Reclamation of Self in Kate Chopin’s ‘The Story of an Hour’
Vishruti Srivastav
Independent Researcher
University of Delhi
Abstract: This paper offers a
feminist rebuttal to Lawrence I. Berkove’s reading of Kate Chopin’s The Story of an Hour, which dismisses
the social, cultural, and legal context of the protagonist’s emotional
awakening. Berkove interprets Louise Mallard’s self-assertion as egotistical
and abnormal, disregarding the historical realities of 19th-century American
womanhood. Through a close textual analysis, this paper contends that Louise’s
reaction is not a mark of narcissism, but a natural and profound response to
her long-standing subjugation within the patriarchal institution of marriage.
Drawing on contemporary and historical feminist writings—from Barbara Welter’s
“The Cult of True Womanhood” to Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique—this paper situates Louise’s experience
within a broader framework of gendered repression and denied autonomy. Chopin’s
use of metaphor and symbol is reinterpreted as a deliberate narrative strategy
to foreground the psychic costs of constrained womanhood. The paper argues that
feminist criticism must read beyond the surface of the text to reveal the
unspoken truths encoded within women’s literary expression. Ultimately, it
asserts that Louise’s brief emancipation represents not delusion but
illumination, marking a radical, if fleeting, reclamation of selfhood.
Keywords: Feminist literary criticism, Self-assertion,
Patriarchy, Nineteenth-century marriage, Female autonomy, Gender roles, Freedom
and identity, Domestic sphere, Repression of women, American feminist discourse
Kate Chopin’s ‘The
Story of an Hour’ (1894) has long been the subject of American feminist
discourse. It has raised important questions for liberal as well as radical
feminists. Chopin never identified as a feminist or a suffragist but wrote
extremely seriously about women (Chopin). ‘The Story of an Hour’ delves deep
into the realms of the female internal monologue set in a social, political,
cultural, and legal background. This background is completely overlooked by
Lawrence I. Berkove in his ‘Fatal Self-Assertion in Kate Chopin’s The Story
of an Hour’’. Berkove boldly claims that ‘…this story is not about society
or marriage, but about Louise Mallard’ (153). He wrongfully distances the
narrative from its social context. Louise’s or any person’s psychological state
is heavily influenced by their social position. More than a self-centred desire
of absolute freedom, Louise’s extreme reaction is to a long-term social
subjugation she has been exposed to till her husband’s death. Berkove ironically
attempts to depict Louise Mallard as an egotistical being, with a mental state
free from its surroundings and self-absorbed while paradoxically claiming that
such a state is available in only two cases- ‘an uninhabited spot’ or ‘the
grave’ (155).
Berkove seems to have
placed marriage in an idealistic and equal society where‘…whoever marries or
even loves, gives up large areas of freedom- usually willingly.’ (155) which
apparently has not much to do with gender disparity and social influence. While
this ‘willingness’ requires rigorous analysis, we have more pressing matters at
hand - the question of freedom. Berkoveclaims that ‘Marriage of course
restricts freedom.’ (155) but the question feminists need answer to is- Whose
freedom and to what extent? Chopin has brilliantly brought to light the
condition of women in marriages in the late 19th century America.
Through Louise, Chopin has managed to place the ‘natural’ and ‘personal’ realm
of womanhood against the broader ‘social’ realm. The physical symbol of Louise
shutting herself off from the world and looking outside the window portrays her
first step towards her claim to freedom of her ‘soul and body’.
Berkove challenges
feminist readings of the story based on the lack of evidence and believes that
assumptions are being made by feminists on pure speculation; for example,
Chopin asserts that Louise’s face has ‘lines that bespoke repression’ but Berkove
claims that ‘there is no hard evidence whatsoever of patriarchal blindness or
suppression’(153). However, if the story is viewed from a historical
perspective, we will find ample evidence of suppression and oppression of women
along with its justification, spread throughout the world of women’s handbooks,
magazines, and journals of the day. In Sphere And Duties of Women, George
Burnap refers to a woman’s life as ‘a series of suppressed emotions’
(47).Havergal (qtd. In Welter) even goes on to say that “God increases the
cares and sorrows of woman, that she might sooner be constrained to accept the
terms of salvation.’’ (153)
Berkove believes that
Louise is ‘better off not being married’ which was not exactly a very viable
option for the 19th century American woman lest she should suffer
unwanted labels and ungracious position in society. Marriage was mostly
transactional and was greatly affected by class and gender. Women were
automatic subjects of men and their lives were supposed to revolve around serving
their husbands and catering to all their needs. Chief role of a woman was to
become a support system for her husband so that he could excel at work and
enable him to elevate his station in society by catering to all his domestic
needs. Caroline Gilman advises young brides, with reference to their husbands,
to ‘watch well the first moments when your will conflicts with his to whom God
and society have given the control’ (122).
Chopin’s story does
not refer to external factors and Louise’s history not because it is centred
only and only upon Louise but because the situational factors are ‘obvious’, a
term which has been used quite loosely by Berkove. Louise’s ‘open’ window and
‘comfortable, ‘roomy’ chair are metaphors for her new-found space which will lead
to her ‘illumination’ rather than delusion. Having been bound by social,
cultural, and legal obligations hitherto, Louise has never been able to think
and feel as an independent being before. Now she has an open window which lets
her explore a world of natural freedom of the ‘new spring life’. She is
comfortable now instead of facing the constant anxiety of public life which
requires women to adhere to a rigid code of conduct which was not ‘roomy’ at
all. Chopin, with various symbols and metaphors had made her intentions in
writing the story amply clear. Placing the natural dimension of the world
outside the open window against the social world behind the closed door is a
clear symbol of Louise’s supposed emancipation and freedom (even though
short-lived) from her marriage.
When Louise Mallard
is first brought into the narrative, her reaction to her husband’s death is
described by Chopin as- ‘She did not hear the story as many women have heard
the same, with a paralyzed inability to accept its significance.’ This
naturally places her in the female realm of emotions and experience within the
larger domain of patriarchy. There is even a concrete reaction expected from
women on their husbands’ death which Louise defies, partly foreshadowing her
eventual ‘illumination’ .Louise’s is the story of an hour and it is challenging
to pass a verdict on the soundness of her mind in the given time frame. Rather,
her reaction should be studied as normal in terms of a person who has been
stuck in a difficult marriage and has just received the news of their partner’s
demise, a path which the story very well goes on to follow.
Berkove’s text itself
can be studied as a documentation of unfair expectations placed upon women. If
they do not fit perfectly into the mould of the perfect wife or ‘True
Womanhood’ (a term used by Barbara Welter), they are easily labelled as
narcissistic or egotistical. Nevertheless, when a man decides (a privilege
women in the 19th century did not enjoy) to stay alone, no eyebrows
are raised and this demand for selfhood is applauded as a form of healthy and
meaningful self-assertion. He might even be attributed qualities similar to the
Byronic hero.
Berkove interprets
Brently’s ‘…never looked save with love upon her’ and Louise’s loving him
‘sometimes’ in excessively plain terms. He interprets love, unfairly, in the
contemporary sense which takes the story in a completely wrong direction. Of
course, if we insist on generalization, if a woman today in the Western world
who does not wish to marry or marries without love, or falls out of love while
in the marriage reacts in such manner as Louise, it can be termed as
‘narcissistic’ to some extent. But we need to keep in mind that women today
have a legal and social existence outside of their relations with men. Women
back then could not own property and had almost no legal rights after
marriage. They were completely dependent
upon their husbands for everything, including their existence. In such a
scenario, it becomes quite difficult to place love and marriage in neatly
curated boxes. Rather, it transforms into a spilling pile of inequality,
societal interference, and legal limitations.
Berkove associates Louise’s
emotional reaction with monstrosity, ego and narcissism. Her self-assertion is
given negative connotations and her attitude is declared abnormal. Whereas, the
truth of the matter is completely different. Louise’s emotions are not only
acceptable but completely normal. Her immediate reaction is that, ‘She wept at
once, with sudden, wild abandonment…’
Then she experiences ‘a physical exhaustion that haunted her body and
seemed to reach into her soul’. Only then did her focus shift from her grief to
her own self-assertion. She finds the emotion fearful not for the monstrosity
of it but because it is novel in her range of feelings. We can observe that
Louise’s humanity and affection for her husband are not lost in her realisation
of her own selfhood. Louise understands that she would ‘weep again’ when she
saw his corpse but it does not change the fact that from here on, she would be
able to live her own life, on her own terms.
Louise experiences
something ‘too subtle and elusive to name’ in the process of discovering her
freedom which resounds Betty Friedan’s first chapter ‘The Problem That Has No
Name’ in The Feminine Mystique. Even though she discusses the feminine
American ethos in the twentieth century, it can be applied to Chopin’s short
story as well. Reflecting on this problem, Friedan reports women (read
housewives) saying- “I feel empty somehow…incomplete” and “I feel as if I don’t
exist.” (20). If this is a problem that has no name among married women, it is
but natural for a woman to not be able to put a pin on the feeling of relief
pertaining to it. Nevertheless, this problem ‘was shared by countless women in
America’ which proves the relevance of Louise’s emotions and reactions as
normal rather than giving it a psychotic tone.
Berkove’s allegations
on Louise remind one of the states of responses to Friedan’s problem that has
no name. Home economists, educators, newspapers offered ridiculous solutions
like not allowing them into four-year college courses, more ‘realistic’ courses
for women like workshops about home appliances. Another brilliant solution was
given by a humourist to withdraw the right to vote (Friedan, 23). Regardless,
no discussions revolved around their autonomy. The possibility of them
asserting their individuality outside of their marriage was dismissed
heedlessly. This seems similar to what Berkove has been trying to do, most
probably unintentionally. He dismisses the idea of a woman’s entrapment within
a marriage and posits the victim as the perpetrator, reinforcing the idea that
women are supposed to live within the confines of their social relations and
anything beyond it is selfish.
Berkove needs to
remember that women operated strictly from the domestic sphere. Freedom and
autonomy function differently for men and women in a patriarchal setting. In
the areas of life where men are naturally granted freedom, women had to combat
patriarchal institutions to reach there. In such a scenario, Bentley Mallard’s
death comes as a relief to Louise who would have had to live in subjugation all
her life. Louise realised that she was not only physically free from the
shackles of patriarchy and inequality within the marriage but also emotionally
and spiritually. Far for narcissism, Louise Mallard’s transformation within the
hour is a symbol of rebirth and rejuvenation. Louise’s complete realisation of
her freedom (“Free! Body and soul free!”) can be compared with “A Chapter in
the History of a Free Heart’. The heroine, Grace Arland refuses to get married.
While her well-wishers mourn her condition, her heart is ‘rejoicing in its
freedom’. While Grace managed to escape marriage altogether, it was not commonplace
in the 19th century ethos.
Louise Mallard’s
tragic death at the end of the story is a symbol of her self-assertion rather
than the fatal result of the same. Louise completely realises her selfhood in
the project of an hour and when that self-hood is threatened, she refuses to
give into subjugation again. Louise has managed to achieve a complete
transformation during the course of an hour. She has totally denounced her
subdued role in society which was always defined by her relation to men and has
become her own person. She has claimed her individuality as a natural right in
her own reflection. She had traversed through a state where she had ‘thought
with a shudder that life might be long’ to a state where she prayed for a long
life. When she decides to re-enter the social realm, it is with ‘triumph in her
eyes’ and she carried herself like a ‘goddess of Victory’. She had indeed, in
the past hour, achieved victory over herself, her social position and her
subjugation. She had elevated herself from the shackles of her past and was
hopeful for a new future. She had made plans and dreamt of her days being
completely her own. When she witnessed Brently Mallard, all of it was taken
away from her. Completing her process of self-assertion, she died ‘of joy that
kills’.
While Berkove
analyses the story from the typical male lens, he dismisses the fact that
feminist criticism relies mostly on between-the-text reading of literature.
Feminist criticism penetrates the boundary of the obvious male-dominated forms
of criticism and delves deeper into what has not been stated explicitly. It
does not operate on evidence, rather on interpretations and subtext. ‘The Story
of An Hour’ is a seminal work of American feminist literature and needs to
studied in such a manner.
Works Cited
Berkove, Lawrence I. “Fatal
Self-Assertion in Kate Chopin’s ‘The Story of an Hour.’” American Literary
Realism, vol. 32, no. 2, Winter 2000, pp. 152–58. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/27747299.
Burnap, George W. The
Sphere and Duties of Woman: A Course of Lectures. J. Murphy, 1841. Google
Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=Zx0PAAAAYAAJ.
Chopin, Kate. “The Story of
an Hour.” Vogue, 6 Jan. 1894. Reprinted in The Complete Works of Kate
Chopin, edited by Per Seyersted, LSU Press, 1969, pp. 352–354.
Friedan, Betty. The
Feminine Mystique. W.W. Norton, 1963.
Gilman, Caroline. Recollections
of a Southern Matron. Harper & Brothers, 1838. HathiTrust,
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924013128272.
Fuller, Margaret. Woman
in the Nineteenth Century. Greeley and McElrath, 1845.
hooks, bell. All About
Love: New Visions. William Morrow, 2000.
Welter, Barbara. “The Cult
of True Womanhood: 1820–1860.” American Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 2,
Summer 1966, pp. 151–174. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2711179.
“Kate Chopin: A Re‑Awakening – Interviews.”
PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, n.d. Web. 15 July 2025.
https://www.pbs.org/katechopin/interviews.html