CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE AMBIGUOUS BODY IN
VIRGINIA WOOLF’S ORLANDO (1928): THE DYNAMICS OF ANDROGYNY AND NEO-ANDROGYNY
CONSIDERACIONES
SOBRE EL CUERPO AMBIGUO EN ORLANDO (1928) DE VIRGINIA WOOLF: LA DINÁMICA
DE LA ANDROGINIA Y LA NEO-ANDROGINIA
Laura
Blázquez Cruz
Universidad
de Jaén
Abstract
The novel Orlando (1928),
by Virginia Woolf, shows the presence of cross-dressing as a constant, a fact
that highlights the questioning of the normative in relation to female and male
corporeality, according to exclusively biological parameters, in which the
genitals are the epicentric axis for the
classification.
From a diachronic perspective,
the vision of cross-dressing, mainly through androgyny, has shown how the
dominant culture and thought has considered it to be a characteristic
associated with divinity or the teratological and is regulated by medical-legal
committees in favor of a biological evolution in accordance with the dominant
hetero-normativity.
Through an analysis of Woolf’s
novel, the objective of our study is to show gender issues that are practically
a century ahead of the debate on gender and identity. From a contemporary
perspective, it is evident that through cross-dressing, the author proposes
alternatives to the biological binary, questioning the morphology and behavior
of socially imposed gender, a position in line with Foucault’s biopower, and
opens the possibility to liquid property of gender constructed through physical
appearance and behavior. The latter, moreover, is another pillar for gender
analysis in Orlando through Sandra Bem’s concept
of neo-androgyny or social androgyny.
Key words: cross-dressing, androgyny, neo-androgyny,
gender.
Resumen
La novela Orlando (1928), de Virginia Woolf, muestra la presencia
del “cross-dressing” como una constante en la obra,
hecho que evidencia el cuestionamiento de lo normativo en
relación a la corporeidad femenina y masculina, según parámetros
exclusivamente biológicos, en los que los genitales son el eje epicéntrico para la clasificación.
Desde una perspectiva diacrónica, la visión del “cross-dressing”,
principalmente a través de la androginia, ha puesto de manifiesto cómo la
cultura y el pensamiento dominantes lo han considerado como una característica
asociada a la divinidad o lo teratológico, y es regulado por comités
médico-legales a favor de una evolución biológica de acuerdo con la
heteronormatividad dominante.
A través de un análisis de la novela de Woolf, el objetivo de nuestro
estudio es mostrar cuestiones de género que se adelantan prácticamente un siglo
al debate en torno al género e identidad. Desde una perspectiva contemporánea,
se evidencia que, a través del “cross-dressing”, la
autora propone alternativas a lo binario biológico, cuestionando la morfología
y el comportamiento del género impuesto socialmente, posición en línea con el
biopoder de Foucault, y abre la posibilidad a la propiedad líquida del género
construida a través de la apariencia física y el comportamiento. Este último,
además, es otro pilar para el análisis de género en Orlando a través del
concepto de neo-androginia o androginia social que propone Sandra Bem.
Palabras
clave: “cross-dressing”, androginia, neo-androginia, género.
1.
Introduction: Androgyny and Hermaphroditism from a historical
perspective
Orlando revolves around the gender issue with the presence of androgyny and
cross-dressing in various characters. Woolf’s work is a narration in the third
person through the filter of a biographer who restricts the breakdown of
Orlando’s life to the most important events and occurrences of his existence,
according to the narrator’s criteria. It should be noted that in between what
is explicitly mentioned and, therefore, not obvious through the temporal ellipses,
a large part of the details is related to the body of this aristocratic
character. Thus, corporeality is the central axis in the work and everything
that happens through physicality has a cause-and-effect relationship in the
behavior of the rest of the characters, as well as in Orlando’s modus vivendi.
The biological body acts as a
descriptive measure of the different social customs reflected throughout the
almost four centuries that are included in this fantastic story: from the
Renaissance period, with the reign of Elizabeth I of England, through the
Victorian period, until reaching 1928, the beginning of the modern era. This
succession of centuries and consequent change of setting offers an evolution and
a reflection about the way body, androgyny, sexuality and cross-dressing are
perceived in society at each historical moment. In order to interpret these specific
changes and to illustrate the different prisms through which the body is conceptualized,
it is paramount to show a brief historical journey from classical times.
Historically, hermaphroditism and
androgyny begin as interconnected concepts that represent bodily duality as far
as gender is concerned. However, currently the first refers to the presence of
both male and female genitalia in a single body, that is, it is a biological
notion, while androgyny is more related to the ambiguous appearance in the same
body of traits of both genders, as well as behaviors socially associated with
one or the other. Therefore, in the latter case it is a more physiognomic and
culturally established notion. In any case, it is the socio-cultural
conventions that historically relegate both notions to the "normal,
exceptional, divine or monstrous, depending on the interweaving between
cultural/religious conventions, and the limits of the empirical knowledge of
each civilization" (Melián, 2021, p. 356).
In classical times, androgyny is
linked to the sacred, to corporeal perfection, to the eternal return as a
symbolic corporeity of self-procreation, which is why it is linked to creation
and the end of time and, consequently, it has been a concept of representation
of divinity in many religions (DeVun, 2018, pp.
132-146).
This image is inherited, in the
genesis of the medieval period, to represent the souls that, prior to the Original
Sin or after the resurrection, are shown in the form of androgynous nudes
(Pérez, 1967). However, between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries there is a
concealment of the body linking it to sin and it is at this time that the
pseudoscience of physiognomy appears, trying to relate physical features with
moral characteristics. In this context, precisely, the hermaphrodite body —in a
similar way to the female body— is associated with a denoted negative charge
(Le Goff et al. 2014), relating it to plagues, diseases such as black bile or even
the Original Sin. This association is called the “disappointment of the
androgynous myth”, which causes a distance between androgyny, as a mythical
concept, and hermaphroditism, in its biological meaning (Libis,
2001, p. 164).
In the Renaissance era, the
historical period in which Woolf’s Orlando begins, the thought about the
sexes is that of a continuum, for which hermaphroditism is an acceptable
biological possibility, even being considered as the "third sex" (Nederman et al., 1996, pp. 497-517). It is no coincidence
that the novel begins when Orlando is 17 years old, a vital stage where the
body already begins to be biologically conducive to sexuality and reproduction.
In fact, the novel revolves around this issue, the relationship that exists
between the body, biological sex, gender—opening a debate on heteronormativity—and
social role—the innate and innate behaviors shown in society as to whether they
are masked or shown—all supported, furthermore, by the change in the second
skin: clothes.
2.
The binary in the gender under debate
The treatment of androgyny serves
to open a debate that differentiates the male/female sexual dichotomy, a
polarity that, in postmodernism, gives rise to a liquid gender. However, one
wonders if Orlando’s change of sex (by means of what we could be called “oneiric
transsexuality”) influences his identity. It is true,
however it may be, that the author uses the resource of sex change together
with cross-dressing to describe the situation of both genders and “criticize
power relationships as well as women’s subordination by men” (López García,
2019, p. 21) through a diachronic narration of approximately four centuries.
Moreover, and as a consequence of this dichotomy, at the same time it reflects
the inheritance of the treatment of the body of medieval times and the
categorization of the female body as the result of the Original Sin, it being
related to two primordial female figures: Eve, whose nudity is described and
represented with long hair and pronounced curves, a body with pejorative
connotations since it is responsible for temptation and, on the other hand, Maria,
whose corporeality appears covered up to her head, with only her face and hands
visible. It is evident that, in this case, the body that represents cleanliness
and the sacred appears veiled. Such medieval vision also affects androgyny for it
is historically related to the sacred, with the eternal return, although, with
the arrival of the XII-XIII centuries, the disappointment of the androgynous
myth occurs since, from the relationship of the androgynous with the figure of
the hermaphrodite, the equality of the presence of both sexes in the same body
is broken. In connection with this, Libis (2001)
claims there is no true hermaphroditism in a body and, therefore, the
juxtaposition of the two biological sexes (male and female) in an individual is
always done at the expense of one of them, in such a way that the hermaphrodite
emerges as an error, a tricked and truncated synthesis. Consequently, the
unconscious that acts in the mythological work bears badly being “deceived” by
a reality that disapproves of it. (p. 164)
2.1. Orlando
and Neo-androgyny
Woolf’s fantastic text allows for
a description of the treatment of the anormative body
from the Renaissance to modern times. It begins in the reign of Elizabeth I of
England and is materialized through a character who begins as biologically male
and an aristocrat. This allows the author to provide the protagonist with
greater action maneuverability precisely because his body is not part of the
social gear, which would limit him to physical work tasks, such as the ones
carried out by the lower social classes. To be more precise, Orlando’s body is
exempted from any economic obligation and this allows physiognomy to be treated
from a biological perspective with a constant connection between the character
and nature: “I have loved, beneath all this summer transiency, to feel the
earth’s spine beneath him; […] [A]s if all the fertility and amorous activity
of a summer’s evening were woven web-like about his body.” (Woolf, 1963, p.
10). This circumstance separates the notion of sex from that of gender, while
permitting to examine how this issue influences his behavior in society with
regard, precisely, to gender and his sexuality.
Orlando’s body is initially
presented as male—“He—for there could be no doubt
about his sex, though the fashion of the time did something to disguise it” (p.
8), although through cross-dressing, the first break between sex and gender
occurs. Orlando is biologically masculine and, in fact, in this first
historical period, sexual behavior is mainly heterosexually active, since he
has relationships with women from different social classes: “He was Young; he
was boyish; he did but as nature bade him do. […] Orlando’s taste was broad; he
was no lover of garden flowers only; the wild and the weeds even had always a
fascination for him” (p. 13). However, the first ambiguity around the
masculine/feminine binary appears when his physical appearance is described
with traits more connected with feminine beauty:
Observe that though
the shapely legs, the handsome body, and the well-set shoulders were all of
them decorated with various tints of heraldic light, Orlando’s face, as he
threw the window open, was lit solely by the sun itself. A more candid, sullen
face it would be impossible to find. […] The red of the cheeks was covered with
peach down; the down on the lips was only a little thicker than the down on the
cheeks. The lips themselves were short and slightly drawn back over teeth of an
exquisite and almond whiteness. Nothing disturbed the arrowy nose in its short,
tense flight; the hair was dark, the ears small, and fitted closely to the
head. But, alas, that these catalogues of youthful beauty cannot end without
mentioning forehead and eyes. Alas, that people are seldom born devoid of all
three; for directly we glance at Orlando standing by the window, we must admit
that he had eyes like drenched violets, so large that the water seemed to have
brimmed in them and widened them; and a brow like the swelling of a marble dome
pressed between the two blank medallions which were his temples. Directly we
glance at eyes and forehead, thus do we rhapsodize. (p. 8)
Virginia Woolf begins by placing
the character as a contemplative being, a quality that in the historical period
of the Renaissance—when the narrative begins—is more related to the female,
since the role of women was more subject to passivity and socioeconomic
dependence on the male, a fact that was inherited from medieval times and which
relates the image of women to the Virgin Mary as the ideal in her
characteristic angelic, patient, pure and pensive woman. Continuing with the
description of Orlando in full shot, his physicality is described as a
well-shaped body with defined shoulders, that is, the image created in the
reader is that of perfect body proportions, as Leonardo da Vinci maintains with
the Golden Ratio (from classical times). However, Orlando’s body is not
characterized by an outstanding muscle mass that can relate it to the strength
traditionally associated with masculinity, that is, the assumed wide pectorals
of the man in the Renaissance canon, precisely because he is portrayed at the
time of adolescence, when the body is in transit towards adulthood.
Regarding his face, the
appearance of the first hair on the upper part of the lips is mentioned, this
being a masculine characteristic. In any case, this trait is intermingled with
the female aspect of the forehead and the eyes since, on the one hand, this is
a facial part that Renaissance women used to shave to try and give a more
visual breadth. In Orlando, it is seen as clean and wide as a marble dome, a
material that, due to its white hue, is associated to the aforementioned face
of the Renaissance woman. On the other, Orlando’s eyes are highlighted since
they are remarkably large an violet, which completes
the image of delicacy, in contrast to a masculine face where the predominant
feature would be a strong jaw and bushy eyebrows.
2.2. Sasha: androgyny and monstrosity
One more example of this
proclivity to associate characters with the notion of the ambiguous appears
during the London Carnival, in the period of “The Great Frost” (1607-1608), when
Sasha makes her first appearance:
He beheld […] a figure, which, whether boy’s or woman’s,
for the loose tunic and trousers of the Russian fashion served to disguise the
sex […]. The person, whatever the name or sex, was about middle height, very
slenderly fashioned, and dressed entirely in oyster-coloured
velvet, trimmed with some unfamiliar greenish coloured
fur. But these details were obscured by the extraordinary seductiveness which
issued from the whole person. […] [I]n the narrative we may here hastily note
that all his images at this time were simple in the extreme to match his senses
and were mostly taken from things he had liked the taste of as a boy. […] When
the boy, for alas, a boy it must be—no woman could skate with such speed and vigour—swept almost on tiptoe past him, Orlando was ready
to tear his hair with vexation that the person was of his own sex, and thus all
embraces were out of the question. But the skater came closer. Legs, hands,
carriage, were a boy’s, but no boy ever had a mouth like that; no boy had those
breasts; no boy had eyes which looked as if they had been fished from the
bottom of the sea. […] She was not a handsbreadth off. She was a woman. Orlando
stared; trembled; turned hot; turned cold; longed to hurl himself through the
summer air; to crush acorns beneath his feet; to toss his arms with the beech
trees and the oaks. (p. 16)
This Muscovite princess is
presented in clothing that creates ambiguity, since the appearance of the tunic
and trousers does not reveal the biological marks that help the perceiver, in
this case Orlando, to distinguish whether it is a man or a woman. This ambiguous
presentation of the character is followed by the attraction that arouses in
Orlando and a premature conclusion that it is a boy because of the way he
skates, his body, limbs and chest, although, when he gets closer, he sees that
it is a woman. In short, it is a polarized and dual description, characterized
by both attraction and confusion, which highlights the importance of “fixing
gender [as] an important part of courtship” (Burns, 1994, p. 352). This
conjunction of ambiguity through clothing, through his physiognomy, as well as
his actions, leads to generic ambiguity, emphasizing Orlando’s confusion
towards Sasha’s identity. We could state this type of liquid gender falls
inside the category of what Bem calls neo-androgyny
or social androgyny (1974), typical of postmodernist thought, a concept that is
historically ahead of the context of history, since, until well into the 20th
century, androgyny is studied mainly from the perspective of modernism considering
the binary dichotomy of physical features of the female and male gender.
Sasha’s androgyny is relevant for
not only does it present the binary dichotomy in vogue until the beginning of
the 20th century, but it also projects a vision of medieval heritage with that
imbalance of the biological sexes present in the same body that Ambrose speaks
of, more specifically, one in which the female part is loaded with negative
connotations because in this religious context the female body is related to
lust (Ambrose, 2012), as well as to the sexual ambiguity of the devil (Bauhini, 1614). In fact, although Sasha has a minor textual
relevance in the narration, her indirect presence is embodied through Orlando
and the memories he has of her, those that lead him to a trance causing his
long death-like sleep states. Her representation is, consequently, monstrous
when reference is made in society to the sexual overtones this character
provokes in Orlando as a man: “To see him go out again! And something interesting
in the expression, which makes one feel, one scarcely knows why, that he has
suffered! They say a lady was the cause of it. The heartless monster!!! How can
one of our reputed tender sex have had the effrontery!!!” (Woolf, 1963, p. 50).
Evidently, physical aspect
acquires a special relevance in the story. It is an element that has
historically determined the social categorization of the Other, the body as a source
of otherness, even of the monstrous. By referring to Sasha’s enigmatic origin, whose
birthplace may or may not be associated with the aristocracy, Woolf echoes the
medieval heritage of monstrosity by referencing medieval travel books such as
Mandeville’s The Travels of Sir John Mandeville (1356) and the centric
view that relegated the inhabitants beyond the oceanic border—as primitive
beings, related to a space beyond civilization—, monsters and mirabilia:
“He suspected at first that her rank was not as high as she would like; or that
she was ashamed of the savage ways of her people, for he had heard that the
women in Muscovy wear beards and the men are covered with fur from the waist
down” (Woolf, 1962, p. 20). In the monstrosity of the bearded woman, the
ambiguity of the physical features of both sexes in a single body is evident,
just as Orlando imagines the inhabitants of the country of origin of the
Russian princess. Sasha’s assumed androgynous physical trace relates her to the
concept of “virile woman” Walde Moheno
refers to (1994, pp. 49-50), in addition to social character traits—neo-androgynous—such
as Sasha’s way of skating, dressing or eating.
2.3. Archduchess Harriet Griselda:
Cross-dressing to overdo the gender
Another relevant example of
gender ambiguity comes in Orlando’s next sex-appealing figure: the Archduchess
Harriet Griselda of Finster-Aarhorn and Scand-op-Boom. This aristocrat is presented as a woman,
however, her manners and her knowledge are more akin to masculinity, according
to the canons and the historical context—“a knowledge of wines rare in a lady,
and made some observations upon firearms and the customs of sportsmen in her
country, which were sensible enough” (Woolf, 1963, p. 44) —, since social
habits, as well as sports and hunting are activities that were relegated to the
sphere of masculinity during the Restoration, giving way to the desexualization of women—which will be even more
predominant in the Victorian era—because “women had the role of caretaker of
the home, good wife and procreator, or […] Angel of the House” (Blázquez, 2021,
p. 11). Later, in the story, the reader learns about the Archduchess again once
Orlando returns to England, although, on this occasion, the androgynous aspect
is emphasized, bordering on the monstrous due to the overdoing of gender, which
finally resolves the ambiguity and decant for the male sex:
For it was a familiar
shadow, a grotesque shadow, […] She
was loping across the court in her old black riding-habit and mantle as before.
[…] This the fatal fowl
herself! […] There was
something inexpressibly comic in the sight. She resembled, as Orlando had
thought before, nothing so much as a monstrous hare. She had the staring eyes,
the lank cheeks, the high headdress of that animal. […] soon the two ladies were exchanging compliments while the
Archduchess struck the snow from her mantle. […] here she turned to present the Archduchess with the salver,
and behold—in her place stood a tall gentleman in black. A heap of clothes lay
in the fender. She was alone with a man.
[…] In short, they acted
the parts of man and woman for ten minutes with great vigour
and then fell into natural discourse. The Archduchess (but she must in future
be known as the Archduke) told his story—that he was a man and always had been
one; that he had seen a portrait of Orlando and fallen hopelessly in love with
him; that to compass his ends, he had dressed as a woman. (Woolf, 1963, p. 68)
The character of the Archduchess,
described as a woman at the beginning of the narrative thanks to the use of clothing,
decides to pass herself off as a person of this gender to conform to the
heterosexual canons of affective relationships, that is, when Orlando is
biologically a man, this character pretends to be a woman. She is described as
a woman in comical-grotesque terms, exaggerated and that hybridizes the human
with the animal. In fact, this drag-tinged image is perceived as monstrous by
Orlando when he walks through the patio approaching it. However, once this
person is aware of Orlando as a biological woman, he resorts to the process of “undoing
the [female] gender” (Butler, 2004), stripping off the clothes that had made him
pass for a woman. In other words, following Butler, her concept of gender is a
social construct, “the mechanism by which notions of masculine and feminine are
produced and naturalized, but gender could very well be the apparatus by which
such terms are deconstructed and denaturalized” (2004, p. 42). As a consequence and in relation to the deconstruction of gender,
the Archduke, biologically a man, initiates a practice of undoing his masculine
gender to adopt a feminization through his social, discursive and corporal
practices, stereotypically associated with the feminine, although the final
result is partially cartoonish and exaggerated—overdone—in Orlando’s eyes. This
process of undoing his masculine gender is carried out with the aim of trying
to establish a heterosexually affective relationship with Orlando, therefore,
once he is aware of the biological sex change in his longed-for beloved, he
undoes his temporary feigned female gender and returns to make his gender
masculine. Orlando’s gender, then, is what determines which gender the Archduque/Archduchess adopts, readjusting the gender of the
latter in discontinuous or intermittent cross-dressing.
Furthermore,
the Archduke also reinforces Orlando’s androgynous character through a painting
that reflects the gender ambiguity so recurrent in the work: "she had seen
his [Orlando’s] picture and it was the image of a sister of hers who was—here
she guffawed—long since dead” (Woolf, 1963, p. 44).
Not a coincidence for sure, we
must underline the recurrent external origin of the characters that present
ambiguity when it comes to being classified on the assumption of various
dichotomies. For example, the nationalities of Sasha—from Russia—and the
Archduchess Harriet Griselda—from Romania—are relevant in the categorization of
the genre; both present a liquid aspect, unclassifiable in terms of gender, a
fact that reveals aconnection with the Other.
3.
Cross-dressing as a pillar for the fluidity of genre
The clothes—rather scarce—, the
semi-nakedness of the men that Orlando imagines when trying to find out Sasha’s
origin hint at a country of primitive origin, alien to civilization and closer
to nature. Contrastively, clothing is what characterizes the London population
that crowds the streets: “all the riff-raff of the London streets indeed was
there, […] all as variously rigged out as their purse or stations allowed; here
in fur and broadcloth; there in tatters with their feet kept from the ice only
by a dishclout bound about them” (p. 22). Clothes are
used as an indicator of status and gender; it has a socially reassuring
objective and serves “to be able to pigeonhole [the person] into certain
categories” (Sigurtà, 1967, p. 33). Clothes are
socially linked to the sex of the individual and, furthermore, they match sex
and gender, that is, one dresses as expected of the sex in question and clothes
operate as a fixed element of the person. However, Orlando uses it in a dynamic
way and this allows him, in the words of Thanem and
Wallenberg, to do gender, which “involves managing social situations in such a
way that one’s behavior and display are regarded gender appropriate or
inappropriate” (2016, p. 253). This idea of doing gender is connected to Butler’s
thesis of gender as an operator within the male/female heterosexual binary
dichotomy. For her, “gender is […] the discursive/cultural means by which
“sexed nature” or “a natural sex,” prior to culture, [is] a politically neutral
surface on which culture acts” (Butler, 1999, p. 11), “a product of
socially dominant norms” (Thanem and Wallenberg,
2016, p. 255). Thus, the strategies,
activities or ways of interacting in society come to reflect what is socially
considered masculine or feminine. Among the strategies to do gender and be
successfully characterized within the chosen sex, we find the display of social
practices—stereotypically masculine or feminine activities, types of work,
etc.—, linguistic and supra-linguistic, as well as corporal manifestations—expressiveness,
clothing, make-up.
Woolf opts for a postmodernist
approach to gender (avant la letter),
in which the poles are mixed and everything that is impossible to pigeonhole
into either of the two typologies is considered ambiguous, anormative
and cumulative, although, in order to represent the social and historical
context of the narrative, the duality is present from the Renaissance to the
eighteenth century, mainly. This dialectic seems decisive and recurrent, even
to introduce retrospective references to Orlando’s ancestors who lie in the
crypt and whose identity the protagonist tries to find out from the bones:
“Whose hand was it? he went on to ask. The right or the left? The hand of man
or woman, or age or youth? Had it urged the war horse, or plied the needle? Had
it plucked the rose, or grasped cold steel?” (Woolf, 1963, p. 29).
It should be also highlighted that in 1928, the year when Orlando was published, the first sex
reassignment operation had not yet been performed. This would take place in
1930, more specifically with the five sex surgery reassignment operations that
the painter Lili Elbe underwent. Obviously, Woolf ignores the medical
procedure, does not make references to surgical aspects, and bases her
references to gender roles, according to biological sex, within the social
context, while emphasizing the three assumed virtues in the woman through her
personification in the biblical Virgin Mary as an ideal referent of femininity,
“our Lady of Purity […], our Lady of Chastity […], our Lady of Modesty” (p.
52), these being the ideal characteristics expected from the new sex of
Orlando:
Dwell still in nest
and boudoir, office and lawcourt those who love us; those who honour us, virgins and city men; lawyers and doctors; those
who prohibit; those who deny; those who reverence without knowing why; those
who praise without understanding; the still very numerous (Heaven be praised)
tribe of the respectable; who prefer to see not; desire to know not; love the
darkness; those still worship us, and with reason; for we have given them
Wealth, Prosperity, Comfort, Ease. To them we go, you we leave. Come, Sisters,
come! This is no place for us here. (p. 53)
This ritual of virtues before the change of sex
reveals the social need to do gender in the modernist context of the dichotomy,
even when a person is presented with ambiguous features that do not limit
gender exclusively to the feminine or to the masculine: “Orlando stood stark
naked. No human being, since the world began, has ever looked more ravishing.
His form combined in one the strength of a man and a woman’s grace” (p. 53). In
line with the relationship of the concept of gender as a social construct,
Burns (1994) points out that through Orlando’s complete nakedness after the
change of sex, in conjunction with the entities’ claim “Truth!
And again they cry Truth! and sounding yet a third
time in concert they peal forth, The Truth and nothing but the Truth!” (Woolf,
1963, p. 53), the author parodies
the classic philosophical search for the essence of the subject and the need to
reveal essential—naked—truths, since the exposure of the genitals reflects the
classic connection of the concept of gender around sexuality. However, Burns
considers Virginia Woolf shows “instability of essence [which leads] to
reconsider the nature of sexuality and the constructedness
of gender” (p. 350)
However, biological sex—that is,
the genitals with which Orlando is (re)born—appears as a reference to the
behavior that is expected from this character in society: “Orlando had become a
woman—there is no denying it. But in every other respect, Orlando remained
precisely as he had been. The change of sex, though it altered their future,
did nothing whatever to alter their identity” (p. 53). In fact, to this respect, Lee points out that
Orlando’s character is not altered with this change, “but her perceptions and
her social behaviour” (1977, p. 151).
However, in the social context
Orlando is in, there is no room for genders that create ambiguity and in the
case of the presentation of psychophysical traits that are not stereotypically and
exclusively feminine or masculine, the State, through medical courts, has the
legitimacy to decide which gender/sex the person belongs to, based on the
physical traits that prevail the most in order to avoid the monstrous and
uncontrollable limbic state that the lack of definition generates. In this way,
the subject was governed in society by what was established: “Many people,
taking this into account, and holding that such a change of sex is against
nature, have been at great pains to prove (1) that Orlando had always been a
woman, (2) that Orlando is at this moment a man. Let biologists and
psychologists determine” (Woolf, 1963, pp. 53-54), and, likewise, state rights
are judicially determined based on biological sex: “Thus it was in a highly
ambiguous condition, uncertain whether she was alive or dead, man or woman,
Duke or nonentity, that she posted down to her country seat, where, pending the
legal judgement, she had the Law’s permission to reside in a state of incognito
or incognita, as the case might turn out to be” (Woolf, 1963, p. 65).
This need the State has to
control the body is what determines the social role, as well as the sex of the character,
since in the society of Queen Anne of England—the genesis of the eighteenth
century—the proactive delimitation and social function of masculinity
predominates, while women had little projection in society, since they were
limited to a secondary role and their function was, essentially, to facilitate
male sexual pleasure “Every man, it was said, had been a Prime Minister and
every woman, it was whispered, had been the mistress of a king” (p. 75). This
pigeonholing in favor of the correct social functioning is what Foucault (1980,
2005) calls biopower because these are bodies that represent disorder and
challenge the normal functioning of society so they must be controlled and
brought to the order of reason for they escape the control and surveillance
exercised by power and the society.
Although Woolf’s plot ends in
1928, this work shows a postmodernist vision concerning the binary
masculine-feminine opposition—which, in fact, disappears— and gender is
separated from sex to give way to a fluid, continuous or circular gender. It
must be remembered that this historical period is characterized by
polymorphism, accumulation and ambiguity (Llano, 1989), features that are also
adopted in the conception around the body and gender to move away from the
gender-sex equation. Traditionally, when considering the masculine-feminine
opposition, the first of these genders was related to the development of
instrumental activities where aggressiveness and assertiveness were necessary,
while the feminine was related more to activities that require greater
sensitivity and expressiveness. However, it was Sandra Bem
(1975) who, among other psychologists, raised the need to reconsider the
concept of gender and added the possibility of contemplating individuals who
combine traits of both genders, giving rise to the so-called social androgyny
or neo-androgyny. The instrument used to detect it was created precisely by Bem, the so-called Bem Sex Role
Inventory (BSRI)[1].
The conclusion drawn from this questionnaire
indicates that androgynous people have a greater probability of selecting the
behavior that best suits the requirements of each situation (Caplan and Caplan,
1994) and have a diverse repertoire of behaviors, which allows great
flexibility and plasticity in global functioning and facilitates adaptation to
different environments (Smith, 1998). Adaptability, creativity and flexibility
are, then, the predominant traits in the social androgyne, their social
performance being related to both physical strength
related to the masculine, as well as feminine expressiveness.
When changing sex, Orlando
decides to cross-dress as a woman, for which (now biologically) she covers her
body excessively, in turn, in an uncomfortable way: “These skirts are plaguey
things to have about one’s heels. […] Could I [… ]
leap overboard and swim in clothes like these? No! Therefore, I should have to
trust to the protection of a blue-jacket” (Woolf, 1963, p. 61). This shows her
limits as far as her physical movement and her social operability are
concerned, together with the fact that it entails dependence on someone else.
It is in this outbreak of femininity, starting with her clothing adaptation,
when she realizes that “complete transformation into womanhood […] entails a
loss of power and privilege” (López García, 2019, p. 18). In fact, the
protagonist begins to consider whether or not it is propitious to follow a modus
vivendi in accordance with the female: look for a husband—and not a lover—or
attend certain literary social events without having the opportunity to say a
single word. All in all, in moments of greater yearning for sexual freedom,
when she is biologically a woman, Orlando carries out a process of cross-dressing,
as a way “to overcome constructed models of femininity” (p. 20). This cross-dressing turns Orlando’s body into a fluid one,
by means of which a change of clothes equals a change of gender, process which
is carried out depending on the occasion (Sanyal, 2014, p. 83) and which allows
her access to brothels, walking in the park without having to be accompanied,
access to courts to learn about legal disputes, etc.:
Her sex changed far
more frequently than those who have worn only one set of clothing can conceive;
nor can there be any doubt that she reaped a twofold harvest by this device;
the pleasures of life were increased and its experiences multiplied. For the
probity of breeches she exchanged the seductiveness of
petticoats and enjoyed the love of both sexes equally. (Woolf, 1963, pp. 82-83)
In short, at an individual level,
clothes and cross-dressing allow Orlando the performativity that Butler speaks
of since clothes have become political needs (2011, p. 176). These visual
elements permit him/her create a neo-androgynous figure, which, at the same time,
allows the protagonist to escape the social rigidity in terms of male/female.
Such modes lead Orlando to do gender for his/her personal, intellectual, social
and sexual enrichment, managing to escape the dictatorship of the body imposed
by nature and influencing the way other characters interact with him/her, doing
or undoing their gender, depending on their view towards Orlando.
At a higher level, also, the use
of clothes provides the reader with historical information since Orlando’s
400-year life and his/her use of clothes allow Woolf “to question the presumed
ideas about clothing and how each period with its own culture and norms perform
gender through clothing” (Moleshi & Niazi, p. 5).
Bibliographical references
Ambrose,
Kirk (2012). Male nude and embodiment spirituality in Romanesque sculpture. In Lindquist, Sherry (Ed.) The meanings of
nudity in medieval art. (pp.65-84). Routledge.
Bauhini, Casparus
(1614). The hermaphroditorum. Typis Hieronymi Galleraaere, Theodori de Bry.
Bem, Sandra (1975). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal
of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Blázquez, Laura (2021). The Phantasmagoria of Pregnancy in
Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus (1818), by Mary Shelley. [Trabajo de Fin de Máster,
Universidad Nacional de Jaén]. https://tauja.ujaen.es/bitstream/10953.1/15091/1/Blazquez%20Cruz%2c%20Laura_TFM_THE_PHANTASMAGORY_OF_PREGNANCY.pdf
Burns, Christy L. (1994). Re-Dressing
Feminist Identities: Tensions between Essential and Constructed Selves in
Virginia Woolf’s Orlando. Twentieth
Century Literature, 40(3), 342–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/441560
Butler, Judith (1999). Gender trouble. Routledge.
Butler, Judith (2004). Undoing gender. Routledge.
Butler, Judith (2011). Bodies that matter. Routledge.
Caplan,
Paula J., and Caplan, Jeremy (1994). Thinking critically about research
on sex and gender. Psychology Press.
DeVun, Leach (2018). Heavenly hermaphrodites: sexual difference at the
beginning and end of time. Postmedieval: a journal
of medieval cultural studies,
9, 132-146.
Foucault, Michel (1980). Microfísica del Poder, especialmente el
apartado Poder-Cuerpo. Ediciones La Piqueta.
Foucault, Michel (2005). Vigilar y Castigar. Siglo XXI Editores.
López García, Ángela (2019). From Man to Woman
to a New Understanding of Gender: Virginia Woolf’s Orlando and Angela Carter’s
The Passion of New Eve. Meridian critic, 33(2), 15-23.
Lee, Hermione (1977). The novels of Virginia Woolf. Methuen &
Co Ltd.
LeGoff, Jacques y Truong,
Nicolás (2014). Una historia del cuerpo en la Edad Media. Paidós.
Libis, Jean (2001). El mito del andrógino. Siruela.
Llano, Alejandro (1989). La nueva sensibilidad.
Espasa-Calpe.
Melián Pérez, Elvira (2021). El hermafrodita anatómico-fisiológico, o la
fractura medieval y aurea del mito del andrógino. Contextos iconográficos. De
Medio Aevo 10(2),
355-370. https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/dmae.75825
Moslehi M, Niazi N (2016). A Study of
Gender Performativity in Virginia Woolf’s Orlando: A Mocking Biography. k@ta, 18(1), 1-7.
doi:10.9744/kata.18.1.1-7
Nederman,
Cary and True, Jacqui (1996). The third sex: the idea of hermaphrodite in
twelve century Europe. Journal of History
of Sexuality 6(4), 497-517.
Pérez Valino, Amalia (2020). La duplicidad del
desnudo femenino: entre el vestido divino y la piel del pecado. Románico, 30,
70-78.
Sanyal, Swikriti (2014). Breaking through the
Limits of Flesh: Gender Fluidity and (Un)natural Sexuality in Virginia Woolf’s
Orlando. Rupkatha Journal on
Interdisciplinary Studies
in Humanities, 4(1),
79-86.
Sigurta,
Renato (1976). Rasgos psicológicos de la moda masculina en Eco et al. (Eds.) Psicología
del vestir (pp.25-42) Lumen.
Smith, Martin Joseph (1998).
The relationship between gender traits, sex role, egalitarian attitudes,
attachment styles, and life satisfaction. [Thesis
Dissertation]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304453233?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
Thanem,
Torkild, and Louise Wallenberg (2016). Just doing
gender? Transvestism and the power of underdoing
gender in everyday life and work. Organization, 23(2),
250-271.
Walde Moheno, Lillian von der (1994). Lo monstruoso medieval. La
experiencia literaria, 2, 47-52.
Woolf,
Virginia (1963). Orlando: A biography. Penguin Books.
[1]Inventory with 60
characteristics (20 stereotypically feminine, 20 masculine and 20 neutral), in
which the subject is asked to indicate in each item from 1 (almost never) to 7 (always)
how often such characteristic occurs in the respondent. Thus, based on the
responses, four typologies are categorized:
-Androgynous: High score
in masculinity and femininity.
-Undifferentiated: Low
score in masculinity and femininity.
-Masculine: High score in
masculinity and low in femininity.
-Feminine: High score in
femininity and low in masculinity. (1975, pp. 37, 42)