This essay analyzes George Bernard Shaw's 1894 play Mrs. Warren's Profession through the lens of gender, capitalism, and Victorian social norms. The paper examines three distinct female archetypes Shaw presents: Vivie Warren as the intellectual, entrepreneurial woman; Mrs. Kitty Warren as a victim of capitalist exploitation driven to prostitution; and the conventional Victorian woman, whose idealized role Shaw treats with skepticism and disdain. The essay argues that while Shaw was remarkably progressive for his era β anticipating many tenets of modern feminism β he was ultimately unable to envision a woman who could achieve both professional independence and personal fulfillment in love and family life.
Mrs. Warren's Profession by George Bernard Shaw is a play written more than a hundred years ago, in 1894.[1] The roles that women play in this masterpiece show that Shaw was far ahead of his time in his thinking about what women should do and be. He presented a new vision of an intellectual, entrepreneurial woman and challenged the conventional roles imposed by society. He also included accounts of women victimized by a capitalist society and defended their right to take whatever actions they had to in order to change their circumstances β even if that meant prostitution. Shaw's beliefs are largely consistent with modern-day feminism, with one notable exception: he seemed to fear that a woman's independence and career had to come at the expense of love and family. Nonetheless, Mrs. Warren's Profession is revolutionary in comparison to the idealized Victorian vision of what a woman should be.
The play has two main characters: Vivie Warren and her mother, Mrs. Kitty Warren. Vivie is an intellectual seeking an actuarial career, while her mother is involved in a far more unseemly profession β prostitution. The play begins with visits from Praed, a friend of Mrs. Warren's, and Sir George Crofts, her business associate. These guests are later joined by Frank, who pursues Vivie romantically, and his father, Reverend Gardner. The plot centers on Vivie's discovery of her mother's secret career and her inability to persuade her to abandon it. The interactions Shaw crafts constitute a lively discourse that clearly conveys his beliefs on the intellectual woman, the woman victimized by capitalism, and the conventional role model.
Shaw's play demonstrates that women are capable of being fully intellectual and self-sufficient, as illustrated through Vivie Warren. His description of her in Act I reads:
"She is an attractive specimen of the sensible, able, highly-educated young middle-class Englishwoman. Age 22. Prompt, strong, confident, self-possessed. Plain business-like dress, but not dowdy. She wears a chatelaine at her belt, with a fountain pen and a paper knife among its pendants."
Vivie has distinguished herself in the mathematical tripos at Cambridge and is fiercely independent, as evidenced by her choice to pursue actuarial work at Honoria Fraser's firm rather than accept her mother's money.
Through the characters of Vivie and her mother, Shaw offers a more realistic treatment of women's economic and social position, moving away from the idealized Victorian image of the "Angel in the House" and her symbolic role of embodying the spiritual values of the family and of society. Instead, he presents them as individuals struggling in a complex moral world and making different choices shaped by their different circumstances.[2]
Vivie and her mother are both unconventional for Victorian times in choosing a career over marriage. Unfortunately, however, Shaw depicts these careers as requiring the loss or rejection of love. For Vivie, this means a complete dismissal of romance and the beauty of life. She declares:
"But there are two subjects I want dropped, if you don't mind. One of them is love's young dream in any shape or form: the other is the romance and beauty of life, especially Ostend and the gaiety of Brussels. You are welcome to any illusions you may have left on these subjects: I have none. If we three are to remain friends, I must be treated as a woman of business, permanently single and permanently unromantic."
Mrs. Warren, in turn, is forced to lose her daughter in order to keep her career. Responding to Vivie's request that she abandon her profession managing brothels, Mrs. Warren passionately replies:
"I must have work and excitement, or I should go melancholy mad. And what else is there for me to do? The life suits me: I'm fit for it and not for anything else. If I didnt do it somebody else would; so I dont do any real harm by it. And then it brings in money; and I like making money. No: it's no use: I cant give it up β not for anybody."
Shaw's view that women must sacrifice love and family in order to achieve independence is the most disappointing aspect of the play. While the majority of his work represents a dramatic leap forward for women in the Victorian era, he does not allow women to progress intellectually or professionally without consequence. He seems to support their advancement while simultaneously fearing it. This ambivalence is apparent in Praed's questions to Vivie: what becomes of chivalry, feeling, and beauty in the modern business world? Does practicality not appear more viable than romance in a world where sentiment has been reduced to sentimentality? Regrettably, these tensions persist in contemporary society, where debates continue over whether a woman's career comes at the expense of family unity and the nurturing of children.
Beyond the fact that neither Warren woman is married β itself unusual for Victorian times β there are further peculiarities about their single status. First, Mrs. Warren is not only single but a single mother, a role considered scandalous in Shaw's day. Second, Vivie is pursued by Frank, who wants to marry her largely because she has money and he does not β a role reversal of the typical "gold-digger" trope. Throughout the play Vivie fends off his advances. Frank finally abandons his pursuit when he learns how her mother earns her money, declaring, "I really can't bring myself to touch the old woman's money now." This confession reveals that Frank never truly loved Vivie at all.
The play's treatment of why women turn to prostitution clearly presents the woman as a victim of capitalist society. Shaw wrote the play partly in response to an 1885 law making prostitution punishable by fine and imprisonment. He saw prostitution as an outgrowth of deplorable working conditions for women in industrializing England.[3] This view is plainly reflected in Mrs. Warren's explanation of why she entered the profession, delivered through her account of her two half-sisters in Act II:
"One of them worked in a whitelead factory twelve hours a day for nine shillings a week until she died of lead poisoning. She only expected to get her hands a little paralyzed; but she died. The other was always held up to us as a model because she married a Government laborer in the Deptford victualling yard, and kept his room and the three children neat and tidy on eighteen shillings a week β until he took to drink."
Shaw's play dispels the myth that women engaged in prostitution are depraved creatures who would choose no other profession if given the chance. Mrs. Warren asks pointedly, "Do you think I did what I did because I liked it, or thought it right, or wouldn't rather have gone to college and been a lady if I'd had the chance?" Shaw further argues that the only real difference between a prostitute and a "respectable" girl is hypocrisy and legal sanction. He illustrates this by showing how Mrs. Warren's sister Liz uses her earnings to buy back her reputation from the Church and society, while Mrs. Warren remains the outcast β even as those who benefit from her profession, including her own daughter, move in the best social circles. Shaw reinforces the respectability of Mrs. Warren as a person by depicting her as an excellent mother who has surrounded her daughter with comfort and provided her with a first-rate education.[4] Mrs. Warren's outrage at society's hypocrisy is clear in this passage:
"What is any respectable girl brought up to do but to catch some rich man's fancy and get the benefit of his money by marrying him? β as if a marriage ceremony could make any difference in the right or wrong of the thing! Oh, the hypocrisy of the world makes me sick!"
Shaw further illustrates this hypocrisy by showing how ostensibly respectable figures β including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Reverend Gardner, and the supposedly upstanding citizen Crofts β all benefit from prostitution. The Archbishop profits from renting properties to brothels, while Crofts has invested heavily in the trade, yet both hide behind a shield of respectability. Reverend Gardner has fathered an illegitimate child with Mrs. Warren, is a habitual drunk, and a frequent adulterer β and yet is received in polite society.
While Shaw sympathizes with prostitution as a response to genuine need, he takes the opposite view when it is practiced purely for the accumulation of wealth. This becomes apparent when Vivie discovers that her mother, despite having amassed enough money to live comfortably, continues in the business. Mrs. Warren justifies it by saying it means "a new dress every day; it means theatres every night⦠it means everything you like, everything you want, everything you can think of." These reasons fail to evoke the sympathy generated by her original circumstances. Instead, they produce in Vivie a growing sense of disgust that her mother would continue for the sake of greed alone.[5] Ultimately, their relationship disintegrates because Mrs. Warren refuses to quit the business, even knowing that refusal will destroy it.
"Shaw's critique of Victorian gender conformity"
"Shaw's progressive limits and feminist legacy"
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.