Unveiling the Implicit Political Agenda: A Comparative Analysis of the Construction of Gender Roles in Grimm’s Ashputtel and Giuseppe Pitré’s The Magical Little Date Tree

Abstract

In 1981, American therapist Colette Dowling proposed the term “the Cinderella Complex” to the field of psychology to investigate how millions of women have fallen into the trap of the hidden fear of independence. Deriving its name from the fairy tale Cinderella, the term also has begun to elucidate how the discourse of fairy tales has created a ‘nonconscious ideology’ and designates gender roles in society throughout the ages. In relation, this study scrutinizes the comparative analysis of the Brothers Grimm’s fairy tale Ashputtel (1812), widely known as Cinderella, and Giuseppe Pitré’s The Magical Little Date Tree (1875), the Italian version of Cinderella, through the lenses of plural investigation methods which encapsulate the feminist literary criticism and the cultural materialist approach. It analyzes how the dominant ideology, the patriarchal discourse represented by the Brothers Grimm through Cinderella, constructs a nonconscious ideology to subjugate women to become passive, weak, submissive entities, not only in fairy tales but also in daily life. This study suggests that the hegemony of the dominant ideology is reversed by Pitré’s protagonist Ninetta, who subverts gender roles through creating a language, a voice of her own and encouraging her sense of independence and self-reliance. Therefore, she surpasses the limits of Cinderella, who is gendered by the hegemony, and sheds light upon how fairy tales construct gender-appropriate behaviors in society.

Keywords

• Comparative Children’s Literature,Fairy Tale Studies,Gender,Cinderella,The Magical Little Date Tree

References

1. Atalay, İ. (2019). Karşılaştırmalı edebiyat. İstanbul: Hiper.
2. Aytaç, G. (2019). Karşılaştırmalı edebiyat bilimi. Ankara: Doğu Batı.
3. Bem, S. L. & Bem, D. J. (1970). Training the woman to know her place: The power of a nonconscious ideology. In S. Cox (Ed.), Female Psychology: The Emerging Self (pp. 180–191). Chicago: Science Research Associates.
4. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
5. Bem, S. L. (1998). An unconventional family. New Haven: Yale University Press.
6. Bettelheim, B. (1975). The use of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy tales. New York: Vintage Books.
7. Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic Subject. Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Colombia University Press.
8. Brown, R. W. (1986). Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.

9. Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
10. Castelnuovo, S. & Guthrie S. R. (1998). Feminism and the female body: liberating the amazon within. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
11. Cammet, J. M. (1967). Antonio gramsci and the origins of italian communism. California: Stanford UP.
12. Cavarero, A. (2002). Stately bodies. Literature, philosophy and the question of gender. (Trans Robert de Lucca & Deanna Shemek, Trans.). Ann Arbor: Michigan UP.
13. Chodorow, N. J. (1997). Gender, relation, and difference in psychoanalytic perspective. In Meyers, D.T. (Ed.), Feminist Social Thought: A Reader (pp.7-21). New York: Routledge.
14. Chodorow, N. (2012). Individualizing gender and sexuality. Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
15. Cordelia, F. (2010). Delusions of gender. how our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: Norton
16. Dollimore, J. & Sinfield, A. (1994). Political shakespeare: New essays in cultural materialism. Manchester: Manchester UP.
17. Dollimore, J. (2010). Radical tragedy: Religion, ideology and power in the drama of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Houndmills: Macmillan.
18. Dowling, C. (1981). The Cinderella complex. Women’s hidden fear of independence. New York: Pocket Books. Faludi, S. (2006). The undeclared war against women. New York: Three Rivers Press.
19. Fetterly, J. (1978). The resisting reader: A feminist approach to american fiction. Blooming: Indiana UP.
20. Foucault, M. (2020). The will to knowledge. A history of sexuality I. (R. Hurley, Trans.). London: Penguin. [E-book version]. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.tr
21. Gould J. (2006). Spinning straw into gold. What fairy tales reveal about the transformations in a woman’s life. New York: Random.
22. Gramsci, A. (2005). The southern question. antonio, D. (Ed.). Verdicchio, P. (Trans.). Guarnica: Toronto. Grimm’s, J. L. C. and Grimm’s W. C. (2016). Grimm’s Fairy Tales. London: MacMillan.
23. Harris, M. (1999). Theories of culture in postmodern times. Walnut Creek, AltaMira.
24. Joosen, V. (2011). Critical & creative perspectives on fairy tales. An intertextual Dialogue between Fairy-Tale Scholarship and Postmodern Retellings. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
25. Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to language and art. Roudiez, L.S. (Ed.), Thomas G, Alice, J. & Roudiez, L. S. (Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
26. Lieberman M. (1972). ‘Some Day My Prince Will Come:’ Female Acculturation through the Fairy Tale.’ College English, 3, 383-395. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/375142.
27. Lurie, A. (1970). Fairy tale liberation. The New York Review of Books, December 17.
28. Marks, K. & Engels, F. (2012). The communist manifesto. A modern edition. London: Verso.
29. Marlow, C. (2017). Shakespeare and cultural materialist theory. London: Bloomsbury.
30. McRobbie, A. (2009). The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change. London: Sage.
31. Millet, Kate. (2000). The theory of sexual politics. In C. Barbara (Ed.), Radical feminism. a documentary reader (pp. 122-154). New York: New York UP.
32. Mouffe, C. (1979). Gramsci and marxist theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
33. Opies, P. & I. (1974). The classic fairy tales. London: Oxford University Press.
34. Pitré, G. (2017). Catarina the Wise and Other Wondrous Sicilian Folk and Fairy Tales. (Jack Zipes, Trans & Ed.). London: University of Chicago Press.
35. Rowe, K. (1979). Feminism and fairy tales. In Jack Zipes (Ed.), Don’t bet on the prince. contemporary feminist fairy tales in America and England (pp. 209-223). New York: Routledge.
36. Schmidt, D. (2002). (Ed.). Feminism, foucault, and embodied subjectivity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
37. Tatar, M. (2003). The hard facts of the grimms’ fairy tales: Expanded second edition. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
38. Taylor, C. (2017). (Ed.). The routledge guidebook to Foucault’s the history of sexuality. New York: Routledge.
39. Ulanov, A. & Ulanov, B. (1983). Cinderella and her sisters. The envied and the envying. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
40. Williams, R. (1960). Culture and society, 1780-1950. New York: Anchor Books.
41. Young, I. M. (2005).“Throwing like a girl” and other essays in feminist philosophy and social Theory New York: Oxford UP.
42. Zipes, J. (1997). Happily ever after: Fairy tales, children, and the culture industry. New York: Routledge.
43. Zipes, J. (2012). The irresistible fairy tale. The Cultural and Social History of a Genre. New Jersey: Princeton UP.
44. Zipes, J. (2017). The extraordinary Giuseppe Pitré. In Zipes, J. (Ed.), Giuseppe Pitré, Catarina The Wise and Other Wondrous Sicilian Folk & Fairy Tales (pp.1-11). London: University of Chicago Press.