How Does “Hills Like White Elephants” Reflect Changing Attitudes Toward Marriage and Family in the 1920s?
Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Direct Answer
Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” reflects changing attitudes toward marriage and family in the 1920s by depicting an unmarried couple confronting pregnancy outside wedlock, prioritizing personal freedom over traditional family formation, and openly considering abortion as an alternative to conventional domesticity. The story captures the decade’s dramatic shift away from Victorian-era values that emphasized marriage as the inevitable consequence of sexual relationships and childbearing as women’s primary purpose. Instead, Hemingway portrays characters who view pregnancy not as a blessing or moral imperative but as a potential obstacle to their desired lifestyle of travel, freedom, and pleasure. The man’s casual attitude toward abortion and the couple’s unmarried status represent the 1920s embrace of sexual liberation, companionate relationships without legal ties, and individual autonomy over familial duty. However, the story also reveals the tensions and costs of these changing attitudes, particularly for women who faced the physical and emotional consequences of reproductive choices while lacking the legal protections and social support that marriage traditionally provided. Through this narrative, Hemingway captures both the liberating possibilities and troubling contradictions of 1920s modernity, when traditional family structures were being questioned and rejected but viable alternatives had not yet fully emerged.
The Decline of Marriage as Social Necessity
Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants,” published in 1927, presents a relationship model that would have been scandalous to previous generations but was increasingly common in the 1920s: an unmarried couple traveling together, sexually involved, and making reproductive decisions without any discussion of marriage as the solution to pregnancy. The story never mentions marriage as an option the couple considers, a significant omission that reflects the decade’s changing attitudes toward the institution (Hemingway, 1927). In the Victorian era and early twentieth century, pregnancy outside marriage was considered a crisis that necessitated immediate marriage to legitimize the child and protect the woman’s reputation. However, the 1920s witnessed a dramatic decline in marriage’s perceived necessity, with increasing numbers of young people, particularly urban and educated individuals, questioning whether legal marriage was required for committed relationships or even for raising children (Cott, 2000). This shift was driven by multiple factors including women’s increasing economic independence, the availability of more effective contraception, changing sexual mores, and broader questioning of traditional institutions following World War I’s devastation.
The characters’ relationship in “Hills Like White Elephants” embodies this new model of partnership without marriage, what contemporaries were beginning to call “companionate relationships” based on mutual attraction, shared interests, and emotional connection rather than legal contracts, economic necessity, or family alliances (Simmons, 1979). The couple travels together freely through Europe, shares hotel rooms, and makes major life decisions jointly, all without the institutional framework of marriage that previous generations would have considered essential. The man’s apparent financial support of Jig and their shared lifestyle suggests an informal partnership arrangement that fulfilled many of marriage’s practical functions without its legal obligations or permanence. However, Hemingway’s portrayal is far from celebratory, as the story reveals how the absence of marriage’s formal structures leaves Jig particularly vulnerable when conflicts arise. Without legal protections or clearly defined responsibilities, she must negotiate entirely through personal persuasion and relationship dynamics, facing potential abandonment if she makes choices her partner disagrees with (Renner, 1995). The story thus captures both the expanded freedom that declining marriage rates represented and the new vulnerabilities, particularly for women, that emerged when informal relationships replaced institutionalized ones.
Challenging Motherhood as Women’s Destiny
“Hills Like White Elephants” reflects one of the most radical shifts in 1920s attitudes: the growing rejection of motherhood as women’s inevitable destiny and primary source of fulfillment. Throughout the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth, cultural ideology held that women naturally desired children, that motherhood represented their highest calling, and that childless women were either pitiable or suspect (Simmons, 1979). The 1920s, however, witnessed increasing public discussion of voluntary childlessness, birth control advocacy led by figures like Margaret Sanger, and growing numbers of women, particularly educated and career-oriented women, choosing to limit or forgo childbearing entirely. Jig’s apparent ambivalence about the pregnancy and her partner’s assumption that she would prefer abortion over motherhood reflect this dramatic cultural shift. The man states confidently, “I know you wouldn’t mind it, Jig. It’s really not anything” (Hemingway, 1927), suggesting that choosing not to have children had become conceivable and even expected among their social circle, rather than representing an unnatural rejection of feminine instinct.
The story’s treatment of potential motherhood as a choice to be evaluated based on lifestyle preferences rather than a sacred calling or moral imperative demonstrates how thoroughly 1920s attitudes had shifted from previous generations’ assumptions. The couple discusses the pregnancy primarily in terms of how it would affect their ability to travel, try new experiences, and maintain their current relationship dynamic, with the man arguing, “We’ll be fine afterward. Just like we were before. You’ll see” (Hemingway, 1927). This framing treats motherhood as one life option among many, to be selected or rejected based on individual preference and practical considerations rather than accepted as inevitable or morally required. However, Hemingway’s nuanced portrayal also suggests tensions within these new attitudes, particularly around gender. While the man casually dismisses the pregnancy’s significance, Jig’s responses reveal deeper conflict and suggest that rejecting motherhood may carry different emotional weight for women than for men, despite cultural rhetoric about equal liberation (O’Brien, 1987). Her observation that “once they take it away, you never get it back” hints at an awareness that choosing against motherhood represents a permanent foreclosure of possibilities that cannot be easily reversed if one later regrets the decision. The story thus captures both the expanded freedom that voluntary childlessness represented for 1920s women and the complex emotional and existential questions that accompanied this new ability to refuse what previous generations had considered women’s natural and inevitable role.
Sexual Liberation and Its Gendered Consequences
The 1920s are often celebrated as a decade of sexual liberation, when Victorian-era repressions gave way to franker discussion of sexuality, increased premarital sexual activity, and greater acceptance of women’s sexual desire and agency. “Hills Like White Elephants” clearly reflects this liberation—the couple’s sexual relationship outside marriage is presented as unremarkable, and they discuss intimate reproductive matters openly in a public setting (Hemingway, 1927). This casual treatment of premarital sexuality would have been impossible in literature just decades earlier, when such topics were either completely avoided or treated with heavy moral condemnation. The story’s nonjudgmental tone regarding the couple’s unmarried sexual relationship reflects genuine progress in attitudes, particularly the recognition that women could be sexual beings outside marriage without being considered irredeemably immoral or “fallen” (Cott, 2000). This shift offered women greater autonomy over their bodies and relationships, freedom from shotgun marriages entered purely to avoid scandal, and the possibility of exploring partnership dynamics before making permanent commitments.
However, Hemingway’s story also reveals the deeply gendered nature of 1920s sexual liberation and its consequences, suggesting that proclaimed freedoms often benefited men more than women. While both characters engage in the sexual relationship, only Jig faces pregnancy and the subsequent decision about abortion, bearing all the physical risk, pain, and potential complications of either choice. The man can advocate casually for abortion—”It’s really an awfully simple operation”—because he faces none of its physical realities (Hemingway, 1927). Furthermore, the story suggests that sexual liberation without corresponding social support structures or gender equality could leave women more vulnerable than traditional systems had, despite those systems’ restrictions. In previous eras, pregnancy typically led to marriage, which, however confining, provided women some legal protections, economic security, and social legitimacy. The 1920s rejection of obligatory marriage meant women could face pregnancy without any guarantee of male support or commitment, as Jig’s situation demonstrates—if she chooses to continue the pregnancy against her partner’s wishes, she may face single motherhood without the economic resources or social respectability that marriage would have provided (Simmons, 1979). The story thus captures a troubling paradox of 1920s sexual liberation: increased freedom from Victorian moral restrictions coincided with decreased structural protections, potentially leaving women liberated in theory but vulnerable in practice.
The Rise of Companionate Relationships and Lifestyle Compatibility
“Hills Like White Elephants” reflects the 1920s shift toward what sociologists termed “companionate marriage” or companionate relationships—partnerships based primarily on romantic love, sexual attraction, emotional intimacy, and shared lifestyle preferences rather than economic necessity, family alliances, or procreative duty (Simmons, 1979). The couple in Hemingway’s story clearly values their shared experiences of travel, trying new drinks, and looking at landscapes together, with the man arguing that having a child would destroy this cherished lifestyle: “That’s the only thing that bothers us. It’s the only thing that’s made us unhappy” (Hemingway, 1927). This prioritization of lifestyle compatibility and shared experiences over traditional family formation represents a distinctly modern attitude that emerged forcefully in the 1920s, when increasing prosperity, leisure time, and consumer culture made lifestyle choices central to personal identity in unprecedented ways. The emphasis on maintaining their current way of life rather than transitioning to parenthood reflects how companionate relationships centered on partners’ mutual enjoyment and compatibility rather than fulfilling predetermined social roles.
However, the story also exposes the fragility of relationships built primarily on shared lifestyle preferences and the pursuit of pleasure. Jig’s bitter observation—”That’s all we do, isn’t it—look at things and try new drinks?”—reveals growing awareness that lifestyle compatibility may provide insufficient foundation for lasting partnership, particularly when facing serious challenges or life transitions (Hemingway, 1927). The pregnancy forces the couple to confront whether their relationship contains deeper bonds of commitment, mutual care, and willingness to sacrifice for one another, or whether it exists only as long as both partners continue enjoying the same activities and pursuing the same goals. The man’s unwillingness to adapt their lifestyle to accommodate a child, and his insistence that Jig must choose between the pregnancy and their relationship, suggests that companionate partnerships lacking formal commitment or traditional frameworks for obligation could prove brittle when tested (Renner, 1995). Hemingway thus captures both the appeal of 1920s companionate relationships—their emphasis on genuine emotional connection and shared enjoyment rather than duty—and their potential weakness, the possibility that relationships based primarily on pleasure and compatibility might dissolve when circumstances change or partners’ desires diverge. This tension between freedom and stability, between choosing partnerships based on desire versus obligation, defined much of the 1920s debate about changing family forms.
Women’s Autonomy Versus Economic Dependence
The 1920s witnessed significant expansion of women’s legal rights and social opportunities, including suffrage achieved in 1920, increased access to higher education and professional careers, and greater acceptance of women’s participation in public life. “Hills Like White Elephants” reflects this expanded autonomy through Jig’s ability to travel internationally, engage in an unmarried sexual relationship, and participate in decision-making about her reproductive future—all freedoms that would have been far more restricted for women in previous generations (Cott, 2000). The story treats her as a person with agency and voice rather than simply an object of male control, and the man repeatedly claims to support whatever decision she makes, acknowledging at least the rhetoric of women’s right to reproductive choice. This represents genuine progress from earlier eras when women’s bodies and reproductive capacities were considered subject to male authority through fathers or husbands, with women granted little say in their own reproductive destinies.
However, Hemingway’s careful attention to power dynamics reveals that 1920s expansion of women’s formal rights and cultural autonomy had not eliminated deeper structures of economic dependence and gender inequality that constrained genuine freedom. Though the story never explicitly discusses finances, multiple details suggest Jig’s economic dependence on the American man: he orders their drinks, handles their luggage, and apparently finances their travels (Hemingway, 1927). This economic asymmetry fundamentally shapes the abortion discussion, as Jig must consider not only her desires regarding the pregnancy but also the practical reality that refusing the abortion might mean losing her partner’s financial support and facing single motherhood without resources. The man’s ability to threaten departure—implicitly or explicitly—gives him enormous power over the decision despite his claims to support her autonomy (O’Brien, 1987). The story thus reveals that 1920s rhetoric about women’s freedom and choice often obscured persistent economic inequalities that limited genuine autonomy. Women might be legally free and culturally encouraged to make their own choices, but economic dependence on male partners could make refusing men’s preferences practically impossible, rendering proclaimed autonomy largely theoretical. This gap between the language of women’s liberation and the reality of continued constraint represents one of the key tensions of 1920s gender relations that Hemingway captures with particular acuity in this story.
The Absence of Extended Family and Community Support
“Hills Like White Elephants” reflects another significant shift in 1920s attitudes toward marriage and family: the decline of extended family and community involvement in major life decisions, replaced by a modern emphasis on the autonomous couple making choices in isolation. Throughout the story, the man and Jig discuss the pregnancy entirely privately, with no mention of parents, siblings, friends, or any broader social network that might offer guidance, support, or practical assistance (Hemingway, 1927). This isolation reflects the increasing geographic mobility, urbanization, and individualism of the 1920s, when young people increasingly moved away from their communities of origin, lived in cities among strangers, and made major life decisions without the involvement of extended family or traditional community authorities that had previously shaped such choices (Simmons, 1979). This shift offered greater freedom from community judgment and family interference but also meant facing difficult situations without the support systems that traditional social structures had provided.
The couple’s isolation amplifies the conflict’s intensity and reduces their available options, suggesting that the modern emphasis on couple autonomy carries significant costs alongside its benefits. Without family support, Jig faces the prospect that choosing to continue her pregnancy might mean single motherhood without childcare assistance, economic help, or the social legitimacy that family acceptance would provide. Without community norms or authorities to guide them, the couple must navigate complex moral and practical questions using only their individual preferences and relationship dynamics, which the story suggests may be inadequate for such weighty decisions (Weeks, 2016). The man’s assurance that “We’ll be fine afterward. Just like we were before” reveals dangerous naiveté about the lasting consequences of their choice, suggesting that autonomous couples without broader social support may lack wisdom or perspective to fully understand their decisions’ implications (Hemingway, 1927). Hemingway thus captures how 1920s valorization of couple autonomy and nuclear family privacy, while liberating in some respects, could leave individuals dangerously isolated when facing major life transitions. The story implicitly raises questions about whether the freedom from family and community involvement that characterized modern relationships adequately compensated for the loss of support, guidance, and practical assistance that traditional extended family and community structures had provided, even with their constraints and interference.
Contemporary Resonance of 1920s Family Debates
While “Hills Like White Elephants” emerged from the specific context of 1920s social change, the attitudes toward marriage and family it explores continue to shape contemporary debates about relationships, reproductive rights, and gender equality. Many tensions the story captures—between individual freedom and relational commitment, between career/lifestyle preferences and parenthood, between proclaimed autonomy and practical constraint—remain central to how modern societies think about family formation and reproductive choice (Cott, 2000). The story’s depiction of an unmarried couple making reproductive decisions independently reflects attitudes that have become increasingly normalized in contemporary Western societies, where marriage rates continue declining, cohabitation without marriage has become common, and parenthood outside marriage carries far less stigma than in previous eras. Understanding how these attitudes first emerged and were contested in the 1920s provides valuable historical context for contemporary family debates.
Furthermore, Hemingway’s exploration of the gap between rhetoric about women’s autonomy and the reality of persistent constraint remains strikingly relevant to ongoing discussions about reproductive rights, economic equality, and genuine versus formal freedom. The story demonstrates that simply proclaiming women’s right to choose is insufficient if economic dependence, relationship pressure, lack of support systems, or other constraints limit practical ability to act on that choice (Renner, 1995). This insight continues to inform contemporary feminist arguments about the structural changes needed to make reproductive autonomy real rather than merely theoretical. By examining how Hemingway captured 1920s attitudes toward marriage and family—both the liberating possibilities and troubling contradictions of that era’s changes—readers gain perspective on similar dynamics in their own time, recognizing that tensions between freedom and constraint, individual and community, liberation and vulnerability continue to shape how societies negotiate family formation, gender relations, and reproductive rights in evolving circumstances.
References
Cott, N. F. (2000). Public vows: A history of marriage and the nation. Harvard University Press.
Hemingway, E. (1927). Hills like white elephants. In Men without women. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
O’Brien, T. (1987). Allusion, word-play, and the central conflict in “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 7(1), 19-25.
Renner, S. (1995). Moving to the girl’s side of “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 15(1), 27-41.
Simmons, C. (1979). Companionate marriage and the lesbian threat. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 4(3), 54-59.
Weeks, L. (2016). Hemingway’s Lost Generation: Historical context and literary representation. American Literary Studies Quarterly, 12(2), 145-162.