Isabel Archer’s Noblesse Oblige
(...and, I know this is against the rules, but I want to disclaim this as not my most PC post)
I had trouble this week getting ideas to travel into The Portrait of a Lady, but I’ve ended up discussing travel itself. Between Cronon and Brodhead, though, there is a thread equating tourism with subjugation. For Cronon, the tourist overcomes nature as the end of a long history of mis-considering Wilderness; for Brodhead, tourism works in two ways: first, as a psychic activity via the emergence of regional literature as a way to “travel” amongst the domestic other; and second, as a physical activity made of “going abroad”, which the poor could not afford to do and which distinguishes the distinguished from the lower classes. “The point about the postbellum upper class is that it was not an already-integrated ‘group’, but a group in the process of self-grouping, a coming together of elements with a common need to identify themselves as superior....This group also promoted the culture it valued as a means to subordinate the differently cultured to its values.” And “...the late nineteenth century American elite self-defined through its care for high art was also identified by...its arts of leisure travel. The post bellum period is when the American elite perfected the regimen of the upper class vacation: the European tour...” (158-9).
Taking up this idea of tourism as insidious, I would argue against Brodhead’s notion that the urge to distinguish oneself as elite can be all bad by looking at Portrait as a bildungsroman wherein Isabel leaves home to find an independent life, to distinguish herself, much like the postbellum wealthy did in their literary tourism in the aftermath of the war. Necessitated by her being elevated in class by the attentions of her aunt who brings her to Europe is a need for Isabel to determine whom she will NOW be, now that she is no longer a middle class nobody in America. Freed from the shadow of her father’s debts and her sisters’ parallel lives, Isabel conceives of herself as a somebody who’d better justify her aunt’s distinction and, later, her uncle’s generosity. Isabel consciously creates her-self during and through travel, in the mode of the postbellum elite.
Especially since Brodhead notes that the urge to form a new elite is a response to the erasure of the landed gentry after the Civil War, it seems that she conflates motivation with outcome: the formation of the elite can as well be thought of as nobly motivated as it can condescendingly motivated. While the outcome is the same either way -- the poor become other -- it seems that, coming on the heels of a semi-feudal system as it does, the formation of the new gentry is meant to be as much a moral distinction as an economic one; that is, the elite want to model morality in the feudal/southern mode, to paternally instruct the lower classes to be “better”. It is perhaps poorly considered in the historical arena, but I wanted to make a distinction between the motivation and the outcome of the social stratification that Brodhead describes as and seems to conflate into ill-intent.
Like these elite navigating a new political landscape in the United States, Isabel uses the newness of the place to articulate the self she wants to be, even amongst old acquaintance: “I’m affected by everything,” she tells Henrietta who, in the same scene, accuses Isabel of insincerity. When Isabel says “I hope he’ll hate me,” Henrietta retorts, “I believe you hope it about as much as I believe him capable of it.” And, as we see here, “It suddenly came upon her that her situation was one...deeply romantic.... But if she was now the heroine of the situation she succeeded scarcely the less in looking at it from the outside.” This process of articulating the self is self-conscious and, as such, cannot be ill-intentioned (who would self-define as wicked or mercenary?), and James confirms this in his characterization of Isabel in his notebooks: she is “the poor girl, who has dreamed of freedom and nobleness”. Making herself is, if not innocent, nobly intended (in both of the ways we can understand “noble”: aristocratic and showing high moral principles).
While Brodhead describes the process of the elite’s self-definition as a process of “sub-ordination”, she notes that it is simultaneously a desire to “change the living habits” of the lower classes, which can be read as noble as well as insidious. Isabel goes through a similar process of self-definition -- hers is an education that is based on a nobility of feeling, but that lacks self-awareness in the larger scheme of things. She is very aware of her appearance to those immediately surrounding her as “more than a pretty face” because she has opinions, but she fails to see this same assertiveness and display of intellect as a obstinacy that will eventually land her in a position that she was not able to foresee. Her view was not long enough. It is through this process of self-definition, which necessarily divides oneself from the other, that Isabel remains good, but as soon as she decides her identity by marrying Gilbert, she finds herself become one more privileged but depressed housewife, become cynical and, in her frustration, a bit mercenary (with regard to Pansy).
(...and, I know this is against the rules, but I want to disclaim this as not my most PC post)
I had trouble this week getting ideas to travel into The Portrait of a Lady, but I’ve ended up discussing travel itself. Between Cronon and Brodhead, though, there is a thread equating tourism with subjugation. For Cronon, the tourist overcomes nature as the end of a long history of mis-considering Wilderness; for Brodhead, tourism works in two ways: first, as a psychic activity via the emergence of regional literature as a way to “travel” amongst the domestic other; and second, as a physical activity made of “going abroad”, which the poor could not afford to do and which distinguishes the distinguished from the lower classes. “The point about the postbellum upper class is that it was not an already-integrated ‘group’, but a group in the process of self-grouping, a coming together of elements with a common need to identify themselves as superior....This group also promoted the culture it valued as a means to subordinate the differently cultured to its values.” And “...the late nineteenth century American elite self-defined through its care for high art was also identified by...its arts of leisure travel. The post bellum period is when the American elite perfected the regimen of the upper class vacation: the European tour...” (158-9).
Taking up this idea of tourism as insidious, I would argue against Brodhead’s notion that the urge to distinguish oneself as elite can be all bad by looking at Portrait as a bildungsroman wherein Isabel leaves home to find an independent life, to distinguish herself, much like the postbellum wealthy did in their literary tourism in the aftermath of the war. Necessitated by her being elevated in class by the attentions of her aunt who brings her to Europe is a need for Isabel to determine whom she will NOW be, now that she is no longer a middle class nobody in America. Freed from the shadow of her father’s debts and her sisters’ parallel lives, Isabel conceives of herself as a somebody who’d better justify her aunt’s distinction and, later, her uncle’s generosity. Isabel consciously creates her-self during and through travel, in the mode of the postbellum elite.
Especially since Brodhead notes that the urge to form a new elite is a response to the erasure of the landed gentry after the Civil War, it seems that she conflates motivation with outcome: the formation of the elite can as well be thought of as nobly motivated as it can condescendingly motivated. While the outcome is the same either way -- the poor become other -- it seems that, coming on the heels of a semi-feudal system as it does, the formation of the new gentry is meant to be as much a moral distinction as an economic one; that is, the elite want to model morality in the feudal/southern mode, to paternally instruct the lower classes to be “better”. It is perhaps poorly considered in the historical arena, but I wanted to make a distinction between the motivation and the outcome of the social stratification that Brodhead describes as and seems to conflate into ill-intent.
Like these elite navigating a new political landscape in the United States, Isabel uses the newness of the place to articulate the self she wants to be, even amongst old acquaintance: “I’m affected by everything,” she tells Henrietta who, in the same scene, accuses Isabel of insincerity. When Isabel says “I hope he’ll hate me,” Henrietta retorts, “I believe you hope it about as much as I believe him capable of it.” And, as we see here, “It suddenly came upon her that her situation was one...deeply romantic.... But if she was now the heroine of the situation she succeeded scarcely the less in looking at it from the outside.” This process of articulating the self is self-conscious and, as such, cannot be ill-intentioned (who would self-define as wicked or mercenary?), and James confirms this in his characterization of Isabel in his notebooks: she is “the poor girl, who has dreamed of freedom and nobleness”. Making herself is, if not innocent, nobly intended (in both of the ways we can understand “noble”: aristocratic and showing high moral principles).
While Brodhead describes the process of the elite’s self-definition as a process of “sub-ordination”, she notes that it is simultaneously a desire to “change the living habits” of the lower classes, which can be read as noble as well as insidious. Isabel goes through a similar process of self-definition -- hers is an education that is based on a nobility of feeling, but that lacks self-awareness in the larger scheme of things. She is very aware of her appearance to those immediately surrounding her as “more than a pretty face” because she has opinions, but she fails to see this same assertiveness and display of intellect as a obstinacy that will eventually land her in a position that she was not able to foresee. Her view was not long enough. It is through this process of self-definition, which necessarily divides oneself from the other, that Isabel remains good, but as soon as she decides her identity by marrying Gilbert, she finds herself become one more privileged but depressed housewife, become cynical and, in her frustration, a bit mercenary (with regard to Pansy).
Hi Aimee! I think the use of Brodhead with Portrait of a Lady works well here. I’m not sure you even need the distinction between the intent that might motivate class (and individual) behavior and the social effects of such behavior in order to make this parallel convincing. (I mention this only because it seems from your disclaimer that you might be a little uncomfortable with the idea of the charitable intention that can come with a process of subjection. . . is that right?) Your explanation that Isabel attempts to re-articulate her identity after a change in her economic situation is enough to make me believe that Brodhead’s article has something to say to Portrait. I see, though, why you might want to argue that for Isabel this process of re-articulation is not only beneficial (to her) but also harmless (to others). What does it suggest that she is ultimately betrayed and subsumed by a social structure (marriage)?
ReplyDeleteHi Aimee! I really responded to your argument that Brodhead conflates motive with outcome. I'm wondering, too, if you could integrate Brodhead's account of Hamlin Garland's rise to the elite classes with Isabel's ability to articulate a new self in her changed economic circumstances. It seems that there are some parallels between their situations, particularly in regards to their respective struggles (and motivations) to self-define in elite society. I think it's also a potentially interesting complication that just as Isabel is "ultimately betrayed and subsumed by a social structure" (Clara's note above), Garland undergoes a similar process and subsequently acts out against the "system of social difference" (Brodhead 170). Can some kind of dialogue be established between the two?
ReplyDelete