feminist criticism and jane eyre

Individuality and Self-Worth: Feminist Accomplishment in Jane Eyre

• Study Guides
• Authors & Texts
• Top Picks Lists
• Best Sellers
• Plays & Drama
• Shakespeare
• Short Stories
• Children's Books

• Ph.D., English Language and Literature, Northern Illinois University
• M.A., English, California State University–Long Beach
• B.A., English, Northern Illinois University

Whether or not Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre is a feminist work has been widely debated among critics for decades. Some argue that the novel speaks more about religion and romance than it does of female empowerment; however, this is not a wholly accurate judgment. The work can, in fact, be read as a feminist piece from beginning to end. 

The main character, Jane, asserts herself from the first pages as an independent woman (girl), unwilling to rely on or relent to any outside force. Though a child when the novel starts, Jane follows her own intuition and instinct rather than submitting to the oppressive statutes of her family and educators. Later, when Jane becomes a young woman and is faced with overbearing male influences, she again asserts her individuality by demanding to live according to her own necessity. In the end, and most importantly, Brontë stresses the significance of choice to the feminist identity when she allows Jane to go back to Rochester. Jane eventually chooses to marry the man she once left, and chooses to live out the remainder of her life in seclusion; these choices, and the terms of that seclusion, are what prove Jane’s feminism.

Early on, Jane is recognizable as someone atypical to the young ladies of the nineteenth century. Immediately in the first chapter, Jane’s aunt, Mrs. Reed, describes Jane as a “caviller,” stating that “there is something truly forbidding in a child taking up her elders in [such a] manner.” A young woman questioning or speaking out of turn to an elder is shocking, especially one in Jane’s situation, where she is essentially a guest in her aunt’s house.

Yet, Jane never regrets her attitude; in fact, she further questions the motives of others while in solitude, when she has been put off from questioning them in person. For instance, when she has been scolded for her actions toward her cousin John, after he provokes her, she is sent away to the red room and, rather than reflecting on how her actions could be considered unladylike or severe, she thinks to herself: “I had to stem a rapid rush of retrospective thought before I quailed to the dismal present.” 

Also, she later thinks, “[r]esolve . . . instigated some strange expedient to achieve escape from insupportable oppression – as running away, or, . . . letting myself die” (Chapter 1). Neither actions, having to suppress backlash or considering flight, would have been considered possible in a young lady, especially a child of no means who is in the “kind” care of a relative. 

Furthermore, even as a child, Jane considers herself an equal to all around her. Bessie brings this to her attention, condemning it, when she says, “you ought not to think yourself on an equality with the Misses Reed and Master Reed” (Chapter 1). However, when Jane asserts herself in a “more frank and fearless” action than she had ever before displayed, Bessie is actually pleased (38). At that point, Bessie tells Jane that she is scolded because she is “a queer, frightened, shy, little thing” who must “be bolder” (39).  Thus, from the very start of the novel, Jane Eyre is presented as a curious girl, outspoken and conscious of the need to improve her situation in life, though it is required of her by society to simply acquiesce.

Jane’s individuality and feminine strength is again demonstrated at the Lowood Institution for girls. She does her best to convince her only friend, Helen Burns, to stand up for herself. Helen, representing the acceptable female character of the time, waves Jane’s ideas aside, instructing her that she, Jane, need only study the Bible more, and be more compliant to those of a higher social status than she. When Helen says, “it would be your duty to bear [being flogged], if you could not avoid it: it is weak and silly to say you cannot bear what it is your fate to be required to bear,” Jane is appalled, which foreshadows and demonstrates that her character will not be “fated” to subservience (Chapter 6). 

Another example of Jane’s courage and individualism is shown when Brocklehurst makes false claims about her and forces her to sit in shame before all her teachers and classmates. Jane bears it, then tells the truth to Miss Temple rather than hold her tongue as would be expected of a child and student. Finally, at the end of her stay at Lowood, after Jane has been a teacher there for two years, she takes it upon herself to find a job, to better her situation, crying, “I [desire] liberty; for liberty I [gasp]; for liberty I [utter] a prayer” (Chapter 10). She does not ask for any man’s assistance, nor does she allow the school to find a place for her. This self-sufficient act seems natural to Jane’s character; however, it would not be thought of as natural for a woman of the time, as demonstrated by Jane’s need to keep her plan secret from the masters of the school.

At this point, Jane’s individuality has advanced from the eager, rash outbursts of her childhood. She has learned to keep true to herself and her ideals while maintaining a level of sophistication and piety, thus creating a more positive notion of feminine individuality than was displayed in her youth.  

The next obstacles for Jane’s feminist individuality come in the form of two male suitors, Rochester and St John. In Rochester, Jane finds her true love, and had she been any less of a feminist person, any less demanding of her equality in all relationships, she would have married him when he first asked. However, when Jane realizes that Rochester is already married, though his first wife is insane and essentially irrelevant, she immediately flees from the situation.

Unlike the stereotypical female character of the time, who might be expected to care only about being a good wife and servant to her husband , Jane stands firm: “Whenever I marry, I am resolved my husband shall not be a rival, but a foil to me. I will suffer no competitor near the throne; I shall exact an undivided homage” (Chapter 17). 

When she is asked again to be married, this time by St John, her cousin, she again intends to accept. Yet, she discovers that he, too, would be choosing her second, this time not to another wife, but to his missionary calling. She ponders his proposal for a long time before concluding, “If I join St. John, I abandon half myself.” Jane then decides that she cannot go to India unless she “may go free” (Chapter 34). These musings pronounce an ideal that a woman’s interest in marriage should be just as equal as her husband’s, and that her interests must be treated with just as much respect.

At the end of the novel, Jane returns to Rochester, her true love, and takes residence in the private Ferndean. Some critics argue that both the marriage to Rochester and the acceptance of a life withdrawn from the world overturn all efforts made on Jane’s part to assert her individuality and independence. It should be noted, however, that Jane only goes back to Rochester when the obstacles which create inequality between the two have been eliminated.

The death of Rochester’s first wife allows Jane to be the first and only female priority in his life. It also allows for the marriage that Jane feels she deserves, a marriage of equals. Indeed, the balance has even shifted in Jane’s favor at the end, due to her inheritance and Rochester’s loss of estate. Jane tells Rochester, “I am independent, as well as rich: I am my own mistress,” and relates that, if he will not have her, she can build her own home and he may visit her when he wishes (Chapter 37). Thus, she becomes empowered and an otherwise impossible equality is established. 

Further, the seclusion in which Jane finds herself is not a burden to her; rather, it is a pleasure. Throughout her life, Jane has been forced into seclusion, whether by her Aunt Reed, Brocklehurst and the girls, or the small town that shunned her when she had nothing. Yet, Jane never despaired in her seclusion. At Lowood, for example, she said, “I stood lonely enough: but to that feeling of isolation I was accustomed; it did not oppress me much” (Chapter 5). Indeed, Jane finds at the end of her tale exactly what she had been looking for, a place to be herself, without scrutiny, and with a man whom she equaled and could therefore love. All of this is accomplished due to her strength of character, her individuality.

Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre can certainly be read as a feminist novel. Jane is a woman coming into her own, choosing her own path and finding her own destiny, without stipulation. Brontë gives Jane all that she needs to succeed: a strong sense of self, intelligence, determination and, finally, wealth. The impediments that Jane encounters along the way, such as her suffocating aunt, the three male oppressors (Brocklehurst, St. John, and Rochester), and her destitution, are met head-on, and overcome. In the end, Jane is the only character allowed real choice. She is the woman, built up from nothing, who gains all she wants in life, little though it seems.

In Jane, Brontë successfully created a feminist character who broke barriers in social standards, but who did it so subtly that critics can still debate whether or not it happened. 

Bronte, Charlotte .  Jane Eyre (1847). New York: New American Library, 1997. 

• Jane Eyre Study Guide
• An Introduction to Metafiction
• Biography of Charlotte Brontë
• 42 Must-Read Feminist Female Authors
• Must-Read Books If You Like Romeo and Juliet
• 'Jane Eyre' Questions for Study and Discussion
• Biography of Anne Brontë, English Novelist
• Top 100 Women of History
• Profile of Jane Addams, Social Reformer and Founder of Hull House
• Jane Boleyn, Lady Rochford
• Dreams as Narrative Structure in Wide Sargasso Sea
• Top 10 Books for High School Seniors
• Biography of Jane Seymour, Third Wife of Henry VIII
• Top 20 Influential Modern Feminist Theorists
• Biography of Emily Brontë, English Novelist
• Biography of Crystal Eastman, Feminist, Civil Libertarian, Pacifist

• Assignment Guidelines
• PDFs of Course Readings
• Remediation Assignments

Jane Eyre’s Manifestation of Feminism

Jane Eyre’s role as a feminine protagonist within a male-dominated society and the distinctly feminist role she plays within that society displays a certain dichotomy which draws in manifestations of feminism from both Jane Eyre as a character as well Charlotte Brontë in her capacity as an author to provide commentary on contemporary society.

In her capacity as a character who represents the female perspective of the 19th century, Jane Eyre presents strong feminist arguments among her male counterparts concerning the role of women in society. In particular, Jane directly confronts and debates the idea that equality is determined by age or on the basis of gender or sex, noting to Mr. Rochester, “your claim to superiority depends on the use you have made of your time and experience” (Brontë 157). What we see in Jane’s audible expression is a manifestation of her beliefs as a female character implying that her own experience and use of time rivals that of Mr. Rochester. Jane promotes an idea radical for the time that claims to superiority are dependent not on the basis of sex or gender but rather on how we make use of our own resources as a part of this greater fabric that is society.

As an author, though, Charlotte Brontë, in her capacity to control Jane Eyre as a character, displays instances in which we see Jane move toward a different manifestation of feminism from the one viewed prior, one which we see not audibly but rather internally. Within her own thoughts, Jane seems to display more nuanced feminism, one which at times takes in the role of servitude as being integral to feminism itself. “But Servitude! That must be matter of fact. Anyone may serve. I have served here eight years now; now all I want is to serve elsewhere. Can I get so much of my will?” (Brontë 102). This inner debate displays another manifestation of Jane’s own feminism, potentially one that is influenced more directly by Charlotte Brontë in her role as both an autobiographer and as the creator of Jane herself. In this sense, Jane expresses feminist sentiment by evoking ideas of freedom and desire  to escape a current position but at the same time remain in a position of servitude elsewhere. From there, the question which I want to pose is how do we reconcile this conflict which Jane creates where she creates these two seemingly separate views of feminism that potentially contradict each other? What perhaps does Charlotte Brontë try to convey in creating this tension between Jane’s desire to leave but at the same time remain in a role of servitude?

3 Responses to Jane Eyre’s Manifestation of Feminism

In her desire for “Servitude,” I wonder if Jane could be construed as expressing doubts about the early nineteenth century idea of the self-sufficient individual, an idea rooted in the concept of property ownership, as Armstrong argues in “Thinking Aloud.” Jane can’t afford property and lacks the means to become wholly self-sufficient, so she recognizes the limits of the concept of full “Liberty,” the word she contrasts with “Servitude.” I guess it’s an open question whether this desire for “Servitude” is merely a concession to the social realities of the time and of her life — the subordinate position of women, and Jane’s own lack of money — or whether she is pointing toward a different conception of human relations: the later idea of “biopower,” more focused on the interdependence of humans than on their individualism.

Jacob, I think that the questions you have raised are extremely astute, speaking to the way that, though we see Jane as championing her own equality, we are left confused as she also wishes for further servitude – two perspectives which “potentially contradict each other,” as you have phrased it. Reflecting upon Nancy Armstrong’s comments in her “Thinking Aloud” interview, I wonder if this potential contradiction stems from the way in which Jane fails to fit snugly inside the binary gender structure presented before her. While she aims to stay within the realm of traditional femininity with respect to her career aspirations, working subservient positions within the household of a man, she also asserts herself as being an equal to Mr. Rochester, as if she has the same right to what has traditionally been a brand of superiority afforded solely to privileged men. Perhaps this is what Armstrong wanted to draw attention to – the necessity of feminist groups in particular recognizing that Jane’s nonconformity transcends traditional gender groupings, and thus she is not merely an advocate for women, but for those who cannot fit within the traditional set of standards to begin with. With this nonconformity in mind, I wonder what parallels can be drawn between Jane’s non-binary position on the spectrum of gender roles and her similar disassociation with the British class system under which she lives, and into which she cannot fit. Does Jane bring about conceptions of the middle-class in the same way that she questions the validity of binary gender roles?

This is an interesting take on Jane’s understanding of her role in society as a woman. There are tow points here which are distinct, in my opinion. First, Jane sees herself as potentially equal with men like Rochester insofar as her past experiences render them equal. Second, Jane struggles with breaking out of the historically female-role of “servitude,” and finds solace/empowerment through her ability to choose whom she serves.

I think Armstrong would underscore in both of these points the focus on the internalization of character and thoughts and also Jane’s blurring of binary gender roles. Both of these points are just thought narrated on a page, and can be seen manifested in Jane’s actions, but they are not Jane’s spoken dogma. Does Jane fully grasp the effect that these two points have in blurring gender roles and in internalizing her own character?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Search for:

Recent Posts

• Remediation: Art, Love, and the News
• Empathy in the end of NLMG
• Hailsham’s hand in playing God
• Poll Results: do you agree?
• Remediation: Never Let Me Go

Recent Comments

• Karissa Teer on Fire in the Future
• Nadine Lin on Fire in the Future
• Charlotte Abry on Is the Marriage Plot working? What about Religion?
• Charlotte Abry on Alec and Prince… basically the same?
• Gabriela Aste Molina on Guess who’s back, back again {and with requests}
• August 2019
• February 2019
• January 2019
• Uncategorized
• Entries RSS
• Comments RSS
• WordPress.org

• Staff & Faculty
• Current Students
• Parents & Family
• Visitors & Community
• Corporate Partnerships
• Support Marymount
• Marymount Shuttles
• Student Counseling Services
• News & Events
• Campus Safety
• Faculty & Staff Directory
• My Marymount
• Registrar’s Office
• Library & Learning Services
• Campus Ministry
• Human Resources
• Office of the President
• Marymount at a Glance
• Points of Pride
• Our Mission, Vision, & Plan
• Capital Location
• Our History
• The Rixey History
• Our Inclusive Community
• Marymount’s Economic Impact
• Involvement & Service
• Distinguished Speakers
• Map and Directions
• Visit Marymount
• Admitted Students
• Undergraduate Students
• Graduate Students
• Online Students
• Non Degree Students
• Summer Programs
• Early College Programs
• Scholarships & Aid
• Early Learning Academy
• New Student Scholarships
• How to Apply
• Types of Aid
• Graduate Student Aid
• Military & Veteran Services
• Financial Aid FAQs
• Tuition & Fees
• Satisfactory Academic Progress Standards
• Office of the Provost
• Academic Calendar
• Majors & Programs
• Online Programs
• Services & Resources
• College of Business, Innovation, Leadership, and Technology
• College of Health and Education
• College of Sciences and Humanities
• Access, Belonging, Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity Hub
• Marymount Global
• Center for Optimal Aging
• Saints’ Service Network
• Faculty Research and Experts
• Commencement
• Student Affairs Administration
• New Student Orientation
• Dining Services
• International Student & Scholar Services
• Student Activities and Events
• Student Accounts
• Commuter Students
• Student Health and Well-being
• Community Standards and Title IX
• Ministry, Activities & Leadership
• Careers, Internships & Employment
• Auxiliary Services
• Campus Safety & Emergency Management
• Student Government Association
• Student Success and Well-being

Academics College of Sciences and Humanities School of Interdisciplinary Studies School of Interdisciplinary Studies Programs Digital Writing & Narrative Design (B.A.) Student Publications Magnificat 2022 “Contradiction in Jane Eyre: Conversations of 19th Century Feminism” by Audrey Clement

“Contradiction in Jane Eyre: Conversations of 19th Century Feminism” by Audrey Clement

Magnificat , april 2022, introduction.

As a staple in classic feminist literature, Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre plunges readers into the 19 th century feminine sphere. Brontë’s narrator, Jane, is a delightfully complex heroine who exemplifies the successes and limitations of 19th century feminist philosophy. At times, Jane is a stellar example of the independent Victorian woman struggling against a hostile patriarchal society. Other times, she is an active participant in patriarchal society, directing hostility towards other women and prioritizing male comfort and desires. For some, especially those who know and love Jane Eyre as feminist literature, the polarity inherent in Jane’s character may be difficult to interpret. As readers and scholars, I posit we can approach the issue in two ways. First and foremost, we can praise Brontë for her success in creating a character who so eloquently personifies the feminine psyche, which has been trained to always hate or criticize femininity over masculinity (which often escapes critique entirely). We can use these very contradictions to explore the progress of feminist philosophy since the novel was published.

Contradictions often peacefully coexist in our world, but that does not necessarily make them easier to understand. Deconstructionist theory attempts to do so; thus, it is helpful to our understanding of Jane to adopt a deconstructionist approach. Throughout the novel, readers become aware of a duality in Jane’s subconscious—she never addresses it herself, but her contradictory actions confirm its existence. Readers may initially process these contradictions as symptoms of a flawed character, but I believe it is more rewarding to consider these contradictions as naturally occurring psychic duality, created by a feminine mind at war with the mandates of her culture. Lois Tyson, author of Critical Theory Today , calls this phenomenon the multiple and fragmented self. She states that “we [consist] of any number of conflicting beliefs, desires, fears, anxieties, and intentions” (Tyson 257). Tyson claims that human identity is shaped by “an unstable, ambiguous force-field of competing ideologies” inherent to human existence, meaning that people will naturally contradict themselves (Tyson 249, 257). Jane is no exception, as her innate, human inclination towards intellectual and physical freedom competes with patriarchal norms for space in her psyche. Opposing perspectives are represented within a single character. The theory of a multiplicity of selves offers a solution to the confusion readers may feel—Jane’s contradictory actions do not have to be a problem. Contradictions in the fictional often reflect contradictions in the real world. Jane’s fractured character provides us an opportunity to explore a patriarchal feminist psyche that is continually at odds with itself. This fracture reveals itself most often in the ways Jane interacts with other characters in the novel.

Jane, the Halfway Feminist: How does Jane interact with other women?

A patriarchal feminist psyche is characterized by the desire for one’s personal advancement as a woman accompanied by the refusal to advocate for the advancement of all women, either consciously or unconsciously. In other words, the patriarchal feminist is unfamiliar with solidarity; she sees other women as competition rather than allies. In her book on the marginalization of feminism, bell hooks says that perceiving other women as threats is a direct result of patriarchal indoctrination: “We are taught that our relationships with one another diminish rather than enrich our experience. We are taught that women are “natural enemies,” that solidarity will never exist between us because we cannot, should not, and do not bond with one another” (hooks 43). Indeed, for feminine identifying feminists, analyzing how we perceive and interact with women may reveal our patriarchal biases more effectively than our interactions with men precisely because society indoctrinates women to oppose one another. Such is the case with Jane.

As the novel progresses and Jane transitions into womanhood, she increasingly interacts with women who are unlike herself in status and appearance. It is towards these women that Jane directs her ire. These emotions range from outright disparagement to quiet condescension. Her criticism often seems motivated by patriarchal expectations, where no matter how women present themselves, they are subjected to disapproval. hooks states that “[S]exism is perpetuated by the victims themselves who are socialized to behave in ways that make them act in complicity with the status quo” (43). Jane, as a member of patriarchal society, may subconsciously criticize other women by measuring them against an unrealistic patriarchal standard. For example, Jane’s scathing internal monologue criticizes Miss Ingram for her defects:

She was very showy, but she was not genuine: she had a fine person, many brilliant attainments; but her mind was poor, her heart barren by nature: nothing bloomed spontaneously on that soil; no unforced natural fruit delighted by its freshness. She was not good; she was not original: she used to repeat sounding phrases from books: she never offered, nor had, an opinion of her own. (Brontë 199).

While Jane’s assessment of Miss Ingram’s character may not be inaccurate, the manner in which she criticizes her is fueled by the patriarchy. Jane begins to dislike Miss Ingram because of her insults aimed towards governesses and lower classes of women, but rather than criticizing Miss Ingram on the quality of her arguments (or lack thereof), Jane attacks her personality and her intelligence; thus, the criticism falls flat. Additionally, Jane’s internal outburst seems motivated by jealousy, not simply moral principle— she is intently aware that Miss Ingram is chasing the attention of Mr. Rochester, whose attention she wishes for herself. Jane remarks that “Miss Ingram was a mark beneath jealousy: she was too inferior to excite the feeling” (Brontë 199), yet spends pages denouncing her character. She also admits to being “irresistibly attracted” to Rochester and Miss Ingram’s interactions, and watching them carefully:

I see Mr. Rochester turn to Miss Ingram, and Miss Ingram to him; I see her incline her head towards him, till the jetty curls almost touch his shoulder and wave against his cheek; I hear their mutual whisperings; I recall their interchanged glances… I saw all his attentions appropriated by a great lady, who scored to touch me with the hem of her robes as she passed (Brontë 199).

One wonders if Jane truly escapes the jealousy she claims Miss Ingram is incapable of inspiring. Indeed, it seems more likely that Jane views Miss Ingram as a threat to Jane’s access to Rochester, which causes Jane to internally reject her.

Jane has a similar reaction to Miss Oliver later in the novel, although their interactions are not characterized by the bitterness Jane feels for Miss Ingram. The similarity in Jane’s reactions to these women lies primarily in her propensity to unfairly evaluate and criticize them. For example, even though Jane does not outright dislike Miss Oliver, she clearly looks down on her for her giddy and flirtatious nature. Jane describes Miss Oliver as “coquettish… not worthlessly selfish…indulged since birth… hasty… vain… unthinking… not profoundly interesting or thoroughly impressive” (Brontë 400). Jane, self admittedly a “cool observer of her own sex,” counteracts every positive quality of Miss Oliver’s with something inherently negative or “wrong” with her character. Her interactions with these women are characterized by a sense of personal superiority. This ingrained patriarchal perspective affects how she thinks about other women, to such an extent that she cannot form lasting bonds with women different from herself. Jane does experience lasting relationships with women in the novel, which is why prominent scholars like Adrienne Rich praise the novel for its depiction of female solidarity. We see Jane extend financial support to Mary and Diana, potentially allowing them to move more freely in society, as well as form lasting friendships with both. In her early life, she bonds with Helen Burns and Miss Temple, who support one another through numerous difficulties. These achievements are not diminished if we recognize that Jane Eyre does not depict solidarity between all women.

I am not claiming that the responsibility for developing solidarity that crosses social boundaries lands solely on Jane’s shoulders. In fact, as members of the upper echelon, it is logical to assume that socialites like Miss Ingram and Miss Oliver could more easily make the first move on that front (as Miss Oliver does!). I do believe that Jane’s hostile interactions with women of other social classes reveal the limitations of Jane Eyre as a feminist manifesto, and reveal Jane’s inability to escape patriarchal thinking. hooks says that “[w]omen are divided by sexist attitudes, racism, class privilege, and a host of other prejudices… unless… barriers separating women can be eliminated… we cannot hope to change and transform society as a whole” (44). Through Jane, Brontë strengthens established societal boundaries by eliminating the possibility for women of different social classes to bond, revealing the limitation of her feminist thought. Jane is only open to sisterhood with specific types of women—granted, it is unlikely that Ms. Ingram would be open to sisterhood with Jane, but the author’s choice to draw that socio-economic boundary with such rigidity says something about the quality of woman Brontë believes is deserving of total liberation. Indeed, the women Jane does bond with are all eerily like her, both in their socio-economic standing and philosophy (Diana, Mary, Helen, Miss Temple, etc.). Although there are plenty of criticisms to be had about how socially privileged white women (like Blanche Ingram) do little to nothing to dismantle patriarchal ideals, praising one kind of woman while disparaging another does little to change hierarchical structures; it is not productive. By pitting readers against certain women to support Jane, Brontë undermines the effective feminist advocacy of Jane Eyre from a modern perspective.

 The Patriarchal Feminist: Seeking Male Approval and Denying Male Accountability

The contradictions within Jane’s patriarchal feminist psyche manifest in her interactions with men as well. Although Jane is always the focal point of these interactions, it is fascinating how Jane continually seeks the approval of men. A patriarchal society tells women that they have no value outside of their relationships to men. In the words of bell hooks, “Male supremacist ideology encourages women to believe we are valueless and obtain value only by relating to or bonding with men” (hooks 44). A patriarchal society pushes Jane towards the approval of men rather than bonds with women, as evidenced by her relationship with St. John. Although Jane is not interested in St. John romantically, she still seeks to please him, even when it is unpleasant for her. She learns “Hindo-stanee” instead of German at his behest, while Mary and Diana “agreed that St. John should never have persuaded them to such a step” (Brontë 433). As time progresses, Jane states that: “I… wished more to please him: but to do so, I felt daily more and more that I must disown half my nature… it racked me hourly to aspire to the standard he uplifted” (Brontë 434). Jane sacrifices her personal comfort as well as quality time with Mary and Diana (with whom she was learning German) in favor of St. John’s approval of her. She prioritizes male attention over herself and other women, perhaps subconsciously, indicating society’s indoctrination which tells her to be submissive and agreeable to men’s desires.

Although Jane does seek St. John’s approval frequently, their relationship also provides her ample opportunity to assert her independence and personal agency, creating contradiction. There are limits to Jane’s prioritization of St. John’s wants; at a point, she insists on prioritizing herself and her wants. Jane’s reaction to St. John’s proposal even demonstrates progressive feminist ideas for the time period—she attempts to bond with St. John platonically, stating: “I regard you as a brother—you, me as a sister.” The society in which Jane operates only allows women and men to bond intimately through marriage and romantic relationships (an exception could be made for siblings). St. John’s reaction makes this clear, as he immediately refuses the potential connection, implying impropriety: “We cannot—we cannot… it would not do” (Brontë 442). Contrary to her earlier acquiescence to St. John’s wishes, Jane firmly establishes herself her own personal agent; she makes decisions for herself, regardless of outside approval or disapproval. She also aligns herself with femininity here, as her main reasoning for refusing St. John is quite romantic; they “did not love each other as man and wife should” (Brontë 442). It is clear in her interactions with St. John that Jane is often torn between patriarchal societal norms and her feminist values—they are symptomatic of her fractured self.

Jane’s relationship with Rochester carries the same confusing contradictions. Many scholars have criticized Jane and Rochester’s relationship on the basis of romantic love; they argue that Jane’s choice to enter into a romantic relationship is a betrayal of herself. In her essay “Jane Eyre: The Temptations of a Motherless Woman,” Adrienne Rich characterizes their initial relationship as a patriarchal “temptation” (Rich 474). Rich argues that Jane must refuse traditional Gothic understandings of romance, which she does by leaving Rochester a first time. Rich also believes that Rochester and Jane’s marriage is inherently practical and unromantic (Rich 482). I agree with Rich that there are problems in Jane and Rochester’s relationship; however, I do not believe the problem is the fact they love one another. Jane’s romantic feelings are not the cause of the inequality in this relationship. Rochester’s problematic actions are. Additionally, Jane’s inability (or refusal) to hold Rochester accountable for his condescending, misogynist, or abusive actions shows how she has been trained by a patriarchal society to sympathize with Mr. Rochester over the women he is hurting. There are many examples of Mr. Rochester hurting women verbally, psychologically, and physically, and Jane dismissing (and therefore accepting) his behavior. Even Adèle, a small child, does not escape maltreatment; Mr. Rochester often speaks negatively of her and insults her to her face, like when he claims “She is not bright, she has no talents” (Brontë 130). Jane never addresses this with Rochester, yet she rightfully criticizes Ms. Ingram for the same behavior, showing how she aligns with Mr. Rochester over other women (Brontë 200). Mr. Rochester also psychologically manipulates Jane, which is played off as a poor attempt at romance (when he masquerades as a fortune teller to get information). Of course, the most serious of Mr. Rochester’s infractions is his abuse of Bertha.

Scholars in the past have argued that Bertha’s character is not meant to be viewed realistically, that her primary function is metaphorical. In their book, “The Madwoman in the Attic,” Gilbert and Gubar state: “Most important, her [Jane’s] confrontation, not with Rochester but with Rochester’s mad wife Bertha, is the book’s central confrontation, an encounter … not with her own sexuality but with her own imprisoned ‘hunger, rebellion, and rage’” (339). Early feminist scholars like Gilbert and Gubar popularized the interpretation of Bertha as a mere representation of Jane’s imprisoned psyche, that Bertha is all the anger Jane is unable to express. While I find the concept intriguing, assuming Bertha is only a function of the novel erases her humanity and dismisses the abuse she has experienced. More specifically, it dismisses the abuse she has experienced at the hands of Rochester . Indeed, at no point does Brontë address the issue of Rochester’s character. When Jane learns about Bertha, she does not mention a problem with his behavior, other than the fact that he “[speaks] of her [Bertha] with hate—with vindictive antipathy,” and that “the attribute of stainless truth was gone from his idea” (Brontë 326, 321). She is upset that he lied, and that he speaks of Bertha derogatorily, but she does not blame him for his actual actions, which should be inexcusable. Jane even states that she “would not ascribe vice to him” (Brontë 321). Jane’s silence and her refusal to acknowledge his faults are indicative of the patriarchal side of her psyche as she grants him leniency when he should be challenged.

The way Jane aligns with Rochester even in his worst moments are contradicted by her ability to assert her personal agency in spite of him, similarly to the way she opposes St. John. She exerts her autonomy when she chooses to leave Rochester, saying that it would be wicked “to obey” him, that she will care for herself (Brontë 343, 344). She insists on plain clothes despite Rochester’s wish for extravagant outfits. Earlier in the novel, before their romantic relationship is established, she debates with him about her rate of pay and insists her salary be on her terms, not his (Brontë 243). These instances create duality, where we simultaneously see Jane as a feminist and a product of the patriarchy. It seems Jane is a feminist for herself, but struggles when it comes to advocating for others or defining herself outside of male approval (although these struggles are not all-encompassing). However positive and inspiring Jane’s moments of clarity may be, her dismissal of the suffering of other women significantly limits the novel’s ability to serve as a feminist work.

Analyzing the failures of dated works may seem pessimistic to some; however, I do not believe the intent of this kind of analysis is to disqualify or discount works that have been important to so many readers. The purpose of deconstructive analysis is to highlight where a text is revolutionary, and to point out areas where texts no longer serve or represent us. It is a celebration of its successes and our progress.

The issues of feminine independence and women’s rights portrayed in Jane Eyre still resonate with modern-day readers, as equality is still a work in progress. Women are still confined through a lack of opportunity, unequal pay, and countless other areas, and these women are searching for solutions just like Jane. Analyzing the failures of Jane’s feminism teaches us that the solution will never be harming other women or perceiving them as threats, even if we are acting through silent complicity. Perhaps, like Jane, we are not aware of how our own patriarchal indoctrination blinds us to the everyday harm we do. I hope this analysis can serve as a reminder to others (as it did to me) that we are all peddlers of patriarchal oppression when we lack self-awareness. We are all capable of self-reflection and growth; this is the true heart of feminism.

Works Cited

Gilbert, Sandra M., et al. “A Dialogue of Self and Soul: Plain Jane’s Progress.” The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination , Yale University Press, 2020, pp. 336–71, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvxkn74x.14.

hooks, bell. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center . South End Press. Boston, 1984. Print.

Tyson, Lois. “Deconstructive Criticism.” Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide, 2nd ed.,. Taylor & Francis Group. New York, 2006, pp. 249-261.

Rich, Adrienne. “Jane Eyre: The Temptations of a Motherless Woman.” Jane Eyre: An Authoritative Text, Context, Criticism , edited by Richard J. Dunn, W.W. Norton & Co., 2001, pp. 469-483.

(703) 522-5600

Privacy Policy - Terms of Use

• Contact CONTACT MARYMOUNT
• Directions MAPS & DIRECTIONS
• Careers CAREERS AT MARYMOUNT
• Student Jobs JOBS ON CAMPUS (MU STUDENT)
• Our Mission, Vision & Plan
• Maps & Directions

Jump to navigation

The Marriage Backlash: Feminist Interpretations of 'Jane Eyre'

The Marriage Backlash: Feminist Interpretations of 'Jane Eyre'

There are few novels in the feminist community that have caused as many conflicting critiques as Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. For many, this novel has been viewed as a champion for female independence and a modernity before its time. For others, it embodies just the opposite. Many critics point to the servitude and marriage of Jane as the elements which make it an anti-feminist text, citing the 'cult' feminist following as unwarranted (London 199). It is my intention to illustrate the fact that Bronte crafted a proto-feminist text when she wrote Jane Eyre, and that the interpretations which state otherwise point to an archaic viewpoint of marriage through the lens of feminism. The continuously conflicting critiques of Jane Eyre have been constant over the years. Cora Kaplan, author of Victorianna: Histories, Fictions, Criticism, explicates many of these views citing a valid cause behind the negative interpretations of Bronte's most famous work. Kaplan states, "The fact that Jane Eyre continues to incite a highly charged contentious response within feminist criticism, a response so full of present feeling that it seems out of sync with the novel's historical status, suggests that its narrative condenses unresolved question in and for feminism today. One of these is clearly the status of female feelings in feminism, of anger and desire, the latter both in its specifically sexual and more generally utopian definition" (Kaplan 25). One of these 'unresolved questions' in feminism is the matter of marriage and a feminist viewpoint being merged together. It is my assertion that Jane Eyre's relevance has been torn down as a feminist novel because Jane ultimately marries Rochester. The role of her marriage in the book's resolution has caused many feminist critics to overlook her highly-charged feminist acts (in the Victorian era) simply because she chooses to marry. Many literary critics and fellow authors, both contemporary to Bronte and otherwise, have made a point to illustrate the anti-feminist aspects of Jane Eyre. In, "Reader: Who Wrote you? An Autocritical Exercise Upon Jane Eyre," Michelene Wandor relentlessly insists that Jane's employment at Thornfield and her subsequent marriage to Rochester only serve to exemplify her subservient and meek manner. Wandor states, "Having survived an unhappy childhood, Jane is educated to be a lady- she paints, plays the piano and sings. Not only does her behaviour become impeccably proper, so do her morals. Childish rebellion is followed by social obedience." (Wandor 410). Here, Wandor diminishes the spirit of female independence of the book by insinuating that Jane is obedient and nothing more. The fact that she sees her potential marriage to Rochester as immoral and afterwards refuses him, Wandor states, only further illustrates the repression of Jane. This analysis of Jane's behavior overlooks the fact that Jane, on her own free will, decides to reject Rochester and St. John as well. These acts exhibit Jane's independent and strong-willed nature specifically when compared to Miss Ingram's determination to marry Rochester. Jane's rejection of Rochester illustrates her female independence and not, as Wandor insists, any form of social obedience. Jane's sentiments to Rochester after refusing to marry him further exemplify the fact that she holds her individuality and morals in a high esteem, above any insinuated subservience. During her rejection of Rochester she states, ""I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained, I am, the more I will respect myself. I will keep the law given by God, sanctioned by man. I will hold to the principals received by me when I was sane, and not mad- as I am now. Laws and principles are not for the times when there is not temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigor; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be"" (Bronte 368). This excerpt illustrates not only Jane's strength but her self-focus. The emphasis Jane places on herself exhibits the behavior of a woman not concerned with pleasing others, but one who is concerned with doing what is right for herself. It is this sense of self-worth which critics such as Wandor have disregarded, choosing instead to place their focus on the 'storybook' ending of the novel when Jane ultimately decides to marry Rochester following his wife's death. Jane's employment at Thornfield has been yet another source of feminist contention in Bronte's most famous work. In her essay "The Pleasures of Submission: Jane Eyre and the Production of the Text", Bette London strives to prove her thesis which contends that the liberation of Jane Eyre, is not actually liberating at all since it just means a new form of servitude for her. London's assertion that Jane's move from teacher to governess should not be viewed as a feminist act, is in stark contrast to her famous peers such as Gilbert and Gubar. London states, "For Bronte, then, as for Jane Eyre, liberty can be articulated only as new servitude, a choice of masters. Moreover, her eccentric claims to personal artistic authority inevitably produce renewed docility." (London 196). London's insistence that Jane is but a servant who moves from one form of service to another when she leaves Lowood for Thornfield, again overlooks the limitations of poor women in the Victorian era. Jane's servitude is the best choice for her in her troubled childhood and an upbringing with no family. Although her choices in life may be limited by her social status, she creates these choices for herself. The decisiveness with which Jane operates is not indicative of one who is forced into any kind of servitude. Critics such as Carla Kaplan have articulated Jane's independence citing the fact that she and Rochester share a 'likeness' which is stressed continuously throughout the novel. Whereas London argues the fact that Jane is never actually liberated, Kaplan points to the fact that Jane is never irresolute about her actions, proving that she is in control of her fate. Kaplan states, "Jane is never unsure of what she wants or why she wants it. Her desires-for intimacy, recognition, sisterhood, a change in her gender and class position and in the meanings attached to such categories-resonate with every important theme in the history of feminist struggle. Our romance with this text, in that sense, is hardly unfounded." (Kaplan 27). Kaplan's sentiments reinforce the ending of the novel to indeed be storybook, and one which feminists should consider storybook as well. Jane, a financially independent woman, marries for love and on her own free will. Jane's acts of individuality, strength, independence, and honor should not be erased from a proto-feminist critique of this incredible novel simply because of her choice to marry Rochester in the end. Jane's words at the end of the novel only echo her spirit of freedom, even in marriage. Bronte writes, "To be together is for us to be at once as free as in solitude, as gay as in company…. All my confidence is bestowed on him; all his confidence is devoted to me; we are precisely suited in character; perfect concord is the result" (Bronte 525). Jane's expression of sameness with her chosen spouse is what should resonate with feminist critics of this novel. Her ending does not have to be miserable in order to be proto-feminist; but rather, her choice to be married to someone she sees as her equal should only reinforce the modern femininity expressed by Bronte.

Works Cited

Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. New York, NY: Barnes and Noble, 2004.

Kaplan, Carla. "Girl Talk: "Jane Eyre" and the Romance of Women's Narration". Novel: A Forum on Fiction 30:2: 5-31. Duke University Press. Web. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/134545 . 1996.

Kaplan, Cora. "Heroines, Hysteria, and History: Jane Eyre and Her Critics." Victoriana: Histories, Fictions, Criticisms. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2007.

London, Bette. "The Pleasures of Submission: Jane Eyre and the Production of the Text." The Johns Hopkins University Press 58.1: 195-213. Web. .1991.

Wandor, Michelene. "Reader: Who Wrote You? An Autocritical exercise upon Jane Eyre". A Breath of Fresh Eyre Intertextual and Intermedial Reworkings of Jane Eyre. Ed. Margarete Rubik. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007.