Neophilologus

, Volume 97, Issue 1, pp 245–259

Under the Hood of Tess: Conflicting Reproductive Strategies in Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles

Article

Abstract

Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the D’Urbervilles is analyzed from an evocritical perspective in order to consider evolved human reproductive strategies through the psychology and behavior of the novel’s three principal characters: Tess, Alec and Angel. It is argued that Hardy made the episode of Tess’ and Alec’s sexual contact, as well its interpretation by the characters, ambiguous, thereby suggesting the possibility of seduction rather than rape. In this context, two female mating patterns—inherited from our hominid ancestors—appear in Tess’ behavior: (a) the collection of high quality genes from a genetically fit male (Alec) who is not likely to stay with the female and provide for the offspring and (b) mating with a provider male who is interested in long-term parental investment (Angel). Conversely, Angel and Alec represent two male mating strategies that evolved as possible courses of action in our species: the dad and the cad respectively. The unwillingness of Angel to forgive Tess her sexual past is considered in the context of another evolved feature of the human mind: paternal uncertainty (the fear of the male’s genetic extinction through the possibility of raising another male’s offspring). This is juxtaposed with studies of male jealousy in different cultures and periods. Tess’ decision to tell Angel about her past is viewed in connection with the concept of modularity: an approach to human psychology based on the assumption that the mind is divided into specialized modules (responsible for different cognitive spheres) which can sometimes conflict.

Keywords

Evolutionary psychology Thomas Hardy Tess of the D’Urbervilles Little Red Riding Hood Seduction versus rape Evocriticism British nineteenth-century fiction British twentieth-century fiction Human reproductive strategies Dad versus cad Paternal uncertainty Reproductive asymmetry Male jealousy Modular brain Darwinism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, R. (2006). Sperm wars: Infidelity, sexual conflict, and other bedroom battles. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Boyd, B. (2009). The origin of stories: Evolution, cognition and fiction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brownmiller, S. (1976). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  4. Buss, D. (1989a). Conflict between the sexes: Strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 735–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. (1989b). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, D., & Shackelford, T. K. (1996). Betrayal in mateships, friendships, and coalitions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(11), 1151–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3(1), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2008). Human: The science behind what makes us unique. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  10. Georgiu, S. N. (2005). Growing and learning in the Greek Cypriot family context. Advances in Psychology Research, 35, 121–141.Google Scholar
  11. Gribble, J. (1999). Postmodern Tess: Recent readings of Tess of the D’Urbervilles. Sydney Studies, 25, 1–19.Google Scholar
  12. Gurnham, D. (2009). Memory, imagination, justice: Intersections of law and literature. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  13. Hardy, T. (1965). Tess of the D’Urbervilles. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  14. Harris, R. J. (2009). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Heffernan, J. (2005). Cruel persuasion: Seduction, temptation, and agency in Hardy’s Tess”. The Thomas Hardy Year Book, 35, 5–18.Google Scholar
  16. Holy Bible. (1995). New Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.Google Scholar
  17. Kruger, D., et al. (2003). Proper and dark heroes as dads and cads: Alternative mating strategies in British Romantic literature. Human Nature, 14(3), 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lancaster, J. B. (1994). Human sexuality, life histories, and evolutionary ecology. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Sexuality across the life course (pp. 39–62). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Levine, G. (2009). Hardy and Darwin: An enchanting Hardy? In K. Wilson (Ed.), A companion to Thomas Hardy (pp. 36–53). Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Morgan, S. (1989). Sisters in time: Imagining gender in nineteenth-century British fiction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Orenstein, C. (2002). Little Red Riding Hood uncloaked: Sex, morality, and the evolution of a fairy tale. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  23. Reed, T. (1988). Demon-lovers and their victims in British fiction. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  24. Riddley, M. (2003). The red queen: Sex and evolution of human nature. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  25. Rooney, E. (1991). ‘A little more than persuading’: Tess and the subject of sexual violence. In L. A. Higgins & B. Silver (Eds.), Rape and representation (pp. 87–114). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Simpson, J. A., & Lapaglia, J. (2007). An evolutionary account of strategic pluralism in human mating: changes in mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. In J. P. Forgas, et al. (Eds.), Evolution and the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and social cognition (pp. 161–177). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Tess of the D’Urbervilles. (2009). Dir. David Blair. BBC. BBC Warner. DVD.Google Scholar
  28. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  29. Tumanov, V. (2011). Mary versus Eve: Paternal uncertainty and the Christian view of women. Neophilologus: International Journal of Modern and Mediaeval Language and Literature, 95(4), 507–521.Google Scholar
  30. Weatherhead, P. J., & Robertson, R. J. (1979). Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: ‘The sexy son hypothesis’. The American Naturalist, 113(2), 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Modern Languages and Literatures, UC115Western UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations