Daphne Du Maurier's "The Birds" and the Domestic Sphere

The best way to open this archive is to open with the cover photo I created, because it incorporates the themes this archive was made to explore; mainly domesticity and more briefly the connection between human technology and nature. I chose to use this photograph for my visual cover of my archive for a few reasons. The first is that I wanted a picture that shows a broken window, because the main focus of my archive is about domesticity, the invasion of the domestic sphere, and the breaking of domestic protection. Windows in the story operate as a last line of defense between the invasion of birds, as throughout the story there is imagery of the birds “tapping on the window” (3). I think the choice to use the word ‘tapping’ demonstrates a feeling of eerie inevitability. However, tapping is usually considered a gentle action, which creates a feeling that the tapping could easily be written off as a non-existent threat. The bird’s aggression towards humans progresses as the story moves along. Since the beginning of the story, humans were not proactive, rather chalking it up to a strange natural occurrence caused by “a hard winter. That’s why the birds are acting up” (2). Despite the continued aggression, the humans become more aware of the situation, but are never fully scared of the birds, as they believe the issue will be taken care of by calling “the army out [to] shoot the birds” (14), believing that nature is no match for human technology. This ties into the other main point I want to argue, which is human hubris in terms of their technology. 

I chose this image to represent human hubris, because the not only is the bird in the image on the inside of the house looking out, implying that the birds have already broken through the domestic sphere, but also because the bird pictured is a small, cute, and gentle looking bird; adjectives that are usually associated with birds. Birds are rarely considered a threat to people, which is why it is so easy for the humans in the story to undermine the severity of the situation, seeing it as just a strange occurrence due to “‘the weather’” (6). There’s an interesting contradiction with this belief. Humans have no issue accepting the fact that there is nothing they can do to control the weather, an unconscious force that is unpredictable and dynamic each day.

However, when it comes to forces of nature that are actually living and breathing, the humans in the story immediately undermine the capabilities of other living beings. There is a sense that humans believe they are so far above other species in terms of what they are capable of, suggesting that their dominance over other species is completely unflappable. In the paper “Technology and/or Nature: Denatured/Renatured/Engineered/Artifacted Life?” by Holmes Rolston III, says that humans “are putting the once de-centered humans back at the center” (Rolston III, 41). This conflict between technology and nature could be seen as “science and technology [taking] us further into nature” (Rolston III, 45). However, in “The Birds” we see technology as being at the mercy of nature, not a part of nature itself. We see the radio systems collapse, the army unable to fix the issues, and the technology of the household useless compared to the birds. Rolston III argues that technology is an extension of nature, while Du Maurier agrees that it is a part of nature, but at the end of the day it is at its mercy to nature, not the other way around. Du Maurier uses the story to make the point that technology can not distinguish us from nature, and that humans are foolish to believe their technology that is built from nature can protect them against nature. 

This cover is not only supposed to depict the aftermath of humans being defeated by another species, but also shows the collapse of humanity’s arrogant mentality towards other forms of life. It is not only the birds who defeated humans, but the human inability to accept their own role in nature. They are not above nature, but rather a faction of nature that is at nature’s mercy like every other species. A large reason human’s believe this is because of how they have separated themselves from the unpredictability of nature, and instead put themselves in their own domestic spheres where they actually have a sense of control.

However, this sense of control is not evenly distributed in the domestic sphere. Instead, as seen in this story, it heavily favors men over women. Throughout the story, we see Nat taking charge of the situation, while his wife is pushed to the background of the situation, taking commands from Nat. We can see this through the fact that there is an emphasis on Nat’s wife remaining unnamed throughout the story, only to be referred to as “his wife” (35). Du Maurier uses this lack of name for Nat’s wife as a way to examine the domestic roles and the relationship in the domestic sphere between men and women. The lack of a name for his wife shows the imbalance of power in the traditional, heteronormative domestic ideals. 

We see Nat throughout the story undermining the concerns of the situation and her beliefs of how the situation should be handled. For example, when Nat’s wife expresses her beliefs that the country should “call the army out and shoot the birds” (14), Nat is quick to undermine his wife’s opinion, and even goes far enough to make her feel stupid for even suggesting that this could be a possible solution. Nat takes a position of condescension with a semi-rhetorical question, asking her if she “really think[s] they’ve enough soldiers to go round shooting birds from every roof?” (14). While this may be a fair point, as throughout the story it is proven that human technology is no match for the power of nature, it is the tone he takes with this response that is the issue. 

It is not a far-fetched idea to belief that the army could do more to protect the people of the country given the situation, but Nat treats this idea as if it is stupid to even go to the thought in the first place. This interaction shows how Nat views his wife; as less intelligent and in a position of inferiority to him. There’s almost a feeling that Nat is offended that she would suggest that the army could be more equipped to handle this situation and protect the family than Nat, even though the army has power in ways that Nat is literally unable to match. Nat seems to take this as his wife questioning Nat’s ability to protect his family, a job that is typically associated with the role of men in the domestic setting, but instead she is voicing legitimate concerns, and displays an understanding of the situation and the fact that one family is no match for an army of relentless birds. 

While this interaction shows Nat’s frustration towards his wife, seeing it as her questioning his role in the domestic sphere, the way this interaction continues shows what Nat believes the role of his wife should be. After asking his condescending question he reflects on how he believes “each householder must look after his own” (14), with the use of “his” demonstrating Nat’s beliefs that the power inside the household belongs to men. However, he then follows this up by asking his wife “how are we off for food?” (14), immediately declaring his beliefs of what his wife should be focused on. He feels that instead of worrying about how to protect the family, which he feels is his responsibility and beyond the capabilities of his wife, his wife should be focused on her responsibilities; which are cooking and cleaning for the family. After his wife shares that her “shopping day is tomorrow” (14), and she “doesn’t keep uncooked food hanging about” (14), Nat looks around the kitchen to find that “bread was low” (14). His wife says the baker “comes tomorrow” (14), to which Nat responds with his true beliefs of how women should be in the domestic setting. He feels that they’d be “better off in the old days, when women baked twice a week,” (14). Nat sees this minimal progression in society as a direct threat to the power dynamics of the domestic setting, while simultaneously discrediting the work of his wife. He feels that his wife is not doing enough, despite the fact that she is still completing and fulfilling the role he desires her to fill. He is blaming her for not being prepared, even though she is doing exactly what she is expected to do. It is these parts of the story where we see Du Maurier’s commentary on the inequality of the domestic sphere. 

However, the story as a whole functions as an examination of the domestic sphere, and how the inequalities in the domestic sphere are doomed to fail the domestic setting itself, not just the individuals in that setting. This is what the ending and the continuous attacks on the domestic sphere are supposed to represent. Du Maurier has examined these familial values throughout her writing career, specifically during the beginning of her career when she was writing family Gothic literature. In the book, Daphne Du Maurier: Writing, Identity and the Gothic Imagination by Avril Horner and Sue Zlosnik, the authors elaborate on Du Maurier’s use of the Gothic ‘other’ and the Gothic ‘self’ are “always inflicted by contemporary cultural values, for which the family (among other institutions) acts as a mediator” (Horner and Zlosnik, 31-2). While these authors are referring to Du Maurier’s earlier works of the 1930’s, “The Birds,” first published in 1952, possesses many of these Gothic elements. We see isolation that progresses throughout the story, beginning in a small town, and ending with Nat’s family being the last survivors in their town. We also see this isolation in a confined space, being Nat’s home. The birds themselves also act as both a seemingly unstoppable supernatural force, and the ‘other,’ both classic tropes in Gothic literature. However, while in her earlier works the family acts as a mediator, in “The Birds” the family is acting as direct victims to these cultural values, despite Nat’s unwillingness to acknowledge the negative aspects of the cultural values. The cultural values being the inequality in the domestic sphere.

So, how does the ending and the constant attacks on the domestic sphere demonstrate how the traditions in the domestic sphere are failing? The birds in the story do not represent progressive cultural values, but rather represent inevitability itself, in the context of cultural progressions, while Nat represents the traditionalist mindset that is ultimately no match to the inevitability of change. Nat’s stubbornness in his belief that he is the sole protector of his family, causes him to act in a way where he believes he is solely responsible for whether or not his family survives the attacks. Throughout the story Nat wants his family to not worry about the situation, despite how dire the situation is. This belief that his wife and children should not worry, despite the fact that it is a situation where anxiety is natural, shows that Nat has an idealized view of how his wife and children should handle this situation. This idealization is almost dehumanizing, as he wants them to not feel natural emotions, while he bears the burden of worrying and acting out of worry. 

This can be seen towards the end of the story, when Nat “thinks of a new scheme for the windows, which was to fix barbed wire in front of the boards” (38). He then loathes himself because “he had not thought of it before” (38). Despite the inevitably of his family’s death, Nat is not able to comprehend that it is over, blaming himself for not thinking of an idea that will not change the outcome. He then feels that “as long  as the wife slept” (38), everything will be fine. He wants his wife to be purely an object of protection, and to stay in an impossible state of bliss. It’s this objectification that Du Maurier is commenting on throughout the story. 

This uneven distribution of not only power, but the uneven of distribution of actual emotions is what Du Maurier is critiquing, through Nat’s constant wishes of his wife and children to remain in their roles and act in a robotic, emotionless manner that create a domestic environment where no one is able to live peacefully. It’s this constant torment that the birds represent, an inevitability that the traditional structures of domesticity will crumble, regardless of the resistance put against it. The ending scene finally shows Nat’s reluctant acceptance of the inevitability of the situation when he smokes his last cigarette, throwing the “empty packet on the fire” (39), and watches it burn. There is almost a sense of peace in this final moment, as Nat has accepted that he is unable to preserve the domestic setting, and must live with the fact that inevitable change is knocking on his door.

While Du Maurier’s story is critiquing the domestic environment and how the traditional values are fighting a battle against the inevitability of change, the more popular adaptation, the film The Birds, by Alfred Hitchcock, does not have this same commentary on domestic values. You could even argue that the movie acts in a way that supports traditional values, straying far away from the critiques Du Maurier presents. The characterization of Mitch and Melanie, the parallels of Nat and his wife, as well as the addition of Mitch’s mother, Lydia, create an ending where there is a feeling that these values have to be upheld, rather than critiqued and progressed.

As opposed to the Du Maurier ending, in the film the characters escape the attacks of the birds. Mitch and Melanie are not married, but instead she is the love interest that his mother disapproves of. Melanie is characterized as a socialite, party girl, and someone who does not fit the mold of the traditional domestic expectations. Mitch’s mother resents her, and there is almost a sense that she is to blame for the birds’ attacks. The movie ends with the family and Melanie driving away while the birds sit still and watch. It’s this moment of Melanie, the non traditional women leaving the domestic setting that the birds finally take a break from their attacks. I think this puts the movie in a position where it is making a claim that the only way the same the domestic sphere is to hold traditional values close, and reject the progressions of the modern independent women. I think the fact that this adaptation is more popular than the original story shows that America has a fixation on the idealized domestic traditions, and are unwilling to examine how these traditions are damaging for everyone involved, a point that the story drills home throughout.