The character and story of Louise Mallard in Kate Chopin’s “The Story of an Hour” reflects the feelings of women towards their partners at a time when women were repressed and that the price of freedom oftentimes comes in the form of the death of the male partner. Told by Josephine in “broken sentences,” Mrs. Mallard heard about the news of the tragic death of her husband Brently Mallard in a train accident. As the story unfolds, Mrs. Mallard appears to have a mixture of relief and weeping, mesmerized by the situation she understood as the end of her enchainment to her husband. In fact, Mrs. Mallard repeatedly whispered to herself “free, free, free!” signifying how she felt elated from the death of Brently Mallard. At the end of the story, Mrs. Mallard found out that her husband is alive which surprised her, consequently killing her which designates how frustrated she was, complicated in no small way by her heart disease. As Kate Chopin writes, it was “the joy that kills” which took away Louise Mallard’s life.
The title of the story itself suggests how such a short span of time can elate the mind of a woman from an apparent moment of freedom. “The Story of an Hour” suggests how diverse thoughts have occupied the sanity of Louise Mallard, from asking if it was or was not “a monstrous joy that held her” to thinking about how “there would be no one to live for” in the coming years, in just an hour. More importantly, the diverse thoughts that crept into the mind of Mrs. Mallard in such a short time appeared to show how powerless she was when the thoughts flooded her mind. She was literally at the mercy of the immense possibilities that loomed beyond the horizon. Yet even though the thoughts came to overpower her while she locked herself in the room, sitting while facing the window, the apparent feeling of liberty was capturing her senses. “Free, free, free” and “free! Body and soul free” Louise Mallard whispered to herself while thinking about the “possession of self-assertion” that she “suddenly recognized as the strongest impulse of her being.”
A closer reading of the text reveals that, indeed, “The Story of an Hour” is a feminist reading, or a literary work with indubitable hints of a feminist perspective. It is significant to consider that feminism as a movement explains and investigates the male and female genders in the society, especially their roles and the situations caused by and surrounding the genders (Thompson and Linda, p. 851). An important thing to note too is that feminism is generally divided into three “waves” from an academic point of view—the first wave indicates how women in particular identified their struggles and their rights in the society from a largely legal perspective; the second wave indicates the actual struggles of women to attain the rights that they have identified and the overturning of the de facto inequalities in the society; and the third wave of feminism challenges the idea of the ‘feminine’ posited by the second wave of feminism (Hayes, McAllister and Studlar, p. 425). From the given waves of feminism, it can be said that “The Story of an Hour” revolves around the first wave of feminism especially since the story was written in 1894 which was a time when women faced the several legal and social constraints on their part such as the fact that they were not allowed to vote during those times and that the only role of women was confined inside the house (Thomas, p. 541).
It is important to identify which wave of feminism Chopin’s story essentially belongs to because it significantly helps in understanding why the author wrote the story in a way that portrays women as oppressed, and that death is one way where women can have a ‘taste’ of liberty. In the story, Mrs. Mallard appears to be confused with how she should react upon hearing the news about the death of her husband. At first, Mrs. Mallard “wept at once, with sudden wild abandonment” as if she was acting out of grief and desperation, out of disbelief and rage. Later on, Mrs. Mallard locked herself alone inside her room, contemplating on the sudden death of her husband, her feelings being tempted by the idea of emancipation from the hand of Mr. Mallard. This illustrates how the transition of her feelings—from a short moment of grief to a moment where her thoughts revolve around the idea of freedom in body and soul—exemplifies the underlying longing for freedom on the part of women, especially married women. The case of Mrs. Mallard provides a glimpse of how women want to liberate themselves from the clutches of men. For all we know, Mrs. Mallard’s case is only one of the many cases of oppression which were happening during the time when Chopin wrote the story. It would not be surprising if Chopin’s inspirations to write the story are the cases of oppression women dealt with during the late nineteenth century, and of how these women have always wanted to attain emancipation from men and from the patriarchal structure of the society.
One proof of repression that can be traced from the story is how Chopin described Mrs. Mallard: “she was young, with a fair, calm face, whose lines bespoke repression.” Mrs. Mallard was young; the “lines” on her face stands as an ironic feature of her youthful and calm face since it is unnatural for young women to have lines on their faces at such a young age. Another indications in the story that Mrs. Mallard is repressed are her “physical exhaustion that haunted her body and seemed to reach into her soul” and her “heart trouble”. Physical exhaustion, face with lines bespeaking of repression and heart trouble—indeed, all of these things, among others, are not common to a young woman whose physique ought to be exuding an aura of vitality and freshness. All of these things point to the idea that her husband, Brently Mallard has a lot to do with them, especially since Mrs. Mallard had the thought of how there will be “no powerful will bending hers” as “she would live for herself” knowing that her husband is already dead. In sum, the death of her husband is the death of the repression she has been experiencing in her life as a wife and the birth of a freedom long called upon by her body and soul.
Moreover, given that Mrs. Mallard was suffering from a heart disease, it is ironic that she did not die after hearing the news about her husband’s death. Rather, it was the sight of her husband who was alive and well that brought her demise, perhaps surprised to see her husband in the flesh when all the while she thought he was dead already. As Chopin writes, Mrs. Mallard “died of heart disease—of the joy that kills,” thereby reaffirming the idea that her hope of emancipation which was almost so close she could almost taste it was immediately extinguished by the realization that the man who held her life is still alive; Mrs. Mallard realized that she was still under the clutches of her husband, destroying her hopes of liberty that clung to her mind when she was in her room.
How deeply and strongly did Mrs. Mallard want emancipation from her husband’s repression? The answer to that question can be looked into the situation where Mrs. Mallard was alone in her room: with her mind “running riot along those days ahead of her” without her dead husband, “she breathed a quick prayer that life might be long,” indicating how she is hoping that she will be having a longer life in order to savor the emancipation that she thought she now had. More importantly, “it was only yesterday she had thought with shudder that life might be long,” indicating how repressed she felt while her husband was still alive, and knowing that the rest of her life will be spent with her husband’s repressive nature whose powerful will bent her own. As Michael Kimmel notes, “men during the late nineteenth century were engrossed with the idea of untamed supremacy over women, brought about by the seemingly endless string of structural problems (p. 264).”
“The Story of an Hour” also provides a glimpse of how women reacted to their repressed situation during the late nineteenth century. For one, Mrs. Mallard could only keep to herself the repression she is enduring, and that the thought of emancipation only occurred to her at the time of the news of her husband’s death. In fact, Chopin describes Mrs. Mallard as having the “paralyzed inability to accept its significance,” referring to the train tragedy which caused the death of her husband. Mrs. Mallard had not immediately conceived of the liberty that loomed above her given her husband’s death, and that it was only during her isolation in her room when the insight of that liberty crept into her being. That characteristic tells how women during those times could not begin to think or realize their emancipation from repression for as long as their husbands lived. It was the very presence and lives of their husbands and of men in general which kept them away from that golden realization.
Deborah A. Gordon writes that “one of the main reasons why women have been largely unable to free themselves from the repressive forces that hinder them from realizing the meaning of their lives is that men in general have constantly reinforced and imposed their will on women (p. 110).” Further, Angela McRobbie stresses the idea that “when the will of men casted down on women is lifted, the tendency is for women to have that sense of liberation as if a heavy burden has been taken off of their shoulders (p. 98).” Thus, it is not surprising to know how Mrs. Mallard’s feelings went after she locked herself inside the room, contemplating on the wide possibilities—possibilities that are wider than ever before—that elated her life. The very death of Mr. Mallard came like a sad news at first to her, exemplified in no small way by her weeping and “sudden, wild abandonment.” The next moment, the news seemed to her like good news filled with promises of a better and freer life. Indeed, it was as if a heavy burden, or a hex, has been lifted from her body and soul. “Free, free, free,” as Mrs. Mallard would whisper to herself in the room. A symbolism of how Mrs. Mallard sees the opportunities that awaited her can be found at the time of her isolation—“there were patches of blue sky showing here and there through the clouds” as she faced the window. “The patches of blue sky” amidst the clouds visible to the eyes of Mrs. Mallard from the view through the room window perfectly symbolizes her situation—the room where she is in isolation symbolizes her ‘caged’ state and the patches of blue sky symbolize the free life that awaits her from beyond the clouds.
In essence, “The Story of an Hour” can be better understood from a feminist perspective, whether or not Kate Chopin was already aware of that perspective. The life of Mrs. Mallard during that short hour clearly illustrates how women have always wanted to be freed from repression, and that the bitter-sweet moment can be glanced upon the death of their spouses, or of their separation from men in general. Ironically, the turn of events would take away that moment of bliss for Mrs. Mallard, putting death in its place instead. Knowing that her husband was still alive, she knew too well that life ahead of her was still long and agonizing. At that moment when she realized her husband was still alive, the moment of bliss peaked and the state of confusion swirled around her: it was a joy to know that her husband was alive, and yet it was a sorrowful moment just as well to know that her dream of emancipation was just that—nothing but a dream. Her heart finally surrendered itself from “the joy that kills.”
Works Cited
Chopin, Kate. “The Story of an Hour.” The Awakening and Selected Stories of Kate Chopin. Signet Classics, 1976. 198-99.
Gordon, Deborah A. “The Unhappy Relationship of Feminism and Postmodernism in Anthropology.” Anthropological Quarterly 66.3 (1993): 110.
Hayes, Bernadette C., Ian McAllister, and Donley T. Studlar. “Gender, Postmaterialism, and Feminism in Comparative Perspective.” International Political Science Review 21.4 (2000): 425.
Kimmel, Michael S. “Men’s Responses to Feminism at the Turn of the Century.” Gender and Society 1.3 (1997): 264.
McRobbie, Angela. “Feminism and the Third Way.” Feminist Review.64 (2000): 98.
Thomas, Janet. “Women and Capitalism: Oppression or Emancipation? A Review Article.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 30.3 (1988): 541.
Thompson, Linda, and Alexis J. Walker. “The Place of Feminism in Family Studies.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 57.4 (1995): 851.
Global Aircraft Manufacturing And Assembly: Boeing Vs Airbus
In recent history, the global aircraft manufacturing and assembly has been controlled by two companies. The first of these companies, Boeing, was founded in 1916 in the Northwest United States and still survives today. Their direct competition, Airbus, was created in 1970 and by 1981, was controlled by France, Germany, Spain and Britain with support from the European Union. Today, many issues plague these two companies as they struggle to maintain their market control as regulations become tougher and global competition increases.
Starting after World War II, European governments have eagerly pursued their public polices by using a system of democratic socialism. Because of this, citizens of the European Union have become accustomed to the government playing a substantial role in the natural economy. These public policies have led to numerous soft loans and subsidies to Airbus. Every major aircraft made by this company has at least been partly financed from government aid if not completely paid for.
France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom along with lesser support from other European countries have contributed tens of billions of Euros through subsidies and soft loans. These countries have also financed research and development, dedicated infrastructure support, provided equity infusions, and forgiven Airbus debt. With such strong support, Airbus has rivaled Boeing as one of the biggest and important aircraft manufacturers globally.
This fast growth of power has proved to work successfully within Europe, but other competitors around the world have questioned the fairness of multi-governmental support and the advantages that are attached. I believe that European subsidies and soft loans to Airbus are necessary and fair. Post World War II, Europe was left with many hardships. In order to meet the travel and military demand of Europeans, an aircraft company was necessary to be created to avoid high importation prices. A single country in Europe simply did not have the capital or resources to create their own.
The democratic socialism of the EU made perfect sense to apply to aircraft manufacturing. In order to be able to compete with already established aircraft companies, soft loans and subsidies were completely necessary and fair. With the control now given to Airbus, many advantages were created for the company. By having multiple countries to back them up, Airbus was able to enter the global market and capture a majority of success. 53,000 skilled and unskilled jobs were created for Europeans that also led to important research and development that has resulted in new valuable technology.
Furthermore, massive amounts of capital and enormous tax revenues have been drawn to the European Union. Subsidies and soft loans gave these countries an advantage over other well-established aircraft manufacturers. Airbus’s current direct competition is with the American company Boeing. Since Boeings creation in 1916, it has been a global force in aircraft manufacturing and assembly. This power did not just come from their strong past, but through lucrative contracts with the United States Defense Department along with other branches of government.
These contracts are funded through government subsidies paid by tax dollars collected from citizens. 23 billion dollars in indirect subsidies along with acquired knowledge have been given to Boeing by the United States government, Pentagon, and NASA. Today, this support has given an unfair advantage to Boeing. It is unfair because the company has had many years to develop the critical mass that is necessary to become the global leading aerospace manufacturer. Their ability to gather knowledge from governmental agencies gives an unfair advantage no other country can offer.
Furthermore, costs are kept to a minimum in order to keep their revenues high. For example, Washington State has given infrastructure support, tax breaks, and other incentives totaling billions of dollars. By already being established and continual military contracts, Boeing has an advantage that cannot be currently competed against. Since 2007, the global economic systems have been shaken up and slowed. For Boeing and the United States, military contracts and defense spending have seen cuts.
Airlines have slowed or cancelled their contracts to order new planes. Because of this, the United States has lowered their recent contributions to support Boeing. This financial support may have slowed, but I believe as long as our government has not defaulted, capital will always be available to Boeing for defense and American airlines will always have a demand for new planes as their current equipment depreciates in value. Boeing has also just signed a 2. 1 billion dollar deal with India for military aircraft that will continue to provide revenues.
The United States was not the only region that has been affected by the global recession. Airbus has seen a slowing of future orders from the European Union. They have also sold full or part of six factories. Although they have been hurt due to the recession, The European Union has not given up hope in their aircraft company. 15 billion Euros have partly been received for developing their new A380 aircraft. As with my belief of Boeing, I do not find it likely that the European Union will discontinue their financial support of Airbus.
With this being said, both Boeing and Airbus have cut 10,000 jobs. In order to become more cost efficient, they have both began outsourcing to emerging markets such as India. The last and most important reason it is unlikely that the European Union or the United States with stop supporting their companies is the entrance of China Commercial Aircraft CO. In order to remain dominant in their market, both companies need support from their home countries to maintain their market share.
Because of the strict competition between Airbus and Boeing, both companies and countries have appealed to the World Trade Organization to settle their dispute. With the complainant being the United States and the respondents consisting of France, Germany, Spain, France and European communities, the case started. A panel was established on July 20, 2005. Next, a circulation of a Panel Report happened on June 30, 2010 with the adoption of the results ending on June 1, 2011.
The results concluded by the Appellate Body found that certain subsidies provided by the European Union have caused serious prejudice to the interests of the United States. It was found that the effect of the subsidies was to displace several of Boeings aircraft from the European Union, Korean, Australian and Chinese markets. The Panel recommended that the European Union “take appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects or… withdraw the subsidy. ” Currently, the European Union has a separate dispute against the United States for subsidies allegedly rovided to Boeing. After the dispute was circulated to WTO members on March 31, 2011 both parties have appealed aspects of the report. Due to my loss of faith in multinational organizations developed to handle disputes, I do not believe anything substantial will come from either sides of the legal battle. After many more years of discussions, I believe both Boeing and Airbus will have to pay several million-dollar settlements but due to the complicated nature of the case, it is highly unlikely any actual sanctions will be forced upon either company.
I believe soon the bigger issue that will arise is the growth of China Commercial Aircraft CO. Due to the political nature of China, their company will be heavily subsidized with their artificially inflated currency. Tensions between the United States and China will soon spread to Europe as China becomes more economically strong along with an increase in their military power. Overall, I believe this issue will drown the current battle between Airbus and Boeing.
A Comparison Between “V For Vendetta” And “1984”
Oppressive governments and the psychological manipulation of the people are the strong themes and warning signs that these two powerful works of art, 1984 and V for Vendetta, attempt to delineate. 1984 and V for Vendetta have their similarities and differences yet their worlds are built around these basic tenets. Yet varying with their degree of control, both the novel and the film depict despotic leaders and repressive governments. Both of these leaders use intricate methods to keep control. Even being in the same genre and heavily borrowing, they still have their wild diversity from on each other.
The one of the many differences between these works of fiction and perhaps the most significant one is the fact that the main character in V for Vendetta takes action. The link from V for Vendetta to 1984 grows substantially with each passing scene yet still differentiating itself from the classic novel at the same time Big Brother, with his Stalin- like features, is an iconic figure in George Orwell’s 1984 as is the inner party. Usually visualized as a Totalitarian ruler on that prodigious screen showing only his magnified head, he strikes a strong affinity with Chancellor Adam Sutler.
The high ruler of England was an obvious nod to Big Brother as he also chooses to output himself visually in the same manner. The English government is even constructed in similar fashion to the inner party. In V for Vendetta there is a head responsible for each branch of the government such as police or the media. However even within these comparisons, stark contrasts still persist. Big Brother is a mysterious figure that is not known by the reader if he exists at all while Chancellor Adam Sutler is a real and tangible person as shown in the final scene of the movie.
Also peoples attitude towards each of the figures vary remarkably. The brainwashed hopeless sacks of skin of Oceania are uncontrollably yet honestly in love with the party and big brother. The English totalitarianism in V for Vendetta, however, has some disdain from its citizens as well as highly ranked members. You can easily see the lead chief show some questionable looks to Sutler’s demands and we can also decipher that his mindset of the government has somewhat changed after making some crucial discoveries. These thoughts in Oceania don’t even exist and if they do, they are immediately converted and wiped out.
Even though they are much more severe and ruthless in 1984, the tactics used in these societies to keep control are fundamentally and conceptually the same. That’s what essentially drives the most glaring parallels of these two fictional factions. The Norsefire regime, in V for Vendetta, basically practices the same methods used in 1984 in extremely played down ways. It uses mass surveillance to eavesdrop on its citizens through vans patrolling the streets instead of telescreens. It also employed cameras in the public to keep eye on the people.
There is also a harsh curfew in effect at only elven clock and you can only have one channel on the television much like the telescreens. All of these same tactics showed up in 1984 with harsher effects and penalties. The Norsefire regime also borrows from Ingsoc, among other regimes, on how the upbringing of its leader occurred. V for Vendetta showcases how a dictator used fear from recent and future events to take and keep power. The use of mass media for government propaganda also draws comparisons to Ingsoc. The fabrication of recent, or all, events in favor of the regime and slogans of the regime are also direct allusion to 1984.
It is also evident that Norsefire alters history which is a stable of The Party. The party and Norsefire are still, even with all these relations to one each other, are on different levels of Authoritarian subjugation of their respective peasants. The Party citizens are nowhere near the entitlement, how little it may be, of England’s citizens. It is to no revelation that some of the major differences of these societies come down to methods used by the party since 1984 is an extremely implausible novel and there is no society that is on par, whether real or fictitious, with the overbearing Ingsoc.
What also didn’t come as surprise is that by far the biggest inconsistencies within these regimes are the characters and the actions they do or don’t take. Outside of Winston and Julia, but not for long, not a single conscious thought exist in 1984. The predominant Ingsoc has such a deterring control over their subservient minions that they have no freedom in anything, not even their minds. Anyone who has anything near contrasting thought will be hunted down, arrested, and restored. Even the main character can barely hold on to his true feelings before they get tortured out of him.
The whole mood and mentality of 1984 and its characters are completely antithetical to V. The whole movie is plotted around him trying to fire up the people into a revolt against the government with very extravagant explosions. V’s true alignment of whether he is supposed to be a villain or a hero is completely irrelevant to the topic. The fact that he is doing a thing on his free will is unreservedly more important. It is not just V either, there are a slew of other characters that have opposing thoughts.
Gordon and Evey are the other main characters that have these contradictory feelings. Gordon has a whole room of collectables that will get him killed, not to mention being a homosexual, and Evey is helping the terrorist. Even the little girl who said “bullocks” as she watched a fake report on V’s death is an enormous act of rebellion when compared to 1984 Any new work of art that centers on Authoritarianism and totalitarianism will strike resemblance to 1984 since it has lain in the roots of how such a government should function.
But since the book borrowed heavily from factions in control at the time, such allusions can be misinterpreted for 1984 while in fact they were just mean for use in general terms in regards to any totalitarian regime. However a lot of direct references to 1984 are undeniable in V for Vendetta such as the big head in big screen or how similarly are each societies set up among other more obscure nods to the novel. Even the rat in Evey’s cellar might have been a hint to Winston’s confrontation with rats in room 101 . V for Vendetta felt like homage to 1984 while inputting its own taste in the genre of dystopian future.