"Evolutionary psychology" and whether Jane Eyre is a feminist novel

[trixtah]

So, I have been rereading Jane Eyre last week, which is probably in my top 5 best-loved novels, and during that time, I also happened to read a post on Pandragon.net from a few months ago about "dog-whistle evo psych". So, I was nodding along quite happily - as you can imagine - and started trolling through the comments.

At 03:04 PM (the permalink to the comment doesn't seem to work for me), after a bit of thread-drift, Essie Elephant wrote apropos Jane Eyre: "It’s not a particularly feminist piece - read it today and you’ll think that it’s okay for men to keep their insane wives locked in the attic, for them to sexually harass the help and treat them like shit in order to provoke sexual tension and jealousy, and that it’s perfectly acceptable for missionary men to condescend to complete strangers, as long as they are women." ... "I tend to think that Austen et. al. is just something that can fall either way on the feminist scale, depending on how you chose to view it. And I think both views are correct."

I'm sorry, but what? WHAT? This person has obviously never heard of social mores, of it being a book ahead of its time in terms of (proto-) feminist sensibility, and actually, I don't recall Rochester "sexually harassing the help" until Jane expressed her own feelings to him. It was perfectly fine to lock insane people in your attic, and in fact would be considered to be the humane thing to do (rather than lock them up in an asylum). Of course, Rochester's motivations are a bit more complex than that, as is shown. Finally, there is the fact that the condescending missionary is portrayed as being a total tool, for chrissakes. There's more discussion on it downthread, but it seemed that this person was not going to be budged on his/her recollection of the novel's themes.

While I totally can relate to the fact that most things are relative and there are a myriad shades of grey, what the fuck is going on with the fence-sitting remark that "both views are correct" in terms of where the book can be situated on a feminist continuum? Seriously, bullshit. It either predominantly is, or it isn't. Forget this "both views are correct" crap.

I totally agree that a lot of it can be seen to be uncomfortable in terms of modern sensibilities. There is classism and racism. We don't generally lock madwomen up in our attics these days. The men are mostly arseholes and the women are treated like crap from our POV, because, hello, we are still not living an a post-feminist society, and they certainly weren't then. Jane often expresses her feelings towards Rochester in what could be seen to be submissive terms (like "master"), although I'd argue that "acts of service" are included in the "five love languages" that have been discussed everywhere for a reason (and it definitely seems to be one of Jane's predominant "languages", which she uses to express her feelings for everyone, male and female, that she cares about); and also, that a word like "master" has become somewhat less nuanced over the last 150 years.

But I can't see how, even if you aren't willing to contextualise all the foregoing in its era, you can't see the embodied feminism of the book. Despite all the propaganda of the time, with its assertions that women were the "weaker vessel" and inferior to men in every way, except, perhaps, in "moral suasion" (and the book is a little too early for that), Jane asserts her equality to Rochester as soon as she admits her love for him. In fact, by feeling equal to him, she can love him. She does this throughout - she feels that she is the equal to all the members of the aristocracy, the men, everyone she encounters. She states that her heart and her feelings are the same as a man's. It's an incredibly powerful notion for a woman of that time to assert her equality so positively (if silently, in the main, due to her position).

In addition to Jane's fundamental expectation of equality, every single time that Jane is confronted with a dilemma, she asserts her right to make her own choice. The words "choose" and "choice" are extremely important throughout the novel. She does what she thinks is right all along, and she is very conscious of exercising her choice. And of course, the notion that women could actually assert their own choices was pretty revolutionary in those days. It doesn't matter that Rochester and St John argued and tried to convince her that her choices weren't correct. See above about it not being a post-feminist society now, and certainly not then. And neither of them succeeded in persuading her to change her mind once it was made up, for the record.

There's also the aspect that as the whole book is about Jane observing and commenting on the various injustices that she is subject to, it is political, in that "personal is political" vein. No, she's not lobbying for votes - it's 50 years too early - but she's certainly not sitting there saying that injustice and oppression should be women's destiny (unlike the prevailing view of the time).

So, since the fundamental feminist view is that women should be considered to be societally equal to men, and that women should always have the right to exercise their own choices, it seems pretty evident to me that Jane Eyre does not contradict those principles, even though it doesn't exactly look like the way we expect feminism to be now.

The kind of argument that says it's not exactly like modern feminism (and which strain are we talking about? is it still "modern feminism" if it's Saudi women lobbying for the right to drive? what about Japanese or Afghani or Indian feminists, who have quite different feminisms to the Western kind?) reminds me of the weirdly distorted arguments that say that "gay" people are a modern invention. Sure, in terms of how gay identity is constructed now, but the argument also tends to obscure the fact that people who prefer same-sex partners have always existed. The way anyone constructs their identity is different to how it was 200 years ago... but we shouldn't neglect the precursors. In any case, as I've explained, I think that Jane Eyre presents a fairly modern feminist POV, even if the society in which it was expressed is quite different from ours.

(/rant of the day)

Also, I must see if I can download the Jane Eyre movie with Charlotte Gainsbourg in it. Although, William Hurt, eh. I liked the last Beeb version too, although Ruth Wilson's accent isn't sufficiently educated-sounding for someone who grew up in an upper-middle-class household and became a school teacher and governess fluent in French, even though she's perfect in other ways. I don't know what the Beeb were doing around then - there was also the stupid accent they had for Nan in Tipping the Velvet.

Comments

[ironed_orchid]

Agreed wholeheartedly. I also think there's a lot to be said for the way Bronte exposes the classism, the sexism, and the racism in the system without being totally damning, which makes it a much potent and informative picture of attitudes at the time.

I like Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane.

[trixtah]

Exactly about how Bronte exposes all those problematic areas, especially given, in the context of the time, Jane was somewhat ahead of the game there too. She taught the school with the poor farmers' children, although of course there were plenty of classist remarks about them only being able to absorb a few things into their "coarse" minds. Whatever.

Yeah, I think Charlotte Gainsbourg was perfect as Jane. William Hurt, however, blech (at least from what I remember when I saw it the first time round).

[buddleia]

I have big issues with JE, but not so much feminist ones. Apropriately enough, I just saw this, Dude Watchin with the Brontes. Have a look!

[trixtah]

Heh, it must be said that Rochester isn't my idea of a desirable male character, but then my liking of historical male figures is fairly limited. Actually, as far as I'm concerned, my reading of JE is "who's he?" with regard to Rochester. Kind of like a fairly big plot token, really, because the book is all about JANE for me. At least he's not quite as bad as Heathcliff, although that's admittedly not saying much at all. Hee!

And what is amazing about the book is that Charlotte Bronte actually manages to convey what Jane sees in the bugger to me. Given my lack of affection for the Byronic type in literature, that's an achievement. :-)

[buddleia]

I've read too much critical dissection of fanfic, is the problem. Jane herself is rather classically Mary-Sue. You know how you come away from reading something and feel like you've just had massive TMI on the state of the author's id?

But, yes, I take your point about conveying Jane's actual feelings. It's powerfully written, no doubt about it.

[filkferengi]

I read an abridged version at 10 & the unabridged version at 12. Remember after the wedding fell through, when Rochester tries to persuade her to run off with him by reminding her that she's poor, plain, & insignificant [gee, thanks!], so who would see, or know, or care? Her whole "*I* will see, *I* wil know, *I* will care" was a very powerful & formative message for a young girl [or a not-so-young one, for that matter].