Although
no women are present in Glengarry Glen Ross, Levene and Roma use
patriarchal concepts of women in their dialogue and action to assert their own
dominance and traditional masculinity to themselves and to the other men around
them.
In his book The Art & Craft of Playwriting, Jeffrey Hatcher notes how powerful Levene’s twice-occurring line about his daughter is within the context of the play (Hatcher 28-29). “Out of context,” says Hatcher, “it could mean anything,” but within the confines of the narrative, it is both a “plea and a weapon.” When Levene tells Williamson, “John, my daughter….” he is pleading with Williamson to sympathize with his daughter’s dependence on him as her father (Mamet 26, 104). I would push this farther and say that Levene is wielding the patriarchal construct of a vulnerable daughter needing assistance from her father. Through this, he is able to assert his masculinity as a father figure. A dual-edge to this rhetorical weapon is that he is also manipulating Williamson to accept this patriarchal construct and sympathize with him so that Levene can gain the upper hand. Although Levene seems to be casting himself as a victim, all the men in this play are obviously opportunists, so it is clear that Levene is still using the plea to sway Williamson into cooperating.
In his book The Art & Craft of Playwriting, Jeffrey Hatcher notes how powerful Levene’s twice-occurring line about his daughter is within the context of the play (Hatcher 28-29). “Out of context,” says Hatcher, “it could mean anything,” but within the confines of the narrative, it is both a “plea and a weapon.” When Levene tells Williamson, “John, my daughter….” he is pleading with Williamson to sympathize with his daughter’s dependence on him as her father (Mamet 26, 104). I would push this farther and say that Levene is wielding the patriarchal construct of a vulnerable daughter needing assistance from her father. Through this, he is able to assert his masculinity as a father figure. A dual-edge to this rhetorical weapon is that he is also manipulating Williamson to accept this patriarchal construct and sympathize with him so that Levene can gain the upper hand. Although Levene seems to be casting himself as a victim, all the men in this play are obviously opportunists, so it is clear that Levene is still using the plea to sway Williamson into cooperating.
In Act Two, Levene brags that he has closed a major deal with a couple over units in Mountain View (Mamet 73). When he later tells his story to Roma, Levene says that he was in the couple's kitchen eating crumb cake provided by Harriet Nyborg, the wife. When Roma asks how it was, Levene responds that it was “from the store,” to which Roma simply responds “F*ck her” (72). This negative and vitriolic response to a woman giving a man a store-bought food item also coincidences with patriarchal masculinity that serves as an assertion of masculine dominance. Women are expected to make homemade food, and when they purchase store-bought items, a patriarchal worldview deems it a step outside of female responsibility. By mentioning that the cake was store-bought, Levene undercuts Harriet’s worth within his patriarchal construct. By cursing, Roma has secured his masculinity while also using an imperative, dominant voice toward Levene. Through this piece of dialogue, both men are confirming their masculinity to each other by belittling a woman who has not adhered to their shared patriarchal concept of female duty.
After Roma closes the deal with Lingk, Lingk’s wife insists they cancel it (Mamet 82). Roma tries to convince Lingk to put off canceling the deal until the following Monday, in an attempt to make the three open business days elapse that Lingk could use to cancel (83-85). Although the verbal manipulation is between Roma and Lingk, Roma’s actual adversary he is fighting to keep the deal alive is Lingk’s absent wife. Although he never directly insults her, Roma still fights to erase Lingk’s wife’s agency in her marriage and financial security. By attempting to secure the deal, Roma is reinforcing his masculinity while overruling Lingk’s wife’s choice and her husband’s decision to side with her. If Roma loses the deal, his masculinity is not only damaged through the failure to close, but also through losing to a woman and a lesser-patriarchal man who is willing to listen to his wife.
In Glengarry Glen Ross, Levene and Roma use patriarchal constructs in an attempt to define themselves as traditionally masculine and dominant. By using stereotypes and manipulation of women, the two men try to assert power in their environment.
Works Cited
Hatcher, Jeffrey. The
Art and Craft of Playwriting. Cincinnati: F+W Publications, 1996. Print.
It is impressive that you went beyond the scopes of the book to research your thesis. I had no hunch on Levene using the idea of his daughter as a “plea or a weapon”. Intriguing view point! “Through this, he is able to assert his masculinity as a father figure.”
ReplyDeleteI always like to see how strong the opening paragraph of the essay starts. Yours was a solid punch!
This excerpt from your blog “Although he never directly insults her, Roma still fights to erase Lingk’s wife’s agency in her marriage and financial security. By attempting to secure the deal, Roma is reinforcing his masculinity while overruling Lingk’s wife’s choice and her husband’s decision to side with her.” defines Roma’s slick arrogance clearly. Even though as a reader we root for him, but as (female reader) I couldn’t put my figure on what exactly I despised in him at the same time. Your essay helped me identify some contradictions I was having with myself. Enjoyed reading it greatly!
This is a really insightful blog post, especially considering it was done before class discussion!
ReplyDeleteI too skimmed over Levene pleading with his daughter. In my head I saw it as him being weak, but I love how you turned it into an extra responsibility with the idea that his daughter is dependent on him.
In a way, that makes him even "more of a man" than the other salesmen. Since he has produced offspring, he has insured his own patriarchal dominance over his family. In a patriarchal society, I imagine it would be best to have sons, as they are able to carry on the family name, but daughters play an instrumental part too. Females are comparable to currency in that they can be used to form bonds between men via marriage (Or so I've heard from studying Elizabethan culture, when marriages were still governed by the father). While we live in a society that is less patriarchal, I imagine the concept is still there in the minds of Levene and his coworkers. By mentioning his daughter, Levene may be showing off a kind of currency that the other men don't have.
I have some agreements and disagreements with your submission.
ReplyDeleteFirst, yes, obviously there is a strong, adrenal, male indoctrination at play within the ranks of the different salesmen in the play. As is common in a lot of competition, the idea of "being a man" and eschewing more feminine attributes is prevalent. I see Roma's attitudes toward Lingk's wife as perhaps the strongest example, as you pointed out as well.
However, I think it is a stretch to connect the recounting of Levene eating Mrs. Nyborg's cake as a symbol of patriarchal dominance. When reading that scene, I got no sense of misogyny at all. It seemed more like disappointment in the food quality to me, or, at best, an allegorical sexual innuendo wherein "eating her crumb cake" becomes a bit more base and primal. There could be made an argument of sexual domination in that interpretation, I suppose, but I simply didn't read it that way.
You’re blog on Glengarry Glen Ross is really insightful and well written. When reading this play, I originally viewed the woman’s role as dominant over man, despite the absence of women in the play. When Levene used his daughter as a “plea and a weapon”, I looked at it as empowering the daughter and undermining Levene’s masculinity because he had to rely on sympathy for his daughter in order to land a job. As a man, he should have been able to convince Williamson to give him better leads without any outside influence, but instead he had to play on his sympathies. Although I viewed Levene as weak, you make a good point about him being masculine because he is a father figure. I can see where you’re coming from with the patriarchal construct of a family.
ReplyDeleteWhen Lingk claims that he has to back out of his deal with Roma because his wife told him to, I viewed Lingk as a weaker character than his wife. This scene made it seem like his wife made all of the important decisions in their marriage, which undermines Lingk’s masculinity. He almost seemed scared of his wife when Roma was trying to convince him to reconsider; it was like he wanted to keep the deal but couldn’t go against his wife’s orders. I didn’t look at this scene from Roma’s perspective, however, and after reading your blog I can definitely see how Roma uses Lingk’s wife to reinforce his own masculinity. He completely disregards her wishes (and Lingk’s), and can be seen as a more dominant character as a result.
Frankly, reading the play, I got the feeling Levene just invented the daughter as a last-ditch effort at pity. He didn't show any revealing values before, and in the movie they added scenes to make him more sympathetic, since he was not supposed to be sympathetic in the play.
ReplyDeleteAn interpretation I was going for but didn't have time to write out was that Levene represented 1980's society: he was conservative, stuck in the past, he was a "Machine" in that he wished to be stoic and wealthy in his profession, but he was a slave to his own ego and lost to his obsession with being the top dog.