Analysis Of The Revolt Of Mother, By Mary E. Wilkins

Change Always Begins with a Small Revolution

During the nineteenth century, women’s rights were not what they are today. Women lacked the autonomy to come and go as they pleased, and were often forbidden to make decisions regarding their domiciles. That most women spent the majority of time in their homes raising children, housekeeping, and waiting on their husbands unfortunately was not enough to convince the Patriarchy of the need for women’s equality. As we peel back the layers of dialogue and Great Mother, Father, and angel/child archetypes in Mary E. Wilkins’ The Revolt of Mother we discover psychological depth which ultimately makes a bold statement regarding women’s liberation and the latent and real desires of the author. The story

was written at a critical time for women, thirty years before they gained the right to vote, and their rights to own property and make decisions regarding their domestic finances were still in great flux.
Perhaps the strongest archetypes in the story are “Mother,” Sarah Penn, and “Father,” Adoniram Penn.
Sarah in the Bible is renamed by God.

This is a symbol of Sarah Penn’s death of the old and rebirth of the new, liberated, headstrong Mother figure. Perhaps the Sarah in our story also has a type of name change, as she claims what is rightfully hers and asserts her will. There are several important religious symbolisms used: First, Sarah and Adoniram are names from the Bible. Adoniram was a leader of slaves building the temple (forced labor. Hmm…interesting), and Sarah, wife of Abraham, means “princess” or “queen”(WHERE DID I GET THIS FROM??)”. (Interesting because on page 5 she says “Father, you come here.” Sarah Penn stood in the door like a queen; she held her head as if it bore a crown; there was that patience which makes authority royal in her

voice.”)
The story reads like a dream or wishful desire. In the beginning, everyone is conforming to their places and norms, and even the language reflects their submission to it. However, as the “dream” progresses, Sarah’s desires and wishes unfold, and at the end, they are boldly stated and seized.
Freeman cleverly uses the patriarchal ideology of language to describe her characters.

She does this to demonstrate the cultural box she has been forced into while simultaneously using all of her power to break out of it. These are the archetypes of Great or nurturing mother or mother earth-- Adoniram sees her as “bound to the earth with generations of blackberry vines.” (1) She is loving, nurturing, homemaking. Adoniram fits the Father archetype, as he is controlling, doesn’t speak much, rough around the edges. When Sarah Penn asks him why he’s digging in the field, he tells her he wishes she would “’tend to your own affairs…He ran his words together, and his speech was almost as inarticulate as a growl.” This is Lacanian’s language theory, “The Father, the power symbol, enforces these cultural rules and ensures that we follow them (Literary Criticism 154).” Here is where we differentiate between the biological male/female and the cultural male/female. “But the woman understood; it was her most native tongue (1).” This language-shaping continues in the conversation between Nanny and Sarah

Penn,
“You ain’t found out yet we’re women-folks…you ain’t seen enough of men-folks yet to. One of these days…you’ll know that we know only what men-folks think we do…an’ how we’d ought to reckon men-folks in with Providence, an’ not complain of what they do any more than we do of the weather (3).”

The son is just like his father, “He turned, and showed a face like his father’s under his smooth crest of hair (2).” When his father states that it’s strange how his mother feels about the new barn, “Sammy only grunted after an odd fashion for a boy; he had learned it from his father (7).” When his mother asks how long he’s known about the new barn, he doesn’t answer, and says, “Didn’t think ‘twould do no good (2).” The daughter is just like her mother: she sews, cooks, and keeps house in that same domestic way.
Above is mentioned the discussion between Nanny and Sarah. There are two other conversations which are critical to the meaning of the text. First, Sarah receives a visit from the local pastor after she has moved into the barn, and “her eyes showed the spirit that her meek front had covered for a lifetime (10).” She boldly tells him,
“There ain’t not use talkin’, Mr. Hersey…I’ve thought it all over an’ over, an’ I believe I’m doin’ what’s right. I’ve made it the subject of prayer, an’ it’s betwixt me an’ the Lord an’ Adoniram. There ain’t no call for nobody else to worry about it…I think it’s right jest as much as I think it was right for our forefathers to come over from the old country ‘cause they didn’t have what belonged to ‘em…I’ve got my own mind an’ my own feet, an’ I’m going’ to think my own thoughts an’ go my own ways, an’ nobody but the Lord is goin’ to dictate to me unless I’ve a mind to have him (10).”

This is quite a statement to be made in the nineteenth century. This conversation clearly defines and demonstrates the author’s own wishes, as her own latent (??) desires had not been fulfilled. When her alcoholic husband passed away, she was left one dollar,….(CITE THIS SOURCE). Wilkins-Freeman did not have the same autonomy that Sarah Penn is asserting for herself, and finally, through her writing, Freeman can express her hidden desires for herself.
There is a beautiful paradox between Sarah, who has, up to this point, meekly and benevolently been ruled by her husband, but now she is boldly ruling him. This is where the significance of her name, Sarah, comes to play. She has assumed her place on the throne, and now has reclaimed what was rightfully hers, her divine heritage as a queen. Does this mean she is going to rule her domicile with an iron fist and take over all the decisions for the farm? Not likely. It simply means that she will no longer kowtow (to behave in an excessively subservient manner) to every whim of her husband, and speak up for herself when the need arises. The second conversation critical to the text is the one between Adoniram and Sarah, at the end of the story. After Sarah had asserted herself and moved everyone into the barn, Adoniram was weeping.”. He said, “I’ll put up the partitions an’ everything you want, mother (12)”…his face, “was like a fortress whose walls had no active resistance, and went down the instant the right besieging tools were used.” WHY DOES ADONIRAM WEEP? WHAT CAN WE GATHER FROM THIS? Here is the example of the trial our heroine has overcome. She has stared misogyny and the patriarchal order in the face, and has won. It may be a slight win, but she has won nonetheless. “Sarah put her apron up to her face; she was overcome by her own triumph (12).”

Proof of Sarah as the Nurturing Mother Figure
(see above under Patriarchal adjectives)
All the meek, benevolent, saintly images
Proof of Adoniram as the Patriarchal Father Figure
(see above under dialogue)
Interestingly, “angel/child” archetype-- innocent, sweet, and seemingly not very educated daughter almost acts as a psychotherapist, stating Mother’s latent dream, and helping her give rise to it/make it real. She plants the seed that will then inspire Mother to reclaim what is rightfully hers.