Problem of Inequality in Marriage

¶ … Inequality in Marriage in English Literature

Although existing from the dawn of history itself, marriage as an institution has greatly changed its scope and purpose in time. Thus, before the modern period, marriage was an arrangement between two parts, functioning almost as a social contract and meant to serve particular proposes. Marriage used to be one of the most important institutions in society, as it was the only acceptable way to have and raise children and thus perpetuate the human race. It was almost a social indecency to shrink from marrying and to lead an independent life. Moreover, once a marriage was contracted, a divorce would have been unacceptable. For some men, marriage was a source of dowry or a means of getting a better social position. For women though, for the longest time, marriage had been the only means of survival, something that their very existence depended on. In the patriarch society that dominated the Western world for the most part of the human history, the women were entirely dependent on the masculine figures in their lives, first their fathers and then their husbands. Interestingly enough, the husband also became a father figure soon after the engagement was over and the marriage began, having unquestionable authority over the wife. Thus, as much of the literature of the early modern world indicates, for women marriage was perhaps one of the most important moments in their lives and certainly one that marked their entire existence afterwards. In the modern world, the situation has changed to a certain extent, as marriage has shifted its purpose from a mere social contract to a contract of love. The society no longer interferes so much in the life of the individual and thus marriage is contracted according to the desires and expectancy of those involved.

For a long time, it was thought that marriage should never be based on such an intemperate, uncertain and whimsical feeling as love. It is well-known that love is perhaps one of most of the indefinable and the most unpredictable of the human feelings. The earlier societies believed that love was not a serious enough feeling to justify marriage. Thus, there were many other considerations that had precedence over love when a marriage was decided about. In her famous and interesting book Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, Stephanie Coontz argues that marriage has evolved progressively from the early modern era to the twentieth century, from "obedience to intimacy." According to Coontz however, the marriage contracted for love reasons is not an invention of the twentieth century but actually of the eighteenth century. Even in the eighteenth century, the people had a certain freedom in choosing their respective husbands or wives. Nevertheless, love was certainly not the primary consideration that people took into account when deciding to get married. The decision had to do more with common sense and the rules imposed by society than with the private feelings of a certain person. The women especially had less liberty in choosing their life-partner. First of all, they were not allowed to have any initiative of their own in finding a male partner, and had to wait to be courted by the men who were interested. After the marriage the woman had to submit herself to the will of her husband and to make sure she fulfilled his wishes. As Susan Cruea noticed, in the patriarchal society of the eighteenth and nineteenth century women were the victims of social and economic discrimination, being drastically limited in their social roles to motherhood or spinsterhood: "The setting of these goals resulted from women's rising awareness of the precariousness of their situation in the patriarchal society of the 1800s. At this time, women were the continual victims of social and economic discrimination. Upper- and middle-class women's choices were limited to marriage and motherhood, or spinsterhood. Both choices resulted in domestic dependency."(Cruea, 25) While they could choose to remain unmarried or to work to support themselves, such situations were considered extremely unnatural. Society was thus a harsh judge of the women and of their actions.

The bottom line was that women were not naturally independent. The world of action belonged to the males in society and the women were only allowed as wives and mothers that stayed at home and cared for the household. The English literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries portrays the situation of women in the patriarchal society. Thus, in many works of literature women are seen as having as sole preoccupation their prospective marriages and the details related to the household. Coontz underlines that there have been many couples who were in love no matter the century in which they lived. Nevertheless, in the early modern world love was considered many times as something too irrational or frivolous to justify a union in marriage: "For most of history it was inconceivable that people would choose their mates on the basis of something as fragile and irrational as love and then focus all their sexual, intimate, and altruistic desires on the resulting marriage. In fact, many historians, sociologists, and anthropologists used to think romantic love was a recent Western invention. This is not true. People have always fallen in love, and throughout the ages many couples have loved each other deeply."(Coontz, 5) As Coontz observes, although there were certainly cases where couples were in love or at least were held together by a deep affection, love was certainly not the principal reason for getting married: "But only rarely in history has love been seen as the main reason for getting married. When someone did advocate such a strange belief, it was no laughing matter. Instead, it was considered a serious threat to social order."(Coontz, 5) Coontz underlines thus that this kind of attitude was considered a threat to social order. Thus, individual freedom was curtailed in many aspects so as to prevent a possible disruption of social order. This rule was applied even more strictly to women than to men, because women had been associated with temptation and sin ever since the remotest historical times. Eve, as the mother of the entire human race is also the first sinner. She represents the woman as a tempter, someone who through her weakness can lead men astray. The same image of the woman is mirrored in Milton's Paradise Lost, where Adam is certainly depicted as superior to Eve, as her master and protector. In Shakespeare's plays women are also portrayed in a discriminatory fashion. One example is The Taming of the Shrew, where Katherine, the 'shrew' in the title of the play is 'tamed' by her husband until she unquestionably follows his orders in everything she does. Significantly, Katherine is only regarded as a shrew because she always states her opinion and is never submissive in front of men. There are numerous other examples of women in literature that clearly have to suffer the effects of discrimination.

The most interesting cases on unequal marriages come probably from the literature written by women. Naturally, their writings, although outnumbered greatly by those of men, are always concerned with the situation of women in the patriarchal societies. Women were obviously keen observers of gender discrimination, especially because they were put in the position of authors themselves, and, as such, they found themselves surrounded by the overpowering male literary tradition. Having to write and therefore to raise their own voices, the women writers naturally felt awkward in the exclusivist male tradition. George Eliot's novel Middlemarch is centered on the problem of marriage and especially on its effect on the woman. The main character in the novel, Dorothea Brooke, undergoes an interesting and very telling experience with her two marriages. What is significant here and remarkable of Eliot's subtlety is that she presents a situation where the woman deliberates on her own with respect to both marriages. Thus, the first marriage to Mr. Casaubon, the fifty years old dry scholar is a failure. Nevertheless, the fact that Dorothea chooses this marriage out of her own free will is very telling: due to her Puritanical views on the one hand, but also the installments provided by the patriarchal society, the nineteen-year-old girl angrily rejects her fervent suitor Sir James Chettam and instead accepts the old and dried up Mr. Casaubon for her husband. The situation is very relevant because it indicates the extent to which the patriarchal attitudes were implemented even in the mind of the women themselves. Dorothea's opinion of the ideal marriage is very symbolic: she thus dreams of a husband that would resemble a father figure, somebody who could be a teacher and a guiding figure for her, and not a life partner as the modern woman would look for: "The really delightful marriage must be that where your husband was a sort of father, and could teach you even Hebrew, if you wished it."(Eliot, 7) Thus, despite of her cleverness, Dorothea appears to be extremely naive in what regards the roles of men and women. The general expectations of women in a society was that they should be submissive and have only weak opinions, that they would not attempt to impose on the others: "Women were expected to have weak opinions; but the great safeguard of society and of domestic life was, that opinions were not acted on. Sane people did what their neighbors did, so that if any lunatics were at large, one might know and avoid them."(Eliot, 6) As Mr. Brooke observes at some point, women are generally "flighty" and as such, they cannot be committed to any serious purpose: "No, no,' said Mr. Brooke, shaking his head; 'I cannot let young ladies meddle with my documents. Young ladies are too flighty."(Eliot, 17) It is obvious thus that women were not taken seriously by the nineteenth century society. Their role was to stay at home and mind their handiwork and their embroideries. In her resolution to be educated and unconsciously to be integrated in the male dominated world that she admires, Dorothea discriminates herself against the position of women. Her dream is thus to find a husband that she can venerate and be instructed by just like Mr. Casaubon seems. Thus, her poor eyesight which is one of her physical disabilities proves to be more than a mere physical flaw. Her admiration for the father-like male figure goes so far that she sees Mr. Casaubon as an extraordinary man, with whom she will be able to reach an illumination.

Celia, her younger sister views him for what he really is, and plainly tells her sister that she finds Mr. Casaubon to be very ugly: "How very ugly Mr. Casaubon is!' 'Celia! He is one of the most distinguished-looking men I ever saw. He is remarkably like the portrait of Locke. He has the same deep eye-sockets."(Eliot, 18) The stubborn Dorothea however, insists that he resembles John Locke and that he is extremely distinguished. Thus, intoxicated by the patriarchic view of men as the distinguished scholar, an image that could never be emulated by any of the women, Dorothea as Eliot cleverly hints through the motto she puts before the beginning of the second chapter, becomes a sort of Don Quixote figure that sees things for what they are not. Thus, the predominance of the masculine is taken for granted, and the superiority of the masculine quality of a mind likewise: "Sir James had no idea that he should ever like to put down the predominance of this handsome girl, in whose cleverness he delighted. Why not? A man's mind -- what there is of it -- has always the advantage of being masculine, -- as the smallest birch-tree is of a higher kind than the most soaring palm, -- and even his ignorance is of a sounder quality."(Eliot, 19) In Eliot's ironic commentary, it is obvious that men were seen as unquestionably superior to women through their very masculinity. The gender distinction was thus a very poignant one. Dorothea unconsciously aspires to reach a level of knowledge that would be similar to that of men. Consciously however, she only dreams to be in the shadow of Mr. Casaubon and serve him modestly as an assistant in his great task: "Into this soul-hunger as yet all her youthful passion was poured; the union which attracted her was one that would deliver her from her girlish subjection to her own ignorance, and give her the freedom of voluntary submission to a guide who would take her along the grandest path."(Eliot, 26) Her reverence to the male knowledge and qualities seem infinite.

Her marriage thus becomes indeed an enlightening experience but not in the sense that she had initially thought. Her disenchantment comes very quickly when she realizes that he is not the great scholar and genius that she had thought him to be. She sees soon enough that his promises to write a great book are only empty words with no realization and gradually she also understands that his mind is not the fascinating realm that she had thought it to be, but rather a groping intellect like that of the all common people. In his turn, Casaubon comes with his own expectations out of the marriage. What he wants in his wife is clearly not a woman with a strong personality or a mind of her own, but someone submissive and docile enough to serve him in his instrumental purposes. Moreover, he emphasizes that the greatest quality of the female sex is that of self-sacrifice: "The great charm of your sex is its capability of an ardent self-sacrificing affection, and herein we see its fitness to round and complete the existence of our own."(Eliot, 35) Casaubon thus demonstrates that his only appreciation of women lies not in what they are in themselves but in how they can be of service to men. Their marriage is thus almost disastrous as she expects him to be the guiding father that she would consider superior to herself, and he expects her to be the silent and un-opinionated, submissive woman: "Nevertheless, he observed with pleasure that Miss Brooke showed an ardent submissive affection which promised to fulfill his most agreeable previsions of marriage."(Eliot, 63) Soon they both realize that their expectations have been betrayed and they remain discontent with their marriage. Moreover, Dorothea is hurt and displeased when she realizes that what she had though would bring her so much pleasure, she actually finds to be annoying and to some point degrading. Thus, she had thought that the greatest happiness of a woman lies in obeying a superior man, and she had actually exaggerated on her own the vague qualities of Mr. Casaubon's intellect proving even further her need to admire men as superior beings. Nevertheless, when he listens to her patiently but inattentively and when she realizes that he is actually indifferent to her opinions, Dorothea beings to understand that she cannot be satisfied with merely being obedient to a man and that she needs her own ground to manifest her own personality.

An exception to the patriarchic view in the novel is Sir James, the suitor that Dorothea rejected and that Celia eventually accepted. His generous and chivalrous manner however is precisely the thing that Dorothea had rejected in her first place. She was thus extremely annoyed by his constantly acquiescent manner of saying always "exactly" to everything she was saying, and generally approving of her. Dorothea thus demonstrates her need for a corrective father figure, someone she would consider superior to her and who would give her the guidance she thinks she needs. Sir James however, is somehow innocent of the values expressed by the patriarchic society and their extremely limitative view on women: "Although Sir James was a sportsman, he had some other feelings towards women than towards grouse and foxes, and did not regard his future wife in the light of prey, valuable chiefly for the excitements of the chase. Neither was he so well acquainted with the habits of primitive races as to feel that an ideal combat for her, tomahawk in hand, so to speak, was necessary to the historical continuity of the marriage-tie."(Eliot, 61) Dorothea could not be sensible in the beginning to the mild attitude displayed by Sir James, and his stubbornness in treating her like his equal. Although she does not exactly know it, Dorothea wants to rival the world of men, but competing with her own knowledge and thus have more access to the ultimate truths: "But it was not entirely out of devotion to her future husband that she wished to know Latin and Creek. Those provinces of masculine knowledge seemed to her a standing-ground from which all truth could be seen more truly."(Eliot, 64)

Eliot's device in the book is symbolic: she thus uses Dorothea's experience to prove how naive and unrealistic the patriarchal views actually were, and how uncomfortable for the women at the same time. Dorothea's experience is self-imposed, but in other cases, women were, like her, required to worship the man they had as a husband. Naturally to always obey one's husband and to forsake one's opinions in favor of his was to think that he was some kind of superior being, an almost god-like figure who had the key to all relevant knowledge. Ironically, as Eliot observes, in the unequal marriages that occurred in the patriarchic society, women were humored in most of their whims before marriage, during the engagement period and completely submitted afterwards: "A woman dictates before marriage in order that she may have an appetite for submission afterwards. And certainly, the mistakes that we male and female mortals make when we have our own way might fairly raise some wonder that we are so fond of it."(Eliot, 73) Thus, Dorothea ironically gets to marry the man of her own choice, unlike many of the women who were her contemporaries, but she falls into her own snare, doting on a man that is in no way extraordinary: "She had married the man of her choice, and with the advantage over most girls that she had contemplated her marriage chiefly as the beginning of new duties: from the very first she had thought of Mr. Casaubon as having a mind so much above her own, that he must often be claimed by studies which she could not entirely share..."(Eliot, 199) Therefore, the two of them are unable to relate in any way and to find a path of communication: "She was as blind to his inward troubles as he to hers: she had not yet learned those hidden conflicts in her husband which claim our pity. She had not yet listened patiently to his heartbeats, but only felt that her own was beating violently."(Eliot, 206) All they are left with is thus a feeling of being even more alone than if they did not have each other.

Their frequent quarrels and dissensions begin even from their honeymoon when they fully realize what a loveless marriage really is. Unable to enjoy each other's company, they only feel more estranged one from the other: "If they had been at home, settled at Lowick in ordinary life among their neighbors, the clash would have been less embarrassing: but on a wedding journey, the express object of which is to isolate two people on the ground that they are all the world to each other, the sense of disagreement is, to say the least, confounding and stultifying. "(Eliot, 208) As Casaubon notes, marriage was viewed more like an external requirement, something imposed on the individual by society but totally unrelated to the intimacy that could be formed between two people: "Marriage, like religion and erudition, nay, like authorship itself, was fated to become an outward requirement, and Edward Casaubon was bent on fulfilling unimpeachably all requirements."(Eliot, 287) The discontent that results from such an arrangement is obvious: "What have I done -- what am I -- that he should treat me so? He never knows what is in my mind -- he never cares. What is the use of anything I do? He wishes he had never married me."(Eliot, 436) The situation is certainly an affecting one for the couple. Not having any feelings for each other they have too much time to survey one another and find faults: