Myrtle, Daisy, & Jordan: A Feminist & Psychoanalytic Interpretation of The Great Gatsby
In reading Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, I became deeply interested in the feminist perspectives of the female characters, and the psychoanalytic effects these perspectives have on the characters, and by extension, the work as a whole. Throughout the text, Fitzgerald draws on the use of the classic “female figure” in his writing, and compares it closely with the new “progressive female” that emerged during his time. He creates women who are diverse in their personalities, reaching a large audience of readers who are able to relate to all or, at the least, one of them, and are able to understand the character in terms of thoughts, actions, and symbolism throughout the novel.
This is an important topic to me because I feel that it is impossible to address the social issues of the 1920’s accurately without addressing Women’s Rights and progressive feminist movements. Women’s Rights became an important topic of political and social debate during the 1920’s, when females began to ‘re-invent’ themselves, taking back the traditional ideal of a ‘traditional woman’. Women were now working, pursuing educations and careers; they were drinking openly, accompanying men whilst unmarried, cutting their hair short, and reclaiming a more ‘boyish’ appearance in order to downplay their femininity. Rather than accepting the societal standard of a woman embracing her feminine features, such as a curvy figure and soft features, women were now altering their appearances with short, edgy hairstyles and loose-fitting clothing, creating a more masculine look, and subverting the ‘female figure’ ideal. Women during Fitzgerald’s time had just begun reclaiming their identities as women; women were now defining ‘women’.
In addressing this issue, I feel that Fitzgerald’s underlying implication of the ‘progressive female’ as the future becomes a call to action - in other words, he uses his characters as physical examples of these different types of women, unveiling the benefits and flaws, and showing how society views these women. In order to truly break the gender barrier set by society, Fitzgerald must first address this barrier by uncovering the assumptions and standards for women which had been previously set by men like himself. In doing so, it becomes evident that these pressures put on women by men can and do have negative psychological implications, causing the women to act in ways that they may not have otherwise.
In order to truly get to the root of Fitzgerald’s representation of women, and to surface his representation of Jazz Age expectations of young females, I will first describe the women of the novel, delving into their experiences and their actions based upon these expectations. Then, I will address how social class places further restrictions on these women, making it more and more difficult for them to become ‘progressive’ and ‘self-thinking’. Once the characters themselves have been analyzed, and their actions interpreted in detail, I will discuss how these societal expectations play a psychological role in their actions, and overall, how these impacts become actions, shaping the futures of these women very differently.
Daisy Buchanan - our initial female figure - is the societal ideal for what a young woman of wealth should be. She comes from a prominent southern family, and therefore, is a blue-blood socialite by birth. Marrying Tom Buchanan was expected of her; being well born, she was expected to also marry well within her social class, in order to establish a sense of security and gain social status in the joining of the two families. Daisy fulfilled her role as the ‘traditional’ or ‘ideal’ female figure by marrying as she was supposed to, having children as she was supposed to, and creating a home for her family. She is the epitome of what society would deem respectable, and in following the guidelines provided by society, she was assumed to have had everything a woman could have possibly wanted in life: a husband, a child, a home, and security.
It is in this view of Daisy’s character that one can shed light on the psychological downfalls of the 1920’s expectations of women. Throughout the text, Daisy shows subtle opposition to the oppression she faces each day - both by the man in her life and the society in which she herself was raised. Upon speaking privately with Nick, she says of her daughter: “I’m glad it’s a girl. And I hope she’ll be a fool - that’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool,” (Fitzgerald, 17). Daisy is not the unintelligent ‘trophy wife’ that she may appear to be; she is smart, and she knows first-hand that the only way her daughter will find true happiness in life during such a time would be to remain a “fool”. Her society prefers women to be simplistic in nature; educated women are not highly valued over those who are simply eloquent and obedient of their male counterparts. Daisy recognizes this, and therefore wishes nothing more for her daughter than to become a “beautiful little fool”, in hopes that she will find happiness in wanting nothing more than what she is allowed in society.
Jordan Baker, on the other hand, is a new breed of ‘woman’. Upon the readers’ first encounter with Jordan, it is evident that she is unlike Daisy in many ways: she is a golfer - an athlete, just as Tom had been at University - and she is fierce in appearance and demeanor. She is a character that exhibits far more masculine features and qualities, making her one of the more “progressive” women of her time. She subverts the traditional ideal of what a female should be, and recreates herself in the image of what she defines as being a woman, but rather than representing all women, she represents only herself as a woman in the 1920’s. Jordan is depicted as masculine, defined by Nick as being: “...a slender, small-breasted girl, with an erect carriage, which she accentuated by throwing her body backward at the shoulders like a young cadet. Her gray sun-strained eyes looked back at me with polite reciprocal curiosity out of a wan, charming, discontented face,” (Fitzgerald, 11). Her physical depiction is that of a traditional ‘flapper’ - the woman pursuing a ‘boyish figure’ in hopes of reaching an unobtainable equality to man. He also references her manner of conversation with Daisy as being: “...unobtrusively and with a bantering consequence that was never quite chatter, that was as cool as their white dresses and their impersonal eyes in the absence of all desire,” (Fitzgerald, 12). When the women speak, they become a different entity - they become women, not driven by desire or societal obligation, but women driven by knowledge and personal agenda.
Though Jordan is viewed as being the “progressive woman”, she is not exempt from the pressures and psychological upsets caused by society. Jordan - being such an aggressive and modern woman - is often criticized as being a homo-erotic feminist character. Due to her masculine appearance and demeanor, it is often thought that there is possibility for her to have been bisexual - an indication of her choice to subvert all preset male ideals, and a symbolic representation of her progression from the ‘traditional woman’. She appears to have an unresolved tension in her relationships to the other characters within the novel; with Daisy, they are so vastly different, that it almost appears Jordan looks down on Daisy as being a ‘weaker’ or more ‘vulnerable’ woman, considering the marriage and life she finds herself in. Being the progressive and modern woman that she is, Jordan’s character is much more aggressive and intense - especially in her relationships with others.
Myrtle Wilson is quite the conundrum of the female literary figure; Myrtle is neither the ‘ideal female’, nor is the a ‘progressive’ female figure. Within the novel, Myrtle is obviously dominant over her weak-willed, simple-minded husband, George Wilson, where she exhibits more masculinity. With Tom Buchanan, however, she is submissive and much less aggressive. Myrtle’s character is versatile and adaptive dependant upon who she is around; when she is with George, she becomes overwhelmingly dominant and masculine, taking charge of him and the situation, leaving him little room to assert any manner of masculinity himself. This changes slightly around Tom - Myrtle becomes less forcefully assertive, and becomes much more gentle and ‘feminine’ - where she would have demanded that George buy her the dog that she had wanted for the apartment, she asks Tom, lovingly. These slight changes in mannerisms are highly indicative of the way Myrtle is expected to act by these two very different classes of men.
Psychologically, Myrtle is then left to hold ‘free-reign’ over who she feels she is and is meant to be as a female character. She holds little fear for Tom (which Daisy seems to be instilled with), and therefore, the two very dominant, very masculine characters clash, making it difficult to have them together in the same scene without causing some sort of tension or conflict. Myrtle is incredibly headstrong for a woman of her time; unlike Jordan, who is progressive and firm in who she is, Myrtle is dismissive of the male sex entirely, attempting to overpower any sort of ‘competitor’ who may hold any control of her situation. She is aggressive and set in her ways, which makes her less of a ‘progressive female’, and more of an ‘arrogant’ one. This is especially relevant when Myrtle and Tom have their argument in the apartment; when considering Myrtle’s nature of overpowering her male counterparts, it becomes only logical that Tom would have to resort to physical violence to reassert his masculine dominance - otherwise, Myrtle would have continued to mock and argue with him, set in her ways and determined to overpower his argument. This causes tension with Myrtle; her character becomes muddled, and difficult for the reader to define. She is feminine and flirtatious with Tom, asking for the puppy and showing a true vulnerability with him that she didn’t show with George, and yet, even after asserting her dominance over her husband early in the novel, she also falls back to this vulnerability, showing fear and a panicked submissiveness when George is drunk and angry (accusing her of her ‘ungodly’ ways). She appears to be confused in who she is now and who she is meant to be as a character, and therefore, she is difficult to accurately and definitively categorize.
When discussing these women - the progressive feminists, and the assertive traditionalists - it’s also important to note their social classes. Daisy is a product of her raising; she is a part of the upper class of her society, and as such, is subject to close scrutiny and judgement as inflicted by her peers. She has expectations that have been set for her, not only as a blue-blooded individual of the 1920’s, but as a female. Daisy does her best to please those around her by fulfilling these societal obligations to the best of her ability. She marries Tom - the wealthy, Oxford-educated blue-blood, approved for her by society - over Gastby - the penniless, kinless boy from the Midwest, whom she actually loved. These choices, though not entirely her own, are a product of her society - they influence who she is as a female character in the novel, as well as the psychological impact that these choices have left with her.
Jordan - though from the same class of society as Daisy - was inarguably held to the same high standards, however she was not so willing to conform to them. Rather than allowing her peers to determine who she should be and how she should act, Jordan became her own person - her own definition of ‘woman’. She golfed - a male-dominant sport - rather than marrying, settling down, and raising a family. She held a career of her own, and in doing so, she winds up unmarried; this parallel between a female choice between a career and a family is important to note when considering the role of the ‘woman’ in 1920’s society. Where Daisy is married with the family, she appears to be unhappy and unsatisfied with her life, Jordan is unmarried with a career - free to come and go and do as she pleases, and throughout the novel, she appears contented with her state of womanhood. She appears to have a self-satisfaction that Daisy lacks, and this is what makes her a more ‘progressive’ woman.
Myrtle is of a separate class of society entirely. She comes from the ‘working middle-class’ of society, and therefore, does not have a definite or prominent upbringing. She is a product of her circumstance; she does what she needs to in order to survive, and that mindset has shaped much of the character that we see on the page. She is both a dominant female and a submissive one; while she does subvert the typical mold of the socially accepted female, she is also eager to please the men around her - a trait we also see in Daisy, who is the ideal woman through the scope of the male perspective. While she does have the touch of innocent female ‘rebellion’ that Jordan exhibits, she still retains the softer, traditional traits that make her a desirable partner for the men of her social class. She is, essentially, a combination of both Jordan and Daisy in character, and in that way, she is almost a more desirable character. She is the ‘best of both’ without intentional or conscious effort to be.
The additional theme of social class is a major factor that contributes to the female characters’ femininity, and this defined ‘woman’ contributes in turn to their psychological reasonings and the roles they play within the work. These conceptualized ‘gender roles’ and societal expectations of women shape these characters, and in turn, drive the decisions they make, leading to the larger implications of their psychological processes and impacts. Daisy is obedient, and chooses to stay with Tom out of obligation and expectation; Jordan subverts society’s idea of who she should be, and chooses to be her own ‘woman’; and Myrtle is a catastrophic combination of the two, neither herself, nor what society expects of her.
This is an important topic to me because I feel that it is impossible to address the social issues of the 1920’s accurately without addressing Women’s Rights and progressive feminist movements. Women’s Rights became an important topic of political and social debate during the 1920’s, when females began to ‘re-invent’ themselves, taking back the traditional ideal of a ‘traditional woman’. Women were now working, pursuing educations and careers; they were drinking openly, accompanying men whilst unmarried, cutting their hair short, and reclaiming a more ‘boyish’ appearance in order to downplay their femininity. Rather than accepting the societal standard of a woman embracing her feminine features, such as a curvy figure and soft features, women were now altering their appearances with short, edgy hairstyles and loose-fitting clothing, creating a more masculine look, and subverting the ‘female figure’ ideal. Women during Fitzgerald’s time had just begun reclaiming their identities as women; women were now defining ‘women’.
In addressing this issue, I feel that Fitzgerald’s underlying implication of the ‘progressive female’ as the future becomes a call to action - in other words, he uses his characters as physical examples of these different types of women, unveiling the benefits and flaws, and showing how society views these women. In order to truly break the gender barrier set by society, Fitzgerald must first address this barrier by uncovering the assumptions and standards for women which had been previously set by men like himself. In doing so, it becomes evident that these pressures put on women by men can and do have negative psychological implications, causing the women to act in ways that they may not have otherwise.
In order to truly get to the root of Fitzgerald’s representation of women, and to surface his representation of Jazz Age expectations of young females, I will first describe the women of the novel, delving into their experiences and their actions based upon these expectations. Then, I will address how social class places further restrictions on these women, making it more and more difficult for them to become ‘progressive’ and ‘self-thinking’. Once the characters themselves have been analyzed, and their actions interpreted in detail, I will discuss how these societal expectations play a psychological role in their actions, and overall, how these impacts become actions, shaping the futures of these women very differently.
Daisy Buchanan - our initial female figure - is the societal ideal for what a young woman of wealth should be. She comes from a prominent southern family, and therefore, is a blue-blood socialite by birth. Marrying Tom Buchanan was expected of her; being well born, she was expected to also marry well within her social class, in order to establish a sense of security and gain social status in the joining of the two families. Daisy fulfilled her role as the ‘traditional’ or ‘ideal’ female figure by marrying as she was supposed to, having children as she was supposed to, and creating a home for her family. She is the epitome of what society would deem respectable, and in following the guidelines provided by society, she was assumed to have had everything a woman could have possibly wanted in life: a husband, a child, a home, and security.
It is in this view of Daisy’s character that one can shed light on the psychological downfalls of the 1920’s expectations of women. Throughout the text, Daisy shows subtle opposition to the oppression she faces each day - both by the man in her life and the society in which she herself was raised. Upon speaking privately with Nick, she says of her daughter: “I’m glad it’s a girl. And I hope she’ll be a fool - that’s the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool,” (Fitzgerald, 17). Daisy is not the unintelligent ‘trophy wife’ that she may appear to be; she is smart, and she knows first-hand that the only way her daughter will find true happiness in life during such a time would be to remain a “fool”. Her society prefers women to be simplistic in nature; educated women are not highly valued over those who are simply eloquent and obedient of their male counterparts. Daisy recognizes this, and therefore wishes nothing more for her daughter than to become a “beautiful little fool”, in hopes that she will find happiness in wanting nothing more than what she is allowed in society.
Jordan Baker, on the other hand, is a new breed of ‘woman’. Upon the readers’ first encounter with Jordan, it is evident that she is unlike Daisy in many ways: she is a golfer - an athlete, just as Tom had been at University - and she is fierce in appearance and demeanor. She is a character that exhibits far more masculine features and qualities, making her one of the more “progressive” women of her time. She subverts the traditional ideal of what a female should be, and recreates herself in the image of what she defines as being a woman, but rather than representing all women, she represents only herself as a woman in the 1920’s. Jordan is depicted as masculine, defined by Nick as being: “...a slender, small-breasted girl, with an erect carriage, which she accentuated by throwing her body backward at the shoulders like a young cadet. Her gray sun-strained eyes looked back at me with polite reciprocal curiosity out of a wan, charming, discontented face,” (Fitzgerald, 11). Her physical depiction is that of a traditional ‘flapper’ - the woman pursuing a ‘boyish figure’ in hopes of reaching an unobtainable equality to man. He also references her manner of conversation with Daisy as being: “...unobtrusively and with a bantering consequence that was never quite chatter, that was as cool as their white dresses and their impersonal eyes in the absence of all desire,” (Fitzgerald, 12). When the women speak, they become a different entity - they become women, not driven by desire or societal obligation, but women driven by knowledge and personal agenda.
Though Jordan is viewed as being the “progressive woman”, she is not exempt from the pressures and psychological upsets caused by society. Jordan - being such an aggressive and modern woman - is often criticized as being a homo-erotic feminist character. Due to her masculine appearance and demeanor, it is often thought that there is possibility for her to have been bisexual - an indication of her choice to subvert all preset male ideals, and a symbolic representation of her progression from the ‘traditional woman’. She appears to have an unresolved tension in her relationships to the other characters within the novel; with Daisy, they are so vastly different, that it almost appears Jordan looks down on Daisy as being a ‘weaker’ or more ‘vulnerable’ woman, considering the marriage and life she finds herself in. Being the progressive and modern woman that she is, Jordan’s character is much more aggressive and intense - especially in her relationships with others.
Myrtle Wilson is quite the conundrum of the female literary figure; Myrtle is neither the ‘ideal female’, nor is the a ‘progressive’ female figure. Within the novel, Myrtle is obviously dominant over her weak-willed, simple-minded husband, George Wilson, where she exhibits more masculinity. With Tom Buchanan, however, she is submissive and much less aggressive. Myrtle’s character is versatile and adaptive dependant upon who she is around; when she is with George, she becomes overwhelmingly dominant and masculine, taking charge of him and the situation, leaving him little room to assert any manner of masculinity himself. This changes slightly around Tom - Myrtle becomes less forcefully assertive, and becomes much more gentle and ‘feminine’ - where she would have demanded that George buy her the dog that she had wanted for the apartment, she asks Tom, lovingly. These slight changes in mannerisms are highly indicative of the way Myrtle is expected to act by these two very different classes of men.
Psychologically, Myrtle is then left to hold ‘free-reign’ over who she feels she is and is meant to be as a female character. She holds little fear for Tom (which Daisy seems to be instilled with), and therefore, the two very dominant, very masculine characters clash, making it difficult to have them together in the same scene without causing some sort of tension or conflict. Myrtle is incredibly headstrong for a woman of her time; unlike Jordan, who is progressive and firm in who she is, Myrtle is dismissive of the male sex entirely, attempting to overpower any sort of ‘competitor’ who may hold any control of her situation. She is aggressive and set in her ways, which makes her less of a ‘progressive female’, and more of an ‘arrogant’ one. This is especially relevant when Myrtle and Tom have their argument in the apartment; when considering Myrtle’s nature of overpowering her male counterparts, it becomes only logical that Tom would have to resort to physical violence to reassert his masculine dominance - otherwise, Myrtle would have continued to mock and argue with him, set in her ways and determined to overpower his argument. This causes tension with Myrtle; her character becomes muddled, and difficult for the reader to define. She is feminine and flirtatious with Tom, asking for the puppy and showing a true vulnerability with him that she didn’t show with George, and yet, even after asserting her dominance over her husband early in the novel, she also falls back to this vulnerability, showing fear and a panicked submissiveness when George is drunk and angry (accusing her of her ‘ungodly’ ways). She appears to be confused in who she is now and who she is meant to be as a character, and therefore, she is difficult to accurately and definitively categorize.
When discussing these women - the progressive feminists, and the assertive traditionalists - it’s also important to note their social classes. Daisy is a product of her raising; she is a part of the upper class of her society, and as such, is subject to close scrutiny and judgement as inflicted by her peers. She has expectations that have been set for her, not only as a blue-blooded individual of the 1920’s, but as a female. Daisy does her best to please those around her by fulfilling these societal obligations to the best of her ability. She marries Tom - the wealthy, Oxford-educated blue-blood, approved for her by society - over Gastby - the penniless, kinless boy from the Midwest, whom she actually loved. These choices, though not entirely her own, are a product of her society - they influence who she is as a female character in the novel, as well as the psychological impact that these choices have left with her.
Jordan - though from the same class of society as Daisy - was inarguably held to the same high standards, however she was not so willing to conform to them. Rather than allowing her peers to determine who she should be and how she should act, Jordan became her own person - her own definition of ‘woman’. She golfed - a male-dominant sport - rather than marrying, settling down, and raising a family. She held a career of her own, and in doing so, she winds up unmarried; this parallel between a female choice between a career and a family is important to note when considering the role of the ‘woman’ in 1920’s society. Where Daisy is married with the family, she appears to be unhappy and unsatisfied with her life, Jordan is unmarried with a career - free to come and go and do as she pleases, and throughout the novel, she appears contented with her state of womanhood. She appears to have a self-satisfaction that Daisy lacks, and this is what makes her a more ‘progressive’ woman.
Myrtle is of a separate class of society entirely. She comes from the ‘working middle-class’ of society, and therefore, does not have a definite or prominent upbringing. She is a product of her circumstance; she does what she needs to in order to survive, and that mindset has shaped much of the character that we see on the page. She is both a dominant female and a submissive one; while she does subvert the typical mold of the socially accepted female, she is also eager to please the men around her - a trait we also see in Daisy, who is the ideal woman through the scope of the male perspective. While she does have the touch of innocent female ‘rebellion’ that Jordan exhibits, she still retains the softer, traditional traits that make her a desirable partner for the men of her social class. She is, essentially, a combination of both Jordan and Daisy in character, and in that way, she is almost a more desirable character. She is the ‘best of both’ without intentional or conscious effort to be.
The additional theme of social class is a major factor that contributes to the female characters’ femininity, and this defined ‘woman’ contributes in turn to their psychological reasonings and the roles they play within the work. These conceptualized ‘gender roles’ and societal expectations of women shape these characters, and in turn, drive the decisions they make, leading to the larger implications of their psychological processes and impacts. Daisy is obedient, and chooses to stay with Tom out of obligation and expectation; Jordan subverts society’s idea of who she should be, and chooses to be her own ‘woman’; and Myrtle is a catastrophic combination of the two, neither herself, nor what society expects of her.