O'Casey frozen out by feminists
Elizabeth Hazlehurst takes issue with feminist critics who ignore the work of Sean
O'Casey
It is a striking fact that so little critical writing on O'Casey has been produced by
women. Mikhail's catalogue of O'Casey criticism, (1) lists 548 items, of which a mere 42
are by women, a derisory proportion. The question must arise why so few women have written
about O'Casey, especially since he is one of the few men who have consistently presented
women sympathetically but perceptively.
There are at least three explanations. First, and this applies to all commentators, that
O'Casey did not conform to the expectations of Irish nationalists. Second, early feminist
critics were, in the main, North Americans who wrote about non-Irish European writers,
(the exception being Joyce). Thirdly, there were critics, like Kate Millett (1970), whose
main point was that literature reflected patriarchy, and wrote, if one finds examples
of sexism in literature, then these are a good indication of a wider malaise,' (2)
and hence selected writers who supported her hypothesis.
Within this paradigm O'Casey cannot be considered. Other feminists noting the weakness
in this position deemed it better to provide a framework more congenial to feminist
parameters. A number of feminist critics, notably Elaine Showalter (1980) developed a
woman centred criticism, (gynocriticism), arguing that feminist critical writing should be
concerned solely with women's writing and the relation of that writing to female
experience. But, as Mary Eagleton comments, 'in Millet there seemed no way for women
to read male authors except to condemn them, in Showalter's theory there seemed to be no
way for them to read them at all ... reading became a separatist activity; heterosexuality
in bed or books was frowned on.' (3) Clearly, gynocriticism also excludes the
consideration of O'Casey.
More recently, Pearce (1992) has suggested that, ' " women's writing" may
perhaps best be understood not as writing by or about women, but writing for them,' (4)
which does not mean taking on a task which they cannot perform for themselves, or
restricting them to a male interpretation; but presenting them in the variety and
authenticity that should be allowed to all subjects. This view allows O'Casey to be
included, and moreover to be freed from the dangerous perception that he idealised women,
for, as Fetterley reminds us, 'the idealisation of women has its source in a profound
hostility towards women.' (5)
Unusually, an early play, Nannie's Night Out (1924), was reviewed by a woman,
Bertha Buggy, and in 1926 The Plough and the Stars was produced. As is well
known, the hostile response to this play was orchestrated by nationalist women. The chief
protagonist was Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington, who led the protest in the theatre, debated with
O'Casey in public and conducted a furious battle with him in the Dublin newspapers. She
was understandably still bitter that her husband, a pacifist, had been murdered during the
1916 Rising, by Captain Bowen-Colthurst, an Irishman in the British army. To my mind her
most regrettable assertion was that the play contained 'half-witted consumptives,'
(6) a remarkable statement considering that it came only one year after the death of her
brother from tuberculosis. Unlike O'Casey's pathetic character, however, he could afford
the finest treatment available at the time, but there was no such relief for the Mollser's
of Dublin. Though one may sympathise with Sheehy-Skeffington, this shabby attack seriously
undermined the impact of her polemic. Despite The Plough and the Stars being the
most produced of O'Casey's plays at the Abbey Theatre; (by 1980 637 times, 217 more
performances than its nearest rival Juno and the Paycock), (7) as recently as
1998, Margaret Ward, Hanna's biographer, said, 'even to-day I find The Plough and the
Stars a very uncomfortable play ... It is not one of O'Casey's plays I could ever admire.
(8)
So, some feminists have little room for men's writing, however sympathetic. Presumably
they would therefore reject Ayling's essay on women in the work of O'Casey, 'Two Words
for Women', (9) but this would be perverse, since it is one of the few incisive
comments on the issue. They may have more justification in the case of Kiberd's support of
Yeats as an illuminator of a female perspective. (10) Whatever else Yeats may or may not
have been, no feminist could be at ease with his claim that, 'a woman gets her
thoughts through the influence of a man. A man is to her what work is to a man' (11)
By contrast, O'Casey supported the autonomy of women until the end of his life. He was
impatient with the slow progress of women towards equality, 'we are very fine fellows,
while still keeping women in their place, leaving windows open for them but keeping women
in their place.' (12) He approved of women in public life, was an ardent
supporter of the National Assembly of Women and declared, 'I look forward to the day
when women shall be members of all Summit conferences.' (13) Kiberd tries
to give Yeats feminist credentials, but the task is impossible and he fails. He might have
made out a better case with O'Casey but his nationalist prejudices would not even permit
him to try.
Marianne Peyronnet's recent essay (14) has a clearly defined feminist perspective, and
examines O'Casey's female characters over the development of his work. She charts the
progress of his feminist enlightenment. In the early plays, (from The Shadow of a
Gunman to Within the Gates), he seems to privilege women by suggesting that
they are intrinsically better than men, and is therefore a differencialiste feminist. In
his middle period, the 'political' plays, women practically disappear as influential
characters. In the final plays, (from Cock a Doodle Dandy, 1949, onwards), her
general point is that O'Casey is drawing near to what she calls universaliste
feminism, a model in which 'people are not judged by their sexual characteristics but
by their own capacity for being good or intelligent.' It is worth noting that in his
penultimate play, Figuro in the Night he assigns the role of leadership to an old
woman who has the temerity to challenge the misogynist myth of the Garden of Eden and the
Fall. The strength of Peyronnet's analysis is that it draws upon the chronological
development of O'Casey's vision of women, and locates that vision in real events like the
Rising, the Civil War, strikes, and political struggle, and significantly, also in the
patriarchal nature of Irish society. It is the reading of these events which inform
O'Casey's view of women. Peyronnet's essay is to be welcomed, not least because it opens
up the possibility of further debate, rather than continuous rotation on the weary
treadmill of nationalist nostalgia.
Another recent contributor to the debate on feminism and O'Casey's work is Caitlin Mac
Aodha, whose essay 'Buttermilk and Bullets' (15) provides a Canadian perspective
on the Fenian invasion of Canada in 1886, and relates that event to The Plough and the
Stars. She draws parallels between the Easter Rising and the invasion of Canada, and
the role of women in literally picking up the pieces in both. The aim of the invasion was
said to be 'an attempt to liberate Ireland' and their leader O'Neill declared
that ' ... the only quarrel the Fenians had with [the Canadians] ... was their being
ready to defend the English government and the English flag.' Despite his
insistence that all his men were ready to lay down their lives for the cause, when one of
them, Tim Keily, was wounded and captured he declared that , 'he wished that he had
never come,' a wish echoed by Jack Clitheroe in The Plough and the Stars.
The invasion was futile, the Canadians were surprised and resentful and not at all
inclined to throw in their lot with the Fenians to be rid of their English masters. Ten
Canadians were killed and many others wounded, and Fenian casualties were probably no
fewer. 'General' O'Neill, as he prepared to retreat, leaving his and the enemy's wounded
behind, expressed confidence that the local people would look after them, but 'these
turned out to be the women, like Mrs. Danner and her young granddaughter, who cared for
the abandoned wounded from both sides.'
Apart from the intrinsic interest of an account of a little known incident in Irish
nationalist endeavours, the importance of Mac Aohda's paper is its association with
O'Casey's depiction of women in the Rising, as her concluding words emphasise: 'When
the bold Fenian men tore a peaceful neighbourhood to pieces, whether it was ... in the
Niagara Peninsula or in the city of Dublin, it was the women each time who picked up the
pieces and did whatever they could to put them back together again. Neither Britannia nor
Cathleen n’ Houlihan is a woman; both are creations of men, intended to assist them
in their vainglorious activities. It is the nameless farm women in Niagara and the Noras
and Bessies in Dublin who provide buttermilk and dare bullets, who restore and preserve.' (16)
Here we have, in Peyronnet's terms, a differencialiste feminist. Times change. Surely more
commentators should take a fresh look at O'Casey's presentation of women, overcoming their
reluctance to consider his work, because he did not conform to the ideological mind set of
the critic, heavy with nationalist assumptions, or equally damaging, perpetuating the
limiting myth that the idealisation of women was his sole purpose. The time is opportune
for women, whether feminists or not, to approach O'Casey's work afresh.
References
1. E.H. Mikhail, Sean O'Casey & His Critics: an annotated bibliography,
1916-1982 (London: Scarecrow Press, 1985)
2. M. Eagleton, ed., Feminist Literary Criticism (London: Longman, 1991), p.17
3. ibid, p. 18
4. L. Pearce, 'Dialogic Theory in Women's Writing' in H. Hinds et al, eds., Working
Out: New Directions in Women's Studies (Brighton: Falmer, 1992) p.184; cited in S.
Mills, and L. Pearce Feminist Readings; Feminists Reading, 2nd edition (Prentice Hall.
1996), p.283
5. J. Fetterly, The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978); cited in G. Austin, Feminist Theories for
Dramatic Criticism (University of Michigan Press, 1990), p.28
6. Irish World 13 March 1926; cited in M. Ward, Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington A Life
(Dublin: Attic Press, 1997), p176
7. R.G. Lowery, O'Casey and the Abbey Theatre; cited in D. Krause, and R.G.
Lowery, eds., Sean O'Casey Centenary Essays (Gerrards Cross: Colin Smythe, 1980), p.248
8. M. Ward; interview by Jerry Nolan in BIAS Newsletter, April 1998, p.4
9. R. Ayling, Two Words for Women; cited in S.F. Gallager, ed., Women in Irish
Legend, Life and Literature, p. 91
10. Kiberd D. Men and Feminism in Modern Literature (Macmillan 1985) pp. 103-135
11. W.B. Yeats, Autobiography (London 1955), p.353
12. Sean O'Casey Under a Coloured Cap (London: Macmillan, 1963), p.556
13. D. Krause, Letters vol. 4 (Washington: Catholic University Press, 1992), p
163
14. M. Peyronnet, 'Was O'Casey a feminist playwright?', Times Change, 12, Winter
1997/8, pp. 23/26
15. C. Mac Aodha , 'Buttermilk and Bullets', htt;//arts,waterloo.ca 5 December
1997, pp 1/11
16. ibid p.7
Subscription
and Order Information
Top
|
|