國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Mariana and Sylvain for example. Granting women to have free mind can make positive effects on them, so that they will have unrestricted lives.
Nonchalance as Independence: The Indian Woman’s Articulation of Denial
Mariana is not emotional independent enough, causing her a victim in the marriage. A character, the Indian woman, makes up for Mariana’s lack. Therefore, my succeeding discussion is about this Indian woman. She sets a good example to tell us what the emotional and economic independence are; moreover, her decisions lead her to become a mistress of her fate. The Indian woman sets a good example for letting us know what an emotional and economic woman should be like. Myargument is that this Indian woman foils what Mariana lacks in the marriage. When Fuller finishes her visiting at Mackinaw, she arrives in Sault St. Marie where Fuller meets an Indian woman. The woman’s behaviors teach us the meanings of
independence. Since the Indian woman is economically independent, she does not need to bow to her husband. She knows that her husband cannot be her master lifelong, so she leaves him and makes her own living as a chambermaid in the boat.
Fuller revolts against the way that women have been restricted in the
patriarchal society, and this Indian woman is like the reflection of the ideal woman in Fuller’s mind. The Indian woman stays in the patriarchal society to accept her
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
marriage by her parents, but she chooses to give in the marriage while noticing that her husband does not cherish her. Her story shows as follow:
The Indian was married, when young, by her parents, to a man she did not love. He became dissipated, and did not maintain her. She left him, taking with her their child; for whom and herself she earns a subsistence by going as chambermaid in these boats. Now and then, she said, her husband called on her, and asked if he might live with her again; but she always answered, no. Here she was far freer than she would have been in civilized life. (SL 146)
On the one hand, the Indian woman sets a good example for Mariana. Although she has been stayed in the patriarchal society to accept this marriage, she leaves her husband when perceiving that her husband does not cherish her. The
woman’s leave shows the courage to escape the frame of marriage that is her emotional independence. It also means a vital kind of freedom by being a self-governing individual.
The Indian woman’s decisions correspond to Fuller’s feminist perspectives.
Women have suffered for a long time, and they may not be allowed to have their own power to decide what they want, being domestic ones and dependent on their husbands. This Indian woman subverts this concept. While realizing the marriage
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
cannot go on, she chooses to leave her husband and to make her own living, which can be regarded as a rebutting figure to prove that women can lead a free life. She is a figure to let us know that “woman has power enough, if she choose to exert it, and is usually disposed to do so” (Woman in the Nineteenth Century 30). Whatever sorrows and predicaments she might have felt, her free mind will guide her to be wiser and be better in the future life.
Fuller presents her feminist attitude of independence and autonomy through the Indian woman. She is the heart of the assertion to expound that: “[w]oman,
self-centred, would never be absorbed by any relation; it would be only an experience to her as to man” (Woman in the Nineteenth Century 97). The
“self-centred” refers to express what a woman wants and how a woman feels, which is a kind of the right of articulation. She concerns with her own needs and desires without regarding the patriarchal idea to center her own individual existence, telling us that she is not “absorbed by any relation.” This Indian woman does not get
attached to her husband, showing her emotional independence. With this intention of emotional independence, she does not need to bow her husband to win her own life by an emotional independence, and her decisions are the meaning of “the
self-centred” for us.
On the other hand, the Indian woman’s nonchalance relates her
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
articulation of denial. Although Fuller uses the word of “nonchalance19” to describe her personality, telling us that she is emotional independently to win her own life, she leaves her husband with anger. We are not informed her sadness when she detects her husband does not cherish her; we only see her leave him swiftly. Such the leave may show her anger displeasure while discovering her husband not cherishing her. The nonchalance means her denial of an unequal relation. Besides, Fuller uses the same word of “nonchalance”
and the phrase of “an unequal relation” to describe the case of the she-bear.
Fuller connects the two figures by their traits of “nonchalance.” It is imaginable both of them to be in their dilemma because they stay in the patriarchal society.
Can the she-bear’s trait of nonchalance be her cure? Is this nonchalance equal to the bear’s emotional independence? Thus, my proceeding discussion will be the she-bear’s situation and how she shows “nonchalance” in the marriage.