Jane Eyre: A Proto-Feminist Philosophical Cornerstone

Jane Eyre: A Proto-Feminist Philosophical Cornerstone

By Leo Deng

12/10/21

76102 Contribution Essay

Professor Rebecca Wigginton

Abstract:

Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre has been in much criticism and discussion in intellectual circles pertaining to feminism since its first publishing in 1847. Jane Eyre and its other Gothic contemporaries are constantly analyzed for commentary on gender norms and issues in both reinforcement and rejection. However, I argue that the novel should be seen as a story that, at many junctures, dismantles gender norms and problems by critiquing horrid manifestations of patriarchy. Such a feat is revolutionary in its historical context—that it preceded much social theory that impacted the feminism movement. By comparative reading and analysis of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (Feminist Philosophy), Jean-Paul Sartre’s No Exit (Philosophical Fiction), and Jane Eyre itself, I will create novel research for my argument. I will also bring in relevant criticisms (Judith Butler, Yasinta Widiatmi, and more) to either support my argument or to counter them for the purpose of supporting my argument. This will culminate in the conclusion that Jane Eyre should be considered a Proto-Feminist work of Philosophical Fiction that furthers Feminist Philosophy.

Introduction

Literature has always influenced and negotiated with the furthering of social theory and philosophy as it gave a different platform to illustrate ideas in a fictional and subsequently in a hypothetically applied way. Thus, when looking at the waves of activism known as feminism and especially its associated intellectual backing of Feminist Philosophy, literary influence comes to mind. Feminist Philosophy was heavily tied to Existentialism because of Feminist Existentialist Simone de Beauvoir who revolutionized feminist thought in the 20th century. This specific tie to Existentialism is where literature comes in as it was the philosophical movement that emphasized literary means for evoking philosophical thought (including renowned authors and philosophers like Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Simone de Beauvoir herself) the fine line on which literature and “Philosophical Fiction” lie is what allows for a productive space of slippage. This was due to the popularization of the term Philosophical Fiction that came about, which was not just limited to philosophers, but also writers that were labeled as authors first and foremost like Fyodor Dostoyevsky. At the same time, philosophers like Camus who barely wrote any purely argumentative or theoretical pieces, writing fiction mostly, was still considered a philosopher. The precise slippage between literature and Philosophical Fiction is where I can and will argue Jane Eyre’s place as a legitimate work of Proto-Feminist Philosophical Fiction that furthers feminist social theory, utilizing comparative readings of the novel with Philosophical Fiction and Feminist Philosophy.

Jane Eyre as Feminist Philosophy

The first element that I will analyze to argue for Jane Eyre as Feminist Philosophy is its resemblance to examples of renowned Feminist Philosophy and Philosophical Fiction. This resemblance occurs in instances such as when Jane “breaks character,” which made her sound like a passionate feminist activist giving a declaration that I will compare to Beauvoir’s Second Sex. Next, I will compare Jane Eyre to Sartre’s No Exit to show that Bronte’s novel can stand as Philosophical Fiction because of the ideas it evokes. Lastly, it is important to note that Bronte can never be a true feminist because of that term’s specific connotation to very distinct waves of activism but categorizing her work as Proto-Feminist Philosophy is productive because of its immense force of influence.

Jane breaking character in the context of the novel being a fictional autobiography is the first element I will analyze. She does this when going into “monologue mode,” where she is no longer speaking in her normal tone of merely telling her life story. One of the most famous quotes in the book exemplifies this break:

“It is in vain to say human beings ought to be satisfied with tranquility: they must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it. Millions are condemned to a stiller doom than mine, and millions are in silent revolt against their lot. Nobody knows how many rebellions besides political rebellions ferment in the masses of life which people earth. Women are supposed to be very calm generally: but women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts, as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it is narrow-minded in their more privileged fellow-creatures to say that they ought to confine themselves to making puddings and knitting stockings, to playing on the piano and embroidering bags. It is thoughtless to condemn them, or laugh at them, if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex” (Bronte 93).

This is and should be remembered as an emphatic critique on patriarchy and thus, my argument for Proto-Feminism. Alone, this paragraph exposes the inherent inequality experienced in the female condition, saying women experience the world the same way but for some absurd reason must be condemned to tasks that completely undermine them. It is precisely this passionate monologue of sorts that resembles Beauvoir’s critique in The Second Sex:

“Thus humanity is male and man defines woman not in herself but as relative to him; she is not regarded as an autonomous being…” “And she is simply what man decrees; thus she is called “sex,” by which is meant that she appears essentially to the male as a sexual being. For him she is sex—absolute sex, no less. She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute—she is the Other” (Beauvoir xvi).

Figure 1 - Simone de Beauvoir at a Women’s Rights protest in France

This is a more argumentative diction by Beauvoir, but Bronte’s use of words like “condemned to a stiller doom,” “silent revolt,” and “narrow-minded” gives that critical language necessary for social theory. This sets the precedent for Feminist Philosophy, and Jane’s quote will also translate aptly in Philosophical Fiction.

Argument for Philosophical Fiction

Now, I will compare Jane Eyre to a separate work of Philosophical Fiction, No Exit, that has no ties to Feminist Philosophy to show a different type of resemblance that substantiates my argument. The author Jean-Paul Sartre was a notable playwright along with being a philosopher in both Existentialism and Marxism, which will be a useful source of evaluation later. In Sartre’s No Exit, three characters, Garcin, Inez, and Estelle (a mix of first and last names but am just using the names usually referred to for each character), are placed into this room, consciously knowing they are in hell and are expecting punishment. They all start by refusing to confess to any moral crimes, with Garcin even claiming to be a devoted pacifist, but Inez is the only critical character that doubts they have been put here by mistake and that all of them are lying to themselves. Their respective personalities of Inez being critical, Estelle being vain, and Garcin being cowardly make for the perfect clash of personalities, and they also end up in a love triangle, making the situation even more complicated. At the same time, the moral crimes of each character are revealed to the reader. All three characters carried out a combination of infidelity, murder, and pushing others to suicide (Sartre 1-46). It is overall an extremely abrasive play that showcases these characters creating a space of pinnacle mental and emotional suffering for each other to the point that Garcin says the famous line, “Hell is—other people!” (Sartre 45). This work is not only renowned as a play but a philosophical work because of this profound idea that humans harm each other the most. Other philosophical ideas are inserted in here, too, like Sartre’s Bad Faith which is the concept of humans lying to themselves as morally problematic because it rejects their own responsibility to freedom and autonomy to create a meaningful and authentic life (shown at the beginning of the story). Simply, this is a clear example that a literary work can be philosophical alone as long as it is interpreted in a certain way, and I believe that can be applied to Jane Eyre. If I make this an analogy, No Exit is to Bad Faith as Jane Eyre is to Patriarchal Determinism.

This concept of Patriarchal Determinism will be what allows me to argue for Bronte’s Proto-Feminist label as it should be considered a serious theory presented in Jane Eyre. Patriarchal Determinism is the idea that patriarchy has established its forceful oppression of women for an untraceable number of years so that it will constantly perpetuate its values on society. Of course, I must note that I write from a Western perspective, but the West is the most fitting society to critique with its everlasting ties with all types of hegemony. By using such a phrase as absolute as determinism, I am only attempting to emphasize the power of patriarchy’s terror, not that it is inevitable and can never be destroyed. It should be precisely the fact that I call it determinism that I and others should desire to rebel, critique, and revolt against it. So, in lieu of the word determinism, I think a great place to start analyzing Patriarchal Determinism in Jane Eyre is the ending.

Analysis of the ending through the application of Patriarchal Determinism reveals Jane Eyre’s scathing critique of patriarchy. After a treacherous life journey where Jane is pelted by oppressive traditions of male domination and subordination of women in this autobiography, she ends up with one of her masters that most clearly desired her: Rochester (Widiatmi 61-65). The sheer occurrence of this ending is maddening, as it rightfully should be, where seemingly no matter what Jane does, she ends up in a position of submission or service. This is the clear circumstance of the latter, which is even further rubbed into our face as Bronte “levels the playing ground” by injuring Rochester to blindness and physically handicapping him with the loss of a hand by the fire at Thornfield. Such a scenario is commentary on the handicaps women have in society, that a man must go through a fire in order for a woman to feel equal to him. This is especially relevant to Jane as she showed desires to have some financial autonomy of her own before marrying Rochester, so she would not have a dependency on Rochester. Patriarchal Determinism spreads throughout the book but here I present the deterministic result to show how problematic patriarchy is. Thus, Jane Eyre is capable of evoking such philosophical ideas, here, in a feminist way. So, Bronte can be considered a Proto-Feminist who influenced and furthered social theory through her literature, which is a completely valid way of doing so.

Against Patriarchy

The next step to show Jane Eyre’s furthering of social theory is to go in depth on how the plot critiqued patriarchy through the literary method of describing certain situations of the woman. While establishing the Proto-Feminism of Bronte, Patriarchal Determinism prevailed as a philosophical idea to bolster such an argument. Thus, I will give a quick word on the ending as a critique. If it is not clear already, the ending should not be confused for a bittersweet ending because it is the portrayal of the grossest reality that patriarchy produces. When Jane says, “My Edward and I, then, are happy: and the more so, because those we most love are happy likewise,” readers should be aroused to anger by this and the situation, but it should not be confused as Bronte or Jane settling for this gender norm, rather that it is a dire problem for us to solve (Bronte 385). Jane is happy in a circumstance where she has become Rochester’s “eyes and hands” since she is servicing him without those parts. That precise subservience has encompassed Jane’s persona at even more corners, specifically as a governess.

The role of governess deserves investigation in its pitting of women into submission as an occupation, a clear product of the permeation of patriarchy through society as one can easily see the gender norms that dictate this role (servitude, household chores, care for children, elementary education, etc.). Moreover, the concept of having a woman live in a complete household in a subordinate position creates a multitude of problematic scenarios. These scenarios include unfair power dynamics between the governess and her boss (presumably male), her boss’s wife (perhaps out of jealousy, maintaining the superior female position, etc.), and the kids. According to a letter that Bronte wrote to her sister Emily on June 8th, 1839, there is reason to deduce that Bronte’s own experience as governess has heavily influenced her writing of Jane being a governess. In the letter, she says, “I have striven hard to be pleased with my new situation” and goes on to describe the beautiful “pleasant woods, winding white paths, green lawns, and blue sunshiny sky” (Bronte 435). This strikingly parallels the beginning of chapter 12 where Jane introduces her new governess circumstance as well. Jane says, “The promise of a smooth career, which my first calm introduction to Thornfield Hall seemed to pledge” along with description of Thornfield throughout being a pleasant experience and comfortable place (Bronte 92, 83-93). Of course, we cannot take everything Jane says in the novel to be exactly reflective of Bronte’s experience, but this adds helpful aspects of realism and credibility to Jane’s experience—that it actually happens in real life, too. Thus, this position is inherently problematic as it is the product of patriarchal determinism because such power dynamics only exist because of patriarchy. The simple evidence that Bronte likely experienced this (because of my analysis) and did not enjoy being governess suggests in no way that Jane Eyre reifies gender norms, rather that it is a critique on them (Paddock and Rollyson 18). A drastically different illustration of gender norms in the novel is through the means of the character Bertha.

The portrayal of Bertha deserves discussion in terms of critiquing patriarchy because of the language used to describe her horrid state and confrontation of her husband Rochester. As an insane creole woman locked up as a captive for the mere conservation of Rochester’s marital status, Bertha reveals a multitude of perspectives for discussion pertaining to intersectionality. However, I will only focus on her description here for the purpose of critiquing patriarchy. The portrayal is this:

“What it was, whether beast or human being, one could not, at first sight, tell: it grovelled, seemingly, on all fours; it snatched an growled like some strange wild animal: but it was covered with clothing; and a quantity of dark, grizzled hair, wild as a mane, hid its head and face” (Bronte 250).

&

“the lunatic sprang and grappled his throat viciously, and laid her teeth to his cheek: they struggled. She was a big woman, in stature almost equalling her husband, and corpulent besides: she showed virile force in the contest—more than once she almost throttled him, athletic as he was. He could have settled her with a well-planted blow; but he would not strike: 448 Jane Eyre he would only wrestle. At last he mastered her arms; Grace Poole gave him a cord, and he pinioned them behind her: with more rope, which was at hand, he bound her to a chair. The operation was performed amidst the fiercest yells and the most convulsive plunges” (Bronte 250).

Figure 2 – Illustration depicting Bertha in the foreground by F. H. Townsend, 1847

This portrayal literally strips Bertha of all femininity into a primal, masculine entity. The masculine traits of stature and brute force are important because not only does it denote “opposite of female,” but also it shows that it is the default characteristics of humans in society—that when a woman loses what makes her a woman (femininity), the only characteristics left to describe her are that of masculinity. This idea is further supported by the primal aspect of Bertha’s depiction as she is referred to as “it,” on all fours, and having a disheveled mane. I suspect that in 1800s Britain (and even many places still), that a description and a response to the description of an insane woman would be very different than that of a man. A man would only be stripped of human characteristics, reverting to an animal; however, is it not peculiar that a woman must be stripped of her femininity first before her humanity is stripped? What does this say about the femininity created by patriarchy’s enforcement of a gender binary and thus, gender norms? Gender is performance, says Judith Butler, and even more, her idea that such acts of performance “happen to” the individual rather than the individual acting themselves is ever evident here with these norms imposed on Jane in the novel and exemplified by Bertha (Butler 90-94). Furthermore, in a Beauvoirian sense (from just the excerpt already presented), the woman is only understood in relation to a man, and Bertha’s characterization precisely denotes similar meanings of Beauvoir’s Existentialist theory: that one is first born, and then becomes a woman. Again, Bronte creates literary junctures to be dissected for the unveiling of the problems inherent to societal gender norms, and she impressively does so with no association and before the most impactful waves of feminism and feminist social theory.

Concluding Thoughts

After presenting this contribution that clearly expresses Jane Eyre’s furthering of social theory through Proto-Feminism, one of the last ideas that I must cover is that this novel is not mere “literature.” The purpose of this line of argument is not to undermine literature, but rather discuss some of the detrimental effects such a label has when for no better reason do labels like Philosophical Fiction exist except for “right time, right place” reasons. In both circles of the layman and critics, literature can often be seen with less direct theoretical value and rather, it basks in uses of vague moral lessons and its ability to give the reader pleasure or personal meaning. For scholars, meanings rely on criticism and interpretation, which is useful, but does not help the public’s access of theory. However, as I have argued, there is clearly a section of literature reserved and renowned for the theory it produces: it is called Philosophical Fiction. This line between literature and Philosophical Fiction deserves to be blurred as Jane Eyre is not so different from No Exit (in terms of amount of direct theory used). Thus, through the countless examples of Jane Eyre revealing some of the most significant problems in patriarchally affected gender conventions (both at the time and still existent or influencing new norms currently), the novel deserves to be a Proto-Feminist Cornerstone.

Acknowledgements

For this paper, I would like to acknowledge the constructive annotations that Zoe Schneider and Professor Wigginton contributed for the culmination of this paper. Schneider aided in making me realize the clarification needed for my Bertha example. Wigginton helped by giving me the suggestion to better connect my “Against Patriarchy” sections with my earlier argument.

Appendix

Figure 1 – “Simone de Beauvoir: A Victim of Her Own Success?” Intellectuals and the Media in France, 5 Dec. 2018, https://intellectualsandthemedia.org/2018/12/05/simone-de-beauvoir-a-victim-of-her-own-success/.

Figure 2 – Ethnovet, Cheryl &. “Cheryl & Ethnovet: Bertha Mason.” Cheryl & Ethnovet, 5 Mar. 2017, https://tryl2012.blogspot.com/2017/03/bertha-mason.html.

Works Cited

Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. 1st Modern Library ed., Modern Library, 1968.

“Bertha Mason.” Wikipedia, 7 Sept. 2021. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bertha_Mason&oldid=1042936523.

Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. Third, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001.

Butler, Judith. Bodily Inscriptions, Performative Subversions. 1990.

Ethnovet, Cheryl &. “Cheryl & Ethnovet: Bertha Mason.” Cheryl & Ethnovet, 5 Mar. 2017, https://tryl2012.blogspot.com/2017/03/bertha-mason.html.

Griesinger, Emily. Charlotte Bronte’s Religion: Faith, Feminism, and Jane Eyre - Document - Gale General OneFile. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=cmu_main&id=GALE%7CA189871389&v=2.1&it=r. Accessed 7 Nov. 2021.

Paddock, Lisa Olson, and Carl Edmund Rollyson. The Brontës A to Z: The Essential Reference to Their Lives and Work. Facts On File, 2003.

Poovey, Mary. “The Anathematized Race: The Governess and Jane Eyre.” Feminism and Psychoanalysis, 1989.

Roof, Judith, et al. Feminism and Psychoanalysis. Cornell University Press, 1989.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. No Exit and Three Other Plays. A Diviwsion of Random House, 1989.

“Simone de Beauvoir: A Victim of Her Own Success?” Intellectuals and the Media in France, 5 Dec. 2018, https://intellectualsandthemedia.org/2018/12/05/simone-de-beauvoir-a-victim-of-her-own-success/.

Widiatmi, Yasinta Deka. “The Portrayal of Feminism in the Main Characters of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre.” Journal of English Language and Culture, vol. 3, no. 1, 1, May 2017, pp. 61–73. journal.ubm.ac.id, https://doi.org/10.30813/jelc.v3i1.300.