Acting and Assimilation are Synonyms in Kindred
Acting and Assimilation are Synonyms in Kindred
Oftentimes introduced as a means of subtle integration into an environment, assimilation in Octavia Butler’s Kindred flips this conventional notion, instead acting as a mechanism that mobilizes throughout the novel. Protagonists Dana and Kevin undergo alternating instances of assimilation—one into the progressive landscape of 1976, and one into the heavily racially polarizing world of the early 19th century. To what extent that assimilation plays a role in influencing Dana and Kevin’s behavior, however, is a more difficult idea to consider. This question requires a careful interrogation of Butler’s usage of predetermination, science fiction, and human behavior to conclusively dissect.
What complicates this novel is Dana and Kevin’s alternation between two vastly distinct environments. In 1976, unalienable rights, such as suffrage and racial freedom, are universal. On the other hand, the early 19th-century features a strict patriarchy, where bondage is omnipresent and violence is the norm. In two worlds where adjustment is necessary to assimilate to either, realizing this distinction later proves as significant as recognizing the racial disparities and enjoyed freedoms between Dana, a black woman, and Kevin, a white man. Interracial marriage in the 19th-century is met with vitriol and the couple is forced to confront these preconceived notions when transitioning into the past and then back into the future.
At a first glance, Dana seems to acknowledge that although assimilation into the 1800s certainly influences present behavior, her and Kevin were still “watching history happen around [them]. And [they] were actors” (98). Although directly submerged into the past, Dana narrates as if she is behind a glass door—discernible and invisible at the same time. However, Dana begins fearing that behaviors such as “happily playing whore for [her] supposed owner” are subtly impacting her present-day persona (97). As the novel seeps on and Kevin integrates into bands of slaveholding white males for longer periods, Dana and the reader are forced to pinpoint when a behavior influenced by an environment is no longer controllable—and when acting truly becomes assimilation.
I agree with you that the vastly different environments that Dana and Kevin are transported into change their characteristics even as they try to control it. Often than not, the readers have to decide whether the two character's actions are of 1976 or the antebellum South. Great blog post.
ReplyDeleteHi Robert,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points. Butler creates an important discourse on when Dana is "acting" and when she can distance herself from her 19th century environment. When Dana carries out the duties and lives as a slave, when can she "act" and when is she assimilated? This intentional blur synonymizes acting and assimilation. When does Dana's environment fully assimilate her into history, and when can she still distance herself?
I agree with the points you made. The different eras Dana and Kevin are placed in result in characteristic change, despite attempting to control it. It can be difficult to distinguish between assimilation and acting, leading to a blurring of their similarities. Great post!
ReplyDeleteGood stuff Robert. I think this blog post was excellent, I agree with your ideas and think that the fact that Butler doesn't necessarily emphasize when Dana is acting or not symbolizes the blur between acting and assimilation. Keep up the excellent work Robert!!!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the ideas you pose, Robert! Trying to contrast when Dana and Kevin are acting vs. if they've become assimilated with their environment is a difficult task, especially as the story progresses. It leaves wondering whether they'll ever be the same again after this whole ordeal ended, and as Butler suggests with forcing Dana to lose her arm, it seems they will forever be scarred by this experience, both physically and mentally.
ReplyDeleteThe dynamics around where Dana sleeps, which ironically cause her "shame" even though she has no reason to "allow" Tom Weylin to make her feel shame, are a good example of this troubling "assimilation" to the slavery context--she lacks any ability to control how she is viewed BY Weylin, so the "shame" is real, even if her rational mind rejects it completely.
ReplyDeleteAn even better example, perhaps, might be her sleeping on a pallet on the floor, or the tedious and exhausting labor she has to perform every day. If you sleep on a pallet on the floor every night, to the point where you *get used to it*, and when you wake you spend your entire day in service of the Weylin family, and you have to monitor your behavior and words to not alienate anyone on either side, or face violent consequences--in what sense are you NOT a slave? The day-to-day tedium of this "acting" is what crosses over into actual slavery. In what sense is Dana only "acting" like she's sleeping on a pallet, waking up with actual sore joints after a terrible night's sleep?
We see this troubling assimilation in evidence when she finds herself feeling relief upon seeing the plantation again near the start of "The Storm," when she calls it "home." Or later in this same long visit, when she's sleeping on a pallet on Margaret's floor and doesn't complain at all. She's getting used to it, or assimilating into the local culture.