Understanding
in Marriage: What Really Interferes?
 |
The wife, Winnie, in Beckett's play "Happy Days"
is embedded in a mound of earth. |
There
is a 1961 play by Samuel Beckett, titled Happy Days, revived not long ago at
the Brooklyn Academy of Music. It opens
with a wife, Winnie, embedded above her waist in a mound of earth, the
lower
part of her body stuck, unable to move.
Behind and below
her, lying asleep, largely hidden by the mound,
his face not seen, is her husband, Willie, who remains pretty much in
this
position throughout the play (except when his wife encourages him to
retreat
into his hole in the ground). He rarely speaks, and then only in short,
abrupt
phrases, while Winnie spends her day examining the contents of her
large
handbag, combing her hair, looking at herself in a hand mirror, talking
out
loud in a kind of rambling way, going from one thing to another—all the
while
making sure her husband is still there in the background, hasn’t gone
away or
died. That is her overriding concern. Like many wives Winnie is
insistent on
having her husband there in the flesh, able to hear her. “Hoo-oo. Can
you hear
me? I beseech you, Willie,” she calls:
just yes or no, can
you hear me? Just
to know that you can hear me…is all I need, just to feel you there
within
earshot….Ah, yes, if only I could bear to be alone, I mean prattle away
with
not a soul to hear. Not that I flatter myself you hear much, no Willie,
God
forbid.
Meanwhile,
as Beckett’s dialogue continues, we see that what is going on in her
husband’s
mind, what he feels about many things, what he may be worried about or
hoping
for hardly interests her. Nor are her
thoughts and feelings of interest to him. And so it goes for two acts,
as time
hangs heavy, and Winnie keeps talking, but cannot budge from her earth
mound. In
fact, as Act II begins, the mound has become even higher, enveloping
her up to
the neck where she remains until the final curtain.
It is a strange play—part of what is
called the Theatre of the Absurd. Yet I believe that in all its absurdity
and strangeness, the
play—satirically called Happy Days—because
Winnie and her husband are clearly not happy—says
something about the
ordinary non-understanding between wives and husbands everywhere.
The play has a
mingling of humor and terror,
the ridiculous and the tragic. Wrote Mr. Siegel, “Aesthetic Realism
says that
all drama is the making one of opposites, drama from Sophocles to
Beckett." And
it’s permeated with opposites often so awry in marriage—closeness and
remoteness, the drive to own and the drive to discard, affection and
resentment.
How many wives,
like Winnie, feel stuck,
encased in themselves? Why does a
woman, sitting across the breakfast table from the man who once swept
her, now
see him as dull and inimical? What happened to the romance? In The Right Of,
titled “The Comprehension Men & Woman Desire,” Ellen Reiss explains:
On the one hand, we
want
to care for someone—but on the other hand we want to see that person
chiefly as
existing to make us comfortable, praised, glorious. We want to be
kind to someone—but we don’t want to think too
deeply about what goes on within him or her.
This is the fight between contempt and respect in social life, domestic
life. It goes on not understood by the
people who have it. Yet it makes for resentment and shame, for dullness
and
thrusting anger. How we need to
understand it, so that the desire for respect can win!
This
is what women now are grateful to be learning in Aesthetic Realism
consultations, like Linda Malloy of Philadelphia, whom I’ll now tell
about.
1.
She Was Looking for Criticism
Mrs.
Malloy, a high school teacher of English and drama, told us in her
first consultation, “I entered the marriage with so much hope,
excitement and a
will to please. I am now very hurt to
see the shrew I’ve become in his eyes.” She was asking for honest
criticism,
and we respected her very much. She wanted to understand why her
husband, Jim,
had become distant from her, was often moody and irritated. Why didn’t he appreciate all her acts of
devotion—-the lovely meals she prepared, the way she decorated their
house and
kept it neat, and how she daily told him over the telephone how much
she loved
him.Meanwhile, Jim Malloy, who had worked very hard to
make a home for the two of them, like men all over America, was
terrified about
losing his job. She knew this, and
tried to cheer him up, but didn’t want to think deeply about what was
going on
within him. She saw herself as nobly
sacrificial, going out of her way to make her husband happy, but he
felt, with
all her showings of affection, she was essentially cold to him. In this, she was representative of wives
throughout history, including a women in a funny bulletin by Mr.
Siegel, titled
“Lines from a Play” which goes: “I’ll die for him, but do I have to see
him as
real?”
To see a person as real, Aesthetic Realism taught
me, is to want to understand how the opposites that are in the world
itself are
in him--such as freedom and order, adventure and security, the harsh
and the
tender, the familiar and the mysterious.
But Linda Malloy saw her husband—again, like many
women, “chiefly as existing to make [her] comfortable, praised,
glorious.” And
she was angry that the praise he gave her before they married was no
longer
forthcoming, nor was the comfort she craved. She
cared for the drama, but was not interested in
understanding the
drama going on within her husband, what was affecting him, or his
relation to
anything but herself. As Ellen Reiss wrote in The Right Of of a
woman
she calls Bridget in relation to the man she’s close to:
To think, for
instance, about how he sees his mother, or a friend, or a person in his
office—doesn’t occur to her. And if it
did, she’d find the subject boring—also insulting, because she feels
the main
thing in his life, the overriding thing, should be Bridget.
Mrs.
Malloy began to learn that her distress about her marriage began with
how she
saw the world itself-—as something to be protected from and
managed—-both of
which are forms of contempt. And contempt always separates the
opposites in us,
makes them fight. That is why she’d go back and forth between a kind of
effusive praise of her husband one moment, and an icy, dismissing scorn
the
next. Besides, she felt she already understood him all too well. “I
pinpointed
Jim’s emotion,” she once told us, and “I identified what he felt.”
And she had a grim
pleasure describing what she saw as his
lethargy around the house. “At home,” she said, “he acts like a
tree.
He grows roots and a hurricane won’t move
him.” In the Beckett play, Winnie comments with sugary scorn on her
husband’s
lethargy and love of somnolence, saying:
Poor
Willie…ah
well—can’t be helped….poor Willie…[he can] sleep for ever— marvelous
gift—nothing to touch it in my opinion—always said so—wish I had it.
This
is wifely contempt under the pretense of admiration, and it’s
infuriating and
desolating to a man. Winnie doesn’t
know it’s a big reason her husband doesn’t want to talk to her, or even
look at
her—and she’s pained by it. “Lift up your eyes to me, Willie,” she begs
at one
point, “and tell me can you see me, do that for me, I’ll lean back as
far as I
can. No? Well, never mind.” But she does mind and feels
deeply unworthy.
In one of the moving moments of the play, she asks him: “Was I lovable
once,
Willie?” (Pause.) “Was I ever lovable?” (Pause.)
Do not misunderstand
my
question, I am not asking you if you loved me, we know all about that,
I am
asking you if you found me lovable—at one stage? (Pause) No?
Linda
Malloy also felt she was no longer lovable to her husband, had become,
as she
said, “a shrew in his eyes.” When she first met him she’d been
attracted by his
liveliness and thoughtful manner; his care for the classical guitar,
which he
was studying. He had talked
passionately about the economic suffering in America—and showed feeling
for
people she admired very much.
But shortly after their wedding, the
qualities she had liked in him now displeased her very much, and she
told us
she found herself irritated by his very presence, even the sound of his
voice.
Did she want him to leave the house? No—just keep out of her way in a
room down
the hall and practice his guitar. In The Right Of, Ellen Reiss, writing
of the young woman, Bridget, describes Linda Malloy’s state of mind:
She doesn’t
understand why she gets agitated… unsure,…why she’s ill-natured and
snappish
with him even though she tries not to be.
The reason is: she deeply dislikes herself for her purpose with
him—which is to own a human being and have him make her important.
How
often has a wife wanted her spouse just close
enough to maintain her ownership and command—-while dismissing him in
her mind?
In the Beckett play, after Winnie’s husband has emerged a bit, she
wants to get
rid of him, saying, “Go back into your hole, now, Willie.
Do as I say…. Go on now, that’s the man.”
We
asked Linda Malloy: “What do you think will have you like yourself in
relation
to your husband—trying to own him and have him do your bidding, or
trying to
know him, really asking: who is this man I married, and having a good
time
asking?”
2. The
Beauty of Understanding
In The Right Of Ellen Reiss
describes the job every wife has—-which the three of us are honored to
be in
the midst of studying ourselves and to teach other women:
To understand a human being is, Aesthetic
Realism says, the most
difficult, delicate job in the world, the most neglected—and the most
important.
This is the job Eli Siegel did so
magnificently, delicately, and warmly with every person he spoke to,
and I love
him for it. He made it possible for me to have a happy and good
marriage with
the late Sheldon Kranz, who was an Aesthetic Realism consultant and
poet—a
marriage I’m still glad to be learning from. In a lesson that took
place a few
days before our nuptials, I told Mr. Siegel I’d gotten angry with him
about
something concerning the wedding arrangements. “What do you think could
get you
angry again with Sheldon?” Mr. Siegel asked. I replied very quickly “I
feel
he’s inconsiderate, doesn’t want to see what I feel, doesn’t understand
me and
takes me for granted.” As you see, the main thing on my mind was how my
husband
to be saw me—and
as I talked, I flew from one complaint to another, not giving any
weight to the
things I respected Sheldon for—which were many.
Mr. Siegel asked me: “Do you feel flighty now or solid?” “Flighty,” I
said. And I also felt stuck. Winnie, in the Beckett play feels both of
these
things and says if she weren’t being held so tightly by the earth: “I
would simply
float up into the blue…like gossamer.”
What makes a woman feel both
trapped and
insubstantial, having no bearings? Critics
have seen Winnie as a woman caught in a cruel and
senseless
world. “That the world can be cruel,” wrote Mr. Siegel in The Right
Of
titled “The Place of Contempt,” “is in the works of Aeschylus,
Sophocles,
Shakespeare and Samuel Beckett.” Meanwhile,
Aesthetic Realism asks: does Winnie’s
unhappiness have to do
with how fairly or unfairly, deeply or superficially she sees
the world,
which includes her husband?
In the lesson, Mr. Siegel asked me: “Do you
think your sense of reality could be deeper?”
I said, “Yes, but I’m not sure what that means.”
Eli Siegel. The sense of
reality becomes a sense of
volume—a desire to embrace and have to do with all of it. The
other way is to be tangential.
I did often go
off
on a tangent—and Mr. Siegel was teaching me, using mathematics and
physics,
what I most needed to know. “The desire to embrace and have to do with
all of”
reality is a beautiful phrase, and it’s a way of saying that I needed
to use
knowing my husband to know and like the world itself, which is,
Aesthetic
Realism shows, the purpose of marriage. “Do you believe in volume?” Mr.
Siegel
asked, and continued:
Eli Siegel.
Do you know that when you marry, you marry volume? How you want
to see each other is a phase of
how you want to see what’s different from yourself. It’s a philosophic
problem.
Something you have is too great a love
for the two-dimensional. Do you want to be seen three dimensionally
yourself? In marriage, there’s a
certain square acceptance of the density of another.
Mr.
Siegel was teaching us how to understand each other by showing us that
was had
a question in common. After this lesson, I began to look at Sheldon
with more
depth and dimension, including what he felt as a radio operator in
World War
II, his interest in and knowledge of the theatre, his love for Eli
Siegel’s
lectures on literature and poetry—and much more. And I saw the
particular
Sheldon Kranz way opposites were in him—the way he was both earthy and
erudite,
his thoughtfulness and his hearty laugh, his everyday practicality, and
his
being moved to tears by a beautiful sentence or a passage in
Brahms.
At
the end of this lesson, Mr. Siegel said, “In marriage,
there’s the idea that ‘If I accept the reality of you, I’ll be more
real
myself.’” The meaning of this is
tremendous, and I thank him in behalf of both of us, and in behalf of
Linda
Malloy, whose marriage began to change as her study of Aesthetic
Realism
continued.
3. This
Is What She Learned
We
gave Mrs. Malloy the assignment to write observations of her husband,
which she
could then look at critically. She
wrote a list of 21 and brought them to
her next consultation. Here are three:
1. Jim does not take
the initiative in planning activities that would be of mutual enjoyment.
2.
He does
not read
any more because he says he “doesn’t have the time.”
His only creative outlet is his guitar which he
often uses
to
hide behind.
3. Soon after
we
were married, he permitted himself to become moody and uncommunicative
because
he knew that I could be manipulated to hold things together while he
“dropped
out.”
Reading
these words in her own handwriting had a big effect on Mrs. Malloy—“I
see the
contempt!” she told us excitedly, and then, close to tears, she added,
“What
scorn I’ve been having—so damned superior! No wonder he couldn’t stand
me!”
We asked her if she’d like to
get within her husband’s thoughts and try to see from his vantage
point, and
she wrote: “A Day in the Life of Jim Malloy,” which began:
At
7AM, as he gets out of bed, goes through the steps of washing and
shaving, he
seems to look past his face in the mirror, and becomes aware of the
sunshine
that promises a beautiful fall day.
She wrote about her husband’s
thoughts and
feelings---as he drove to work; at his job, persons he talked to during
lunch,
and memories he might have mid-afternoon. In other assignments, she
wrote about
how her husband is related to men in history and literature— Abraham
Lincoln,
Rochester in Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre.
She also wrote: “What James Malloy Is Really Hoping for.” And we asked
her to
think about how five other people saw him. She did this with gusto. As
soon as
a wife wants to see her husband in relation
to other people, and the wide, various world itself, she’s able to have
that
most needed thing: good will, the desire to have good things happen to
her
husband, to want him to be stronger, more integrated.
Writing as their neighbor there
was this sentences: “James Malloy
really cares about people and stands by a person when he’s
needed.” And as one of his co-workers: “I can depend
on Jim to get right to a project and do it well. When he doesn’t
know something, he asks. I like that.” In writing
this, Mrs. Malloy was showing the truth what Mr. Siegel said in a
lesson:
“Understanding a person is already an expression of oneself, is already
the
equivalent of happiness.”
Some months later, Mrs. Malloy
told us: “I’m no longer a shrew, and consequently
feeling unworthy and mean.” James
Malloy, seeing his wife welcome criticism, and become much kinder, more
truly
understanding, wrote to us, saying he was very grateful. Soon, he began
studying Aesthetic Realism himself. And Mrs. Malloy told us:
I
am one of the luckiest women in the world and these have been my
happiest
years. I was very worried about where my marriage was going. Today,
as I look
at my husband, I see the joy, the happiness Aesthetic Realism makes
possible.
Mr. Siegel gave the world its greatest treasure, and I thank him for my
life
and love.
|