Falling and Rising through Discourse: Dialogues of Julie and Jean

Dilan Güner Assist. Prof. Dr. Nesrin Yavaş Studies in Contemporary Euro-American Drama – 494262 9 October 2022 Falling and Rising through Discourse: Dialogues of Julie and Jean Over the years, all literary texts have primarily focused on the struggle for power and the shifting of its equilibrium. The conflict between these contrasts is one of the most important elements that make the text dynamic, as well as helps the author to criticize many issues related to her/his period. One of these literary works that examine the power relations between the poor and the rich, man and woman, is August Strindberg's naturalistic and psychological drama Miss Julie (1888). Strindberg, one of the most important and innovative playwrights of his period, made the dialogues of the old drama texts, which he described with the words “rotten” and “French”, more realistic, especially in this play, and by doing so, he let the reader better understand the characters’ hearts, soul, and minds. Like life itself, dialogues in the play are unpredictable, rough, full of surprises, and repetitive. The number of characters in the play is limited, therefore, every word they say is important. In order to better understand the dynamics of the discourse in the play, first, the reader should focus on Julie. Because she is the character who gives the drama its name as well as one side of the main contrast/duality. She is an aristocratic woman who was raised by a rebellious mother, therefore, identifies herself as half woman half man. Like her mother, she doesn't quite fit into Victorian womanhood standards. Although she has aristocratic perky manners and the ability to speak French, which can be considered a noble language, she is actually portrayed as a woman who prefers beer to wine, enjoys chatting and interacting with her maids, and humiliates the men around her. She is a woman who is happy to dance freely by destroying the class difference between her and the people at the Midsummer Eve festival. Although she ignores class differences at every opportunity she gets, on the contrary, she has a character that likes to deepen the difference between sexes. On the other hand, when the character of Jean is examined, who is the other side of the contrast, it is seen that he is a valet working for Julie's father, the representative of the patriarchy (a father the reader can’t see but feel the presence through boots). Ambitious, with refined speech and taste, a powerful species to survive Darwinian selection, this man is both vulgar and charming. At the beginning of the play, before Julie shows up, he and the play's only minor character, Kristin, are seen in the kitchen of the Count's house, gossiping about Julie and verbally flirting with each other. Claiming that he is smart and that Julie is not refined enough, Jean has the classic concerns of an aristocrat. He accuses Julie of being “common”. However, whenever Julie shows up, the way of his speaking changes. He becomes timider and more respectful. Takes orders from her and is willing to obey them (this order/obey dynamic will change later). Although there is a flirtation in the background of these dialogues, it is clear that Julie somehow humiliates Jean with her hatred for men. But at the same time, she keeps saying that there is no class between them, that they are somehow equal, and their conversation becomes a little more intimate when, in one of Jean's most humiliating moments, when he kisses Julie's shoes. In the scene where they tell each other their dreams, one of the foreshadows in the play, their deep and secret desires of falling and rising becomes evident. Julie, who still gives orders to Jean after this first intimate opening, at some point takes the first step towards her deepest desire to fall and kisses Jean. Of course, there are many factors in this event. However, both Jean and Julie rip the woman's aristocratic skin that comes from the Count’s status and protects her. The discourse change that starts with this breaking point shows something very important to the reader. Jean's respect for Julie, in fact, comes from being the Count's daughter. When he reduces her from being the Count’s daughter to being just a woman (which he does consciously and systematically), he pushes her out of class borders, and then he sees himself as superior. So in fact, he always thought he was superior to her in terms of gender, but the patriarchal power that comes from the Count prevented him from showing it. From this point on, Jean begins to take revenge for being humiliated by an aristocratic woman. By confessing his love for the woman, which appears to be a fabricated story, he deprives her of his mental faculties. He later turns into a man who acts only with reason, while he himself was an overly emotional man in the beginning. While declaring his love, Jean says that he wants to die because of the suffering he has lived. But he later tells towards the end of the play that he actually wants to live and that he has many plans and dreams. As he gradually adopts a colder and more indifferent attitude, the woman becomes weak because of both her guilt over the kiss and her hysteric state, which is constantly mentioned by words such as “crazy” and “queer” throughout the play. Before she sees the bottom, she turns into a woman who cannot act without taking orders from Jean, who has lost her free will and is constantly humiliated and insulted. Their sadomasochistic relationship is constantly supported by the love-hate discourse between them. Jean speaks in an unkind, harsh, bitter tone, occasionally adding compassion to his words and dragging the woman from place to place as if she is in the middle of a choppy sea. While Jean opens up about himself and his feelings in layers, which we don't know exactly if they are true or not, towards the end of the play, Julie reveals herself layer by layer and reveals all her secrets and past. Even at this point, when Jean learns about Julie's past, he also insults her family roots and glorifies his own. So, he actually takes revenge on the Count more than on Julie. The verbal violence in the play naturally turns into physical violence after a while. Julie is the only character in the play who has a bond with the animals and compassion for them. Even Kristin hates the woman's dog, Diana. At this point, it is worth noting that both the dog and the greenfinch are female when looking at the names given to them. Killing the bird with a single move without blinking an eye, Jean sends Julie to death in the same way, with an order. Julie obeys this order both willingly and compellingly. But it is interesting that when the Count makes his presence more evident towards the end of the play, Jean feels tied up again and his anger at him is reflected in his words and also he kicks the boots. Another point is that Kristin has her share of Jean's discourse on violence, as well. Being very aware of Kristin's hypocritical character, Jean also criticizes her and the conservative structure she hides behind. In sum, Strindberg’s play’s dialogues reflect the struggles of Victorian Era people like Julie and Jean. The general misogynist attitude in the patriarchal order is first hidden in Jean's dialogues and then it reveals itself step by step, quite naturally. The fact that the woman, Julie, is a threat, in many ways, for the period in which she lived, results in her inability to exist in such a society. At the same time, within this crooked society and its rules, she herself exhibits an extremely crooked attitude. She is a man-hater as a result of general misogyny, and instead of a calm and noble stance expected of her, she displays a vulgar and hysterical stance. Although Jean may end up in a good place for himself, the real reason why both characters falter is because of the Count and the thought system he represents, which shows itself and its weight in boots and stage props like the old bell throughout the entire play. In the house of the Count, which is full of invisible boundaries, a character falls, and another rises, because only in this way can the balance of power be achieved in such a thought system. Güner 4