xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001920053
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080103s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002087
A Maslovian approach to the motivations of Shakespeare's transvestite heroines in The Two Gentlemen of Verona, As You Like It, and The Merchant of Venice
h [electronic resource] /
by Angela Eward-Mangione.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
ABSTRACT: "Motivation" is the force that drives an individual to perform a certain action. Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), an American psychologist profoundly influenced by the existential and teleological paradigms, expounded a motivation theory that remains precise and replicable, as well as applicable to other spheres of study, including the humanities. Indeed, psychology experts and non-specialists are by and large familiar with Maslow's Pyramid of Human Needs. Moreover, despite the abundance of literary criticism that utilizes Freudian-based theory to analyze the motivations of literary characters, critics have largely neglected the use of other paradigms, including Maslow's. In this thesis, I use Maslow's texts as support for identifying the motivations of women characters who dress as men in Shakespeare's dramas. I also simultaneously employ Maslow's theory to illuminate the parallels in these characters' motivations and the varying need levels that Maslow develops in his hierarchy. After a comprehensive review of the literary criticism that addresses the dramatic motif of cross-dressing in early modern England and an extensive explanation of the history of motivation theory up to and including that of Abraham Maslow, I treat the following plays by William Shakespeare: The Two Gentlemen of Verona, As You Like It, and The Merchant of Venice in conjunction with Maslow's Pyramid of Human Needs. Through this analysis, I demonstrate that Julia cross-dresses to satisfy needs on the level of Love/Belonging; Rosalind cross-dresses for reasons that correspond to the Safety level, then to the Esteem level; and Portia demonstrates motivations that correspond to Maslow's Love/Belonging and Esteem levels.
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 81 pages.
Advisor: Sarah Munson Deats, Ph.D.
Modern motivation theory.
Third force psychology.
Early modern England.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
A Maslovian Approach To The Motivations Of Shakespeares Transvestite HeroinesIn The Two Gentelmen Of Verona As You Like It and The Merchant of Venice by Angela Eward-Mangione A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Liberal Arts Department of Humanities and American Studies College of Arts and Sciences The University of South Florida Major Professor: Sarah Munson Deats, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D. William Morris, Ph.D. Date of Approval: May 29, 2007 Keywords: transvestism, modern motivation theory, holistic psychology, third force psychology, early modern england @2007, Angela Eward-Mangione
Dedication To my adoptive father, James Jim Eward (1939-2005).
Acknowledgements This thesis represents the culmination of academic achievement, as well as personal growth and maturity. I must first thank my husband for the countless days, hours, weeks, months, and years he helped me grow. He always encouraged me to pursue my dreams and did anything possible to assist: cleaning, cooking, running errands, washing my car, picking up ink cartridges or computer paper, offering a shoulder to cry on, and much more. I feel blessed to have the opportunity participate in the deep, meaningful, and truly equal partnership we share. As the brilliant Rainer Maria Rilke poetically expounds: The point of marriage is not to create a quick commonality by tearing down all boundaries; on the contrary, a good marriage is one in which each partner appoints the other to be the guardian of his solitude, and thus they show each other the greatest possible trust. A merging of two people is an impossibility, and where it seems to exist, it is a hemming-in, a mutual consent that robs one party or both parties of their fullest freedom and development. But once the realization is accepted that even between the closest people infinite distance exists, a marvelous living side-by-side can grow up for them, if they succeed in loving the expanse between them, which gives them the possibility of always seeing each other as a whole
and before an immense sky. (Translated from the German by Stephen Mitchell) I would like to modify this slightly, and thank my husband for not only seeing me as a whole before a skybut as the sky of infinite space, and, for loving the clear-blue shades, stormy clouds, and dark nights that continuously dance and trade places as we journey through life together. I thank all who contributed to my proposal and this manuscript, including Sara Crawley in the Womens Studies Department, as well the members of my examining committee who also criticized and improved this manuscript: Sara Munson Deats, Joanne Waugh, and William Morris. Dr. Deats first inspired me as an undergraduate and her love for Shakespeare and teaching still amazes me. As a graduate student, her outstanding scholarship, teaching, editing, and encouragement grounded me in critical theory, as well as in the background information on early modern England that became essential for all my future work up to and including this thesis. Joanne Waugh acted as my mentor, as well as my course advisor. She always gave me the guidance I needed, while allowing me the flexibility I required for growth. William Morris first influenced me as an undergraduate. His lectures always left me spell-bound and inspired me to learn more. I thank these three scholars, mentors, and outstanding teachers. It is extremely difficult for me to express in words how significantly Martin Schnfeld in the Philosophy Department affected my personal and academic life. He is entirely brilliant, endlessly patient, genuinely caring, fantastically sensible, and consistently sound. I am not certain I would be here right now were it not for the patient
counseling and teaching he so generously provided. I would also like to thank Rick Wilber in the Communications Department for his fastidious guidance and attention. I met Rick at a Tampa Writers Alliance Meeting in 2006, and he did not hesitate for a moment to advise me in my writing and academic career. This benevolence is inspirational! Marc Olmsted, a fine Buddhist poet in San Francisco, California also significantly contributed to my development and success. Always encouraging me to keep working on my thesis while also tutoring me long-distance in my professional and creative writing, Marc remains a tremendous influence in my lifeacademically speaking, as well as on my personal path of awakening. I also thank Steve Shealy, PhD for his talented skills as a therapist, professional, and community leader. When things seemed stressful and overwhelming, he was always there to guide me back to my true self. I thank my best friend Lila Potter, MA for cheering and inspiring me, and for perpetually continuing our tradition of accepting each other for who we are. This seed was planted when we initially met in Kindergarten at age five, and has continued to blossom ever since. Together, we have weathered tests, courses, papers, stress, successes, happiness, failures, tears, smiles, marriages, break-ups, lost jobs, new jobs, and more. Best friends like this are hard to come by these days, and I am deeply grateful for her and wish her luck as she pursues a PhD in Business. I would also like to thank Paul Linn for taking the time to help me see things more clearly. I am so grateful for his wisdom, compassion, and teachings. His courage and authenticity inspire me. I remember my first teacher, Gabriel Horn (White Dear of Autumn), with gratitude.
Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my late adoptive father for cultivating and encouraging my love for learning. When I was young, we sat in our living room and read encyclopedias together. We also watched TV Shows about history, the arts, and religion. We never talked much until our final days together, but we always shared this bondthis love of life and learning, and appreciation and reverence for All that is. I am sorry he is not here to see the finished product of this work, but am grateful to feel his presence whenever I wish. His death remains my greatest teacher to this day; its lesson: Live life fully, and as though this day may be your last, is indeed credible and guides me in every moment.
i Table of Contents Abstract ii Chapter One: Introduction 1 Chapter Two: Motivation Theory 14 Chapter Three: Abraham Maslow 21 Chapter Four: Julia/Sebastian in The Two Gentlemen of Verona 37 Chapter Five: Rosalind/Ganymede in As You Like It 45 Chapter Six: Portia in The Merchant of Venice 56 Chapter Seven: Conclusion 67 Works Cited 71 Bibliography 76
ii A Maslovian Approach to the Motivations of Shakespeares Transvestite Heroines in The Two Gentlemen of Verona As You Like It and The Merchant of Venice Angela Eward-Mangione ABSTRACT Motivation is the force that drives an individual to perform a certain action. Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), an American psychologist profoundly influenced by the existential and teleological paradigms, expounded a motivation theory that remains precise and replicable, as well as applicable to other spheres of study, including the humanities. Indeed, psychology experts and non-specialists are by and large familiar with Maslows Pyramid of Human Needs. Moreover, despite the abundance of literary criticism that utilizes Freudian-based theory to analyze the motivations of literary characters, critics have largely neglected the use of other paradigms, including Maslows. In this thesis, I use Maslows texts as support for identifying the motivations of women characters who dress as men in Shakespeares dramas. I also simultaneously employ Maslows theory to illuminate the parallels in these characters motivations and the varying need levels that Maslow develops in his hierarchy. After a comprehensive review of the literary criticism that addresses the dramatic motif of cross-dressing in early modern England and an extensive explanation of the history of motivation theory up to and including that of Abraham Maslow, I treat the following plays by William
iii Shakespeare: The Two Gentlemen of Verona, As You Like It, and The Merchant of Venice in conjunction with Maslows Pyramid of Human Needs. Through this analysis, I demonstrate that Julia cross-dresses to satisfy needs on the level of Love/Belonging; Rosalind cross-dresses for reasons that correspond to the Safety level, then to the Esteem level; and Portia demonstrates motivations that correspond to Maslows Love/Belonging and Esteem levels.
1 I. Introduction Cross-dressing was a familiar practice in the medieval and Renaissance periods in the West. In her 1990 dissertation for Yale University, Clothes Make the Man: Female Transvestism in the Middle Ages a work later published by Garland PressV.R. Hotchkiss examines a plethora of diverse medieval texts showcasing women who utilized gender disguise to participate in activities customarily reserved for men: monastic life, ecclesiastical governance, travel, business, rescue missions, and warfare. As Hotchkiss notes, Female transvestism occurs so frequently in medieval texts that feminine stereotypes, roles in literature, and the perception of women in the Middle Ages warrant reexamination in light of it (4). K.V. Crawford addresses the Renaissance and later periods in her Ph.D. Thesis for Harvard University entitled, The Transvestite Heroine in Seventeenth-Century Popular Literature (1984), in which she traces the history of attitudes toward transvestism in the West, links this history with various concepts of androgyny, examines an eighteenth-century transvestites autobiography, explores the meaning of masculinity and femininity in seventeenth-century England, considers the roles of women in the political and religious movements of the period, discusses the controversy over fashions in clothing, and scrutinizes the transvestite heroine in Shakespearean and non-Shakespearean drama. The English viewed transvestism as a controversial subject during this time because Biblical and societal law forbade this practice. In the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits a
2 woman from wearing that which pertaineth unto a man, and also warns that neither shall a man put on a womans garment: for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord their God. Elizabethans took this injunction literally, although Jewish scholarship offers an alternative perspective: All this said, the beged ish (man's clothing) question becomes more complicated as we begin to consider the Pandora's box-o'gender. While the issues raised by the modern transgender movement have different implications for the lives of many of our fellow human beings, the questions such as What is a man? What is a woman? and How do we know? are ancient. The rabbis of the Talmud recognized as many as seven genders and debated the status, responsibilities and roles of each one. But what the rabbis of the Talmud did not anticipate is the phenomenon of more and more people who argue that gendercan be chosen. (Ruttenberg, 1) The English legal ramifications of transvestism have roots in the medieval era. Jeanne d Arc (ca. 1412-1431), perhaps the most thoroughly documented medieval transvestite, stood trial and faced execution for charges of transvestism. This legal stance still existed during the Renaissance and informed morally critical anti-theatrical polemicsevidenced by several circulating tracts in early modern England. Tract authors disseminated these texts within the broader context of a politically and religiously rooted distrust in the public performance of plays. David Bevington, in his introduction to The Complete Works of Shakespeare notes:
3 From the 1570s onward, and even earlier, the city fathers of London revealed an ever-increasing distrust of the public performance of plays. They fretted about the dangers of plague and riotous assembly. They objected to the fact that apprentices idly wasted their time instead of working in their shops. And always the municipal authorities suspected immorality. (xliii) English preachers also thundered against drama, and pamphleteers of the era denounced all matters pertaining to the stage: Stephen Gosson in The School of Abuse, Containing a Pleasant Invective Against Poets, Pipers, Players, Jesters and Suchlike Caterpillars of a Commonwealth (1579); Philip Stubbes in The Anatomy of Abuses (1583); and William Pyrnne in The Players Scourge or Actors Tragedy (1633). As Bevington explains, Gosson, a playwright-turned-clergyman censured plays as the inventions of the devil, the offerings of idolatry, the pomp of worldlings, the blossoms of vanity, the root of apostasy food of iniquity, riot and adulteryPlayers are masters of vice, teachers of wantonness, spurs to impurity, the sons of idleness (Gosson qtd. Bevington, xlv). However, Gosson did not initiate the stage controversy. The tirades against the stage date back at least to the time of Plato, and other pamphleteers had verbalized arguments and printed diatribes a year or more before Gosson left the playhouse to attack it. William Ringler develops this point in his biography and critical study of Gosson: From the time of the earliest dramatic performances to the present there have always been some people who objected to them. Plato expelled the
4 tragedians from his ideal state, the Church Fathers inveighed against the demoralized performances in the Roman amphitheaters, and in the late Middle Ages criticism was leveled at the miracles and the mysteries. At some periods this criticism reached considerable proportions, at others it was insignificant; but at no time when the drama existed was it entirely absent. (54) However, Gosson undoubtedly popularized the attack and attracted considerable attention to the debate over the Renaissance theater, which regularly featured actors who on the stage transgressed a multitude of political, social, and legal boundaries normally enforced in early modern England, such as stealing and murder. The stage also offered a sphere in which lowborn actors could impersonate kings and queens,as well as cross-dress. Consequently, actors could transcend the normal restrictions placed on social mobility. Since Elizabethans associated professions outside the home and all higher social ranks with men, London pamphleteers considered women who cross-dressed as men morally and socially subversive. These women presented a violation of the Biblical injunction against cross-dressing and threatened the states social hierarchy. Although published in the early part of the seventeenth century, Hic Mulier also addresses the anxiety over the behavior and attitudes of womenpartially reflected in their donning of mens clothes in the society of early modern England. A letter by John Chamberlain, the prominent epistolary historian of the court of James I (dated January 25, 1620), describes a strangely vehement reaction of James to the shifting attitudes, behaviors, and dress of women:
5 Yesterday the bishop of London called together all his clergie about this town, and told them he had express commandment from the King to will them to inveigh vehemently against the insolencies of our women, and theyre wearing of brode brimed hats, pointed doublets, theyre hayre cut short or shorne, and some of them stilettos or poniards, and such other trinckets of like moment; adding withal that if pulpit admonitions will not reforme them he would proceed by an other course; the truth is the world is very much out of order, but whether this will mende it God knows. (Baines, vii) As Barbara Baines explains in her introduction to Three Pamphlets on Jacobean Antifeminist Controversy, the change in womens dress was such a serious matter because it reflected or suggested an alteration in the way women conceived of themselves in relation to men. Since in the Renaissance sexual identity was based on a complementary sexual polarity, the Renaissance man no doubt felt threatened by this change (viii). Despite the changes that occurred during this period, however, many aspects of early modern life remained constant, such as the social hierarchy and oppression of women endemic to English society. As Sara Munson Deats elucidates in Sex, Gender, and Desire in the Plays of Christopher Marlowe : During the so-called Renaissance in England, a married woman could not own property, indeed had no legal identity separate from her husbanda man could legally beat his wife almost to death as long as he
6 wielded an instrument of chastisement no thicker than his thumb, and, a woman who fled from an abusive husband could be whipped, branded and even hanged as a vagrant. (50) We must acknowledge the English social matrix before we consider the treatment of any of the issuesincluding cross-dressingin Renaissance drama. This context includes the banishment of women from the stage, which explains why boy actors played the role of female actors and consequently identifies another circulating prejudice in early modern England not always shared by continental counterparts during this epoch. Many literary critics have addressed the cultural phenomenon and dramatic convention of transvestism by focusing on other aspects of this subject. One group of critics concentrating on the homosexual possibilities of Shakespeares cross-dressed characters includes but is not limited to Lisa Jardine in Boy Actors, Female Roles, and Elizabethan Eroticism (1991), Valerie Traub, in Desire and Anxiety: Circulations of Sexuality in Shakespearean Drama (1992), and Denise Walen in Lust-Exciting Apparel and the Homosexual Appeal of the Boy Actor: The Early Modern Stage Polemic (1995). As I previously observed, women did not act on stage in early modern England. Therefore, adolescent boys cross-dressed to perform the role of female characters. Consequently, a boy actor courting, kissing, or having a romantic relationship with another boy actor possibly constituted homosexual behavior, even though the boy actor intended to play the role of a female character and the playwright in question intended to create a female dramatic character. Despite the certainty with which the playwright knew a cross-dressed boy actor would play the role of a female character,
7 most of us would agree, for example, that Shakespeare intended for Desdemona to serve as Othellos female wife. Traub initiates her discussion of Shakespeares homoeroticism by overlooking this point, among others: The phenomenon of boy actors playing womens parts in Shakespearean comedy has engendered analyses primarily along three axes. The boy actor: (1) is merely a theatrical convention in the lineage of medieval drama; (2) is a political convention specifically necessitated by the determination to keep women, excepting Elizabeth I, off any public stage or platform; or (3) is an embodiment of the meta-dramatic theme of identity itself: always a charade, a masquerade, an otherI want to argue first that the practice of employing boys to act the parts of women was not merely a dramatic convention, nor was it solely a patriarchal strategy. (Traub 117) Traub cites Stephen Orgel in Nobodys Perfect: Or Why Did the English Stage Take Boys for Women to support her dismissal of the patriarchal aspect of this dramatic conventionthe desire to keep women out of public view. As Orgel points out, when in 1599 the Spanish government banned women from the Spanish stage, the spectacle of transvestite boys was found to be even more disturbing than that of theatrical women, and the edict was rescinded four years later (Orgel 7-8). Traub suggests that the dramatic practice of transvestism continued in early modern England because it enabled Elizabethans to explore their homoerotic desires and fantasies (118). I agree that it is impossible to ignore the erotic aspects that surround the dramatic convention of cross-
8 dressing in early modern Englandparticularly in Shakespeares plays. However, I propose that Shakespeares plays likely contain an equal number of heterosexually oriented erotic puns and innuendos. Thus, I do not deem a singular focus on aspects we today would term homosexual as necessary. Moreover, I do not find the practice of ignoring the patriarchal aspects of the edict against cross-dressing completely convincing. Clearly, other aspects of this convention such as the patriarchal society and the oppression of women endemic to this society are relevant. A second group of critics, concentrating on the manner in which cross-dressing challenged or denaturalized gender roles and cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity, includes Juliet Dusinberres, Shakespeare and the Nature of Women (1975); Nancy K. Hayles Sexual Disguise in As You Like It and Twelfth Night (1979); Shirley F. Statons Female Transvestism in Renaissance Comedy, A Natural Perspective, That Is and Is Not (1981); Robert Kimbroughs Androgyny Seen Through Shakespeares Disguise (1982); Marianne Novys Loves Argument: Gender Relations in Shakespeare (1984); Catherine Belseys Disrupting Sexual Difference: Meaning and Gender in the Comedies (1985); Phyllis Rackins Androgyny, Mimesis, and the Marriage of the Boy Heroine on the English Renaissance Stage (1987); Jean Howards Cross-dressing, the Theater, and Gender Struggle in Early modern England (1988); and David Cressys Gender Trouble and Cross-Dressing in Early modern England (1996). As Howard notes, when considering the social phenomenon of cross-dressing, its meaning varies with the circumstances of its occurrence, with the particulars of the institutional or cultural sites of its enactment, and with the class position of the transgressor (418). Howard argues that
9 the preachers and polemics who maintained a steady attack on the practice of crossdressing during this period signal a sex-gender system under pressure (418). She also suggests that cross-dressing, as a fact and as an idea, threatened a normative social order based upon strict principles of hierarchy and subordination, of which womens submission to man was a chief instance, trumpeted from a pulpit, instantiated in law, and acted upon by monarch and commoner alike (Ibid). I agree with Howards interpretation and believe her essay fully situates the cultural and dramatic practice of cross-dressing within the framework that is essential to any study of this phenomenon. A third group employing audience-response approaches to analyze Shakespeares cross-dressed characters includes Peter Hyland in Shakespeares Heroines: Disguise in the Romantic Comedies (1978); Laura Levine in Men and Womens Clothing: Antitheatricality and Effeminization from 1579 to 1642 (1986); Stephen Orgel in Nobodys Perfect or Why Did the English Stage Take Boys for Women? (1989); and Ursula Heise in Transvestism and the Stage Controversy in Spain and England, 1580-1680 (1992). Additionally, Michael Shapiro synthesizes the ideas of several of these critics in Gender in Play on the Shakespearean Stage: Boy Heroines and Female Pages (1994) (Perry 25). Heise suggests that English womens absence from the English stage points to a unique social practice in England but a general attitude toward issues of gender and sexuality shared by Spain during this time (360-361). According to Heise, the English and Spanish preoccupation with gender invites four areas for investigation: 1.) Why Spanish society permitted women on stage when English society did not; 2.) Why English society accepted boys in drag when Spanish society ultimately outlawed them;
10 3.) What preoccupations were at stake in the attempted repression of the female transvestism so popular with audiences in both countries; 4.) Why transvestism, in general, was so popular with both of the English and Spanish audiences (359-360). As Heise observes, there are no specific laws or forms of social organization that would explain the convention of English society preferring transvestite boys over women, and Spanish society preferring transvestite women over boys (360). Moreover, even though Spains final resolution of 1600 granted women permission to act, a much more heated controversy over gender and theatre ensued, including a memorandum from the Council of Castilethe governing body in Spain under Charles Vthat prohibited the use of transvestite boys on stage, outlawed the practice of actresses dressing as men and prescribed that actresses wear long skirts and adopt male attire only from the waist up keeping their legs and feet decently covered (Ibid)and also required that actresses be accompanied by their husbands or fathers (359-360). Based on her comparative analysis of both countries, she observes a preoccupation over how to keep womens sexuality under control, and the belief that insufficiently controlled female sexuality is considered a hazard for the stability of social order (361). Significantly, Heises work focuses on early modern Englands alleged attempt to control female sexuality and examines restrictions enforced upon women toward this end, while Traubs work suggests that cross-dressing as a dramatic convention facilitated the exploration of homoerotic desire and anxiety. It seems that the former perspective infers that cross-dressing as a dramatic practice is inhibiting while the latter approach finds its nature permissive. I suggest that a holistic approach to this subject enables us to
11 appreciate its various facets and the differing implications that co-existed within the related social structure of early modern England. This viewpoint also respects the comedic aspect of this subject. When watching a play and seeing a boy dressed as a woman strut the stage, Elizabethan audience members likely laughed as much as they (allegedly) contemplated threats to the patriarchal hierarchy or delighted in homoerotic exploration. Moreover, many theorists view comedy in particular as the topsyturveydom of carnival, and consider Shakespeares transvestite heroines and the transgressions associated with their gender and sexuality as a way of letting off steam (Gay 2). According to this viewpoint, the audience enjoysthese fantastical disruptions, and then, after the carnival event, settles back happily into the regulated social order of patriarchy (2). A fourth approach, to which I wish to contribute, acknowledges the existing framework and all of its integral aspects within which the cultural and dramatic practice of transvestism occurred within, but addresses the practice itself from a philosophical and psychological perspective. Belseys Disrupting Sexual Difference: Meaning and Gender in the Comedies (1985) aligns with the philosophical category, since she relies on Ferdinand de Saussures theories to demonstrate that Shakespeares transvestite heroines arrest the perceived meaning of sex and gender. Bonos Mixed Gender, Mixed Genre in Shakespeares As You Like It also offers an excellent example of psychologically based criticism. Bono adapts the object-relations theory of Nancy Chodorowan interdisciplinary scholar who defines herself as a humanistic psychoanalytical sociologist and a psychoanalytic feministto develop a feminist,
12 psychoanalytic approach to the study of Shakespeares transvestite characters. Traubs work, Desire and Anxiety also employs psychoanalytic methods, although Traub uses this approach to interrogate feminist and new historical methods and consequently synthesize the psychic and the social, the individual and the institutional along with an analysis of Shakespearean drama (i). Currently, no other psychological or psychophilosophical scholarship exists which provides a comprehensive examination and analysis of Shakespeares transvestite heroines. In this thesis, I attempt to formulate such an approach. Rather than focusing on the end result of these heroines behaviortheir challenges to the patriarchy and blurring of gender and identity, for example I consider the possible motivations of these fascinating and dynamic women. Since psychological criticism tends to treat characters as credible human beings; we should analyze these characters from as many illuminating angles as possible. This approach is not uncommon within literary studies. When we study Othello for instance, we ruminate over the motivationsof Iago, Othello, Desdemona, and other characters within the play. Scholars still argue over whether or not Iago represents the Vice from the medieval morality play, or if his envy for Othello provides a humanly credible motivation for his behavior. Conversely, we continue to contemplate whether shame, despair, or cowardice motivates Othellos decision to commit suicide. In Hamlet we seek to understand what motivated Ophelias suicideher love for Hamlet, or dejection, or despondency? We ask what motivated King Lear to treat Cordelia so harshly in the opening act of the play, and we are not entirely sure what motivated Macbeth to kill Duncan. Lovers of the theater have always sought to discern the motivations of dramatic characters. In the next chapter, I
13 will discuss motivation in more detail, and provide a brief history of the full range of motivation theory.
14 Chapter II: Motivation Theory Scholars of philosophy and laymen alike commonly view motivation as what drives an individual to perform a certain action. Phrases such as Police Search for Motive regularly appear in print media or online headlines worldwide. However, the quest to understand this subject readily exists outside the criminal sphere. Lascaux, a complex of caves in southwestern France, contains some of the earliest known art dating back to somewhere between 13,000 and 15,000 BC, perhaps as far back as 25,000 BC. Philosophers, anthropologists, and other historians continue to speculate on the motivations for the cave paintings. Some scholars maintain that humans are social animals, and these scholars suggest that the Lascaux cave art signifies the expression of humanitys social aspect. Others, such as Henri douard Prosper Breuila French archaeologist, anthropologist, ethnologist, and geologistinterpret the paintings as hunting magic intended to increase the number of animals within close proximity. Another theory, more modern in origin, interprets the art as the work of Cro-Magnon shamans. According to this perspective, shamans retreated into the caves, entered into a trance state, and then painted images of their visions. A desire to draw power from the caves walls might account for the Shamans motivations; we do not know this for certain. As a result of the curiosity we perpetually demonstrate in understanding what propels our actions, philosophers and psychologists have consistently sought to formulate
15 paradigms, models, and explanations for motivation. What is motivation? Does motivation exist within us, outside of us, or is it a synergistic process between self and environment? Prior to a more detailed discussion of motivation in general and of why I choose to examine the motivations of Shakespeares cross-dressing heroines in particular, I must first offer a brief history of the full range of motivation theories. As R.J. Rummel notes in The Dynamic Field of Motives, Attitudes, and Goals : What drives us, what motivates us to behave as we do and how does this motivation work, have been of utmost importance to humankind throughout our history. (175) Although Rummels work seeks to provide an analysis of the causes or motivations for violence and war, his discussion of motivation provides a comprehensive survey of how philosophers and collective societiesparticularly our Western society have viewed and treated this psychological drive. Prior to his in-depth investigation of the four principal perspectives on motivation that I will discuss laterthe hydraulic, tensionrelease model; the behavioral paradigm; the existential view; and the teleological perspectiveRummel includes brief commentary on pre-modern views of motivation: The ancient Greeks saw us as driven by our spirit (such as courage) and our base desires, with reason mediating between. The Hindus saw us as motivated by self-preservation, self-expression, sex, gregariousness, and an impulse to knowledge. Medieval scholastics thought we were driven faith, reason, and our low appetites. (175) Rummel initiates his discussion of the four primary modern paradigms of motivation by acknowledging the philosophical transition that occurred during and after
16 the early modern period, and which consequently influenced these models: With the dethronement of revelation in the West and emphasis on the data of experience, we became viewed as either a machine reacting to external stimuli or a being motivated at the most basic level by the desire to avoid pain and seek pleasure. (175) This radical philosophical shift inaugurated a dramatic alteration in the way that Westerners approached ontological and epistemological questions. Consequently, future philosophers began to view humankind in increasingly mechanistic terms. As an example, Freuds hydraulic, tension-release model suggests that motivation constitutes the increase of psychic tension which must then be relieved through related or substitute behavior (175-176). We refer to this as the hydraulic modelof motivation because pressure at the motivational end gets transmitted to pressure at the behavioral end of the psychological process, which may be relieved through appropriate behavior or unconscious mechanisms (dreams, displacement) (176). The dynamic of this Freudian mechanism may be represented by the following: (build up of energy) (urge) (behavior aiming to discharge energy, which equals pleasure) (satisfaction of urge). According to this view, avoiding pain (psychic energy overload) and seeking pleasure (discharge) are the chief motivations of organisms. Freud offers a psychology that treats the patient as a self-contained unit. Ultimately, the egoor captain of the shipfulfills the controlling function of the mental apparatus and controls the access to motility ( The Ego & the Id ,57), or discharge. In The Question of Lay Analysis, Freud associates the Egos task with the aversion of mishaps: to mediate between the pretensions of the Id,
17 the realm of passions, and preventions of the outer world (Dictionary of Psychoanalysis ,66). In contrast, the Behaviorist paradigm, also influenced by the New Philosophy and Science of the modern era, explains action from a stimulus-response perspective. Ivan Petrovitsi Pavlov, a Russian born physicist who studied pharmacology and physiology in Saint Petersburg won a 1904 Nobel Prize for his contributions to Physiology and Medicine, although Behaviorism originated with the work of an American psychologist named John B. Watson. Pavlov received the most notoriety for his experiments with dogs. Originally, he sought to investigate their gastric function by externalizing a salivary gland, which allowed him to collect, measure, and analyze the dogs saliva produced in response to food under varying conditions. Pavlov observed that the dogs displayed a propensity to salivate before research assistants actually delivered food to their mouths. Consequently, he decided to investigate their secretion and carried out a long series of experiments in which he manipulated the stimuli that occurred before the presentation of food. Psychologists and most laymen know that Pavlov realized he could make the dogs salivate by simply manipulating the stimuli; the visual presence of food was not necessary. Accordingly, he focused on observable behavior. The assumption underlying this and the behaviorist paradigm as a whole posits that behavior is measurable and quantifiable as opposed to an inner mental life which (allegedly) is not. According to behaviorist model, the environment determines behavior and all behavior is learned. In contrast, the existential paradigm developed in part over dissatisfaction with the behavioral and especially the Freudian pleasure principle (177).
18 Martin Heidegger, Martin Buber, and Jean Paul-Sarte associated themselves with this movement. Rummel correctly identifies meaning as the key existentialist concept: What is important in motivation is the way a person as an individual sees and confronts the world, the meaning the world has for him. The explanation of motivation then lies not in past reinforcement or in past energy overload, but in our present involvement in the world and our view of that involvement. (177; emphasis added) Heidegger refers to this being in-the-world as Dasein in Being and Time According to Heidegger, human beings are events motivated by future goals, not objects that experience psychic build up or are solely determined by their environment. Heideggers perspective collapses the inner versus outer dichotomy that divides itself between the Freudian and Behaviorist models. Sartre, a seminal influence in the existentialist movement and leading figure in existential phenomenology, developed a philosophy that retains Heideggers focus on purpose and intentionality yet further emphasizes a future goal. Robert G. Olson summarizes Sartres view in The Three Theories of Motivation in the Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre: Human existence is being-for-itself in that it is fundamentally characterized by finality, purpose, or intention, human conduct being motivated by future goals...mans behavior cannot be motivated in any essential sense by the exterior world or past events because Sartre in moments of anguish encountered the exterior world as it isin its full gratuitousness, contingence, or absurdity. (176; 178)
19 As Olsen notes, Sartre offers three theories of motivation, not just one. I view Sartres tri-fold motivation theory as a three-dimensional concept, which requires an extensive explanation that I do not have space to expound upon here. To briefly summarize: 1.) According to Sartres first dimension of motivation, the motive is, in itself, a negative quantity (Sartre in Olsen 178-179) because it can only be understood by its end which is not what it is and which is what it is not. Consequently, each individual establishes his or her own project of being, and within that project each action counts (181); 2.) A basic or universal structure pervades each individuals project that also motivates an individual (181-182); 3.) Each individual always retains the propensity for cosmic revolt or salvation: Man is capable of refusing to be an accomplice of the cosmic process; man may defy God and the values which haunt him. In doing so, he finds his salvation (184). Clearly, Sartres motivation theory requires more explanation, but even my brief account here reveals its focus on meaning, as well as its radical difference from the hydraulic, tension-release model and the behaviorist paradigm. The fourth motivation paradigm that Rummel reviews, the teleological model, most closely aligns with Maslows work. Rummel relies on the work of Alfred Adler, an Austrian medical doctor and psychologist who founded the School of Individual Psychology, to explicate this paradigm. As a practicing physician in 1902, Adler was invited to join Freuds psychoanalytic circle. Soon, he became a prominent member of the group but eventually developed irreconcilable theoretical differences with Freud, primarily regarding Freuds objective approaches to physical processes, as well as the nature of our drives (179):
20 Freud saw Eros, or the love instinct, as the basic life force bound up in the libido. The aim of Eros is ultimately to establish greater unities in the world and to preserve them, and includes such instincts as the preservation of the species and self-preservation. Adler saw instead that we are motivated by a superordinate dynamic force, a basic goal which directed our behavior and brought together our drives, such as those Freud subsumed under Eros. (178) Initially, Adlers primary goal was a superordinate aggressive drive; he later reinterpreted this as masculine protest. Consequently, after his break with Freud he interpreted the primary human goal as the striving for perfection (178). Striving directs us toward a goal as opposed to throwing us back upon a past incident, tension, or childhood experience; this accounts for its teleological nature. Although self-created and perhaps not fully conscious, this striving serves as a final cause and a key to comprehending individual behavior and problems (178). According to Adler, a feeling of inferiority always gives rise to striving, or what Adler also calls a spring to actionthe source of our movement toward the goal (180). Holism informs Adlers viewpoint, and Maslow wholeheartedly agreed with this holistic perspective. These then are the four central theories of motivation: the hydraulic, tension release model; the behavioral paradigm; the existential view; and the teleological perspective. Now that I have provided a brief history of motivation theory, including the holistic, teleological perspective in which Maslow situates himself, in my next chapter, I will discuss Maslows psychological theories in more detail.
21 Chapter III. Abraham Maslow In this chapter, I shall briefly explain how Maslows humanistic psychology differs from the hydraulic/tension-release, behaviorist, and existentialist views,and aligns with the teleological model that I describe in my previous chapter. I shall explicate Maslows Pyramid of Human Needs and review exceptions that Maslow notes and will conclude this section by identifying potential challenges to Maslows humanistic psychology and motivational theory. I would like to initiate this project by emphasizing the influence that Maslow wielded on many fields, including psychology. He founded two psychological schools humanistic and transpersonaland scholars frequently apply his theories to other areas, including consumerism, business and management, health, music, and the psychology of women. An array of titles invoke Maslovian theory: (Humanistic and Transpersonal Psychology) Challenges of Humanistic Psychology by J.F.T. Bugental (1967); The Third Force: The Psychology of Abraham Maslow by F. Goble (1970); On self-Actualization: A Transambivalent Examination of a Focal Theme in Maslows Psychology by M.B. Smith (1973); No Boundary and The Atman Project by Transpersonal philosopher Ken Wilber (1979, 1980); (Education) Human Teaching for Human Learning by G. Brown (1971); Four Psychologies Applied to Education by J. Canfield and M. Phillips (1975); Toward Humanistic Education: A Curriculum of Affect by G. Weinstein & M. Fantini (1970); (Business and Management) Existence, Relatedness and Growth: Human Needs
22 in Organizational Settings by C.P. Alderfer (1972); Transpersonal Management: Application of Psychological Principles in a Business Setting by G. Beauchamp; Management and Motivation by V. Vroom & E. Deci (1982); (Humanities) Paintings and Poetry: A Teaching/Learning Experience in Self-Actualization by Patricia L. Musick (1977); (Society and Culture; Sociology) Maslows Need Hierarchy and the Adjustment of Immigrants by Seymour Adler (1977); Managerial Motivation in Kenya and Malawi by Peter Blunt and Merrick Jones (1984); and The Self-Actualizing Socially Conscious Consumer by George Brooker (1976). These titles represent a small sample of works that apply Maslovian theory. As Robert Frager so eloquently states in his forward to Motivation and Personality : Abraham H. Maslow was a man who dared to listen deeply to himself and to his unwavering belief in the positive potential of the human species Esquires 50 th anniversary issue featured articles on the most important American figures of the mid-twentieth century. The editors chose Maslow as the most influential psychologist and also as one of the most important contributors to our modern view of human behavior. (Maslow xxxiv) Maslows conception of human experience and the many theories that comprised his view are far too extensive to detail here. However, Maslows theories consistently stress four key points: 1.Human beings have an innate tendency to move toward higher levels of health, creativity, and self-fulfillment.
23 2.Neurosis may be regarded as a blockage of the tendency toward self-actualization. 3.The evolution of a synergistic society is a natural and essential process. This is a society in which all individuals may reach a high level of self-development, without restricting others freedom. 4.Business efficiency and personal growth are not incompatible. In fact, the process of self-actualization leads each individual to the highest levels of efficiency. (xxxv) Although each of these findings serves as central aspects within Maslows psychology, I will concentrate on the first pointthe innate tendency to move toward higher levelswhich Maslow suggests motivates us as human beings. First, Maslows re-evaluation of instincts and their erroneous application to psychology illuminates a primary way in which he distinguishes himself from the paradigms of Freudian psychoanalysts and Behaviorists psychologists. While Maslow argues that some human needs are purely instinctive, he does not believe that instincts conform to simple behaviorist theory ( Motivation and Personality 48). Maslow also suggests that too many writers used the world instinct indiscriminately to cover need, aim, ability, behavior, perception, expression, value, and emotional concomitants, singly or in combination (48). He describes the result of this Freudian and Behaviorist error as a hodgepodge of loose usage in which almost every known human reaction was characterized as instinctive (48) and proposes that the literature based on these mistaken
24 foundational points inhibits our correct understanding of human behavior. Maslow disagrees with the Behaviorists view of environment as the sole influence from which motivation arises and personality forms: Sound motivation theory must then take account of the situation, but must never become pure situation theory, that is, unless we are explicitly willing to give up our search for an understanding of the nature of the constancy of the organism in favor of understanding the world it lives in (11). Maslow further develops this point by viewing behavior and motivation theory as separate projects and emphasizing that behavior is determined by several classes of determinants, of which motivation is one and environmental forces another (11). Therefore, he proposes that the Behaviorist paradigm can co-exist with his theories of motivation: The study of motivation does not negate or deny the study of situational determinants, but rather supplements it. They both have their places in a larger structure (11). Accordingly, Maslows holism suffuses his view of humankind, and he lists this attitude as the first of seventeen propositions for correct motivation theory: 1.Holistic Approach 2.A Paradigm for Motivational States 3.Means and Ends 4.Unconscious Motivation 5.Commonality of Human Desires 6.Multiple Motivations 7.Motivating States 8.Satisfactions Generate New Motivations
25 9.Impossibility of Listing Drives 10.Classifying Motivation According to Fundamental Goals 11.Inadequacy of Animal Data 12.Environment 13.Integrated Action 14.Unmotivated Behaviors 15.Possibility of Attainment 16.Reality and the Unconscious 17.Motivation of Highest Human Capacities ( Motivation and Personality 3-31) In Motivation and Personality Maslow theorizes about human needs according to a Pyramid-based Hierarchy. This Hierarchy consists of five levels listed here in the successive order in which he formulates them: Physiological Safety Love/Belonging Esteem, and Self-Actualization Maslow refers to needs on the Physiological, Safety, Love/Belonging, and Esteem levels as D-Needs, or Deficit Needs. He reserves the label B-NeedsBeing-Needsfor the Self-Actualization echelon. As Maslow explains, it would be impossible to construct a comprehensive list of all the fundamental physiological needs. He clarifies, A person who is lacking food, safety, love, and esteem would most probably hunger for food more strongly than for anything elseall other needs may become simply nonexistent or be pushed into the background (15-16). Conversely, Maslow asks, What happens to their desires when there is plenty of bread and when their bellies are chronically filled (15-16)? According to Maslow, the satiation
26 of one level of needs allows other (higher) needs to emerge, and then these, rather than the physiological hungers, dominate the organism. If the physiological needs are well gratified, a new set of needs roughly categorized as safety needs (security; stability; dependency; protection; freedom from fear, anxiety, and chaos; need for structure, order, law, and limits; strength in the protectors; and so on) emerge (16). This process may progress through all the varying need levels: And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still higher) needs emerge, and so on (17). According to Maslow, Love level needs entail giving and receiving affection. When they (Love level needs) are unsatisfied, a person will feel keenly the absence of friends, mate, or children. Such a person will hunger for relations with people in generalfor a place in the group or familyand will strive with great intensity to achieve this goal (20). Maslow asserts that little scientific information about the Belongingness need exists, but that we know in a general way the destructive effects on children of moving too often; of disorientation; of the general over-mobility that is forced by industrialization; of being without roots, or of despising ones roots, ones origins, ones group; of being torn from ones home and family, friends, and neighbors; of being a transient or a newcomer rather than a native (28). Maslow divides Esteem Needs into two subsidiary sets: first, the desire for strength, achievement, adequacy, mastery and competence, confidence in the face of the world, and independence and freedom; second, the desire for reputation or prestige, status, fame and glory, dominance, recognition, attention, importance, dignity and appreciation (21). As he explains: Even if all these needs are satisfied, we may still often (if not always)
27 expect that a new discontent and restlessness will soon develop, unless the individual is doing what heor she, individually, is fitted for. Musicians must make music, artists must paint, poets must writeWhat humans can be they must beThis need we may call self-actualization. (22) The term self-actualization was originally coined in the twentieth century by Kurt Goldstein. Goldstein received his MD from the University of Breslau in 1903 and taught at the Neurological Institute of the University of Frankfurt, where he met founders of Gestalt Psychology. Later, he traveled to New York City in 1935 and wrote The Organism (1939), and Human Nature in the Light of Pathology (1963). Goldstein suggests that the only drive of the human organism is self-actualization. Maslow characterizes Self-Actualization as a B-Need, or Being-Need, unlike other needs that correspond to D-Needs, or Deficit Needs. Maslow observes nineteen characteristics of self-actualizing people: 1.Perception of Reality (an unusual ability to detect the spurious, the fake, and the dishonest in personality, and in general to judge people correctly and efficiently) 2.Acceptance (a relative lack of overriding guilt, of crippling shame, and of extreme or severe anxiety) 3.Spontaneity (behavior marked by simplicity and naturalness, and by lack of artificiality or straining for effect) 4.Problem Centering (strongly focused on problems outside themselvesproblem centered rather than ego centered)
28 5.Solitude (can be solitary without harm to themselves and without discomfort) 6.Autonomy (relative independence of the physical and social environment) 7.Fresh Appreciation (appreciate again and again, freshly and naively, the basic goods of life, with awe, pleasure, wonder, and even ecstasy, however stale these experiences may have become to others) 8.Peak Experiences (a fairly common experience for our subjects, though not all) 9.Human Kinship (a deep feeling of identification, sympathy, and affection for human beings in general) 10.Humility and Respect (can be friendly with anyone of suitable character regardless of class, education, political belief, race, or color) 11.Interpersonal Relations (capable of more fusion, greater love, more perfect identification, more obliteration of the ego boundaries than other people would consider possible) 12.Ethics (not chronically unsure about the difference between right and wrong in their actual living) 13.Means and Ends (means and ends are clearly distinguishable) 14.Humor (does not consider funny what the average person does; what they consider humor is more closely allied to philosophy than to anything else)
29 15.Creativity (shows a special kind of creativeness or originality or inventiveness that has certain peculiar characteristics) 16.Resistance to Enculturation (resists enculturation and maintains a certain inner detachment from the culture in which they are immersed) 17.Imperfections (occasionally capable of an extraordinary and unexpected act of ruthlessness) 18.Values (a firm foundation for a value system developed by their philosophical acceptance of the nature of self, human nature, social life, and of nature and physical reality) 19.Resolution of Dichotomies (dichotomies are resolved; polarities disappear; many oppositions thought to be intrinsic merge and coalesce with each other to form unities) (128-149) Maslows further development of this concept in Chapter 11: Self-Actualizing People: A Study of Psychological Health, Chapter 12: Love in Self-Actualizing People, and Chapter 13: Creativity in Self-Actualizing People provides a more sophisticated level of detail which exceeds the space I have to expound on it. Significantly, however, Maslow does not suggest that ones possession of self-actualizing characteristics necessarily points to the individual as self-actualizing. In Farther Reaches of Human Nature Maslow describes the most important aspect of self-actualizing individuals: Self-actualizing people, are, without one single exception, involved in a cause outside their own skin, in something outside of themselves. They
30 are devoted, working at something, something which is very precious to themsome calling or vocation in the old sense, in a priestly sense. They are working at something which fate has called them to somehow and which they work at and which they love, so that the work-joy dichotomy in them disappears. (43) Indeed, Maslows most poignant explanation of what self-actualization truly means the joining of an individual with his or her innate or God-given purpose and the consequential living out of that purposemore fully elucidates Maslows nineteen characteristics of self-actualizing people. Perhaps Maslow observes these qualities in self-actualizing individuals because the self-actualization process creates, demands, and fosters these characteristics. Maslow also asserts that self-actualization is not a final destination or achievement within a life journey. Rather, he suggests that selfactualization is a process of choices: Self-actualization is an ongoing process ; it means making each of the many single choices about whether to lie or be honest, whether to steal or not to steal at a particular point, and it means to make each of these choices as a growth choice (45; emphasis added). According to Maslow, the motivations for behavior may be described as an ongoing process and aesthetically represented with a Pyramid containing hierarchical echelons. The intrinsic dynamic of hierarchy is upward, although downward regressions are possible. For example, if individuals needs correspond with the Esteem level, but their social situation suddenly falls into chaos and they experience threats to law and order, then they may regress from higher needs to safety needs. A crucial point in
31 Maslows theory is that Being-Needs cannot come into focus until other Deficit-Needs are met. Another critical clarification: Maslows hierarchy does not suggest that a particular need be one hundred percent satisfied before another need emerges. Coming into focus and dominating serve as more appropriate descriptions of how given needs appear to us in experience, rather than terms like satisfaction and emergence, which invoke sharp demarcations: In actual fact, most members of our society who are normal are partially satisfied in all their basic needs and partially unsatisfied in all their basic needs at the same time. A more realistic description of the hierarchy would be in terms of decreasing percentages of satisfaction as we go up the hierarchy of prepotency. For instance, to assign arbitrary figures for the sake of illustration, it is as if the average citizen is satisfied perhaps 85 percent in physiological needs, 70 percent in safety needs, 50 percent in love needs, 40 percent in self-esteem needs, and 10 percent in selfactualization needs. As for the concept of emergence of a new need after satisfaction of the prepotent need, this emergence is not a sudden, salutatory phenomenon, but rather a gradual emergence by slow degrees from nothingness. (28) In this thesis, I will treat the following plays by William Shakespeare Two Gentlemen of Verona, As You Like It, and The Merchant of Venice inconjunction with Maslows Pyramid of Human Needs. To date, no critics have employed Maslows theory to study Shakespeares cross-dressing heroines, although Rudolf M. Dekker in The
32 Tradition of Female Transvestism in Early Modern Europe includes an entire chapter on Motives and Tradition in his study of the cultural phenomenon of transvestism during this era. Dekker also cites and expounds motivational categories that appear interesting in light of my project: Romantic, Patriotic and Economic (25-40). Prior to my initiation of the final task in this endeavor, however, I will briefly review the hierarchical exceptions that Maslow observes, as well as challenges to his theory and psychological paradigm as a whole. As Maslow states, We have spoken so far as if this hierarchy were a fixed order, but actually it is not nearly as rigid as we may have implied. It is true that most of the people with whom we have worked seemed to have the basic needs in about the order that has been indicated. However, there have been a number of exceptions (26): 1.) Individuals who place value on self-esteem over love; 2.) Apparently innately creative people in whom the drive to creativeness supersedes all others; 3.) People who experience deprivations of certain levels for long periods of time and are victim to a loss or permanent disappearance of certain goals; 4.) Psychopathic persons who (allegedly) demonstrate a permanent loss of the love needs; 5.) Persons who experience an overabundance of certain needs for long periods of time and consequently undervalue those needs in the future, even in the face of their eventual deprivation; 6.) Individuals who want the more basic need over a second need if both are deprived, but whose behavior appears to demonstrate the opposite; 7.) People such as martyrs, for instance, who may demonstrate a capacity for increased frustration tolerance, which appears on the behavioral level as if they are willing to give up everything for the sake of a particular
33 ideal or value (27). This last case should be understood in light of Maslows belief that persons who have been satisfied in their basic needs throughout their lives develop a propensity to withstand opposition, swim against the stream of public opinion, and stand up for the truth at great personal cost (27). I will not discuss Maslows exceptions to the hierarchy in detail as space does not allow such an undertaking. What emerges as clear, however, is Maslows anticipation of challenges to his hierarchy and his pro-active development of responses. Moreover, although my thesis does not depend on the legitimacy of Maslows motivation theory to accurately assess this aspect of human behavior, it is important to bolster its philosophical framework by anticipating additional potential arguments against Maslows Pyramid of Human Needs. Unfortunately, the most immediate challenge to Maslows hierarchy is the mysticism he seems to project onto women: Women are really kind of perpetual miracles. They are like flowers. Every person is a mystery to me, but women are more mysterious to me than men (260). Additionally, Maslow puzzles over this difference while penning a journal entry in 1962, Only the woman needs to be loved, first and foremost (Lowry, 251). I answer this challenge by noting Maslows historical placement in the United States between the mid-thirties and late sixties, observing that Maslow may mirror the misogyny that existed in his social era. However, I also suggest that Maslows personal inability to understand women does not undermine the validity of his paradigm of needs, nor does it preclude the motivations of literary characters, including those of Shakespeare, from conforming to the echelons in his Pyramid of Human Needs. Freud has been accused of a similar essentialism, yet literary critics have found his
34 psychological paradigm, whereby gender and sex are linguistically and socially constructed, as an effective tool in analyzing literary figures, including those of Shakespeare. I would like to conclude this chapter by addressing two additional challenges to Maslows hierarchy of needs: interviews with select Nazi Concentration Camp survivors and the work of Edwin Nevis. In Human Reciprocity Among the Jewish Prisoners in the Nazi Concentration Camps, Shamai Davidson, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who co-founded the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem with Elie Wiesel and Israel W. Charney, states that interpersonal bonding, reciprocity and sharing, were an essential source of strength for adaptation and survival in many of the victims it was their interpersonal support that sustained the motivation to carry on with the struggle to live (2; emphasis added). Leo Eitinger graduated from Masaryk University of Brno with a degree in Medicine (1937) and fled his town in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire to Norway in 1939 to escape the Nazis. After spending a year underground following the Nazi occupation of Norway in 1940he was arrested and charged with the crime of being born Jewish. Originally deported to the Auschwitz camp and later moved to Buchenwald, he accounts for one of twenty three survivors in the seven hundred and sixty two initially deported there. After returning to Norway, Eitinger specialized in psychiatryvictimology and disaster psychiatry in particular. Eitinger, when discussing reasons for survival in concentration camps in Concentration Camp Survivors in Norway and Israel, notes of the survivors: Their being together had been significant, either because they were
35 helped by others who were with them or because they themselves had to think of othersEven though this help was often of a minimal and/or symbolic nature it seems to have contributed in a decisive way toward the individuals ability to retain part of his personality and self-respect and this is given considerable importance in relation to the capacity for survival. (79) Clearly, these studies challenge Maslows work since they provide evidence of humans deprived at the Physiological and Safety level(s) in the most extreme manner possible, yet motivated at higher levels such as Love/Belonging and Esteem. I respond by suggesting that the Nazi Concentration Camps produced circumstances so radically outside the norm, that a comparative analysis with persons outside such fundamentally inhumane circumstances is questionable. The last challenge I will identify is based on the work of Edwin Nevis, the president and founder of the Gestalt International Study Center. Nevis taught organizational management in a program in Shanghai, China in the early eighties. While in China, Nevis observed the management style of the Chinese and noticed that it demonstrated a need hierarchy that differed from that of Maslow. This prompted him to formulate a new paradigmNeviss hierarchy of needs: Belonging, Physiology, Safety, and Self-Actualization. Moreover, Nevis proposes that in Chinese culture, SelfActualization relates to societal contribution (Nevis 249-264). In answer to Nevis, I would respond: 1.) Nevis work is interesting, credible, and noteworthy, but hardly the product of a general psychological study; 2.) China is a Communist Stateone could
36 easily discern how society members might view Belonging as most important, and would relate Self-Actualization to societal contribution; 3.) Neviss study presents more of a challenge to the form of Maslows hierarchy than the content or intrinsic dynamic Ultimately, Neviss and Maslows sample populations are radically dissimilar and several variables in this cross study differ, including the political and societal climate. Despite the social restrictions placed upon the sample population I will use in my thesisShakespeares cross-dressing heroinesthe political climate in early modern England is more akin to the democratic society that Maslow studied than the communist milieu of Neviss study. Now that I have explicated Maslows holistic psychological perspective, and explained how he accounts for human motivation, I will proceed to illustrate how Maslows motivation theory illuminates the actions of a select group of Shakespeares cross-dressing heroines.
37 Chapter IV: Julia/Sebastian in The Two Gentlemen of VeronaThe Two Gentlemen of Verona contains one cross-dressed male/female character, Julia, who appears to love Proteus, one of the two gentlemen of Verona whom we meet in the first scene. Indeed, Shakespeares introduction of Julia showcases a character solely fixated on love. Julias first line, But say, Lucetta, now we are alone, Wouldst thou then counsel me to fall in love? (1.2.1-2), presents the driving force of her behavior that will remain consistent throughout this play. Maslow cursorily identifies Love level needs as those that involve giving and receiving affection (Maslow, 20) but makes it plain that these needs are not synonymous with sex (21). Julia appears quite engrossed in conferring and accepting affection from the moment that we meet her. William E. Stephenson, in The Adolescent Dream-World of the Two Gentlemen of Verona, contrasts the maturity levels of Proteus and Valentine versus those of Julia and Silvia: The young girls of the play, Julia and Silvia, are each mature enough to fix their affections on one boy. But Valentine and Proteus, as Shakespeare shows, are still at the age of being in a dream of generalized romance, vaguely though passionately in love with love (166). Stephensons description of Julia supports my initial assessment of her as fixated on love. As I will develop throughout this chapter, Julias primary drive never changes throughout the play, despite the various difficulties, challenges, and heartaches that she faces along the way. Julias love-driven motivation faces its first impediment in Act 1, Scene 3, when
38 Antonio, Proteuss father, decides to send Proteus to Milan to join Valentine. Consequently, Act 2, Scene 2 depicts ostensibly inseparable lovers, Julia and Proteus, exchanging rings and kisses. These scenes support Stephensons interpretation of Julia as solely concentrating her energy and affections on Proteus. Considering the love that they appear to show for one another in this scene, Act 2, Scene 4 surprises us: Proteus joins Valentine and the Duke in Milan; we learn of Valentines apparent love for Silvia, the Dukes daughter; and, upon his arrival, Proteus seems mesmerized by the beautiful Silvia as well (2.4.196-203). Meanwhile, in Verona, Julias love for Proteus motivatesher to begin a journey to Milan. Lucetta urges Julia to wait for Proteuss return (2.7.14), but Julia likens her love for Proteus to a fire that words cannot quench: The more thou damst it up, the more it burnsIll be as patient as a gentle stream and make a pastime of each weary step, till the last step have brought me to my love (2.7.24; 35-36). Julias lines exemplify Maslows description of someone whose Love level needs face impediment: When they (Love level needs) are unsatisfied, a person will feel keenly the absence of friends, mate, or children (Maslow 20). Yet, when Lucetta asks Julia what habit (apparel) Julia will put on for the journey, Julia resolves to dress not like a woman, and bases her decision on a desire to thwart loose encounters of lascivious men (2.7.39-41). Indeed, Julia demonstrates a concern for her safety, but our attention to this point should not lead us to misinterpret the Safety Needs as Maslow outlines them. Julia voluntarily elects to travel to Milan as a result of her love for Proteus; no events actually occur that threaten her safety. While Maslow does ascribe security; stability; dependency; protection; freedom from fear,
39 anxiety, and chaos; need for structure, order, law, and limits; strength in the protector; and so on as aspects that comprise the Safety Need Level in his Pyramid of Human Needs, he also explains that the safety needs may serve as the most exclusive organizers of behavior recruiting all the capacities of the organism in their service (18; emphasis added). Maslow also believes that the safety needs emerge from some situations in which we demonstrate a common preference for the familiar over the unfamiliar, or within our tendencies to rely on philosophy or religion to organize our conception of the universe into a coherent and comprehensible whole (19). Otherwise, Maslow views the need for safety as an active and dominant mobilizer of the organisms resources only present in a case of true emergency such as war, disease, natural catastrophe, a crime wave, societal disorganization or chaos, neurosis, brain injury, breakdown of authority, or a chronically bad situation (19). Based on Maslows explanation of the Safety level, we cannot conclude that Julia experiences threats to her safety that cause safety needs to emerge as the dominating force behind her motivation. Rather, I argue that Julia primarily cross-dresses in order to join her beloved Proteus, and that safety is a secondary although still important consideration. Significantly, in Act 4, Scene 2, Julia enters as a cross-dressed page named Sebastian who does not appear threatened in any way. Outside of Silvias window at night, Thurio waits to woo Silvia with musicians, but Proteus unexpectedly appears and declares his love for Silvia in front of Julia/Sebastian. (4.2.23). The scene ends with Julias expression of dismay: It has bene the longest night that eer I watched, and the most heaviest (4.2.136-137). Clearly, Julia experiences a challenge to her love-driven
40 pursuit when she encounters Proteus wooing Silvia. What will continue to motivate her cross-dressing now? Peter Lindenbaums Education in The Two Gentlemen of Verona describes Julia as a girl disguised as a page attempting to test or win her beloveds affection (229; emphasis added). His assessment suggests two possible motivations for Julias cross-dressing: the desire for esteem or the desire for love. After this scene, we must surmise that if Julia wishes to test Proteus, he fails the test quite miserably. Also, if Esteem level needs drive Julia, her disguise has proved totally unsuccessful. Indeed, we may wonder why Julia does not unveil herself to Proteus at this juncture, and either berate him or beg for his benevolence. However, rather than confront Proteus, Julia follows Proteus back to the Hosts inn. Proteus, mistaking Julia/Sebastian for a boy page, beckons to her and entreats her to deliver a ringthe ring that Julia gave to him upon their parting in Act 1to Silvia in exchange for Silvias portrait. Again, nothing within this scene indicates a threat to Julias safety and it seems impossible to argue that she attempts to win Esteem by carrying out Proteuss request to woo Silvia. Julia unambiguously clarifies her motivations: Alas, poor fool, why do I pity him that with his very heart despiseth me? Because I love him, I must pity himYet will I woo for him, but yet so coldly (4.4.92-95; 205; emphasis added). Driven by this motivation, Julia woos Silvia on Proteuss behalf. Silvia acts as the object of the Petrarchan Lovers obsessions 1 ; like the Petrarchan Lady, she articulates her disapproval of Proteuss wooing 1 The Elizabethans did not view love as did Abraham Maslow; instead the Ovidian, Platonic, Courtly, Petrarchan, and Neo-Platonic traditions pervaded their attitudes toward love. The antithesis of the Ovidian traditionthe Platonic convention derives from the concept of spiritual love, as described by Socrates in Platos Symposium, as a source of inspiration and elevation. Plato represents this type of love through the metaphor of a ladderwith physiological instincts and gratification at the bottom and spiritual love at the top. The beloved in this paradigm does not reside on the top rung, but instead serves as a rung that the seeker ultimately leaves behind in his spiritual quest. The tradition of Courtly Love focuses on the females physical beauty. The pursuer perceives her as an object of worship and enacts courtship conventions through ritualistic behavior. Although the lady remains an object of worship, the goal of Courtly Love is physical consummation. The Petrarchan Tradition maintains the primary components of the Courtly Tradition, but merges them with Neo-Platonic spirituality. Thus the lady is loved for the very purity that prohibits physical consummation and, by
41 in light of his romantic relationship with Julia and friendship with Valentine. Sadly, however, Julia does not gain Esteem from this dialogue. Rather, this scene ends with Julias increased determination to do anything necessary to obtain Proteuss love, including modifying her appearance to look aesthetically akin to Silvia: Unless I flatter with myself too much. Her hair is auburn, mine is perfect yellow; If that be all the difference in this love, Ill get me such a colored periwig. (5.1.186-189) The angst that accompanies Julias disguised love-driven-pursuit of Proteus culminates in her fainting in Act 5, Scene 4following Proteuss attempted rape of Silviaand the revelation of her true identity: Behold her that gave aim to all my oaths And entertained em deeply in her heart. How oft hast thou with perjury cleft the root! O Proteus, let this habit make thee blush! Be ashamed that I have took upon me Such an immodest raiment, if shame live In a disguise of love It is the lesser blot, modesty finds, definition, Petrarchan love is unreciprocated. Neo-Platonism revives the Platonic conception of love-as-ladder but does not reject sensual love as a partial means to ascension. Therefore, this mutual love, although primarily spiritual, may also include physical love. The collective presence of these five traditions pervades the Elizabethan love conventions, and this brief survey seeks to elucidate the Elizabethans complex perception of love.
42 Women to change their shapes than men their minds (5.4.101-110; emphasis added). Julias description of her cross-dressing attire as a disguise of love buttresses my assertion that Julia only cross-dresses to satisfy needs on the Love/Belonging level of the Maslovian hierarchy. While readers or spectators probably deem Julia and Proteuss sudden reconciliation suspicious, they should also find some delight in their reunion, since Julias devoted and dogged search does achieve its goalLove and Belonging. Indeed, since the text never suggests a deprivation of Julias Physiological level needs, nor points to any immanent threats to Julias Safety level needs, nor showcases any desire on Julias part to satisfy Esteem level needs, we can only consider Maslows Love/Belonging and Self-Actualization levels to explain Julias motivations for crossdressing in this play. The text details several scenes in which Julia declares Love as the driving force behind her behavior, and a number of literary critics support this assessment as well. Moreover, according to Maslows motivation theory, needs of a higher echelon do not come into focus until lower level needs find satisfaction. Therefore, Julia never offers herself as a candidate for Self-Actualization; Love/Belonging level needs drive her throughout the entire play. A review of the exceptions that Maslow lists to his own hierarchy and a consideration of whether or not Julia seems to align with one or more of these exceptions also supports my argument. Obviously, Julia does not meet Maslows first exception, individuals who place value on self-esteem over love (Maslow 27), since the text makes it plain that Julia values love much more than her own self-esteem as she
43 continues to pursue Proteus despite his pursuit of Silvia. Although Julias cross-dressing could be construed as creative, her persistent devotion to her Love/Belonging level needs negates the possibility of her meeting Maslows second exception, apparently innately creative people in whom the drive to creativeness supersedes all others (27). Maslow lists the third exception to his hierarchy as people who experience deprivations of certain levels for long periods of time and are victim to loss or a permanent disappearance of certain goals (27). Although Julia may appear deprived of her Love/Belonging level needs, those needs appear to remain important to her; they certainly do not disappear at any point throughout the play. Since I argue that Julias motivations for cross-dressing (a practice she engages in throughout almost the entire play) correspond to Maslows Love/Belonging level, I would insist that Julia certainly does not represent Maslows fourth exception, psychopathic persons who demonstrate a permanent loss of the love needs. Fifth, the text does not cite evidence that Julia has experienced an overabundance of a certain need for a long period of time, and that Julia consequently undervalues that need. Sixth, Julia does not demonstrate an example of an individual who wants the more basic need over a second need if both are deprived, but whose behavior appears to demonstrate the opposite (27). One might assert that both of Julias Love/Belonging and Esteem levels are deprived, but Julia continues to pursue the satisfaction of her Love/Belonging level needs, even in the face of insults to her Esteem. Seventh, while Julia does demonstrate a capacity for increased frustration tolerance, she is certainly not willing to give up everything for the sake of a particular ideal or value (27) and she never exemplifies the characteristics of a martyr; rather, she appears
44 as a young woman mature enough to fixate her affections on one boy, as Stephenson notes in his commentary. Although my review of Julias motivations may seem somewhat cursory, I argue that her motivations are quite straightforward throughout the entire play and do not leave much room for debate. The Two Gentlemen of Verona offers an example of a cross-dressing character whose motivations correspond to only one hierarchical level. In my next chapter, I will explore another play As You Like Itin which I find a correlation between outward behavior and inner motivation that corresponds to Maslows Safety and Esteem levels.
45 Chapter V: Rosalind/Ganymede in As You Like It As You Like It featurestwo cross-dressed male/female characters, Rosalind and Celia. Although I may periodically discuss both characters practice of cross-dressing, I will concentrate on Rosalinds cross-dressing and corresponding motivations. In Act 1, Scene 2, Rosalinds mood is melancholy, and rightfully so. Duke Frederick has usurped the throne from his older brother, Duke SeniorRosalinds fatherand Duke Senior has fled to the Forest of Arden. After Celia convinces Rosalind to try to be merry, Rosalind asks, Let me see, what think you of falling in love? (1.2.24). This linein Act 1, Scene 2bears a striking resemblance to two lines in Act 1, Scene 2 of The Two Gentlemen of Verona, whenJulia queries, But say, Lucetta, now we are alone, Wouldst thou then counsel me to fall in love? (1.2.1-2). Shakespeares development of Rosalinds love query continues later in this scene when Rosalind appears to show affection for Orlando as soon as she meets him, particularly after learning that Orlando is the son of Sir Rowland. At this point, theater spectators may wonder if a love story similar to that of The Two Gentlemen of Verona will unfold. Will Orlando leave for a journey as Proteus did? Will Rosalind cross-dress to join him in a foreign land? Indeed, Orlando embarks on a journey within this play, as does Rosalind, but, as we shall see, both expeditions are forced flights, not voluntary expeditions. Indeed, contention brews in this cantankerous court; we unexpectedly learn of Duke Fredericks displeasure with Rosalind at the end of Act 1, Scene 2 (268-274).
46 This conflict rapidly escalates: In Act 1, Scene 3, Duke Frederick banishes Rosalind from the court and gives her ten days to travel at least twenty miles outside the vicinity or die (1.3.41-43). Although Rosalind attempts to reason with Duke Frederickasking him to cite the fault behind her offenseDuke Frederick defends his decree: Thou art thy fathers daughter. Theres enough (1.3.56). Celia attempts to reverse her fathers decision, but proves as unsuccessful as Rosalind in changing Duke Fredericks mind (1.3.63;70-74). Since Rosalind must travel at least two miles per day (by foot we assume) for the next ten days or face capital punishment, I assess her Safety level needs as indisputably compromised. As I clarified in my review of The Two Gentlemen of Verona Maslow ascribes security; stability; dependency; protection; freedom from fear, anxiety, and chaos; need for structure, order, law, and limits; strength in the protector; and so on as needs that comprise the Safety Level (Maslow, 18). Clearly, an assessment of the predicament in which Rosalind finds herself reveals many of the needs that Maslow ascribes to the Safety Level as radically jeopardized. Already separated from her natural father, Rosalind now faces exile or death. Barbara Bono, in Mixed Gender, Mixed Genre in Shakespeares As You Like It , observes the lack of protection Rosalind already experiences as a result of her fathers exile (199). Moreover, Edward I. Berry in Rosalynde and Rosalind, describes Rosalind as under the sentence of death, and without a father or lover (51). Although Bono focuses on the problematic nature of Rosalinds identity and Berry concentrates on Shakespeares changes in his source, both Bono and Berry observe the immanent threat to Rosalinds Safety level. Therefore, Rosalinds decision to employ a mans attire as a
47 safeguard-- Alas, what danger will it be to us, Maids as we are, to travel forth so far! Beauty provoketh thieves sooner than gold (1.3.106-109)-takes place within the existing context of her jeopardized safety; her initial motivations clearly correspond to Maslows Safety Level. Celia, however, has not experienced any threats to her safety. Although Duke Frederick speaks sternly to her after she tries to defend Rosalind-- Thou art a fool. She robs thee of thy name, and thou wilt show more bright and seem more virtuous when she is gone. Then open not thy lips (1.3.78-80)--he does not banish Celia from the court nor threaten her with death, even when she begs him to: Pronounce that sentence then on me, my liege! I cannot live out her company. Duke Frederick then replies, You are a fool. You, niece, provide yourself (1.3.83-85). Therefore, Celias decision to travel with Rosalind is voluntary like Julias journey to Milan in The Two Gentlemen of Verona and motivated, I suggest, by Love/Belonging needs. After Rosalind and Celia change their clothing, these two cross-dressed characters reappear in Act 2, Scene 4 within the Forest of Arden. Significantly, their dialogue no longer focuses on safety and security, but on their physiological needs: Rosalind: O Jupiter, how weary are my spirits! Touchstone: I care not for my spirits, if my legs were not weary Celia: I pray you, bear with me. I cannot go no furtherI pray you, one of you question yond man if he for gold will give us any food. I faint almost to death Rosalind: I prithee, shepherd, if that love or gold can in this desert place buy entertainment, Bring us where we may rest
48 ourselves and feed. (2.4.1-3; 60-63; 67-69) Rosalind and Celias motivations have not regressed to the Physiological level, however; once Corin reveals that his masters cottage, flock, and pasture are for sale, neither Rosalind nor Celia continues to speak of their hunger or weariness. Bono observes that Rosalinds safety is no longer at risk after she and Celia purchase the cottage: Exiled by her tyrannous uncle, Rosalind assumes masculine disguise as a safeguard against female vulnerability in a threatening male world. Once she is safely installed in her cottage in Arden, however, there is in theory no need for her to maintain that role (Bono 199-200). Bono bases her assessment on Rosalinds reaction to hearing that Orlando is in the forest poeticizing her praises: she exclaims, Alas the day, what shall I do with my doublet and hose? (3.2.219-220), and bursts forth with a stereotypically female torrent of questions and effusions (200). As Bono notes, Rosalind now seems on the verge of discarding her masculine attire and becoming the Renaissance total woman: witty, but ultimately compliant (200). Although I do not agree that Rosalinds purchase of the cottage in Arden necessarily secures her safety one hundred percent, I do agree with Bonos observation that Rosalinds reaction to Orlandos presence in the forest is an indicator of her decreasing concern with safety. Indeed, once Celia reveals Orlando as the author of the love letters posted on trees throughout the forest, Rosalind seems completely focused on Orlando, not hunger, nor safety: What did he when thou sawst him? What said he? How looked he? Wherein went he? What makes he here? Did he ask for me? Where remains he? How parted he with thee? And when shalt thou see him again? (3.2.217-
49 221). Yet if Rosalinds motivations for remaining in cross-dressed attire no longer correspond to the Safety Level of Maslows Pyramid of Human Needs, with what level do they most clearly align? This question becomes more urgent when Rosalind states in an aside to Celia, I will speak to him (Orlando) like a saucy lackey and under that habit play the knave with him (3.2.291-292). We question Rosalinds/Ganymedes motivations for having a conversation with Orlando while in disguise, and we puzzle over Rosalinds motivations for asking Orlando what young man is carving the name Rosalind on trees throughout the forest (3.3.351-357) when she already knows. Moreover, we question why Rosalind claims to know the symptoms of those who have fallen under the spell of love (3.3.364-373) and assures Orlando that he does not exhibit any of these characteristics. Given the excitement that Rosalind shows upon hearing of Orlandos presence in the forest, why would she try to convince Orlando that he is not in love with her? Likewise, why does Rosalind continue her charade and promise to cure Orlando of his love sickness? (3.3.414-415). Since the text does not indicate that Rosalinds safety is still in jeopardy, nor suggest that her physiological needs are still deprived, in analyzing Rosalinds motivations, we can only consider the Love/Belonging, Esteem, and Self-Actualization levels at this point. According to Bono, Rosalinds retained disguise allows her to test Orlandos love within the relatively non threatening limits of supposed male discourse about women (Bono, 201-202). Moreover, Margaret Boerner Beckman, in The Figure of Rosalind in As You Like It, suggests that Rosalind has disguised herself only because
50 she must find out whether Orlando really loves her (44). Yet if Rosalind is testing Orlando, with what Maslovian echelon do her motivations align? I argue that if Rosalinds motivations correspond to the Love level, and her needs align with those that involve giving and receiving affection (20), she would not send Orlando away and develop such a contrived plot to cure him of his love. What if she succeeds? Therefore, at this point, Rosalind appears motivated by needs that correspond to the first subsidiary set of Maslows Esteem levelthose needs that involve the desire for strength, achievement, adequacy, mastery, competence, and confidence in the face of the world (Maslow 21). Moreover, I argue that, up until this point, Rosalinds relationship with Celia satisfies her Love/Belonging level needs sufficiently for her Esteem level needs to become dominant. Rosalinds lament at Orlandos absence from their appointment in Act 3, Scene 4, further supports my argument. Here, Rosalind regrets that Orlando fails to show up for their appointment, yet her question But why did he swear he would come this morning, and comes not? challenges Orlandos integrity not his affection. Orlando has already demonstrated his fondness for Rosalind by carving her name on trees throughout the forest, declaring and posting his love for her on trees, as well as swearing to Rosalind/Ganymede that he is in love. In answer to Rosalinds question: But are you so much in love as your rhymes speak? Orlando replies, Neither rhyme nor reason can express how much (3.2.388-389). Yet in Act 4, Scene 1, Orlando arrives for his love lesson one hour late. Orlando begs for forgiveness but Rosalind/Ganymede responds, Nay, an you be so tardy, come no more in my sight. I had as life be wooed of a snail (4.1.49). Rosalinds diatribe seems insulting, but she eventually relents and invites
51 Orlando to woo her and in a mock wedding in which Celia plays the priest, Orlando and Rosalind are married. Shortly following the wedding, however, when Orlando tells Rosalind that he must leave her for only two hours, Rosalinds disposition radically changes again: By my troth, and in good earnest, and so God mend me, and by all pretty oaths that are not dangerous, if you break one jot of your promise or come one minute behind your hour, I will think you the most pathetical breakpromise, and the most hollow lover, and the most unworthy of her you call Rosalind, that may be chosen out of the gross band of the unfaithful. Therefore, beware my censure, and keep your promise. (4.1.180-188) Here, perhaps most clearly, Rosalind/Ganymede seems quite concerned with Esteem. Indeed, she states that if Orlando breaks his promise to her, that she will consider him unworthy of her. She acts as if Orlando must earn her affections, and seems to question esteem for herself (Ganymede) and by extension Rosalind. In Act 4, Scene 3, after Orlando fails to return on time and Oliver recounts the story of the injury Orlando sustained rescuing his brother Oliver from a lion, Rosalind begins to demonstrate increasing concern and affection for Orlando. She asks several questions about the events that transpired as well as Orlandos physical state. Ultimately, her concerns culminate in her fainting after Oliver gives her Orlandos bloody napkin. Following this incident, Rosalind continues to show fondness for Orlando, lamenting: O my dear Orlando, how it grieves me to see thee wear thy heart in a scarf! (5.2.19-20), and (suddenly) no longer appears interested in testing him. After Orlando admits he is
52 tired of wooing a young man and wishes to pursue Rosalind, Rosalind assures Orlando that she will work magic atAliena and Olivers wedding: If you do love Rosalind so near the heart as your gesture cries it out, when your brother marries Aliena shall you marry her (5.2.60-63). At this point, Orlando realizes that he wishes to satisfy his own Love/Belonging level needs, and Rosalindnow more forthright about her love for Orlandoprobably becomes aware that she cannot give love to and receive affection from Orlando in her cross-dressed role as Ganymede. Yet what are Rosalinds motivations for her next act as a cross-dressing magician? Why does she not simply strip off her disguise as Beckman asks? I suggest that Rosalinds motivations continue to correspond to the Esteem level, despite her growing affection for Orlando. Indeed, if Rosalinds primary motivation corresponded to the Love/Belonging level, she could have simply discarded her disguise when Orlando expresses his desire to pursue Rosalind instead of courting Ganymede. Rosalind probably finds that the practice of crossdressing provides her with strength; achievement (uniting marriage partners, playing interior director); mastery of self and others, adequacy, competence (as a bride to be); and confidence in the face of the world (Maslow 21). Her promise to work magic relates to the role of director that she plays throughout Act 5, Scene 4, in which she reminds all parties of their agreements: that the Duke will allow Rosalind and Orlando to marry if Rosalind appears, and that Phoebe will marry Ganymede unless unexpected circumstances cause her to refuse, in which case Phoebe will marry Silvius. In this final scene, Rosalind calls all the shots. Although I argue that Celia has fulfilled Rosalinds Love/Belonging level needs up until this point, Rosalind knows she
53 will lose Celia to Oliver upon Celias forthcoming marriage. Rosalind loves Orlando, however, and wishes to marry him. Therefore, Rosalind can continue to satisfy her Love/Belonging level needs; she will simply transfer her affections from a sisterly love for Celia to a heterosexual union with Orlando. Rosalind arranges for her own marriage, but only on her own terms, as orchestrated through the play that she directs. She strips off her disguise and enters as her female self alongside Celia and Hymen, (the Roman god of marriage). Perhaps the removal of her double and hose and the donning of female attire signal her conforming to the stereotype of the early modern woman for whom love should be the center of her life; however, accepting marriage may not necessarily be tantamount to accepting subordination, and, given the personalities of the dynamic Rosalind and the more passive Orlando, this particular marriage may offer Rosalind fulfillment on the Esteem level as well as the Love/Belonging level. Nevertheless, since Rosalind at the end of the play has shed her cross-dressed attire, her final needs are outside the purview of this thesis. We surmise, however, that Rosalind continues to enjoy the satisfaction of her Love/Belonging level needs with Orlando, while also basking in the Esteem she has gained from teaching him how to act as a proper husband as well as playing interior director with several other characters in the playup to and including her final cross-dressed performance as a magician. A review of the exceptions Maslow lists to his own hierarchy, as well as whether or not Rosalind aligns with one or more of these exceptions, also bolsters my argument that Rosalinds motivations originally align with the Safety Level, after which she ascends to the Esteem level. Again, as Maslow notes, the emergence of one levels needs
54 over another is gradual, not sudden or sharply demarcated. First, let us ask whether or not Rosalind fits Maslows first exception: Individuals who place value on self-esteem over love (Maslow 27). Indeed, if Rosalind had showed more concern for the injury sustained to her self-esteem in Act 4, Scene 3when Orlando fails to show up for their first appointment after their mock marriageshe would not have expressed such a concern for Orlandos well-being or fainted when Oliver recounted Orlandos injury. Regarding Maslows second exception, Apparently innately creative people in whom the drive to creativeness supersedes all others (Maslow 27), Rosalind actually does display a tremendous propensity for creativity. If her drive for creativeness superseded all others, however, Rosalind would not have given up her role as director at the end of the play in exchange for marriage to Orlando. Moreover, Rosalind does not appear to meet the criteria for Maslows third hierarchical exception, People who experience deprivations of certain levels for long periods of time and are victim to a loss or permanent disappearance of certain goals (27). Although we might consider the banishment of her father from the Court a cause for permanent deprivation of her Safety level needs, Rosalinds initial motivations for cross-dressing correspond to the Safety level; therefore, it is impossible to argue that the goal for safety permanently disappears from her psyche. Fourth, Rosalind does not reveal herself as a psychopathic person who (allegedly) demonstrates a permanent loss of the love needs. Maslows fifth exception, persons who experience an overabundance of certain needs for long periods of time and consequently undervalue those needs in the future, even in the face of their eventual deprivation (27) does not seem to apply here. On the contrary, when we meet
55 Rosalind, we find her quite melancholy and do not observe any evidence of over-satisfied needs. Sixth, Rosalind never showcases herself as an individual who wants a more basic need over a second need if both are deprived, but whose behavior appears to demonstrate the opposite (27). If both Rosalinds Love/Belonging level and Esteem levels are impeded, and she yearns for the satisfaction of her Love/Belonging level needs while merely pretending that her Esteem level needs are more important, this does not account for her original decision to cross-dress and her corresponding motivation for securing her Safety level needs. Moreover, as I asked earlier, what if Rosalind/Ganymede succeeds in curing Orlando of his love sickness for her? In such a case, Rosalind would jeopardize her lower need. Seventh, Rosalind does not appear to fit the mold of a martyr; she never demonstrates a capacity for increased frustration tolerance for the sake of a particular ideal or value (27). I argue that her impatience with Orlando demonstrates the opposite. In the next chapter, I will examine the most complex of Shakespeares crossdressing female characters, one who, like Rosalind, also seeks fulfillment on more than one of Maslows hierarchical levelsPortia in The Merchant of Venice.
56 Chapter VI: Portia/Balthasar in The Merchant of Venice The Merchant of Venice contains three cross-dressed male/female characters: Portia, Nerissa, and Jessica. In this chapter, I will focus on Portias motivations, which, I argue correspond with Maslows levels of Love/Belonging and Esteem. Portia initially appears in Act 1, Scene 2, and her first line, By my troth, Nerissa, my little body is aweary of this great world (1.2.1) gives us cause for concern. However, we quickly learn the reason for Portias justified lament: Portias dead fathers will prevents her from choosing a husband. Portias suitors must select amongst three chests of gold, silver, and lead; only the suitor who chooses the chest that contains her portrait can marry Portia (1.2.28-32). Our introduction to Portia leads us to believe that her Love/Belonging level needs are frustrated. How can she satisfy her Love level needs if her father controls her marriage from the grave? Portia, however, completely controls the casket scene as a means to gratify her Love/Belonging needs.In Act 3, Scene 2, after the Prince of Morocco and Prince of Aragon choose the incorrect caskets, Bassanio arrives. Having already spoken of Bassanio somewhat fondly (1.2.118-119)unlike her other suitors whom she openly criticizesPortia entreats Bassanio to remain in her company before making his attempt: I pray you, tarry. Pause a day or two before you hazard, for in choosing wrong I lose your company. Therefore, forbear awhile. Theres something tells mebut it is not loveI would hate to lose you; and you know yourself Hate counsels not in such
57 quality (3.2.1-6). Desperately afraid she will have to marry a suitor she does not love and determined to select her own mate despite her fathers will, she gives Bassanio distinct hints concerning the correct casket, causing a song to be played that warns of relying on appearances and which contains a number of words that rhyme with lead: Tell me where is fancy bred, Or in the heart or in the head? How begot, how nourished? Reply, reply. It is engendered in the eyes, With gazing fed, and fancy dies In the cradle where it lies. Let us ring fancys knell. Itll begin it Ding, dong, bell. (3.2.63-72) Recognizing the hint, Bassanio immediately responds with a long diatribe against ornament, or outward appearance, and immediately after chooses the correct casket. Thus, it is no accident or even insight on Bassanios part that causes him to select the correct casket; Portias intervenes to satisfy her own Love/Belonging level needs. Yet plans for a double weddingPortia and Bassanio; Nerissa and Graziano suffer interruption when Lorenzo and Jessica arrive along with Salerio, who gives a letter to Bassanio, which details Antonios loss of his ships and Shylocks intention to collect
58 his pound of flesh. Noticing Bassanios sudden change in disposition, Portia asks about the letter: There are some shrewd contents in yond same paper that steals the color from Bassanios cheekWith leave, Bassanio; I am half yourself, and I must freely have the half of anything that this same paper brings you (3.2.243-244; 248-250). After Bassanio confesses his role in Antonios fate, and Antonios responsibility (as the guarantor of Bassanios loan) to Shylock for three thousand ducats, Portia promptly offers to pay twenty times the loans sum. As Lars Engel suggests in Thrift is Blessing: Exchange and Explanation in The Merchant of Venice, Portia discovers the homosocial aspect of her marriage to Bassanio. Indeed, Bassanio courted Portia with Antonios credit, and Engel brilliantly identifies the homoerotic overtones in Antonio and Bassanios financial transaction (23-26). Yet after Bassanio reads aloud from Antonios letter: If your love do not persuade you to come, let not my letter (3.2.320-322), Portia urges him to make haste and travel to Antonio. In Act 3, Scene 4, after Portia surrenders the management of her home to Lorenzo and dispatches her servant Balthasar to deliver a letter to her cousin Doctor Bellario in Padau, she unexpectedly announces her decision to cross-dress: Come on Nerissa, I have work in hand that you know not of. Well see our husbands before they think of usbut in such a habit that they shall think we are accomplished with that we lack. Ill hold thee any wager, when we are both accoutred like young men, Ill prove the prettier of the two. (3.5.57-59; 60-64) Portia promises to detail the rest of her plan once she and Nerissa are safely installed in
59 the coach. The full disclosure of the plan, however, and any possible motivations behind it take place off stage. What motivates Portias decision to cross-dress at this point? Since no textual evidence points to a deprivation of Portias Physiological or Safety level needs, we can only consider the Love/Belonging, Esteem, and Self-Actualization levels. Does the text suggest that a need to give and receive affectionindicative of Maslows Love/Belonging levelprimarily dominates Portia? Indeed, when we initially meet Portia, she articulates a weariness of the world and her suitors. She does not ask a confidant what he or she thinks of falling in love, nor does she ask for advice on how to fall in love, as in the cases of both Julia and Rosalind from The Two Gentlemen of Verona and As You Like It Nonetheless, Portia shows a preference amongst her suitors for Bassanio and manipulates the outcome of the casket ordeal, thus remaining true to her fathers decree while selecting her own mate. If her fathers will frustrates her Love/Belonging level needs, as I argued earlier, then Bassanios correct choice in the casket scene, under the guidance of Portia, lifts this impediment and allows for the potential satisfaction of her Love/Belonging level needs. Yet the delivery of Antonios letter to Bassanio abruptly interrupts this satisfaction. Therefore, we can still consider the possibility that Portia remains motivated by Love/Belonging level needs. Moreover, what of Portias Esteem level needs? As I explained earlier, Maslow divides Esteem Needs into two subsidiary sets: first, the desire for strength, achievement, adequacy, mastery and competence, confidence in the face of the world, and independence and freedom; second, the desire for reputation or prestige, status, fame and glory, dominance, recognition, attention, importance, dignity and appreciation (21). Karen Newman, in
60 Portias Ring: Unruly Women and Structures of Exchange in The Merchant of Venice states that Portia gives more than Bassanio can ever reciprocate, first to him, then to Antonio, and relates Portia to Marcel Mausss Big Man of highland New Guinea as detailed in his Essai sur le don (Newman, 26). Marcel investigates the status of exchange in anthropology and describes the so-called Big Man as one who is assigned in adolescence a buanyin or exchange partner, and, apparently against indigenous norms of social behavior, is trained to an entire system of exchange and gift-giving in excess of what can be reciprocated (20). As Newman explains, such behavior results in prestige and power (20). Newmans correlation of Portia as the gift-giver and Mausss Big Man implies that Portia acts to ensure needs on Maslows Esteem level, particularly since Newman relates Portias upcoming intervention in the Venetian court as a gift to Venice itself (26). Newmans assessment coincides with that of Lars Engel, who analyzes Portias gift in light of the financial transactions within the play. As Engel observes, Portia wisely chooses to follow (Bassanio) to protect her investmentto protect her status as a principal and to avoid becoming an object of homosocial exchange (34). At this point, it seems as if Portia is motivated by both Love/Belonging and Esteem level needs. Indeed, the cloud over her marriage threatens both her Love/Belonging and Esteem level needs. Will Portias husband ever offer all of his love to her if a torturous fate awaits Antonio with whom Bassanio has such a close relationship? I suggest that Portia decides to cross-dress and go with Nerissa to Venice in order to intervene in Antonios fate as well as to protect her assets. Also, Shakespeare
61 does not detail exactly how much time passes between when Portia, Bassanio, Nerissa, and Gratiano begin to make wedding plans and when Salerio delivers Antonios letter to Bassanio; it seems as if this takes place immediately after. Therefore, it is unlikely that Portias Love/Belonging level needs are fulfilled one hundred percent in Act 3, Scene 3, after Bassanio chooses the correct casket with Portias help. As I explained in Chapter III, Maslows hierarchy does not suggest that a particular need be one hundred percent satisfied before another need emerges. Coming into focus and dominating serve as more appropriate descriptions of how given needs appear to us in experience, rather than terms like satisfaction and emergence, which invoke sharp demarcations (Maslow 28). Our attention to the Venetian court room scene, in which Portia appears as a doctor of the law, confirms this detailed assessment. As I previously explained, Portias full explanation of her and Nerissas cross-dressing scheme takes place offstage. Indeed, Portia simply reappears in Act 4, Scene 1, after the Duke reads a letter from Doctor Bellario (the cousin to whom Portia wrote a letter in 3.4) stating that his illness prevents him from attending upon the case and that Balthasar will preside in his place. It is assumed that Portia met with her cousin Bellario, a learned Doctor of law, and the two of them discovered the law that later convicts Shylock as well as working out the plan to trap Shylock through the letter of the law. Portia/Balthasar initiates Shylocks trial by lecturing him on mercy for twenty-three lines (4.1.182-185). After Portia/Balthasar urges Shylock to show mercy, Shylock refuses and entreats Balthasar to proceed to judgment. Consequently, Portia declares a decree that initially surprises many readers: Shylock
62 shall have his pound of flesh (4.1.243). As Antonio prepares to die, and Shylock readies himself to carry out the long awaited sadistic act, Bassanio makes a statement that threatens Portias Love level needs: Antonio, I am married to a wife which is as dear to me as life itself; but life itself, my wife, and all the world are not with me esteemed above thy life. I would lose all, ay, sacrifice them all here to this devil, to deliver you (280285). Ironically, Portia/Balthasar responds, Your wife would give you little thanks for that, if she were by to hear you make that offer (286), but continues to act as Balthasar despite Bassanios stated privileging of his homosocial bonds with Antonio over his hetereosexual love of Portia. After declaring that Shylock may take his pound of flesh but not without spilling a single drop of blood (303-304), Antonios safety is immediately guaranteed. Portia/Balthasars next actions confuse many readers and spectators: after Shylock requests for his bond to be paid thriceas Bassanio offered several times earlier and Shylock openly rejectedPortia accuses Shylock of conspiring to take the life of a Venetian citizen. In a merciless judgment, she awards half of Shylocks estate to Antonio, the other half to the state, and Shylocks life to the mercy of the Duke. The Duke pardons Shylocks life and upholds Portia/Balthasars decree. Antonio offers his half to Lorenzo, requests that Shylock will all his possessions to Lorenzo and Jessica, and demands that Shylock convert to Christianity. Does Portia cross-dress and perform these actions to receive power and prestige, as Newman suggests in her article? Does Portia act throughout the trial to restore her sense of importance, dignity, and appreciation? Is Portia protecting her endowment, as Engel suggests? What of Portias Love level needs? Bassanios previous comment,
63 Antonio, I am married to a wife which is as dear to me as life itself; but life itself, my wife, and all the world are not with me esteemed above thy life. I would lose all, ay, sacrifice them all here to this devil, to deliver you (280-285) presents a very serious threat to Portias Love level needs. I argue that a combination of Love/Belonging and Esteem level needs motivates Portias actions in the Venetian court. Throughout the play, Portia faced two impediments to her Love/Belonging level needs: 1.) her fathers will; 2.) Bassanios homosocial bonds with Antonio. Portia manages to resolve both dilemmas: first by helping Bassanio choose the correct casket, and second, through saving Antonios life and consequently buying him out. Portia is also Marcels Big Man ; she gives Antonio a gift that can never be reciprocatedhis lifeand bestows gifts upon Bassaniofirst the ring, then the deliverance of his best friend. As Newman points out, Portias final gift is to Venice: a new Christian (26). Through her cross-dressed intervention in the Venetian court, Portia lifts the second impediment to her Love/Belonging level needs, which allows her Esteem level needs to more fully emerge. As Engel observes, Portia then enjoys the delicious opportunity to refuse her own money; she also has Antonios precious testimony that the balance of erotic credit is now hers: Ant. And stand indebted over and above In love and service to you evermore. Por He is well paid that is well satisfied. (4.1.404-411) The ensuing dominance of Portias Esteem level needs explains Portias request for
64 Bassanios ring at the end of Act 4, Scene 1; why else would she remain cross-dressed? In Act 4, Scene 2, Gratiano enters and gives Portia Bassanios ring and an invitation to dinner; Portia accepts the ring and rejects the invitation. Nerissa decides to see if she can also persuade Gratiano to give away his ring. Both women finally return to Belmont a full day ahead of their husbands, and change out of their disguise. After much comedic bantering back and forth between Portia and Nerissa, and Antonio and Graziano over the missing rings, Portia finally reveals that she was the lawyer in Venice and Nerissa the clerk. Portia reproaches the ringless Bassanio on his return to Belmont, and he replies, Pardon this fault, and by my soul I swear I never more will break an oath with thee. As Engel suggests, Portia uses the ring to teach Bassanio not to circulate her gifts (36). Moreover, since Portias acceptance of subservience in marriage is predicated on the gift of the ring and the understanding that Bassanio would never part with it, by giving the ring to an unruly woman, the cross-dressed Portia/Balthasar, Bassanio forfeits the ascendancy in marriage approved by the early modern patriarchy. Portias motivations for cross-dressing in this scene correspond with the second subsidiary set of Maslows Esteem level needs: the desire for reputation or prestige, status, fame and glory, dominance, recognition, attention, importance, dignity and appreciation (21). Ultimately, Portia dominates both Bassanio and Antonio, as Engel points out and as Newman supports with her assessment of Portia as The Big Man Moreover, Portia receives recognition as worthy of respect, as well as the dignity and appreciation that Bassanio stripped from her when he betrayed her love in the courtroom. At the end of the play, Bassanio swears never to break an oath with her again, and Antonio, her rival,
65 promises to guarantee Bassanios faithfulness. A review of the exceptions that Maslow lists to his own hierarchy and a consideration of whether or not Portia seems to align with one or more of these exceptions also bolsters my argument for Portia as a character who seeks to satisfy needs on the Love/Belonging and Esteem levels. It is difficult, if not impossible to argue that Portia does not meet Maslows first exception, individuals who place value on selfesteem over love (Maslow 27). Indeed, Portia does not appear to need any assuaging of her self-esteem; she seems driven by the goal of securing her husband from homosocial bonding (with Antonio) and protecting her endowment, even when her husband confirms his preference for Antonio in the Venetian court scene. Although Portias act of crossdressing could be construed as creative, she does not appear to be one of apparently innately creative people in whom the drive to creativeness supersedes all others (27). Rather, her drive to eradicate the cloud over her marriage presents itself more vividly. Maslow describes the third exception to his hierarchy as people who experience deprivations of certain levels for long periods of time and are victim to loss or a permanent disappearance of certain goals (27). The text never cites evidence for the deprivation of any of Portias need levels. While one might argue that her fathers will impedes her Love/Belonging level needs satisfaction, I demonstrate how the outcome of the casket scene assuages this. Maslows fourth exception, psychopathic persons who demonstrate a permanent loss of the love needs does not apply to Portia; clearly, Portia demonstrates the opposite of a psychopathic personality. She is aware, smart, and not afraid to do what she needs to do to satisfy her needs. Fifth, the text does not cite
66 evidence that Portia has experienced or experiences an overabundance of a certain need for a long period of time and that she consequently undervalues a need. Sixth, Portia does not demonstrate an example of an individual who wants the more basic need over a second need if both are deprived, but whose behavior appears to demonstrate the opposite (27). Indeed, Portia pursues the satisfaction of both of her Love/Belonging and Esteem level needs. Seventh, it is difficult if not impossible to argue that Portia appears similar to a martyr, or one willing to give up everything for the sake of a particular ideal or value (27). Portia is a satisfier of Love/Belonging and Esteem level needs par excellence. She gains everything and loses nothing in the process.
67 Chapter VII: Conclusion At a high school in Cincinnati, Ohio, an instructor named Elisabeth Bookser designed an elective course titled Poetry: Man and His Needs. She states the goal of the elective course as follows: to help students understand and appreciate what it means to be a human being by approaching poetry from the viewpoint of human needs: the need for physical security, for safety, for love and belonging, for esteem, for self-actualization, for beauty (74). Bookser, a high school English teacher, designed this course around Maslows hierarchy of human needs, and selected various poems to illustrate each of Maslows need levels. It seems impossible to argue that only some human beings feel the need to satisfy their Physiological needs, Safety needs, and Love/Belonging needs. The starving seek food. We seek shelter and safety when natural disasters occur. The human organism strives toward self-preservation. Most humans also display the need for love and belonging. Setting aside the small percentage of the worlds population who live as loners and hermits, most of us seek to situate ourselves amidst a group of friends and other social associates with whom we identify. Moreover, most of us long for loveif not for romantic love, at least for some level of companionship. For those who manage to satisfy these need levels enough for other (higher) needs to emerge more fully and dominate, Esteem and Self-Actualization await. All of the Deficit needs Physiological, Safety/Security, Love/Belonging, and Esteempreserve our sense of self. Acts of self-preservationwhether searching for food, shelter, love, belonging,
68 dignity, or respectare just that: actions that safeguard the self. Undoubtedly, only a small percentage of the worlds population is self-actualizers. How many people do we know who are truly engaged in a project outside of their own desires? Whom do we know who has answered a calling in a priestly sense, as Maslow describes? Indeed it is doubtful that we know many people who fit this mold; most of us remain ensnared in the desire to satisfy our Deficit needs. Obsessed with the somewhat boring and predictable details of our workaday selves and lives, we rarely imagine a life beyond the desire for these lower level needs. Perhaps this is why Shakespeare does not offer us a SelfActualizing herocross-dressed or not. Most critics have approached Shakespeares cross-dressing heroines by considering the end results or implications of their behavior. Hence, critics often find themselves in gender-fender-bendersobsessed with patriarchies, hierarchies, gender boundaries, polarities, and so on. How do Shakespeares cross-dressing heroines arrest the meaning of gender? Belsey questions. How do Shakespeares cross-dressing heroines reflect challenges to the patriarchy and hierarchy of the day, both Belsey and Howard query? Other critics, like Traub, point to the homoerotic insinuations of these cross-dressed characters behavior. Consequently, most critics writing about these characters have focused on the effect of their transvestitism on the audience rather than their motivations for donning male garb. My thesis offers a fresh alternative to the popular postmodern theory so prevalent today, which too often assumes the absence of essentialist and transhistorical qualities of human experience that each of us share and which the literature, drama, and art of each epoch always reflects. While some critics
69 may ask, Why examine the motivations of Shakespeares cross-dressing heroines? I ask, Whynot examine these motivations just as we do for other literary characters? If we seek to understand what motivates Hamlet, Iago, Othello, Macbeth, or King Lear, why should we not do the same for Julia, Rosalind, and Portia? I argue that Shakespeares cross-dressing heroines can be examined from a Maslovian psychological perspective in terms of what motivates their decision(s) to cross-dress, just as we analyze what motivates Hamlet to contemplate suicide, or what drives Macbeth to kill the King. Consequently, the most important inference one can draw from my thesis rests on my success in examining the motivations of these characters from both the inside and outside. How does Shakespeare explain behavior? Theodore Mischel asks in his essay, Psychology and Explanations of Human Behavior. Why, for example is Iago plotting against Othello? The primary thrust of Mishcel's essay suggests that although Shakespeare provides the reasons or motivations for his characters behavior within his plays (the inside perspective), these actions or behaviors do not translate to general psychological laws (outside viewpoints or theories). According to Mischel, inside analyses assume the agents point of view within the play or novel and explain how, given the agents goals and what transpires within the text, a particular behavior was the thing for him or her to do. Outside analyses explain behaviors in terms of laws and dispositions, using psychological theories like Freuds or Maslows that literary critics transpose onto characters. My assessment of these plays, based on Maslows holistic psychological theory, employs both an inside and outside perspective; indeed each viewpoint supports the other and collapses the
70 inner (Freudian) and outer (Behaviorist) dichotomy as do the existential and teleological paradigms. Admittedly, Shakespeares plays may be interpreted in a variety of ways. My thesis does not seek to ignore, overlook, or refute post-modern assessments of these characters, including the popular feminist readings that view Shakespeares crossdressing heroines in terms of how their behavior blurs sex and gender boundary lines and challenges the patriarchy of the era. Rather, I have simply suggested an additional perspective from which we can view these fascinating and dynamic women.
71 Works Cited Adler, Seymour. Maslows Need Hierarchy and the Adjustment of Immigrants. International Migration Review Vol. 11, No. 4; Winter, 1977. Alderfer, C.P. Existence, Relatedness and Growth: Human Needs in Organizationl Settings New York: The Free Press, 1972. Beauchamp, G. Transpersonal Management: Application of Psychological Principles in a Business Setting Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Transpersonal Psychology, 1982. Beckman, Margaret Boerner. The Figure of Rosalind in As You Like It. Shakespeare Quarterly Vol. 29, No.1; Winter, 1978. Belsey, Catherine. Disrupting Sexual Difference: Meaning and Gender in the Comedies. Alternative Shakepeares Ed. John Drakakis. London: Methuen, 1985. Berry, Edward I. Rosalynde and Rosalind. Shakespeare Quarterly Vol. 31, No.1; Spring, 1980. Bevington, David, Ed. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. New York: Longman, 1997. Blunt, Peter & Jones, Merrick. Managerial Motivation in Kenya and Malawi. The Journal of Modern African Studies Vol. 24, No. 1; March, 1986. Bono, Barabara. Mixed Gender, Mixed Genre in Shakespeares As You Like It Renaissance Genres: Essays on Theory, History and the Interpretation Ed. Barbara Kieterhewalski. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986. Bookser, Elizabeth. Poetry: Man and His Needs. The English Journal Vol. 64, No. 1, Resources for Teaching English: January, 1975. Brooker, George. The Self-Actualizing Socially Conscious Consumer. The Journal of Consumer Research Vol. 3, No. 2; Sep., 1976. Bugental, J.F.T. Challenges of Humanistic Psychology New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
72 Brown, G. Human Teaching for Human Learning New York: Viking, 1971. Brown, Mildred L., Rounsley, Chloe Ann. True Selves: Understanding Transsexualism for Families, Friends, Coworkers, and Helping Professionals San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996. Crawford, KV. The Transvestite Heroine in Seventeenth-Century Popular Literature. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University, DAI, Vol. 45-07A, 1984. Cressy, David. Gender Trouble and Cross-Dressing in Early modern England. Journal of British Studies 35, 1996. Davidson, Shamai. Human Reciprocity Among the Jewish Prisoners in the Nazi Concentration Camps. American Journal of Psychiatry Volume 131,1974. Deats, Sara Munson. Sex, Gender, and Desire in the Plays of Christopher Marlowe. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1997. Dekker, Rudolf M. and van de Pol Lotte. The Tradition of Female Transvestism in Early Modern Europe New York: St. Martins Press, 1989. Dusinberre, Juliet. Shakespeare and the Nature of Women 2 nd edition. New York: St. Martins Press, 1996. Eitinger, Leo. Concentration Camp Survivors in Norway and Israel London, 1964. Engel, Lars. Thrift is Blessing: Exchange and Explanation in The Merchant of Venice. Shakespeare Quarterly Vol. 37, 1986. Freud, Sigmund. The Ego and the Id Trans. And Ed. By Joan Riviere and James Strachey. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1960. Fodor, Nandor and Gaynor, Frank. Eds. Freud: Dictionary of Psychoanalysis New York: Barnes & Noble Books, Inc., 1950. Goldstein, Kurt. Human Nature in the Light of Pathology. Schocken Books: New York, 1963. Goble, F. The third force, the psychology of Abraham Maslow New York: Grossman, 1970. Hayles, Nancy K. Sexual Disguise in As You Like It and Twelfth Night . Shakespeare Survey 32, 1979.
73 Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time Transl. by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson in Guignon, Charles, Ontological Presuppositions of the Determinism/Free Will Debate. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Heise, Ursula. Transvestism and the Stage Controversy in Spain and in England, 15801680. Theater Journal 44, 1992. Hic Mulier. Three Pamphlets on the Jacobean Antifeminist Controversy: Facsimile Reproductions Delmar, NY: Scholars Facsimiles & Reprints, 1978. Hotchkiss, Valerie. Clothes Make the Man: Female Cross Dressing in Medieval Europe. New York: Garland Publishing, 1996. Howard, Jean. Crossdressing, the Theater, and Gender Struggle in Early modern England. Shakespeare Quarterly V. 30, 1988. Hunt, Mary Leland. Thomas Dekker: A Study. New York: Russell & Russell, 1964. Hyland, Peter. Shakespeares Heroines: Disguise in the Romantic Comedies. ARIEL: A Review of International English Literature Vol. 9, No. 2; 1978. Jardine, Lisa. Boy Actors, Female Roles, and Elizabethan Eroticism. Staging theRenaissance: Interpretations of Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama. Eds. David Scott Kastan and Peter Stallybrass. New York: Routledge, 1991. Kimbrough, Robert. Androgyny Seen Through Shakespeares Disguise. Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol. 33, No.1; 1982. Kohl, Benjamin G. and Smith, Alison Andrews Eds. Major Problems in the History of the Italian Renaissance Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995. Levine, Laura. Men in Womens Clothing: Anti-theatricality and Effeminization from 1579 to 1642. Criticism 28, 1986. Lindenbaum, Peter. Education in The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, Vol. 15, No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama. Spring, 1975. Lowry, R.J. Ed. The Journals of A.H. Maslow Vol. 1. Brooks/Cole Publishing: Monterey, CA, 1979. Maslow, Abraham H. Farther Reaches of Human Nature New York: The Viking Press, 1971.
74 Maslow, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality 3 rd edition. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc, 1954. Mischel, Theodore. Psychology and Explanations of Human Behavior. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. 23, No. 4; June, 1963. Musick, Patricia L. Paintings and Poetry: A Teaching/Learning Experience in SelfActualization. Leonardo Vol. 10, No. 4; Autumn, 1977. Nevis, Edwin C. 1983. Using an American perspective in understanding another Culture: Toward a hierarchy of needs for the People's Republic of China. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science Vol. 19, No. 3; 1983. Novy, Marianne. Loves Argument: Gender Relations in Shakespeare. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Olson, Robert G. The Three Theories of Motivation in the Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sarte. Ethics Vol. 66, No. 3.;April, 1956. Orgel, Stephen. Nobodys Perfect or Why did the English Stage Take Boys for Women? South Atlantic Quarterly 88, 1989. Perry, Merry G. Transvestism and Titillation in Shakespearean Drama: Crossdressing and Erotic Desire in The Merchant of Venice, As You Like It, and Twelfth Night MA Thesis, University of South Florida. May, 1995. Rackin, Phyllis. Androgyny, Mimesis, and the Marriage of the Boy Heroine on the English Renaissance Stage. PMLA Vol.102, 1987. Ringler, William. Stephen Gosson: A Biographical and Critical Study Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1942. Rummel, R.J. The Dynamic Field of Motives, Attitudes, and Goals. Understanding Conflict and War Vol I., The Dynamic Psychological Field Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1975. Ruttenberg, Danya. When Clothes Dont Make the Manor the Woman. Jewish News Weekly of Northern California. January, 2003. Sartre, Jean-Paul. Leire et le neant Transl. by Robert G. Olson in The Three Theories of Motivation in the Philosophy of Jean-Paul Sarte. Ethics Vol. 66, No. 3; April, 1956. Shakespeare, William. As You Like It. The Complete Works of Shakespeare, 4th edition. Ed. David Bevington. New York: Longman, 1997.
75 Shakespeare, William. Cymbeline. The Complete Works of Shakespeare, 4th edition. Ed. David Bevington. New York: Longman, 1997. Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice. The Complete Works of Shakespeare, 4th edition. Ed. David Bevington. New York: Longman, 1997. Shakespeare, William. The Two Gentlemen of Verona. The Complete Works of Shakespeare, 4th edition. Ed. David Bevington. New York: Longman, 1997. Shakespeare, William. Twelfth Night. The Complete Works of Shakespeare, 4th edition. Ed. David Bevington. New York: Longman, 1997. Shapiro, Michael. Gender in Play in the Shakespeare Stage: Boy Heroines and Female Pages Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994. Smith, Laurence D. and Woodward, William R. Eds. B.F. Skinner and Behaviorism in American Culture London: Lehigh University Press, 1996. Staton, Shirley F. Female Transvestism in Renaissance Comedy A Natural Perspective, That is and is Not. Iowa State Journal of Research, Vol. 56; No. 1; August, 1981. Stephens, John. Satyrical Essayes, Characters and Others. London, 1615. Stephenson, William E. The Adolescent Dream-World of the Two Gentlemen of Verona. Shakespeare Quarterly Vol. 17, No.2; Spring, 1966. Traub, Valerie. Desire and Anxiety : Circulations of Sexuality in Shakespearean Drama London: Routledge, 1992. Vroom, V. & Deci, E. Eds. Management and Motivation New York: Penguin, 1982. Walen, Denise. Lust-Exciting Apparel and the Homosexual Appeal of the Boy Actor: Early modern Stage Polemic. Theater History Studies Volume 15, 1995. Weinstein, G. & Fantini, M. Toward Humanistic Education: A Curriculum of Affect New York: Praeger, 1970. Wilber, Ken. No Boundary Los Angeles: Center Publications, 1979. Wilber, Ken. The Atman Project Wheaton, Il: Theosophical Publishing House, 1977.
76 Bibliography Adler, Alfred. Trans. By Walter Beran Wolfe. Understanding Human Nature. Ruskin House: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1928. Binns, J.W. Women or Transvestites on the Elizabethan Stage: An Oxford Controversy. Sixteenth-Century Journal Vol. 5, 1974. Binswanger, Ludwig. Existential Analysis and Psychotherapy, in Freida FrommReichmann and J.L. Moreno (eds). Progress in Psychotherapy New York: Grime, 1956. Boghossin, Paul A. What is Social Construction, Times Literary Supplement February, 2001. Brown, Mildred L., Rounsley, Chloe Ann. True Selves: Understanding Transsexualism for Families, Friends, Coworkers, and Helping Professionals San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996. Bullough, Vern L. Transvestites in the Middle Ages. American Journal of Sociology 79, 1974. Bunnin, Nicholas and Tsui-James, E.P., Editors. The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy 2 nd edition. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Case, John. Speculum Moralium Quaestiunum in Universam Ethicen Aristolelis. Oxford, 1585; f.Q4r, in the Oxford, 1596 edition. Chaucer, Geoffrey. A Six-Text Print of Chaucers Canterbury Tales . New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1967. Child, Francis James. Gemutus, the Jew of Venice, in English and Scottish Ballads Volume VIII. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1858. Claiborne Park, Clara. "As We Like It: How a Girl Can Be Smart and Still Popular." The Woman's Part: Feminist Criticism of Shakespeare. Ed. Carolyn Ruth Swift Lenz et al. Urbana and Chicago: U of Illinois, 1983. Cole, Eve Browning. Body, Mind and Gender. Philosophy and Feminist Criticism: An Introduction New York: Paragon House, 1993.
77 Crashaw, William. A Sermon Preached at the Crosse, Feb 14 1607. London, 1608. Theatrum Redivivum Series. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1972. Davis, Natalie Zemon. Women on Top. Society and Culture in Early modern France Stanford University Press, 1975. Dekker, Thomas. "The Roaring Girle, or Moll Cut-Purse." Thomas Dekker: Dramatic Works. Ed. Fredson Bowers. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1955. Dimsdale, Joel E. The Coping Behavior of Nazi Concentration Camp Survivors. American Journal of Psychiatry Vol. 131, 1974. Dollimore, Jonathan. Early modern: Cross-Dressing in Early modern England. Sexual Dissidence: Augustine to Wilde, Freud to Foucault. Oxford, 1991. Feinberg Leslie. TransLiberation: Beyond Pink and Blue Boston: Beacon Press, 1998. Finkelstein, Joanne. The Fashioned Self Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991. Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents Trans. and Ed. by James Starchey. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1961. Ford, Emmanuel. The Most Famous Delectable and Pleasant History of Parismus, The Most Renowned Prince of Bohemia Microform London: Printed by J. Millit for W. Thackeray, 1689. Gay, Penny. As She Likes It: Shakespeares Unruly Women. London: Routledge, 1994. Gibert, Sandra. Costumes of the Mind: Transvestism as Metaphor in Modern Literature. Critical Inquiry Vol. 7, 1980. Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Womens Development Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Goldman, Marcus Sheldon. Sir Philip Sydney and The Arcadia Urbana: University of Illinois, 1934. Gosson, Stephen. Plays Confuted in Five Actions London, 1582. Now available in a facsimile reprint in The Theater Redivivum Series, ed. Ed. Peter Davidson. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1972. Greaney, Markisha. A Proposal for Doing Transgender Theory in the Academy. Reclaiming Genders: Transsexual Grammars at the Fin deSiecle. London: Cassell, 1999.
78 Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Greenblatt, Stephen. Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California, 1988. Guignon, Charles. Ontological Presuppositions of the Determinism/Free Will Debate, in Between Chance and Choice: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Determinism, Ed. H. Atmanspacher and R. Bishop. Charlotesville, VA: Imprint Academic, 2002. Gutting, Gary. Sarte, Foucault and Derrida in The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. Eds. Nicholas Bunnin and E.P. Tsui-James. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd., 2003. Hacking, Ian. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1999. Harkes, Al R. Psychological Theories of Motivation Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co., 1997. Horney, Karen, M.D. Feminine Psychology Ed. by Harold Kelman, M.D. New York: The Norton Library, 1967. International Study Project, Inc. Menlo Park, California Compiled with the Assistance of Bertha G. Maslow. Abraham Maslow: A Memorial Volume Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1972. James, Philip S. Introduction to English Law 5 th edition. London: Butterworths, 1962. Jonson, Ben. Epicoene, or The Silent Woman. Ed. L. A. Beauline. Lincoln: U of Nebraska, 1966. Kastan, David Scott and Stallybrass, Peter, Eds. Staging the Renaissance: Reinterpretations of Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama. New York: Rutledge, 1991. Kessler, Susan and McKenna, Wendy. Who Put the Trans in Transgender? Gender Theory and Everyday Life. Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach New York: Wiley, 1978. Lakoff, George. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987. Landis, Joan Hutton. Reviewed Work(s): The Two Gentlemen of Verona: An Annotated
79 Bibliography By DOrsay W. Pearson. Shakespeare Quarterly Vol. 42, No. 1; Spring, 1991. Laqueur, Thomas. Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Littleton, Betty J. Clyomon and Clamydes The Hague: Paris, Mouton, 1968. Lodge, Thomas. Lodges Rosalynde, Being the Original of Shakespeares As You Like It. Freeport, NY: Books for the Libraries Press, 1970. Lorber, Judith and Farrell, Susan, Eds. The Social Construction of Gender New York: Sage Publications, 1991. Lucas, Valerie. Hic Mulier: The Female Transvestite in Early modern England. Renaissance and Reformation 12, 1988. Lycan, William Editor. Mind and Cognition: An Anthology Malden: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1999. Madsen, K.B. Theories of Motivation Cleveland: Howard Allen, 1961. Madsen, K.B. Modern Theories of Motivation: A Comparative Metascientific Study New York: Halsted Press, 1974. Maslow, Abraham H. Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999. Maslow in Hall, M.H. A conversation with Abraham H. Maslow. Psychology Today July, 1968. Michael, J. Establishing Operations. The Behaviorist Analyst in The Philosophical Legacy of Behaviorism Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. Miller, JE. Service and Subjectivity: The Cross-dressed Woman in Early modern English Drama. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Utah, DAI, Vol. 54-11A. Munday, Anthony. A second and third blast of retrait from plaies and Theaters. London, 1580. Theatrum Redvivivum Series. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1972. Munday, Anthony. Zelauto: The Fountaine of Fame Southern Illinois University Press, 1963. Nicholson, Marjorie Hope. The Breaking of the Circle: Studies in the Effect of the
80 New Science upon Seventeenth-Century Poetry. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960. Northbrooke, John. A Treatise wherein Dicing, Daunsing, Vaine Plaies, or Enterludesare reproved London: 1579. Radin, Paul. Primitive Man as Philosopher Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1985. Rose, Mary Beth. "Women in Men's Clothing: Apparel and Social Stability in The Roaring Girl English Literary Renaissance Vol. 14, No.3, 1984. Schleiner, Winifred. Male Cross-Dressing and Transvestism in Renaissance Romances. Sixteenth Century Journal Vol. 19, 1988. Sedinger, Tracey. If Sight and Shape be True: The Epistemology of Crossdressing on the London Stage. Shakespeare Quarterly Vol. 48, No. 1, Spring 1997. Senelick, Laurence. The Changing Room: Sex, Drag, and Theater in London New York: Routledge, 2000. Shantall, T. The Experience of Meaning in Suffering Among Holocaust Survivors. Journal of Human Psychology Vol. 29; July, 1999. Smith, M.B. On self-actualization: A transambivalent examination of a focal theme in Maslows psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology Vol. 13, 1973. Stone, Lawrence. The Crisis of Aristocracy, 1558-1641. Oxford: Claredom Press, 1965. Taylor, Carman. Husserl and Heidegger in The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. Eds. Nicholas Bunnin and E.P. Tsui-James. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd., 2003. Thyer, Bruce A. Ed. The Philosophical Legacy of Behaviorism Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. Uytman, J.D. Alfred Adler: An Introduction to his Psychology By Lewis Way. The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 8, No. 31; April, 1958. Vincent, Norah. Self-Made Man: One Womans Journey Into Manhood and Back Again New York: Viking, 2006. Weigert, J. Existentialism in Its Relation to Psychotherapy. Psychiatry .Vol. 12, 1949. Wilber, Ken. The Pre-Trans Fallacy in The Essential Ken Wilber: An Introductory
81 Reader Boston: Shambhala, 1998. Wilber, Ken. The Transpersonal in The Essential Ken Wilber: An Introductory Reader Boston: Shambhala, 1998. Woodbridge, Linda. Women and the English Renaissance: Literature and the Nature of Womankind 1540-1620.