國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
D. Crisis of Masculinity and Evolutionary History in After Darwin
In Three Birds Alighting on a Field (1991) and The Break of Day (1995), Wertenbaker has displayed a historical paralysis caused by millennial malaise, pointing out people’s anxiety and the sense of powerlessness at the turn of the
millennium. Facing this important historical moment, Wertenbaker, like her characters who are overwhelmed by fin-de-siècle paralysis, confesses, “There is a sense of general trepidation, of fear,” continuing, “I felt a sense of discomfort myself, a feeling that the world was trying to redefine itself, no one really knew who they were and even basic assumptions about human beings were coming into question” (Introduction, Plays Two vii-viii). The playwright senses her own discomfort of encountering a crucial historical moment, and she explores this discomfort through analyzing gender relations at the end of the century. In The Break of Day, three sisters question what a woman is by individual methods, including Nina’s adoption, Tess’s fertility treatment, and April’s single life without a marriage. Redefining themselves, women at the turn of the millennium encounter a sense of loss but they still expect a better future. After Darwin, the play written after The Break of Day, shifting from the focus of women to men, discusses the crisis of masculinity at the end of the 20th century and the loss of progress and evolution that history usually promises us.33
In 1988 as Wertenbaker rewrites the early colonial history of Australia in Our Country’s Good, she has explored the crisis of manliness in the heyday of patriarchal masculinity developed along with imperialism by revealing the ambivalence between
33 Although The Break of Day focuses on the dilemma of feminisms in the 1990s, the play also reveals men’s crisis of masculinity in it, especially by exposing that men have lost their superior status in the work field. Robert has been unemployed for over a year. Jamie’s career is in serious danger because his hospital is going to be closed, and his manliness is threatened by April’s help. Hugh’s career is also encountering a crisis because his musician, Nina, cannot produce music any more. Therefore, the historical paralysis the play discusses is also derived from the characters’ crises of identities, be they men or women.
‧
the colonizer and the colonized and the ambiguous double identities as settlers. In 1998, when Wertenbaker rewrites two historical figures, Robert FitzRoy (1805-1865) and Charles Darwin (1809-1882), she analyzes their friendship through the lens of fin-de-siècle paralysis in order to explore the crisis of masculinity in the 1990s and masculinity per se. Many critics have observed that the 1990s is a crucial decade in terms of gender relations. During this decade, feminist theory had been thriving for over twenty years; while women become more and more independent and
professional even though they still have problems as illustrated in The Break of Day, men are getting more and more troubled. According to Elaine Aston’s research, men in this decade, losing their traditional patriarchal superiority as men, no longer hold the advantages either at work or in the family. As a result, some men blame feminism for taking away their vantage, and their crisis of masculinity turns out to be
anti-feminism or a backlash against feminism (Feminist Views 2-3). Aston compares men in the 1990s with John Osborne’s angry young men in the 1950s, calling the crisis of masculinity in the 1990s “new laddism” (2).34
Joan Scott expresses that the purpose of examining history from the perspective of gender is “to point out and change inequalities between women and men” (Gender
Hence, it is very obvious that there is a trend of men’s crisis in the 1990s in both British and American societies (3;
Pilcher and Whelehan 89; Barker 115), and this trend has influenced gender relations a lot.
34 John Osborne’s play Look Back in Anger (1956) describes young men’s anger and discontent to the post-war English society. Because of the success of the play, British theatre in 1950s and 1960s focused on the discussion of social and political issues. Then Osborne and some playwrights, such as Edward Bond and Harold Pinter, who also deal with social realism, are categorized as “Angry Young Men” for the reason that their plays expose anger and bitterness toward British society. However, there are some
“Angry Young Women” who also share the same ideals with “Angry Young Men” during this period of time, and two outstanding plays by angry young women are Shelagh Delaney’s A Taste of Honey (1958) and Doris Lessing’s Play with a Tiger (1962). During the 1990s, men’s anger turns to the crisis of masculinity owing to feminism and capitalism, and men’s superiority is also challenged by successful women. More men lose their authority in jobs and families, getting more troubles, and committing more crimes. Critics name these new angry young men “new lad[s]” (Pilcher and Whelehan 89) and call the drama mirrored their anger as “in-yer-face theatre” or “drama of new laddism” (Aston, Feminist Views 2).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
3, emphasis added). R. W. Connell further emphasizes the significance of men’s studies nowadays, claiming, “To understand a system of inequality, we must examine its dominant group—the study of men is as vital for gender analysis as the study of ruling classes and elites is for class analysis” (“A Very Straight Gay” 736, emphasis added). Therefore, it is not complete to understand the inequality between men and women unless it is supplemented with men’s studies. Wertenbaker’s plays are characterized as a new review of gender relations because she sees gender as a constitutive element of social relations with a power of deconstructing stereotypical images of women and men. As suggested by Scott and Connell, only when men are taken into consideration does it become apparent that gender indeed alters the comprehension of history and gender exposes the system of inequality.
After Darwin was first performed in 1998 when history was going to move to a new millennium. Wertenbaker scrutinizes the crisis of masculinity in the 1990s and the loss of history at the end of the century. Centering on men, After Darwin describes FitzRoy and Darwin’s friendship in the 19th century and Ian and Tom’s performance in theatre in the 20th century through the device of a play-within-the-play. Darwin’s theory of evolution threatens not only FitzRoy’s identity but also all people who believe the Bible is the only truth. Besides, Tom’s and Ian’s masculinities are in danger at the turn of the millennium, and their anxiety for manhood causes them different attitudes toward history and different ways to perform historical Darwin and FitzRoy. In order to have a further understanding of how and why Wertenbaker rewrites the historical event that happened in the Voyage of the Beagle, this section begins with an exploratory discussion of men’s studies in the 1990s, then the gender hierarchy, and last the evolutionary concept of history. This discussion expects to conclude that history of the 1990s and the Voyage of the Beagle during the1830s are rearticulated, and only by deconstructing masculinity and femininity can old gender
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
construction be destroyed for a better future.
1. Men’s Studies in the 1990s
“Men’s studies” is also called “masculinity studies” or “critical studies of men”
(Connell and Messerschmidt 829-30). It is a reaction to the second-wave feminist movement and gay liberation (Connell, “Big Picture” 598). “Men’s Movements,”
following the Women’s Liberation Movement, appeared at the end of the 1960s. Like women’s consciousness-raising groups, men’s consciousness-raising groups also developed in the 1970s (Pilcher and Whelehan 85). However, the scale of men’s movements was very limited and not accepted by the majority (Barker 120). It was not until the 1990s when men’s problems were increasing and patriarchal masculinity was in serious crisis that men’s studies attracted people’s attention again (Barker 120-21). When Gayle Rubin describes “the sex/gender system” as “the set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity” (159), she explains that masculinity and femininity are man-made constructions that force masculinity to males and femininity to females. The
sex/gender system prescribes an essential quality for males and females individually in order to place everyone in this system; therefore, masculinity and femininity become the cultural and social meaning of being men or women. Chris Barker observes, “Traditional masculinity has encompassed the values of strength, power, stoicism, action, control, independence, self-sufficiency, camaraderie and work
amongst others” (115). Nevertheless, men realized that traditional masculinity was too ideal to achieve and it did not suit their condition in the 20th century, so “the crisis of masculinity” bursted out in the 1990s.
Because the idealized masculinity is impossible to be fulfilled by most men,
“multiple masculinities” become the thrust of men’s studies. Pilcher and Whelehan
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
explain, “The plural ‘masculinities’ is also used in recognition that ways of being a man and cultural representations of/about men vary, both historically and culturally, between societies and between different groupings of men within any one society”
(82-83). What they mean is that masculinities differ in different cultures, times and places. Even in the same time and space, masculinities are different because of
different classes, sexualities, jobs, and so on. Multiple masculinities release men from the idealized masculinity and provide them a position and an identity in society.
R. W. Connell is one of the first theorists who proposed and applied multiple masculinities in the 1990s to a wide range of applications, such as criminology, sports, health, media images of men, art and law. In Connell’s opinion, masculinity is “a place in gender relations, the practices through which men and women engage that place in gender, and the effects of these practices in bodily experience, personality and culture” (Masculinities 71). In other words, masculinity is a set of social practices for men, which place men in different positions and influence human experience in history. Connell’s masculinity as social practices is similar with Rubin’s masculinity as “products of human activity” (159), but what makes Connell’s theory special is that he takes race, class and sexuality into his consideration of masculinity. As a
consequence, he suggests a hierarchy of masculinities: hegemonic masculinity, complicit masculinity, subordinated masculinity, and marginalized masculinity (Masculinities 76-81).
If we read the main characters in After Darwin from the perspective of Connell’s gender hierarchy, we will further understand multiple masculinities, the structure of masculinities, and the interaction between masculinities and femininities in society. Notably, because social practices by human beings create history, when Connell proposes gender is social practices, he simultaneously emphasizes the
important role of gender in history. However, if multiple masculinities are all in crisis,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
then the identity that gender hierarchy offers men and women will collapse and need to be reorganized. By extension, the traditional concept of history centered on men and scientific accuracy is broken down, too.
2. Multiple Masculinities
Representing Connell’s “hegemonic masculinity” which is at the top of gender hierarchy, Robert FitzRoy in After Darwin is under the illusion that his identity is secured by nature. What Connell calls “hegemonic masculinity” designates the traditional patriarchal masculinity; it is social and cultural norms of being men. The idea of hegemonic masculinity comes from Antonio Gramsci’s “hegemon y,” which
“refers to the cultural dynamic by which a group claims and sustains a leading position in social life” (Masculinities 77). Hence, as the top position in the gender hierarchy, hegemonic masculinity embodies all the superior characteristics of being noble men, excludes men who have no power in society, and represses all women.
According to Connell, hegemonic masculinity “embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (77).
Connell’s explanation reveals that patriarchy rationalizes and legitimatizes hegemonic masculinity while hegemonic masculinity puts patriarchal ideas into practice.
Moreover, based not only on sexist patriarchy but also classism, hegemonic masculinity builds up itself through ideological and institutional power. As the word
“hegemony” suggests, hegemonic masculinity is organized by “a combination of force, and more importantly, consent” (Barker 84). It exercises power over the subordinate classes, such as women and the majority of men, but it is also accepted and agreed upon by society. Therefore, Connell observes that hegemonic masculinity
“is likely to be established only if there is some correspondence between cultural ideal
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
and institutional power, collective if not individual” (Masculinities 77), and the representatives of hegemonic masculinity are “the top levels of business, the military and government” (77).
In this light, FitzRoy fulfills all the qualities of hegemonic masculinity. As the captain of The Beagle, FitzRoy’s status is superior in the gender and social hierarchies.
He, born to be a noble Tory, has served in the Navy since he was fourteen years old.
His heritage, upbringing, and work all represent his aristocratic masculinity. Although Darwin is also born in a noble family, compared with FitzRoy’s career, which
represents the authority of the military, Darwin’s social status is inferior to FitzRoy’s.
In order to maintain his status, FitzRoy requires his crew’s complete obedience, sometimes at the price of corporal punishment. He insists on the necessity of flogging in the ship, so the drunkenness on the day after Christmas is not an excuse for not being punished. Claiming, “From the ship’s crew I expect only obedience” (After Darwin 119), FitzRoy protects his absolute power through punishment, believing, “A captain who cannot assert discipline betrays his men, goes mad himself, mad” (119).
FitzRoy’s strict personality is also expressed through his scientific research.
Despising Darwin’s record full of personal enthusiasm about the new land, he tells Darwin, “Mr. Geographer, while you were gallivanting about the countryside, I have measured, remeasured, and measured again every inch of this coast. Back and forth, back and forth—there will no error in the charts of these waters” (125-26). His quest for scientific perfection also implies his attitude toward history. FitzRoy, allowing no narrative element in historical records, expects accurate scientific truth and disdains Darwin’s personal narrative. Describing the same coast of South America, Darwin’s and FitzRoy’s observations are totally different. Darwin’s description is full of literary narrative and figures of speech, representing Hayden White’s argument on history as narrative form. Darwin reads his record of the coast, “—The next morning we saw the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
sun rise behind the outline of the Grand Canary island and suddenly illumine the peak of Tenerife, whilst the lower parts were veiled in fleecy clouds” (117). However, FitzRoy’s response to Darwin’s record is: “Such enthusiasm. So few facts” (118).
Completely different from Darwin’s, FitzRoy’s record is filled with scientific numbers and evidence:
Vessels in the offing, and distant land looming much; a few mottled, hard-edged clouds appearing in the east; streaks (mare’s tails across the sky) spreading from the same quarter; a high barometer (30.3) and the smoke of chimneys rising high into the air and going westwards, were the signs which assured us of a favourable wind. (118)
He values scientific evidence more than personal narration because for him
mathematical facts convey truth and show the authority of being a captain. Therefore, in order to preserve his power, gender, and social status, FitzRoy practices his
hegemonic masculinity through discipline, punishment, and scientific accuracy.
FitzRoy’s voyage to the Galapagos Islands is not simply a man’s adventure to display his masculinity, but also an expression of British imperialism overseas.
Connell, pointing out that the co-existence of masculinity and imperialism, states,
“[M]asculinities are not only shaped by the process of imperial expansion, they are active in that process and help to shape it” (Masculinities 185). The overseas empire provides men a rational excuse to embody their masculinity, and Connell further comments, “Empire was a gendered enterprise from the start, initially an outcome of the segregated men’s occupations of soldiering and sea trading” (187). In other words, imperialism excludes women and has a prejudice in favor of men’s aggressive and violent masculinities. Like in Our Country’s Good, Captain Phillip, who dominates New South Wales in the name of civilization and education, and Ross, who insists on punishment to maintain his power, Captain FitzRoy exercises his hegemonic
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
masculinity through the colonization in the overseas empire. Bible-trusting, faithful, FitzRoy claims that his voyage with Darwin is a “civilising mission” (118). He has been to Tierra del Fuego once, and captured four native people. In this voyage with Darwin, he plans to release three of them, because one died of smallpox, to see whether English education works on native people. Regarding the aboriginals as “the most miserable and savage creature” (106), FitzRoy intends to cultivate them by the means of western civilization.
In the name of education, like Captain Phillip in Our Country’s Good, FitzRoy hides his imperialism and aggressive masculinity under the mask of civilization. The purpose of this voyage is to build a colony in South America; FitzRoy states, “I am bringing all three back with a young missionary who will establish a settlement on that wild coast” (106-07). In order to set up an English empire, he insists that slavery in the colony is necessary and believes that the aboriginals like to be slaves. When Darwin criticizes slavery in South America, FitzRoy justifies himself, arguing, “I once questioned a landowner on that very subject. He called in twenty of his slaves and asked them what they thought and to a man they said slavery was a good thing” (126), continuing, “I do not say we should have slavery in England, but here—” (127).
Apparently, FitzRoy rationalizes imperialism in the name of religious mission, but in fact his imperialistic attitude despises the aboriginals in South America. While he is defending British imperialism, he is simultaneously justifying his hegemonic masculinity which is practiced through overseas colonialism.
Just like Captain Phillip and Ross’s hegemonic masculinities are challenged and questioned due to the resistance from Australian Aboriginal peoples and the double identities derived from the ambivalence between the colonizer and the colonized and between the colony and England, Captain FitzRoy’s masculinity is in crisis, too. As Connell suggests, masculinity is social practices; “masculinity, not as an isolated
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
object, but as an aspect of a larger structure” (67). What he means is that from the perspective of multiple masculinities, a masculinity, instead of being coherent, is always negotiating and interplaying with others in order to position itself in gender relations (71). Therefore, although FitzRoy’s hegemonic masculinity represents the superior level in the gender hierarchy, it is still challenged by others, particularly Darwin. Darwin’s theory of evolution breaks down the belief that the world is
centered on God. FitzRoy uses the flood in the Bible to explain the extinction of some animals (125), and he believes that “scientific truths are there to reveal God’s
centered on God. FitzRoy uses the flood in the Bible to explain the extinction of some animals (125), and he believes that “scientific truths are there to reveal God’s