In what ways does a comparative study accentuate the distinctive contexts of Who’s 
Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and A Room of One’s Own?

A Room of One’s Own (1929) by Virginia Woolf and Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1962) by Edward Albee, when compared, accentuate the difference in values and beliefs that pervaded the context in which they wrote. Woolf’s critical yet creative essay explores truth and gender equality in a period driven by progression and the first wave of feminism. Contrastingly, Albee attempts to confront his audience through satirical dialogue and bombastic characters. Although Albee also explores truth and gender equality, the difference in context allows him to examine the way in which these values have been discarded in the moral decline masked by the American Dream. When paralleled, it is evident that both texts reflect the differences of their context.

Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own digs beneath the veneer of social progress to expose the patriarchal values entrenched in society. Woolf first establishes the subjectivity of truth, so that the readers draw their own conclusion as “they observe the limitations, the prejudices, the idiosyncrasies of the speaker.” By making them conscious on the subjectivity of truth, Woolf is forcing the reader to draw their own conclusions on what is logical, rather than accepting the patriarchal beliefs of their context. The anecdotal evidence of the fictitious Mary Seaton’s experience at the British Museum exposes the illusion of male superiority. The subhuman representations of women in the books written by “Professor X” appear ridiculous and contradicted simply because the persona Mary Seaton is so logical and well educated. “Women have served all these centuries as looking glasses…reflecting the size of man at twice its natural size.” The metaphor of the distorted mirror is a creative allegory that shatters the illusion of male superiority, and thus, challenging the context of her time.

Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? examines the value of truth in the conservative context, however, within his era it is combatant with the myth of the American Dream. The text challenges the idea of an ideal family life by tearing down the polite facades that masked the era’s moral decline. The use of meta-theatre heightens the audience’s uncomfortable sense of intrusion, as Nick and Honey both witness and are included in George and Martha’s “sick games.” Honey reveals her inability to face the truth when she refuses to deal with her husband’s infidelity, the sham of their marriage and the numerous abortions she has had. “I’ve decided I don’t remember anything.” She goes on to insist that she had made the choice to live in an illusion. “Don’t remember; not can’t.” However, the increasingly vulgar dialogue and indecent topics forces the audience to confront what Nick and Honey refuse to.

George and Martha’s relationship is also used as a means of challenging the context’s false reality. Martha desires a perfect marriage and a child, although George admits that this is not the reality of the situation. “Good, better, best, bested.” The declension shows the way in which their marriage is in decline. Martha begins to believe the lies she has invented to allow her to live the American Dream. “You’ve moved bag and baggage into your own fantasy world.” George exposes Martha’s hidden baggage by killing their imaginary “blue-haired, blond eyed son.” The invented son in a symbol of the American Dream, which is based on illusion and pretence. This climaxes in the final Act, ‘Exorcism’ which is symbolically named as it shows the casting out of the deception, lies and demons that haunt their marriage. Martha finally admits her denial and fear of reality just before the curtain closes. Martha and George’s relationship is an allegory of their wider context, where pretence and illusion is used to mask the truth.

The distinctive context of Woolf’s time is apparent in her exploration of gender equality and the challenging of patriarchal values. Woolf challenges traditional roles of women by arguing that they can be capable of contributing to fiction. “Here I am asking why women did not write poetry in the Elizabethan age when I am not sure how they were educated; whether they were taught to write; whether they had sitting rooms of their own…” Woolf systematically outlines the ways in which women have been disadvantaged in the past. By creating a hypothetical anecdote surrounding the characters Judith Shakespeare, Woolf explores how this woman would not have had the same freedoms, resources and opportunities as her brother to showcase her genius. Woolf’s fusion of history and fiction allows her to examine the distinctive context in which she writes, and the reasons for which gender equality was being pursued in the 1920s.

Albee, contrastingly, presents a more cynical portrayal of equality between the sexes that reflects his context. The audience’s initial impression of Martha is that of a strong, independent woman. “I wear the pants in this house because somebody’s got to.” Martha asserts her authority over George by constantly diminishing him. “I swear…if you existed I’d divorce you.” Martha not only emasculates George in the role of a husband, but she belittles his very existence. However, Albee reveals that Martha is in fact still attached to patriarchal roles. At heart, Martha craves a son, a successful husband and her father’s approval. She admits that it was her idea to marry George and become a faculty wife. Albee explores the way in which gender equality in his era was combatant with the vestiges of patriarchy. Albee is challenging the belief that equality existed during his context.

In extension to this, both texts comment on the role of education within the writer’s context. Woolf notes that women’s lack of access to tertiary education disadvantage them. Fictional facilities like “Fernham” and “Oxbridge” are representational of entrenched patriarchal intuitions formed by men for men. Woolf’s character Mary Seaton stresses that women must better their minds through education. She notes that woman should continue having children, but in “twos and threes, not in tens and twelves” in order to give them an opportunity to educate themselves. This progressive outlook on women and education is specific to Woolf’s context.

Comparatively, Albee mocks the esteem placed upon academia during his context. The entrenched patriarchy of the college is personified through Martha’s father. “Daddy built this college…he is the college.” However, despite Martha worshipping her father’s accomplishments, she is shut out from the college’s academic life. George cynically jokes that “musical beds is the faculty sport,” belittling the significance of tertiary education through sexual depravity. Martha herself is an example of the futility of education. She states “I been to college like everybody else,” and yet, it has had no edifying effect on her. Martha’s greatest accomplishment was become a housewife who, once finishing her education, “sat around.” In contrast to Woolf’s sentiments, Albee expresses contempt for the place of education within his context.

Both Albee and Woolf use their different stylistic conventions to convey the concerns pertaining to the context in which they were writing in. Although both authors explored issues focusing on truth and gender equality, when examined comparatively, the differences of their contexts enhances the differences in their critical commentary of the period. Woolf’s essay reflects the social progress of her context by championing gender equality and by destroying the illusion of male superiority. However, Albee comparatively disrupts the conservative context in which he wrote by revealing the hypocrisy and lack of progress made on issues such as truth and equality. When paralleled, the texts accentuate the distinctive contexts in which they were written.