Over the course of my reading for tomorrow’s class I was struck by the peculiarity of Dracula’s representation of strength as presented in a gendered lens. By this I mean to say that the novel flips the generally accepted conventions of unfeeling men and nurturing women while at the same time managing to come across as both sexist and dismissive. This becomes clear at the end of chapter seventeen when we are told that Lord Godalming, in a moment of severe grief over the death of Lucy, “laid his head” on Mina’s shoulder “and cried like a wearied child whilst he shook with emotion” (245). I found this to be interesting in that it seemed to show a weakness in the usually perpetuated façade of indelible masculinity in the Victorian Era. While this is happening, however, Mina is presented as a strong women with stable emotions even though she herself has just endured the loss of a close friend. Such a dynamic is clearly at odds with established orthodoxy and thus jumped out at me immediately. Just after this, however, the novel somehow attempts to re-establish a patriarchal system of gender relations where the vulnerable male is able to un-ironically claim to be the protector of the woman he is literally relying on for comfort at that very minute. This is shown when Lord Godalming tells Mina “if a man’s esteem and gratitude are ever worth the winning, you have won my today. If ever the future should bring to you a time when you need a man’s help, believe me, you will not call in vain” (246). Apparently, in Victorian England, masculinity was so important that it was able to exert itself onto a woman who so clearly didn’t need it. In a time when gender roles so dominated the social landscape, the way they managed to both subvert them and still promote patriarchal values was interesting to say the least.
4 thoughts on “Patriarchal Male”
Comments are closed.
I have to ask if you are not yourself being “sexist” and “dismissive” of gender roles in this novel. Stoker is a dynamic writer and the “subversive” elements of his writing vexed Victorian audiences and continue to shift interpretive meaning among modern audiences. Sure, Arthur weeps after the death of his soon-to-be wife, but is this really sexist in its description or is Stoker trying to convey the depth of Arthur’s emotion and sense of loss? In a later chapter, Stoker goes so far as to describe this kind of a breakdown as being healthy (pg. 244). Arthur should be able to find comfort in such displays of emotion without fear of debasing his manhood. I feel that the dynamism of Stoker’s male bonds and masculinity in the narrative make this a more nuanced novel. On their own, the male characters can be weak, as you have pointed out, but as a collective they gain strength as later shown when Arthur works away like Thor at killing his un-dead loved one (pg. 230).
I think you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I never sought to cast his feelings as unhealthy, in fact I meant just the opposite. I agree with you that he should be able to show his feelings and still feel secure in himself, I merely wrote that the novel broke with what was otherwise accepted as the norm. My blog post sought to show that in portraying the characters in this way they were embracing characteristics traditionally assigned to the other sex, a fact which makes them both the more dynamic. Recognizing this, I just wanted to suggest that the novel was weird in doing so before flipping back to the structure of male dominance.
This is an interesting post – thank you for sharing. I am currently in an Introduction to Literary Studies course and we just finished our unit on psychoanalysis. For that section, we read a novel titled “To the Lighthouse” by Virginia Woolf. In a really straightforward synopsis, the novel focuses on the time that novel was written (the Victorian era) and the presence of rigidly-defined gender roles. In this novel, a main character, Mr. Ramsey, is beset with the idea that, after his death, he will not be remembered. As a philosopher, he wants his work to be remembered and celebrated for the future generations to come. The fact that he could be forgotten terrifies him, so he approaches his wife to seek reassurance and comfort.
Alright– not get too off track, but there actually is a connection between the two works. Believe it or not, Mina is actually fulfilling the role that a typical woman during this time is “supposed” to satiate. Of course, during this time, there are two spheres (in this case, I will focus on the “feminine sphere,” or, in other words, “the domestic sphere”). Whenever Lord Godalming laid his head on Mina’s shoulder, crying, and she consoled him, she is actually fulfilling the nurturing, caring role of a “typical woman.” I know it is easy to look at this as an escape from Victorian norms because, after all, isn’t a man supposed to care for a woman? It really isn’t though. Look at it this way: a man is to protect a woman physically, but when emotional problems arise, the woman is supposed to help.
Much like above, I think my post was misinterpreted. The fact that she was caring never entered into my discussion, I was just focusing on the portrayal of strength as it appeared in a gendered lens. The fact that it was emotional consolation was not the point, but instead I was seeking to highlight the form of that interaction. In form, the relationship was very much a strong woman with an albeit temporarily weakened man. As I commented above, this is perfectly fine and absolutely healthy. The strange element I wanted to show, then, was how immediately afterwards the novel shifted back to traditional conceptions of strength.
Thank you for your comment, it will definitely help me be more clear in the future.