Ann duCille makes a lot of valid points about the ways in which Their Eyes Were Watching God is not a clear cut romance or a story of a woman's triumph over the patriarchy. However, on page 121, I felt that duCille challenged the validity of the love shared between Janie and Tea Cake when she said, "[Janie's] final thoughts are not of self but of Tea Cake, who remains the essential medium of meaning in her life, and, perhaps, the last illusion." I disagree that her relationship with Tea Cake could be an illusion, though I do agree that it was fraught with instances of patriarchal domination.
The duCille passage brought to mind the passage from the novel where Tea Cake hits Janie. This part of the novel, and the way in which the narrator addresses it, has always seemed an unresolved issue of violence in their marriage. On page 147, the narrator says "being able to whip her reassured him in possession. ... It aroused a sort of envy in both men and women." The envy of the men and women struck me, but the narrator's refusal to dehumanize Tea Cake after he hits Janie in an attempt to dominate her is also thought-provoking. Rather than seeing the romantic elements of Tea Cake as an illusion or the violent elements of Tea Cake as villainous, the narrator seems to ask us to understand that in their eyes this was love. Other chapters show that Tea Cake really wanted to be good to Janie, however, within the strictures of the system duCille discusses, this beating the only way he knew how to treat her under the circumstances.This is not to justify his actions, but rather to complicate our understanding of Tea Cake and Janie (and those who envied them for it).
In a way, I think duCille's point is close to my own, which is especially clear on page 123 where she says, "is Hurston demonstrating yet again how even independent-minded women can be captured, bound, diminished, and domesticated by patriarchal ideology and romantic mythology that suborne abuse when viewed of "true love"? From this mindset, it could also be asked: is Hurston demonstrating yet again how even a well-intentioned and loving husband can be brutalized by and ultimately succumb to a patriarchal ideology that understands this behavior as "true love"? These questions pointedly places the blame on ideology rather than Tea Cake himself, who is as much a product of this system as Janie is a victim of it. This, to me, is made clear by the envy of their peers, who saw the beating as a noble and loving thing to do.
I think duCille is too quick to focus on the negative aspects of Janie's relationship with Tea Cake rather than using them to show the complexity of a loving relationship within the confines of a patriarchal ideology. Janie and Tea Cake had the closest thing to ideal true love in the novel because he was willing to see her as an equal in many respects. However, this was complicated by his own human flaws as well as the ideology of patriarchal dominance.
Rachel, this is a really engaging post. I like how you challenged duCille's reading by saying that she focuses on the negative aspects of the relationship between Janie and Tea Cake without really acknowledging the confines of patriarchal ideology itself. I had not thought about duCille's article in this way even though it did come off as little one-sided to me. Thanks for pointing this out; I think your observation makes complete sense.
ReplyDeleteI particularly enjoyed the question that you put forth in response to DuCille's article, which was: "From this mindset, it could also be asked: is Hurston demonstrating yet again how even a well-intentioned and loving husband can be brutalized by and ultimately succumb to a patriarchal ideology that understands this behavior as "true love"?"
And, I would like to raise another point. I wonder what we can make of Tea Cake's exchange with Sop-de Bottom about beating Janie. I think it speaks to your point about patriarchal identity. Even though the quote I am about to include is from Sop de-Bottom, I think it shows how both men view women in regard to their skin color and submissiveness and therefore, how this mindset constructs their patriarchal ideology.
I have a different edition of the book, but this passage comes up in Chapter 17:
"Tea Cake, you sho is a lucky man," Sop-de-Bottom told him. "Uh person can see every place you hit her [Janie]. Ah bet she never raised her hand tuh hit yuh back, neither. Take some uh dese ol’ rusty black women and dey would fight yuh all night long and next day nobody couldn’t tell you ever hit ‘em. Dat’s de reason Ah done quit beatin’ mah woman. You can’t make no mark on ‘em at all. Lawd! Wouldn’t Ah love tuh whip uh tender woman lak Janie. Ah bet she don’t even holler. She jus’ cries, eh, Tea Cake?"
Here, we can see that Sop-de Bottom favors beating a "tender woman." A "tender woman" seems to signify two key things here: a woman who possesses skin light enough where beat marks are visible and a woman who is docile. One can infer that this woman is light skinned because in the beginning of the quote, Sop-de Bottom says: "Take some uh dese ol’ rusty black women and dey would fight yuh all night long and next day nobody couldn’t tell you ever hit ‘em. Dat’s de reason Ah done quit beatin’ mah woman. You can’t make no mark on ‘em at all." The fact that a woman is "rusty" in color and one "couldn't tell you ever hit 'em" is one of the reasons he stopped beating his women. Conversely, a "tender woman" just cries if she is beaten and she doesn't even put up a fight.
Tea Cake is the "lucky man" in this instance. Usually "lucky man" is a phrase that is used when a man has a woman that stands by his side, etc; however, here, the phrase is used because he has woman that he can beat and the markings on her body will show for it. So, in part, I think this shows the twisted viewpoints that encompass this patriarchal ideology of marriage, ie. true love. If both men think beating a "tender woman" is okay because her skin is fair and she is docile, then we have to question, do the think they are doing anything bad? It seems like their mindset supports their actions. I think this speaks to your point about the confines of patriarchal ideology/dominance by showing another instance in which their mindset shapes the way they view true love/the treatment of women.
I too was intrigued by DuCille’s question surrounding Janie and Tea Cake’s relationship: “Is Hurston demonstrating yet again how even independent-minded women can be captured, bound, diminished, and domesticated by patriarchal ideology and romantic mythology that suborne abuse when viewed of ‘true love’?” I agree with Rachel’s statement that it’s very important to keep in mind that “in their eyes this was love,” and I would like to push her point even further. Hurston writes of an incredibly complex love and abuse filled relationship with incredibly complex, multifaceted characters. By pulling off this incredible task as an author, she not only has demonstrated a very messy relationship, but a very real one as well. This isn’t a novel about how an independent woman either triumphed or was victimized. And as DuCille points out on page 121, to look at the novel in such a binary lens is to do the novel a great disservice. Tea Cake and Janie’s relationship was complicated, and applying greater systematic rules of what it means to be a woman in a heterosexual relationship is both irrelevant and impossible.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a parallel in this idea that brings us back to the Mcintosh article from the beginning of class. Particularly where she discusses how privilege damages everyone in the system that awards it.
ReplyDeleteI think the point you are making here can be a great example of this. "is Hurston demonstrating yet again how even a well-intentioned and loving husband can be brutalized by and ultimately succumb to a patriarchal ideology that understands this behavior as 'true love'?"
I think using Mcintosh's argument, when looking at this as a widespread cultural idea we can see how the poisonous ideas of patriarchal masculine violence infect a man who we would otherwise view as a loving husband.
Tea Cake certainly fills a positive role in many ways for Janie acting as the first example of someone who sees her as a human and treats her with at least some level of respect. One point of this I found particularly powerful was when he taught her how to play checkers and complimented her after saying that she would someday be a good player. When he says "you got good meat on yo' head" it is the first time we see in the text someone giving her a genuine compliment about her intelligence. It is then rather surprising to see him act in such a way violent and negative way to Janie. I agree that the dominant cultural ideas come into play corrupting an otherwise good man into resorting to abuse.
However, while we can identify cultural ideas as the source of wrongdoing, I think we should be careful of exonerating the perpetrators of terrible acts on those grounds. While he is acting on the dominant cultural ideas when he strikes Janie, that does not mean that he isn't acting in an oppressive way. If anything, a person who has such positive views is someone we should expect to act better than this. While Tea Cake is being damaged by this system as well, he is still the oppressor in this situation and is responsible for his individual actions.
I think it is important that we identify the ways that men are damaged and corrupted by this system but also simultaneously make sure that we hold them accountable for oppressive acts.