Jane's character is famous for her rebellion against the dependent female stereotype during her time period. She values self-sufficiency and independence above romanticism and knows what her priorities are. She in no way resembles the typical love story heroine. Her often cold assertion puts her in striking contrast to other women who thirst for a life of adoration and unity with their man. It is because of all this that Jane has established herself as the character FOIL to all other female heroines, a revolution in herself.
Yet I personally find that in many aspects of Jane's life, particularly her relationship to Rochester, she contradicts her persona as a society-defying female. For example, when she refuses Rochester for the first time, it is because she will not be his equal if he is already married to another woman. Being his mistress would make her feel personall subordinate to him. They are, however, emotional and intellectual equals. They could understand each other and converse and feel mutually engaged. Society is the only thing that turns their relationship into an inequality. Because in societies eyes the terms of their union would be frowned upon.
Jane is fixated on this inequality and uses it to justify her painful abandonnement and seperation from Rochester. I find this hypocritical and condradicting. Jane is supposed to be the embodiment of societal rebellion. She defies all of its stereotypes. Yet she can't possibly find it in her to ignore society's dissaproval when it comes to her relationship with Rochester. She becomes society's victim, as she lets it dissolve her happiness and corrupt her love.
Wow! we both though about the same thing! But I completely agree, but I think you should decide on a stance, either that it is contradicting to Bronte's view or that it is consistent. I think there is equal evidence for both so it's up to you on which you feel most passionate about.
ReplyDeleteMarialexa,
ReplyDeleteYou may be right to take Bronte to task for an apparent contradiction: Jane, who 'resists' conventions 'all the way' does seem to bow to society's demands and reject Rochester (who everyone knows is her perfect match) over a scruple (bigamy) that seems to redound to societal concerns rather than personal ones. But I wonder if this is really the case. Consider how some other scenes might relate to Jane's decision NOT to become Rochester's mistress (as opposed to his wife). Look at the master versus dependent exchange on page 157. Consider the question she asks (and answers) on the bottom of page 364 (or the odd bit about "laws and principles" further along on page 365). Look at her rumination on page 414. Only once you have gone back and re-read (and reexamined) these and related passages will you be in a position to address the good questions you yourself raise in this post. Have some fun with this!