drs. Patrick Collier, Melissa Adams-Campbell, and Carolyn Malone provided suggestions, comments, and questions that made this dissertation possible. Sarah Chavez provided both intellectual and emotional support, without which I would not have been able to keep my sanity (if I have any left). I also wish to thank Stephanie Ciccarelli who provided me with short morning breaks from writing that I always needed. Finally, I want to thank Dr. Ruth Jenkins, without whom I would never have known the joys of reading and writing about Victorian literature. Women Writing Men: Female Victorian Authors and their Representations of Masculinity Introduction The arguments in this dissertation rest upon the concept that gender is a social construct, as well as how the representations of gender in media (specifically, for the purposes of this dissertation, literature) play a role in how these constructed gender identities are ―lived‖ in the daily lives of individuals. This dissertation will focus on texts written by female Victorian authors in an effort to examine how and why these authors contributed to the ever-changing definition of appropriate male gender identities at a time when the expanding middle-class, changes in industry and science, and the education of children of all social classes increased the debate over gender roles for men and women. Even more precisely, my focus is on the contributions made by female Victorian authors to the construction of masculinities in different literary genres, including the social- problem novel (Elizabeth Gaskell), sensation fiction (Mary Elizabeth Braddon), and children‘s literature (Dinah Mulock Craik, Juliana Horatia Ewing, and Edith Nesbit). These female authors intervened in the debate over the appropriate gender roles for men from various social classes and in various stages of life by creating, endorsing, or condemning certain characteristics of what make an appropriate male gender identity. Furthermore, these texts are not merely reflective of contemporary common assumptions and beliefs relating to masculinities. Rather, they participate in the ongoing discursive construction of Victorian male gender identity. In terms of their representations of masculinities, the texts covered in this dissertation are, in the words of Stephen 4 Greenblatt, ―fields of force, places of dissension and shifting interests, occasions for the jostling of orthodox and subversive impulses‖ (The Power of Forms, ii). I will argue that female authors in the Victorian period took part in this struggle over re/defining hegemonic male gender identity in different ways, in different genres, for different purposes. Gaskell‘s Mary Barton and North and South intervene seek to ensure middle-class dominance over the working classes. Braddon‘s novels Lady Audley‟s Secret and Aurora Floyd illustrate the unnaturalness of gender (and thus to call into question notions of ―natural‖ differences between men and women, or men and other men) and broaden the definition of acceptable gender identities for men and, by extension, women. The authors of late-period children‘s literature created texts that either changed or shield from change both male and female gender identities in an effort to define the proper way to educate children during a time when gender roles were undergoing changes due to innovations in industry, education, and calls for equal rights for women and non-hegemonic men. The arguments in this dissertation rest upon the assumption that gender identities are not a naturally occurring aspect of one‘s being. Rather, gender identities are entirely created, constructed, performed, and contested through language, appearance, and behavior. Judith Butler tells us that, ―[t]here is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender... identity is performatively constituted by the very ‗expressions‘ that are said to be its results‖ (25). Thus, gender is performative in that these ―expressions‖ (linguistic, physical, visual) form the sum total of gender identity. There is no innate gender identity, only the expression of gender through this performance. Gender is performed through language (as a form of speech act), bodily (in terms of one‘s appearance), and also 5 through one‘s actions. As I will show, masculine gender identities for Victorian men often relied upon the ability to display a strong work-ethic, be employed, and financially provide for others (children, women, as well as unmasculine men). Furthermore, the definitions of what constitutes ―appropriate‖ gender roles for men and women of different social classes, ethnicities, sexualities, geographic locations, and even in different situations throughout one‘s day (whether they are at work, at home, tending to the sick, watching over children, etc) are constantly changing. Greenblatt‘s term ―self-fashioning‖ helps us understand how individuals constructed and performed their gender identityi, as well as how literature functions in that construction. Similar to Butler‘s argument concerning gender, Clifford Geertz tells us that ―[t]here is no such thing as human nature independent of culture‖ (49) and that culture is defined as ―a set of control mechanisms…for the governing of behavior‖ (44). Based on these ideas concerning the primary importance of culture in our lives, Greenblatt defines self-fashioning as ―the cultural system of meanings that creates specific individuals by governing the passage from abstract potential to concrete historical embodiment‖ (3-4). Furthermore, according to Greenblatt, literature operates in this system in three specific ways: ―as a manifestation of the concrete behavior of its particular author, as itself the expression of the codes by which behavior is shaped, and as a reflection upon these codes‖ (4). Thus literature is more than just fodder for literary biography, nor is it purely a set of rules and instructions on how to behave, and neither is it merely a reflection of currently existing rules and instructions. Instead, it operates as all three. When authors go beyond merely reflecting current conceptions of gender, and start to put forth ideas about gender identity that coincide with their interests, these newer 6 definitions of gender identity are conceived and made ―real.‖ Thus, the individual is exposed to this constructed gender identity and understands this construction as ―real‖ in the sense of what they could or should be (or could not or should not be) in terms of their masculinity or femininity. This process of identification is similar to Butler‘s modification of Althusser‘s concept of interpellation. Furthermore, the identification experienced by the individual in recognizing one‘s own gender identity in a text, or identifies a desirable or undesirable gender identity in that text, enables the possibility of contesting and changing dominant, hegemonic gender identities. Althusser posited that the abstract individual is subjectivated (Butler‘s term) when ―hailed‖ or recognized by ideological forces. This is both a recognition and a reprimand as the process of interpellation, according to Butler, conjectures ―the power and force of the law to compel fear at the same time that if offers recognition at an expense‖ (Bodies that Matter, 121). Added to Althusser‘s concept—and focusing specifically on gender identity— Butler suggests the possibility of gender disobedience and subverting this process of interpellation through the repetition of terms such as ―sex,‖ ―masculine,‖ or ―feminine‖ that ―ought to be repeated in directions that reverse and displace their originating aims‖ (123). While Butler is referring to the general (and abstract) individual here, my use of this argument is specifically directed towards the authors of the texts analyzed in this dissertation. It is the authors who, when contesting or redefining dominant conceptions of masculinity, attempt to ―reverse and displace‖ what they see as unsatisfying definitions of appropriate masculine gender identity so that their audience can, in turn, acknowledge new definitions of masculinity, thus eventually redefining hegemonic masculinities. 7 What, then, does this say about individual agency—the agency of the text‘s reader? Butler‘s theories have been criticized for underestimating the role of agency in performing one‘s gender identity. For example, Seyla Benhabib argues that Butler seems to give little credence to the idea of agency as she diminishes notions of ―intentionality, accountability, self-reflexivity, and autonomy‖ (20-21). While noting that Butler has gone on to somewhat modify her beliefs concerning agency in recent years, and that she ―does not deny agency all together,‖ Kathy Dow Magnus suggests that ―neither does she adequately convey the extent to which a ‗subject‘ may work to determine herself in accordance with her own desires and purposes‖ (82). Despite the various differences between the authors covered in this dissertation, one very significant similarity is that they