What is Chekov saying about marriage proposals? How does his play fit into this conversation about the performative aspect of proposals?
According to Chekov in the comedy play ‘The Marriage Proposal’, marriage proposals between couples may be meaningless if the couples do not properly plan for their life after marriage. Or at least identify areas of their mutual interest and learn to tolerate each other. For example, in the play, Lomov has come to propose to Natalya. The two may seem to be fond of each other but they share different perspectives which may be bad for their future marriage. The two disagree over property ownership and even innocuous subjects such as which is the better hound between Lomov’s or Natalya’s. Yet after feigning fainting and proposing, Natalya accepts this proposal. The irony of accepting this proposal is soon revealed since Lomov and Natalya soon continue with their argument event after accepting his proposal. This play fits into the performative aspect of proposals presented by Caroline Kitchener who argues that proposals despite being ritualized, have lost their meaning. A proposal is about making a big decision to marry which should be made after serious conversations, not a theatrical act such as a proposal. Indeed, couples should first make careful considerations before committing to marry. Much like in Chekov’s play, careful consideration is lacking and instead, people rely on proposals.
The article mentions the idea of “Symbolic gendering.” How does Chekov translate this idea in his play? What are some other examples in current media that show this same idea?
Because of the egalitarian values increasingly adopted in a society where women are more or less expected to be equal to men, there is a yean for ‘symbolic gendering’. In particular, this means that as more women take roles similar to men in society, they still actively seek ways that may expose the differences that have existed between the two genders. In this sense, it reinforces the idea that men and women have different interests which plays out during the elaborate proposals. In the play ‘The Marriage Proposal’ by Chekov, the idea of ‘symbolic gendering’ is present. For example, the characters of Lomov and Natalya have similar traits in terms of being stubborn and proud. Both Natalya and Lomov cannot yield their positions when arguing about property ownership and who has the better hound. At the time, issues of property ownership were largely left for managed by a system of patriarchy. Natalya surrenders their claim to the land to Lomov just so that the proposal can go on and later their marriage. As a result, surrendering her rights to land ownership is one example of ‘symbolic gendering. In the current media, ‘symbolic gendering’ happens when men plan elaborate proposals such as renting stadiums or buying expensive engagement rings while their partners gladly let them express their masculinity.
Is “The Marriage Proposal” an outdated commentary on marriage, on gender roles, and on how the perfect proposal should be? Or is it still reflected in culture today?
Anton Chekov’s short comedy play ‘The Marriage Proposal’ is still relevant in today’s culture in several ways. In the first place, proposals organized today are still ritualized as the ones depicted in the story. Women in today’s society have different perspectives on what would make a perfect proposal whether it’s a romantic gateway or a romantic dinner. Moreover, because of social media, women are even under more immense pressure to have the most glamorous the proposal so that they can show off to their friends and colleagues. At the same time, much like traditionally, women and men do not take their time to get to know their partners as seen in the short play. Instead, the partner plans elaborate proposals which stop the couple from having a conversation about the future just like in the case of Lomov and Natalya. Secondly, planning the perfect proposal still falls in the same category of sticking to traditional gender roles. Society should be more or less equal, but men and women are still consciously or subconsciously choosing to ascribe to gender roles that should have long been done away with. Such an action still limits the space to have a real discussion about how a couple would plan their life after marriage.
