Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko is commonly seen as narrative that reinforces the immorality of slavery practiced by the English. Following the story of the enslaved prince, this message of injustice is clear within the text, serving to mask a feminist agenda that is encrypted throughout the work. While the tale of Oroonoko serves as the forefront of the story, the novella quickly advances a feminist agenda through the depiction of women’s subjectivity in the culture of both the oppressors and of the slaves. The text incidentally reimagines the 17th century British female, yet acknowledges its inability to adequately speak for the Koromantin princess turned slave, Imoinda.
To fathom why feminist notions in the text needed to be masked by an anti-slavery message, it is necessary to understand the historical context in which the story was published. Women in seventeenth century England were to be seen and not heard, forced to “confront the misogynist images of their sex still prevalent in their culture…often projections of, on one hand, male anxieties and, on the other hand, male desire” (Gilbert & Gubar 135). The feminist message is obscured, and deciphering the feminist agenda is difficult as it was written in such a time period that any message implying that the female population should be treated as anything more than a property would have been met with extreme hostility. To bypass this roadblock, such declarations were concealed in elements of the text, hiding just beneath the surface. A close reading of Oroonoko, often reading against what is written on the page, functions as a decipher for these encryption.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The image of the English men, painted by the text, exhibits a patriarchal mindset plagued with Christian hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy is shown in several ways. First, it is pointed out by the narrator within the first few pages of the text when speaking of the native Surinamese people: “Religion would here but destroy that tranquility they possess by ignorance, and laws would but teach ‘em to know offense, of which now they have no notion” (Behn 2315). Here, the text highlights the bigotry occurring within the society as the English men use their religious beliefs to justify why they are superior to the individuals they enslave.
This assertion of the negative impact of Christianity occurs again when the narrator speaks of the mistreatment of women: “Such ill morals are only practiced in Christian countries, where they prefer the bare name of religion, and, without virtue or morality, think that’s sufficient” (2319). The word choice of “ill morals” evokes the image of unjust and dishonorable beings, which is the exact opposite of the esteem in which the English men held themselves. The text is not necessarily attacking the religion, but it is attacking the bigotry of English men for speaking of high moral codes while behaving in the complete opposite manner solely based on skin pigmentation, including the mutilation and dismemberment of Oronooko. Continuing on the path of religious hypocrisy, the elitist mindset of the English men is also pointed out with the attempted rape of Imoinda by Mr. Trefry, a white Christian male in the English colony at Suriname. Mr. Trefry speaks of the instance himself: “[W]hen I have, against her will, entertained her with love so long as to be transported with my passion, even above decency, I have been ready to make use of those advantages of strength and force nature has given me. But oh! she disarms me with that modesty and weeping, so tender and so moving that I retire, and thank my stars she overcame me” (Behn, 2337). This depiction not only contradicts the idea of a courageous and noble English man, but it also confirms the text’s suggestion that women are treated as property and not as people. Mr. Trefry’s depiction of the event focuses on his own suffering, his own struggle, and not with Imoinda’s suffering. This suggests that in the English society, a man’s suffering is paramount, while a female’s suffering is irrelevant. Such an example reinforces the work’s accusations of hypocrisy of the English men, as well as shedding light on the injustices suffered by women.
Criticism of the patriarchy is extended to the Coramantien, or Koromantin, society, which reinforcing the text’s feminist message. Imoinda is forced to become a mistress to Oroonoko’s grandfather, who is the king and has “many wives and many concubines” (Behn, 2319). This rape and forced union of Imoinda by the king highlights the injustices toward females by males in the Koromantin society. Unfortunately, this too, as with the behavior of the English men, is based in truth: “A [Koromantin] king had an unquestioned right to take any woman whom he wanted, regardless of her or her family’s wishes. Wives were subjected to ‘strict confinement’, and the king’s women were forbidden ‘to hold discourse with any man’” (Rogers, 4). These passages evoke a portrait of Koromantin women being treated as property, valued only by their usefulness to the men that rule them. The excerpt creates a connection between the English men and the Koromantin men, as such that both societies value men while treating women as property to be used. These images also cut religion out of the equation, as the Koromantin society were not practitioners of Christianity, thus asserting the notion that the societies which follow the rules of patriarchy are the issue and not the creed itself. With religion out of the equation, that leaves all the accountability to the patriarchy, which existed in both societies.
Oroonoko, too, harbors a sexist mindset. His actions, shaped by the narrator, show Oroonoko to be aligned with the ideals of the English men. Oroonoko, like the English, was an owner and seller of slaves. When Oroonoko was convincing the slaves of Suriname to revolt against the English owners, he said, “[M]y dear friends and fellow sufferers, should we be slaves to an unknown people?...but we are bought and sold like apes or monkeys” (2348). Here, the hypocrisy of Oroonoko is highlighted as he now speaks against their enslavement even though many of those enslaved were sold to the slave ships by Oroonoko or under his authority. One could argue that he has reevaluated his stance on slavery and changed his opinion after being on the other side of the situation; yet, this notion is countered by what he tells Trefry and Byam when the majority of the other revolters surrendered to the English men: “[H]e (Oronooko) was ashamed of what he had done, in endeavoring to make those free who were by nature slaves, poor wretched rogues, fit to be used as Christians’ tools; dogs, treacherous and cowardly” (2351). By referring to the other slaves as “dogs” and “treacherous,” Oroonoko reestablishes the disconnect between himself, as a prince, and those he views as inferior. Oroonoko views himself as being better than the other slaves, of an upper class, a superior being just like the Englishmen view themselves, exposing himself as a hypocrite like his English counterparts. These views held by Oroonoko, who is a participant of the patriarchy existent in his homeland, serve as a mechanism to discredit him by demonstrating that he harbors values identical to that of the men in the English society.
Like the English men, Oroonoko views women as objects. Although he claimed Imoinda as the love of his life, he elevated his own suffering over her suffering. When he decides to avenge his owner after being beaten for revolting and escaping the English, he fears that if he was killed, Imoinda would be seen as “prey,” leaving her to be “ravished by every brute, exposed first to their nasty lusts and then a shameful death” (Behn, 2354). Oroonoko “could not live a moment under that apprehension” so he resolves, with her permission, to kill his pregnant wife (2354). After killing Imoinda, Oroonoko is so caught up in his own grief that he fails to avenge the Governor, causing Imoinda’s death to be an act in vain. First, Oroonoko chooses Imoinda’s death because the thought of her being raped pains him. Then, her death causes him so much pain that he can’t finish his self appointed task. Here, Oroonoko places his suffering over the suffering of Imoinda because he is a male, and when a male is valued more by a society, “a woman is, more or less, not only a man’s property to do with as he wishes, but also an extension of himself” (Astrom, 127). This is what is known as “referred pain”. In patriarchal societies where men are valued higher than the women, and the women serve as objects of ownership, then “[w]hen a woman suffers” it believed that “the greater damage is sustained by the man” because “[h]is emotions are more important than hers” (127). This ideology set forth by Oroonoko connects him, once again, to the English men who share the same ideals.
These examples in the text come together to form a feminist proclamation of opposition against the sexual inequality of the patriarchy.
Stuck on your essay?
