There is no evidence anywhere that Zora Neale Hurston purposefully wrote Their Eyes Were Watching God to be a feminist novel. From what I understand, Hurston wrote this novel about a black woman in the south simply to tell her story. The book reflects both Hurston’s sociological research in the south, as well as aspects of her own life that she experienced first-hand. Hurston wrote this book to share a folk-like tale about Janie, not just use her as a prop in a protest novel. I feel like some people are making the same argument about this book as Richard Wright, but with a feminist focus rather than a civil rights focus. By this I mean that people are saying that Hurston’s novel isn’t “feminist enough,” regardless of the fact that it is very unlikely that it was written as a feminist book. However, even though I acknowledge that this book might not be purposefully trying to suggest anything about what a woman “should” be, I think it it is interesting to think about in light of feminism.
I see Janie herself is a feminist character, but I do not see Their Eyes Were Watching God as a feminist book. Janie is the heroine of her story and often seen as a feminist icon, as she should be. She is strong, makes her own decisions, and is only 16 years old when her journey begins. Janie knows what she wants, even as a young girl who is predestined to follow the path of marrying up like her grandmother wants her to. Although she does marry Logan like she is supposed to, she has the agency and courage to take the exit and marry Joe. However, Janie doesn’t take no for an answer, and finally ends up marrying Teacake to achieve the more natural version of love she had set out to find when she was younger. In addition, she owns herself and her actions when she is telling her friend Pheoby her story.
Although Janie is an independently thinking being, we cannot say that men do not play a substantial role in the novel and in Janie’s development both as a character and as a person. Men help Janie discover her destiny. Although she is alone in her sweet melancholia at the resolution of the book, she wouldn’t have been able to get to that point without the men she encountered previously, especially Teacake. She would not be able to find her fulfillment if it wasn’t for Teacake who allowed her the opportunity to live as part of a group she was not a part of before. I don’t believe that is entirely Janie’s fault, because Janie did not go out searching for love. Instead, she was searching for a better way of living. Janie is a character who loves socializing, talking to people, and having a good time. Rather, I believe that the fact she needed men in order to find her serenity is the fault of the world she lives in, which can otherwise be thought of as the book as a whole. If it was up to Janie, she would very likely choose her own fate it she could, because she has so much agency throughout the book. But she can’t do that because the book necessitates a love story in order for herself to be fulfilled. Although Janie makes her own decisions about how she wants her life to go, it is the men provide the movement in the book. This is also evident because the book focusing on Janie when she is with a man, rather than by herself. For example there is a small number of pages compared to how much time has passes when Janie is widowed and working at the store in Eatonville. The periods of her life are marked by the different men she is with. This makes sense because she is living a different place with each man, so her life is drastically different with each one, but nonetheless it is her life only is different in each case because of the man she is with. Through these different adventures, the men drive the plot of the book, even though Janie herself is a “feminist” heroine.
I think you have a point--people (including me to some extent) have been criticizing Wright's critique with the argument that he's invalidating her 'feminist' message, when really that is holding Hurston to another standard as a minority. As a black woman she shouldn't be confined to writing about racial struggles or gender struggles.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Hurston being a successful black female poet at that time was a lot more rare than nowadays, and I think a lot of people would assume that if that's the case she would have had to gain popularity through writing about her blackness or her feminism.
DeleteTo me this touches on a sort of key point in that there is, in many interpretations, a certain neglect for racial tension in the novel simply because it has an all-black cast. I think this has a lot to do with Wright's critique because he recognizes this at some level and instead of looking at what the novel does do in the way of speaking for other minorities, he holds her to standards that shouldn't be cookie-cutter style especially in literary critique.
ReplyDeleteYour distinction of Janie being a feminist character in a not-necessarily-feminist book makes a lot of sense. The book just isn't totally written for that purpose. But then again, how do we classify a feminist book? Especially for the time this was written, having a female POC protagonist with plenty of agency and independence could be classified as blaring feminism, in its empowerment of female characters. The fact that she follows what she wants to do and just lives her life as she sees fit also plays into that. Of course, there is some glossed-over domestic abuse and distinct lack of other female characters like Janie, which detracts from the book as an entirely feminist plot.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, especially in what you mention, I think that the book could have easily been more feminist. If the book had been focused on Janie's life outside of her relationships, for instance, it would convey less of the message that a woman needs men in her life. However, Hurston meant this to be a love story between a man and a women, which necessitates the plot that we read. Hurston shouldn't be criticized for not making her book more feminist.
ReplyDeleteI've read some blogs on this point and I think because the whole novel circles the life of a women in her relationship to men makes it seem like it could have been more feminist. But we have to think about the fact that this woman was independent and did as she wished, which I think is enough evidence to call this a "feminist" book.
ReplyDeleteI like this idea. I think often times when we think of feminism we imagine a hardcore feminist, but as you explain there are subtle forms of feminism. As a person, Zora seems to be a feminist in a non self-proclaiming way. She just exists and does as she pleases, like Janie, in a time where women were supposed to follow more specific standards.
ReplyDelete