How does this article, published in The Lady's Newspaper on May 22, 1847, depict the marriage in Algeria? Is it a positive representative, compared to what we imagine the author's perspective on marriage in England to be? Do we imagine the author to be male or female? Why would a woman in England be interested in reading this article? What would intrigue her either about the representation of "otherness" (race) or about the portrayal of marriage rites?
What struck me most about this depiction of an Algerian marriage ceremony was the way in which it revolved around a commodification of women. The groom, the embodiment of “lord and master,” appears to have total and complete control over his “newly-acquired companion for life.” The bride becomes a mere object. She is a “newly-acquired” item in a simple exchange of goods and is thus stripped of any sense of subjectivity or agency. In place of sentimental or passionate language about love, the ceremony is portrayed as the pragmatic execution of a deal. The bride is “deposited” at the groom’s home, much in the same way that money is deposited in account, thereby reinforcing her role as a mere commodity.
ReplyDeleteI would guess that this author is female, for she appears outraged at witnessing the sexist elements of this event. Perhaps outraged is too strong of a word, but she definitely seems discontented or disturbed, at the very least. She writes: “The word ‘husband’ is, in truth scarcely applicable to those who look upon their wives as slaves and have over them the power of life and death,” which leads me to believe that she has a much more western, traditional view of marriage. She makes every effort to distance herself from this “native” marriage ceremony by othering its participants.
I think the writer of the article is blissfully in denial how similar marriage in Victorian England was to that of the "native marriage". In both societies, women are relegated to products to be paid for. I thought the author does not come off as judgmental so much as patronizing. As if to say, "they don't know any better."
ReplyDeleteI actually think the author is a man based on his careful assessment of African beauty. He is studying the women as commodities in the same way they are treated. In addition, never in his assessment does he attempt to get a holistic account of the wedding. He never tries to escape the lens he sees the world through.
If I may Brendan, offer a contradictory view. When I read this article I envisioned the author as male. In depicting the dehumanizing aspects of the marriage, the bride subscribing to a “lord and master” relationship, the author highlights how marriage in England is much better. I believe the piece to purposely expose the worst in the Algerian wedding, so marriage in England looks virtuous in comparison. However, this is supposing that marriage is viewed as oppression of women, which the marriages in Vanity Fair suggest that women are the ones in power: “if a woman has a will, she will assuredly find a way” (Thackeray 161).
ReplyDeleteFrom Laura:
ReplyDeleteA commonality between the marriage act in Jane Eyre, the marriage of Rawdon and Becky, and the marriage ceremony in Constantina is a quality of foreignness and performance despite the significantly gendered implications of the marriages. The marriage ceremony in Constantina is depicted in terms of loss and inexistence; the women who walk in front are despairing for the ‘parents the loss of their beloved child’, the husband disappears with his wife upon her arrival at his doorstep, and there had been a prevailing ‘dead silence’. What fills this void is essentially the husband, or rather, ‘lord and master’, one who has over his wife ‘the power of life and death’ but not at all is this comforting. The elaborate costumes and the wailing women bring to mind a strong performance aspect that is sharply contrasted with the virtual non-presence of the wife; until she is deposited in front of the husband, she is kept hidden.
Jane witnesses another elaborate marriage, but this time as a play. The ‘wife’ submits to her husband who showers her with jewelry, essentially commodify-ing her. The end of the play reveals enslavement, very much like the marriage in Constantina--Rochester is in fetters.
Finally, Thackeray’s narrator expresses astonishment at the performance quality that women submit themselves to in the presence of a marriage. Miss Crawley and Briggs become obsessed with Becky’s unheard of rejection of so worthy a man as Sir Pitt in title and offer her a marriage ceremony…one that will undoubtedly involve weeping women and overemotional viewers. The narrator presents himself as an observer of such a scene, which certainly aligns marriage with a performance. He mocks the hysterical women who witness a marriage; this stands in sober contrast to the gravity of a marriage in itself—the consequences of which, among others, cuts Becky off from the favors of Miss Crawley who had previously adored her with alarm.
I would agree with Edgar, I thought the author to be decidedly male, but for different reasons: only a man would be allowed by British society to travel alone in Africa at the time, only men would have been allowed to walk the streets alone by Algerians, and only men would have elicited a response from passerby. As this article shows, women were invisible to Algerians.
ReplyDeleteAs to the tone of the article, I would say it was a deliberate effort of the author to respond to the growing discontent of British women. The women's movement towards demanding more equal treatment had already begun, and sine pompous British men obviously did not want their women empowered (since the men had allowed the ego-trip of a system propagate itself for so long), the author would not only have been aware of this new feeling in Britain, but decided contrast another society in Africa (which was decidedly Muslim) against Britain in order to make their system seem better by comparison. Anything can make a bad system look better if it is far worse.