The Pioneering Feminism of Alexandra Bergson

Willa Cather’s 1913 novel O Pioneers! was the first of her Great Plains trilogy. It was also one of the first American novels to depict the pioneering feminism of a main character. The heroine in Cather’s novel is Alexandra Bergson, the daughter of a Swedish immigrant. She is left the family farm in Nebraska when her father dies—and as others are giving up the prairie life she is determined to make it work. She dedicates her efforts in part to the dream of seeing her brother Emil, whom she loves, succeed and get to go to college. She convinces her brothers to mortgage the farm so as to buy more land when others are bailing with the idea being that soon the land will make them prosperous. The gambit pays off and the Bergson’s become wealthy—only they fail to find happiness that is supposed to come with prosperity. In other words, the American Dream eludes them, even as she loses her family and Maria Shabata. Nonetheless, Alexandra Bergson remains committed to the land and her singular ambition of tending to it steadfastly. In this sense, she expresses a type of pioneering feminism. She also breaks a number of traditional gender norms, as Douglas Werden points out: she not only maintains her land herself but she also proposes to her husband instead of waiting submissively for him to propose to her. She is a take-charge type—a feminist pioneer. This paper will examine the feminism portrayed by Alexandra Bergson in O Pioneers! and show how it connects with the loss of her family and Maria Shabata.
Werden argues that Cather’s novel is really “about two women who are pioneers in crossing socially constructed gender barriers” (199). The two women are, of course, Alexandra Bergson and Maria Shabata. Alexandra crosses constructed gender barriers by assuming sole responsibility for the farm and taking unorthodox actions to maintain its integrity (such as keeping the hogs out of mud following advice given her from Crazy Ivar). She also crosses it by pursuing a marriage of her own liking and arranging it for herself rather than wait for Carl (her future husband) to do it. She is by all respects a practical, pragmatic, hard-nosed woman who has no time or inclination on the Great Plains to rely upon someone else to do what needs getting done. Her father tasked her with seeing to the farm upon his deathbed (Cather), and that task is her sole focus, even when her brothers show more interest in leaving the farm to pursue other alternatives in life.
Maria Shabata crosses the constructed gender barrier by entering into a love affair with Emil, Alexandra’s younger brother. Such affairs may be common place in today’s world, but in the Prairie Days they were highly unorthodox. Thus, finding the two is all the more shocking for Maria’s husband, who, in a drunken rage, responds. The illicit affair ends in the murder of both when Maria’s husband finds the two of them entwined below the mulberry tree.
Alexandra suffers substantial loss throughout the novel, though she gains prosperity from her work on the farm. Her work-related prosperity reflects her commitment. Had she committed herself to a man earlier in the novel, she would likely have had prosperity in a domestic sense, with a family, children and meals to tend to. However, as a farmer she succeeds with just as much energy as might have been shown towards the traditional gender role of homemaker. On the prairie, her aim is not domestic but work-related. She is not looking for a domestic arrangement but rather to achieve the goal of making the farm a success. As David Laird notes, “she perceives the land in intimate, even passionate terms, drawing strength from it and, in return, giving of her spirit and imagination” (244). The land for much of the novel is her lover—and that may explain her continuous dream of a male godlike character carrying her over the fields. Perhaps the male in the dreams is the personification of the land repaying her in kindness with the same amount of love and affection she has shown to the land.
Or, it could be that underneath it all Alexandra is actually pining for a man. Cather gives some clues that this too could be the case. She has a fondness for Carl that is put off by the ill will of her brothers towards him when he returns after being away from the prairie for a decade and a half. The brothers are jealous of the fact that they have labored to work the land and become prosperous while he disappeared only to worm his way back into the picture and take a stab at gaining Alexandra’s heart and hand in matrimony. Thus, they voice their opinions in so many words and Carl, getting the hint, leaves town again—this time for Alaska. Alexandra is left feeling lonely especially as her brothers leave too. Her dream could indicate that the land has not been enough, that she has not been fulfilled, and that what she wants more than anything is to have a husband.
The bottom line is that Cather’s Alexandra is a complex character and does possess some traditional, feminine characteristics. For instance she dreams of a man—a strong, powerful man who is like a demi-god and who carries her over the fields (Cather). She has this dream ever since girlhood and it suggests that she is still a woman in the traditional sense underneath it all: she still yearns for a male to support her and to love her. Gustafson suggests that Alexandra is not so much a proto-feminist as simply a woman who is tied to the land that her father left in her hands: she is determined in spirit in everything she does—whether that be to tend to the land or to secure herself a husband by proposing to Carl.
Worden, on the other hand, describes it as a kind of “female masculinity” that Alexandra exudes (81). Alexandra does what other men (namely the brother, the deceased father, and Carl) do not do: she fills the gap by setting aside her own femininity and donning the duds of the masculine farmer. Her determination gives her an aspect of breaking down gender barriers; however, it also reveals a common feminine characteristic, which is the sheer force of will. Alexandra’s will is not used in something like childbirth but rather in land-birth. She does not bring forth fruit from her womb in a wholly feminine act but rather from the land, which a man could do. However, in bringing fruit from the land via unorthodox methods (taken in part from Crazy Ivar’s advice), she brings a dose of femininity to the project. At the same time, she sacrifices a side of herself—i.e., the feminine domestic side. She ages without children, whereas others marry young. Reginald Dyck describes her as “a female protagonist who is single, independent, entrepreneurial, managerial, strong willed, wealthy and in love with the land of south-central Nebraska” (161)—a depiction that could easily be suited to a modern day female CEO of a Fortune 500 company. What is missing from that description, however, is what is lost—what is sacrificed.
What Alexandra sacrifices to become a “single, independent, entrepreneurial, managerial” figure is family. Family is the hallmark of the traditional gender norm according to Harvard’s Implicit Associations Test (IAT), which tests participants’ associations of masculinity with career and femininity with family (Greenwald, Nosek, Banaji). By trading over family for career, Alexandra certainly could be argued to be a proto-feminist. Yet, in another sense, she does everything for her family: she wants to maintain the farm out of respect for her father’s wishes. She wants to make it prosperous out of love for her brothers who she wants to see do well in life. When she would prefer to marry Carl, the brothers object feeling slighted. She has put their needs first for so long that they are not used to having her attention diverted to another and they react poorly.
When the brothers leave, having chased off Carl, Alexandra is isolated and her only companion is Maria. But Maria is taken away from her too. Alexandra even visits the murderer of her brother and her friend in Lincoln where he is incarcerated. She bears him no ill will and even offers to see what she can do to get his release. She has no sense of self in many ways but rather does everything for others, asking for very little in return. She is not domineering or commanding. When she has the idea to mortgage the farm, she does not do it on her own but seeks the support of her brothers. When she tries to save the hogs, she does not seek her own council but rather trusts the advice of another man—Crazy Ivar.
There is in Alexandra a high-degree of self-reliance, as Rula Quawas notes, and this certainly does put her in the tradition of American Transcendentalism, ala Ralph Waldo Emerson—but her self-reliance is moderated by her dream of a man and the mysterious conundrum it represents during her winter of isolation. Quawas argues that “Cather’s female hero fits neither of the two molds set for women in the novels of the West. Indeed, Alexandra transcends stereotypes traditionally defining and limiting women” (241). In this sense, one can certainly see has a pioneering feminist: “She resists the dictates and the limitations of the female frontier. She is proud, resolute, self-sufficient, and most important, successful” (Quawas 241). Indeed, it is her success that gives her the characteristic of pioneering feminism: she is a woman who could defy all odds and succeed. If success in the workplace is traditionally associated with masculinity, Alexandra is a type of subversive, for she succeeds all on her own and as a woman.
Moreover, her very name carries with it a connotation of manliness. Alexander the Great was the Macedonian conqueror who went all the way to India to spread his territory. He was dominant and brave. Alexandra’s name heralds all of these qualities and she bears them well, while maintaining her femininity (or else why the dream and why the proposal to Carl?). As Quawas points out, “Cather’s novel O Pioneers! bridges the gap between gender and heroism” (240). Alexandra is a female variant of Alexander: her territory is the farm—not entire nations. Thus she is a gendered representation of the classical hero, perhaps not domesticated in the sense that she is married and tied to a house and children; but her ambitions are smaller and humbler—she is not out conquering peoples, but rather maintaining the land and attempting to deal with her own heart and its desires at the same time.
Her brothers and her friend Maria serve as the objects of her affection because, as a female hero, she still has love to give and wants to pour her love out somewhere. The land does not return affection for affection (and her dream of a godlike man carrying her over the fields does suggest that she wants and needs affection from somewhere, from someone). Yet, in her devotion to the land, to the semi-masculine manner of her ambition, she is left without fulfillment. The Dream of prosperity does not bring her the eternal rewards of happiness that are promised by the idea of American Transcendentalism. Instead, the Dream and its attainment only leaves her still yearning for more—yearning for something distinctly feminine: a husband. This is made all the more palpable after her brother and her friend are slain and taken from her. She suffers immensely in her spirit. Her power and strength are at last checked and she knows that she now wants to truly invest herself in another—and that is why she takes Carl to be her husband. Yet, true to her nature, she is the one who makes the proposal—not he. And that again is evidence enough of her willingness to break gender barriers, though, of course, it could easily also be simply an indication of her willingness to plow ahead, determined and pragmatic to the end. Rather than wait anxiously for a proposal that might not come from Carl for whatever reason—fear, lack of confidence, etc.—she makes the offer. After all, why not? She does not live in fear, but rather in abundance, and that makes her great. Thus, in instances of loss, she still rises above her travails to conquer and take what she desires.
In conclusion, Alexandra Bergson is a pioneering feminist in many ways: she commands the land, acts independently, breaks gender barriers, succeeds in her endeavors and essentially destroys the myth that the frontier was a man’s world where women could not make it on their own. Alexandra is a female Alexander—and so she is no common woman. She is tall, powerful and beautiful—and like Alexander of Macedonia, she has come to take what is hers. In Willa Cather’s novel O Pioneers! Alexandra turns the failing farm into a successful and prosperous business, but in doing so she loses her family and friend. The loss of both does not embitter her, however; for she gains a husband and has another of her own personal, private dreams fulfilled—though to what extent is not precisely told.
Works Cited
Cather, Willa. O Pioneers! http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24
Dyck, Reginald. "Willa Cather's Reluctant New Woman Pioneer." Great Plains
Quarterly 23.3 (2003): 161-173.
Greenwald, Anthony G., Brian A. Nosek, and Mahzarin R. Banaji. "Understanding and
using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm." Journal of personality and social psychology 85.2 (2003): 197.
Gustafson, Neil. "Getting Back to Cather's Text: The Shared Dream in O Pioneers!." 
Western American Literature 30.2 (1995): 151-162.
Laird, D. (1992). Willa Cather's Women: Gender, Place, and Narrativity in" O Pioneers!"
and" My Ántonia". Great Plains Quarterly, 242-253.
Quawas, Rula. "Carving an identity and forging the frontier: The self-reliant female hero
in Willa Cather’s" O Pioneers!"." (2005).
Werden, Douglas W. "She Had Never Humbled Herself": Alexandra Bergson And Marie
Shabata As The" Real" Pioneers Of" O Pioneers!." Great Plains Quarterly 22.3 (2002): 199-215.
Worden, Daniel. "“I Like to Be Like a Man”: Female Masculinity in Willa Cather’s O
Pioneers! and My Ántonia." Masculine Style. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2011. 81-106.