Professions for Women, in Which

¶ … Professions for Women," in which she talks about "killing the Angel in the House," is an ideal artifact for ideological criticism, because Woolf is interested in simultaneously destroying a specific ideological product while creating one of her own. As Sandra Foss discusses in her book Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, the goal of any ideological critique is to identify those traces of ideology that make themselves known in a rhetorical artifact, and to determine not only how the particular rhetoric supports this ideology, but also who this ideology affects and why (Foss 248). In the case of Woolf's "Professions for Women," it will become clear that Woolf is advocating an ideology of gender equality that takes as its target both the linguistic embodiments of repressive gender ideologies in the form of specific "ideographs," such as the Angel of the House, as well as the physical realities those ideographs perpetuate and advocate. This critique will provide valuable insights into both the way ideology presents itself in rhetoric as well as how rhetorical criticism in general can benefit from a more precise accounting of the methods and functions of ideology above and beyond traditional divisions and genres of rhetorical device.

Woolf's essay "Professions for Women" is adapted from a 1931 speech she gave to the London and National Women's Service (now named the Fawcett Society after its founder, Millicent Fawcett), and although the actual text of the speech is a bit longer than the eventual essay, it seems fair, at least in the context of ideological criticism, to discuss the essay rather than the speech, because (as would be expected) the essay represents a refinement of Woolf's overall argument and rhetoric that retains the ideologically important aspects of the original speech without the unnecessary inclusion of "canceled passages and alternative wordings" (Woolf, Women and Writing 57). The London/National Women's Service began a suffragist movement, but expanded to include issues of equal pay, political representation, and other issues surrounding the public life of women. By 1931, Woolf had already published many of her most famous works, including the novels Mrs. Dalloway and to the Lighthouse, as well as her long essay a Room of One's Own, establishing herself as an outspoken voice for gender equality, especially relating to professional and economic opportunities. In fact, one of her most famous lines regarding economic and professional equality can be found in a Room of One's Own, and helps to illuminate her well-established ideological background prior to her 1931 speech: "a woman must have money and room of her own if she is to write fiction" (Woolf, a Room of One's Own 4).

That Woolf was ideologically and politically active prior to her speech in front of the London/National Women's Service is evidenced not only by her written works, but also her biography. In 1910 she became a vocal supporter of women's suffrage, and as a result of her efforts (along with countless others) a variety of reforms made their way through the British Parliament (Woolf, a Room of One's Own xxvii). First came the Representation of the People Act of 1918, which granted the right to vote to women over thirty; then, the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act "opened many professions and public offices to women;" finally, in 1928, the Equal Franchise Act gave the right to vote to women over twenty-one, giving them the same voting rights as men (Woolf, a Room of One's Own xxviii, xxxi). Having occasionally lectured at Cambridge previously, it is in this context of dramatic social reform that Woolf was asked to speak at the London/National Women's Service, specifically about her "own professional experiences" (Woolf, Women and Writing 57).

Woolf begins her essay by noting the difficulty of the topic, saying "it is true I am a woman; it is true that I am employed; but what professional experiences have I had? It is difficult to say" (Woolf, Women and Writing 57). She regards this as difficult not because she faced any substantial institutional difficulty as a writer, but rather, on the contrary, she suggests that:

When I came to write, there were very few material obstacles in my way. Writing was a reputable and harmless occupation. The family peace was not broken by the scratching of a pen. No demand was made upon the family purse. For ten and sixpence one can buy paper enough to write all the plays of Shakespeare -- if one has a mind that way. [….] the cheapness of writing paper is, of course, the reason why women have succeeded as writers before they succeeded in the other professions. (Woolf, Women and Writing 57-58).

She completes this picture of an almost idyllic "professional" experience by telling her audience "to show you how little I deserve to be called a professional woman, how little I know of the struggles and difficulties of such lives, I have to admit that instead of spending that sum upon bread and butter, rent, shoes and stockings, or butcher's bills, I went out and bought a cat" (Woolf, Women and Writing 58). Thus, by her own account, Woolf's entry in the professional world was not met by many of the same difficulties and prejudices faced by women in other professions, difficulties that the Women's Service was specifically created to confront. Instead, as in a Room of One's Own, she describes facing a difficulty that was simultaneously deeply personal and unarguably social, because while she describes it as a personal battle, she is describing a particular notion of women that grew to prominence over the course of the nineteenth century and still holds some sway today, albeit far less that it once did (Fernald, "A Room of One's Own" 165).

Woolf describes how she realized that "if I were going to review books I should need to do battle with a certain phantom," which she names "the Angel in the House" after Coventry Patmore's 1854 poem that served as the basis for the Victorian ideal of the same name (Woolf, Women and Writing 58). In both the poem and the social ideal it inspired, the Angel in the House is an image of an idealized woman, who "was intensely sympathetic, [….] immensely charming, [….] utterly unselfish, [….] excelled in the difficult arts of family life, [and] sacrificed herself daily" (Woolf, Women and Writing 59). According to Woolf, "in short she was so constituted that she never had a mind or a wish of her own, but preferred to sympathize always with the minds and wishes of others," and it is this tendency that represented the greatest challenge Woolf had to overcome in the course of becoming a professional writer (Woolf, Women and Writing 59). When Woolf began her first professional work, a book review, the Angel in the House "slipped behind [her] and whispered: 'My dear, you are a young woman. You are writing about a book that has been written by a man. Be sympathetic; be tender; flatter; deceive; use all the arts and wiles of our sex. Never let anybody guess that you have a mind of your own. Above all, be pure" (Woolf, Women and Writing 59). The Angel in the House represents the variety of "invisible presences' that shape our responses" to everyday experience, and what psychologists have occasionally referred to as "phantom communities" made up of our voices, both real and fictional, that inform decision-making (Zwerdling 184). Subsequently, Woolf "turned upon her and caught her by throat," doing her "best to kill her," although as evidenced by Woolf's fiction, "this process was more complicated and protracted" than one might hope (Woolf, Women and Writing 59, Hussey 157).

The Angel in the House represents the first major obstacle Woolf faced, but she also recounts how "telling the truth about my own experiences as a body" continues to vex her, because she believes that "the obstacles against her are still immensely powerful -- and yet they are very difficult to define" (Woolf, Women and Writing 62). While the assumptions and social restrictions inherent in the Angel in the House were overcome precisely because they were bound up in a singular figure, Woolf argues that there remain "many ghosts to fight, many prejudices to overcome" that are not so easily identified (Woolf, Women and Writing 62). These latter "ghosts" and "phantoms" represent the topic she is most interested in, both for herself and her audience, because she sees these as the primary factors hindering women even as the official, explicit, institutional barriers are demolished through legislative reform (Woolf, Women and Writing 62-63). She ends, then, not with a succinct conclusion, but rather by asking a number of questions of her audience, entreating them to consider how, after having gained access to "rooms of [their] own in the house hitherto exclusively own by men," they will go on to "furnish" and "decorate" these metaphorical rooms (Woolf, Women and Writing 63).

The first step to identifying and analyzing the implicit and explicit ideologies at work in Woolf's essay is to locate what might be called the discrete units of ideology within the text. When conducting an ideological critique, the researcher must be concerned with the way ideology is evidenced (or repressed) in the artifact, and a useful concept for identifying these "traces of ideology" is the notion of the ideograph, or the "political language which manifests ideology," which, according to Michael McGee, is "characterized by slogans" (Foss 248, McGee 5). McGee argues "that ideology in practice is a political language, preserved in rhetorical documents," and as such, can be identified in rhetorical artifacts via the "vocabulary of ideographs" frequently deployed in speech. Here it is important to note the importance of context, because in general McGee identifies ideographs as particular words, but one need not view these specific words as eternally and always ideographs; that is to say, these specific words may be identified as ideographs "by the usage of such terms in specifically rhetorical discourse, for such usage constitute excuses for specific beliefs and behaviors made by those who executed the history of which they were a part" (McGee 16). For example, while "woman" may not always be deployed as an ideograph (except inasmuch as all language is ideology in a general sense), it seems entirely reasonable to interpret Woolf's particular use of "woman" as an ideograph with "a history, an etymology, such that current meanings of the term are linked to past usages of it diachronically," precisely because she is discussing it in terms of its changing meaning, and furthermore, because it relates to the other ideographs she deploys "to produce unity of commitment in a particular historical context," such that it is "connected to all others as brain cells are linked by synapses, synchronically in one context at one specific moment" (McGee 16). In other words, one may begin to identity the traces of ideology in Woolf's "Professions for Women" by identifying those rhetorical aspects, such as certain words, metaphors, and images, which function diachronically in order to transform or extend "the parameters, the category, of [their] meanings, as well as synchronically in order to constitute the larger argument of her rhetoric.

Thus, to begin this ideological critique of Woolf's "Professions for Women," one may begin by considering her particular use of the terms "woman" and "women," as they appear as the most obvious ideographs in the entire text, as evidenced by the subject matter itself and the historical audience of Woolf's address. That Woolf is explicitly engaged in a diachronic consideration of women is clear through her discussion of the Angel in the House, because she explicitly concerns herself with exercising this particular notion of "woman" from the general ideograph. She desires to metaphorically "kill" the Angel in the House, because she views it as a practical limitation both professionally and politically. Even as she does this, however, she remarks that she does not know "what is a woman," because she believes that nobody can know "until she has expressed herself in all the arts and professions open to human skill," and thus "transcend the institutional limits of mere professionalism and instead form the vital phalanx that will lead the masses toward utopia," or a least a more equitable treatment of the sexes (Woolf, Women and Writing 60, Miller 40). She suggests that it is actually her audience who will answer this question, those women "who are in process of showing us by [their] experiments what a woman is, who are in process of providing us, by [their] failures and successes, with that extremely important piece of information" (Woolf, Women and Writing 60). Here, Woolf essentially predicts the difficulties faced by subsequent "waves" of feminism, because "the struggle to define and claim feminist identity" depends most essentially on multifarious and problematic constructions of what it means to be a woman (Tate 1). Thus, "woman" functions as an ideograph in "Professions for Women" because it is essentially discussed as such; Woolf is explicitly interested in defining the word both in terms of diachronic and synchronic capacity, and is doing so in the service of a particular ideology that will become clear by the end of this discussion (if it has not already).

Furthermore, the particular way she uses and describes women reveals the underlying assumptions and premises that constitute her ideology, as well those ideologies she is attempting to deprivilege. For example, she early on she notes that within literature, "there are fewer experiences for women than in any other, with the exception of the stage -- fewer, I mean, that are peculiar to women" (Woolf, Women and Writing 57). As mentioned above, she also suggests that "women have succeeded as writers before they have succeeded in the other professions," and notes with some surprise and happiness that at the time of her speech, she was "surrounded by women practicing for the first time in history I know not how many different professions" (Woolf, Women and Writing 58, 63). By focusing on these newfound opportunities for women, Woolf implicitly describes the ideologies which have previously kept these opportunities out of reach, above and beyond the explicit discussion of the Angel in the House. Woolf's argument is premised on the assumption that her audience shares her observations regarding the difficulties faced by women in the professional sphere, and likewise that they are aware of the underlying ideologies that construct and maintain these difficulties.

That these ideologies can only be discussed implicitly is actually one the problems Woolf proposes, because "even when the path is nominally open -- when there is nothing to prevent a woman from becoming a doctor, a lawyer, a civil servant -- there are many phantoms and obstacles […] looming in her way," such that "to discuss and define them is […] of great value and importance; for thus only can the labour be shared, the difficulties be solved" (Woolf, Women and Writing 62). Woolf is essentially describing the simultaneous utility and drawbacks of ideographs, because while they are useful inasmuch as they allow the rhetor to conjure up a whole complex of ideas through relatively simple deployments of language, the rhetor's reliance on them means that arguments can only be made to the extent that ideographs allow. When "phantoms and obstacles" are ill-defined and implicit, restrictive ideologies can exert power while remaining shielded from criticism.

Identifying the implicit and explicit rhetorical elements that Woolf uses in her essay, including the Angel in the House, the nebulous concept of "woman," and the presuppositions that her address depends on, one can now begin to formulate a more robust picture of the dominant ideology expressed in "Professions for Women." In short, one may summarize this ideology by suggesting that it is constituted by the following core propositions, that will be explicated in greater detail below: firstly, that women and men are in all meaningful respects equal, at least when it comes to professional or political capability. Secondly, that there exists an ideology or set of ideologies which has heretofore claimed the opposite, and not only that, but has also, in practice, attempted to justify this claim by maintaining standards of behavior and attitude that preclude women from demonstrating their equal capability. Thirdly, that the most effective means of countering these repressive ideologies is to define and confront them directly, through a simultaneous reappropriation of political, rhetorical language in the form of ideographs as well as action that directly contradicts the propositions of these repressive ideologies.

The first core proposition of Woolf's ideology is expressed only implicitly in her essay, although she discusses it directly in a Room of One's Own, particularly in the thought experiment regarding Shakespeare's imagined sister (and it seems reasonable to presume that her audience was aware of this earlier argument) (Woolf, a Room of One's Own). In "Professions for Women," this proposition is implicit but obvious, because the entirety of Woolf's argument depends upon the assumption that women are equal to men in terms of professional capability; otherwise there would be no point in discussing the obstacles and difficulties faced by women, because they would be abundantly clear. That is to say, if Woolf believed that women were inherently inferior to men in terms of professional capability, then the problems they faced would not be in the form of "phantoms" and ill-defined obstacles, but rather their obvious, inherent limitations as women, and as such there would be little need to discuss them, other than to bemoan the fact of their existence.

The second core proposition is evident much more explicitly in "Professions for Women," most obviously because Woolf discusses one of the ideographic representations of this repressive ideology in the form of the Angel in the House. The Angel in the House serves the dual ends of this repressive ideology because it simultaneously proposes that women are naturally more inclined towards activities outside the professional realm, and it attempts to provide evidence for this proposition by instructing women to behave as if this were the case. In other words, the Angel in the House proposes itself as the best a woman can hope to attain due to what it argues are the natural limitations and inclinations of women, and it seeks to prove this to be the case by instructing women to abstain from any behaviors or attitudes that might prove this proposition to be false, such that the Angel in the House is almost a kind of self-replication organism, to the point that it must actually be "killed" in order to stop the cycle.

Similarly, the last proposition is evident both through Woolf's particular discussion of what it means to be a woman, as well her allusion to "the ends and the aims for which we are fighting, for which we are doing battle with these formidable obstacles" (Woolf, Women and Writing 63). That Woolf's discussion of the ideograph "woman" constitutes one element of her ideology's activity is evidenced by the previously mentioned passage wherein she argues that the women "who are in process of showing us by [their] experiments what a woman is" constitute the advance guard, as it were, in the "battle" being fought against the various obstacles facing professional women (Woolf, Women and Writing 60, 63). These women, by helping simultaneously expand and define the notion of "woman," are working towards an "optimistic depiction of a mixed-sex public sphere," wherein the identity and capability of one sex are not determined by the other (Fernald, "A Feminist Public Sphere?" 149). Furthermore, in addition to appropriating and defining "woman" through their professional activity and thus confronting repressive ideologies on the level of rhetoric and ideographic expression, these women are simultaneously attacking the practice of these repressive ideologies by demonstrating, in physical reality, that the limitations and inclinations assumed to be inherent in women by the Angel in the House and the ideology it represents do not hold true.