Challenging and Conforming the Patriarchy
A Feminist Analysis of Alice Munro’s “The Progress of Love”
Written by Michelle Tang
***Originally submitted 6 November 2019 to Dr Jason Wiens, in part for credit, for ENGL 372: Canadian Literature at the University of Calgary***
***Not only is this essay subject to copyright, but any unauthorized use without citation is considered academic misconduct (plagiarism). You are welcome to consult this paper if you provide the appropriate citation(s)***
Through the University of Calgary Archives, we are fortunate to have access to materials such as typescript drafts that allow us to reflect upon changes between different versions of a single work. This essay aims to examine the differences between the typescript draft and the published version of Alice Munro’s “The Progress of Love” in the context of a feminist reading in order to determine whether any changes reveal the ways in which the texts challenge or conform to the ideas perpetuated by patriarchy. This essay will demonstrate how “The Progress of Love” is conflicted in that it both reinforces and undermines patriarchal ideologies: traditional gender roles are defied by characters such as Beryl and Phemie, yet their defiance is met with a discomfort that suggests Phemie’s internalization of patriarchy. Additionally, some variations between the two versions reveal the privileging of male power while others suggest female empowerment, further complicating both texts.
There are several examples throughout both versions of the text where male privileging is evident, yet there are also examples where this privileging is countered. One such example of this is in the opening paragraphs. The typescript draft begins with “My mother died on a hot day,” whereas in the published version in our anthology, the opening words are “I got a call at work, and it was my father” (Munro, Typescript 1, Munro 570). These changes are of great significance when analyzed through a feminist lens: in the published version, the opening sentence mentions Phemie’s father rather than her mother, even though the predominant subject of the opening paragraph is her mother’s death. Instead of Phemie factually presenting to readers the circumstances surrounding her mother’s death (as in the typescript), a male figure of authority is instead made the mediator who conveys the information to both Phemie and the readers. By having the news presented solely by her father rather than by Phemie herself, the text itself in the published version values and privileges the narrative of a man over that of a woman. We may thus be inclined to suggest that the published version privileges male power, however, another variation at the end of the same opening paragraph immediately complicates this reading. In the typescript, the paragraph ends with “‘I thought I better call you right away, Phemie’” (Munro, Typescript 1). In the anthology, there is a distinct difference: “‘So I thought I better call you,’ my father said, and he waited for me to say what he should do now” (Munro 571). While in the published version her father, a male character, was given the power of control over the narrative, this power is handed back to Phemie through her father relying on her guidance and awaiting her instruction. The text in its published form thus initially appears to privilege male power at the paragraph’s beginning but subverts this at the paragraph’s end by returning control to the female narrator.
Further complicating our reading again is another problematic aspect in the published version where a variation results in a woman being described in relation to a man. In the typescript, Phemie tells us that her mother “was twenty-five when she got married—late for those days” (Munro, Typescript 3). In the anthology, Phemie instead tells us her mother “was about twenty-five then, and [her] father was thirty-eight” (Munro 571). Initially this change may seem insignificant, yet the inclusion of her father’s age has significant implications for a feminist reading: the description of her mother’s age is not allowed to stand on its own— instead, it must be framed in relation to a male character. Furthermore, “was twenty-five” instead becomes “about twenty-five,” suggesting that accurately representing her mother’s age matters less than her father’s age, which is important enough that it is decisively stated as simply “was thirty-eight” without the ambiguity of “about” preceding it (Munro 571, my italics, Munro, Typescript 3). While some changes between the two versions may seem insignificant, even the smallest details can hint at whether the text adheres to or challenges patriarchal thinking; in this case it fails to resist patriarchal thinking.
Yet while the previous example suggests that the published version promotes patriarchal ideologies more than the typescript, there are also examples that suggest the opposite, such as the change of pronouns in the song that Phemie recalls her mother singing. In the typescript, the lyrics are “She’s gone and she’s left me, but contented I’ll be, / For I’ll get another one, better than she!” (Munro, Typescript 7). In contrast, the anthology version has switched the pronouns of the song to “He’s gone and he’s left me, but contented I’ll be, / For I’ll get another one, better than he!” (Munro 574). In the context that Phemie, her mother, her grandmother, and Beryl—all females—are the individuals singing the song, the change in pronoun to “he” is an empowering one. The song is no longer merely a song written from a male perspective being sung by women, instead, it becomes a proclamation of independence and ambition.
If we examine female characters in the story, Beryl is particularly interesting as she defies the patriarchy in a variety of ways. There is a minor change between the two versions—in the typescript draft we are told that Beryl “had started out as a secretary,” which is typically a predominantly female job, whereas the published version tells us she “started out as a stenographer” instead, a less gendered occupation, but while what she starts off as differs, her eventual owning of “her own typing and bookkeeping business” does not (Munro, Typescript 16, Munro 578). That she has “her own typing and bookkeeping business, which employed many girls,” suggests that she is capable and successful as a businesswoman, to the extent that she can even provide opportunities for other young women (Munro 578). Additionally, her “friend” Mr. Florence is a male companion who she is not married to (Munro 578). That she is not married is a significant rejection of the traditional gender roles promoted by patriarchy, which is further emphasized by her insistence on not being called “Aunt” because she is “not even anybody’s momma”—this rejection of motherhood constitutes a rejection of gender roles as well (Munro 578). In contrast, in both versions Phemie notes that she and her father both address Marietta as “Mother,” and she thinks of Marietta as an individual separate from her mother’s identity. By addressing her by “Mother” rather than by name, they are identifying her by her adherence to the traditional gender role of mother rather than acknowledging her identity as an individual.
Yet rather than being an empowering, positively portrayed character, we are told that Phemie is “deeply disappointed in [Beryl]” (Munro 579). That Phemie finds “Beryl strange in every way” can perhaps be attributed to the extent that Beryl defies the patriarchy, suggesting that Phemie herself experiences discomfort at seeing patriarchal norms being defied (Munro 584). This is particularly interesting if we initially believe that Phemie herself defies the patriarchy—similar to Beryl, Phemie demonstrates independence and capability in pursuing her own career rather than adhering to the patriarchal expectations her parents impose upon her of “stay[ing] at home and help[ing] [her] mother … until … [she] got married” (Munro 574). Rather than allowing herself to be confined to the domestic sphere, she “[ran] away from home” when she was fifteen, attended night school, “got into the real-estate office, and finally [became] a licensed agent,” directly defying patriarchal expectations (Munro 589). However, Phemie appears to be at odds with herself to an extent—she idolizes the love between her father and mother yet acknowledges that if she truly approved of what they had done (in burning the inheritance money), she would not have done any of the aforementioned actions, the same actions which demonstrate defiance of gender roles.
Another significant change draws our attention to Phemie’s own internal conflict with her identity as a woman. In the published version, Phemie speaks of an intense “sickening shame” that caused her to seek her mother’s forgiveness when she was a child, a shame that was exclusive to her as her “brothers weren’t bothered by” it (Munro 578). The typescript contains a line absent from the published version that further specifies the source of the shame to be “‘Something the same as when she said to me, “Did you remember to wash yourself, down there?’” (Munro, Typescript 16). This suggests an attitude of fear and shame towards the female body and thus, her own identity as a woman. While Phemie defies traditional gender roles to an extent, her discomfort with Beryl and her shame towards the female body indicates that her internalization of patriarchy prevents her from being truly defiant and free from patriarchal ideologies even as she resists it.
Aside from looking solely at differences between the two versions, their similarities are also significant. For instance, the way women are described and viewed, particularly by Phemie’s father, are consistently patriarchal in both versions. Afterall, despite his support and protection of her mother being the example of love that Phemie idolizes, her father makes lighthearted jests about women and marriages that are quite indicative of underlying patriarchal ways of thinking. In both versions, her father speaks about how if “‘you take the money in the bank, you have to take the face that goes with it… and sometimes that’s no bargain’” (Munro 572). This initially seemingly harmless joke actually reveals a patriarchal commodification of women that links a woman’s appearance to her value as a person, and also suggests that a woman is valuable to a man only through what she brings to the table, whether it be her appearance or her money. The text neither explicitly condemns or supports such thinking—Phemie simply recalls her father’s joke without mentioning her own reaction to it—yet it is troubling if we call into question whether the joke is in fact, simply a joke, or whether some degree of sincerity lies beneath it that both Phemie and her father are complicit in.
While characters like Beryl or Phemie herself may defy traditional gender roles to an extent, there is an evident discomfort with such defiance that suggests Phemie has internalized patriarchal thinking even as she defies it. Further complicating this is that there is a continual shifting of power between male and female characters evident throughout both versions that is not definitively resolved—some variations seem to empower women while others seem to invalidate them. Additionally, some of the similarities between the two texts that represent patriarchal thinking are neither condemned nor supported explicitly. While the changes between two versions of a single story may be reflective of changes made in the revisionist writing process, they can also offer extended insight into how we analyze a text: ultimately, both versions of “The Progress of Love” are conflicted in that they both challenge and conform to patriarchal ideologies.
Works Cited
Munro, Alice. “The Progress of Love.” An Anthology of Canadian Literature in English, 4th ed. Edited by Donna Bennett and Russell Brown, 2019. 570-89.
Munro, Alice. “The Progress of Love.” N.d. TS, 396/87.3, box 8, file 12, Alice Munro fonds. Archives and Special Collections, University of Calgary.
