55 pages • 1 hour read
Caryl ChurchillA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
The first act of the play is a strange and surreal restaurant meal that echoes a hackneyed interview question: If you could invite any five people from history, fictional or real, to a dinner party, whom would you invite? It also resonates with Judy Chicago’s highly significant 1974-1975 art installation “The Dinner Party,” which set the table with places for 39 important women from history. Notably, none of Marlene’s dining companions made Chicago’s guest list. Why did Caryl Churchill choose these five obscure women? Perhaps because these women are examples of the way the patriarchy has crushed and killed women all over the world and throughout human history. Second-wave feminism was about recognizing that “the personal is political.” Women’s pain and trauma is not caused solely by individual men but embedded within the patriarchal structure of society itself. Lady Nijo, Isabella, Patient Griselda, Dull Gret, Marlene, and every woman in the audience are connected through patriarchal oppression, because the patriarchy is enormous. As the women tell one another their stories over dinner, they recognize the patriarchal violence in each other’s cultures. Yet, for the most part, they don’t recognize it in their own. The trouble with feminism is that the goal is to dismantle the patriarchy, and the patriarchy is so deeply rooted in every structure of society that it feels impossible to imagine life without it.
Top Girls uses the model of feminist historiography: an approach to history that first notices how historical narratives have been constructed to center men, and then asks how those narratives would look different if they centered women instead. As such, there are only women in the play. The opening scene references Judy Chicago, but with an important difference: Chicago’s work was a celebration of women. She honored women who stand out in history for excellence. By contrast, none of the women at Marlene’s dinner party can be read straightforwardly as a feminist heroine. In various ways, they have all internalized misogyny and patriarchy, and they are victims of patriarchal oppression as much as they are sometimes heroic for carving out a space of autonomy within it. In this way, the title Top Girls can be read as a sardonic rebuke to Chicago’s privileging of feminine excellence. Dull Gret and Patient Griselda aren’t even real—they’re fictional models of womanhood invented by men. Pope Joan denounces her womanhood. Lady Nijo has been conditioned to see most of what happened to her as normal. Isabella has to distance herself from nearly all human connection, and she is constantly racked with guilt over her sister. By removing the men who create and benefit from the patriarchy, Churchill asks how women might be participating in it and accepting things they shouldn’t have to accept. By throwing out the rules of time and place, the dinner party makes visible structures of oppression that would have been invisible from within any single time and place. Through the technique of double casting, the women’s stories reverberate throughout the play, pushing the audience to see the structure of the patriarchy so one of them can step up and lead the charge into Hell to fight the demons.
In Act I, men routinely assert their dominance over women by taking away their children. Pregnancy and motherhood are permitted only under tightly controlled circumstances—circumstances that invariably entail total submission to patriarchal power structures. Dull Gret lost two of her ten children in gruesome ways when they were murdered by demons. When Lady Nijo tells about birthing her four children, one of whom died and three of whom were stolen, she seems accepting and claims that she stopped having feelings about them at all. But at the end of the act, with Griselda’s story, Nijo starts to cry because unlike Griselda, no one ever returned her children. And Griselda may have had her children returned, but the years of their childhood were stolen from her, and they were reunited with her as strangers she didn’t recognize. For Pope Joan, pregnancy was the undeniable sign of the womanhood that she had tried to suppress. The Catholic Church’s attitudes on abortion made it such an impossible moral conundrum that Joan simply ignored her pregnancy until it became evident to every Catholic in Rome. There was no question of motherhood for Joan, as she and her baby were killed. In the present day, Jeanine, who is simply engaged to a man, has her dreams and prospects clipped because Marlene presumes that children are inevitable. For all these women, pregnancy is, in one way or another, a curse. It means pain, death, and blood. When the women in the first act talk about their child losses, Marlene notably doesn’t include herself in the conversation. Marlene may have given Angie to her sister, but it’s not clear that she ever felt she had a choice. She understood that it would be impossible, especially for someone as young as she was, to have both a career and a family. The mutually exclusive relationship between motherhood and professional ambition—a rule she continues to enforce in her own work—shows how a patriarchal world uses motherhood to keep women in their place.
One of the major issues addressed by second-wave feminism was the right to reproductive autonomy. The birth control pill hit the market in the early 1960s, and in the UK, the 1967 Abortion Act made abortion more available than it had ever been before. For millions of women, motherhood became a choice rather than an inescapable fate. But as Churchill knew from her own experience, social pressures and structural barriers continued to make it nearly impossible for many women to choose both motherhood and career ambitions. Marlene’s pregnancy is an echo of Pope Joan’s. Both women understood that pregnancy and childbirth would destroy what they were trying to build, and both found themselves unable to act until there was no choice but to have the baby. Joyce sees Marlene’s absence from her biological daughter’s life as an act of selfishness, but it also speaks to the trauma of separation. At the time, Joyce was still hoping to have biological children, and since her miscarriage may have been caused by the stress of caring for Marlene’s child, she sees Marlene as having stolen her chance of bearing a child, just as Marlene felt that her dream of a career would have been stolen by the burden of parenthood. But after six years away, Marlene’s reunion with Angie is a reiteration of Griselda’s story. Marlene fights with her sister about taking Angie and offers to take her now, as if she has regrets. At the same time, she denies those regrets, and she talks about her two subsequent abortions both flippantly and in language that suggests trauma. Marlene mentions the high-powered executive who breastfeeds two babies in the boardroom as proof that she could have taken Angie in the first place, but Joyce scoffs that 17-year-old Marlene certainly didn’t have the privilege to be the exception that proves the rule.
Angie, at age 16, is an odd child who, from the moment the audience meets her, is angry, violent, and difficult to like. Her threats to murder her mother are unsettling, especially when she picks up a brick, even though she loses her nerve. She has figured out that Marlene is her biological mother. She has no father. The scene from a year earlier shows Angie trying desperately to elicit from Marlene the motherly love she wants and needs. At times, Joyce seems to regard both her adopted daughter and her mother simply as obligations: She cares for them because she must, because they were left in her care, and if she doesn’t do it, no one else will. There’s a nobility in that steadfastness, but it’s not the motherly love Angie craves. A child like Kit, who is smart and loyal, and who will probably make her mother proud one day, would have been an easier child to mother than Angie, who was failing remedial classes before she dropped out of school, is aggressive, needy, and has emotional problems, and who doesn’t seem like she’ll ever be able to care for herself. Neither Joyce nor Marlene sees Angie as having any future or potential, nor do they seem to like her very much. But Angie is simply a child who needs a mother, like all little girls need to be taught how to be women, especially in a patriarchal world.
In the first two acts, Churchill creates an almost dystopian world in which feminism, which she views as necessarily socialist, is warped by capitalism. Throughout the play, women are restless, not only across time and history, but in the present day. They feel trapped and want liberation, and that frustration manifests in the historical characters in walking, fighting, and traveling the globe. In the present-day characters, the wanderlust comes out in women who are looking for jobs that they hope will offer them fulfillment. Even that shift is emblematic of the dominance of the capitalist marketplace. The women of the distant past, as represented in this play, are in most ways more grievously oppressed than the women of the present day, but at least there is more variety and imagination in their searches for autonomy and fulfillment. They might become wandering nuns, or Pope, or lead an army into Hell. The late-20th-century British or American woman, seeking self-actualization, goes to see a career counselor. At the dinner party, Marlene is the guest of honor. She is being celebrated. She is the protagonist and therefore the hero of the story. It’s 1982, and Marlene is a woman who has made it in a man’s world. What could be more feminist than that? When Marlene interviews Jeanine, she is a bit discouraging—she would say realistic—but at the end of the meeting, Marlene tells her, “I’m putting myself on the line for you” (33), which is what feminism requires women to do for other women. As the play continues to unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that Marlene isn’t putting anything on the line. All she has done is give Jeanine a lead to schedule an interview. When Howard’s wife, pointedly identified by her married name, Mrs. Kidd, even though she gives a first name, has the audacity to suggest that Marlene should give up the promotion, Marlene spectacularly puts her in her place, providing a model for Angie, who is watching and very impressed. But in the third act, Marlene’s pretense of feminism cracks open.
Marlene and Joyce clash when Marlene argues in favor of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the harshly individualist brand of capitalism she represents. Marlene insists, “I believe in the individual. Look at me” (84). And looking at her actions throughout the play, her individualism becomes clear. Although Marlene works at an employment agency, which is in business solely to find jobs for people, Marlene and her two now subordinates withhold leads and limit the prospects of those who come for help. They talk about the women who are coming to interview with disdain. The individualist attitude makes everything a competition, even between Marlene and her coworkers. As Nell and Win discuss, Marlene’s ascension to power means that there will never be room for them to move up. She even looks at her own daughter and declares her hopeless. And beyond individualism, Marlene asserts, “I hate the working class. […] It doesn’t exist anymore, it means lazy and stupid” (85). This statement recalls the waitress in the first scene, who represents the invisible and underappreciated, underpaid labor of the working class. She never says a word throughout the scene. She simply does what she is told. Similarly, Marlene doesn’t see the work of the women whose backs she has climbed on to make it—not to the top, but to somewhere in middle management.
Marlene especially dismisses and devalues the domestic labor of her sister that allowed her career to advance. Were Marlene a man, she would likely have a wife at home doing the labor of child-rearing and caretaking for aging parents. But Joyce resists this wife role by refusing child support and working four jobs to care for her family herself. She hates the rich, and she won’t take help from them, even if that help is sorely owed. At the beginning of the act, Marlene has brought gifts, and Joyce is uncomfortable with them even though Angie is ecstatic. To Marlene, individualism and capitalist gain have allowed her to shed her responsibilities and only do what she wants for herself. She tells Joyce that she supports conservatives because she “wants to be free in a free world” (86). The play argues that feminism and women’s liberation are useless if the women who are more intelligent and talented than others simply join the ranks of male predators and oppress their fellow women. The play shows Marlene, along with Nell and Win, doing just that, taking advantage and convincing themselves that they’re helping women while they ignore their desperation for change.
By Caryl Churchill