August Strindberg's Use of Gender Roles to Create A Moral Parable In Miss Julie
In August Strindberg’s naturalist play Miss Julie, the action revolves entirely around an upper class woman’s affair with her father’s servant. Written in 1890, the naturalist views of the author become apparent through the narrative’s display of disparity between classes and genders and futile attempts to overcome the limitations in each respective group the characters are born in. In the preface of said work, August Strindberg states that one must not feel sorry for the “degenerate woman” that the play is about, making it clear that the focus of the work is that of the woman who it is named for, and that she is not meant to be someone that is admired. The portrayal of the titular character, Miss Julie, does not hinge solely on her class. A large amount of it is centered on her gender and refusal to abide by traditional roles expected of her because of it, imitating the beginning feminist and women’s rights movements that were occurring at the time that the play was written. August Strindberg uses warped gender roles to create a moral parable that demonstrates his views of what he considers to be a “degenerate woman”.
As Miss Julie is a relatively short play covering a limited time span, it opens with expository details that characterize the main characters. Immediately, Miss Julie is described as “wild”(8), “crazy”(8), and is said to have made her ex-fiancé perform demeaning tasks “like you would a dog”(9), instantly informing the reader that the woman in question is viewed as peculiar and unladylike, and has engaged in behavior outside of what would be considered acceptable for those of her gender. As this occurs at the very opening of the play, it also serves as creating dramatic irony, due to Miss Julie entering later on after she has been discussed this way. An added enhancement to the negative way in which Miss Julie is shown is the contrast between her and Kristin. Kristin is described as someone who will make a “good wife”(17) and says that she “knows her place”(17), directly opposite of the ways Miss Julie is described. After the exposition and beginning characterization has been covered, Strindberg moves on with the plot as the play shifts to interaction between the two main characters instead.
During one of the scenes where dialogue is exchanged between Miss Julie and Jean, when she attempts to save face and speak poorly of her ex-fiancé, Jean replies by saying that that is what “all of you”(37) women say. This simultaneously puts down Miss Julie’s appearance of being different from other women and makes a broad generalization of women, furthering the naturalistic themes and the tone of disdain towards women who act like Miss Julie. As the scene continues, conflict between the two opposing characters inevitably occurs, and despite Jean’s low class, he gives orders to Miss Julie, telling her to “Go to bed.”(39), the first time when the major conflict behind the plot is brought up. Due to his class, it would be normal for Jean to obey the orders of Miss Julie and not give any to her. However, due to his stance as a male, Strindberg has the character begin to give orders to his female superior. This act of insubordination nulls Julie’s power and status, nearly as though she is being treated like a child that requires orders to function. This occurs later on as well, in the climactic ending of the work. By causing the reader to equate Miss Julie to someone who needs to be ordered, it is being shown that her gender is causing her to fall below someone who is already much below her in terms of class. Her fall, a key motif in the work, does not simply stop here. It progresses into hysteria.
In the scene following the insinuated sex between Jean and Miss Julie, the attitudes of the characters are drastically different. Jean is portrayed as cool and collected whereas Miss Julie is hysterical and filled with dread of what might happen to them. Though both characters engaged in the same act, these contrasting attitudes post-sex are used to display the idea that it is more scandalous and disgusting for an upper class woman to have sex with her inferior than for a lower class man to have sex with his superior, again furthering the personal views of Strindberg towards women in his work. The building tension in the work is entirely due to the problems facing them after their intercourse, though the only one shown to be actually worrying is Miss Julie. When it is revealed that she has no money of her own, Jean’s response is casually suggesting that they “forget it” (48), provoking Miss Julie to begin weeping and question her actions with “what have I done?”(48). Her lack of grace under pressure the use of self-directed rhetorical questioning further illustrates the hysteric nature in which she is meant to be perceived. As the climax approaches, Strindberg manipulates diction in order to further his tone and the misogynistic themes of the play.
When the aggression between Miss Julie and Jean escalates, it is conveyed near entirely through the dialogue. Shortly after Jean makes a halfhearted attempt to comfort Miss Julie by asking her why she looks “so miserable”(50), he also refers to her as whore. In accordance with Strindberg’s misogynistic themes and insistence on displaying Miss Julie as the perfect allegory for the “degenerate woman”, this first insult is intentionally one that is used to degrade a woman due to her sexual activity, a stark contrast from the respectful diction used in the beginning where she is always addressed as “Miss” Julie. As Miss Julie’s diction also becomes less elevated, the words that she uses for Jean never attack him due to gender, remaining focused on class with words such as “lackey”(53) and “bootblack”(53). Oppositely, Jean solely uses gender based slurs, calling her both a “slut”(53) and “bitch”(52). As many plays communicate the majority of meaning through dialogue, this is particularly important. While a modern reader might be inclined to see Jean as deplorable due to this, the social climate in which the play was written would have been more likely to see it as a validation of the inherent wrongness of Miss Julie. When it comes to aspects portrayed in ways other than dialogue, however, the strongest one in Miss Julie is the symbolism. Present from beginning to end and often used in foreshadowing, as it is with the canary and Miss Julie’s dog, it can also be found in objects. To represent the power of the male gender over women, Strindberg has the instrument of Miss Julie’s inferred suicide be a straight-edge razor belonging to Jean. Particularly in the Victorian Era, the straight-edge razor would strictly be used by men and is instantly a masculine object in the context of this play. Through the object of Miss Julie’s suicide being a razor, it makes a masculine object the ultimate authority over her, dictating even her life and death.
The themes of misogyny within Miss Julie culminate in the warped gender roles that Miss Julieis made to embody. The play serves as a parable, showcasing August Strindberg’s views on women that arose during a time in which feminist and women’s rights movements became more visible. Through his characterization, diction, dialogue, conflict, and symbolism, his views and themes are heavily integrated into the work. The warped gender roles portrayed in Strindberg’s Miss Julie create a parable for what he perceived to be the negative and harmful qualities found within his time’s “degenerate women”.
Word Count:1,265
As Miss Julie is a relatively short play covering a limited time span, it opens with expository details that characterize the main characters. Immediately, Miss Julie is described as “wild”(8), “crazy”(8), and is said to have made her ex-fiancé perform demeaning tasks “like you would a dog”(9), instantly informing the reader that the woman in question is viewed as peculiar and unladylike, and has engaged in behavior outside of what would be considered acceptable for those of her gender. As this occurs at the very opening of the play, it also serves as creating dramatic irony, due to Miss Julie entering later on after she has been discussed this way. An added enhancement to the negative way in which Miss Julie is shown is the contrast between her and Kristin. Kristin is described as someone who will make a “good wife”(17) and says that she “knows her place”(17), directly opposite of the ways Miss Julie is described. After the exposition and beginning characterization has been covered, Strindberg moves on with the plot as the play shifts to interaction between the two main characters instead.
During one of the scenes where dialogue is exchanged between Miss Julie and Jean, when she attempts to save face and speak poorly of her ex-fiancé, Jean replies by saying that that is what “all of you”(37) women say. This simultaneously puts down Miss Julie’s appearance of being different from other women and makes a broad generalization of women, furthering the naturalistic themes and the tone of disdain towards women who act like Miss Julie. As the scene continues, conflict between the two opposing characters inevitably occurs, and despite Jean’s low class, he gives orders to Miss Julie, telling her to “Go to bed.”(39), the first time when the major conflict behind the plot is brought up. Due to his class, it would be normal for Jean to obey the orders of Miss Julie and not give any to her. However, due to his stance as a male, Strindberg has the character begin to give orders to his female superior. This act of insubordination nulls Julie’s power and status, nearly as though she is being treated like a child that requires orders to function. This occurs later on as well, in the climactic ending of the work. By causing the reader to equate Miss Julie to someone who needs to be ordered, it is being shown that her gender is causing her to fall below someone who is already much below her in terms of class. Her fall, a key motif in the work, does not simply stop here. It progresses into hysteria.
In the scene following the insinuated sex between Jean and Miss Julie, the attitudes of the characters are drastically different. Jean is portrayed as cool and collected whereas Miss Julie is hysterical and filled with dread of what might happen to them. Though both characters engaged in the same act, these contrasting attitudes post-sex are used to display the idea that it is more scandalous and disgusting for an upper class woman to have sex with her inferior than for a lower class man to have sex with his superior, again furthering the personal views of Strindberg towards women in his work. The building tension in the work is entirely due to the problems facing them after their intercourse, though the only one shown to be actually worrying is Miss Julie. When it is revealed that she has no money of her own, Jean’s response is casually suggesting that they “forget it” (48), provoking Miss Julie to begin weeping and question her actions with “what have I done?”(48). Her lack of grace under pressure the use of self-directed rhetorical questioning further illustrates the hysteric nature in which she is meant to be perceived. As the climax approaches, Strindberg manipulates diction in order to further his tone and the misogynistic themes of the play.
When the aggression between Miss Julie and Jean escalates, it is conveyed near entirely through the dialogue. Shortly after Jean makes a halfhearted attempt to comfort Miss Julie by asking her why she looks “so miserable”(50), he also refers to her as whore. In accordance with Strindberg’s misogynistic themes and insistence on displaying Miss Julie as the perfect allegory for the “degenerate woman”, this first insult is intentionally one that is used to degrade a woman due to her sexual activity, a stark contrast from the respectful diction used in the beginning where she is always addressed as “Miss” Julie. As Miss Julie’s diction also becomes less elevated, the words that she uses for Jean never attack him due to gender, remaining focused on class with words such as “lackey”(53) and “bootblack”(53). Oppositely, Jean solely uses gender based slurs, calling her both a “slut”(53) and “bitch”(52). As many plays communicate the majority of meaning through dialogue, this is particularly important. While a modern reader might be inclined to see Jean as deplorable due to this, the social climate in which the play was written would have been more likely to see it as a validation of the inherent wrongness of Miss Julie. When it comes to aspects portrayed in ways other than dialogue, however, the strongest one in Miss Julie is the symbolism. Present from beginning to end and often used in foreshadowing, as it is with the canary and Miss Julie’s dog, it can also be found in objects. To represent the power of the male gender over women, Strindberg has the instrument of Miss Julie’s inferred suicide be a straight-edge razor belonging to Jean. Particularly in the Victorian Era, the straight-edge razor would strictly be used by men and is instantly a masculine object in the context of this play. Through the object of Miss Julie’s suicide being a razor, it makes a masculine object the ultimate authority over her, dictating even her life and death.
The themes of misogyny within Miss Julie culminate in the warped gender roles that Miss Julieis made to embody. The play serves as a parable, showcasing August Strindberg’s views on women that arose during a time in which feminist and women’s rights movements became more visible. Through his characterization, diction, dialogue, conflict, and symbolism, his views and themes are heavily integrated into the work. The warped gender roles portrayed in Strindberg’s Miss Julie create a parable for what he perceived to be the negative and harmful qualities found within his time’s “degenerate women”.
Word Count:1,265