"The discovery was tremendous":Sex, Secrets, and Selfhood in The Portrait of a Lady Jessica Krzeminski "Her life should always be in harmony with the most pleasing impression she should produce; she would be what she appeared, and she would appear what she was" (105), writes Henry James of Isabel Archer in The Portrait of a Lady (1881). What, however, is she? Is she "a young woman of extraordinary profundity … [and] a prodigy of learning" as her admirers think (103)? Or is she guilty of creating and inhabiting a fantasy life based in romantic ideals—"you live too much in the world of your own dreams. You're not enough in contact with reality" (268)—as her friend Henrietta Stackpole accuses her? James writes Isabel as a series of images that refuse to coalesce into a singular figure with definitive motives, morals, feelings, and goals. In fact, Isabel's main struggle is the development of a socially acceptable and therefore "cohesive" sense of self that is not formed relationally, that is, by and dependent on any given person—her uncle, her cousin, her best friend, her husband, his former lover, his daughter—or situation. In what follows, I address Isabel's fragmented character development and the longstanding debate about whether James's female characters ever achieve individuality and freedom from societal constraints. I question whether oft-valorized depictions of delineated individuality—in Lynn Huffer's terms, an "overinvest[ment] in coherent narrative female subjects" (62)—should even be the desired goal. Engaging theories and conversations concerning what constitutes the subject—a self that is static, shattered, and/or split—I argue that Isabel Archer arrives at a fragmented, non-relational sense of self when she dwells in her emotions, decides to actively refuse the role of mother and thereby stalls the reproduction of a heteronormative future, and embraces the disintegration of her previous self-conceptions. In realizing her lack of desire for her husband, Gilbert Osmond, and in then choosing to weaponize her body in the emotional war he wages by refusing her role as vessel of reproductive futurity (i.e., [End Page 276] woman-cum-mother), she becomes a woman who confers recognition on herself rather than lives to please others. James characterizes Isabel as a young woman who has not been circumscribed, who has been told that she is smarter than most and that her opinions have weight but who also has "never been corrected by the judgment of people speaking with authority," which has "led her into a thousand ridiculous zigzags" (PL 104). Ironically, as James details Isabel's "meagre knowledge," "inflated ideals," "temper at once extracting and indulgent," "desire to look very well and to be if possible even better," "her combination of the delicate, desultory, flame-like spirit and the eager and personal creature of conditions," etc. (105), he also throws into this very long list of personality traits that Isabel thinks it "was almost as unnecessary to cultivate doubt of one's self as to cultivate doubt of one's best friend: one should try to be one's own best friend" (104). With this description, James indicates that Isabel, in this early self-iteration, is unaware that her self-perception is entirely relational, that she develops in response to the people she encounters and situations in which she finds herself. She instead, thinking self-doubt is useless, projects in this moment a self-confidence at odds with James's characterization of her scattered, sometimes insecure personality. Continuously constituting oneself in response to iterative encounters with an other defines the Hegelian subject-other relationship—as Judith Butler discusses, "If … we are to follow The Phenomenology of the Spirit, I am invariably transformed by the encounters I undergo" (27). Omri Moses, while not referencing the self-other dyad and its ethical implications, nonetheless capitalizes on iterative subject formation in his discussion of James's novels in order to consider the psychic integrity, or lack thereof, of James's characters. Moses claims that they have "to make do without the usual guideposts for action" because "[r]ather than pursuing predetermined intentions and motives according to a scale of understood interests, they seek to discover them among...
Read full abstract