The Utopian Feminist Perspective
Herland vs Hisland
The frameworks that surround Utopia is subjective to what each individual believes is truly Utopic. Within these disparate variations upon the same ideal, our concepts surrounding a perfect society are revealed. These differences often depict our biases, desires and agendas. The renowned feminist, Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s extreme vision of Utopia in Herland is a country in which no man has existed for two thousand years, and gender is broken down and women are happily self-sufficient and utilize a parthenogenetic process. And yet, Gilman inserts three male characters in this perfect society. The use of male narration and the sanctioning of male presence within this all women Utopia allows for greater scrutiny of the customs and practices of the utopia, Herland. However, we must ask ourselves, are the men so mystified by this Utopia because it is a Utopia, and instinctively that’s how all visitors/narrators should feel about Utopia? Or do they really believe the ideas and practices of these women are superior to their own? If the men really do not admire the customs of this country then it could not be considered a Utopia. Therefore we are to assume that they do possess some respect for the country and the women, and so possibly equality for women is not as far fetched, as Gilman would have us believe.
Gilman juxtaposes the vision of Herland with the real world model of society by allowing phallus to enter and live in Herland. It is only with the presence of the “other” that scrutiny of Herland and the real world become possible. Thus, Gilman’s incorporation of such comparison and penetration of the male belief system seems to problematize the traditional visions of Utopia and negate the separateness of her society. The infiltration of men to Herland comes in the form of three men. Jeff is a Southern gentleman who is enthralled by his new surroundings and finds value in every aspect of this feminized society. He is portrayed as a true gentleman who respects the country these women created, “I never saw an alien become naturalized more quickly than that man in Herland”(Gilman 145). On the far extreme to Jeff is Terry, the alpha-male who engineers the voyage and cannot fathom, no matter how much time is spent in Herland, that this society has no men. He is the stereotypical sexist and womanizer, and in Herland his desire to dominate as if he is back in his own country finally overpowers him until his innate threat of male violence materializes. His metaphorical penetration of the country tries to become a literal penetration, which leads to the disrespect of the women’s beliefs. Although in Herland, there is no such thing as rape, and finally the stereotypical male’s desire/ability to dominate is crushed by the women. In the center of the two extremes is the narrator, Van, who appreciates their country and their beliefs like Jeff, but remains somewhat skeptical, similarly to Terry.
The use of a male narrator is intriguing for two reasons. Firstly, Gilman does not have to allow these men to find Herland; their finding it is evidence that it does exist; that it is somewhere. And so immediately by very definition, Gilman is refuting the claims of this as only Utopia. She is revealing to her readers that this type of existence may truly be possible. Secondly, Van and Terry begin to question the beliefs of their own homeland. By permitting men into this country, Gilman is perpetuating her feminist message by making men the trumpeter’s of it. Not only are the men now skeptical about their pre-Herland existence, they are embarrassed by it, “I ought to have told her more fully than I did; of all the things we had to be ashamed of. But it is very hard to bridge the gulf of as deep a difference that existed between our life to theirs”(Gilman 135). Ironically the bridges between the two worlds are the men, a further perpetuation of the feminist ideal of not only equality, but of men also championing the cause of feminism.
Herland cannot be traveled to without extreme effort and knowledge that it is someplace to be reached. This is illustrative of the journey one must take to accept the beliefs and practices of the country. The men undertake a physical and spiritual journey for this country; it becomes obvious that it is easier to travel than it is to assimilate. Gilman is demonstrating the arduous and lengthy journey that must be endured for women to be equal and for men to ultimately accept a feminist world-view.
While some shudder at the thought of a feminist Utopia and attempt to break it down as implausible, Krishan Kumar writes in his book, Utopianism, “It was perhaps inevitable that women should take to utopias. Where else would they be free and equal?âÂ?¦Even in past utopias their situation has remained firmly subordinate to that of men”(102). Gilman’s vision is therefore substantiated by the lack of female presence in male utopias. Instead of trying to infiltrate the beliefs of male utopias, she creates her own and allows men to infiltrate. This need for separateness indicates Gilman’s unwillingness to compromise her message and illustrates her desire for it to be understood. Jeff, Van and Terry are allowed into the country as students, if Gilman cannot make men understand in their own country, then she will remove them and immerse them in a society where they have no choice but to listen.
In male utopias, men ignore or reduce beliefs/constructs that do not fit into their ideal society. In Plato’s Republic, romance and love is deleted. In Aristophanes Eccleziazusae, age boundaries are blurred. In More’s Utopia, family is deconstructed. Therefore, it is only appropriate for a feminist writer like Gilman to break down steadfast concepts of gender, marriage conventions, and femininity. The women in Herland do not know about gender because it is inconsequential to their way of life, and by-and-large to everyone’s life as Gilman is presenting. Gender is portrayed as irrelevant, and in the time that Van is there he comes to acknowledge this, “We were now well used to seeing women not as females but as people; people of all sorts, doing every kind of work”(137). Gender isn’t negated due to the absence of difference; it is discounted for its inherent inability to differentiate. The existence of purposeless vernacular is not useful in a truly utilitarian society. Elizabeth Grosz, author of Sexual Subversions: The French Feminists explains, “Sexual differences therefore constructs ‘woman’ in many ways as other to or different from the (privileged) male point of reference”(Sargisson 75). Van’s presence and viewpoints are most astute because, as readers, we see him as having that “privileged male point of view,” and therefore assume that if he can understand the absence of gender, then there is possibility of a world where difference in sex is not equated to separate gender roles.
Marriage customs are also an anomaly to the inhabitants of her Herland, the women are married to the body politic, and while there is love for the country and one another, the practices and ideas that surround a typical marriage are foreign. Ironically, the men are the upholders of the tradition. They convince the women that they should be married, “though the marrying part was a concession to our prejudices rather than theirs”(Gilman 139). The women do not believe in the marriage but concede to the male perspective, as they do in the real world, but do not fully submit. They retain control and set the terms of the marriage and kept it holy, “To them the process was the holy thing – and they meant to keep it holy”(139). This compromise shows the negotiations of the two disparate cultures, and while the women permit some aspect of the patriarchal society in, matriarchal domination does not collapse under patriarchal pressure. They have re-invented a patriarchal institution to meet the needs of their society. A facet of most Utopias is that there is usually no room for modification, yet this compromise between the two worlds shows that even in Utopia there is always room for improvement and that old institutions can be changed. Gilman hopes that the message of positive change to a patriarchal institution will create equality that can be transferred to the real world.
The two largest changes to the institution of marriage is the woman’s refusal to take the man’s name and inevitably lose her own and her refusal to consummate the marriages. Each modification is, of course, scrutinized by the involved parties, and within these negotiations we see how divergent their ways of thinking are to one another. The men view their names as a gift, the only gift that they have to offer these women, while the women view the name taking as a punishment that diminishes ones individuality. The women cannot see any value or reward in assuming their husbands’ names. This negotiation of name and language is never abandoned, because when the women do not assume their husband’s name they remain to be “they” and not a part of “we”(Gilman 122). These patriarchal traditions penetrate the feminine utopia to show that another point of view is possible.
The second denial of marriage is how the women refuse to consummate the marriages. They are married in title only and ironically they do not even share the same title. So is Gilman dismantling the constructs of marriage or problematizing a feminist’s prospect of living happily ever after with a man? Jeff and Van accept and respect their wives apprehension about sex, and Terry goes along with it for a while until the traditional patriarchal marriage customs overrules the Herland translation of reality. It is his act of sexual aggression that gets him expelled from Herland. Terry displays no remorse and so we can assume that to Terry, having sex is more important than Utopia. We may also question whether there can really be a utopia that excludes sex as a practice. Terry’s refusal to follow the utopia’s rules as Gilman’s concession that creating a world where sexual equality thrives will be a challenge.
Herland is an extreme interpretation of Utopia that allows a feminist perspective to resonate someplace at a time when there was no place for this kind of free discourse on women’s inequality. Gilman has created another space/country for her beliefs, and this otherness of place and time inevitably creates a greater distance between belief and practice. And yet, Herland is also a safe haven where feminist beliefs can be heard and dramatized.
Works Cited
Connell, Jeanne M. “Revisiting the Concept of Community: An examination of Charlotte
Perkins Gilman’s Utopian Vision.” Peabody Journal of Education. Summer 1995,
v70, n4.
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “Herland.” Penguin Putnam: New York, 1992.
1990. 339-40
Kumar, Krishan. “Utopianism.” Open University Press: Great Britain, 1991.
Kumar, Krishan and Stephen Bann. “Utopias and the Millennium.” Reaktion Books:
London, 1993.
Grosz, Elizabeth. ” Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists.” Contemporary Feminist Utopianism. Ed. Lucy Sargisson. Routledge: London, 1996. 75-76.
