Adultery and the Codes of Society in John Updike's "Couples"

University of Bonn Dept. of English, American and Celtic Studies Term paper for the course The Novel of Adultery Lecturer: Prof. Dr. Claus Daufenbach Summer semester 2013 Adultery and the Codes of Society in John Updike's Couples Date of submission: 08/15/2013 Stefanie Nerz Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................1 2. Part I: Welcome to Tarbox, Massachusetts...................................................................2 2.1. The Codes of Society............................................................................................2 2.2. “What did you make of the new couple?”............................................................3 2.3. Boundaries............................................................................................................4 2.4. “How dreary these horsey people are”..................................................................5 3. Part II: The Liberal, Post-Pill America..........................................................................6 3.1. The 1960s..............................................................................................................6 3.2. “Welcome to the Post-Pill Paradise”....................................................................7 3.3. Politics...................................................................................................................8 3.4. Standing on the Scaffold.......................................................................................9 4. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................9 5. Works Cited.................................................................................................................12 5.1. Primary Literature...............................................................................................12 5.2. Secondary Literature...........................................................................................12 6. Declaration...................................................................................................................13 1. Introduction John Updike’s novel Couples1 is a challenge. While researching texts and trying to collect the necessary background information for this term paper, I realized that very few articles or books were published on either John Updike or Couples. While the existing articles and books discuss the religious aspect in Couples and its historical classification, nothing is published on the one topic that seems the most obvious and astonishing while reading the novel: the adulterous society of the Tarbox couples. Particularly the codes of society that they have established for themselves. Therefore the aim of this term paper is to collect the few existing sources on Couples and John Updike, and to bring these sources into the context of adultery among the couples, the established codes in the Tarbox society, and its historical background of postwar America. This paper is divided into two main sections, which both have four sub-sections. The first main section is all about the society of the Tarbox couples. Their codes of behavior will be illustrated, and since these codes are not explicitly written down, they are merely implied throughout the novel. It will be interesting to see how people try to adjust to these established codes when they are new to the society. Foxy and Ken, as the new couple in town, will be a great example for this part. There will be a section on boundaries of their liberal behavior, and the question, whether—and how—a person might be able to violate certain codes of behavior. Finally, there is going to be a look at previous generations and how the society in Couples compares to previous societies. The second main section is about the historical background of the Tarbox society. It is about the 1960s as a time of liberalization in contrast to the 1950s as a decade of conservatism, considering the connection to the respective presidents at the time. The invention of the Pill is discussed, its influence on adultery and its establishment in society. One more political section about the importance of John F. Kennedy's reference throughout the novel is presented, his influence on the permissiveness of society, and on one character of the novel in particular. In the end there will be a look back on Puritan society and the topic of adultery. Each of the following sections of this term paper will determine a part of the codes of the Tarbox society, so that in the end a harmonious overall view is established, and the interpretation of Adultery and the Codes of Society can be adequately illustrated. 1Updike, John. Couples. London: Penguin Books, 2007. All further references are to this edition. 1 2. Part I: Welcome to Tarbox, Massachusetts. 2.1. The Codes of Society It is a rather complex issue to determine the codes of the Tarbox society since they are not explicitly written down anywhere in the novel. There are no codes in terms of commandments, so any moral guidelines that are illustrated in the following section, are merely implied throughout the novel. To determine the codes of society it seems reasonable to figure out what kind of society the Tarbox couples represent, and thereby try to reveal the codes they stand by. After the couples settle in Tarbox they create a society that is supposed to be the opposite of the society they were raised in. A type of society where the codes of behavior are liberated, where “anything goes”, a group of people whose moral codes seem rather questionable. Roger Sharrock therefore defines the couples as the “permissive society of Tarbox” (32). One of the main features of the Tarbox society is “its solidarity of freedom” (Sharrock 26). Singh even specifies this kind of freedom as the “freedom from cultural and religious constraints through physical union with the persons of their choice” (38). One might call it freedom through adultery. When the couples decide that this is the kind of freedom they long for, they all implicitly accept adultery as part of their society. Piet describes it as “a way of giving yourself adventures, of getting out in the world and seeking knowledge” (p. 343; cf. Singh 38) and Piet’s many adulterous affairs suggest that he is constantly trying to find new adventures, besides his rather boring and predictable life. Therefore it can be considered as an escape from reality, since there is no aim in life, no purpose for existing, and this temporary liberation is what they all strive for in their self-created society. The codes of society among the couples are not codes or rules in terms of restrictions, it is quite the opposite, everything is possible with very few boundaries (see below) and all is acceptable as long as it stays confidential within their group, a “cosy circle of their private values, loyalties and infidelities” (Sharrock 42). The existence of their group is not about prohibition, it is about enjoying each others company through friendships and adultery, having fun, forgetting any troubles and omitting the seriousness of life. 2 2.2. “What did you make of the new couple?” In this very first sentence of the novel we get to know that there is a new couple in Tarbox. How does a new couple try to fit into the society, and how do they adjust to the established codes? We follow Ken and Foxy in their way of building a new home and forming new friendships. They are invited to parties and gatherings with the other nine couples, and although in the beginning they seem disinterested, they keep attending. Ken is a little apprehensive towards the other couples and Foxy notices him “looking fastidious and bored” (p. 24) within the group of men. Later, Ken sums up their first dinner party with the couples as “pretty ghastly” (p. 37) and Foxy adds that “they seemed so excited by each other” (ibid.). Ken works at Boston University and is therefore still in touch with the life outside of Tarbox (Lodge 514). He stays rather detached throughout the novel and he does not seem to be concerned or particularly motivated about fitting in with the others, whereas Foxy is soon fully immersed in the couples’ society. In her marriage, Foxy feels neglected. She seeks company and diversion, and she finds both while having an affair with Piet, and spending time with the others. After the basketball game when their time together comes to an end, there is a feeling of “chronic sadness of late Sunday afternoon, when the couples […] saw an evening weighing upon them […] an evening when marriages closed in upon themselves” (pp. 73-74). This seems to be the one thing all of them have in common, the burden of an unfulfilled marriage, that only becomes apparent when the time with one's spouse is not spend among the other couples. Therefore socializing, drinking and playing games with the others is a relief from one’s exhausted marriage, and playing games of any kind is a favorite pastime among the couples. “As a newcomer, Foxy Whitman is initiated through the test of the ʻWho am I?ʼ game of Botticelli in which she must discover the group’s designation of her as Christine Keeler, a prostitute” (De Bellis 185). When Foxy realizes what character the others think she resembles, she starts crying because she feels sorry and ashamed, and thus the others know that she is involved with Piet (cf. p. 184). In terms of adjusting to established codes and blending into the society, there is probably nothing more proper than an adulterous affair for Foxy to fit right into the group of Tarbox couples. 3 2.3. Boundaries When we think of a permissive society, it might be rather unusual to indicate boundaries. So the question is whether there is an invisible line that—the couples understand—should not be crossed? In a society of self-imposed freedom, where anything goes and nothing seems morally disputable, is it in any way possible for a person to violate certain codes of behavior? At one of their gatherings on a Sunday night, where lots of beer and wine is devoured, Carol dares to ask Piet why he builds “such ugly houses” (p. 233). Everyone around Carol is stunned and rendered speechless, “for one of their unspoken rules was that professions are not criticized” (ibid.). Terry and Freddy try to ease the situation by favoring and supporting Piet and his work, then Janet Appleby abruptly changes the topic. Having a job is a necessity they all have in common “in order to be able to enjoy fully the protected space of the private life in which they have cushioned themselves against the world” (Sharrock 39). Updike describes one’s job as “a pact with the meaningless world beyond the ring of couples” (233). Work is a component of their life that happens in the real external world, and it is not mentioned among the couples, since it would interfere with their sheltered social gatherings, and reality would intrude. For the same reason, it seems, adultery is not openly discussed within the group. While adultery is certainly not a secret, eventually everyone knows who is involved with whom, not one of them explicitly admits to having an affair, although it is implied when Marcia asks Harold: “Are you sleeping with Janet?” “Why? Are you sleeping with Frank?” “Of course not.” “In that case, I’m not sleeping with Janet” (p. 140). So there is another invisible line that unanimously does not seem to be crossed. Every one of them knows that adultery is a part of their group and they accept and encourage it, but when adultery is openly admitted, the reality of its consequences intrudes. This actually happens when Piet and Foxy’s affair is made public, and they “are banished by their respective spouses, and cold-shouldered by the other couples, whose disregard for convention does not extend thus far, and who cannot forgive them for making the clandestine cult scandalously public” (Lodge 514). Foxy and Piet’s admission is not only a violation of keeping adultery safe and confidential within the 4 group, it also shows the others what adultery in all seriousness can lead to—the fallout of two marriages—and that is not something they want to be reminded of in their cosy circle. 2.4. “How dreary these horsey people are” In the mid-Fifties the Applebys and the little-Smiths were among the first couples who had moved to Tarbox. They were not well acquainted with each other back then, and for a few years they would spend their social life “among older men and women” (p. 106) whom Marcia would describe as “horsey people” (ibid.). Updike offers a few insights into the society of Tarbox before the couples settled in. So how does their self-created society compare to previous societies? Lodge considers Couples as Updike’s attempt “to found a new kind of human community, one based on values that run counter to those prevailing in society at large” (514). The Tarbox couples represent a hands-on generation, which means that while they were raised by “nursemaids and tutors” (p. 105), they now raise their children themselves, manage their own households, and they drive used cars without being in need of a chauffeur. To them—in contrast to the society their parents lived in—”duty and work yielded as ideals to truth and fun” (ibid.). It belongs to their idea of freedom to get away from the confinement of previously entrenched and traditional values, because they are creating a new and different way of living. However, formerly established values of religion are still present in Tarbox, with its streets called Charity and Divinity (p. 23) and the Congregational Church, the only moral structure in town. The majority of the couples had relinquished their religion, Piet and Foxy are the only ones who still go to church. Freddy Thorne thinks that the couples have “made a church of each other” (p. 7). Abandoning traditional religion allows them to follow their desires without questioning their morals, but it also leaves them without belief in anything. In their group of couples they believe in a liberal way of life, adultery included, so in the same way they substituted the membership of the town’s country club for the “informal membership in a circle of friends” (p. 105), they substituted their religion for a permissive social life. Updike calls it “sex as the emergent religion, as the only thing left” (qtd. in Singh 37). 5 3. Part II: The Liberal, Post-Pill America 3.1. The 1960s When we think of the 1960s, we think of a liberating decade in terms of rules and values in the American society. In comparison, it might appear that the traditional and religious values of the 1940s and 1950s were suddenly lost in the 1960s. Have the codes of society really changed in the 60s? Or could it be possible that the change happened in the decades before, and the result of it was attributed to the decade of the 1960s? Updike describes how “in the 1960s, sexual restraints were lifted and what was shyly requested in the 1950s was freely given a decade later” (De Bellis 404). Updike introduced this opinion into the description of the Tarbox couples. In the Fifties the couples who had already settled in Tarbox spent their free time among the older generation in town. “To Janet they seemed desperate people, ignorant and provincial and loud. Their rumored infidelities struck her as pathetic; their evident heavy drinking disgusted her” (p. 107). Adultery among the couples only started in the 1960s, Piet’s involvement with Georgene, and the “wife-swapping” (Plath 122) between the Applebys and the little-Smiths. Although even before the young couples shifted towards adulterous relationships, Janet’s assessment of the older generation on Tarbox shows that they were already living their permissive streak in the years before the younger couples. Alan Petigny is convinced that traditional values did not suddenly turn permissive over night in the beginning of the 1960s. He believes that there already was “a dramatic liberalization of values during the Truman and Eisenhower years” (2), during the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, that lead to “the emergence of a Permissive Turn” (ibid.). Nevertheless, the result of change, that had started decades before, was attributed to the liberalization of the 1960s. We should try not to divide the 1950s and the 1960s into decades of either conservatism or liberalism, and then use this as an explanation for a society of traditional values or a permissive society, because it might not be as simple and obvious as that. The values and social standards of the 1960s and the preceding decades should not be assessed separately because—according to Petigny—it seems that “The behavior that was hidden in the 1950’s, finally exploded into public view the following decade” (249). 6 3.2. “Welcome to the Post-Pill Paradise” With these words, Georgene welcomes Piet to spend an adulterously engaging morning with her (p. 52). Piet is briefly concerned about contraception, but Georgene dismisses his worries with a laugh, because she is using “Enovid” (ibid.). Enovid, or simply the Pill, was approved and launched onto the American market in 1960. Around the same time the Tarbox couples started to loosen their codes of behavior and gravitated towards a permissive society. Was it the invention of the Pill that made permissiveness possible? Is the Pill a cause for adultery? De Bellis mentions that the Pill “began to free women from reproductive worries and allowed them to reclaim their bodies” (404), but this was only the case for married women, since during the 1960s, the Pill was only available to married women (cf. Gibbs, n. pag.). In a permissive society the Pill does not only free women from worries within one’s marriage but also outside of it. The Pill seems to smooth the way for adultery without consequences. Intriguingly “its main inventor was a conservative Catholic who was looking for a treatment for infertility and instead found a guarantee of it” (Gibbs, n. pag.). While the Pill looks like the easiest solution to keep adultery safe, not everyone in the Tarbox society has ventured into the possibilities of it. “It’s all so silly, isn’t it? Adultery. It’s so much trouble” (p. 343), Foxy tells Piet when she knows that she is pregnant with his child. Foxy is not taking the Pill while having an affair with Piet and she naïvely thought the fact that she was “nursing made […][it] safe” (p. 339). Piet thought she uses the Pill, since “everybody else does” (ibid.). While this is not necessarily true, it is significant that within just three years of its approval, the Pill seems to be an established standard among some of the women in the Tarbox society. Janet tells Freddy she is “on the pills” (p.165) while Marcia is not because she is suspicious of the consequences (ibid.). “Didn’t Angela use Enovid yet?” (p. 52), Georgene asks Piet. Using the word “yet” implies that it is only a matter of time. In the end, it would be easy to say that Foxy might have been able to avoid the trouble she mentions to Piet, just by taking the Pill. However, Marcia does not take the Pill (cf. p. 165) while she is involved with Frank, and she is still able to prevent pregnancy. Adultery was possible without any consequences even before the Pill was approved, and while its invention probably made permissiveness and adultery easier, it did not necessarily require the invention of the Pill to make it possible. 7 3.3. Politics “Updike has noted that each of his novels identifies a ʻreigningʼ president” (De Bellis 15). Therefore Couples includes political events of John F. Kennedy’s last year as president and his death in 1963. The importance of Kennedy's reference in the novel becomes apparent when we look at the resemblance to the life of one of the characters. The 1960s stand for a decade of change. John F. Kennedy’s election in November 1960 is recognized as the start of shifting the American government away from the conservative years of Truman and Eisenhower, towards a socially liberal view. While the 1950s are perceived as the traditional and conventional years of Eisenhower’s presidency, the 1960s resemble the tolerant new and liberal ways of John F. Kennedy. De Bellis mentions that “the sense of a new start in the John Kennedy administration, […] provides the tone of the postpill[sic] paradise of Tarbox” (348). Even though the election of President Kennedy and the “Permissive Turn” (Petigny 2) in society coincides, Donaldson argues that, contrary to what most historians still believe, this turn towards a permissive society did not happen because John F. Kennedy was elected president. Since history and the values of society do not depend as much on “politics and foreign policy or even […] economics and civil rights” as we believe (Donaldson 479). The Tarbox couples talk about politics, but never in a very serious way. News from around the world are rather insignificant. Like everything else in their life. The day President Kennedy was shot, the Tarbox couples have a party at the Thorne’s house. According to Georgene there is “nothing wrong in the couples who knew each other feeling terrible together” (p. 295). Since their group of couples is about forgetting the seriousness of life and shunning reality, the party turned into another excuse for a social gathering that is readily accepted by all the couples. Piet shows signs of conscience when he he thinks it might be impious to have a party on the day of Kennedy's death. De Bellis sees in “The young, charming, confident Kennedy […] a spiritual leader for Piet” (233). It almost seems like Updike used John F. Kennedy's life as a draft to develop Piet's character. The devotion to religion, the chronic adultery, the angelic and faithful wife, the image of a perfect family, and the— wanted or unwanted—loss of a child are striking parallels in both men's lives. Seeing how Updike was a very meticulous author, these parallels are rather not coincidental. 8 3.4. Standing on the Scaffold Updike’s Couples illustrates a fundamental contrast to Puritan society. In the 17 th century, strong religious beliefs determined the Puritan society, the approach towards adultery, and its punishment. In the 1960s, faith in religion is rare among the Tarbox society, adultery is a form of liberation, and there is no legal punishment for it. The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne illustrates the laws of Puritan society in Boston in 1642. Hester Prynne, guilty of adultery, had to stand on the scaffold in the marketplace and was summoned by a preacher to reveal the name of her partner in crime. She was sentenced to wear a Scarlet ‘A’ on her chest, to remind her of the shame of her adultery for the rest of her life. Then she found herself an outcast of society. In Puritan society, “religion and law were almost identical” (Plath 126). Looking at The Scarlet Letter, it seems like there is no conformity between adultery in Puritan society and the society of the Tarbox couples, since the worst consequence for adultery in Couples appears to be divorce. Yet another form of punishment for committing adultery still stayed the same. The punishment is no longer imposed by law or religion in the 1960s, it is imposed by the people around the adulterous couple, even their closest friends. Hester is not the only one who was shunned by the others in town. When Piet and Foxy’s adulterous affair becomes public they are banished from the group of couples. It is an absurd development to receive moral punishment from those people who accepted adultery as a form of liberation, and who willingly participated in it. While no one in Couples has to stand on the scaffold for committing adultery, its punishment can come in many forms, and even in 1963 part of it still seems to be the same as in 1642. 4. Conclusion The initial aim of this term paper was to present an interpretation regarding adultery among the Tarbox couples, the established codes in their society, and its historical background of postwar America. It is now absolutely evident that the result is quite difficult to put into words. Each individual section of this paper contributes to form an entire image of what the society in Couples is like, and particularly what their self-created codes are. 9 The simplest way to sum up the codes among the couples would be that there are seemingly no restrictions to one's behavior, and although very few boundaries are recognized, everything is acceptable as long as it stays within their permissive circle. Foxy shows that she has adopted the behavior of the other couples, which makes her fit right into the group. It also indicates that someone who is rather detached of the group in the beginning can adjust to their established codes and adapt an attitude, which is shown by the others. Boundaries limit their permissive behavior to their group of couples. The consequences of crossing boundaries are what Piet and Foxy experience. They are avoided by the others when their affair becomes public, and their marriages end. When an illegitimate affair is openly admitted, the reality of its consequences intrudes. It also becomes clear that adultery is not discussed among the couples although they are creating a new and different way of living, a liberal and permissive way of life that does include adultery. It should be mentioned that deviating so far from previously established values resulted in deceit, disappointment, an abortion, the fallout of two marriages, and the remains of rather unsteady relationships of some of the others. The historical background of the Tarbox society shows that traditional values did not suddenly turn permissive over night in the beginning of the 1960s. The result of change that started decades before, was misleadingly attributed to the liberalization of the 1960s. Was it the invention of the Pill that turned the 60s into a decade of liberalism and made permissiveness possible? It does not seem that way. Adultery was possible without any consequences even before the Pill was invented. Its use probably smoothed the way to permissiveness and adultery, but it did not necessarily require the invention of the Pill to make it possible. The 1950s are perceived as the traditional and conventional years of Eisenhower’s presidency, and the 1960s resemble the tolerant new and liberal ways of John F. Kennedy. Yet this turn towards a permissive society did not happen because John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960. History and the values of society do not seem to depend as much on politics as we might expect. References to John F. Kennedy are presented continuously throughout the novel. One might attribute this to Updike’s fondness for incorporating reigning presidents into his novel, but we might also notice that Piet’s character resembles the President a lot, as already mentioned, from the chronic adultery to the angelic and faithful wife. 10 While looking at the fundamental contrast to Puritan society, it becomes apparent that the punishment of adultery in the 1960s is no longer imposed by law or religion, but by the people around the adulterous couple. In Couples the moral punishment is imposed by one’s closest friends. Therefore adultery turned from a legal issue into a subject that is dealt with on a social level. Now, what are the Codes of Society? It seems to be a rather complex matter, and this entire term paper presents a part of the answer in each paragraph. Could it be any more vague than that? In the future it would be interesting to see if someone else will give it a try to clearly determine the codes of society in John Updike’s Couples, and if the outcome will be of a similar kind. 11 5. Works Cited 5.1. Primary Literature Updike, John. Couples. London: Penguin Books, 2007. Print. 5.2. Secondary Literature De Bellis, Jack. The John Updike Encyclopedia. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000. Print. Donaldson, Gary. “Reviews of Books - Canada and the United States.” The American Historical Review 166.2 (2011):479-480. Oxford Journals. Web. 2 Aug 2013. Gibbs, Nancy. “The Pill at 50: Sex, Freedom and Paradox.” TIME Magazine, 22 Apr. 2010. Web. 20 July 2013. Lodge, David. “Post-Pill Paradise Lost: John Updike's Couples.” New Blackfriars 606.51 (1970):511-518. Wiley Online Library. Web. 2 Aug. 2013. Petigny, Alan. The Permissive Society: America, 1941-1965. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print. Plath, James. “Updike, Hawthorne, and American literary history.” The Cambridge Companion to John Updike. Cambridge: University Press, 2006. 122-133. Print. Sharrock, Roger. “Singles and Couples: Hemingway's ʻA Farewell to Armsʼa n d Updike's ʻCouplesʼ ”. ARIEL: A Review of International English Literature 4.4 (1973):21-43. Web. 20 July 2013. Singh, Sukhbir. “Fire, Rain, Rooster: John Updike's Christian Allegory in Couples.” International Fiction Review 23.1 and 2 (1996):36-43. Electronic Text Centre Journals. Web. 2 Aug. 2013. 12 6. Declaration 13