Louisa May Alcott’s novel Little Women has long been
framed as a coming of age story which showcases the independent spirits of
young women, and lovers of the novel indicate that the book is of a feminist
nature. However, the text itself becomes hard to frame as feminist when one
considers the actual storylines that the book follows.
Independence, in this novel, is not framed as societal,
political, philosophical, or monetary freedom for any of the women, but as the
ability to make changes within themselves and inspire change in others. The
girl’s so-called ‘independence’ does not lead to them following careers and paths
they hoped to follow, but to their own development into proper women of the
time.
The most outwardly ‘feminist’ role of this novel obviously
falls upon Jo, who turns out to be the perfect example of how false the book’s
idea of independence is for these women. Jo desperately wants to be a writer,
and she pursues this with a fervor. She starts the book improper and happily
so, and cares far more about her stories than about what life others believe
she ‘should’ be living. Her rebuke of societal norms and masculine nature led
to her being hailed as a feminist, independent female character. However, by
the end of the book, Jo has given up every single aspect of what gave her this
title. She is a caretaker of both her own children and the boys who live in her
school, despite no previous semblance of a motherly nature existing in Jo (the
only possible example being her love of Beth, but even that reads far more as
sisterly love than motherly love). She has given up writing, and “she told no
stories except to her flock of enthusiastic believers and admirers” (486). For
most of the book, Jo’s entire existence centered around her love of writing,
but her marriage has made her give this up entirely. As far as her rebuke of
social norms, soon before her marriage we see her give up on looking for Professor
Bhaer out of fear that she might “ruin [her] bonnet,” despite that throughout
the book she has never seemed to care about ruining the overly fanciful items
of clothing she is socially expected to wear (469).
If the fiery and supposedly independent Jo could not fulfill
her desires and become a writer, it seems the other girls had no chance. Meg
becomes a homemaker, shown to be subservient to her husband when she is told to
stop caring so much for her children so she can be a better wife despite that
their marriage seems to be framed as egalitarian. Amy perhaps comes closest to
independence, as she at least continues to create art, but she still lives the
life of a homemaker as well. And of course, Beth dies before she could even live
out any ambition she might have had.
Despite how the story has been reframed in the future, to
say that Little Women is a feminist tale by modern standards is
categorically untrue. Though the women were strong in seeking change within
their own lives, they ultimately fell completely victim to the expectations of
society and in some way or another, gave up the dreams they were so convicted
to have in their youths.
I (of course) agree completely with your post; it is very important, especially in an age of modern adaptations, to recognize when source material does not actually live up to the modern standards we force it to in adaptation. I was sorely disappointed by the ending of this book, though I have to wonder if it was seen as radical and feminist at the time it was published; I understand how the first part was, but the end, even to 1800s standards, seems to be perfectly stereotypical regarding the roles the women ended up playing. Why did Alcott choose to do this, when the girls’ independent natures were never actually ridiculed in the first half of the book? It seems as if she did a total flip in ideals; even though she did make remarks about Jo’s behavior, it was framed as lovable rebukes, not actual disdain. So why was Jo’s nature changed so drastically? Was the feedback about her character that negative? Or did Alcott just subscribe to the belief that such flavors of independence be fully confined to childhood and be abandoned when one became a full adult? It seems contradictory, but I feel that the latter makes the most sense. It seems to be how the girls are characterized; womanhood was always looming as a reminder that they would eventually have to change their ways and settle down. It’s disappointing, but perhaps even allowing her female characters to behave in certain ways at all was a win for feminists at the time, though it didn’t last. Unfortunate, but perhaps just how it was.
ReplyDelete