LIBRARY

Mlchlgan State

Unlvenlty

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

' mow 199'9

 

APR 3 0 2011

 

0605 11“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

use mm.mu

 

 

 

POSSESSIVE INDIVIDUALISM AND SELF-DESTRUCTION:
A RECURRING NARRATIVE IN SELECTED PLAYS OF TENNESSEE WILLIAMS

BY
PRANAB KUMAR

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of English
1998

ABSTRACT

POSSESSIVE INDIVIDUALISM AND SELF-DESTRUCTION:
A RECURRING NARRATIVE IN SELECTED PLAYS OF TENNESSEE WILLIAMS

By
Pranab Kumar

(iln this dissertation I explore the trait that stands out most for
observers of the American culture: possessive individualismfilt differs
from the Asian and European conceptions of the self. American
individualism, what Whitman called "the destiny of me," has developed
into the aim of being able to extend oneself, to appropriate, and to own
as much as possible. In his plays, Tennessee Williams explores the inner
tension that grows out of the possessive individual’s drive to be great
against his or her desire to be good. The drive for greatness or self-
promotion pushes many of WilliamsTs individuals into a possessive frenzy
leading to self-destructive consequences. But Williams also offers the
antidote to this possessive bent in the American individual by creating
characters who fulfil the ideal of democratic or expressive
individualism. Williams’s democratic or expressive characters stand
apart from their possessive counterparts.r

Democratic or expressive individualism originates in the

philosophy of Emersonian self-reliance and stresses the connection of
the individual to the world, but in ways that should not obstruct the
individualism of others. Democratic or expressive individualism is a
higher form of self-reliance. It is a mental self-reliance or mental
individuality, which aspires to an impersonality that manifests itself
in indirect service rather than through charity or paternalism.
Democratic or expressive individualism is opposed to active self-

reliance or active individualism, which is associated with worldliness

and tied up with egotism and selfishness in its pursuit of the prizes of
power, position, or fame.

VWilliams offers a unique view of American individualism by
dramatizing the dilemma of possessive individuals, while subtly
suggesting an American alternative to the kingdom of the self through

the practice of democratic or expressive individualism.

Copyright by
Pranab Kumar
1998

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Prof. Arthur Athanason, my dissertation
director, for his encouragement, patience, and support during the course
of my writing this dissertation. I am deeply indebted to John Lahr of
[he New Yorker magazine, who offered me advice and encouragement and
helped me with my understanding of the American culture and Williams’s
importance in the American theater. I am also indebted to Dr. Patricia
Julius for her encouragement, suggestions, and kindness. I am grateful
to Dr. Ann Larabee who not only participated in the process as an
outside reader but also offered constructive suggestions for
improvement. I am also grateful to Ms. Lorraine Hart who has been
helpful in many ways throughout the completion of this degree. I am
indebted to my friend, Dr. Ruth Harring, who was always there when I
needed advice and encouragement. I am also grateful to Maher Ben Moussa
and Janet Catterall, fellow graduate students, for their friendship,
criticisms, and encouragement. Above all, my deepest thanks and
gratitude are due to Prof. Arthur Falk without whose invaluable
criticism and generous personal support this project would never have

been possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .............................................. 1
Chapter One: Possessive Individualism in the Drama

of Tennessee Williams and its

Evolution in American Culture .......... 6
Chapter Two: Possessive Individualism and

Self—Destruction in

Kingdom of Earth and
27 Wagons Full of Cotton ............... 70

Chapter Three: Possession, Individuation, and Liberation
in The Glass Menagerie ................. 119

Chapter Four: Possession, Reputation, and Redemption
in A Streetcar Named Desire ............ 165

Chapter Five: Possession, Status, and Truth in
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and

 

ud n 5 Su er ................... 215

Conclusion: The Night of the Iguana and
Beyond Possession ...................... 266
Bibliography: ........................................... 278

vi

Introduction

The plays of the contemporary dramatists are not easily pigeon-
holed by the rules of traditional dramatic practices. After the world
wars, modern and contemporary dramatists’ focus has shifted from a
protagonist hero’s quest for the moral order of the universe to
characters who are bent upon exercising their right to exist in a
society that has become increasingly hostile to their individual needs
and desires. These characters are trapped in a materialistic world which
interferes with their essential humanness. The characters become
subservient to the rules of the community with which they are out of
tune. The more they are pressured into conforming, the greater their
suffering. Subsequently, these characters are pushed into becoming
outsiders, survivors, and non-conformists. In other words, they become
victims of an inimical and overpowering social order.

In 1939, a young Tennessee Williams declared in a letter to his
agent, Audrey Wood, the theme of his work: "As you have observed by now,
I have only one major theme for all my work which is the destructive
impact of society on the sensitive, non-conformist individual."1 The
traditional reader, who is trained to look for clearly defined lines
between good and evil in a work of representational art, could easily be
misled if he or she applies this statement blindly to Williams’s works.
The truth is, Williams’s work is far more complex and far less didactic
than Williams’s own early impressionable assessment of his work. The
dramatic unfolding of the lives of Williams’s characters sharply

¢:ontrasts to the traditional ideal of the tragic hero whose tragic fall

2
is a consequence of his tragic flaw, the recognition of which allows him
to depend on himself, so that he may walk away ennobled. The
complexities in lives of contemporary characters do not arise from the
characters’ inherent flaws. Instead, they are essentially victims of a
rigid social order. Thus the theater of the modern individual is a loss
of blame-worthiness and its replacement by compassion.

As Williams developed as an artist and continued producing
masterful works, his conception of his work in relation to life matured
considerably. His later pronouncements about his dramatic vision were
less romantic and more in tune with what he really understood about life
in America which he strove to capture in his work. In his essay,
"Tennessee Williams Presents his P[oint] 0[f] V[view]," Williams
employed a more appropriate idiom to explain his stance and goal as an
artist:

People are humble and frightened and guilty at heart, all of us,

no matter how desperately we may try to appear otherwise. We have

very little conviction of our essential decency, and consequently
we are more interested in characters on the stage who share our

hidden shames and fears, and we want the plays about us to say "I

understand you." You and I are brothers; the deal is rugged but

let’s face and fight it together.2

With this statement, Williams clarifies the link between life,
art, and the audience in modern America. Williams is writing about the
individual who is not a tragic hero, but the contemporary man or woman
who is struggling with his or her problems and obsessions and journeying
through the confusion of his or her life and times. And in dealing with
the ordinary individual Williams replays and dramatizes his own life

history through his works. In a culture that encourages individuals to

be responsible for making as much of a success of their lives, Williams

 

3

sought to examine his own life through his dramatic works and make his
works the playground for self-examination. Thus, "Williams never stopped
taking his moral temperature and weighing the increasing psychic cost of
his drive to be great against his desire to be good." And in the
process, Williams’s "drama offers a unique view of American
individualism, bearing witness to both the brilliance and the barbarity
of the one big idea of the American experiment--what Whitman called ’the
destiny of me.”3

In chapter one I establish the groundwork for my analysis of
Williams’s plays in this dissertation. I examine in detail the evolution
of American individualism, since I argue that Williams’s plays are
concerned with celebrating the unique quality of the American
individual. In chapter two I discuss the crude materialism or possessive
individualism that leads to self-destruction in Chicken and Lot in
K1ngdgm_gf_fianth, and Jake and Silva in 22 Waggns Fall gf Cgttgn. In
chapter three I discuss the clash between two opposite forms of
individuals-—the possessive individual, Amanda, and the

democratic/expressive individual, Tom--in The Siege Menagerie. In

chapter four I discuss the tragedy that issues from Blanche’s drive
towards a re-possession of reputation in A_§tneetear_named_neeire. I
also demonstrate how Blanche’s drive to repossess her reputation
interferes with Stanley’s possessiveness of territory and space. This
leads to a violent conflict in which Stanley overpowers and destroys
Blanche. In chapter five I discuss the peculiar form of possessiveness
that is the male quest for status in society. In this chapter I examine

the alienation and frustration that Brick in Cat an a Hot [in Beef and

4
Sebastian in §ggdenly Last Summer suffer as a consequence of being

homosexual males in a patriarchal society. I conclude my analysis with a
discussion of lhe Night at the Iguana, particularly drawing on the
democratic/expressive individualism as embodied in the character of
Hannah Jelkes. I show how Hannah is able to present us with an American
antidote to the possessive individualism in the American character.

In my dissertation, I have not discussed some of Williams’s other
plays like W, sheet Bird of Youth, and Waging
because in these plays Williams is too heavily preoccupied with
exploring the tussle between the carnal and the spiritual elements in a
person’s character. They do not contribute to my overall argument. On

the other hand, plays like Bgee_1attgg, with its "insistence that sexual
response is the answer to life’s problems,"‘ and Eerjed_gf_Agjmetmemt,

'” marital situation, are

an exploration of "a strangely ambiguous
written in the comic genre and they are not helpful in my discussion of

the pattern of possessive individualism in Williams’s plays.

NOTES

1. Pancho Savery, "The Faded and Frightened and Different and Odd
and Lonely": Psychological Realism, Polarity; Morality, and Identification
in the Theatre of Tennessee Williams," diss., Cornell U, 1980, ll.

2. Tennessee Williams, Where 1 liye; Selected Essays, eds. Christine
R Day and Bob Woods (New York: New Directions, 1978) 117-18.

3. John Lahr, "Fugitive Mind," Ihe_Nem_Ingem, 18 July, 1994: 68.

4. Donald Spoto, lbs Kindnessof StrangemthLjiLotiemessee
Williams (New York: Ballantine Books, 1985) 188.

 

5. Spoto 254.

CHAPTER ONE

POSSESSIVE INDIVIDUALISM IN THE DRAMA OF TENNESSEE WILLIAMS
AND ITS EVOLUTION IN AMERICAN CULTURE

I Tennessee Williams and the inner battle ground of Individualism

Williams was situated in America’s cultural history at a time when
the pre World War II rhetoric “that had reinvented small-town America"
with its old values of idealism and patriotism, and that had been
celebrated in works like Thornton Wilder’s Our Town, the paintings of
Norman Rockwell, or the sanitized covers of Saturday Evening Post. were
being questioned by William Inge, Carson McCullers, and Robert Anderson.
While these artists dealt with the happy values of the pre World War
era, they also exposed their hollowness by pointing out how "bleak" such
values "could be until redeemed by an unambiguous love." These writers
appeared on the intellectual scene in America at a time when the
traditional reliance on "family and community, civility and
responsibility, style and grace" were being actively replaced by a
choice between accepting bland materialism or an unquestioning
conformity to a uniform lifestyle that generated a spiritually and
intellectually stifling influence in people’s minds.1 It was also a time
when the modern world of inhuman mechanical transformations and
technologies ceased to be potent antagonists of man, because the
battleground had shifted to the "inner oceans" of the individuals’ own
consciousness.

Williams’s stage directions to his episodic memory play The Glass
Menagemie succinctly hints at this picture of the new individual’s
despair in modern society: "[A]ll of these huge buildings are always

6

7
burning with the slow and implacable fires of human desperation."2 The
source of an individual’s unhappiness lay within the individual. The
unhappiness was not so much a result of any external condition but
internal turmoil. It resulted from his or her unfulfilled desires and
needs. But the more the individual reflected on himself or herself and
questioned authority and traditional values, the greater became the
fragmentation of the self, since the individual no longer felt any sense
of belonging anywhere.

Williams’s plays, which deal primarily with the individual’s
plight in contemporary American society, culminate in violent incidents
of castration, cannibalism, madness, spiritual disintegration and the
like. This symbolic representation of the individual’s turmoil in
Williams’s plays can partly be attributed to what C. W. E. Bigsby calls
a romantic’s "fascination with extreme situations." But on a deeper
level, these horrifying spectacles were presented by Williams to jolt
the audience and the readers out of their complacency and draw them into
the inner despair of the contemporary individual in a democratic society
at a time of great upheaval in America’s cultural landscape. Indeed,
Williams’s aim in his plays is to draw our attention to the frustrations
and disappointments that the individual faces when he or she is trying
to find a place in society or forge an identity, and this letdown of the
individual serves as an ironic commentary on the nature of democracy
itself, where the growth of the individual is one of its cornerstones.

Williams’s plays do more than document the frustrations of
individual development. The plays serve as an ironic commentary on the

lack of development of the true individual self in a democracy. While it

Elp

of;

COM

lit;

8
is understandable why the individual’s plight or suffering is often
considered tragic in contemporary American drama, I personally feel that
the individual’s suffering in Williams’s plays tends to be terrifying
rather than being simply tragic. I am choosing the word terrifying to
characterize Williams’s plays, as I feel that a tragedy, as we have come
to understand it from its evolution since the ancient Greek times, is
primarily a fait accompli, whereas terror is linked with the sense of
anticipation, the dark ponderous obsession with man’s recognition of his
own negative potential,3 the "deliberate cruelty" that one is capable of
inflicting on one’s fellow humans purely on the grounds of self-
pr‘eservation to guard one’s own interest or to protect one’s "territory"
from direct or perceived aggression, thereby securing one’s own sense of
space, freedom, identity, and self. I think it is this trait that
Hi 1 ‘liams’s plays are dramatizing minutely. In dealing with a clash of
ind ‘i viduals, Williams is at once able to exhibit his craftsmanship by
exp 1 o iting the dramatic tensions that are inherent in the unique nature
or: American life, and also by documenting these explosive situations
that develop during moments of individual assertion and individual
corr"Tl“‘ontation in the American culture, Williams is able to focus our
atteTitian more vividly on the fact that sometimes individuals themselves
are the sources of their own destruction. The stoic but compassionate
“a“"ah Jelkes in lhejjghmthelggana says: "Nothing human disgusts
me uh‘less it’s unkind, violent.“ Perhaps this is the attitude Williams
Wants us to cultivate after we have watched his theater of American
“fe- Williams’s plays are the testing grounds where we are invited not

t0 pass moral judgment but to exercise compassion and empathize with

 

Pest

'w
'ILI’

9
those who have lost on the battle ground of individual assertion. But
above all, we are invited to exercise tolerance for those who are weak,
wayward, and unprotected because in a democracy the other name for
freedom is tolerance.

Williams’s plays are so infused with the modern American concept
of the individual that his plays are not effective in cultures where the
concept of the individual is wholly different. For instance, in Asian
cultures such as India the individual is an amalgamation of a familial

self (self as defined by one’s position in one’s family) with a
transcendant self (self as defined by one’s awareness of one’s closeness
with the Gods, an individuality that is independent of material
attachment), with very little scope of development of a more independent
se “If. This Eastern individual is quite different from the contemporary
American individual in whom the independent self is the dominant note,
wi th very little emphasis on the familial and transcendant self.s Since
Hi ‘I T iams’s plays celebrate the unique quality of the American
l""lC-l ‘i v idual, a closer examination of the evolution of American
1°"'Cl “i v idualism is pertinent in connection with my study of Williams’s
[Hays . Not only the uniqueness of American individualism, but its
Va" i eties, is pertinent for an understanding of the variety of
“i 1 1 ‘i ams’s characters.
Individualism was alien to America’s founders. The Puritan ethos
"33 based on John Winthrop’s ideal of a religious comunity where
“moderation" was the operative word around which people arranged their
“V98 . People in the comunity did not have the "natural liberty" to do

“hatever they wanted. Winthrop inculcated in the Puritan corrlnunity a

10
code where a person’s individualism was subordinated to the group’s or
community’s well being. "We must delight in each other, make others[’]
conditions our own, rejoyce together, mourne together, labor and suffer
together, always having before our eyes our community as members of the
same body.“5 Thus, there was a certain element of authority in the
pronouncement that limited an individual’s right to total freedom, but
this strict sense of control did not last long.

Drama was also alien to America’s founders. American drama, even
after America’s birth as a newly independent, democratic country after
the revolution, stayed surprisingly undistinguished until the twentieth

century. Alexis de Tocqueville, an astute observer and critic of
American democracy, considered drama as the "literature of the stage"
and was of the opinion that the dramatic form, even among aristocratic
na 1: ‘ions, was "the most democratic part of their literature." De
Tocqueville likens drama to an immediate, down to earth, easily
accessible, unique form of literature since: "No kind of literary
grat ification is so much within the reach of the multitude as that which
‘3 derived from theatrical representations. Neither preparation nor
Study is required to enjoy them: they lay hold on you in the midst of
your prejudices and your ignorance." He also indicated that the new
i(ha-"”91: ‘ity, the fully independent spirit that a new nation acquires after
a " r‘evolution[,] which subverts the social and political state of an
aristocratic people," is most noticeable in the nation’s dramatic
Ht-EI"ature.’ De Tocqueville saw in the dramatic medium the exact energy
3‘“! enthusiasm conducive to capturing the excitement and fervor of any

socia] or political change in a nation’s history. His corrInent about the

11
truly democratic, independent, revolutionary zeal of drama is
perceptive. Yet, one cannot help but wonder as to what took drama in a
democratic nation, such as America, so long to develop into a
distinctive genre, and capture the American spirit of freedom and
independence when the other two forms of literature, poetry and prose,
had already produced their distinctive American voices.

On the other hand, when we recapitulate the progress of American
drama from the perspective of contemporary readers and audiences, we
cannot help but feel that the delayed appearance of distinctive American

drama was serendipitous in that the delay prevented a premature
development of an artificial tradition on borrowed themes before the
or iginal theme for American Drama could have evolved, since the
d i stinctive American character had not yet formed. The American
character took a two hundred year period of gestation before it was
ready for dramatic treatment.

Partly, the slow development of American drama was caused by the
fact that the political and social situations in America were different
from any other nations’. America was not throwing off the yoke of any
trad ‘i tional form of entrenched aristocratic oppression or inequality,
“ei ther was it overhauling a systematic centuries-old tradition of old
"0"1 d authority and government control. America was a new country where
the Settlers came to escape the tyranny of old world customs and

goveY‘Ir'lment. While the "new man" in America was afforded a new habitat,
Where he was reinventing himself with his new found independence from
the O'Id world authority of government and aristocracy that had held him

caDtive, his energies were naturally more devoted towards self

dew

rad

9m

12
development through an exploration of unlimited space. Finding a place
for himself in that space was more important than giving in to
intellectual pursuits. Furthermore, as de Tocqueville remarked, American
literature would not develop on the literary rules of the old world,
since "in a democracy each generation is a new people," and "so it is
difficult to establish strict literary rules among them," and since they
are “accustomed to the monotonous struggle of practical life, what they
Imant is vivid, lively emotions, sudden revelations, brilliant truths, or
errors able to rouse them up and plunge them, almost by violence, into

the middle of the subject."a
America was not a copy of the old world system; it was a place

where man was free and enjoyed a completely new way of life. The

un ‘iquely individualistic, freedom loving, unfettered, adventurous life
that the settlers embarked upon in the new world was the special feature
of: the American man, and in order to capture this special quality in
man , a new sensibility was required of the poets, novelists, and
dramatists, whereby they could invent a distinctive style which would

31 1 0!»: them an all-inclusive portrayal of the assertion of the new

incl ‘5 v idual’s uniqueness and infinitude.
However, the case for American drama is a little different from

that of poetry and prose. American drama took the most time to develop

and mature into its distinctive American form partly because of the
T‘IY‘St settlers’, the Puritans’ anathema and indifference to this
Particular art form. Also, during the time of settlement and after, the

People themselves were "changing every moment with changing of place of

residence, feelings, and fortune." American dramatists neither had any

13
American "traditions, nor [any] common habits, to forge links between
their [the peoples’] minds."9 Fashioning plays on borrowed
superstructures of heroic traditions of nobility and aristocracy, with a
mythic background about great nationalistic wars and acts of personal
heroism on the part of the heroes, whose exploits and heroic attributes
dramatists could use to construct model plays, would hardly capture the
predominantly ordinary, classless people’s imaginations in America.
Dealing with European heroes and myths in American drama could hardly
satisfy this new nation’s objective.
Furthermore, drama by itself is a very different form of
1 i terature than poetry or prose (novels, essays, etc.). Unlike the other
two genres’ dependence on printed words, that is its overtly textual
na ture, drama not only uses words to capture the characters’ dialogue,
but it is primarily live "action in imitation of human behavior."
Drama’s primary "emphasis on action" makes it more than merely a form of
Pas s ive, subjective literature. Drama has a certain amount of life to it
in that a dramatic text has to be "acted," its words must accompany
hunt-Ell": action on stage "to give the author’s concept its full value," and
It "In st also have an receptive audience.10 This kind of participation in
the excitement of theatrical activity was sinful during the Puritan
99“" 0d of America’s history.
Moreover, because dramatic "action" is at the heart of drama,
““OV‘ds (the literary component of the dramatic fragment) become
“Secondary." Thus, employment of actors to bring out the significance of
the "relationship, the interaction of... characters," and the task of

sucCessfully being able to suit the words to convey "the imponderable

I” the

14
mood, the hidden tensions and sympathies of human relationships and
interaction" with utmost economy are ingredients that do not constrain a
poet or novelist. Furthermore, as drama is "concrete representation of
action,” it cannot deal with any abstract philosophizing in its artistic
process, as this risks alienating the thought from human reality,
thereby failing to reach the audience. Whatever is said or done during
the process of dramatic action on stage, needs the support of “real
human behavior... in the most concrete form in which we can think about
human situations."n Therefore, when a dramatist chooses to dramatize
"action," he or she has to consider the most corrlnon and imediately
recognizable forms of behavior that the dramatist’s society encourages
or holds valuable. The American dramatists’ quest was in finding a
di stinctive feature of American life that was representative of its
people in a new land. They needed to capitalize on a uniquely American
characteristic that would lend itself to dramatic, action-filled
representation on stage. American dramatists were able to realize this
quest after a long period of apprenticeship in imitating European
mode 1 s, honing their skills by experimenting with native themes,12 and
carefully observing the new man’s impulses, until they were finally able
to break out of the traditional mold by dramatizing the unique nature of
American individualism, with its inherent tension between an
indi V‘idual’s necessity to conform while becoming aware of the potential

I“ the principle of being true to one’s self.

than
uric

Item

and
Emu
an I
IISL

Pier

15
II The Founding Theme for American Drama
a) Individualism and Land: A Conflicted Individualism
If the occurrence of the Puritan society in America enabled the
settlers to cultivate a certain space in which they could pursue their
religious beliefs freely, then that same circumstance and space fostered
the growth of a particular spirit of individualism or identity that
characterizes the American character. When the Puritans came to the new
world, justifying their arrival and experience in America as a
reenactment of the Old Testament episode "in which they [the Puritans]
were the Jews, God’s chosen people, fleeing from oppression to a new
Canaan,“ they were more specifically driven by a transcendent idealism
that "America was the New Eden" and that "all of man’s efforts must be
(1 “i rected toward the ideal of a transcendent unity."13 Therefore, the
temptations of the world (the Puritan view of the rich and unexplored
Ta nd of the new continent) existed only "to divert and seduce man from
h 'i 8 true goal." So, "the New World" with its vast stretches of
"‘3 1 derness became the "very antithesis of their ultimate hopes, the very
abc><ie of the Devil himself, and sure to be the source of all their ‘
te"‘F>‘l:ations." The challenge to the Puritans was to set up a "Theocracy,
A H0 13 Comonweal of the elect” in this alien territory, "to be defended
and protected by means of the realistic appraisal of an alien
environment and an eternal vigilance in fighting fire with fire." But,
on the flip side, this alien ground that was considered as the fighting
9r°uhd for gaining entry into the Puritans’ ideal transcendent land,

Proved too alluring to hold back the settlers’ wishes for worldly

SUCC€

bite:
ttht
nth
geog

boun

0f

COP]

fr

16
success and self—sufficiency. The alien territory "came to be for many
men something which might be accepted and sought in its own right.""
Struggling to assert themselves against the authority and
oppression of the old world, the Puritans, inspired by a religious
individualism and classical political philosophy, which maintained
peoples’ right to govern themselves, prepared to settle in the new
country, based on the "voluntary participation of individuals." But what
the Puritans did not forsee was that this individual autonomy, which was
based "in a context of moral and religious obligations that in some
context justified obedience as well as freedom,” would have to contend
with the fact that America’s lack of social density, its high
geographical mobility, and its apparent geographical and physical
boundlessness could easily spur in the minds of the more independent the
as sertion of ”one’s own sense of space," thereby pushing them out of the
con-nune to lead independent lives. Therefore, once the Puritans learned
to domesticate the land, fight the Indians, and learned to trade, "the
0 1d cohesiveness went limp." The abundance of land in the colony, and
the wealth of natural resources became too tempting a force that worked
"39a 1‘ nst cohesiveness and for the individual.“5 After all, many of the
SEtt 'l ers came from the old world to escape the oppressive climate of the
Eu""leean aristocracies and overcrowded lands. No matter how religious
the settlers might have been, the love of equality and liberty that they
inher. ited from their fathers in England, added fire to their prospects
of a personal independence and freedom in a new land, "a limitless
cc“"t‘inentfi' which "gave them the means of long remaining equal and

free. "” The riches of the land were too seductive a comodity to

mm
and p
crops
tempt
in th
settl
rally
reiig

Dover

l7
ignore. Timber and trees for ships’ masts, “beaver and other furs, pot
and pearl ashes," fish, rice, wheat, tobacco, maize, and other cash
crops were far more tempting than a life in a religious commune. This
temptation from the treasure house of the new world’s abundance induced
in them a "strong bent of their spirits for change,“ and many of the
settlers decided to move out to the frontiers. The men who had once been
rallying behind one transcendent ideal, "self-reliant in matters of
religion, could [now] be equally self-reliant in the exercise of their
powers of worldly achievement."18
In fact, land-based individualism or the hunger for land, in
addition to a desire for adventure, for freedom of religious worship and
freedom from other sundry frustrations at home, became the prime mover
for later generations of emigrants for their leaving their homes in
Europe and coming to America, since owning land would enable them to
ftrlfil the "dream... of becoming a landed proprietor."19 The
dispossessed, territoriless man of the old world now had a sure footing
upon the territory which gave him the pride and dignity of ownership
that he never had in his life. But the emigrants’ possession of land in
the new world meant much more than a sure footing; it meant the new
man’s equality with others in a land where one is a free agent. Although
this land would become a scarce commodity in the next few centuries, the
excitement of exploring and owning land in the vast American frontier
became a passion among the people who came over from Europe. A restless
urge to own unclaimed territory as one’s right, coupled with a

fearlessness of the Indians or the wild animals, induced in the American

chara-

35 C0

the
out
then

sin:

18
character a love for freedom, adventure, and conquest (possessiveness)
as constituent marks of his distinctive character to this day.20
Moreover, the conflict between communal living and personal
independence in the Puritan colonies energized an adventurous
individualism in yet another group of people, who survived in the early
settlements by living at the margins of society. William Byrd, a rich
landowner, took note of this phenomenon while on his travels to North
Carolina, and although he detested this "waste of man and land," the
"squatters" living in the fringes of society, these "frontiersmen,"
someone who "doffs his coonskin cap to no man and who asks society for
no handouts," were the precursors of the new independent free American
man that so many of the writers and poets came to extol and document as
the “new man" in their works.21 If this was the kind of person who grew
out of the ill-effects of European aristocracy and class consciousness,
then he was also an alter image of the Puritan "religious self-reliance"
since, by living solitarily on the fringes of the settlements, he too
"exercised self-reliance in all phases of his activity, and developed a
sense of impatience at restriction," as well as "a sense of independence
and power." While the Puritans considered the allure of the world as an
evil, a distracting force, disrupting one’s attention to God, one’s
alterego, the frontiersman "found human possibilities in the world, and
saw worldly effects as important and good."” This emergence of the new
man of the frontier was possible because of the abundance of unsettled
land, a land so rich that it not only assisted in the independent
existence of the non-conformist but it also allowed him to extend

himself into the land, thereby diffusing any form of dissension within a

 

COMM

on in

 

19
community.23 In other words, the independent man was free to pursue his
own interests, while the community was left undisturbed.

This character and style of life of the new man in the frontiers
gave the writers of the new world an opportunity to investigate the new
nature of man in the new continent. It caught the attention of John
Filson, one of the first writers to consider in his fiction Daniel
Boone’s "freedom from society" as "freedom from the vicious
artificialities that impede man’s realization of a life based on his
noblest instincts." Wild nature was now considered the "best of all
possible schoolmistresses" as living among nature’s wildness meant
developing "a love of liberty and sensitivity to the rhythms of primal
life."” In D. H. Lawrence’s words, the frontier environment in the new
world provided the frontiersman an opportunity "to get away from
everything that they are and have been," to be "masterless," to remove
themselves "from any control of any sort" to a "new more absolute
unrestrainedness." The "spirit of place is a great reality," and the new
world’s "spirit" was to allow that freedom to take expression in the
heart of the new man.25

The new man’s position in the wilderness and his association with
"the noble savage," the Indians, and with bears and other beasts was
assessed in a new and positive light, in that he was as pure as the
Indians in his "separation from the artifices of civilization,“
conducting a life in "response to the rhythms of nature." This new man
became a staple for writers from William Bartram in the 1770’s to Cooper
‘in the 1840’s, who saw in nature its redeeming influences, and who in

their praise of the wilderness gave it a sort of tame quality, thereby

validat
such as
in aesi
uilderr
romant'
hinted
natural
has don

himself

b) Tan
T

0f natu

20
validating and justifying man’s presence in its surroundings. Writers
such as Filson and Cooper talked about wild nature’s literary function
in aesthetic terms--the sublime, and the picturesque. Audubon’s
wilderness portraits of birds and Thomas Cole’s and George Bingham’s
romantic art were inspired by the wilderness. Yet at the same time they
hinted at the impending end of the wilderness with its replacement by
natural and civil law.26 Subtly but surely, the fact that the new man
was dominating his surroundings, thereby establishing a new identity for

himself is evident from the works of these writers.

b) Taming the Iilderness Within: Individualism and Aesthetic Ideal

There were other writers in this period who took a different view
of nature’s influence on the new man. Charles Brockden Brown in Eggam
Huntly (1799) showed the release of man’s violent self as an effect of
his contact with wild nature, suggesting the wilderness’s influence in
awakening the violent streak in man that he had so long kept under wraps
in society. But this violence was justified as it served to protect the
white man from the Indians’ savagery. But in Robert Bird’s Nick of the
Weeds, white savagery eclipsed Indian behavior in the name of
"advancement of civilization." In these writers’ works, the wilderness
allegorized "the drama of the psyche." It awakened the repressed
wildness of the American character. But more specifically, by
overemphasizing the "wildness" of the wilderness the wild white men’s
act of clearing the way for settlement was justified. These wild men
served propitiously the later generations as they "remove[d] the

difficulties which might discourage the attempts of better and more

quid

unde'

fol]

flEl'S

cunt
ESSE
{OUT
he
of 1
1309‘
IBM
”Ger.
on ‘
hue!

Pro:

has.

21

n 27

quiet men. The previously unclaimed frontier was slowly giving way
under the “new man’s" urge to tame it in his ultimate quest for
permanence, comfort, and his sense of identity as a landowner was being
established. The "wildness“ of his nature that was once able to secure
for him a place in the wilderness was now enabling him and the others
following him into it to turn the wild land into farm land for their
personal benefit and possession.

The American writers found in the adventurous frontiersmen a sharp
contrast with the people of the Atlantic coast, who were individuals but
essentially commercial and less colorful than their European
counterparts. Besides, the frontiersmen were one of a kind, a uniquely
American phenomenon. The settlers on the coast still aped the cultures
of their European ancestors, and built neo-classical monuments. Their
poets wrote according to the style prescribed by English Augustan
tenets, and their painters emulated the style of Reynolds. Those who
needed a closer contact with culture moved to London. The frontiersmen,
on the other hand, were close to the land, the abundance of which made
America a rural colony, enabling the adventurous to embark on a life of
prosperity and freedom that none of the European countries made
accessible. Moreover, the wildness of the frontiersman reminded the
writers of the essentially untamed quality of the freedom-loving spirit
that enthused the new nation, where inherited institutions and high
culture were absent but the opportunity existed for self-assertion and
the growth of individual personality that was an alien concept in the
European motherland. The frontiersmen led a fuller, closer life in

nature if not a culturally richer life in the crowded European cities.

The fro:
space a
oneself
freedom
inspire
and 0ve
the cue

self-nu

 

22

The frontiersmen’s free lives highlighted the sense of enjoyment of
space and physical expansiveness, and the forging of a new destiny for
oneself that were so coveted by the rest of the old world. Thus the
freedom and the individualism of the frontiersmen’s lives served to
inspire literary works from Cooper’s Deemslayem, to Twain’s Husk Einn,
and Owen Wister’s yjmgjmjam, to Faulkner’s stories of bear hunters and
the cowboys of Hollywood. "Hand in hand with this figure’s right to
self-determination, marches his right to settle matters with the gun."28

To a large extent, the period starting at the colonial American
experience of settlements on the new land, leading to the adventurous
man’s foraging into the frontiers and his taming it into farmland,
demonstrated the individual’s resourcefulness and capacity to improvise
solutions to the problems that obstructed his chances of survival. His
subsistence farming methods placed him in a number of situations where
he could rely on no one but himself. The pressures of survival during
this time stamped on the new man’s asocial character a strong sense of
self-reliance. And while this frontier experience encouraged writers and
artists to explore a sense of the new man’s character, others saw in
this experience "the development of an American political and economic
character." But the common impetus behind an attraction towards
documenting and analyzing this experience was "an explicit rejection of
things foreign... as well as a clear affirmation of cultural

"29

independence.

23
c) Liberty versus Equality

Thomas Jefferson was the person who saw in the life of the
independent farmer, who tilled his own land and gained sustenance by his
own produce, the possibilities of fulfillment of the ideal American
character. His belief in the tenets of liberty and equality was suited
to growth only in the kind of society where the white Americans’ ability
to own land gave them an equality of status and made the ideals of self
government, rather than old world aristocratic authoritative rule, a
possibility. "The model American was a plain, straightforward agrarian
democrat, an individualist in his desire for freedom for himself, and an
idealist in his desire for equality for all men."30 But Jefferson’s
purpose in envisioning a republican form of government sprang from his
strongly held conviction of the universal principal of political
equality, as he saw in the structure of closely knit small republics,
contributing to Common government, a check in preventing people from
becoming solely interested in making money, for he feared that people’s
forgetting themselves in the pursuit of wealth could create a bleak and
tyrannous republic.31 Jefferson’s conception of the new man, independent
both in his values and mode of life, was the basis for the true
American.

Apart from the experience of the agrarian democrats, the frontier
experience had also shaped the American consciousness. Frederick Jackson
Turner, in his influential 1893 essay, "The Significance of the Frontier
In American History," explained the important influence of the frontier
on the formation of the American character in these words: "...to the

frontier the American intellect owes its striking characteristics. That

COIISE

24

coarseness and strength combined with acuteness and inquisitiveness;
that practical inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients; that
masterful grasp of material things, lacking in the artistic but powerful
to effect great ends; that restless, nervous energy; that dominant
individualism, working for good and for evil, and withal that buoyancy
and exuberance that comes with freedom--these are traits of the
frontier, or traits called out elsewhere because of the existence of the
frontier."32

Turner’s argument about the frontier experience’s indelible
influence on the American character arose from his understanding of the
conditions of the environment that the frontiersmen had to confront,
which necessitated the development of certain obvious traits for his
survival. Turner argued that the large availability of land at
inexpensive costs made the possibility of everyone’s becoming a land
owner, thus enabling equalitarianism in society. The scarcity of bonded
labor, also made it imperative for every man to work for himself, and
the struggle against the elemental forces of nature and the wilderness
also strengthened the frontiersmen’s sense of self-reliance. The
unstratified society of the frontiers enabled the frontiersmen to
develop an independence from institutional pressure of stratifed
society. All these things, Turner argued, gave the new man a certain
equality of status. While Turner never forgets to mention the unsavory
aspects of the frontier life: the frontiersman’s lack of the social
grace and polish of civilized society, and the aspect of a certain
coarse and brutal nature as part of his make up, he readily forgave

these drawbacks as minor compensations for the essentially egalitarian

25

life in the frontiers. In fact, both Jefferson’s agrarian man and
Turner’s frontiersman are shown to share the same qualities of
democratic, freedom-loving, self-reliant, and individualistic
backgrounds, and both Jefferson and Turner believed that "the love of
liberty and equality go together."33

What we have to realize at this point is that the principles of
equality and liberty that both Jefferson and Turner idealized in the
agrarian’s and the frontiersmen’s lives did not exist harmoniously.
Jefferson’s agrarian society was composed of people who tilled their own
land and sustained themselves through the produce of their own lands.
Their independence and equality rested on the fact that each family
could afford its own land and attain a certain amount of self
sufficiency through hard work as opposed to being subjects under a
European aristocrat. In the new world, the virtue of being able to own
land gave men an equality of status. They were equal citizens as they
achieved this equality through their landholding privileges. The
frontiersmen too enjoyed a certain amount of freedom and independence
because they were not subject to institutional supervision. But the
individualism and liberty of these people were different only in degrees
from the freedom and equality afforded to people in the aristocratic
cultures, as even in this new society, a deep tension existed among the
people, who tended to value equality more than liberty.

Land based individualism, founded on the principle of equality,
was an important and cherished ideal, and in many ways Crevecoeur’s
Lettens_f[gm_an_Ameniean_Earmem is still considered as the definitive

statement of the American dream. But possession of land did not

26

necessarily mean that an individual could be politically or naturally
free to choose and exercise his own opinions about politics and life.
The European immigrants’ transformation into self-sufficient Americans
is succinctly summed up in Crevecoeur’s words: "From nothing to start
into being; from a servant to the rank of a master; from being the slave
to some despotic prince, to become a free man, invested with lands, to
which every municipal blessing is annexed! What a change indeed! It is
in consequence of that change that he becomes an American."“ But this
expansive and relaxed depiction of the life of a second generation
American farmer in all of his letters, does not prepare one for his last
letter, where he begins: "I wish for a change of place; the hour has
come at last that I must fly from my house and abandon my farm." These
words throw the reader into confusion.35 In fact, Crevecoeur’s loyalty
to the British put him at odds with the majority’s or community’s
revolutionary feelings, and so his sudden, nightmarish conclusion to his
mostly cheerful letters highlights that, while one could make the most
of one’s opportunities in America and create oneself as a person of
substance and authority, thereby achieving a social equality with
others, the liberty to exercise one’s personal feelings in the form of
political dissension or disagreement with the majority could be
catastrophic for the thinking individual’s or dissenter’s survival.36
One is reminded of de Tocqueville’s comment about the dangers or
hostilities that a dissenter might incur if he chose to oppose the
majority’s views.

You are free not to think as I do; you can keep your life and

property and all; but from this day you are a stranger among us.

You can keep your privileges in the township, but they will be
useless to you, for if you solicit your fellow citizens’ votes,

cones
Jeffe
terta
was t
Jeffe
Deupl

such

27

they will not give them to you, and if you only ask for their

esteem, they will make excuses for refusing that. You will remain

among men, but you will lose your rights to count as one. When you

approach your fellows, they will shun you as an impure being, and

even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you too,

lest they in turn be shunned. Go in peace. I have given you your

life, but it is a life worse than death."7

While the Jeffersonian edict in The Declaration of Independence
states that "all men are created equal" and are "entitled to [and could
look forward to] life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," implying
that the principle of equality afforded man an opportunity to exercise
and demand his rights, neither the Jeffersonian society nor the frontier
society was ready for radical changes, where people could afford an
unlimited personal liberty. The people in these societies were far more
concerned with equality than with liberty or true individual freedom.
Jefferson’s ideal, that by virtue of being equal man could demand a
certain personal liberty through an assertion of his personal rights,
was too advanced a concept for the people of these societies. In
Jefferson’s time, the option of demanding one’s rights was farthest from
people’s minds. The American society was still too "traditional" for
such radical upheaval. In fact, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that
while a democratic spirit infused the lives of the people, society was
not operating on the principles of Jeffersonian democracy. Liberty or
"Freedom," de Tocqueville said, "is not the chief and continual object
of their desires; it is equality for which they feel an eternal love;
they rush on freedom [liberty] with quick and sudden impulses, but if
they miss their mark, they resign themselves to their disappointment;

but nothing will satisfy them without equality, and they would rather

die than lose it."”

28
While de Tocqueville did not totally rule out the possibility that
the principles of equality and liberty might "meet and blend," he did
observe that "conformity" rather than individualism would result from
the adherence to equality. He reasoned that:
The citizen of a democracy comparing himself with the others feels
proud of his equality with each. But when he compares himself with
all his fellows and measures himself against this vast entity, he
is overwhelmed by his sense of insignificance and weakness. The
same equality which makes him independent of each separate citizen
leaves him isolated and defenseless in the face of the majority.
So in democracies public opinion has a strange power of which
aristocratic nations can form no conception. It uses no persuasion
to forward its beliefs, but by some mighty pressure of the mind of
all upon the intelligence of each it imposes its ideas and makes
them penetrate men’s very souls.39
De Tocqueville claimed that the element of conformity in the
American character, as a result of the rule of the majority, threatened
the existence of not only individualism but even the concept of freedom.
In fact, so pervasive is the power of the majority, he declared, that
"the majority in the United States takes over the business of supplying
the individual with a quantity of ready-made opinions and so relieves
him of the necessity of forming his own," and so the person in the
minority not only "mistrusts his own strength, but even comes to doubt
his own judgement, and he is brought very near to recognizing that he
must be wrong when the majority hold the opposite view. There is no need
for the majority to compel him; it convinces him." De Tocqueville
continues, that the predilection for "equality" induces “him [the
minority individual] freely to give up thinking at all," and "there is
no freedom of spirit in America." The principle of equality on which

America operates, de Tocqueville says, undermines liberty, as peoples’

only concern for equality breeds in them "a tendency to despise

29
individual rights and take little account of them." Thus, de Tocqueville
fears that an emphasis on equality not only curbs individualism and
breeds a certain conformism in people, but it contributes to fears of

II 40

“despotism... in democracy.

d) Selfishness and Introversion versus Expressive Individualism

De Tocqueville also thought the equalitarian aspect of American
democracy promoted a materialist attitude in the American character: "A
passion for well being is... the most lively of all the emotions aroused
or inflamed by equality, and it is a passion shared by all. So this
taste for well-being is the most striking and unalterable characteristic
of democratic ages.“l And de Tocqueville was not alone in this opinion
about the American’s materialism. In 1805, Richard Parkinson observed in

his A leg: in Amerjta in 1229-1899 that "all men there make money their

pursuit," and another traveller, William Faux concurred, saying in his
flemgmab1e_nays_jn_Amemiea, that "two selfish gods, pleasure and gain,
enslave the Americans." While the American individual’s material craving
and the materialist culture that was developing in America was
succinctly summed up by Washington Irving: "the almighty dollar, that
great object of devotion throughout the land.“2

However, it is important to mention at this point, that the word
"individualism," which came into use in Europe during de Tocqueville’s
time, was applied critically against the tenets of the Enlightenment
that was sweeping through Europe.‘3 The term in the Old World "was
almost synonymous with selfishness, social anarchy, and individual self-
assertion," but in the American context, the term’s "value content

changed completely," and came to be associated with "self-determination,

30

moral freedom, the rule of liberty, and the dignity of man." De
Tocqueville’s doubts and fears about the primacy of the individual and
society’s growth based on the principles of equality and liberty were
the farthest notions from the American consciousness. In the years that
followed, the term’s popularity grew in America as it stood for "a
rationalization of its [America’s] characteristic attitudes, behavior
patterns, and aspirations." Thus, in 1888 James Bryce remarked that
everything associated with the American experience "went to intensify
individualism, the love of enterprise, [and] the pride in personal
freedom."“

Since equality was an important part of life in democratic
America, de Tocqueville was perceptive in his observation of the
development of the kind of individual, who, he said, having no easy
recourse to personal rights, operated according to the principles of
social equality, but tended to "withdraw into the circle of family and
friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves
the greater society to look after itself." Furthermore, de Tocqueville
argues that as a result of the spread of social equality, not political
equality, "more and more people... neither rich nor powerful enough to
have much hold over others, have gained and kept enough wealth and
enough understanding to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man
anything and hardly expect anything from anybody. They form the habit of
thinking of themselves in isolation and imagine that their whole destiny
is in their own hands." Finally, de Tocqueville suggests that as the

principle of equality without personal freedom allowed a person to be

‘forew

shut U|

anothe
person.
self-h
indiviu
confon
the COI
thense'
hateria
Frankli
Success
Conscin
century
the new
“Me
'If the
they ar
eStable
respect.
World 0.
popular
Obsfmct
Frank},-

n

loch rig

31

“forever thrown back on himself alone, there is danger that he may be
shut up in the solitude of his own heart.“5

Thus it is easy to understand why materialism was to become
another trait of the American character. The new man may not have had
personal freedom but he was free as far as he was engaged in matters of
self-improvement. Having little scope for freedom of the spirit, the
individual was thrown back on the only option of materialistic
conformism. Thus, while farmers were busy branching out into farms and
the countryside, acquiring land, fixing an identity and rooting
themselves firmly in the ground, the individual’s scope to get ahead
materially by his own ingenuity and initiative was widening. Benjamin
Franklin’s example of "a poor boy who made good," achieving worldly
success by hard work and frugality, was emblazoned on the public
consciousness. Franklin’s example gave credence to the eighteenth
century notion of what many thought to be the most important fact about
the new continent, namely, the individual’s merit of worldly success by
virtue of his own initiative. Franklin himself advised the Europeans:
"If they are poor, they begin first as Servants, or Journeymen; and if
they are sober, industrious, and frugal, they soon become Masters,
establish themselves in Business, marry, raise Families, and become
respectable Citizens." Although Franklin did not withdraw into his own
world of selfish unconcern, since he was a supporter and defender of
popular government, and he did not allow personal aspirations to
obstruct his political commitments to the community,“ nevertheless,
Franklin did live in a society where people lived lives without having

much right to, or an awareness of, personal individualism as we

unders
nany o
of the
notion
Aneric

of the

32
understand it in this latter half of the twentieth century. In fact,
many of the people who followed the cult of success well past the middle
of the nineteenth century did not interfere with the already established
notions "of traditional religious and social patterns,” since young
Americans were encouraged to "follow in the secure and respectable paths

.1 47

of the established social and religious tradition. In Franklin’s
time, "lives were lived as if by permission," where each private person
had practically no identity outside the community. The individual’s
rights were "thought to need justification," for no matter how free the
individual was in matters of pursuit of money-making, "individuals had
rights as individuals... on condition that they be used well or
virtuously or productively or for the sake of a common purpose." This
tendency in society is what gave rise to the notion of utilitarianism.“
Thus, Franklin’s example of following a utilitarian individualism,
which was strengthened by a democratic equalitarianism, became a
dominant fact of life by the middle of the nineteenth century, and
utilitarianism was a contributing factor to the aggressive capitalism
that came into fashion with the industrial revolution of the nineteenth
century. The utilitarians, who viewed life in purely economic terms,
were busy influencing the people about the way they could protect and
increase their personal wealth and influence by making social contracts
purely based on their self interests, with no concern for any person’s
individual rights. And with this primary emphasis on the individual’s
interest in material pursuit, little room was left for "love, human

feeling, and a deeper expression of the self.“9 Thus, a new aspect of

individualism called "expressive individualism” came into existence to

count:
indiv
Hatch
indiv
ratios
'the I
each I
encroa
impori
fritte
real p

'hobgc

33
counter the cramped and soulless character of bourgeois utilitarian
individualism. The "American Renaissance" in literature that F. O.
Matthiessen talks about grew out of a reaction to utilitarian
individualism and "against the formulas of eighteenth-century

rationalism."so

Expressive individualism focussed upon the dictum that
"the unique core of intuition and feeling" that lies at the heart of
each person required "creative expression" and "protection against the
encroachments of both other individuals and of social institutions.“ The
important message of expressive individualism was that people "who
fritter away their personal creative potential allegedly sacrifice their
real personal identity to unthinking social conformity, that perennial
’hobgoblin of little minds.”51

It was Emerson who was perhaps one of the first to realize that
the American ideal (or American character) would take shape from its
contact with the largely "unhistoricized natural environment." Thus,
after his initial experimentations in imparting an "American coherence"
to extraneous sources such as Greek and Oriental philosophy and post-
Kantian thought, Emerson turned to nature and encouraged his fellow men
to think "beyond appearance and see that the afflatus that moved in each
man was identical with that which flowed in nature." Emerson declared
that "the selfsame divinity thrust forth its features in both. What
appeared to be an objective nature was in reality merely mediate, an
assemblage of commodities and symbols for the sustenance of human life
and human thought." He further indicated that the accumulation of

history in the older cultures had indeed fettered their growth since the

"social traditions and artifact" in the older cultures had been

34
"transmitted for so long so unthinkingly that they had attained that

n 52

fatal status of objective realities. America’s lack of history was a
blessing as it freed the people here from adhering to idols and instead
enabled them to learn directly from nature, to become self-reliant
decision makers, since "Nature is made to conspire with spirit to
emancipate us."53 Emerson not only encouraged his fellow Americans to
look to nature for their education and inspiration, but he also invited
them to disavow unhesitatingly their European backgrounds, origins, and
influences. With essays like "The American Scholar“ and "Self Reliance,"
Emerson began to raise his countrymen’s consciousness to what
constituted the beginnings of the American notions of intellectual and
cultural individualism. With lines like: "We have listened too long to
the courtly muses of Europe..." or, "Why should not we have a poetry and
philosophy of insight and not of tradition... Why should we grope among
the dry bones of the past?" ("Nature"), Emerson was exhorting his fellow
Americans to exploit the fertile experience of life in nature in the
American culture. In essays like "Nature," "The American Scholar," "Self
Reliance," and others, Emerson’s extended his call for cultural
independence by showing the directions in which cultural individualism
could be perfected by enabling the American to turn the tables "against
the history of [old world] economic privilege" through making the
Emersonian poet or scholar the cultural pioneer in the new world, "the
representative man, who sums up the desire of history’s dispossessed to
come into possession--for possession is power and power is freedom."“

But Emerson’s concept of individual ownership and the power factor

involved in it cannot be construed in the feudal or capitalistic sense

35

of ownership, since the germ of Emerson’s transcendental economy is "not
owning but belonging, not possessing, but being possessed." ["Miller
owns this field, Locke that, and Manning the woodland beyond. But none
of them owns the landscape. There is a property in the horizon which no
man has but he whose eyes can integrate all the parts, that is, the
poet. This is the best part of these men’s farms, yet to this their
warranty deeds give no title." (Nature)] The particular aspect of nature
that Emerson describes here is what he will variously refer to in the
essay as the "universal soul," "Reason" and the "Oversoul," all of
which, however, Emerson pithily describes as "an immensity not possessed
and that cannot be possessed"--"we are its property." The words "it" and
”immensity" are not quantifiable terms in the essay, and neither can
they be considered a "commodity." Therefore, by suggesting that the poet
is the real owner of the landscape, Emerson really means to draw our
attention to the poet’s sense of "belonging" to the landscape since this
sense of "belonging" is actually "a condition of release from [the]
possessive selfhood" of commercial commodification. It hints at a sense
of "possession by freedom" rather than a sense of capitalistic
ownership, by which rules people merely grab at property to externalize
and validate their sense of individuality and assert their material
selves through a pride in worldly possessions.55

Emerson was an inspirer and encourager. He wanted to banish the
"Puritan sense of darkness, guilt, and intrinsic limitation" by
countering it with his personal conviction in "the infinitude of the
private man,"“ and "his eager apprehension of the possibilities of

American democracy.”7 His idea of individualism, originating in his

philosc
to the
others.
contrit
person
contail
that if
is an 1
its "3}
relianc
aspires
'i'ndi're
oDuosec
associa
egOtisn
DOSltio
than co

EEIIanC

36
philosophy of self-reliance, stressed the connection of the individual
to the world, but in ways that should not obstruct the individualism of
others. His society of individuals consisted of "individuals serving or
contributing to other individuals," because Emerson’s individual is a
person who is "at one with himself or herself, self-sufficient, self-
contained; that its acting will be indistinguishable from its being;
that its being will naturally attain its perfection; and that its being
is an unintentional blessing on whatever is around it or happens to come
its way." Emerson encouraged a person to develop a higher form of self-
reliance, a "mental self-reliance," or mental individuality, "which
aspires to impersonality," where one person can help the other through
”indirect service" rather than through "charity or paternalism," as
opposed to an "active self-reliance" or active individualism which is
associated with "worldliness" which is "too entwined with selfishness or
egotism" in its pursuit of a worldly prize in the form of "power,
position or fame." Moreover, "worldliness" to Emerson is nothing more
than conformity, and conformity is "the main antithesis to self-
reliance" because by conforming one merely observes one’s life and work
as something obvious without looking at its true significance or worth.
Emerson exhorted people to look at their lives and works as one’s
double, as a deliberate externalization of the self. But this does not
mean Emerson is against active individualism. Rather, Emerson wanted
individuals to consider their lives "from the perspective of power and
energy" and to "find better channels than those already established in
the world, established by and for the world, established by society and

tinderstood as an unself-examining organization of power." He wanted a

per:

sane

SOC'

conf

37

person to do his work with "a certain unegotistical spirit" while at the
same time "moving, searching, finding..., as life in a democratic
society, where change is allowed as a matter of principle, only
conformists crave fixity."“

This is the "democratic individualism" that rallied Whitman to
answer Emerson’s call in his Sang gf Myself, where he looks around
himself into the nature of American life and individualizes himself as
part of the fabric of the democracy of "the divine average," the "self"
among all other "selves." Whitman sought to awaken the private citizen’s
sense of belonging to a democratic whole through his intellectual
expression of the American self. He was able "to sing--the democratic
individual, especially as such an individual lives in receptivity or
responsiveness, in a connectedness different from any other," and
therefore, in telling us about himself, he is also telling us about
ourselves. While considering the wholeness of the scene, Whitman is also
telling us about "the reservoir of potentialities" that is found in a
democratic culture, which can be defined as the uniqueness of each
person in a democratic culture. By giving the poem, in D. H. Lawrence’s
words, an "accumulative identity," Whitman is suggesting an inclusive
nature, rather than an exclusive nature of the whole fabric of a
democratic culture. Whitman’s aim is to prove that if we are ready to
accept ourselves, then we will "grow more in mutual recognition, in
democratic acceptance. Feelings of superiority and other discriminations
will exist,... but their validity will be challenged by a poetically
enhanced awareness of the vastness of every individual equally." And

,just as one individual has the ability to see the diversity in a

denocr
indivii
final l
'aduen‘
'denoc'
exister
theref.
Of her:

to tha'

elices:
reneva‘
when he
the IE)
to live

recogna

Dirt 0i
Dilnt :
rECOgm‘
Strand
i”Clusi‘
asked t
'lhtrjn

In the I

EXDP‘QSS

38

democracy, in the same way that person "needs to be seen by many
individuals and also by one individual’s many eyes." Yet, Whitman’s
final aim as a reflective individual is the suggestion to transcend the
"adventures of human connectedness" and cultivate an attitude of
"democratic solitude" by acknowledging and realizing the "sheer fact of
existence" which inspires in one "a philosophical self-respect,"
therefore, opening up the possibility for each person to "take himself
or herself seriously, as directly connected to whatever is irreducible,
to that around which the mind can never close."59

In many ways, Thoreau too answered Emerson’s call for an
expression of the American self by "practical reform and spiritual
renewal," by his putting the idea into practice, theory into action,
when he spent two years at Walden Pond and recorded his experiences in
the text by the same name. Haldgn became an American classic. By going
to live in the woods, Thoreau exemplified a self-reliance that
recognized man’s nature as that of "a shaper, a constructor, a
maintainer,” and that "each man" should consider himself not "only as a
part of the creative flow of experience but as a universal reference
point in this flow.” This self-reliance view would enable a person to
recognize that he was not synonymous with the "evolution of a novel
strand of experience," but "a jewel," an agent "that might reflect an
inclusive and external meaning" of the whole of experience. Man was
asked to consider himself as "a universal spark" and realize his own
"intrinsic nature" since this would allow him to "maintain his integrity
in the course of his creative action" in whatever path he chose to

express himself. But this exhortation to "find the inner knowledge of

the se
the ec
land.

self -a
econon
world]
self -a
power”
was in

endeav

hem
'great

REVMU

39

the self" was too philosophical or individualistic a theory to challenge
the economic and capitalistic potential that the majority saw in the new
land. Extracting meaning out of experience through concrete action and
self-assertion linked to an identification with the land and its
economic potential, combined with a self-sufficiency that grew out of
worldly success, was too easy a prospect to forego. This "unreflective
self-assertion" led man to believe "that the creative life was a life of
power" as exercised through physical control and that man’s integrity
was intrinsically linked with "the success of his [worldly]
endeavors."6°

0n the other hand, after giving his call to reconfigure culture in
America, Emerson was mostly interested in witnessing the advent of that
”great reflective poet," and by asserting that "’Ours is the
Revolutionary age, when man is coming back to Consciousness,’" Emerson’s
call was chiefly to the thinking man, the man of aesthetic
sensibilities.61 Neither he nor for that matter Whitman ever ventured to
talk about democracy as not being nice all the time, because there are
things in human nature and natural reality that may be called monstrous
or evil. In their effort to "encompass everything, they [Emerson and
Whitman] reduce[d] and eliminate[d] aspects of reality in order to make
it encompassable or to make it lovable." Perhaps, it was these artists’
objective to help "discipline [our] sensitivity to suffering by the
sense of beauty, to extend our sense of beauty, to make us see, as
democratic individuals, more beauty in the human and natural actuality
than eyes not trained by democratic life are able to see." Perhaps they

(hwelt on the heroism and optimism of democratic possibilities, "more

thorougi
demcra
justice
inhoral
animal"

individ

e) Poli

l
Optimis
hiS ent
WT! ins
”Dado
democra
Places
Cm“hell
with Ah
the in;
50cm}
Counts”
Societj
hm, r
pTate."
350m n

extinct

4O
thoroughly... because of their democratic commitment." But in a
democracy, where an individual is encouraged to foster a sense of
justice and honesty and an awareness of the wholeness of life, is it not
immoral of the artist to suppress or astheticize the "animal eating
animal" reality of nature that might evoke a sense of disgust from an

individual?62

e) Politics and Power

Taking Emerson to task for his cold absorption and excessive
optimism about the self, John Updike points out that Emerson, because of
his enthusiastic wishing "to give men the courage to be, to follow their
own instincts," never quite realized that "these instincts... can be
rapacious."63 De Tocqueville, in his discussion about individualism in
democracy, raised another valid issue, that individuals’ self-absorption
places them at risk of becoming hostages to despotism. Melville makes a
compelling case for a "democratic sanction of despotism" in Mgby_fljck,
with Ahab’s "absolute domination of the crew." Melville’s critique of
the importance given to self-assertion and personality in a democratic
society at once highlights the fact that, while "individual personality
counts” or is indeed "determinant in the distribution of power" of such
societies, nevertheless "it is the very assertion of rights of self
which risks destroying those conditions allowing for it in the first
place." With unrelenting logic, Melville shows how democracy can bring
about "the unintended and politically tragic consequence of its own

extinction. ““ .

H
de
be

6U

Ed

Ni

th.

9C1

C01

41

Despite Bersani’s convincing argument about the horrors of Ahab’s
despotic individualism, I believe that, by situating Ahab’s society in
the wilderness of the sea far removed from ordinary society, unconnected
to civilization as it were, Melville does give us some hope that the
severe individualist despotism occurs only in an unusual circumstance,
in a far-away place. Moreover, modern experience has shown us that the
political machinery of some democracies may have been tampered with by
individuals for personal profit, but that condition has not remained
unresolved for long. The recent collapse of the USSR, China’s political
and economic reforms towards a market economy, and the successful
democratic elections in Haiti, and other countries’ quest for democratic
forms of government prove that the democratic form of government is the
most successful alternative among all forms of government.“ Perhaps the
rights based system of American democracy is too advanced for other
democratic nations to adopt at this time, since most democratic nations
became democracies after overthrowing despotic aristocracies or
autocracies, and are as yet unable to overhaul the old systems of social
stratifications of rank and class, yet that rectification will happen as
education spreads amongst their masses. But whether other democracies
will be able to afford their citizens the kind of protection and
individual rights that America offers is another challenge. We shall see
that the real threat to individualism is not democracy but the new
economic, technological, and social conditions of power. In these
conditions, democracy is the one preservative element.

It would be a mistake to think that either Whitman, Thoreau, or

[Emerson are talking about "unqualified individualism" or the doctrine of

42
individualism "without a democratic connection." They are concerned with
the principle of democratic individualism where democracy and
individuality are not foreign to each other, not where "one can flourish
at the expense of the other." The growth of their individuality is only
possible within a democratic system, and the individual and the system
must work together in order "to bring out the most brilliant

"“ To them, democracy

potentialities and avoid the most sinister ones.
and individuality are not mutually exclusive terms. Whitman explained
the connection or interdependency of democracy and individuality as:
For to democracy, the leveler, the unyielding principle of the
average, is surely joined another principle, equally unyielding,
closely tracking the first, indispensable to it, opposite, (as the
sexes are opposite,) and whose existence, confronting and ever
modifying the other, often clashing, paradoxical, yet neither of
highest avail without the other, plainly supplies to these grand
cosmic politics of ours, and to the launch’d-forth mortal dangers
of republicanism, to—day or any day, the counterpart and offset
whereby Nature restrains the deadly original restlessness of all
her first-class laws. This second principle is individuality...”
In fact, all of them, Emerson, Whitman, and Thoreau, were deeply
interested in enabling the individual to operate within the democratic
system and effect change by effective use of the political machinery. "I
know nothing grander... than a well contested American national
election," Whitman declared. And voicing his trust in the system,
Whitman pointed out, "Political democracy, as it exists and practically
works in America, with all its threatening evils, supplies a training-
school for making first class men. It is life’s gymnasium, not of good
only, but of all. We try often, though we fall back often... Whatever we
do not attain, we at any rate attain the experiences of the fight, the
hardening of the strong campaign, and throb with currents of attempt at

least."“ "With subtlety and feeling," Emerson, in his essay,

43
"Historical Discourse," addresses the importance, relevance, and
effectiveness of organizing town meetings. And although Whitman is the
one who is most vocal in his writings about the electoral process in
democracy, "all [of the writers] pay tribute to the American political
system, despite their continued guardedness." Running through their
writings about politics is the common theme that, since the electoral
process enables the political offices to be occupied for a fixed time,
thereby allowing a voter to judge the officeholders’ capacity to hold
office, the democratic process is a "strong dissolver of the mystique of
authority." Moreover, since laws, not the principles upon which they are
based, are made by temporary officeholders, the democratic process
allows a group of like-minded individuals to elect new officers who
would reinterpret or change the laws made by unsympathetic and unpopular
political officers voted out of office. In a democratic system, they
argue, the average individuals help to select the government.69 In other
words, all three writers saw the importance of a democratic political
participation through a reactivated citizenship as the means to
fulfilling the individual’s growth in a democracy.

But more directly in answer to Updike’s criticism, through their
doctrine of expressive individualism, more appropriately called
I'democratic individualism," Emerson, Whitman, and Thoreau encouraged
individuals to free themselves of the constraints of convention, since,
according to them, democratic individualism in its capacity to "liberate
human energies" encourages people to "live more intensely." Emerson and
his followers advocated a disregard for the economic life in favor of

building a faith in "democratic individuality," for they understood and

44
wanted others to understand and see clearly that "all social conventions
are, in fact, conventions--that is artificial; that they are
changeable," and that although the Emersonians knew that conventions are
a part of life, they were afraid that people were susceptible "to take a
given network" of conventions "as natural, as nature itself--as
imperative and therefore sacred," since they knew well that "people--
even in a democracy--are too timid, too unadventurous, too
conformist."7°

Emerson, Whitman, and Thoreau wanted to draw people’s awareness to
the powers of the "unsettling" process of democracy, which not only
enables the "slow growth of individuality" but ruffles everything for
everyone in a way that liberates the "democratic individuality" of all
citizens. Their call is a call "to honesty," as the awareness of
“democratic individuality" would enable people to see through existing
conventions and opt for the "dangers and opportunities of being self-
conscious creatures," to "see through and around ourselves," and so have
the power "to reject identification with any role or set conventions."
They were asking people to "not be afraid of self-consciousness" for
”democracy will thrive on it." They wanted people to understand that the
true meaning of democracy was "to sustain social life without bad faith,
and without superstition, mystique, and misdirected religiousness."“

Yet all three writers were in fact aware that not all individuals
live or are even capable of living a life as a fully democratic
individual. "Democratic individuality is not an ideal that one can ever
be certain to have reached... It is not a permanent state of being, but

an infinite project." While some people try harder than others to attain

 

45

this ideal, "some try deliberately," with the strange result being "that
the egalitarian ideal is lived unequally; the cultural ideal is lived
fitfully; the telos [the ultimate aim or object] is often avoided," and
this is the reason why these writers felt that "the ideal must be
advocated" despite the only appropriate channel for its proliferation
being "philosophical or poetical."72

The charges against democratic individualism brought by post-
modernists such as Barthes, Althusser, Foucault, Derrida and others are
that the individual or the "self (the subject)" is merely a construct of
language”, or that an individual is nothing more than a "constituted"
personality by virtue of the "calling" or "hailing" of a person by a
(suspect) authority," or that certain dominating powers or groups in
society, which Foucault labels as "pseudosovereign,"75 deliberately
create and disseminate individuals, who are made to believe that they
are individuals, thereby enabling the dominating groups to dilute the
power of a group of like-minded individuals against them. But these
theorists merely assume that an individual is a construct of language;
they do not give valid reasons for their assumptions. 0n the other hand,
if individuals are, as these post-modernists see them to be, merely
"products of the environment,"" then they should admit that the early
environment that led to American individualism was one of a power
vacuum. Only over the last century has this power existed to manipulate
and subjugate democratic individualism.

In his works, Foucault labors to highlight that individualism, as

it appears today, is merely the outgrowth or product of techniques of

"discipline" or "power." In works such as Qisgjnljng_and_fluni§h and Ihe

46
History of Sexuality, Foucault’s main line of argument is that a
person’s "individuality" is "an artificial production," a by—product of
social control instituted by powerful interest groups in society and in
the hierarchies of power so that the masses may be easily controlled and
exploited. But in most cases, power rarely operates solely for its
controlling capabilities. No despot or hierarchies of power could be
satisfied by exercising power over people merely for the sake of power.
Rewards in the form of monetary and material payback are the chief
reasons why people like to hold power over others. People exercise power
over others to gain economic control, not merely for reasons of
knowledge or ego. Foucault does not deal with this issue in his theory
of power. However, Foucault’s critique does alert us to the extent to
which a person’s individuality can be shaped by one’s cultural forces.
Some of the cultural influences may even be due to the influence of
technology and the media, and indeed they can be a problem. But we have
to realize that not all people in a culture can be unaware of their own
unique self no matter how powerful the social and cultural forms of
control. The existence of democratic individuals such as Lincoln or
Gandhi or Mandela or Rosa Parks or Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King
Jr., or the Burmese dissident, Aung San Suu Kyi, challenge the pessimism
of post-modernists and support Whitman’s and Emerson’s optimism. A post—
modern argument can be made that these individuals sacrificed their
lives for their beliefs in ideologies. But all these individuals pursued
highly moral principles, for are not the destructive principles of

slavery, colonial rule, apartheid, totalitarianism and the like, that

 

 

47
degrade peoples’ lives, and deny people their basic human dignities,
worth opposing by personal sacrifice? I say, yes.

On the other hand, it is relatively easier for me to accept de
Tocqueville’s argument that equality makes conformists out of people
than to accept without doubt the theory that technologies of power or
controlling mechanisms invest people with a false individuality.
Foucault’s theory so far has been falsifed by the American democratic
system, where a person’s civil rights and privacy are constitutionally
protected. America’s rights-based system of individualism affords the
individual his or her rights to self-determination. Granted that there
are major instances where individuals are too weak or outnumbered to
fight for their rights, yet that does not make the Bill of Rights
invalid or any less applicable to any individual case of resistance to
oppression. The various liberationist movements of the 19605, like
feminism and civil rights for advancement for colored people, which
later inspired movements like gay rights, could only have been possible
in this country of rights-based individualism, taking succor from the
Bill of Rights and other constitutional protection of peoples’ rights.
This shows that the ascent of individualism is not a closed issue in
America. Yet the battle continues, and democracy may not prove equal to

the task. Individualism is threatened with a hostile take-over.

f) Equalitarianisn and Basic Human Dignity versus Competitiveness and an
Aggressive Pursuit of Wealth.

The equalitarian principle in American democracy, by helping to
obliterate the basis for the development of a hierarchy of ranks,

allowed men to share a common humanity and dignity. Thus, no man was

48
born to rule while others were born to serve, and although some could
regard themselves as more fortunate than others, they were not better.
People were permitted to rise in the world but not allowed to forget or
ridicule their origins. The concept of rank or authority became
anathema, and people viewed it with resentment. Rejection of the role of
authority was thus fostered as a way of life, and so the man with most
responsibilities did not rule but led the other members, not
subordinates, and together they formed a team, and orders were given in
the form of requests. The father in the family is expected to persuade,
not command, and the children are not told to obey but cooperate, and
the husband is no more the lord and master but a partner. But while this
brand of American equalitarianism stressed the universal dignity of men
and women by rejecting social rank as a slur on dignity, and promoting
the ideal of the perfectibility of man and its potential fulfillment,
the goal’s complete fulfillment was impeded by exploitation of
unorganized labor,'chattel slavery, insufficient education, inequities
of unemployment, and the handicaps of age, race, and sex. Nevertheless,
the basic equalitarian principle of the universal dignity of all men
enabled reform and protest movements to address the flaws and move on
towards achieving the full potential of the ideal."

When the American wilderness was being transformed by the new man
into habitats, the equalitarian principle afforded Americans unlimited
access to develop undeveloped resources, and while the enterprising
individual was free to gain wealth, society too benefitted from rapid
economic development. The principle of equalitarianism, which enabled

all individuals an equal start, reinforced the concept of self-reliance

49

in the common man, and this self-reliance had everything to do with
physical stamina, rather than "independent-mindedness," or the
“intellectual-resourcefulness" that de Tocqueville said the nineteenth
century man did not exercise or lacked. Therefore, when a person gained
more wealth by being clever or stronger or through sheer entrepreneurial
acumen, he was allowed to enjoy what he had earned. Thus, a tolerance
for great discrepancies of wealth, as a result of this equalitarian
permissiveness, has permeated the American character, since the wealth
was created by an individual, who had an equal start, and was not
acquired by inheritance.7B

But the drawback of this equality of opportunity is that it
overlooked the fact that, although men may be equal in terms of rights,
they were not equal in terms of abilities. Therefore, "to say that men
deserve equal opportunity is tacitly to admit that with this opportunity
they will become unequal."79 Thus, by encouraging competition, this
equalitarian principle only made the individual materialistic and
heightened his distinctive qualities of aggressiveness and
competitiveness. In fact, this dream of success served to dampen the
individual’s freedom of expression of the self. Valuing the individual
meant primarily valuing his worldly success, since "mobility through
individual economic achievement remains that primary career path for
which young Americans are educated.”0

Again, this equalizing principle, that has fostered in Americans
the belief that all men are equal and has encouraged Americans to better
their lives and advance their human potential through generating wealth,

has also made them conformists, because, while the mutual respect people

50

show to each other has made them think that one’s fellow citizens are
worth helping, this same view has taught them not to question the
opinions of their fellow men. If all men are equal, then each can think
for himself, and as no man is above the rest, therefore one should not
assume superiority and question the opinion of his neighbors. And while
the majority is in no way directly responsible for making someone else
adopt their views, it is also understood that no one will object or
challenge the majority’s views. Therefore, "the absence of a formal
compulsion to conform seemingly increases the obligation to conform
voluntarily."81

Thus, equalitarianism makes the American character work in ways
that are antithetical to the development of personal character and
individuality that the expressive individualists like Emerson, Thoreau,
and Whitman were encouraging. Equalitarianism promotes a restrained,
utilitarian individualism that works to advance the goals of a citizen
as long as no radical schemes are hatched, no common laws are broken and
no discontent is aroused within the majority. In fact, American
individualism has always stayed within clearly defined boundaries, and
although the qualities of authority-rejection and self-reliance that
developed in the individual for reasons of survival in the frontier have
prompted people to act "individually," the individual in America has
never been radically free to act in a totally unfettered manner and give
expression to a self-indulgent self-expression, often labeled as
”eccentricism," that is permissible in an aristocratic society. This is
the reason why a person from another culture, accustomed to the

impulsive habits of individuals who assert themselves at the expense of

51
others, finds the American brand of restricted individualism quite hard

to grasp.

g) Laissez-faire and Mon-Conformist Individualis-

American individualism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
has shifting centers of emphasis. While self-reliance was at the core of
nineteenth century individualism, dissent or non-conformism has become
the focus of twentieth century individualism. Yet both brands of
individualism converge when it comes to counting individual growth as a
means to serving society rather than individual growth apart from
society. This could easily lead us to believe that self-reliance and
non-conformism are interchangeable terms, because it can be argued that
an individual who is self-sufficient or independent of others in matters
of physical welfare will not be influenced by others’ ideas. 50, if this
individual is used to taking care of himself, then he will naturally
think for himself too. And if he can think for himself, then he will
obviously not need others and therefore be free of social constraints.
Thus, we can argue that if individualism leads to independence and
independence means freedom, then freedom gives scope for dissent.
Therefore, individualism equals dissent. But this kind of reasoning has
often led to the misleading conclusion that individualism finally means
both "self-reliance" and "non-conformism." The reality of the situation
defies such easy conclusions. First, self-reliant or self-help
individuals are basically conservative in their beliefs; as we have
discussed earlier, such a person is orthodox and mainly enterprising in

his ideas of success by taking advantage of laissez-faire economics; but

52
nonconforming individuals who value new ideas of self-expression regard
the laissez-faire individualist as a hindrance to self-expression and
new ideas in general. Yet while both these groups of individualists
situate the individual over the group, ironically they both are group
conscious, since both groups reject each other by criticizing the
other’s betrayal of the group. The nonconformist charges that the
laissez-faire individualists trample on the weak, since the laissez-
fairists value private advantage more than the success of the whole
group. The laissez-faire individualists, on the other hand, charge that
the nonconformists are irresponsible dissenters, who allow the easy
decline in the overall community’s values and morals by sanctioning
hostile or irresponsible forces to injure group cohesion through
irresponsible behavior.”

But the place where the laissez-faire individualists seem to
overlap with the nonconformists is in their permissiveness of the
unusual individual. The laissez-faire individualists qualify their
argument in support of the bold, unusual individual’s success at the
group’s expense by suggesting that the unusual individual’s efforts,
although radical, are nevertheless needed by the group because the
dissenter’s daring serves the community in the long run. This
justification is similar to the nonconformists’ mode of operation where
they allow dissent since the dissenters’ novel ideas, which eventually
benefit the group, could hardly be expected of any conventional member
of the group. Often, the laissez-faire individualists cited Adam Smith’s
dictum that the unseen hand of God in the providentially designed

economy looked upon the "selfish" actions and impulses of individuals

53

and transformed them for the good of the whole community. But overall,
the laissez—faire individualists did not fully accept the notion that
the individual could supersede the interest of the group for his
personal goals.83

The independent, self-reliant attitude of the laissez-faire
individualists suffered a blow during the depression era when the New
Deal abandoned the principle.“ Yet the self-reliant attitude was too
ingrained in the American character to be forgotten for good. Martha
Wolfenstein and Nathan Leites cite in their study of American films,
that the major plot in American movies differs from the French and
British films as "winning is terrifically important and always possible
though it may be a tough fight." "The conflict" in American movies "is
not an internal one" as "it is not our own impulses which endanger us
nor our own scruples that stand in the way." Rather, "the hazards are
all external,... not rooted in the nature of life itself. They are the
hazards of a particular situation," with which we have to contend. The
hero comes into a strange town full of "dangerous men and women of
ambiguous character and where the forces of law and order are not to be
relied on." Therefore, "if he sizes up the situation correctly, if he
does not go off half-cocked but is still able to beat the other fellow
to the punch once he is sure who the enemy is, if he relies on no one
but himself, if he demands sufficient evidence of virtue from the girl,
he will emerge triumphant. He will defeat the dangerous men, get the
right girl, and show the authorities what’s what.”5 Margaret Mead too
argues that the concept of rugged self-reliance of the frontier is

perpetuated or reenacted through the cultural medium’s portrayal of the

54

self-reliant individual’s getting the desirable girl as a reward for his
self-reliance.“ But this self-reliant individual, this straight-
shooting cowboy with a penchant for "a special sense of justice" is too
unique to ever "fully belong to society." His special significance lies
in his virtue of self-reliance and special skill that society needs for
its benefit. His purpose is to "defend society without ever really
joining it." What is extracted and held exemplary is not the individual
but the individual’s self-reliance and conviction to settle matters
straight with the barrel of a gun.87

Eventually the concept of self-reliance fell into disrepute as the
notion of private goals and values became an overriding factor,
transcending the goals of the community, the most denigrating aspect of
its manifestation being in the private goals of American whites’
practices of slave holding, where the private values of individuals had
far overtaken the public values of the country as a whole.” This kind
of privatism had become so self-serving a factor that an old Yankee poem
summarized it with remarkable clarity:

God save me and my wife,

My son John and his wife,

Us four and no more.”
The privatism that the Americans now practiced became a universal factor
in their lives, and the social equality that the equalitarian tenet had
promised to the Americans was bearing fruit by travelling the economic
route. The success oriented culture, where "winning is terrifically
important" was producing individuals who were now winning for themselves

sufficiently, so much so that one is reminded about what de Tocqueville

55

had said about an individual’s development in a system based on
equalitarian principles:

As social equality spreads there are more and more people who,

though neither rich nor powerful enough to have much hold over

others, have gained or kept enough wealth and enough understanding

to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man anything and

hardly expect anything from anybody. They form the habit of

thinking of themselves in isolation and imagine that their whole

destiny is in their hands.90

When Gabriel Almond talked about the unfolding of privatism in the
American character, his observations echoed de Tocqueville’s thoughts.
In fact, so important had privatism become that Almond distinguished it
as a totally self-absorbing value since "in other cultures there is a
greater stress on corporate loyalties and values and a greater personal
involvement with political issues or with other-worldly religious
values." Almond’s American "is primarily concerned with ’private
values,’ as distinguished from social-group, political, or religious-
moral values. His concern with private, worldly success is his most
absorbing aim."”

Most importantly, despite the popularity of privatism, it did not
make the individual free. Equalitarianism had raised the individual’s
living standards, privatism was the norm, and equalitarianism made him a
conformist. The freedom to pursue wealth was only an appeasement for his
deeper unexpressed choices, since creating wealth can never substitute
for an expression for the private self.92 And thus the individual

conformed, by paying the bitter price of being "shut up in the solitude

of his own heart.“3

56

h) Individual and Society in the Twentieth Century

Despite the contemporary emphasis and awareness of peoples’
understanding of the value of democratic individuality, life in America
has grown comparatively more materialistic and people have become more
conforming by nature than their nineteenth century counterparts. David
Riesman, who distinguished two categories of Americans, the "inner-
directed men" or the nineteenth century individualist, who holds deeply
and adamantly steadfast to his inner values, "implanted early in life by
the elders and directed toward generalized but nonetheless inescapably
destined goals" and who does not defer readily to the opinions of his
compatriots or group members, and the "other-directed man" or the
twentieth century conformist. who prefers the group’s or community’s
opinions or values over his own values and thoughts, since he is
"tradition-directedl and "hardly thinks of himself as an individual."
Riesman felt that the "inner-directed man," or the 19th century man who
was de Tocqueville’s "conformist" has been supplanted by the "outer-
directed man," the 20th century man who he (Riesman) considers a
conformist. Although Riesman gives no historical reasons for this
observation for the change, it is logical to assume that cultural
transitions and technological innovations occurring during the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries partly caused the transition in the
character of the American individual. Comparatively, Riesman’s self-
reliant American of the nineteenth century (the farmers, resourceful
frontiersmen, and success oriented, practical-minded individualists like
Franklin,) were freer people than most twentieth century factory and

office workers and specialists. These latter types exemplify the

57
"organization man," whose career-moves and success depend not so much
upon the individual’s ability in solving external problems but on the
individual’s ability to manipulate the bureaucratic rules and roles.“
The twentieth century individuals’ operation within a framework of more
strict control in the form of co-operation, mutual support, and
goodwill, did not constrict the nineteenth century individuals. William
H. Whyte calls the 20th century transformation the “bureaucratized
individual," as the modern man has had to learn the tools of trade in
order to cooperate and succeed with others in a stratified organization
of hierarchies.”

Yet this does not mean that the nineteenth century man, whom de
Tocqueville called "conformist" was not really a conformist. The
nineteenth century individual’s conformism is comparatively less rigid
than his twentieth century counterpart’s. The degree of conformism has
increased in the character of the twentieth century individual because
of the contrast in living and the change in working conditions.96 It is
important to make the distinction here that in the nineteenth century, a
man’s spontaneous activities, despite being individualistic, conformed
to the recognized patterns of behavior in society. There were no radical
or unconforming behavior patterns that interfered with the group’s
overall well being or the community’s needs. "But as men grow more
civilized[,] there comes to be an increasing difference between one
man’s activities and another’s, and a community needs, if it is to
prosper, a certain number of individuals who do not wholly conform to
the general type.”7 These individuals’ activities make others in the

community take notice of what they could not have realized by

58
themselves, and like-minded individuals rally for individual causes.
Thus the notion of human rights was heard loudly in the twentieth
century. Civil rights issues, women’s franchise and rights issues,
minorities and ethnic identity issues, all crowded the social scene, and
the right to dissent or a refusal to conform attracted people’s
attention. In this new era, these individual movements attracted the
label of ”collectivism." But this is not individualism in the strictest
sense, no matter how emancipated or purged of the old ideas of privatism
and conformism the new movements might be.

At this juncture one is forced to ask whether the old ways of
conforming and privatizing one’s life have taken just new forms, or
what’s the alternative? Surely the conformism in a democracy does not
occur as blatantly as it occurs in communist societies, but the concept
of a lone, self-sufficient, autonomous individual is still unrealistic
even in a democracy, for even among non-conformists or dissenters,
without their banding together for a particular cause, the cause would
not have a voice. 0n the other hand, even the radical, militant non-
conformists are not alone in their dissent, as "the bohemians and rebels
are... zealously tuned in to the signals of a defiant group that finds
the meaning of life in a compulsive non-conformity to the majority
group."”

Man’s knowledge about the self or idea about the self provides him
with meaning and goals for his existence, and this is where the modern
individual is different from his predecessors. This awareness of
identity leads to the development of human personality, and a person

develops or realizes this sense of identity only in relation to his

59

situation in a group or community, where he interacts with others, not
in a vacuum. Therefore, a person’s identity develops both by others’
perception of it as well as his own assessment of his self in comparison
with others. In the frontier atmosphere, where people were busily
advancing their economic status, their roles were fixed as husbandsmen
and community members. A person’s identity was the same as his or her
role, a person did not get a chance to develop into a fully
differentiated individual. An assertion of his or her difference from
the rest of the community could not be effectively achieved. With rapid
urbanization, resulting from technological progress, competitive systems
of production grew to address the demands of the market. People could no
longer fall back on communal interdependence, as they were forced to
become increasingly self-aware of their survival in highly regulated
work environments. People dealt with one another as strangers, and
interpersonal relationships became momentary and monetary, with no
warmth or emotional rapport. The loss of community support was
compensated by a person’s freedom to pursue his or her own careers,
thereby giving resourceful people a chance to foster their individuality
by freeing themselves from the network of ties and social roles. The
room for their psychological growth was increased and in a sense they
were freer persons. Thus with the disappearance of the frontier, men
turned towards their own space and their thoughts became more self-
reflective.

Erich Fromm argues in his book Escape_frgm_fireedom that
individualism, with its clamor for freedom brings upon the individual a

sense of isolation; that the blessing of freedom burdens a person with

60
the curse of isolation. When Fromm wrote his book, he was aware of the
developments in Nazi Germany, "where the dread of the burden of freedom,
he believed, had produced the pathological reaction known as National
Socialism.” The freedom that was so highly prized by individuals,
according to Fromm, “was obviously overridden by the impulses that led
millions to submit themselves unquestioningly to the authority of Der
Fuehrer."” And although this scenario has not tarnished the American
notions of democratic individualism, the increasing gap between "the
overclass" or "economic elite," consisting of a self-perpetuating elite
class of industrialists, managers, professionals, and techno-geeks, and
“the underclass" in recent years"”, and the moving away from the
principles of an equalitarian (welfare) democracy does make us wonder
about the future of America’s democracy:
Clearly, we have moved from being a country that believes in
equality of human nature and the effectiveness of government to
being one that not only doubts the ability of government to
improve people’s lives but also denies the possibility of personal
transformation. This shift of perspective is reflected in the
retreat from the social activism of our recent past. One can look
at the cuts in job-training programs, the attacks on affirmative
action, and the erosion of tax support for public education as
strong evidence that Americans no longer embrace the ideal that it
is possible to change people substantially by improving their
circumstance.101
While in a democratic rights-based system, such as the one in
America, the scope for the development of both good and bad individuals
like Lincoln and Genghis Khan is a possibility, both types of
individuals share the common characteristics of "a quality of energy and
personal initiative, of independence of mind and of imaginative vision,"

and for these qualities individual growth should be encouraged. On the

other hand, despite the individual’s contribution to social progress,

61

unhampered growth of individualism can lead to the death of that same
society which fosters individual growth because "the same kind of
individual initiative which may produce a valuable innovator may also
produce a criminal. The problem... is one of balance; too little liberty
brings stagnation, and too much brings chaos." What a true individual
must strive for is a sense of responsibility that he or she must
cultivate while pursuing the goals of individual growth either through
an awareness of the self, manifesting itself through self-assertion, or
by making a change or contribution in the community through the exercise
of an "independence of mind and an independent vision."”’

Individualism is not something that one inherits, rather it is a
self-affirming posture or a way of living one’s life responsibly.
“Freedom or individuality," remarked John Dewey, "is not an original
possession or gift. It is something to be achieved, to be wrought
out.""”.Although the individual in America, by virtue of the Bill of
Rights, enjoys individual privileges and protections that are sacred,
yet the system in America, in rejecting elite individualism and showing
a marked preference for a certain kind of individualism in a democratic
society, does not place the individual above the aggregate social values
of the community, because the American system of democracy allows a
person to control his own life, but not to control the lives of others.
Individuals are seen here as the building blocks of society, and they
are linked together by a variety of invisible bonds. Here, the
development of the self is encouraged, while the individual is still
subordinate to his or her society, since the individual cannot have an

identity without being a member of society, as society itself is an

62
aggregate of many individuals. One fear is that “society may overwhelm
the individual and destroy any chance of autonomy unless he stands
against it." But the realization that "it is only in relation to society
that the individual can fulfill himself," and that a radical break with
society renders life meaningless, puts a twist to this tension between
the individual and the group which can never be easily unraveled.”‘
Erich Fromm remarked that "It is a part of the tragedy of the human
situation that the development of the self is never completed.”5 But
this view needs reinterpretation since the ongoing process of the
achievement of selfhood is what gives life a part of its special zest,
and the real achievement for every individual lies in recognizing those
unique individual initiatives and acting upon those "creative emotions

from which a good life springs."106

NOTES

1. C. W. E. Bigsby, Modern American Drama, 1915-1999 (Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1992) 32.

2. Tennessee Williams, The Glass Menagerie (New York: Signet
Classics, New American Library, 1987) 27.

3. Joseph Brodsky, "On Grief and Reason," The Hew Xerker, 26
Septenber, I994: 70. I am indebted to Mr. Brodsky’s analysis of the
distinction between the the "tragic" and the "terrifying."

4. Tennessee Williams, lhe Night ef the Iguana (New York: Signet
Classics, New American Library, 1976) 117.

5. Alan Roland, "The Self in India and America: Toward a
Psychoanalysis of Social and Cultural Contexts," Designs_ef_§elfheed, ed.
Vytantas Kavolis (london & Toronto: Associated UP, 1984) 170-191. This
article offers a perceptive comparison of the basic differences inherent
in the construction of Indian and American notions of the individual.

6. Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann
Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, Hahits 9f the Heart; In diyidualjsm and
Qemm1tment_1n_Amer1eah_L1£e (Berkley: U of California P, 1985) 28-29. I
will refer to this text as Hahits_ef_the_Heart in the body of my work.

7. Alexis de Tocqueville, "Some Observations on the Drama amongst
Democratic Nations" Ihe_Iheery_ef_the_Hederh_§tage, ed. Eric Bentley (New
York: Penguin Books Ltd., 1976) 479. For this instance, I have used this
particular translation of Tocqueville’s essay on drama for its more
effective translation of de Tocqueville’s thoughts and opinions about
drama in a democracy.

8. Alexis de Tocqueville, W, trans. George
Lawrence, ed. J. P. Mayer (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1969) 473-74.

9. de Tocqueville, Demeeraey_1n_Ameriea 473.

10. Martin Esslin, An_Anatemy_ef_flrama (New York: Hill and Wang,
1976) I4.

11. Esslin, Ahatemy_ef_flrama 17-21.

12. Jack A. Vaughn, Early Amerieah Dramatists; Frem the Beginnings
te_1299 (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co. , Inc. , 1981) provides a
general but brief survey of the most popular and noteworthy dramatists of
America from colonial times to 1900i Walter J. Meserve, Heralds 9f
' 'u " l‘ I n 0 1' .n - "e- Iur 1' 1' A" 0 - . en 3 '-
I_8_4._9 (New York: Greenwood P, 1‘986) Meserve discusses the flurry of
theatrical activity, including farce, spectacle, and heroic melodrama of
these twenty years, and specifically the plays that dealt with dramatizing
the Jacksonian qualities in heroes. Gary'A Richardson, Amerjeah_nrama_firem

63

64
r' l r I: A Critical_fli§Ler (New York:

Twayne, 1993) Richardson gives us a critical perspective of the gradual
development of American drama from the early imitations of European plays
and plays dealing with Native American themes, the elite and populist
dramas of the first half of the 19th Century, to the richly textured
dramatic antecedents of O’Neill, Odets, Rice, Anderson, Howard, Sherwood,
and Behrman that followed in the latter half of the 19th Century.

 

13. Susan Manning, "Literature and Society in Colonial America," lhe
Gu , vol. 9, gen. ed., Boris Ford
(London: Penguin, 1988) 6.

14. John M. Anderson, The Individual and The New 10135! (State

College, Pennsylvania: Bald Eagle P) 5-7. An excellent interpretation of
the American attitude towards the wilderness from its initial acceptance
as an exploitative land fit for conquest and "fructification in the name
of progress, civilization, and Christianity," and the slow perception of
the wilderness as an irreplaceable national treasure is the subject of

Roderick Nash’s, HjidernessjnLthLAmeu'QLthd (New Haven: Yale UP
1967).

15. WWI; 142-43.

16. Larzer Ziff, lhe Literature nf Ameriea:tnlnnial Eeried (New York:

McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1970) 8-9.

17. de Tocqueville, Demeeraey in Amerjea 279.
18. Anderson 8.

19. Louis B. Wright, lhe Atlantic Frontier: Colonial Amerim
Ciyilizatien (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1963) 45.

20. de Tocqueville 277-86. An extensive analysis of the frontier or
rugged individualism that the frontiersmen, hunters, and trappers
partially acquired from their contact with the Native American Indian
character and the exposure to wild nature is dealt with in Sydney

Greenbie’ s, Eurs In Eurrems; An Epig Qt Rugged Individualism (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton Printers Ltd., 1939) 349-369.

21- Ziff, WW 9.
22. Anderson 10.

23. Ziff, Wig-10.
24. Zlff W 9-

25. D. H. Lawrence, W133 (New York:
Viking P, 1964) 3-6.

65

26. Larzer Ziff, Hriting In The Newjation: Prose. Print. and
Eelities in the Early united States (New Haven. Yale UP, 1991) 174, 181.
See also, Lucy Lockwood Hazard, The Frontier in American Literature (New
York: Thomas W Crowell, 1927) 94-137, for a detailed discussion of
Filson’s and Cooper’s texts that deal with the hunters and trappers of the
frontier and the geographical environment the frontiersmen covered.

27. Ziff, Hritjng_1n_1he_Neu_Hat1nn 178, 180-81.

28. Ziff, lhe Literature of America 10-11.

29. Anderson 80.

30. David M. Potter, "The Quest For The National Character," Histery

f vi M te , ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher
(New York: Oxford UP, 1973) 232-33.
31. Hab_1'_t.5_ef_the_1:ieart 30-31.
32. Frederick Jackson Turner, Ihe_Erent1er_In_Amer1ean_H1stery (New

York: Henry Holt & Co., 1920) 37.
33. Potter, "The Quest For The National Character" 233-37.

34. Excerpt of Crevecoeur’s letter as quoted in Hahits at the Heart
35.

35. J. Hector St. John Crevecoeur,
(Glouster, MA: Doubleday & Co. Inc., 1968) 203.

36. Ziff, Hriting In lhe Hen Hatinn 21-25.

37. de Tocqueville, Demeeraey_1n_Amer1ea 255-56.

38. de Tocqueville, Demecraey in Ameriea 57.

39. de Tocqueville, m a i ri 503, 435.

40. de Tocqueville, Qemneraey_1n_Amer1ea 435, 643, 256, 699, 696.

41. de Tocqueville, Qemeeraey_1n_Amer1ea 448.

42. Potter, "The Quest For The National Character," 239. The quotes
of Parkinson, faux, and Irving are from this text.

43. Philip P. Wiener, ed., ’ ’ ' f -
‘ (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1973) vol. 2, 594.

44. Yehoshua Arieli, ' ' '
151391031 (Cawridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1964) 193, 345, 323.

66
45. de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 506, 508.
46. Hab11s_e£_the_fleert 32-33.

47. John Cawelti, s S l -M '(Chicago: ll of
Chicago P, 1965) 36.

48. George Kateb, ner ea : 'vi ua i
Culture (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1992) 81-82.
49. Hahits nf the Heart 33.
50. F. O. Matthiessen, Ameriean Benaiss sanc e; Art And Exnressinn In

Ihe_Age_Qt_Emersen_And_!h11men (New York: Oxford UP 1941) 7

51. Donald L. Gelpi, "Conversion: Beyond the Impasses of

 

Individualism," Beynnd Individualism; lew ards A Bet rieyal 0f .Horal
Djseeurse_1n_Amer1ea, ed. Donald L. Gelpi (Notre Dame, Indiana: U of Notre
Dame P, 1989) 2.

52. Larzer Ziff, Literary Qemeeraey; The Dec laratinn 91 Cultural
Indenendenee_1n_Amer1ea (New York: The Viking P, 1981) 15-16.

53. Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Nature," h l t ' i

Halde_£mersdn, ed. Brooks Atkinson (New York: Modern Library, 1950) 28.

54. Frank Lentricchia, "0n the Ideologies of Poetic Modernism, 1890-
1913: The example of William James," r
H1stery, ed. Sacvan Bercovitch (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1986) 236.

55. Lentricchia 237.

56. John Updike, "Books: Emersonianism," lhejemlprker June 4, 1984:
112-115.

57. Matthiessen 13.

58. George Kateb, Emersnn And Self-Reliance (Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications Inc., 1995) 136, 135, 137, 152-54. For an
extensive analysis of Emersonian self-reliance and how its Operation in a
democratic society enriches life, see pages 134-172. Another good analysis
of the interdependency of democratic individualism and Emersonian self-
reliance working towards a viable individual rights based society is

available in George Kateb Ihe_Inner_0eean1_Ind111duelism.a_d_0emeeret1e
Culture (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1992) 152-171.

59. Kateb, lhejnneflgean 240-51, 265-66. Corrine Lathrop Gilb,
“Some Varieties of Metaphor in American Images of Selfhood," °
Selfhned, ed. Vytautas Kavolis (London and Toronto: Associated UP, 1984)
223-235. See pages 228-230 for Gilb’s discussion of Whitman’s conception
of selfhood as the process of discovery, which is very similar to what
Kateb has talked about in his discussion of democratic individualism.

67
60. Anderson 85-86, 89.
61. Matthiessen 6.

62. Kateb, lhe Inner Ocean 169. Also see pages 258-64 for criticism
of how Whitman, despite his advocacy of inclusivity did not reach far
enough to include another individual’s different perception on one culture
from another cultural perspective.

63. Updike 123.

64. Leo Bersani, lhe Culture of Redemptinn (Cambridge: Harvard UP,
1990) 141, 143-43. Bersani argues in Chapter 6, "Incomparable America,"

with great force and clarity how Melville, through his choice of subject
matter and conception of democracy, created a masterpiece which is both
unique and a warning of the dark side of democracy and individual
assertion.

65. Francis Fukuyama, lhe End Of HistnryzAnd The Last Han (New York:

The Free P, 1992). For an insightful discussion on the future of liberal
democracy’s sway in the world, ushering the beginning of a new era of
world history, see Fukuyama’s introduction, xi-xxiii.

55. Kateb, W' 79.

67. Walt Whitman, "Democratic Vistas, " Wm
§L§e1eeted_£rese_And_Letters, ed. Emory Holloway (London: The Holloway P,
1964) 686.

68. Whitman, "Democratic Vistas" 683, 681.

69. Kateb, Ihe_1nner_ueean 84-85.
70. Kateb, 1he_1nner_Qeean 83-84.
71. Kateb, Ihe_Inner_Qeean 86.
72. Kateb, Ihe_1nner_Qeean 84.

73. Roland Barthes, Reland_Barthes, trans. Richard Howard (New York:
Hill and Wang, 1977) 79.

74 Louis Althusser, WW. trans.
Ben Brewster (New York: Monthly Review P, 1971) 170- 83.

75. Michel Foucault Wm trans D.
F. Bouchard and S. Simon (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1977) 221- 22.

76. Kateb, W11 99.

68

77. Potter, “The Quest For The National Character,“ 249-51, 253.
David Hackett Fisher, Gremjng Qld in America (New York: Oxford UP, 1978)
109-10. Fisher talks about the proliferation of the ideas of equality,
which helped in destroying the "hierarchy of age, just as it destroyed the
hierarchy of social orders,“ and of liberty, which "snapped the ties of
obligation between generations as well as between classes."

78. Potter, "The Quest For National Character" 252-53, 248-49. See
also, John Cawelti, Annstles at the §elf-Made Han 226, 209.

79. Felix Morley, "Individuality and the General Will, "

Ind1y1dua11ty, ed. Felix Morley (Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1958)
98.

80. Cawelti 226, 209.
81. Potter, "The Quest For The National Character" 254.

82. David M. Potter, "American Individualism In The Twentieth
Century," H1stery_and_Amer1ean_§ee1ety, ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher 261- 62.

83. Potter, "American Individualism In The Twentieth Century" 266-67.
84. Steven Lukes, 1nd1y1dual1sm (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1973) 31.

85. Martha Wolfenstein and Nathan Leites, Heyjes1_A_£syehnleg1eal
§tudy (Glencoe,IL: Free Press, 1950) 298.

86 Margaret Mead WWW
at_Amer1ea (New York: William Morrow and Co, Inc. ,1942) 141.

87. HabthQLtheJflrt 145.

88 Stanley" Elkins W31
and_1nte11eetua1_L1fe (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1959) 27- 80.

89. Poem quoted in Potter’s essay, "American Individualism In The
Twentieth Century" 270.

90. de Tocqueville 478.

91. Gabriel A. Almond. W (New
York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1950) 48.

92. Hahjts_ef_the_Heart 3-8. Brian Palmer, a real life example of a
"success oriented" individualist, attributes the failure of his marriage
and personal life to causes incurred by his excessive devotion to self-
interest and career as a businessman. "I was extremely success-oriented,
to the point where everything would be sacrificed for the job, the career,
the company. I said bullshit. That ain’t the way it should be." (p.5)

93. de Tocqueville, Demneraey_1n_Amer1ea 478.

69

94. David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American
Qharaeter (New Haven: Yale UP, 1950) 6- 26. See also, Henry Steele
Commanger, lhe Ameriean Hind; An Inte erpretation of American_1heught_and
Character Since the 1880’ s (New Haven: Yale UP, 1950) 3- -40, 406-443.
Commanger asserts the change in the individuals’ natures of these two
centuries as an outgrowth of intellectual and scientific progress. Habits

etihejeart 149.

95. William H. Whyte, W (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1956) 3-14, 52-53, 392-410.

96. Carl N. Degler, "The Sociologist as Historian: Riesman’s lhe

Lene]1.£reud“&nem‘.c3e_0u3r_teflx 15 (1963): 483- 97

97. Bertrand Russell, Authority and the Individual (London: Unwin
Hyman Ltd., 1990) 37.

98. David Riesman, Indiyidualism Recensidered And Other Essays (New
York: The Free P of Glencoe, 1964) 117.

99. David M. Potter, Freedum an nd Its Limitatigns in Ameriean life,
ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher (Stanford. Stanford UP, 1976) 26- 27.

100. Michael Lind, The Next American Nat_1_on_Tlm_Neyl_Nati_o_naJ1’sm_and
Ihe_feurth_Amer1ean_Bey91ut1en (New Ybrk: The Free P, 1995) 139-180.
Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites and The Betrayal of Democracy
(New York: W. W. Norton, 1995) 25-49. These two books on the nature
American nationhood and democracy analyze "the upperclass" and theorize
the consequences of the growing gap between two dominant classes in
America Also see. Wendell Berry, W

(New York & San Francisco: Pantheon Books, 1993) Berry talks
about "an economic elite who have invested their lives and loyalties in no
locality and in no nation, whose ambitions are global, and who are so
insulated by wealth and power that they feel no need to care about what
happens to any place... The global industrialists will go anywhere and
destroy anything, so long as there is a market for the result."

101. Lawrence Wright, "Double Mystery," Ihe_HenL1grker Aug. 7, 1995:
45-62. Wright discusses the recent research on the nature and personality
of twins and raises thought-provoking ideas about the our conceptions of
the self.

102. Russell 45, 37.

103. Quoted in Cawelti 240.

104. Hahits ef the Heart 144.

105. Erich From, Han_fer__lflmse_]_f (New York: Holt, Reinhart &
Winston, 1947) 91.

106. Russell 48.

- A‘~.* .u- .

CHAPTER TWO

POSSESSIVE INDIVIDUALISM AND SELF-DESTRUCTION IN KINGDOM OF EARTH
AND 27 HAGONS FULL OF COITQN

In this chapter I will discuss Kingdgm nf Earth and the one act
play 22 Haggns Full ef Cetton and the similar ways in which the
possessive instinct of Chicken, Lot, Jake, and Silva eventually leads to
destructive consequences. These two plays exhibit a remarkable
similarity in the way the possessive individuals operate and victimize.
The major characters in both plays pursue identical routes towards
possessing the things they value most, because they are convinced that
their possessiveness is not only just, but also that they can enhance
their self-worth through acts of possesSion. 0n the other hand, the
possessive drive that leads these characters to move forward, giving
them the illusion of winning, is the cause of their destruction.
Furthermore, not only are these two plays similar from the point of
action and the characters’ motivation to possess their desired objects,
but also both plays have three main characters, two males and a woman in
each, and the male characters in both plays are concerned with attempts
to enhance their individual worth through a possession of property, but
they also act on their desires to control and own the people who are
weaker than they are, in this case the women who unwittingly stumble
into these possessive individuals’ lives.

Before discussing the two plays, I wish to clarify my position

about the two later versions of 22 Hagnns full at Cnttnn. Williams, at

the urging of his friend and stage director Elia Kazan, fashioned a

screen play called Bahy_Dell based on his two one act plays ZZ_Hagens

7O

71
which Kazan directed for the screen in 1955-56.‘Later in his career, in
1978, Williams again wrote a stage version of the screenplay, Bahy_inl,
and named it liger lail.2 Although these two later versions, the

screenplay and the stage play, are expanded versions of the original

one-act plays, 22 Hagnns full ef Cutton and lhe Lung Stay Cut Shgrt gr
lhe Unsatisfaetnry Supper, Williams made many changes and additions in

these two versions which are "quite different from the two short
plays."3 Moreover, Williams also gave these revised and expanded
versions happy or comic endings that, I feel, are contrived and

therefore detract from the rich ambiguity/uncertainty of the open

endings that he gave to his original one act play, 22 Haggns Eull gf
Cetten and his full length play Kingdom gf Earth. Williams may perhaps
have felt the need to give his later versions of 21_Hagens happy
resolutions to provide his audiences with the satisfaction of seeing the
victim compensated with happiness. Hence, these changes are
understandable. But these happy resolutions or non-threatening endings
are unhelpful for proving the link between the possessive instinct and
the destructive consequences. Therefore, I have chosen not to deal with

these later crowd-pleasing versions of 21_Hagnns.

I The Central Image of Possessiveness in the two Plays
From the two plays’ symbolic representation of material property
as objects of possession and contention among the pair of rival males,
the emphasis is on the possessive instinct. In K1ngdem_ef_Earth, we are
presented with the image of a Mississippi delta farmhouse’s imminent

danger of being engulfed by the elements: the "rattling winds," with

72
their power of invading space and the "insistent murmur of vast waters“
of "a flooding river."‘ This image of a natural engulfment is of special
significance, as Chicken, who is also contending for this house, is
presented as "a suitable antagonist to a flooding river" (K1ngdem 125).
Again, the confrontation of the two antagonists for the possession of
the farm house is not so much a confrontation between Chicken and the
elements, but a foreshadowing of the bitter bickering and rivalry that
ensues between Chicken and his half-brother, Lot, both of whom are eager
to get hold of the Mississippi farmhouse and its adjoining land, for
purposes of self-satisfaction, enhancement of social status, and self-
worth, all of which qualities they feel will enhance their
individuality.‘

ZZ Haggns Full gf Cgttnn begins with a scene of conflagration. The
Syndicate Plantation, a modern automated cotton gin, is at the center of
dispute because it has put Jake Meighan and his antiquated cotton gin
out of work, thereby appropriating Jake’s livelihood, his position in
society, and his self worth. Jake views this competition from the
Syndicate Plantation Mill as an act of usurpation. He clandestinely sets
the Plantation Gin on fire, thereby securing vigilante justice and
personal satisfaction. The antagonism that ensues as a consequence of
this rivalry between Jake and Silva, the Syndicate Plantation gin’s
superintendent, who is now the victim of Jake’s arson, builds into a
spectacle of intrigue and revenge as Silva embarks on avenging the loss
of the Syndicate Plantation gin at Jake’s hands, and as Jake prepares
himself to deal with Silva’s doubts, plans for retribution, and for

regaining his self-worth.

73

More importantly, while the male characters in both the plays are
involved in asserting their individuality through their efforts in
trying to perpetuate control over material possessions, the two women
characters, Myrtle in Kingdem_et_Earth and Flora in 27 Hagens Full gf
flatten, are also treated as objects of control. They are exploited and
used by the possessive individuals because the women are seen as
accessory properties that the males want to possess both sexually and

also keep under their control.6

11 Lot’s Possessive behavior

When Lot, the lawful owner of the house, enters with Myrtle, we
are given hints that the two are related, but we learn from Myrtle about
the unusual nature of their marriage. Their marriage is not based on
love, but on a pact of protecting each other, taking care of each
other’s need: "I’m not just your wife, I’m also your mother," (Hjngdem
130) says Myrtle to Lot. We are told that Myrtle "dominates him [Lot]
in an amiable way" (K1ngdnm 127). More importantly, there is a hint of
role reversal and it is the wife who is in charge. Myrtle sings to Lot:
"Cuddle up a little closer, baby mine./ Cuddle up and say you’ll be my
clinging vine" (K1ngdem 135). What becomes increasingly clear as the
scene progresses is that Lot’s marriage to Myrtle is not only one of
convenience, but also his personal gain, since he confesses to her about
his selfish, self-centered nature: "Yes, selfish as hell," and "when
people are desperate, Myrtle, they only think of themselves" (K1ngdnm
156). Lot’s plans are to hold onto the property by enticing Myrtle with

dreams of owning material wealth by convincing her to "handle" and

74
overpower Chicken after getting him drunk and then stealing the piece of
paper on which Lot has deeded his property to Chicken. This action will
serve Lot’s plan of preventing the property from slipping into Chicken’s
control in the event of his own death. But there is an element of irony
that underlies Lot’s desire to possess the house through Myrtle by
inciting her to outmaneuver Chicken and return to him the paper that he
has signed. Lot’s sending Myrtle to Chicken is in a way his risking
Myrtle to Chicken’s attack, and although Lot feels safe in not directly
facing this attack, he is, in fact, not immune from it because the same
reasoning that makes him feel that he can own the property by proxy
through Myrtle makes Lot as vulnerable to Chicken’s counterattack as
Myrtle.

Lot’s hostility, hatred, and jealousy of his half-brother,
Chicken, and Chicken’s aim of avenging himself for the treatment that he
received at the hands of Lot’s parents is the moving force of this play.
When Lot confesses to Myrtle about his hatred of Chicken, he merely
wants Myrtle to be satisfied with the fact that he just happens to hate
Chicken and therefore he is justified in his purpose of getting a
tighter hold on the property by preventing it from passing into
Chicken’s hands: "1 hate and despise him with such a passion that if
this place or anything on this place became his property--... Neither
mother or me could rest in peace in Old Gray Cemetery" (angdem 178).
Even so, Lot’s confession to Myrtle does not truly reveal his motive for
hating Chicken because his reasons for hatred lie buried deep in his own
physical, psychological, and social inadequacies and problems. Lot’s

hatred of Chicken stems from his being an insubstantial person, both

75
physically and socially. He is unmanly and envious of Chicken’s
virility. So possessiveness compensates for Lot’s lack of the more
elemental sources of self-worth. Therefore, as the play progresses,
Lot’s increasingly hostile behavior and possessive actions throw light
on this hatred that arises out of his rage at being an insubstantial and
an increasingly powerless individual.

When Chicken is introduced in the play, he is described as "a
strange looking young man but also remarkably good looking with his very
light eyes in darker than olive skin, and the power and male grace of
his body" (K1ngdgm 126). Chicken is thus given a physical substantiality
which Lot lacks because he, in contrast, is described as "a frail,
delicately--you might say exotically--pretty youth of about twenty--ten
years younger than Myrtle, and his frailty makes him look even younger"
(Kingdem 127). It is thus clear from this context of the play that
Chicken has a virility and a personality that attracts Myrtle in a way
that Lot cannot. This fact is eventually proven by the way Myrtle tries
to befriend Chicken through the kind of questions she asks of him: "How
come a handsome man like you is still single?" Or when Chicken warns her
about the flood, Myrtle does not hesitate to reveal her vulnerability to
Chicken: "I’m counting on your protection" (angdem 182-83) she
declares. In ironic contrast, Myrtle, despite being Lot’s wife, almost
mothers Lot and sympathizes with his weak constitution: "Why, baby!
Precious love!--That’s an awful cough!--I wonder if you could be coming
down with th’ flu?... Last night you touched the deepest chord in my
nature, which is the maternal chord in me. Do you realize what a

beautiful thing you are?... Skin, eyes, hair, any girl would be jealous

76
of. A mouth like a flower" (K1ngdem 134-135). In fact, Lot is aware of
Chicken’s virility and readily accuses Myrtle of being attracted to his
half-brother when he feels his plans are not moving along as planned: "I
think what attracts you back down there is nothing made of rubber and
nothing made of paper, whether you face it or not" (K1ngdem I79).
Chicken, who is not only physically substantial, but also desperately
desires social acceptance and individual worth, which he believes have
eluded him because he is low born and a man of no economic means.
Furthermore, by owning the house and the adjoining land, Chicken will
ultimately be able to avenge himself on Lot’s family and their inhuman
treatment of him.

Lot’s seething hatred of Chicken is also his way of compensating
for his lack of masculine grace and magnetism, his poor health, and his
own self-hatred. He is a victim of consumption and therefore physically
weak, incapacitated, and his "physical disease... parallels his
emotional feebleness.“’Chicken refers to him as an "invalid," "TV
husband," implying that Lot is a fake husband, a husk, and he makes fun
of Lot’s illness, calling him a "headless chicken," who "bleeds like a
chicken with its head chopped off" (K1ngdgm 140, 151-152). In the same
scene, Chicken mocks the conversation between Lot and Myrtle to prove to
them that he considers them both insubstantial, their marriage false,
that Lot is no man, and by being Lot’s wife Myrtle too is a mere echo, a
shadow of no substance:

Myrtle: I don’t understand! What is it?

Chicken [mimicking her]: "I don’t understand! What is it?"

Myrtle [backing up steps]: You scare me!

Chicken: "You scare me!"

Myrtle [running up a few more steps]: I’m going up with Lot!
Chicken: "I’m going up with Lot!"

77

Myrtle: Do you know he mocked every word I said. (K1ngdem 152-53).
Lot’s poor estimation of himself is seen in the lines where he uses
self-deprecating language. He refers to himself as "a impotent one-lung
sissy who’s got one foot in the grave and’s about to step in with the
other“ (K1ngdem 156). Lot is an insubstantial man, weak and frail, and
in order to compensate for this physical insubstantiality he desires to
hang onto his property, believing that the value of the property will
give him more worth as its owner and cover up his weakness and
dependency on people.

Lot is presented not only as someone with no physical
substantiality, but also as someone with no personality and no social
status, a fact that Lot is overtly conscious of. Thus, in his desperate
urge to give himself a personality and status, he impersonates his dead
mother. He informs Myrtle that his mother "Miss Lottie, was socially
accepted by sev’ral families with standing in Two River County" (K1ngdnm
158). He keeps up with his mother’s ritual of drinking sherry, smokes
from the ivory cigarette holder which he inherited from his mother,
tells Myrtle that he used to read the Vague magazines that his mother
subscribed to, and he even confesses to her that he bleaches his hair
with the formula that his mother passed down to him (K1ngdem 133-34,
154, 157, 159-60). In other words, Lot’s own estimation of himself as a
person of no personality and social standing is partly the reason why he
so desperately goes about impersonating his mother. Through his
impersonation of his mother, Lot substantiates the need and desire to
feel accepted, acquires a personality that he lacks, and feels superior

to Chicken since his mother was of a class that is above Chicken’s.

78

Lot’s impersonation of his mother and his desire to own the house
are linked to each other. Lot is aware of his lack of manliness, his
ill-health, and the disadvantage that these inadequacies spell for him.
So, he is given to self-mockery. He inadvertently refers to himself as
"a fairy" when he warns Myrtle, "don’t imagine you’ve married a fairy"
(K1ngdem 160). Therefore, he feels that the only way he can overcome
this disadvantage is to endow himself with a personality that is
borrowed, and which at the same time threatens Chicken. This is because
Chicken knew and worked under Miss Lottie, Lot’s mother, and was aware
that she had legal right over the property, and this fact kept Chicken
away from the property. On the other hand, Lot’s desire to own the house
has a deeper significance that is linked with his ritual of
impersonating his mother. For Lot, owning the house completely would not
only enhance his personality as a man of property and invest him with an
individuality, but owning the house would mean ensuring his connection
with his mother and making him one with her. Thus, just as Lot’s
impersonation of his mother reinforces his claim of ownership, his
ownership role completes the impersonation.

Despite being the legal owner of the house, Lot has had to depend
on Chicken for its upkeep, and he is unable to accept the idea that the
house will pass into Chicken’s hands as soon as he’s dead. His
consumptive condition and his inability to take care of the house and be
a man around the house, like Chicken, pain him acutely. Although he can
do nothing about his physical insubstantiality, without the property
completely under his control he is liable to become an economically

powerless person too. Since he neither possesses physical individuality

79
nor a guaranteed economic individuality, the only alternative that is
available to him for becoming substantial is by making property a
memorial to himself and making sure that it does not go to Chicken even
after his own death. Because of this desire, Lot is prepared to
establish his permanent control on the house even by the crudest tactic,
that is by proxy and by taking the risk to incite the woman who he
considers to be his wife, to "make him [Chicken] pass out to get the
paper, knock him with a hammer" and get a hold of "that paper," (K1ngdem
180) for that would be far more desirable than having the property slip
into the grasp of his half-brother.

III Jake’s Possessive Behavior

In 22 Haggns full at Cgttgn we see the same kind of social,
economic, and sexual inadequacy at the core of individual rivalry.
Jake Meighan, the sixty year old owner of a cotton gin seeks vengeance
by setting the Syndicate Plantation gin on fire because the mill’s
modernization has left Jake without a job and is also threatening his
survival. But Jake is not merely upset at the loss of his livelihood and
income. The Syndicate Plantation has now left him with no social
standing because he no longer has a respectable income, and this loss of
social face or social individuality is partly the reason why Jake sets
fire to the Syndicate Plantation gin. In fact, when rewriting the play
as Bahy_Dell and later as liger Tail, Williams spells out the complete
motivation that led Jake to arson the Syndicate Plantation gin. Archie
Meighan, Jake’s counterpart in Bahy_fle11, says on the phone to The Ideal

Pay As You Go Furniture Company, an organization from which he has

80
rented furniture: “Well you see I had a terrible setback in business
lately. The Syndicate Plantation built their own cotton gin and’re
ginnin’ their own cotton, now, so I lost their trade and it’s gonna take

me a while to recover from that... And when the furniture company does
not buy his excuses, Archie angrily orders his caller to take back the
furniture: “Then TAKE IT OUT! TAKE IT OUT! Come and get th’ damn stuff.
And you’ll never get my business again! Never!" (Bahy Dell 9).
Therefore, the phone call to Archie Lee is not only an indication of
Archie’s [Jake’s] defaulting on his mortgage payment on the furniture,
for which he has been called and insulted, but it also points to the
agony he suffers as a result of his loss of face because of his loss of
income. Furthermore, the instability, which this lessened economic power
causes in him, further complicates his social status and this condition
makes him burst out in anger. In the 1977 version of the 22 Hagens
called liger lail, Williams makes Jake’s counterpart Archie Lee’s social
position even more precarious as we see at the play’s opening, Archie’s
wife, Baby Doll, plans to leave Archie since the Ideal Pay As You Go
Plan Furniture Company has removed the furniture from Archie’s home for
lack of payment: "I don’t want to sit in the same house with a man that
would make me live in a house without no furniture."’.Archie’s wife’s
decision to leave has much to do with Archie’s threatened economic
status, and it is also an indication of his loss of social status, which
maddens Archie to take revenge. Thus, these explanations of Archie’s
[Jake’s] rage that Williams does not elaborate on in his one-act version
can be applied to Jake Meighan, who in ZZ_Haggns is not only piqued

because his livelihood is threatened, but is even more angry because his

81
social position as a man with an earning power has been damaged by the
Syndicate Plantation’s competition. This fact is a terrible blow to
Jake’s economic status as an individual of possessions or a man of
means.

The fact that ownership and individual economic power have a lot
to do with the rivalry and hatred between the two plays’ male characters
is also evidenced by Williams’s emphasis on key words and acts of
possession. In Kingdem ef Earth, Lot’s fear of his property’s slipping
out of his grasp makes him desperately, frantically, possessive. He
needs to convince himself that he still is the owner of his house by
repeatedly reminding himself and the people around him that the property
belongs to him. Thus, in his conversations with Myrtle he says: "This
place is mine. You’re my wife... the place went to me. It’s
mine..."(K1ngdgm 137). "We’re two against one in this house and the
house is ours" (K1ngdem 141). "I’m home, in my home, on my land, with my
wife..." (Kingdem 147). Through this repeated usage of the words "mine,"
"ours," and "my," Lot impresses on Myrtle the need and importance of
possessions and how possessions can impart an individuality to one.
Therefore, he tries frantically to make her understand the value of
ownership: "Here’s your chance to own something... I married and brought
.you down here to own a place of your own an’ be a lady" (H1ngdnm 169).
The final implication is that possessions not only make a person an
individual but also bestow and establish social identity, and in
Myrtle’s case, possessions have the power even to transform some

ordinary, unknown woman into "a lady."

82

Williams’s italicizing the key word of possessiveness as Lot’s
talk progresses in the play increasingly indicates this social status
that ownership imparts to an individual. To Lot, home has become the
object to contest about, to take from another, and an object for others
to envy. Therefore, at the time Lot has finished convincing Myrtle that
the property is his, he is also showing Myrtle how to think like him, in
terms of having, owning, possessing. Myrtle exclaims: "My house, my
home! I never suspected, how much havin’ property of my own could mean
to me till all of a sudden I have some. Home, home, land, a little dream
of a parlor, elegant as you, refined as you" (K1ngdgm 137). This
romantic reference is a traditional reference to the home as a hearth, a
place of warmth and love. But Myrtle’s traditional and romantic attitude
will not make Lot succeed in his aim to outwit Chicken and own the
property. Therefore, he takes it upon himself to instruct Myrtle to
rethink her notions about home as not something idyllic and cozy, but to
look at home as a hard material object, as a unit of economic worth and
merit. Lot wants to change Myrtle’s understanding of home from a
conception of merely being a home to something of far more personal
significance. He wants her to make the home a part of the self and
exploit its economic potential to advance individual power and position,
because only through Myrtle’s acquiring a possessive attitude and acting
on it can Lot win and gain back his substantiality since he does not
have much time to live. The following conversation between Lot and
Myrtle makes this point.

Lot: Have you ever owned much of anything in your life?
Myrtle: Yais! My self-respeck an’ decency as a woman!

83
Lot: In addition to that, marvelous as it is, would you like to
own and possess entirely as your own a place that’s worth
much more than it gives appearance of being?
Myrtle:-- Worth what?
Lot: Over fifty-thousand dollars and could increase well managed.
[long pause] -- Well? Attractive to you or not?

Myrtle: I’ve never owned a stone I could call my own.
Lot:-- A pitiful confession, but now’s your chance if you want it.

(3133333 178)

The possessiveness that the male characters in the two plays
exhibit is not just directed at owning things of material value. Their
possessiveness extends to possessing the people around them that matter,
in this case the women around them. However, Lot’s possessiveness of
Myrtle is not of the usual kind, where men exercise their sexual and
economic control over their women. Since Lot is physically incapable of
taking care of the property and physically controlling his woman, his
possessiveness of Myrtle is channelled by his enticing Myrtle with lures
of material gain in the event of his death: "As my wife, when I die,
this place will be yours, go to you,-- Valuable property." And a little
later: "Don’t you want this place all your own when I 90?... Here’s your
chance to own something... I married and brought you down here to own a
place of your own an’ be a lady" (K1ngdgm 168-69).

At this point in my discussion, it might appear to the reader that
I am arguing towards Chicken’s winning over Lot and Silva’s winning over
Jake as being the inevitable results of Williams’s endowing these
primary males with elemental sources of self-worth and virility. And
although, to some extent, I do feel that these qualities of native
manliness and virility propel both Chicken and Silva to get ahead, it
would be a travesty to assume that serious readers would accept

Williams’s judgment as fair and wise if I were to argue that Williams

84
was indeed letting the overtly obnoxious male characters deserve the
rewards. But I do not think Williams agrees with the rightness of
Chicken’s and Silva’s success. I will address this issue in detail
towards the end of the essay, where I discuss Chicken’s and Silva’s
motivations for possessiveness and Williams’s ambiguous ending of the

two plays.

IV The Deeper Significance of Lot’s and Jake’s Possessive Control
Lot’s enticement of Myrtle has a more sinister side. Lot wants to
possess Myrtle not by taking hold of her physically but by letting the
property gain a control over her mind, so that she is willing to become
the new owner and by virtue of which not only will Chicken’s
machinations on the land be defeated, but the property will also stay in
Lot’s name through his marriage to Myrtle. Therefore, Lot argues with
Myrtle to collaborate with him in his crude plans to overpower and
seduce Chicken in order to get at the paper that Lot signed, giving
control of the property to Chicken. And while he confesses to the risk
and danger involved in this kind of crude possessiveness, he assures
Myrtle that the crudeness and dangers are worth it:
Anything worth having and doing in this world is risky. So go down
and use your charms on him and drink, but out of your drink take
little sips like a bird while he sloshes down his till he falls on
his cot, passed out, and you take out his wallet and out of his
wallet take that legal paper and destroy it. It would haunt me in
my grave and my mother in hers if this place went to Chicken. That
paper gone, you’ll own a good piece of property, and you can run
him off it, marry again, and be happy (K1ngdem 168-69).

It may seem that Lot’s non-sexual possession of Myrtle is ironic

since Lot loses status in our eyes as he is unable to possess Myrtle

85
sexually. But Williams balances this ironic position that Lot is in by
allowing Lot’s control over Myrtle to be psychological and ulterior.
Lot’s physical incapacity to possess Myrtle sexually is redressed by the
fact that he is able to take control over her mind. In other words, his
mental manipulation of Myrtle manages to be more heinous and devastating
than his physical control may have been.

In 21_Hagens, Jake Meighan’s control over his young wife Flora is
necessitated by areas of interest other than Lot’s interest in Myrtle.
Jake is "a fat man of sixty," married to a young woman whom he
constantly calls "baby" and "a baby-doll" and who is also described by
Jake’s rival, Silva, a much younger man, as "delicate... soft, Fine-
fibered and smooth" (ZZ_Haggns 3,18). Naturally, Jake’s age makes him
insecure about his erotic hold over his woman and so he is even more
controlling of her. He is constantly vigilant of Flora’s attentions and
from the way he treats her, we are left with no doubt that his control
over Flora is akin to a child’s possessiveness of its toys. Jake’s
control of Flora is also permitted socially because of the cultural
sanction of a woman as a man’s possession and therefore women are
supposed to be under the jurisdiction of men for their own well being.
When Jake tells us of his marriage to Flora, he is merely concerned
about our knowing his feelings and reasons for marrying her: "When I
fell in love with this baby-doll I’ve got here, she was just the same
size that you see her today... A woman not large but tremendousi...
when I slipped the ring on her finger... I said to her, Honey, if you
take off one single pound of that body--I’m going to quit yuh!" (21
Hagens 11). In other words, the relish with which Jake harps on Flora’s

86
weight and bulk makes her merely a physical object in the grossest way
imaginable.

More importantly, Jake’s ownership and control of Flora is so
complete that Flora lives in an environment where she is not allowed to
be an individual with an independent mind. When Flora confronts Jake
about his disappearance on the night the Plantation gin was set on fire,
Jake compels her to recant her knowledge of her suspicions about him:

Flora: You certainly did go off! Try an’ tell me that you never

went off when I just now seen an’ heard you drivin’ back in
the car? What uh you take me faw? No sense a-tall?"

Jake: If you got sense you keep your big mouth shut! (21_Hagens 5)
And just after this verbal confrontation, Jake resorts to physical
torture. He "stands in front of her and grips her neck with both hands,"
“twists her wrists," and only "releases her" (27 Haguns 6) when he is
successful in getting her to support his alibi that she did not see or
hear anything about Jake’s whereabouts and agree to lie on Jake’s
behalf, answering to his catechism:

Jake: "Where have 1 been since supper?"

Flora: "Here, here! On th’ porch! Fo’ God’s sake, quit that

twistin’!"

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Jake: "What was I doin’, then?"
Flora: "Swinging! For Christ’s sake--swingin’!"
(211399113 6-7)
Thus, not only does Jake not entertain any rebellion from Flora, he even
controls her mind and body and lets her know that she can never have her
say in any matter that might jeopardize her husband’s well being and
security. And once Jake feels secure about his power over his human

possession, he exhibits yet another facet of his controlling nature,

namely his sexual control of Flora. He rewards Flora with kisses, he

87

"grips her loose curls in his hand and bends her head back. He plants a
long kiss on her mouth,“ calls her endearing names, "That’s my swee’
baby girl...Whose baby? Big? Sweet?" (22 Haggns 7) and even goes to the
extent of referring to her as his food as "he lifts her wrists to his
lips and makes gobbling sounds" and asks: "What would I do if you was a
big piece of cake?... What would I do if you was angel food cake? Big
white piece with lots of nice thick icin’?... Gobble, gobble, gobble!"
(21_Hagens 8). Finally, when he is sure of his complete control over
Flora, he reiterates his question: "Where’ve I been since supper?” and
when Flora answers: "Settin’ on th’ swing since we had supper. Swingin’
back an’ fo’th--back an’ fo’th..." (ZZ_Hagens 8) throwing in
tentatively, jokingly, in the same breath: "You didn’t go off in th’
Chevy. (slowly) An’ you was awf’ly surprised w’en th’ syndicate fire
broke out!" (21_Hagens 9) Jake slaps her, and does not hesitate to let
her know directly that she is only a piece of property and must
relinquish all notions of individuality: "A woman like you’s not made to
have any ideas. Made to be hugged an’ squeezed!... But not for ideas. So
don’t you have ideas" (211Hagens 9). Jake’s behavior may be controlling,
but the irony of his act is it reduces him to an animal without ideas
making sub-rational sounds and gestures.

If Flora is under Jake’s physical and economic control, Myrtle too
is controlled by Lot through indirection or what Leo Bersani calls, a
"potential suppression of all otherness." This means Lot recasts his
sexless, powerless psyche into a frantic possessive urge that outwardly
Inimics the conventions of manlike possessive control, forcing him to

Inanipulate Myrtle’s mind for his own advantage and advancement. Bersani

88
would also argue that Lot’s making a show of possessiveness is in
actuality a desire to fantasize the action of possessing merely for the
sake of possessing, because Lot is not strong and manlike enough, or is
too "other" to Chicken, to contend with the possessive drive that comes
naturally to his step brother. This "theatricalization of [the] desire"
to possess also occurs partly in the form of Lot’s impersonating,
dressing, and behaving like his dead mother, whose previous ownership of
the house and social position, Lot believes, serve as a deterrent to
Chicken’s advances. The other part of Lot’s "theatricalization" issues
from his "fantasy" desire to possess the property through the help of a
living woman, Myrtle, whom he has brought into the scene as his wife in
order to thwart Chicken’s alternative plans of possession. Finally,
Lot’s channelling of his possessive desires, partly through his dead
mother’s rightful ownership of the property and partly through Myrtle’s
legal right to own the property as Lot’s wife, amounts to a "suppression
of... otherness," or suppression of his unmanly qualities, because only
through this "theatricalization of desire“ is Lot able to sublimate his
apparently impotent, passive self that he is so conscious of as we see
when he refers to Chicken as: "My opposite type" (K1ngdem 177). Again,
since Lot is restricted/handicapped from possessing in concrete terms
because of his insubstantial physical and sexual condition, "the
paradoxical nature" of his "uncompromised desire is that it is
simultaneously the experience of a lack and the experience of
omnipotence" which make him "yearn for what" he "does not have." Through

fantasizing and sublimating his innermost desires, he is able to wish

89

for himself the "ideal possessions" that he so desperately desires to
accumulate and aggrandize.1°

In fact, Lot’s fantastical desire to possess and appropriate
becomes so all consuming, his desire to force the impossible into a mold
of truth becomes so intense that he loses patience with Myrtle when she
is tentative and finally unable to act according to Lot’s plans. When
Myrtle returns to Lot after failing with Chicken according to Lot’s
plans. (And understandably so, because Chicken has threatened her with
the scenario of the flood, with sexual aggressiveness through his crude
display of the sexual carvings on the kitchen table, and by suggesting
to her that she is in his power through his antics of dropping the cat
through the trap door into the basement.) Lot is reluctant to sympathize
with Myrtle’s predicament. Instead, Lot makes things even worse for
himself. He pushes Myrtle even more to Chicken’s side when he accuses
her of being physically attracted to Chicken: "1 think what attracts you
back down there is nothing made of rubber and nothing made of paper,
whether you face it or not" (angdem 179). This unsympathetic and cruel
statement from Lot is instrumental in forcing Myrtle to seek the
protection of the more physical and real of the two males, Chicken, and
she now abstains completely from acting according to Lot’s plans and
ideas about possessing valuable property for self-advancement. She
rejects Lot by saying: I'I don’t possess this house or anything in it
except what I brought here with me" (angdem 180), and what she has
brought with her, besides her electrical equipment, herself, she now

offers reluctantly, for safety, to Chicken.

90

In fact, it must not be understood from this action of Myrtle’s
that Lot merely loses. What Williams suggests here is that Lot’s loss is
the creation of his own lack of judgment and that he is destroyed
because he makes his individuality depend on possession through
impersonation. On the other hand, Lot’s freedom as a human being is not
informed by a judgment that is born of wisdom. Furthermore, Lot lacks
crucial self-analysis which prevents him from seeing others’
predicaments. Lot’s possessive self, his dreams of self promotion and
perpetuation, his goals of self-aggrandizement, prevent him from seeing
Myrtle’s predicament in an environment where she has learned to look out
for her own safety. The bickering between the two brothers has made it
clear to her that neither Lot nor Chicken will protect her, and since
she is trapped between the two and cannot escape because of the dangers
of the approaching flood, she is forced to side with Chicken and abandon
helping Lot. As a result of Lot’s action, Myrtle ironically sees things
in a better light and is able to judge for herself her own situation and
the vulnerable condition that she is in. Her rejection of Lot can be
translated as her consideration of her own safety and survival which she
had kept under wraps in order to be with Lot and give him the protection
that he needs, and which she now realizes that he did not deserve. The
following exchange between Lot and Myrtle makes the point clear.

Myrtle: If this house is flooded, both floors, could you get

me up on the roof?
Lot: Aw. Chicken has offered to get you up on the roof.
Myrtleéhlgu brought me here and put me at his mercy, don't forget

Lot: I thought you could handle Chicken.
Myrtle: You gave me no warning. (K1ngdem 194)

91
V The Unraveling of Lot’s Possessive Control

The point at which we realize Myrtle has given herself over to
Chicken is practically the point where Lot’s destruction starts to
acquire speed. And Lot’s own possessive actions hasten his destruction.
When Lot realizes that his methods to get Myrtle to acquire the property
for himself have failed, he panics since he knows that his fantasy is
ruined, his plans are shattered, and therefore in his anger and
disappointment he resorts to violence. However, Lot’s violence is not
physical; rather it is verbal and directed solely at Myrtle, who Lot
feels is the cause of his ruin. Lot breaks out in violent abuse and
calls Myrtle “a whore," "a prostitute," whom he feels he has "married...
an’ brought her back here to Chicken for him to lay while I die up here
in this rocker, you common trash!" (K1ngdem 196). In Williams’s
terminology, Lot’s action is his "deliberate cruelty" towards Myrtle,
and an action for which Williams the dramatist never absolves the
culprit. This unjustified cruelty that one character directs at another
is what Williams categorizes as the lack of fellow feeling of one human
being towards another and for which he always held his characters to the
severest censure.

After all, Williams was very aware of the dichotomies inherent in
a democratic culture between the laudable "direction of the democratic
impulse, which is entirely and irresistibly away from the police state
and from any and all forms of controlled thought and feeling--which is
entirely and irresistibly in the direction of that which is individual

"11

and humane and equitable and free, and the "inequities" that pervade

the system when one sees in the "sight of an ancient woman, gasping and

92

wheezing as she drags a heavy pail of water down a hotel corridor to map
up the mess of some drunken overprivileged guest," an action that
Williams says "sickens and weighs upon the heart and withers it with
shame for this world in which it is not only tolerated but regarded as
proof positive that the wheels of Democracy are functioning as they
should without interference from above or below."” And for this
understanding Williams always spoke out for the one who suffered under a
free system, by highlighting their sufferings in his plays and reminding
us that there should be a place for everyone in a democracy and that
"nobody should have to clean up anybody else’s mess in this world,"
because "it is terribly bad for both parties, but probably worse for the
one receiving the service" (Hhere I liye 20). When Lot forces Myrtle to
act according to his plans to the point when Myrtle agrees to act
according to Lot’s wishes, they are both guilty of the sin of exploiting
one another for personal gain. Only Lot’s sin is more grave in
Williams’s eyes because he stands to be the "advantaged receiver" in
this instance; Lot’s actions in Williams’s world are not condoned.

Lot’s violent outburst not only alienates Myrtle, but also
causes his own destruction as he no longer has the means to exert his
control over the course of events that lead to Chicken’s apparent
victory. With the loss of Myrtle’s support, Lot has not just lost his
chief instrument of destruction of Chicken’s plans but he has no other
recourse than to redirect the anger and jealousy which tear at his
heart. Thus his actions become more and more obscure, unpredictable, and
aimless. With his plans unfulfilled, his anger smoldering, Lot’s outlet

is the self. He thus becomes a victim of his own aggressiveness and

93
directs his anger towards himself. This collapse of his self is evident
as we see him for one last time, towards the play’s end in a spectral
and ghostly appearance, physically and mentally depleted, descending the
stairs, dressed in a "gauzy white dress," in precarious health, "gasping
for breath," inarticulate, but "with a fixed smile on his face" and
finally, on reaching the parlor, where he "crumples to the floor"
(K1ngdem 212). Lot’s own actions lead to his self-destruction. His
possessive urges, his nefarious plans for self-aggrandizement, and his
manipulation and misleading of Myrtle to advance his own goals
ironically steer him in the path of automatic self-destruction. Lot’s
symbolic death portrayed through his crumpling to the floor in a dress,
is ironic in the sense that for a man, no matter how weak or frail, to
dress in a woman’s clothes before the audience (and on stage) undermines
the quest for status. On this level, Lot’s cross-dressing can no longer
be simply seen as a dramatic tool for heightening the theatrical effect
of the play. In terms of contemporary reexaminations of issues related
to gender, norms, and class, Lot’s cross-dressing at once becomes Lot’s
personal act of defiance, and unwittingly for Williams it becomes a
rebellion against the notion of status and norm.13 My interpretation of
Lot’s self-destruction and his defiance may seem contradictory, but in
dealing with most homosexual or "sissy" types in his representative
plays, Williams’s own ambiguous attitude towards these characters is
highlighted by his ambiguous rendering of these people on stage. This is
not surprising because Williams was deeply torn in rendering homosexual
characters boldly and positively. ”Like Williams’s instinctive

radicalism, his homosexuality is both ubiquitous and elusive, everywhere

94

1114

in his work and yet nearly impossible to pin down. We cannot take
Williams to task for this wary approach because he lived and wrote at a
time when homosexuality was considered as an abomination in democratic
America, and this social oppression and ostracism obviously threatened
him and prevented him from portraying major, positive gay characters on

stage.

VI The Unraveling of Jake’s Possessive Control

In 22 Hagens full at Cetten, the reversal phase of the play
commences within a short span of time, from the time when Silva comes
over to Jake’s house to ask for his help in ginning the twenty-seven
wagons of cotton, meets Flora in her "watermelon pink, silk dress," to
the time when Jake leaves to do the work, instructing his wife to "keep
Mr. Vicarro comfo’table while I’m ginnin’ out that twenty-seven wagons
full of cotton" (21_Hagens 10-12). It is from this juncture that Jake
starts losing control of his property and is drawn into destruction.
Jake’s possessiveness and control over Flora appears to be complete and
uncompromising, and this feeling gives Jake the urge to deliberately
flaunt Flora as his property and give her orders to take care of Silva,
the rival gin owner, who comes over to Jake’s home to ask for his help
in ginning the cotton. And while flaunting his control over Flora in
Silva’s presence, Jake snidely reminds Silva how well he knows how to
take care of his own property, considering the fact that Silva has just
lost his cotton gin to fire. In actuality, Jake’s control of Flora,
which he feels is secure and because of which he is able to let his wife

be alone with Silva, is in reality quite tenuous and becomes

95
increasingly looser as the scene progresses. What falls into Silva’s
hands, as a consequence of Jake’s possessive control over Flora, from
which Flora wants to break out, is what Silva had least expected. But
the dynamics of what transpires between Flora and Silva when they are
alone is not unexpected to the audience. Silva’s arrival at Jake’s door
for help with ginning the cotton is not an accident. In fact, the way
Jake is overtly but falsely affectionate to his wife in front of Silva
is proof of the fact that Jake does suspect that Silva harbors
suspicions, but Jake also most specifically believes that Silva is
powerless to do anything against him, in terms of harming Jake’s
possession, without concrete proof of Jake’s hand in the arson. But the
point Williams may be making here is that Silva may not have proof but
he does have imagination and the resolve to penetrate Jake’s fake
neighborliness and possessive boast to seek his revenge since he does
suspect Jake’s hand in the arson that destroyed his gin. The fact that
Jake’s crime against Silva is so blatantly obvious is supported by the
fact that it is arson and besides Jake there is no other possible
suspect.

Jake’s hypocritical neighborliness and possessive exhibitionism
serve as his undoing. He sows seeds of his own destruction as he takes
leave of Silva, proudly leaving his possession for Silva’s benefit by
saying: "Baby, you keep Mr. Vicarro comfo’table while I’m ginnin’ out
that twenty-seven wagons full of cotton. Th’ good-neighbor policy Mr.
Vicarro. You do me a good turn an’ I’ll do you a good one!" [my italics]
(21_Hagens 12). In fact, it is this good neighborly advice from Jake

that Silva scrutinizes and puts to the test in successfully arriving at

96
the truth behind Jake’s connection with the arson, and from which point
he literally acts according to the dictum of the "good-neighbor policy."
Silva takes full advantage of Flora’s helpless and sexually docile
nature. He loses no time in baiting her with his masculine and youthful
charm until Flora is so caught up in him that she accidentally divulges
Jake’s whereabouts during the time the gin was set on fire. Silva makes
good on Flora’s accidental confession, grills her about Jake’s
whereabouts, and when he has fully extracted the truth from Flora, he
unleashes his psycho-sexual attack on Flora, by telling her: "It’s no
use crying over a burnt-down gin. This world is built on the principle
of tit-for-tat," and he sarcastically reminds her that Jake’s remark
about "The good-neighbor policy... was a lovely remark your husband
made... I see what he means by that now" (21_Hagens 17). Thus, Flora,
who is Jake’s property, becomes Silva’s sexual victim upon whom he vents
his full anger and revenge for Jake’s damage to Silva’s gin. Williams
shows us very skillfully Flora’s progression from being Jake’s woman
into becoming Silva’s sexual slave. Silva sweet talks her: "There’s a
lot of you, but every bit of you is delicate... You’re soft. Fine-
fibered. And smooth," and flatters her: "You have an attractive smile.
Dimples." He invites her to feel his coolness in contrast to the warmth
of the outdoors: "I’m just as cool as a cucumber. If you don’t believe
it touch me... Anywhere." He switches her with his riding crop,
deliberately quibbling on the word "switch" when Flora protests: “Quit
switching me, will yuh?" with: "I’m just shooting the flies off... I
think you like to be switched." He gets closer to her physically, sits

on the swing with her, wipes off the sweat from her arms with his

97

handkerchief, and lets her know directly his interest in her: "You’re
big. A big type of woman. I like you." And he finally follows her into
the house despite Flora’s objections and her fearfulness of him: "I’m
afraid!... Of you... You’ve got a mean look in your eyes and 1 don’t
like the whip... Don’t follow. Please don’t follow!" The way in which
Williams sets up this scene, arranging the conversation and body
language between Flora and Silva, leaves no doubt in anyone’s mind that
Silva is following Flora into the house, not because he is in love with
her but because she is in his power and that he will use her. And so the
scene closes with Flora "helplessly" entering the house with Silva
following her, while a little later we hear "wild and despairing" cries
from the house (21_Hagens 18-23). Silva’s abuse of Flora is confirmed
by Williams by his description of Flora after Silva has left and just as
Jake comes home from ginning Silva’s cotton: ”Her appearance is
ravaged... Dark streaks are visible on her bare shoulders and arms and
there is a large discoloration along one cheek. A dark trickle, now
congealed, descends from the corner of her mouth" (21_Hagens 23-24).

Unlike Lot’s partial automatic physical self-destruction that
commences as soon as Myrtle goes over to Chicken’s camp, Jake’s
destruction is insidious and unrelenting, but not physical. When Silva
leaves after his satisfaction with Flora and Jake arrives home, the
conversation between Jake and Flora is laced with heavy dramatic irony:

Flora: I think it was a mistake.

Jake: What was a mistake?

Flora: Fo’ you t’ fool with th’ Syndicate--Plantation...

Jake: The Syndicate buyin’ up all th’ lan’ aroun’ here an’

turnin’ the ole croppers off it without their wages-- mighty

near busted ev’ry mercantile store in Two Rivers County! An’
then they build their own gin to gin their own cotton. It

98
looked for a while like I was stuck up high an’ dry. But

when the gin burnt down an’ Mr. Vicarro decided he’d better
throw a little bus’ness my way--I’d say the situation was

much improved!
Flora: (She laughs weakly.) Then maybe you don’t understand

the good-neighbor--policy.

Jake: Don’t understand it? Why, I’m the boy that invented it.

Flora: Huh-huh! What an--invention!" (ZZ Hagnns 25-26)
Through this conversation, we learn of Jake’s destruction as Flora has
now become Silva’s property and she will undergo a slow decline in his
hands. Her decline is tantamount to Jake’s humiliation and this will
«:ontinue to happen, apparently without any suspicion on Jake’s part,
53ince Flora tells him that "Tomorrow he [Silva] plans t’ come back--with
Itats more cotton... he’ll have me entertain him with--nice lemonadeI...
I guess it’s--gonna go on fo’-- th’ rest of th’--summer..." because
F lora, like Jake, has also had to manage "A man-size job" (ZZ_Hagens 26-
27, 24). This discussion between Flora and Jake might strike some
(tweaders/audiences) as comic, but I think Flora’s treatment by Silva is
'trfiagic and cruel because Silva’s treatment of her is no better than the
physical torture that she endures at Jake’s hands. Flora now ends up

being used by both the males for she is seen by Jake, ironically, as

Sizill being his property and by Silva as his object of use in the form

of payment for Jake’s destruction of his mill.

VII The Primary Males’ Possessiveness
Having discussed the secondary males’ possessiveness and its
effect on them, I would now like to discuss the primary males, Chicken
and Silva Vicarro, who, despite being virile and potent do not fare any

better than their rivals, Lot and Jake. It may seem to some readers that

 

99
Chicken and Silva are winners because they finally move on to a position
where they can congratulate themselves for acquiring or fulfilling their
desired objectives, but I feel Williams’s wisdom prompted him to
construct these plays with Open endings so that the (readers/audiences)
can interpret for themselves the quality of the primary males’ final
victory. Therefore, we need to consider carefully what Williams may want
us to know by portraying these virile males operating in arenas where
they are contesting for ascendancy over their rivals.

Although both plays deal with the primary males’ sexual virility
and the way they go about using their sexual potency to gain advantage
over the sexual ineffectuality and inadequacy of the secondary males, by
Turing and victimizing their women, nevertheless, sex is of secondary
importance to the contentious males in both plays. In the case of
Chicken and Lot, the creation of their individuality is more important
to them in order for them to be in opposition and antagonism to each
other: Chicken is a virile, young "wood’s colt" hungry for status and
position, while Lot is a dying and effeminate legitimate son who is
tViying hard to hold on to his property and name. Their insistence on
their possessive control and their radically different temperaments
e"liable them to maintain their individuality. In the case of Silva and
J«Elke, their individuality lies in their coming from two opposite sides
0? society: Jake is the older, established conservative cotton gin owner
whose status quo is challenged by competition from an outsider, Silva, a

l“Foreigner who is in possession of a more efficient and productive gin,

a111d who has been poorly treated and provoked into seeking retribution or

revenge .

100
These two factors, property and status, in both plays are

important ingredients in the rival males’ creation of their
individuality, and the hostility and discrimination that the primary
males face from their opponents and the communities where they find
themselves are preexisting conditions in the two plays. In addition to
this, since both the primary males, Chicken and Silva, are "outsiders,"
who have been either ostracized or looked down upon by the secondary
males, Lot and Jake, and their comunities, this apartness had created
in the primary males in a more painful way, a sense of inadequacy that
is social and status related rather than being merely a rivalry based on
sexual inadequacy and potency. And the imbalance that this social
inadequacy and difference in status creates in the two sets of
characters gives rise to the two primary males’ motivation for using
their sexual potency as weapons against their rivals. In other words,
the primary males use sex as a weapon against their opponents by
SeXually controlling the women, in this case the property, of the

SeCondary males to gain advantage in the competition for control over

POSSessions.
On the other hand, we cannot really blame or vilify either Chicken
0‘" 51' lva for their desire to get even or for their harboring the urge to
Dul] down those who are privileged. We learn from Chicken himself of his
mistreatment at Lot’s mother’s and Lot’s hands, and to put things into
per'SDective with Myrtle, Chicken explains his social status and

treatinent with a self-deprecating sarcasm:

Daddy got Lot in marriage but not me. You’re lookin’ at what is
called a wood’s colt... He married this little blonde-haided
woman... Miss Lottie, so when Lot was bawn, he got the name of
Lot. Legal, bawn in marriage. Not a wood's colt. Me--wood’s colt.

101

You know what a wood’s colt is?... My son of a bitch daddy got me
offen a dark-complected woman he lived with in Alabama... Lot’s
mother, Miss Lottie, she thought she was surely going to bury my
daddy. Hell, he was sixty when he married Miss Lottie... Well, she
did bury daddy and the place was hers, but she didn’t have long to
hold it... [but] she lived long enough to throw me off the place.
Called me in her parlor one day and fired me like a field hand...
What she give me amounted to just about the pay that a field hand
gets for a week’s work... [and when Miss Lottie started dying,
Lot] sent for me to come back and operate this place for him...

(K111991211! 185-87)-

F inally, Chicken goes on to explain to Myrtle the "setup" or the reason
why he will not leave the house until he owns it completely since Lot
agreed to the "setup" according to Chicken’s terms: "If you want me to
run this place for you, well, here’s the deal. When you are through with
TB! —-It goes to me..." an agreement that Lot is trying to invalidate by
establishing Myrtle as his heir and thereby provoking Chicken’s
aggressive behavior (H1ngdem 188).

In Chicken’s revelation to Myrtle about his status as a "wood’s
ccrltf' and his desire to own the house and land, one is reminded of the
Earl of Gloucester’s bastard son, Edmund’s, self justification for
exflcting revenge on the ones who are higher up in the social scale. In
his soliloquy in lg1ng__Lear, Edmund reasons that his low birth and status
are responsible for his malicious behavior against the people whom he
CannOt stand. He reasons that his legitimate brother’s and aristocratic
father’s social position make them anathema to him, just as his being a
hast«11rd makes him a socially unequal person and the butt of people’s
jokeS. I quote Edmund’s soliloquy here for a recapitulation of his

a"Qillllent for justifying his conduct and evil nature:

Thou, Nature, art my goddess, to thy law

My services are bound. Wherefore should I

Stand in the plague of custom, and permit
The curiosity of nations to deprive me,

 

102

For that I am some twelve or fourteen moonshines

Lag of a brother? Why bastard? Wherefore base?

When my dimensions are as well compact,

My mind as generous, and my shape as true,

As honest madam’s issue? Why brand they us

With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?

Who, in the lusty stealth of nature, take

More composition, and fierce quality,

Than doth within a dull, stale, tired bed

Go to th’ creating a whole tribe of fops,

Got ’tween sleep and wake? Well then,

Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land.

Our father’s love is to the bastard Edmund

As to the legitimate. Fine word, "legitimate"!

Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed

And my invention thrive, Edmund the base

Shall [top] th’ legitimate. I grow, I prosper:

Now, gods, stand up for bastards!ls

'Thea striking parallel that Edmund has with Chicken other than the fact

that both characters are bastards lies in Edmund’s symbolic significance

in the play. Arnold Kettle sees Edmund as the "new man of the incipient
bourgeois revolution, the private enterprise man, the man who thinks he
has got to be a phoenix, the individualist go-getter, the Machiavel,
M81"Towe’s aspiring hero taken to his extreme conclusion: man with the
lit! crff."" This symbolic characteristic of Edmund is perhaps more close
to Chicken, the possessive individual in Williams’s play, than even
their connection as bastard sons, because both of them are driven by
Strong but individual urges to remedy the socially inferior condition
that traps them from achieving self-advancement.

But Chicken is not Edmund. Unlike Edmund, Chicken is not a
villain. He does not go about planning Lot’s destruction out of sheer
hatred. Chicken harbors a resentment towards Lot because of his own low
Stiltus and birth, and he wants the satisfaction of being equal with Lot

by DOssessing the property that is Lot’s and which Lot does not want

CDICKen to have. Chicken’s status-related resentment for Lot parallels

103
Edmund’s grounds for his resentment of his "legitimate“ brother Edgar
and towards his father, the Earl of Gloucester, for having borne him as
an illegitimate child, which has doomed him to his second hand life, a
life in the shadow of his "legitimate" brother, Edgar. But Chicken does
not plan on deliberately getting rid of Lot. Edmund essentially wants
everybody around him dead, and he makes his bastardy a condition for
being vindictive. He argues that since he has no redress for his
condition in his society, he therefore harbors no remorse for what he
will do to the people closest to him. In fact, he vows to be wilfully
malicious, evil, and destructive to those who are above him in rank and
position, although we see that Edmund’s father treats him well and also
his brother, Edgar, harbors no resentment towards Edmund. Edmund
Justifies being evil with a relish and "he is incapable of an honest
Passion of any kind."17
Chicken, on the other hand, desires to rise above his condition to
a Status he believes he can reach by owning the property that he feels
ShOU Id be his, since he feels he has the right to the property by virtue
0f the paper on which Lot has relinquished his claim on the property.
ChicIken’s speeches also contain a frankness, a certain lack of guile
that Edmund’s does not. Edmund tactfully argues that his perverse plans
are the workings of unseen deities on his nature. He wants to influence
.the audience into believing that his nature is being run by a blue print
Clem91‘1ed by a pagan god, a god who is the patron of bastards, and so, he
reasons, it leaves him with nothing else to do but to behave cruelly.
Th"Ough this argument he absolves any personal responsibility for the

harm that he plans on bringing upon the people closest to him. But

104
Edmund’s argument is merely an argument for argument’s sake, because the
argument is a lame and unoriginal excuse that all consunInate villains
have made to free themselves from the burden of responsibility that a
person ordinarily feels in making a choice and taking the risk that it
will be a bad one. Edmund’s evil nature is deep seated in his
personality, and that is why he can go about unflinchingly at his
mission of dispossessing his brother, who harbors no hatred for him, and
wreaking vengeance on the lives of the people closest to him. Edmund
shows no real interest is rising above himself, but Chicken does.
Chicken is a victim of circumstance and seeks to rise above his status
from being a bastard to being a person who can be an equal individual
through owning a piece of land. Edmund’s villainy arises out of raw
malignity and he uses his status as a bastard to justify the malice and
violence that are integral to his personality. Edmund is relentless in
his pursuit of evil. Chicken’s antagonism rises out of his being treated
cruej ly by everyone close to him. And now that circumstances have
Changed for him, he desires self-advancement through asserting his
rights to gain control and possession of the property.
Similarly, Silva’s motive for revenge partly issues from his being

an outsider and a man whose means of livelihood have been destroyed by a
conflunity, which is opposed to granting him acceptance because of his
outs‘fl'der status. Silva has also been victimized by an unfair,
unimaginative, paranoid, ageing competitor, who sets fire to his gin,
proVOking Silva’s anger and thirst for adequate revenge. Silva’s status

as an outsider and a threat to some of the people of the conlnunity is

mentioned by Williams in the screenplay, Bahy_D_Ql_1, where we see a

 

105
hostile crowd attacking the speaker at the opening celebration of
Silva’s gin by throwing something "liquid and sticky" at him, and an
increasingly agitated and troubled Silva trying to put on a brave front
to the hostile opposition by declaring: "If anybody’s got anything more

to throw, well, here’s your target, here’s your standing target! The

wop! the foreign wop!""'

VIII The Primary Males’ use of Sexual Manipulation to further
their Possessive Control

Since so much emphasis is placed on the sexual politics in
operation in both plays, we need to look at exactly how Chicken and
Silva use their potent virility to get control of what they ultimately
desire. From the way Chicken and Silva operate in their respective
environments, we can safely say that they both use their virility to get
Control of their situation and get the secondary males out of their way
80 they can lure and victimize the women who belong to the secondary
males, so that these socially ostracized but potent males feel
Viridicated as the more dominant and hence the more powerful males.
Ch1'Ctken’s and Silva’s chief aim is to validate their own powers to
the'Ilselves and get revenge on the agents of the secondary males because
these agents, the women, have been strategically positioned by the
sec0ndary males to thwart or distract the primary males’ progress
towa1"ds self-advancement. Therefore, the path that the primary males

9'“)?HK upon by manipulating sex is tantamount to rape and humiliation,
as they purposely refrain from using their sexual potency in a romantic
way to ensnare and win over their rivals’ other halves to their side.

Another reason why these primary males do not use sex as a romantic lure

106
'for the women is for reasons of their own safety, because Chicken and
Silva would then risk falling under the power of the women if they let
‘the women have an equal hand in the sexual act. Their purpose is to use
:sex to overpower the women, be in control of the situation, and use the
women towards getting even and furthering their possessive control over
the property.

Both Chicken and Silva use the women as commodities that they
exploit on the path towards gaining control of their status as the more
dcuninant males. But in their use of sex over the women, both Chicken and
Silva go one step further. Both use sex as a tool for self-satisfaction
arud humiliation of the agents, who were put in their way to either
thwart their aims, or as mere objects of pleasure. That is why as soon
as Chicken gets Myrtle to relinquish her control over the property as
Lot’s wife, by dictating to her and making her sign a retraction of her
Claim over the property as Lot’s widow, he calls her "weak," and in
r‘<-'£Sponse to Myrtle’s concession: "I’ve always been weak compared to men,
to a man. I think that’s natural, don’t you think?" (Kingde 201)
Chicken challenges her to kiss him, disclosing to her that he wants her
to kiss him specifically because he has "some black blood in him"
(Bijllsudem 201), kisses her, and then proceeds to consummate the sexual
act with Myrtle to her consternation and humiliation by making her
perform fellatio on him. This controlling sexual act is evident in the

“33! Act 2, Scene 2 concludes:

Myrtle: I’m a warm natured woman. You might say passionate, even.
A Memphis doctor prescribed me a bottle of pills to keep
down the heat of my nature, but those pills are worthless.
Have no effect, I’m through with them.-- Don’t you know
that I would never back down on that letter you dictated to

me? Not if I could, never would!

107

Chicken: No, I reckon you wouldn’t. [He hoists himself onto the
kitchen table, directly in front of her, legs spread wide.]

Myrtle: Wouldn’t you be more comfortable in a chair?

Chicken: I wouldn’t be as close to you--I’m right in front of you
now.

Myrtle: I have to strain my neck to look at your face.

Chicken: [with a slow, savage grin]:--You don’t have to look
in my face, my face ain’t all they is to me, not by a long
shot, honey... [She begins suddenly to cry like a child.]
Why’re you cryin’? You don’t have to cry fo’ it, it’s what
you want and it’s yours! [He snatches up the lamp and blows
it out.][The kitchen is blacked out: an opaque scrim falls
over its open wall. Light is brought up in the bedroom where
Lot sits in the wicker rocker, moonlight on him brightening,
fading and brightening again.]

Lot: Lamp’s gone out in the kitchen and I don’t hear a sound.--
What I’ve done is deliver a woman to Chicken, brought home a
whore for Chicken that he don’t have to pay. -- A present

from the dying (K1ngdem 201-202).

‘The dramatic irony in Lot’s comment with which the scene concludes is
suggestive of the predicament that Lot has forced upon Myrtle from which
she is unable to extricate herself. Indeed, it is Lot’s miscalculation
tfliat backfires on Myrtle and helps Chicken to gain control of the
situation.

Silva, on the other hand, manipulates Flora’s sexual attraction
firr him as soon as he is able to confirm his suspicions about Jake’s
whereabouts during the time the Syndicate gin was set on fire. He
proceeds to follow her into her house, all the while "switching" her
W"ith his riding crop and inflicting himself on her. Williams
deliberately refers to the scene in the house by using ambiguous stage
directions to let the audience know that Silva is not exactly enamored
of? Flora, and once she is fully under his power, Silva’s "switching"
l:lora with his whip against her objections smacks of his sado-
masochistic drive. Flora’s condition as a victim is unambiguous.

Hilliams’s description of Flora and the activity inside the house,

108
through the sounds emanating from within, conjures in the reader’s mind
the image of a rabbit in a boa-constrictor’s grasp:
Flora: Please don’t!

Vicarro: Don’t what?
Flora: Put it down. The whip, please put it down. Leave it

out here on the porch.
Vicarro: What are you scared of?

Flora: You.
Vicarro: Go on. (She turns helplessly and moves to the

screen. He pulls it open.)
Flora: Don’t follow. Please don’t follow! (She sways

uncertainly. He presses his hands against her. She
moves inside. He follows. The door is shut quietly. The
gin pumps slowly and steadily across the road. From
inside the house there is a wild and despairing cry. A
door is slammed. The cry is repeated more faintly.) (21

113951113 23)

‘Fhus, both Jake and Lot lose control of their women. Myrtle’s going over
to Chicken’s side is a definite loss for Lot, whereas Flora becomes
Silva’s object of lust, since Silva makes a point of extracting a price
on Jake’s property by letting Jake gin the cotton in exchange for his
enjoyment of Jake’s wife, ironically without Jake’s knowledge of the
occurrence. This slow and humiliating treatment of Flora serves as
Jake’s defeat or Jake’s destruction.
Yet, on another level, this apparent victory of the two primary

"Niles is hardly victory. In Chicken’s case, despite his looking about
h‘ilnself "appraisingly, a man who has come into possessions fiercely
desired," despite his triumphant cry at the play’s end, as he declares:
"Sing it out, frogs an’ crickets, Chicken is king" (Kingdom 213-24), his
\Fictory is a pyrrhic one. Chicken’s strutting about on the roof in
tJ‘iumph, almost testosterone-addled, is merely an act of bravado, for

lmmediately after Chicken’s call, Chicken’s next battle is about to

begin, and this time it is not with an unequal foe but with nature,

109
since we hear nature’s challenge in the "great booming sound," which is
the noise of the oncoming flood that is about to engulf the house, and
which will neutralize both Chicken’s victory and his new-found self as a
than of possessions. This premonition of natural disaster is symbolic of
(:hicken’s destruction. Although Williams closes the play at this point,
vvith a threat of natural disaster, the significance of the threat from
'the flood is enough to suggest the possessive individual’s
insignificance and powerlessness in the face of this danger. In 21
tiaggns, Silva’s victory is no less a short-lived victory since he too
l1as not been assured a complete control of the situation. Silva, we are
told by Flora, has left with the hope of coming back, but his plans of
lesing Flora are just plans, because we do not for one moment doubt that
Silva has indeed overreached himself and given in to an illusion of
order, an order that has been imposed by him, because the certainty of
Jake’s finding out the real story at one point or another is very real,
and at a minimum a bloodbath will ensue as a consequence of the
discovery.

Thus, Chicken’s and Silva’s victories remain uncertain and
lvicomplete through Williams’s ambiguous endings of the two plays. And
the fact that these males hardly fare any better than their antagonists
is not because of some dramatic scheme on Williams’s part, or even
because of his feeling of outrage for the victors. Chicken’s and Silva’s
dEtieats are inevitable since these two characters are devoid of any
V‘Edeeming values or positive qualities that set them apart from their

antagonists. These primary males are in no way superior people, and

despite their virility and drive at winning, they hardly deserve to hold

110
on to their victories or possessions. The uneasy resolutions of both
plays are perhaps a testimony to the uncertain victories and hollow
triumphs that result from the possesssive characters’ actions resulting
'from their adamant approach to self-glorification and self-realization

through possessive control.

IX The Survivors

The essential problem with Chicken and Silva and the reason why
their apparent victory fails to affect us is that these two characters
11ever grow in the course of the play. Their aim is purely to redress the
vvrongs that they had suffered, and their achieving their goals is tied
'in with their self-justification of their behavior. They simply operate
(an a fixed route to glory. Neither of these two characters exhibits any
attempt at self-discovery or entertains any notion of acquiring wisdom
by enabling a growth of personality in order to understand what it means
‘tCD be human and live among people just like them.

If self-growth or self-discovery is the measure of a character’s
Success in a work of art, then only Myrtle and Flora qualify by this
Cw"iterion. Both Myrtle and Flora start off as either objects of people’s
desires or instruments of their male owners’s self-advancement. But
their ability to survive in a hostile and constricted atmosphere issues
01ft of their understanding of their predicament, which in turn prevents
them from being either possessive or destructive. Yet, the element of
tJ‘agedy in their situations cannot be overlooked. The tragedy of their
Situations arises not out of pathos but out of their vulnerability and

helplessness in being objects of the possessive males’ domination and

111
control. It is ironic that with all the freedom and power available to
the male characters, neither their personalities nor their outlook show
any development in the course of the plays. On the other hand, both
Flora and Myrtle, despite having to live in constriction, show
remarkable courage and perseverance and the imprisonment under which
'they were supposed to be destroyed, somehow serves as a condition for
'their becoming more aware of who they are and how they should best
(:onduct themselves to overcome the predicament that they find themselves
in. On a deeper level, however, both Myrtle and Flora are possessed of
ain innate quality that is absent in both sets of males. These controlled
(:haracters have the desire to change and this change occurs in them as a
result of their capacity to realize and accept the truth of their
situation and opt for the best choices available to them in order to
survive.

Myrtle’s entry into the play as Lot’s agent suffers an upset when
C11icken reveals to her the nature of the "set-up." For Myrtle, it is a
fleeting and mystifying moment, but nevertheless a real and decisive
One. It is at this point that Myrtle realizes that she is being used by
Llrt to further his own plans. And rather than participate in the scheme
(37‘ be used by someone else, she asserts her individuality for the first
tline in the play by not swearing revenge against Lot, but by
r‘elinquishing her control over the property and returning to her life in
Show business. Williams makes the internal change in Myrtle unmistakable
311d poignant: "Myrtle has risen stiffly from the chair with a look of

slow and dreadful comprehension. Her breathing is audible and rapid...

She remains standing, her eyes wide and bright but not focused" (Hingdem

112

149). And soon after this Myrtle delivers her longest speech in the

play:‘

Oh, it’s all clear now. I understand the setup and I want you to
know, here is my right hand to God, that everything you told me is
okay as far as I am concerned. I got no designs on nothing. You
know how quickly the human mind changes! Ain’t it queer how quick
it changes? I had my heart set on a quiet, happy married life. Now
what I want most in the world is to return to show business! ...
Now I think I can fill that hot-water bottle and take it up to
that poor child I married... -- God pity us both! (H1ngdgm 149)

Iflyrtle is too agitated, internally, as she has realized her predicament
()f being trapped in a situation and yet being attracted by Chicken’s
‘virility, and so she fails to act on her own and move on. She also knows
that her hopes are dashed, and she knows what awaits her if she returns
tn: her work in show-business, but she wisely chooses not to expend
Imerself seeking retribution. Her last four words in this speech are one
crf understanding and forgiveness. Perhaps Myrtle has finally realized
tfl1at she has done battle against a powerful foe in hostile territory and
has done well. And just as in Chicken’s reference to his bastard
Condition one hears an echo of Edmund’s soliloquy; so too in Myrtle’s
sDeech one hears an echo of the plain but sensitive Sonya’s comforting

sDeech to Uncle Vanya:

You and 1, Uncle Vanya, we have to go on living. The days will be
slow, and the nights will be long, but we’ll take whatever fate
sends us. We’ll spend the rest of our lives doing other people’s
work for them, we won’t know a minute’s rest, and then, when our
time comes, we’ll die. And when we’re dead, we’ll say that our
lives were full of pain, that we wept and suffered, and God will
have pity on us, and then, Uncle, dear Uncle Vanya, we’ll see a
brand new life, all shining and beautiful, we’ll be happy, and
we’ll look back on the pain we feel right now and we’ll smile ...
and then we’ll rest. I believe that, Uncle. I believe that with
all my heart and soul. (Kneels down by Vanya and puts her head in

his hands; wearily) Then we’ll rest.19

113

In loss and defeat is born both Myrtle’s and Sonya’s triumph. It
is a triumph not of the will, but of their deep understanding of what it
is to be human. But Sonya has an advantage that is not available to
Myrtle. Sonya’s journey in reaching an understanding and acceptance of
her loss is both paralleled and strengthened by her being able to have
I1er Uncle with her, who too suffers through his own loss, and with whom
:Sonya is able to commiserate. Myrtle, on the other hand, is left to fend
'For herself. She is alone at the moment of her understanding and she is
'therefore confused as to how she should react to Chicken’s revelations.
She wishes to return to her work but she is unable to do so as the
filoods have trapped her in the house. Therefore, Myrtle gives in to
(Shicken’s control, and although she is forced to give herself up to
(:hicken, she does not show a vindictive urge to seek retribution against
ert. Ironically, Myrtle’s character is strengthened as Williams takes
her through serious humiliation at Lot’s and Chicken’s hands. And while
'this maturity endows her with the capacity to realize the powerlessness
(If’ her situation, it also gives her courage to give in to Chicken. But
her giving herself up to Chicken is not her defeat since she realizes
tliat she is now in a situation where the consequences have to be worked
'tfrrough so that she is able to survive.

Flora’s condition too is not much different from Myrtle’s, but the
“risdom that she gains from her situation is left ambiguous for the
(reader/audience). The most striking change in Flora’s personality is
Y‘Eflected through her speech in Scene 111. She is not the overtly
girlish person in this scene that she was in the first two scenes. The

overgrown babyish quality that Jake referred to as "baby doll" has now

114
been replaced by a "ravaged“ or haggard condition. But most of all, her
conversation with Jake throughout this scene is heavy with dramatic
irony.
Jake: Vicarro was pretty well pleased w’en he dropped over.

Flora: Yeah. He was--pretty well--pleased.
Jake: How did you all get along?

Flora: We got along jus’ fine. Jus’ fine an’--dandy.
Jake: He didn’t seem like such a bad guy. He takes a
sensible attitude.

Flora: (laughing helplessly) He--sure--does (ZZ Waggns 26).
‘This same ironic tone in Flora’s speech is unbroken throughout the
scene, and occasionally her speech is colored with a wry humor, barbed
vvith the indignation of her injury, which Jake lacks the awareness of
Inind to penetrate because, unlike Flora, he is blind to the ironic sense
(If his own position. In fact, every line of exchange between Jake and
Filora is unmistakably ironic. Even her nervous giggles and laughter in
‘tt1is scene are more prominent and emphasized than in the previous

scenes.

Flora: Yeah. Tomorrow he plans t’ come back--with lots more
cotton. maybe another twenty-seven wagons.

Jake: Yeah?
Flora: An’ while you’re ginnin’ it out--he’ll have me
entertain him with--nice lemonade! (She has another fit

of giggles.) (Moons 27)

Tlius, Flora’s maturity is conveyed through her speech. But the tragic
problem lies in the fact that Flora will never be able to express her
SCIrrow or pain to her fullest satisfaction, for she is trapped between
111100 males who are unrelenting in their control over her.
Yet both Myrtle and Flora are able to survive. Despite their
Powerlessness, despite their sacrifice of individual desires and urges,

despite their victimization, despite their suffering at the hands of

115
insensitive possessors, they are not destroyed. In a way, their survival
can also be looked upon as their "desperate but determined, defeated but
undaunted" sense of mission in life, to live.20 It is indeed remarkable
that in their inescapable condition they are able to hope and "maintain

a certain dignity and stature" that make them strong, and yet more human

than the rest.21

Notes

1. Tennessee Williams, BabyeDoll & Tiger Tail: A Screenplay And A
Play (New York: A New Directions Book, 1991). See Publisher’s Note to the
1956 Edition of Baby Dell for a brief history of the screenplay and stage

play (liger lail).

2. Catherine M. Arnott, Tennessee Hilliams on File (New York: Methuen
Inc., 1985) 27, 64. Provides information on production dates, completion
dates, and adaptations of Williams’s plays, poems and prose works.

3. Tennessee Williams, Baby Doll & Tiger Tail Publisher’s Note.

4. Tennessee Williams, Kingdgm gf Earth (the Seyen Deseents gf
MyrtJeL The Theater of Tennessee Williams, Vol. 5 (New York: New
Directions Books, 1976) 125. Subsequent references to this edition of the
play are cited parenthetically in my text.

5. Foster Hirsch, "Sexual Imagery in Tennessee Williams’ lgjngdelLQf
Eamh " W1 2 (1971): 11 In this article.
while discussing the play as partly symbolizing the marginal "decline" of
the South, Hirsch connects the "decaying house,’I over which the two
brothers are contesting their ownership, to be symbolic representation of
"the corresponding dilapidation of the characters." My argument goes
further in showing that this "ownership" issue that is tied in with the
brothers’ possessive urge serves to bring about their destruction.

6. Gayle Rubin, "The Traffic 'h1 Women: Notes ("1 the ’Political
Economy’ of Sex," WW, ed. Rayna R. Reiter
(New York: Monthly Review P, 1975) 157-210. In this anthropological study,
[Rubin discusses the domestication of women through sexual oppression and
the ownership of women as shared property by men. This discussion has some
bearing as to providing a background why Lot and Chicken, Jake and Silva
consider the women as their subordinates and use them as their property.

7. Katherine Zabelle Derounian, "’The Kingdom of Earth’ and Kingdom

9f Earth; (Ihe Sev ven heseents of Myrtle) Tennessee Williams’ Parody, "' The
Wm New Series, 4 (1983): 152

8. Williams, Bahy Dell & Tiger Tail 9.
9. Williams, Bahy Dell & liger lajl 119-20.

10. Leo Bersani, A F r a : i '
(Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1976) 286- 315. Bersani
argues in this chapter through his analysis of W, Histnir re

SLO, and L1Image that these texts’ authors’ ability to fantasize enabled
them far more liberty for "sympathetic identification," "appropriation,"
and "total possession" of their objects of desire than would have been
Possible if these authors were treating their subject matter in a
realistic tradition. I am using Bersani’s theory of theatricalization or

116

117

Inanipulating of desire as an alternative way to support Lot’s behavior in
the play.

11. Tennessee Williams, "Something Wild...," Hhere I live: Seleeted

Essays by lennessee Hilliams, eds. Christine R. Day and Bob Woods (New
York: A New Directions Book, 1978) 13.

12. Tennessee Williams, "On a Streetcar Named Success," Hhere I live;

Selected Essays by Tennessee Williams, eds. Christine R. Day and Bob Woods
(New York: A New Directions Book, 1978) 19- 20.

13. Mildred L. Brown and Chloe Ann Rounsley, lrue Selves;
' . ex . i u--Fo 1r uilies i: owor :
Helpi1ng .Prgfessignals (San Francisco. Jossey- -Bass Publishers, 1996) 17.

'These authors refer to certain acts of cross- dressing as "gender bending,"
zind the individual cross-dresser as the "gender bender," who are "males or
‘Females who challenge and cross traditional gender boundaries, often in
(outrageous ways. They dress and behave to surprise or shock... Some gender
benders consider cross dressing and cross-gender behavior an act of
icebellion or a political statement--their way of telling society that they
icefuse to be governed by stereotypical clothing, presentation, or gender
roles. " Marjorie Garber, d nte ts - i

Anxiety (New York: Routledge, 1992) covers a wide period in western
culture and provides a historical and interpretative analysis of the
challenge that cross-dressing has posed to the politics, hierarchy,
sstatus, and gender codification behind the tradition of dress-codes.

14. David Savran, i s o d e s:
liasculinitv in the work of Arthur Miller
(Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press, 1992) 82. Savran quotes both from
(:ritics and Williams’s own prose to support the opinion that Williams had
El contradictory, unresolved attitude towards homosexuality and this
attitude influenced his depiction of fractured homosexual behavior on
stage.

15. Williame Shakespeare, King Lear, ed. G. Blackmore Evans, lhe
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1974) 1259,

16. Arnold Kettle, "The Humanity of ’King Lear, ’" Hew L‘asehnghs: Hing
Leear, ed. Kirenan Ryan (London: Macmillan, 1993) 19.1 find the trait in
Edmund’ 5 character as a "individualist go- getter" a particularly striking
Ibarallel to Chicken’ 5 possessive and individualistic urges in Williams’ s

play.

17. Harold Bloom, introduction, Crit'c r t
' ’ ' , ed. Harold Bloom (New York: Chelsea House

Publishers, 1987) 8.
18. Tennessee Williams, Bahy Dell and liger Tail 24-25.

118

19. Anton Chekhov, The plays of Anton Chekhov, trans. Paul Schmidt
(New York: Harper Collins, 1997) 253. The page reference is to Chekhov’s

play, Hnele Vanya.

20. Derounian 154.

21. Derounian 154.

CHAPTER THREE

POSSESSION, INDIVIDUATION AND LIBERATION
IN THE GLASS HENAQEBIE

Arguing about the importance of Tom’s role in lhe Glass Menagerie,
Thomas King notes that readers, directors, and audiences often get too
emotionally caught up in the pathos of "the scenes involving Laura and
Amanda" and push aside Tom’s role as merely "nostalgic yearnings for a
former time."1 King argues that Tom’s importance in the play must not be
overlooked despite Williams’s endowing Amanda with an arresting role,
because in the overall picture, Amanda, Laura, the artist-magician, Tom,
and the gentleman—caller, Jim, are all "aspects of Tom’s
consciousness."z King uses a key word here, "consciousness," by which, I
feel, he means a particular form of consciousness, namely recall or
remembrance, where the thing recalled has a kind of double existence, as
past and as present. Williams himself defines the play as a "’memory
Dlay,"" and it is Tom’s memory that is being replayed on stage.
Scientifically, "this ability to revive the experience, or to mentally
relive it, is referred to as remembering; remembering is the feeling of
reexperiencing and of recollecting many details that authenticate the
memory.“ Therefore, Tom’s role and purpose in the play cannot be
Overlooked, since he is the character who is fashioning the play through
Y‘elnembering crucial moments from his past and weighing them in light of
the present.

In the Production Notes to the play, Williams informs us that the
Play is "episodic" rather than linear, and hence the effect of the play

may seem fragmentary rather than architectural" (SH 24). Williams’s

119

120
Annerican stage necessitated the invention of Tom who is both narrator
and character. Therefore, Tom’s role of narrator/character is also in
keeping with the new medium of the play, since he is both inside and
outside of the play, helping Williams at his attempt in ordering reality
and presenting us with "a more penetrating and vivid expression of
things as they are" (fl 23). For this reason, King appropriately calls

'” since Tom is the one who

Tom "the Prospero of The Glass Menagerie,
introduces the play and shows us how and why things happen in the play.
Thus King continues, any reference or performance of the play with

"undue prominence“i

to Amanda, Laura, or even the glass menagerie
distorts Williams’s overall purpose in the play where he tried to create
a balanced whole by bringing in things from the past and examining them
in the light of the present.

More specifically, in his essay, King argues about giving Tom’s
Character and soliloquies the attention they deserve because King shows
how Tom’s soliloquies and speeches invest the play with "irony and humor
Which work in the opposite direction"7 or away from Amanda’s interests
and problems. King shows how, by using irony, Tom "protects himself from
the pain of [reliving] his experience" so that he can use his art of
Creation "objectively.“ And Tom’s use of "humor" in his narration, says
King, also prevents the play from becoming too nostalgic or
sentimental.9 Therefore, Tom’s role and soliloquies ultimately enrich
tlhe play’s experience for the audience, and “reveal Tom as an artist
FlQure whose utterances show how the artist creates, using the raw

1110

lllaterials of his own life.

121

Although I agree with King’s argument, I personally feel that
Tom’s soliloquies and his role as narrator/character chiefly invest him
with an individuality, a selfhood, that is usually overwhelmed by
Amanda’s dominance in the play as a character, who towers over Tom as
his mother and moral superior. Through his role and soliloquies, Tom the
narrator/character is able to take on the role of the individual and
accept responsibility for his actions in the Wingfield family’s life. In
this way, Tom is able to say how he feels about his life after assessing
the part he had once played in the Wingfield household in contrast to
what he has achieved by leaving home. Moreover, because Tom has been
able to leave, because he is now free and able to follow his own course
in life, he has gained the courage and state of mind to recapitulate and
explore his past and show us the facts without any rancor,
recrimination, or even by presenting himself as a victim.

Conmenting on his first conlnercially and critically successful

Play, lhe glass Henagerie, Williams said: "I put all the nice things I
had to say about people into The glass Menagerie... What I write

hereafter will be harsher."” The subtly disguised dramatization of
Nilliams’s close relationship with his mother, Edwina, and his sister,
Rose, in the play may have prevented him from taking too harsh a tone in
this play. Yet, one needs to realize that although lhe_fi_l_a_ss_He_n_ageri_e
‘15 autobiographical, it is not, what Williams would later call his
figmflrs, an "undisguised self-revelation.” Williams’s point in the
play was not so much to render an accurate cataloging of his life but to
aDproximate artistically the conditions under which he lived at home,

the conditions which led to the frustrations that he faced in not being

122
free and in not being able to take charge of his own life. While it is
true that the tension between Tom and his mother served as a vehicle for
exciting drama, the more experiential aspect of the friction between Tom
and his mother fueled Tom’s desire for pursuing certain truths about the
self that are, I believe, more important in the context of a person’s
l ife in a culture where every person is considered his or her own
person, an individual, who must care for his or her self. One cannot do
justice to the play if one fails to see this side of the issue.
Williams, through Tom, says that he has given us "truth in the pleasant
disguise of illusion" (9H 29). For Williams, the truth behind the
experience of his past lay in the emotions that he felt while living at
home under the constant supervision and control of his mother, and the
frustrations of his developing into the person that he felt he was
supposed to develop into, namely, a poet or an expressive individual.
Because Tom was burdened with the responsibility of having to work in a
warehouse in order to support the family his father abandoned, and
because he had no respite from Amanda’s constant directions on how he
Should live his life, Tom’s own purpose in life was being destroyed.
Therefore, what I am primarily interested in exploring here is not how
Hi lliams dramatized his past through reworking his own life experience,
bUt the discord between two opposed viewpoints issuing from the clashing
0‘: two opposed selves of two strong individuals--the clashing between
Amanda’s embodiment of the "conlnodified self," that arises from her
ideology of possessiveness, discipline, and control, and Tom’s
Conception of the "democratic self," that he believes should not be a

Product of secondary supervision, control, and possessive materialism,

 

123
but a self that must issue as an outgrowth of a one’s personal best, a
self that can develop only from one’s understanding of personal
integrity and the responsibility that one has towards others.

In his Hempirs, Williams talks of discovering the ideal of a
democratic self early in his career. In an effort to exorcise his
"phobia about ’thought process,” Williams composed a poem after
returning from his aimless wanderings on the streets of Amsterdam during
his visit to Europe with his grandfather:

Strangers pass me on the street

in endless throngs: their marching feet,

sound with a sameness in my ears

that dulls my senses, soothes my fears,

I hear their laughter and their sighs,

I look into their myriad eyes:

then all at once my hot woe

cools like a cinder dropped on snow.

Williams elaborates on this verse, saying: "[T]hat little bit of verse
With its recognition of being one among many of my kind... that
recognition of being a member of multiple humanity with its multiple
needs, problems and emotions, not a unique creature but one, only one
among the multitude of its fellows, yes, I suspect it’s the most
l'lhportant recognition for us all to reach now, under all circumstances
but especially those of the present."13 In essence, we can say that
Tom’s search in the play is a search after this same self, a democratic
Self, that is not a twisted growth of conforming to conventions and
giving in to dependencies, but a self that manifests a deep
uhderstanding of where one stands in one’s relation to the others in a

democratic society. This democratic self or empowered self that Tom is

In search of is born of one’s abiding sense of self disdovery through

124
living life honestly among others like oneself, because only then one
achieves a certain dignity and power to liberate others with whom the
empowered and democratic self comes into contact.

Furthermore, this democratic self that Tom is in search of is a
product of a free, unregulated environment. Therefore, Tom seeks to
develop fully as an individual in an atmosphere where he can be, as
Wallace Stevens said, "unsponsored, free." Tom wants to exist in a space
where, in the words of culture critic C. L. R. James, "the freedom, the
energy, the heroic quality of the individual pursuing his daily
vocation" is respected." Tom is a poet, an "expressive individual," and
the fullest expression of his poetic self is what Tom feels is his
I ife’s mission. Although Tom is trying hard to become a poet by trying
to use his spare time at home to practice his art, which is sullied by
the considerable opposition and unappreciative conments from his mother,
and by his stealing time from his work at the warehouse to indulge in
his artistic passion, the fact remains, Tom is tremendously frustrated
at not being free to develop his talents in the way he desires to. Tom’s
Confession to Jim in Scene Six bears evidence: "I’m starting to boil
inside. I know I seem dreamy, but inside--well I’m boiling! Whenever 1
pick up a shoe, I shudder a little thinking how short life is and what I
am doing!" (5H 97) In fact, so intense is Tom’s frustration at being
1:orced to take care of his father’s responsibilities at the expense of
having to sacrifice his own life and self, that he is desperately
dejected and annoyed, and he even desires death during one moment of
heated exchange with Amanda, who is unceasing in her harangues about how

Tom should live his life and bear his responsibilities:

125

You think I’m crazy about the warehouse?... You think I’m in love

with the Continental Shoemakers? You think I want to spend fifty-

five years down there in that-~celotex interior! with--
fluorescent--tubes! Look! I’d rather somebody picked up a crowbar
and battered out my brains--than go back mornings! I go! Every
time you come in yelling that Goddamn "Rise and Shine!" "Rise and

Shine!" I say to myself, "How lucky dead people are!" But I get

up. I go! For sixty-five dollars a month I give up all that I

dream of doing and being ever! And you say self--self’s all I ever

think of (SH 52).

Tom’s outburst reminds one of how intensely and uncompromisingly
Williams, the artist, felt about the association between being free and
being a writer:

What is it like being a writer? I would say it is like being

free... To be free is to have achieved your life. It means any

number of freedoms. It means freedom to stop where you please, to
go where and when you please, it means to be the voyager here and
there, one who flees many hotels, sad or happy, without
obstruction and without much regret. It means the freedom of
being. And someone has wisely observed, if you can’t be yourself,
what’s the point of being anything at all?15 (my italics)
Tom’s desperation at not being free and able to be the person he desires
eats him from the inside, while he has to contend with Amanda’s
inability and reluctance to understand his desperation. Nevertheless, in
this dramatization of "a very personal account of his relationship with
his family," Williams was "all too aware that he had claimed his own
freedom at the expense of his mother and sister, Rose, the lobotomy
which destroyed her life being performed while he was away at university
beginning his career as writer."16 And he is likewise careful in his
role as a dramatist to persuade us not to misjudge Tom’s action of
leaving home to be a cruel and hasty decision, since Williams comments:
Tom’s "nature is not remorseless, but to escape from a trap he has to
act without pity" (5H 22). In fact, Tom’s own regret for not having a

simple, painless, magical solution that would make his leaving home less

126
painful is evident from his confession to Laura: "You know it don’t take
much intelligence to get yourself into a nailed-up coffin, Laura. But
who in the hell ever got himself out of one without removing one nail?"
(1511 57)

For Williams, writing this play was not only an exercise in honing
and perfecting his craft as a dramatist, which was proven by its success
on stage, but through the play Williams was able to do what he wanted to
do most through his writing: "to capture the evanescent quality of
existence," which “when I was writing Henagerie, I did not know that I
was capturing...."" I feel that through this play, Tom as Williams was
able to transform the raw materials of his life in a way that eventually
enabled him to liberate himself from the people who had for so long
followed him in his mind, making him feel guilty of his action of
leaving. Tom’s expiation of his guilt through this play becomes his
attempt at exploring his self-liberating consciousness and detaching it
from the consciousness that had been following him around in the form of
a sullied and guilt ridden memory of the past. This he needed to grow
out of and not let it restrict him in his search for his true self and
mission in life. Moreover, this confessional play which liberated him
from the memory that possessed him and drove him with the intensity of
the Furies also helped him to present objectively Amanda’s situation,
whose inability to let go of the past and seek new alternatives to solve
her problems, and whose possessive drive led to her own alienation and
self-destruction. Yet, perhaps most significantly, through this
confessional, Tom is able to individualize and liberate both himself and

his sister by freeing himself and her from the stagnation that they had

127
been stranded in because of their family environment. Thus, Laura’s
physical handicap no longer remains a handicap by the time we reach the
end of the play, because it is valorized by Jim as a "minor problem" and
thus becomes a symbol for her own uniqueness among the sameness of so
many others around her. Tom’s responsibility for his position in the
Wingfield family and his self-discovery as a writer enable him to give

credit to the lives of the people closest to him.

I The Construction of Amanda’s Dramatic Personality

After considering the two final versions of Amanda that Williams
created (the "reading version... copyrighted in 1945" and in the "acting
version... copyrighted in 1948" of the play,) James Rowland declares
that Williams made Amanda less "dictatorial in the ’acting version’" or
in the latest version of the play than in the "reading version.""
Laboring over the changes that Williams made in Amanda’s character in
the "acting version," Rowland is of the opinion that "in the ’acting
version’ we see an understanding and loving mother, we see Amanda as a
person who truly suffers, and her suffering is such that others have
pity for her."” I feel Rowland’s conception of what constitutes good
dramatic characterization is misconceived. In commenting about the play
in his Hemg1rs, Williams’s criticism is not directed towards his
characters, instead, he feels that "the narrations are not up to the
play," because, he thinks "the play itself holds without much

narration."2° Several critics agree with Williams’s comments about the

redundancy of the narrations, but no critic has found any character in

128
the play in particular to be weaker than the others or in any way more
commanding or out of proportion than the rest.

Williams had a penchant for rewriting or revising his material
even after his finished works turned out as artistic and financial
successes. There is no significant evidence that the revisions he made
after any particular play’s stage success turned out to be radically
improved and artistically enhanced. Ihe_§1ass_Henager1e in its "acting
version" does not show any significant improvement either, despite Mr.
Rowland’s interpretations of the two versions of Amanda.“ I cannot opt
for Mr. Rowland’s choice of the "acting version," where Amanda is
portrayed as a pitiful and suffering character. For me, the play would
lose the energy and drama that a strong and dictatorial Amanda brings to
it. I feel Amanda’s strength lies in her obstinate and determined quest
to relive her past in the way she could not live it, and this means that
if she has to make it come true by redirecting her children’s lives then
so be it. I cannot imagine how a pitiful and suffering Amanda could
convince the audience about her determination to turn back the past. In
fact, Williams’s own conception of Amanda would have been flawed by the
portrayal of a weak Amanda, for Williams never thought of his mother, on
whom he modelled Amanda, as a weak person. Williams says: "I feel that
Mother always did what she thought was right and that she has always
given herself due credit for it even though what she sometimes did was

[1 22

all but fatally wrong. Furthermore, a pitiful and suffering Amanda in
the play would only make us resent Tom’s leaving home, and the tension
in the play that issues from Tom’s desires to leave and take control of

his own life as opposed to Amanda’s desire to compel him to stay and

129
live his life according to her directions could not be successfully
portrayed. lhe Glass Henagerie would fail as a dramatic work and would
be forgotten by now if Amanda were to be seen as one frail victim of a
cruel and selfish individual.

Amanda’s strong individualistic drive is in keeping with
Williams’s own philosophy of life, which he calls "living with
intensity.“ In comparison with the great heroic characters of
traditional drama, Amanda no doubt is a member of the group of "little
people," but Amanda is certainly not weak. Portraying her as weak to
elicit the audience’s sympathy would certainly be a contradiction of
Williams’s personal and deeply felt view of how he saw his "little
people" conducting themselves: "Whatever is living and feeling with
intensity is not little and, examined in depth, it would seem to me that
most ’little people’ are living with that intensity that I can use as a
writer."23 Thus, Amanda’s domineering nature serves both as a plus and
as a minus, because the elements in her nature that create a strong role
also create a person whose method of operation in pursuing her goals

turns out to be a flawed and highly self-serving.

II The Construction of Amanda’s Possessive Individualism
Amanda’s drive to get where she wants as an individual is
misdirected because she desires to reconstruct and alter her past at the
expense of her children’s lives. This desire in Amanda arises from what
Tom describes as "having failed to establish contact with reality,
[Amanda] continues to live vitally in her illusions" (SH 21). Therefore,

the occasion of her husband’s estrangement becomes for her the exact

130

opportunity to breathe life into her fantasy. Thus conlnences Amanda’s
Funflstnit of individualism not through reassessing her life, but through a
selfish effort at mock-doing her life by exercising her control and
disczilaline over her children’s lives: "We have to do all that we can to
build ourselves up. In these trying times we live in, all that we have
to cling to is--each other" [my italics] (QM 61). The inherent
contradiction in Amanda’s statement reflects her own paradoxical way of
trying to operate in life. One cannot build oneself up by clinging to
others; instead one builds oneself by freeing the self from any
secondary influence, thereby allowing the self to develop independently,
free tr) cultivate its deeply felt inner beliefs and convictions without
hindrance. But Amanda’s own situation in life at this point--
disenchanted, husbandless, and bereft of any permanent means of earning
a li\ring--prevents her from releasing the individuals around her to
develop as free and self-sustaining people. Tom’s reference in his
narration at the play’s beginning to this aspect of Amanda’s situation
bears witness: "She is not paranoic, but her life is paranoia" (SH 21).

If life is paranoia for Amanda and she is overwhelmed by her fears
0f l<)sing the people around her, she tries to counter this fear by
embatdcing on a blind route to safety, because she too, like the "vast
l'llddle class of America," had matriculated "in a school for the blind"
(511 29). Therefore, for her the alternative is to resituate herself in
her past and repossess vicariously, through her children’s lives, the
Opportunities that she missed and the material things that she could not
have, Her blindness comes from her belief that regressing into her past

self and play-doing the things that she couldn’t do will solve her

131
problems of the present. She is fearful of change because she believes
that the only time worth living was before she got married, before her
children were born. Tom characterizes this attitude by introducing her
as :1 "little woman of great but confused vitality clinging frantically
to another place and time" (511 21).

Amanda’s possessing and controlling drives are not creative but
remeciial, and in her urgency to fix things she refuses to understand how
fixiru; things by regressing into the past is futile. It never occurs to
her that what is required is giving others around her the opportunity to
fix thrings in a new way. Amanda is incapable of relegating trust and
responsibility to others. Instead, she adamantly moves forward by
displaying a dominating, controlling, and possessive drive that makes
her feel important, accomplished, and, most importantly, in control, the

control or the sense of power that she probably never had when her

husband was around .

III Amanda’s Possession through Domination and Control
by her use of Language and Intonation

According to David Birch, the use of language in a dramatic text
b8C0mes "distinct conlnunicative acts aimed at influencing the thoughts
and actions of other people" instead of simply being "representations or
exDr'essions of something else, some other semiotic system or text.”
BlPCh argues that this "influencing" factor of language in drama often,
thY‘Ough characters’ intonation, results in the characters’ "domination"
or "struggle for power" over others around them.25 From common

knowledge, we realize that domination and control are the distinguishing

132
traits of possessive people. Amanda’s actions towards Tom, Laura, and
even the gentleman caller, Jim, display an overwhelming record of the
variety of ways she uses language and her position as the mother in the
fami l y to control and dominate the people around her in order to
perpetuate and validate the self.

Williams supplies us with ample evidence of Amanda’s possessive
drive: by the way she conducts herself around pe0ple and through her use
of language and intonation in the play. Amanda’s "hawklike attention"
(£5.11 31) and ceaseless nagging are initially irritating to Tom: "Chew
your food" (SH 31), "You smoke too much" (GH 32), "Eat a bowl of
Purina“ (SH 61), "Do me a favor.. comb your hair" (fiH 69-70), but with
time, «despite Tom’s frequent outbursts resulting from his feelings of
being preyed upon and being issued directions and conmands, Amanda’s
hectoring gets even more moralistic, judgmental, and controlling: "Tom
you 90 to the movies entirely too much!" (GH 63), "Promise, son, you’ll-
‘08Ver be a drunkard!" (G_M 61), "You smoke too much. A pack a day at
fifteen cents a pack. How much would that amount to in a month? Thirty
times fifteen is how much, Tom? Figure it out and you will be astounded
at What you could save. Enough to give you a night-school at Washington
U!" (en 70).

In the play, Amanda often resorts to language that is infused with
Slave imagery and terminology. Being born and raised in the slaveholding
SOUth, Amanda had become accustomed to the comforts of life reaped at
the eXpense of indentured negro servants, if not slaves, serving her
f8mily. Therefore, it is not surprising to hear in Amanda’s language,

references to the benefits that servant or slave labor availed white

133
southern families. When Laura volunteers to bring in the "blanc mange"
after supper, Amanda is quick to dissuade Laura from her efforts by
saying: "No, sister, no, sister--you be the lady this time and I’ll be
the darky" (fiH 32). And when she has brought in the dessert bowl and is
recal ling her favorite detail about receiving seventeen gentleman
callers at home on a Sunday afternoon, Amanda remarks: "Why, sometimes
there weren’t chairs enough to accomodate them all. We had to send the
nigger~ over to bring in folding chairs from the parish house" (5H 33).
Amanda’s references to slave labor here may be innocuous, but the
eagerness with which she says them betrays her fondness for cherishing
the benefits that came from owning or possessing people.

In some of Amanda’s remarks to Tom, her references to the benefits
of slave labor are stark. Her treatment and control of Tom reminds one
Of the way servants were held responsible for the work in the household,
while being denied the freedoms the masters enjoyed. Tom himself
co"lplains of his slave status after he finds out that Amanda has
returned his books to the library: "House, house! who pays the rent on
it, Who makes a slave of himself to--" (SH 25). Here the idea behind
contrxalling Tom as a slave is evident because Tom himself likens
A"lahda’s authority over him as a master’s authority over his slave. In
factw, one can easily make a case that Tom’s inability to leave home is
dlY‘ECtly related to his status as Amanda’s possession or slave because
the only way Amanda will give him his freedom is when she finds a
rePlacement, as she tells him: "But not till there’s somebody to take
your place... I mean as soon as Laura has got somebody to take care of

“9"... then you’ll be free to go wherever you please, on land, on sea,

134
whichever way the wind blows you!" (SH 65). Not only does this statement
reinforce Amanda’s belief that Tom is her property, but she treats him
as an object in the way that he can leave only if he can replace himself
with a different object of equal worth, in this case, a gentleman caller
for Laura, who in reality will be under Amanda’s control.

In her dealings with Laura, Amanda’s sense of control and
domination are blunt. She knows exactly how to exploit Laura’s quiet
nature and never waits for Laura to speak up. She orders Laura to study
her typewriter charts and stay fresh for gentleman callers, uncaring of
Laura’s own wishes and desires. Amanda even decides for Laura what path
her life should follow: "Girls that aren’t cut out for business careers
usually wind up getting married to some nice man... Sister, that’s what
you’ll do!" (SH 44) And for the rest of the play, Amanda throws herself
into a frenzy, planning and feathering "her nest" in which she can trap
the ideal suitor for Laura (EH 47-48).

Amanda’s controlling nature even spills over in her dealings with
an outsider, Jim, the gentleman caller, whom she feels ready to
manipulate into following her directions and whims. The moment Jim
enters the Wingfield space, Amanda captures him and pursues her
objectives without any qualms. Arraying herself attractively in her
girlhood clothes, Amanda moves steadily from charming Jim with her
sweet-talk to controlling his movements and his speech in the course of
the evening. She charms him with her "girlish Southern vivacity," her
"unexpected outlay of social charm," and her "gay laughter and chatter"
to a degree that manages to "throw [Jim] off the beam" (QH 98). From

this superior position, Amanda exercises her control and power over Jim

135
by confidently issuing him her commands: "Sister is all by her lonesome.
You go keep her company in the parlor!" (SH 106) Immediately afterwards
she follows it up with: "And how about you coaxing Sister to drink a
little wine? I think it would be good for her! Can you carry both at
once?" (SH 106) Amanda is aware of the importance of this moment, as she
basks in her power and ability of having accomplished in her goal of
having set "a trap" and in catching the prey that she feels will not
only save Laura, but an arrangement through which she can live
vicariously a complete second life, a life that she will never let slip
out of her control (SH 86).
IV Amanda’s Possession through manipulation of
the emotions of guilt and shame
Amanda furthers her use of language by her intonations and angry
accusations to control Tom and Laura by manipulating their sense of
guilt and shame. Despite Amanda’s vigilance to dominate and control,
there are occasions when her overbearing attitude towards her children
seem to be ineffective. She feels powerless and insecure when Tom fights
back to regain his own ground and sanity. From this position of
insecurity and powerlessness, she pounces on Tom’s rightful indignation
and treats them as proofs of insubordination. Therefore, to save herself
she tries to subdue him by instilling feelings of guilt into his
conscience. Amanda is aware that by arousing Tom’s guilt she will be
able to disturb him sufficiently into distracting him from focussing on
his own self and needs. She thinks that through this scheme her
possession of him will be more secure. She rebukes him for thinking too

much about himself: "Overcome selfishness! Self, self, self is all that

136
you think of..." (SH 66). She rebukes him for being sneaky and
irresponsible: "Oh, I can see the handwriting on the wall as plain as
the nose in front of my face... More and more you remind me of your
father!... I saw the letter you got from the Merchant Marine. I know
what you are dreaming of" (SH 65). Ironically however, after the fiasco
with the gentleman caller when Amanda has her last fight with Tom, she
hurls her final accusation at Tom, without realizing how her own method
of control has served to break up her family: "Go to the movies, go!
Don’t think about us, a mother deserted, an unmarried sister who’s
crippled and has no job! Don’t let anything interfere with your selfish
pleasure! Just go, go, go--go to the movies!" (SH 136) And not willing
to give up her last chance to rebuke and shame him, even after Tom
openly declares that he is indeed leaving, Amanda hurls her final
sarcastic rebuke at him, convinced that she is the one who is in control
of the situation, and who is rightfully banishing him to a place that is
as cold and barren as his heart: "Go, then! Go to the moon--you selfish
dreamer!" (SH 136) The irony here is that her controlling, blaming
nature blinds her to the truth behind Tom’s departure, which is in fact
an act of desperation on his part to save himself from his mother’s
interference and control.

In between Amanda’s possessive control of Tom by issuing
aggressive commands and by playing upon his guilt, there are instances
when she uses her chief weapon of psychological control, namely,
exploiting Tom’s sense of shame. She shames Tom to the point of breaking
his spirit and making him vulnerable to feelings of inferiority. Tom

himself categorizes Amanda’s behavior as a kind of "foolishness [which]

137
makes her unwittingly cruel at times" (SH 21), but I personally think
Amanda’s shaming tactics are acts of deliberate cruelty. When Tom is
exasperated at Amanda’s excessive control and complains about Amanda’s
confiscating his books, Amanda breaks out in her puritanical zeal and
lashes out by saying that she has indeed returned "that horrible novel,"
"that hideous book by that insane Mr. Lawrence" to the library, and she
asserts her will by decreeing: "I WON’T ALLOW SUCH FILTH BROUGHT INTO MY
HOUSE!“ (SH 50) When Tom attempts to leave the apartment, bothered and
provoked by this prudery, Amanda calls his behavior insolent and
mercilessly hits at the core of his shame, his "othernessz"

I think you’ve been doing things that you’re ashamed of. That’s

why you act like this. I don’t believe that you go every night to

the movies. Nobody goes to the movies night after night. Nobody
goes to the movies as often as you pretend to. People don’t go to
the movies at nearly midnight, and movies don’t let out at two

A.M. Come stumbling in. Muttering to your self like a maniac! You

get three hours’ sleep and then go to work. Oh, I can picture the

way you’re doing down there. Moping doping, because you’re in no
condition... What right have you got to jeopardize your job?

Jeopardize the security of us all? (SH 51-52)

Amanda’s chastisement is not only loaded with allegations of
shameful sexual and drug related activities on Tom’s part, but she also
accuses Tom of lying, being inconsiderate and irresponsible. While Tom’s
angry and violent outburst at this point stuns Amanda, she picks out the
personal insult that Tom hurls at her: "You ugly-~babbling old-witch..."
(SH 53) and makes it a point of teaching him the lesson by refusing to
speak to him until he apologizes. William Miller’s characterization of
the different forms of apology and humiliation in different cultures
seems to be in line with what Amanda expects from Tom, namely Tom’s

assuming the "posture as the inferior and invest[ing], for however brief

a moment, the wronged person with a higher status. The assumption of the

138
lower position, the position of the beseecher, is the substance of the

"“ Amanda’s Southern upbringing

compensation paid to the other party.
could have influenced her to expect this form of elaborate and
"ritualized“ apologizing. Furthermore, this show of an apology would be
in keeping with her expectations because her own conduct throughout the
play can be seen as her own ritualized way of recapturing the past.

During a similar instance of driving home the point about Tom’s
duty at the warehouse, Amanda chastises him for being uninterested in
his work and wasting his time: "Most young men find adventure in their
careers“ (SH 63), and she cuts him down with her puritanical vehemence
as she sneers at his suggestion of what it means to be human. She
counters Tom’s opinion: "Man is by instinct a lover, a hunter, a
fighter," by instantly drilling into him that his conception of human
behavior is atavistic and depraved. Amanda remarks: “Don’t quote
instinct to me! Instinct is something that people have got away from! It
belongs to animals! Christian adults don’t want it!... Only animals have
to satisfy instincts! Surely your aims are somewhat higher than theirs!
Than monkeys--and pigs--" (SH 64) Amanda makes every effort to make Tom
feel shameful about his ideas and conceptions of normal human
behavior.27

While Tom’s vitality and rebelliousness raise problems for
Amanda’s status as an individual who likes to be in command, in control,
and regulate things, Laura’s being crippled becomes burdensome for
Amanda. Amanda sees Laura’s crippled state as an obstacle to her own
path towards revising and reliving her own past by vicariously indulging

in the matchmaking process for Laura. Therefore, every time Laura strays

139
from Amanda’s schemes, she shames Laura into silent submission. Upon
discovering Laura’s fiasco at Rubicam’s Business College, Amanda
repudiates Laura for her behavior instead of sympathizing or even
trying to understand Laura’s problems. She presents herself as someone
who has been wronged and disobeyed: "Deception? Deception?... I wanted
to find a hole in the ground and hide myself in it forever!... I thought
that you were an adult; but I was mistaken... What are we going to do,
what is going to become of us, what is the future?" (SH 38-39) She
blames Laura for wastefulness and injudiciousness: "Fifty dollars’
tuition, all of our plans--my hopes and ambitions for you--just gone up
the spout, just gone up the spout like that" (SH 40). And from this
premise of blame, Amanda resorts to painful sarcasm and manipulation of
Laura’s sense of shame: "So what are we going to do with the rest of our
lives? Stay home and watch the parades go by? Amuse ourselves with the
glass menagerie, darling? Eternally play those worn-out phonograph
records your father left as a painful reminder of him? We won’t have a
business career--we’ve given that up because it gave us nervous
indigestion?... What is there left but dependency all our lives? I know
so well what becomes of unmarried women who aren’t prepared to occupy a
position. I’ve seen such pitiful cases in the South--barely tolerated
spinsters... eating the crust of humility all their life! Is that the
future that we’ve mapped out for ourselves?" (SH 42-43) But it becomes
obvious to the audience from Amanda’s subsequent actions that Laura's
upsetting of Amanda’s first plan is hardly a catastrophe for her because
from this point in the play, Amanda’s "calculations" for "getting a

gentleman caller for Laura" become her “obsession" (SH 47).28

a;

140

Even if one wants to believe that Amanda’s urge to control Tom is
[Jartly a result of her own insecurities and partly because of Tom’s
self-absorption and impatience with Amanda’s solicitations, one still
(:annot overlook Amanda’s cruelties towards Laura. Her cruelty to Laura
(an the occasion of Jim’s visit stands out. After preparing Laura as "a
pretty trap" by stuffing Laura’s bosom with "gay deceivers" and then
making Laura observe herself in the mirror, Amanda remarks: "Now look at
yourself, young lady. This is the prettiest you will ever be" (SH 85-
86). I see Amanda’s behavior in this instance as cruel because her
statement to Laura implies that only through Amanda’s initiative will
Laura ever to amount to anything at all. Furthermore, by dressing up
Laura as a "trap," Amanda not only commodifies Laura into a package that
Jim might like, but Amanda also erases Laura’s own identity and her
natural self against Laura’s wishes. Paradoxically however, Amanda tries
to implant in Laura’s mind the same brand of deception that she herself
found hurtful when she discovered Laura had not been attending Rubicam’s

Business College.

V Amanda’s Individuation through Commodification
If Amanda’s individuality is partly shaped by her drive to
control, discipline, and direct others around her, then her deeper sense
0f self or identity is inextricably linked with her desire to commodify
the self and endow it with economic worth. When she is not controlling
others, Amanda regresses into her past, continually recalling events and
occurrences that are specifically materialistic in tone and color

because her recollections only deal with lost opportunities at economic

141
and material advancement. Amanda does not recall these memories to find
emotional satisfaction from them, rather she recalls them to reexamine
vuhere and how things went wrong and how, from her present position of
(disadvantage, she can find new ways to redress these missed
(opportunities. Her recollections do not fill her with tranquility, they
serve to fire her with the urge to relive them in a way that,
ironically, is not possible. The occasion of Tom’s father’s desertion
increases Amanda’s urge to revisit these youthful memories and air her
regrets, and through repeated recollections she fixates her urge to
breathe life into them by molding her children’s lives in order to
fulfill her dreams. Thus, in order to influence her children to take
heed from her youthful mistakes, she reenacts the scenes laden with
economic specificity, where the self is presented as a commodified
product, poised on the verge of economic fulfillment. Her aim is to
induce in her children the virtues of self-aggrandizement and strain for
the benefits that await a bloated, commodified self.

Thus in all her remonstrances with Tom, one finds her advice to be
ruthlessly utilitarian and commercial. She urges him to forgo any effort
at creative existence; instead, she wants him to make a career out of
his work in the warehouse, a work that he despises:

Amanda: Most young men find adventure in their careers.

Tom: Then most young men are not employed in a warehouse.

Amanda: The world is full of young men employed in warehouses and

offices and factories.

Tom: 00 all of them find adventure in their careers?

Amanda: They do or they do without it! Not everybody has a craze

for adventure (SH 63-64).

Later when she finds her way into coaxing Tom to find "some nice young"

man, "one that’s clean-living--doesn’t drink" and "ask him out for

142
sister!" (SH 66) Tom’s disbelief at Amanda’s request is enough to signal
'to us that Amanda’s self-enhancement schemes will not stop at anything,
land that includes using her son to procure men for her daughter, whom
she intends to commodify and set up as a trap.

Amanda frequently regrets missing the conveniences of life when
the self was securely ensconced in the comfort of servants and admirers
who could be ordered around and manipulated for self-satisfaction: "One
Sunday afternoon in Blue Mountain--your mother received--seventeen!--
gentleman callers! Why, sometimes there weren’t chairs enough to
accommodate them all. We had to send the nigger over to bring in the
folding chairs from the parish house" (SH 33). Emphasizing to her
children the status that she could have enjoyed and the easy comfort she
could have slipped into had she been wise enough to the virtues of
commodity she continues:

Among my callers were some of the most prominent young planters of

the Mississippi Delta--planters and sons of planters!... There was

young Champ Laughlin who later became vice-president of the Delta

Planters Bank. Hadley Stevenson who was drowned in Moon Lake and

left his widow one hundred and fifty thousand in Government bonds.

There were the Cutrere brothers, Wesley and Bates. Bates was one

of my bright particular beaux!... His widow was well provided-for,

came into eight or ten thousand acres, that’s all... (SH 34).
Later on Amanda fills in Jim with her conceptions of a good life. A life
full of conveniences and commodities:

Well, in the South we had so many servants. Gone, gone, gone. All

vestige of gracious living! Gone completely! I wasn’t prepared for

what the future brought me. All of my gentleman callers were sons
of planters and so of course I assumed that I would be married to
one and raise my family on a large piece of land with plenty of

servants (SH 99).

But having failed to snare the right gentleman caller and now that her

husband is out of the picture, Amanda has resolved to commodify herself,

143

and she never fails in constantly reminding Laura about the virtues of a

conmodified self. She wants Laura to emulate her, to conmodify herself

and make it her path to success and happiness. In fact, Amanda’s sending
Laura to Rubicam’s Business College was ostensibly to let Laura come in
contact with men, and that is why Amanda’s disappointment is so great,
so cataclysmic, when Laura informs her that she does not expect
gentleman callers to call on her:

Amandaz... Stay fresh and pretty! It’s almost time for our
gentleman callers to start arriving... How many do you
suppose we’re going to entertain this afternoon?

Laura: ...1 don’t believe we’re going to receive any,

Mother.

Amanda: ...What? No one--not one? You must be joking!... Not
one gentleman caller? It can’t be true! There must be a
flood, there must be a tornado! (SH 35)

If Laura’s fiasco at Rubicam’s Business College disappoints Amanda
at first, she recovers quickly and takes it upon herself to conlnodify
Laura with even greater intensity: "Girls that aren't cut out for
business careers usually end up married to some nice man... Sister,
that ’ 5 what you’ll do!" (SH 44) She begins instructing Laura in the
SUbtle arts of commodification: "When people have some slight
disadvantage... they cultivate other things to make up for it--develop
Chan""‘--and vivacity--and--charm! That’s all you have to do!" (SH 45)
"he" She gets her way with Tom by convincing him to bring home Jim for
Laura , not only does she prepare Laura as a trap by stuffing Laura’s
bosom with "gay deceivers," but she also tells Laura that
comodification of the self is the norm for women because: "All pretty

girls are a trap," and “men expect them to be" (SH 86). In her final

8H:Or‘t at trying to convince Laura of the power of the commodified self,

144

she decks herself in the yellow voile and blue silk dress of her youth,
sashays around the room, and recounts the glory of her youth for the
last time in a speech, referring to herself in the first person, "I,"
sixteen times. Symbolically, this is Amanda’s crucial moment of self-
commodification, since, by exhibiting herself in this way she not only
shows Laura the power of a commodifed self, but she also shows Laura
later on how it exerts its power over both Tom, who gasps at Amanda’s
transmogrification, and Jim, who is at first taken aback but recovers
only to be swept away by Amanda’s vivacity and charm.

Amanda champions the values of a society where, for more than a
hundred years, the American ideals of democracy, equality, and freedom
were roundly contradicted by the facts of life. She came from a place
where the social order of life and its institutions were based on
unquestioned vertical chains of power and patronage, where the genteel
surface of hierarchy was stretched over the brutality of forced labor
and the suspension of individual conscience. Therefore, it is hard for
Amanda to function without being able to control and dominate others
because she cannot think of any suitable alternative form of existence.
Her discontent with her present status arises from her powerlessness to
forgo using the language of the southern economic system that she had
absorbed so many years ago, and by whose rules her class of people
gained satisfaction through the consumption of commodities and services
and accumulation of wealth.29 Therefore, Amanda’s sense of power and
purpose are not the products of an individual’s conception of self-
worth, arising from the conviction that each life is meaningful in its

own right, but her sense of power and purpose derive from the belief

145
that life is meaningful only if one can enslave others in order to
perpetuate one’s own happiness and comfort and corrupt values. The
qualities that Amanda endows the self with come from the outside, and
this self is enhanced through the process of acquisition and perfected
through the negative forces of deception and subterfuge. Amanda’s
conception of the self is a grotesque growth of an accumulated self that
obliterates an individual’s creative, expressive, and self-fulfilling
existence. One is reminded of Williams’s own statement in his Hemp1rs,
where his exasperation at his mother’s stultifying and destructive
pattern of possessive behavior with Rose and Tom led him to exclaim:

"Why do women bring children into this world and then destroy them."30

VI Tom’s Individuation and Gift of Liberation

If Amanda’s aim to perpetuate the self leads her to possess and
control others around her, then Tom’s aim is to free the self through
self-reliance and by exercising his right to be a creative, expressive
individual. However, Tom’s problem in the Wingfield household is that he
is unable to find a way to individualize himself because Amanda is blind
and unsympathetic to his need for individuation. While this conflicting
philosophy of life between Amanda and Tom contributes to the stifling
atmosphere that Tom describes as: "this two-by-four situation," (SH 57)
and as a result of which Tom is forced to leave, nevertheless, Tom
harbors intense regrets for his leaving. His awareness of the pain that
his leaving would bring to the Wingfield household is vocalized through
his remarks to Laura: "You know it don’t take much intelligence to get

yourself into a nailed up coffin, Laura. But who in hell ever got

146

himself out of one without removing one nail" (SH 57). And as Tom had
feared, his individuation occurred at a much higher price than he had
originally imagined. It occurred at the price of his having to leave
behind the thing closest to his heart, his other self, Laura. It is this
profound sense of distress at having forsaken his sister, Laura, that
gnaws at his heart and makes him retrace his steps and construct this
confessional. Tom’s last soliloquy explains this point well:

I didn’t go to the moon, I went much further--for time is the
longest distance between two places. Not long after that I was
fired for writing a poem on a lid of a shoe-box. I left Saint
Louis. I descended the steps of this fire escape for the last time
and followed, from then on, in my father’s footsteps, attempting
to find in motion what was lost in space. I travelled around a
great deal. The cities swept about me like dead leaves that were
brightly colored but torn away from the branches. I would have
stopped, but I was pursued by something. It always came upon me
unawares, taking me altogether by surprise. Perhaps it was only a
piece of transparent glass. Perhaps I am walking along a street at
night, in some strange city, before I have found companions. I
pass the lighted window of a shop where perfume is sold. The
window is filled with colored glass, tiny transparent bottles in
delicate colors, like bits of a shattered rainbow. Then all at
once my sister touches my shoulder. I turn around and look into
her eyes. Oh, Laura, Laura, I tried to leave you behind me, but I
am more faithful than I intended to be! I reach for a cigarette, I
cross the street, I run into the movies or a bar, I buy a drink, I
speak to the nearest stranger--anything that can blow your candles
out!... For nowadays the world is lit by lightning! Blow out your
candles, Laura--and so goodbye.... (SH 137)

Williams does not dramatize an account from his life that
spotlights only his personal individuation and liberation, because such
a naked approach would fail to uphold the truth of the connection
between self-realization achieved through freedom. What makes this play
significant, poignant, and timeless is that Tom is also able to free and
liberate Laura through a crucial event in the play where Laura’s
innermost desires and wishes are realized. It is because of this

liberating event that when we reach the end of the play we no longer see

147
Laura as a person who is fragile, nervous, and lacking in self-
confidence, but we see her as someone who has achieved a certain balance
in life and who is contented because of her own self-liberating, freeing
gesture.

While Tom’s breaking away to find himself gives him time to
practice and perfect his craft, it is significant that this play Tom
creates out of this experience transcends the bitterness and acrid
atmosphere from which it issued. The play as a final product champions
Tom’s faith in his own capacity as an expressive, creative individual to
bring about change, and although Tom’s assessment of his own success at
becoming a free and expressive individual is modest, the poetry of the
play, the play’s dramatic development with its balanced
characterization, motivation, and action point to Tom’s own success at
his craft. More importantly, because of this vantage point of having
achieved personal success as an artist, because of his accomplishment at
self-actualization, Tom’s newly empowered self is able to take on the
challenge of recounting his life in the Wingfield household. The play
becomes a serious and honest exploration of what it means to be human

and free.

VII Laura: Tom’s other self
In his Hempirs, Williams often talks about his concern and
emotional closeness with his sister, Rose. He offers several glimpses
into her personality, interests, and problems and even talks of his
having modelled Laura’s character on Rose. Although Williams does not

attempt an analysis of his creative reconstruction of Rose as Laura, his

148

disclosure of certain common traits between Rose and Laura is helpful in
our understanding of what made Rose special to Williams, and why Tom
considers Laura as an individual in the play, whom he is protective of
and whom he eventually liberates from her ordinary condition of being a
strange and elusive character into a mature person. In one instance,
while talking of his closeness with Rose and his attempt at capturing
Rose’s condition in his play, Williams says: “[W]e strolled about the
business streets of University city. It was a sort of a ritual with a
pathos that I assure you was never caught in the Menagerie, nor in my
short story, "Portrait of a Girl in Glass," on which Menagerie was
based."31 In another reference a few pages later, attempting an
approximation of Rose’s personality and problems that he tried to
capture in his play, Williams gives us a rare insight of having modelled
Laura on Rose:

But you don’t know Miss Rose and you never will unless you come to

know her through this ’thing,’ [Rose’s mysterious stomach trouble]

for Laura of Menagerie was like Miss Rose only in her inescapable

’difference,’ [her individuality] which that old female bobcat

Amanda would not believe existed. And as I mentioned, you may know

only a little bit more of her through "Portrait of a Girl in

Glass."32
In modelling Laura on Rose, Williams modified Rose’s problems and
personality in a way that made Laura not a carbon copy of Rose but an
idealized and loving representation of his sister. Rose’s problems and
heartaches are artistically transformed into Laura’s quiet, shy,
nervous, and self-effacing personality.

Williams’s love for his sister not only made him sensitive of how

and in what light he should depict her through Laura, but his love for

Rose also made him make his namesake, Tom, protective of Rose’s

149

counterpart, Laura, in the play. Tom’s attitude towards Laura in the
play prefigures Williams’s own concern and care for Rose in real life.
From all of Williams’s references to Rose, the most important or serious
recollections have to do with Williams’s own regret of having failed his
sister by concentrating too much on his own dreams, failing to recognize
her problems, for being cruel and selfishly occupied with his own
happiness and new friendships, and mostly, for being unable to protect
her from being forced to undergo the prefrontal lobotomy, an operation
that Williams says left Rose "tragically becalmed,"33 or in more direct
terms destroyed his sister’s selfhood and life:

...Rose was sent away to the State Asylum in 1937. It’s not very

pleasant to look back on that year and to know that Rose knew she

was going mad and to know, also, that I was not too kind to my

sister. You see, for the first time in my life, I had become

accepted by a group of young friends and my delighted relations

with them preoccupied me to such an extent that I failed to

properly observe the shadow falling on Rose.“
In fact, it became Williams’s lifelong quest to take care of his sister
and somehow redeem himself for this neglect and betrayal he felt he had
shown towards Rose. Later in his career, when Williams had been able to
secure for Rose a comfortable place in "Stoney lodge in Ossining,... a
lovely retreat where she has a pleasant room to herself, with flowered
wallpaper," he was able to declare: “This is probably the best thing
I’ve done with my life, besides a few bits of work."35

If Williams presented Laura as an artistic representation of Rose,
he also infused Laura’s character with traits of his own self. Laura’s
nervousness, her shy and retiring character, her quiet self-

consciousness are all Williams’s personal characteristics that he talks

of in his Hemp1rs.36 By investing Laura with aspects of his own self,

150
Williams the playwright becomes aware of her problems and is protective
of her in the play in a way that he could not protect her in life.
Laura’s quiet self and her uniqueness are always present in Tom’s mind,
and although Tom is free to pursue his own goals, what binds him to
Laura is his perception of her as his other self that he felt he had
forgotten and abandoned in real life. Yet, the agony and frustration of
not being able to do enough for Laura still haunts Tom, Williams’s
prototype in the play. Tom’s lines in the play, where he narrates the
magician’s tricks, refer to his deepest wish to be able to free Laura
from her problems and rescue her from her environment, a feat that he
knows will not be possible to carry out, but wishes it was true anyway:
There was a big stage show! The headliner in the stage show was
Malvolio the Magician. He performed wonderful tricks, many of
them, such as pouring water back and forth between pitchers. First
it turned to wine and then it turned to beer and then it turned to
whiskey. I know it was whiskey it finally turned into because he
needed somebody to come up out of the audience to help him, and I
came up--both shows! It was Kentucky Straight Bourbon. A very
generous fellow, he gave souvenirs. [He pulls from his back pocket
a shimmering rainbow-colored scarf.] He gave me this. This is his
magic scarf. You can have it, Laura. You wave it over a canary
cage and you get a bowl of goldfish. You wave it over a goldfish
bowl and they fly away canaries.... But the wonderfullest trick of
all was the coffin trick. We nailed him into a coffin and he got
out of the coffin without removing one nail (SH 56).
Nevertheless, despite the coffin imagery of death and decay, Tom is able
to individualize and free Laura in his own magical way because Williams
was able to turn this play into a souvenir for his sister. Williams
gives us a hint of this resolve in his memoirs when he says that just
about the time his sister, Rose, was "submitted to a lobotomy," "I was
just beginning to write well in an individual style. I remember

writing... the short story ’The Malediction’ and a number of nice little

151

1137

poems. Thus it will not be farfetched to say that young Williams
would use his gift for writing, his newly discovered talent, his
individual voice to pay tribute to his sister through the medium in

which he felt his own boss.

VII Laura’s Individuation and Liberation

Apart from investing Laura with a part of his own personality,
Williams was also able to codify in Laura’s physical handicap a part of
his own gay self. Recent critics like Mark Lilly have argued
convincingly about Laura’s physical disability or her lameness and
Laura’s favorite, the glass unicorn in her glass menagerie, as
representing Williams’s coded references to his own gay self. Lilly’s
justification behind his claim being that Williams as a writer and a gay
man was "faced with not only an external censorship, but a self-
censorship arising directly out of the cultural atmosphere produced by
the former," and therefore he had to resort to "to an opacity of imagery
and meaning“ in creating "a satisfying creative ambiguity" to camouflage
his gay interest and self.38 Elsewhere, Lilly makes a good point about
the "unicorn as an emblem of Laura, who in turn symbolizes the
individual gay person, isolated certainly, but possessing valuable

1139

individuality. I find this explanation helpful to my discussion of
Tom’s individuation of Laura.

In addition to codifying a part of his sexual self through Laura’s
handicap and the symbol of the unicorn, Williams also gives us hints,
throughout the play, about Tom’s gay self that was left for Tom to

discover on his own in addition to his search for his vocation. Tom’s

152
references to his gay self are made through his hints about staying out
at night, ostensibly with the purpose of visiting gay bars, his "desire
for the seaman’s life," a life of "the desire for an all-male community
linked by a common endeavor and the especially intense camaraderie that

u 40

is the product of hardship, and even his revelation in the epilogue
hints of his gay activities: "Perhaps I am walking alone at night, in
some strange city, before I have found companions" [My italics] (SH
137).‘1 What is significant here is that although these hints about
Tom’s gay self speak of Williams’s desire to somehow talk about a fact
of life which ordinarily could not be addressed, his codified gay self,
camouflaged through Laura’s lameness and her association with the
unicorn become at the same time symbols of Laura’s uniqueness and the
source of her individuality and strength because Williams does not let
Laura’s individuality remain a static entity. In the course of the play,
Williams is able to show the growth of Laura’s individuality through her
meeting with Jim, an episode that both liberates Laura and enables her
to act freely and confidently.

When critics comment on Williams’s use of unconventional
techniques in the play, they usually agree or disagree with Williams’s
stage directions for the specific use of expressionistic modes of "the
screen device," "the music," and "the lighting," in the play. Very few
critics have explored the experimental technique that Williams adroitly
embedded in the play’s last scene, where the meeting between Jim and
Laura is handled.‘2 I consider this episode between Jim and Laura as
experimental because Tom, Williams’s surrogate as the play’s narrator,

could not have been present during this moment of private meeting

153
between Jim and Laura, nor could he have known the details of what
transpired between Jim and Laura because Tom leaves home for good
presumably after his second fall out with Amanda, immediately after Jim
leaves, without having the chance even to speak with Laura. Thus, we can
say the meeting between Jim and Laura and what transpires between them
is a product of Tom’s imagination, and so it is in keeping with the
experimental nature of the play’s structure, an experiment that Williams
pulls off with remarkable success. This experimental but imaginative
episode is at the core of the play’s success because it fulfills at
least two objectives. It enables Williams the artist to pay tribute to
his sister by making her dream come true, while within the context of
play, the episode works as device which brings about Laura’s
individuation and liberation.

Although the scene between Jim and Laura starts off awkwardly with
Laura’s usual shy and withdrawn self-serving as a barrier to their
closeness, Jim’s initiative at breaking the ice, however ironic it may
seem at this point because of his trying to impress Laura with his focus
on the materialist vision of the self: "think of the fortune made by the
guy that invented the first piece of chewing gum,... The Wrigley
Building is one of the sights of Chicago..." (GM 109), and his grand
plans for his future: "I’ve already made the right connections and all
that remains is for the industry itself to get under way! Full steam--
Knowledge--Zzzzzp!--Money--Zzzzzp!--Power!" (SH 120), paves the way for
Laura’s growth of self-confidence and selfhood. To Jim’s question: "Now
how about you? Isn’t there something you take more interest in than

anything else?" Laura’s response: "Well, I do--as I said--I have my--

154
glass collection--"(GM 120) is so fresh and free of pretense that Jim is
forced to drop his guard and see her for who she is. It is an instance
where Laura’s simple self overpowers Jim’s material self. It is a moment
when, according to Bigsby: "Art [truth and beauty] alone, it seems, has
the power to halt, however momentarily, the rush towards extinction.“3
The following conversation between Jim and Laura, built around the
reference to the glass unicorn becomes symbolic of Laura’s own
uniqueness and Jim’s unconscious but sympathetic reference to Laura’s
individuality:

Jim: What kind of a thing is this one supposed to be?

Laura: Haven’t you noticed the single horn on its forehead?

Jim: A unicorn, huh?

Laura: Mmmmm-hmmmm!

Jim: Unicorns--aren’t they extinct in the modern world?

Laura: 1 know!

Jim: Poor little fellow, he must feel sort of lonesome.

Laura [smiling]: Well, if he does, he doesn’t complain about

it. He stays on the shelf with some horses that don’t
have horns and all of them seem to get along nicely
together?

Jim: How do you know?

Laura [lightly]: I haven’t heard any arguments among them!

(SH 121-22)

Laura’s assurance that the unicorn is comfortable among a majority
of hornless horses is evidence of her own rising self confidence and
self-trust in defending others like herself. Throughout the scene, this
rising self-confidence in Laura is strengthened by Jim’s assurances to
her about her own condition: "A little physical defect is what you have.
Hardly noticeable even!... Think of yourself as superior in some way!"
(SH 119); his effort in making her feel comfortable and close to him by
teaching her how to dance; and his impressing upon her the fact that she

is indeed a distinctive and unique person:

155
The different people are not like other people, but being
different is nothing to be ashamed of. Because other people are
not such wonderful people. They’re one hundred times one thousand,
You’re one times one! They walk all over the earth. You just stay
here. They’re common as--weeds, but--you--well, you’re--Blue
Roses!" (SH 126)
More importantly, Jim’s praise of Laura does not end merely with words,
it culminates with the kiss, "A souvenir,“ (SH 127) as it is described
in the play. It is through Jim’s kiss that Laura’s individuality is
finally validated most convincingly to herself. It helps her become free
of the doubts she had about her herself. It fulfills her completely.“
But if this kiss serves to validate Laura’s unique personhood and
individuality, the kiss also serves to free her in the sense that it
liberates her because now her most secret desire has come true. Williams
himself hints through his scene directions at this process of freedom
that he had envisioned for Laura: "While the incident is apparently
unimportant, it is to Laura the climax of her secret life" (SH 107).
Laura who is fulfilled through this kiss is freed or liberated as a
person, and hence she is able to act democratically with Jim as she
hands him the unicorn, her most precious treasure, now with its horn
broken, as a gesture of her gratitude for Jim’s liberating effect on
her. Laura’s gesture of handing over unicorn is also an example of her
ability of having grown into more empowered state, because with her
giving action, Laura in turn frees Jim of any sense of guilt that he
might harbor for kissing her since he is already engaged to someone

else. Laura’s action is thus not only freeing but also noble and

sincere. It is an act that issues only out of an empowered self.

156

Many critics have interpreted Jim's kissing Laura and his
subsequent revelation to her about his being engaged as an act of
betrayal. They claim that Jim’s action destroys Laura’s dreams and as a
result Laura now "retreats within herself forever.“5 Some have
maintained that Jim is insensitive to Laura’s feelings and Jim "gives
with one hand only to take away with the other," and ultimately "Laura
loses out."“ But these critics forget that Jim was brought into Laura’s
life at Amanda’s insistence, who wanted Laura to trap Jim into marriage
and save herself. Laura herself may have dreamed of Jim, but she had no
dreams of possessing him to the extent where we can say that Jim’s
revelation of his engaged status destroys Laura. Ironically it is
Amanda’s dreams and hopes of possessing Jim through proxy that are
destroyed, not Laura’s. While Tom’s bringing Jim home at Amanda’s behest
ends with Amanda’s loss, Jim’s meeting with Laura creates for her a
positive environment, where his liking for her infuses her with a sense
of self-worth. Laura’s quiet self in contrast to Amanda’s self-promotion
wins over Jim in a way that he never realized was possible. The fact
that Jim’s revelation disappoints Laura cannot be denied, but to say
that it destroys Laura is an error. I do not think Williams would have
wanted us to see Laura destroyed because Williams would not want us to
feel sorry for her because she is unable to possess. Furthermore,
Laura’s dependency on Jim would in the end only be an echo of the real
life helpless dependency on others that was forced upon Rose by cruelly

subjecting her to a prefrontal lobotomy.

157
VIII Tom’s Democratic and Empowered Self

Tom’s last soliloquy in the play, with its image of a wandering
self, wistfully remembering fond human attachment is both an act of
tribute as well as a severance of ties. It should not be interpreted as
merely an exercise in nostalgia. In fact, Tom’s speech embodies the
perfect image of the self suspended in the "paradox of being lost and
found simultaneously.“7 In this case, Tom is "lost" because he has lost
a home, yet "found“ since he has discovered his true vocation as a poet
and a dramatist. Yet, Tom’s courage to narrate this play could not have
materialized if he was not, in fact, driven away from home, because
Tom’s urge to do justice to the facts of what happened in his past also
drove him to write. Tom’s leaving home also ties in with his conception
of personal freedom and yearning for democratic participation because
“home, in our contemporary democracy, is comprehended as a private
place, a place of withdrawal from the demands of common life, a place of
fixed meaning where one is protected from disorientation, but also from
the possibility of democratic involvement. Hence one might say that the
[aspiration for] democratic life requires one to overcome the fear of
homelessness, to develop the courage to leave home (embracing another
fear) without knowing when or whether one will return.““

But Tom does return home through this play, not as a struggling
poet but as an empowered person since he has now realized his own will,
by becoming a poet/dramatist, against the resistance of others, like
Amanda.‘9 And as a result of his empowered self he is able to free
others, Laura through Jim’s kiss and by memorializing her memory through

this play. Williams frees Amanda or her real life incarnation, Miss

158

Edwina, too, as he willed half of all the royalties from the
performances of this play to Edwina for the rest of her life. It is
ironic that "the play she [Edwina] had unwittingly inspired would give
her considerable financial reward and finally enable her to have the one
thing she had so long desired--her independence from Cornelius."“

Although Williams exploits the real life tensions that existed
between himself and his mother because of their inability to compromise,
Williams does not underestimate the desperation of Amanda, who is more
present-sacrificing, in order to achieve a secure future for herself as
well for her children, and whose present is in such contrast with her
past, that she more than others feels the insecurity intensely, and has
very limited means of doing anything about it. Her possessiveness partly
grows out of this insecurity and helplessness. This is perhaps what
Williams would want us to understand most about Amanda, and that is why
Williams introduces Amanda to us by saying: "There is much to admire in
Amanda, and as much to love and pity as there is to laugh at. Certainly
she has endurance and a kind of heroism, and though her foolishness
makes her unwittingly cruel at times, there is tenderness in her slight
person" (SH 21). Williams also did not let Amanda lose in the play as
her material loss is substituted by a greater gain, wisdom. Williams
conveys this to us through his scene description, not through words but
through Amanda’s gestures, for what words can summarize the nature of
wisdom: "Now that we cannot hear the mother’s speech, her stillness is
gone and she has dignity and tragic beauty... Amanda’s gestures are slow
and graceful, almost dancelike, as she comforts her daughter" (SH 136).

Williams’s final image of Amanda conjures in our minds the image of the

159
wise Maurya in J. M. Synge’s Riders tn the Sea, who too gains wisdom

through a great deal of suffering.

NOTES
1. Thomas L. King, "Irony and Distance in The l Me ri ,"

ModerneCritical Views: Tennessee1Hilliams, ed. Harold Bloom (New York:
Chelsea House Publishers, 1987) 85.

2. King 86.

3. Tennessee Williams, lhe Slass Henagerie (New York: A Signet Book,
1987) 23. Subsequent references to this edition of the play, abbreviated
as SH, will appear parenthetically in this chapter.

4. Suparna Rajaram and Henry L. Roediger, "Remembering and Knowing
as States of Consciousness During Retrieval, " Se1ent1f1e_Apprpaehes_tp
Cpnse1pusness, ed. Jonathan D. Cohen and Jonathan W. Schooler (Mahwah, New
Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1997) 214.

5. King 86.

6. King 86.

7. King 86.

8. King 87.

9. King 87.

10. King 87.

11. Benedict Nightingale, Fifth ng Center: A Critic’s rear Sn And
Qt£_Brgadmay (New York: Times Books, 1986) 112.

12. Tennessee Williams, Hemg1rs (New York: Doubleday and Company,
Inc., 1975) xviii.

13. Hemg1rs 21-22.

14. C. L. R. James, American Civilization (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Publishers, 1993) 46.

15. Hempirs 230.

16. C. H. E. Bigsby. WM (Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1992) 40-41.

17. Hemg1rs 84.

18. James L. Rowland, "Tennessee’s Two Amandas," lwentieth Century

~ - . u n -- i-° : Col - .. O ' i s. , ed.

R. B. Parker (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 1983) 64.
19. Rowland 73.
160

161

20. Heme1rs 84.
21. Lester A. Beaurline, "lhe Glass Hen nagerie: From Story to Play,"
' e 1 ‘ t1. ° T e - n 1 ~er1 A 1 ‘ 11 0

Critical Essays, ed. R. B. Parker (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc.,
1983) 44- 52. In this essay, Beaurline traces the four stages of
development and revision of lh e Slass Hen nagerie and analyzes the
improvements that Williasms makes with each successive version. Donald
Spoto, 'n ne ife (New

York: Ballantine Books, 1985) 179. Spoto tellsf us how Williams used his
the short fiction form as a springboard for his longer plays. Lyle
Leverich, lo mo; lhe Unknown le ennessee Hill jams (New York: Crown Publishers.

Inc. , 1995) 206- 7. Leverich quotes Clark Mills, one of Williams’ 5 writing
partners from the Poetry Society of St. Louis, who commented on Williams’s
writing and revision process as: "He was never sure if he knew where he
was going, but when he got there--when he finished that passage and it
might not be right--he’d toss it aside and start all over again... You
know, usually one sits down and writes page one, two, three, four, and so
on--but he would write and rewrite and even in the middle of a passage,
he’d start all over again and slant it another way."

22. Hemeirs 85.
23. Hemgirs 234-35.

24. David Birch, f D ' ' r '

(New York. St. Martin’ s P, 1991) 76. In this chapter, Birch explains the
different ways in which continental dramatists have used language in their
plays. Brich explains how language is used as an active tool by characters
to either influence or control the others around them. He comments on
dramatists like Antonin Artaud’s search for a new type of physical
language of the stage and Brecht’s innovations of dramatic speech through
his technique of "defamiliarization" or use of narrative intervention in
the characters’ speeches.

25. Birch 76-77.

26. William Ian Miller, 11 n er

WW (Ithaca NY: Cornell UP. 1993) 163-

27. Bernard Williams, Shame_and_Heeess1ty,(Berkeley: U of California
P, 1993) 75-102. In these pages Bernard Williams makes an important
distinction between the Greek dramatists’ use of the emotion of shame,
where the characters often pursued shame or inflicted shame on others as
a necessary means to get at the truth of things, and the modern day use of
shame where "shame is on the bad side of all the lines" because of "its
notorious association with the notion of losing or saving face" (77).
Amanda’s shaming of Tom is in keeping with this modern aspect of shaming
because she wants Tom to know that she is aware of his activities and
habits and therefore he should be ashamed of himself in her presence. In
other words, she wants Tom to suffer a loss of face. Amanda’s accusations
are made not only to embarrass Tom but to threaten him into submission as

162

well. See Thomas J. Scheff, "Conflict in Family Systems: The Role of
Shame," ' - 01 '0 u. 0| : 1‘ ' 10 1' 0 1. n
Embarrassments_end_firide, ed. June Price Tangney and Kurt W. Fisher (New
York: The Guilford P, 1995) 393- 412. Thomas Scheff analyses and discusses
how family members use shame in their speech to avoid responsibility. See
also, Carl D. Schneider, Shane, Exposure, and Erjveey (Boston: Beacon P,
1977) 56—65. Here Schneider talks about how a person’s self or
individuality can be violated by when the private "facts" about the
individual are openly' discussed or referred to in the course» of a
conversation.

28. Brian A. Hickey, "Bowen’ 5 Family Projection Process and
Tennessee Williams’s lne glass Henagerie," Eersneetiyes_1n_£syennlngueel
Care, 22. l (1984): 26-32. In this interesting article, Hickey uses
Bowden’s theory of "family dysfunction: the inability of family'members to
distinguish their own thoughts and feelings from other family members’
referred to as differentiation of self," to explain Amanda’s problems with
being possessive, controlling and destructive of her own family’s
cohesion.

29~ Robin Blackburn, WWW:
Mo - (London: Verso, 1997) For a detailed

account of the history of the institution of slavery and forced labor and
how the system anticipated some of the features of capitalist
industrialism, see pages 315-363. For an account of slavery and the
economic benefits of accumulation in America see pages 459-483.

30. Memnirs 219.

31. Memnirs 120.

32. Memnirs 125.

33. Memnirs 126.

34. Memeirs 121.

35. Memeirs 126-27.

36. The following pages in Williams’ s Memnirs refer to his the own
self that I feel he transposed in Laura in lh e QT ess Menager rie. p. 16, 17,
nervous problems; p. 46, 163, Williams’ s shy self; p. 23, Williams’ s shy
self in school transferred to Laura’s shy self in Rubicam’s Business
College; p. 38, Williams’s habit of walking the streets when he felt

agitated in seen in Laura’s habit of walking in the city instead of going
to Rubicam’s; p. 46, Williams’s shyness among people.

37. flemnirs 48.

38. Mark Lilly, "Tennessee Williams," Amerieen_Dreme, ed. Clive
Bloom (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995) 70.

163

39. Mark Lilly, "Tennessee Williams: lhe Glass Menagerie and A
Streetear Named Desire," Lesbian and Gay Writing: An Antnnlngy nf Critjeal

 

Essays, ed. Mark Lilly (Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1990) 155. Lilly provides
a good interpretation of Laura’s lameness as Williams’s metaphor for his
view of homosexuality.

40. Mark Lilly, "Tennessee Williams: The Glass Menagerie and A
Streetcar Named Desire" 157.

41. Memeirs 27-29. In these pages, Williams mentions his first
awareness of the existence of gay bars in St. Louis brought to his notice
by the young man who he was paired off with when he accepted a summer job
as a "house to house peddler of a big ’woman’s magazine.” Later he
reiterates that his young friend "from Oklahoma kept hanging around St.
Louis, which is all but intolerably hot in summer" and kept "suggesting
that we go to ’the bars’ ——but I continued to decline. " See also George

Chauncey, a . ° - -e r; 1 t r-:- - .. . 1-
Male Wnrld, 1399-1959 (New York: Basic Books, 1994) I- 12 In documenting

the "highly visible, remarkably'complex, and continually changing gay'male
world" in New York city "between 1890 and the beginning of the Second
World War" Chauncey also mentions in his meticulously researched and
insightful book, that "scattered evidence" of gay life in "other American
Cities" "indicates that Chicago, Los Angeles, and at least a handful of
other cities hosted gay subcultures of considerable size and complexity
before the war, and that many small towns also sustained gay social
networks of some scope." [My italics.]

42. Thomas P. Adler, "The (Un)reliability of the Narrator in lhe
glass Menagerie and yienx Carre," lne Tennessee Williams Reyiew 3. 1
(1981): 6-9. Adler is supportive of Tom’s "remembrance of things he was
not present to observe" by explaining that "seeing events acted out on the
stage surrounds them with an aura--the illusion, if you will--of
objectivity, making them not as subjective as they might if they were
simply told" because the "dramatic form itself precludes the solipsistic
effect often felt in the first person point of view."

43. Bigsby 43.

44. My understanding of the significance of Jim’s kiss as "a
souvenir" in the larger context of Williams’s love for Rose has been
greatly enhanced by a seminar on Williams’s plays conducted by Prof.
Arthur Athanason.

45. Patricia R. Schroeder, res nc f st
Amerjean_flrama (Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1989) 109.
46. Alex Potter, “ he Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams," Cruz

14. 2 (1980): 21.

47. Thomas L. Dumm, united states (Ithaca, NY: Cornell up, 1994)
155.

164
48. Dumm 155.

49. Max Weber, from Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford
UP, 1946) 180. Weber was one of the first people to describe positive
effect of power, what we now call "empowerment" thus: "[P]ower is the
ability to realize one’s own will even against the resistance of others."

50. Spoto 123.

CHAPTER FOUR

POSSESSION, REPUTATION, AND REDEMPTION
IN A STREEIQAR NAMED DESIRE

\Critics and commentators have often suggested that Williams’s
interest and empathy lay with the outsiders and the dispossessed people
of society. Foster Hirsch writes: "Williams is obsessed with the social
outsider, the character who is unbalanced in extravagant and colorful
ways,..." and his "sympathy is reserved for the hounded, rejected,
dishevelled."I Benjamin Nelson is of the opinion that Williams gained a
"sense of kinship with the lonely, the rootless and the outcast" when he
was in New Orleans early in his career with the "attempt to join the
Writers’ Project or the Theatre Project."2 During one of the rare
introspective moments about his art, Williams mentions in his Memnirs:
"I write so often of people with no magnitude, at least on the surface.
I write of ’little people.’ But are there ’little people’? I sometimes
think there are only little conceptions of people. Whatever is living
and feeling with intensity is not little..." [my italics]’ By the phrase
"living and feeling with intensity" Williams means the emotional drive
that people exhibit or are influenced by while going through life.
Williams was not so much interested in analyzing or unraveling character
as in exploring how people dealt with or were driven by their innate
feelings and emotions. For Williams, emotion was more important than
reason, and in most of his successful plays we encounter the drama that
develops out of a character’s wrestling or trying to cope with his or
her feelings and emotions in an environment where the cultivation of

these qualities is severely repressed or thwarted.‘ In post—modern

165

166
terminology, this internal conflict in the individual or "radical
politics of the soul"5 that drives the individual in a repressive
environment is defined as "the conflict between the otherness of the

'“ and as

individual and the uniformity that characterizes the community,
a result of which "the individual [becomes] a victim of a system
resistant to human need.“'Williams’s Blanche DuBois in A_§1reetear
Mamed_Desire is a good example of an individual, who is not only an
"other," but is also someone who is driven and eventually destroyed as a
result of pursuing her desires or needs. This is perhaps why Williams
himself considered Blanche more than a "little person." He elaborated on
his point by both asking and answering the question in a reader’s mind:
"Was Blanche a ’little person?’ Certainly not. She was a demonic
creature, the size of her feelings was too great for her to contain
without the escape of madness" [my italics].°

{Blanche DuBois in A_§treetear_Mamed_Desjre is a character who
cannot be easily forgotten. When we meet her, she is in a state of panic
because she is fleeing from a ruinous past, she is destitute because she
has no personal belongings or money, and she is alone without anybody’s
love or support to count on. This condition is aggravated by her
discovery of her sister’s place, a place which is incompatible with her
idea of a refuge or quiet shelter because it is exactly the opposite of
the "great big place with white columnsl"9 an ironic "Elysian Fields," a
place which, according to Blanche: "Only Mr. Edgar Allan Poe!--could
do...justice!" (Streetear 20) It is a place bristling with the sexual
energy of Stanley’s and Stella’s compatibility as highlighted by the

stage direction’s highly suggestive sexual symbolism portrayed by

167

Stanley’s and Stella’s interaction at the beginning of the play, as
Stanley appears in "his bowling jacket and a red-stained package from a
butcher’s" and "heaves the package at Stella," who "cries in protest but
manages to catch it," and "laughs breathlessly" at her success
(Streetear 13-14).10 In contrast, Williams presents Blanche as someone
who is suffering from acute physical exhaustion, highlighting Blanche’s
precarious physical condition and mental instability in the stage
directions, through an apt image: "There is something about her
uncertain manner, as well as her white clothes, that suggests a moth"
(Streetear 151, As the play progresses, this metaphor of the "moth"
conveys more about Blanche’s physical and mental condition than anything
else. More appropriately, it becomes a haunting symbol of the duality of
Blanche’s psyche. The moth’s desire for the flame, the flame that both
attracts it and eventually serves to immolate it, mirrors Blanche’s own
desire for physical passion that both attracts her and destroys her in
the end.

Yet, we must not read too heavily into this symbol of the "moth"
and reduce Blanche’s operation in the play as occurring merely as a

‘ where Blanche’s destruction is a

result of a naturalistic progression,‘
result of being inexorably pushed into an arena of no escape, an
environment which she calls "a trap" (Streetear 128). Blanche has her
own distinctive method of operation, her own consciousness of action,
and if she describes her environment as being a "trap," it is only
because she herself is partly responsible for finding herself in the

"trap." Blanche is, after all, an individual who is trying to reclaim

her past, the past that is especially linked with her good name and her

168
lost reputation. In her drive to repossess this very personal and
pristine part of her identity that she has lost, she drags herself into
an environment that becomes a "trap." But the tragedy of Blanche’s
attempt at regaining her reputation is that she is ironically drawn into
deceptive behavior, subterfuge, and eventually into a desperate and
destructive possessiveness by which she imagines she can somehow
recover/reestablish her lost reputation. Her frantic attempts at
repossessing her past come into violent conflict with her nemesis,
Stanley’s suspicions and interests, because the gains that Blanche
believes she can accomplish through her possessive urges, namely,
endowing herself with self worth and a sense of power, threaten
Stanley’s hold on his own territory and the stability of his family
life. Thus, Blanche’s attempt at escaping her sullied reputation is
thwarted by Stanley, whose violent and cruel actions intensify Blanche’s
destruction.

Blanche’s situation is further complicated in the play because of
her own mistaken yet adamant desire to situate herself in an
environment, Stanley’s family, where she is both unwelcome and feared by
Stanley, the primary male, because of Blanche’s efforts to reeducate
Stella, her sister, about Stanley. But Blanche’s predicament in her
sister’s home gets even more acute as her vulnerability to desire,
exhibited through her simultaneous attraction and repulsion to Stanley,
undermines her own efforts at repossessing her reputation because it
arouses Stanley’s suspicions about her past and provokes him to thwart
Blanche’s efforts at repossessing her good name and reputation. In this

chapter, I will explore how Blanche’s ironic desire to repossess what

sh

an
re

pa

the

non

169
she can no longer have intensifies her possessive drive and ultimately
leads to her self-destruction. I will also show how Blanche’s desires
and interests come into conflict with Stanley’s desire to protect and
remain in control of his own territory eventually provokes him into

participating in Blanche’s destruction.

1 Blanche’s status as an Individual

There is something ironic about Blanche’s individuality right from
the moment we meet her. Williams presents her with attributes that are
non-individualistic in the traditional sense of the word because she is
presented not as an imposing, confident, or even a demanding
personality. She is instead depicted as someone who is "delicate" and
"uncertain," "incongruous to the setting“ or irreconcilable to the
environment in which she desires to find shelter and protection, and
extremely vulnerable (Streetear 15). She is materially bankrupt and
physically exhausted, and her sense of desperation is right at the
forefront. She embarks on her quest to find some solid ground to hold
onto in order to survive and eventually turn herself around by revamping
the past. Although these qualities are individualistic in themselves
because Blanche’s soft and vulnerable nature makes her unusual enough to
attract our attention, Blanche is essentially individualistic because
she is a desperately lost, unhappy, and lonely individual operating in a
society where the standards of happiness and success are measured in
terms of a person’s economic worth. Blanche is an individual in terms of
her maladjustment to the hypercivilized complexities of status, money,

and fame. Blanche’s individuality grows on us as the play progresses and

170
as she becomes more and more embroiled in her desperate and misguided
search for happiness through her efforts to repossess her lost self, a
self that consisted of worth, status, and reputation.

Blanche is an individual without worldly possessions or stability:
"[E]verything that I own is in that trunk" (Streetear 41), she tells
Stanley, because the ancestral home, the plantation, Belle Reve is now
“lost" (Streetear 26). She is lonely, with no human contact, except her
sister, Stella: "[Y]ou’re all I got" (Streetear 20), "I want to be near
you, got to be with somebody, I can’t be alone!..." (Streetcar 23)
Blanche is unmarried, over thirty, and is fast losing her looks and
ground, and this condition of fading away causes her great concern and
anxiety: "I never was hard or self-sufficient enough. When people are
soft--soft people have got to shimmer and glow... And I--I’m fading now!
I don’t know how much longer I can turn the trick" (Streetcar 79).
Therefore, her desperation to holding on to something wholesome and
tangible that she believes will give her life some worth drives her.
Blanche’s condition reminds one of Williams’s own comment about his
personal life of hardship and survival before he gained recognition and
wealth as a successful playwright. And it is perhaps more than
coincidence that Williams made this disclosure in an essay that appeared
ir1 Ine_Mew_Ierk_limes_Drama Section, on November 30, 1947--four days
before the New York debut of A_§treetear_Maned_Des1re. Williams

declared:

The sort of life which I had previous to this success was one that
required endurance, a life of clawing and scratching along a sheer
surface and holding on tight with raw fingers to every inch of
rock higher than the one caught hold of before, but it was a good
life because it was the sort of life for which the human organism
is created."

171
While Williams’s condition in life previous to his success reminds one
of Blanche’s circumstances in the play, there is an important difference
in the two situations. Blanche’s privileged background has restricted
her from believing in the democratic principle of self-sufficiency and
self-advancement through individual effort. When her aristocratic
heritage slipped away, Blanche found herself unable to function in a
place where her privileged past is no guarantee of automatic success.
Blanche essentially has had no knowledge of what it means not to have.
Her status as a "fallen aristocrat" is a paradoxical status in a
democratic environment, and her effort to climb back on to the pedestal
from which she had fallen becomes self-defeating and wasteful.

But Blanche’s anxiety about her material and social status is
primarily compounded by the fact that she has lost her reputation or
good name. Reputation is something we possess, which we can add to,
which can be gained and lost, just like property.13 This reputation of
character is what Blanche desires to repossess, more than anything else,
in order to have a sense of self-worth and some material hope for a
future. The loss of Belle Reve, her original shelter, and the loss of
her position at her place of work in the high-school in Laurel, which
occurred as a result of her rendezvous with "a seventeen-year-old-boy"
have rendered her rootless and socially ostracized (Streetear 118).
Therefore, only by repossessing her good name, Blanche realizes, can she
have another chance at enhancing her self-worth and character, and
eventually become reestablished through attracting a life partner and

possessing a shelter.

172

Blanche’s drive to repossess her reputation and her aristocratic
heritage can be better understood if we compare her with Chekhov’s
aristocrat Lubov Ranevskaya and her nostalgia for her childhood memories
in his Ine Cherry Qrenard, since Williams’s indebtedness to Chekhov’s
art and his own comment on Chekhov’s play about the theme of loss seems
particularly relevant to this discussion. Commenting on a revision of a
fellow playwright’s play, and comparing it to Chekhov’s Ine_Cnerry
Orenard, Williams wrote:

It seems to me that the loss of dear things is always a terrible
loss and I can’t see, personally, how it makes things better. Oh,
theoretically, yes, like it’s better to give up drink or part from
a beautiful lover who drives you mad, but--people after reform
always seem sort of dull and commonplace to me, even if they are
socially more adjusted.“
Chekhov’s influence on Williams is evident in Streetear. Like Lubov, not
only is Blanche overtly affected by "the loss of dear things" but
Williams makes Blanche herself refer to Chekhov’s play as she explains
to Mitch the epistemology of her name: "DuBois... It’s a French name. It
means woods and Blanche means white, so the two together mean white
woods. Like an orchard in spring!" (Streetear 54-55) Although Lubov and
Blanche are both concerned with their past, there is an important
difference in the way these two characters handle or desire their past.
In Ine_Cnerry_Qrenarn, Lubov returns to her estate for the last time, as
it is about to be auctioned off because of the default on mortgage
payment, to revive her precious childhood memories for one last time and
revisit her past in the estate where she had grown up as a girl. Lubov’s
{connection with her past has to do with her memories of the past.

'Therefore, her return is an act of reconciliation with her past, not

possession. This self-generated reconciliation enables her to let go of

173
her orchard with dignity, with its memories preserved in her mind.
Blanche, on the other hand, who has already lost her property, Belle
Reve, as well as her reputation, wants to repossess her past in order to
reinvent herself. Blanche is not able to let go and reconcile herself to
her loss of Belle Reve because only by associating the loss of her
reputation as the after-effect of losing Belle Reve does she have any
chance or hope of eliciting sympathy and acceptance from others. Thus,
Blanche cannot afford to let go of the past and her memories of Belle
Reve even if she so desires. There is an obsessive and unhealthy
connection in Blanche’s desire for her past that is not evident or even
suggested in Lubov’s philosophical connection with her past.

Yet, Blanche cannot be held blameworthy for her desire to
repossess her reputation because she is after all rooted in her unique
culture, where the enhancement of self-worth through possessing wealth
is encouraged. Since Blanche has lost her reputation, she has in fact
lost more than wealth. Only by repossessing reputation can she hope of
regaining her wealth. Although Blanche is operating in a democratic
culture, she is barricaded in a patriarchal system, whose rules of
operation and standards of reputation for males and females are unequal.
In all male dominated societies, a woman’s loss of reputation occurs for
the same reason that ironically valorizes a man’s manliness and status.
Blanche has a hard road to travel, and because Blanche is a vulnerable
individual, her "life is a living division of two warring principles,
desireland decorum, and she is the victim of civilization’s attempt to
‘reconcile the two in a morality."15 Thus, Blanche’s desire to repossess

her reputation becomes an even greater task because her chief opponent,

174
Stanley, who is also the primary male, is adamantly unsympathetic to
Blanche’s predicament or even her loss. Her position in Stanley’s
territory is complicated by the fact that Blanche simultaneously fears
and desires Stanley. Therefore, while Stanley’s uninhibited manliness
and sexual charisma attract her: "My sister has married a man!"
(Streerear 40) they also serve to repel her: "A man like that is someone
to go out with--once--twice--three times when the devil is in you. But
live with? Have a child by?" (Streetear 71). Perhaps the biggest
challenge in Blanche’s path at repossessing her reputation comes from
her own confession about the irony of the situation that she has to
labor under when she lets Mitch become aware of her feelings for
Stanley: "The first time I laid eyes on him I thought to myself, that
man is my executioner! That man will destroy me" (Streetear 93).
Ironically, Blanche’s vulnerability to desire, a part of the cause
behind her loss of reputation rears its head right in the domain from
where she is planning a rescue of her reputation.

But Blanche is also an individual with a substantial amount of
guile. Unable to find any other angle of escape from Stanley’s
dissection of her past, Blanche gives into a display of highmindedness
and puritanical behavior. Blanche’s highminded behavior in her new
environment, the center of Stella’s tumultuous relationship with
Stanley, is also fueled by her own need to forget her own loveless,
defeated state and to reinvigorate her self-image with the
*respectability she and Stella had in their Belle Reve days: “Why didn’t
,you tell me, why didn’t you write me, honey, why didn’t you let me

know... that you had to live in these conditions!" (Streetcar 20) And

175
the more deeply Blanche sinks into observing Stella’s closeness with
Stanley, the greater becomes her need to compulsively recall the glory
of their Belle Reve upbringing and ridicule Stella’s closeness with
Stanley in order to feel somehow superior, unsullied, and at a safe
distance from desire: "I take it for granted that you still have
sufficient memory of Belle Reve to find this place and these poker
players impossible to live with" (Streetcar 70). All of this invocation
of respectability, associated with their common aristocratic lineage is
part of Blanche’s attempt at trying to recover her own lost reputation,
to become new and respected again through selective repetition, recall,

and reexamination of things that were once endowed with worth.

. II Blanche’s Vulnerability

Blanche’s efforts at reclaiming her reputation are not merely an
exercise in repossessing her character through revisioning herself as a
new person, for reputation can include more than character. Reputation
includes elements that have to do with the process of life, like age and
attractiveness. These possessions or personal attributes are perhaps not
subject to what others do to us, or even what we do to them.
Nevertheless, they are all part of our vulnerability. The loss of these
elements in Blanche has also contributed towards creating in her an even
more vulnerable desire for her attachment to self-worth and reputation.
Thus, Blanche’s age and her fading looks have made her extremely
particular about what she wears, how she looks, and in the way she
carries herself: "Don’t you look at me, Stella, no, no, no, not till

later, not till I’ve bathed and rested!" (Streetear 19) Her overanxiety

176
about her looks and her age often confuses Stella, who sometimes
reassures her and at other times even questions Blanche’s anxiety: "Why
are you sensitive about your age?" Blanche’s response clues us into her
vulnerability: "[M]en lose interest quickly. Especially when a girl is
over-- thirty." And continuing in this vein Blanche declares that she is
sensitive about her age: "Because of the hard knocks my vanity has been
given" (Streetear 81).

Blanche’s vulnerability about her looks and age is also
exacerbated and complicated by her fears of facing loneliness,
lovelessness, parting, and death. The simultaneous experience of having
had to face the trauma of the death of her parents and relatives while
watching Belle Reve slip out of possession, she explains, compounded the
nervous anxiety that she suffered after her husband Allan’s suicide,
leading her to indulge in intimacies with men, intimacies which she
confesses that she needed to prove to herself that she was not dead:

Yes, I had many intimacies with strangers. And after the death of

Allan--intimacies with strangers was all I seemed able to fill my

empty heart with.... I think it was panic, just panic, that drove

me from one to another, hunting for some protection--here and

there, in the most--unlikely places--even, at last, in a

seventeen-year-old-boy but--somebody wrote the superintendent
about it--’This woman is morally unfit for her position!’

(51111331211: 118)

She tells Stella: "I wasn’t so good the last two years or so, after
Belle Reve had started to slip through my fingers" (Streetear 79). Later
i11 the play when Stanley exposes her and Mitch confronts her about the
trurth, Blanche reveals her vulnerability fearlessly: "Death... The
opposite is desire. So do you wonder? How could you possibly wonder! [my

italics] (Streetear 120) But the irony of Blanche’s action, no matter

177
how vulnerable, to convince herself that she was alive also killed her
most precious possession, her reputation.

If Blanche’s loneliness and fear of death in the past had made her
vulnerable to intimacies with strangers, and as a result of which she is
now alone and shunned, then these same vulnerabilities have now forced
her to become even more desperate and anxious to gain a foothold by
establishing herself in her new environment at Stella’s. She is
intensely concerned with being liked and not ignored and not being left
alone. Therefore, she asks Stella: "Will Stanley like me, or will I be
just a visiting in-law, Stella? I couldn’t stand that" (Streettar 23). A
little later when Stella has revealed a little hint about Stanley’s
difference from the men that they had known as youngsters and about his
military background, Blanche gets more concerned and anxious to know if
she will be accepted, if she will be able to fit in and asks: "How did
he take it when you said I was coming?" (Streetear 24) Her most acute
vulnerability in the form of her need for acceptance is evident from her
declaration to Mitch, which comes just after Mitch’s display of
friendship and solicitations for her concerns and right after Blanche
has witnessed for the first time the tumultuous display of the sexually
charged compatibility between Stanley and Stella: "There’s so much--so
much confusion in the world... Thank you for being so kind! I need the
kindness now" (Streetear 61). Indeed, her loss of reputation has made
her so desperate to gain it back that she even resorts to lying about
her past and misrepresenting herself just to fit in, to be not ignored,
to be liked and accepted. Consequently, when she is forced to accept

'responsibility for misrepresenting herself to people she responds to

178
Mitch’s accusation in a bitterly truthful and desperate confession: "I
misrepresent things... I don’t tell truth, I tell what ought to be
truth. And if that is sinful, then let me be damned for it!" (Streetear
117)

Blanche’s need to do something about being accepted and liked by
her sister’s husband, her chief obstacle, and his circle causes her to
flirt with Stanley and even his friend, Mitch. Unfortunately, Blanche’s
attempts at flirting with Stanley in order to get close to him as a
person and as Stella’s sister backfires because Stanley makes no
concessions for subtlety, humor, and cordial behavior for he
unhesitatingly declares to Blanche when he meets her for the first time:
"I’m afraid I’ll strike you as being the unrefined type" (Streetear 31).
But Stanley’s roughness is compensated by Mitch’s unexpected cordiality
and kindness, and this encourages Blanche’s hopes of being saved and
accepted. In Mitch’s manner and sensibilities, Blanche finds the oasis
of calnlthat she had been looking for. Thus, the symbolic act of Mitch’s
complyfing with Blanche’s request for draping the “adorable little
colored paper lantern... over the light bulb" can be partly read as
Blanche’s moment of wish fulfillment, however transitory, of gaining
back her reputation and being saved, for the harsh glare of the naked
light bulb representing Blanche’s past is willingly but temporarily
covered up by the paper lantern. Also, Mitch’s responses to her interest
in rrhn not only gives her hope but their mutual understanding also
prevents Blanche from falling into the trap of loneliness and seeking
comfort in the arms of the newspaper boy who drops by just before

Mitxfli’s arrival for their first date. Mitch’s affability and kindness

179
strengthens Blanche’s self-control and permits her to be invulnerable
for once as she is able to say to the newspaper boy, who makes her
"mouth water": "Now run along, now, quickly! It would be nice to keep
you, but I’ve got to be good--and keep my hands off children" (Streetear
84). If Mitch’s cordiality sustains Blanche in her quest for happiness
in the desert of Stanley’s territory, it also inflames Blanche’s desire
to possess something more in addition to reputation, for this possession
would be her freedom. She thus confesses to Stella: "He hasn’t gotten a
thing but a goodnight kiss, that’s all I’ve given him Stella. What I
mean is--he thinks I’m sort of--prim and proper, you know! [She laughs
out sharply] I want to deceive him enough to make him--want me... Yes I

want Mitch... very badly! Just think if it happens! I can leave here and

not be anyone’s problem..." (Streetear 81)

III Blanche’s Possessiveness

The possessiveness that Blanche exhibits in Stella’s home is a
curious combination of her innate controlling nature and her desperate
desire to regain her reputation through reliving her old connections
with her sister, Stella. When Blanche complains that she feels Stella is
not happy to see her, Stella reminds Blanche of her dominating nature:
"You never did give me a chance to say much, Blanche. So I just got in
the habit of being quiet around you" (Streetcar 17). Stella’s remark
proves to be revelatory about Blanche’s character since Blanche does
show evidence of domination as she dictates and orders Stella around
yvithout the thought that Stella is a married woman, Stanley’s property

no less, and is under no obligation to humor Blanche or give in to the

180

dominating ways that Blanche was once accustomed to. Therefore,
Blanche’s inability to control her exactly in the way she wants, and
Stella’s acceptance and adjustment to her new life with Stanley become
irksome to Blanche, not to mention Stella’s married status is a constant
reminder to Blanche of her own companionless status, a status that
Blanche regrets not possessing. This thought is certainly on her mind
when she accuses Stella of selfishness, of looking out for herself: "You
left! I stayed and struggled! You came to New Orleans and looked out for
yourself. I stayed at Belle Reve and tried to hold it together!... you
are the one that abandoned Belle Reve, not I! I stayed and fought for
it, bled for it, almost died for it!... Where were you! In bed with
your--Polak!" (Streetear 25-27) Williams’s italicizing the 1’s and you’s
in Blanche’s accusatory tirade highlights the truth of Blanche’s regrets
about her present worth-devoid self which is in contention with Stella’s
worth-endowed self as a woman who is possessed of a husband and a home.

Blanche’s possessiveness in Stella’s home also manifests itself
through her adoption of the subtle guile of flirting with the men.
Although Blanche is aware of Stanley’s nature as a self-possessed and
coarsely exacting man, as she herself tells him when he does not give
into her "fishing for... compliment[s]," "You’re simple, straightforward
and honest, a little bit on the primitive side I should think.... That’s
why, when you walked in here last night, I said to myself--’My sister
has married a man!"' (Streetcar 39-40) Blanche uses this knowledge of
.Stanley to exercise her power by flirting with Stanley and sprinkling
her actions with sexual innuendoes in order to soften the ground and get

a foothold in her new territory. Thus, Stanley’s rejection of giving in

to

181

to her feminine control bothers her and causes her to flinch and throw
insults at him, insults that on one level appear harmless but on another
level are sufficient to alienate and antagonize Stanley for good.
Stanley’s reluctance and lack of interest in doing the buttons on the
back of Blanche’s dress: "I can’t do nothing with them,“ causes Blanche
to retaliate: "You men with your big clumsy fingers" (W 38).
Later when Stanley tells Blanche that he does not believe in humoring a
woman’s craving for flattery by saying: “Some men are took in by this
Hollywood glamour stuff and some men are not," Blanche quickly retorts:
"I cannot imagine any witch of a woman casting a spell over you"
(Streetcar 39). Although Blanche’s coments betray her frustration at
her inability to control Stanley in the way that she had planned, it is
not until a little more daring on her part that she becomes completely
convinced of Stanley’s shrewdness at having seen through her reputation.
The following lines exemplify the point:

Stanley: If I didn’t know that you were my wife’s sister I’d

get ideas about you!

Blanche: Such as what!

Stanley: Don’t play so dumb. You know what! (Streetcar 41)
It is this danger of exposure by Stanley that forces Blanche to lay her
"cards on the table" and seek an alternative route in bringing Stanley
under control. Because she is unable to withstand Stanley’s pressure she
inadvertently admits to him: "I know I fib a good deal. After all, a
woman’s charm is fifty percent illusion..." (Streetcar 41).

Blanche’s disillusionment in the inefficacy of her scheme to
overpower Stanley, and Stanley’s threat of assaulting her reputation

forces Blanche to throw herself into attacking what she calls Stella’s

madness over Stanley. At first Blanche assumes a highminded and

182
condescending approach about Stella’s present condition, sarcastically
remarking: "[M]aybe he’s what we need to mix with our blood now that
we’ve lost Belle Reve" (Streetear 44) and even putting down Stella’s
praise of Stanley by saying: "I’m sorry, but I haven’t noticed the stamp
of genius even on Stanley’s forehead" (Streetear 50). But while
Blanche's need to manipulate Stella gains momentum as she experiences
the violently abusive yet passionately fulfilling relationship between
Stella and Stanley, Blanche seriously miscalculates Stella’s feelings
for Stanley. Blanche’s overzealous effort to manipulate Stella out of
her sexually narcotized and perfectly complementary relationship with
Stanley backfires because Stella defends Stanley and refuses to be
swayed by Blanche’s admonitions:
Blanche: All right, Stella. I will repeat the question
quietly now. How could you have come back to this place
last night? Why, you must have slept with him!
[Stella gets up in a calm and leisurely way.]
Stella: Blanche, I’d forgotten how excitable you are. You’re

making much too much fuss about this.

Blanche: Am I?

Stella: Yes, you are. Blanche. I know how it must have
seemed to you and I’m awful sorry it had to happen, but
it wasn’t anything as serious as you seem to take it.
In the first place, when men are drinking and playing
poker anything can happen. It’s always a powder-keg. He
didn’t know what he was doing.... He was as good as a
lamb when I came back and he’s really very, very
ashamed of himself (Streetear 63).

Blanche’s need to manipulate Stella also arises from her need to
cxnrtrol and have power over Stanley through Stella. Blanche’s effort to
talk Stella into leaving Stanley is motivated by her desire to repay
Stanley for his disrespect and abuse of her position as Stella’s sister.
Blanche knows that "the relationship between Stella and her Promethean

husband, Stanley, must be destroyed not simply because he threatens to

 

183

eject her from her last refuge (this he only does when she reveals

116

herself as a threat) but because then the clock will be turned back,‘
since Stella’s gravitating to Blanche’s side would not only help Blanche
in her efforts to gain an ally, an ally from her unsullied past, but
Stella’s companionship of Blanche would also keep her occupied and
invest her with worth in her presently destitute and shunned condition.
Unfortunately, Blanche’s plans turn out to be too farfetched and
unrealistic, as the following conversation between them demonstrates:

Blanche: Pull yourself together and face the facts.

Stella: What are they in your opinion?

Blanche: In my opinion? You’re married to a madman!

Stella: No!

Blanche: Yes, you are, your fix is worse than mine is! Only
you’re not being sensible about it. I’m going to do
something. Get a hold of myself and make myself a new
life!

Stella: Yes?

Blanche: But you’ve given in. And that isn’t right, you’re
not old! You can get out.

Stella [slowly and emphatically]: I’m not in anything I want
to get out of.

Blanche [incredulously]: What--Stella?

Stella: I said I am not in anything that I have a desire to

get out of. (Sirflfilfiir 65).

Thus, Blanche’s frustration and disappointment at Stella’s staunch
devotion for Stanley forces her to ridicule Stella’s attraction to
Stanley: "Now don’t say it was one of those mysterious electric things
between people! If you do I’ll laugh in your face" (Streeth 70). And
Stella’s sexual attraction for Stanley gives vent to Blanche’s
highminded puritanism: "What such a man has to offer is animal force and
he gave a wonderful exhibition of that! But the only way to live with
such a man is to--go to bed with him! And that’s your job--not mine!"

(W 69) In effect, Stella’s complete acceptance of Stanley

184
signifies her rejection of Blanche, and therefore Stella’s happiness
with Stanley becomes her rejection of the ideals that have sustained
Blanche at this point of her life. Stella’s confident and proud reply to
Blanche clarifies this point: "[T]here are things that happen between a
man and a woman in the dark--that sort of make everything else seem--
unimportant" (Streetear 70). But Blanche’s inability and refusal to
accept Stella’s acceptance of Stanley finally forces her to ridicule and
trivialize the nature of desire that exists between Stella and Stanley.
Blanche’s attack on the passionate nature of desire that exists
between Stella and Stanley has deeper relevance to Blanche’s
possessiveness. The following conversation between Stella and Blanche
will verify my point:
Blanche: "What you are talking about is brutal desire--just-
Desire!--the name of that rattle-trap streetcar that
bangs through the Quarter, up one old narrow street and
down another..."
Stella: Haven’t you ever ridden on that streetcar?

Blanche: It brought me here.--Where I’m not wanted and where
I’m ashamed to be...

Stella: Then don’t you think your superior attitude is a bit
out of place?

Blanche: I’m not being or feeling at all superior, Stella.
Believe me I’m not! It’s just this. This is how I look
at it. A man like that is someone to go out with--once-
-twice--three times when the devil is in you. But live
with? Have a child by?

Stella: I have told you, I love him.

Blanche: Then I tremble for you! I just--tremble for you...

Stella: I can’t help your trembling if you insist on

trembling! (Streetcar 70-71)
Blanche deliberately undermines Stanley’s and Stella’s mutual
desirability for good reason. From Stella’s reply we learn that Blanche
herself in not a novice to the true nature of desire, despite her

puritanical and highminded airs, which Stella is aware of. Yet, at this

185

point, what is bothersome to Blanche is that not only are Stella and
Stanley deeply involved in an explosively passionate desire for each
other, but the desire is a legitimate factor in their lives. This
legitimacy of their desire for each other make them unafraid and bold.
It invests Stella with a sense of pride and for which she is able to
qualify her attraction for Stanley as "love." Furthermore, the
legitimacy of their desire is ratified by a third person, Mitch, as he
confidently extols the bond of "love" that holds Stanley and Stella
together: "There’s nothing to be scared of. They’re crazy about each
other" (Streetear 61). The biggest challenge that Blanche has to deal
with in the Stanley household is realizing while her own vulnerability
for desire ruined her reputation, Stanley’s and Stella’s desire for each
other is not only legitimate but also a life-giving entity for them and
the relationship endows Stella with status. It is this status and
legitimate desire that Blanche wants simultaneously to undermine and yet
possess for herself through her efforts at repossessing her reputation.

In opposition to the legitimate nature of desire between Stella
and Stanley, Blanche realizes that her own intimacies with men were
merely'fUrtive acts, since she sees herself being driven to give into
these intimacies for self-fulfilling reasons, as proof that she was
alive and desirable. Blanche realizes that while Stella can boldly
declare to Blanche that her desire for Stanley is an outcome of her
"love" for him, Blanche can never admit that her intimacies were acts of
love but of need, and because they were acts of need, they remain merely
biological or progranIned acts, no more noble, ideal, or pleasurable than

a creature’s adaptive sexual behavior in its environment. Furthermore,

\

186
the only person whom Blanche claims to have "loved" was incapable of
reciprocating her love, and whose suicide, partly resulting from
Blanche’s cruelty towards him, ironically drove Blanche to seek comfort
in the arms of others. Thus, Blanche’s realization of her miserable
failure at "loving," conflicts violently in her mind with Stella’s state
of happiness and provokes her more than anything else to sabotage
Stella’s happiness through one last effort, by reducing Stanley’s

character and psyche to that of an ape.

Blanche’s insecurity, jealousy, and loneliness are so overwhelming
at this point of defeat that she gives in to aggressively attacking
Stanley”s reputation and humanness. Her speech is not only an example of
her desperate effort to evoke Stella’s sympathy but the speech, with its
carefu 11y chosen comparisons between an animal’s behavior and Stanley’s
habits and conduct, is Blanche’s own ruthless effort at undermining the
relationship between Stella and Stanley. It is her way to justify to
herself and to convince Stella that what they have is no more than a
biological necessity either, despite Stella’s qualification of it as
"love."" Ironically, Blanche’s attack does not provide her with the
intended relief or satisfaction that she had imagined because not only
is Stella’s subsequent action of "embracing him [Stanley], with both
arms, fiercely and in full view of Blanche," while Stanley "laughs and
clasps her head to him," and "grins... at Blanche" (Streetcar 73)
symbolic of complete rejection of Blanche and her views, but Stella’s
acticni is also a tacit validation of the power of Stanley’s animal
magnetism that Blanche had so vehemently denounced as ”cannon" and

"bestial" (Streetrar 71). Stella’s open show of affection for Stanley

187
diminishes Blanche’s position and security in Stanley’s territory. It is
the moment of reversal in the play since Blanche’s speech also sets in
motion her ironic collaboration in her own physical destruction at
Stanley’s hands as Stanley himself interprets her speech as a
declaration of war because he has overheard Blanche’s reduction of him
as "common," "ordinary," "bestial," "animal," "ape-like," attributes
that will ironically be manifest in Stanley’s personality during his
physical possession of Blanche.

Furthermore, Blanche’s vituperative put down of Stanley and her
scoffing at Stella’s attraction for Stanley is proof not only of
Blanche’s naked aggression into the privacy of Stanley’s and Stella’s
lives, but her aggression is also fueled by her concealed jealousy of
Stella’s and Stanley’s sexual compatibility. This situation is
compounded by the fact that while Blanche herself is desperately
attempting to regain her reputation, Stella not only possesses Stanley
but is now bringing an addition to their family by virtue of being
pregnant with Stanley’s child. In other words, while Blanche is
constantly reminded of her loss and her regression into the past, she

realizes that Stella’s life keeps moving forward.

IV Stanley’s Individuality
Stanley’s individuality as the primary male who is in charge and
is the keeper of his dominion, "the icon of male heterosexual power,"18
is established in opposition to Blanche’s dominionless, powerless status
in the play. Stanley is everything that Blanche is not. He has "no past.

He comes into existence ready-made and fully known. Directness is his

188
keynote and his virtue."19 He is possessed of all the accoutrements of a
male dominator. He is bold, brash, strong, self-confident, virile,
coarse, territorial, and in love with life and the freedom that he
enjoys with his conquests, women. When Stella tells Blanche that Stanley
is of "A different species" (Sirfiglear 24), she is in fact establishing
Stanley’s "Sameness" in opposition to the "Otherness" that Blanche
brings into the world beyond Belle Reve. In Elysian Fields, virile male
domination and sexual control are "the organizing principle[s] around
which life is centered and revolves,"" and Stanley is its chief and
legitimate symbol and mover. He is the Huey Long of Elysian Fields, "the
King around here" (Streetear 107), whose jurisdiction over his territory
and "will to knowledge" is exercised through interrogation, threat, and
physical punishment.

Stanley’s individuality is also stressed by his non-idealistic,
earthy, grounded, fixed, rooted, self-centered mode of existence that is
representative of the "New Man." He has brought down Stella, the star,
from the heights of the columns of Belle Reve, "thrilled" her with his
unsophisticated, spontaneous antic of smashing "the light bulbs with the
heel of my [Stella’s] slipper“ on their wedding night (Streetear 64),
and has got Stella addicted to the pleasures of a sexual and sensual
existence, as she herself declares to Blanche: "I can hardly stand it
when he is away for a night... When he’s away for a week I nearly go
vvild! (Streetear 25). Stanley’s constant attacks and taunts about
lBlanche’s noble and aristocratic airs are in opposition "to his own
espousal of the Populist doctrine of Huey Long ("Every man is a King"),

vfliich he understands as well as any of that demagogue’s followers

189
probably did." And in this sense he is on par with the leveling "process

of modern ’Democracy,’ which by its very nature is "unromantic and non-

idealistic."21

Stanley is the representative Darwinian fundamentalist, for "the
center of his life has been the pleasure with women, the giving and
taking of it, not with weak indulgence, dependently, but with the power
and pride of a richly feathered male bird among hens" (Streetear 29).
His is "the gaudy seed bearer" who is fixed on his urge and mission to
propagate his species and protect his territory for his own self-
interest. All other interests are subordinated to this primal urge that
drives him relentlessly forward. Stanley’s allegiance to the "winner
takes all" dictum, an upgraded version of the survival of the fittest
mentality, is the philosophy that guides him in life, as it is reflected
in his own confession towards the play’s end: "Luck is believing you’re
lucky... To hold front position in this rat-race you’ve got to believe
,you’re lucky" (Streetear 131). Thus, the slightest threat or obstruction
to tfl1is controlling principle of operation in life makes him react with
a rurthlessness that is reminiscent of a despot’s tyranny over those who
challenge or oppose his authority.

Yet Williams did more than present Stanley as the heterosexual
bastion of power and "sameness." He is Williams’s stage representation
11f the "uncouth" male, and Williams enjoyed exposing on stage the core
of Stanley’s maleness or his strong sexual vibes that make him secretly
desirable. Through Stanley, Williams took the original concept of the
rugged individual foraging at the frontier and followed his progression

into the domestic sphere, where, the highly touted virtues of

190
domestication or family values not only failed to reach him but turned
him "uncouth," for he has remained untamed and unshorn of his primitive
qualities of aggression and violence. But Williams went further. He
dared to portray this "uncouth" male individual in its essential glory
by unabashedly letting loose its sexual and sensual side. Gore Vidal’s
analysis of the significance behind one of Williams’s most famous

artistic creations is worth quoting:

When Tennessee wrote A_Streetear_Mamed_Qesire, he inadvertently

smashed one of our society’s most powerful taboos. He showed the

male not only as sexually attractive in the flesh but as an object

of something never before entirely acknowledged, the lust of

women... Marlon Brando’s appearance on stage, as Stanley, in a

torn sweaty T-shirt, was an earthquake; and the male as sex object

is still at our culture’s center stage and will so remain until

the likes of Boy George redress, as it were, the balance.22

V Stanley’s Possessiveness

If Williams created Stanley in the image of the rugged individual
whose domestication has hardly managed to tenderize his uniquely male
qualities of aggression and territoriality, then the instincts of
possessiveness and self-preservation that Stanley exhibits right from
‘the moment we meet him do not cause us any surprise. In fact, Stanley’s
"uncouth" bearing and possessiveness fit well with most patriarchal
(njltures’ benign sanction of the male’s prerogative for aggressive and
violent behavior as a legitimate mechanism for self-preservation. Yet,
we cannot dismiss the fact that this innate possessive urge in Stanley
is also activated by Blanche’s threatening presence in his territory,

whicfli Stanley interprets as an intrusion, because it challenges him and

makes him fearful of losing control over his territory. Blanche’s own

191
fear of upsetting Stanley by intruding on his territory is betrayed
right at the beginning of the play in her conversation with Stella:

Blanche: ...How did he [Stanley] take it when you said I was

coming?"

Stella: Oh, Stanley doesn’t know yet.

Blanche [frightened]: You--haven’t told him? (Streetcar 24)

In fact, the issues of possessiveness and territoriality are of such
central importance in this play that Williams introduces the issues
straightaway during Stanley’s and Blanche’s momentous first meeting:

Stanley: Where you from, Blanche?

Blanche: Why, I-—live in Laurel.

Stanley: In Laurel, huh? Oh, yeah. Yeah, in Laurel, that’s

right. Not in my territory (Streetear 29-30).

Although Stanley’s use of the word "territory" does not imply his
home ground at this point, it does give us an indication of his sense of
pride and responsibility in possessing a particular territory, or his
hunting ground, of work. But Stanley does not wait long to get to the
real issue of home territory and his possessive feelings for it when he
bluntly questions Blanche: "You going to shack up here?" the weight and
centrality of which Blanche is able to diffuse only momentarily by
‘replying: "I thought I would if it’s not inconvenient for you all"
(Streetcar 31). With Stanley, the issue of his rightful control over his
territory lurks in his unconscious right from the beginning and is
indicated by his remark towards the play’s end, after his having
successfully discovered the truth about Blanche’s reputation in her own
‘territory in Laurel. Stanley interprets for Stella that Blanche’s move

‘to their place is nothing short of her preying on his territory after

having lost her own and on having been advised to "move on to some fresh

'territory“ (Streetear 101).

192

Stanley’s discovery from Stella about the loss of Belle Reve and
his hostile reaction to its loss is the first overt sign in the play
about his passion for possession and territoriality. His justification
that not only does he have a right to the property of Belle Reve by
virtue of being Stella’s husband, because whatever belongs to his wife
belongs to him, (in Stanley’s case, by virtue of the "Napoleonic code"),
but the ruthlessness of Stanley’s will to possess is unswerving because
he is unwilling to accept any extenuating circumstances for the "loss"
of Belle Reve, which Stella accepts and understands and is willing to
forget as a "sacrifice." Stanley demands "more details on that subjeck"
and the "bill of sale" because he asserts that Belle Reve was “disposed
of," "sold," and he caricatures the loss of Belle Reve as being "give[n]
away? To charity" (Streetear 33-34).

Stanley’s behavior and anger at this point tell us more about his
possessive vein than any other action of his in the play. A closer look
at Stanley’s declaration to Stella, where he asserts his view of his
rights over Belle Reve as Stella’s husband, reveals the groundwork for
the course of action that Stanley will take in his dealing with Blanche,
1who he has by now clearly identified in his mind as the intruder and
lenemy: "In the state of Louisiana we have the Napoleonic code according
‘to which what belongs to the wife belongs to the husband and vice
versa... It looks to me like you have been swindled, baby, and when
,you’re swindled under the Napoleonic code I’m swindled too. And I don’t
like to be swindled!" (Streetear 34-35)

More importantly, through this declaration of property rights,

.Stanley not only legitimizes his ownership of Stella’s property and

193
possessions, but also Blanche, who is dominionless and unprotected, and
who by coming to "shack up" with Stella in Stanley’s territory has
reduced herself in Stanley’s eyes as being merely an extension of
Stella, related through blood, just as much as Belle Reve was in the
past related to Stella through her childhood and growing up in that
place. Blanche loses her status by having to accept Stanley’s shelter
and become his ward.

It is this view of Blanche as property that Stanley has chosen and
it is this interpretation of ownership or possession that primarily
prompts him to rape Blanche, as he views his possession of Blanche’s
physical self as nothing more than his possession of fresh territory,
which is not only under his kingly jurisdiction and but also under his
care. Stanley’s reduction of Blanche to the level of a defeated and
humiliated subject, grovelling at her master’s feet, is further seen
from his humiliating and derisive remarks to Blanche about her
reputation, the reputation that he took pride in exposing and
destroying:

What queen do you think you are?... I’ve been on to you from the

start! Not once did you pull any wool over this boy’s eyes! You

come in here and sprinkle the place with powder and spray perfume
and cover the light bulb with a paper lantern, and lo and behold
the place is turned into Egypt and you are the Queen of the Nile!

Sitting on your throne and swilling down my liquor! I say--Ha!--

Ha! Do you hear me? Ha--ha--ha! (Streetear 127-28)

Cleopatra’s final humiliation at being exhibited in Rome as the trophy
of a victor, and her reputation of being the mistress/property of both
Caesar and Anthony, but who is now reduced to being merely the spoils of

war, reverberates both in Stanley’s mockery of Blanche as "Queen of the

Nile!" and his subsequent rape or possession of Blanche. Thus, history’s

 

194
long chain of the socially sanctioned pattern of male possession over
their victory spoils remains unbroken here.

If Stanley is the possessor, who seeks complete and secure control
over his territory through vigilantly exterminating any outside
interferences, his possessiveness is also ironically fueled by Blanche’s
own insensitive comments, her hypocritical puritanism, and subversive
attempts to gain a foothold in Stanley’s terra firma. Blanche’s
insensitivity and affronts against Stanley are revealed repeatedly in
her comments and replies to Stanley throughout the play. She categorized
him as: "You men with your big clumsy fingers" (Streetcar 38), she
derides his masculinity and refers to him as someone: "I cannot imagine
any witch of a woman casting a spell over" (Streetear 39), she calls
him: "simple, straightforward, honest,... primitive" (Streetear 40), she
purports to be understanding or seeing through him to his basic level of
animality, telling him: "I have an idea she [Stella] doesn’t understand
you as well as I do" (Streetcar 40), she tries to humor Stanley’s
uncouthness, playing it off against her pretense of being proper while
telling the parrot joke at the dinner table: "This old maid, she had a
parrot that cursed a blue streak and knew more vulgar expressions than
Mr. Kowelski!" (Streetear 107). In fact, Stanley’s exasperation and
anger at Blanche’s affronts which have had its share of influence on
Stella, the influence that Stanley fears threatens his control over his
family and territory is expressed through his violent behavior,
accompanied by his threat to Stella when he violently clears the table
on the occasion of Blanche’s birthday by hurling his plate and smashing

his cup on the floor, roaring:

195
Don’t ever talk that way to me! ’Pig--Polak--disgusting--vulgar--
greasy!’ them kind of words have been on your tongue and your
sister’s too much around here! What do you two think you are? A
pair of queens? Remember what Huey Long said--’Every man is King!’

And I am the king around here, so don’t forget it!" (Streetear
107)

Perhaps the most damaging instance that reinforces Stanley’s
possessive bent and secures for Blanche Stanley’s enmity is his
overhearing Blanche’s dissection of his character, which she indulges in
with the intention of planting doubts in Stella’s mind against Stanley.
Blanche’s condescending remarks about Stanley when she calls him:
"common!" and sarcastically reminds Stella of her past status, which
according to Blanche, Stella has forsaken through her association with
Stanley: "You can’t have forgotten that much of our bringing up, Stella,
that you just suppose that any part of a gentleman’s in his nature! Not
one particle, no!" (Streetear 71) alienate Stanley completely. His
subsequent anger and resolve to destroy Blanche before she can break up
his family is clear from his gesture of grinning at Blanche after
Stella, despite hearing Blanche’s harangue, embraces him in full view of
Blanche. Stella’s action not only strengthens Stanley’s confidence about
his own power, but her action also validates the strength of their
relationship to Stanley. From this point in the play, Stanley becomes
fully charged with a possessive momentum that will indeed convince
Stella to "hang back with the brutes!" (Streetear 72) Thus Stanley’s
subsequent action of impugning Blanche’s credibility in Stella’s eyes by
disclosing to her the information he has gathered about Blanche’s

reputaticulis tied in with his urge to preserve the closeness he has

196
with Stella and also prevent Stella from empathizing with Blanche and
moving over to her side.

If Blanche’s attitude and behavior in Stanley’s territory threaten
Stanley with his prospective loss of control over his territory and
possessions, Blanche’s mere presence distracts his sense of possessive
satisfaction. For Stanley, possessiveness signifies more than hoarding
and controlling of possessions. Possessiveness for Stanley means a
direct, vigorous, physical participation with his objects of possession.
Blanche’s presence not only restricts his privacy by limiting his powers
of movement and personal freedom in his own territory, but it also
hinders his enjoyment of his possession (Stella) through unabashed
sexual intimacy. Although Stella’s pregnancy is a damper for Stanley, he
is more concerned with Blanche’s presence as an obstruction to his
freedoms with his possession than with anything else. Thus, after his
exposure of Blanche’s past, convinced that this exposure will serve to
estrange Blanche from Stella, he remarks:

Stell, it’s going to be all right after she goes and after you’ve

had the baby. It’s going to be all right between you and me the

way that it was. You remember that way that it was? Them nights we
had together? God, honey, it’s gonna be sweet when we can make

noise in the night the way that we used to and get the colored
lights going with nobody’s sister behind the curtains to hear us!"

(Streetcar 108-9)

If there is any redeeming feature in Stanley, it is in his
Idevotion to Stella and his sense of loyalty to Mitch. Despite his self-
serving and possessive instincts, Stanley is completely dedicated to
Stella, and at times even tender and submissive in his behavior towards
her. Following his first explosion in Scene 3, when it dawns upon him

‘that.l1is behavior towards Stella has caused her to leave him, albeit

197

momentarily, his remorse for his action and his childlike desire to have
Stella back are unmistakably and tenderly human: "My baby doll’s left
me!" Stanley declares in genuine despair and "breaks into sobs. Then he
goes to the phone and dials, still shuddering with sobs," and pleads
with Eunice to send Stella back: "Eunice? I want my baby... Eunice I’ll
keep on ringing until I talk with my baby!" (Streetear 59) And this is
not all. When Stella comes down the stairs from Eunice’s, Stanley "falls
to his knees on the steps and presses his face to her belly, curving a
little with maternity. Her eyes go blind with tenderness as she catches
his head and raises him level with her. He snatches the screen door open
and lifts her off her feet and bears her into the dark flat" (Streetear
60). Stanley lets Stella have her victory here as he knows that Stella
does possess him. He submits himself to her and only carries her off
into the flat when he has her permission to do so. This action of
Stanley is in stark contrast with the way he carries off a defeated
Blanche after he "springs towards her, overturning the table... catches
her wrist“ and when Blanche "sinks to her knees. He picks up her inert
figure and carries her to the bed" (Streetear 130). As for his
friendship with Mitch, Stanley’s loyalty prevents him from letting Mitch
get married to Blanche and then having to find out about her past later.
In this way Williams is able to give a much more nuanced picture of
Stanley instead of making him a one-sided, atavistic, apelike caricature
of a primitive man.23

Blanche’s threat to Stanley’s territory extends beyond his
inmediate home. Blanche’s budding closeness to Mitch also interferes

witfl1 Stanley’s sense of possessiveness as Mitch is after all a valuable

198
part of Stanley’s group of card-playing cronies. Blanche’s closeness
with Mitch not only threatens Stanley with the loss of a friend but
Blanche’s influence on Mitch and her closeness to him in a way that
Stanley does not and cannot have over his friend, also threatens
Stanley’s control over his circle of friends. After all, Blanche’s power
over Mitch would be greater because it would be sexual. It would not
only destabilize Stanley in his circle but it would bring Blanche
dangerously close to his own territory, as she would be in close contact
with Stella if Mitch were to marry Blanche. The sexual threat that
Blanche poses to Stanley in the event of capturing Mitch is too
overwhelming for Stanley to ignore. Therefore, his coming to Mitch’s
defense by exposing Blanche’s past is in reality Stanley’s effort at
regaining his own hold over Mitch. Stanley’s fear of Blanche’s power is
unmistakable when he tells Stella of his action of telling Mitch about
his discovery of Blanche’s past: "Well, he’s not going to marry her.
Maybe he was, but he’s not going to jump in a tank with a school of
sharks--now!" (Streetear 104) Stanley’s justification of his act of
disclosure of Blanche’s past to Mitch in this instance also becomes his
weapon, his poison, with which he poisons Blanche’s victim, Mitch,
rather than let Blanche possess him and pose another challenge to

Stanley’s territoriality.

VI Stanley’s Violence
An analysis of Stanley’s rage and his eruption into violence in
M will be better understood if we consider Williams’s own views

of Stanley and Blanche and compare it with some very contemporary

199
scientific studies on the issue of violence in human nature. In a
comment Williams made to Elia Kazan during the rehearsals of the first
production of Streetear in New York, we come across a revelatory
instance of his perception of Blanche and Stanley as both actors and
characters. Kazan recapitulates:
At breakfast, I brought up my worry about Jessica and Marlon.
’She’ll get better,’ Tennessee said, and then we had our only
discussion about the direction of his play. ’Blanche is not an
angel without a flaw,’ he said, ’and Stanley’s not evil. I know
you’re used to clearly stated themes, but this play should not be
loaded one way or the other. Don’t try to simplify things.’ ...I
remembered the letter he’d written me before we’d started the
rehearsals, remembered how, in that letter, he’d cautioned me
against tipping the moral scales against Stanley, that in the
interests of fidelity I must not present Stanley as a ’black-dyed
villain.’ ’What should I do?’ I asked. ’Sometimes the audience
laughs when Brando makes fun of her.’ ’Nothing,’ he said. ’Don’t
take sides or try to present a moral. When you begin to arrange
the action to make a thematic point, the fidelity will suffer. Go
on working as you are. Marlon is a genius, but she’s a worker and
she’ll get better. And better.’“
Williams’s comment about Stanley and Blanche makes us aware that Stanley
and Blanche are not only dealing with some very basic issues, in this
case possessiveness and violence, that are a part of ordinary people’s
daily'struggle to survive but Williams’s comment shows how deeply, as a
dramatist, he had progressed in his understanding of the essential
blurring of the lines between good and evil in life. Stanley’s violence
is not condoned by Williams but it is not condemned either, and neither
does he throw his weight as a playwright by advising Kazan to direct the
play in a way that would make Blanche’s position clear and her actions
less culpable. Williams’s comment suggests that he wanted his audience
to make their own inferences about the nature of possessiveness and
violence as presented through the play’s microcosmic representation of

life. More importantly, Williams wanted his audience, especially those

200
who would condemn Stanley for his violence, at least to realize that
Stanley’s violent outburst does have a trigger, because Blanche is not
as Williams says, "an angel." Nor did Williams make straightforward
suggestions about the problems Blanche faces as a woman in trying to
find a place for herself and build another life.

Modern studies in the biology of human behavior have attested to
the fact that aggression or violence is an inherent part of human
nature, carried down through our genes for specific purposes. Here is
what a renowned sociobiologist, Edward O. Wilson, has to say about
violence or aggression:

Human aggression cannot be explained as either a dark-angelic flaw

or a bestial instinct. Nor is it the pathological symptom of

upbringing in a cruel environment. Human beings are strongly
predisposed to respond with unreasoning hatred to external threats
and to escalate their hostility sufficiently to overwhelm the
source of the threat by a respectably wide margin of safety. Our
brains do appear to be programmed to the following extent: we are
inclined to partition other people into friends and aliens, in the
same sense that birds are inclined to learn territorial songs and
to navigate by the polar constellations. We tend to fear deeply
the actions of strangers and to solve conflict by aggression.

These learning rules are more likely to have evolved during the

past hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution and, thus,

to have conferred a biological advantage on those who conformed to

them with the greatest fidelity.25
The problem with this purely biological or evolutionary view of violence
in human nature is that it has caused considerable problems for experts
(”1 human behavior like Frederick Goodwin, who had been dragged too far
to theeleft by a modern Darwinian view of the human mind, leading him to
believe that only "genetic factors" lead human beings toward violence.
liis view or idea in the Federal Violence Initiative, a study undertaken .
under the auspices of the Bush Administration, "was to treat violence as

.a publicwhealth problem--to identify violently inclined youth and

201
provide therapy early, before they had killed."26 This view led him into
considerable trouble as he went too far in making "comparisons between
the behavior of inner—city youths and violent, oversexed monkeys who
live in the wild.“7 The opposition to Goodwin’s argument came from
psychiatrists like Peter Breggin, the founder of the Center for the
study of Psychiatry, in Bethesda, Maryland, and his mentor Thomas Szasz,
the author of lhe Myth at Mental Illness, who viewed much of psychiatry
as "merely an oppressive tool by which the powers that be label
inconvenient behavior ’deviant."'28 Breggin, the author of Ine_War
Against_Cn11dren, saw Goodwin’s proposal of "giving Ritalin to
’hyperactive’ children as a way of regimenting spirited kids rather than
according them the attention they need--just as giving ’anti-aggression’
drugs to inner-city kids would be an excuse for continued neglect."29 In
fact, Breggin saw parallels between Goodwin’s Violence Initiative and
Nazi Germany, and declared: "[T]he medicalization of social issues, the
declaration that the victim of oppression, in this case the Jew, is in
fact a genetically and biologically defective person, the mobilization
of the state for eugenic purposes and biological purposes, the heavy use
of psychiatry in the development of social control programs."”

This opposition between the two camps has been bridged by modern
evolutionary psychologists like Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, who, in
their seminal book on violence in human nature entitled, Mnmieide, while
accepting the basis of violence in humans to be genetic, criticize the
dubious concept of arguing about violence merely as a from of
"primitiveness" or a primitive hangover carried through our genes. They

assert that there is no "empirical support for the assertion that

202
violence is more characteristic of the ’primitive’--whether cultures,

1131

species or whatever--than of more ’advanced’ forms. Instead, Daly and

Wilson view the factor of violence in human nature as primarily
"genetic," while also leaving the ground open to the idea that violence
is partly a natural reaction to a particular social environment.

Although this view of the evolutionary psychologists comes close
to Williams’s objective view of violence as seen in the play, as
Stanley’s predisposition to violence is partly set off by the pressure
of Blanche’s actions and having her around in his territory, this modern
view of evolutionary psychologists still does not help explain
completely Williams’s or even our own understanding of violence as it
occurs in everyday life. The main problem with this view is that it does
not make it easier for us to deal with Stanley’s final treatment of
Blanche, because Stanley goes beyond violence through his gratuitous
action of raping Blanche to establish complete control and power over
her. Stanley’s physical possession of Blanche is an excessive act,
wholly unnecessary because he has already achieved his purpose in
regaining his ground by destroying Blanche through exposing her past
‘reputation, the reputation that she so carefully tried to obliterate to
enhance her status. Stanley’s rape of Blanche thus becomes his act of
‘transgression. It can be that a man’s raping a woman is moral equivalent
of his murdering a male competitor.

Thus we can say with his final action against Blanche, Stanley
does portray the "evil" side of his nature. In his book, lhe_Deatn_nf
gartan, Andrew Delbanco discusses how the old concept of evil in the form

of Satan or the devil, which "was an incandescent presence in most

203
people’s lives," and stood as "a symbol and explanation for both the
cruelties one received and those one perpetrated upon others" has now
lost its original meaning because of the "visibility of evil and the
intellectual resources available for coping with it."32 Acts of horror
and mayhem exhibited and domesticated through the gratuitous depiction
of scenes of violence and cruelty on television and pop culture have
inured people to the monstrosity of evil. 0n the other hand, Satan or
the Devil has moved closer to the home ground as it has even assumed
representative human forms through the likes and actions of men like
Hitler or Stalin.33 Evil now operates in our lives with a human face and
we now more easily "discover in ourselves the capacity to inflict it
[evil] on others."” In other words, while the devil has disappeared, it
has endowed us with its appetite for evil. Frequently, this legacy or
appetite in us, or in the majority, is directed or unleashed against the
minority or the transgressor. Stanley’s rape of Blanche becomes symbolic
of this aspect of society’s ferocity against the transgressor. But we
cannot help but view this kind of action against the transgressor as
evil, for no matter how contrary an individual’s actions might seem to
an authority, no authority can be unaware of another individual’s
humanity. When authority becomes willfully unaware and blinds itself to
an individual’s humanity in order to exact punishment, the punishment
becomes an evil act. In the instance of Stanley’s rape of Blanche,
:Stanley the authority figure becomes wilfully unaware of Blanche’s
tuunanity and is thus able to inflict on her an evil deed in the form of
a severe and humiliating punishment. While the stage directions forbode

the evil nature of Stanley’s action through suggestions of "inhuman

 

204
jungle voices rise up,“ Stanley’s declaration to Blanche: "We’ve had
this date with each other from the beginning!" (Streetcar 129-30)
reveals the blindness that he had cultivated long before against Blanche
so that he could pounce on her at the right moment and destroy her
personhood completely.

Speaking about the nature and form of society’s punishment against
the transgressor in his book, Djsejnline_ang_flnnisn, Michel Foucault
talks of how the medieval concept of physical torture of "body as the
major target of penal repression disappeared"35 over the years as “the
certainty of being punished and not the horrifying spectacle of
punishment that must discourage crime36 gained favor among the elite of
society. Foucault is of the opinion that this change in the penal system
occurred as the punishers were interested in "reaching something other
than the body itself."37 In place of spectacle of public executions and
torture which affected the body directly and in the most severe form,
"imprisonment, confinement, forced labor, penal servitude, prohibition
from entering certain areas, deportation," have been substituted,
although these forms also directly affect the body.38 But the real
reason behind this substitution in the form of punishment, Foucault
says, is that the people in power viewed the body differently, as "an
instrument or intermediary: if one intervenes upon it to imprison it, or
to make it work, it is in order to deprive the individual of a liberty

11 39

that is regarded both as right and property. Thus, punishment became
a tool with which the powerful inflicted the penalty of powerlessness on
the individual by depriving the individual of rights and wealth. But

Foucault goes further with his analysis of the more sinister aim of

205

social punishment and declares: "If the penalty in its most severe forms
no longer addresses itself to the body, on what does it lay hold? The
answer... seems to be contained in the question itself: since it is no
longer the body, it must be the soul. The expiation that once rained
down upon the body must be replaced by a punishment that acts in the
depths on the heart, the thoughts, the will, the inclinations.“o

Stanley’s rape of Blanche embodies the complete scenario of
penalty exacted both on the body and the soul that Foucault has
analyzed. Thus, Blanche’s rape is not only Stanley’s way of exacting
punishment on Blanche’s personal possession, her body, by establishing
complete control over her and destroying her freedom, but through his
rape he also targets her "soul," as this ruthless exercise of power

serves to hit directly at Blanche’s core, her humanity, and destroy

Blanche’s mental equilibrium, and hence her sense of selfhood and

individuality.

VII Blanche’s Redemption

It is ironic indeed that the past that Blanche so desperately
seeks to hide in order to repossess her reputation is finally
resurrected by Stanley who uses it to destroy her. And it is also ironic
'that Stanley’s final humiliation of Blanche is also Blanche’s moment of
redemption. In the play, Blanche is obsessed with taking hot baths,
symbolic of a ritual purification of the self, a washing away of the
guilt.and shame as it were. Her unusual sense of relief after hot baths
is expressed right from the beginning of the play: "Hello, Stanley! Here

I am all freshly bathed and scented, and feeling like a brand new human

206

being!“ (Streetear 37) The irony in her statement hits home when
Stanley’s hot anger, not the hot baths, becomes Blanche’s purifier. On
the other hand, if Blanche’s destruction is primarily caused by the
route she takes to adamantly repossess her reputation and control the
events of her life, then she is not totally unaware of the destruction
that lies in front of her if her plans should fail. This risk factor in
her plans is complicated by her own sense of guilt for her actions that
Tead to the loss of reputation after the loss of Belle Reve and more
especially her husband’s death. It is because of this pressure of guilt
that Blanche perhaps harbors a secret desire to hurt herself. This
aspect of Blanche’s despair is presented in the play through Blanche’s
own sense of doom at Stanley’s hands, as the thought is present in her
mi nd long before Stanley’s act, when Blanche reveals to Stanley: "1 hurt
h im the way that you would like to hurt me, but you can’t! I’m not young
and vulnerable anymore. But my young husband was and I..." (Streetcar
42) . Thus, Blanche’s "entirely natural but cruel exposure of him

[Al Tan]," is partly "the origin of her sense of guilt" that is "expiated
by her own sexual inlnolation" at Stanley’s hands.‘l Stanley’s rape of
Blanche thus exonerates her of her guilt, but from Williams’s point of
Vie", the rape humanizes her tragedy of violation and helps us feel
compassionate towards her. Williams himself meant this when he talked to
KaZan about Blanche: “I remember you asked me what should an audience
fee] For Blanche. Certainly pity. It is a tragedy with the classic aims

of Producing a catharsis... and in order to do that Blanche must finally

have the understanding and compassion of the audience.”

207
In Streetear, the complications that result in Blanche’s fall or

(destruction result partly from Stanley’s refusal to understand Blanche’s
predicament or his adamant refusal for sympathy, which Mitch criticizes
at the end of the play: "You... you... you... Brag... brag... bull...
t)t111" (Streetear 131), and from Blanche’s own inability to tell the
‘tacuth as this would destroy all her hopes at a second chance. In a
'leatter that Williams wrote to Kazan, pleading with him to direct the

play, and where Williams elaborates on his philosophy in the play, he

underscores this same point:

I think its [Streetcar’s] best quality is its authenticity or its
fidelity to life. There are no ’good’ or ’bad’ people. Some are a

little better or a little worse but all are activated more by
misunderstanding than malice. A blindness to what is going on in
each other’s hearts. Stanley sees Blanche not as a desperate,
driven creature backed into a last corner to make a last desperate
stand--but as a calculating bitch with ’round heels.’... Nobody
sees anybody truly but all through the flaws of their own egos.
That is the way we all see each other in life. Vanity, fear,
desire, competition--all such distortions within our own egos--
condition our vision of those in relation to us. Add to those
distortions in our own egos, the corresponding distortions in the
egos of others, and you will see how cloudy the glass must become
through which we look at each other. That’s how it is in all
living relationships except when there is that rare case of two
people who love intensely enough to burn through all those layers
of opacity and see each other’s naked hearts. Such cases seem

purely theoretical to me.‘3

“Thus, despite Stanley’s remorseless behavior and Blanche’s
Spiral 1 ling downfall, Williams did manage to confer Blanche with a
certa in courage and dignity that manifest themselves by the time we come
to the end of the play. Kazan feels that Blanche gains in stature, for
she 1“finally finds the courage "as the play progresses, especially in
the Scenes where Blanche fearlessly declares herself and tells her

h . u . . ° ' ' '
13130")! “ to M1tch hoping for Ms understandmg, wh1ch 15 never

208
offered. Thus, Blanche’s action is not an outcome "of the reckless
revelation from pride...to deny nothing"“ but of her courage to
acknowledge the presence of the devil within her, just as the presence
of the devil in each of us cannot be denied. And for this revelation,
our understanding of Blanche’s character matures.

Moreover, Williams does not let Stanley triumph completely,
because Stanley loses status in our eyes by his vindictive act. Williams
also does not let Blanche lose completely since her essential humanity
'i s reaffirmed by the doctor who comes to her aid as the kind stranger.
Also, with this kind stranger’s appearance in coming to Blanche’s aid,
Hi lliams reaffirms one of the basic tenets of the American Dream, the
realization that no one anywhere will be denied his or her inherent
human dignity. Williams confers dignity on Blanche by letting her
articulate the truth behind the pain and sorrow of her condition through

the most famous line in his oeuvre: "Whoever you are--I have always

depended on the kindness of strangers" (Mr 142). It is Williams’s
gift to Blanche. And so, as Streetear closes, one is reminded of a

parallel situation in Yeats’s play, Catlfleenfltfinnlinan. When Patrick,
Who came into the house after the poor old woman had left, and is asked:
"Did you see the old woman going down the path?" Patrick replies: "I did
hot, but I saw a young girl and she had the walk of a queen."

In a sense, Blanche’s individuality is extra-textual because
"i 1 1 iams’s understanding of the human condition enabled him to construct
a play where Blanche’s individuality grows on us as we near the play’s

1&311 scenes and her personality haunts us long after the play is over,

209
and hovers in our consciousness, "serenely brilliant." This is the

«effect that Kazan too thought that Blanche would have on the audience:

I wanted Blanche to be a ’difficult’ heroine, not an easy one to
pity, and for the audience to be with Brando [Stanley] at first,
as they were closer in their values to Stanley than to Blanche.
Then, slowly, Jessie [Blanche] and I and the play would turn the
audience’s sympathies around so that they’d find that their final
concerns were for her and that perhaps, as in life, they’d been

prejudiced and insensitive.“
Tlieater critic Kenneth Tynan summed Streetearts effect on us best when

ITE! declared: "Where ancient drama teaches us to reach nobility by
«:CJntemplation of what is noble, modern American drama conjures us to

contemplate what might have been noble, but is now humiliated, ignoble

'iri the sight of all but the compassionate.“7

NOTES

1. Foster Hirsch, A Portrait Of The Artist: The Plays Of Tennessee

Williams (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat P, 1979) 15, 13. Esther Merle
Jackson, lhe Broken World of Tennessee Milliams (Madison: U of Wisconsin
P, 1966) 68-69. Jackson is of the opinion that Williams, with his creation
of "anti—heroic protagonists" or characters rejects the Aristotelian
conception of the hero and has thus created protagonists who are
"personifications of a humanity neither good, knowledgeable, nor
courageous." Borrowing from T. S. Eliot, she calls them "’non-beings’"--
"’Caught in the form of limitation/ Between un-being and being.’" Hedwig
Bock: "Tennessee Williams, Southern Playwright,"
Ameriean_flrama, ed. Hedwig Bock and Albert Wertheim (Munchen: Max Hueber
Verlag, 1981) 5. Bock says: Williams’s "plays mainly deal with the
’fugitive kind,’ misfits of the modern society, who often cling to their
own views of a society, the anti-bellum South, which no longer exists and
perhaps never existed."

2. Benjamin Nelson, lennessee Williams: His life QILdJLQEK (London:
Peter Owen, 1961) 45.

3. Tennessee Williams, Menxrirs (New York: Doubleday 81 Company, Inc. ,
1975) 234.

4. David Frost, "Will God Talk Back to a Playwright? Tennessee
Williams," Cnnversatinns mitn lennessee Milliams, ed. Albert J Devlin

(Jackson, Mississippi: UP of Mississippi, 1986) 146. In an interview given
late in his career, Williams expressed his view of the society’s
oppression of the outsider as "society rapes the individual."

5. Arthur Miller, Iimebengs (New York: Grove Press, 1987) 181.

6. Istvan Palffy, "’Otherness’ as a Salient Feature in Tennessee

Williams’ Plays," WWW]: ed.
Tibor Frank (Budapest, Hungary: Akademiai Kiado, 1984) 427.

7. C. V. E. Bigsby. W (Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1992) 37.

8. Memnjrs 235.

9. Tennessee Williams, A_S_treetcar_Mameg_Qe_s_ire (New York: A Signet
300k, 1974) 17. Subsequent page references to this edition of the play,
abbreviated as Streetcar, are cited parenthetically in my text.

10. The generic reference to the male or female sexual organ
suSJQested through the connotation of the phrase "red-stained package from
the butcher’s" and "meat" is unmistakable. See: Slang and its Analogues,

3» tglt' '7‘1°;7I 01._ ° 70 '. .11 o nar._'|-1 h -- on.

' e t e Year , compiled and edited,

John S. Farmer and W. E. Henley, Vol., IV ( Printed for Subscribers Only:
1896) 296. The bawdy chuckling of the Colored Woman in the play as she

210

211

remarks: "What was that package he th’ew at ’er?" and Eunice’s response:
"You hush, Now!" to the Negro woman’s reiteration: “Catch what!" also make
the sexual connection between "the red-stained package from the butcher’s"
and the sexual atmosphere prevalent in the household clearly evident.

11. Alvin B. Kernan, "Truth and Dramatic Mode in A Streetcar Mameg
Desire," Tennessee Williams: Modern Critical Views, ed. Harold Bloom (New
York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987) 9. Although I agree with Kernan’s
opinion that "Williams poises the human need for belief in human value and
dignity against a brutal, naturalistic reality," in his plays, I do not
entirely agree that Blanche is primarily pushed into confronting a world
where she does not belong. Blanche’s tragedy is partly of her own making,
despite Stanley’s cruelty and remorselessness. A naturalistic progression

of Blanche would deprive her of all individuality.

12. Tennessee Williams, Where 1 Live; Seleeted Essays (New York: A

New Directions Book, 1978) 16.

13. Robert Wright,’ t (1
Everyday Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1995) Although Wright mentions
later in his book. "females in our species do compete for mates--for mates

vvith the most parental investment to offer. But there’s no evidence that,
during evolution, social status was a primary tool in that competition"
(246), he contradicts this assertion by having stated earlier in the book
the following view: “Anticuckoldry technology could come in handy not just
when a man has a mate, but earlier, in choosing her. If available females
differ in their promiscuity, and if the more promiscuous ones tend to make
less faithful wives, natural selection might incline men to discriminate
accordingly. Promiscuous women would be welcome as short- term sex
partners--indeed, preferable, in some ways, since they can be had with
less effort. But they would make poor wife material, a dubious conduit for

male parental investment.

What emotional mechanisms--what complex of attractions and aversions--
Would natural selection use to get males to uncomprehendingly follow this
1Ogic? As Donald Symonds has noted, one candidate is the famed Madonna-
Whore dichotomy, the tendency of men to think in terms of ’two kinds of
Women’ --the kind they respect and the kind they just sleep with. " (72)

Thus, status and reputation was as much a factor among women just as much
as it was a factor in the lives of the men.

14. Donald Windham, ed., 11 ' ’ e t
W (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977) 287. In this letter,
:‘ITliams’ s acknowledges Windham’ s revisions of a play, but Williams’ s
metions lay with the older version of Windham’ 5 play because it reminded

h ‘im of lhe__Cherry__O_rehard with its theme of "the loss of dear things" and
1:he anguish and pain that it caused its protagonist. And although Williams

hlmself seems to have used lhe Che erry Qrchard’s "theme of loss" in

s~12.Egegztear, through emphasizing Blanche’ s regret, guilt, and remorse at
haV‘Ing lost Belle Reve, Williams complicated Blanche’ s regret by making

212

her vulnerable to the loss in a way that she cannot accept its loss and
move on. Furthermore, Blanche is neither reformed nor socially more
adjusted as her attraction and repulsion of Stanley' causes her to
antagonize him to such an extent that he resurrects the very reputation
that she wants to revise thereby completing her destruction. Commenting on
his indebtedness to Chekhov, Williams declared in his Memeirs: "It has
often been said that Lawrence was my major literary influence, Well,
Lawrence was, indeed a highly simpatico figure in my upbringing, but
Chekhov takes precedence as an influence--that is, if there has been any
particular influence besides my own solitary bent...(41). Indeed,
Chekhov’s influence on Williams was so singular that Williams’s last play,
lhe Wntehnnx nf l ignrin, which he completed in 1982 was an adaptation of
Chekhov’s lhe Seagull. It was produced for the first time in the US in
1996 by the Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park. See Chris Jones’s rev. of

Ihflotebookflgorin by Tennessee Williams. Varietx. Sept. 16-22.
1996: 79.
15. Joseph N. Riddle, "A Streetear Mamed Desire--Nietzsche

Descending," lennesse ee Wi lliam ms; Mndern Critjeal Vjems, ed. Harold Bloom

(New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1985) 17.
16. Bigsby 45.

17. Edward 0. Wilson, QnJiumanJlature (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1978)
121-148. In these pages, biologist Wilson explains the nature of sex and

‘its functions in terms of pleasure and profit. Wilson is of the opinion
that "sex is not designed primarily for reproduction. . nor is the primary
fHJnction of sex the giving and receiving of pleasure... Pleasure is at
best an enabling device for animals that copulate, a means for inducing
creatures with versatile nervous systems to make the heavy investment of
t ime and energy required for courtship, sexual intercourse, and parenting"

(2121- -22). Wilson’ 5 view that the pleasure aspect of sex is an enabling
device for parenting fits in with Stanley’ 5 and Stella’ s situation in the
play. Blanche is incapable of reconciling the pleasure and profit aspect
(Jf’ sex, and as she has never experienced the full implications of being a
parent, she is incapable of fully understanding Stella’s and Stanley’s
attraction for each other at this point of their relationship. Her
Categorization of Stanley as being merely lustful is clearly an error as
She is too focussed on the "desire" part of Stella’ s and Stanley’ 5
"Erlationship. She cannot understand that for a married couple expecting a
(iflild, the nature of pleasure has a very different function.

18. William Kleb, "Marginalia: Streetcar, Williams, and Foucault, "

I

e91, 1111 f1'.fe1111 .“SY' -1-11dl' S 1
' ° ' , ed. PhilipC. Colin, (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood

P , 1993) 37.
19. Bigsby 50.
20. Kleb 37.

213
21. W. Kenneth Holditch, "The Broken World: Romanticism, Realism,

Naturalism in A Streetear Named Desire," Confrdnti1ng lennessee Wi lliams’ s
A Streetear Na med Desire, ed. Philip C. Colin (Westport, Connecticut:

Greenwood P, 1993) 158- 59.

22. Gore Vidal, introduction, lennessee Williams; Culleeted Shdrt
Stdries (New York: Ballantine Books, 1985) xxvi.

23. Mark Royden Winchell, "The Myth Is the Message, or Why Streetear

Keeps Running," nf ' T s ' li ’ r e ed!) ’ '

i ' ’ l's , ed. Philip C. Colin (Westport, Connecticut:

Greenwood P, 1993) In this essay, Stanley is considered merely as an

atavistic ape. My position is to go beyond this reductionist put down of
Stanley because I do not see him as a one-sided creature.

24. Elia Kazan, Elia Kazan: A Life (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988)
£345.

25. Wilson 119.

26. Robert Wright, "The Biology of Violence," _he_NeW_Xdrker March
13,1995:67.

27. Wright, "The Biology of Violence" 67.
28. Wright, "The Biology of Violence" 69.
29. Wright, "The Biology of Violence" 69.
30. Wright, "The Biology of Violence" 69.

31. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, Mamieide (New York: Aldine De
Gruyter, 1988) 1.

32. Andrew Delbanco, [h e Death of Sat an; Hem Amerjeans Maye Last the
.Ssense_of_Ex_l (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1995) 1.

33. Delbanco 4.
34. Delbanco 9.

35 Michel Foucault MW
(New York: Pantheon Books, 1977) 8.

36. Foucault 9.

37. Foucault 11.
38. Foucault 11.
39. Foucault 11.

4o.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.

214

Foucault 16.

Bigsby 45.

Kazan 330.

Kazan 329.

Kazan 353.

Kazan 349.

Kazan, 343.

Kenneth Tynan, Curtains (New York

: Atheneum, 1961) 263.

CHAPTER FIVE

POSSESSION, STATUS, AND TRUTH IN CAI ON A HOT IIN BmF
AND SUDDENLY LASl SUMMER

One of the glaring paradoxes of our civilized natures is that
wh i le we have made consistent progress in the scientific and
technological arenas, fields that lie outside our imnediate selves, with
the objective of making life less stressful, more convenient and

comfortable, we have been unable to look at ourselves as healthy and
sane sexual beings. At the heart of our problem lies our reticence to
exp Tore our inner selves more completely, while we continue distracting
Ourselves with technological developments merely for the purpose of
enhancing our superficial or material selves. Our sexuality is a unique
part of our inner selves, and because our sexuality is inextricably
1 ‘3 hked with our existence as a species our psychological well-being is
dependent on how well we adjust and understand ourselves as sexual
Creatures.
But the story only begins here; by distancing ourselves from an
i "(In iry into human sexuality we have only erected barriers, constructed
myths, and regimented ourselves into believing only the majority, who
t"ahave in acceptable and productive forms of sexual behavior have the
DOWer and authority to prolong and ignore the suffering, agony, and
tr‘agic desperation in the lives of countless socially, culturally,
i "te‘llectually, and even religiously productive and contributive men and
Women in cultures across the world. On occasion, there have been voices
fro.“ among the majority who have spoken with integrity, and I an

r .
em‘lnded of the English poet and mystic, William Blake. His belief that

215

216
the thwarting of the life force, whether by repression of sexuality or
:13! the "mind fettering" of censorship or by the new factory work--men
vwzassting "the days of wisdom/ In sorrowful drudgery to obtain a scanty
p i ttance of bread"--is as close as one can get to a definition of the
ee\/ i l that is perpetuated in our society.

Unfortunately, the topic of sexuality causes discomfort even to
the most enlightened and well-meaning minds. Dean Hamer and Peter
Copeland advocate the need to remember that an objective and healthy
i nquiry into matters regarding the varieties of human sexuality is
important because sex is "the continued source of life," and "the

mechanism by which higher organisms pass on their genes and evolve." An
understanding of human sexuality is important for reasons of "health
because so many diseases, of which only the most devastating example is
AI 08, are sexually transmitted." Furthermore, human sexuality is

‘i "eXtricably linked with our psychological health as "so much of our
30y , frustration, pleasure, anguish, pursuit and thought," are dependent
on Our sexual well-being.1

With the publication of Ihe_Qrigin_df_Sneeies in 1859, Darwin
opened up a new and scientific way of looking at our origins, and his
evo Tutionary thesis influenced us in our thinking about the biological
asDect of sex and sexual dimorphism. These facts contradicted antiquated
" popular culture and medical theor[ies] that there was but one sex: a
k i “d of signified male/masculine body and mind, inscribed on the
i “complete and subordinate female body."2 Modern research has
‘i'1‘3‘"teasingly thrown light on the diverse nature and forms of sexuality

among which homosexuality, transsexuality, bisexuality, and other forms

217
of sexuality are now seen as variations or diversity within the human
sexual psyche.3
From a Darwinian point of view, homosexuality has been a
particularly disdained and maligned trait during most of our imediate
h i story. Perhaps this view was linked with the low reproductive urge or
success among homosexuals, which relegated homosexuals to positions of
Tow status in the system of social hierarchies prevalent in most human
soc ieties.‘ Yet, records existing from the earliest of human societies
i nd icate that people’s knowledge and practice of homosexuality were
ne ‘5 ther limited nor stereotypical. The theorist David Greenberg, in his
Scholarly book, IhetdnstmetjentLMdmdsexualjty, has chronicled and
Studied diverse patterns of homosexual practices prevalent in different
Cu 1 tures of the world, from the ancient to the present times.5 But
Greenberg’s constructionist view of homosexuality cannot be taken as a
comprehensive picture of homosexuality since he arrived at his theory
pure 1 y from culling historical records or data that recorded diverse
1:0th of homosexual practices. He did not incorporate the views or
Fee 1 ings of the homosexuals themselves. Greenberg’s constructionist view
of homosexuality assumes the premise that homosexuality is an invention,
“or, something that is more deeply embedded in human nature. He takes a
pure 1y constructionist approach to homosexuality, according to which
" SeXual behavior is determined by (or "constructed" from) the culture in
uh ‘3 Ch a person lives.“ However, Greenberg does concede the important
901 “t that "despite the importance of heterosexuality in the cultures of
the early civilizations,... homosexuality was far from unknown.“

F
u"“lhernmre, he also states that homosexuality became a moral issue with

218
secular moralists like Plato and with the major religious institutions
of the West, like Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam, because of the
discovery of heterosexuality’s "importance of propagation to human
T ife,“ and hence imnediate importance was attached to heterosexuality.

Therefore, the primary reason contributing to homosexuality’s

shunned and categorized fate as an unnatural act in cultures all over
the world is its ostensibly sparse connection with the utilitarian
aspect of procreative sex. This view against homosexuality was exploited

the “Christian tradition" in the West, which made rules that forbade

by
the practice of homosexuality "within [the] Christian tradition by

ut i 1 izing a comprehensive system of sexual ethics" that I'pertain to the

regu Tation of sexuality within the confines of matrimony, for the single

purpose of reproduction.“ The institutionalized repression of
homosexuality by the church was also influenced by "the fear of sex and

pass ion [that] is pervasive in our churches" in general, and which in

turn is derived from the church’s ancient, unresolved fear stemning from
"the two interlocking dualisms, a body-spirit dualism and a male-female

dua 1 ‘ism."‘° The first or spiritualistic dualism, which elevates the
h iSher spirit and puts it in control of the baser body, automatically
Sees any form of sexuality as threatening or improper, and much of the

“
sex~r1egativity" of the western culture "displays this spiritualistic

distolr‘tion, which simultaneously generates both fear of and fixation

“nth Sex and the body."“ In this light, homosexuality is considered by

t
he Church as even baser than procreative sex and consequently has been

In .
ade ‘Into something perverse.

219
Williams’s own homosexuality, which clashed with his upbringing in
the Christian tradition, caused him no little anguish and confusion.
Leverich recounts: "[G]iven the sexual mores of 1937 and his devoutly
Christian background, Tom simply was unable to reconcile an inclination
[or homosexual feelings] with what he knew to be wrong, a sin, and
utterly unacceptable." This "religious restraint, which prevented [his]
se 1f -confrontation," imbued in him a sense of “terror of encroaching
madness" and a division of personality. Williams addressed this issue in
his journal: "’If only I could realize I am not 2 persons. I am only
one - There is no sense in this division. An enemy inside myself."'"
Hi 1 'l iams transposed this internal battle or grappling with the self as
two people into the spirit-body dualism in some of his most successful
p1ays.SumeLand_Smoke, W. W.
W, and Ihe_Njeht_st_th_Iguana can all be read as
dramatic explorations of the spirit-body dualism that deeply affected

Hi ‘I 1 iams in his personal life.

On the other hand, Williams’s two plays, Cat_dn_a_Met_Ij_n_Rdn_f and
W, produced within a few years of each other," bear

a remarkable affinity in their treatment of and focus on the taboo,
mi suhderstood, explosive, and often painfully subjective topic of male
homosexuality. Williams’s deep pain and unresolved sadness about the
1 ife that homosexuals are forced to lead in a world that refuses to
acknowledge them as people with emotional and physical needs are
Capt-“red in his conversation with the poet Harold Norse:
Norse recalled that at night they occupied a bunk bed, Tom in the
Upper bunk and he in the lower. "One night before we went to

Sleep, we were discussing the difficulties of being homosexual.
' It’s probably the worst kind of existence in the world,’ I said.

220
’Having to hide such a great need for love and sex has got to be

the most painful kind of life.’ ’All homosexuals,’ said Tennessee,
in a choked voice, ’have to live with a deep wound that never

heals.’"“
1 Williams and his Gay Critics
While Williams’s discovery of his own homosexuality and his coming

()thl to himself had undoubtedly influenced him to explore this issue in

h is plays,15 his apparent inability to deal with the homosexual issue
ficrrieestly and frankly during his most creative years has not been looked
11;><)r1 fairly or sympathetically by critics. Williams drew fire from gay
(2!“‘i‘tLiCS who accused him of not being "out" enough in his works, of
£2\I£1<j ing the issue, of being unsupportive to the "gay cause," and of even
'f’ai i 1 ing "to contribute any work of understanding to gay theater."16
.I\ l tzli<1ugh this criticism stung Williams to the extent that he did come
(>11‘t: 'later in his career, with public disclosures of his homosexuality in
h i s Mennjrs and in several TV and magazine interviews, I feel that these
CY‘i t ics were being fanatical in their criticism of Williams’s lack of
support for the gay cause and went overboard in their criticism. They
Fa i led to consider that Williams was a product of his times. It is
imDOY‘tant to understand that no matter how much Williams may have tried,
he Could never have done enough to temper the bigoted and mean attitude
that most people in society harbored for homosexuals and homosexuality.

‘ ‘i I "iiinns matured at a time when things such as "gay causes" or "gay

1.s‘sh'eS“ did not exist in people’s consciousness. Therefore, it was

1r‘ciud‘icious of these critics to condemn Williams for writing within the

(2() - . .
nf‘nes of h1s own t1me.

221
Although Williams’s early efforts to write about homosexuality
openly or even favorably were seriously thwarted by the repressive,

hostile, maligning, and inhospitable climate of the 40’s and 50’s, we
must not forget that Williams did write and manage to get Caten_a_l:ld_t

1111.89.01 and SuddenJrLaeLSuhuher produced at a time when Senator Joseph

McCarthy’s witch hunts against suspected Conlnunists and homosexuals were
in full swing, and gay people were forced to remain invisible. Despite
th is threat, Williams did manage to write these plays that deal with gay
concerns and issues at a time when gay men had few illusions about the
dangers that could befall them if they were to make any gay waves."
Hi ‘I 1 iams was also writing at a time when a good percentage of the
American population, the African Americans, were not even treated as
equals, and talking openly about gay causes or issues at such a time was

un imaginable or inconceivable. It was the era of "witch hunts" and

f‘0r'ced integration, when President Eisenhower had to sumnon the armed
F01"<:es to protect the African American children who were obstructed from
attending classes with white children in Central High School in Little

Rock , Arkansas. At a time when people in American society were

i "130 Terant of people with a different skin color, expecting them to be

1» ’ . . . .
1 Se about homosexual 1ssues was l1ke expect1ng w1shes were horses.

These circumstances were compounded by Williams’s own misgivings

and guilt about his homosexuality. In fact, Williams developed a dual

att‘itude towards homosexuality. He neither accepted it fully nor
'5 .
eJeCted it to lead a false life. As Leverich remarks: Williams was "not

r
ecohei led toward being a homosexual and never would be."la Conlnenting

o . . . .
n 1lhe absence of focus on gay 1ssues 1n h1s early works, and know1ng

222
that his forte was not the gay play, Williams remarked in an interview:
"I never found it necessary to deal with it [homosexuality] in my work.
It was never a preoccupation of mine, except in my intimate, private
1 ife.” Later in his career, Williams confessed more fully about not
wanting to jeopardize his status as a playwright with the majority by
bringing in an overtly homosexual content in his plays. In an interview
that he gave in 1976 to a gay publication entitled Gay Sunshine,
Hi 1 l iams remarked that he was more concerned about his portrayal of the
larger picture:
People so wish to latch onto something didactic; I do not deal
with the didactic, ever.... You still want to know why I don’t
write a gay play? I don’t find it necessary. I could express what
I wanted to express through other means.... I would be narrowing
my audience a great deal [if I wrote for a gay audience alone]. I
wish to have a broad audience because the major thrust of my work
is not sexual orientation, it’s social. I’m not about to limit
myself to writing about gay people.20
Williams’s conlnents show his complete understanding of his
stI"<=2ngths and interests, for if we assess the plays that he wrote later
'i n h is career in light of his coments, plays in which he tried to deal
"'3 th the topic of homosexuality openly in response to the pressure that
he Was receiving from gay critics, we cannot help but notice that "as
the Sexual self became clearer, and the plays became more

1121

aL“tob iographical, the writing became murkier. Therefore, holding
“'1 1 T iams accountable for not dealing openly with issues of
ho'“Osexuality, or accusing Williams of not politicizing the homosexual
1S‘s-lie in his plays is an unfair and naive charge. Viewed objectively,
"'5 1 l iams was neither a hypocrite nor inconsiderate. Given the cruelly

Y‘Q'DY‘eSsive and unenlightened times he grew up in, Williams did his best

223
tn) develop an artistic vision that helped him transcend the meanness of
flis times and immortalize the consummate American experience in his best
works.

However, it is not entirely true that Williams avoided writing
antacaut the homosexual issue in his works. His poems, ”Life Story," or
"Young Men Waking at Daybreak," and others, are strewn with "homoerotic
visions," meetings with "gentlemen callers," and vivid and poignant

moments of "the tension, excitement, and loneliness" so authentic to the
"aatwcanymous sexual encounters" of repressed sexuality." John M. Clum
summed up Williams’s treatment of homosexuality best, remarking:

I do not see a steady evolution in Williams’s "homosexual

sensibility": rather, there seems to be a constant attitude
towards homosexual acts, [my emphasis] though Williams’s

presentation of homosexual persons changed when public tolerance
allowed a candidness in drama which Williams had previously
restricted to his stories and poems. That change in presentation,
alas, was... a function of his decreased ability to convert memory
or self-judgment into a controlled work of art.3
No matter what judgments future critics might pass on Williams’s non-
COW-hitted attitude towards the homosexual issue, I feel it is unfair to
demand of an artist, who had invested so much of his career, time, and
Ghergy into fashioning his own particular vision of life through art, to
Somehow adopt a new and trendy philosophy only because it would serve a

1=ixed political agenda.

II Honosexuality as Contrary to Patriarchal Power
On the other hand, arguing about Williams’s non-contribution to
t
he 93.)! cause seems to be self-defeating for it will take many more

years of research and education before the general male antipathy

224
towards homosexuality can be mitigated, if not eradicated. Hundreds of
years of inculcated bigotry and injustice cannot be undone by a few
years of activism or even by the sporadic efforts of the most brilliant
Iniruis. I say this because sex, as viewed by most males in the western
socziety is primarily an issue of power. The universal male antipathy
towards homosexuality, born out of the irrational fear of being
classified as ”other” or "queer," is an attitude that has been fortified
it} 'the West by the Christian indoctrination of the spirit-body dualism,
H11'ich stresses the "complementary inferiority of the woman versus the
superiority of the man in all marital relations.” This patriarchal
dualism "generates a gender hierarchy of value, status and power[,

a I1<1]... promulgates the belief that ’good order [in society] means that
"Den must be in conmand’ of women.""" This moral view of the church,

"'1 ‘ich heavily influenced the secular world view, was singularly

i "fluential in its control over the ordinary male mind through its
Susjgestion that sexuality was the tool by which men were to exercise
the ir power and control over women. This idea of sex as being a form of
Power, which gave men their position of control, also made men fearful

of any notion of homosexuality, where sex could be seen as either

99a 1 itarian or pleasurable. The French sociologist Reynaud sums it up

“91 1:

Trapped between his [man’s] fear of letting himself go and his use
of the penis as a means of appropriation, man does not see that
sexuality could be something other than a struggle for power or as
a means for comparison. His general attitude has little to do with
love or pleasure, but much more with hatred, disgust and jealousy.
And its nature is well illustrated in one of the most
democratically shared sentiments among men: the fear of

homosexuality.“

225
This interpretation of sex as an arsenal of power that was made
available to men has over time influenced men to conceptualize
homosexuality as a perverse form of loss of power, leading them to
valorize heterosexuality to the exclusion of any other notions of
sexuality. As this focus on heterosexual sex was elevated and enshrined
in the "the home," "the conjugal family took custody of it [sex] and
absorbed it into the serious function of reproduction. 0n the subject of
sex, silence became the rule. The legitimate and procreative couple laid
down the law."27 Thus, says Foucault, the heterosexual or the
" Utilitarian and fertile" couple became the norm and the "sterile
behavior" of all other forms of sexuality "carried the taint of
abnormality," and was "repressed," and relegated to the "brothel and the
"Dental hospital[,]... places of tolerance," where these "illegitimate

sexualities... could be reintegrated, if not in the circuits of

Production, at least in those of profit.” The politics behind this
r‘el'Jressive act of relegating the "illegitimate sexualities" to "places
0": tolerance" was to contain, circumscribe, and restrict them to a
Specific locale so that in the heterosexual domain, "modern puritanism
Cou 1d impose its triple edict of taboo, nonexistence and silence" over

31 1 other forms of sexualities even more effectively.” Foucault sees in

these repressions enacted against the "illegitimate sexualities" a

S "Qnal for them "to disappear," but these repressions, he points out,
were also a form of "an affirmation of nonexistence, and, by
imp-l ‘ication, an admission that there was nothing to say about such
th ings, nothing to see, and nothing to know."0 And as a result of this

repression," Foucault elaborates, the "fundamental link between power,

226
knowledge, and sexuality" was established by the legitimate and

procreative sexual majority, who exercised their control through

prohibition, censorship, and denial.31
On a more obvious level, the complacent attitude universally

shared by the privileged male, heterosexual social majority prevented
them from questioning their position in society, as they "took for
granted the naturalness and validity of their own gender and sexual
status" just as "any individual unconsciously assumes as natural those
38pects of one’s life that confer privilege and power." In this

1' nstance, the heterosexual majority’s complacency and unquestioning
Stance about their superior position in society in terms of

" heterosexual social order" can be compared to the bourgeois’s
a<2(:eptance, assertion, and justification of "the naturalness of class
i "equality and their [oppressive] rule." Thus, this normative "male-
Cl(Dininated... heterosexual social order" naturally opposed or was

unwilling to examine the ”formation of modern regimes of bodies and

sexualities.”

III Honosexuality and Status

From these arguments, it is easy to recognize why homosexuality

has been such a repressed yet provocative, maligned yet lingering
3°C ‘ial/cultural issue, and what exactly it means for a man to be
identified as a homosexual in overtly heterosexual cultures. Critics
have taken issue with Williams for not addressing the issue of
ho""38exuality directly and forcefully, thereby creating a precedent for

a "’Or‘e substantial focus on this topic by future dramatists. But I feel,

227
Williams, in W and in W, hit at
the core of the homosexual issue that has created so much of a problem
for the repressed homosexual individual. In fashioning these plays,
where the characters are either repressed or reluctant to face or accept
their homosexuality, Williams created a dramatic space wherein he could
explore a male’s trauma in either facing and accepting his homosexuality
or the fear that consumes him in the event of the public disclosure of

the male’s homosexual status. Assuming the status of a homosexual in the
western culture is tantamount to the death of the individual. It becomes

a metaphorical oblivion of the individual because of the inevitable loss
of face, social position, and power that males fight so hard to acquire

3- nd maintain in and over their surroundings. Status is the resource that
l"Nan compete for most in society. Thus, what generally wins a man low
Status is gayness. Status may be an abstract thing but it is very real.
Th ‘i s abstract something, that is status/face, is a possession and people
become possessive of it, even if it is not concrete and made of

Sh “i ngles, for reasons of self-enhancement and for elevating one’s

DOS ition in society. Therefore, for the male, status becomes equivalent
to money, a resource, and it can be cashed in for favors, power, and
SOC ial standing. To study Brick and Sebastian (in Sebastian’s case it is
h i 8 mother, Mrs. Venable, who is the keeper of status since Sebastian is
dead and his'past is unknown to others) as people who are seeking status
'desp ite the rankings that others would give them because of their
9"“-3"‘less is as much a story of possessive individualism as wrangling over

property deeds. The importance of status, power, and position in society

to the male psychology is explained best in these lines:

228
... [0]nce hierarchies exist [like pecking order in chicks],
status is a resource. If status expands your access to food or
sex, then it makes sense to seek status in the abstract, just as

it makes sense to seek money even though you can’t eat it. So, an
exchange of status-enhancing assistance between two animals is not

different in kind from an exchange of food: so long as the
exchange is non-zero-sum, natural selection will encourage it,
given the opportunity. Indeed, after looking closely at chimp and
human society, one might suspect that, from natural selection’s
point of view, status assistance is the main purpose of

friendship.33
I have discussed earlier, Williams’s own concern for his status as

a. (iramatist in the eyes of the public. This notion, I feel, imbued
W“i'lliams with an ambivalence or unresolved attitude towards his own
'I<)nnosexuality, especially the private and public aspects of it, which he
t»()<)k care to separate and reveal selectively. For Williams, at least
during the time he was writing in the 1940’s and 1950’s, homosexuality
was a private issue, "incongruent with his ’social’ interest," as
opposed to the writers who began dealing with the issue of homosexuality
during the era that came into being after the Stonewall rebellion in
1 969, and for whom homosexuality had become a social and political
i Sieslee. When Williams confessed in his Memoirs: "[0]f course I also
ex ‘i sted outside of the conventional society while contriving somewhat
precariously to remain in contact with it. For me this was not only a
Precarious but a matter of dark unconscious disturbance[,]"" he was in
Fact referring to the issue of his own private self as a homosexual
art ‘i st, and the "gulf between private art (poetry and fiction) and
“Nib" ic art (drama), and the corollary gap [that existed in his life]
betWeen [the] private homosexual and [the] public celebrity," a fact
that he was extremely careful about keeping separate. Thus, while

Hi 1 1 iams was "privately open about his sexual orientation," he was also

229
"publicly cautious" of it, only dealing with "homosexuality directly in
his nondramatic writings, which would reach a limited audience (he never
until his later years strove for the money and publicity of a best-

selling novel), but cautious in his dramas.“
This personal vision of homosexuality that Williams cultivated, or

was forced to cultivate, this dealing with it as a "private" issue and
keeping it away from becoming "public" knowledge is primarily linked
with the notion of status in society that a homosexual man has to
balance carefully. It is this balancing act, this maintaining of status
i n society, that influenced Williams’s treatment of his male homosexual
Characters who are also seen grappling with their own private and public
”Otions of homosexuality. After all, Williams confessed: "I draw all my
Characters from myself. I can’t draw a character unless I know it within

r".Yself... I draw every character out of my very multiple split

"“ Thus, Williams’s own conception of maintaining status in

personality.
Soc iety hits directly at the heart of a homosexual man’s possessiveness
01“ the self and the tact and guile he has to employ in maintaining his
status as a social being. Williams, having practiced it in his own life,
Perhaps felt the need to explore it through a male character in a play,
and so in Brick we see this tension that is reminiscent of the inner
battle that one constantly has to fight in order to display an overtly
masculine public self, a self that is in keeping with the culturally
saflfitioned image of a man, at the expense of suppressing the knowledge

of: the homosexual self that is denied legitimacy and expression because

of the cultural connotations of shame and unmanliness wedded to it.

230
The conflicted self in the homosexual that arises out of the need
to maintain status is reinforced by the social construction of the
meaning of "otherness," where a man is viewed as being less than a man,
a negative man, a powerless deviant, a sterile but contaminating
influence on the healthy and pure, and lacking the responsibility of
contributing to social growth by being unable to reproduce.”
Furthermore, in light of this public construction of a homosexual man’s
manhood, any disclosure of a man’s homosexuality or even self acceptance
0? one’s identity as a gay man is tantamount to the destruction of one’s
Se‘lfhood and ego in the social and public sphere of life. Thus, the
cZonflicted self of the homosexual, which is further constrained by the
i Ssues of deep personal shame and guilt, helps complicate the picture of
the tortured homosexual, who is forced to live a life of emotional and
SD iritual paralysis, fueled with a hatred of the self that often finds a
Vent in self-destruction or violence.“3
The trauma of not being able to accept oneself, which issues from

the "deep historical and cultural shame about homosexuality" and the

oppressive silence that was maintained about a subject that was
" perceived to be too shameful to speak about[,]""9 affected most of

Hi 1 ‘liams’s early depictions of gay characters in his plays. It is

0'” imarily for this reason that Williams shows why Alan in A_S_tr_e_e_tca3:
W had to kill himself when Blanche inadvertently walked in on
his private act and was compelled to shame him and ridicule his manhood.

Th i 8 issue of silence and protectiveness of status is also the reason

Why we do not see Sebastian as a live character in W,

and the climactic disclosure of whose gruesome death was accepted by the

231
audience as deserved punishment for the "horrors of [leading] such a
lifestyle.“0 The issue of shame and status is also the reason why Brick
in Cat on a Hot [in [3ng is forced to hurt Big Daddy when he forces
Brick to confront his homosexual feelings, thus bringing into the open
Brick’s private and secret desire. This public aspect of homosexuality,
or the possibility of a conscious action arising out of the homosexual
desire is most threatening and shameful to the male status, and
therefore the desire has to be abolished or denied or killed off before
it becomes established as a truth. For this reason, Peter Ochello’s and
Jack Straw’s love for one another had to be kept outside the "normal"
world of Cat on a Hot Tjn Roof. But these patterns of portrayal of the
homosexual circumstance must not be construed as a reflection of
W 1' lliams’s discomfort with homosexuality. Rather, in showing what the
Dublic felt comfortable in seeing when homosexual issues were presented

on stage, Williams was making an effort, although a feeble one by

t"(Jday’s standards, that was deliberately nonconfrontational or as
U ‘i 'l liams would say not "didactic," hoping to awaken public awareness or

even empathy for these wasted, tortured, and unacknowledged lives.

IV Social Repression and Low Status
Exploring the cultural politics and practices that led to the
SOC ‘ial classification or stigmatization of the gay man as "Un-American"

in Ainerican society during the period that extended from World War II

into the cold war years, Alan Sinfield shows the connection between
3°C ia l ostracism and prejudice that led to relegating a gay man to a

jow‘status position in society. Sinfield’s documentation of the

232

'treatment that gay men received at the hands of army recruiters makes

'this point clear:

During World War II, U.S. recruiting officers were on the lookout
for two unmanly types: malingerers and homosexuals [my emphasis].
The malingerers were drafted, but gays were rejected; whatever
they did, they couldn’t be manly [my emphasis]. But what of the
gay man who tried really hard to get into the services? Was that
not prima facie evidence of manly courage? [my emphasis] No, he
was rejected, and there was a special term for him: reverse
malingerer. It was unthinkable that he might actually be brave and
’American’; however hard he tried to enlist, he must be some kind
of a malingerer. He was a ’reverse malingerer,’ lacking the
potential even of true malingerers.‘l

‘Tli'is deliberate stigmatization and prejudicial classification of the gay
man as someone "unmanly" and therefore of a low status was also
Silalaported and perpetuated by the views of the psychologists of that era.
"It3nnosexuals were defined by the psychologists as having "every kind of
"'f’£eminine’ weakness," of being "dangerous,... impertinent, possessive,
Cocksure," and possessing an "attitude and ego-feeling [that] are only a
reaction formation against a deep-seated feeling of weakness and
‘i nsecurity." This vilification of the homosexual character gained rapid
f’ias\lcn~in the public mind, and the misconception was transformed into
3(21: ive belief as a result of the general unease and insecurity in the
pub 'lic’s mind with the onset of the Cold War. The public’s prejudice was
"iiftz‘ionalized by the necessity:
to control sexual dissidence for, even more than battle
conditions, it depended on the ideological--spiritual,
moral--determination of U.S. people. They had to establish
and maintain the superiority of ’the American way of life’
over communism. Un-Americans were dismissed from jobs in
governments, municipalities, business, education, and
medicine, often on suspicion and without appeal. By the mid-
1950’5, one in five of the workforce had been required to

sign an oath of moral purity in order to get or retain
employment. Communists seemed to threaten military and

233

political security; queers undermined family values and the
frontier vision of the manly man. [my emphasisl“

This repressive control or social encoding of the homosexual’s
”otherness" or inferior status that is stamped on the public mind is
evident in the radical technique that Williams invented in portraying
the social and familial status of the homosexual man in his two plays:
Cat on a Hot [jn Roof and Suddenly_Last_§ummgr. Williams’s technique in
dealing with the gay issue that is at the heart of the two plays is both
affirming and mystifying. Williams dramatizes Brick’s understandable
reluctance and opposition in facing the issue of homosexual desire
directly, while underscoring Brick’s inability to eradicate the nature
of this desire from his deeper consciousness. In contrast, through
Sebastian’s rebellion in flouting the social codes of conduct, Williams
is at once able to show how the statusless, powerless individual is
eventually pushed into a disillusioning spiral of despair and self-
destructive behavior that is born out of society’s disregard,
vilification, and inability to recognize the homosexual citizen.

Status by itself is a very male thing, because status gives the
male the right and means to control others around him and also gain
others’ respect. A male’s status in a patriarchal society is also
meeasured by the male’s ability to hold things together, command others’
obedience, (and be in charge of material possessions. Thus, status
l'"lparts to one a certain uniquely overt maleness in a patriarchal
$0<2iety, and in both Cat on a Hot [in Roof and Suddenly_Last_§ummer this
essential maleness of Brick and Sebastian are in question because of

the ‘i r status as homosexual males. Williams introduces the issues of

234
homosexual status and desire in Cat on a Hot [in Roof right at the

beginning of the play in the "Notes for the Designer" section. Here

Williams instructs:

The set is the bed-sitting-room of a plantation home in the
Mississippi Delta... the home of the Delta’s biggest cotton-
planter... It hasn’t changed much since it was occupied by the
original owners of the place, Jack Straw and Peter Ochello, a pair
of old bachelors who shared this room all their lives together. In
other words the room must evoke some ghosts; it is gently and
poetically haunted by a relationship that must have involved a
tenderness which was uncommon... the set is the background for the
play that deals with human extremities of emotion, and it needs

that softness behind it. [my emphasis]‘3
By situating the play’s action in the bed-sitting-room of the two gay

men who previously owned the plantation, Williams underscores the
importance of the homosexual issue that lurks like a ghost behind the
play’s action. But, by keeping Jack Straw and Peter Ochello outside the
immediate action of the play, Williams is also able to show the
statuslessness of these two men, who, for reasons of having no power or
position in society, are relegated to a life outside of society. In
contrast, by setting Brick’s life with Maggie in this bedroom, with the
taed that had been shared by the two men sharply in focus, Williams
symbolically emphasizes the issue of gay desire that lies in Brick’s
heeart, namely, Brick’s unfulfilled, mysterious closeness with Skipper,
wfiich Brick is reluctant to examine or accept. It is also an issue that
Br‘ick is trying to obliterate through drinking and by behaving in a
deVliberately indifferent manner toward everyone and everything close to
him. On a larger scale, this set represents the social atmosphere where

Bl"i<:k’s "otherness" is magnified as the taboo that Brick so desperately

235
wants to possess or contain, since his "manliness" is dependent on how
wilfully he can keep his unmanliness locked away inside him.

In Seddenly_Le§t_§dmmer, Williams’s inability to bring Sebastian
into the play, except through others’ reference to him and his actions,
points to the repression and anxiety that Williams himself felt as a
playwright in challenging the audience’s tolerance by presenting an
openly gay character on stage. Sebastian’s mysterious yet ageless
demeanor: "Here is my son Sebastian, in a Renaissance pageboy’s costume
at a masked ball in Cannes. Here is my son, Sebastian, in the same
costume at a ball in Venice;“ his character: "You would have liked my
son, he would have been charmed by you. My son, Sebastian, was not a
family snob or a money snob but he was a snob, all right. He was a snob
about personal charm in people, he insisted upon good looks, in people
around him, and, oh, he had a perfect little court of young and
beautiful people around him always, wherever he was" (Suddenly 22); and
a little later: "My son, Sebastian was chaste. Mot c-h-a-s-e-d! 0h, he
was chased in that way of spelling it, too, we had to be very fleet—
footed... with his looks and charm, to keep ahead of pursuers (fiuddenjy
24); his interest in maintaining "a fantastic garden which is more like
a tropical jungle, or forest, in the prehistoric age of giant fern-
f<>rests when living creatures had flippers turning into limbs and scales
tc' skin" (dedenly 9); and his occupation: ”Sebastian was poet! That’s
What I meant when I said his life was his work because the work of a
POEEt: is the life of a poet and-~vice versa, the life of a poet is the
"(Wk of a poet, I mean you can’t separate them..." (Suddenly 12); all

therse details are impressed upon the audience’s mind through the words

236

of Mrs. Venable, who is now the reconstructor and possessor of the image
and social status of her son, Sebastian. Williams reveals the details of
Sebastian’s life through Mrs. Venable, whose idealization of her son’s
character and occupation is ostensibly meant to establish and confirm an
aura of superiority about Sebastian’s status in the audience’s mind.
Nevertheless, Williams undercuts Mrs. Venable’s invention by alluding to
a sense of mystery and loneliness that colored Sebastian’s life,
especially by not showing him on stage. With this technique of oral
dramatization of an invisible character, Williams simultaneously creates
a sense of comfort and unease in the audience’s mind as they are not
forced to see a character whom they cannot fathom, yet whose existence
among them they cannot dismiss.

Sebastian’s possessiveness of status is brilliantly made felt
‘through his mother’s, Mrs. Venable’s, violent efforts to bury the secret
of his life and death by a ruthlessness that gains prominence as the
drama of Sebastian’s life unfolds through the clashing of Catherine’s,
.Sebastian’s cousin’s, account of Sebastian’s last moments with that of
Mrs. Venable’s constructed history of Sebastian’s life. The audience’s
cxamplacency is slowly dissolved as Catherine’s version becomes more and
MKJre believable, and as Mrs. Venable’s overwhelming and powerful
panrticipation in the play’s action culminates with her final offstage
COnInand to the psychiatrist: "Lion’s View! State Asylum, cut this
hicteous story out of her [Catherine’s] brain!" (Suddenly 93) The
$1°llIultaneity of the revelation of the circumstances that led to
Set>astian’s death and Mrs. Venable’s desperate but ongoing attempt to

deStray the veracity of Catherine’s account, captures and stuns the

 

237
audience’s expectations. By substituting Mrs. Venable for Sebastian, and
by endowing her with the motivation to bury the secret of her son’s
life, no matter what the cost, Williams directly hits at the issue of
the homosexual man’s status or position in society. Mrs. Venable’s
ruthless desperation at containing the truth about the circumstances
surrounding Sebastian’s life and death is motivated by her own wish to
continue having or possessing something, and in this case it is the
idealized, sanitized, and reconstructed status of Sebastian that Mrs.

Venable is reluctant to let even her dead son lose.

V Inside the Person of Low Status: Anxiety and Powerlessness
The cultural codification of the gay man as an unmanly and
untrustworthy person automatically relegated him to a position of
powerlessness and low status in society. This view forced the gay man
into becoming extra vigilant at maintaining the status that society was
in fact denying him. Because the risk of any public disclosure of his
status would inevitably lead to a traumatic and humiliating experience
‘for him, the gay man’s effort at vigilance and his efforts in devising
ways to deflect the social stigma created in him an acute sense of
alixiety and desperation. Williams deals with this aspect of a gay man’s
atixiety and despair by using codes, symbols, and subtexts in the two
Plays. Thus, Brick’s anxiety about his present status makes him
understandably morose and despairing, for his football career on the
1:l'eld has come to a close. With his former glory behind him and his

f*”i¢end Skipper dead, Brick is presented as a man who is not quite sure

238
of his position or status either inside his family or in the
cultural/social space.

Brick’s active participation in a sport like football not only
validated his future but also invested him with the socially sanctioned
"manly" status of the American male. In contrast with his immediate past
as a football hero, Brick is now a sports announcer, a spectator
relegated to the sidelines. This makes him doubly powerless since he is
no longer adored as a football star, the icon of American masculinity,
and his sexuality is now in question.“ Although his marriage to Maggie
had helped in raising his status, his hostile behavior towards Maggie,
the gibes and teasing that come from his brother and his wife about his
refusal to sleep with Maggie: "Do you know why she’s [Maggie’s]
childless? She’s childless because that big beautiful athlete husband of
hers won’t go to bed with her!" (get 113); his parents’ concern for
Brick’s reluctance or inability to produce an heir, which would open up
his way to becoming a legitimate owner of the plantation, and hence the
next patriarch, all point to Brick’s unsure status and powerlessness
'that cause him anxiety and his parents much concern.

This powerless, statusless condition is suggested metaphorically
it] the play by showing Brick’s hobbling around on a crutch. Brick’s
pcawerless condition is also reemphasized by his own confession, which
asJain hints at his deeply disturbed condition: "I’m a restless cripple.
I got to stay on my crutch" (get 102). While the crutch is symbolic of

Br"ick’s inner brokenness, his uneasy resolve, anxiety, and the
Pr€2<2ariousness of his situation, it can also be seen as a symbolic

representation of the hindrances and obstacles that Brick has had to

 

239
dodge in the past to manipulate his self-image constantly. Therefore, he
is now left with a personhood that is a shadow-self, a construct of
social repression, and he is unable to function without a facade that
will enable him to present a manly status. Moreover, the crutch’s
utility in aiding Brick to maneuver around the house also becomes
symbolic of the detachment, unconcern, and indifference that Brick has
cultivated to deflect his real feelings about Skipper from the scrutiny
of others.

More importantly, by using this metaphor of the crutch as a
correlative of Brick’s inner condition, Williams raises a profound
social criticism. Although Brick’s injury results from his own actions,
his jumping hurdles on the high school athletic field at "three o’clock
in the morning," Brick’s statement: "Jumping the hurdles, Big Daddy,
runnin’ and jumpin’ the hurdles, but those hurdles have gotten too high
for me, now," becomes his coded confession about the pressure that he
feels in maintaining his status as a "hero," and the inner desperation
that has pushed him into his present maimed condition (get 56). Pondered
closely, Brick’s maimed condition, his hobbling around on a crutch
amongst a house full of people who have no visible physical problems
(except for Big Daddy, who is suffering from cancer), becomes a larger
metaphor of the maimed or stunted condition of all those people in
society who, like Brick, are maimed and limited as a result of the
social (ostracism, repression, and bigotry against the "other."

But Williams did not merely bring in the crutch to evoke our
Sympathy for Brick. Brick himself bears some responsibility for his

I"all“!!d condition. Although Brick is brooding with guilt at Skipper’s

240
death for which he feels essentially responsible, Brick’s desire to be
left alone with his feelings rather than confront them honestly, despite
the risk of giving in to others’ suspicions about his relationship with
Skipper, is an indication of Brick’s inability to accept himself for who
he is when others are around him. "Silence about a thing just magnifies
it. It grows and festers in silence, becomes malignant...." (get 25)
says Maggie to Brick, but the prospect of facing the truth becomes so
traumatic for Brick that he is even willing to face the eventuality of
being cut off from his inheritance rather than admit to himself his
hidden desire for Skipper or make any realistic effort to help dispel
others’ doubts about his feelings for Skipper. Moreover, Brick’s
indifferent and uncaring attitude becomes a convenient tool by which he
can protect himself in the event of being disinherited, since his excuse
would enable him to rationalize his disinheritance and his lack of
interest in his father’s property and support. Brick’s admitting to the
fact of having forgotten Big Daddy’s birthday party, his refusal to sign
the card for Big Daddy, his permission to Maggie to "jump off the roof,”
and "take a lover" (g3; 31), all point to the same thing: Brick’s
inability to deal with problems honestly, openly, or even rationally.
Thus, Brick’s statement: "I don’t want to lean on your shoulder, I want
my crutch," (get 25) becomes symbolic of Brick’s pathetically weak
attempt to free himself from the obligations that he had forced upon
himselii, undoubtedly under the pressures of conforming to the rules of
social decorum, and from which he is now trying to declare his
independence but is unable to do so wholeheartedly or even with any

semblance of dignity. All of Brick’s efforts to free himself of being

241

the person who he has become because of social pressure, and his desire
to maintain his status as a real man are weak, dishonest, and ultimately
hypocritical as he is unwilling to let go of his good name and
association with his family, yet at the same time desiring to lead a
life that no one can know about.

In Snddenly_Leet_Snnnen, Williams alludes to the Christian myth of
the martyrdom of St. Sebastian“ by associating the name of the saint
and the nature of the martyrdom with that of Sebastian Venable’s fate.
Williams brings in the symbolism of the Christian myth to highlight the
unchanging nature of exploitation of the minority over time. Williams
also shows by comparing Sebastian Venable’s death with the ancient
Christian myth of the martyrdom of the saint, that the purely
exploitative use of one human being by another has not changed over

.1 47

time. Calling his play, a "moral fable of our times, Williams

explains his use of the metaphor of cannibalism in Snddenlx_Leet_Snmmen
as his condemnation of what he saw in modern society: "Man devours man
in a metaphorical sense. He feeds upon his fellow creatures, without the
excuse of animals... I use that metaphor to express my repulsion with
this characteristic of man, the way people use each other without
conscience."“

If we look closely at Williams’s use of the symbolism of St.
Sebastian’s martyrdom and its connection with Sebastian’s death, we will
notice that Williams is both affirming and denying Sebastian Venable the
status of a martyr. While St. Sebastian ostensibly died for an honest
, cause in defending his Christian faith, he also chose martyrdom because

he would rurt give in to the carnality of the ones who desired him

242
sexually. In contrast, Sebastian Venable’s martyrdom is ambiguous,
especially when we consider Catherine’s account of Sebastian’s last
anxious moments of existence. Catherine suggests that Sebastian did not
appear to pay heed to her suggestions to flee the scene by cab or take
shelter in the cafe. Instead, he insisted on handling the situation
himself, and as a result he was pursued and cannibalized.

Sebastian’s final action of running up the hill to avoid the
urchins issued from the conflict in his mind that was born of a sudden
change in his perception of life. Sebastian’s original way of looking at
life as described by Catherine was: "He!--accepted!--all!--as--how!--
things!--are!--And thought nobody had any right to complain and
interfere in any way whatsoever, and even though he knew that what was
awful was awful, and what was wrong was wrong, and my cousin Sebastian
was certainly never sure that anything was wrong!--" (Suddenly 88) Thus,
we gather, Sebastian’s sexual exploitation of the boys was a self-
serving habit that he had cultivated, and for which he eventually paid a
great price. But the ambiguity inherent in Sebastian’s death issues from
Sebastian’s momentary abandonment of his usual outlook on life.
Catherine recalls that Sebastian commanded the waiters at the cafe to
stop the disturbance that the urchins were causing by exclaiming:
"’They’ve got to stop that! Waiter, Make them stop that. I’m not a well
man, I have a heart condition, it’s making me sick!’" Catherine
interprets this interfering action on Sebastian’s part as the cause that
hastened his self-destruction: "This was the first time that Cousin
Sebastian had ever attempted to correct a human situation!--I think that

was his fatal error...." (Suddenly 89) In other words, Sebastian’s final

243
action was ironic because he tried to stop what he could not stop. His
anxiety as a man with nowhere to go forced him into such a degree of
panic and despair that he had no other choice but to allow his final
destruction to take place at the hands of the urchins whom he had once
exploited. Catherine’s description makes this point:
And cousin Sebastian shouted, ’Please shut up, let me handle this
situation, will you? I want to handle this thing.’ And he started
up the steep street with a hand stuck in his jacket where I knew
he was having a pain in his chest from his palpitations.... But he
walked faster and faster in panic,... The band of naked children
pursued us up the steep white street in the sun that was like a
great white bone of a giant beast that had caught on fire in the
sky!-—Sebastian started to run and they all screamed at once and
seemed to fly in the air, they outran him so quickly. I screamed.
I heard Sebastian scream, he screamed just once before this flock
of black plucked little birds that pursued him and overtook him
halfway up the white hill (Suddenly 91).
The only clear connection between the two instances of death, one
ancient and the other modern, is that both St. Sebastian and Sebastian
Venable were minorities who chose to die rather than face further

oppression.

VI 0stracisn, Despair, Self-Hatred and the Fear of Loss of Status
If Brick and Sebastian, through his mother’s, Mrs. Venable’s

efforts, show a sense of self-absorption and exhibit a sense of wariness
at guarding a explosive personal secret, then this sense of acute self—
possession issues from a deep despair born of self-hatred, which is
coupled with a fear of losing status as males. Brick’s discomfort with
any reference to his latent gayness and Sebastian’s apparent self-
revulsion and cultivation of an amoral attitude towards life are caused
by their internalization of the social repression and intolerance of the

homosexual character that was prevalent in the 1940’s and 1950’s era. A

244
socially sponsored ideology of repression of what these two men
essentially are, ends up making both Brick and Sebastian unhappy and
anti-social in ways that could have been prevented if people allowed
goodwill and reason to prevail over their baser instincts for bigotry
and intolerance.

Brick’s self-hatred and discomfort at facing the truth about
himself is so traumatic, that he is reluctant even to let anyone come
close to him or even to help him with the process of self-discovery.
This emanates from a deep fear that his private knowledge about himself
could become public and result in the shameful loss of face and status.
Williams describes Brick as someone who is possessed of or ”has the
additional charm of that cool air of detachment that people have who
have given up the struggle" (get 17). But Brick’s aloofness is
cultivated at the expense of his possessing the truth about himself so
that he can maintain his status with impunity. Brick exudes an aura of
aloofness or "the charm of the defeated," which Maggie complains about
but finds hard to break down because Brick will not let her come close
to him: "[Y]ou always had that detached quality as if you were playing a
game without much concern over whether you won or lost,... you have that
rare sort of charm that usually only happens in very old or hopelessly
sick people" (get 24). Paradoxically, Brick’s need to maintain his
status as a sexually functioning normal male had driven him in the past
to fake a passion for Maggie which Maggie senses but cannot criticize
because of Brick’s exceptional performance: ”You were... such a
wonderful person to go to bed with, and I think mostly because you were

Yteally indifferent to it... Never had any anxiety about it, did it

245
naturally, easily, slowly, with absolute confidence and perfect calm,
more like opening a door for a lady or seating her at a table than
giving expression to any longing or her. Your indifference made you
wonderful at lovemaking--strange?--but true..." (get 24-25) Maggie’s
testament of Brick’s past performance with her, Brick’s sudden cutting
off of his sexual relationship with Maggie, his giving permission to
Maggie to find a lover, for which he assures her he will not find her
accountable, his indifference to Big Daddy’s health, his disinterest in
inheriting the property that Big Daddy wants to leave him, all point to
Brick’s passivity of action, a withdrawal from life, so that he can
protect himself from others’ discovery of his sexual inadequacy and
status as a gay male.

Although Brick’s self-loathing is not as intense as Sebastian’s,
who is subconsciously filled with a death-wish, Brick drinks heavily in
order to forget his desires and deny their existence. Thus he tells Big
Daddy, who has made an attempt to reach him: "Mendacity is a system that
we live in. Liquor is one way out an’ death’s the other..." (Cat 94)
However, Brick’s sense of his deep hatred of himself is betrayed through
his violent outburst when his protective reserve of silence and denial
is penetrated. When Maggie brings up the issue of Brick’s friendship
Iwith Skipper and chastises him for failing to be candid, for being
secretive, Brick becomes agitated, defensive, and accusatory:

Margaret: ...It was one of those beautiful, ideal things they tell

about in the Greek legends, it couldn’t be anything else,
you being you, and that’s what made it so sad, that’s what

made it so awful, because it was love that never could be
carried through to anything or even talked about plainly...

 

 

246
Brick: One man has one great good true thing in his life. One
great good thing which is true!--I had friendship with
Skipper.-- You are naming it dirty! (get 43-44)

Ironically, it is Brick who construes what Maggie is alluding to as
"dirty," not Maggie, for Brick is simultaneously paranoid because of the
fear of exposure and filled with a seething self-hatred. Therefore, as
Maggie boldly presses on with the taboo subject, Brick panics. He is no
longer able to distance himself by assuming a "slow vague smile";
instead he becomes angry and then violent. After ordering Maggie to stop
by saying: "Maggie, shut up about Skipper. I mean it. Maggie: you got to
shut up about Skipper" (get 42), an order that Maggie ignores, Brick
warns her: "You don’t think I’m serious, Maggie? You’re fooled by the
fact that I am saying this quiet? Look, Maggie. What you’re doing is a
dangerous thing to do. You’re--you-re--you’re--foolin’ with something
that-—nobody ought to fool with" (get 42), but Maggie lays it bare.
Brick loses his cool and control and acts out violently against Maggie
by swinging his crutch at her. Instead, the crutch “shatters the gemlike
lamp on the table” (get 45). He strikes at her again, but "misses" her.
He makes another attempt, as he "hops awkwardly and strikes at her," but
is unable to hit his target. His frustration and anger in being unable
to stop Maggie from talking about Skipper or hit her are epitomized by
his final action as he "hurls the crutch at her, across the bed she took
refuye behind, and pitches forward on the floor” as Maggie finishes her
Speech. But Maggie gets her shot at him by ridiculing his manliness. As
lflie child, who has entered the room, tries to help Brick get up on his

feet by giving him his crutch, Maggie remarks: "Yes, give your uncle his

Cr‘utch, he’s a cripple, honey..." (get 46).

 

 

 

247

The twin issues of Brick’s self-hatred, indirectly expressed
through his revoltingly homophobic vituperation of the relationship
between Jack Straw and Peter Ochello, and his intense fear of his loss
of status are best exhibited in the play when Big Daddy confronts him
with the issue of his friendship with Skipper. Big Daddy’s "tentative
comparison between Peter Ochello’s love for Jack Straw and Brick’s for
Skipper," not only infuriates Brick, but his "transformation is
volcanic,"” as he screams at Big Daddy: ”YOU THINK SO, T001... You
think me an’ Skipper did, did, did!--sodomy!--together?... You think we
did dirty things between us, Skipper an’... Me, is that what you think
of Skipper, is that--... You think that Skipper and me were a pair of
dirty old men?... ducking sissies? Queers?" (get 87-88) Although Brick
does not hit Big Daddy with his crutch, as he had tried to hit Maggie
when Maggie brought up the taboo subject, nevertheless, his violent and
angry denunciation of homosexuality leaves one wondering about Brick’s
real motive behind such a verbally abusive and violent outburst. His
cruel behavior against Big Daddy, and his unnecessary denunciation of

Peter and Jack, who at least were comfortable and honest in their love

for each other, despite their low status, despite what others thought of

them, lowers our estimation of Brick considerably because Brick’s
hypocrisy becomes apparent.

In Suddenly_Le§t_Summe[, Sebastian’s sense of despair and self-
loathing are best described through Williams’s own words. Williams
considered people like Sebastian as "autonomous," which he explained as
people who "are incapable of relating to other people. They do on the

surface, but there’s no inner commitment to another person, or other

 

‘l

 

248
people, or to society."50 In light of this statement, I believe,
Sebastian cultivated his "autonomous" nature, his private self, as
revealed through his predatory habits, and kept it separate from his
public self, which is represented by his stance as a poet and an
aesthete. And even this stance of Sebastian was somewhat hidden as, it
was "unknown outside of a small coterie of friends" (Suddenly 11).
Sebastian’s private self or his homosexuality, which he only carefully
acted upon during his trips abroad, in the companionship of his mother
and later his cousin, Catherine, was an issue which he could not address
publicly for the loss of his status. And the ambiguity, the duality of
Sebastian’s position or nature is heightened all the more because he is
a ghost character. All we see of him is through his mother, who is
reluctant to let the whole truth of Sebastian’s life come to light.

Yet, despite this separation of the public and private self in
Sebastian, which obviously makes clear to one the question of guarding
or being possessive of one’s status, the question we need to ponder is,
why does Sebastian’s attitude towards himself seem so compromising, so
weak? Why does Mrs. Venable try so hard to suppress the truth in regard
to the circumstances leading to Sebastian’s death? I believe Williams
wanted us to ponder the source of Sebastian’s behavior more seriously.
Williams could not have been unaware of the consequences of creating a
character such as Sebastian and presenting him to an audience at a time
when the "witch-hunts" were if full swing in America. By creating such a
character as Sebastian, Williams perhaps also wanted to make his
audience conscious of the social oppression that could spin the lives of

people like Sebastian’s askew. And since Williams himself categorized

 

‘ \

 

249
this play as a "moral fable," I feel I need to look at the source of
Sebastian’s problem more than at his actions.

Sebastian’s development as an "autonomous“ character is a result
of his mother’s over-protectiveness. It is a characteristic that
destroys one’s ability to make independent judgments. As Catherine tells
the doctor: "I think it started the day he was born in this house"
(Suddenly 72). Sebastian is also an artist/aesthete, and therefore, an
outsider, whose status is precarious, for he does not fit the cultural
category of the manly type. Sebastian’s autonomous behavior/nature thus
became a tool which shielded him from making an emotional commitment and
enabled him to have the sexual pleasure without binding him. Moreover
his dissatisfaction with his artistic career, on which he could not
fully concentrate, his inability to have a fulfilling love life, further
distracted him from forming goals. All this influence served to

"completely enslave his baser nature,"51

and heighten his urge into
becoming possessive of evanescent pleasures. His decadent self, that may
have originally been cultivated for his urge to defy conventions,
coupled with his inability to concentrate on his work and function in
society, pushed him into a hopelessly despairing situation in which he
finally drowned.

Sebastian Venable chose death to living the life of a conventional
lie. He chose to die at the hands of the ones he’d once used, partly out
of his own sense of disgust at himself and partly because he was unhappy
living a life which did not offer him the scope to dampen his predatory

habits. His sacrificing of himself to the ones he had exploited, to a

certain extent, dismantles the scourge of his predatory past. Yet, if we

 

250

ponder about the nature of his death, we are bound to realize that his
death occurred because he literally ran out of options of protecting
himself, or even trying to protect himself, thereby letting himself
become a victim of the urchins he had once sexually exploited in
disregard and defiance of social conventions.

After Oscar Wilde was released from Reading Prison in 1897, he
used the name Sebastian Melmoth as an alias in his exile on the European
continent. The origin of the name was the "mysterious, satanic hero" of

the novel Melneln_tne_flendeyen written by a grand uncle of Wilde’s, the

 

Reverend Charles Maturin.52 Since Sebastian Venable is a practitioner of
the Wildean aestheticism mixing religion and homoeroticism, it is
plausible that Williams intended an allusion to the late tragic Wilde
when he wrote Suddenly_Le§l_Summen.

Although Williams calls Sebastian "a little more decadent than the

others [Val, Shannon, Blanche, Alma...],"53 I feel that Sebastian

 

becomes a predator and is eventfully destroyed as a prey for reasons
that are primarily social. His predatory habits can be seen as an
outgrowth of his internalization of the repression born of societal
disregard and stigma of the homosexual’s nature and its object of
desire. If Sebastian’s predatory actions are an unhealthy offshoot of a
cumulative act of possessiveness and self-exploitation, it is primarily
because he has been denied any chance to live a healthy existence. This
absence of any avenue for the cultivation of a love relationship or
bonding, helped transform his desire into a form of predatory

utilitarianism that finally became so despairing and grasping an urge

251
that it swallowed him up by turning him into a victim of his own desires
and habits.

Although Brick and Sebastian are partly able to sustain their
self-protective stance and status as men, nevertheless, one cannot help
but feel, by the time one reaches the plays’ conclusions, that the price
they had to pay for being what society wanted them to be was excessive.
The anxiety and psychic dilemma at being unable to be sexually free as
men whose sexuality is contrary to social norms, imbued in them a
despair that became terminal and brutal. Brick’s and Sebastian’s
situations are comparable to the despair that Chekhov’s hero, Ivanov,
exhibits in the play lyenny. Ivanov, Chekhov’s hero, who is in his
thirties, has lost his interest in life. His tragedy becomes all the
more poignant because despite all his efforts to articulate his pain, he
cannot give us adequate reasons for his state of despair. He honestly
cannot find any. We hear from him his confession about his condition of

despair and depression throughout the play: "[M]y mind is a mess;

 

there’s a lethargy in my soul. I don’t understand other people, I don’t
understand myself"“(lyenuy 58). "... I’m exhausted in my body and soul.
My conscience bothers me day and night, but I can’t figure out exactly
what I have done wrong... 1 cannot stand my own contempt for myself. I’m
intelligent, I’m in the prime of my life, and I could die of shame when
I realize that I’m turning into some kind of a Hamlet, a completely
superfluous man. It fills me with shame!" (Ixangy 77) " And by the time
we come to Ivanov’s great monologue in Act III, that begins: I'I’m a
monster. And I am good for nothing... God, how I hate myself with a

passion. I hate the sound of my voice, my footsteps, my hands, these

252
clothes, the things I keep thinking..." (lyeney 89), we can almost feel
his despair and understand why Ivanov is unable to show compassion for
his dying wife. It is this same quality of despair, although born of
different reasons and circumstances, which made Brick unable to show
compassion for Big Daddy: "I’m sorry Big Daddy. My head don’t work any
more and it’s hard for me to understand how anybody could care if he
lived or died or was dying or cared about anything but whether or not
there was liquor left in the bottle and so I said what I said without
thinking. In some ways I’m no better than the others, in some ways worse
because I’m less alive" (get 94.) And it is this quality of despair, but
of a more self-despising variety, that made Sebastian unable to feel for
himself or show compassion and love for others, and his method of
operation turned utilitarian and passionless. We learn this from
Catherine, as she explains to the psychiatrist the nature of love and
hate that she saw it operation while she was with Sebastian: “Yes, we
all use each other and that’s what we think of as love, and not being
able to use each other is what’s--hate...." (Suddenly 63)

Thus, all these three men are driven mad by their own despair, in
their own unique ways, but the common ground among them is that there is
nothing left for them in life to which they can respond, by which they
can be moved, or in which they can find happiness. Yet, the important
difference between Ivanov’s despair and between that of Brick and
Sebastian is that while Ivanov’s despair is the result of a clinical
depression, which is heightened by his own sense of despair at having
failed in his life’s work, Brick’s and Sebastian’s despair are primarily

social in their origins. Their despair originates from their having no

 

 

253
option of living a free and open life as gay men. Brick’s and
Sebastian’s situation is best summed up in Williams’s own words about
the effect of social repression on the individual: "Society rapes the

individual."55

VIII Personal Responsibility and Truth
Brick Pollitt is perhaps the most problematic character to fit
into the category of the possessive individualist. I feel I need to
address this issue because of the stage directions that Williams slips
in midway in Act II. Just before Brick’s act of cruelty against Big
Daddy, Williams instructs:
Brick’s detachment is at last broken through. His heart is
accelerated; his forehead sweat-beaded; his breath becomes more
rapid and his voice hoarse. The thing they’re discussing, timidly
and painfully on the side of Big Daddy, violently on Brick’s side,
is the inadmissible thing that Skipper died to disavow between
them. The fact that if it existed it had to be disavowed to "keep
face" in the world they lived in, may be at the heart of the
"mendacity’ that Brick drinks to kill his disgust with. It may be
the root of his collapse. Or maybe it is only a single
manifestation of it, not even the most important (get 85).
From this clarification of Brick, it can be argued that Williams perhaps
intended to create a character that must not be conclusively understood,
but rather the impetus for unending questions in the audience’s minds.
Yet, if we look closely at the stage directions, we do recognize the
major concession that Williams makes about Brick. If Brick and Skipper
were about to realize that their lives were to be consummated in a total
union with each other, then they would lose "face in the world they
lived in." Therefore, Brick’s motivation for his possessiveness of

status is a valid issue in this play. And ironically enough, the way

 

 

254
Brick faces up to the sexual dimension of his love for Skipper is by
doing everything in his power to lose face anyway, to take all the loss
that would have come if he and Skipper had become lovers. Thus, Brick
becomes possessive about the truth and is willing to take all the social

consequences of truth, just as long as he can avoid the truth itself.

 

For Brick, the consequences of confronting the truth are enormous.
He would then have to accept the truth about the fact that his own
mendacity in not acknowledging the truth about his real feelings about
Skipper caused him to hang up the phone on Skipper which in turn caused l
his death. And this is the reason why he gets so upset at Big Daddy’s
accusation, which is in fact the truth: "You been passing the buck. This
disgust with mendacity is disgust with yourself. You!--dug the grave of
your friend and kicked him in it!--before you’d face the truth with
him!" (get 92) It is also for concealing the truth about himself that

when Brick "let slip" to Big Daddy that he had cancer, Brick did it in a

 

mendacious way, since he did it in a way that concealed his desire to
hurt Big Daddy and that allowed him to "pass the buck" from intent to
mistake. In doing this he created some dramatic irony, pointing to his
own mendacious bent, just as Big Daddy suggests. On another level, we
can reconstruct from Big Daddy’s statement that Brick’s anger at Maggie
at the end of the first act may have been triggered because she too,
like Big Daddy, upset the delicate balance by digging for the hidden
truth. If Brick’s attraction for Skipper was the truth, and Brick owned
up to his attraction to Skipper, then that also would interfere with his
performance with Margaret. Furthermore, Brick’s anger at Big Daddy and

Margaret could also be an outcome of his realization, but now all too

 

255
late, that he could have been truly happy with Skipper on Skipper’s own
terms. And now that he has no chance of realizing that happiness, it
makes him all the more regretful for his lack of courage to face the
truth. But whatever the source of Brick’s anger and mendacious behavior,
it all points to his problem with accepting the consequences of the
status of a homosexual, and these consequences Brick does not want to
face.

In Sebastian’s case, if his inability to accept his status led him
to rebel against social norms in an extreme way, then his action was
born of a conscious decision and for which he does bear some
responsibility. But to cover this up, Sebastian devised his own way of
justifying or rationalizing his selfish actions as a predator. When Mrs.
Venable explains to the psychiatrist that Sebastian, who on his
"solitary safari" (Suddenly 18) happened to come across the spectacle of
the flesh—eating birds preying upon the newly hatched turtles and
intuited that he had seen the ugly face of God, she is in fact arguing,
although unconsciously, that Sebastian’s subsequent actions in life were
a result of this discovery or insight into this ugly face of God. Thus,
Mrs. Venable’s intent here is to discredit the veracity of Catherine’s
stories by presenting Sebastian as the spiritual sage, the seer, whose
intuitive insight into the facts of life is a justifying factor of his
actions. Venable desires to establish the truth that Sebastian’s chance
discovery of the cruel face of God underwrote his actions, for which he
cannot be held responsible. But this argument is roundly defeated by the
objective view of the psychiatrist, who is in fact brought into the play

as the objective voice to preside over the two versions of the truth

 

 

256

about Sebastian’s life, one from Venable and the other from Catherine.
His interpretation of Venable’s argument is that Sebastian chose to see
what he wanted to see so that his predatory actions would appear less
inhuman to him. And although the psychiatrist accepts Mrs. Venable’s
account of the story, he also explains to her the incredulity of her
interpretation:

I can see how he might be, I think he would be disturbed if he

thought he’d seen God’s image, an equation of God, in that

spectacle you watched in the Encantadas: creatures of the air

hovering over and swooping down to devour creatures of the sea

that had had the bad luck to be hatched on the land and weren’t

able to scramble back into the sea fast enough to escape the

massacre you witnessed, yes, I can see how such a spectacle could
be equated with a good deal of-- experience, existence!--but not

with God! can you!" (Suddenly 19)

And to this objective evaluation of the circumstances, Mrs. Venable
cannot give an equivocating reply.

Thus, Williams does hold both Brick and Sebastian accountable for
their lack of moral courage to face the truth about themselves, as they
find ways to obfuscate the truth by either hitting back at others or
turning violently opposed or by justifying their possessiveness of
status by forcing their own interpretations about the process of life so
as to avoid making a commitment to live honestly. Both characters are
ultimately guilty of a form of violence: the destruction of truth
through lies. In these two plays, Williams draws our attention to the
fact that people find it very difficult to act on what they know. This
is because an individual’s action arising out of self—knowledge demands
a commitment that makes the individual’s position fraught with dangers.

And in both Brick’s and Sebastian’s cases, the danger is their loss of

 

257
status, sense of security, and integrity that they have managed to hold
onto by possessing the truth about themselves. In the end, because of
these characters’ fear of losing their status in case of the disclosure
of the truth about their gayness, their possessiveness of the truth
about themselves ultimately ends with Sebastian’s self-destruction, and
in Brick’s case the issue remains even more deeply linked with his
having to wrestle with a false, hypocritical, and unhappy existence.
Kenneth Tynan astutely remarked that: "the behavior of a human being at
the end of his tether is the common denominator of all drama. When a man
(or woman) arrives at self-knowledge through desperation, he (or she)
has become the raw material for a great play."“ In these two plays,
although both Sebastian and Brick arrive at the end of their tether,
they fail to move us because they are too concerned with maintaining the
status that society will not allow them to have. They fail to act in
proportion to what they know about themselves and their struggles end

with no resolution of their pain.

 

 

NOTES
1. Dean Hamer and Peter Copeland, lh e Science ef Desire: The Seeneh

fer the guy gene and the Bielegy ef Beheyi in: (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1994) 13. In this highly readable book, Dean Hamar explains and tackles
the controversial but promising scientific research into the human genetic
behavior, sexuality in particular. Equipped with a background in human
genetics, Hamer taps into the methods and results of the U.S. government’s
fifteen-year, $3 billion research of the Human Genome Project, whose goal
is to "precisely map all three billion base pairs, or bits of information,
that make up the human genome, which is the complete complement of the
genetic information in a single person," (36) and applies his own theories
and data to present his theory, in light of the growing interest and
search for the "gay gene," that our genes are in part involved in the
formation of human sexual orientation. Also see, Simon Le Vay, Queen
mmmwmflm (Cambridge. MA:
MIT Press, 1996). In this book, Le Vay presents a balanced view about the
social, political, and scientific implications that we must consider in
light of the scientific quest for finding a cause for homosexuality.

2. Gilbert Herdt, introduction, ' T ’ °
' ' ' , ed. Gilbert Herdt (New York:
Zone Books, 1994) 26.

3. Francis Mark Mondimore: WW
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins P, 1996). In this book Mondimore talks and
analyzes the important studies that contributed or raised people’s
consciousness about the issues of sexuality, in particular homosexuality.
Some names of important studies are as follows: Karl Ulrichs (1825-1895),
was the first person who treated the subject of homosexuality in a
positive light and talked of it as a normal form of sexuality in a series
of monographs that he published "at his own expense and under the
pseudonym ’Numa Numantius’" (29). Krafft Ebing vehemently countered
Ulrichs and his views in his "enormously influential book on ’sexual
deviations,’ Eeyehenethle_Sexuelie (1886), and "for all its shortcomings,
[it] would unfortunately become that basis of ’scientific’ thinking about
homosexuality for years to come" (39). Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld continued the
work of Ulrichs and “edited the first scientific periodical on
homosexuality, the Ieenheek_fer_Sexuel_lntenmedietee, which published the
research on homosexuality that Hirschfeld, whose personal motto was Per
scientiam ad justatiam--’Justice through knowledge,’ believed would
inevitably lead to changes in the law" (232). Havelock Ellis and John
Addington Symonds contributed to the work, Sexuel_lnye:§len (1897), which
is a "scholarly, measured, restrained survey of history and literature,
some current sociological observations, case studies, and theoretical
discussions" on the topic of homosexuality (47). Sigmund Freud’s ideas and
observations cover every aspect of human behavior on human behavior.
"Although Freud regarded much of his thinking and many of his ideas
preliminary and speculative, some of those who took up his methods did
not" (75). Freud himself did not consider homosexuality as a "mental

258

 

259

problem," and his "descriptions of disturbed homosexuals who came to him
for treatment were used by later theorists to bolster their case" against
homosexuality (75). In his letter to an American woman who sought his help
for her son, Freud’s response is evidence of his conception of
homosexuality:

I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most

impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in

your information about him. May I question you why, why do you avoid
it? Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage but it is nothing to be
ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an
illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function
produced by a certain arrest in development. Many highly respectable
individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals,
several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo,

Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) It is a great injustice to persecute

homosexuality as a crime and cruelty too. If you do not believe me,

read the books of Havelock Ellis (75- 76).

On this side of the Atlantic, Alfred Kinsey’ s study and data of male
sexual behavior in lheiuualjehaflouuhLflumaLMaJe (1948) exploded
some of the stereotypes that people had in their minds regarding
homosexual behavior, and although Kinsey felt that homosexuality was a
result of the cultural and socializing factors on the male, his claim of
"10 per cent" of males as being homosexual in the population raised
people’s consciousness even more about the topic (78-86). With the
appearance of Dr. Evelyn Hooker’ s influential and scientific study of
homosexuality, "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual, " in the
deunnel_ef_£nejeetiye_1eehniguee (1958), the subject of homosexuality and
homosexuals gained a new and respectable ally. Her lifelong study of
homosexuality earned her enormous respect among her colleagues in the
files of psychology, and Hooker’s work would be singular in its influence
on the "efforts of those who would eventually have homosexuality removed
from the list of mental disorders of the American Psychiatric Association"
(89-90).

Also see, Simon Le Vay, lhe_Seyuel_Bnein (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1993). In this book, Le Vay recounts his study of the essential
differences in the constructions of the brains in heterosexual and
homosexual males (the differences in the size of the hypothalamus) and
links a part of the homosexual behavior to the sexual signals emanating
from the "smaller hypothalamus" in the "gay brain" 120-121.

4 Robert Wright 1W
Eyerydey_L_fe (New York: Vintage Books, 1994) 236- 262. In these pages,
Wright arrives at the conclusion, from analyzing anthropological data of
human societies and the modern genetic inclinations, that humans in all
societies are inexorably driven to establish a system of hierarchy among
their communities, and that males who contribute most to the communities’
growth in terms of securing wealth, food, protection, and reproducing
heirs, enjoy a higher status or respect than the males of that community
who are somewhat reluctant or incapable of administering to the material
and reproductive needs of that society.

 

260

5. David F. Greenberg: lhe Cen§truetjen ef Honesexueljty (Chicago:
U of Chicago P, 1988) 25-26. Greenberg classified four major types of

homosexual relations that were socially sanctioned in the various cultures
across the world. The first, he called "transgenerational homosexuality,"
where the relationship existed between an older and a more assertive man
and a younger male partner (prevalent among the Coerunas Indians of Brazil
and in New Guinea and parts of island Melanesia); the second, described as
"transgenderal homosexuality," involved the assuming of’algender-role'that
was normally not associated with the man’s biological sex, in this case
the female role was assumed by one man in the relationship, (prevalent
among the American Indians of North America, and the partner assuming the
female role was described by the French word "berdache,"); the third,
described as an "egalitarian relationship," where both partners in the
relationship had an equal status or treated each other as social equals,
(prevalent among the East Bay community of the Melanesian islands); and
the last category is "a class-distinguished homosexuality," where the
dominant sexuality of the culture was heterosexual but where heterosexual
men often engaged in intercourse with sexual partners who came from a
lower class or caste of people, (prevalent in China and India) 25-93.

6. See Mondimore. He clarifies the two approaches sociologists have
taken in studying homosexuality: the "constructionist" view and the
"essentialist" view. In the "constructionist" view, "no particular type of
sexual behavior is any more natural or unnatural than any other. Thus,
many different forms of male-male, female-female, and male-female
sexuality have been observed over time and across cultures because each
culture constructs its form of sexuality. According to this view, sexual
roles and behaviors arise out of a culture’s religious, moral and ethical
beliefs, its legal traditions, politics, aesthetics, whatever scientific
or traditional views of biology and psychology it may have, even factors
like geography and climate. The constructionist view holds that sexual
roles vary from one civilization to another because there are no innately
predetermined scripts for human sexuality" 19. The "essentialists"
contrast with the "constructionist" view in that the essentialists
"propose that there is an innate quality in individuals, stable and
unchanging over their lifetime, which drives their erotic life
irresistibly toward the opposite or toward their own sex (and only rarely
toward both)-- whatever the cultural milieu. The essentialists argue that
cultural factors may shape the expression of this personal essence but
they do not construct it. ’Essentialists’ take the simultaneous existence
of same—sex and opposite-sex eroticism across time and cultures as
evidence for an essential human quality we have come to call sexual
orientation" 20.

7. Greenberg 93.
8. Greenberg 92.
9. Bruce L. Mills, "The Construction of Homosexuality in the

Christian Tradition and its Influence on the Meaning of AIDS: A
Psychological Study," diss., The University of Ottawa, Canada, 1990, 96.

 

261

10. Marvin M. Ellison, "Homosexuality and Protestantism,"

Hemesexueljty end World Reljgjens, ed. Arlene Swindler (Valley Forge,

Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1993) 153.

11. Ellison 153.

12. Lyle Leverich, Ten: The Unknown Tennessee fljlljems (New York:
Crown Publishers, Inc., 1995) 237, 151, 169.

13. Catherine M. Arnott, lennessee ujl liens en E1 [e (London: Methuen,
1985) get en a hut Ii 1n 30 91 was adapted from the short story, "Three
Players of a Summer Game," and produced in New York on March 24,1955
(40). Suddenly_Leet_Summer was produced in New York on January 7,1958
with companion piece Somethin9_Unsnoken as fiarden_nistrict (44)

14. Leverich 543.

15. Tennessee Williams, Menelre (New York: Doubleday & Co. Inc.,
1975) Williams recounts his sexual attraction for his college roommate
"Smitty," whose eager feelings Williams was unable to reciprocate as he
felt too afraid and self-conscious (29-33). A few pages later, Williams
recounts his early experiences with homosexual desire for a theater
student at the University of Iowa, during the time he was enrolled in E.
C. Mabie’s playwriting class. He recounts his realization of being
homosexual in the following lines: “That single summer at Iowa, I was
still lonely, and I took to wandering aimlessly about the streets at night
to escape the stifling heat of my room... I was lonely and frightened, I
didn’t know the next step. I was finally fully persuaded that I was
’queer,’ but had no idea of what to do about it" (42-49).

16 John M Clum. "Somethin9_§loudxs_§omething_£lear: Homophobic

discourse in Tennessee Williams," Sludlee_in_flnmeeexuelltyr_fleme_exuel
[henes jn ther rary Studies, Vol. VIII. (1992): 43- 61. In this article,
Clum summarizes some of the charges that critics have leveled both against
and in support of Williams’s dealings with homosexuality and homosexual
issues in his writings.

17. John I)’ ”Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, W
(New York. Harper & Row, 1988) 293. See
also Neil Miller, P to
the_Ereeent (New York: Vintage Books, 1995) 258- 75, for a detailed account
17.220f the McCarthy years and its effect on gay and lesbian life.

18. Leverich 410. Here are some instances of Williams’s discomfort
and anxiety'about his homosexuality from Leverich’s biography'of'Williams.
Williams’s recollection of his discovery of physical desire for other boys
when he was a boy himself is captured in this confused and sad statement:
"How on earth did I explain to myself, at that time the fascination of his
[Richard Miles] physical being without at the same time, confessing to
myself that I was a little monster of sensuality? Or was that before I
began to associate the sensual with the impure, an error that tortured me
during and after pubescence, or did I, and this seems most likely now, say

 

 

 

262

to myself, Yes. Tom you’re a monster!" 63. Years later, when Williams
talked of his "blue devils," he frequently referred to his problems
arising out of his fear of being a homosexual and the pain and sadness of
having to somehow function in a straight world: "If only I could realize
I am not 2 persons. I am only one. There is no sense in this division. An
enemy inside myself" 169. In his journal, Williams often referred to his
problems with homosexuality as a "sexual neurosis [that] continues to
occupy the center of my emotional stage... I must meet it and be the
master, it challenges the manhood in me" 455.

19. Dotson Rader, "The Art of Theater V: Tennessee Williams,“
Conxersa11_ns__11h_lennessee_W11111ms. ed. Albert J. Devlin (Jackson. MS:
UP of Mississippi, 1986) 344.

20. Donald Spoto, T '
Williams (New York: Ballantine Books, 1985) 355.

21. Clum 47.

22. Clum 44.

23. Clum 44.

24. Mills 96.
25. Ellison 153.

25 Emmanuel Reynaud: Holx_V1r1l1t11_Ihe.§oc1al_£onstruc112n_91
Meeeul1n11y, trans. R. Schwartz (London, UK. Pluto P, 1981) 53.

27. Michel Foucault, lhe hi§19ry of Sexuality, Volume 1, trans.
Robert Hurley (New York: Random House, Inc. , 1990) 3.

28. Foucault 3-4.
29. Foucault 4-5.
30. Foucault 4.
31. Foucault 5.

32. Steven Seidman, "Introduction," QueerflheeriLSQeJelggy, ed.
Steven Seidman (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc. , 1996) 4.

33. Wright 249.

34. Memeire 162.
35. Clum 46.

36. Spoto 153, 289.

 

 

 

263
37- Gore Vidal. introduction, Iennessee_W1111ame1_£ollec1ed_Stories

(New York: Ballantine Books, 1985) xxiv. In describing Williams’s interest
in the outsiders, Gore makes a revealing point about the social
categorization of the two classes of people, gay and straight, and feels
that Williams was influenced by this categorization. Making the assertion
that “there is no such thing as a homosexual or heterosexual person,” but
that there "are homo- or heterosexual acts," Gore explains:
Unhappily it has suited the designers of the moral life of the
American republic to pretend that there are indeed two teams, one
evil and sick and dangerous, and one good and normal and --that
word!-- straight. This is further complicated by our society’s
enduring hatred of women, a legacy from the Old Testament, enriched
in due course, by St. Paul. As a result, it is an article of faith
among simple folk that any man who performs a sexual act with
another man is behaving just like~a woman--the fallen Eve-—and so he
is doubly evil. Tennessee was of a time and place and class (lower
middle class WASP, southern airs-and-graces division) that believed
implicitly in this wacky division.

38. For a detailed discussion of the power of shame and guilt that
have contributed to repressing, silencing, and manipulating gay lives and
culture, see Gershen Kaufman and Lev Raphael,

Iransform1n9_fiax_and_Lesbian_L11es (New York Doubleday. 1996) 77-121
39. Kaufman and Raphael 10.

40. Vito Russo,

(New York: Harper and Row, 1981. Russo relates that the reason there was
no objection to homosexual issue on screen in Joseph L. Mankiewicz’ s
screen version of Tennessee Williams’s Suddenly_LeeL_Summer (1959) was
because "homosexuality" in this instance became the "evil incarnate, the
symbol of a sterile decadence that is punishable by death" 108. Russo also
relates that the "Breen Office, in a meeting with producer Sam Spiegel and
screenwriter Gore [Vidal], cut all direct references to homosexual
relations... and The Legion of Decency, after seeing that the necessary
cuts were made, gave the film a special classification: ’Since the film
illustrates the horrors of such a lifestyle, it can be considered moral in
theme even though it deals with sexual perversion’" 116. Finally, Russo
quotes the critic Henry Hart, who wrote after seeing the film, Suddenly
Le§1_Summer, "exposes clearly the foremost causes of homosexuality and...
points to one of the horrible fates that can overtake this particular kind
of pervert" 117-118.

41. Alan Sinfield, Qul1urel_Eel111ee;;flueer_fleed1ng (Philadelphia:
U of Pennsylvania P, 1994) 40.

42. Sinfield 40-41.

43. Tennessee Williams, Cet en a H91 [in Beef (New York: Signet
Classic, 1985) xiii. Subsequent references to this edition of the play,

abbreviated as ga1, are cited parenthetically in my text.

 

264

44 Tennessee Williams, Sudden111_Las1_Summer lennessee_Willnums;
Feur Eleye (New York: Signet Classic, 1976) 22. Subsequent references to
this edition of the play, abbreviated as Suddenly, are cited
parenthetically in my text.

45. Alan M. Klein, "Managing Deviance: Hustling, Homophobia, and the
Bodybuilding Subculture," Studies in heneeeyuelity; Seeielegy ef
fleme_exuel1ty, Vol. XIII. (1992): 159-175. In this article Klein discusses
the facade of masculinity the abounds in the male bodybuilding culture in
Southern California. This facade or the hypermasculinity of the
bodybuilding scene is adopted by homosexuals in order to present a facade
of masculinity in American cultural/social space. Klein also refers to the
athletic scene and the belief in the masculine status of athletes in
American culture that makes athletes’ "masculinity beyond doubt,“ just as
pro-football players are viewed as the "gatekeepers of masculinity." When
Brick was a football star, his distance from Maggie and his closeness with
Skipper were overlooked because he was endowed with a special "male"
status as an athlete/football player. But now that his career is over, his
aloofness and inability to forget about Skipper’s death makes him nervous
and anxious of others’ suspicious about his masculinity.

46. St Sebastian (A. D. 288 ?) was a Roman martyr who served under
emperors Diocletian and Maximian. Diocletian made him commander of the
First Cohort or the captain of the pretorian guards, but on learning that
Sebastian practiced the Christian faith, Diocletian ordered him to be shot
to death with arrows. While nothing specific is know about the episode of
Sebastian’s being shot with arrows, the fact that the same soldiers under
Sebastian’s command carried out this gruesome act has somehow led to
conjectures that behind the obvious tale of Sebastian’s martyrdom lies the
story behind the soldiers’ actions, which is allegedly attributed to have
surfaced because of their unrequited lust for Sebastian’ 5 body. For
details of the life and account of martyrdom of St. Sebastian see: Jacob
de Voragine. Ihe_Eo1den_Legend1_Bead1ngs_on_1he_5a1nts. Vol 1. trans
Williams Granger Ryan (Princeton. Princeton UP, 1993) 97-101. Butlerle
Liye§ ef the Seinte, Vol. 1. edited, revised, 81 supplemented, Herbert
Thurston S. J. and Donald Attwater (New York: P. K. Kennedy & Sons, 1956)
128-130.

On another level, the highly unusual form of Sebastian’s punishment
(being shot with arrows) was an extremely popular theme in the 15th
century artistic circles, "supposedly because it gave Renaissance artists
opportunities to portray a young and sometimes effeminate male nude in an
ecclesiastical context. " David Hugh Farmer, Qrferd_D1et19nery_ef_Sejnt§
(Oxford. Oxford UP, 1992) 429.

20th century French composer, Claude Debussy, composed the incidental
music to Gabriele d’ Annunzio’ 5 mystery play, Le Mertyre de Saint-
Seheet1en, as "the figure of the holy man- -athlete, part Christian saint,
part Adonis, reconciling Christian legend with pagan nature worship, had
a deep appeal to Debussy. " Charles Burr, liner notes, Debussy: lhe

LP, Columbia Masterworks, n. d.

 

 

265

47. Don Ross, "Williams on a Hot Tin Roof, " W111
lennessee hilliens, ed. Albert J. Devlin (Jackson, MS: UP of Mississippi,
1986) 52.

48. Cecil Brown, "Interview with Tennessee Williams," genyereetiune

yith lennessee Hilliens, ed. Albert J. Devlin (Jackson, MS: UP of
Mississippi, 1986) 274.

49. Brenda Murphy. WWW

" (Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge UP, 1992) 105. In

this chapter, Murphy compares the different versions of the play and shows
that Williams rewriting of the play according to Kazan’s directions not
only made the play’s issues less volatile, but that the characterization
also suffered, especially Maggie and Brick seemed less dramatic and
captivating as a result of the revisions in the Broadway version of the

play.

50. Charles Ruas, "Tennessee Williams," WW
y1ll11ne, ed. Albert J. Devlin (Jackson, MS: UP of Mississippi, (1986)
284.

51. Jeanne Fayard, "Meeting with Tennessee Williams," genyereetiene
' ' i , ed. Albert J. Devlin (Jackson, MS: UP of
Mississippi, 1986) 210.

52. Richard Ellman, Qeeer_fl1lde (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988)
528, 538, 6.

53. Fayard 210

54. Anton Chekhov, lyeney: Ihe_Eley§_ef_Anten_§hekhey, trans. Paul
Schmidt (New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 1997). Parenthetical page
citations are to this edition of the play.

55. David Frost, “Will God Talk back to a Playwright? Tennessee
Williams," WW. ed Albert J Devlin
(Jackson, MS: UP of Mississippi, 1986) 146.

56. Kenneth Tynan,
Beleted_flr1t1ng§ (New York. Atheneum, 1961) 258.

 

'\

 

CONCLUSION

[HE NISHT OE [HE iGUAhA AND BEYOND POSSESSION
With the composition of The Night of the Iguana, Williams

triumphantly capped the first phase of his grand vision of American
life. Williams, who in his plays often unmasks the violence among
people, born of the depravity of the self-aggrandizement and a fever to
win unabashedly, takes an altogether different route in this play.
Williams summarized his view of American life from which he would
temporarily avert his attention by saying: "Somehow we Americans have
never stopped fighting... The very pressure we live under, the terrific
competitive urge of our society brings out the violence in the
individual." But he continued: "We need to be taught how to love.
Already we know only too well how to hate.”1 Williams dramatized this
positive idea in The Night at the Iguana. In this play, the mature
Williams overwhelms us "with the sense of healing and love" and draws us
into the "poetry and emotional depth" of "how one gets through the
night."2

[he Night of the Iguana deals with Williams’s major preoccupation
both as an artist and as a human being, the need for human contact.
Williams explains it like this: "[T]he only truly satisfying moments in
life are those in which you are in contact, and I don’t mean just
physical contact, I mean in deep, a deeper contact than physical, with
some other human being... it’s the only comfort we have, of a lasting

kind."’jlhe_fl1ght_ef_the_lguana portrays this aim admirably. I feel,

with this play and the creation of "a new figure in the American

266

 

 

‘3

 

267
Williams was able to show the superiority or "brilliance" of the
democratic gestures of reaching out to the other person over the
"barbarity" or meanness of possessive and self-aggrandizing actions. In
all of the plays that I have considered in this study, most of

Williams’s characters are driven to possess in order to hold on to life

 

so that they can feel secure both in themselves and around others. All
of the characters concentrate on their “personal situation[s]"5 and work

towards the enhancement of their own situations to the virtual exclusion

 

of others’ needs and feelings. Williams had effectively summed up this
acquisitive, self-enhancing, self-perpetuating trait of possession in
Big Daddy’s speech: “[T]he human animal is a beast that dies and if he
got money he buys and buys and buys and I think the reason he buys
everything he can buy is that in the back of his mind he has the crazy
hope that one of his purchases will be life everlasting!"‘ In Ihe_flight
ef_the_lguana, Williams argues against this attitude of owning, buying,

 

and possessing. Instead, he shows the superiority of the human being who

is only willing to understand and connect with others. Williams’s own

views about his aims in Ihe_fl1ght_n£_the_lguana are recorded in the

following interview:

Interviewer: Some time ago you said that you were hoping to
someday write one play that would encompass everything that
you’ve been trying to say. Is Iguana that play?

Willials: I was trying to work on it in Iguana, yes, at least a
kind of summation of what I’ve derived finally from these
mixed feelings and attitudes.

Interviewer: You might say, then, that from your point of view
Iguana is the most important of your plays.

Williams: For my own personal selfish satisfaction at least. I
hope it will reach other people too, but, God knows, not
everybody has the same life, or problems that I have and
maybeIit won’t communicate to them. I can only hope that it
does.

268
Williams was known for the use of symbols in his plays. He was
often asked about his use of symbols, but he avoided giving any
definitive answers.a He could not disguise his love for symbols even
when recreating himself through Tom in The filaae menagerie, who

confesses: "I have a poet’s weakness for symbols, [and] I am using this

 

character also as a symbol..."’ 1 will make use of Williams’s use of 4
symbols in Ihe_fl1ght_ef_the_lguana to draw a distinction between
possessive and democratic individualism. In this play, the iguana, which
represents "a monster," ”is literally at the end of its tether under the
veranda of Maxine’s Costa Verde Hotel, trying ’to go on past the end of
its goddam rope,’" says Shannon.1° But the iguana’s condition is also
Shannon’s, as he too, like the iguana,--"Like you! Like me!”--has turned
into a "monster" trying to keep up with the rat-race and find a secure
place in the world. From this analogy it would not be unwise to think
that the play’s setting as the hotel is more than what it seems.
Considered closely, the hotel is the representation of the world we live
in, populated by the desperate masses who want to win and hold on to

material anchors. In Ihe_fl1ght_ef_the_lguana’s representational world,

people like Shannon, Hannah, Maxine, Nonno and others have gathered to

 

spend their time. These people are of two kinds, the ones like Shannon
and Hannah, who are like the iguana, at the end of their tethers, and
the people like Maxine and the bus load of women, who are caught up in
their own situations, oblivious of others’ needs and feelings. But only
Hannah stands out as unique because she is not the possessive or

despairing individual the others have managed to become. Hannah

269
functions in this world as their liberator because she possesses the
strength to reach out, to connect, and to heal.
In an interview with Studs Terkel during the play’s premiere in
Chicago, Williams himself endorsed Hannah and was critical of the

critics who missed Hannah’s centrality and importance in the play.

 

TW: What astonished me about some of the reviews... is that they
didn’t see what I was trying to find through the creation of
Hannah. I don’t see how a woman as unique and as lovely as Hannah
Jelkes could be ignored...

ST: It’s interesting that it’s Hannah you see--offhand, we think
of the defrocked clergyman, Shannon, as the focal figure, yet, as
you say, he’s had a prototype in a way in Blanche DuBois at the
end of her tether. But the new figure in your world, then, is
Hannah, is it not?

TW: She’s the new one, yes. And I say, she’s still in the process
of creation. The first production of a play isn’t for me the final
one... I would go on working on this play until I had created
Hannah completely.ll

 

In Hannah, Williams not only created an individual who exemplifies the
ideal individual the American democratic background can produce, but he
also captured through Hannah’s journey and conduct a unique quality of
the American individual, who despite being a product of "a very

particular American loneliness-—that of the self adrift in its pursuit

 

of the destiny of ’me,’ and [who is now] thrown back onto the solitude
of its own restless heart,"12 has not let her personal experience or
restlessness impair her ability to commune and connect with others. This
is her greatness and newness. This is what Shannon sees in her and lets
her know: "I’m going to tell you something about yourself. You are a
lady, a real one, and a great one."” Whereas Stanley denies Blanche her
humanity in order to destroy her and re-establish his hold on his
territory and his progress, Hannah’s humanity enables her to reach out

to others and make them more human and giving: "1 know people torture

270
each other many times like devils, but sometimes they do see and know
each other, you know, and then, if they’re decent, they do want to help
each other all that they can" (Iguana 81).

In the play’s symbolic representation of the world, Hannah’s
presence accentuates all that is trivial and transitory in the American
culture--people going about their ways justifying and individuating
themselves by extending, appropriating, and colonizing as much as
possible. To Maxine’s possessiveness of Shannon as revealed in her
remark to Hannah: "1 want you to lay off him, honey. You’re not for
Shannon and Shannon isn’t for you," Hannah’s answer embodies a truthful
and realistic assessment of own her situation and condition in life, a
condition that she does not desire to revamp with evanescent
possessions. And if Hannah’s reassurance to Maxine’s paranoia does not
reassure Maxine completely: "Mrs. Faulk, I’m a New England spinster who
is pushing forty” (lguana 78), that is because Hannah does not mean to
reassure her, but to tell the truth of where she herself stands in the
competitive environment. It is a fact that Maxine will of course never
give credit to Hannah for objectifying. Yet Hannah does reveal her non-
possessive philosophy to the person who matters to her at this stage,
Shannon, who is the person that she is trying to help survive his crisis
of despair:

Hannah:... 00 you know what I mean by a home? I don’t mean a
regular home. I mean I don’t mean what other people mean
when they speak of a home, because I don’t regard a home as
a... well, as a place, a building... a house... of wood,
bricks, stone. I think of a home as being a thing that two
people have between them in which each can... well, nest--

rest--live in, emotionally speaking. Does that make sense to
you, Mr Shannon?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

271
Shannon: ... When a bird builds a nest, it builds it with an
eye for the... relative permanence of the location, and also
for purposes of mating and propagating its species.

Hannah: 1 still say I’m not a bird, Mr Shannon, I’m a human

being and when a member of that fantastic species builds a
nest in the heart of another, the question of permanence
isn’t the first or even the last thing that’s considered...
necessarily?... always? Nonno and I have been continually
reminded of the impermanence of things lately... (Iguana
110-11)

Hannah’s individuality is not in receiving but in giving, not in
repressing but freeing, not in being false but in being truthful. This
she does by conducting herself not from a sense of possessiveness but
from her faith in the "primacy of individual conviction." She is an
ethical individual, who knows "that we each have a responsibility for
making as much of a success of our lives as we can, and that
responsibility is personal, in the sense that we must each make up our
own mind, as a matter of felt personal conviction, about what a

1114

successful life for us would be. To her, individual success means
being able to liberate people from their deepest dilemmas. When she
confides in Shannon: "I respect a person that has had to fight and howl
for his decency and his... bit of goodness, much more than I respect the
lucky ones that just had theirs handed out to them at birth..."(lguana
102), she in fact is telling us the essential factor that motivates her
in life.

Because Hannah is an ethical individual, she is able to prevent
the willing execution of truth. She does not profess what she believes
to be false, and she speaks out for what she believes to be true. She is
a moral beacon in a fallen world because her truthfulness, humanity,

decency, kindness, and intelligence could not be dissolved by the acids

of possessiveness. The particular way in which she conducts herself in

 

272
particular circumstances argues against the zealously possessive,
vindictive, and selfish natures that manifest themselves in the course
of the interaction of the other characters in the gamut of Williams’s
world, who are in conflict with themselves and the people and the

circumstances around them. Hannah’s principles help to extricate Shannon

 

from his dilemma of being torn between the spiritual and the carnal, a ,
pull that he has been unable to resolve by himself, as he has not found

the patience or self-confidence to seek anything to believe in. Hannah’s

relating to Shannon the truth of her own problems and how she overcame

them by exercising endurance, partly shows him the way to salvation. But

Hannah’s unconditional acceptance of the human condition, her non—

judgmental attitude and a willingness to connect, whether it be with an

Australian salesman or with Shannon, the defrocked priest, is what

finally helps free Shannon of his dilemma. Her emphasis on the communion

of the soul, the antidote to possessiveness, is what makes Shannon

whole. And by making Shannon realize the truth of his situation, that

 

his role in the church is his way of avoiding his attraction for the
life that he really wants, Hannah is able to free Shannon of his spook.
This is exemplified by Shannon’s freeing of the iguana, the monster,
which represented the position that Shannon found himself in at the
play’s beginning, and from this position he is now partially liberated
through Hannah’s grace.

In Hannah’s communion with Shannon, Williams was able to give us a
completed version of the unfinished communions that he had attempted in

his earlier works. In Hannah’s communion with Shannon one is reminded of

Laura’s communion with Jim in Ihe_§la§§_henager1e, where Jim’s kiss

273
liberates Laura, and Laura reciprocates his kindness by presenting him
with her precious unicorn as a keepsake. Again, one is reminded of
Blanche’s momentary relief at having found a soul-mate in Mitch when she
expresses, "Sometimes there is a God so quickly!" But we all know how

cruelly this communion is aborted by Stanley’s exposure of Blanche. One

 

is reminded of the communion that never takes place between Big Daddy

\

and Brick because of Brick’s resistance in facing the truth. And one is
also taken back to the psychiatrist’s acceptance of Catherine’s story at
the end of Suddenly_La§t_Sumner, where he acts out of his understanding
of the situation and Catherine’s condition and "accepts the girl’s
[Catherine’s] story."15 Although the communion in these earlier plays is
not portrayed as a crucial event, its importance is heightened in
retrospect. We now realize that these scenes were in fact a preparation
for Williams’s portrayal of the crucial communion between Hannah and
Shannon in Ihe_u19ht_ef_the_lguana.

Williams pays tribute to Hannah through her grandfather’s poem in

the play. In the poem Nonno completes, he is talking about the process

 

of life, the hope that is born with every new day, the excitement and
energy of youth, the gradual fading, and the eventuality of death and
decay and a reiteration of new life. Yet Nonno, in the last section of
the poem, ends with a prayer which applies both to himself as well as to
Hannah, who will have to continue her journey alone, as Nonno dies in
her arms. Nonno’s prayer is for courage, for endurance: "O Courage,
could you not as well/ Select a second place to dwell,/ Not only in that
golden tree/ But in the frightened heart of me?” (lguana 124) The play

too ends with Hannah’s prayer for courage and endurance. At this

274
juncture of Hannah’s journey, one is inevitably reminded of Whitman’s
democratic individualism that I have talked about in chapter one. It
enabled Whitman to "grow more in mutual recognition, in democratic
acceptance," transcend the "adventures of human connectedness" and

cultivate an attitude of ”democratic solitude" by acknowledging and

 

realizing the "sheer fact of existence" which inspires in one "a

-1

philosophical self-respect."16 Both Emerson and Whitman, in their effort
to "encompass everything..., reduce[d] and eliminate[d] aspects of
reality in order to make it loveable." Perhaps, it was these artists’
objective to help "discipline [our] sensitivity to suffering by the
sense of beauty, to extend our sense of beauty, to make us see, as
democratic individuals, more beauty in the human and natural actuality

than eyes not trained by democratic life are able to see." Perhaps they

 

dwelt on the heroism and optimism of the democratic possibilities "more
thoroughly... because of their democratic commitment."" But I feel
Williams was more truthful about life in a democracy. Despite the
feelings of connectedness and "philosophical self-respect“ that imbue a
democratic individual, the human predicament of being solitary and
forlorn cannot be overcome easily. In a way Hannah is beyond the
possessiveness which drives people to become pests to each other.
Williams’s understanding of life helped him articulate through Hannah’s
journey the inevitability of suffering.

In Hannah’s last lines in the play, "Oh, God, can’t we stop now?
Finally? Please let us. It’s so quiet here, now" (lguana 127), we find
echoes of Shaw’s St. Joan. Or during Hannah’s communion scene with

Shannon we are taken back to the moving reconciliation scene between

275
Lear and Cordelia. Or in Hannah’s endurance we are reminded of the
endurance of Wordsworth’s "The Leech Gatherers." Shakespeare gives both
Lear and Cordelia relief, but Williams does not, even though he said in
an interview that Hannah "is alone, but she says that she is prepared to
face it."" I personally feel that although Hannah is the soaring
secular spirit who has come to free Shannon, she is nevertheless firmly
planted on the ground and has to pay a huge price for being the
individual that she is. Hannah’s journey ends with a quest that is never
really completed because she arrives at the frontier between what is and
is to be, a journey that has grown out of the suffering and endurance so
typical of the experience of all true individuals.
Perhaps it is best if we conclude this study by letting Williams
have the last word about his philosophy of life and an artist’s work:
Then what is good? The obsessive interest in human affairs, plus a
certain amount of compassion and moral conviction, that first made
the experience of living something that might be translated into
pigment or music or bodily movement or poetry or prose or anything
that’s dynamic and expressive-~that’s what’s good for you if
you’re at all serious in your aims. William Saroyan wrote a great
play on this theme, that purity of heart is the one success worth

having. "In the time of your life--live!" That time is short and
it doesn’t return again.”

 

‘1

 

NOTES
1. John Lahr, "Fugitive Mind," lhe_hey_1erher, July 18, 1994: 68.

2. Peter Marks, "A Director Who Sees Himself in Many Characters," hey
Yer rt limes 17 Mar. 1996: H8. In this article, Marks write glowingly of
director Robert Falls' 5 restaging of Tennessee Williams’ 5
19U§_a at the Roundabout Theater Company. Writing about Falls’ s directing
Marks says: "Mr Falls... seems not just to interpret Williams’s work but
to imbibe it. He says he has taken on lhe_hjght_ef_the_lguana because he
thinks it is good theater and because reading it three years ago helped
him through the break up of an eight-year relationship." Marks quotes
Falls as saying: "The play became almost a bible on the healing process
for me. It’s about how one gets through the night."

3 Studs Terkel, "Studs Terkel Talks with Tennessee Williams,"

Qunversati1ens uith lennessee hi lliana, ed. Albert J. Devlin (Jackson, MS:
UP of Mississippi, 1986) 87.

4. Terkel 82.
5. Terkel 81.

6. Tennessee Williams, Cat en a hutT in Beef, (New York: A Signet
Book, 1985) 67.

7. Lewis Funke and John E. Booth, "Williams on Williams,"

Conversationsflhjennesseemmgms ed AlbertJ Devlin (Jackson MS:
UP of Mississippi, 1986) 100.

8. Lewis Funke and John E. Booth 100. When Williams was asked about
the significance of the iguana in his play, he replied: “The Iguana? If I
start talking about the significance of it, people will say I’m talking in
symbols again and people don’t like the symbolic quality of my work. I
don’t think. They think I over depend on symbols."

9. Tennessee Williams, IhefilaeLMenagerie (New York: A Signet Book,
1987) 30.

10. Lahr 69.

11. Terkel 83-4.

12. John Lahr, "Sinatra’s Song," lhe_fley_lerker 3 Nov. 1997: 89.
John Lahr gives us an insightful portrait of Sinatra’s career and
Americanness. I felt his statement in describing the American individual
in this article is precise and applicable to my view of Hannah Jelkes.

13. Tennessee Williams, Ihe_h1ght_ef_lhe_lguana (New York: A Signet

Classic, 1976) 80. Subsequent page references to this edition, abbreviated
as lguana, are cited parenthetically in my text.

276

1‘

 

 

277

14. Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Read1ngLQf_Ihe_Aner1ean
Constitutien (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1996) 250.

 

15. Charles Ruas, "Tennessee Williams," W
Williams, ed. Albert J. Devlin (Jackson, MS: UP of Mississippi, 1986) 287.

16. George Kateb, lhe Inner Qeean:1ndiyiduali§m and Demeratie
Qulture (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1992) 240- 51, 265-66.

17. Kateb 169.

18. Jeanne Fayard, "Meeting with Tennessee Williams," genyereatiene
w't n e s ' ' , ed. Albert J. Devlin (Jackson, MS: UP of
Mississippi, 1986) 210.

19. Tennessee Williams, WW, eds, Christine
R. Day and Bob Woods, (New York: A New Directions Book, 1978) 22.

if

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

\

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Anthony S. Vit l ie: R 1
Tuscaloosa: The U of Alabama P, 1989.

Abdulla, Adnan K. Cathareis 1n Literature. Bloomington: Indiana UP,
1985.

Adler, Thomas P. Ameriean Drama, 1919—1259; A Qritieal hietery. New

York: Twayne Publishers, 1994.

--—. Amerjean_hrama. "The (Un)reliability of the Narrator in Ihe_§la§§
Ibe_Iennessee_Williams_Be11ew3

Wandfleuxfime"
(1981): 6- 9.

Almond. Gabriel A. lhe.Amer1can_Eeonle_and_Eoreign_£olicx. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1950.

Allthusser. Louis Len1n_and_Eh1losonhx1_1nd_cher_Essaxs. Trans. Ben
Brewster. New York: Monthly Review P, 1971.

Anderson. John N Ibe_Ind111dual.And_Ihe_New_World. State College.
Pennsylvania: Bald Eagle Press, 1955.

Arieli, Yehoshua. ' '
Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1964.

Arnott, Catherine M. Ienneeeee_fl1ll1ame_en_£1le. London and New York:
Methuen, 1985.

Barber, Benjamin R. i ’
Age. Berkeley: U of California, 1984.

Barthes, Roland. Reland_Barthe§. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill
and Wang, 1977.

Beaurline, Lester A. "Ihe_§lae§_henager1e: From Story to Play."

I l - e -_ 3 u ‘-l "
' ' R. B. Parker. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall. Inc., 1983.

Bellah. Robert N. et al Bab1ts_of_1he_fleart1_1ndixidua111m_and
9emm1tment_1n_Amer1ean_L1fe1 New York: Harper and Row, Publishers,
1987.

Bentley, Eric. '
Deeadee. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP, 1987.

278

279

Berry. Wendell. Sex1_Econom11_E1eedom1_and_Commun1111_E19ht_£ssaxs. New
York & San Francisco: Pantheon Books, 1993.

Bersani, Leo. Ihe_gulture_ef_Bedemnt1en. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP,
1990.

--. Ihe_Ereud1an_Bodx1_Bsxchoanalxsis_and_Art. New York: Columbia UP.
1986.

---. - or . .-.:11 I- ’ - '1 ' - . _ -. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company. 1976.

Bigsby. C N E A_Cr111ca1_In1rodu11ion_to_1we111eth;centurx
Amer1ean_Drama1_lfluQ_lfllQ. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982.

---. A ' ' a 1 11- '11 1 .‘1 " 1- ‘1 . An: ° :1 l tflu.
' ' ' . Vol. 2.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.

---. A -. 1 11. 11 1 1 ‘ 1- ‘ An: ~1l 111.2'3' 111.

Breadyay. Vol. 3. Cambridge. Cambridge UP, 1985.

--. Modern_American_Drama1.191§;1929. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 1992.

Billington, Ray Allen, ed.
Amer1ean_fl1§tery? New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963

Birch. David. Ine_Lan9ua9e_of_Drama1_Cr111111.1heorx.and.£ractice. New
York: St. Martin’s P, 1991

Blackburn, Robin. °
the_hedern_1122;l§QQ. London: Verso, 1997.

Bloom. Harold. ed. Ienne11ee_W1111am111_lhe_Glass_Menagerie. New York:
Chelsea House Publishers, 1988.

---. Ienneeeee_fl1ll1am§. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987.

---. Introduction.

Modern_CL111cal_Interpretations1_W1111am
Shakespeare_§_K1ng_Lear. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987.

Bock, Hedwig, "Tennessee Williams: Southern Playwright. " Eeeay§_en
.Ed. Hedwig Bock and Albert Wertheim.
Munchen: Max Hueber Verlag, 1981.

Bradbrook, M. C.
London: Chatto & Windus, 1965.

Brodsky, Joseph. "On Grief and Reason." Ihe_fley_19rker 26 September
(1994): 70.

280

Broussard, Louis.

9’ Neil! to lgnnesgee Wi ||i1ams Norman: Oklahoma UP, 1962.

Brustein, Robert. T t:
Drama. Boston: Little, Brown And Co. 1964.

Brown, Mildred L. , and Chloe lAnn Rounsley. I:ug_§g11g§1_UndgL§Land1ng

1"" C _ ‘ I. |. I. Q I.

Profe§§1on11§. San Francisco: JosseyéBass Publishers, 1996.

Bryson, Bill.
' 1 . New York: William Morrow and
Company, Inc., 1994.

’ ‘ ' . Vol 1. Ed. Rev. and Suppl. Herbert
Thurston S.J. and Donald Attwater. New York: P. K. Kennedy & Sons,
1956.

Calverton. Y. F. Ihe_L1bera11on_Qf_American_LitenaLure. New York:

Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932.

Carens, Joseph H, ed. ' ' - -
. Albany: SUNY P, 1993.

Cawelti. John G AnQ11les.o£.1he.§el£.flade.flan Chicagoz U of
Chicago P, 1965.

Chauncy, George: '
. New York: Basic Books, 1994.

Chekhov, Anton. Ing_£111;_gf_AnLgn_Chgkhgy. Trans. and Ed. Paul
Schmidt. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997.

Ciment, Michel. Kazan_gn_&azgn. New York: The Viking P, 1974.

Clum, John N A111ng_Gax1_Male_flomo1exu11111_1n_uedern_flrama. New
York. Columbia UP, 1992.

---. 5ome1h1ng_Cloudx1_§om11h1ng_CJear: Homophobic Discourse in
Tennessee Williams. " ' ' ° .

1n1L11erarx_§1udies Vol 8 (1992): 43-61.

Commander. Henry Steele Ihe_American_M1nd1_An_1n11111111119n_of
Amer11an_Ihou9h1_and_Characler_§1nce_1he_lflafl_1 New Haven: Yale
UP, 1950.

Connolly, William E.
Qf_291111531_£1[adg5. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1991.

Crevecoeur, J. Hector St, John.
Gloucester, Mass: Doubleday & Co., 1968.

 

 

281

Daly, Martin., and Margo Wilson. Hgm1g1dg. New York: Aldine De Gruyter,
I988.

Degler, Carl N. "The Sociologist as Historian. Riesman’ s Ing_Lgngly
med"A1nerEan_QuaLtele 15 (1963): 483- 97

Delbanco, Andrew. e t
of Eyjl. New York. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1995.

D’ Emilio, John. , and Freedman.
1n_AmgL1g§. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.

Derounian, Katherine Zabelle. "’The Kingdom of Earth’ and

15111911211131
W Tennessee NilliamS’ Parody "
Wm 4 (1983):152-

De Tocqueville, Alexis. ngggnagy_1n_Amgnigg. Trans. George Lawrence.
Ed. J. P. Mayer. New York: Doubleday, 1969.

---. Jgurngy_19_Amgn1gg. Trans. George Lawrence. Ed. J. P. Mayer.
New York: Anchor Books, 1969.

---. "Some Observations on the Drama amongst Democratic Nations." lhe
. Ed. Eric Bentley. New York: Penguin

Books Ltd., 1976.
De Voragine, Jacob. WEE Vol. 1

Trans. William Granger Ryan. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1993.

Dukore, Bernard F. ' ' ’ °
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974.

Dumm, Thomas L. un11gd_§1§1g§. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1994.

Dworkin, Ronald. ’
an1111111gn. Cambridge,  MA Harvard UP, 1996.

Elkins, Stanley M.
1n1111e§1n11_L1£g. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1959.

Ellison, Marvin M. "Homosexuality and Protestantism. 'flgmg;gxu1111y_§nd
' Ed. Arlene Swindler. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity P
International, 1993.
Ellman, Richard. Q§Q§[_flildg. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988.

Emerson Ralph Waldo WWW. Ed.
Brooks Atkinson. New York: Modern Library, 1950.

Esslin, Martin. An_Ang1gmy_gf_flrgma. New York: Hill and Wang, 1976.

 

 

282

F' - 1’ 1 - .' i n . 1 '
121B_1BBZ, with a commentary by Maria St. Just. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1990.

Farmer, David Hugh. Qxfgrd_01111gnggy_gf_511n1§. Oxford: Oxford UP,
1992.

Farmer, John S. and W. E. Henley, comp. and eds. Blang_1nd_111
o : t r1 1

1111. ._ ' ‘ - no 1- 1 1 ' 1 1111 - 1.1

ugnd_gg_1gang. Vol. 4. Printed for Subscribers only, 1896.296.

 

'\

Fayard, Jeanne. ’Meeting with Tennessee Williams. "

Ignnggggg_fl11111m§. Ed. Albert J. Devlin. Jackson, MS: UP of
Mississippi, 1986.

Fisher, David Hackett. firgw1ng_91d_1n_Amgr1§§. New York: Oxford UP,
1978.

Fleche, Anne.

MW
and the 9,5, Dramang Illusjgn n, Tuscaloosa: U of Alabama P, 1997.

Foucault, Michel. ' '
Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York. Pantheon Books, 1977.

---. lhe fljsigry of Sexuality, Vol I; An Introdunggn. New York:
Vintage Books, 1990.

W Trans D F Bouchard and 8.
Simon. Ithaca: NY. Cornell UP, 1977.

Fromm, Erich. Mgn_fgr_fl1m1g1f. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston, 1947.

Frost, David. "Will God Talk Back to .a Playwright? Tennessee Williams. “
.Ed. Albert J. Devlin.
Jackson: U of Mississippi P, 1986.

Funke, Lewis. , and John E. Booth. "Williams on Williams. Bgnyer§111gn§
.Ed. Albert J. Devlin. Jackson, MS. UP of
Mississippi, 1986.

Fukuyama. Francis. MW. New York:
The Free Press, 1992.

Fussell. Edwin. WWW
Princeton: Princeton UP, 1965.

Garber, Marjorie. ' -
New York: Routledge, 1992.

283

Gelpi, Donald L.

W
B1119g11g_ln_Amg_1g§_. Notre Dame, Indiana: U of Notre Dame P,
1989.

Gilb, Corrine Lathrop. "Some Varieties of Metaphor in American Images of
Selfhood." Bg11gn1_gf_§glfnggd. Ed. Vytautas Kavolis. London and
Toronto: Associated UP, 1984.

Greenberg, David F . T_h_e_C_ensl:u:Ilen_ef_flo)eeeauEI! Chicagm U of
Chicago P, 1988.

Greenbie, Sidney.
Caldwell, Idaho. Caxton Printers Ltd, 1939.

Gunn, Drewey Wayne. WWI)! Netuchen.
N. J., and London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1980.

Hamar. Dean , and Peter Copeland WW
Wale: New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1994.

Hayman, Ronald.
New Haven: Yale UP. 1993.

Hazard, Luck Lockwood. Ihe_ELQn11gr;1n_Amerjg§n_L11grglung. New York:
Thomas W. Crowell, 1927.

Herdt, Gilbert, ed. Introduction. '
Qimemblsmmmmfllaer! New York: Zone Books. 1994

Hickey, Brian A. "Bowden’ 5 Family Projection Process and Tennessee
Nilliams’s Wm" WM
Bare 22 (1984): 26-32.

Hirsch, Foster. ”Sexual Imagery in Tennessee Williams’ 5

" Wm 2 (1971):

-..- I .

1 1 1' ; . '
Washington: Kennikat P, 1979.

. ‘11- -- .' '.n . Port

Holditch, Kenneth W. "The Broken World: Romanticism, Realism, Naturalism

inmmmmlne"
' . Ed. Philip
C. Colin. Wesport: Greenwood P, 1993.

Homan Sidney Wm

fi1111gm1.Lewisburngucknell UP, 1989.

Howe, Irving.
Emgn1gn. Boston: Harvard UP,  1986

284

Inkeles. Alex NEenalIhaLasIenaAiagboanLflensEn New
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1997.

Jackson, Esther Merle. II):_B_:ek::_Ne:]_d_:l_Ie:::s_s:e_W_i_l_l_i:ms.
Madison: The U of Wisconsin P, 1966.

James, C. L. R. Amar1;gg_§11111111191. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Publishers, 1993.

Kallen. Horace M. I:.dalduali:n):_A:_A::rlea:_W_a!_ef_LlI: New York:
Liveright Inc., 1933.

Kann. Mark E Qn_Ib:_Na:_Q)):E_en:_G:nd:r_a:_d_Cl!j:_y_iEE:
Amgrjgg. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1991.

Kateb George WW2
Ithaca. Cornell UP, 1992.

---. Emgr1gn_AnB_Bglf;B§111n11. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Inc., 1995.

Kaufman, Gershen. , and Lev Raphael,

figx_1nd_Lg1h11n_L1xg1.New York: Doubleday, 1996.
Kazan, Elia. £111_K§z§n1_A_L1fg. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988.

Kernan, Alvin B. "Truth and Dramatic Mode in A_511111111_N1mgd_ne1111.
C Ed. Harold Bloom. New
York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987.

Kettle, Arnold. "The Humanity of K1ng_ngn. "
Ed. Kirenan Ryan. London: Macmillan, 1993.

King, Thomas L. "Irony and Distance in Ibe_§1311_flgnggenig." figdgnn
' ' ° - ' ' . Ed. Harold Bloom. New York:
Chelsea House Publishers, 1987.

Kintz, Linda. '
Ihggry1_gnd_nnama. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1992

Kleb, William. ."Marginalia: 511111111, Williams, and Foucault. "
1| 1| '1 ‘ ., 1.11‘1I '

1n_B1111131_2111§111m. Ed. Philip C. Colin. Wesport: Greenwood P,
1993.

Klein, Alan M. "Managing Deviance. Hustling, Homophobia, and the
Bodybuilding Subculture. " '

figmg1gxu11111.Vol. 13 (1992): 159-175.
Lahr, John. "Fugitive Mind." Ihg_flgu_111kgn. 18 July (1994): 117-18.

---. “Sinatra’s Song." 1h:_N:N_IQrK§£o 3 Nov. (1997): 77‘94-

 

285

Lasch, Christopher. v
ngggnggy. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. , 1995.

Lawrence. D. H. SIudi:s_i:_Classi:_Am::i:a:_Lit:raIun:. New York:
The Viking Press, 1964.

Lentricchia, Frank. "On the Ideologies of Poetic Modernism, 1890-1913:
The example of William James “ B::o:sInusii:g_Am::i:a:_LiI:ra£x
H151911. Ed. Sacvan Bercovitch. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1968. 220-

49.

Le Vay, Simon. T
flgmgggxu11111. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.

--. lhe Sexual Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 1993.

Leverenz, David Ih:_Lan9uag:_oI_Euritan_E::Jj:9u_A:_ExnlonaIi::_in
LiIeratun:I_EsxsNologx:_a:d_§::ial_flislorx New Brunswick: Rutgers
UP, 1980.

Leverich, Lyle. IomI_Ih:_Nnk::w:.I::::ss::_Nilliams. New York: Crown

Publishers, Inc., 1995.

Lewis, R. W. B.
N1ng1ggngh_ggnggnx. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1955.

Lilly, Mark. "Tennessee Williams." Amgn1ggn_flrama. Ed. Clive Bloom. New
York: St. Martin’s P, 1995.

---. "Tennessee Nilliamsz Ih:_Glass_N:nag:Li:_and_A_§tr::1:ar.Nam:d
D:sin:"
Ed. Mark Lilly. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1990.

Lind, Michael.

Eo:r1:_Am:ri:a:_R:x:l:11:: New York: The Free Press.
1995.

Lukes, Steven. "Individualism." ' °
' ‘ . Ed. Philip P. Wiener. Vol. 2.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973. 594-604.

---. lng111gg1111m. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1973.
Manning, Susan. "Literature and Society in Colonial America. " In:
' .Vol. 9. E1 Boris Ford.
London: Penguin, 1988. 3-26.

Marks, Peter, "A Director Who Sees Himself in Many Characters. " Ngg_lgnk
11mg1. 17 Mar. 1996, natl. ed,: H8+

Matthiessen, F. O.
Qf_£mgr§Qn_Ang_flh11man. New York: Oxford UP, 1941.

286

Maxwell, Gilbert. Ienng1§gg_fl11111m§_gflg_fin1end§. Cleveland: The World
Publishing Co., 1965.

McCann, John S. '
Rgfg:g_cg_§u1dg. Boston. 6. K. Hall & Co. , 1983.

McClay. Wilfred M Ibe_Ma11erle111_5e111115911e1111n_flodern
Amgn1gg. Chapel Hill & London: U of North Carolina P, 1994.

Mead, Margaret.
A;_Amgn1gg. New York: William Morrow And Company, 1942.

Meserve, Walter J.

flerald1_of_Erom1se1_Ihe_Dnama_Qf_Ibe_American_Eeonle
Dun1n9_Ibe_Age_Qf_Jackson1_1BZQ_1§&2 New York: Greenwood Press,
1986.

Middleton, Richard. Colonial America; A History, 1&92-1259. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1992.

Miller, Arthur. I1mgbgnd5. New York: Grove P, 1987.

Miller, Ian Jordan.

Q1§§gmf9111_and_11g1gnge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1993.

Miller, Jordan, and Winifred L. Fraser. Amgn1gan_Dn1ma_bg1wggn_1hg_fla:§1

A_§L111g11_fl1§1911. Boston: Twayne Publishers,
1991.

Miller, Neil.
E_e§g31. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

Mills, Bruce L. "The Construction of Homosexuality in Christian
Tradition and its Influence on the Meaning of AIDS: A
Psychological Study." Diss. The U of Ottawa, 1990.

Mogen. David et all Eron11er_fio1h1c1_Ierror_and_Wonder_at_1be_Eron11er
13_Amgr1can_L11gr11urg. London and Toronto: Fairleigh Dickinson
UP, 1993.

Mondimore, Francis Mark. A_Na1ura1_H1519ny_gf_flomg§gxual111. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins P, 1996.

Morley, Felix. "Individuality and the General Will. "
‘ ' Ed. Felix Morley. Philadelphia. U of Pennsylvania
P, 1958.

Morrow, France un1easb1ng_Qur_unkn2wn_5el1111_An_lnouirx_1n19_lbe

Eu1ure_Qf_Eem1n1n1111And_Mascu11n111 New York: Praeger.
1991.

287

Murphy, Brenda. °
the_1_ea;re. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.

Nash, Roderick. W11ggLng§§_gnd_1ne_Amgr1gan_M1nd. New Haven: Yale

UP, 1973.
Nelson. Benjamin. Ienne11ee_W1l111m11_fl11_L1£e_and_Nonk. London: Peter
Owen, 1961.

Nightingale. Benedict E11tb_Row_Center1_A_Critic_1_lear_9n_and_fo
Brggdway. New York. Times Books, 1986.

Pagan, Nicholas. '
Ignng§§g__u11111m§. Rutherford, New Jersey. Fairleigh Dickinson
UP, 1993.

Palffy, Istvan. "’Otherness’ as a Salient Feature in Tennessee
HilliamS’ 5 Plays” Ibe_Qr191n1_and_Qn191nalitx_9£_Amenican
Cultune. Ed. Tibor Frank. Budapest. Akademiai Kaido, 1984.

Parker, Dorothy. ° ' '
. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1987.

Parker. R. B. ed. Ibe_Ela11_Mena9er1e1_A_C91111119n_of_£1111111
£15115. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983.

Pfister, Martin. Ing_IhggLy_and_An§1y§1§_gf_D[gma. Trans. John Halliday.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP., 1988.

Pierson, George Wilson. Iggguey111e_1n_Amen1ga_. New York: Anchor
Books, 1959.

Potter, Alex. "Ing_fi1a§§_flgnagerie by Tennessee Williams." Cruz 14
(1980): 21-31.

Potter. David M Ereedom_and_1ts_l1m111119n1_1n_American_L11e. Ed. Don
E. Fehrenbacher. Stanford. Stanford UP, 1976.

---. "The Quest For The National Character.
r. Ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher. New
York. Oxford UP, 1973.

Rader, Dotson. "The Art of Theater V: Tennessee Williams. " Conyersa11on§

w11h_1enne§§ee_flj111am§. Ed. Albert J. Devlin. Jackson, MS: UP of
Mississippi, 1986.

Rajaram, Suparna. ,and Henry L. Roediger. "Remembering. and Knowing as
States of Consciousness During Revival. " '
Con§c1gu§ne§§. Ed. Jonathan D. Cohen and Jonathan W. Schooler.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1997.

 

288

Rankin, Hugh F. lhe lhoaLo: Io Colonial Amorioo. Chapel Hill: U of North
Carolina P, 1965.

Reynaud, E: ' '
Trans. R. Schwartz. London, UK. Pluto P, 1981.

Richardson, Gary A.

i t . New York: Twayne Publishers,
1993.

Riddle, Joseph N..’A_§1:oo1oon_flomoo_flo§1no--Nietzsche Descending.
' Ed. Harold Bloom.
Chelsea House Publishers, 1985.

Riesman. David. lndi11duaJ1smLBec9ns1dered_And_91ber_Essaxs. New York:
The Free P of Glencoe, 1964.

---, .- 1. 1,11; 1 1 11 1111.11 1“: ° -1 ltr1 1 . New

Haven. Yale UP, 1950.
Roland, James L. "Tennessee’ 5 Two Amanda’ 5. " 1won11o1h_£on1o:y.

1 .. ll ' _ I 1_l. a1 1 0‘ I ._
Eooayo. Ed. R. B. Parker. Englewood Cliffs. Prentice Hall, Inc.,
1983.

Ross, Don. "Williams on a Hot Tin Roof. "

E I' 'II I
W1111omo. Ed. Albert J. Devlin. Jackson, MS: UP of Mississippi,
1986.

Roudane, Matthew C, ed.
Amor1ooo_flnomo. New York. AMS Press, Inc. 1993.

Ruas, Charles. "Tennessee Williams.

Conxer11112n1_w11b_lennessee
W1111omo. Ed. Albert J Devlin. Jackson, MS: UP of Mississippi,
1986.

Rubin, Gayle. "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ’Political Economy’ of
Sex " Ioward1_an_An1nronologx_of_Women. Ed. Rayna R. Reiter. New
York: Monthly Review P, 1975.

Russell, Bertrand. Ao1hor11y_ono_1ho_1oo111oool. London: Unwin Hayman
Ltd., 1990.

Russo Vito Ibe_Cellu191d_C19se11_Homosexualitx_1n_1be_Moxjes1 New
York. Harper and Row, 1981.

Sagan, Eli.

A1_Ihe_Dawn_Qf_I1rannx1_Ihe_Q£191n1_o£_1nd1119u1111m1
Eolitical_anression1_and_tbe_§_ate London: Faber and Faber,
1986.

 

 

289

Savery, Pancho. "’The Faded and Frightened and Different and Odd and
Lonely’: Psychological Realism, Polarity, Morality, and
Identifications in the Theatre of Tennessee Williams." Diss.
Cornell U, 1980

Savran, David. Communists, QDEDDXS. and Qooe ens; [no PoliLios of

l 1 _ 1 11 '.u_.

Minneapolis. U of Minnesota P, I992.
Scheff, Thomas J. "Conflict in Family Systems. The Role of Shame," Solf-

01 '1. 1m 1 ’ I ' 11 1' 1 l-JD _- u1- . 111
Ed. June Price Tangney and Kurt W. Fisher. New York.
The Guilford P, 1995.

Schneider, Carl D. 5nomo1_Exoosono1_ono_En1yooy. Boston: Beacon P, 1977.

Schroeder, Patricia R. We
Dnomo1 Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 1989.

Schlueter. June. W Cranbury. New
Jersey: Associated University Presses, 1995.

WWW London and Toronto=
Associated University Presses, 1989.

Seidman, Steven. Introduction. Qooorzlnoony_§oo1o1ogy, Ed. Steven
Seidman. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1996.

Shakespeare. William K111941111 MW Ed 6
Blackmore Evans. Boston. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1974.

Shapiro, Mark. Ino_Soo1oo1o1ogy_of_flomo_§ao1ons. Kansas City, Missouri:
The Pinecrest Fund, 1978.

Sinfield, Alan. Co1Lonal_£o1111os;;flooon_3ooo1ng. Philadelphia: U of
Pennsylvania P, 1994.

Slotkin, Richard.
W New York: Atheneum. 1992

Smith, Henry Nash.
New York: Vintage Books,  1950

Solberg, Winton U. '
Amon1oa. Cambridge. Harvard UP, 1977.

Spoto, Donald. '
W1111oms. New York: Ballantine Books, 1985.

Stanton, Stephen S, ed. '
Essays. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1977

 

290

Steen, Mike. A_ngk_st_lgnngsssg_W1111gms. New York: Hawthorne Books,
Inc., 1969

Terkel, Studs. "Studs Terkel Talks with Tennessee Williams. "
Ed. Albert J. Devlin.
Jackson, MS: UP of Mississippi, 1986.

Tharpe, Jac, ed. Ignngssge leljams; A lribute. Jackson: U of
Mississippi P, 1977.

Turner, Frederick Jackson. Ihg_ErQntjgr_1n_AmgLisan_flistgny. New York:
Henry Holt & Co., 1920.

Tynan, Kenneth. Curtains. New York: Athenuem, I961.

Updike, John. "Books: Emersonianism." Ihg_flgw_1gnkgn 4 June 1984:
112-32.

Vaughn, Jack A.’ ' ' '
129D. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co. , Inc. 1981.

Vidal, Gore. Introduction. '
New York: Ballantine Books, 1985.
1 "'1-11'1111'-11’11111.
Trans. Anthony Forster. Eds. Philippe Aries and Andre Bejin. New
York: Basil Blackwell, 1985.

Weber. Max. Erom_uax_fleber:_Essaxs_in_§ocjologx. New York: Oxford UP.
1946.

Whitman, Walt. "Democratic Vistas. ,Wa1t_Whitmans_gomnlstg_flgetny
.Ed. Emory Holloway. London: The
Holloway P, 1964. 657-722.

Whyte, William H. Ihg_Qrganjzatjgn_flgn. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1956.

Wilder. Thornton American_CharacteListics_And_Qtner_£ssaxs. Ed. Donald
Gallup. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1979.

Wilkinson, Rupert. Ins_Eursu11_gf_AmgLigan_Cn§nastgr. New York: Harper &
Row, Publishers, 1988.

Williams, Bernard. Shsmg_§nd_flggsssity. Berkeley: U of California P,
1993.

Williams, Brett, ed. Ihg_Egleiss_gf_§ultung. Washington and
London: Smithsonian Institution P, 1991.

 

291

Williams. Tennessee, A_§tregt;ar_flsmgd_flgsire. New York: A Signet Book,
1974.

---. ngy Doll A liger lail; A Screenplay and A Play. New York: A
New Directions Book, 1991

--. tat 9n a flgt ljn East. New York: A Signet Classic, 1985.
--. Ihg_filsss_flgnaggrie. New York: A Signet Book, 1987.

---. angdgm of Earth llhe Sgygn Destents of Myrtle). The Theater of
Tennessee Williams. Vol. 5. New York: New Directions Books, 1976.

--. Mgmgirs. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1975.

-—. Ihg_fljght_gf_lhg_lgggna. New York: A Signet Classic, 1976.

--. Sgddenly_tgst_§ummgr. New York: A Signet Classic, 1976.

--. Where I live: Selected Essays. Eds. Christine R. Day and Bob Woods.
New York: New Directions Books, 1978.

Williams, Raymond. Mgdern_lrgggdy. London: The Hogarth P, 1992.
Wilson, Edward O. Qfl_fluman_flsture. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1978.

Winchell, Mark Royden. "The Myth Ls the Message, or Why Strggtsar Keeps
Running." f ' ' ' ’

' 1 ' ' ' P ' . Ed. Philip C. Colin.
Westport: Greenwood P, 1993.

Windham, Donald ed BMesseLWJJJBmsLLLmeEJLDQEMnMam New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977.

Wolfenstein, Martha., and Nathan Leites. MQyjgs;_A_EsyrnQ1ggisgl_§tudy.
Glencoe, IL: Free P, 1950.

Wright, Lawrence. "Double Mystery." Ihg_flsw_19rk§r. 7 Aug. (1995): 45-
62.

Wright, Robert. "The Biology of Violence." Ing_ugw_xgrksr. 13 March,
(1995): 67-77.

---. 11 11 -1 .1 u ’ 1 _ 11 r 11 11 :11 1 1: 1° 1. New

York: Vintage Books, 1995.

Wright Louis B 1W
ijjljzatjgn |1§QZ-12§3l. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1963.

Ziff, Larzer. lbs theraturg Qt Amerjga; Colgnjal Egrjgd. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1970.

292

1 1 |1u0 : ‘ 11 l1 a . '11 1 -1 - 1 l1u1 - 'n
Amgritg. New York: The Viking Press, 1981.

---. General Introduction. ' ' h l ' O
- - 1 ' . New Haven: Yale UP, 1991.

. i ' ' 1 C . New York:
The Viking P, 1973.

 

III-‘1‘}:
all." I
. a 9. | .1