Kitabı oku: «I Am No Longer Myself Without You: How Men Love Women»

1 SILENCE

And seeking we lose, discovering we conceal.

For we are still searching for our childhood.

MIROSLAV HOLUB

I

In my early twenties F moved into my bedsit, and we bought a new bed that took up half the floor. To reach the tiny cooker we had to squeeze between the bed and my desk. Despite the small size of the room a sense of spaciousness came from the two windows which looked out onto an unkempt garden. On occasion we would stand by one of the windows and watch the trees, the tangle of plants in the overgrown borders, the patchwork of gardens stretching down the street. We cooked elaborate meals in that oven, balancing saucepans on the two rings, washing up in the small circular sink. We took it in turns to work at my desk, the desk I still use, which I had bought some years before for £10, its oak veneer splintered along the edges. There were bare boards on the floor which had been sanded down and varnished. For heating we had a paraffin heater. I forget what pictures we hung on the walls. F and I had only recently met when I moved to London. A friend of mine who was returning to the North offered me his bedsit and I spent several days painting the room before moving in. I had slept on the floor and had woken in the middle of the first night and wondered where I was. I lay awake in the dark, smelt the fresh gloss paint on the skirting boards and recalled a time before, crossing the North Sea on a ferry, sleeping on the packed deck, waking, sitting up, staring around me, feeling entirely lost and disorientated. As my eyes had grown accustomed to the dark, and the shapes of people appeared – slumped in chairs, talking quietly in groups or stumbling over prostrate bodies – my fear subsided. As a faint light revealed the landlord’s cheap, brightly painted furniture I felt once again this disquieting solitude.

We lived in this room for two years and that was eighteen years ago. It was the beginning of our life together and so it is the beginning of this story. It is a narrative about myself. But it is also, more generally, about the relationships and feelings of men. It turns inward to the life of home and intimacy, and to the words we use to define ourselves. And it is a story about the silence which surrounds men’s love and their relationships with women. To write about men’s love and relationships is like entering an uncharted territory and inventing its geography. I must attempt to map its contours, define the gradations of the hills, the sharp dip of valleys, describe the climate and vegetation, put words to places whose histories I don’t fully comprehend. I’m not sure what I will find, and I’m not sure what I’ll say.

I can remember exactly when I first knew that I was in love with F. It was October, shortly after she had moved in. We visited Chichester and walked across a field towards the town. It was early evening, and we stopped to look at the shapes of the roof tops against the darkening blue sky. The autumn yellow of the sun lit the steeple of a church and reflected off the glass block of an office building. We had left the road and climbed a stile, jumping down into the coarse grass. There were a few cows who were ruminating or lying on the soft, damp earth. We had spent the summer taking day trips to the sea and countryside, and this was to be our final outing. Chichester had proved to be an uninteresting town, yet looking at its unprepossessing skyline, I felt my life had changed irrevocably. I had given up my solitude. This moment belonged to both of us, but not to each alone. While I remained ‘I’, a significant part of myself had become ‘we’. I was not overwhelmed with transcendent joy. There was no flood of romantic dreaming. I experienced hope and a sense of my life beginning, pleasure that I had been released from the confinement of myself, anxiety at this other life now incorporated into my own.

When men fall in love we surrender our solitude and relinquish our masquerade of self-sufficiency. A new story of our lives is waiting to begin; a recognition that ‘I am no longer myself without you’. The paradox of love is that we discover a new sense of self in the moment we lose our self to another person. Men avoid this paradox, because love must develop into a relationship – a negotiation of give and take, autonomy and dependency – and faced with such a prospect we have traditionally retreated and recouped some of our solitude. Intimacy changes the boundaries of our self and we become ambivalent about who we are and what we want, and in this equivocation lies apprehension. We are unsure how to respond. Masculinity – an identity rooted in the language of work and public life – has left men unskilled in the necessary words of feeling, empathy and love.

Love is a fugacious word. Rounded and comfortable, it lifts the tongue and fills the back of the throat, before slipping beyond reach as the sound is exhaled from the mouth. Yet the word eludes meaning. Love teeters on the edge of the unknown beyond which it becomes almost impossible to speak. It moves us beyond words. We speak about love when we define our longing and desire and yet we fall into silence when we attempt to speak about it in the present. I fumble for words, my mind’s eye searching for that thought or that feeling to which I can attach the right sound, make it sound right, let it appear to emanate from inside myself. I attempt to speak about love in the way many men can about politics or sport, with passion and intensity. But in times of trouble the words just buckle and fold and disappear, and I am thrown back on foolish clichés which slide across my palate. While I may have everything to say, I say nothing or I say very little.

We use words to represent our feelings and to communicate them to others. What we feel and think about ourselves is subject to available vocabularies. But supposing the vocabularies I need are not there. Suppose I want to talk about certain feelings I have – for example, the disquiet I experience in my dependency on others. The words might not be there for me to use, yet I know the feeling is real. There is something more, an excess of world over word. Perhaps this is the case for men. Our feelings can be enacted, lived, dreamed and embodied. We attempt to represent them in music, in literature and in art, but they remain always just beyond our understanding. When I began writing this book I tried to recall all the films I’d watched, the art I’d seen and the books I’d read about men in love. I went to galleries and bookshops and leafed through novels and biographies. I wrote down lists of famous writers. I wanted to know what other men had written about love, and how they had expressed themselves.

I have watched John Huston’s film adaptation of Joyce’s story The Dead several times. I watched it again for the final scene. Greta and Gabriel have entered a Dublin hotel room. They are spending the night in the city after celebrating New Year’s Eve with Gabriel’s aunts and a circle of friends. Greta is melancholy and her husband asks her what is wrong: ‘Tell me, I think I know what the matter is. Do I know?’ She tells him that a song sung that evening by a member of their party had reminded her of a boy she had known when she was a young girl living with her grandmother in Galway. His name was Billy Furey. ‘He was very delicate; such eyes, big dark eyes.’ Gabriel is momentarily gripped by jealousy. But his wife explains that Billy Furey died when he was only seventeen. ‘What was it he died of?’ he asks. She begins to cry. ‘I think he died from me.’ She had been leaving her grandmother’s house for a convent school in Dublin. The boy had been ill for a number of months. She wrote and told him of her departure and the night before she left, while she was packing. Billy Furey left his sick bed to visit her. He threw gravel up to her window. She slipped out of the house and found the boy, poorly dressed, shivering in the rain. She implored him to go home before he caught his death. He refused to leave and told her he had no wish to live without her. Eventually he relented and returned home. A week after her arrival in Dublin he died.

Overcome with the grief of this memory, Greta collapses onto the bed, sobbing. She buries her face in a pillow and falls asleep. Gabriel sits beside her. He tentatively strokes his wife’s hair. At a loss to know what to do or feel, he crosses to the window and looks outside. It is snowing. He thinks to himself: ‘How poor a part I’ve played in your life. It’s almost as though I’m not your husband and we’ve never lived together as man and wife.’ He recalls their evening spent with his elderly aunt, Julia. He feels momentarily the proximity of Julia’s death and imagines his own mourning; his ‘casting around for words of consolation only to find lame and useless ones’. He is shaken by the depth of his wife’s lament for Billy Furey, and by the actions of the boy who did not wish to live without her. He knows that this is love and it is something that he has never felt for a woman. There is something in the world that he is unable to speak of, and soon death will come for him and his time will be over.

I have a battered copy of Dubliners, James Joyce’s short stories. Opening it I saw my brother’s name on the inside cover. It was his school text book and he had written his name in red biro across the spine, but the first and the last letters of his surname were in blue and they have faded – UTHERFOR. I read James Joyce’s original story and compare it to the film. It differs to an important degree. Gabriel contemplates his wife’s sleeping form and he is drawn to the vast hosts of the dead. His thoughts turn to his mortality, he looks inside himself and he sees the ethereal quality of his love reaching across the landscape of Ireland, falling with the snow, as vast and as amorphous as the dark night he looks out on. Tears gather in his eyes. He finds solace in the thought of death, and in the transmutation of his body into the impalpable world of nothingness. There is something religious in the way Gabriel loves. He uses words to distance himself from his feelings and his body. I am reminded of the asceticism of Christ, his male body martyred in the name of his love, his pain an erotic depiction of the union of ecstasy and death. Gabriel cannot express himself to his wife; instead he casts his love like a mantle across the world. It enhances everything, but no one in particular.

Men have frequently expressed their love in these abstracted terms, loving humanity and life in general. Or they have fallen in love with the idea of love, imbuing women with the transcendent qualities of beauty and innocence. Men have loved in chivalrous oblation to their chosen one and, as in the decrees of knightly courtship, have sacrificed themselves in the name of love. When a man worships his beloved there is no relationship. She remains a figment of his imagination. In love, women are annulled by men. The philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote: ‘Sexual love makes of the loved person an object of appetite; as soon as the appetite has been stilled the person is cast aside as one casts away a lemon which has been sucked dry.’ A man might sacrifice his life for his country, merge himself with the transcendental symbols of race and nation, but he will not easily give his emotions to a lover. We remain reluctant to give away too much of ourselves to women.

The more I read men writing on love, the greater the sense I have of their plight. When men write about love they communicate a state of bereavement. They preserve their solitariness. Shelley’s ‘Dedication’ at the beginning of his epic poem, The Revolt of Islam, is addressed to Mary Shelley, his lifelong companion and lover. It expresses his loneliness, his longing for a friend and lover and his gratitude. ‘Aught but a lifeless clod, until revived by thee’. He measures his love by her absence. She is the bearer of his life and love, and without her he is nothing. The language of romantic love and relationships belongs to women. In the intimate life of the emotions and the body, women frequently speak on behalf of men: wives for husbands, mothers for sons, girlfriends for boyfriends. Men doubt their ability to love. I used to read W. H. Auden when I was younger and remember his poem ‘Lullaby’ and the poignant lines, ‘Lay your sleeping head, my love, / Human on my faithless arm.’ They reveal a scepticism about the poet’s own capacity to love. It is as if the one he holds contains all the feelings of goodness and empathy and concern that he – ‘faithless’ – lacks. It is this lack that propels men’s need of women. Marcel Proust, compelled by the death of his mother to write Remembrance of Things Past, began his voyage into memory with the sentence: ‘For a long time I used to go to bed early.’ Here he lies, a small, remorseful child anticipating the goodnight kiss of his mother. Neither asleep nor awake, he longs for her to remain with him through the coming ‘sad hours of darkness’. Proust longed for maternal love. The nineteenth-century French novelist Stendhal longed for sexual love. He wrote his famous treatise Love out of unrequited passion for Mathilde Viscontini Dembowski. She neither loved nor understood him, but he persisted, humiliating himself in his attempts to win her affections. His imagination turned her into his obsession:

Leave a love with his thoughts for twenty-four hours, and this is what will happen. ‘At the salt mines of Salzburg, they throw a leafless wintry bough into one of the abandoned workings. Two or three months later they pull it out covered with a shining deposit of crystals. The smallest twig, no bigger than a tom-tit’s claw, is studded with a galaxy of scintillating diamonds. The original branch is no longer recognisable.’

And nor was the hapless Mathilde.

Without women men are bereft; they lose the stories of their lives. They are unable to reflect upon themselves and their actions, and self-understanding escapes them. Men have dominated intellectual life as thinkers, writers, scientists and artists. But the language they have used has been designed to act upon and change the world, to dissect and analyse, not to reflect and intuit. Men have located the object of their inquiry somewhere beyond themselves and fashioned themselves into the detached observer, the disinterested scientist and the dispassionate critic. Men have used their intelligence to promote their separateness from others rather than to recognize their interdependence. They have used knowledge as a form of power over other people, in particular over women. Biology, theology, philosophy, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, medicine, the physical sciences, anthropology, literature – each discipline in its time has legitimized the inferiority of women, who have been classified and categorized as having smaller brains, a lack of rational intellect, oversexualized bodies, a mental predilection for hysteria, a lower order of spirituality, sentimentality, shorter attention spans and mental flightiness. The word ‘epistemology’ refers to the theory of knowledge. It was coined by a Scottish professor, James Frederick Ferrier. On Monday 17 November 1862 Elizabeth Garrett, a young medical student at St Andrews University, tried to enter a lecture theatre in order to attend a talk on chemistry and thus challenged the male dominance of the Scottish education system. It was Professor Ferrier who blocked her path and demanded she turn back, leaving her with little choice but to submit to his authority. Knowledge and language belonged to men but, used as a form of power, they have diminished self-understanding.

Men have used language in an instrumental way to separate ourselves from our own feelings. We have allowed women to voice our emotions. This is why men abandoned by women despair – they no longer know who they are. I think this is what Raymond Carver is trying to say in his short story Blackbird Pie. He describes a couple whose children have grown up, and who have moved to the country. The man enjoys the solitude, but his wife does not. He admits her discontent to himself, but makes no attempt to improve their situation. One night an envelope is pushed beneath the door of his room. Inside is a letter. It begins: ‘It’s been such a long time now since we’ve talked. I mean really talked.’ She wants to leave him. He refuses to believe that the letter has been written by his wife; he opens the door of his room and looks down the corridor. Everything is as it should be and yet he feels suddenly afraid. Uneasy, he returns to his room and closes the door. He opens it for a second time and he hears a murmuring downstairs and the receiver of the telephone being replaced. He feels panic. He steps down the corridor hoping to hear the reassuring click of knitting needles. Instead he hears the sound of a door opening and closing quietly. Though his impulse is to investigate, he instead returns to his room, his heart racing. He picks up the letter and stares at the pages, snatching lines at random. When he hears the front door close he drops the pages and hurries to the living room. His wife is not in the house. The porch light is on and her suitcase stands on the porch outside.

Several days later the husband is going through his wife’s belongings. He is packing to move and trying to decide which possessions of hers to take and which to discard. He knows now that she will never come back and that he may never see her again. He is still bewildered. He knows there is something ‘far more’ to this affair than his wife’s simple departure:

You could say that my history has left me. Or that I’m having to go on without history. Or that history will now have to do without me – unless my wife writes more letters, or tells a friend who keeps a diary, say. Then years later, someone can look back on this time, interpret it according to the record, its scraps and tirades, its silences and innuendoes. That’s when it dawns on me that autobiography is the poor man’s history. And that I am saying goodbye to history. Goodbye my darling.

The husband in Blackbird Pie is sedentary, appearing unmindful of his wife. His life is governed by fear and selfishness. He feels that he cannot be himself in his relationship with her. He wants her to remain just beyond him, neither to move away from him, nor to come too close: to sit with her knitting, a comforting presence he can control. Like Gabriel in The Dead, the husband in Carver’s story cannot tell his wife what he feels about himself and about her. Instead he tries to manage her. When she leaves he is lost for anything to say and his world begins to collapse. The hint of misanthropy which surrounds both men is echoed in Proust’s lament for Albertine in Remembrance of Things Past: ‘I knew now that I was in love with Albertine, but alas! I didn’t trouble to let her know it … the declaration of my passion to the one I loved no longer seemed to be one of the vital and necessary stages of love. And love itself seemed no longer an external reality, but only a subjective pleasure.’ Men’s love is a pursuit through others of all they feel they have lost and cannot speak of. It is why they speak of it as a bereavement. That is the nature of love – the desire to achieve a sense of completeness through unity with another. Only when men fall in love with women, they fall in love with that part of themselves that is missing. Men want love because we long to be offered a semblance of ourselves. In love a man is held captive not by a woman, but by his need to be loved by her. He longs for her, he needs her to embrace him and fill him with her love, but when she desires something for herself, or when she withdraws from him emotionally, she exposes the absence in himself. He feels numbed and lifeless, and only she can revive him. He cannot find the words to speak of the emptiness and fear her absence induces in him. He is no longer himself without her. Love tyrannizes him.

Men have colluded in a masquerade of silence around their emotional dependency on women, their loud self-assurance, nothing more than a brittle patina. In truth, men are unsure what to do about themselves and what to do about women. Or rather they are unsure what to do about their need of women. Men have celebrated being alone in order to imagine themselves free of women, free from their vulnerability. In the past we have taken pleasure in our ‘male only’ cultures: the army, public schools, trade unions, political parties, banking and commerce, working men’s clubs, gentlemen’s clubs and pubs. The history of the British and their class system is a history of sexual apartheid in which men and women existed in separate spheres. Society has sustained and been sustained by a language of opposites which privileges the masculine term over the feminine: active and passive, rational and emotional, hard and soft, culture and nature, the sun and the moon, the mind and the body. It is a language whose descriptive vocabulary has given men prominence: the history of mankind, fellow countrymen, forefathers, masterful, God the Father, yours fraternally, man, amen. A plethora of words, a confident, assured language in service to men’s authority which has been guaranteed by their monopoly of the public world of work and politics. In contrast their confused and tentative understanding of love and intimacy has been concealed in the privacy of the home. Today these old boundaries between the public and the private are breaking up and the culture of silence that has surrounded men’s feelings – once portrayed as a sign of sexual magnetism and authority – has lost its allure. In spite of our command over language, when it comes to speaking about love, words fail us.