Ana içeriğe atla

Domestic Life and Imprisonment in Larkin’s Poetry

 



Larkin presents a depressing and cynical gaze on domestic life in his poem “Afternoons”. His observation captures the tedious lives of young mothers and their children who will replace their parents. Larkin proposes an inescapable cycle of life in which he explores the detrimental nature of domestic life to the individual’s identity and individuality. In this essay, I will examine Larkin’s depiction of the cycle of life and I will argue that domestic life and the inescapable cycle of life deprives women of free will by imprisoning them to a domestic life where they lose their identity and individuality.

Larkin’s observation of domestic life’s mundane structure shows its imprisoning nature against the young mothers. The title of the poem carries utmost importance as it foreshadows the narrative’s tired tone which enforces one of the core themes of the poem; the repetitive cycle of life. The plural suffix “Afternoons” is important as it conveys that the poem is not addressing one precise afternoon, rather it addresses every afternoon. To be precise, the afternoon is a metaphor used to allude to a tedious stage of life. The fact that it addresses every afternoon suggests that the narrative’s acute observation stems from a surplus number of incidents portraying this tedious stage of life to be repetitive and common. The first stanza enriches such imagery by pointing out the mundane life of the young mothers who are gathered “in the hollows of afternoons”. “[H]ollows of afternoon” (Larkin) alludes to a meaningless period of time at which the young mothers assemble and are “setting free their children” The last line of the first stanza ends with a strong implication hinting that people are imprisoned by the domestic lifestyle. Setting something free implies that it was once imprisoned. Therefore, the last line, “setting free their children” (Larkin)  implies that “the new recreation ground” (Larkin) provides a contemporary escape from imprisonment. However, such escape is only available to the children. Here, the absence of freedom becomes evident; the adults, mostly, the young mothers are deprived of such freedom. They only get to assemble and do their duties. How the narrative addresses young mothers, diminishes their individuality and identity. It reduces the identity of the women to being only a mother. Also, the verb, “assemble” introduces a cold and tedious tone which depicts young mothers’ assemble as a mandatory and possibly tedious gathering. This young mothers’ imagery depicts them as martyrs imprisoned by the domestic life’s tedious and repetitive structure. More importantly, these mothers are described to be alone, “Behind them, at intervals, /Stand husbands in skilled trades,” (Larkin). Their husbands are there to help the young mothers but “at intervals” suggests that such help is only visible on the surface. Thereby, the young mothers are alone and are obliged to nurture the children. Such a responsibility that requires constant attention and time allows the domestic life to imprison the young mothers.  Ultimately, the fact that young mothers have a choice or saying in their lives is an illusion, their free will is obstructed by the heavy burden domestic life subjects them to.

Young mothers’ imprisonment and marriage’s inevitable withering becomes more evident as the narratives unveil the burden of domestic workload and domestic life on the marriage. In the second stanza, the narrative introduces the burden of domestic workload which emphasizes young mothers’ imprisonment; “An estateful of washing” (Larkin). This line stands for the never-ending workload that resembles an inescapable chain tied to the young mothers’ wrists. To put it another way, the domestic life’s repetitive and demanding nature entraps the young mothers into its firm and inescapable grip. The narrative’s touch on marriage and love enforces this corrupting inescapable grip and portrays marriage to be doomed to fade away. The description of the remnants of the wedding hints at the withered state of the marriages.

“And the albums, lettered,

 Our Wedding, lying

 Near the television:” (Larkin)

The wedding albums resemble the love between the couples. However, as the love fades away, the wedding albums start to become a resemblance of the inevitable loss of intimacy and love. Also, the wedding albums are placed near the television which symbolizes ingenuity.[TW6]  The double meaning of “lying” (Larkin) enforces the image of ingenuity[TW7]  by personifying the wedding as something that can deceive. Regardless of whether the deception is deliberate or not, the implication is that marriages are doomed to be wrecked by the mundanity of life. The passionate romantic relationships will inevitably turn into dutiful and lust-less relationships that are alive out of necessity.[TW8]  Larkin portrays the cycle of life to be inescapable in which the marriage falls into the corrupting hands of mundane and repetitive life. Ultimately, marriage appears to be the culprit that devours the individuality of young mothers and husbands but marriage is also the victim. The third stanza’s first two lines suggest that marriages stem from the passionate love between the couples. This implies that marriage is not inherently tedious. Rather it gradually becomes tedious against the domestic life’s withering impact. Thereby, the culprit of imprisonment of women and withering of marriages is the inescapable chains of domestic life.

Larkin’s choice of words and use of ambiguity allows the poem to be independent from time and place. The last two lines of the second stanza introduce a sort of power that subjects marriage to be withered. “Before them, the wind/ Is ruining their courting-places.” The narrative proposes that “the wind” which symbolizes the unavoidable injurious power ruins the marriages. Larkin’s word of choice holds utmost importance as “the wind” resembles a sort of force that cannot be obstructed or controlled and will always be present[TW9] . Therefore, it is this inescapable force that dooms marriages to destruction and individuals to the tedious cages where they lose their identity and individuality. In the poem, this imprisoning force is applied to the young mothers of suburban cities presenting domestic life to be this imprisoning force. However, Larkin utilizes ambiguity in a way that implies that this force can be in any form, yet the consequences will remain the same.

That are still courting-places

(But the lovers are all in school),

And their children, so intent on

Finding more unripe acorns, (Larkin)

The first two lines show the monotony of life implying that there will always people who will fall in love to end up in the marriage trap. The third and fourth lines suggest that this monotony will continue and the children will replace their parents. These four lines point out a cycle of life that is unavoidable and uncontrollable which enforces the idea that there will always be a sort of force that will maintain the cycle of life that captures individuals and erodes their identity and individuality.[TW10]  The fact that Larkin uses natural elements, “summer” (Larkin) and “unripe acorns,” (Larkin) as metaphors reinforce the idea that these are recurrent events that will take place. Finally, the last two lines of the poem demonstrate Larkin’s use of ambiguity to convey that a sort of power will present itself to the individual, “Something is pushing them/ To the side of their own lives”. (Larkin) Larkin does not specify “Something” (Larkin) to suggest that it could be anything depending on time and place, yet the impact will be the same. It will diminish the individual’s individuality and identity, forcing them to value something else more than they value themselves.

In conclusion, Larkin through his depiction of the inescapable cycle of life challenges the concept of free will. Larkin portrays an ambitious rigid image of the cycle of life in which nothing can alter it. The repetitive and mundane structure of domestic life subjects the young mother to a heavy burden that imprisons them.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


s

 [TW2]good

 [TW3]You only need to give the author’s name the first time. Afterwards, just the line number.

 [TW4]good

 [TW5]are they really martyrs (who are also seen as heroes)? Or just people who’ve lost their individual identities?

 [TW6]How so??

 [TW7]I think you mean ‘disingenuousness’

 [TW8]good

 [TW9]good - you could say it is a kind of eroding force that wears everything down eventually

 [TW10]good

Yorumlar

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other. The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they...