Coppelia Kahn’s observed Lear’s display of emotions after taking in Cordiella’s death near the end of King Lear and concluded that Lear had embraced his inner feminine. The argument comes through observation of Lear operating in a patriarchal society where gender roles are fully in place and any veering away from traditional expressions of gender is cause for concern, especially in regards to one’s masculinity or femininity.
I feel the discussion on what is masculine and feminine is very complex now that we are in a post-feminist world where traditional male roles are now available for women. The mentioning of feminism and the femininity of Lear is an interesting observation but I am confused as to what Kahn is getting at. For instance, she mentions that Lear shedding tears involves him embracing his inner feminine, an example of him feeling and having empathy. Men feel and cry just like women do. Some men may do it more often than others but all men cry, despite some openly denying an instance of crying in their lives. Understanding that, I find it hard to accept that Lear is embracing his inner feminine because he decided to cry having witnessed the death of his favorite daughter. Michael Corleone cried out in pain and agony when his daughter was gunned down at the end of the Godfather III. Was Michael embracing his inner feminine despite having the arguably the most patriarchal position in his personal and criminal family ever obtained? I can’t say that her thesis is flawed given my disagreement with her on this point. I will say that if she is to argue the case for King Lear getting in touch with his maternal side she needs to do it understanding emotional displays should not be limited by gender roles.
I agree with you that the idea of the difference between the masculine and feminine is blurred – certain rules are changed, and others are just stomped out entirely. But I honestly am not sure if any of us are being very fair to King Lear: we are examining a play with a slightly unfair modern lens. While the idea of crying – especially from a man – is not absurd now, how are we to say it wasn’t preposterous then? Wouldn’t a king that cries on a pretty regular basis (and I don’t think you’re saying that at all) be frowned upon as being weak and womanly (because all women do is cry, from what I’ve heard)? I don’t doubt that Lear ever cried, but he certainly would not have done it out in the open, but rather, in private. So in response to your final sentence, I think we need to remember that gender roles now, in modern time, would not have been the same as then, in Shakespeare’s time. However, I do completely agree with you in the idea that her thesis, while interesting, might not have a firm leg to stand on, and seems a bit too shaky to base the entire premise of Lear’s emotional transition on.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The only point that I really got from Kahn is that he is acting feminine because he shows emotions and tears. But what IS wrong with a man crying? I don't see the problem.
ReplyDelete