Freedom in Bondage, by Whitney Davies
Freedom in Bondage
The
idea of freedom has been molded into the American society and is used to
demonstrate our core beliefs. Our country was founded by people looking to
pursue religious freedom away from persecution. We are taught at a young age in
our history classes that we are a privileged people and should be grateful for
a land full of “freedom”. This “freedom” is set up in a land full of barriers
and intense boundaries that society uses to control different classes and types
of people. In the modern day, marriage and partnerships challenge the
boundaries of freedom and question if real freedom is independence. In “The
Story of an Hour”, Kate Chopin explores the idea that you can only truly be
free when you are alone as opposed to in a partnership; she expresses this
through symbols of the nineteenth century housewife stereotype, Mrs. Mallard’s
inner conflict with her husband’s death, the realization that selfish desires
overpower love, and the irony in freedom through death.
The main character Mrs. Mallard accidentally experiences freedom
through the death of her husband. Mrs. Mallard is treated like a fragile doll.
She is referred to as having a “young, fair face” with lines that “bespoke
repression”. (Chopin, p.1) Mrs. Mallard’s hardened lines indicate a rough past,
whether that may be from external or internal forces the reader does not find
out. Mrs. Mallard is also compared to the stereotypical nineteenth century
housewife when it is said that she has “ white slender hands”. (Chopin, p.2)
The color white is a symbol of purity and innocence. In the nineteenth century,
women were expected to follow orders and play a ditzy, little trophy wife.
Although our modern idea of a mother has drastically changed, there is still
the unspoken boundary that the women should be more invested in her family than
in her own desires. If a women in our era tries to defy that stereotype, she is
branded a feminist and not to be taken seriously. How can freedom be obtained
if a woman is still a prisoner of her own house, in her own family? Lawrence
Berkove asks an interesting question about our own identity with our friends.
“If we have friends, it is assumed that we hold values that are in concord with
theirs, and that we don’t act in such a way as to violate friends and their
principals”. (Berkove, p.5) Humanity instantly categorizes each other by
associating the actions and beliefs of one individual with those they hang out
with. Even if we just reside in society without socializing, we follow the laws
and morals set up as condition of being acceptable members of society.
The
word “slender” creates an image of the “ideal” body type for women in our
generation. Even in our descriptions of ourselves, we use the male grading
scale to define beauty. Beauty is as big a part of the American language
as freedom is. During the nineteenth century, beauty was classified as a
“belle”. Historians have broken down that stereotype and have concluded that
a belle is either a symbol of the dark days in the South or the lovely
image of the old order. In “The Complex of Women”, the author concludes that
the belle is “represented as the lonely victim of a code that fosters violence
and hatred rather than love” (Siedel, p.4) Over the last few years, society
has been changing what a “realistic” body type is. We run commercials with
women in many shapes and sizes encouraging that outer beauty can be achieved by
anyone with the right tools. Humanity doesn’t consider inner-beauty as
beautiful. As much as we try to teach children the importance of having a
beautiful personality, they will become consumed by stereotypes of the
“perfect” body. Just as Mrs. Mallard had to deal with the standards set for her
in her time period, women have to follow the standards set for us in our day.
How can one truly be free if they can’t even be free of their own body? The
beauty of a woman will always be symbolized, so the freedom of the body is
unachievable.
Mrs.
Mallard rejects the idea of marriage in favor for her own selfish desires
revealing that marriage is another type of prison. When Mrs. Mallard’s husband
died, Mrs. Mallard becomes overwhelmed by the idea of independence and a life
without oppression. The feeling of empowerment is so strong that she doesn’t
question the “monstrous joy that held her”. (Chopin,
p.3) At this point of the story, the reader becomes confused, because Mr.
Mallard “loved her tenderly”. (Chopin, p.2) Humanity romanticizes love and
creates an impossible expectation that love will be abounding and forever.
Marriage restricts freedom. People who marry- or even love- give up large areas
of freedom. Even though Mr. Mallard loved her, she was irritated at his
affections, because they were a reminder of her loss of freedom. Lawrence
Berkove analyzed the no-win situation and concluded that “these conceits go
beyond being merely strange and impossible views on social relations, let alone
marriage.” (Berkove, p.6) Mrs. Mallard has created an unhealthy marriage
environment by associating any acts from her husband as a crime against her
freedom. Families have always been subject to controversy. Different cultures
have their own expectations of what a happy, healthy marriage should look like
and will act in violence to make the rest of the world follow their views. Love
causes hate and destruction. If love is so dangerous, then why does humanity
emphasize it and want it so much? Do the natural instincts of humanity even
want to be in a lifelong partnership or do we suppress our natural feelings and
conform to society to do what is “acceptable”?
Humanity chooses to be “bound” with each other, thus repressing
their own desires. When two people begin a partnership, they are automatically
giving up freedom in favor of satisfying the other individual. Mrs. Mallard
reveals that love is an “unsolved mystery” and immediately tosses it aside in
favor of her impulse of self-assertion. “Free! Body and soul free!” (Chopin,
p.2) Kate Chopin references the connection between inner and outer conflict and
reveals that independence is freedom from the mind, body, and spirit. This can
translate into what freedom really means for our entire being. One can argue
that our own thoughts are an imprisonment. As children, we are taught to
believe in certain things as right or wrong. If we break these boundaries,
would our natural instincts change and our selfish desires cause us to be more
destructive? Society has unwritten rules of what is morally accepted and what
is not. Humanity is forced to obey those rules to create a peaceful
environment. Some people are not brought up to know the differences between
right and wrong, so they lash out and create irreversible damage.
Kate Chopin conveys the irony that true freedom is the liberation
of death when Mrs. Mallard dies from heart disease “of joy that kills”.
(Chopin, p.3) Mrs. Mallard accepted her independence and “carried herself
unwittingly like a Goddess of victory”. (Chopin, p.3) The author of the “Fatal
Self Assertion” analysis explains the double delusion of the Goddess of
victory. He reveals that Mrs. Mallard “is no goddess and has achieved no
victory”. (Berkove, p.7)
As she tasted absolute freedom, her husband walked through the door, unaware of
the accident that they thought had killed him. The shock of the end of her
independence was so intense that she suffered a fatal heart attack. When this
book was released to the public, students took the heart attack from joy
literally and studied the effect of pure happiness. Throughout the years,
scholars have discovered that it was not happiness of shock that her husband
was still alive, but rather the happiness leaving her body when she realized
that she would obtain the freedom she desperately wants.
Humanity can’t achieve absolute freedom and keep it’s sanity.
Lawrence Berkove reveals that “absolute freedom is possible only for divinity,
and Louise demonstrates by her death that she is not divine. Although earthly
love is not ideally perfect, it may be the closest thing we know”. (Berkove,
p.7) To achieve the “absolute freedom”, society would need to get rid of their
moral boundaries which would cause extreme chaos and loss of identity. Freedom
is an unrealistic theory that has been used to drive humanity into striving to
become “good”. In “The Story of an Hour”, Kate Chopin depicts the intense
boundaries that society used to imprison women in the nineteenth century and
the irony that true freedom is the liberation of death.
Works Cited
Berkove, L.L. “Fatal Self-Assertion in Kate Chopin's ‘The Story of
an Hour.’” American Literary Realism, vol.32, no.2, 2002, pp.152-158
Tucker, S. “The Universe
of Literature” The English Journal, vol. 85, no. 3, March 1996, pp.
104-105
Rowe, A.E. “Complex
Images of Women” The Southern Literary Journal, vol. 20, no.1, February
1987, pp. 139-144
Comments
Post a Comment