The article, “A State of One’s Own: Feminism as Ideology in American Utopias 1880- 1915,” is written by Jean Pfaelzer. It is, indeed, a clever, critical literary response to how the authors of utopian novels, during this era, manifested feminism in their creative works. In a time of severe civil unrest between class and race, more women, especially white women, demanded that their voices be heard. Consequently, we are able to examine the social climate of the century through authors who chose to novelize an independent future for women. The genre coined itself as “feminist utopia” and Pfaelzer offers a complex definition of utopia. Afterwards, she dissects novels under the microscope of dialectic presence, capitalism, and patriarchy. Her thorough analysis of prominent feminist utopian novels revealed that, although, there were amendations to economic equality reflected in their narratives, they simply missed the mark in regard to social equality and gendered roles. The understanding that capitalism and patriarchy work in tandem is disconnected from the writing. Pfaelzer so eloquently decomposed the literary works in a way that unveils the unconditional biases in their symbolism and I feel compelled to agree with her conclusions.
Immediately, Pfaelzer admits that the Utopian works that emerged between the Civil War and World War 1 lacked essential representation, which spurred a paradoxical environment for the texts. The few books that did include the voices, spirit, or demands of female activists, failed to portray “strong, competent, independent female characters” (page 311). That is problematic because utopia is defined as a “situation of perfection which generally denies further historical development” (page 312), yet, female, logical leadership is merely existent nor dominant in these narratives. My ideal feminist utopia would have multiple versions of competent leadership in intersection with their vices along with a clear path for conflict resolution. That, not only lends heed to diverse female representation, it also allows historical processing and character evolution. The contradictory nature of feminist utopia is two-fold. Whereas, on the firsthand, a utopia for one is not a utopia for all, while, simultaneously being this distant, unachievable hope for the future of women. On the second hand, the feminist texts under review have perpetuated marginalizing tropes about femininity, all of which, will be discussed later in further detail.
The utopias described in the narratives lacked a dialectic presence, in which there was no exhibition of public discussion with differing perspectives. Communal acceptance of the status quo is heavily portrayed in the narratives because there is no internal conflict or tension noted. The will of the female collectives seem to be monolithic in essence with a singular voice of leadership absent of reprisal. “Avoidance of the representation of conflict shapes the narrative structure of these works” (page 312) in significant ways and “the absence of dialectic between character and environment, has important implications for the treatment of women” (page 312). In analysis, we see a literary focus on the revelation of male thought (page 312), which tends to be the narrator or main character. Here, the intended audience is male, therefore, he is still the one to be catered. The authors’ portrayal of an all female, conflict free living quarters perpetuates marginalizing tropes about women, such as, docility, lack of intellectual thought, and motherhood. She is still meek, content, and voiceless. Even in an imaginary utopia, as I take Mizora, A Prophecy as example, “it is hard to picture a disruptive or even creative role for women’s speech” (page 318) in these environments.
However, the narratives provided an environment absent of poverty, homelessness, and economic disparity by describing plenty of food and resources as a contextual circumstance. There were little to no signs of conflict over commerce, therefore, economic inequalities were swiftly amended. Unfortunately, the authors failed to realize that “the family was the focal connection between sex and class” issues (page 313). The authors can fix economics in a multitude of ways, but if they perpetuate oppressive ideals, they simply ratify already established societal standards. The role of family and how it divides labor within the family defines gender greatly for our society. Gendered roles are cemented through labor and how it is processed publicly. In the novels, we see the women still conducting housework and motherhood duties, although collectively and more mechanically (page 313). We also see very clear examples of the True Woman and the Steel Engraving Lady. “During a period of high unemployment, American utopian fiction, like sentimental fiction, frontier fiction, and the melodrama, romanticized the woman at home” (page 312) and, consequently, these “patriarchal assumptions ratified the hiring patterns” that disparaged women’s pay and clamped them “to the service sector or in the production of non-durable goods” (page 313). The novels simply replaced individuals at home with collectives of women managing a larger home reality. I agree with Pfaelzer when she concludes that the authors failed at initiating social equality through text “without yet understanding the mutually reinforcing capacities of the two systems”: capitalism and patriarchy.
Overall, Pfaelzer’s analysis is thorough and direct. She is aware of the historical time period and the social climate surrounding the feminist utopian texts. With those tools, she was able to dissect four novels and measure many of its symbolic features. There were contradictions in the nature of feminist utopia as explored, and there were lessons to be learned about the impact and effect of the twin systems, capitalism and patriarchy, on societies at large. She commends the work of authors to provide economic sovereignty to women but calls it in vain if oppressive, societal expectations are simultaneously upheld. Her analysis unveils that the feminist utopian authors, some subconsciously, perpetuated many social and cultural assumptions about women, which in return, validated the male dominated society.
Pfaelzer, Jean. “A State of One’s Own: Feminism as Ideology in American Utopias 1880–1915.” Extrapolation, vol. 24, no. 4, 1983, pp. 311–328.,
