Cat on a Hot Tin Roof – Tennessee Williams: an analysis

Heyo,

Pez here, bringing y'all a deep dive into the nuances of 1950s Deep South's social hierarchy. Williams, a queer man writing plays within a toxically heteronormative society, emblematises the way in which literature and culture symbiotically influence each other.

---

Williams addresses the interplay between fragility and beauty in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, a tension with many different permutations within the gendered mores entrenched under the American Deep South’s social hierarchy. For both men and women, “mendacity is a system” that oppresses indiscriminately, where the feminine identity is forced to find security within the incessant marketing of physical beauty, while masculinity is largely characterised by physical strength and “silence” that “fester[s]” into emotional insecurity. Contextualised with the McCarthyistic world of Williams’ time, the social artifice employed by both genders is perhaps an attempt at compensating for such weakness – be it internal or external – for the constant emphasis on societal scrutiny distracts from the “understanding [that] is needed on this place”. However, Williams cherishes the glimpses of [true-hearted and simple-minded] humanity within the Politt clan; a wider societal reflection that offers some hope that because everyone has the capacity to be “weak [and] beautiful”, so too can they be sympathetic and truthful.

The androcentric 1950s American system inherently divests women of societal power, as Williams reveals that such social weakness necessitates the female imperative of touting physical beauty. When contextualised with Brick being the only other character on stage, how Maggie sensually [touches her breast and then her hips] demonstrates the feminine awareness of patriarchal demands, for such erotic exhibition appeals to the requirement of women as sexual objects. And so, because women are often expected to “shut up completely”, Maggie’s repetition of “other men…other men…other men” implies that the only validation of the female identity is patriarchal – and disturbingly performed to those extraneous to a marriage – where empowerment and “admir[ation]” for embracing one’s sexuality further entrenches these socially debilitating stereotypes. Indeed, cognisance of women’s weak societal status only strengthens Maggie’s pageantry; the rhythmic, monosyllabic delivery in “eat me up with his eyes” reflects the predacious, bestial image of men consuming women for sexual satisfaction, a patriarchal exploitation of their social frailty. Big Mama, who is less aware these structures, is thus more tragically a victim of her often-neglected social position, as Williams laments the plight of women who do not even fulfil the expectation of being physically beautiful. The insulting, misogynistic humour in “when Big Mama comes back into the room, boy, then I see what she looks like, and I wish I didn't!” indicates just how severely engrained objectification is in masculinity: women who are not physically desirable are utterly dismissed as having significantly less worth than one who does, augmented by Big Daddy’s light-hearted delivery. Further, Big Daddy’s fervently voiced complaint “I haven't been able to stand the sight, sound, or smell of that woman for forty years now!” implies physical gratification – shown through the 3 senses – was the only justification for his relationship with Big Mama; when that is gone, she is rendered worthless and insufferable, only augmented by her lack of societal significance. Perhaps most concerning is Williams’ own degrading physical descriptions of Big Mama – [short, stout], [short, fat], [170 pounds] – most likely a deliberate meta-mimicry of patriarchal mores to remind his audience just how rife and pervasive misogyny’s powerful social influence truly is in their world. In this way, then, the 1950s social system is one that offers “impossible conditions” to women; whilst those that are sexually appealing may hold slightly more control over those that are not, both archetypes are ultimately ensnared within the same weak social position intrinsic to merely existing as a woman.

So, amidst a world plagued by such emotional inarticulacy and performance out of social weakness, Williams admires the flashes of genuine beauty and tenderness that offer partial hope for a redefinition of societal mores. Indeed, Big Daddy is flagrantly misogynistic in his behaviour toward the women in the play, but – while not a justification for such – it is undeniable that there are hues of candid [affection] in [draw[ing] [Brick] up, keep[ing] an arm about him with concern]. This physical movement to gently embrace another man partially breaks the chains of traditional masculinity, demonstrating an emotional security that allows for homosocial tenderness without any conventionally humiliating connotations of homosexuality. Thus, even in wake of Brick’s rejection “I don’t want your hand….”, Big Daddy nevertheless persists with “Well, I want yours.”, wherein Williams suggests that this attempt at affection is sincere – the unembellished justification “well,” – a paternal love which transcends the pain of it being unrequited, a beautifully vulnerable notion that affords some hope at the masculine identity becoming more empathetic. In this moment too, the audience’s sympathies are encouraged to lie within this relationship, as Williams subverts the dominant theme of performance and “mendacity!” with care that, although ephemeral, is an acknowledgement of the human condition inherent within everyone. In a similar vein, the way in which Maggie [bends her long graceful neck to press her forehead to Big Mama's bulging shoulder] offers a glimpse under her alluring façade, where this purely physical action perhaps augments its candour, given that speech is so often used to manipulate and deceive in the play; Williams reveals Maggie’s emotional capacity to be beautiful, unspoken affection unmarred by the mercenary motives produced by the weakness inherent to her societal status. However, it is perhaps most tragic that such transient glimpses of basic empathy are so admirable and beautiful, as Williams complicates the possibility of societal redefinition with the harsh reality that “Venomous thoughts and words!” – its serpentine connotations augmenting the insidious motives entrenched within this culture – dominate the “hearts and minds” of most. Gooper’s sardonic exclamation “How beautiful, how touching, this display of devotion!” reminds the audience of 1950’s America’s largely stifled emotional identity, for displays of internal beauty are so rare that genuine tenderness is disparaged just as if it was performative. Williams insinuates that it is perhaps not so easy to remedy the “malignant” tumour of mendacity and reticence, and that just as how Brick is inevitably drawn back in from the “gallery”, so too is completely redefining social mores an impossible endeavour within a society still hegemonized by men and plagued by the products because of it. But, a literal patriarch’s [shy] and [almost tender] plea for his son not to “leave” symbolises the glimpses of vulnerability that are in dire need of care, as Williams asks his audience to consider the beauty in attempting to redefine their society’s emotional fragility into a 1950’s America that embraces vulnerability out of strength and not one that represses it out of weakness.

The insidiously debilitating nature of masculine hegemony is one that “weak[ens]” all – albeit not to the same degree – where the prejudiced mores imposed on women render their social influence as negligible, and the stoicism expected of men render them emotionally fragile and inarticulate. Underpinning both cases is a profound lack of empathy, where Williams laments the Politt family’s blindness to the inherent humanity within each other, resulting in repressed turbulence and turmoil. However, flickers of emotional maturity suggest that even those so heavily oppressed by this patriarchal system have the capacity to be internally beautiful, offering some beacons of hope amidst a sea of mendacity and insensitivity. Ultimately, then, Williams calls on his audience to embrace their own and others’ weakness with authenticity and tenderness, so that American society may appreciate one another’s inherent humanity in an act of genuine beauty.