Do characters in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird construct their own identities?

To Kill a Mockingbird is a masterpiece of American fiction. One of the reasons for this success is its handling of a pressing social issue, namely, racial prejudice. Secondly, the work is structurally layered, allowing readers numerous interpretations. For example, the book can be studied for its socio-economic indications under the Marxist critical framework. It could be studied with equal felicity under the feminist, psychoanalytic or formalistic critical frameworks. To this extent, the novel can be said to be ‘polysemic’. Polysemy is the state of having more than one meaning. Though first coined to describe a linguistic phenomenon, the term has now gained a broader meaning so that it is also applied in discussing authorial intent in literary works. Also implied in the term ‘polysemy’ is the notion that perceptions vary depending on the particular identity of the reader, and “that words are multi-ordinal; these characteristics can lead to or permit conscious or unconscious confusion. The existence of diverging perceptions and language are explained through general semantics. Two significant ideas of general semantics are non-identity and infinity of values. Each of these ideas is manifest in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee.” (Kasper, 2006, p.273) With the help of insights offered by Marxist school of literary criticism, this essay will argue that social class is a major divisive factor in the novel. A central theme of the novel is its characters’ tendency to strongly identify with their race. Just as race separates, the human will is shown to overcome this difference. The decision by Atticus Finch to defend the black Tom Robinson is the most luminous example. Atticus’ defense of the innocent Robinson proves a daunting task. Despite convincing evidence to acquit Robinson from his guilt, the exclusively white jury convicts him all the same. Even the prison officials concoct a fake encounter and shoot Robinson while he was allegedly trying to escape. What is so shocking is that even within the confines of institutions of law and law enforcement, racial identity plays a dominant and destructive role. Clearly, racial prejudice overwhelms notions of fairness and justice espoused by law. (Singley, 2002, p.47) Applying Marxist critical thought to the novel we see how race is strongly correlated with class. This means that all the blacks in the novel are inevitably also poor. This relationship between race and class makes the study of Atticus Finch all that more interesting and important. Atticus Finch is an exception to the typical characterization of white men – those seen in the novel as well as they actually existed in early twentieth century America. It order to deconstruct the formative ingredients behind Atticus Finch’s identity, we have to consider his upbringing, his influences, etc. From the references available in the text, we learn that Atticus Finch was a pious man. He is someone who looked up to the words of the scriptures in both letter and spirit. He brings the same attitude and mindset to his work as a lawyer. For Atticus, the spirit is more important than the literal interpretations of law – a concept he assimilated from his personal realizations of God. The manner in which Atticus brings up his own children is another indication of how his character is constructed. It is fair to assume that cherished values and virtues are inculcated by parents in their children. Just as Atticus’ children Scout and Jem are raised without prejudice or hatred, he in turn must have been raised the same way. So, it is fair to claim that Atticus’ identity development falls outside Marxist literary critique, for there is no trace of identity with class that is central to Marxism. On the other hand, religion and culture play a dominant role in Atticus’ personality makeup - in making him a broad-minded and fair-minded individual. This is what prompts him to defend an innocent black man, who has been wrongly accused of raping Mayella Ewell, a white woman. During the trial, “Atticus provides sufficient evidence for Tom's acquittal and in fact proves that Mayella's father, Bob, is responsible for the marks on her face and neck. However, the all-white jury convicts Tom anyway and later he is shot while trying to "escape" from prison. Bob Ewell is infuriated by the accusations made by Atticus and attacks his children Jem and Scout with a knife as they walk home from a Halloween party. Boo Radley saves the children and fatally stabs Ewell. Boo carries the wounded Jem back to the Finch house and after sitting with Scout for some time, disappears into the Radley house.” (Kasper, 2006, p.274) The study of identities of characters in the story is facilitated through an understanding of General Semantics. Closely related to the ideas introduced by the Frankfurt school and Western Marxists, General Semantics gives rise to the concept of non-identity. Broadly speaking, the theory of non-identity states that each object/person is quite unique. The same is true of words, where they can only be employed as approximations of the actual things they stand for. Extending this theory to the novel, we learn that describing people in generalized terms can be a precarious exercise. For example, the “townspeople and the jury are convinced Tom Robinson is guilty of raping a white girl simply because of their prejudiced view of black Americans. It was unacceptable for a black man to come anywhere near a white woman. If accused of the rape of a white woman, a black man was often lynched. During the trial, when Tom Robinson testifies that he did not rape Mayella and in fact she propositioned him, the jury refuses to believe him because it is a black man's word against a white person's. Tom's character is not considered outside the generalizations made about his race.” (Murray, 2010, p.75) Scenes like these from the novel illustrate how blacks were conferred a generic negative identity. To study the work in the backdrop of a Western Marxist model, Michel Foucault’s conceptualization ‘Panopticon and the Other’ is quite relevant. First articulated in his book ‘Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison’, this model offers a pessimistic view of society, and presents it as “is an infallible design of repression from which no one can escape, at least not without severe repercussions”. (Best, 2009, p.542) This model comes across as deterministic, thereby sapping the main characters Atticus, Scout and Jem of volition and merit. Sociologist Claudia Durst Johnson offers an alternative take on the ‘Other’ in the novel. She notes that individuals arrive at their self-identities through their encounters with external forces – forces that are outside their commonplace lives. As a result of these encounters, they “break the cultural and psychological barriers that imprison them and come to embrace a larger world.” (Best, 2009, p.543) In the cases of Scout and Jem they are still learning the rules of society and their own places in it. The thus “find alien forces in social outcasts and people of other classes. The sense of the Other is apparent in the social development of Scout and Jem, in class, race, and gender prejudices and even in the children's fascination with Arthur "Boo" Radley.” (Best, 2009, p.543) Boo Radley as the most important ‘Other’ is quite interesting, for he belongs to their race. This illustrates the Marxist assertion that social class is one of the most powerful markers of self-identity. Another relevant concept from the Western Marxist school is offered by Z. D. Gurevitch, who has argued that “the awareness of others and their differences from us awakens our realization of our own uniqueness.” (Kreyling, 1998, p.46) In this way, To Kill a Mockingbird can be seen as a ‘coming-of-age’ novel which is about the social maturation of Jem and Scout. But this is not a straight forward process, as the two children had to first understand the society in which they live and the members that comprise it. It is by contrasting with the ‘Other’ that individuals arrive at an understanding of themselves. In the case of Scout and Jem they develop their personalities by miming the behavior of other people in their immediate environment. It is likely that they get to interact with people of same social and economic station, thereby adopting a set of norms accepted by the group. For example, Miss Maudie, Uncle Jack, Atticus and Aunt Amexandra are from a background similar to that of Scout and Jem. In contrast, the Others would include Tom Robinson, the Cunningham family, Calpurnia, the Ewell family and Boo Radley. The Others comprise a diverse group, spread across class and race lines. What helps the formation of the identities of Scout and Jem is the interplay between various Others. This dynamic process “establishes for the children the rules of acceptable behavior and interaction with Others and demonstrates the consequences of not adhering to the guidelines of their own group or ‘section’ (as coined by Foucault)”. (Best, 2009, p.544) Though comparison and contrast are essential to the process of individuation and identity formation, it can so easily lead to stereotyping, bias and prejudice. To Kill a Mockingbird amply demonstrates the negative aspects of identity formation. A clear indication of this tendency is the usage of derogatory terms for blacks. A Marxist critical analysis of the novel leads to evidence of class divisions even among the whites. While the jury represents the white bourgeoisie, the Ewell family is distinctly from the lower rungs. This is evidenced from the dysfunctional family dynamics and the lack of integrity among its members. For example, Mr. Ewell exercises no scruples when he plainly accuses Tom Robinson for the injuries sustained by his daughter, when in fact it was he who was guilty. The Ewells and their lot represent “the mass of southern poor whites from which they came, and they are the causes of racism in southern cultural practices. In To Kill a Mockingbird, they petition Atticus Finch for permission to lynch Tom Robinson. They are turned away, departing sheepishly, by Atticus's stern refusal and Scout's innocent conversation. The "invention" at work here is that the race hatred virulent enough to result in lynching flows from the lower southern classes, not from the bourgeoisie or the gentry.” (Kreyling, 1998, p.176) What Harper Lee is also implying is how whites do not hold any moral high ground for justifying their prejudices against blacks. For example, the shoddy moral standards of the Ewells underscore this point. Just as blacks were referred to in derogatory terms, the white underclass was also treated with contempt. Though racism, especially that virulent manifestation witnessed in the American South, is the central issue in the novel, the class divisions are as acute. Alongside the gross injustice meted out to Tom Robinson, the other victim in the story is Boo Radley who is white. Right from the beginning of the story, Boo is much abused, misunderstood and maligned that he hardly leaves his house. Boo is as discriminated against as Tom is. Both are innocents in a society that rejects, even punishes, those who are different. While Scout denies these distinctions, she lives in a world clearly divided along class lines. Though they are both part of the white working class, Lee distinguishes between the Cunninghams and the Ewells based on their ambition to reach bourgeois status—or, “the degree to which they accommodate themselves to the hegemony of the dominant class”. (Singley, 2002, p.186) Likewise, the young Walter Cunningham prefers to starve than to borrow money from the teacher that he knows he cannot pay back. Mr. Cunningham “diligently pays back his legal debt to Atticus Finch through subsistence crops from his farm. Although Mr. Cunningham is a member of Tom Robinson's potential lynch mob, he politely retreats when faced by Scout's authentic moral presence. In contrast, the Ewells place no value on education, showing up the first day and never coming to school again. Mr. Ewell breaks the law by hunting out of season, and Mayella Ewell breaks the fundamental code of middle-class southern womanhood by desiring the black body of Tom Robinson.” (Singley, 2002, p.186) Rather than look at race divisions as standing in opposition to class divisions, the former can be included into the Marxist critique. This is evidenced in the overwhelming odds and antagonism faced by Atticus Finch in the courtroom. In the poignant courtroom scene toward the end of the novel, Atticus pitches for justice by claiming that though not all people are created equal in ability, they are to be judged equally in a court of law. But his pleas go to unsympathetic ears (a jury composed exclusively of southern whites). In a sad irony, Tom gets justice through the actions of another victim, Boo Radley. This example goes to show that the status of being a victim is in itself a parameter of identification. Across race, class and gender fault lines exposed in the novel there is this expression of solidarity among the victims. It is perhaps in light of the victimhood writ large in the novel that Harper Lee had chosen the mockingbird as the metaphor. This bird was perceived as a symbol of innocence and defenselessness. This identity fits Boo Radley and Tom Robinson perfectly. (Shuman, 2002, p.837) It is the powerful merging of two men, the white Boo Radley and the black Tom Robinson that the book’s most important messages are to be found. When Boo braves the outside world to save the children, “he not only displays courage but also becomes an agent of true justice for the innocent Tom Robinson. He destroys, by protecting the innocent, that which destroys the innocent. In the identities and actions of Boo and Tom, Lee conveys the powerful message that human beings can create a racially balanced society in which justice overrides prejudice. Both men—and others such as Dill and the children—are symbolic ” (Singley, 2002, p.187) In sum, we see how Harper Lee constructs a diverse set of identities – mostly conforming to southern stereotypes. Scout Finch being the main narrator voice in the novel adds a dimension of innocence, for she is just a little girl. As Scout nonchalantly notes, in this world there are all kinds of folks. In a moving passage, Jem explains to Scout how the Maycomb society is divided across groups: "There's four kinds of folks in the world. There's the ordinary kind like us and the neighbors, there's the kind like the Cunninghams out in the woods, the kind like the Ewells down at the dump, and the Negroes." (Lee, as quoted in Murray, 2010, p.75) Although Lee has been criticized by some reviewers for creating identities that reinforce stereotypes, she also adds sufficient distinctive features to each character. From a literary viewpoint, the author herself is above the prejudices displayed by her characters. For instance, she even treats the vulgar and ignorant Mayella Ewell with sympathy. In sum, “Lee's characters are dramatic portrayals of persons and attitudes immersed in a moral battle pitting years of conditioning against what are right.” (Shuman, 2002, p.838) In conclusion, To Kill a Mockingbird constructs people’s identities in an informed and nuanced manner. The book shows some characters as benevolent, a few others ignorant and a whole lot as unfair. Atticus Finch, Heck Tate and Boo Radley clearly come through as heroes. These three white men stand in stark contrast to the rest of their community in upholding that which is noble and just. For example, Tate, in his role as the sheriff, uses his discretion to not reveal the details surrounding Ewell’s death. Atticus Finch being the imposing figure in the story, Lee sketches his identity in greater detail. It is shown that Atticus belongs to the white elites of the town of Maycomb. This position of privilege makes his decision to defend Robinson all the more admirable and exceptional. Atticus is shown to be a father figure to impoverished blacks and whites in the town. Through examples such as these, Lee seems to be telling that “there are always ways to bring about true justice, to avoid victimizing others, and to protect innocent people.” (Singley, 2002, p.187) Lee also pays attention to the construction of identities that are on the periphery of the main plot. Lula, the black separatist member of Calpurnia’s church, is a good example. Through her, Lee articulates the various factors in Black Power politics of the day. Most importantly, though there are numerous instances of people divided along Marxist delineations of class, a few exceptional individuals rise above it and showcase a noble and virtuous humanity. Works Cited Best, Rebecca H. "Panopticism and the Use of "The Other" in To Kill a Mockingbird." The Mississippi Quarterly3-4 (2009): 541+. Print. Kasper, Annie. "General Semantics in to Kill a Mockingbird." Et Cetera3 (2006): 272+. Print. Kreyling, Michael. Inventing Southern Literature. Jackson, MS: University of Mississippi, 1998. Print. Lauret, Maria. Liberating Literature: Feminist Fiction in America. New York: Routledge, 1994. Print. Meyer, David S., Nancy Whittier, and Belinda Robnett, eds. Social Movements: Identity, Culture, and the State. New York: Oxford UP, 2002. Murray, Jennifer. "More Than One Way to (Mis)Read a Mockingbird." The Southern Literary Journal1 (2010): 75+. Print. Shuman, R. Baird, ed. Great American Writers: Twentieth Century. Vol. 6. New York: Marshall Cavendish, 2002. Print. Singley, Bernestine, ed. When Race Becomes Real: Black and White Writers Confront Their Personal Histories. Chicago: Lawrence Hill, 2002. Print. Watson, Harry L., and Larry J. Griffin, eds. Southern Cultures: The Fifteenth Anniversary Reader. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 2008. Print.

Related Posts: