In Charlotte Gilman's "If I Were a Man" we can see the sort of environment that could bring about the use of metonymy, as described in Jimmie Killingsworth's "Appeal Through Tropes". Killingsworth says that metonymy "works by substituting a thing for a closely associated... thing" (Killingsworth 127). Several displayed attitudes in "If I Were a Man" demonstrate the "tendency of metonymy to objectify and depersonalize people" (Killingsworth 128).
Mollie as Gerald focuses on the frivolous hats of the women that she passes but she does not give them any more concern than Gerald might. She notices women's hats, "on that hair...at every angle, in all colors, tipped, twisted, tortured" (Gilman 172). It is apparent that she and the men that she associates with feel that the ridiculousness of the hats characterize the actions of women, in general.
One many that Gerald rides with mentions the limits that physiology naturally puts on women. However another man disputes this, saying that women are not hampered when it comes to "what they want" (Gilman 174). It seems that men characterize the women that they know based on one attribute; the female focus on what is desirable. The men believe that this feature is innate in every woman. This is similar to the idea of metonymy and easily brings to light the idea of substituting one associated thing for the entirety.
It is important to note that Gilman's writing also shows the ease with which metonymy is applied to men by women. Through Gerald's eyes, Mollie notes that she had always distinguished men by one certain fact, such as who they were married to or how wealthy they were. As Mollie talks to the men though, she is surprised by the amount knowledge that it take to "[know] men" (173). It seems that through her flip-flop of bodies, Mollie is able to break down a bit of her own metonymy, as well as work on that of the men she meets.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Cora’s point is very poignant. I would like to add to her comment that “Mollie is able to break down a bit of her own metonymy.” This reminded me of Killingsworth’s assertion that metonymy is a “habitual association” (Killingsworth 127), but also that it corresponds to a “cognitive dimension” (Killingsworth 129). When Mollie looks at the stereotypes and metonymy of the men that she encounters from a different perspective, she notices the difference between the perceived and the reality. This is the same way that a reader may or may not notice metonymy in a writing or in their own lives; their noticing would depend on how familiar the metonymy was. After several examples of this, Mollie notices and becomes offended by the stereotyping. It is only when she realizes the unfairness of the stereotypes applied to her that she becomes aware of her own stereotyping. This is important because it is an example of how metonymy often reflects not only the cognitive dimension of the characters in the story, but our own minds. So, metonymy in literature is both a trope within the literature and also a means for broader critique and enlightenment regarding the purposes of the author.
ReplyDeleteAdrienne brings up an interesting point. She says that Mollie "notices the difference between the perceived and the reality". She notes that Mollie makes this important realization while everyday people may not in their own lives or in writing.
ReplyDeleteGilman explores the "broader critique and englightenment" that metonymy can incite. Near the end of the writing, Gerald talks of "Mother Eve". He does not deny the biblical creation story but he does expand the the sin aspect. Gerald takes on some of the blame that was, especially in his time and environment, so prevalently placed upon Eve and thus women. Gilman ends the story with an attitude of newness, and an integration of Mollie into Gerald and vice-versa. If we are too believe that as Mollie lives in Gerald, Gerald also lives in Mollie, we can perhaps, realize that Gilman constructs us as an audience in not an accusatory way but as an aid to community and understanding between genders.