摘要
本論文主要採用Elizabeth Sakellaridou所著 Pinter’s Female Portraits及Victor L. Cahn的 Gender and Power in the Plays of Harold Pinter其間對Harold Pinter劇本中兩性互動關係的論述觀點，試圖以另一類角度探討Pinter劇本中兩性為了生存的權力所激盪的互鬥模式。序言及結論以外，本論文共分為三個章節：沉默、暴力、偽裝，剖析前述三類男女競爭歷程。
序言旨在本論文的探討理論基礎以及Pinter劇本中特殊的語言遊戲，並以此為基準所產生思考建構機制，構成論文的主旨。第二章著重在女性角色如何對語言巧妙運用以及其中角色態度的轉換及成長。女性的沉默往往代表著更多元、更深沉的語言所不能表達的意義和力量，Pinter筆下所塑造的女性往往相當技巧地將男性的權力佔為己有。第三章討論男性在兩性權力鬥爭中所使用的諸多暴力形式及其多向的轉變。在這場拉鋸戰中暴力與其說是致命性行為，倒不如視為是種要求立即服從的當下馬威。這類的威嚇一方面可以解讀為被急凍抑制而未完全發洩的怒氣，另一方面它遠比單純的暴力行為增添諸多複雜的計謀和盤算。本論文引用Michel Foucault的「圓形監獄」理論(Panopticon theory) ，檢視Pinter劇中兩性在各類意識形態所產生的暴力，及詮釋女性在無形暴力陰影之下所承受的壓力。第四章探討Pinter劇本中男女角色的互動、衝突以及各角色面對各種威脅所採取的應對因應策略與方法。在互動方面，主角們避免了正面肢體衝突，而採取心理以及語言的雙重、甚至多重的偽裝戰略。因此，儘管對於權力的爭奪持續進行著，表面上主角們呈現的仍然是種和諧的關係。
最後，本論文的結語提供另類觀點重新思考Harold Pinter劇中呈現的「人性」，但不置可否，Harold Pinter的創作呈現多面性、多層次的兩性遊戲/競鬥複雜關係。

Abstract
This thesis aims at exploring the power struggle and survival between genders in the plays of Harold Pinter. By the approaches of Elizabeth Sakellaridou’s definition of Pinter as a writer yielding three-staged attitudes and Victor L. Cahn’s view in analysing sexual relationships in Pinter, I attempt to look further into this issue in a new light, and wishfully attain more optimistic values on the “Pinteresque humanity.” Introduction and Conclusion apart, the main body of this thesis includes three chapters: silence, violence, and pretence.
In the Introduction, I prelude with the general criticism on the unique Pinteresque language, and the books of Elizabeth Sakellaridou and Victor L. Cahn, proffering sketches of my founding standpoints, since these are highly relevant to my discussion in the following chapters.
In regard to language games most of the variances of struggles in Pinter’s works, violence or pretence, derive from the diverse manipulation of language skills, among which repetition, invented memory, and silence are applied ubiquitously within. Silence, the most distinctive element in Pinter’s language, signifies a lot of suffocating and embarrassing feelings among the protagonists. It can allude to suppression of emotions, an expression of indifference, an effective camouflage of belligerence, or, the emptiness of minds. While words might act as barriers between people and furthermore breed misunderstanding, Pinter’s characters “communicate too well in silence” (Naismith 12).
Chapter Two focus on the strategies of language and appropriation of power in the female part, analyzing the characteristics and changes of Pinter women. Physically weaker, they have to involve psywar—which is best exemplified in language— in order to survive. Among the variety of language skills, the usage of silence and pauses is the key. August Strindberg states, “Silence cannot hide anything—which is more than you can say for words” (Knowles 79). Firstly, I will study the female characters in Pinter’s early plays as a comparison to those of later works. Little self-development and oppressed desires are their common traits. With different stages of writing, Pinter’s female protagonists make gradual progress with the chronological order of the plays. On the sprout of female awareness, Pinteresque heroines make use of language, such as silence and repetition, to resist masculine threats. Later female roles shy away from querulous talking and speak less. Discreet use of language also enables women to keep their thinking lucid and to see the situation more clearly. In addition, women choose not to confront men face to face. Instead of shouting, fighting or declaiming their rights outrageously, they take a compliant stance, follow what the male characters wish, and seize the chance to take reins. In other words, Pinter’s female roles tactically appropriate the power of men and make it hers.
Chapter Three tackles the issue of male violence as well as the transformation of it in Pinter’s plays. Violence in the sexual tug of war is more an intimidation to demand obedience than a deadly action. For one part, it is a muffled vent of rage instead of a killer’s way of working. For the other part, unlike plays of brutality that is all violence and entails little sentiments, physical violence in sexual dispute is simply one of the strategies to force yielding. About collective ideology of violence, I bring in Michel Foucault’s theory in Discipline and Punish as the backbone of my discussion. Pinteresque appropriation of such Panopticon theory is that they draw the whole fights under a pervasive social collective ideology, which chauvinist concepts dominate, and of which the males have long held control by their “strength” and power. Under the gaze of possible violence of male ideology, Pinter’s females are haunted by an ever-suspended threat of terror because the time when the violence is going to initiate ambush is unknown.
Chapter Four probes the interaction and confrontation of Pinter couples as well as the measures they take to deal with each other. The struggles rely heavily on the manipulation of mental war and language. Rather than hot fights, they manage to look indifferent in each round of their battles. In other words, while both sides of them are beating their brains to defeat the other in the competition, they feign that their attention is on other subjects like chewing bread or reading newspaper. Hence the battleground does not smell bloody at all. The cruelty is occasionally shown only in some exchanges of acrimonious words.
The competition for survival has led to animosity between Pinter’s male and female characters. Yet meanwhile, they have to depend on each other to provide a sense of security. As a result, the protagonists hide mutual hostility, fake harmonious relationships, maintain a peaceful appearance and stay together. The contention thus goes under the table. It is a game of a “double” fake. Both sides of sex play faking games.
Conclusion for this thesis is to rethink the Pinteresque humanity and leaves an open space as to whether Pinter draws a barbarian world or not. Representing his plays on a fixed authorial intention or any established models would be a mission impossible since Pinter has created so many layers of meaning for them.

Works Cited

Almansi, Guido. “Harold Pinter’s Idiom of Lies.” Contemporary English Drama. Ed.
C.W.E. Bigsby. New York: Holmes &Meier Publishers, 1981. 79-94.

Alonso, Ana Maria. “Gender, Power, and Historical Memory: Discourses of Serrano
Resistance.” Feminists Theorize the Political. Ed. Judith Butler and Joan W.
Scott. London: Routledge, 1992.

Auerbach, Nina. “Engorging the Patriarchy.” Feminist Issues in Literary Scholarship.
Ed. Shari Benstock. Indiana UP, 1987.

Bal, Mieke. “Sexuality, Sin, and Sorrow: The Emergence of Female Character.” The
Female Body in Western Culture. Ed. Susan Rubin Suleiman. Harvard
UP, 1986. 317-338.

Baym, Nina. “The Madwoman and Her Languages: Why I Don’t Do Feminist
Literary Theory.” Feminist Issues in Literary Scholarship. Ed. Shari Benstock.
Indiana UP, 1987.

Best, Steven. and Douglas Kellner. Postmodern Theory. McMillan Press, 1991.

Bigsby, C.W.E.. “The Politics of Anxiety: Contemporary Socialist Theatre in
Engalnd.” Modern British Dramatists. Ed. John Russell Brown. Prentice-Hall,
1984. 161-176.

- - -, C.W.E.. “The Language of Crisis in British Theatre: The Drama of Cultural
Pathology.” Contemporary English Drama. Ed. C.W.E. Bigsby. New York:
Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1981. 11-52.

Billington, Michael. The Life and Work of Harold Pinter. Faber and Faber, 1996.

Bloom, Harold, ed. Modern Critical Views: Harold Pinter. New York: Chelsea, 1987.

Braunmuller, A. R.. “A World of Words in Pinter’s Old Times.” Modern Language
Quarterly. 40.1(1979): 53-74.

Brooke-Rose, Christine. “Woman as a Semiotic Object.” The Female Body in Western
Culture. Ed. Susan Rubin Suleiman. Harvard UP, 1986. 305-316.

Brown, John Russell. “Action and Control: The Homecoming and Other Plays by
Harold Pinter.” Ed. John Russell Brown. Modern British Dramatists.
Prentice-Hall, 1984. 25-45.

Burkman, Katherine H.. “Harold Pinter’s Betrayal : Life Before Death—and After.”
Critical Essays on Harold Pinter. Ed. Steven H. Gale. Boston: Hall,
1990. 142-268.

Burkman, Katherine H. and John L. Kundert-Gibbs, ed. Pinter at Sixty. Indiana:
Indiana UP, 1993.

Butler, Judith. “Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of
‘Postmodernism’.” Feminists Theorize the Political. Ed. Judith Butler and Joan
W. Scott. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Cahn, Victor L.. Gender and Power in the Plays of Harold Pinter. New York: St.
Martin’s P, 1993.

Canto, Monique. “The Politics of Women’s Bodies: Reflections on Plato.” The
Female Body in Western Culture. Ed. Susan Rubin Suleiman. Harvard
UP, 1986. 337-353.

Chodorow, Nancy J.. Femininities, Masculinities, Sexualities. The UP of
Kentucky, 1994.

- - -. Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory. Polity P, 1989.

Chow, Rey. “Postmodern Automatons.” Feminists Theorize the Political. Ed. Judith
Butler and Joan W. Scott. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Clough, Patricia Ticineto. Feminist Thought: Desire, Power, and Academic Discourse.
Blackwell, 1994.

Coppa, Francesca. “The Sacred Joke: Comedy and Politics in Pinter’s Early Plays.”
The Cambridge Companion to Harold Pinter. Ed. Peter Raby. Cambridge UP, 2001. 44-56.

Craft-Fairchild, Catherine. Masquerade and Gender. The Pennsylvania State
UP, 1993.

Curthoys, Jean. Feminist Amnesia: The Wake of Women’s Liberation.
New York: Routledge, 1997.

Dalrymple, Theodore. “Reticence or insincerity, Rattigan or Pinter.” New Criterion.
19.3 (2000): 12-22.

Dukore, Bernard F. Harold Pinter. Macmillan P, 1982.

Esslin, Martin. “Evaluation.” Critical Essays on Harold Pinter. Ed. Steven H. Gale.
Boston: Hall, 1990. 298-304.

- - -. Pinter the Playwright. London and New York: Methuen, 1984.

Gale, Steven H.. “Deadly Mind Games: Harold Pinter’s Old Times.” Critical Essays
on Harold Pinter. Ed. Steven H. Gale. Boston: Hall, 1990. 111-141.

Gardiner, Judith Kegan. “Gender, Values, and Lessing’s Cats.” Feminist Issues in
Literary Scholarship. Ed. Shari Benstock. Indiana UP, 1987.

- - -. “On Female Identity and Writing by Women.” Writing and
Sexual Difference. Ed. Elizabeth Abel. The U of Chicago P, 1982.

Gilbert, Sandra M.. “Costumes of the Mind: Transvetism as Metaphor in Modern
Literature.” Writing and Sexual Difference. Ed. Elizabeth Abel. The U
of Chicago P, 1982.

Gordon, Lois, ed. Harold Pinter：A Casebook. New York: Garland, 1990.

Greene, Gayle. and Coppelia Kahn, ed. Making a Difference. New York:
Routledge, 1991.

Hall, Peter. “Directing the plays of Harold Pinter.” The Cambridge
Companion to Harold Pinter. Ed. Peter Raby. London: Cambridge UP, 2001. 145-154.

Hinchliffe, Arnold P.. “Comedies of Menace.” Harold Pinter. New York: Twayne,
1967. 38-86.

- - -. “The Homecoming.” Harold Pinter. New York: Twayne, 1967. 146-162.

“In Harold Pinter's "The Homecoming", to what extent is violence the most important
tool of power?” Online. Gopher. 7 November 2003. Available Gopher:
http://www.dreamdust.co.uk/work/homecoming.html

Innes, Christopher. “Present Tense—Feminist Theatre.” Modern British Drama
1890-1990. Cambridge UP, 1992. 448-453.

- - -. “Harold Pinter: Power Plays and the Trap of Comedy.” Modern
British Drama 1890-1990. Cambridge UP, 1992. 279-297.

Kierkegaard, Soren. The Concept of Anxiety. Ed. Reidar Thomte. New Jersey:
Princeton UP, 1980.

Knowles, Ronald. “Pinter and Twentieth-Century Drama.” The Cambridge
Companion to Harold Pinter. Ed. Peter Raby. Cambridge UP, 2001.

Kroll, Jack. “Pinter Family Values.” Newsweek. 126.18 (1995): 78-79.

Misra, Chittaranjan. Harold Pinter：The Dramatist. New Delhi: Creative,
1992.

Moi, Toril. Sexual/ Texual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. London and New York:
Methuen, 1986.

Naismith, Bill. A Faber Critical Guide to Harold Pinter. London: Faber and Faber,
2000.

Nightingale, Benedict. “Anti-clockwise: Betrayal in Performance.” Modern British
Dramatists. Ed. John Russell Brown. London: Prentice-Hall, 1984. 46-49.

Prentice, Penelope. The Pinter Ethic：The Erotic Aesthetic. New York:
Garland, 1994.

Quigley, Austin E.. “The Language Problem.” Critical Essays on Harold Pinter. Ed.
Steven H. Gale. Boston: Hall, 1990. 270-298.

- - -. The Pinter Problem. New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1975.

Raby, Peter. The Cambridge Companion to Harold Pinter. Cambridge UP, 2001.

Sakellaridou, Elizabeth. Pinter’s Female Portraits. Macmillan P, 1988.

Silverstein, Marc. Harold Pinter and the Language of Cultural Power. London:
Associated UP, 1993.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “French feminism Revisited: Ethics and Politics.”
Feminists Theorize the Political. Ed. Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott. New York: Routledge, 1992.

Steyn, Mark. “POLITICS & THE 'PINTERESQUE’.” New Criterion. 15.3 (96):
32-36.

Suleiman, Susan Rubin “(Re)Writing the Body: The Politics and Poetics of Female
Eroticism.” The Female Body in Western Culture. Ed. Susan Rubin Suleiman.
Harvard UP, 1986. 7-29.

Tong, Rosemarie. Feminist thought: A Comprehensive Introduction. London:
Westview P, 1989.

Tong, Rosemarie Putnam. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction.
London: Westview P, 1998.

Wandor, Michelene. “Social and Political Precedents: Post-War affluence and the End
of Censorship.” Drama Today: A Critical Guide to British Drama 1970-1990.
London: Longman House, 1993. 7-12.

- - -. “New Voices, New Methods: Collaborative Theatre and the
Position of Women.” Drama Today: A Critical Guide to British Drama
1970-1990. London: Longman, 1993. 13-17.

- - -. “Language and Politics: The Senior Generation—Stoppard,
Pinter, Bond, McGrath.” Drama Today: A Critical Guide to British Drama
1970-1990. London: Longman, 1993. 19-30.