In August Strindberg’s Miss Julie, the ideology of same class marriages was the cultural norm and key to having a successful marriage. Miss Julie and Jean each display both desires to rebel against society’s rules of what is a proper love affair/marriage. As a woman of wealth and prestige, Miss Julie, in the eyes of the majority, is in a position that is most desirable. It is almost blasphemous for a higher class woman risk all her successes for a lower class gentleman, just for love. Jean was primarily concerned with Miss Julie’s reputation if everyone found out she has entered relations with her servant. He stated, “Nobody will believe you did it on purpose. They will always say that you fell down” (9). The term “fell” or “falling” in the social ladder is consistently being repeated to emphasize that marrying a man less than who she was is not only subject to judgements from others but it also emphasizes that the woman is doing herself a disservice, potentially an accident.

There was more criticism for a woman to step down in social class than for a man to climb up. Miss Julie, however, does not care for how her reputation would be perceived. She desired to “fall” in love with whom she is most fond of and not to those with the correct status. She was most willing to “step down to the ground” because she was constantly expected to remain at the top. Jean similarly desired to change his social status, but rather by climbing up. He confessed to Miss Julie that he’s been at the bottom of a tall tree his whole life and that it is hard for him to get a hold of the first branch to help him get to the top.

This also caused a gender conflict between Miss Julie and Jean. Woman at this time would had to take the same title as the person she decides to marry; as for a man, he was given the ability determine his own social class through work ethic and business ventures. Miss Julie reveals that she broke off her engagement to the County Attorney because “he would have been her slave” making all the money, which he was okay with but she was not (23). It was evident in her childhood and personal life that she did not accept that men should be the ones managing the finances, since her father failed to provide them a home after the inferno. She even exclaimed on page 32 that when the three of them (Miss Julie, Jean, Christine) run the hotel, Miss Julie would be the one “making out the bills.” Jean, who solely desires to upscale his social position, nearly threatens to take away his love for Miss Julie if she does not provide him with cash and traveling money to enable him to runaway and start a first class hotel (25). This is ironic because initially, he was most concerned with Miss Julie stepping down in her wealth. Now he is more focused on stepping up by using her available wealth to his advantage. Roles have switched between the two genders as Miss Julie becomes the financial provider and Jean, the dependent.

This had me questioning why the sudden shifts in perception and gender roles throughout the play. I’ve noticed that Miss Julie has episodes of hysteria and irrational thinking, at time pleading to die. I am not quite sure if this is the author’s personal view of women, his satire of female emotions or him shedding light on a social issue that women were seen as hysterical beings.