Critical analysis of Strindberg's Miss Julie

Miss Julie is a modern tragedy written in 1888 by August Strindberg addressing

the issue of the downfall and extinction of an aristocratic line. Strindberg
conveys his belief that males are the natural dominant sex and suggests that
any attempt to upset this natural hierarchy would result in social upheaval and
ruination, thus Miss Julie implies misogynistic undertones. In this document, I
will prefer to judge Miss Julie as a Naturalistic Tragedy from the critical point
of view of a reader. Miss Julie is a Naturalistic Tragedy in which Strindberg
strives to present humanity without any veneer, presenting a deterministic plot
of decline in which Miss Julie is destroyed as a result of her rebellion against the
forces of nature, which dictate the superiority of men. It shows Strindbergs
belief that the evolving role of women in society and female employment in the
late 19th century is a corruption of the female gender identity. Miss Julies death
echoes Darwinian beliefs as the inability to pass on ones genes can be
considered to be the ultimate failure. The tragedy of Miss Julies battle against
her nature as a woman suggests that transgressing the conventional boundaries
of gender and class would lead to a failure as a result of natural selection and
evolutionary determinism. Strindberg subtitled Miss Julie as "A Naturalistic
Tragedy" which did not sit well with many critics and authors of the time. The
reason for using the naturalistic elements in the drama were to ensure that his
drama would get the recognition he believed it deserved, but what is discovered
is that Miss Julie is not as naturalistic as Strindberg argued. What is naturalistic
structure in a drama, and how does it fit or not fit into the plot of Miss Julie?
The first step is to decide of a definition for naturalism. Then it is necessary to
compare the drama with the definition to see of the critical theory of naturalism
is an effect way to analyze Miss Julie.

Naturalism has many definitions, as each playwright that used its techniques
molded it to conform to their dramas. Zola was considered the definitive
authority on the theory of naturalism (Sprinchorn, 119). However, it will be more
productive to consolidate several ideals of this theory to ensure that the
broadest definition is used for analysis. First of all, the concept of naturalism
believes that each individual is created by their heredity and environment
(Esslin, 69; Greenwald, Schultz, & Pomo, 841: Sprinchorn, 122 & 124; Templeton,
470). The second part of the definition is the use of actuality within the drama
by the actors, with sets and props, and the truth in the plot (Esslin, 69;
Greenwald, Schultz, & Pomo, 841: Sprinchorn, 122). From these two parts of the
definition, the naturalistic analysis of Miss Julie in regard to plot development
will be discussed.

The development of the plot in Miss Julie does not seem to have as much to do
with heredity as environment. For example, Miss Julie is an aristocrat that is
thumbing her nose at the social norms of her time (Templeton, 470). This is very
obviously part of her environment that she is dismissing as unimportant, or
worth the risk. The first action that creates this snub is when Miss Julie enters
the kitchen, which is also considered the servant's quarters (Sprinchorn,124).
The mistress of the house should not be associating with the servants and yet
not only does she associate with the servants in the kitchen, but also by
celebrating mid-summers eve with the other servants at their dance. One
sentence exhibits her wantonly ways for the evening, "On a night like this we're
all just ordinary people having fun, so we'll forget about rank" (Strindberg, 929).

This next example of her environment influencing her is after her tryst with Jean,
Miss Julie realizes that she has fallen from her aristocratic upbringing, which she
emphasizes "Oh, God in heaven, end my wretched life! Take me away from the
filth I'm sinking into! Save me! Save me!" (Strindberg, 934). Miss Julie knows
that by intercourse with a servant will bring her family and herself shame and
she will be no better than the servants in her house. The final act of the
environment is when takes the razor from Jean "Thank you. I'm going now to
rest!" (Strindberg, 941). She knows that there is no surviving in the environment
in which she has created, and therefore will kill herself rather than face the
shame of her actions.

Within this context it is obvious that the heredity of Miss Julie is not in play in
regards to the plot development, however the changing environment caused
by her decisions is a focal point in the development of the plot. With each new
decision, entering the kitchen, entering Jean bedroom, fear of facing shame,
each has led to the plot moving forward, for each decision would have made a
difference in the plot had the decisions been different. This proves the point
that "...naturalism shows life as it is - only worse" (Greenwald, Schultz, & Pomo,
841).

The second part of the definition is the use of the actors, the props, and set in
which to emphasis the natural and true possibilities of the drama. It realize on
costumes, lighting scenery and the tools used by the actors in their portrayal of
the true to life characters (Greenwald, Schultz, & Pomo, 840). For Strindberg
each piece of set and prop were also symbolic of the environment of the
characters. The kitchen is symbolic of the lower status of the servants and by
Miss Julie entering this area; she is symbolically lowering herself, just as her
mother did before her death (Strindberg, 928). Another object that is used

symbolically is the high riding boots that Jean carries into the kitchen. These
boots symbolized the authority of the Count and his presence even when he is
away (Strindberg, 928). The wine that Jean drinks symbolizes his superiority to
other servants, and to Miss Julie herself (Strindberg, 934; Templeton, 469). The
canary is a foreshadowing of what is to come of Miss Julie (Strindberg, 939).

Many believe that due to the use of symbolic affects, then the drama is no
longer naturalistic in its structure, however, the use of only needed props and
sets is one of the biggest parts of naturalism. Strindberg did not use anything
that was not required for the development of the plot and to show the
transference of superiority from Miss Julie to Jean by the end of the drama.
Because of these moves away from naturalism, many critics believe that the
drama is more on the realistic and symbolic or expressionist theories (Esslin
73-74; Sprinchorn, 121; Templeton, 469).

To answer the question of whether the naturalistic theory fits into the plot
development of Miss Julie would be that it does not help with plot
development. The fact is that realism is a structure that portrays real life
events, but in a theatrical way. It does not rely on the struggles or taboos
associated with hereditary and environment, but on the people portrayed. The
other factor used in this play was the symbolism of many of the props.
Symbolism and expressionism both came from the foundation of naturalism.
They just took the concepts and ideals of naturalism a step further. Without the
symbolism, Miss Julie would have been a very uninteresting and possibly
stagnant drama. With the symbolism and the realistic portrayals of the
characters Miss Julie came to life and thereby naturalism does not help the
development of the plot.