Each and every one of us has
seen some conception of the stereotype of the Irish drunkard. This figure of
the gallivanting man, always searching for his next drink, pervades many
people’s ideas of what Irish masculinity entails. He is not just present in
outsider’s observations, however, but makes his way into the works of famous
Irish writers including Sean O’Casey and Brian Friel. Both of these authors
struggle with this stereotype, present it on stage, and then alter it to
reflect some degree of truth in Irish masculinity. In Casey’s Juno and the Paycock and Friel’s Translations, both playwrights portray a
drunken father and his equally drunken crony that seem to fall easily into the
realm of stereotype. Within these representations of stereotype, Casey and
Friel present us with men who are not caricatures but are instead figures
struggling daily with the difficulties of Irish masculinity in a rapidly
changing world. The pairs of Boyle and Boxer of Juno and Hugh and Jimmy of Translations
present the reader with figures that transcend mere stereotype and instead
portray men who are unable to cope with the world around them and the weight of
masculinity.
Alcohol in these works is used to distance the men from a
society where they have become quickly unwelcome and insecure. For example,
Boyle is a man incapable of leaving his past behind. In a world in turbulent
political struggle, he struts about in his sea-man’s regalia, his occupation of
older years, and uses his “lame leg” as an excuse to not find any other work.
His son’s involvement in IRA movements and the world’s fear of further death
and destruction are ignored by the oblivious father. Boyle is the “paycock” of
the story, the man so self-indulgent and insecure that he holds onto those
moments when he once possessed dignity, choosing to live in the past rather
than the present. His drunkenness then is symptomatic of this insecurity, and
is utilized as a means by which to ignore the atrocities of the Irish Civil
War, only fleetingly mentioned with, “Th’ whole worl’s…in a terrible state o’
chassis!” Similarly, Hugh is another father figure unable to let go of the past
and confront the present. He clings to his teachings in Greek and Latin, as
well as the teachings of ancient philosophers, yet is all too aware of the
rapidly shifting society around him. When the worst news finally arrives in the
play’s finale, that he will not be the new school teacher as initially
promised, he states what he has known all along, “I am a barbarian in this
place because I am not understood by anyone.” Much like Boyle, Hugh utilizes alcohol as a
means of repressing the horrors and difficulties of the present, as well as his
own alienation from the people around him. While these men attempt to escape
their present world, the realities of Irish masculinity are revealed. Both
Boyle and Hugh are fathers, the all-important patriarchal figure of the Irish
family, yet they are incapable of assuming their required roles. Neither can
support the role of the care giver as Boyle refuses to take a job and Hugh’s
teaching would not even receive its payment if not for another male, Manus, assuming
the role of accountant. They both hold onto their past, for Boyle a time when
he was successful and the world was simple while for Hugh a time of loftier
thought and greater aspirations, because they are incapable of dealing with
their tumultuous present. The presence of alcohol is not the reason for the
displacement but is rather used by the author’s as a symbol for the Irish man’s
attempts to relieve himself from the burden of the present and future.
Hugh and Boyle may be similar in their stance as symbolic
male patriarchs but it is in their respective behavior with their cohorts,
Jimmy and Joxer, where contrasts begin to mount. Chief among these contrasts is
the presence of intellectualism. Of the four men, Hugh, Jimmy, and even Joxer
are presented as being intellectual while the clueless Boyle is left out. This simplicity
in the thoughts and ideas of Boyle lead to a much different relationship from
that found with Hugh and Jimmy. Boyle, the quintessential Irish drunk, is
lampooned by the simultaneously satirical yet truthful Joxer. He steals from
Boyle, assists in his constant search for drink, and utilizes him to his own
ends but it is Joxer, however, who is entirely self-aware of the life he and
Boyle live, which culminates in his sentiment of, “Pull all…your throubles…in
your oul’ kit-bag…an’ smile…smile…smile!” Despite his ability to recognize his
faults, the intelligent Joxer still follows his drinking buddy until the end,
leaving the audience assuming his continued “friendship” with Boyle. O’Casey
within this relationship rips open stereotypes of Irish masculinity by having
the intelligent, seemingly powerful Joxer follow in the footsteps of his
impotent friend. The intelligence which Boyle needs to carry on in his
difficult world is instead relegated to the uncaring, good for nothing Joxer. Even in the world of Translations, the two scholarly men utilize self-deception despite being
conscious of their own faults. By the play’s finale, both men have recognized
that, “Our piety…was for older, quieter things”, distancing themselves from any
responsibility involving the loss of Yellonde and the assumed burning of the
village. Their exchange, unlike that of Boyle and Joxer, may be slightly more
coherent and fulfilled but it echoes the same sentiments: that none of these
men are capable of carrying their roles as Irish males. What all of this self-delusion
and alcohol ultimately culminates in, however, is that these men refuse to
accept their world and use various techniques to repress the world around them.
Friel and O’Casey both utilize what can be an often
hurtful stereotype and attempt to garner what truth they can from its
presentation. Despite being 40 years apart, both of their plays represent Irish
masculinity in a hauntingly similar way. Whether he is intelligent, barbaric,
well-spoken, or base the Irish drunkard potently manifests himself in these
works. The stereotype is, of course, not entirely true but the author’s utilize
it because speaks towards a larger truth in the masculine condition. In my
opinion, O’Casey and Friel create these characters to present the Irish male as
utilizing alcohol to cover their own repression of guilt, ineptitude, and/or
failures as a man. Each of these characters who can so easily be thrown aside
as a drunkard are instead men who are complicated figures that are incapable or
afraid of fulfilling the role society begs of them and thus repress their own
responsibilities. From the other works we have read, and my own experiences
with Irish culture, this is still a concept that still seems present today. As
our tour guide Larkin told us when we took the Easter Rebellion tour, Irish
people today repress their knowledge, or lack of knowledge, involving the Civil
War because they choose not to confront the sticky political situation it
presents. Boyle and Joxer used this exact same repression except for them the
problem was even more immediate, nasty, and brutal. This is not to say that
repression is merely something the Irish do or that it is linked solely to
alcohol abuse, but in the sense that O’Casey and Friel present their characters
the alcohol is merely symbolic of a desire to drown problems rather than face
them head on. Both authors seem to be confronting Irish masculinity head on
asking the men of their nation to not shy away from the problems of the present
and the past but instead face them head on for the good of their country. The
Irish nation today is moving away from their use of repression and it is
figures such as Boyle and Joxer, Jimmy and Hugh that act as warnings, despite
their stereotypical origination, of the dangers of using repression to struggle
through a rapidly changing world.
~Kody Messner
Speaking of masculinity...The gentlemen of the group...
From left: Galvin Mathis, Mayhan Bimar, Juan Garcia and the author Kody Messner
No comments:
Post a Comment