hi! here are some we were provided with:
To what extent are the lives of the characters limited by social norms?
Written in 1962, Shirley Jackson’s We Have Always Lived in the Castle explores the limitations placed upon the aristocratic Blackwoods as a result of the patriarchal and formal society they live in. Narrated by the psychologically damaged mind of Merricat, Jackson explores how unrelenting gender roles and rigid social norms lead to a bleak society in which the identity of individuals are suppressed. Ultimately, Jackson works to not only condemn the harsh patriarchal norms societies are based upon, but also demonstrate that liberation and freedom can be achieved through a rejection of these conventional societal values.
Jackson depicts both the women of the village and the Blackwood family as being restricted by expectations of conformity through their formal and rigid interactions with the world. During Mrs. Wright and Helen Clark’s ‘dutiful’ visit to the Blackwood house, Merricat notices Mrs. Wright’s ‘trembling’ hands and her ‘hesitat[ion] over the plate’ offered by Constance. The visibly fraught state of Mrs Wright highlights the social obligations she must fulfil, despite any legitimate concerns for her personal safety, for the sake of social formalities. Jackson expands on this in their mother’s portrait, which was ‘looking down’ on Constance, symbolising both the social duties she has inherited from her mother, despite her agoraphobia, while also highlighting the spirit that now lives on in Constance’s body, forcing her to embody her mother’s spirit. However, Jackson also explores the limitations of social duties through Mrs. Wright’s ‘timid’ demeanour when she is given the chance to take a ‘glance’ at the Blackwoods’ infamous dining room. Her morbid curiosity, only surfacing in the confines of the house, serves to emphasise the identity Mrs. Wright must hide in the face of general society, her meek demeanour highlighting her awareness of the fact the actions are deemed unacceptable to greater society. Therefore, through Mrs. Wright’s and Constance’s prevailing social duties, Jackson underscores the oppressive nature of social etiquette created by rigid societal norms.
As well as having a limited sense of individuality and identity, Jackson depicts the Blackwood women as being historically reduced to domestic roles through Charles’ imposed visit, furthering the limitations placed on them by gender norms in patriarchal societies. As his stay progresses the dynamic of the household can be seen shifting to imitate a traditional American nuclear family, with ‘little cousin Mary’ being reduced to a petulant child and Constance to a dutiful wife. Charles’ assertive nature in taking over Merricat’s ‘job’ restricts her from straying from the childish role he has imposed onto her, and highlights the domestic roles forced onto Constance by this traditional family dynamic. This is furthered by Charles’ pipe, whose smoke infects the household, and his newspaper which was left ‘lying anywhere’. The infestation of these masculine symbols highlights both the power handed to Charles by their patriarchal society, and also underscores his ability to effortlessly overthrow the feminine power of the house, which Merricat has obsessively and methodically cultivated. Furthermore, Jackson explores Merricat’s limited life due to her rejection of social norms through her exclusion from general society contrasted with Charles’ ease to fit in. When Charles goes into the village instead of Merricat, he starts to become ‘one of the men’ who ‘watched [her] going past’, emphasising his conformity with conventional social values, while also insinuating that Merricat’s failure to be accepted into society is due to her active rejection of the social norms that they live by. Thus, Jackson demonstrates through Constance and Merricat’s unconventional roles and Charles’ permeating masculinity, that the sisters’ lives are also limited because of the gender roles they are forced to conform to as a result of the rigid patriarch their society is founded on.
However, Jackson also portrays the sisters as having generally benefited from their flout against social norms through the happy life they claim to now lead. Following the fire, Merricat and Constance exclusively live out of the kitchen, barricading themselves from the belligerent villagers, whose fear in the sisters are amplified by legends of the two young women that go ‘hunting little children’. The ‘baskets’ of food, left as repentance for their wrongdoings, sustain the sisters and allow them to fully immerse in Merricat’s utopic world, but also highlights the witch-like identity they have assumed, allowing them to stray as far from society as possible by becoming mythical beings. Jackson further explores this in emphasising the ‘happy life’ the sisters have finally achieved following their liberation from the male-centric world after the fire. Constance, who is no longer bound by the patriarchal norms of the regular world, now is ‘so happy’ living in Merricat’s matriarchal society constructed in the, now, ‘barely recognisable’ house. However, Jackson also explores that Merricat’s matriarchal success, albeit liberating for her, continues to repress and limit Constance’s freedom. The fire, which legitimises the sisters’ prejudice against the villagers, guarantees their permanent isolation from society but also greatly heightens Constances’ agoraphobia, highlighted when she ‘ran to the cellar’ after hearing Helen Clark knocking. Jackson emphasises how Constance is now completely yielding to Merricat, compared when she previously challenged her by wanting to reintegrate into society, which suggests that Merricat now subjects her sister to the same limitations of the social norms she overcame. Therefore, through the sisters’ lives after the fire, Jackson underscores that, despite the patriarchal norms limiting the freedoms of people, there is still a capacity for individuals to oppress each other.
Ultimately, the novel shows that societies ruled by rigid social values will lead to the repression of individuality and identity. Jackson leaves readers with the image of two sisters who have overcome the oppressive male-centric society by rejecting their social conventions, but have now created their own matriarchy, to which they are supposedly ‘happy’ in.
To what extent are the lives of the characters limited by social norms?
Oftentimes, those who do not abide by social standards experience great adversity - both from the society that condemns them, but also in their personal lives. This notion is examined in Shirley Jackson’s novel, ‘We Have Always Lived in the Castle,’ in which she depicts the struggles of her characters who are exposed to the external pressures of adhering to the social expectations of 1960’s American society. Through the narrative perspective of Merricat, Jackson explores these characters and their conflicts, and suggests that individuals will often be faced with the dilemma of staying loyal to themselves and those close to them, or heeding to the intrinsic human desire to conform. However, regardless of the expectations set against them, Jackson maintains that people are not bound to upholding these norms, and may still flourish by subverting them.
The capitalist-centric society of 1960’s America more often than not tempts individuals to a futile pursuit of excessive materialism; Jackson embodies the notion of such through Charles. To begin, early in the novel, Jackson establishes the “greed” that “rots” the village, through Merricat’s descriptions of both the “pale greedy” villagers with their “grey evil faces”, but also of the village itself, which is similarly “unchangingly grey.” Through repetition, Jackson metaphorically represents how the village as a whole is “colorless,” suggesting that its residents lack individuality, and their obsession with “money” is a medium by which they conform. The lexical choice of “unchangingly ” also implies that this avarice is systemic; in this, Jackson conveys that the village itself is a reflection of wider society’s values surrounding materialism. Consequently, when Charles is introduced, his seemingly excessive regard for “money” causes intense distrust between him and Merricat, who associates him with the “greedy” villagers. Throughout the novel, his continued comments on “value” and “worth” of objects are initially disregarded by Constance, who believes he genuinely cares for the family and “is a good man;” his attempts to join the family succeed at first. However, during the fire, rather than prioritising the wellbeing of the Blackwoods, he repeatedly calls upon the villagers to “get the safe.” Through this symbol, Jackson reveals Charles’ obsessive behaviours surrounding money take precedence over his own family, and through Merricat, condemns him for this behaviour, as he is made to leave the Blackwood house. As such, Jackson also symbolically illustrates the issues with a society so deeply-rooted in capitalism: that individuals often fall victim to a fruitless infatuation with materialistic gain, as this need may supersede and ultimately prevent them from truly caring about those closest to them.
Moreover, as examined with Constance, Jackson proposes that while the gender norms set against women in a patriarchal society are highly restrictive, not all women suffer entirely when adhering to them. Throughout the novel, Jackson depicts the Blackwoods to be the antithesis of the traditional patriarchal family: there is no male “head of the family,” and instead the responsibilities are split between Merricat and Constance, where Uncle Julian is the dependent, “invalid” in the house. Despite the matriarchal power present in the Blackwood household, however, Jackson still depicts Constance as docile and submissive; whenever Uncle Julian calls for her, she repeatedly responds with, “Yes, Uncle Julian?” Similarly, when Merricat first describes Constance’s inherent “brightness” of “pink and white and [gold],” Jackson epitomises the ideal feminine beauty through Constance’s portrayal, which contrasts the earlier use of colour to highlight the villager’s greed and conformity. Effectively, Jackson depicts Constance to be a reflection of the gender norms which dominated American society at the time - to serve in the household, and to be “precious” and beautiful. However, after Charles’ arrival, Constance divulges her internal struggle of “doing [her] duty,” and in doing so, Jackson reveals the flawed nature of her submissive attitude. She presents how this allows Constance to “hide” and enables her more agoraphobic behaviours, also aligning with the ideal housewife expectation. Yet, Jackson maintains that adopting these more feminine traits is not entirely detrimental to Constance. After the fire, Constance initially finds herself questioning her purpose, wondering “what [she] should do?” but eventually fully submits to her life with Merricat; albeit, she is free from the responsibility of taking care of Uncle Julian. Despite her freedom, she is still bound by the obligation to take care of and “feed” Merricat, but ultimately finds herself to be “so happy” in their sisterly dynamic. Thus, Jackson implies that an individual may still derive happiness when abiding to certain gender norms, and conversely, intimates that following gendered stereotypes does not necessarily guarantee discontentment.
Furthermore, via Merricat’s fierce refusal to abide by social norms, Jackson depicts how not all individuals are bound to conformity, and may even flourish in spite of the society which condemns them. During Helen Clarke’s final visit to the Blackwood house, Merricat offers Mrs. Wright “sugar.” While this is done under the guise of being “polite,” through her narrative perspective, Jackson reveals that Merricat “couldn’t help it,” suggesting that she is both aware of the fear that she catalyses in the villagers, and even finds glee in such. As the symbol of food is traditionally aligned with women, she both challenges gendered norms by weaponising food as a medium to promote fear, but also opposes the social etiquette that is highly valued in the world Jackson has constructed. This desire to invoke fear into others also hints at Merricat’s more misanthropic and vindictive nature, which is then later highlighted through her repeated violent “wish[es that [others are] dead,” conveying that her rebellion against conformity is largely motivated by her contempt for broader society as a whole. Though this intense contempt for the village and its people culminates in the vandalism of the Blackwood house, by the end of the novel, it is the “terrifying” image that the village has of the sisters—that Merricat has cultivated—which motivates them to provide “food.” Ironically, the use of the symbol of food changes here, serving as an apology, yet still allows Merricat to maintain power over the villagers through fear. This ultimately enables Merricat and Constance to finally be “happy,” despite her strained relationship with the village. Hence, Jackson propounds that individuals have the capacity to triumph over oppressive social norms, and one may still find happiness in their personal relationships, even when society has condemned them.
The relationships between the characters and expectations that society has of them vary greatly. However, Jackson demonstrates that regardless, the capacity of a person to find joy and success is not dictated by their ability to abide by social norms or challenge them; instead, it is ultimately up to an individual themselves to derive meaning and satisfaction from the lives they lead, whether from those closest to them, or the society they conform to.
