“Different though the sexes are, they intermix. In every human being a vacillation from one sex to the other

takes place, and often it is only the clothes that keep the male or female likeness.”. ( Orlando 132-3 ).

Discuss how Woolf explores the social construction of gender in either Orlando or Mrs Dalloway.




                Beneath the idea that it is our clothes that “keep ( our ) male or female likeness” is the assumption that gender is socially constructed. But at the same time, Woolf asserts that the sexes are not the same, they just intermix. Thus given this basic conflict, coupled with the unreliability of the narrative voice in Orlando, it would appear that there is a fundamental tension between gender being a social construct on the one hand, and it being of an essential nature on the other. This is not helped by the cheeky technique that Woolf employs within Orlando itself, which leaves us never really sure when the narrator is serious or not. This can be seen as early as the opening line, that states “He - for there could be no doubt about his sex,” 9; but as the story goes on to show, there is a very big question over Orlando’s gender. So is gender a social construction or not, or is it a kind of “vacillation between one sex to the other” while maintaining the gender categories of “male ( and ) female likeness.”?

                 In Mrs Dalloway, it seems that gender is more likely of an essential nature. If we perceive that the linear, photographic nature of the realist mode that preceded Woolf as a patriarchal manifestation, then we can say that the fragmented stream of consciousness technique that Woolf employs in Mrs Dalloway, is an attempt to challenge the dominant male narrative with a female voice. It is thus a kind of Ecriture Feminine that resists the Lacanian notion of the nom du pere. Indeed this is the argument put forward by Elizabeth Abel ( 1993 ). She further maintains that Woolf does make distinctions between a male and a female plot, as well as that of male and female perspectives of what are important subjects in A Room of One’s Own. In the case of Mrs Dalloway, this seems to come through in the domestic setting of the book, as well as the anti-heroic nature of the war hero Septimus Warren Smith. Thus to her mind,
 

                But to say that linear narrative structure is male may be too much of an assumption, and seeing a disruption of this structure as a challenge to patriarchy is simplistic. This would be saying that women are not capable of linear thought and development. In the same way, it can be argued that the domestic setting of Mrs Dalloway does not so much challenge as reinforce female stereotypes. As Nuria Enciso noted,
 

Furthermore, Abel’s thesis is dependent on psychoanalysis, when the symbols of this discipline in Mrs Dalloway are the negatively portrayed Dr Holmes and Sir Bradshaw. One might even go as far as to say that present day psychoanalysis refutes Abel’s assumptions because of the Lacanian imaginary/symbolic separation that implies that gender is socially constructed. However, this is in itself problematic because of the obvious physical differences between men and women, and the tendency of psychoanalysis to constantly use gender categories. So while some psychoanalysts may prefer to re-read Freud to champion the construction of identity, Freud’s gender categories continue to emphasise difference. Furthermore, there may be many other factors involved in identity construction, and
 

                 But if Mrs Dalloway seems to privilege essential identity, then Orlando appears to be more inclined towards the social construction of gender. This seems to be implied by the fact that ,
                  Orlando may have been born a man, and became a woman, but over the three centuries s/he fundamentally perceived, thought, and operated, rather consistently. S/he clearly identified closely with the poem, “The Oak Tree”, and like the great oak that began and ended the novel, Orlando had lasted through the text unflustered by his/her identity though s/he had possessed differing sexuality. As such, the identity of a person appears to be non-dependent on his/her gender. So if this identity could contain male or female characteristics, it implies that the fe/male-sexed need not necessarily be the fe/male-bodied. In Orlando’s case, he retains his “male” perspectives even when he was in a female body. Could this then be what Woolf meant by androgyny? That a person can be ascribed male or female characteristics even though that person is physically of a certain sex? Certainly it seems to parallel the Lacanian notion of an imaginary stage before the imposition of a symbolic one. In this case, gender would be constructed through the association with symbols as a person moves from the imaginary to the symbolic. In a way, it could be said that this happens to Orlando. The world is made up of meanings ascribed to symbols and though s/he had not changed despite switching gender, the imposition of the symbolic through the perceptions and conventions of society, had demanded that s/he altered his/her behaviour accordingly. So much so that,
                  This change appears to have come about through the expectations of the world, especially personified by those around him/her. It could even be argued that because s/he was physically a woman that s/he was expected to dress and behave in certain ways. It was as if his/her sex had determined the kinds of clothes that s/he can wear, and this had subsequently affected the perception of those around and their behaviour to him/her as well. “They ( clothes ) change our view of the world and the world’s view of us.” 117. Eventually, s/he even succumbs to the “spirit of the age” and marries. Indeed it seems that,                 But yet there are also problems regarding gender as a social construct in Orlando. This is because, although Orlando changes in outward behaviour, s/he nevertheless remained internally intact. This is especially evident in his/her behaviour when s/he is alone, and by her continued project of writing. Thus considering this fact, the imaginary-symbolic transition of psychoanalysis may not work that well. In fact, it could even be argued that since Orlando’s nature seems consistent, then there seems to be an essential nature that takes precedent over culture. Moreover, in order to ascribe “male” and “female” characteristics to an androgynous body already draws upon the use of gender categories. It seems that for Woolf, human characteristics are clearly delineated by sex, and that certain traits are exclusively male or intrinsically female. Thus it seems that “Clothes are but a symbol of something hid deep beneath.” 117, and the implication is that that something is not only essential in nature, but gendered as well. Therefore it seems that we can claim that,
  Yet Orlando the person is difficult to pin down, and it would seem unfair to attempt to categorise him/her as either a social construct or of a certain sex. In a way s/he seems like a present day transsexual and yet s/he is ambiguous as well. Woolf does not appear to be clear anyway. She does attempt to advocate a feminist cause through the social construction of gender, yet she nevertheless still clings to gender difference. In the same way Orlando does seem to have both essential and constructed identity. This contradiction creates a tension that is unresolved in her writing. Perhaps living at the beginning of the feminist movement, she was caught in-between essential identity and identity as construct. Or perhaps she fought against “the penalties ( but was unwilling to relinquish ) the privileges of her ( sex ).” 96. Whatever the reason, it simply points out  that gender categories seem to be woefully inadequate as a basis for understanding identity. What about gays, lesbians and transsexuals? Essential identity may be a potential area of marginalisation for women, but constructed identity could also marginalise those who had undergone sex changes. Psychoanalysis itself is just a tool that could be used either way, and gender categories are limited at best.