Feminist Criticism and Angela Carter: Burning Down the Patriarchy?

Within feminist criticism, there is, of course, an inherent attempt to explain the relationship between men and women in order to critique the life-long oppression and exploitation of women. The “French feminist psychoanalytic” and “the male gaze” seek to define the internalized effects of a patriarchal system on women. The French feminist psychoanalytic theory is “interested in patriarchy’s influence on women’s psychological experience and creativity,” thus this mode of criticism transcends economic, political, and social structures (Tyson 95). Within feminist criticism, there seems to be a micro and macro-level of analysis that could be applied; for example, one could look at the larger economic and gender relationships within a text, or one could look at the psychological effects male power has on a specific character. In literature, I think that analyzing the presence of a male gaze would allow for a better interpretation of the female character. If the critic, or reader, acknowledged the presence of the male gaze, then they will be better able to form judgments on how gender is working in the text and why the author decided to include the male gaze. The male gaze is a projection onto the female character, therefore, the female character’s perception of herself and the world are altered. In texts where there is a female protagonist, how can that protagonist escape the male gaze? Once a female character is under the male gaze, can she regain power and a true sense of self? Tyson introduces the idea of a “patriarchal woman,” or “a woman who has internalized the norms and values of patriarchy, which can be defined, in short, as any culture that privileges men by promoting traditional gender roles” (Tyson 102). If this is the case, then what allows a text to move beyond traditional gender norms, and does female power and expression exist only because of the patriarchy? To what extent must a text conform to a structure in order to then break it?

Something I am specifically interested in is how a female author can “burn down the patriarchy” without first conforming to a patriarchal society or set of norms. For example, to deconstruct the patriarchy, an author must first create the space and narrative for male power to rule. This ironic and paradoxical structure conforms to the male gaze in some ways, for the author must accept the “patriarchy’s influence on women’s psychological experience and creativity,” as explained by French feminist psychoanalytical theory, and use the patriarchy as a structure to build their creative work off of (Tyson 95). In Angela Carter’s The Magic Toyshop, Carter creatively breaks down the patriarchy by using satire and elements of the French feminist psychoanalytic theory. Her satirization of the patriarchy complicates her text and alludes to the complex relationship between female freedom and the ever-present patriarchy. Carter comically conforms to and then breaks the male gaze by creating a parody puppet-show of Leda and Swan in which Uncle Philip (male power) pulls the strings and Melanie (young protagonist) plays Leda. While the myth of Leda and the Swan is disturbing and explicitly violates the female body, Carter gives Melanie the power to laugh at Uncle Philip and the swan, for Melanie observes that “it was a grotesque parody of a swan… she nearly laughed again to see its lumbering process” (Carter 165). Carter ironically deconstructs myths, like Leda and the Swan, to allude to how the patriarchy is also a myth that is reinforced by society. The swan symbolizes the patriarchy and as it clumsily walks about Uncle Philip’s dumpy stage, Carter is explicitly humiliating the charade of male dominance. In this way, a psychoanalytic critic may argue that the patriarchy, as seen in Carter’s novel, exists within our subconscious and social levels. While Carter has Melanie make fun of Uncle Philip’s swan, she also creates moments of intense violence and fear; therefore, I think it would be worth exploring how Carter balances gendered power and upholds an ironic tone so that the violent actions against women ultimately point towards a feminist analysis of the text. In this way, feminist theory is reliant on other theories like deconstructionism and psychoanalytical theory to bring meaning to the text’s symbolic gestures and structural choices.