1694 words
Andrea Dworkin stated that “the feminine ideal by definition turns a woman into a function, deprives her of any individuality that is self-serving or self-created”. With reference to The Bell Jar, consider the view that Sylvia Plath would agree with all parts of this statement?
The Bell Jar could be regarded as an archetypal feminist work in which women are presented as repressed and prevented from any possibility of becoming wholly autonomous beings, free from relationships with men, unable to define their own existence. Esther conforms to this depiction and is perpetually oppressed by misogynistic ideology. However, we must consider that she is not entirely deprived of an expressive disposition, and so it could be argued that, although she may not be entirely “self-serving” or “self-created”, she does possess an individualistic nature made evident through her literary self-expression.
A sense of individuality becomes clear when noting that Esther, despite being a female of modest background, has obtained a prestigious scholarship to New York- a city of growth and freedom. She has ended up “Steering New York like her own private car” and here the use of the word “own” suggests that her ambition is self-controlled and so she possesses an individualistic temperament conflicting with Dworkin’s belief. Moreover, Esther has the opportunity to write for a magazine, suggesting that she is more creatively liberalised than many males during this era. Esther’s self-critical attitude and political awareness when remarking upon her revulsion to execution could be said to differentiate her as more idiosyncratic than other characters; she is rejecting the 1950’s status quo. It is not only Esther who demonstrates self-drive but also Jay Cee, who Esther observes “had brains, so her pug-ugly looks didn’t seem to matter”. This rejects the cultural expectation imposed, of beauty as a necessity for success. By using the male name “Jay”, and placing a woman in a leadership role, Plath is able to demonstrate the way in which women can exhibit masculine qualities- those of dominance, rationality, and control. Some may argue, however, that this construes that women had to be similar to men in order to possess such ability-they cannot display “feminine” characteristics. Doreen likewise expresses her individuality, being free to dress how she wishes, wearing “dressing gowns the colour of sin”. She is in control of her image and rejects the culturally constructed pure typecast. Like Doreen, Esther also rejects the stereotypical image of a southern belle, and Betsy’s poster child image of this paradigm serves to contrast with Esther who dismisses conforming to the image of a “Pollyanna cowgirl”. There is also implication that, although it was claimed that women were confined to becoming mothers deprived of a career, Esther believes that she can have both a life writing and a baby. Esther reminisces on how she “cut……off the sunglasses for the baby to play with” and although this could infer that she is self sacrificially giving up a part of herself, it could also highlight that motherhood and a career can act concurrently -she is planning her own future.
While Esther is presented with an opportunity to write, and an ability to provide for herself, she is essentially still restrained, unable to be the “self-created being” she aspires to be. Her stunted creativity is clear through the writing platform she has been bound to (a fashion magazine) reflecting the highly stereotypical views of the time, making it evident that “characters clearly were constructions” who could possess only “legitimate feminine goals and aspirations”. These constructions represent the 1950’s stereotypes, implicit in audiences of the time, demonstrating the way in which “mass media and advertising in women’s magazines lead to the degeneration of women as autonomous beings”, since it was believed that women should conform to these “repeated cultural stereotypes”. This assumption although strengthened by the status quo of the time, cannot be wholly true in relation to all women. Female involvement in the war, for example no doubt weakens this claim by demonstrating the ability women possess in accepting roles not usually construed to be “feminine ideals”.
That being said, it is widely assumed that beauty was pivotal to female identity. Edith Wharton stated that “ genius is a small use to a woman who does not know how to do her hair” – a belief echoed within the text, with Esther despite her genius, being unable to break free from the cultural constructions enforced upon her, at all times being told to conform to the aesthetical paradigms of beauty. She describes how she began to “paint” on make-up; Esther is concealing her true aspirations and identity. However it is clear she does not wish to do so, and the symbolic moment, whereby she discards her clothes, could contrast the belief that she is constrained, by inferring that she is rejecting cultural impositions. It was evident in 50’s culture that, although not yet prevailing, the feminist movement was emergent, but quickly abhorred. The “amazon” hotel directly alludes to this idea referring to the ancient female warriors who cut off their right breasts to become better archers. Moreover, Amazōn is the Ionian Greek form of the Iranian word ha-mazan, "fighting together.”, thus inferring that these women were strong willed, barbaric and defied feminine qualities, creating a radical environment. The hotel’s poisonous environment, in which these women are contained, is highlighted when the women are literally poisoned, surmising that feminist ideas rejecting the status quo are dangerous, and individualism ostracised.
It is well known that Plath felt overshadowed by her husband, and fellow poet, Ted Hughes and although critics such as Roland Barthes argue that “the author is never more than the instance of writing”, I believe that Plath’s own life is undoubtedly reflected within the Bell Jar and cannot be discredited; “the private and public cannot be seen as wholly separate”. The character of Esther is without doubt a reflection of Plath; both women felt subjugated by men and were forced into careers in which they could not reach their true aspirations-they could not possess individuality. This is clear when Esther remarks “when they asked me what I wanted to be I said I didn’t know”. It cannot be true that she does not know. She does. Rather she fears what she wants to be since it rejects the cultural constructions enforced not only by men but by women likewise. Esther’s own mother, for example, believes Esther should learn shorthand as opposed to study. This proposed career reinforces the “perpetuation of the unequal power relations between men and women” (AQA) since women cannot be “self-serving”; they must be the foundation on which a male can be successful. Esther observes that “what a man is is an arrow into the future, and what a woman is is a place the arrow shoots off from”. Self-sacrifice is not what Esther desires. She wants to have freedom. She wants to “shoot off in all directions”, and more so she wishes to become “a Fourth of July rocket” and be granted with the individuality she desires, not the individuality which is her bequest.
“Self-severance” cannot be obtained, since women are constantly reminded of the threat of pregnancy. Esther only deems herself her “own woman” after obtaining a diaphragm. Although this could be perceived as indicative of self-severance, it must be noted that Esther had to break the law in order to be issued with such a privilege, yet still she feels her “virginity weighed like a millstone“around her neck. It therefore cannot be claimed that Esther has individuality- she cannot express her sexual desires, but rather is condemned to the expectations of purity. Females are acquiescent to the needs of, not only men, but socialisation. Society expects Esther to marry purely “so Buddy wouldn’t be lonely”, and this was an incessant agenda throughout 1950’s society, reflected in magazines, which described female duties as “having dinner prepared and remembering that his topics of conversation are more important than yours”. Both Esther’s world and the cultural views of the time reflected the idea that “only marriage can bring them [a man and woman] together” suggesting a distinct double bind; women can be autonomous but their identity is defined by relationships to men. She is more esteemed after having embarked upon a lengthy relationship, and during Buddy’s hospitalisation it is believed that she is only studying to “hide a broken heart”, demonstrating the principle that love and work in a woman’s life cannot be in dichotomy. Women are trapped. The titles inclusion of the word “Bell” indicates a feminine allusion relating to the French word “Belle”, and so the novel can instantly be construed as associating to the female who is entrapped within the “jar”. Esther here is trapped no more so than by her obligations to motherhood, of which incessantly haunt her. She is confined to work on a maternity ward, and yet views motherhood with ambivalence, describing the pregnant Dodo Conway as a grotesque collocation of incomplete parts. Esther describes childbirth as torturous- maternity wards become chambers of horror- and the mother instantly becomes a separate culmination of parts since Esther “couldn’t see her”. Women are depicted as separate components, each part serving to society, and each of Esther’s desires requires her to sacrifice another. Women cannot act separately from men. Their “inferiority is related to their connection to the heterogeneous, whereas male superiority involves being a separate homogenous form”. The structure of the novel emphasises the pervasive dismemberment. Esther’s description of decapitation on the first page, is repeated as the novel concludes, demonstrating how self-alienation remains. She strives for an ideal self-uncontaminated by relationships with others, but cannot. Dismemberment encircles her- she is surrounded by “goggle-eyed headlines” and “the mouth of every subway”, and the lack of metaphors of fluidity within the novel determines that Esther, through her narration, is unable to construct herself on her own accord.
It is clear in The Bell Jar that women are not without individuality, but rather they possess this freedom only with regard to certain aspects of their lives. Dworkin’s claim is somewhat weakened when the reader observes Esther’s ambitious desires and her exoneration from the roles imposed upon her. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that women in the novel are free to do as they desire. They remain impaired by societal views, which may turn a women into a function submissive to the male, resulting in a depravity of “self-creation”, “self-severance”, and the individuality they desire.