Nature vs. Nurture in Kindred
One of the difficult things about Kindred is how much of Rufus’s character development was inevitable. Dana from the beginning once she realizes that Rufus is her ancestor attempts to influence him to become a better person that isn’t racist. One of the ways she tries to change his mindset is by asking him to call her “black or negro or even colored” (Butler 61). She then tries to explain the vulgarness of the n-word by comparing it to the example of white trash, but it’s not clear if Rufus fully understood it. Later on, Dana is warned by one of the slaves that Rufus “can turn mean mighty quick” (68). This behavior is explained in conjunction with his father’s temper, which implies that Rufus learned this behavior from his dad or had somehow inherited it from him.
One of the frequent questions that gets brought up is nature vs. nurture. A strong example of the interplay between nature and nurture is with the will of slaves. Slave breakers were employed to break the spirits of slaves so they would be compliant, which shows that they originally had an idea of self respect and dignity that over time gets eroded away until they are obedient. This would imply that nurture triumphs over nature, but the idea of running away for a better future complicates this process since slaves still had hopes and dreams and living in a better place.
Dana hopes that once Rufus’s dad dies that the plantation will become a better place to live in, but once she gets transported back, she finds that little has changed once Rufus has assumed control of the plantation. She sees that he’s “part of the system” (223), especially after he sells Tess. This idea gets complicated when Rufus tells Dana that he had no choice since his dad had arranged for that sale before he died, and she can’t tell if he’s telling the truth or not.
One of the aspects that can be definitively attributed to Dana is Rufus’s understanding of loving Alice. Even though his love for her becomes twisted into a way of control, he seems to want his love to be reciprocated rather than just forced like how his dad viewed black women as stock to put it bluntly. This can be seen when Rufus says, “I could have had her in the bushes years ago if that was all I wanted” (124). He took what Dana told him about interracial relationships and tried to apply it in a way that made sense to him in his time period. His only other role model was his dad, so besides the infrequent visitations from Dana to guide him, he has no idea how he should interact with Alice besides forcefully raping her. He’s used to getting what he wants from his slaves.
It seems like having to come to terms with Rufus' inevitable evolution as he grows is really hard for Dana. She seems to constantly be in denial, excusing his bad behavior, because she remembers the young child who has been abused by his father and hasn't developed a deep racism. I completely agree that this book is a really interesting representation of nature vs nurture because we get to see whether systemic beliefs will win out genuine care from childhood. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the theme of nature versus nurture is present in this novel. It seems that Dana wants to believe that nurture triumphs nature, especially in the beginning of the book. She continuously attempts to convince herself that she can make a subtle difference in Rufus's life, implying that her nurture will change his trajectory. However, as he grows older, it becomes increasingly obvious that the environment he is in has shaped who he is—in other words, nature prevails. Great blog!
ReplyDeleteHi Jonathan, I really like your analysis of Nature vs. Nurture in Kindred! I agree that though Dana often tries to influence Rufus, because of the time period, he grows up to be exactly what she wants to prevent. I feel like, to the reader, this is a bit disheartening because at least I hoped that Rufus would turn out to be semi-decent. I think the thing you said about Rufus trying to parallel his relationship with Alice to Dana's relationship with Kevin is interesting - it really show's how Dana's influence can actually turn out to be bad.
ReplyDeleteHi Jonathan!! I really enjoyed reading your blog post. I find the topic of your blog post very relevant to this novel because we can really see that Dana wants nurture to be used when treating the slaves. I also find it interesting that she wants Rufus to nurture the slaves more when his father died, but he didn't do that. I think that this book explores the idea of nurture, and I think the points you made were really good. Nice Job!!
ReplyDeleteHi Jonathan, I agree on a lot of the things you mentioned in your blog post. I think that it's very interesting that Rufus is depicted as someone that is moldable and has the capabilities to be a good person, but ultimately is turned into a manipulative and evil person by the people around him, especially his father, as well as the norms of his society. Nice job!
ReplyDeleteHi Jonathan! I personally had similar hopes for Rufus as Dana did, and I think a lot of other readers would agree. It was really hard to see him slowly become a terrible person, especially when we see Dana plant early seeds of racial acceptance in his head. I think it's hard not to assume that those seeds will eventually grow into an understanding of racial injustice, but we see Rufus choose to uphold his white supremacist society every chance he gets, which is hard for us to swallow. Great post!
ReplyDeleteDana's attempt to get Rufus to be a little more sensitive in his use of racist slurs to refer to her is a great example of how ultimately limited her influence over him must be: as a little kid, he seems to take her seriously, and her attempt to get him to see her side of the story (asking how he'd like it if she called him "white trash") does seem to get through to him. But he counters by saying that, by the same token, she "should" call him "master" if only to get by in this historical context and not draw undue attention to herself. She doesn't have to "mean" it; she just has to use the word. (Likewise, of course, Rufus doesn't have to "mean it" when he is slightly less racist to Dana--he can just go along with what she wants him to say for the time being.) And then we see how Rufus, as he grows up, never lightens his use of the N-word at all, even around Dana. This effort to exert influence seems like a total failure, even if there is a fleeting moment where Rufus ponders the fact that another kind of world is possible. The influence of this one time-traveling fairy godmother can't outweigh the enormous influence of the society and its values at large.
ReplyDeleteHi Jonathan!! The concept of nature vs. nurture was such an important part of the book, and it was so interesting to observe with Rufus. I feel like usually people frame the other side as crazy, so it was kind of fascinating to see her pry into why he acts the way he does. Rufus was a product of his time, and I wonder if that would've changed if Dana had spent more time with him in his earlier years to teach him that slavery (and racism generally) isn't okay. Great post!!
ReplyDeletehi jonathan! I think a lot of us reading kindred tried to hold onto the possibility that rufus would eventually change his ways. I enjoyed reading your discussion about nature vs. nurture. Dana definitely set up the foundation for future understanding, but sadly the environment that rufus has grew up in has completely overpowered most of the effort that dana has put in. You made some great points and I enjoyed reading your blog.
ReplyDeleteHi Jonathan! I think it's really interesting how often we think that our behavior is inherent and that the morals we live to are just common sense. Butler's discussion of nature vs nurture is definitely one of the most interesting parts of the novel and she shows the importance of nurture. Even Dana's 20th century knowledge isn't enough to protect her from evolving into some behavior from the plantation, and we see the world corrupt Rufus more and more each time we go back in time. Great blog!
ReplyDelete