In England in the nineteenth century, the habitus of the well-bred and ruling classes demanded that all persons, including women, demonstrate restraint in terms of their emotions, language, and behavior. For women, the ability to walk the line between two opposing dictates – to be loving and to be reserved – oftentimes dictated social success. Affectionate touch between women, as has been shown, can thus serve as a powerful signifier of identify Victorian texts because its deep-rooted nature in bodily hexis makes it less open to manipulation than other markers. As a tacit system, imbedded in the body from a young age, touching behaviors are slow to alter and remain constant from the late eighteenth to the late nineteenth centuries. Warm, sincere, and spontaneous touch signifies an individual as the ideally feminine woman,
undeniably marriage material; the absence of these behaviors is detrimental to Lucy Snowe, for
35According to critic Elizabeth Signorotti, “Le Fanu’s ‘Carmilla’ . . . marks the growing concern
about the power of female homosocial relationships in the nineteenth century” (610). Carol Senf claims that the “power” of homosocial relationships became apparent due to the “growing
awareness of women’s power and influence . . . [as] feminists began to petition for additional rights for women” (154). As I have shown, however, women’s unrestraint of emotion was in fact seen as a danger to the British sense of moral superiority over other nations throughout much of the nineteenth century, and while the advent of the sexologists and other pseudo-scientific claims would certainly change the nature of the danger female emotion presented at the end of the century, the necessity of containing it was present as early as the 1790s when Austen wrote Northanger Abbey.
example. But such behaviors only mark a woman as belonging to the English well-bred habitus when combined with a gentle restraint that is guided by the societal expectations that it will be initiated by the person of higher standing, and that intimacy will develop over the course of time, and take place in private. Other forms of touching between women – impetuous or public – conversely mark the participants as either lower class or foreign, and thus as suspicious or dangerous. Isabella Thorpe, Ginevra Fanshawe, Lady Waldemar, and Carmilla show this clearly. From touch as a signifier of identity constructs, this study will now turn its attention to touch as an expressive act which functions to increase a woman’s possibilities for agency and self-definition in her world.
4 “A perfect performer”: Touch and Agency
In chapters one and two of this work, we have seen that female touch functioned in the Victorian period as a signifier of identity in terms of a woman’s level of femininity, Englishness, and breeding. Touch is a valuable marker in terms of identity constructs because bodily
deportment and behavior are difficult to intentionally manipulate, unlike other signifiers such as dress, a smattering of accomplishments, or careful adhesion to formal rules of etiquette, all of which can be altered or quickly learned upon a sudden accession to wealth. As we have seen, the theories of Pierre Bourdieu explain how bodily habits become deeply engrained and difficult to change because such habits are learned 1.) at an early age, and 2.) generally unthinkingly, that is, outside the conscious process. These theories suggest that intentionally manipulating one’s identity is difficult, and so opportunities for exploiting social expectations surrounding identity to affect one’s place in the world, or the social world itself, are limited. Yet the sheer volume of advice dedicated to acting naturally and avoiding affected behavior in Victorian conduct material suggests that many women indeed attempted to realize and display a particular version of
themselves to others through carefully crafted performances. Did Victorian women utilize touching behaviors in their quests for agency in their lives? And if so, how effective were such strategies?
Becky Sharp, William Thackeray’s consummate little actress, and the protagonist of the 1848 novel Vanity Fair, is a wonderful example of a woman born in adverse circumstances determined to rise in the world through her own initiative, and the novel is of particular interest since Becky does not rely on her marriage to the younger son of an aristocratic family for her future stability, comfort, and happiness. Only weeks after her nuptials, the young adventuress is
seen playing a part nimbly, seeking to raise her and her husband’s fortunes through particularly feminine methods. The narrator declares:
When Rebecca entered her [Amelia’s] box, she flew to her friend with an
affectionate rapture which showed itself, in spite of the publicity of the place; for she embraced her dearest friend in the presence of the whole house, at least in full view of the general's glass, now brought to bear upon the Osborne party. Mrs. Rawdon saluted Jos, too, with the kindliest greeting: she admired Mrs. O'Dowd's large Cairngorm brooch and superb Irish diamonds, and wouldn't believe that they were not from Golconda direct. She bustled, she chattered, she turned and twisted, and smiled upon one, and smirked on another, all in full view of the jealous opera-glass opposite. And when the time for the ballet came (in which there was no dancer that went through her grimaces or performed her comedy of action better), she skipped back to her own box. . . . (Thackeray 276)
Becky’s behavior “in the presence of the whole house,” and the response to her behavior (for George Osborne calls her “the nicest little woman in England” (277), while her husband’s superior, General Tufto, seethes with jealousy) suggest that bodily behaviors and touch indeed function as tools of agency in Victorian texts. As this passage illustrates, and this chapter will argue, agency can be gained through touch in three distinct ways. First, touch calls the attention of onlookers to the toucher, drawing the gaze and providing a socially licit form of self-display, as seen here when the general turns his opera-glass to follow Becky’s performance. Second, touching behaviors allow the toucher to enact a particular version of the self, to manipulate identity, the way one is seen or viewed by others; in this scene, Becky enacts “affectionate rapture” which would seem to denote a loving heart and thus a particularly feminine nature.
Third, touch has the power to affect the behavior and actions of others, actually altering the social landscape around the toucher. Through her behavior here, for example, Becky cows her former social superior and patroness, Amelia, who “was overpowered by the flash and dazzle . . . of her worldly rival” and actually silences the formidable Mrs. O’Dowd, who was “subdued after Becky’s brilliant apparition.” Much of Becky’s triumph may seem to be won through “flash and dazzle” and the way, as honest Old Dobbin remarks, she “writhes and twists about like a snake” (277), but I would suggest that the way Becky “embraced her dearest friend” is the linchpin of the entire performance. Dobbin may realize that “all the time she was here . . . she was acting,” and Amelia and Mrs. O’Dowd may be intimidated, but what negative response can be shown in the face of such an outright display of affection as an ardent embrace? As this brief reading demonstrates, the socially licit nature of touch makes it a powerful instrument for gaining what I will call ‘advanced agency’ in Victorian England. Shows of physical affection may be wielded as tools, and also as weapons, to advance a woman’s prospects in the world. Such physical behaviors will be utilized by the protagonists of William Makepeace Thackeray’s 1847 novel, Vanity Fair, and Margaret Oliphant’s 1866 novel, Miss Marjoribanks.