Sample Student Research Project 2012
Essay
LITR
4232 American Renaissance
Sample Student Research Project 2012
Essay
Valerie Mead
23 March
2012
The Negative
Perception of Strong Female Characters in American Renaissance Literature:
Clearing the
Names of Literature’s Rebels
The American Renaissance period of literary history is known for being a
time when America began to establish itself as a literary entity worth being
noticed, and it began to further this strong literary identity within and around
the wider world. This was a time of
great change and innovation in American literature, with Whitman’s creation of
free verse, Poe’s and Hawthorne’s re-imagination of what constitutes gothic
literature, and the establishment and increasing popularity of industrial
printing and the printing press in America.
However, what was not innovative or pioneering about this period in
literary history is the negative perception and even stigmas associated with
strong female characters in American Renaissance Literature.
The majority of literature at this time usually “emphasized women’s
domestic and religious roles” (Grossman, 14), and those women who deviated from
these socially accepted and designated roles, however slightly, were not viewed
as positively as those that did not deviate.
The American Renaissance “released rich images for literary use, but at
the same time it was potentially disturbing, since it threatened to bring about
a complete inversion of values” (Beneath,
337), which helped to make this period especially difficult for real and
fictional women alike. This
negative perception is seen in a great deal of American Literature, but the
difference in treatment of these women is most obvious when these said
characters are compared to the more meek and docile female characters that were
considered to be “ideal” representations of American women at that period of
time. This negative perception can
be demonstrated by a “reinterpretation of literature [as it pertains to] women”
(Beneath, 337), and is exemplified by
a vast number of works from this time, including the characters of Aunt Fortune
from Susan Warner’s Wide, Wide World,
Cora Munro from James Fenimore Cooper’s
The Last of the Mohicans, and Dame Van Winkle from Washington Irving’s
Rip Van Winkle.
These women behaved in a manner that was not conducive with what was
considered to be acceptable behavior in their society, demonstrating much
different attitudes, beliefs, and patterns of behavior than their female peers;
because of this, they are treated differently by individuals in their community,
as well as by their society as a whole, and are subjected to negative scrutiny
because of their so-called “alternative”
lifestyle.
One of the most misrepresented female characters in American Renaissance
Literature is that of Dame Van Winkle in Washington Irving’s short story
Rip Van Winkle, who is portrayed as the constantly nagging spouse of the
story’s protagonist. She is
perceived negatively throughout the story’s entirety, and this manifests itself
by Dame Van Winkle being made out to be a shrew, as well as her being
villainized in several ways (and by several sources) throughout the story.
Adding insult to injury, all of the townsfolk, including her husband,
“lay all the blame on Dame Van Winkle” (Irving, 4) for the many misfortunes that
befall the Van Winkle family. The
negative perception of Dame Van Winkle is somewhat entwined with the contrasting
positive perception of her husband, as well as the societal mores and norms of
that time. She is considered to be
the one who is directly responsible for Rip leaving, and thus, falling to sleep
for so long and causing him to miss so much of his and their shared lives.
Dame Van Winkle is given part of the blame because Rip felt that she
nagged him so much that it somehow made it virtually impossible to stay around
his family nor his home and farm long enough to establish lasting emotional ties
with them, not to mention being a productive and supportive member of his
family. This reflected on the more
patriarchical society that was in place in America at that time and proved that
there were assigned roles based on gender set in place, and anyone who attempts
to go outside of these social and cultural mores can and will be ostracized, and
this is exactly what happened to Dame Van Winkle.
Even though
she is the one who stays and fulfills her appropriate gender roles in their
society, Dame Van Winkle is the one who is chastised and rebuked by her husband
and their shared community. It is
stated in Rip Van Winkle that Rip
appears to be “averse to all forms of profitable labor” and is only willing to
“attend to any business but his own” (Irving, 3), yet somehow, by some means, it
is his wife that is viewed in such a negative light.
It does not seem to matter to this community that Rip is leaving his
family in ruins simply so that he can do whatever it is that pleases him--he is
a man, and because of that, his lackadaisical behavior is considered to be
acceptable. For his wife to become
upset at the choices that he, the head of the household and the person in a
position of authority and power, made is considered to be unacceptable by both
Rip himself and the community as a whole; however, because this is intended to
be a lighter, more comical story, the real-life ramifications of both Rip and
Dam Van Winkle’s actions are not actually seen (and hardly even implied), but
rather, it is changed into something a little less intimidating (such as Rip’s
running away from home on the night in question and Dam Van Winkle’s constantly
being seen as a hag/shrew). The
audience should keep in mind that though this particular story was born of
humor, it does not make the situation worth condoning, nor does it make the
perception and outcomes any less realistic and relevant to the modern-day
reader.
Dame Van
Winkle is seen as the reason behind Rip’s leaving and, thus, the ruin of her
family. This is partly because of
the gender stereotypes of the time in which the work was written, where men are
in positions of authority and women do not complain about their station or
situation in life, especially if the negative aspects are directly correlated
with the husband’s behavior. This
society was known to “value the gentle virtues such as piety, purity, and
passivity” (Beneath, 339), and Dame
Van Winkle challenged these established female gender roles in her
male-dominated society by attempting to take control of her family and give Rip
the much needed guidance and motivation that he inherently lacked, though
desperately needed.
From a purely instinctual standpoint, this could be a case of a mother
protecting and caring for the welfare of her children in a society that was hard
and unforgiving of women who dared to do so if it contrasted with designated
societal norms. Dame Van Winkle is
treated and perceived in this manner simply because of her gender and the
established societal norms and standards for women of the time.
We can see just how badly Dame Van Winkle was treated by contrasting her
treatment with that of her husband.
Rip, because of his gender (and his overall pleasant demeanor), is seen as a
very positive light—he is well loved by his neighbors and peers, and because of
this, all of his flaws are forgiven by virtually everyone except for his
long-suffering wife, whom he “dreaded to see” (Irving, p. 7).
Dame Van Winkle may not have been an altogether pleasant person to live
with or be married to, but that is not the issue at hand--she is treated and
viewed in a negative manner simply because of her refusal to conform to societal
norms and condone her husband’s negligent behavior towards her and their
children. The stark contrast in
treatment for these dramatically different characters speaks volumes about the
way in which women were viewed and treated in this society, especially women who
are willing to show support for what they believe is right when society says
they are wrong. With this
understanding of how their society functioned, modern readers can and will have
different interpretations of the character of Dame Van Winkle, and hopefully she
will be seen in a much more favorable light.
Dame Van Winkle is certainly not the only strong female character from
this period in literary history that this negative perception has happened to.
The character of Aunt Fortune from Susan Warner’s novel
Wide, Wide World deals with a similar
situation, though she is a much more extreme example of socially deviant
behavior than Dame Van Winkle. Dame
Van Winkle’s situation was more for entertainment, which could have contributed
to why her storyline was so one-dimensional and easy for people to simply ignore
what she could have to say about this situation.
However, Wide is a dramatic
novel, and a close look at Aunt Fortune reveals a great deal about American
Renaissance society, culture, and norms, much of which cannot be dismissed as
easily. Aunt Fortune violates
social norms in a number of ways: her unwillingness to marry, her determination
to run her farm single handedly, and by having a steely demeanor towards those
around her. The most obvious of
these deviations is her chosen lifestyle, which gave her a level of autonomy and
authority that was unheard of for independent women at that time, as well as the
fact that she was seen as going against her supposedly intrinsic maternal
instinct by being abrasive towards others, including her newly met young ward.
Aunt Fortune was perceived negatively because of the way she chose to
live her life, but she may have been redeemed at least somewhat in society’s
eyes if she did not have such a steely, unpleasant demeanor.
However, the judgments made about her do contribute to our understanding
of this society, especially how it relates to the negative perception of strong
women in literature.
On a very
basic level, Aunt Fortune would not be considered the “ideal” woman of the
American Renaissance. To begin
with, she is not married and lives alone, while her society deems that “marriage
was perhaps the culmination of a woman’s life” (“Black Cats,” 27).
She is not warm and affectionate, nor does she have many of the other
maternal or feminine characteristics that her society felt that she and all
women should have. Aunt Fortune is
more reserved about her emotions and is unable to connect with a child that
needs her; this is seen as a strong blow to her character and even her moral
fiber, seeing as the society “sanctified a woman’s role as a nurturing mother” (Beneath,
338). This opinion on its own was
detrimental, because “by stressing woman’s motherly role, literature validated a
widening gap between distinct male and female spheres” (Beneath,
338). On a more global level,
Aunt Fortune took on a role in her society that she should not have, gaining
power and esteem through nothing but her own actions.
She is strong and self-sufficient in a world where the ideal woman is the
antithesis of this. Women
possessing these traits and characteristics were not socially accepted at that
time, and it definitely contributed towards Aunt Fortune’s negative perception
within the story, as well as outside of it.
At the time in which it was written, characters like Aunt Fortune were
seen negatively by their fictional counterparts, as well as the work’s actual
readers. The “perception of
powerful mother figures and female redeemers” (“Black Cats,” 23) is positive,
while those who do not conform to these roles are viewed much more harshly.
These types of characters can be used for many purposes; in this case,
the living situation with Aunt Fortune is what helps to push Ellen on her
transcendental, romantic quest to become a better person, daughter, and
Christian. However, in this case,
Aunt Fortune is seen as the negative portion of this quest, the difficult
situation that Ellen has to overcome in order to become a better person.
After living with Aunt Fortune for quite a short period of time, Ellen
had become “disappointed, unhappy, [and] frequently irritated…” (Warner, 11.1)
with virtually every aspect of her life.
All of these changes within Ellen came about by living in the presence of
her aunt for a short period of time, which could be a reflection upon the
negative perception of women in the society within and outside of the book.
It is being subtly projected throughout the story that being in the
presence of a woman like Aunt Fortune had corrupted Ellen, changed her from the
sweet, innocent child in the story’s beginning to one who not only was “very
ready to take offence” (Warner, 11.1), but was furthermore “nowise disposed
to…smooth [problems] away” (Warner, 11.1) or even attempt to work them out.
This could be a very strong (and perhaps even unconscious on Warner’s
part) message about societally condoned and approved gender roles as they
pertain to women and their proper roles in the domestic sphere.
Readers can
see exactly how far beyond the bounds of societal expectations Aunt Fortune lies
by comparing her with the women in the work who are viewed much more positively:
Ellen’s mother, as well as her close friend, Alice.
Ellen’s mother does not do any of the housework or other physical labor
and she is a very pleasant, warm, and mild-mannered woman; she is considered by
her society to be the ideal mother and wife.
Aunt Fortune, on the other hand, is none of these, and it causes her to
be viewed in a more negative manner, consistent with what society deems “right.”
The difference in perception of these two women is astounding—Ellen’s
mother is more of an angelic presence, while Aunt Fortune’s presence is a
tribulation that Ellen must endure.
This causes her undesirable mannerisms and actions to be seen as being much
worse than simply character flaws, and she is seen as being a much more
mean-spirited and intentionally hurtful person than if she had conformed to
societal pressures about gender roles.
Though both are certainly respectable women, Aunt Fortune is seen
negatively because her choices are outside of the realm of social acceptability.
Though Dame
Van Winkle and Aunt Fortune are socially deviant and are considered to be
somewhat outside of their designated gender roles, the character of Cora from
Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans is
very much more so. Cora is
intelligent during a time when this was not a desired trait for women.
Because she was so quick witted, Cora was able to see through the bravado
behind the male honor code that was set in place, which was not at all
correlating with the socially accepted norm of an ignorant and gullible woman,
and did not make her a popular person among any of the men or women around her.
Cora was not passive and meek, as women were expected to be; on the
contrary, she was actually a rather dominating person.
She defied virtually every social norm
that was set in place by her society by being an independent, intelligent, and
important woman at a time when being as such was not socially acceptable.
Cora could have been seen negatively within the confines of the work as
well as outside of it because she was “not the tame and calm creature that the
world calls woman” (Grossman, 28).
When compared to other works at the time in which
Mohicans was published, we see
relatively docile, passive heroines—such as Alice--which is what makes Cora’s
behavior all the more striking. To
put it bluntly, Cora was viewed in a somewhat negative manner simply because she
did not belong to the “cult of domesticity” (Beneath,
338). However, one must remember
that Cora is already different from other women in many ways, somewhat of an
outcast, on account of her mixed ethnicity; therefore, it is much more
acceptable and reasonable for her to behave in a manner that is deemed
inappropriate by society because, quite simply, she has nothing to lose to begin
with.
A huge
aspect of The Last of the Mohicans is
devoted to the complicated relationship and interactions between the characters
of sisters Cora and Alice. From
this, the audience can see contrasting examples of what exactly the ideal woman
should be in American Renaissance society.
Cooper, as well as many authors from his era, is “known for the passivity
of his heroines” (Grossman, 29), and it seems that Alice is to represent the
“good,” traditional, and passive woman while Cora is supposed to represent the
new, modern woman. This
contrast between the sisters expands to more than their internal thoughts and
actions, and can be seen in their drastically differing physical appearances.
Alice is in possession of an “animated smile” (Cooper, 1.20.), “fair
golden hair and bright blue eyes” (Cooper, 1.20.).
She is the opposite of Cora in every way, including appearance, and,
simply because of this, she may be seen in even more of a positive light.
She is coquettish, passive, and more than willing to accept what life
brings her without a challenge.
This was the ideal woman for the time that Cooper based it in, and just having
Alice, who was a perfect representation of the American Renaissance woman,
around for constant scrutiny and comparison leaves Cora at a disadvantage as far
as positive and negative perception goes.
As Cora is virtually the exact opposite as her sister Alice, “who
accepted the domestic role with unthinking willingness” (“Black Cat,” 24), it
can safely be said that having her constantly around for comparison leaves Cora
open for negative scrutiny as the reader can see exactly how and to what extent
she pushes the boundaries of societal acceptance.
In the
interest of fairness, it cannot be said that Cora’s non-traditional behavior and
way of thinking are the sole contributors as to why she was not seen as
positively as other heroines. Cora
was supposed to be the embodiment for America’s ambiguity on mixed racial
relationships, and this may have contributed to her negative perception.
Those who were against such an issue would automatically have a negative
association with Cora based on this issue alone, and not even give her a fair
chance in the reading. There is
also, the fact that she, the daughter of a white man, engaged in a doomed love
affair with a Native American; though never consummated, this was a relationship
which was taboo at the time, and it may have also contributed to the negative
portrayal that she received. In
addition to this, Cora’s resistance to traditional conformist views of the time
can be said to have manifested itself in her appearance, and this also may have
had an influence on how negatively or positively she was perceived by the
audience. Partly because of her
mixed ethnicity, Cora is not the typical beauty as far as American Renaissance
standards were--her hair was “like the plumage of the raven” (Cooper, 1.21), and
she was dark eyed and dark skinned, as her mother was African American.
These points are good to keep in mind and most likely did have an impact
on how Cora was perceived. However,
one must also remember that her actions as a strong female character did indeed
have an effect on how she was perceived as a woman in literature, and it may
have contributed towards her being seen negatively.
The American
Renaissance as a period of history and literary movement has clear-cut and
definite definition of what is considered to be socially acceptable for what a
woman can or cannot do. Women in
this society were expected to be passive, willing to listen to and do as they
are told, and because of this, the women who defied these societal norms were
viewed in a much more negative manner than those that did not.
This negative perception of women in American Renaissance literature
primarily came from works that included strong, assertive, and independent
female characters as crucial aspects to the story’s plot.
Cases of this can be seen throughout American Renaissance literature, but
some of the best examples from this period include Dame Van Winkle from Irving’s
Rip Van Winkle, Cora Munro from
Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans,
and Aunt Fortune from Warner’s Wide, Wide
World. These women defied
social norms of the time and went against many aspects of society and social
relationships that were necessary in order to be considered a good and socially
accepted woman. As a result of
this, they were viewed negatively for living a life that was alternative to the
mainstream, especially when compared with women that represented the ideal woman
of the time.
Works Cited
Cooper,
James Fenimore.
The Last of the Mohicans.
Grossman,
Jay.
Reconstituting the American Renaissance:
Emerson, Whitman, and the Politics of Representation.
Durham, NC: Duke University
Press Books, 2003. Print.
Irving, Washington. Rip Van Winkle. 1819.
Reynolds,
David S.
Beneath the American Renaissance: The
Subversive Imagination in the Age of Emerson and Melville.
Boston: Harvard UP, 1989.
Print.
---.
“Black Cats and Delirium Tremens: Temperance and the American
Renaissance.”
The Serpent in the Cup: Temperance in
American Literature. Eds. David
S. Reynolds and Debra J. Rosenthal.
Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press, 1997. 22-59.
Print.
Warner,
Susan.
The Wide, Wide World.
