Affective (Mis) Encounters in a Doll’s House - Genilda Azerêdo

8/12/2019 Affective (Mis) Encounters in a Dolls House - Genilda Azerdo

1/14

Ilha do Desterro Florianpolis n 65 p. 049- 062 jul/dez 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2013n65p49

AFFECIVE MISENCOUNERS IN HE DOLLS HOUSE A

DISCUSSION OF KAHERINE MANSFIELDS SHOR SORY

1

Genilda Azerdo

Universidade Federal da Paraba

AbstractKatherine Mansfields Te dolls house (2000) constitutes

the object o the present discussion, which aims at tracingthe relations among the characters, ocusing on their affectiveactionsboth those linked to negative affects (coldness,arrogance, violence, cruelty) and those related to positive affects(gentleness, sharing, understanding, tolerance, sensibility). Myhypothesis is that the most substantial meanings o the shortstory derive rom (mis)affective encounterson the one hand,exclusion, prejudice, humiliation and cruelty; on the other,

complicity, respect, acceptance and inclusion. My analysis willbe supported with literary theoretical principles and with socialtheory discussions on the affective turn, so as to argue that thisnarrative dramatizes new possibilities o perception and action.Keywords: Modern Short Story; Katherine Mansfield; Affect;Children


2/14

50 Genilda Azerdo,Affective (mis) encounters in a dolls house

Te dolls house is one o several short stories by Katherine

Mansfield having children as main characters. Tis narrative ispart o the so-called cycle o Kezias stories, which also includes

the ollowing: Prelude, At the bay and Te young girl2. Te

recurrence o the character Kezia in these short stories justifies her

relevance or the expression o conflicts enacted rom the point o

view o childrens subjectivity.

Here our main concern is to discuss Te dolls house, ocusingon the characters relationships, as exercised and constructed in terms

o affective actionsboth those related to negative eelings (coldness,

indifference, arrogance, violence, cruelty) and those related to

positive eelings (gentleness, sharing, understanding, tolerance,

respect, sensibility). I assume that the most substantial meanings

o the short story result rom affective (mis)encounterson the one

hand, exclusion, humiliation, shame, cruelty; on the other, inclusion,

complicity, warmth, and the possibility o hope.

Another aspect that supports my initial hypothesis has to do

with the childrens universe, represented by the characters (children)

and by the objectthe dolls housealready announced in the storys

title and somehow producing an expectation o its relevance as a

playul object, an important toy in the imaginary world o little girls.

In act, all the tension in the short story results rom the unction

the dolls house possesses to demarcate (and to displace) spaces

both integrating and excluding. Te presence o children and their

sensibility remind us o the poem We are seven (1965), by William

Wordsworth, in which a child proves to be more sensible and

sensitive than an adult.Paraphrasing the lyrical speaker in William Wordsworths poem

We are seven:


3/14

51Ilha do Desterro n 65, p. 049-062, Florianpolis, jul/dez 2013

_____ A simple Child,

Tat lightly draws its breath,And eels its lie in every limb,

What should it know o death?

We could wonder what simple children know o affect and

affective responses, and how we, adults, can take advantage o their

(lack o) knowledge and tentative understanding o emotions andaffects. I children are supposed to be ignorant, since they are in the

very process o apprehending the mechanisms o lie, o the world

and o human relationships (arent we, afer all, almost always in

the same position?), they constitute precious inormants as to the

elastic materializations o affect and their effects. As in the poem

by Wordsworth, children might teach us an affective counter-

pedagogy (Highmore 136).

Te story told is quite simple: it is about a present (the toy) the

Burnell children are given by Mrs. Hay, a amily riend who has

recently stayed at their house, and about the effect the toy eventually

causes on the children. Te affective chainin the narrative is actually

triggered by Mrs. Hays gesture in offering them the gif. Te dolls

house is described as perect, and this perection provokes such

an effect o surprise, admiration, pleasure and contentment on the

children (besides Kezia, Isabel and Lottie, the three sisters) that the

object stays or exhibition in the Burnells yard or several days so

that the childrens school colleagues (except Lil and our Else) can

appreciate it as well.

Te exclusion o Lil and our Else3the daughters o a spry, hard-working little washerwoman, who went about rom house to house

by the day, whose husband is supposedly a prisoner (Mansfield 26)

rom the group o children who are invited to know the dolls house is


4/14


part o a larger exclusion: at school, both o them are always isolated

on their own, separated rom the others. Tey suffer discriminationnot only rom the students (who endorse their amilies values and

mimic their arrogant attitudes), but also rom the teachers. Te issue

o exclusion is so visible and relevant that it seems to justiy the short

story, as i it had been written specifically to talk about the exclusion

and prejudice that social class distinctions provoke and also to

denounce how cruel both adults and children can be.On the other hand, another justification or the existence o

the short story (though both reasons are related, this one seems

to be the more relevant) is the belie in the possibility o rupture

with pre-established and imposed rules, mainly through sensibility

and affect. In this sense, i I could summarize the short story to a

condensed meaning, I would say that Te dolls house is the story

o Kezia and our Else, o their complicity. Paraphrasing the lyrical

sel in Shakespeares Sonnet 116 (1985)4, I would say that the story

metaphorically constructs a communion, a marriage o true minds,

or which there are no impediments, since they touch and connect

subtly but deeply. Let us gradually detail how the story o these two

childrens affective bond becomes constructed.

Katherine Mansfield (born in New Zealand) is widely known

in the context o English literature or her contribution to the

development o the short story as a literary genre. o give an example

o this importance, afer her death, Virginia Wool registered in her

diary: Mansfield produced the only literature I envied (in Gilbert

and Gubar 1514). Similarly to Joyce and Wool, whose narratives

constitute significant examples o ormal rigor and construction,Mansfield is an artist, according to Jeffrey Meyers, whose strength

lies in subtle detail, precise phrasing, delicate observation, and

concentrated emotion (vii). Another representative characteristic


5/14


6/14


7/14


dolls house), the other children merely admire the house as a

commodity, as an icon o social status. Te dolls house serves as ameans to humiliate Lil and our Else, who are excluded rom the visit.

Beore examining the gradual and silent connection between

Kezia and our Else, through the house and the lamp, it is important

to consider two significant negative details about the houses

description: the first has to do with its smell o paintquite enough

to make anyone seriously ill (Mansfield 24); the second concernsthe description o the dolls that inhabit the house: the ather, the

mother and the children who sleep in the houses upper part. Te

parents are described as stiff , being thus destitute o the spontaneity

and sense o realism characterizing the other objects that compose

the house. As to the children-dolls, they were really too big or the

dolls house. Tey didnt look as though they belonged (Mansfield

25), being characterized, as such, as i displaced.

Such apparently descriptive details actually anticipate relevant

inormation about the ambiguous meanings o the dolls house; they

constitute indexes that undermine its initial perection allowing

a metaphorical parallelism between the symbolic meanings o the

dolls house (simulacrum o a real house) and the actual childrens

house and their relationships with their parents and amilies. Te

suggestion o dissonance and unbalance between the dolls house and

their inhabitants (the dolls, who do not belong) will find a parallel in

the oppressive and superficial relationships o the children with their

real houses/amilies. Ironically, the dolls house will not promote

any playul or entertaining activity among the childrenit will only

serve as pretext or the exhibition, segregation and exercise o urthercruelty. However, helplessness and violence can also be ought with

disobedience and transgression, and it does not matter whether the

subjects involved are children.


8/14


An important act about Katherine Mansfields lie should be

considered at this point. In her biography, Claire omalin emphasizesthat Katherine was quick to identiy with servants in her writing, and

to offer them special imaginative sympathy, although she grew up in

a society in which the social division between maids and masters

seemed absolute (13). Such an affective complicity exercised by

her narrators concerning not only the experience o the subaltern

but mainly o the socially marginalized, humiliated and excludedconstitutes a crucial mark o Mansfields literary production. In

the specific short story discussed here, in which Kezia and the

Kelveys (Lil and our Else) affectively understand one another, the

eloquence o the experience seems to acquire a larger dimension,

since the universe o poverty (and o the helplessness inherent to

it), experienced by the Kelveys, is deepened by the vulnerability and

insecurity typical o the childrens universe.

Similarly to the dolls house, whose description transcends

the level o reerence to connote tensions and conflicts in terms o

social relations, I can say the same in relation to Lil and our Elses

characterization, dressed with pieces and remains o cloth given to

Mrs. Kelvey by those or whom she worked: Lil, or instance (),

came to school in a dress made rom a green art-serge tablecloth

o the Burnells, with red plush sleeves rom the Logans curtains

(Mansfield 27). As to her little sister, our Else, [she] wore a long

white dress, rather like a nightgown, and a pair o little boys boots

(27). Tis description echoes part o the houses description, both in

terms o similarity (repeated vocabulary) and in terms o contrast:

the house, though a dolls house, a make-believe house, a toy, seemsto be true, ull o lie; Lil and our Else, though human, seem to be

ugly dolls, scarecrows. In terms o psychological description, besides

our Elses dependence on Lil, onto whose piece o skirt she always


9/14


holds, she never speaks and rarely smiles (27). But our Elses silence

also suggests her introspection and sensibility, decisive actors orthe communion taking place between her and Kezia in the final part

o the short story.

Beore reaching this point, I would still like to consider the

implicit criticism addressed to the amily and the school as relevant

and solid social institutions. Near the end o the narrative, coinciding

with the accomplishment o all childrens visits, Kezia asks her motheror permission to invite the Kelveys to see the dolls house:

Mother (), cant I ask the Kelveys just once?

Certainly not, Kezia.

But why not?

Run away, Kezia; you know quite well why not.

(Mansfield 28)

Te knowledge Kezias mother attributes to her is a result o social

rules that regulate the conviviality and distance among people. Kezia

understands them as an imposition, as an absurd imposition that

makes no sense at all; because o that, she does not hesitate disobeying

the mother, inviting Lil and our Else to see the dolls house. In reality,

we can consider the cruel treatment received by Lil and our Else as

a consequence o the education the children themselves are given

at homea kind o education that endorses social class distinctions

and the prejudiced values that segregate people according to their

social and economic origins. Even at home, within the amily context,

Isabel, the elder sister, has her power and authority legitimated byher mother. Being older, she is the one who decides not only who

should see the dolls house, but the order o visits. Te mis-education

practiced by the amily is ironically corroborated by the school, the


10/14


place where differences should be welcome with respect, tolerance

and critical vision; afer all, the school is a place or teaching andlearning (but teaching and learning what?). In the school considered

here, even the teachers discriminate the Kelveys, having a special

voice or them, and a special smile or the other children when Lil

Kelvey came up to her desk with a bunch o dreadully common-

looking flowers (26).

Tat is why, when the meeting among the three children finallytakes place, the initial surprise and reusal o the Kelveys are thus

justified: your ma told our ma you wasnt to speak to us (30). o

which Kezia replies: It doesnt matter. You can come and see our

dolls house all the same. Come on. Nobodys looking (30).

Kezia knew her attitude constituted a transgression, a

transposition o imposed limits. Te absence o the others (adults)

looka vigilant and prohibiting lookmeans reedom, temporary

reedomor them. Kezias attitude reveals her disagreement with

her mother, with her sister Isabel, and with all the other children at

school; her attitude materializes her subversive response. I amily

and school are social institutions that indoctrinate, Kezia, Lil and

our Else are able to escape in a reedoma tiny little reedomo

their own.

Te dolls house is also instigating in terms o the relationship

constructed between affect, the body and aesthetics. In his discussion

on the articulation o such topics, Ben Highmore affirms that affect

gives you away (), it is your own polygraph machine (118). He

urther asks, thus offering an example: Could you possibly eel that

you were in love i you couldnt also eel your beating heart climbinginto your throat or your palms sweat? Would I really be moved

by a tragedy i I didnt experience rivulets o tears trickling down

my cheeks? (120). No matter how differently people can react to


11/14


emotion and affect, the act is that our body is a locus o sensorial

perception and physiological reaction and affective register.When Lil and our Else are invited by Kezia to see the dolls house,

their bodies speak in significant and telling ways: Lil turned red

(Mansfield 30); Lil gasped (30); our Else was looking at her with

big imploring eyes; she was rowning; she wanted to go (30). Tese

moments precede their decision to accept or not Kezias invitation.

When they finally accept Kezias offer and are beore the dolls house,Lil breathed loudly, almost snorted; our Else was still as stone (30).

Tese ragments show how affected they are by the house; it is as

i they are hypnotized by its contemplation. When Kezia opens the

dolls house or them to see inside, just at the moment when she says:

Teres the drawing-room and the dining-room, and thats the

(30), they are fiercely interrupted and reprimanded by Kezias aunt,

who shooed [Lil and our Else] off as i they were chickens (30). Te

narrator urther says: Tey did not need telling twice. Burning with

shame, shrinking together, Lil huddling along like her mother, our

Else dazed, somehow they crossed the big courtyard and squeezed

through the white gate (31). Te actions o blushing, gasping,

breathing loudly, looking with imploring eyes, burning with shame

all indicate the dimension o affect experienced by the children. All

this gradation o bodily reactions culminates with our Else smiling

her rare smile (31) and saying I seen the little lamp (31).

Te gradual process o affective bonding among these children

can be summarized as ollows: 1. When Kezia opposes the Kelveys

exclusion to see the dolls house and asks her mother to show it to

them; 2. When Kezia emphasizes the significance o the little lampand only our Else pays attention (rom a distance, without her

knowing) to it; 3. When Kezia, despite the prohibition, invites the

Kelveys to see the dolls house; 4. When Kezia shows them the house


12/14


and, though or a short time, our Else is implicitly able to appreciate

the tiny lamp; 5. When, finally, our Else smiles her rare smile andverbalizes her vision o the little lamp.

Tough running the risk o repetition, the summary o this

itinerary seems necessary when we think o the reciprocal affective

gesture between Kezia and the Kelveysmainly our Elseand its

effect also on the reader. Still according to Gregg and Seigworth,

affect is in many ways synonymous withforceorforces of encounter(2; authors italics). As a power or a potential, affect constitutes the

bodys capacity to affect and be affected (Gregg and Seigworth, 2).

In the present short story, this occurs both negatively and positively.

Let us remember the rituals o humiliation and hostility the Kelveys

suffer at school. Being unable to react, the Kelveys respond either

with silence or with a shameul and awkward look. When they

are reprimanded by aunt Beryl, once more they are humiliated,

treated as animals (they are reerred to throughout the narrative as

chickens, stray cats and little rats). However, the last words in the

short story emphasize the effects o the encounter both in terms

o physical and emotional signs: Lils cheeks were still burning

(Mansfield 31). Sitting down to rest on a big red drainpipe, they

contemplate the countryside and recollect their vision o the dolls

house. It is at this moment that our Else smiles her rare smile and

finally speaks to say I seen the little lamp (31). Te narrator ends

the short story with Ten both were silent once more (31).

As such, three elements accentuate the affective chain,

represented in the affected body: the smile; the speech; the silence.

Silence coincides with the end o the short story, whose eloquencenow resonates in the reader. Te coincident perception o the two

children (though belonging to such dissonant worlds) ends up

reflecting on the reader. Hence, the reader is the one endowed with


13/14


the most substantial epiphany and affective response, materialized

in another affective action, symbol o a firefly-hope5

that insists onresisting. Borrowing rom Jacques Rancires articulation between

aesthetics and politics, when he affirms that artistic practices are

ways o doing that interere in the general distribution o ways

o doing and in their relations with ways o being and orms o

visibility (17; my translation), I can conclude that Te dolls house

not only activates different orms o eeling, through displacedconfigurations o sensibility, but contributes to enact new orms o

political subjectivity (Rancire 11). Tat is why I risk re-organizing

the short storys affective chainas: the silence; the smile; the speech.

Note

1. Tis article constitutes an enlarged version o the text (Des)encontros

aetivos em uma casa de bonecas, presented at ABRALIC, UniversidadeEstadual da Paraba (2013). I would like to thank Proessor MichaelHarold Smith (UFPB) or his affective contribution in the revision othis text.

2. Tese short stories can be ound in Katherine Manfields Stories(Introd.by Jeffrey Meyers). New York: Vintage, 1991.

3. Te possessive adjective our, always appearing beore Else, is

incorporated to her name and demonstrates her ragility, vulnerabilityand dependence on her sister, onto whose clothes she holds whilewalking. It also reveals the narrators (and the readers) affectivecomplicity in relation to her.

4. I quote the first lines o this sonnet: Let me not to the marriage o trueminds/Admit impediments. Love is not love/Which alters when it alterationfinds. In: Shakespeare, William. Te Complete Works of Shakespeare. TeAlexander text. London and Glasgow: Collins, 1985.

5. I consciously play with the idea o the fireflies survival, as elaborated byGeorges Didi-Huberman in Sobrevivncia dos vaga-lumes (trad. Mrcia

Arbex). Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG, 2011.


14/14


References

Abrams, M. H.A Glossary of Literary erms. Orlando: Holt, Rinehart andWinston, 1988.

Didi-Huberman, Georges. Sobrevivncia dos vaga-lumes. rad. MrciaArbex. Minas Gerais: Editora UFMG, 2011.

Gilbert, Sandra M. & Gubar, Susan. Te Norton Anthology of Literature byWomen: the tradition in English. New York and London: Norton, 1985.

Gregg, Melissa & Seigworth, Gregory J. An Inventory o Shimmers. Te

Affect Teory Reader. Durham and London: Duke University Press,2010. 1-25.

Highmore, Ben. Bitter afer taste: affect, ood, and social asthetics. Gregg,Melissa & Seigworth, Gregory J. (eds). Te Affect Teory Reader. Durhamand London: Duke University Press, 2010. 118-137.

Mansfield, Katherine. Te Garden Party and Other Stories. (ed. by JohnMcRae). Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2000.

_____. Stories. (Introd. by Jeffrey Meyers). New York: Vintage Classics,1991.

Meyers, Jeffrey. Introduction. Mansfield, Katherine. Stories. New York:Vintage Classics, 1991. vii-xix.

Rancire, Jacques. Partilha do sensvel: esttica e poltica. rad. MnicaCosta Netto. So Paulo: Exo Experimental, Editora 34, 2005.

Shakespeare, William. Te Complete Works of Shakespeare. Te Alexandertext. London and Glasgow: Collins, 1985.

omalin, Claire. Katherine Mansfield: A Secret Life. London: Penguin, 1987.

Wordsworth, William. We are seven. Elliott, John. W. (ed.) Te poetry ofWilliam Wordsworth. New York: Monarch Press, 1965.

(Received in 10/08/2013. Approved in 25/10/2013)

Documents

Affective (Mis) Encounters in a Doll’s House - Genilda Azerêdo