Jane Eyre: Yet Another Reading! Commentary on Helen Burns

Over break I re-read Jane Eyre, interested to discover new things and see how the book seemed different in my current stage of life.

Even though it was maybe the 3^rd or 4^th time I’ve read the book, I was more emotionally invested in it than in previous readings, and certain characters and events struck me differently than they had before.

            One interesting change was my reaction to Helen Burns, Jane’s friend and role model at Lowood. Her humble demeanor and deeply religious outlook on life had always been positive traits for me in previous readings. But this time, I was a little bit frustrated with Helen, finding her passivity aimless and her transcendent attitude too idealistic. There are moments when Helen is punished harshly for minor faults, and she takes the punishment completely, admitting that she deserved it. While this shows humility and willingness to accept personal faults, it also goes too far, into what I would consider a failure to distinguish between lawful goodness and moral goodness. While it’s admirable to accept consequences, it almost seems like Helen fails to even see the frivolity and error in her superiors’ choices.

            Later, Helen advises Jane to forgive Mrs. Reed for her cruel actions, because, as Helen says, “life is too short too be spent in nursing animosity.” While Helen’s advice may lead to a personal sense of peace, I couldn’t help but think that this attitude also just perpetuates the injustice that she endures. By accepting her punishment and refusing to fight back, Helen’s oppressors would not change their ways at all; her life is simply an endless cycle of suffering which she does nothing to prevent. In the novel, Jane admires Helen, and Bronte treats her as a sort of saint. But I think that, on a philosophical level, I would have to disagree with complete admiration of Helen.

            While I’m sure Helen feels peace of mind with the idea that earthly suffering can be overcome, her outlook on life almost suggests that nothing on earth actually matters, which I think is wrong. No doubt, Helen’s take on human suffering comes from the New Testament, specifically Christ’s instruction to “turn the other cheek.” But this does not have to mean accepting punishment with no resistance to greater evil. In fact, some of the most ardent activists for human rights (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day) advocated acceptance of personal suffering. But, they also believed in a responsibility to end pointless human suffering on a large scale. It seems that Helen lacks this deep obligation to social justice, because she is too busy being "humble" and taking punches from her cruel superiors. Helen, to me, is a perfect example of the radical pacifist; to her, fighting injustice is pointless because it emphasizes feelings of hate and resistance, instead of peace of mind. But in the larger picture, Helen’s reaction of “peace” is actually more like “complacence,” and her understanding of resistance is limited to impulsive reactionary action.

            Overall, I think Bronte oversimplifies the dichotomy between Helen and Jane’s attitudes. Bronte suggests through Helen and Jane’s dialogue that spiritual transcendence and resistance to injustice are mutually exclusive, but more modern movements based on nonviolence suggest that the two can actually coexist.