Using the lens of feminism, Gayatri Spivak’s essay attempts to demonstrate how Jane Eyre is a text that represents Victorian imperialism. While I do think Jane Eyre holds important historical significance, it is important that it is artistically upheld and not simply historically as an informative text. As Erin O’Connor points out in her essay, Spivak extrapolates her argument toward imperialism a bit too far, using Jane Eyre to generalize all of Victorian literature. Where Spivak’s argument excels, however, is in how a historically-informed perspective can influence the reader’s hermeneutics of the text. Observe the following passage:
“Here in Jane’s self-marginalized uniqueness, the reader becomes her accomplice; the reader and Jane are united—both are reading. Yet Jane still preserves her odd privilege, for she continues never quite doing the proper thing in its proper place. She cares little for reading what is meant to be read: the ‘letter-press.’ She reads the pictures. The power of this singular hermeneutics is precisely that it can make the outside inside.” (Spivak 660)
This is an interesting suggestion as it would render Jane as a passive character—though she narrates, she reads along with the reader. This would imply that her story was not written by her, or that the story is a past reflection she is still working to interpret. However, this does not seem to agree with the text, as Jane addresses the reader directly at various points (Bronte 88,102). Further, the character Jane is certainly not passive, as can be most notably observed with her bold communications with Mr. Rochester and her display of independence among the girls at Lowood. This would make Jane Eyre a paradox, her passivity displaying her own activity. Spivak hints to this as well, as Jane Eyre makes the “outside inside,” internalizing external occurrences. How can this paradox be resolved?
If Jane is a reader, then it would mean that she is still learning from her own narrative. Nevertheless, Jane Eyre seems to be inscrutable. The historical context that Spivak posits would give us a more informed reading not only of the novel itself, but of Jane’s character.
Rereading the Spivak quote you selected in context with your commentary, for some reason I can’t help but think about some of the more basic commentary about race in today’s for lack of a better word popular feminism surrounding who is around to deviate from prescribed gender roles, and what this means and why. I’m thinking about discourse like the idea that girls who play video games are trying to hard and are only really trying to impress or imitate men and don’t really have any interest in gaming. A part of me feels like Jane being defined by her bookishness as a child, but then ask an adult ending up not actually caring all that much for reading is something that personally did not sit with me. It does kind of make me doubt her authority to be telling me this story, to define herself by her wit, since in the end she apparently doesn’t even read. But also, I feel like this instinct of mine to feel this way is similar to the fake gamer girl logic. As you point out, there isn’t anything essentially dishonest about Jane and the narrative she tells. And I certainly don’t think Jane is telling her story to impress men, just to keep up with my comparison. But still there is something paradoxical, as you point out, about Jane being a reader who doesn’t actually read and a story teller who doesn’t actually care for other people’s stories.
You make a good point here. Your statement of how Spivak’s quote would cast Jane as a passive character and then your argument of what that would mean is interesting. To be honest when I first read your title I was skeptical of how anyone could see the character of Jane as a paradox, but after reading your argument I could see how it seems as though Spivak has made Jane into a paradox. I think you could do a bit more to explain how Spivak’s quote displays Jane as passive, instead of just saying so. But overall your post definitely got me thinking!