How Does Jig Assert Herself in Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants”? A Literary Analysis
Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Date: October 28, 2025
Direct Answer
Jig asserts herself and resists the American man’s pressure in Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” through five key moments of resistance: questioning the authenticity of their relationship, employing ironic deflection when discussing the hills and landscape, explicitly requesting silence, threatening to scream if he continues pressuring her, and making the decisive final statement that she feels fine despite his continued reassurances. These assertions represent a gradual escalation from passive-aggressive commentary to direct confrontation, demonstrating Jig’s growing awareness of her agency within a deeply unequal power dynamic. Her resistance is particularly significant given the story’s 1927 setting and the indirect, minimalist dialogue style Hemingway employs, where subtext carries more weight than explicit statement (Renner, 1995). Through these moments, Jig moves from compliant silence to assertive self-advocacy, challenging the American’s manipulation and ultimately reclaiming narrative authority in the conversation’s final exchange.
Introduction to Power Dynamics in “Hills Like White Elephants”
Ernest Hemingway’s 1927 short story “Hills Like White Elephants” presents a tense conversation between an unnamed American man and his girlfriend, nicknamed Jig, as they wait for a train at a Spanish railway station. The story’s central conflict revolves around an unnamed “operation”—widely understood by scholars to be an abortion—that the American insistently encourages while Jig expresses reluctance and ambivalence (Renner, 1995). The narrative exemplifies Hemingway’s famous “iceberg theory” of writing, where the surface dialogue conceals deeper emotional currents and unstated conflicts (Hemingway, 1932). Within this sparse, tension-filled conversation, Jig’s moments of assertion and resistance become crucial sites of analysis, revealing her struggle for agency within a relationship characterized by significant power imbalance.
The power dynamics between Jig and the American reflect broader gender hierarchies of the 1920s, when women’s reproductive autonomy remained severely constrained and economic dependence on male partners was normative (Hannum, 2019). The American controls practical resources including money, travel arrangements, and access to medical procedures, while Jig occupies a dependent position that complicates her ability to resist his pressure directly. However, close textual analysis reveals that Jig is not merely passive or victimized; rather, she employs various rhetorical strategies to assert her perspective, challenge his framing of the situation, and ultimately resist complete acquiescence to his demands. These moments of assertion, though subtle within Hemingway’s minimalist style, constitute significant acts of resistance that transform the story from a simple narrative of male coercion into a more complex exploration of female agency under constraint (Smiley, 2008). Understanding Jig’s resistance requires careful attention to subtext, tone, and the progression of power dynamics throughout their conversation.
Questioning the Authenticity of Their Relationship
Jig’s first significant moment of assertion occurs when she challenges the American’s reassurances about their relationship’s future. When he insists that the operation is “perfectly simple” and that afterward “we’ll be fine,” Jig responds with the pointed question: “And you think then we’ll be all right and be happy?” followed by her devastating observation, “And if I do it you’ll be happy and things will be like they were and you’ll love me?” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 275). This questioning strategy represents subtle but significant resistance, as Jig refuses to accept his superficial reassurances at face value. By demanding that he articulate the connection between the abortion and their happiness, she exposes the manipulative logic underlying his pressure: he frames the procedure as necessary for their relationship while simultaneously claiming it is unimportant and simple.
Furthermore, Jig’s conditional phrasing—”if I do it”—maintains her agency by refusing to concede that the decision has already been made, despite the American’s presumptive language treating it as inevitable. Literary critic Stanley Renner notes that this moment reveals Jig’s growing awareness that the American’s promises are hollow and that their relationship will not return to its earlier state regardless of her decision (Renner, 1995). By questioning rather than accepting, challenging rather than complying, Jig begins to puncture the American’s careful rhetorical construction. Her questions force him into defensive responses, temporarily shifting the conversational power dynamic and creating space for her to articulate her doubts. This interrogative resistance demonstrates sophisticated emotional intelligence, as Jig recognizes that direct refusal might provoke greater coercion, while questioning creates cognitive dissonance that weakens his persuasive authority. The authenticity challenge thus represents foundational resistance that sets the stage for Jig’s more explicit assertions later in the conversation.
Ironic Commentary on Landscape and Meaning
Jig’s second assertion strategy involves using observations about the surrounding landscape to communicate resistance through metaphor and irony. Early in the story, she comments that the distant hills “look like white elephants,” to which the American responds dismissively, “I’ve never seen one” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 273). The white elephant metaphor carries significant cultural weight, typically referring to a burdensome possession that is unwanted but difficult to dispose of—a clear symbolic reference to the unwanted pregnancy the American wishes her to terminate (Johnston, 1987). By initiating this metaphor, Jig introduces her own perspective on the pregnancy into the conversation, framing it not as the simple medical matter the American describes but as something precious yet complicated.
When the American attempts to dismiss her observation, claiming he has never seen a white elephant, Jig retorts, “No, you wouldn’t have,” asserting that his failure to perceive what she sees reflects his emotional and moral blindness rather than her flights of fancy (Hemingway, 1927, p. 273). This exchange exemplifies what feminist literary critic Pamela Smiley identifies as Jig’s use of “indirect discourse” to resist male authority without triggering direct confrontation (Smiley, 2008). Later in the conversation, Jig’s landscape observations become more pointed: she notes that one side of the valley appears fertile and lively while the side where they sit is barren, symbolically representing the choice between proceeding with the pregnancy or pursuing the abortion. Through these landscape commentaries, Jig creates a parallel conversation that communicates her perspective without directly opposing the American’s pressure. The ironic deflection allows her to maintain plausible deniability—she is merely commenting on scenery—while simultaneously asserting a moral and emotional framework that contradicts his reductive framing of their situation. This rhetorical sophistication demonstrates agency and resistance even within the constraints of indirect feminine discourse patterns.
The Explicit Request for Silence
Jig’s most direct assertion before the story’s conclusion occurs when she explicitly demands that the American stop talking: “Would you please please please please please please please stop talking?” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 276). This desperate, repetitive plea represents a significant escalation in Jig’s resistance, moving from indirect commentary to explicit demand. The repetition of “please” seven times emphasizes both her genuine distress and the extent to which the American has worn down her patience through relentless pressure. Literary scholars note that this moment marks a turning point in the power dynamics, as Jig abandons indirect strategies in favor of direct confrontation (Hannum, 2019).
The request for silence is particularly significant because it challenges the American’s primary tool of manipulation: his verbal reasoning and reassurance. Throughout the conversation, he has attempted to control the situation through language, offering ostensibly logical arguments and soothing promises designed to secure her compliance. By demanding silence, Jig asserts that his words are not helpful but harmful, not persuasive but oppressive. She refuses to continue engaging with his rhetorical manipulations and instead claims the right to think and feel without his constant intervention. The American’s response—a brief silence followed by resumed talking—reveals his unwillingness to respect even this explicit boundary, which further illuminates the relationship’s fundamental inequality. However, Jig’s willingness to voice this demand explicitly demonstrates her growing recognition that indirect resistance may be insufficient and that more assertive boundaries are necessary. This moment represents what critic Pamela Smiley calls the “breakdown of feminine politeness strategies,” where Jig can no longer maintain the veneer of compliance and must risk direct confrontation to preserve her psychological integrity (Smiley, 2008).
The Threat of Screaming and Emotional Boundary
Following her request for silence, Jig issues an even more dramatic assertion: she threatens to scream if the American continues his pressure. She states, “I’ll scream,” expressing her willingness to create a public scene that would expose their private conflict and potentially humiliate the American in front of other travelers at the railway station (Hemingway, 1927, p. 277). This threat represents significant resistance within the social context of 1920s gender norms, where women were expected to maintain composure and avoid drawing public attention to private matters. By threatening to violate these norms, Jig demonstrates that she has reached a breaking point where social propriety matters less than establishing firm boundaries against his manipulation.
The screaming threat also invokes the possibility of female emotional expression that male-dominated discourse typically pathologizes as “hysteria” or irrationality (Hannum, 2019). However, within the story’s context, Jig’s threat appears entirely rational—a strategic deployment of one of the few forms of power available to her in this situation. The threat transforms her emotional distress from private burden into potential public spectacle, which would compromise the American’s carefully maintained image of sophisticated control. Literary critic Kenneth Johnston argues that this moment reveals Jig’s understanding of performative resistance: by threatening to make visible what the American wishes to keep hidden, she gains negotiating leverage despite her otherwise subordinate position (Johnston, 1987). The American’s immediate response—attempting to placate her and promising not to pressure her anymore—demonstrates that her threat successfully altered the power dynamic, at least temporarily. This assertion through threatened emotional display represents a complex negotiation of gender norms, where Jig simultaneously invokes and subverts expectations of feminine emotionality to claim agency within a constrained situation.
The Final Assertion: “I Feel Fine”
Jig’s ultimate assertion occurs in the story’s final exchange, when she responds to the American’s continued reassurance with the definitive statement: “I feel fine. There’s nothing wrong with me. I feel fine” (Hemingway, 1927, p. 278). This concluding assertion has generated significant critical debate, with scholars disagreeing about whether it represents genuine resolution, resigned compliance, or ironic resistance (Renner, 1995). However, within the context of Jig’s progressive resistance throughout the conversation, this statement can be understood as her most sophisticated assertion: she reclaims authority over her own emotional and physical state, refusing to accept the American’s definitions of her condition or needs.
The repetition of “I feel fine” mirrors the earlier repetition of “please” in her silence request, but with crucial differences in tone and implication. While the “please” repetition conveyed desperation and pleading, the “I feel fine” repetition suggests firm determination and closure. By asserting wellness, Jig resists the American’s implicit framing of pregnancy as a problem requiring his solution. She refuses to remain in conversation about her feelings, needs, or future, instead claiming self-sufficiency and completeness that excludes his input. Literary critic Stanley Renner interprets this ending as Jig’s recognition that meaningful communication with the American is impossible and that her only viable resistance is to withdraw emotionally while maintaining surface compliance (Renner, 1995). The ambiguity of whether she will actually proceed with the abortion remains unresolved, which itself represents assertion—Jig declines to provide the American with certainty or satisfaction, maintaining instead an opaque interiority that he cannot access or control. This final assertion demonstrates the most sophisticated form of resistance available within Jig’s constrained circumstances: she creates psychological separation from the American’s influence while refusing to provide the explicit confrontation or compliance that he seeks. The story concludes with Jig having reclaimed narrative authority, even if her material circumstances remain problematic.
Literary Context and Feminist Interpretations
Understanding Jig’s assertions requires situating them within both Hemingway’s broader literary project and feminist literary criticism’s engagement with his work. Hemingway’s iceberg theory of writing, articulated in his 1932 non-fiction work “Death in the Afternoon,” holds that the deeper meaning of a story should not be explicitly stated but rather suggested through carefully selected surface details (Hemingway, 1932). In “Hills Like White Elephants,” this technique creates a narrative where Jig’s resistance must be decoded from subtext, indirect commentary, and conversational dynamics rather than explicit statement. Early interpretations of the story, primarily by male critics, often emphasized the American’s perspective and minimized Jig’s agency, reading her as either passive victim or irrational obstacle to reasonable male logic (Hannum, 2019).
However, feminist literary criticism beginning in the 1980s reinterpreted the story, highlighting Jig’s sophisticated resistance strategies and challenging readings that positioned the American as a sympathetic protagonist. Critics like Pamela Smiley and Mary Dell Fletcher demonstrated that careful attention to dialogue patterns, power dynamics, and indirect communication reveals Jig as a complex character actively negotiating limited options rather than passively accepting male control (Smiley, 2008). These feminist reinterpretations illuminate how Jig’s assertions function within the constraints of both 1920s gender norms and Hemingway’s minimalist aesthetic. Her resistance appears subtle not because she lacks agency or strength, but because the narrative situation and social context demand indirect strategies. Contemporary scholarship continues to debate whether Hemingway intended this feminist reading or whether his text produces meanings beyond authorial intention, but the textual evidence for Jig’s progressive assertion and resistance remains compelling regardless of intentionality. Understanding these literary contexts enriches analysis of Jig’s specific moments of resistance, revealing them as technically sophisticated representations of constrained female agency.
Conclusion: The Significance of Subtle Resistance
Jig’s moments of assertion and resistance in “Hills Like White Elephants” demonstrate the complex operations of agency within constrained circumstances. Through questioning authenticity, employing ironic commentary, demanding silence, threatening emotional display, and ultimately claiming self-defined wellness, Jig progressively escalates her resistance to the American’s manipulation. These assertions are significant not despite their subtlety but because of it—they reveal sophisticated strategies for claiming agency within situations where direct confrontation might prove counterproductive or impossible. The story’s enduring power derives partly from this realistic portrayal of how resistance operates under conditions of inequality, where the most effective assertion may involve indirect discourse, strategic ambiguity, and psychological withdrawal rather than explicit confrontation.
Jig’s resistance also illuminates broader themes about communication, power, and gender in intimate relationships. Her progressive assertions reveal the American’s reassurances as hollow and manipulative, exposing the gap between his stated concern for their relationship and his actual prioritization of his own preferences. The story’s ambiguous ending, where Jig’s ultimate decision remains unclear, reinforces that her most significant assertion is not necessarily choosing to keep or terminate the pregnancy, but rather reclaiming authority over her decision-making process and refusing to grant the American certainty or satisfaction. For contemporary readers, Jig’s resistance strategies retain relevance, offering insight into how individuals negotiate agency within unequal relationships and how subtle acts of assertion can accumulate into significant challenges to controlling dynamics. The literary artistry of Hemingway’s minimalist approach, combined with the emotional and ethical complexity of Jig’s situation, ensures that her moments of resistance continue to reward close analysis and generate interpretive discussion nearly a century after the story’s publication.
References
Hannum, H. (2019). “Jig’s real identity: Women in Hemingway’s ‘Hills Like White Elephants.'” The Hemingway Review, 38(2), 89-103.
Hemingway, E. (1927). Hills like white elephants. In Men without women (pp. 69-77). Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Hemingway, E. (1932). Death in the afternoon. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Johnston, K. G. (1987). “Hills Like White Elephants”: Lean, vintage Hemingway. Studies in American Fiction, 15(2), 233-238.
Renner, S. (1995). Moving to the girl’s side of “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 15(1), 27-41.
Smiley, P. (2008). Gender-linked miscommunication in “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 27(1), 7-23.