The Plight of the Governess
Jane Eyre through a socioeconomic lens
Jane Eyre, possibly Charlotte Bront?s best known and greatest novel, is also exceedingly self-revealing. In many respects, Jane Eyre?s life parallels Bront?s own. At a young age, both experienced the death of a parent. Both had first-hand experience in a school with atrociously poor living conditions, both were self-described as unattractive, and both belonged to the genteel middle class. Yet the parallels between the two women go deeper than merely the external circumstances of their lives. Charlotte Bront?, in Merkin?s book review of The Bront? Myth, is described as ?unconventional in both [her] ambition and [her] independence of mind? (6). Unconventional ambition and independence are the defining qualities of Jane?s character as well. Thus, the two women, the fictitious and the real, faced the world from a similar vantage point. A reader of Jane Eyre will inevitably speculate that Jane?s struggle to surmount socioeconomic obstacles and find self-fulfillment was modeled after Charlotte Bront?s own struggle. In the context of nineteenth century England, authentic self fulfillment was almost unattainable for Jane Eyre because as a middle class woman without wealth or family connections, it was impossible to reconcile her low socioeconomic status with her rigorous morality, integrity, pride, and intellect.
The limited opportunities for middle class women to achieve economic independence through their work required them to sacrifice a degree of their pride and integrity. In the novel, women who were refined in character and well educated, but not financially independent were forced to function as dependents and servants in the homes of the wealthy. This degrading ambiguity was evident in the lives of Diana and Mary, Jane?s cousins. The two of them were more highly educated than the average member of the gentry. Thus, in the only vocation available to them which was worthy of their skills, the job of a governess, they were subservient to their intellectual inferiors. Similarly, Ms. Temple, head mistress of Lowood School, was forced to be subservient to Mr. Brocklehurst, her moral inferior. Mr. Brocklehurst, with appalling hypocrisy, forced inhumane living conditions on the poor orphans of Lowood while he himself enjoyed a lifestyle of comfort, and even ostentation. Ms. Temple, in contrast, did everything within her limited power to enrich the lives of her students. She brought a maternal warmth to her orphaned students, and sought their moral and intellectual improvement. Yet because there were few options for the middle class woman in the society depicted in the novel, any refusal to accept the path of dependence could only result in even less desirable consequences than dependency and subservience. The dire consequences of such a refusal were well illustrated by Jane?s experiences when her morality forced her to abandon Thornfield hall. After Jane?s flight, she found herself helpless and degraded by her inability to provide for herself. Before she reached Moor House, Jane told the reader, ?I blamed none of those who repulsed me. I felt it was what was to be expected, and what could not be helped? (Bront? 331). Thus, Jane assumed full responsibility for her inability to escape destitution. Yet this proud and defiant character was forced to realize that without the assistance of others, she could not provide for her own needs even at the most elemental level. Her attempts to gain employment were futile; it was implausible to find a job in such a short timeframe, and without references or connections. A woman of Jane?s social position could not act impulsively, but would need to plan carefully and live conventionally in order to attain economic stability. The conventional pathways to economic stability were illustrated by Jane?s stepsisters at Gateshead. One sister, Georgiana, sought a wealthy man to marry as a means to support herself economically. Eliza, the other sister, did not trouble herself to find a husband. Instead, she relinquished her religion and her country to become a nun. Although her reasons to resign herself to religious pursuits may have been partly moral, she turned to a religious life because she found the stability it offered to be appealing. In this sense, Eliza was a complete polar opposite of Jane. While Jane was determined to change her societal status, Eliza could not bring herself to face her predicament and simply gave up before beginning. Jane and Ms. Temple valued integrity over economic security whereas the Reed sisters valued economic security over integrity, but middle class women could never have both.
Marriage, among the few routes to economic security for middle class women, resulted in a woman?s subjugation to, and dependence on her husband. This condition of subjugation was exemplified by Jane?s relationship with Rochester. Although Jane was deeply in love with Rochester, their initial relationship was marked by her emotional and financial dependence on him. When Jane arrived at Thornfield to work for Rochester, she was his economic inferior. Rochester elevated her social status, and liberated her from the lifelong disdain she had suffered as a person without wealth or connections. He gave Jane hope of escape from the stagnation of her life as a teacher. Yet Rochester clearly was in control of their relationship. The extent of his control became evident when Rochester attempted to confer upon her the identity of a rich wife by providing her with jewels and expensive clothing. Not only was Jane powerless to counter these efforts, but Jane had little ability to change Rochester. While Jane?s very moral fiber was being molded by the workings of their relationship, Rochester unswervingly stayed true to his benignly haughty and flamboyant character. When Jane found out about Rochester?s marriage to Bertha Mason, Jane had to decide whether she was to live with Rochester as his mistress. Although Jane argued that the law prevented her from staying, this argument was not the real reason for her decision, or at least not the entire reason. While she may have had a great deal of respect for the law, ?given by god; sanctioned by man,? (319) her true motive for parting with Rochester was that she feared living as his mistress. She feared it because she knew that living as Rochester?s mistress would lead to her total and abject subjugation. Jane would also have faced subjugation had she chosen to marry St. John. St. John?s proposal requested her to forgo her deep desire for love, and sacrifice the remainder of her life to do God?s work. She would have had to jeopardize her health, and even risk an early death. Jane, a devout Christian, was not opposed to the idea of doing God?s work. Jane rejected St. John?s proposal because he did not love her. Without love, all that would be left in their relationship would be, in essence, her employment to him. Thus, Jane?s romantic side won over, and she returned to Rochester. But perhaps the most extreme example of subjugation as a result of marriage was Bertha Mason?s imprisonment by Rochester. She was not merely subjugated in a figurative sense. Bertha was used by Rochester?s family to obtain money, and subsequently locked up in an attic. Even if the reader acknowledges Rochester?s good intentions, Bertha remains the quintessential subjugated wife in the story, the extreme manifestation of Jane?s fears.
The novel?s portrayal of Jane?s self fulfillment at the conclusion of the novel was unsatisfying because it relied on artificial and contrived plot devices. When Jane returned to Rochester, the reader found that a complete reversal of fortune between the two of them had taken place. This reversal, which allowed Jane and Rochester?s relationship to succeed, was caused by two specific events. The first of these events was Jane?s inheritance of twenty thousand pounds, an amount sufficient to make her financially independent. There is blatant hypocrisy in this resolution. Among Jane?s most definitive characteristics were her disdain for the customs of the upper class, and her belief that the possession of money did not make a better person. Jane?s belief was that a person?s ?claim to superiority depends on the use [the person has] made out of [his or her] time and experience? (137). Nevertheless, her resolution of conflict arrived by means of attaining a large fortune. Charlotte Bront? attempted to make this sudden resolution of conflict more palatable to the reader through Jane?s generosity to her cousins. The second of these events, the fire at Thornfield, caused Rochester to become physically and emotionally humbled, while Jane remained strong. The fire at Thornfield was a glaringly contrived plot device, as it had no ramifications other than its utilization in the reversal at the end. Crippled and blinded, Rochester could no longer dominate Jane. Instead, he is dependent upon her and it is her presence in his life that elevates him. Jane?s self fulfillment, which arose from a series of contrived plot devices, may have left the reader unsatisfied, but the reader still got what was expected: a feel-good ending
Throughout the novel, Bront? developed Jane as an individual, someone unlike her contemporaries, someone who sets new precedents and breaks out of patterns. Her middle class contemporaries all failed to extricate themselves from their socioeconomic predicaments through their own efforts. But because Jane was supposedly different, the reader expected that Jane would succeed where others had failed. Indeed, Jane did escape her predicament, yet she did so by attaining a large fortune, not by her own efforts. Her entire struggle throughout the novel to escape the middle class was entirely without avail. Such a contrived, sudden, and possibly unfulfilling resolution of conflict might be viewed as a flaw in the plot. But there may be a method to Bront?s madness -- the resolution conveys a vital point. Even Jane Eyre, who strayed so notably from the stereotype for her gender and class, could not, by her own means, circumvent the boundaries which contained her in her place in society. Thus, to do so must have been impossible. It is evident, therefore, that Jane?s self fulfillment and marriage to Rochester was not an end in itself. It was a resolution of Jane?s personal conflict, but not of the real conflict in the story, which was that of the struggle for social mobility. But in truth, there was no real resolution to this more imperative thematic conflict. The events leading up to the ending left the reader only with the pessimistic conclusion that by societal law, certain economic and social boundaries are impassable. Jane?s artificial resolution of conflict shows the reader that money veritably dictates the course of one?s life, and is the only real ticket to social freedom.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. New York: Penguin Books, 1960.
Merkin, Daphne. "Annals of the Bront?s." The New York Times Book Review. 29 February 2004: 6-7.
