1

Critical Discourse Analysis: An Overview of

its Meaning and Approaches & An Application on Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre

Suaad M. Suleiman

2014-2015

1.Introduction

2

Effective discriminative reading is of paramount momentousness in the modern era due to the prevalence of media and enormous exposure to information. Ironically, people and even scholars have turned a blind eye to the intricacies and nuances of discourse production and comprehension. This is due to the fact that language users often do not develop a full competence in the semantic component of the language. Invariably, people are heedless to and unenlightened about the implications of the shades of meanings whilst they are producing discourse or are exposed to it.

The concepts of discourse, genre, and style are intimately connected with each other. They are dealing with the macro and micro levels of sociological and linguistic studies. There is a dialectic relationship between social actors or individuals (micro structure) and the social practices and values (macro structure). In this background, a multiplicity of texts is in close interaction with social parameters to bring about different ideological identities and power structures.

In this respect, the voice given to the macro structures, i.e. government and institutions or the micro structures i.e. individuals is immensely affected by the theorists’ ideological orientations. Critical Discourse Analysis (henceforth CDA) “is the uncovering of implicit ideologies in texts. It unveils the underlying ideological prejudices and therefore the exercise of power in texts” (Widdoson, 2000). So it attempts to critically analyse the relationship between language, ideology, and society. As Teun Van Dijk (1993) puts it, “critical discourse analysts want to understand, expose, and resist social inequality.”

Confusingly, the label ‘critical discourse analysis’ is used in two different ways: Norman Fairclough (1995a, 1995b) uses it both to describe the approach that he has developed, and as the label for a broader movement within discourse analysis of which several approaches, including his own, are part (Fairclough and Wodak 1997).

Hence, this paper is divided into two sections: the first is a general review of the critical discourse analysis and its most important approaches, while the second section is an application to one of the world literature works; Jane Eyre(1847), following one of the approaches.

I.1.Critical discourse analysis

3

The roots of CDA are in critical theory which is inextricably tied up with Frankfurt School of Social Research. “Critical theory is defined as a research perspective, which has basically a critical attitude towards society” (Langer, 1998, p.3). More specifically, it is used to refer to “any theory concerned with critique of ideology and the effects of domination” (Fairclough, 1995, p.20).

In the 1970s a group of linguists and literary theorists at the University of East Anglia, in England, developed the idea of critical linguistics. Their approach was based on M.A.K Halliday’s Systemic functional linguistics (SFL). This branch of grammar stresses the importance of social context (the context of culture and context of situation) in the production and development of language.

In addition, functional linguistics, unlike many branches of linguistics, has always been concerned not only with words and sentences, but also with longer texts and collection of texts (corpora) above the level of the sentence. The foundations of CDA have been laid by critical linguists and theorist, and since the 1980s – thanks to the works of the British sociolinguist Norman Fairclough – has gained a lot of attention.

Fairclough (1995) defines CDA as follows:

By critical discourse analysis I mean discourse analysis which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony. (pp. 132-3)

In recent years professionals from a variety of backgrounds have become interested in discourse issues. Historians, business institutions, lawyers, politicians and medical professionals to name but a few, have used discourse analysis to investigate social problems relating to their work.

Van Dijk (1993), who prefers the term Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) for this reason, described it as “a new cross-discipline that comprises the analysis of the text and talk in virtually all disciplines of the humanities and social sciences.”(359-383)

4

These approaches differ in terms of theoretical foundations and the tools they use to analyse discourse, but the concepts of ideology, critique, and power are present in all of them. In addition, it will accentuate the interdisciplinary nature of CDA and showing the dialectic relationship between language, culture, society, and politics.

I.1.2. Five Common Features Among The Approaches

Among the different approaches to CDA, five common features can be identified. It is these that make it possible to categorise the approaches as belonging to the same movement. In the following account is drawn on Fairclough and Wodak’s overview (1997: 271ff.).

i. The Character of Social and Cultural Processes and Structures is Partly Linguistic – Discursive.

Discursive practices–through which texts are produced (created) and consumed (received and interpreted) – are viewed as an important form of social practice which contributes to the constitution of the social world including social identities and social relations. It is partly through discursive practices in everyday life (processes of text production and consumption) that social and cultural reproduction and change take place.ii. Discourse is Both Constitutive and Constituted

For critical discourse analysts, discourse is a form of social practice which both constitutes the social world and is constituted by other social practices. As social practice, discourse is in a dialectical relationship with other social dimensions. It does not just contribute to the shaping and reshaping of social structures but also reflects them.

iii. Language use should be Empirically Analysed within its Social Context.

Critical discourse analysis engages in concrete, linguistic textual analysis of language use in social interaction.

iv. Discourse Functions Ideologically.

In critical discourse analysis, it is claimed that discursive practices contribute to the creation and reproduction of unequal power relations between social groups – for example, between social classes, women and men, ethnic minorities and the majority. These effects are understood as ideological effects.

5

v. Critical Research

Critical discourse analysis does not, therefore, understand itself as politically neutral (as objectivist social science does), but as a critical approach which is politically committed to social change. In the name of emancipation, critical discourse analytical approaches take the side of oppressed social groups.

I.1.3. Differences Between the Approaches

Beyond the identification of these five common features, however, there are large differences between the critical discourse analytical approaches with respect to their theoretical understanding of discourse, ideology and the historical perspective, and also with respect to their methods for the empirical study of language use in social interaction and its ideological effects. For instance, as already mentioned, some critical discourse analytical approaches do not share Foucault’s understanding of power as productive. Among these is van Dijk’s sociocognitive approach, which also diverges from most of the others by being cognitivist.

I.2. Approaches to CDA

In spite of the fact that all the approaches to CDA have the notions of ideology, critique, and power in common, they could be classified into the following major ones with respect to the differences in their theoretical foundations and analysing tools.

I.2.1. Norman Fairclough: Discourse as Social Practice

The British sociolinguist, Norman Fairclough is one of the key figures in the realm of CDA. In his vantage-point CDA is a method for examining social and cultural modifications that could be employed in protesting against the power and control of an elite group on other people. Fairclough believes that our language, which shapes our social identities and interactions, knowledge systems, and beliefs, is also shaped by them in turn. Like Kress and Van Leeuwen, he bases his analyses on Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar. In Language and Power (1989), he calls his approach Critical Language Study, and considers the first aim of his approach as helping to correct the vast negligence in relation to the significance of language in creating, maintaining and changing the social relations of power. This first goal tends to be the theoretical part of Fairclough’s approach. The second one which is helping to raise awareness to the question that how language can influence the dominance of one group of

6

people over the others could be considered as the practical aspect of his approach. He believes that awareness is the first step towards emancipation. To reach the latter goal Fairclough has put a great emphasis on raising the level of people’s consciousness, for he assumes that in discourse, the subjects do not, strictly speaking, know what they are doing, and they are unaware of the potential social impact of what they do or utter.

I.2.1. 1. Text and Discourse

Fairclough considers language as a form of social practice. This way of thinking implies some other notions. First, language is a part of the society and not somehow external to it. Second, language is a social process. Third, language is a socially conditioned process, conditioned that is by other (non-linguistic) parts of society (Fairclough, 1989, 22).

The remarkable point in Fairclough’s view is that all linguistic phenomena are social, but it is not true the other way round. For instance, when we are talking about the political words such as democracy, imperialism, or terrorism we use linguistic elements, but this is only part of the whole politics. Therefore the relationship between language and society does not observe a one to one correspondence; rather, the society is the whole and language is a part of it.

The second implied notion – i.e. language is a social process – is meaningful only when we take discourse as different from text, like Fairclough. Fairclough’s notion of text is exactly the same as Halliday’s, and this term covers both written discourse and spoken discourse. For him text is a product, not a process. Fairclough employs the term discourse to refer to the complete process of social interaction. Text is merely a sector of this process, because he considers three elements for discourse, namely text, interaction, and social context.

In addition to text itself, the process of social interaction involves the process of text production and text interpretation. Hence, text analysis is a part of discourse analysis. In comparison to the three aspects of discourse, Fairclough (1989, pp. 26-27) identifies three dimensions for CDA:

Description is the stage which is concerned with formal properties of the text.

7

Interpretation is concerned with the relationship between text and interaction by seeing the text as the product of the process of production and as a resource in the process of interpretation.

Explanation is concerned with the relationship between interaction and social context, with the social determination of the process of production and interpretation, and their social effects. In all these stages we are concerned with analysis, but the nature of it is different in each stage.

Analysis in the first stage limits its boundaries to labelling the formal properties if the text and regards text as an object. In the second phase, CDA goes through the analysis of the cognitive process of the participants and their interactions. Finally in the third stage, the aim is to explain the relationship between social events and social structures that affect these events and also are affected by them.

I.2.1.2. Ideology and Power

The roots of the first goal of Fairclough’s critical language study can be traced to his expertise and background in sociolinguistics. Fairclough believes that in sociolinguistics – the study of language in the social context – one can propound ideas about language and power; for instance, in the discussions of standard and non-standard dialects, there is clear-cut evidence that the dialect of the powerful group will gain the reputation of the standard one. By the same token, there are studies that pay attention to the ways in which power is exercised in the people’s conversations. All of these studies are concerned with the description of power distribution in terms of sociolinguistic conventions; however, they cannot explain these conventions. Explaining how the relations of power are shaped and the struggle on how power is shaped, does not fall in the realm of sociolinguistics.

In his approach, Fairclough endeavours to explain these conventions; conventions which are the upshots of the relations of power and the struggles on them. He accentuates the presuppositions of a common sense present in the interlocutions among people that they are usually blind to their existence. These presuppositions are the very ideology that has a close relationship with power; for these ideological presuppositions exist in the social conventions and the nature of the conventions depend on the power relations that cover them.

8

The relationship between common sense and ideology was introduced by the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci. He refers to “‘a form of practical activity’ in which ‘a philosophy is contained as an implicit theoretical premises’ and ‘a conception of the world that is implicitly manifest in art, in law, in economic activity and in all manifestations of individuals and collective life’” (Antonio Gramsci, 1971, cited in Fairclough, 1989, p.84). This form of practical activity is the ideology which exists in the background and is usually taken for granted. Fairclough assumes an ideological nature for the common sense, to some extent, and believes that this is the common sense which is ideological in order to be at the disposal of the survival of the unequal relations of power and to be a justification for it.

Fairclough takes a rather traditional approach towards power, and does not agree with Foucault. From Fairclough’s (1995, p.17) point of view, Foucault considers power as a pervasive force and symmetrical relations that is dominant over the whole society and is not in the hands of one special group or another; whereas in Fairclough’s thinking, the relations of power are asymmetrical, unequal, and empowering that belong to a special class or group.

I.2.1. 3. Naturalization and Neutralization in Discourse

If a type of discourse is dominant over an institution in such a way that other types of discourse are totally oppressed or become a part of that discourse, this issue will not make the discourse seem an autocratic one; rather it will cease to be seen as natural and legitimate.

Fairclough, like other critical discourse analysts, calls this phenomenon naturalization. Naturalization has a relation with the ideological common sense, in the sense that by the naturalization of the discourse, its ideology will change into the ideological common sense. In the process of naturalization and creation of the common sense, the type of discourse appears to lose its ideological character and tends to become merely the discourse of the institution itself instead of looking as the discourse of a special class or group within that institution. In this way, the struggle on power seems to be neutral, and being neutral means being out of ideology, that is to say, having no ideological load. The fact that discourse loses its ideological load, paradoxically, will make a fundamental ideological effect: “Ideology works through disguising its nature, pretending to be what it is not” (Fairclough, 1989, p.92). Now, as long as linguists insist only on the formal aspects of language, they foster the

9

development of this ideological effect. Thus, naturalization occurs in this way and people can hardly, if ever, understand that their routine and usual behaviours makes ideological effects on the society.

I.2.2. Teun Van Dijk: A Socio-cognitive Model

Teun Van Dijk is one of the leading figures and pioneers of study and research in domain of CDA. Most of his critical works are concerned with prejudice and racism in discourse. In his early works, he has considered the problem that how Netherlander and Californian Caucasians talk about ethnic minorities, and what role do these conversations play in the reproduction of ideology. In fact, analysis of the topics that people talk about represents the things that exist in their minds. In Van Dijk’s viewpoint, those things are mental and personal tenets about ethnic events. He believes that the major premise in talking about others includes positive self-representation and negative other-representation. In doing CDA, Van Dijk offers some practical principles and guidelines and asserts that he has no special school or approach. He does not consider CDA as a branch of discourse analysis, like conversation analysis or psycho-discourse analysis; for this reason he suggests researchers to look at the CDA as an interdisciplinary, and take an eclectic approach towards it using the findings

Of other cultures, countries, and other humanities disciplines. On the basis of his interdisciplinary attitude towards the field he labels his methodology as socio-cognitive discourse analysis and states that despite his reluctance to labelling, this label shows to what extent studying cognition is significant in CDA, communication, and interaction. However, this does not mean that CDA should confine its limits to cognitive and social analysis; rather, due to the real world problems, its complexities and people’s needs CDA should have historical, cultural, socio-economical, philosophical, logical, and neurological approaches as well.

I. 2.2. 1. Discourse, Cognition, and Society

Van Dijk believes that there is not direct relationship between social structures and discourse structures and almost always they are connected to each other through personal and social cognition. This cognition is the lost

10

segment of many critical linguistic studies and critical discourse analysis; therefore he offers the triangle of society, cognition, and discourse. Though Van Dijk puts a great emphasis on cognition, he believes that since the nature of discourse is lingual, CDA needs merely linguistic foundations as well as cognitive foundations.

In Van Dijk’s triangle, in a broad sense, discourse is a communicative event that includes oral interactions, written text, body movements, pictures, and other semiotic signifiers. Cognition here refers to personal and social cognition, beliefs, goals, values, emotions, and other mental structures. Society includes both local micro structures and political, social and universal macro structures which are defined in terms of groups and their relationships such as dominance and inequality. In defining the context of discourse in this triangle social and cognitive dimensions are deemed. In fact, context is of two types, micro and macro. Macro context refers to historical, cultural, political, and social structure in which a communicative event occurs, whereas microcontext shows the features of the immediate situation and interaction in which a communicative event occurs.

Van Dijk defines micro context based on the concept of cognition and considers it as a form of a mental model of a communicative situation and calls it a context model. Context models are mental representations that control many of the features of text production and comprehension such as genre, choice of topic, and cohesion on one hand, and speech act, style, and imagery on the other. These models exist in people’s long term memory; the part of memory in which people save their knowledge and view about the events they experience. In fact, there is no direct relationship between society and discourse and these models explain how discourse indicates the social and personal features in itself, and how in a certain social situation discourse could be different. In other words, devoid of these mental models, it cannot be explained and described that how social structures affect discourse, and get affected in turn.

I.2.2. 2. The notion of critique

From Van Dijk’s viewpoint, in contrary to other discourse analysts, critical discourse analysts must have a clear socio-political position; they ought to explain their viewpoints, principles, and goals. Of course, in all the stages of

11

shaping the theory and the analysis, their work is political and their criticisms of discourse will involve political criticism of those who are responsible for the reproduction of ascendency and social inequalities; elite groups who are in power; those who ordain social inequalities and injustice, continue and legitimize them. The ultimate goal of critical discourse analysts is to help the deprived part of the society, the issues that threaten these people’s lives, not small issues relating to discourse structures. Critical discourse analysts’ criticisms should not be temporary or personal. In other words, CDA goes beyond here and now, and attempts to study the roots of fundamental social problems. CDA’s criteria, as acknowledged by Fairclough, too, is not merely observational, descriptive or even explanatory, rather CDA’s prosperity is evaluated in terms of the influence that it has on the macro structure of the society and the role that it plays in the line of changing, amending, and removing social inequalities. Van Dijk believes that CDA does not reject having a special direction, and specifies its social and political direction clearly and articulately and is proud of having such a direction.

I.2.3. Ruth Wodak: Sociological and historical approach to CDA

Ruth Wodak and his colleagues at Vienna University have chosen to work within the sociological model for their CDA studies. This model is based upon Bernstein’s tradition in sociolinguistics and Frankfurt School, especially Jürgen Habermas. Based on this model, Wodak has had some studies on the institutional relations and discourse barriers in courtrooms, school, and hospitals. Recently he has started to work on sexism, anti-Semitism, and racism. In fact, the major goal of him and his colleagues is to put research into practice. They have offered guidelines to avoid using sexist language and some other guidelines for appropriate patient-doctor communication. Anti-Semitism studies after the Second World War, made Wodak and his colleagues to choose “historical approach” to CDA. The distinctive feature of this approach is that it attempts to use all the background information in analyzing different layers of a spoken or written text.

I.2.3. 1. Features of the historical approach to CDA Wodak (2001b: PP. 69-70) has put forward some features for the historical

approach to CDA as follows:

12

i This approach is interdisciplinary. Like other critical linguists, Wodak acknowledges the intricacy of the relationship between language and society. As a result he believes that CDA is interdisciplinary in nature.

ii. This interdisciplinary nature could be seen both in theory and practice. He combines argumentation theory and rhetoric with Halliday’s Functional Linguistics.

iii. This approach is problem-oriented rather than emphasizing some special language issues.

iv. Methodology and theory are chosen through eclecticism.v. In this approach the analyst is always on the move between theory and

empirical date.vi. Historical context will go under investigation and will be incorporated into

the analysis of discourse and texts.

I.2.3.2. Discourse and Text

Wodak believes that historical approach to discourse considers written and spoken language as form of social behaviour. Like Fairclough, Wodak acknowledges the dialectic relationship between discourse acts and special areas of action (situations, institutional frameworks, and social structures). In other words, discourse as a social act creates discourse and non-discourse behaviours and in turn is created by them. Wodak distinguishes between discourse and text. He considers discourse as a complex set of synchronic and coherent linguistic acts that emanate in genre and text. Consequently text is seen as the production of these linguistic acts.

I.2.4. Hodge and Kress' Approach

Robert Hodge and Gunter Kress’s (1979/1993) model is a “syntagmatic model” that is made up of different assumptions regarding the interaction of the language, thought and ideology. To them language is "an instrument of control as well as communication" and their framework consists of two aspects: “actionals” and “relationals”. Actional models represent the perceived relationships in the physical world. They are divided more specifically into “transactive” and “non-transactive”. Relational models encompass “equative” and “attributive” sections. They are concerned with the classificatory and evaluative systems of the language. Equative models create the relations between nouns while attributive models bring about relations between nouns and qualities. Relationals indicate the consequence of mental activities, suggest

13

judgments, comments etc.). Kress and Hodge were heavily influenced by the Hallidayan school of thought. They found that it can be used as the basis of much CDA including visual communication. Those scholar's seminal text Language as Ideology (1979, 1993) has a great influence on social semiotics as it made a number of key contributions to it that later translate into certain approaches in multimodality. Kress is concerned with the central notion of the sign as an indissoluble conjunct of meaning and form. In his own words, he wants "to connect the specificities of semiotic forms, in any medium, with the specificities of social organizations and social histories" (Kress, 1993: 176).

Ideology, according to Hodge and Kress, involves a systematically organized presentation of reality. The application of different euphemistic or derogatory terms leads to different presentations of realities and therefore ideologies. Hence the dichotomous categorization of “euphemism” and “derogatory” is the milestone of the explanations provided in this framework. According to Hodge and Kress, the main focus of a particular vocabulary item will be on its origin of classification, schemes, and ideologically significant relations such as synonymy, antonymy, and hyponymy, relational values and expressive values. Euphemistic and derogatory words belong to the relational part of this framework and are used as detection devices for recognizing the manipulation of realities and ideas (Rahimi and Riasati,2011:109).

I.2.5. The Van Leeuwen's Approach

Van Leeuwen's suggests that there is a distinction between social practices and their representation in texts. His view of discourse as an outline for the interpretation of reality motivates him to present methods for reconstructing these outlines through text analysis. His analysis is based on four important notions from four theorists. It is built on Bernstein’s concept of recontextualization, Halliday’s theory of Transitivity, Foucault’s theory of discourse, and Martin’s theory of activity sequences (van Leeuwen, 2008:36).

Using Foucault’s sense of discourse as "a socially constructed knowledge of some social practices" ,Leeuwen distinguishes two kinds of relations between discourses and social practices:"discourse itself [as] social practice, discourse as a form of action, as something people do to or for or with each other" (Leeuwen,1993:193). CDA, according to Van Leeuwen, is or should be concerned with both discourse as the instrument of power and control as well as with discourse as the instrument of the social construction of reality (ibid:194).

14

His framework also builds on Martin’s concepts of "the field of discourse, using lexical cohesion analysis to construct ‘activity sequences’, sequences of represented activity". Accordingly, Leeuwen argues that all texts should be interpreted as representation of social practices that consist of series of represented activities .

I.3. Conclusion

One can say that in spite of the differences which exist in major approaches to CDA, all of these approaches pursue one common goal that is representing the dialectic relationship between language, power, ideology, and the influential role that language plays in emanation of power and legitimizing social inequalities. For as it was shown the dominant ideology, as a result of excessive use, will be presupposed and it becomes natural and neutral. Therefore, critical discourse analysts are giving a serious effort to clarify and denaturalize the hidden power relations, ideological processes that exist in linguistic text. They attempt to awaken the unconscious of those people who contribute to the establishment and legitimization of ideology through their ignorance.

Finally, from CDA vantage-point, language does not possess power per se. It takes its power from the powerful people who make use of it. This is the very reason that why, in a majority of cases, critical linguists pick the view of deprived people and set out to analyse language critically, because those who are in power are responsible of the social inequalities. Power does not derive from language; rather language is used to fight against power.

I.4.References

1. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman

15

2. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. London: Polity Press

3. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman4. Van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse

and Society, 4, 249-2835. Van Dijk, T. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society,

17, 359-3836. Wodak, R. (2001a). What CDA is about – a summary of its history,

important concepts, and its7. development. In Methods of CDA. (ed.) by R. Wodak and M. Meyers.

London: Sage8. Publication, 1-139. Wodak, R. (2001b). The discourse of historical approach. In Methods of

CDA. (ed.) by R. Wodak and M. Meyers. London: Sage Publication, 63-94

10.Wodak, R. (2001) “The discourse-historical approach” In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 1st.ed .London: Sage, 63-95.

11.Wodak, R. and Meyer, M.(eds.) (2001) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 1st.ed. London:Sage.

12.------------------------------- (2009) . “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology.” In Wodak, R. and Meyer, M.( eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. 1- 33.

II. The Application

16

From what it has been written, it appears that Fairclough’s approach consists of a set of philosophical premises, theoretical methods, methodological guidelines and specific techniques for linguistic analysis unlike the broader critical discourse analytical movement, which as it has been shown, consists of several approaches among which there are both similarities and differences. Fairclough’s approach(1989[2001],1995), in our view, that represents, within the critical discourse analytical movement, is the most developed theory and method for research in communication, culture and society.

The levels of Fairclough's model and their application in the present study's analysis are schematically given in the following diagram, on the next page:

II.1.1. A Case Study

17

The current study is about investigating the feminist language in an English world literature, Jane Eyre (1847), so it needs to show how feminism is exhibited throughout the novel, and what linguistic elements are used to address feminist issues.

Jane Eyre follows the emotions and experiences of its title character, including her growth to adulthood, and her love for Mr. Rochester, the byronic (Harold Bloom 2007) master of fictitious Thornfield Hall.

In its internalization of the action—the focus is on the gradual unfolding of Jane's moral and spiritual sensibility, and all the events are coloured by a heightened intensity that was previously the domain of poetry—Jane Eyre revolutionised the art of fiction.

In accordance with the current study's aim and in order to see how power ideology has spread throughout the novel, three main issues have been given the main focus. These are feminism, patriarchy and Identity. They are explained as follows:

II.2. Feminism

In order to understand Jane's role as a feminist, a definition of this term must be established. The word "feminist" is defined as "one who advocates equal rights for women" ("Feminist" 1). Yet a "feminist" does not necessarily protest in the streets; any woman who wishes to be equal with men and expresses this viewpoint in word and action can be considered to possess ideals on which the feminist movement is based.

Though women had been writing feminist texts since the late 18th century, an actual feminist movement did not form in Britain until the late 19th century under leaders such as Emily Pankhurst and Millicent Fawcett ("Feminist" 1). Charlotte Bronte was publishing Jane Eyre just as First Wave Feminism was beginning to develop, with writers such as Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Louisa May Alcott, Emily Dickinson and Emily Bronte proving their worth as writers and incorporating feminist ideals into their work (Steelye 12-13).

Jane Eyre was one of many post-Civil War novels "aimed at young female readers in which an adolescent woman attempts to gain maturity and ascendency over the terms of her world" (Steelye 13).

18

Regardless of what are the forms of oppressions and what specific rights women should ask for, feminists agreed that there is some sense of "rights" on which achieving equal rights for women is a necessary condition for feminism to succeed. As Adrienne Rich (1929-2012), an American poet, essayist and feminist, said:

Woman have been driven mad, “gas-lighted,” for centuries by the refutation of our experience and our instincts in a culture which validates only male experiences. The truth of our bodies and our minds has been mystified to us. We therefore have a primary obligation to each other; not to undermine each other’s sense of reality for the sake of expediency; not to gaslight each other. (qtd. In Manuel, 55)

However, there is a basic principle that unites feminist movements under one

roof despite their plurality of methods:

What unites and repeatedly invigorates feminism... is neither dogma nor method but an acute and impassioned attentiveness to the ways in which primarily male structures of power are inscribed (or encoded) within our literary inheritance: the consequences of that encoding for women -- as characters, as readers, and as writers; and, with that, a shared analytic concern for the implications of that encoding not only for a better understanding of the past but also for an improved reordering of the present and future (Kolodny,2001: 5).

Two of Jane's actions are the most explicit in proving her role as a feminist. The first is her attitude toward Mr. Rochester's attempts to lavish her with jewels and expensive garments for her wedding. In fact, she says that "the more he bought me, the more my cheek burned with a sense of annoyance and degradation" (Bronte 236). Her unwillingness to be objectified is the strongest indication that she does not define herself by two of the "marriageability" components previously discussed: economic status and beauty.

The second action is Jane's leaving of Mr. Rochester, which exhibits her courage. By this deed, she both defies the Victorian expectation of submitting to a man's will (i.e., acting as Rochester's mistress) and shows that she can break

19

from the emotional power that Rochester wields over her. Though it is hard for her to leave, she nevertheless draws up the courage to leave a life of security, promise and love for the unknown, refusing to let this man maintain his grip on her heart. In addition, her refusal to become a mistress shows that she has maintained a certain dignity, refusing to give in to her physical and emotional desires that would be seen as uncouth by society. She said: “I am no bird, and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will, which I now exert to leave you.” (Bronte, Ch.23)

Some may argue that Jane eventually "gives in" to her emotions when she returns to Mr. Rochester. This return, however, was not done in the spirit of surrender, but due to the realization that even if she returns to Rochester, his love will free her, not imprison her as will St. John's.

Notably, she only returns after she has received a large inheritance from her uncle. Because she is now established as Mr. Rochester's social equal, her return is not out of neediness or greed. After all, she returns of her own free choice and because of her belief that she can "become a wife without sacrificing a grain of her Jane Eyre-ity" (Rich 474). Certain notions are included within feminism like the following:

II.2.1. Patriarchy

Patriarchy refers to the system of male domination over women in society. However this system does not survive on its own. Linked to the system of patriarchy is an ideology that sees men as superior to women. This ideology suggests that women are men’s property and should be controlled by them (cf, 4.5.3.2.2). Male domination takes different forms: discrimination, disregard, insult, control, exploitation, or violence (Bourdieu, 2001:3). The notion of man’s superiority was broken in Jane Eyre with the first appearance of Rochester.

Their first meeting involves turning the classic image of the knight in shining armour on its head. The time is twilight, and Jane is on her way to the neighbouring village to post a letter when she first comes upon Rochester. Our first sight is of him mounted on a horse, with a shaggy mastiff announcing his impending arrival on the scene. His horse slips on the ice and he suffers a sprained ankle. Jane is the person who comes to his aid. Chalk one up for Ms Eyre, who gives an incapacitated man a shoulder to lean on. One can imagine

20

chivalrous Victorian gentlemen squirming in their seats at this happy instance. (Ibid, Ch.12)

Jane Eyre, of course, did not take to the streets with her feminist ideals, but she expressed her view of women's equality almost subconsciously, through word and deed. She lived in a "world that measured the likelihood of her success by the degree of her marriageability," which would have included her familial connections, economic status and beauty (Moglene 484).

Yet, Jane does not allow her goals to rest solely upon marrying. True, Rochester's betrayal throws her into the depths of despair, but she tells St. John expressly that she could be perfectly happy as a simple teacher with her own school and a few pupils.

II.2.2. Identity

In the mid-nineteenth century, a woman would have carried the burden of "staying in her place." In other words, she was subject to the generally accepted standards and roles that society had placed upon her, which did not necessarily provide her with liberty, dignity or independence. Yet if Charlotte Bronte's character Jane Eyre had truly existed in that time period, she would have defied most of these cultural standards and proved herself a paradigm for aspiring feminists of her day.

In fact, Jane's relationship with Mr. Rochester is a constant struggle for her to maintain her own “ individual identity” (Eagleton 493-494). In other words, she plays the role of servant yet makes it perfectly clear to him that she does not consider herself below him in terms of spiritual qualities. She insists to him that she is more than her social status, saying, "Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am soulless and heartless? You think wrong! I have as much soul as you--and full as much heart! And if God had gifted me with some beauty and much wealth, I should have made it as hard for you to leave me, as it is now for me to leave you" (Bronte 222).

In some respects, Jane finds herself almost superior to Mr. Rochester morally, for Rochester's sin of keeping Bertha Mason a secret gives rise to questions about the quality of his character. Jane is comparatively moral, as evidence by her refusal to become nothing more than his mistress.

Rochester's dilapidated state at the end of the novel not only displays the

21

deterioration of his physical body, but perhaps is also a symbol of the weakening of his soul. Here it seems that he is now truly equal, or even less equal to Jane, who has developed her soul to its potential by finally discovering how to balance her independence with passion.

After this journey of self-discovery, she can finally "re-humanise" him following his moral transgressions (Eagleton 493-496).

Jane also refuses to give in to a man's patriarchal attempts by refusing St. John's demand that she marry him for reasons with which she does not agree. After all, St. John admits he does not love her and then uses his religious views as an excuse to goad her into marrying him. In fact, he even attempts to make her feel guilty by saying that God would not be pleased with two people living together with "a divided allegiance: it must be entire" (Bronte 357).

By making this claim, however, he seems to be implying that God would only be happy if St. John had full and complete ownership of Jane. Though Jane is tempted, she does not give in because she realizes that in order to please him, "I felt daily more and more that I must disown half my nature, stifle my faculties, wrest my tastes from their original bent, force myself to the adoption of pursuits for which I had no natural vocation... it racked me hourly to aspire to the standard he uplifted" (Bronte 326). In other words, it pained her to realize that her marriage might be based on a lifestyle for which she had no desire and a partnership void of true love.

This desire for independence has been apparent since Jane's early childhood experiences at Gateshead where she is subject to the cruelty of Aunt Reed. This woman shows the young girl no love and wishes to have ultimate authority over her mind and spirit, similar to St. John's intentions. Her punishment of locking Jane in the Red Room nurtures a central characteristic in the young girl: the desire to survive with dignity. Jane declares to Aunt Reed that this "violent" action is an injustice and that she cannot live in this unloving environment. At the end of her discourse, she feels her soul begin "to expand, to exult, with the strangest sense of freedom, of triumph, I ever felt... as if an invisible bond had burst and that I had struggled out into unhoped-for liberty" (Bronte 31).

This is the beginning of a spirit that Jane carries forward into her future relationships with men, beginning with the detestable Mr. Brocklehurst. For example, she displays courageous defiance to Mr. Brocklehurst in answer to his

22

question about where evil children are sent after death (Bronte 27). This scene, especially when put into context of the later part of the novel, emphasizes her willpower to stand up to a man. The cruel master of Lowood School is another example of a man in Jane's life who attempts to rule completely over women, as exemplified by his attempts to force the girls into subordination and simple living.

This fortitude and mental strength begins with Mr. Brocklehurst but is further nurtured through more interpersonal interactions at Lowood School. At this institution is a woman whose feminist attitude influences Jane's thinking and who teaches the young girl that kindness and love exists in her world. Miss Temple has an independent spirit that has allowed her to accomplish a certain level of open-minded intellect. She is a successful teacher, forward thinking, unmarried and ambitious. She stands up to the authoritative male figure Mr. Brocklehurst, certainly an unexpected action of any woman in her position. As Jane's first positive female role model, Miss Temple encourages the spirit of independence and dignity in Jane.(Bronte, Ch.5)

This dignity was also strongly influenced by her childhood friend Helen Burns. Helen faces her struggles with a dignity that is based more upon her Christian views than anything feminist, but dignity nonetheless. Even on her deathbed, she places her dire fate in the hands of God, in whom she has so much faith (Bronte 71).

Though Jane struggles to understand this at first, she soon incorporates this dignity into her being. In addition, this experience was one of Jane's first opportunities to formulate her own, independent opinion of a highly complex topic: religion. She was introduced by Helen to a religion based on complete trust and faith, one based on hypocrisy and subordination by Mr. Brocklehurst and yet another based on ambition by St. John.

She takes all of these examples into consideration but does not go to any of those extremes. She simply uses religion as a guide to ask God for help when in dire situations, such as the interruption of her wedding or when she is wandering the moors. She has the ability to form her own opinion of religion, just as she forms an opinion of social classes when, as previously discussed, she implores Mr. Rochester to look beyond her servitude and into the affairs of her heart.

23

II.2.2. Conclusion

Charlotte Brontë has been called the 'first historian of the private consciousness' and the literary ancestor of writers.  The novel contains elements of social criticism, with a strong sense of morality at its core, but is nonetheless a novel many consider ahead of its time given the individualistic character of Jane and the novel's exploration of classism, sexuality, religion, and proto-feminism.( Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar, 1979) Harold Bloom declared Eyre a "classic of Gothic and Victorian literature."

Indeed, all these elements explored by the character of this novel, Jane Eyre, has turned the work into a world literature as it has been mentioned. If feminists challenge the norm, then Jane Eyre can definitely be defined as one. Her defiance of authority, or at least, those who try to wield authority over her, is proof of this assertion. Mr. Brocklehurst, Mr. Rochester and St. John each drew from her a certain defiance that portrayed her as nothing less than resilient and passionate.

The fact that Jane refuses to give part of her nature to the will of any of these men shows that she does not consider herself below them, but wishes to maintain a dignified, independent self, free from their demands and desires. In addition, she is able to form her own opinions about religion and social standards as a result of (or in spite of) these men as well as other women in the novel. Her relationships to the other female characters are the strongest indications of Jane's strength, fortitude and insistence on breaking from societal standards of the day. Some women inspire her independent spirit while other contrast sharply with Jane's free-spirited attitude. Though Jane does not announce to the world that she is trying to begin any type of feminist movement, her actions and decisions nevertheless could set a model for any forward-thinking woman in the mid-nineteenth century.

St. John's opinion that her "words are such as ought not to be used: violent, unfeminine, and untrue" (Bronte, 363) seem to be Bronte's hint that indeed, Jane's actions were not typical of a woman in that era.

II.3. ReferencesBronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. W.W. Norton and Company, Inc, New York:

24

1987.

Eagleton, Terry. "Jane Eyre's Power Struggles." Myths of Power: A Marxist

Study of Bronte. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble Books, 1975. Rpt. in

Bronte 491-496.

"Feminist." Oxford English Dictionary, 2008. Oxford English Dictionary

Online. Oxford University Press. Canisius College Library. 10 April

2009.

<http://0-dictionary.oed.com.cando.canisius.edu/cgi/entry/50083533?

query_type=word&queryword=feminist&first=1&max_to_show=10&sin

gle=1sort_type=alpha>.

Moglen, Helen. "The Creation of a Feminist Myth." Charlotte Bronte: The Self

Conceived. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, n.d. Rpt. in

Bronte 484-491.

Rich, Adrienne. "Jane Eyre: The Temptations of a Motherless Woman." On

Lies, Secrets, and Silences. Selected Prose, 1966-78. New York: W.W.

Norton, 1979. Rpt. in Bronte 462-475.

Seelye, John. Jane Eyre's American Daughters: From The Wide Wide World to

Anne of Green Gables, A Study of Marginalized Maidens and What They

Mean. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Masculine Domination. Texas: Polity Press 2001.

Manuel, Carme “Susan Glaspell’s Trifles (1916): Women’s Conspiracy of

Silence Beyond the Melodrama of Beset Womanhood”, Rivista de

Estudios Norte Americanos No.7(2000), pp.55-65.