1950s Societal Critiques: The Bell Jar and The Catcher in the Rye

Societal Currents in the 1950s:
The Critique of Social Issues in The Bell Jar and The Catcher in the Rye

In the 1950s, the era of censorship and conformity had begun; deviations from social norms and roles were frowned upon, and it was common for information to be concealed from the public for their own good, while those who suffered from illnesses outside the normal realm of medicine were labeled insane and hidden away. The Bell Jar focuses on the life of Esther Greenwood, a young woman who, while on summer break from college, succumbs to a deep depression and undergoes a variety of life-changing experiences, from her questionable treatments to the people that she encounters. The Catcher in the Rye, however, shows Holden Caulfield, a high

school dropout whose downward spiral into a depressive state is shown in shocking detail and highlights his apathy and intensity in equal measure. In The Catcher in the Rye and The Bell Jar, the protagonists react to various social struggles that America was experiencing during the period of the 1950s; while both look at the issue of depression, Salinger’s novel concerns censorship and childhood innocence, while Plath’s work focuses on gender roles in family relationships and careers, each offering a commentary on these prominent issues of the time.
The Bell Jar combats the strict gender roles of the 1950s, exploring the complex interactions of feminist progress and traditional values. While most American cultural values in the 1950s placed a strong emphasis on the nuclear family and female purity, Sylvia Plath’s protagonist explores alternative values and is a sympathetic character despite deviating from normal social standards. While it was expected that women desire marriage and children, Esther’s experience with and opinions on the subject are a sharp contrast. Esther’s feelings on having children are repeated throughout the novel, but nowhere does Plath express her dislike so clearly and starkly as when Mrs. Tomolillo gives birth and Esther says,
Here was a woman in terrible pain, obviously feeling every bit of it or she wouldn’t groan like that, and she would go straight home and start another baby. (Plath 66)
In the passage, Esther does not address the disparity between her feelings on the matter and the expectation that she will one day do the same. She is horrified at the suffering that women go through during childbirth and furious at the men who produce the drug to make women forget the pain. Plath uses this feeling to demonstrate the very real trauma that wives suffer in pursuit of propagation and satisfying their husbands. This also contributes to Esther’s overall paranoia of marriage. Esther, as Plath writes her, has a fear of being trapped in a marriage to a man she hates, who domineers over her, or who can live a life of double standards. Although Esther clearly tells Buddy that she wants never to marry, he continues to assume that she does, or that she will change her mind soon. Esther is also torn between her career and her potential future family. When Esther compares her desires to a fig tree, with each ripe fig a future she could choose, she finds herself unable to decide a single path to take. Should she travel, become a professor, or wed and become a mother? Unable to choose, Esther imagines herself watching the figs fall to rot away, losing every future as she starves to death. She sees freedom and a family as mutually exclusive concepts, and in many ways, they were; women of the 1950s were rarely able to rise above housewife status while married. Sylvia Plath writes all of these conflicts as confusing, yet impactful, never dismissing a desire as a trivial fancy, but giving each one equal weight. Ultimately, a major theme in The Bell Jar is that gender roles are unhealthy, insofar as feeling free conflicts taking the required homemaker role and contributes greatly to Esther’s mental illness.
While The Bell Jar incorporates the strict gender dynamics of the 1950s into Esther’s struggle with depression, The Catcher in the Rye takes the controversial topic of censorship and integrates it with Holden Caulfield’s mental illness, offering two opposing views on the ethics of censorship, especially in regards to protecting the innocence of children.

Holden Caulfield, the protagonist, is infatuated with childish innocence, and seems determined to protect it. His concern for keeping children naïve and unaware of the problems of the world is well-intentioned and likely stems from his childhood confrontation with death, when his younger brother died tragically of leukemia; Holden was scarred by the suddenness of the experience, and wants other children to never suffer this fate. In fact, he wants to make it his mission in life to protect children from harsh realities. In a climactic scene, as Holden’s depression worsens and he decides he is going to leave, he is unbalanced by what he sees in his sister’s school. According to Holden, “somebody’d written ‘Fuck you’ on the wall. It drove me damn near crazy,” and he tries repeatedly to scrub it off the wall (Salinger 201). In his state, he fixates on protecting children from seeing it, but is overwhelmed by how often he sees the word scrawled on the walls. This, rather than implying that Holden’s viewpoint is correct, actually points to his ideas being irrational and badly thought out. Due to Holden’s sheltered, privileged

lifestyle, he has handled his maturation and his traumatic experiences poorly. If he were more exposed to the realities of the world at an appropriate age, he may have been able to grieve in a healthy manner and process his life properly. Salinger further argues this through the answer to the question Holden has about the duck pond in Central Park; Holden asks if someone has to protect the ducks from winter, or if they know somehow to leave. While he never receives an answer, the ducks learn from their kin that winter is approaching and fly south, being shown that the problem exists and also taught how to deal with it. Holden fails to realize that children must be faced with problems and taught by their elders how to react, and how to handle trauma and strife. The Catcher in the Rye shows the complexity of the issue of censorship for the sake of children, but overall pursues the idea that children should be confronted with issues and guided through their reactions so they will have healthy, mature responses and avoid teaching them to ignore trauma until it strikes them without the skills to cope.
Both The Catcher in the Rye and The Bell Jar carry their central focus on the protagonists’ depression, but they do not simply use it as a source of conflict; Salinger and Plath take the opportunity to critique the sensationalization and stigmatization of mental illness and demonstrate the serious nature of the issue. The Catcher in the Rye focuses primarily on the descent into mental illness, as opposed to the treatment, and examines the way victims experience isolation and fear that their problems will be a spectacle for public consumption. Salinger portrays his protagonist as desiring to reach out to others, but incapable of doing so. He seems to construct arbitrary walls that divide him from his peers, calling many of them “phony” and justifying his feeling of isolation by claiming he doesn’t want to be around them regardless. He ultimately wants to escape the world he lives in, but struggles to decide how he would go about it; by running away, or by committing suicide. He seems to feel deeply that if he were to kill himself, he would become a scene, a spectacle. As Holden muses over jumping from a window, he notes that he would do it at that moment, “if I’d been sure somebody’d cover me up as soon as I landed,” adding that he didn’t want strangers to gawk at him while he lay there (Salinger 104). Holden’s fear of becoming a phenomenon instead of being treated with appropriate gravitas is valid, as a boy he knew who killed himself suffered exactly that fate. Salinger’s novel illustrates the isolated feelings of depression and how poorly people react to the issue, often ignoring the cause and turning the death into a headline while the mental illness is glossed over.
The Bell Jar, in comparison, takes a deeper look at the treatment of and the predominant attitude toward mental illness.

People tend to write off mental illness as a choice, a voluntary mood as opposed to a medical condition; in the 1950s, this was even more common, as there were no methods to prove that depression was caused by chemical imbalances in the brain. Plath shows this in a haunting manner when Esther’s mother says, “I knew you’d decide to be all right again” (Plath 146). It is made painfully obvious that mental health is not simply a choice, as Esther drives home in the rest of the passage, her suicidal tendencies worsening. Additionally, many people behave as though Esther is insane, and treat her as a spectacle to be observed rather than a victim of a damaging disease. Not only were societal attitudes toward mental illness deficient in sympathy and understanding, the treatment of depression is shown to be alarmingly inhumane in the post World War Two era. Dr. Gordon exemplifies the improper treatment of depression, by acting extremely uninterested and unprofessional during his sessions with Esther, only to decide after a few visits that she requires electroshock therapy. His failure to understand Esther’s struggle leads him to administer this therapy, and his incompetence is compounded as he performs the procedure incorrectly and leaves Esther with more emotional scars than she had before they met. Plath’s perspective highlights the damaging attitudes of the

time toward mental illness, in which the problem is trivialized and treated improperly due to misconceptions about the problem’s origin. Both novels show that the issue of mental illness was not treated or understood properly in the mid-twentieth century, a struggle that extends to the present day.
The Bell Jar and The Catcher in the Rye are insightful and poignant reactions to social issues of the 1950s that are often glossed over, revolving around the complexity of these issues and highlighting the struggles of those who faced them. The question to be asked is not whether or not these issues are significant and influential, but are Sylvia Plath and J.D. Salinger’s opinions on them correct?