A Critical Analysis of Social Expectation in The Story of an Hour and A Sorrowful Woman - Essay Example

A Critical Analysis of Social Expectation in “The Story of an Hour” and “A Sorrowful Woman” Introduction On the surface level, both Kate Chopin’s “the Story of an Hour” and Gail Goldwin’s story, “A Sorrowful Woman” deal with the protagonists’ reactions to what the society expects from them. The protagonists’ codes of behavior do not necessarily comply with the society’s expectation. Obviously the social expectation in both stories is inherently and intrinsically patriarchal. Therefore, Chopin’s and Goldwin’s protagonists’ reactions to their loving and caring husbands seem to be confusing and eccentric. But a deeper analysis of the two stories will necessarily reveal that the protagonists are not antagonistic to their husbands in a real sense; rather they are in conflict with their societies’ patriarchal expectation. They appear to be in conflict with a society that expects and teaches a woman to assume a role, subordinate and subservient to men, in the name of loyalty. Also such patriarchic expectations maim their freedom irrevocably. In both stories, the protagonists’ husbands are apparently innocent, loving, caring and infallible. But the only plausible reason that underlies the protagonists’ contained detest for their husbands is that these characters are intrinsically the symbol as well as the representative of the trammeling restriction of a male dominated society. Social Expectations in “A Sorrowful Woman” Both Goldwin’s and Chopin’s stories deal with the inherent patriarchy of the institution of marriage. Even the kindest and most loving husband’s presence in a woman’s life can be as oppressive as the unswerving patriarchic social expectation is. An astute reader will discover that Goldwin’s anonymous heroine seems to be subconsciously tired of the environment in which she lives. Obviously this environment is an indispensable construct of Goldwin’s patriarchal society. A woman’s obligation to follow the code of conduct obviously is determined by the society’s generic male expectation from a woman. Indeed this obligation of a woman to fulfill the male expectation comes up embroidered with a set moral demand. Therefore, a woman’s confinement within the four-walls of her husband’s house is considered to be female loyalty and virtue. When the husband in Goldwin’s story addresses the protagonist as a “cloistered queen”, his speech ironically refers to the invisible imprisonment of the protagonist: “You look . . . like a cloistered queen” (Goldwin 23). This prison is invisibly built around a woman in Goldwin’s society through the male social expectations. Though Goldwin’s protagonist or the Sorrowful woman is in abundance of the basic needs, she is suffering from an unknown pathogen with apparently peculiar syndrome of hatred for the nearest and dearest ones. Since her imprisonment is invisibly raised by her society’s male expectation, she does not know what should be blamed for her psychological ailment. Even she does not know why she hates her innocent child and caring husband: “What has happened to me. I'm not myself anymore” (Goldwin 22) Goldwin’s protagonist thinks that she is the “luckiest woman" having such a caring husband like hers. Yet she feels sorry because she hates them. Indeed it is the invisible imprisonment, social restrictions and the society’s pressure to remain under her husband’s authority that subconsciously grows the hatred for the objects (her husband and child, in this case) that raise the invisible walls of confinement. Like Goldwin’s heroine, Chopin’s protagonist’s acknowledgement of her husband’s kindheartedness and yet her sense of liberation and freedom at her husband, Mr. Mallard’s probable death essentially show that marriage itself is a patriarchal institution that a woman cannot object to, but accept. Goldwin’s story tells the readers about the patriarchy’s inherent grip on a woman’s life in conjugal life. In the story, the husband has not been presented in a direct negative light; rather a husband’s care and kindness for a wife ironically prove to be trammeling for a wife. The irony lies in the fact that in a male dominated society, no matter how much a husband tries to be kind like Mrs. Mallard’s husband in “Story of an Hour”, they will remain “the patriarchal annihilators of the women’s freedom” (Cunningham 52). Social Expectations in “Story of an Hour” In her story, Chopin deals with the same story of a woman’s lack of freedom in a round-about way. In contradiction to social expectation Mrs. Mallard senses the gush of complacent freedom hearing the news of her husband’s death. She feels sad. But concurrently she also feels the complacence at her oncoming freedom, as the narrator describes Mrs. Mallard’s joy in the following manner: “There was something coming to her and she was waiting for it, fearfully. What was it? She did not know; it was too subtle and elusive to name” (Chopin 79). At the news of Bentley’s death, she feels the prospect of living a life of enormous freedom and joy. But since in patriarchy a woman is not accustomed to express herself freely, she fears even to acknowledge the source of mirth and ecstasy. Though “she was striving to beat it back with her will” (Chopin 80), she fails to do so. Indeed it is her self-realization and her acknowledgement that the death of her husband and the prospect of living a free life are the sources of her ecstasies. But gradually before the unexpected arrival of her husband alive, she manages to learn it, as the narrator says, “She was beginning to recognize this thing….When she abandoned herself a little whispered word escaped her slightly parted lips. She said it over and over under the breath: "free, free, free!” (Chopin 79) In Chopin’s “Story of an Hour”, the protagonist, though became sad at the death, ironically feel joy at the prospect of freedom. There is another irony at the end of the story. Though the doctor declares that Mrs. Mallard “had died of heart disease--of the joy that kills”, the reality is totally different. It also shows that the doctor as a member of patriarchy is oblivious to the truth of a woman’s individual existence. Chopin does not inform the readers anything plainly about why the protagonist of the story cannot explain her complacence and ecstasy at Mr. Mallard’s death. Rather the author simply presents a small fragment of a woman’s life that provokes a reader to read the story as a sequel to his or her own real life. Obviously Chopin’s story will be endowed with a greater meaning, if Mrs. Mallard’s forbidden joy of independence is perceived in a real life setting. In a real life setting, Mrs. Mallard is like most other common women who, having no economic independence cannot but depend on their husbands. Therefore, they are compelled to obey their husbands while suppressing their own desires (Stein 31; Deneau 211). Indeed, it is the patriarchal society that keeps them away from any self-supporting activities; that wants them to be loyal to their husband, and that punishes them and also endows the male counterparts with a power to reprimand and punish their wives in cases of the violation of the behavior codes that women are expected to follow. Also it is the patriarchal society that can confine women within the four walls of their husbands’ house. Nicole Smith refers to Mrs. Mallard’s confinement as following: “The world outside of her own bedroom is only minimally described, but the world inside of her mind is lively and well described by the narrator. The window outside of her room is alive and vibrant like her mind, while everything about her physically is cloistered” (1). In such a patriarchal setting, Mrs. Mallard is really lucky enough to get a husband like Brently who is kind and loving to her. So Mrs. Mallard know that she should not feel the joy at her husband’s possible death. Yet she cannot but feel “the ecstasy since her joy at the death of husband as an imposer of restriction is far higher than her sorrow at the death of husband as a sympathizer” (Stein 28-9). Conclusion In both stories, “A Sorrowful Woman” and “Story of an Hour” uphold social expectations as something inherently patriarchic and male. But whereas the social expectations are more explicit in Chopin’s story, they are inherent in “A Sorrowful Woman”. Since social expectations are inherently patriarchic, these expectations are exclusively responsible for women’s imprisonment in the social institution of marriage. Neither of the two protagonists is antagonistic to their husbands. Yet they ironically want relief from their husbands. It is essentially because they are tired of being imprisoned in their husbands’ households and fulfilling the society’s expectation of child rearing and maintaining their husband’s households, as it has been voiced in the ingenue comment of the sorrowful woman’s child: “Look, Mommy is sleeping…..She's tired from doing all our things again.” (Goldwin 23) Works Cited Chopin, Kate, “The Story of an Hour”, Feminist Story Collection. New York: Bookshaw, 1998. Cunningham, Mark. "The Autonomous Female Self and the Death of Louise Mallard in Kate Chopin's 'Story of an Hour'." English Language Notes 42 (2004): 48-55. Deneau, Daniel P. "Chopin's 'The Story of an Hour'." Explicator 61 (2003): 210-13. Goldwin, Gail. “A Sorrowful Woman”, Feminist Story Collection. New York: Bookshaw, 1998. Smith, Nicole. “Literary Analysis of "Story of an Hour" by Kate Chopin : Language, Emotion and Marriage”, 22 April, 2011. Available at Stein, Allen F. Women and Autonomy in Kate Chopin's Short Fiction New York: Peter Lang, 2005. Read More