Rip Van Winkle and Passive Resistance

by Carolyn M. Janowski

 In this classic tale, Rip Van Winkle is portrayed as one who is a victim of unusual circumstances beyond his control. A further reading may perhaps reveal a different Rip Van Winkle, one who pursues an avenue of passive resistance in response to a life which he feels is beyond his control.

Passive Resistance is usually connected with such famous people as Henry David Thoreau who developed the principal of civil disobedience. For Thoreau, the idea was to choose not to support governmental taxes and policies that he felt were wrong. This theme was later used by Mahatma Gandhi in his fight for Indian independence. In the 1960’s this method was used by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to bring racial injustice to the public’s attention. In all of these cases, the men who followed the ideal of passive resistance were prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions in order to draw attention to their causes.

One can find similarities between Rip Van Winkle’s actions and the actions of those who pursue passive resistance. In Rip’s case, the "governing" authority that he was struggling with is represented by the responsibilities in his life. This is very clear when one compares his own farm to those of others at that time. He did not care for his farm as was expected of him. Rather, he pursued a life that one at the time would have considered slothful, discussing current events with his friends, befriending local children and animals and doing various favors for neighbors while his own property suffered. When confronted by his wife, his response was neither to argue nor to change his behavior. A simple silent shrug of the shoulders was all the response he offered.

In all of this, Dame Van Winkle has been portrayed as the villain. Her constant nagging and verbal abuse of Rip has always been considered his reason for "disappearing" for 20 years. A closer look may reveal more complexities in the relationship. It is important to consider the roles they held in this time period. A wife was expected to keep the home and raise the children. The husband’s responsibility was to provide for the family. Clearly, Rip was not willing to fulfill this responsibility. He demonstrated that he was certainly able to perform the work that was required. He had on many occasions assisted his neighbors with various chores and yet, he was not willing to perform this same work for the benefit of his own family. The question in the relationship between Rip and Dame Van Winkle is this: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Who can say whether in desperation Dame Van Winkle resorted to this verbal abuse of her husband as she saw herself and her shabby children living in squalor? Keep in mind that she did not have the luxury of putting her children in daycare while she divorced her husband and pursued her own career in order to support her family. Her options were extremely limited. Her only option was to find a way to move her husband to work for the benefit of the family. Without condoning her methods, one can certainly sympathize with her dilemma.

Rather than conform to the role of husband, father and provider, Rip chose a path that would start with passive resistance and end with abandonment. It is important to understand that although he may have felt that his life was out of his control, he always retained the power of choice. He certainly had more possible choices than his wife. He could have chosen to conform, to pursue a more aggressive role with his wife, or some combination of the two. In this time period, as the husband was considered the head of the family, both the society and the law would have supported his decision to control his wife and her nagging. He did not choose this, however, and one has to feel that part of this decision was due to the fact that he knew that she was basically right. He was not living up to his responsibility and she took every occasion to bring it to his attention in the hopes of changing him. In response, he chose to do nothing.

After years of pursuing passive resistance, he finally chooses to abandon the family, only to return 20 years later claiming to have been asleep all this time. The text indicates that this is probably not a valid story in both the length of his beard and the inconsistencies of his story. Here is where we see most clearly the main difference between Rip Van Winkle and others who practice passive resistance. He never takes responsibility for his own actions. He begins by not taking responsibility for his family’s welfare. When he abandons the family and returns 20 years later after his wife is dead, he does not take responsibility for his departure. Instead he concocts a story showing how this situation was totally out of his control. Rather than admit that he was not able to fulfill his responsibilities or that his wife was a shrew and he could no longer tolerate it, he makes up a story about being asleep in the woods. He then returns to his previous life. Curiously, the community and even his own daughter does not appear to seriously question his explanation. Whether this is due to their collective superstition or whether they inwardly understood his need to remove himself from a difficult marriage, it is not clear. What is clear is that Rip Van Winkle failed to support his family and then abandoned them. He chose a path of flawed passive resistance which did not accept the consequences of his actions.