THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS Usable Performance Feminism for Our Time:Reconsidering Betty Friedan Author(s):Dorothy Chansky Source:Theatre Journal,Vol.60,No.3,Feminism and Theatre,Redux (Oct.,2008),pp.341-364 Published by:Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/40211067 Accessed:16-01-2016 12:04 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms&Conditions of Use,available at http://www istor org/pagel info/about/policies/terms.isp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,researchers,and students discover,use,and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive.We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR,please contact support@jstor.org. Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Theatre Journal. STOR http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theatre Journal. http://www.jstor.org Usable Performance Feminism for Our Time: Reconsidering Betty Friedan Author(s): Dorothy Chansky Source: Theatre Journal, Vol. 60, No. 3, Feminism and Theatre, Redux (Oct., 2008), pp. 341-364 Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40211067 Accessed: 16-01-2016 12:04 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Usable Performance Feminism for Our Time:Reconsidering Betty Friedan Dorothy Chansky Betty Friedan is readily acknowledged as "the mother of the modern feminist movement,""feminism's matriarch,"and,perhaps more synoptically,as an advocate of social change "whose passion for ideas paralleled her passion for justice."1 It is a commonplace that The Feminine Mystigue-Friedan's head-on assault on a nexus of social norms and then-legal practices that trapped a broad swath of women in the dead-end role of homebound,financially dependent housewife and mommy-"effec- tively launched the women's movement in 1963."2 Although none of the five books she wrote following The Feminine Mystique came close to rivaling the 1963 wake-up call in either sales or ideological impact,Friedan remained a media celebrity and sought- after lecturer,writer,and academic presence until virtually the end of her life on her eighty-fifth birthday in 2006.Her later books,moreover,took up feminist issues well beyond equality in the workplace,making them progressive and useful,whether or not they achieved the notoriety of her first battle cry. Despite her revolutionary-and I do not think the word is hyperbolic-work,both Friedan and her writing are now often approached with optics somewhere on the spectrum from misty nostalgia to harsh critique.?For students of feminism in theatre and performance this is unfortunate.Friedan saw theatre as a powerful cultural tool. She also enjoyed the pleasures and perils of the limelight in a feminist-as-rock star way achieved by few.Marginalizing her may be fashionable,but since her influence and the issues she championed are still with us,neither she nor her legacy should be ignored. In this essay,I want to use Friedan's writing and persona as touchstones to consider how her ideas-and by extension second-wave feminism,which is often dismissed as Dorothy Chansky is associate professor of theatre at Texas Tech University,where she heads the history/ theory/criticism track.She is currently working on a book about domestic labor and food in twentieth- century American theatre and drama.She is a former book review editor of Theatre Journal. The author wishes to thank Kristine Newhall and Jonathan Chambers for their insights and recom- mendations for this article. 1 Michael Shelden,"Behind the Feminist Mystique,"in Interviews with Betty Friedan,ed.Janann Sherman (Jackson:University Press of Mississippi),189-94;Robert Selle,"Feminism's Matriarch," in Interviews with Betty Friedan,171-73;Judith Hennessee,Betty Friedan:Her Life(New York:Random Hou3e,1999),287. 2Geraldine Bedell,"Why We Love Those Wise Big Women,"New Statesman,8 May 2000,22. 3I borrow the nouns here from Janelle Reinelt's "Approaching the Sixties:Between Nostalgia and Critique"(Theutre Survey 43,no.1 [May 2002]).Reinelt asserts that it is possible to criticize foibles and failures of 1960s efforts toward social change while still "reaffirmlingl what must be taken forward into the futurc"and offering"an intervention into present and ongoing struggles about how to define the self,the citizen,and the nation"(40). Theatre Journal 60(2008)341-364 @2008 by The Johns Hopkins University Press This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Usable Performance Feminism for Our Time: Reconsidering Betty Friedan Dorothy Chansky Betty Friedan is readily acknowledged as "the mother of the modern feminist movement," "feminism's matriarch," and, perhaps more synoptically, as an advocate of social change "whose passion for ideas paralleled her passion for justice."1 It is a commonplace that The Feminine Mystique - Friedan's head-on assault on a nexus of social norms and then-legal practices that trapped a broad swath of women in the dead-end role of homebound, financially dependent housewife and mommy - "effectively launched the women's movement in 1963."2 Although none of the five books she wrote following The Feminine Mystique came close to rivaling the 1963 wake-up call in either sales or ideological impact, Friedan remained a media celebrity and soughtafter lecturer, writer, and academic presence until virtually the end of her life on her eighty-fifth birthday in 2006. Her later books, moreover, took up feminist issues well beyond equality in the workplace, making them progressive and useful, whether or not they achieved the notoriety of her first battle cry. Despite her revolutionary - and I do not think the word is hyperbolic - work, both Friedan and her writing are now often approached with optics somewhere on the spectrum from misty nostalgia to harsh critique.3 For students of feminism in theatre and performance this is unfortunate. Friedan saw theatre as a powerful cultural tool. She also enjoyed the pleasures and perils of the limelight in a feminist-as-rock star way achieved by few. Marginalizing her may be fashionable, but since her influence and the issues she championed are still with us, neither she nor her legacy should be ignored. In this essay, I want to use Friedan's writing and persona as touchstones to consider how her ideas - and by extension second-wave feminism, which is often dismissed as Dorothy Chansky is associate professor of theatre at Texas Tech University, where she heads the history/ theory /criticism track. She is currently working on a book about domestic labor and food in twentiethcentury American theatre and drama. She is a former book review editor o/Theatre Journal. The author wishes to thank Kristine Newhall and Jonathan Chambers for their insights and recommendations for this article. 1 Michael Shelden, "Behind the Feminist Mystique/' in Interviews with Betty Friedan, ed. Janann Sherman (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi), 189-94; Robert Selle, "Feminism's Matriarch/' in Interviews with Betty Friedan, 171-73; Judith Hennessee, Betty Friedan: Her Life (New York: Random House, 1999), 287. 2Geraldine Bedell, "Why We Love Those Wise Big Women," New Statesman, 8 May 2000, 22. 3 1 borrow the nouns here from Janelle Reinelt's "Approaching the Sixties: Between Nostalgia and Critique" (Theatre Survey 43, no. 1 [May 2002]). Reinelt asserts that it is possible to criticize foibles and failures of 1960s efforts toward social change while still "reaffirm[ing] what must be taken forward into the future" and offering "an intervention into present and ongoing struggles about how to define the self, the citizen, and the nation" (40). Theatre Journal 60 (2008) 341-364 © 2008 by The Johns Hopkins University Press This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
342 /Dorothy Chansky dated and exclusionary,asexual,and monolithic4-have remained relevant to theatre practitioners and performance analysts with feminist goals.By performance,I mean both the performance of scripted roles and plays and something more like what Erving Goffman called the presentation of self in everyday life.For actresses and other famous women,these two come together in unavoidable ways.In theatre qua theatre,academic criticism and theory of the 1980s and 1990s worked powerfully against granting cred- ibility to the sort of feminist work that could claim Friedan and her thinking as a direct influence.5 A concern for the constructedness of gender and intervention against the suppression or outright discrediting of lesbian sensibility led to a school of criticism that rarely addressed mainstream plays except to discount their value to progressive feminism.s Meanwhile,however,audiences for both experimental and traditionally constructed feminist theatre enjoyed work that materialist critics wrote off as either liberal(read too invested in the status quo)or cultural(read too willing to trade the patriarchy for a matriarchy and to see motherhood as women's main commonality) and,in any case,insufficient to the materialist task.? No one interested in feminism is unaware of either the populist backlash that gained traction in the late 1980s and early 1990s or of the renascent appeal of the stay-at-home-mom route newly repackaged in the 2000s as"choice."8 I was struck by See Astrid Henry's Not My Mother's Sister:Generational Conflict and Third-Wave Feminism (Bloom- ington:Indiana University Press,2004)for a fine analysis of how feminism of the 1960s and 1970s has been (re)constructed as doctrinaire,white,and anti-sex in order to allow feminists of the 1990s and beyond to believe they are breaking wholly new paths in their work.Among the ironies Henry notes is how lesbian,black,and Chicana third wavers invoke and build on the work of such women as Adrienne Rich,Lillian Faderman,Audre Lorde,bell hooks,and Gloria Anzaldua,even as they insist on the newness of their own presence as spokeswomen for the groups they represent. 5 For instance,Charlotte Canning's Feminist Theaters in the U.S.A.:Staging Women's Experience (Rout- ledge,1996)has not so much as an index entry for Betty Friedan,although Tom Hayden,Shulamith Firestone,and "the women's movement"are credited as seminal influences on theatres that self-identi- fied as feminist between 1969 and the mid-1980s. The best-known of these theorists are Jill Dolan,Sue-Ellen Case,Elin Diamond,and Peggy Phelan. Others whose work was frequently invoked and whose theories were crucial to parsing the psychoana- lytic and philosophical underpinnings of gender as performance include Judith Butler,Laura Mulvey, Luce Irigaray,and Teresa de Lauretis.This list is representative and not exhaustive."Mainstream"is an imprecise term;I use it here to mean plays and theatre reviewed in nationally read publications such as the New York Times or Time magazine or to refer to plays likely to be presented by regional or even community theatres in many cities and states.In no way does the term suggest an opinion about artistic worth or excellence;rather,it indicates cultural traction,circulation,and recognition among a broad segment of Americans who attend plays. 7 Jill Dolan's The Feminist Spectator as Critic(Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,1988)discusses each of these three branches of feminism and,in fact,names the categories as major rubrics under which several kinds of related strands of feminisms are grouped.Dolan discusses and provides ex- amples of liberal and cultural feminist theatre productions,basically situating them as well-meaning though dated or misguided.The book argues that realism cannot be (sufficiently)eye-opening,and that materialism cannot mean for feminist theorists what it does for so many historians namely,a precise and detailed concern with the objects,technologies,and social circumstances proscribing and sculpting lives under investigation (or performance or interpretation).Psychoanalytic and linguistic writings are the key discourses underpinning her materialism. The "bible"on the former is Susan Faludi's Backlash:The Undeclared War Against American Women (New York:Crown,1991).For a trenchant analysis and critique of the latter,see "Homeward Bound" by Linda R.Hirshman (American Prospect 16,no.12 [December 2005]:20-26).As of this writing,the latest critique of stay-at-home momdom is Leslie Bennetts's The Feminine Mistake:Are We Giving Up Too Much?(New York:Voice,2007),which focuses on the economic problems of giving up work and This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
342 / Dorothy Chansky dated and exclusionary, asexual, and monolithic4 - have remained relevant to theatre practitioners and performance analysts with feminist goals. By performance, I mean both the performance of scripted roles and plays and something more like what Erving Goffman called the presentation of self in everyday life. For actresses and other famous women, these two come together in unavoidable ways. In theatre qua theatre, academic criticism and theory of the 1980s and 1990s worked powerfully against granting credibility to the sort of feminist work that could claim Friedan and her thinking as a direct influence.5 A concern for the constructedness of gender and intervention against the suppression or outright discrediting of lesbian sensibility led to a school of criticism that rarely addressed mainstream plays except to discount their value to progressive feminism.6 Meanwhile, however, audiences for both experimental and traditionally constructed feminist theatre enjoyed work that materialist critics wrote off as either liberal (read too invested in the status quo) or cultural (read too willing to trade the patriarchy for a matriarchy and to see motherhood as women's main commonality) and, in any case, insufficient to the materialist task.7 No one interested in feminism is unaware of either the populist backlash that gained traction in the late 1980s and early 1990s or of the renascent appeal of the stay-at-home-mom route newly repackaged in the 2000s as "choice."8 1 was struck by 4 See Astrid Henry's Not My Mother's Sister: Generational Conflict and Third-Wave Feminism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004) for a fine analysis of how feminism of the 1960s and 1970s has been (re)constructed as doctrinaire, white, and anti-sex in order to allow feminists of the 1990s and beyond to believe they are breaking wholly new paths in their work. Among the ironies Henry notes is how lesbian, black, and Chicana third wavers invoke and build on the work of such women as Adrienne Rich, Lillian Faderman, Audre Lorde, bell hooks, and Gloria Anzaldua, even as they insist on the newness of their own presence as spokeswomen for the groups they represent. 5 For instance, Charlotte Canning's Feminist Theaters in the U.S.A.: Staging Women's Experience (Routledge, 1996) has not so much as an index entry for Betty Friedan, although Tom Hayden, Shulamith Firestone, and "the women's movement" are credited as seminal influences on theatres that self-identified as feminist between 1969 and the mid-1980s. 6 The best-known of these theorists are Jill Dolan, Sue-Ellen Case, Elin Diamond, and Peggy Phelan. Others whose work was frequently invoked and whose theories were crucial to parsing the psychoanalytic and philosophical underpinnings of gender as performance include Judith Butler, Laura Mulvey, Luce Irigaray, and Teresa de Lauren's. This list is representative and not exhaustive. "Mainstream" is an imprecise term; I use it here to mean plays and theatre reviewed in nationally read publications such as the New York Times or Time magazine or to refer to plays likely to be presented by regional or even community theatres in many cities and states. In no way does the term suggest an opinion about artistic worth or excellence; rather, it indicates cultural traction, circulation, and recognition among a broad segment of Americans who attend plays. 7 Jill Dolan's The Feminist Spectator as Critic (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988) discusses each of these three branches of feminism and, in fact, names the categories as major rubrics under which several kinds of related strands of feminisms are grouped. Dolan discusses and provides examples of liberal and cultural feminist theatre productions, basically situating them as well-meaning, though dated or misguided. The book argues that realism cannot be (sufficiently) eye-opening, and that materialism cannot mean for feminist theorists what it does for so many historians - namely, a precise and detailed concern with the objects, technologies, and social circumstances proscribing and sculpting lives under investigation (or performance or interpretation). Psychoanalytic and linguistic writings are the key discourses underpinning her materialism. 8 The "bible" on the former is Susan Faludi's Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (New York: Crown, 1991). For a trenchant analysis and critique of the latter, see "Homeward Bound" by Linda R. Hirshman (American Prospect 16, no. 12 [December 2005]: 20-26). As of this writing, the latest critique of stay-at-home momdom is Leslie Bennetts's The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much? (New York: Voice, 2007), which focuses on the economic problems of giving up work and This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
USABLE PERFORMANCE FEMINISM FOR OUR TIME 343 signs showing the cffects of these phenomena in a venue where I least expected them: a pair of obituaries in the Smith Alumnae Quarterly that appeared two years apart. "Remembering Julia McWilliams Child '34"(SAQ,summer 2004)is a glowing and respectful pacan to the French chef,complete with a bullet list of accomplishments and a quoted demurral on the part of the recently deceased that her success was due to any talent.Indeed,Child claimed that she was uncomfortable about the notion of being remembered as a celebrity.The online version of the article includes a link to a 2003 interview.Later in 2004.Smith started an annual Julia Child event that featured, in its third year,a panel titled"What I Learned in the Kitchen."Two years after Child's obituary,Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz's "A Player on the World Stage"remembered the recently deceased Betty Goldstein Friedan (class of 1942)(SAQ,summer 2006).Here, the writer gives with one hand and withholds with the other.We learn of a Friedan interested in having her colors done and misjudging Gary Hart's escapades.While praising Friedan's "energy and sass,"Horowitz offers a reminder that Friedan "will never be elevated to sainthood in some kind of political heaven,for she brought to the game of life too much that insulted and offended others."There is no bullet list of books,no mention of how Friedan would like to be remembered,no link to any interview,and no impending annual event.There is also no mention of Friedan hav- ing achieved "the most outstanding record of any student ever matriculated at Smith" at the time of her graduation.0 There is,however,in the same issue,an excerpt from Child's last book,as well as interview with Alex Prud'homme called "Baking Pies with Aunt Julia." How baking pies and learning in the kitchen came to trump sass and sociological insight in an editorial notion of what will appeal to a Sisters'School imaginary is not unrelated to how Friedan's signature style(direct,eager,forthright,rough-edged)and even appearance(plump,blowzy,grey-haired,unreconstructed by surgery or personal trainers)came to be the antithesis of feminist chic.Nor is this shift unrelated to how Broadway and high-priced Off-Broadway have dealt with women's issues and with women as characters and actresses in the years since the appearance of The Feminine Mystique.In Friedan's case,professional(read critics and other high-profile feminists who knew her personally)response to her writing was perhaps colored by a sense that she was unpleasant in her personal dealings.In live public forums,however,among people outside any feminist"inner circle,"she was routinely received as captivating, magical,and galvanizing.Mediated forums offer an opportunity to consider how the needs and norms of television and journalism themselves construct a feminism and females in which style overwhelms-or at least outweighs-sociological insight and trying to return later.Only 74 percent of women who leave the workforce and want to return manage to do so,and only 40 percent return to full-time professional jobs,according to Bennetts's findings. Women's standards of living typically drop 36 percent when they divorce,while men's rise 28 percent. Bennetts is a full believer in the emotional benefits of marriage as partnership;her project here is to expose the financial realties of opting out of the workforce,even for just a few years. Jennifer Maddox Sergent,"Remembering Julia McWilliams Child34,"Smith Alumnae Quarterly, summer 2004. 10Daniel Horowitz,Betty Fricdan and the Making of The Feminine Mystique (Amherst:University of Massachusetts Press,1996),86.Friedan did say in an interview that she would like her epitaph to read:"She helped make women feel really good about being women.Therefore,they were better able to freely love themselves and more fully love men";see Glenn Lewis,"Betty Friedan's Life So Far: Personal Truths Spark a Movement,"Library Journal(1 April 2000):112. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
USABLE PERFORMANCE FEMINISM FOR OUR TIME / 343 signs showing the effects of these phenomena in a venue where I least expected them: a pair of obituaries in the Smith Alumnae Quarterly that appeared two years apart. "Remembering Julia McWilliams Child '34" (SAQ, summer 2004) is a glowing and respectful paean to the French chef, complete with a bullet list of accomplishments and a quoted demurral on the part of the recently deceased that her success was due to any talent. Indeed, Child claimed that she was uncomfortable about the notion of being remembered as a celebrity.9 The online version of the article includes a link to a 2003 interview. Later in 2004, Smith started an annual Julia Child event that featured, in its third year, a panel titled "What I Learned in the Kitchen." Two years after Child's obituary, Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz's "A Player on the World Stage" remembered the recently deceased Betty Goldstein Friedan (class of 1942) (SAQ, summer 2006). Here, the writer gives with one hand and withholds with the other. We learn of a Friedan interested in having her colors done and misjudging Gary Hart's escapades. While praising Friedan's "energy and sass," Horowitz offers a reminder that Friedan "will never be elevated to sainthood in some kind of political heaven, for she brought to the game of life too much that insulted and offended others." There is no bullet list of books, no mention of how Friedan would like to be remembered, no link to any interview, and no impending annual event. There is also no mention of Friedan having achieved "the most outstanding record of any student ever matriculated at Smith" at the time of her graduation.10 There is, however, in the same issue, an excerpt from Child's last book, as well as interview with Alex Prud'homme called "Baking Pies with Aunt Julia." How baking pies and learning in the kitchen came to trump sass and sociological insight in an editorial notion of what will appeal to a Sisters' School imaginary is not unrelated to how Friedan's signature style (direct, eager, forthright, rough-edged) and even appearance (plump, blowzy, grey-haired, unreconstructed by surgery or personal trainers) came to be the antithesis of feminist chic. Nor is this shift unrelated to how Broadway and high-priced Off-Broadway have dealt with women's issues and with women as characters and actresses in the years since the appearance of The Feminine Mystique. In Friedan's case, professional (read critics and other high-profile feminists who knew her personally) response to her writing was perhaps colored by a sense that she was unpleasant in her personal dealings. In live public forums, however, among people outside any feminist "inner circle," she was routinely received as captivating, magical, and galvanizing. Mediated forums offer an opportunity to consider how the needs and norms of television and journalism themselves construct a feminism and females in which style overwhelms - or at least outweighs - sociological insight and trying to return later. Only 74 percent of women who leave the workforce and want to return manage to do so, and only 40 percent return to full-time professional jobs, according to Bennetts's findings. Women's standards of living typically drop 36 percent when they divorce, while men's rise 28 percent. Bennetts is a full believer in the emotional benefits of marriage as partnership; her project here is to expose the financial realties of opting out of the workforce, even for just a few years. 9 Jennifer Maddox Sergent, "Remembering Julia McWilliams Child '34," Smith Alumnae Quarterly, summer 2004. 10 Daniel Horowitz, Betty Friedan and the Making of The Feminine Mystique (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996), 86. Friedan did say in an interview that she would like her epitaph to read: "She helped make women feel really good about being women. Therefore, they were better able to freely love themselves and more fully love men"; see Glenn Lewis, "Betty Friedan's Life So Far: Personal Truths Spark a Movement," Library Journal (1 April 2000): 112. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
344 Dorothy Chansky is then repackaged as "change"or "progress."I return to Friedan's performance of her feminist self in a later part of this essay.What follows immediately below is a consideration of Friedan's personal history with theatre and how it contributed to her feminist thinking and writing. Theatre and Fricdan:Roots and Routes Betty Friedan's own use of theatre and performance falls into two categories:she references theatre in her writing,and she labels herself an actress as she nods to her ability to galvanize crowds regardless of her personal mood.In no way do I mean to read Friedan as an actress-or even a frustrated actress-in the sense of being someone who sought to play scripted roles in the context of play productions,although she enjoyed doing this when she was very young.Rather,it is the figure of public woman seeking to convey her ideas via spoken words,embodied emotions,and personality and thereby forging a career that makes Friedan's public image-and her self-image- useful here.Her own interests in what we might call"regular"theatre(scripts,tickets, roles,programs,characters,reviews)say much about how this art speaks to educated audience members who are supporters though not professionals in the field. Friedan's interest in theatre began in childhood.Like many upper-middle-class white girls growing up on the heels of the advent of the American Little Theatre movement, Friedan had parents who encouraged her participation in dramatic activities,and she says she loved "hanging around"the amateur Peoria(Illinois)Players-a group suc- cessful enough to build their own theatre,to offer what Friedan called"semi-profes- sional"performances,and to use children,which suggests a varied repertory.Friedan claimed she always got the child parts for which she auditioned.2 She recalled her mother taking her to Chicago for a weekend for her eighteenth birthday and seeing Katharine Cornell in Saint Joan and Helen Hayes in Victoria Regina.She also wrote that seeing The Little Foxes meant recognizing her mother in the grasping,demanding wife character who is killing her husband.3 Friedan won the Dramatic Honor Prize for her performance in the senior class play,Jane Eyre,as Bertha Rochester-the original madwoman in the attic.While in high school she also drafted an outline for a play about a strike at a mill.4 Friedan thrived as an undergraduate,because,as she wrote,"the life of the mind, and the life of music and art and theater and writing and social conscience was the important life at Smith,not the small world of social snobbery."15 Theatre,then,in her mind,belongs to socially involved,mentally sharp people's habitus-an unremarkable notion among middlebrows and many intellectuals for most of the twentieth century, and arguably its own realm of social snobbery.During Fricdan's first year out of col- lege,when she attended the University of California,Berkeley,as a graduate student i For an analysis of how the American Little Theatre Movement spoke to the social and cultural aspirations of middle-class Americans during the 1910s and 1920s,see Dorothy Chansky,Composing Ourselves:The Little Theatre Movement and the American Audience(Carbondale:Southern Illinois Uni- versity Press,2004). Betty Friedan,Life So Far (New York:Simon and Schuster,2000),22. Tbid.,30.Comell's Saint Joan played in Chicago in early June 1936,at which point Friedan was fifteen,so the memoir is mistaken about the eighteenth-birthday trip. 4bid.29. 15bid,37. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
344 / Dorothy Chansky is then repackaged as "change" or "progress." I return to Friedan's performance of her feminist self in a later part of this essay. What follows immediately below is a consideration of Friedan's personal history with theatre and how it contributed to her feminist thinking and writing. Theatre and Friedan: Roots and Routes Betty Friedan's own use of theatre and performance falls into two categories: she references theatre in her writing, and she labels herself an actress as she nods to her ability to galvanize crowds regardless of her personal mood. In no way do I mean to read Friedan as an actress - or even a frustrated actress - in the sense of being someone who sought to play scripted roles in the context of play productions, although she enjoyed doing this when she was very young. Rather, it is the figure of public woman seeking to convey her ideas via spoken words, embodied emotions, and personality and thereby forging a career that makes Friedan's public image - and her self-image - useful here. Her own interests in what we might call "regular" theatre (scripts, tickets, roles, programs, characters, reviews) say much about how this art speaks to educated audience members who are supporters though not professionals in the field. Friedan's interest in theatre began in childhood. Like many upper-middle-class white girls growing up on the heels of the advent of the American Little Theatre movement,11 Friedan had parents who encouraged her participation in dramatic activities, and she says she loved "hanging around" the amateur Peoria (Illinois) Players - a group successful enough to build their own theatre, to offer what Friedan called "semi-professional" performances, and to use children, which suggests a varied repertory. Friedan claimed she always got the child parts for which she auditioned.12 She recalled her mother taking her to Chicago for a weekend for her eighteenth birthday and seeing Katharine Cornell in Saint Joan and Helen Hayes in Victoria Regina. She also wrote that seeing The Little Foxes meant recognizing her mother in the grasping, demanding wife character who is killing her husband.13 Friedan won the Dramatic Honor Prize for her performance in the senior class play, Jane Eyre, as Bertha Rochester - the original madwoman in the attic. While in high school she also drafted an outline for a play about a strike at a mill.14 Friedan thrived as an undergraduate, because, as she wrote, "the life of the mind, and the life of music and art and theater and writing and social conscience was the important life at Smith, not the small world of social snobbery."15 Theatre, then, in her mind, belongs to socially involved, mentally sharp people's habitus- an unremarkable notion among middlebrows and many intellectuals for most of the twentieth century, and arguably its own realm of social snobbery. During Friedan's first year out of college, when she attended the University of California, Berkeley, as a graduate student 11 For an analysis of how the American Little Theatre Movement spoke to the social and cultural aspirations of middle-class Americans during the 1910s and 1920s, see Dorothy Chansky, Composing Ourselves: The Little Theatre Movement and the American Audience (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004). 12 Betty Friedan, Life So Far (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000), 22. 13 Ibid., 30. Cornell's Saint Joan played in Chicago in early June 1936, at which point Friedan was fifteen, so the memoir is mistaken about the eighteenth-birthday trip. 14 Ibid., 29. 15 Ibid., 37. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions