Society in self, self in society: survival in The Wings of the Dove.

In the past, criticisms lauding or condemning Milly Theale, Kate Croy, Merton Densher, and Maud Lowder, or any combination of these characters in James's The Wings of the Dove (1902), generally assume that if one or several of these characters is or are the victimized, the others are the victimizers. The most common of interpretations claiming Milly's "innocence," for example, condemn Kate, Densher, and Maud Lowder of duplicity and mercenary intent, describing them, for example, as "admirable villains" (Syndy McMillen Conger).

However, Susan Mizruchi, who sees Milly "cultivat[ing]" (234) her illness, Julie Olin-Ammentorp, who sees Milly's final bequest to Densher as "profoundly manipulative" (50), and Sharon Cameron, who contends that Milly "performs the novel's ultimate manipulation" (124), are among those who detect definite signs of intent on Milly's part and complicate, if not reverse, the view that Milly is merely the unconsciously innocent victim.

Adeline R. Tintner's framing of James's text as his "very free redoing" (125) of Milton's twin epics casts Kate in the role of seductress who contributes to the fall and education of Densher. Milton Kornfeld (346) and Leo Bersani (142-43) essentially agree with this general position when they refer to Densher as redeemed villain. In this way, demonizing Kate resurrects Densher, who, more often than not, is then cast in the role of hero.

Sallie Sears, however, labels Densher "a prig" (93), and Brenda Austin-Smith insightfully detects the language employed by Aunt Maud and Densher in Volume Two as contributing to the gradual "reification" of Milly, only to dehumanize and discredit her as legitimate player, consequently demonizing Kate as well. As Kristin King notes in agreement, making Milly ethereal and transcendent conveniently gives Densher "a symbol for his own salvation" (1). These critical positions questioning Densher serve to devillainize Kate.

Furthering Kate's resurrection in her own right is Lee Clark Mitchell who contends that "judged by consequences along," Kate "clearly does enrich others' experience" so that "deceit appears less a tool of self-interest than a mode of artful generosity, and disapproval of Kate soon seems far less appropriate than praise" (188). Incidentally, Millicent Bell--who calls Kate a "naturalist and pragmatist" (Meaning, 291)--and Douglas Paschall, see two heroines instead of one. Paschall senses that Kate and Milly are engaged in complicit maneuvers of achieving their respective ends, while Doran Larson reads the text as "Kate and Milly do[ing] things with Densher," so that the "moral economies for Densher operate within such a fixed-sum schema" (101). As can be seen, devillainizing or neutralizing Kate in combining her intent with that of Milly renders Densher's logic somewhat meager.

In this way, criticisms of The Wings have essentially been engaged in trying to identify the victim(s) and the victimizer(s), to apportion and assign responsibility and/or blame for the final outcome as depicted at the end of James's text: Milly is dead, Densher is evidently tormented, and Kate has suffered a "loss"--although neither the attitude in which Milly dies nor the validity of Densher's ongoing torment is agreed upon any more than is the specific nature of Kate's loss. In short, the scene of critical debate over The Wings is highly contradictory and unresolved.

"The only reason for the existence of a novel is that it does attempt to represent life," writes James ("The Art of Fiction," 46). As much an observer of the social scene and the behavior of individuals in it as an observer of the workings of the human mind, James, I believe, identified and illustrated those social forces identified by social psychologists that exert a powerful influence over human perception and behavior. In James's works as in real life, such forces are as much to blame for outcomes, if not more so, as human agents and their respective intents. Following this line of argument, this paper will incorporate a social psychological point of view. It aims to illustrate how the centers of consciousness in The Wings exist simultaneously on two levels of being, namely that of the "external," physical, and social world of front-stage public gatherings, backstage "private" conversations, face-to-face interaction rituals, and face-destroying moments of embarrassment, whose effects on human behavior sociologist Erving Goffman has amply elaborated on; and that of a phenomenological "internal" world of being where the self is constantly engaged in trying not only to make sense of itself but also to survive as an autonomous being in the aforementioned social, physical, and "external" world. Put differently, in the social world of The Wings, the world out there and the self within are not so much separate as they are organically connected, overlapping one another in reflexive ways, society and its "gaze" (1) comprising an essential aspect of the self, and the social self being a "real" entity of an "external" reality. Society is as much in self as self is in society, with both parts of the whole affecting and being affected by the other aspect of felt life.