scheff, thomas - gender wars_emotions in much ado about nothing

7/23/2019 Scheff, Thomas - Gender Wars_Emotions in Much Ado About Nothing

1/19

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

Gender Wars: Emotions in "Much Ado about Nothing"Author(s): Thomas J. ScheffSource: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Summer, 1993), pp. 149-166Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389427Accessed: 02-10-2015 11:58 UTC

F R N S

Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389427?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.187.246.167 on Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:58:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1389427http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389427?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1389427?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1389427http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/


2/19

Sociologicalerspectives

Vol.

36,

No.

2,

pp.

149-166

Copyright1993Pacific ociological ssociation ISSN

0731-1214

GENDER WARS:

Emotions

n

MuchAdo AboutNothing

THOMAS

J. CHEFF

Universityf

California,antaBarbara

ABSTRACT: Inordero xplorehe elationetweenove ndwar, apply

a

theoryhowing

he

ffinity

etween

omance,hame,

nd

nger

n classic

text.

hakespeare'slayspresent

n

exceedinglyrim ortraitf

the

relationshipetween

en nd

women.ven is

ighthearted

reatment

f

his

theme

n

MuchAdo about

Nothinguggests

hatove etween

man

nd

a

womannvolvesnendingensionnd

onflict,

uchike he ontinuous

distrust,eception,

nd

utrightarfare

etween

ations.

close

eadingf

the ext

f

MuchAdo shows

hamelanger

equences

othn conventional

courtship

Hero

ndClaudio)nd nthe

nconventionalelationfBeatrice

and

Benedick

oth

elationshipsnvolve

nfatuation.y nalysisuggests

thatcknowledging

hame nd

ngeretweenen ndwomen

ay

e n

importantirsttepowardesolvingheironflict.

I

hatewhile

love;wouldyou

sk how do

t?

My

case

proves

ts

rue;

hat's ll theres to

t.

-Catullus

ATTACHMENT, SHAME,

AND

IMAGES

OF

HUMAN NATURE

Untilrecently,thas been customary o view humannature n one of twoways,

as either

nherently estructive

or

as

a

blank slate upon which culture writes

human character.

The first iew

is

associated

with

Hobbes and,

in

a laterform,

Freud;

the second

view,

with

the

cultural

elativity

ound

n

the work of

classical

anthropology

nd

sociology.

More

recently,

t

has become the dominanttheme

in

psychology, s expressed

n

learning

heory.

In the last

twenty years, however,

results

of a

corpus

of

studies of infant-

caretaker

elations

uggest

the

possibility

hat new

perspective

s needed

which

will be in better ccord with

the nfant

tudies and with clinical

findings n adult

Direct

ll

correspondence

o:Thomas

. cheff,epartment

f

ociology, niversity

f

California-Santaarbara,

Santa

Barbara,

A

93106-9430.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/19

150

SOCIOLOGICAL

ERSPECTIVES

olume

6,Number

,1993

emotions.

his

new

viewpoint

egins

with

he

postulate

hat

ocial

ttachment

is the

fundamental

uman

motive.

lthough

thas

has beenformulated

y

many

authors,willfollow,noutline,heposition eveloped y HelenB.Lewis 1976,

1981,

983).

The

recent

nfant

tudies

trongly

uggest

hat

humannfants

ave,

t birth,

strong,

enetically

rogramed

apacity

or

ocial nteraction.

arly

n thefirst

ear,

infants

re ble

toengage

n

thegame

f aking

urns

t ooking

nd ooking

way,

and

in

smiling

t the

caretaker.

his

game

forms

hebasis

formutual

delight

between

arent

nd

child,

ndfalling

n ove.

For

comprehensive

eview

f

hese

studies,

ee

Retzinger

991.)

ove

between

hild

nd

parent, secure

ond,

s

not

certain

owever.

fthe

parent

rchild

fails

oplay

thegame,

t

maynot

occur.

In conjunction

ith

herclinical

tudies,

ewis

(1976)

has subsumed

hese

findingsn a theory hich elatesttachment,hame, ndanger.n this heory,

love

nvolves

either

ndependence

or ependence,

ut nterdependence.

owlby

characterizes

uch

relationship

s

as

a secure

ocial

bond. hame

nd

anger

re

instinctive

nd, therefore,

niversal

motional

esponses

o,

and signals

of,

threatened

onds.

f

his

were he ase,

hame

nd

anger

would

figure

rominently

in all ove

relationships.

Lewis's

work,

ikeFreud's,uggests

hat mbivalence

s inevitable

n

intimate

relationships.

nlike

reud

especially

n his aterwork),

owever,

ewis

argues

that

hatred

nd

destructive

elationships

re

not a fixed

part

of the

human

conditionut reproducedy lienatedocial elationships.nthis rticle,suggest

that

omance

may

mask

massive mounts

funconscious

hame

nd

anger.

Shame

nd anger

eem

o

play

key

ole

n

relationships

hatnvolve

xtensive

idealization

r

hostility.

n

this

rticle,

consider

herole

ofthese wo

processes

in romantic

elationships

t both

he

nterpersonal

nd

cultural

evels.

The

tradition

f

courtly

ove

and

romance

provides

cultural

cript

for

idealization

n

Western

ivilization. lthough

here s more emphasis

on

idealization

fthe

woman,

specially

n the

origins

fthetradition,

onsiderable

encouragement

ormutual

dealization

s

provided.

Falling

n ove,"

ften

t

first

sight,

s

considered

o be an extraordinary

tate,

ar ifferent

romhe

mundane

aspects feverydayife. deasofa fated rdestined elationshipith unique

person

re

also

prominent.

Separate

from

ultural

radition,

et

strongly

nteracting

ith

it,

is

the

psychological

rocess

f

nfatuation.

ndividualsmay

merely

ct out

the

cultural

script

f dealized

omance

without

eeling

t.

But,

ften,

he

cript

s deeply

elt;

the

ndividual

alls

head

ver

heels"

n ove

with he

perfect"

artner.

dealization

in this

ase

is

not

merely

onforming

o a

culturally

anctioned

ole

but also

a

compelling

emotional

experience.

propose

that both

the cultural

and

psychological

lements

n

idealized

omance

an be understood

n terms

f

the

dynamics

f hame

nd

anger.

Suppose, s suggestedn thediscussionf ttachment,hat hame nd rage re

both

iologically

rogrammed

o

ignal

hreats

o

mportant

elationships.

urther,

these

motions

ould

be

roused

requently

n

ntimate

elationships:

ne

person



4/19

Gender

ars

151

is so dependent n

theother

hat

/he

rustrates

s, eading

o

anger,

nd

we

feel

criticizedr

rejected,

eading

o

shame.

requent pisodes

f hame nd/or

age

maybe an inevitableart f ll ntimateelationships.

If hese motionsre

mmediatelycknowledged,

s is sometimeshe

ase, hey

maybe quickly ispelled

Scheff979;

cheff

nd

Bushnell

984). erhaps

n

early

infancy,efore trong

ocial anctions

re

pplied y

self

r

other,

hese motions

are

frequently

roused but

immediatelyxpressed

nd

dispelled.

or

adults,

however, he case maybe quitedifferent.specially

n

Western

ocieties,

hese

emotions

re

severely

ontrolled.

hey may

be

acknowledged nly

under

extremelyestricted

onditions,

f

t all.

They

re

often

een as

evidence f elf-

indulgence,eakness,

r ack

of

elf-control;hey

re

taboo

Scheff984).

Under these

conditions,

he affects f shame

and

rage

lead

a

shadow

life,

expressed nly ndirectly.ne channel, willargue,nvolves dealization. n

individualmaydenyhis/herwn shame

by inking

elf

with n

idealized

erson

or

class

of

persons.

xcessive

atriotism ay

e seen s one route hat dealization

may take; snobbery ttached o a

person's ineage

or social class is another.

Idealization

may

lso take more

personalized oute,

omantic

nfatuation

ith

another

erson,

r

hero-worship.

Theprocess f

nfatuation,

hether ith

class f ersons r particularerson,

can be understood

n

terms

f

combinationf dealizationnd

shaming.

t

begins

with he

denial

f

person's

wn hame:

eelings

f

nadequacy

nd

rejection.

ne

links ne's selfwith n idealized ther, homanifestshedesirableualitieshat

are

missing

n

one's

self,

nd

has

none

of one's own

undesireableualities,

especially

weakness nd commoness. he other s

seen as

"special," ossessing

glamour,harisma,r

magic. erhaps his oute s a distorted

ersion f heprocess

referredo

by

Durkheim

1915)

s thedifferentiation

etween he acred nd the

profane.

Idealization,

hich

egins

with

hedenial f

hame, lso

ncreaseshame. aving

created

perfect

ther,

ne

may

come

to

view one's

self rom hepoint fview

of hat

hypotheticallyerfect

ther. he

process s

self-perpetuatingo the xtent

thatone

underplays

he

mperfections

f

the

other, nd overplays ne's own.

Viewing ne's selffrom hepointof view of a scornfulther s the prototypic

context or

enerating

hame. hemore

dealization,hemore hame, ndthemore

shame,

hemore

dealization:

n

aspect

f

whatLewis

1971) alled feelingrap.

In order o illustrate

ome of ts

features,hismodel nd

the theory f shame

dynamics

n

which t

s based will

be

applied

o Much

Ado bout othing.

SHAME/ANGER

EQUENCES

IN A

SHAKESPEAREAN OMEDY

Although

uch do

s

certainlycomedy,tdisplays he

usualShakespeareanark

underside ith

onsiderable

rominence:hysicalnd emotionaliolence etween

men, nd betweenmen nd women. willfirst escribehis lementn theplay,

then

nterpret

t n erms f

theory

f

motion. opefully,

his reatmentill urther

understanding

f

he mbivalentovethat ccurs etween

men nd women.



5/19

152

SOCIOLOGICAL

ERSPECTIVES olume6,Number

,1993

MuchAdoconcerns

woparallelmale-female

elationships:

he conventional

courtship etween

Hero and Claudio,

nd the

unconventionalne

between

Beatricend Benedick.hese ourtshipsake lacewithinframeworkfphysical

violence,

nd themselves

nvolve oth

physical ndemotional

iolence.ince he

violences skillfully

oven

nto plausible arrative,

t often oes unremarked.

I will

begin

y describinghe

violent lements

nthe tory.

The

play penswith reference

owarfare.

messengers

reportingo Leonato

(Hero's

father),ero,

nd Beatrice hatDon Pedro

s arriving,fter

victoryn

battle. n answer

o Leonato's

uery, hey earn

hat hevictory as

won with

the oss ofonly

smallnumber fmen:

Butfew

f ny ort,nd none

ofname."

That s to say,

fewmendied,but they

werecommon

oldiers,ot

gentlemen.

The reminders faint, utoccurs n a strategiclace.The

firstopicoftheplay

is a war

n which

mendied.

The econd opic

s weeping. hemessenger

eports

he ears hed

byClaudio's

uncle when he learned

hathis nephewhad

distinguished imself

n battle.

Presumablyhe ears

lso reflectheuncle's

elief

hat laudio s unhurt.

We have

learned

n thefirstew econds f

hefirstcene hat n

war omemendie,

thers

survive,nd the

urvivor's

in

weep

foroy.Violent eath,

urvival,

nd

weeping

mark somber eginningor

comedy.

Thetopic fviolent

eath

s taken pbyBeatrice,

hen heenters

hedialogue,

in her

ests boutBenedick's

dequacy

s a soldier. erfirst

ine s:

I

pray ou,

sSignior ountantoetumed

romhewars r

no?

She refers

o

him

s

Mr.

wordthrust,

reference

hich

Hero s able to translate

for he

others s

Beatrice's

layful

amefor enedick.

s we shall ee

below,

he

use of mpromptu

abels

atherhan

roper

ames ccurs requently

n

references

Beatrice

nd Benedick

make o each

other.

In this

ase,

the

obriquet

efers

o a

potentially

ethal ct.

Beatrice

oes

on to

deny,

n hernext

omment,

hat

Benedick

s

deadly,

owever.

er

next eference

is to a shootingontest, ith lunt rrows,etween enedicknd Cupid.Finally,

in this amecomment,

he

ridicules enedick

s a

solider,

s

a

killer,ypromising

to eat all

"ofhis

killing."

n her

nitial

omments,

eatrice

eferso

swords,

ows

and

arrows,

nd

finally

o

killing,

ll

aspects

fwarfare.

After

eatrice

akes

everalmore

ests

tBenedick's

xpense,

er

ncle,

eonato,

explains

o

the

messenger

he

background

f

Beatrice's

esting,

hat

here

s

a

"merry

ar"

between

and B. He

goes

on to use another

military

erm:

ach

of

their

onversations,

e

says,

s a "skirmish

f

wit."

Beatrice,ontinuing

he

metaphor

f

warfare,

efers

oher ast

meeting

ith enedicks a

conflict

nwhich

he

was

vanquished,

o the

point

hathe lost

"four f

his fivewits."The

initial

dialoguemoves,withoutransition,romhewarfareetweenmen o thewarfare

between

men

nd women.

he

beginning

f

he

play

eems

o

suggest

parallel

between

warfare

nd romance.



6/19

Gender ars

153

The next

dialoguen

thefirst

cene

nvolves ne

ofthe kirmishesetween

and

B

thatLeonatoreferredo. This s one of

the

six

dialogues

etween

B

and

Bintheplay.Each nvolves disagreementr a quarrel. s I will uggest elow,

each

also

involves

considerable

mount

f

hostile nnuendo

y

both

parties

toward he ther.

ince

oth

f

he

ontenders

re

present,

nd

each

eems

apable

of

defendingis/herself,

he

skirmishes

hemselvesan

be considered o be

fair

fights

etween

quals.

This

s

not

rue f he

pening

ialogue,

owever,

n

which

Beatrice

idicules

enedick

n

his

absence,

moving eonato

o

defend

im

nd

mildy

eprove

eatrice.

ince he

berated enedick

henhe was unable o

defend

himself,

e

are

eftwith

he

mpression

hat

Beatrice's

nimosity

oward im

s

not

ompletelyn

good

humor.

At

thecenter

f

the

plot are two

scenes

nvolving

motional nd

physical

violence. he firsts thedenunciationndhumiliationfHero nthechurch;n

the

econd,

eatrice

sks

Benedick

o

kill

Claudio, isbestfriend.

In

the

firstcene,Claudio

carefullyrchestrateshe

ituationo

as to

disgrace

Hero.

The

night

efore

he

weddingwas to

take

place,

Don

John,

he

villian,

ad

caused

Claudio

to

believethat

Hero had been

unfaithfulo

him.

Rather

han

cancelinghe

wedding,

laudio

rrivest the

hurch ith

is

econds, on Pedro

and Don

John,nd

allows he

ceremonyo

begin.He

halts t

dramaticallytthe

pointwhere heminister

sks

f

ny

mpedimento the

union s

known.

At

this

point,

e

declares hat

he has

been unfaithful,

econded

y Pedro nd

John. he

men

denounce

Hero s a

"rotten

range" nd a

"commontale," prostitute.heispublicallyisgraced.

Themost

ntense

iolencenthe

cene omes

not

rom laudio's

arty,

owever,

but from

ero's.Her

father's

irst eaction o the

denunciation

s

to wishdeath

for

imself. fter ero

faints,

is

next

esponse

s

to wish

for er

death, o

hide

her

shame.At the

height

fhis

fury,

e

hopes that he will

die so that

hewill

not

have okill

erhimself.

fter ero

hasbeen

uestioned,

eonato

cknowledges

the

possiblity

hat he

has been

wronged.

ven

o,

he

vows

revenge,ither

gainst

her,

f

he s

guilty,r

against er

ccusers,f he

s

innocent.he

public

haming

ofhis

daughter

ouses

Leonato o

extremesf hame

nd

rage.

The second sceneoccurs mmediatelyfterhedenunciation,henB and B

remainn the

church fter

he

others ave

eft.

enedick eclares

imselfn

ove

with

Beatrice.

n the

course fhis

declaration,

e

asks

her

f

heres

anything

e

can

do to

prove

his

ove.Her

reply

s

succinct:Kill

Claudio."

Beatrice ants

her

cousin's onor

venged.

fter

n ntense

uarreln

which

eatrice

xpressestrong

anger

nd

outrage,

enedick

grees

o

challenge

is

friend

laudio

o a

duel.

In the

first

cene,

denunciation

y

oneman

rouses

umiliated

uryn

nother,

tothe

point

f

desiring

irst is

own

death, hen

hat fhis

daughter.n the

econd,

a

promise

f

physical iolence

etween

wo

men s

instigated

y a

woman.

This

comedy

egins

within

frameworkf

war to

the

deathbetween

men;

heplot

hingesuponthepotential ordeadlyrevengewhenhonor s impugned n the

relations

etweenmen

nd

women.For

discussion

f he

roleof

honor,nsult,

and

revenge

n

feuds, ee

Scheff

nd

Retzinger

991.)



7/19

154

SOCIOLOGICALERSPECTIVES

olume6,Number

,1993

Both f he

omanticelationships

n this lay nvolve

iolence,ut

heviolence

is disposed

differently

n eachcase.

n thecourtship

fHeroby

Claudio,

here

s

no violence n the urfacel;t s hidden eneath facade fromanticove. Some

of hese ssues

retouched

nbyHays

1980).t comes

o the urface

nly hrough

outer ircumstance,

conspiracy

gainst

Hero's exual

honor.Until

hemoment

whenClaudio

was informed

f Hero's

upposedfaithlessness,

e

had idealized

her, eferring

o her s a "jewel

beyond rice,"

s the

sweetestady"

he hadever

seen (I.i.175,

82). Such idealization

f thebeloved

s conventional

n Western

societies. arallel

o,

nd interacting

ith, hecultural

rocess f dealization

s a

psychological

ne, the

phenomena

f infatuation.

n the

discussion f shame

dynamics

elow,

will

return

o dealization

nd itsrelation

o shame nd

rage.

On thesurface,t

least, he element

f

dealization

eems

to be absent

n the

relationetween eatricendBenedick.f nything,hey eemtoengage nthe

opposite

process, rofaning

ach other t

every pportunity.

nce

again, heir

relationship

an also be interpreted

n both

cultural

nd psychological

erms.

Benedick'sole onforms

o that f

themisogynist,

he

woman-hater,ady-killer;

Beatrice

ccupies

he

complementary

emale

ole,

he hrew

who s "curst"

with

ill-temper

nd hatred

fmen.

In

I.i,

othLeonato

ndhisbrother

ntonio

make

this

oint.)

The psychology

f their

relationship

s

more ambiguous

han its cultural

components,

owever. ne

possibility

s that heirwarfare

s an

openexpression

ofthehositilityhat s a partof all intimateelationships.ne ofFreud'smost

important

nsights

as that ll ove

s ambivalent,

mixture

f ove and

hate.

n

intimate

elationships,

ach

persons so dependent

n the

other

hat rustration,

which eads

to

anger,

nd

oss of

face,

which eads

to

shame,

re

nevitable.

n

this

view,

humiliatedury

oward he beloved

s

a natural

part

of

any

intimate

relationhip.

he onlyquestion

s

whether

t willbe

hidden

by

idealizationnd

infatuation,

r acknowledged

penly.

My

reading

f he

dialogues

etween

and

B,

to be

discussed

elow, uggests

that

hey

re

nvolvedn an interminable

uarrel,

quarrel

ased noton the

pen

acknowledgment

f hame

nd

rage

but

on the

upression

fthese

motions,

o

that hey reexpressed nly ndirectly,n sarcasm nd other orms fhostile

innuendo.

SKIRMISHES

Although

he haracters

n

Shakespeare's

lays

refictional

reations,

will reat

them

s

if

hey

were

ctual

persons.

t

may

be

argued

hatwritersremuch

more

revealing

f hemselves

nd

their orld

n

fictional

ork han

n

ostensibly

actual

work uch

as

autobiography.

his

eems o

have been

the ase

withGoethe.

His

autobiography

ealt,

n

large part,

with

ofty

ntellectual

nd

philosophical

themes.His novels, n the otherhand, pparently erebased almost ntirely

on his own

experiences

nd,

to

a lesser

xtent,

n

thoseof

persons

who

were

well

known o

him.

ince

o little

s known f

Shakespeare'sife,

here s no

way



8/19

Gender

ars

155

to evaluate he xtent

o which ischaracters

re

based upon ctual bservations

ofreal

behavior.

Whateverhecase, however, is dramaticceneshavethe characterf ived

experience:

hey voke

ur motional

esponses s f heywere

eal. or his eason,

theymay erve he

purpose f llustrating

ome

deas aboutemotions

nd their

relationship

o thought

ndbehavior.

In this

discussion,

willdescribe ow both

of the ove relationships

n Much

Ado eem

to be driven y shame-rage.

n the ase

ofHero

nd Claudio, he piral

is made

up largelyf motions

hich rebypassed

nd, herefore,nvisible

xcept

undergrossprovocation.

he

bypassing

perations

notonlya psychological

process

infatuation)ut a

cultural

ne as well.The cultural

cript rovides

disguise

for

hostility:

he

process

of dealization

hich s

part

of

the

Western

traditionf romanticove. When cultural nd psychologicalrocesses ct in

conjunction,

he epression

f hame ndrage s virtuallyomplete

nder

rdinary

circumstances.

As

will

be

seenbelow, hedialogue

etween

andBsuggestshepresence

ot

only

of

bypassed

hame-rage ut,

n

addition,

onsiderable

mounts

f

overt,

undifferentiated

ersions

f he

ame

motions.

referorelations

ike

hat etween

Hero and Claudio,

where

hame-rage

s

usually ypassed,

s

silent

mpasses,

nd

relationsike that

of B and

B, where some of

the shame-rages

overtand

undifferentiated,

s

interminable

uarrels.

SinceB and B's firstxchange oretells uch f heir elationship,willdiscuss

it at

ength.For description

f hemethod f ounterfactual

ariantsnd other

methods sed

n nferringffects

n

a verbal ext,

ee Scheff990).

eatrice'sirst

line o

Benedicks:

I wonder hat

ou

will

till

always)

e

talking,

igniorenedick; obody

marks

you.

Benedick eplies

n

kind:

What,mydearLadyDisdainAreyouyet iving?

Beatrice's

irst

ord o

Benedicks not

greeting,

s would

be

expected

n

any

conventional

ocial

elationship,

ut

hostile

est.

he

fact

hat hedidnotwelcome

him

utberated

im nstead s

mportant

or everal easons.

irst,

t

uggests

hat

instead

f n

ordinary

ocial

elationship

nwhich

eace

t east

utwardlyrevails,

they

re

nvolved

n

an

ongoing

uarrel.

urthurmore,

his

kirmish,

ike he

arger

quarrel

n which t s an

incident,

s unmotivated.

e are

never

iven

cause

for

thehostilites.

For

most of

Shakespeare's

overs,

he

path

of love

is

blocked

by palpable

impediments.n thehistorylays ndthe ragedies,ealpolitik,ither fnations

or

families,

ilitates

gainst

he overs.

ven nthe

omances,

heres

usually

ome

realobstacle.

or

example,

n

Twelfth

ight,

iola s in

ove with manwho oves



9/19

156 SOCIOLOGICALERSPECTIVES olume6,Number,1993

another oman. ut nMuchAdo, heres no obstacle n the uterworld. heonly

obstacles re within.n this espect,herelationshipetween and B resembles

that etween eontes nd Hermionen TheWinter'sale [160811972):heir eace

is shattered y Leontes' ealousy,which s utterly ithout oundation.

Finally, here s one more eason hatBeatrice's nmotivatedostilityn this

line is of importance. ccording o Lewis (1981), he most ntense hame s

generated

n

a context

n

which person s expectingffectionut nstead ets

rejection.t seemsplausible hat man n Benedick's osition, eturningrom

war,might ope his personalwar withBeatricemight lso be over. willreturn

to

this onjecture elow.First, onsider ne more ayer f nnuendo

n

Beatrice's

comment.

If

he had said,

"I

wonder hatyou keep talking; obody s listeningo you,"

the remark ould still e disparaging,ince tsuggests otonly hatno one is

listening ut also thathe is unaware hatno one is listening,hat s, thathe is

a fool.

I

use the asterisk

*)

to indicate

ounterfactualhrases

hat

might

ave

been aidbutwerenot, ollowinghe onventionn inguistics.)ut, s stated, he

remark s even more disparaging han that, ecause the word "still,"which

Shakespeare ses to mean always,"mplies hatBenedicks foolish otonly

n

this articularituation,ut

hat e s

always

fool.

eatrice'semarkboutnobody

listenings also obviously xaggerated,ince he at least s listeningn order o

surmise hatno one else s.

Benedict'sesponse scalates he evel fhostilityegunbyBeatrice.ince he

layers f nnuendo

n

this entence re complex,

will

divide

t nto hree

arts,

as follows:

a) "What,"b) "my

dear

LadyDisdain ,"c)

"Are

you yet iving?"

he

first ord what"

mplies

he

ffect

f

urprise,

hich s

to be a

part

f hemain

insult, elivered

n

part c). That s,Benedick ffectsurprise hatBeatrice

s still

alive. f

b)

had been

"my

dear

Lady *Beatrice ,"

henhisretort ouldhave been

similar

n

formoBeatrice's

nitial

isparagement,

n

address

ollowed

y

n nsult.

If

nything,

his orm f ddresswouldhave been somewhat

more

amiliar

nd/

or

affectionatehanhers, ince t

would

have added to

her

name

and form f

address, Lady*Beatrice,"

he

phrase my

dear."

SinceBenedick oes not call herbyhername, s she did him, ut instead

substitutes

he

disparaging

abel

"Disdain,"

heeffectfthe

phrase my

dear"

s

not added

familiarity

r

affectionut rather

arcasm,

n effect

missing

rom

Beatrice's

ddress o

him.

he substitutionf

disparaging

abel nd

the

arcasm

in

tsuseis oneway

n

which enedick'sommentscalates he evel

of

hostility.

A

second

way

nvolves is main

nsult,ffectingurprise

hat

he s still

live.

It

appears

hatBenedick'smain nsult

s

much

more

hostile

han

Beatrice's,ust

as

his form f ddress s morehostile.

aising

he ssue

of

the

possible

eath

of

another

erson

s

insulting

n

tself

nless

he

opic

s

handledwith onsiderable

deference.

he

casual

way

in

which Benedick ntroduces t

is

an

insult.

Furthurmore,ffectingurpriselone s also nsulting,s if he ife rdeath f he

other

s of

no

ntense oncern

o

him. he

ocially

orrectffect

ouldbe

pleasure,

oreven

oyful urprise,

hat

heotherwere

till

live,

f

deathwere

possible.

ven



10/19

Gender ars

157

though,

n

the

present ase,

he omment

s

obviously

ntended s a

jest,

t s

still

a hostile

est,

or hese easons.

Since t s notmentionednthecomment,heputative easonforBenedick's

supposed urprise

s

ambiguous.

n

the bsence

f

mention,

enedick's

abel

Lady

Disdain" an be seen as particularly

nsulting

incehis retort

oes noteliminate

the nferencehat

he s so disdainfulhat

his rait

might

omehow ave ed

to

herdeath.The two-pronged

ature fBenedick's

ssault, nvolvingabeling

nd

sarcasm,

n theone

hand,

nd

esting

boutBeatrice's

eath,

n the

other,

makes

her nitialnsulteemmoderation

tself.

Theone way

nwhich

eatrice'snitial

omments

mmoderate,owever,

s

that

it dispenseswiththe greeting

nd

expression

f concernwhich

conventional

etiquette equires. t is this aspect of her

quip

which

may

have

occasioned

Benedick's xtreme esponse. f, s already ndicated,e had beenhoping or

truce,

f

not yearning

or

n affectionateelcome

rom he

wars, henBeatrice's

initialabwouldhave truck

im ike

slap

nthe

face.

n

this

ontext,

he

urprise

he affectst seeing er livemight

avebeen n nadvertantefensive aneuver:

if

you are tillwarringgainstme, hen

denyhaving hought

f

you at all,much

less havinghad fond houghts.n

terms fthetheory sed here, is reaction o

what

he

perceives

o

be

her

ejecting

nitial

omments to firsteel ntense

hame,

then xtremenger irected oward er.

The

model

f

he hame/ragepiral uggests hat toccurs otonlywithin,ut

between heparticipantsnaninterminableuarrel. here re three eelingraps

involved, ot ustone. nthe

present ase, he hame s completelyypassed or

both

participants.

one of the

rage

s

expressed ompletely,

ut

ts

presence

s

felt s hostilitynd sarcasm.

s

long

as these

ffects

re

neither cknowledged

nor

dispelled,

he

quarrel

will

notbe

resolved.

The

quarrel

nderdiscussion eemsto

fit,

n

outline, he requirementsfthe

model.Beatrice's nitialhostility

oward Benedick,

n

his absence, suggests

resentment

n her

part, n interiorpiral fbypassed hame nd rage.This tate

occasions

er

ttack

n

him,

which ouches ff

is

resentment,eading

o

his

even

morehostile ebuttal.ollowing his

irstound

f

barbs, hey rade everalmore

insults. lthough hey topquarreling ithoututside nterference,here s no

resolution:

Benedick:

...But

eepyour

ay,

God's

ame have one."

Beatrice:

You

lwaysndwith

jade's rick.know ou f ld."

Beatrice

ets

not

nly

he irst

ord,

ut lso

the ast. hecomplainshat is actics

are

ike

hose f

"jade,"

vicious orse.

heeditor f he

ignet

dition

uggests

that

Beatrice efers o the trick f

the sudden

top,by which he horse ries o

throw

he

rider.

n

an

interminable

uarrel,

ll of

theother's

moves, ven those

that renothostile,resuspect.

Benedick's mbivalence oward eatrice

s suggested y his onlyreferenceo

her fterhe eaves

the

cene.

mmediatelyollowing

he

quarrel, laudioreveals



11/19

158 SOCIOLOGICALERSPECTIVES olume6,Number,1993

his suitforHero

to Benedick,t one pointdescribing er,

s already ndicated

above,as "the sweetest ady that ver

lookedon." Benedick omparesHero

unfavorablyo Beatrice:

There's er ousin,

nd hewere ot ossessed ith fury,xceeds

er

smuch

inbeautys the

irstfMay oth heast fDecember.

In

Benedick's ye,

t is Beatrice, otHero,who is the beauty.

However, s is

characteristic

f

chronic

esentment,e

sees only heher nger, ot his own

or

thatwhich

or

hey re mutuallyesponsible.

Thefeeling-trapodelpredicts hat

f eft o their wn devices, articipants

n

an interminable

uarrel

re quiteunlikelyo escape

the

trap

unless ne or both

undergo ubstantialhangesntheir ersonalities:hequarrels compulsivend

involuntary.n thepresent ase,however,

heparticipantsrenot eft lone.

Their

friends oncoct plot-actually, conspiracy-to

ring

B

and

B

to the altar.

Bendedict'sriends,ed by

Don

Pedro,

nd Beatrice'sriends,

ed

byHero,

urmise

that

B

and

B love each other ut are

unableto acknowledgehisfact,

ven to

themselves.

The plot s as

follows: on Pedro nstructshe

friendsf

B

and

B

to follow

wo

parallel

evices. he male

friends,

on

Pedro, laudio,

nd

Leonato,

will

rrange

thatBenedick ears

hem alkingboutBeatrice'secret ove

for im. he female

friends, ero ndtwo"gentlewomen"Margaretnd Ursula),will rrange hings

so thatBeatriceverhears

hem

iscussing

enedick'secretovefor

er.

hisplot

is carried hrough

withouthitch.

BothB and

B

swallowthe bait. Each

is

unsuspecting

ntil

he ast scene, s

themarriages aboutto takeplace.Each s

alsogreatly ratifiedy

the

upposed

ove of he

other,

ransformed

mmediately

from cynic

o a passionateover, utonly

n

private oliloquy.

n actual ontact,

thetwo

overs ontinue heir

ostility,

hich s

only lightly

bated

by

theturn

of vents.

The next

dialogue

etween

B

and

B

occurs efore on

Pedro'splot s carried

out;

he

overs re till

ompletely

t odds.

The

cene s

a masked ance.Benedick

is pretendingo Beatriceobe someone lse,repeating disparagingomment

about Beatrice.

he

appears

o

suspect

hat

he

is

in

fact

Benedick,

ecause she

launches into a

diatribe, alling

him

a "dull fool"

among

other

things.

Characteristically,

owever,

he

also commends

im:

he ends

her

tirade

n a

sexual

note:

I

am surehe

Benedick)

s in the

fleet;

would

he

had boarded

me "

It is

of

nterest

o notethat he ast

dialogue

n

the

play

also involves

masks;

Beatrice

nd

Hero ome o

their

eddings

eiled. enedick's irst

ine n

this cene

is: "Which

s Beatrice?"Masks

or other

isguises

re a common

ngredient

n

Shakespeare's

male-female

elationships.

ne

very

commondevice

s for he

heroine o

disguise

erself

s a

man,

s

in

the ases

of

Portia, osalind,

nd Viola.

Inmanynstances,hedisguises reusedtoadvance courtship,hich erves

the

nterests

f

both

parties.

n other

ases,however,

he

disguisemay

be a

form

of

rickery,

s

in

the ases

of

Helena nd

Marianna,

ho

both

disguse

hemselves



12/19

Gender

ars

159

not s men, ut as

other

women.

n

some

ofthe

cases,

however, isguise

sused

merely s a meansofassault, s

in the case

of

achimo's ttack

pon Imogen's

sexualhonor n

Cymbeline.

lthoughachofthesedeceptionserves oadvance

the

plot, hakespearemay

lso be

commenting,

ub

rosa,

n

the

arge

olethat

deception lays

n

therelations etweenmen nd

women.

The hird ialogue etween andB s very

rief,

t nvolves

nly

hree

xchanges.

It

occurs fter enedick as overheardheplotters escribe eatrice'secret

ove

for im

butbefore eatrice as beensimilarlyuped.

Although

he cene s

brief,

it s precisely

onstructed.eatrice, otyetpracticed pon by herfriends,s still

cranky:

Againstmywill am sent o bid

youcome

n

to dinner.

Benedick, hose ttitudeoward eatrice as been

transformed,s gallant:Fair

Beatrice,thank ou for

our ains."But

Beatrice

eemsoblivious o

the

change,

and she persistsn herhostilities.enedick,

n

hisway,

s also oblivious; efore,

he saw hostility

n

Beatrice's ommentsven where here

was none,but

n

this

scene,he insists n

finding

air

meaning

n her

hostility:Ha Againstmywill

am

sent o bidyoucome

n

to

dinner,'

here's double

meaning

n

that...."

Although enedick's ttitudes

changed,

t s also

unchanged.

t is

still ased

upon error,

ut now a differentrror. irst t

was

excessivelyejecting;ow,

t s

excessivelyccepting. enedick asmerelymovedfromnemodeofdistortion

to

another,

rom

rofaning

eatrice o

dealizing

er.

erhaps

his cene

erves s

a

wry

omment n the

difficulty

f

hanging

romantic

elationship.

nlessboth

parties hange

imultaneously,

he

mpasse

will

ontinue.

The

fourth

ialogue

occurs after he

play's

central

risis,

Hero's

public

humiliation.

his

dialogue

ccurs

when B

and

B

remain n the

church fter he

others ave

eft. ike ll the

other ialogues etween hese wo, talso involves

a

quarrel.

eatrice as been

practiced ponby

her riends

y

this

oint

n

the

play;

she now

thinks hatBenedicks

in love withher.For

the

first

ime,

e

declares

his ove.But

he s

appalled

when he

demands hat e

kill

is

bestfriend,laudio.

Whenhehesitates,he attacks im,with nly lightndirection,y complaining

about the

fashion

f

men

who

only alk,

ather han

ct:

"men

re

only

urned

into ongue."

This

disparagement,houghndirect,

s

reminiscent

f

her

direct riticism

n

her

firstomment,

n

Benedick'smanliness:

I

promisedo eat all

his killing."he is

in

a

highfury,

most

f

which,

ut not

all,

s

directed t Hero's

detractors.ome

of

t,however,

s

directedoward ll

men,

nd

therefore,

n

part,

t

Benedick,

hen

he hesitates o

do her

bidding.

In

this

ase,

the

quarrel

s both

emotional nd

physical.

n

her

fury, eatrice

continuallynterruptsenedick,

t first

llowing

im

a few

words

"Hear me,

Beatrice,-"),utfinally,nly art f neword, ername "Beat-").Atonepoint,

the

contest

ecomes

physical.

eatrice ows to

leave the scene

because he will

not

meether

demand or

ction.

pparently

e

tries o restrainer

physically;he



13/19

160

SOCIOLOGICAL

PERSPECTIVESVolume 6,Number , 1993

says, "nay,

pray you, et me go." This

scene is a realistic escription

f a violent

quarrelbetween overs.

The fifthand next to last) dialogue is relatively rief, nly tenexchanges. t is

the least quarrelsome

of the dialogues.

Benedick s now the complete

gallant: I

will ive n thyheart, ie

in thy ap, and be buried

n thy yes."Beatrice, owever,

thoughnot quarrelsome,

s by no means amorous.

She is, rather, usinesslike.

he

is still oncerned

about her cousin's

honor.Her business

with Benedick

s to

find

out ifhe has indeed challenged

Claudio as he had

promised o

do. When she finds

out thathe has, she relents

omewhat,but not completely.

WhenBenedick

asks

herwhat twas about himself

hichfirstmade her

fall n ove with

him, he answers

in

her usual

tartmanner,which combines

praise and blame in

the same breath

in more or less equal measure. She

goes on to asks

him the analogous question,

but changing he phrasingfrom fall n love" to "forwhich ofmy good partsdid

you firstufferove for

me?," mplyinghat ove is ess

a reward han

punishment.

Perhaps

because of the continuing

ncertainty

f her cousin's position,Beatrice

is much ess

in

a hurry

o idealizeBenedick han

he is to idealizeher.

The

sixth

nd last

dialogue

occurs

n

the last scene

of the

play,the

wedding

of

B and

B

and of Hero

and Claudio. Once again, the

dialogue is short but

dense

withmeaning. tbeginswith

a

quarrel.

Benedick:

Whichs Beatrice?

Beatrice: answer o that ame.Whats yourwill?

Benedick:

Do

notyou ove

me?

Beatrice: Troth,

o;

no more

han

eason.

Benedick: Why,

hen,youruncleand the Prince

nd Claudiohave been

deceived-they

wore

you

did.

Beatrice:

Do notyou ove

me?

Benedick: Troth,o;

no more han eason.

Beatrice:Why, hen

my ousin,Margaret,nd

Ursula remuch

eceived: or

they

id swearyoudid.

Benedick:

They

woreyou

were lmost ick

or

me.

Beatrice: They

wore

hat

you

were

well-nigh

ead

forme.

Benedick: Tisnosuchmatter.henyoudonot oveme?

Beatrice:

No,

truly,

ut n

friendlyecompense.

At the ast

minutebefore he

wedding,

he

friendlyonspiracy

has come unstuck.

Benedickhas balked,

pparently ecause

of Beatrice's

nitial entativeness.

When

she

identifies

erself o

him n the first

xchange,

he

merely

sks

for is

will,

ather

than

affirming

ers:

*"I

am

Beatrice,

ome

to

marrymy loving

Benedick."

When

he

asks

if

he

loves

him

instead

of

affirming

hat he loves

her),

he

responds,

s

she

usually does, by

both

affirming

nd

denying:

Why,no;

no more thanreason."

They

are back

in

impasse:

f

eft o

themselves,

he

marriage

might

not occur.

Once again, theyare notleft o themselves.Theirfriendsntervene, roducing

letters

y

both

lovers,

ttesting

heir ove.

The

marriage oes forward,

utunder

protest:



14/19

Gender ars 161

Benedick: Come, willhavethee; ut, y this ight, take hee or ity.

Beatrice: would not deny you; but by thisgood day,yieldupon great

persuasion,nd partly o save thy ife, or was toldyou were n

a

consumption.

Perhaps t willbe necessary or hefriendso attend hehoneymoons well as

thewedding. hequarrel as beendisrupted y outside ntervention.incethe

combatants ave notchanged,t s ikely o continue.

DISCUSSION

In this rticle, have focused n thequarrelsomeomance etween eatrice nd

Benedick,uggesting hat heirove and attractionoward ach other, hough

genuine,

s also ambivalent.

n

essence,my nalysis npacks

he

meaning

f

he

abstract onceptofambivalence.hisanalysis s intended o developa new

approach o an old problem,heroots f nterminableonflict.

In

thecase

of

Beatrice nd Benedick,mbivalentove means hat he ttitudes

of

the overs oward

ach other nvolve hree

ayers

f emotions. s the

play

demonstrates,he firstayer, urface ostility, asks ove and attraction. y

analysis, owever, uggests

hatbeneath his econd

ayer

here s

yet

a

third,

unknown o the haracters:nacknowledgedhame nd anger.My nalysis

f

he

discourse ppears

to

support

his

conjecture

bout

the sources

of

quarrels:

interminableonflicts driven y unacknowledgedmotions.

My discussion

f

nfatuationnd idealizationlso points owardwhatmight

seemto

be

an

utterly

ifferent

roblem,

he

place

of

obsessive

ove n

relation

o

large-scale olitical ssues like

charisma.

y comparing

he

unconventional

romance

f

Beatricend Benedick

ith

he onventionalne

of

Hero nd Claudio,

it maybe possible o advance urunderstandingf hese argerssues.

Since he

play

nvolves

irtually

o

discourse etween

he econd

air

f

overs,

Hero and

Claudio,

have had

very

ittle o

say

about heir

elationship,

hich

s

muchmore onventional,

nd

thereforerevalent

n

thereal

world,

han

hat

f

BeatricendBenedick.

How could heHero-Claudioomance

e

central

othe

plot

f he

play, et

how

little

ialogue

etween

hem? iscourse etween he wo s

unnecessary,

ecause

the marriagehatfinally

ccurswas

arranged y

others

n

its

entirety.laudio

approached

ero

hrough

hreentermediaries:

enedick,

on

Pedro,

nd

Leonato,

herfather.

When

Claudio ellsBenedick is

ntentiono

marry ero,

he had not

yet

met

her.

He had seen

her from

distance,

o he is

familiar

nly

with

her

outer

appearance.

e also

knows hat he

is

not married

r

engaged,

ecause

he is a

member

f he ame ocial

et,

he

ristocracy

f he

ity

f

Messina. e alsoknows

thatBeatrices Hero'scousin, nd thatBenedicknd Beatricereold friends/

enemies.

n

a

sense,

his declarationf

ntentiono Benedick

an

be seen

as

a

first,

informal

tep

oward

formal

eclaration.



15/19

162 SOCIOLOGICALERSPECTIVES

olume

6,Number

,1993

His next tep s tostate

is ntentionso

hiscommandernthe rmy, on

Pedro,

a Prince, sking

Don Pedro fhe would be willing o arrange

he

marriage.

on

Pedro grees o do so, andloses no time nhis task;he firstellsHero andthen,

with

her ssent,

Hero'sfather,fClaudio's

wish.The matchs made as

quick s

a

wink,

withno words assing etween he

wo overs.

The mannerhat he marriage

s arranged,

ith he oversnot knowing

ach

other, oes

notnecessarilyoint o nfatuation

romfar. rranged arriages

ere

part f

heculturalcript f hetime. uch

arrangements

ouldbe madewithout

infatuationr, ndeed,without

eelingsf any kind.Claudio's

wordssuggest,

however,hat s well s following

he ultural

cript, e also s nfatuated.

Claudio

s somewhatmore erbal bout

his ntended han

withher.Hiswords

suggest hat

e dealizesHero nd,

na carefullyontrolled

ay, s nfatuatedith

her. o Benedick,e says: In mine ye she s the weetestady hat ver looked

on" and a "jewelbeyond rice."

o Don Pedro, e discloses

eelingsoward

er.

Now thatClaudiohas

put

his

thoughts

fwar and fightingehindhim,

n their

place,he says:

Come hronging

oftnddelicateesires

All

rompting

ehow

air oung ero s,

Saying

liked

er re went owars.

CallingHero "the weetest ady," fair,"nda "jewelbeyondprice" uggests

idealization.

he

ast ine,

n

combination

ithwords ike

thronging,"

uggests

lengthy reoccupation

nd

obsessive

nterest

n

a woman hat

Claudio

had

never

met.

As the

plot

uggests,

ince

Claudio

does

not

ctually

now

Hero,

hisattraction

to

her s vulnerable

o

outside nfluences.

n

order o break

p

themarriage,

he

villain,

on

John,

nsinuateso Claudio hatHero

has had llicit elationships

ith

men.

o

that his abrication

illbe

convincing,

earranges

o have Claudio ee

a woman he

thinks s Hero

conniving

ithmen ate at

night

utsideHero's

window.

Even thoughDon John'sharges reabsurd, laudio's ttitude owardHero

immediatelyndergoes

iolent

hange.

Without

ny nvestigation

r

attempt

o

question

Hero

herself,

laudio

performs

n

instant

bout-face. rom doration

without

imit,

is

feelingshange

o ntense atred. e himself

tages

scene t

thewedding

o

humiliatend

reject

er.

Although

he

ightning-quick

ransformation

n

Claudio's

eelings

s somewhat

melodramatic,

t

points

o an

important

ifferenceetween

nfatuationnd

love.

Love

is more table

than

nfatuationecause

t is

based

on

knowledge

f the

beloved.

Knowing

oth

good

nd

bad,

ove eads

to

trust.

nfatuation,

n the

ther

hand,

nvolves

ittle r no

knowledge

f heother.

s in

the

case withClaudio's

attractiono Hero, t is often ased onlyon outer ppearance. acking ctual

knowledge

f he

other,

he nfatuated

ne

usually rojects

is

orher

wndesires

and

ongings

n

the

beloved.

he

mage

f he

ovedone

s

almost

ntirely

ade



16/19

GenderWars

163

up

in

thebeholder's

magination.

s Tennov

1979)

has

shown, trongong-term

infatuationccurs n

fans fmovie nd rock tars, ersons ompletely

nknown

totheirnfatuateddmirers.

Although he

distinction

have

made between

ove and infatuation

eems

obvious nough,t s not

usually xpressed

n the iteraturen

romanticttraction.

In fact,nfatuations nottreated s a serious oncept n thehuman ciences. he

psychoanalyticiterature

ives

omeattention

o

dealization,

ut

virtually

one

to

nfatuation.he two tandard tudies ealing

with

dealization

nd nfatuation

are

by Person 1988) nd,

s

alreadymentioned,

ennov

1979).

erson

iscusses

idealization utdoes

not venuse theword nfatuation.

Tennov 1979) ives

erious ttentiono

neither

oncept. hegoes

o

the

unusual

length

f

nventing

word, imerance,

o

avoid

using

he orrect

erm,

nfatuation.

Like the popular iteraturen love and romance,he actively bscures he

distinctionetween

ove nd nfatuation.he

uses

nfatuation

nly

o

mean

brief

adolescent assion.

I

propose hat hedistinctionetweenoveand nfatuations an

extraordinarily

importantne, raught

ith

onsequences

oth orndividualsnd

societies. ove

can

be interpreted

s a

specific ype

f

ocial

olidarity,

strong

ond based on

deep knowledge

nd

acceptance

f he ther.

lsewhere,

have

referredo

persons

with uchknowledge

f achother s being n a state f ttunement

Scheff990).

It s attunement

hat

makes

ossible

he

rapid

nd flexible

ooperation

hat s

the

foundationf stable ocial rder.

From his oint

f

view, elationships

ased on

infatuationather han ove

are

extremely

enuous onds

disguised

s

strong

nes.

Such

bonds

re

as

confusing

to

the oveobject

s

to the over.

heymay

lso be

paralyzing

or

relationship,

and for

society

n which

here re

many

uch

relationships.

My argument oncerning

nfatuation

uggests

a

new

approach

to

the

phenomenonf charisma.

nfatuation

asts an

irresistibleura over ts target,

whether

lover r a

politicaleader. o theuninfatuatedye, he ndividualmay

seem

an

ordinary

mortal,

ut to the

nfatuated,

e or

she

seems

to be

the

most

glamorous,ccomplished,

r

righteous erson

hat

has ever ived. n

thisview,

it snot ove hat sblind,ut nfatuation.osuggesthatove s blindstoconfound

itwith

nfatuation,

hich

s what nfatuated

ersons eel

ompelled o do.

This

rgumentroposes

hat

harisma xists

argely

n

the

ye

of

hebeholder.

It further

uggests

hat charisma s for

he most

part producedby

alienated

societies;acking

ecure

bonds,

ts

members

eekpseudo-bondswithrock

nd

movie

tars nd,more

minously,oliticaleaders.

f his

s thecase, n analysis

of

harisma

equires

theory

f ocial

ntegration,

f lienation

nd solidarity,hat

is

applicable

oth o

nterpersonal

nd

societal

elationships.

uch

a

theory

must

trace he

nature f ocial

bonds,

with

particularttentiono themanagementf

emotions.

The rudimentsf sucha theoryresuggested y Braithwaite's1989) heory

of rime

nd

crime ontrol.f

his

heory

s

generalizedo

apply o ocial nstitutions

in

addition

o

crime,

t

suggests

hat

eintegrativeorms f

ocial ontrol roduce



17/19

164

SOCIOLOGICAL

ERSPECTIVES

olume6,Number

,1993

solidarity;epressive

ormsroducelienation.

nanother lace

Scheff993),have

outlined omeofthe

elements f

general heoryf ntegration,

ndhow t can

be applied orelationshipsetweenndividualsnd those etween ations.n this

scheme,nfatuation

ecomes n importantlement

n

conflict

etween ersons

and between roups.

CONCLUSION

In Shakespeare's

lays,

utside ntervention

ftens necessaryo clear

way the

obstacles

between overs. ndeed,

o be effective,upernatural

ntervention

s

frequently

equired.

nA

Midsummers'sream,beron,

he airy

ing,

ractices

pon

the overswith magicove-juice.n MeasureorMeasure,incentio,heDukewith

god-like owers, emoves

he mpediments

hich tand

betweenClaudioand

Juliet,nd

between imselfnd sabella.

he empest

rovideshe learest

xample.

For Miranda

nd Ferdinand,

heyoung overs,

he war is over;there

re no

impediments.

owever,ll has been

arranged

y Prospero,hemighty

agician.

Like god,

he

has

broughthem ogethern spite

f torm

nd strife.

The reference

o the

need

for

od-like

owers

ccurs ven

n

Much

Ado, espite

theotherwise

ealistic ature f

heplay.Don Pedro, he

rchitectf he cheme

to match

he wo ntagonists,

ndshis nstructionso his

co-conspirators

n this

note:

Ifwe cando

this,

bring

he overs

ogether)

upid

s no

onger

n

archer;

is

glory

hall e

ours,

or

e

are

he

nlyove-godsII.i.

71-373).

The

need for upernatural

ssistance

n

affairs

f the heart

uggests tragic

resonance.n King

ear

[160811972),

lbanyays:

If hat he

heavens o not

heir isible

pirits

Send

uickly

own o ame

hese ile

ffences,

It

will

ome,

Humanityust erforcereyn tself,

Likemonsters

f he

eep iv.ii.

7-51).

My analysis uggests

hat,

ven

n

comedy,hakespeare

ntimates

deadlock

in therelationship

etween

men

nd women.Given

hediscussion

n this

rticle,

we may

ee

that hefeudbetween

Beatrice

nd Benedick

s

kin

not

only

o

the

comedic

reatments

f

this

heme,

s

in

the

verbal attles

etween

Rosaline

nd

Biron

nd

the

physical ights

etween

Katherinand

Petruchio.

t s also related

to

his

tragic

overs.

Perhaps

he

losest

elativeo

Much

do

s

not

The

amingf

he

hrew,

ut

Troilus

andCressida,storyet ntheTrojanwar.n thisatterlay, he nterplayetween

infatuation

ndwar,

which s only

hinted t

in

Much

Ado,

s

made

explicit.

he

main

plot

oncerns

he nfatuation

fTroilus

or

ressida;

n this

elationship,

he



18/19

Gender ars 165

obsession f a Greek oliderwith Trojanwomanhe hardly nows eads

only

to personal nguish. utthe play also traces, y mplication,heparallel ourse

ofParis's nfatuationithHelen, hegreatest eauty n theworld,whomhe had

nevermet. aris's bsession, ecause tbecomes he ause ofhisnation,eadsnot

only o personal nguish ut lso to war nd destruction.

In both omedies nd tragedies,heplays eem o say that nfatuatedomantic

lovebetweenmen ndwomen,ndperhaps eroworship etweenmen nd men,

is notdestined or ooperationutfor ollision.

This course s

not

nevitable, owever.

ven the

mostvicious

deeds may be

redeemed.n

TheWinter's

ale, 6 years f ufferingeachLeontes lesson.

Even

thoughhe has lost his son, his wife nd daughter re returned o him,

artly

throughhance, utpartly,lso,becausehe himselfhanges. isdeepcontrition

over

his

misdeeds

as

ncreased

ot

only

his

tolerance utalso

his

knowledge

f

himself. is unjustifiedealousrage oward isqueen can be interpreted

n terms

of

hame ynamics:ather

han

cknowldging

isown

hame,

whateverts

ource,

he masked t

with

nger rojected

ntohis nnocent ife.

WhenLeonte's aughters returned

o him fter 6

years' bsence,

he

queen's

loyal etainer,aulina, tages viewing

f

"statue"

fhis

upposedly

ead queen.

Actually,

t s the

queen herself;

he has vowed to

remainn

hiding

ntil

he ost

daughter

s

found.

When

Leontesfirstees

the

supposed tatue,

e is

quick

to

acknowledge

is

feelings:

I

am ashamed:

oes not he tone ebukeme

For

being

more

tone han

t?

v.iii.

7-38).

Perhaps cknowledging

ur own shame

might

e

a first

tep away

from

war,

toward eace.Itmight

ot decrease he

ntensity

fhuman

uffering,

ot

a

hair,

but t

might

ecrease ts duration.

f

shame

nd

rage

re related o

love,

s has

beensuggested ere,

hen

nderstanding

f

hese

motions

might elp

break he

deadlock

n

the

warbetween he exes.

REFERENCES

Braithwaite,ohn. 989.

Crime,hame,ndReintegration.ambridge:

ambridge niversity

Press.

Durkheim,mile.

915. he

lementary

orms

f he eligious

ife.

ew

York: reePress.

Goffman,rving.

967.nteraction

itual.

arden

ity,

Y: Anchor.

Hays, anice.980.Those Soft nd Delicate

esires':Much

do

nd

theDistrustfWomen."

Pp.79-99 n

TheWoman'sart,dited yC.R.Lenz,G. Greene,

nd C.T.Neely.Urbana:

Universityf

llinois

ress.

Kohut, einz.

1979. heRestoration

f

he

elf.

ew York:ntemationalniversitiesress.

Lewis,HelenBlock. 971. hame ndGuiltnNeurosis.ewYork:nternationalniversities

Press.

.

1976.Psychic

War n Men and

Women. ew York:New York

University ress.



19/19

166 SOCIOLOGICALPERSPECTIVES Volume 6,Number

,1993

.

1981. Freudnd

Modern sychology,ol. 1:

TheEmotional

asisofMental llness.New

York: lenum.

.1983.Freud ndModem sychology,ol. 2: The motionalasis fHumanBehavior.ew

York: lenum.

Person,thel . 1988.

reamsf

ove nd ateful

ncounters.ew York:

Norton.

Retzinger,

uzanne. 991.Violent

motions:hame

nd

Rage

nMarital

uarrels.

ewbury ark,

CA:

Sage.

Scheff,

homas

.

979.

atharsis

n

Healin&

itual

nd

rama.

erkeley:niversity

f

California

Press.

. 1984. "The

Taboo on Coarse

Emotions."

Review fPersonalitynd

SocialPsycholgy

5:156-169.

.

1990.Microsociology.

hicago:University

f Chicago

Press.

. 1993.

Bloody evenge:

motion,ationalism,

nd War.Boulder,

CO: Westview.

Scheff,homasJ. nd Don D. Bushnell.984. ATheory fCatharsis."ournalfResearch

inPersonality

8:238-264.

Scheff,

homas

J.

nd

Suzanne

Retzinger.

991.

motionsnd

Violence.

exington:exington

Books.

Shakespeare,William.

160011972.

uch

Ado about

Nothing.

ew York:

Harcourt race

Jovanovich.

[160811972.

ing ear.

ewYork: arcourt

race

Jovanovich.

.

[162311972.

he

Winter's

ale.New

York:

HarcourtBrace

Jovanovich.

Tennov,

Dorothy. 979.Love

nd

Limerance:heExperience

f BeingnLove.

helsea,MI.:

Scarborough ouse.

scheff, thomas - gender wars_emotions in much ado about nothing

Documents