- Note that example essays should be used to inform you work and inspire your form. Do not copy and paste. It's not worth the potential exam-board sanctions.
How does Pat Barker Present the Link Between
the Emasculation of Soldiers and the Liberation of Women in ‘Regeneration’?
In ‘Regeneration’,
Pat Barker explores both the emasculation of soldiers and the liberation of
women during wartime. It is uncertain as to whether the emancipation of women causes the emasculation of soldiers, or
vice versa. Some ambiguity is left as to whether the link between the two is
causal or whether the power-shift that is evident within the novel is simply
initiated by the conditions of war. However, Barker uses various techniques
within her narrative to lead the reader to believe there is an element of
causality.
Barker
indicates at various stages throughout the novel that it was the absence of
misogynistic men that caused the women’s liberation. Rivers’ description of
Prior’s verbal attack on a female employee of Craiglockheart states he remarked
on “Everything from the size of her bosom to the state of her hymen.” This
disregard for her authority is in keeping with Prior’s character, but the
disrespect towards her body and sexuality is a clear example of misogyny.
Rivers also mentions “the Major’s theories on how the women of Britain might be
bought back to a sense of their proper duties,” to show not only an example of misogyny,
but a resentment towards women caused by their emancipation. Use of the term “proper
duties” shows an assumption that the pre-war power dynamic was “proper” and
therefore will likely return. This intent to “return” to a system of oppression
would suggest that rather than a coincidental simultaneous collapse of gender
values, it is the absence of this oppression that causes the women to thrive. However,
in these cases it is not the emasculation of soldiers that liberates women, it
is simply their absence.
A causal
relationship between women’s liberty and the absence of misogynistic influences
is explained most explicitly through Lizzie’s character. Lizzie describes her
experience of August 4th 1914 as “Peace [breaking] out. The only
little bit of peace I’ve ever had.” In the absence of her abusive husband,
Lizzie has been given freedom. Using the antonym of war, “peace” to describe
the day war broke out, emphasises the differences between male and female
experience. Rivers supports the concept of war and peace being inverse
experiences depending on your gender when he postulates “life of war and danger
and hardship produced in men the same disorders that women suffered from in
peace.” Inverse to Lizzie’s experience with her abusive husband is Sarah’s
experience at Craiglockheart. This visit is used by Barker to demonstrate that
not only the liberation of women, but also the mere presence of women, can
contribute to the emasculation of some soldiers. On her visit Sarah finds
herself in a room of amputees. The description reads: “They stared at her, but
not and the men stared on the other ward, smiling, trying to catch her eye… If
it contained anything at all it was fear.” Barker contrasts the traits of the
other patients with the amputees to discredit the idea that Sarah is the
primary cause of the soldier’s emasculation, asserting them only as a
contribution factor to some. However the use of the word “fear” to describe the
amputees’ response to Sarah’s presence reflects that she emasculates them. A
parallel can be drawn between the amputees’ fearful response towards Sarah and
Lizzie’s own terror at her husband’s return. Barker has commented that male violence against women “has something
to do with the male fear of women,”1 which would suggest that the
fear the emasculation of soldiers could result in further violence towards
women, not contribute to their freedom.
Mrs
Willard is used to a similar affect to Sarah when her psychosomatically paralyzed
husband is left helpless, stranded at the bottom of a hill and relies on her
and Rivers to rescue him. This dependence caused by his paralysis is
highlighted with the semantic field of abandonment; described with words like
“stranded” and “marooned”. The emasculation caused by this dependence is emphasized
by Willard’s fury at the situation. Rivers describes his anger by commenting on
his “hands clenched on the arms of his chair”. Here his “clenched hands” are
juxtaposing the symbolism of the chair they are clenched on. The physical
flexing of muscles contrasts with the wheelchair that signifies his disability.
But it is Willard’s resentment of his wife that suggests her contribution to
his emasculation. After the rescuing, Mrs Willard looks to him “for guidance”
but is given no response; though Mrs Willard instinctively returns to gender
roles typical of the time (by asking for her husband’s permission to accept the
offer of tea) his fury is targeted specifically at her so he does not partake
in the dynamic that he longs to return to. From this the reader can infer that
Willard holds his wife at least partially to blame for his embarrassment and
emasculation. However there is no evidence of liberation in Mrs Willard as she
still looks to him for permission before acting; therefore, like with Sarah, it
is of little relevance how liberated the women are, it is merely their presence
which emasculates the soldiers.
Incongruous
with the evidence provided by characters’ interaction in the novel, Rivers
describes a causal link between female freedom and men’s encroaching captivity,
saying, “They [women] seemed to have changed so much during the war, to have
expanded in all kinds of ways, whereas men over the same period had shrunk into
a smaller space.” The use of “They” creates an ‘us and them’ tone of hostility,
which could imply, to an extent, that Rivers is placing blame. Rivers also uses
the words “expanded” and “shrunk” which implies that there is a finite amount
of space that men and women can occupy and the expansion of women within that
space is forcing men to shrink. Alternatively, it could suggest that it is
men’s shrinking that finally gives women space to grow. Though the direction of
the causality is left ambiguous, Rivers states a clear causal link by proposing
that the growth or shrinking of one gender will cause the opposite effect in
the other.
As
an author in a post-feminist era, Barker is capable of presenting the power
dynamic between men and women accurately and objectively. There is no evidence in ‘Regeneration’ that the
emasculation of the soldiers contributes to the emancipation of women – it is merely
the absence of men that allows women the freedom and
opportunities to thrive. However, there is an element of causality in the link
between the two as the liberation of women is one cause of the soldier’s
emasculation. Though their emasculation can be primarily attributed to their
horrific experiences in the trenches, returning to find themselves redundant in
a country of women thriving alone is shown as a contributing factor to their
emasculation.
Words: 1138
Bibliography
1 Violence Against Women – An Article by the New
York Times about Pat Barker, including an interview.
2 Regeneration – Pat Barker
