Shakespeare was a great genius of his era. He was probably the writer who best described the human essence inside his plays; Hamlet is a clear example of a play filled with matters concerning human emotions. Elements like philosophical thoughts, irony, morally issues are constantly dealt during this play. Many paradoxes can be seen in Hamlet, which makes it a wonderful source of ideas that can always be discussed and analyzed in many different scopes.

In this great Shakespeare’s play Hamlet is a character who is extremely conscious concerning all the wrong things that happen around him. He can not be considered a traditional hero, because while he tries to solve a situation that he sees as a wrong thing, he interferes negatively in many people lives, some of them are very important to him. He curses his uncle, berates his mother, scorns his possible future wife, insults her father, disappoints her brother and lacerates himself. The character of Hamlet stands quite by itself. It is not a character marked by strength of will or even of passion, but by refinement of thought and sentiment and a constantly quest for the true.

A cycle of unfair things were happening in the kingdom of Denmark. Hamlet’s father has taken the previous king throne in a dishonest way. This situation happened again, but with some different circumstances. Claudio, Hamlet’s uncle, killed his brother to take his throne, and married the queen, Hamlet’s mother. The whole situation did not disturb people, everybody was pretending that things were normal and correct. Hamlet did not think this way, that situation was not acceptable in his point of view. He could feel that things were not right, even before knowing that his father was killed by his uncle. Hamlet is an honest, moral individual, who lives in a deceitful society.

The true is presented in a very interesting way. A ghost, which can be related to our conscience, is the starting point of all Hamlet’s quests for justice and for the minimal order. It was necessary a creature from other world to come and demand the minimal order. Using this starting point Shakespeare wants to show us that the true is beyond our concrete world and someone has to look for it. The ghost is the one who gives the first shot to break the fake tranquility that people seem to live and Hamlet is the person that is in charge of looking for the true.

Hamlet wants the true and he wants justice. The only way that he finds to reach his goal is to pretend that he is mad. This attitude is a paradox. The most conscious person in the story has to pretend unconscious to make people aware and to show everybody where the true is. Hamlet tries to reach the true using a lie. There is the sanity covered with a mask of madness. While we read Hamlet, a question remain in the air, we wonder all the time, what being insane really is. When we compare Hamlet and Horatio, his best friend, we can see two characters that have personalities which are totally the opposite. Hamlet is the lack of measure, the conscious that is shown is a controversial way, while Horatio is the balance in the play. Love and hate are two feelings that are side-by-side in Shakespeare’s masterpiece. Hamlet loves deeply some people and he hates his uncle. This character, like all of us, has the capacity to have these two strong feelings like those that are the opposite, at the same time.

The love that Hamlet feels for Ophelia can also be seen as a paradox in this play. He has showed her in many ways that he loved her, and we all believe that his love is real. However after the ghost event his attitudes started to change towards her and all the people around him, he did not thrust in almost anyone. He loved Ophelia, but he had to lie, he has said things that made her believe that he did not love her. Ophelia could not see that he still loved her. She could not image that his attitudes were part of his plan for justice. Hamlet was focusing just on his objective.

Ophelia has put all her life and dreams on Hamlet’s hands, the love that they felt for each other was the foundation of her life. After Hamlet has changed his behavior towards her, her life became empty. Her life has lost the meaning. Her father, Polonius had been killed by Hamlet; she had no one to support her. She was an alone woman in the world. Being a female in a kingdom filled with chaos and deceptions, the innocent Ophelia force to keep silent and obey to the domineering men in her life. All these elements made her take the first decision in her life, for the first time she took control of her own life, the first time that she had the power to decide what she wanted.

She has facilitated her own death; she wanted to put an end on everything. There is a very paradoxical scene during Ophelia’s burial. Two clowns are in a cemetery discussing the fact that Ophelia drowned herself, and therefore should not receive a Christian burial under Christian law. However, one of the clowns points out that her death was declared as a natural death rather than a suicide, and therefore they must dig the grave for her. As the clowns work, they tell each other jokes and one of them sings happily. In this scene there is a context of a death and the men who were supposed to be gravediggers, dull people, are represented by clowns. This can be understood as another paradoxical element in Shakespeare’s play. This can be seen as a big reflection concerning human life, after we die, we are just a pile of nothing, that’s why we have to try to build true values while we are alive, because after we die, the only thing that will remain are the seeds that we have planted on society.

Hamlet pretends to be mad, but at the same time he does not pretend that the reality is right, like all the other people around him. He acts in order to solve a situation that can not be borne by him anymore. We can not find someone that has all Hamlet’s personality treats and ideas, but there is no doubt that inside each one of us there is something of this amazing Shakespeare’s character. We all have questions, we all think about life and we all have a restless mind in a certain way, but some of us never take an action to change the things that we don’t agree with. Hamlet had the courage to break with the whole cycle of attitudes and actions that in his point of view were extremely wrong.

Although many people believed for many centuries on the possibility of a social equality becoming a reality, as attempted in the Russian Revolution in 1917, it is known that this ideal has not been achieved in society yet. While this is a fact, many groups of people believe that social equality may come true one day. However, this day has not arrived and social stratification is still a reality. Such stratification is enlarged by the use of discourse. It is possible to say that this linguistic strategy has being adopted successfully by the dominant classes for a long time. That is because this social class has enough knowledge to apply this tool to influence others. The dominated classes, on the other hand, in most of the cases, do not have conditions to perceive that they are influenced by discourse. As a consequence, these individuals work in order to fulfill the wishes of their dominators and do not realize that they are being explored. On the book Animal Farm (1945) written by George Orwell, the use of discourse is a tool that is constantly adopted in order to increase the social distance between those that on the one hand are in the control and on the other those who are the working force. As a result, social stratification enhances and the ideal of equality becomes a distant dream that might never come true, as an utopia.

Animal farm portrays the consequences that the use of absolute power can cause on a whole society. That is because when this happens, only a small part of society is benefited while the biggest part of it suffers with this system. This absolute power is built and increased by the use of discourse. Michel Foucault defines discourse as a

group of statements which provide a language for talking about – a way of representing the knowledge about – a particular topic at a particular historical moment. …Discourse is about the production of knowledge through language. But… since all social practices entail meaning, and meanings shape and influence what we do – our conduct – all practices have a discursive aspect. (cited by Hall, 1997:44)

In this fashion, as Stuart Hall (1997) points out, it is important to remember that Foucault offers a very different definition of discourse than that ordinarily used by linguists, in the sense that Foucault’s definition is as much about ways of thinking and practices as it is about language. Indeed, according to Foucault, meaning and, thus, meaningful action are only made meaningful within the constitutive abstract space of a discourse (44).

Based on this concept of discourse, we can say that on the narrative Animal Farm, this powerful tool is a device that only the pigs have the ability to use. Because of that they can be considered an analogy of the dominant classes that retain power and knowledge to use it. This understanding of the world allows them to use discourse in order to shape the other animals according to their desires. As a consequence, the pigs are able to take advantage of the “lower-classes” animals. That is possible because by the use of discourse they are capable to make all the other animals believe in their words and do what they wished to achieve. As a result of this initially trust produced by discourse practices, the other animals did what they were told to do without realizing they were explored and that they were not having any benefits with it.

In order to contextualize this essay, it is important to provide a brief description of the narrative Animal farm concerning the plot. The story happens in somewhere in London at a farm that belonged to Mr. Jones and his family. One night the animals go to a meeting that Major, an old pig, had organized. During this meeting, Major explains that due to his wisdom and long lifetime he had get to the conclusion that “No animal in England is free” and “The life of an animal is misery and slavery (7). The reason of this animal condition was attributed to the tyranny of the human beings. Three days after this meeting Major died, but he had already planted a seed in the animal’s souls. Influenced by Major’s speech, they started to prepare themselves for the Rebellion in order to get rid of men. They were guided by the pigs, “who were recognized of being the cleverest of the animals” (15). Three pigs, Napoleon, Snowball and Squealer, had elaborated Major “teachings into a complete system of thought, which they give the name of Animalism” (16). The animals had frequent meetings with the pigs in order to learn these principles. One day, all the animals in union expelled Mr. Jones from his farm. From that day on, they were not ruled by men anymore. After this event, the pigs started to use their superior intellectual capacity to dictate the rules in that society. The other animals, as a consequence, did everything their superiors asked aiming at having a better life. However, their lives became worst than ever and most of them were not able to realize that negative change. The work increased and only the pigs benefited with this new situation.

Such environment was influenced by an initial speech that encouraged the animals to change their reality. In this sense, we can perceive that the use of discourse has started to persuade a whole society in a way that made its members feel the necessity to chance their lives. The power of discourse is clear, as this wish of changing was inexistent until the moment that the animals listened to old Major’s speech that “had given the more intelligent animals a completely new outlook on life” (15). Due to Old Major words the animals felt that they were a unit and had a common goal to achieve that was, expelling men from their lives:

Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interest of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unit, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades […] weak or strong, clever or simple, we are all brothers. […] All animals are equal. (10/11)

Influenced by the new ideas that were presented to them, they started to prepare themselves emotionally to the rebellion that would occur one day. However, it happened sooner then they expected: Mr. Jones was expelled from the farm and they were free of men. Due to this new reality they could start to live filled with the sureness that they were part of an equal society.

However, the animals were not able to perceive that they are not on the same level of the pigs because the discourse is used to disguise this situation. The pigs are able to occupy this superior position due to their finer intelligence in relation to the other animals. Their intelligence allowed them to influence the other animals and get the things they wished by the use of discourse. In order to gain the animals confidence, the pigs made them believe that they all belonged to the same group. The creation of the seven Commandments, which had in common the idea that all animals were equal, reinforced the principle of old Major speech and it was a strategy to make the animals feel that they were a unit.

Taken by this feeling of belonging to a group, all the animals worked with pleasure because now they were not working to men, and believed that they were working for themselves. There was a feeling of contentment with the new life that that started to have:

Everybody worked according to his capacity. The hens and ducks, for instance, saved the bushels of corn at the harvest by gathering up the stray grains. Nobody stole, nobody gambled over his rations, the quarreling and biting and jealously which had been normal features of life in the old days had almost disappeared. (29)

As we can see the ideal of equally seems to work at the beginning of non-men around times. Nevertheless, this apparent balance among the classes does not last long. That is because the tasks gradually increase to the other animals that work harder and harder to satisfy the pig’s wishes. The other animals, in their turn, were not able to realize that the freedom that they have acquired from men did not mean that they were free. That is because the only thing that had changed in their lives was that instead of suffering the exploration of men (which was lighter), now they were under the exploration of the pigs. In other words, there were explored by those who made them believe that there would be equality in that society after men disappeared. Thus, this equality was an illusion because the pigs were in control.

Since the beginning of the times without men around, it is clear that the pigs are on the top of the social class. This superiority is seen by the fact that they “did not actually work, but directed and supervised the others” (27). As a consequence this superior condition, the ideal of equality among the animals is marked by social stratification since the beginning of its times. This fact can be perceived, through the constant increase of advantages that the pigs have in relation to the other animals. One example that shows traces of this social stratification can be seen when we learn that all the milk and apples were being reserved for the pigs. In order to contain any reaction that the other animals could have in relation to this fact, the pigs use their capacity of discourse to maintain their position of superiority. Through the use of speech, the pigs are able to convince the other animals that they need milk and apples for their health and if they fail in their duty Mr. Jones would come back. Persuaded by the reasons the pigs gave for having this advantage, “it was agreed without further arguments that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone” (36). This passage confirms the fact that the pigs have the capacity of using discourse in their favor and, as a consequence increase their advantages in that society as well as the distance between the higher and lower class. In relation to what the pigs say, we can highlight that their authority in that society give them the conditions to produce their own truth. In this sense Foucault notes that

Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth; that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true, the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned… the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true. (cited in Hall, 1997:49)

As a consequence of the power of the pigs, they can “choose” what is true and what is not according to their necessities and the other animals, having no other way out, accept their choices.

Influenced by this “truth” produced by the pigs, the other animals are incapable to interfere in their reality. An example of this incapacity can be seen when Napoleon, expels Snowball from the farm. After seeing Snowball running away from the dogs to save his life, several of the animals “would have protested if they could have found the right arguments” (54). As we can observe the animals do not know how to react to the things that they think are unfair. They feel impotent, they do not know how to express themselves due to the lack of cognitive capacity that they have.

Moreover, this lack of intelligence prevents them to make choices even when they are offered this opportunity. An instance of this reality can be seen when there is an election between Napoleon and Snowball. This event enables us to note the lack of discernment that the animals have in relation to the two candidates. As a consequence of this lack of discernment, they were not able to choose which one of them would be the best option to govern them. As the following passage shows:

The animals listened first to Napoleon, then to Snowball, and could not make up their minds which was right; indeed, they always found themselves in agreement with the one who was speaking at the moment. (51)

As we can see the other animals are easily influenced by the pigs. That is because they are not able to have their own opinions. In other words, they are just guided by the ones that have superior intelligence to command them.

Supported by the behavior of the other animals that did not react against the facts, Napoleon is able to take control of the situation. He announced that from now on the Sunday morning meetings would come to an end. They were unnecessary, he said, and wasted time. In future all questions related to the working of the farm would be settled by a special committee of pigs, presided over by himself. (54)

As we can observe the control exerted by power has assumed its full form. The power of Napoleon is reinforced by the presence of his dogs that are a threat for the other animals. The dogs represent a powerful protection to Napoleon in case anyone tries to break the rules he has established. As we can see the after this moment, the animals are officially regarded as the working force that does not interact with their superiors. As a consequence, this equal society that was idealized by all the animals is even further to become a reality. Actually, it has never existed. However, at least some time ago the pigs were wiling to make the animals believe that they lived in an equalitarian environment by using arguments to produce this effect of meaning. But now they knew that that “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others” (134).

This narrative emphasizes what has been happening in our society for centuries, that is, the social stratification that is intensified by discourse. This system is so rooted in the world that it seems that it will still last for a long time. It is true that these power relations have been slightly diminished throughout the years, but it is still very strong in our society nowadays. In this sense, Gelson Peres da Silva (2009) in his article in which he deals with power relations highlights “how little humankind has moved forward to a fairer society in which civil rights are equal to all citizens, and that is a long way to walk on” (74).


References

HALL, Stuart. Representation: Cultural representations and Signifying Practices. The open University/Sage Publications. London. 1997
SILVA, Gelson. Dogville by Lars Von Trier: human sexuality and power relations. Letra Viva. UFPB/DLEM – V.9, nº 1- 2009
ORWELL, George. Animal Farm. Orlando: Signet Classics. 1996

Studies of gender and literature can reflect how literary texts can be written, read and interpreted by men and women in different societies in diverse periods. As a rule, we are submitted to a set of cultural stereotypes and social patterns related to genders which are originated from the Western Culture. Therefore, studies of gender and literature can help us perceive and understand human relations, the concepts of male and female, sex and sexuality and their implications in society. In this sense, some literary works are valuable due to the fact that they expose the cultural apparent inflexibility attributed to the roles played by men and women. The Portrait of a Lady by Henry James, for example, is a narrative that focuses mainly on Isabel’s story, but it also presents different portraits of men in the late nineteenth century. This work seems to show a preoccupation with questioning the role of the man as a rigid gender construct. Understanding the male role and the masculine representation in this particular narrative requires close attention, especially in his subtler performances. That is because it is possible to say that the author deals with the male role played by Ralph Touchett as diversified from the other men The Portrait of a Lady.

James amplifies the male role in Ralph’s performance in order to expose and explore masculine identity by deconstructing the male role conceived in Western Culture. In this sense, William Veeder observes that “no one in James is in fact masculine” because “everyone is effeminate” (86). To some degree I think that it is true, but I believe that not all the male character is definitively effeminate in his literary work. On the other hand, his suggestion is essential to my analysis of Ralph Touchett since I am inclined towards the idea that James presents this character as alternative portrait of man as society has known it in Western Culture so far. In other words, Ralph is, in my opinion, a male portrait which is absolutely different from Lord Warburton or Gilbert Osmond portraits, for example. In fact, Ralph is a character that does not act according to the social patterns related to the male role established by Western Culture.

James starts deconstructing male role and performance in the first chapter, when he notes three men concerned with making tea time “an eternity of pleasure […] were not of sex which is supposed to furnish the regular votaries of the ceremony” (03). They are Mr. Touchett, Lord Warburton and Ralph Touchett, who

was a person of quite a different pattern, who, although he might have excited grave curiosity, would not, like the other [Lord Warburton], have provoked you to wish yourself, almost blindly, in his place. Tall, lean, loosely and feebly put together, he had an ugly, sickly, witty, charming face, furnished, but by no means decorated, with a straggling moustache and whisker. He looked clever and ill — a combination by no means felicitous; and he wore a brown velvet jacket. He carried his hands in his pockets, and there was something in the way he did it that showed the habit was inveterate. His gait had a shambling, wandering quality; he was not very firm on his legs. (07)

As we can see, James first describes Ralph by giving the reader an idea of the personality of this character that portrays him as a different male type. He is a “person of quite another pattern” (07) who is not attractive to women.

In this sense, Ralph Touchett can be seen as an example of James’ determination of deconstructing male identity as society has known it. That is because this character plays a questioning role in the novel. Apparently, James describes him as an individual who is educated according to established patterns in Western Culture. Ralph studied at American schools and graduated from Harvard. Besides, after he has returned to England he also graduated from Oxford. Curiously, after we read some chapters it is possible to recognize that Ralph is not a simple male character. In fact, he is an ambiguous man and his ambiguity can be considered a strategy used by James to lead the reader to inquire into this personality. For that reason, at the same time that James describes Ralph as a resigned man, he states that:

His outward conformity to the manners that surrounded him was none the less the mask of a mind that greatly enjoyed its independence, on which nothing long imposed itself, and which, naturally inclined to adventure and irony, indulged in a boundless liberty of appreciation. (62)

As this passage indicates, Ralph can be understood as someone who has a non-singular identity. That is, he is a person whose identity is represented socially by a mask that covers his real self. Based on that, it is not easy to discover who he really is. So, the reader is lead to decipher who is the man behind this mask. However, it is necessary to pay close attention in order to understand Ralph’s performance. Besides, James reiterates the fact that Ralph has somewhat hidden behind his mask since the author highlights that this character is a man “whose head was full of ideas which his father had never guessed” (63).

As James portrays Ralph’s personality, we can observe that he expands the male identity attributed to this character as Ralph does not represent the masculine pattern. The young man is an ill bachelor who “had caught a violent cold, which fixed itself on his lungs and threw them into dire confusion” (64). It is a relevant fact in his life. That is because, by exploring Ralph’s physical and psychological condition, James emphasizes a lack of testosterone which identifies Ralph as man whose attitude is more intellectual than active. Moreover, it is interesting to observe that Ralph sees himself as an ineffectual man who “was too ill for aught” (65).

Due to his limited condition, Leland S. Person notes that Ralph is “relegated to a narcissistic mode of self-understanding” in which he “feels split into subject and object” (90). In fact, Ralph experienced an intense dislike since “it appeared to him that it was not himself in the least that he was taking care of, but an uninteresting and uninterested person with whom he had nothing in common” (64). According to Person, by considering this second self from the vantage point of the first, whose position is privileged in the culture dominated by male power, Ralph feels a strong disgust (90). That is because his illness does not allow him to play a male role in accordance with the Western Culture patterns. On the other hand, the narrator mentions that this second person “improved on acquaintance, and Ralph grew at last to have a certain grudging tolerance, even an undemonstrative respect, for him” (64). As we can observe, this fact corroborates the identification of Ralph with a second self that – we can affirm –, does not represent the phallic power of the Western Culture. Robert K. Martin states that “Ralph’s increasing identification with this second person – as a narcissistic self-understanding –, generates a new perspective in his life” (89). That is, a perspective in which Ralph does not have to play a role as it is established by society.

The relation with Isabel reveals another important fact related to Ralph’s identity and performance. Isabel is an interesting and beautiful young lady who becomes the object of desire of different male types, like Lord Warburton and Gilbert Osmond. Like these men, Ralph is also transformed by the encounter with Isabel, as we can see:

It was very probably this sweet-tasting property of the observed thing in itself that was mainly concerned in Ralph’s quickly-stirred interest in the advent of a young lady who was evidently not insipid. If he was consideringly disposed, something told him, here was occupation enough for a succession of days. It may be added, in summary fashion, that the imagination of loving — as distinguished from that of being loved — had still a place in his reduced sketch. He had only forbidden himself the riot of expression. However, he shouldn’t inspire his cousin with a passion, nor would she be able, even should she try, to help him to one. (67)

As this passage shows us, Ralph’s thoughts about Isabel generates a revision of the way he was living his life. Before he met Isabel, the young man was a person that used to feel that “there was really nothing he had wanted very much to do” (65). However, the desire for her makes Ralph live more intensely. Thus, he feels motivated to have a new occupation in his life.

Apparently, we could consider Ralph’s desire as a sign of his masculine sexuality. However, it is necessary to observe some particular aspects concerning the relation between Ralph and Isabel. Firstly, if we compare the relation between Isabel and Lord Warburton or Caspar Goodwood, it is possible to perceive a remarkable difference in Ralph’s attitude. That is because they wish to marry Isabel, as we can observe, for example, in a dialogue between Warburton and Isabel:

— […] ‘I don’t go off easily, but when I’m touched, it’s for life. It’s for life, Miss Archer, it’s for life’, Lord Warburton repeated in the kindest, tenderest, pleasantest voice Isabel had ever heard, and looking at her with eyes charged with the light of a passion that had sifted itself clear of the baser parts of emotion – the heat, the violence, the unreason – and that burned as steadily as a lamp in a windless place. […]
— ‘Ah, Lord Warburton, how little you know me!’ Isabel said very gently. Gently too she drew her hand away.
— ‘Don’t taunt me with that, that I don’t know you better makes me unhappy enough already; it’s all my loss. But that’s what I want, and it seems to me I’m taking the best way. If you’ll be my wife, then I shall know you, and when I tell you all the good I think of you you’ll not be able to say it’s from ignorance.’ (91)

Lord Warburton is lead by a burning desire to possess Isabel for all his life, but the same objective does not apply to Ralph. Certainly, we can not observe in Mr. Touchett’s son a sexual and physical attraction that would correspond to a male strong feeling for a woman. This fact can be seen clearly in the long dialogue between Ralph and Mr. Touchett at the moment that his father is almost dying in a bed:

— ‘Well, that’s what it comes to in the end. Don’t you like Isabel?’
— ‘Yes, very much.’ And Ralph got up from his chair and wandered over to the fire. He stood before it an instant and then he stooped and stirred it mechanically. ‘I like Isabel very much,’ he repeated. (315)

Strangely, the question made by Mr. Touchett seems to provoke a type of discomfort in Ralph, but his unexpected reaction can be seen as a sign of his lack of interest in performing his male role. Moreover, Ralph’s physical discomfort can be caused due to the fact that he should hide nothing to his father, including his disinterest of exploring his male desire. In fact, the young man prefers to protect his dubious personality even for Mr. Touchett, as we can identify in the passage below:

— ‘You are in love with her then? I should think you would be. It’s as if she came over on purpose.’
— ‘No, I’m not in love with her; but I should be if… if certain things were different.’

As we can see, although knowing that Mr. Touchett is almost dying, Ralph keeps preserving himself behind a mask of unpretension. James exposes Ralph’s performance as somewhat ambiguous. He says that he wants to care deeply for Isabel at the same time he affirms that he does not wish to marry her:

— ‘I take a great interest in my cousin,’ he said, ‘but not the sort of interest you desire. I shall not live many years; but I hope I shall live long enough to see what she does with herself. She’s entirely independent of me; I can exercise very little influence upon her life. But I should like to do something for her.’ (318)

His attitude is not aggressive like Goodwood’s attitude, the American that fights for the possibility of marrying Isabel by traveling to England to convince her to marry him. Ralph, on the other hand, satisfies himself by embodying a kind of voyeur whose consumption of beautiful objects such as Isabel can be considered his only pleasure. The “conscious observation of a lovely woman” strikes him as the “finest entertainment that the world now had to offer to him” (32). According to Person, the performance of Ralph “dramatizes another aspect of Jamesian suspense: the suspense of the male subject between desires and genders” (91). That is because Ralph is not interested in exposing a sexual or physical desire like any man probably would do it by facing a beautiful woman like Isabel, or like Goodwood or Warburton really do that.

Through a dubious role, James seems to expose a different male role which deconstructs the masculine patterns. As we can notice, Ralph satisfies himself by living a kind of voyeurism in which he can observe the relation between Isabel’s desire and other men who desire her:

— ‘You’d have liked me to make such a marriage.’
— ‘Not in the least. I’m absolutely without a wish on the subject. I don’t pretend to advise you, and I content myself with watching you- with the deepest interest.’ (258)
— ‘What I mean is that I shall have the thrill of seeing what a young lady does who won’t marry Lord Warburton.’
— ‘I shall not see all of it, but I shall probably see the most interesting years. Of course if you were to marry our friend you’d still have a career, a very decent, in fact a very brilliant one. But relatively speaking it would be a little prosaic. It would be definitely marked out in advance; it would be wanting in the unexpected. You know I’m extremely fond of the unexpected, and now that you’ve kept the game in your hands I depend on your giving us some grand example of it.’ (259-260)

As this passage indicates, Ralph wishes to appreciate Isabel passively rather than forging an intimate relationship: “I’ve been absolutely passive” (98), he admits. This attitude, we can assume, is absolutely opposite to the masculine patterns, as man is not expected to be passive in a relationship with a woman; but Ralph is passive. It is a consequence of the expansion of James makes concerning Ralph’s male role that is characterized by ambiguity. In this sense, we can say that James explores a new perspective related to genders as concepts that interact with politics, patterns and values in society.



References:

James, Henry. The Portrait of a Lady. Global Language Resources, Inc. 2001. From the website: http://www.global-language.com/
Martin, Robert K. “Failed Heterosexuality in The Portrait of a Lady” in Henry James and the Homo-Erotic Desire. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc., 1999.
Person, Leland S. Henry James and the Suspense of the Masculinity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003.

Death is a constant thematic in literature. In some works, it is related to a certain feeling of nonconformism or unfitness in society. This circumstance leads the literary character to death or to commit suicide. In this sense, death can be understood in two ways. Firstly, it can be seen as an exit as the individual is not able to accept and fit in the social reality. That is because he/she has a perception of reality that goes beyond the social patterns. Secondly, it can be understood as a punishment to the individuals, since the society can not deal with people who do not play a role in accordance with the established patterns. Their incapacity of following the social conventions is the crime by which they are punished. From this point of view, death in literature seems to be the resolution of a conflict between society and individual. We can observe this fact in The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of the Denmark, by William Shakespeare and in Mrs. Dalloway, by Virginia Woolf. Death can be seen as the only solution for Hamlet, the unhappy son of the dead king, and for Septimus Warren Smith, a World War I veteran who becomes insane due to the effects of the war. In both cases, it is possible to perceive a nonconformism or unfitness feeling in relation to reality.

On Hamlet, nonconformism and unfitness stem from two events that are not narrated in the beginning of the play. They correspond to death of his father, the king of Denmark, and the marriage of Hamlet’s mother Gertrude to his uncle Claudius, the brother of the dead king:

God! / How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable, / Seem to me all the uses of this world! […] But two months dead: nay, not so much, not two: / So excellent a king; that was, to this, / Hyperion to a satyr; so loving to my mother / That he might not beteem the winds of heaven / Visit her face too roughly. Heaven and earth! / Must I remember? why, she would hang on him, / As if increase of appetite had grown / By what it fed on: and yet, within a month – / Let me not think on't – Frailty, thy name is woman! – / A little month, or ere those shoes were old / With which she follow'd my poor father's body, / Like Niobe, all tears: – why she, even she – / God! a beast, that wants discourse of reason, / Would have mourn'd longer – married with my uncle, / My father's brother, but no more like my father / Than I to Hercules: within a month: / Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears / Had left the flushing in her galled eyes, / She married. O, most wicked speed, to post / With such dexterity to incestuous sheets! / It is not nor it cannot come to good. (30-31)

As known, the marriage of Gertrude and Claudius seems to follow the natural order in that social system as nobody, excluding Hamlet, questions this event. For the disillusioned prince, this fact reveals how people are corrupt and the society is degrading. According to Barbara Heliodora, Shakespeare’s play in particular is a “masterly investigation about the human condition in society” (66). That is because it reveals how an individual is conditioned to accept certain values and patterns established by a group or by the whole society. In Hamlet’s case the fact that the prince does not consider the marriage of his mother with his uncle an acceptable event can be considered the fount of his inadequacy. “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” (48), as one of the officers notes.

Hamlet’s feeling of nonconformism and unfitness in relation to the events that have happened in the kingdom of Denmark is similar to Septimus Warren Smith’s feelings in relation to the English society. As we know, Septimus was a young man from a working class:

Lodging off the Euston Road, there were experiences, again experiences, such as change a face in two years from a pink innocent oval to a face lean, contracted, hostile. But of all this what could the most observant of friends have said except what a gardener says when he opens the conservatory door in the morning and finds a new blossom on his plant: — It has flowered; flowered from vanity, ambition, idealism, passion, loneliness, courage, laziness, the usual seeds, which all muddled up (in a room off the Euston Road), made him shy, and stammering, made him anxious to improve himself, made him fall in love with Miss Isabel Pole, lecturing in the Waterloo Road upon Shakespeare. (94)

In the first place, we can take for granted that Septimus used to be an idealist man. For that reason, he “was one of the first to volunteer” (95) to join up in the English armed forces in order to combat in the Great War. In this sense, Septimus embraces an attitude in accordance with what was expected by the English society:

He went to France to save an England which consisted almost entirely of Shakespeare’s plays and Miss Isabel Pole in a green dress walking in a square. There in the trenches the change which Mr. Brewer desired when he advised football was produced instantly; he developed manliness; he was promoted; he drew the attention, indeed the affection of his officer, Evans by name. (95-97)

As this passage indicates, Septimus initially uses his male condition in order to ascend socially and become an active member in society. That is because he assumed his role by accepting to join up in the army and fight for his country. However, as Ann Ronchetti claims, “he is overwhelmed by the events of his young life, which dissipate his creative focus and ultimately destroy him” (52). Septimus becomes a war veteran whose deliriums identify him as a segregated individual socially as he does not fit in the established social group.

In both stories — Hamlet and Septimus’ —, it is possible to perceive a rupture with the social order as they move towards death. As a result, they feel unconformed and unfitted in relation to reality. The prince of Denmark, in his turn, reaches an understanding about the things that goes beyond the social reality:

To be, or not to be: that is the question: / Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, / Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, / And by opposing end them? / To die: to sleep; / No more; and by a sleep to say we end / The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks / That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation / Devoutly to be wish'd. […] For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, / The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, / The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, / The insolence of office and the spurns / That patient merit of the unworthy takes, / When he himself might his quietus make / With a bare bodkin? (81)

For Hamlet, the social life becomes unbearable as soon as he acquires consciousness of its corruption and degradation. In this sense, we may affirm that Septimus shares Hamlet’s desolate vision concerning the English society. This vision increases especially after Septimus has changed his perception towards life because of his experience in the Great War. He “had fought; he was brave; he was not Septimus now” (27), his wife notes. Thus, Septimus’ perception of society does not permit that he fits into the reality:

One cannot bring children into a world like this. One cannot perpetuate suffering, or increase the breed of these lustful animals, who have no lasting emotions, but only whims and vanities, eddying them now this way, now that. […] For the truth is (let her ignore it) that human beings have neither kindness, nor faith, nor charity beyond what serves to increase the pleasure of the moment. (99)

Due to the fact that the young man has a critical vision concerning his society, he is considered an ill man. In fact, Septimus is totally sceptic and disillusioned in relation to people and life. Therefore, the society sees Septimus as an insane person whose thoughts are disconnected from the bourgeois reality that he abominates so much. In this sense, although Septimus is a sensitive man who feels empty in relation to life, he is condemned to death by “human nature” because “he did not feel” (101) due to the fact that his vision did not fit into the established patterns of society.

Each one in their time and place, these literary works expose the inadequacy of the human being in society. It stems from the fact that some individuals seem to have an understanding of reality that goes beyond the boundaries established by social values and patterns. This is the case of Hamlet and Septimus whose lives are in conflict concerning reality. In relation to Shakespeare’s play, Arnold Hauser claims that the author “sees the world through the eyes of a rich man, whose mentality is liberal, sceptic and disillusioned” (421). To this effect, we can take for granted that Hamlet is an individual whose sceptic vision concerning the society is the fount of his nonconformism and disillusion. For that reason, he fights against the exploitation of society in relation to the individual:

Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! / You would play upon me; you would seem to know / my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my / mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to / the top of my compass: and there is much music, / excellent voice, in this little organ; yet cannot / you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think I am / easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what / instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you / cannot play upon me. (97-98)

In the same way that Hamlet does not permit anybody to play upon him, as we can perceive, Septimus fights against the English society, which is represented by the figure of Dr. Holmes:

Human nature, in short, was on him — the repulsive brute, with the blood-red nostrils. Holmes was on him. Dr. Holmes came quite regularly every day. Once you stumble, Septimus wrote on the back of a postcard, human nature is on you. Holmes is on you. Their only chance was to escape, without letting Holmes know; to Italy — anywhere, anywhere, away from Dr. Holmes. (102)

Although Septimus is considered an insane man, he reveals to be aware of the manipulation of society towards men. To this effect, Paul Strathern claims that Woolf’s objective by writing Mrs. Dalloway exposes the extension of her ambition, which was to criticize society. (45) According to Woolf’s diary, she wished to criticize the social patterns of her epoch. She wrote: "I want to give life and death, sanity and insanity; I want to criticize the social system, and show it at work, at its most intense" (46). For sure, the narrator exposes in Mrs. Dalloway the conflict between individual and society by imprinting experiences and emotions on the inner of Septimus. That is because Septimus is not able to accept his reality since he feels unconformed and unfitted in relation to it.

As a final point, death is the solution for both cases. That is because Hamlet and Septimus go beyond the corrupted vision that society has about human relations. For that reason, they are suffocated by reality. That is, it is not possible to live in a world as they have experienced. In a battle for repairing the order of things, Hamlet witnesses the deaths of Ophelia, Gertrude and Claudius. However, it is not enough to modify his vision about the world. Hamlet will never fit into reality. Therefore, Shakespeare would not give another final to Hamlet since the prince of Denmark broke the vision conditioned by society.

O, I die, Horatio: / The potent poison quite o'er-crows my spirit, / I cannot live to hear the news from England; / But I do prophesy the election lights / On Fortinbras: he has my dying voice; / So tell him, with the occurrents, more and less, / Which have solicited. The rest is silence. (154)

Actually, before he is poisoned by Laertes’ sword, he was poisoned by reality. In the same way, we can say that Septimus feels poisoned by everything and everybody around him. This perception is the cause of his emptying. For that reason, filled by misunderstanding thoughts, he prefers to commit suicide rather than accept to live according to the abhorrent society that he is part of:

There remained only the window, the large Bloomsbury-lodging house window, the tiresome, the troublesome, and rather melodramatic business of opening the window and throwing himself out. It was their idea of tragedy, not his or Rezia’s (for she was with him). Holmes and Bradshaw like that sort of thing. (He sat on the sill.) But he would wait till the very last moment. He did not want to die. Life was good. The sun hot. Only human beings — what did THEY want? Coming down the staircase opposite an old man stopped and stared at him. Holmes was at the door. “I’ll give it you!” he cried, and flung himself vigorously, violently down on to Mrs. Filmer’s area railings. (164)

As these words indicate, death is the only solution to Septimus’ conflict since his way of understanding reality is totally opposite to the social values and beliefs.

All things considered, we can take for granted that some literary works expose how society punishes with death the one who commits the mistake of going beyond the conventional boundaries. On the other hand, they also show that death can be seen as the only exit for those who become aware of the corruption and degradation of the human relations in society:

How Shakespeare loathed humanity — the putting on of clothes, the getting of children, the sordidity of the mouth and the belly! This was now revealed to Septimus; the message hidden in the beauty of words. The secret signal which one generation passes, under disguise, to the next is loathing, hatred, despair. (98)

As we can see in Septimus’ comment, this perception seems to be related to a certain comprehension about human relations which can be seen through many literary works produced in different epochs. In other words, this strong awareness of life refers to “the secret signal” (98) that is possible to see in the life of Hamlet and Septimus that shows us the eternal conflict between individual and society and its consequences.

References:

Hauser, Arnold. História Social da Arte e da Literatura. São Paulo: Marins Fontes, 1998. Ronchetti, Ann. The Artist, Society & Sexuality in Virginia Woolf’s Novels. New York & London: Routledge, 2004.
Heliodoro, Barbara. Por que ler Shakespeare. São Paulo: Globo, 2008.
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet: the Prince of Denmark. London: Penguin Popular Classics, 1994.
Strathern, Paul. Virginia Woolf em 90 minutos. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar, 2009.
Woolf, Virginia. Mrs. Dalloway. London: Penguin Popular Classics, 1996.

Societies in Western Culture countries are characterized by classes established through power relations. Some of those classes are formed by individuals who make use of power mechanisms in order to manipulate and control people. Their principal objective is to ascend to the power. According to Michael Foucault, this kind of relation is called pastorate, which refers to

the existence within society of a category of individuals absolutely specific and singular who do not define themselves by their status, nor absolutely by their profession, nor absolutely by their individual, intellectual or moral qualifications, but who in the Christian society play the role of pastor [pasteur], shepherd [berger] in relation to others who are their sheep or their flock. (121)

This pastoral power is characterized by the fact that it is exercised over a flock of people and it aims at the salvation of it. In other words, the pastoral power is seen as a beneficent power since the shepherd must care for every member of the flock. Besides, Foucault states that this kind of power relation was introduced by Christianity and generated a new set of mechanisms of control which has been used especially by ruling classes (122). In this sense, as a representation of reality, some literary works show the way that this process is established and what its consequences in society are. The fable Animal Farm by George Orwell, for instance, can be considered an example of the manifestation of pastoral power. That is because it is possible to perceive the development of a process in which a group of pigs assumes the role of shepherd in a society idealized and governed by animals.

Animal Farm initially exposes a class of animals that is oppressed by Mr. Jones, the owner of the Manor Farm. However, Old Major, that is denominated as “the prize Middle White boar” (02), has a dream and decides to communicate it to the other animals. He claims to the other animals that their lives are not good:

Now, comrades, what is the nature of this life of ours? Let us face it: our lives are miserable, laborious, and short. We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who are capable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength; and the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are slaughtered with hideous cruelty. No animal in England knows the meaning of happiness or leisure after he is a year old. No animal in England is free. (03)

Old Major exposes how terrible is the life of the animals from Manor Farm. Thus, he encourages all animals to “work night and day, body and soul, for the overthrow of the human race” (04). As a shepherd that cares for the flock, Old Major wants to make the other animals aware of the fact that they have to fight against their miserable condition. Thus, we can assume that his speech produces “a completely new outlook on life” (06).

Nevertheless, Old Major dies and “the work of teaching and organizing the others fell naturally upon the pigs, who were generally recognized as being the cleverest of the animals” (06). In the group of pigs, Snowball, Napoleon and Squealer are the most prominent animals:

These three [Snowball, Napoleon and Squealer] had elaborated Old Major's teachings into a complete system of thought, to which they gave the name of Animalism. Several nights a week, after Mr. Jones was asleep, they held secret meetings in the barn and expounded the principles of Animalism to the others. (06)

As we can see, they use of Old Major’s speech in order to convince the other animals to struggle against Mr. Jones and take the locality where they live. This attitude allows Snowball and Napoleon to be seen as shepherds in the community of animals. That is because, in an apparent way, they lead the animals with the purpose of bringing benefits to the whole group. In this manner, we can take for granted that Old Major’s persuasive speech is a powerful instrument used by the pigs due to the fact that it allowed them to exercise the pastoral power. Thus, they stimulate the other animals to perceive their real condition and “flung themselves upon their tormentors” (07). To this effect, Foucault states that the pastoral power

is opposed to a customary, traditional political power, in that it does not essentially extend over a territory: the shepherd does not rule over a territory, he rules over a multiplicity of individuals, he reigns over sheep, cows, animals. […] Its principle function is not so much the assurance of a victory, since it does not extend over a territory. (122)

For that reason, we can assume that the pigs make use of the pastoral power in order to “rule over” (22) the community of animals from Manor Farm. Thus, after the expulsion of Mr. Jones, the pigs become free to start using their superior intelligence in order to ascend to the power.

In order to continue their plan, the pigs take the necessary steps to maintain their status quo and convince the animals to work in favor of the group. Therefore, was can say that one of the most important accomplishments reached by them is the organization of the “seven commandments” (09), which are based on the principles of equality idealized by Old Major. In this sense, we can consider the set of rules established by the pigs as a type of ideological and religious mechanism which is used to create a false idea of equality among the animals. Thus, the seven commandments represent “an unalterable law by which all the animals on Animal Farm must live for ever after” (09). In relation to them, we can observe at least two important aspects. Firstly, these rules restate the idea that the pigs are the intellectual class in the society comparing to the labouring class, which is formed by the other animals. Secondly, they reiterate the role of the pigs as the shepherd that guides the sheep to the salvation by helping them find good meadows, as we can see:

1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy / 2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend / 3. No animal shall wear clothes / 4. No animal shall sleep in a bed / 5. No animal shall drink alcohol / 6. No animal shall kill any other animal / 7. All animals are equal (9).

By observing these commandments, we can assume that the pigs write them in accordance with the animals’ needs. As it is possible to observe, the commandments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are related to the idea of difference (human beings vs animals) which is the opposite of the idea of equality. Besides, 6 and 7 are rules based on the idea of equality (among all animals). This quick and persuasive speech enables the pigs to govern and supervise the groups of animals since they do not question anything. As a consequence, the pigs – “with their superior knowledge” (10) –, gradually constitute a new tyrannical system in which they are oppressors instead of the oppressed class.

To this effect, we can say that the use of the persuasive speech is responsible for the stratification of the other animals. That is because it is possible to perceive the beginning of two processes that are connected to each other after the expulsion of Mr. Jones. These processes correspond to the consolidation of the pigs as an eminent group and the complete alienation of the other animals. This fact is related to the difference that the pigs establish in their relationship with the other animals. They conduct the apathy and ignorance of the animals in order to create two different classes in the community of animals: the ruling class and the working class, i.e., one formed by shepherds and another constituted by sheep. As a result, the “brainworkers” (13) – as the pigs denominated themselves –, create a new social hierarchy. In this new structure, all the animals are induced to accept certain beliefs and facts without questioning them, as it is possible to notice in the excerpt below:

The mystery of where the milk went to was soon cleared up. It was mixed every day into the pigs' mash. The early apples were now ripening, and the grass of the orchard was littered with windfalls. The animals had assumed as a matter of course that these would be shared out equally; one day, however, the order went forth that all the windfalls were to be collected and brought to the harness-room for the use of the pigs. At this some of the other animals murmured, but it was no use. All the pigs were in full agreement on this point, even Snowball and Napoleon. (12)

As we can see, the pigs can increase their advantages by manipulating the facts through the use of speech and due to the fact that they belong to the ruling class. It happens because the other animals are always prone to follow what the pigs tell them as they are seen as shepherds.

After the passage above shown, Squealer – the pig who spreads the propaganda of Napoleon among the other animals –, is called to “make the necessary explanations to the others” (12). He uses his convincing speech to justify to the other animals the fact that the pigs keep all the milk and apples for themselves instead of dividing them among all the animals:

Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. […] The whole management and organization of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,’ cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, ‘surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back? (13)

Squealer’ speech shows us how those in power frequently make use of rhetoric and language to twist the reality with the purpose of keeping their power. For that reason, Squealer convinces the other animal to accept it since the community of animals, as a flock of sheep, depends on the shepherds.

As a result, we can say that the truth is constantly avoided by the pigs since their government is supported by lies and illusions. In this false reality, the other animals become incapable to oppose to the pigs. That is because they can not struggle against their shepherds in order to remain alive. This condition is the result of the persuasive language used by the pigs, which allows them to be seen as a privileged group among the animals. Therefore, we can say that the other animals submit themselves to the hard work without questioning anything:

All that year the animals worked like slaves. But they were happy in their work; they grudged no effort or sacrifice, well aware that everything that they did was for the benefit of themselves and those of their kind who would come after them, and not for a pack of idle, thieving human beings. (21)

As we can observe, this passage shows how is possible to create an illusion and take advantage of it. In Animal Farm, it happens because most of the animals does not have enough knowledge to perceive their reality. For that reason, they are guided to believe that they are a group of animals that needs to be governed by a shepherd.

Finally, the manipulation of memory is another mechanism used by the pigs in order to maintain their superior condition. An example of this method can be seen when some animals are killed by Napoleon’s dogs after questioning some acts committed by the pigs: “when the terror caused by the executions had died down, some of the animals remembered, or thought they remembered, that the Sixth Commandment decreed ‘No animal shall kill any other animal’” (32). Some animals initially feel that “the killings which had taken place did not square with this” (32). Nevertheless, a female horse, who suspected that the pigs had violated their prohibitions, asked to a goat to read the Sixth Commandment again:

Muriel read the Commandment for her. It ran: ‘No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.’ Somehow or other, the last two words had slipped out of the animals' memory. But they saw now that the Commandment had not been violated; for clearly there was good reason for killing the traitors who had leagued themselves with Snowball. (32)

As this passage indicates, the pigs make use of the speech to reconstitute the collective memory and modify the Seven Commandments. Therefore, we can assume that speech is used not only to establish, but also to sustain the new official ideology introduced by the pigs on the farm.

Another example of this practice is the adaptation of the last commandment. In the beginning, it was written that “all animals are equal” (09). However, the pigs needed to justify the fact that “neither pigs nor dogs produced any food by their own labour” (45) while the other animals “worked like slaves” (41). Therefore, they modify this commandment to “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS” (47). As we can see, although there is a latent distinction between pigs and the other animals, the idea of equality is still present in this commandment. That is, all animals are still equal, but the pigs induce the other animals to believe that some animals more equal than others.

Animal Farm is a fable in which we can see the use of the pastoral power as a current practice in society. In this sense, Foucault states that “through the organization of the pastorate in the Christian society […] it was developed an instrument of power extremely important for the whole history of the Christian Western” (67). In Orwell’s story, it is possible to say that the pastoral power is hidden behind the idea of the revolution, which is used to permit the pigs to ascend to the power. That is because the pigs make use of techniques and procedures that, as Foucault notes, produce an obedience that leads to a state of obedience (69). Thus, as shepherds, the pigs can impose their needs to the other animals. As a conclusion, we can take for granted that the revolution became “a dim tradition, passed on by word of mouth,” (44) that had never brought benefits to any animal — excluding the pigs, which can be seen as representatives of the pastoral power.


References:


Foucault, Michael. Ética, Sexualidade, Política. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2004.
Orwell, George. Animal Farm. New York: Signet Classics, 1996.

In Western Culture societies, individuals are constantly submitted to the conventional structures determined by ruling classes. In this sense, the role of women in patriarchal cultures can be considered one of the most studied topics concerning the relations between individual and society. They focus especially on the submission of woman to the social patterns established by male-centered values. That is because societies characterized by male ideals have attributed a rigid role to women that standardizes it as a domestic function. In this context, we can observe different political positionings in relation to the role of the female individual in society. Firstly, there are those who question the established values and costumes in order to break the social status quo, which is seen, in some cases, as a way of maintaining false appearances and illusions in society. Secondly, there are individuals that are absolutely passive and apathetic in relation to their reality as they are conditioned and lead by the social structures. Consequently, it is possible to say that in society these two types of individual exert different ways of interacting with the social values and costumes, as they make use of contrasting political positionings.

As a social product, literary texts expose different situations in which individuals are obliged to deal with the social conventional structures. These works are relevant because they show how people have dealt with values, ideologies or patterns of behavior in society. In this sense, Antonio Candido claims that literature can be determined by aspects related to social structures and its implications (30). According to him,

They determine, in any case, the four moments of the production, because: a) the artist, lead by the impulse of an inner need, conducts it according to the patterns of his/her epoch; b) [he/she] chooses certain topics; c) [he/she] uses certain forms and d) the resultant synthesis acts upon the environment . (30)

In this sense, it is possible to state that all these aspects can be seen in plays in which characters have to deal with oppressive social structures. They also can be exposed in poetic texts in which the lyric I exerts his/her point of view concerning the rigid roles attributed to men and women in society. By facing the social structures, literary texts, whether a play or poem, are able to show different political positionings exerted by men and women. In this sense, Tennessee Williams’ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and Adrienne Rich’s Snapshots of a Daughter-in-law can be understood as works that explore these different points of view. In both works, we can assume that individuals are interacting in society through political positionings. That is because some of these individuals can exert an attitude of acceptance or rupture in relation to the conventional moulds. To this effect, we can take for granted that Maggie in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and the lyric I in Snapshots of a Daughter-in-law assume different political positions by facing their reality. In this context, they are submitted to an oppressive social structure as both of them are women who live in a society characterized by male ideals. Nevertheless, Maggie is a woman who seems to accept her condition of a mere wife in society, whereas the lyric I is another one that tries to break the social status quo.

Firstly, we can contrast the situation in which Margaret (Maggie) and the lyric I are exposed in the play and in the poem. In Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, it is possible to say that Maggie is absolutely apathetic in relation to her female reduced condition. She is an attractive woman who keeps a relationship based on appearances with her husband Brick, who does not express any affection for her, as the narrator notes: “A tone of politely feigned interest, indifference, or worse, is characteristic of his speech with Margaret” (17). Moreover, Maggie and Brick live in constant tension, as we can see below:

MARGARET:
You’ve got to!
BRICK:
I don’t have to do anything I don’t want to do. You keep forgetting the conditions on which I agreed to stay on living with you.
MARGARET [out before she knows it]:
I’m not living with you. We occupy the same cage. (35)

Due to this unpleasant circumstance, Maggie is taken by a feeling of discomfort as she perceives that her marriage with Brick is actually a falsehood. For that reason, the impression that we have when we read Williams’ play is that Maggie is a prisoner of the circumstances as she seems to be incapable of getting out unhurt of her marriage. In this sense, we can suggest that the reality around her is determined by the acquiescence of woman in a patriarchal society. She, in her turn, seems to be aware that women are expected to play the role of a wife. That is because at the same time that Maggie states that she “feel(s) all the time like a cat on a hot tin roof!” (40), she also does not do anything in order to escape from her social function. Therefore, it is possible to say that Maggie exerts an attitude of conformism concerning her condition.

In this sense, we can say that Maggie’s political positioning is totally contrasting in relation to the lyric I of Rich’s poem Snapshots of a Daughter-in-law. In this poem, the lyric I, which can be understood as a female voice, exposes her restless mind in relation to the role attributed to woman in society:

You, once a belle in Shreveport, / with henna-colored hair, skin like a peachbud, / still have your dresses copied from that time, / and play a Chopin prelude / called by Cortot: "Delicious recollections / float like perfume through the memory”. / Your mind now, moldering like wedding-cake, / heavy with useless experience, rich / with suspicion, rumor, fantasy, / crumbling to pieces under the knife-edge / of mere fact. In the prime of your life. / Nervy, glowering, your daughter / wipes the teaspoons, grows another way. (09)

As these verses point out, the lyric I initially talks about a woman “with henna-colored hair / skin like a peachbud” (09) in a process of mental transformation. She claims: “Your mind now, moldering like wedding-cake, / heavy with useless experience…” (09). In this passage, we can suggest that the image of a moldered wedding-cake symbolizes the deconstruction of the marriage as social ritual imposed to women. Moreover, as the lyric I notes, it only brings “useless experience” (09). To this effect, these words can be seen as an alert concerning woman’s inconsistent thought, which is determined by patriarchal societies. As it is possible to see, the lyric I’s speech aims at making women aware of their cultural role transmitted by societies. She claims: “a thinking woman sleeps with monsters. / The beak that grips her, she becomes… (09)” As we can observe, these verses enunciate the transformation of the woman condition. According to Albert Gelpi in his analysis of Snapshots of a Daughter-in-law,

This thinking woman paraphrases Baudelaire, parodies Horace to register the pressures that make mind moulder. The shock of the imagery is due not only to its violence (each of the passages refers to cutting edge) but to an accuracy so unsparing that the imagination reacts psychosomatically: muscles tighten and nerves twinge. The ten sections of “Snapshots” comprise an album of woman as “daughter-in-law”, bound into the set of roles which men have established and which female acquiescence has re-enforced. (286)

As we can perceive in Gelpi’s comment, the lyric I explores the female role with the purpose of revealing the truth concerning the woman condition. By doing it she permits other women to see clearly their reduced reality in which they are seen as inferior beings. Therefore, we can assume that the lyric I exerts a political positioning that struggles with the social status quo instead of accepting the values and costumes which are determined by male ideals.

Maggie, on the contrary, does not question her condition as a wife even before a reality that constantly seems to bother her. That is because Maggie’s self-perception is determined by a lack of self-esteem, as we can observe in the narrator’s comment:

[She is alone, completely alone, and she feels it. She draws in, hunches her shoulders, raises her arms with fists clenched, shuts her eyes tight as a child to be stabbed with a vaccination needle. When she opens her eyes again, what she sees is the long oval mirror and she rushes straight to it, stares into with a grimace and says: “Who are you?” — Then she crouches a little and answers herself in a different voice which is high, thin, mocking: “I am Maggie the Cat!” — Straightens quickly as bathroom door opens a little and Bricks calls out to her.] (49)

In this passage, Maggie curiously makes an analogy between her and a cat. The image of a cat is essential to understand Maggie’s condition as cats are considered domestic animals. Moreover, somehow or other, they are beings that need to be domesticated. For that reason, it is possible to say that Maggie is aware of her role as a wife by exerting her point of view concerning her situation:

BRICK:
Maggie, I wouldn’t divorce you for being unfaithful or anything else. Don’t you know that? Hell. I’d be relieved to know that you’d found yourself a lover.
MARGARET:
Well, I’m taking no chances. No, I’d rather stay on this hot tin roof.
BRICK:
A hot tin roof’s ‘n uncomfo’table place t’ stay on…
[He starts to whistle softly.]
MARGARET [through his whistle]:
Yeah, but I can stay on it just as long as I have to.
BRICK:
You could leave me, Maggie.
MARGARET:
Don’t want to and will not! […] (51-52)

As we can observe, this passage shows how Maggie manifests her pre-disposition to accept her role as a wife. Besides, it is evident that she reveals a preoccupation in maintaining it even when she has to face her failing marriage. In this sense, Paul J. Hurley observes that Maggie’s attitude stems from a point of view determined by social values which are originated in a “society that is false, lying, hypocritical and mendacious” (51). In other words, a society that disguises behind illusions and false appearances.

In Snapshots of a Daughter-in-law, on the contrary, the lyric I stares at reality because, as Gelpi notes, “to be is to see; I am eye. Poetry functions as the vehicle for seeing and for fixing one comes to see. It is the camera with lens and focus, and poems are snapshots” (286). To this effect, we can assume that the lyric I exposes and explores the various dimension of woman's life inflicted with male exploitation:

Poised, trembling and unsatisfied, before / an unlocked door, that cage of cages, / tell us, you bird, you tragical machine — / is this fertillisante douleur? Pinned down / by love, for you the only natural action, / are you edged more keen / to prise the secrets of the vault? has Nature shown / her household books to you, daughter-in-law, / that her sons never saw? (11)

As we can observe, each moment in woman’s social life must be exposed entirely. That is because women have to be conscious of their ‘inferior’ condition which was imposed by society in order to criticize it. This idea corroborates that the lyric I’s attitude aims at making women aware of their “powers of perception”, as Gelpi characterizes it. Therefore, the lyric I talks about a woman who begins to perceive her identity:

Well, / she's long about her coming, who must be / more merciless to herself than history. Her mind full to the wind, I see her plunge / breasted and glancing through the currents, / taking the light upon her / at least as beautiful as any boy / or helicopter, / poised, still coming, / her fine blades making the air wince / but her cargo / no promise then: / delivered / palpable / ours. (12-13)

In the end of the poem, the lyric I transmits her wistful voice concerning the idea of a new social reality in which women do not have an inferior position. These verses show the powers of woman who overcomes the obstacles and resistances: “I see her plunge / breasted and glancing through the currents, / taking the light upon her” (12). Therefore, we can assume that the lyric I keeps her promise as her words are “delivered” and “palpable” (13).

Unlike the lyric I in Rich’s poem, Maggie does not only accept her submissive role in society, but she is also aware of the ways that a woman can use her body in order to take advantages. One of these evidences is related to the fact that Maggie understands that she has to look as a pretty object in order to be able to call male attention:

MARGARET:
… I’m confident of it. That’s what I’m keeping myself attractive for. For the time when you’ll see me again like other men see me. Yes, like other men see me. They still see me, Brick, and they like what they see. Uh-huh. Some of them would give their —
Look, Brick! (50)

One of the reasons that makes Maggie keep herself attractive can be the fact that she seems to consider it as a condition to maintain her marriage. However, Brick does not have any desire for her. Therefore, Maggie makes use of another artifice, as we can see:

MARGARET:
Announcement of life beginning! A child is coming, sired by Brick, and out of Maggie the Cat! I have Brick’s child in my body, an’ that’s my birthday present to Big Daddy on this birthday! (167)

The announcement of her pregnancy can be seen as another evidence of Maggie’s positioning in face of reality, as this fact seems to be an artifice to maintain her marriage protected by false appearances. That is, the image of a complete family.

As we have seen, Maggie and the lyric I have political positioning absolutely contrasting. Maggie is a wife who lives a marriage that is characterized by falsehood. However, the lyric I explores the searching of a female conscience as a way of vindicating a condition of equality in society, that is, to be “as beautiful as any boy” (12). Therefore, we can assume that they have extremely different attitudes by facing their reality as women. Maggie follows blindly the stereotype of a woman that seems to be satisfied with her social condition as a wife. The lyric I, on the contrary, questions the role imposed to woman by society at the same time that she presents, “through images of resistance and achievement”, as Gelpi characterizes it, a new perspective of the female conscience in a society that is idealized and governed by men.

Cultures vary from people to people. Groups of humans have gathered for mutual interests. Such interests are attributed value according to what the assemblies consider more or less important. On the novel Gulliver’s Travels, written by Jonathan Swift, four different cultures and the way people lead their lives are described. These cultural characteristics play an important role on the manner Gulliver will be seen by the natives of each region, influencing the attribution of value given to him.

On the first pages of the book, we can realize that Gulliver is in a very good social level in his community. He describes his personal life, and informs us that he has always prepared himself to be a great navigator and studied to be a surgeon. He is heterosexual, has a wife and a good profession and although he had some momentary money problems, he is very well fitted in society. We can note that his peers value him in the community he is embedded due to all the things he has achieved, which are very important in the English culture.

Although Gulliver has such life in his social milieu, he sets sail and lands in Lilliput, a nation in which people are about six inches high. The size of the inhabitants of this place makes Gulliver a giant among them. As a metaphor, his height can be seen as the importance that he has to that people. They do their best in order to feed and give comfort to the Great Man Mountain, as he is known in that community. This value is given due Gulliver’s size that allows him to do significant things there. One of the biggest prowesses Gulliver does in that part of the world is the avoidance of a war, as he takes all the ships of enemies from the shore and gives to the majesties of Lilliput. After this act, he receives a high title of honor among that nation, becoming even more renewed. As we can see, during his stay in Lilliput, Gulliver has a high attribution of value because of his importance to the nation. On the other hand, by the time he unconsciously breaks the rules he is not accepted anymore by the villagers. The acceptance of Gulliver in that reign lasts as long as he does not break their rules and traditions.

He leaves Lilliput and faces a total change by the time he reaches his second destination, opposite of the first one. Now he is surrounded by giants, and again as a metaphor, we can see that all the power and importance that he had before now fades away. Moreover, all the things that he is as a man are not valued by the people from Brobdingnag. There he is found by a farmer and taken to his house, this native uses him as an attraction to entertain people and get money for him and his family. After some hard work as an “entertainer”, he is sold because the giant thought that his life was coming to an end and that he could not give profits to him anymore. Gulliver is considered in that reign a puppet, a nice little human who has the ability to amuse the giants in many different ways, as we can see in the following extract:

I was everyday furnishing the court with some ridiculous story; and Glumdalclitch, although she loved me with excess, yet was arch enough to inform the Queen whenever I committed any folly that she thought would be diverting to her Majesty. (148)

On the same fashion, Gulliver is used in other ways through the period that he is in the Giants reign. Concerning these episodes, we can cite the visits that he has to make to the maids of honor’s rooms, where he is sexually used by them:

The handsomest among these maids of honor, a pleasant frolicsome girl of sixteen, would sometimes set me astride upon one of her nipples, with many other tricks, wherein the reader will excuse me for not being over particular. (141)

This “use” of him, evidences the presence of a devaluation of the foreign visitor among the members of Brobdingnag. On the top of that, being a sexual tool denotes an invasion of his most intimate feelings as a human being, reinforcing the fact that he is a puppet that is used in many ways in that land. As we can see, in the Brobdingnag reign, Gulliver is considered a pleasant company. However, he has disadvantages concerning his size, and this fact influences the attribution of value given to him, as an individual in all aspects.

Different from those previous lands, the measure that attributes value to the narrator now is intelligence. The third place that Gulliver happens to land is an inland, where its people have some specific physical characteristics and the same size as him. Their most unusual characteristic is the fact that they are experts about music and mathematics and ignore all the other areas of knowledge that Gulliver is familiar with. This peculiarity can be seen in the extract below:

Their ideas are perpetually conversant in lines and figures. If they world, for example, praise the beauty of a woman, or any other animal, they describe it by rhombs, circles, parallelograms, ellipses, and other geometrical terms, or by words of art drawn from music, needless here to repeat. (197)

That contrast in interests did not allow Gulliver to be recognized as an individual in this place by most of the people. In this island, the faculty of intelligence that had been a source of getting a little respect in the giants reign, and the difference in size which was very important in the Lilliputans community could not be used. Here, Gulliver is totally ignored by the population; he is seen as someone on the edge of the society, that is, someone who makes no difference in the social gear.

In the last country Gulliver visits the issue of mind in still present. He lands in a reign inhabited by two species: the Houyhnhms and the Yahoos that symbolize reason and instinct. The former race is composed by rational horses that have their own language and are very developed creatures concerning the good human values. The latter correspond to wild irrational animals that are just like human beings in behavior and physical characteristics, differing just by rationality. In this country Gulliver is considered a Yahoo. However, due to his rational behavior he is hosted in one family that teaches him their language and the culture of that nation. Gulliver calls the attention of the community, as we can perceive in the following extract:

Several horses and mares of quality in the neighborhood came often to our house upon to report spread of a wonderful Yahoo that could speak like a Houyhnhm, and seems in his words and actions to discover some glimmering of reason. (287)

In this reign Gulliver is lowered to the level of irrational animals that the Houyhnhms are not very fond of, due to their lack of virtues and behavior. This equality was at first denied by him, but then he could note physical and behavioral similarities between this race and his countrymen. These findings made him realize that he really belonged to the specie for which he has an aversion.

The value attribution that Gulliver has in the Houyhnhms country is the smallest he had ever had, since the beginning of his voyages, because there, he belongs to an inferior race and is surrounded by inhabitants who are much more rational than him. And although he has “some glimmering of reason”, the natives from that region do not see this fact as an advantage. On the following extract, we can note the perception that one Houyhnhm has concerning the differences between the Yahoos from his country and Gulliver.

He said I differed, indeed, from other Yahoos, being much more cleanly and not altogether so deformed, but in point of real advantage he though I differed for the worse. (295)

This passage clearly shows the total inferiority that is attributed to Gulliver in that reign. That is, because besides being compared to the Yahoos, the most hateful species he is also put in a level of disadvantage towards them.

As we can note in Gulliver’s travels, the main character loses his status gradually throughout the text. This happens due to the attribution of value given by the distinct cultures that he has joined during his voyages. Gulliver is the same man from the beginning of the story who is a rather successful member in his country. However, at the end of the narrative he realizes that he belongs to the most cursed race he had ever thought about and he changes the attribution of value given to his own people and nation. Consequently all the things that he has achieved as a successful Englishmen become meaningless.

REFERENCE:

Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver’s travels. London: Collector’s Library, 2004

Environment can play a crucial role to the development of the behavior of each human being. The social milieu has the capacity to influence a person in many different ways. These influences happen due to the power of the elements that are intrinsic to this aspect of the society, which include people and their habits. On the novel Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelly, one of the main characters, the monster, is negatively influenced by the environment wherein he tries to participate and as a consequence, he changes his good attitudes to evil ones for having no other way out.

These changes turn his existence miserable, which begins right when Victor Frankenstein completes his task of creating a living creature. At that moment, misery appears as the rejection that this being would suffer throughout his life. The appearance of the monster is extremely scary and because of that he is seen as a disaster by his creator. At the time Victor sees that fiend, he feels frightened and hides from him. The monster is not given the opportunity to interact with his creator in any way. Moreover, he did not have the chance to be known, due to his appearance that was so terrifying to Victor, who could not see that the fiend might have something else besides it.

Abandoned by Victor, his creation had to learn to survive by himself lonely in the world. He gives his impressions about the beginning of that period:

According to this excerpt, he lives a total lack of familiarity with the world that surrounded him. Although there was a slight sign that he could feel pleasure with the elements of that environment, the strongest things that he felt were related to biological needs. The monster was able to supply these needs because he collected food in the woods and kept warm by the use of a fire left by some wandering beggars. However, after some time, food became scarce at the region where he had inhabited; consequently he had to look for a place where his needs would be satisfied. At this period, his mind was not yet influenced by the environment because he was still living away from the inhabitants the world that he was put in.

As the creation of Frankenstein left the woods, his contact with the environment and its people started to occur and for the first time he saw human nature. At that moment, the monster had contact with the second human being in his existence. By this contact he witnessed an attitude that he was already familiar with: when the inhabitant of the hut where he entered saw him, he immediately quit his residence and rushed across the fields. As Frankenstein’s creature continued his walk he found a village, wherein he describes his reception:

After these events the creature realized that it would not be easy to live in that society. He was aware that he had not done anything wrong to be treated in that cruel manner for the people that he crossed by. The occurrence of these facts made him become afraid of other reactions people might have as they see him. As we can note, this contact with the environment adds to his being the feeling of apprehension that was before unknown by him.

Hiding in an asylum he knew he could not be accepted by the family he observed. However his observations made him believe that his acceptance could be possible, though. The family was composed by three members, a blind father, his daughter and his son. They lived in a cottage very close from where Frankenstein’s creature had taken refuge. Due to this closeness the monster could listen to everything they say, which allowed him to learn their language, background and understand all the problems that the family faced. They did not always have enough to eat and the monster was touched by their situation. Moved by this feeling, he stopped stealing their food and started collecting wood for them. Through the monster’s actions, we can note that he was a good creature and had noble feelings; this reinforces the idea that what prevented him to join that family was the fear of not being accepted. By the time the monster got rid of this fear, he decided to talk to the blind men, while his children were out. As the man could not see the monster, he let him in, but his family arrived some time later and his contact with that cottagers occurred:

At this moment the monster had the biggest deception of all his existence, the only hope he had of being accepted by people from the world that he was put in had totally disappeared. He could have killed Felix if he wanted, but his heart sank with “bitter sickness” (115) and he escaped unperceived to his hovel.

Filled with this disappointment, the feeling of revenge first appeared in the monster’s mind. However this desire was still not strong enough in his soul:

When I thought about my friends […], these thoughts vanished and a gushed of tears somewhat soothed me. But again when I reflect that they had spurned and deserted me, anger returned, a rage of anger, and unable to injure anything human I turned by fury towards inanimate objects. (118)

As we can see, although the dark side of the monster was starting to appear, his noble feelings were still alive. The presence of these feelings is reaffirmed when Frankenstein’s creature saved a little girl that had fallen into a stream. However this good action had its consequences, because when he was seen by this girl’s relative, he was shot. The monster performed a very good action, he saved a human being. Nevertheless, his benevolence was rewarded with the pain caused by that shot. That was the last time the monster tried to be good, from that day on he vowed his eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind.

At that point, the evil side of the monster was totally uncovered and his disappointment with the human race stimulated him to make his first victim, William Frankenstein, his creator’s younger brother. This was the beginning of the monster’s actions to destroy Victor’s life, the responsible for all his miseries.

I gazed on my victim, and my heart swelled with exultation and hellish triumph; clapping my hands I exclaimed, I can too create desolation; my enemy is not invulnerable; this death will carry despair on him, and a thousand other miseries shall torment and destroy him. (122)

By this excerpt we can see that this murderer had not caused any kind of regret to the monster. He was extremely taken by a revenge feeling that was provoked by all negative reactions of the human beings towards him.

Conscious of the fact that he would never be accepted by human race; he turned to his maker and demanded the creation of a company. He believed that “the love of another will destroy the cause of my crimes, and I shall become a thing of whose existence everyone will be ignorant” (126). However, Victor did not fulfill his promise. As an answer to his creator’s attitude, the monster snatched from him every hope of future happiness, by killing his best friend and his loved wife. That was the way the monster found to diminish his pain of knowing that he would never fit that society. By destroying the people that Victor loved, he could cause the same misery that he felt in another human being.

Thus, we can see that the changes in the behavior of the monster happen due to the way people reacted with his presence. The more he missed the hopes to become accept in a certain way in society, the more he turned against humanity. The monster’s, was by nature good, as Rousseau defines men, however the society that he was put in caused all his vice and corruption.


REFERENCES:

http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophers/jean-jacques-rousseau.php
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Signet Classics, 2000.