Convoluted Kinship in Kindred

kin·dred [kin-drid]

noun

1. a person's relatives collectively; kinfolk; kin.

2. a group of persons related to another; family, tribe, or race.

3. relationship by birth or descent, or sometimes by marriage; kinship.

4. natural relationship; affinity.

           As I was reading Kindred, I wondered why Octavia Butler chose this title for her book. There could have been so many different titles relating to slavery, to violence, to prejudice, or any number of other themes in the novel. So why Kindred? In the Reader’s Guide at the back of the book, this question was also brought up in number 17. Kinship is clearly a huge theme in the story, but most importantly Butler challenges our societal norms and conceptions about family and how kinship plays a role now. In our current world and society, family is viewed as a person’s rock and foundational support. Rarely is family seen as dangerous, and we have a very closed minded view of what we call the ‘nuclear family’. However, Butler challenges these ideals. In Kindred, Dana’s closest family becomes her ancestors from the days of slavery; she comes to know family members both oppressive and oppressed.

           There comes a strange selfishness based on necessity for Dana. She must preserve her ancestors so that they can produce offspring, eventually leading, years later, to her birth. Thus, Dana must protect and save Rufus, her family. “Still, now I had a special reason for being glad I had been able to save him. After all... after all, what would have happened to me, to my mother’s family, if I hadn’t saved him?” (Butler 29) In modern day, it would be expected that one would of course want to protect their kin. Yet what happens when your family is oppressive to you, as Rufus becomes to Dana? Are they still family, and how are you supposed to act towards them?

What IS family?

           Margaret Weylin is faced with this dilemma due to her husband’s sexual abuse towards his slaves. Mrs. Weylin is painfully aware of the slave children who her husband fathered, yet must turn a blind eye to them. “They had different mothers, but there was a definite resemblance between them. I’d seen Margaret Weylin slap one of them hard across the face. The child had done nothing more than toddle into her path” (Butler 85). Margaret Weylin dealt with this grey area of family through violence, channelling her hurt and anger at her husband into abuse toward children that perhaps could have been hers.

           I have come to the conclusion that the title "Kindred" is filled with challenging of societal norms, double meanings, and irony. Butler challenged what it means to be kin in this novel, and the lengths we sometimes must go to protect our family. The title is also literal, in that Kindred is a story about family ties, family history, and what the definition of family is. We place such importance on kinship in our current society that we often forget about the grey area it can sometimes be accompanied by. This book was full of convoluted interactions and ideas about family, and I believe that Butler did this to remind us that family is often larger than we might think. Dana began in Kindred with one family member; her husband. However, through her experiences in the past, she gained family members in her actual ancestors, however violent they may have been, as well as gaining family in the slave community on the Weyland plantation. Kinship does not have to be the nuclear family that we believe it to be in America today. Family can be, as shown in the fourth dictionary definition, a "natural relationship or affinity".

Are We a Product of Our Environment?

            One of the key issues that Octavia Butler formulates an argument on in Kindred is the idea that all of us are a product of our environment. One of the great philosophical and psychological debates is the role that the environment plays on our development and whether or not we are shaped completely or partly by nature. In the novel, Butler is making the argument that we are almost entirely shaped by our environment, which she portrays through Kevin’s reaction and adaptation to being transported back in time.

            Kevin is the most vivid example of this concept coming to life through the transformation of his character throughout his time spent in the nineteenth century. In the beginning of the story, we are presented with an image of Kevin that is very caring for his wife and is willing to go through almost any hardship for her. Kevin recounts his sister’s assertion that she “wouldn’t have you (Dana) in her house – or me either if I married you” (Butler 110). In this way, he is demonstrating the hardships that he is going through to be with Dana by forswearing his family. While we see that he can be as loving as he is, it is unclear as to whether or not this particular trait, or any of his other traits were a product of his environment or his nature. As the story progresses however, we start to see a different image of Kevin as he is trapped in the past. This transformation is most pronounced when Kevin and Dana return to the present after Rufus almost shot them. Dana runs after Kevin to try to reason with him and when she touched him, she described him as having “glared at me as though I was some stranger who had dared to lay hands on him” (194). While this could be taken at face value alone, she goes on to compare the expression as “something I was used to seeing on Tom Weylin. Something closed and ugly” (194). These statements taken in conjunction reference a far greater implication than a reaction to a simple stranger. There is a strong implication that Kevin has picked up one of the parts of the south that he seemed dead set against when he first set foot there. He has picked up racist tendencies which are embodied in his reaction to Dana’s touch. He did not react that way because she may have seemed a stranger, but because she was black. He had become so influenced by the superiority of the whites in the past that his previously held ideals of equality were overridden. In this way, we was shaped by his environment, not at all by nature.

What is the Law?

The question of the law is brought up in “Eli, the Fanatic” with Eli taking one view on it and Tzuref taking a second. Eli sees the law as simply the law, albeit one that can be bended to fit certain circumstances. On the other hand, Tzuref sees the law as an ever changing set of dictates with some constants, mostly religious terms, which are to be endlessly reinterpreted to find the correct meaning of them. However, the reality of the law is seen to conform to neither of these views. Instead, the law is simply the rules that are put in place by the people with the power to enforce them.

            When talking trying to convince Tzuref to move, Eli argues that “‘It’s a matter of zoning…we didn’t make the laws’” (Roth 251) In this case, the law that Eli is arguing is truly the law because the American government had the power to force Tzuref to either move or be arrested if the case was brought up in court. When Tzuref queries “When is the law that is the law not the law” (Roth 251)? He is telling Eli that he believes that such a thing will not come to pass. Tzuref is saying that while that is the law in wording, it is not the word in truth because all laws are changing. In a way this is true, but that is because the law changes as those in power change. In this case, the zoning laws were not going to change in such a short period of time.

            The main problem with Tzuref’s arguments about the law was that he attached an ephemeral quality to them, saying that they do not really apply in the way that it seems they will and that they will not always be there. I think that this puts too much store into his religious teachings where the Talmud is created, but only creates laws that God has the power to exert over its breakers, particularly in Woodenton. While it is not wrong to abide by those rules, it is foolish to believe that they apply to all rules that are made by man.

Roth, Philip. Eli, the Fanatic. Goodbye, Columbus. Toronto: Bantam, 1969. N. pag. Print.

Divided Between Two Worlds

In The No Name Woman, Maxine Hong Kingston illustrates her Chinese heritage through a story regarding her aunt’s banishment from the family. The story is told through two different points of view, beginning with the cautionary version of the narrator’s mother. The narrator then imagines her aunt’s ordeal, including taking orders from a rapist and primping in order to lure in her man. However, Kingston’s best and most vivid fantasy is that of her aunt deciding to take her and her child’s life in order to spare them both a life without purpose.

The No Name Woman

Kingston depicts the No Name Woman wandering to a pigsty and giving birth to the child there; a symbol of her complete and utter banishment from her family and former life. After a brutal birth, the woman vows to “protect this child as she had protected its father” (Kingston 15). The logical conclusion of this vow is that she will take care of the child and raise it even without a family. However, in a strange twist of events “she picked up the baby and walked to the well” (Kingston 15). By taking her newborn daughter with her to the plunging depths of the well, the No Name Woman believed that she showed the utmost care as a mother. “Carrying the baby to the well was loving. Otherwise abandon it. Turn its face into the mud. Mothers who love their children take them along.” (Kingston 15) Kingston’s aunt truly believed that she was taking care of her daughter, so that she would not be forced to live a life without family and full of disgrace.

This idea of loving mothers taking their children along, whether it be to their death or not, draws a parallel to Kingston’s relationship with her own mother. Attempting to fit in to the American life that her mother brought her to, Kingston struggles to find the common ground between her heritage and her current society. “I have tried to turn myself American-feminine.... my aunt used a secret voice, a separate attentiveness” (Kingston 11). Like her aunt, the narrator also uses a ‘secret voice’, one voice of two mixed cultures trying to find her way. This is partly why the suicide scene is the most important of Kingston’s fantasies; it relates directly back to her experiences and struggles. Just as her aunt was torn between two worlds-- that of tradition and that of lust-- Kingston was divided by her American life and her Chinese heritage.

Torn

Due to the fact that everyone in her family refuses to tell her any details about her aunt, the narrator of “No Name Woman” has to imagine several possible scenarios behind the ruination and subsequent suicide that befell the young women. Given the setting, a Chinese village in the late 1920’s, both the narrator and reader can surmise that the aunt had no rights as a woman. Therefore, it is not surprising that she was to be severely punished for any indiscretion that the village witnessed. The question that the narrator wishes to answer is what the circumstances of her aunt’s life were prior to becoming pregnant. By imagining different ways in which her aunt’s life may have played out, the narrator reveals various societal injustices that made it nearly impossible for a woman to live her own life. Whether her pregnancy was the result of a rape or a romantic affair, the young woman in the story was never anything but a victim. The interpretation from the narrator that had the biggest impact on me was that in which her aunt was raped, probably repeatedly, by a man in the village and that that man was not only protected, but also free to chastise her the same as everyone else. In a gross contradiction, the “No Name Woman” has no choice but to obey orders given to her by men and that is what leads her to commit the adultery that causes her ruin.

This interpretation is powerful because it shows the extent to which a woman can be trapped by her conflicting roles, a feeling that can span across time as well as distance. First, the aunt knew her place below men, and second, she knew her duty to the husband whom the narrator imagines she had only known one night. Given the possibility of a man other than her husband requesting and/or demanding sex from her, there was no right answer; she had no power to say no to other men, despite that meaning her infidelity. As the narrator describes, “The other man was not, after all, much different from her husband. They both gave orders: she followed” (7). This line shows the complete lack of power that her aunt had. Furthermore, once the act of adultery was committed, the only one at fault was the aunt herself. Sadly, women are all too often seen as having some level of responsibility in being raped. Despite the extremity of the aunt’s situation, one can see how her story can parallel women from all different times and places. The feeling of being torn between opposing roles is relevant to every woman to some degree. As the narrator goes on to discuss her own dueling roles and identities as a Chinese-American girl, her aunt’s story in the context of having no clear choice is even more fitting. The narrator’s mother tells her stories with the purpose of teaching her or warning her, and she is able to take the stories and make them applicable to her own struggles.

Try To Understand

Society’s view of suicide is contradictory in that it remains largely taboo but at the same time it is a topic of fascination for many people. This is especially true in terms of attempted, and failed, suicide. It is difficult to know how to react to someone who tried to take their own life, and is alive to tell about it.  People often tout near-death experiences as proof of miracles or divine intervention, but there are different connotations when the near-death in question was a suicide. There are many reports of people being happy and relieved at being given a second chance, but in the poem “Lady Lazarus,” by Sylvia Plath, the speaker describes the pain of surviving when you didn’t want to. First, she describes her feeling of being presented as a spectacle; “The peanut-crunching crowd/ Shoves in to see/ Them unwrap me hand and foot/ The big strip tease” (Plath). Given this image, the reader can surmise that there was little concern for the speaker’s feelings or emotional state. Had the speaker just survived an accident or illness, a sense of excitement or spectacle from others may have been more appropriate, but instead this goes to show the lack of social awareness and tact when it comes to suicide. In the wake of her attempted suicide, the speaker in the poem feels patronized by all of the people who suddenly took interest in her and exposed because of the attention they gave her. There is also a sense of superficiality in people’s attention; where there is amusement and incredulity there is a lack of true concern. The speaker goes on to relate her feelings to the mass killings during the holocaust. Due to the magnitude of the holocaust, it is fair to say that there was little concern for each person as an individual; they were merely parts of a bigger whole. The references to “Herr Doktor,” and “Herr Enemy,” allude to the Nazi doctors who performed tests on their subjects in concentration camps (Plath). Again, this suggests that the speaker in the poem feels as though she as a person means very little to those around her. This raises the question of what is more substantial: the mind or the body, the spirit or the physical.  From the reactions of those around her, the speaker believes that her value to them comes from the entertainment that she provides them. She is not respected as an individual nor is she treated as a person in need of help. Plath attempts to show the constraint that is necessary in dealing with suicide and the isolation that one can feel after having survived it. It is a matter that deserves awareness as well as more thought on a personal level.

Plath, Sylvia. “Lady Lazarus.” Ariel. 1966. Print.

Bridging the Slavery Gap: Frederick Douglas Gives Way to the Realities of Slavery

The horrific accounts of Frederick Douglas in his narrative portray a world quite different than our own. Heavily laden with violence and extreme torture, the slave age is depicted through the eyes of one of its own victims. The intriguing concepts of slavery brought to life by Douglas shined a light on the dark realities of the complete dehumanization of it’s victims, particularly in the violent and immoral treatment of women.  

Throughout his novel Douglas continually describes the conditions of the slaves as animalistic, taken down to a mere brute. Separated from the humanistic aspects of the rest of the Southern population. The African slaves transform to property, not people. Animals who must be put in their place and trained to obey, even by violent force. “After crossing her hands, he tied them with a strong rope, and led her to a stool under a large hook in the joist, put in for the purpose. He made her get upon the stool, and tied her hands to the hook”(52). Hung up and tortured like a disobedient animal, she is treated like no better than such by another human being. These days we would consider this inhumane torture and not an acceptable form of punishment for anyone. But because of her social standing as a black slave, she was legally able to be put through whatever treatment her “owner” saw fit. The idea that one can even be owned by another is a completely foreign concept to our world today, but somehow thrived as a normal condition in this time.

Douglas’ audience being mainly white upperclass and those of the emerging middle class, they lived lives with very set and exact gender roles. White women were expected to remain pure, raise children, and keep religion alive within the home. But black women were completely stripped of the ability to perform any of these matronly duties. The unspoken sexual relationships of women and their slave owners becomes of vital importance to understanding the perils of black women. Seen as “breeders” by some, the role of a black women was simply to reproduce more children to be owned without purchase by their masters. Masters were often the father of a majority of their young slaves, as was the case with Douglas himself. In regards to his parentage, he simply regards that “The opinion was also whispered that my master was my father” (48). By performing these sexual acts with women they were not married to, they destroyed their purity. After the birth of a child, more often then not the mother would be sold or traded to a different slaveholder in order to separate mother and child, eliminating any threat of familial relations and affection. “Frequently, before the child has reached it’s twelfth month, the mother is taken from it, and hired out to some farm a considerable distance off...” (48).  Because of this there was no home to keep up, no children to raise or family to devote to God. None of the duties of a women were even possible to carry out by black women. By taking away what makes them a women, you strip away their humanity. A woman cannot be expected to perform the duties set to them by society when they are completely denied from them.

In one of Douglas’ most powerful and shocking personal accounts, he speaks of the brutal beating of his Aunt Hester. The gruesome and disgusting treatment of her pulls at the heartstrings of Douglas’s readers because of her shockingly inhumane torture conducted at the hands of a fellow human being. Although considered mere property by society, Hester is described as “having very few equals, and fewer superiors, in personal appearance, among the colored or white women of our neighborhood” (52). Caught in the arms of another slave, Hester is brutally beaten by Douglas’s master. She is severely beaten by her master, in a way described so artfully by Douglas, “The louder she screamed, the harder he whipped; and where the blood ran fastest, there he whipped longest. He would whip to make her scream and whip to make her hush” (51). This mirroring of text creates the effect of the whip itself being pulled back and forth, causing extreme pain and agony with each pull. Creating such violent imagery makes the scene real in the eyes of his white readers. By setting up a personal familial relationship with this women, Douglas makes her come alive. She becomes to the readers someones family and blood, someone they care deeply about, not just a simple piece of property.

Frederick Douglas continually challenged the justification of slavery by proving to the white populations that a black person is just as physically, mentally, and emotionally capable as a black person. That they are not animals to be trained and hands to do the dirty work, but real life beings who think, feel, and wonder. By describing such a gruesome scene being taken out on a mere women in a time when women were seen as so fragile and pure, Douglas puts slavery into perspective. Not only is it inhumane and detrimental to all society, it is morally wrong. Men who are supposed to love and protect women from the evils of this world become that very evil with slavery. The sacred relationship of mother and child is ripped at the seam, the family life demolished.  The pure essence of what separates man from animal, destroyed. All of this solely because of the color of your skin.