العودة

Spectrums of Love in Toni Morrison’s Sula: an Intersectional Feminist Approach

Raghad Al Rumi

The theme of love has been widely portrayed and dissected in literature since its genesis. Love has been depicted in various forms, such as romantic love, sexual love, familial love, platonic love, and unrequited love. Moreover, it can be interpreted according to its beholder’s understanding and experience of love. Due to the modern, popular culture depiction of love, it has been reduced to a Hallmark sentiment associated with shallow confessions of love at the end of romantic movies. However, love’s profound impact on literature is a statement of its intricate concept.

In an interview titled the Seams Can’t Show, conducted in 1977, Morrison shares with her readers what it means to be a writer and what does the act of writing mean to her; she dissects her writing process, her novels, and characters. In addition, she states that even though her themes vary, at the centre of her works there are two fundamental themes: beauty and love, “Beauty, love . . . actually, I think, all the time that I write, I'm writing about love or its absence. Although I don't start out that way.".

In the literary field, Morrison is well known for her great ability to manoeuvre and depict violence and ferocity through her characters’ actions; the author states in the her interview that we are all violent creatures, at least in some part, that is why it is important to explore themes of violence in her art by pushing every emotion to its final consequence. However, this violence is not meaningless nor arbitrary for it all stem out of love, “All about love . . . people do all sorts of things, under its name, under its guise.

The violence is a distortion of what, perhaps, we want to do.” (Bakerman 60). Morrison’s acclaimed second novel Sula, published in 1973, explores subjects of motherhood, friendship, and society; moreover, through these subjects, she weaves an intricate pattern of the concepts of love and violence, making readers question the connection of these concepts and their subjects. This paper is going to explore the complexity of the theme of love and its correlation with violence in Morrison’s novel Sula as depicted through the characters of Eva Peace, Sula Peace, and Nel Wright. Moreover, it will analyse the way love shapes their personalities and the dynamic of their relationships by using intersectional feminist lenses.

During the twentieth century the concept of intersectionality was developed by advocates and scholars of Black feminism; it started as a social movement to advocate for Black women's and marginalised groups' interests in the United State. Kimberlé Crenshaw, an American civil rights advocate, is credited with coining the term intersectionality to describe the way various forms of social, racial, and gender inequalities form multidimensional experiences and create obstacles that are not always understood by conventional ways of reasoning (Gopaldas 90).

Sula opens with a description of the setting, a neighbourhood called the Bottom; contrary to its name, it is situated at the top of a hill. The Bottom is filled with patches of blackberry and nightshade–a poisonous plant that can be used in the production of herbal medicines. Morrison opens her novel with an intersectional theatric of contradiction to notify the reader of the paradoxes and ambiguities the narrative carries as its centre, which sets the ground for the exploration of complex intersectional identities and experiences.

An excellent demonstration of love’s paradox is the Character of Eva Peace, whose name is an allegory to the biblical figure of Eve. Eva’s house is constructed with public spaces and open rooms, thus extending her matriarchal role to the community and the house’s varied occupants; it is a centre for old men seeking emotional and intellectual support from Eva, newly-wed couples needing free rooms to stay at, and ostracised individuals (Morrison 37).

It could be argued that Eva's acceptance and the open structure of her household is a response to her husband’s, BoyBoy, emotional and physical desertion; she fills her house with different individuals and is ardent about the company of men in general. BoyBoy's abandonment does not influence her love and tolerance for men, she still maintains an enthusiastic attitude and respect for them; which Yijin Zhu argues is a reflection of her innately nurturing motherhood (Eva’s Power 442).

In addition, this open space Eva creates, establishes a small community in which she is its chieftain, she is the only one who has a say in who to accept or reject–in this small community no one can leave nor hurt her the way BoyBoy did. Moreover, Eva adopts three boys whom she names all Dewey, each one is from a different background: Dewey one has a deeply black skin, Dewey two is light-skinned with freckled face and red hair, Dewey three is half Mexican with chocolate skin and black bangs. She also gives a small room in her kitchen to an alcoholic, white, and timid man, whom she sarcastically names Tar Baby (Morrison 38-40).

Eva’s house is a symbol for her role as a care-taker who accepts all and any with no regard to their background and race; the house and its inhabitant are a mismatch of features and characters. Additionally, the intersectional economic and social issues of Eva's time play a major role in shaping her severe character and stern depiction of love; not only that, her resilient character is a testament of the strength of her generation of women, they lived in hard times that required hard solutions. The Bottom is a community of women-centred families, for those women most days are severe and hard days that they live through with anger and determination, but never with despair because they believe that giving up is beneath them (Pruitt 188).

One of the issues women of the Bottom face is spousal abandonment, which is a common occurrence in their lives–after the desertion of her husband, Eva is left destitute and penniless with three children: Hannah, Pearl, and Ralph “Plum”. As means to secure the safety and welfare of her children, Eva mutilates her leg by a train to obtain insurance money (Morrison 31).

This incident gives the reader a clear picture of Eva's ferocious maternal love and tendency to choose desperate solutions to desperate circumstances. The narrative continues to show more of this in Eva’s treatment of her son, Plum, after his return from the war–a broken man addicted to heroin, and always seeking to return to the safety and oblivion of his mother’s womb “he wanted to crawl back in my womb and well . . . I ain’t got the room no more even if he could do it.” (Morrison 71).

Eva, unable to see her son reduced to a state of wretchedness and near infancy, decides to drown Plum in kerosene and burn him to death. In his senseless state, Plum does not recognise what is happening to him, believing himself to be in “Some kind of baptism, some kind of blessing” (Morrison 47).
This atrocious act Eva commits is born out of deep love and pity for her son, for she does not want him to drown further into misery and continue to deteriorate into a state of babyhood. Another manifestation of Eva’s violent love and desperation is shown in her reaction when she witnesses her daughter Hannah dancing in flame, she throws herself from the balcony of her bedroom in an attempt to save her daughter (Morrison 75).

The burning of Hannah can be viewed as a form of cosmetic retribution on Eva's action towards Plum. Ironically, the leg Eva sacrifices for her children, which symbolises her fierce love, is the reason she could not reach Hannah fast enough. Eva is a good example of what Morrison calls violence as distortion, as stated before, all of Eva’s actions are the result of ferocious love; which illustrates the way people’s circumstances and life experiences shape the way they express emotions. Eva’s violent love is the product of the harsh circumstances she lived through, especially her sustained hatred for her estranged husband, BoyBoy, “it was hating him that kept her alive and happy.” (Morrison 37).

The narrative continues to illustrate love’s manifestations between presence and absence, and the most prominent depiction is maternal love. Hannah’s and Eva’s relationship is distraught, the daughter is doubtful of her mother’s love for her and her siblings, Pearl and Ralph “Plum”. She questions her mother's love, especially after her mother’s treatment of Plum.

This is revealed in her conversation with Eva:

“Mamma, did you ever love us?”
[...]
“I mean, did you? You know. When we was little.”
Eva’s hand moved snail-like down her thigh toward her stump, but stopped short of it to realign a pleat. “No. I don’t reckon I did. Not the way you thinkin’.”
[...]
“I didn’t mean that, Mamma. I know you fed us and all. I was talkin’ ’bout something else. Like. Like. Playin’ with us. Did you ever, you know, play with us?”
“Play? Wasn’t nobody playin’ in 1895. Just ’cause you got it good now you think it was always this good? [...] what you talkin’ ’bout did I love you girl I stayed alive for you” (Morrison 68-69).

Their conversation reveals that unlike her mother’s perspective on maternal love, which is demanding and needing constant sacrifices, Hannah views it in a gentler and more affectionate light.
Nevertheless, Hannah is still her mother’s daughter and the product of a malfunctioned depiction of love—if Eva’s love is brutal, Hannah’s is neglectful, almost non-existent.
After the death of her husband, Hannah uses casual sex with strange men as a substitute for the marital love she misses, in this regard, she pays more attention to her physical and emotional needs.
Whereas when it comes to Sula’s–her daughter–needs, she is indifferent and extremely absent, which impacts Sula’s relationship with her mother. Hannah is aware of her lack of feelings towards her daughter; while conversing with her friends, Patsy and Valentine, she confesses that although she feels maternal love towards her daughter, Hannah does not like Sula, to which her friends articulate having similar feelings towards their children (Morrison 57).

Upon overhearing this, Sula is fundamentally changed, realising that if she cannot expect unconditional love from her mother, she cannot expect it from the rest of the world (Putnam 34). This change in Sula can be noted in her lack of reaction during the commotion of Hannah’s burning scene, the girl merely stands in the background, watching with interest, unfazed by her mother’s misfortune (Morrison 78). Additionally, Patsy and Valentine’s agreement with Hannah’s statement reveals the community’s attitude towards maternal love and childcare.

This incident and Sula's female predecessors influence her perception on marital and sexual relationships, being surrounded by examples of failed marriages with absent (whether intentionally or unintentionally) fathers and husbands, formed Sula's conviction that marital commitment has no actual meaning.

Likewise, Bakerman states that due to witnessing Hannah's accumulated succession of lovers, Sula treats sexual relationships as a casual, physical activity rather than an act of love (Failures of Love 550). Because of the emotional gap between her and her mother, and the communal normalisation of fatherly/spousal abandonment, Sula defies social norms by continuing to show a true freedom of choice, which is a male privilege in the Bottom community.

To elaborate, the men of the Bottom are not tied by a marital connection, they are allowed by their society to come and leave their families whenever it suits them, and this male freedom appeals to Sula's needs.
Ironically, Sula’s attitude regarding romantic relationships starts to alter during her affair with Ajax, the community's philanderer; who awakens a love of possessiveness in her.
Unwittingly, Sula sees in Ajax a reason to settle down and depend on something or someone else other than herself, once he notices this behaviour in her, he abandons her–the repeated pattern of the men of the Bottom.
This new aspect of love Sula develops could be seen as the spark of inner growth and acceptance of others, especially after the incident with her mother and the realisation that she cannot rely on another self.

However, Ajax’s abandonment was not the only breaking point to Sula, it was the discovery of his birth name, Albert Jacks–which made her realise that she did not truly love him, for she did not know him (Morrison 135). On a different note, the relationship of Helen Wright and her daughter Nel, who is a source of comfort and the main purpose of her mother’s life.

Although Helene accepts the role of motherhood with gratitude, her maternal love is conditioned with discipline and control, which is the result of Helene’s strict and religious upbringing under her grandmother’s watchful eye. As a consequence of growing up and feeding on a restricted love, Nel’s personality is repressed, and her emotional growth is hindered (Morrison 18).

Moreover, Helene's severeness is her way of distancing herself from her mother, Rochelle, who is a Creole prostitute that plays no part in her daughter's life. Helene rejects any association with her mother; she refuses to speak in her mother's language, Creole, and is always on guard for any sign that may show in Nel of her mother's bad blood (Morrison 17).

Furthermore, Helene passes her rigid and aloof attitude regarding love and sexual relations onto her daughter, which influences Nel's perception on marital relations. Marriage becomes a tool that Nel uses to obtain social stability by maintaining a household of her own, and rearing children.
Indeed, Nel's marriage with her husband, Jude, helps her claim and maintain her place in the social order, and as long as there is a man in her life, there is some kind of economic stability. On a similar note, marriage to Jude is a way to compensate for his lack of self-worth, it is also a key to entering adulthood and fulfilling his social role as a man. Besides, Jude seeks through marriage an extension of maternal love that is socially acceptable, he needs someone to hold and love him, and at the same time lets him assert his manhood (Morrison 82), which is what he finds in his marriage with Nel.

The narrative continues to unfold more of love’s ambiguities; after an absence of almost ten years, Sula returns to the Bottom, her entrance is accompanied with a flock of robins, the Bottom being a superstitious community, associates this with the coming of evil into their lives.
Women’s reaction upon her return highlights the intersectional differences between them, especially on three levels: sexually, Sula refuses to settle for a marital relation or be hindered by child rearing (Morrison 92); culturally, she is the only mentioned female character to have left the Bottom to travel and explore different places, she is also the only mentioned character to obtain a college degree; psychologically, being better educated elevates her self-awareness and self-assurance over her female peers.

In order for the women of the Bottom to distance themselves from Sula, they begin to acknowledge their role as mothers, as an attempt to prove their superiority over Sula. Ironically, immediately after Sula’s death, having nothing to prove to themselves or anyone else, the women turn back to their old habits of neglecting and abusing their children. This is best demonstrated in the character of Betty and her treatment of her son Teapot, she is described as an alcoholic, neglectful, and uncaring mother–one day she witnesses her son standing with Sula and accidently tripping from the steps of the Peace’s house.

Betty accuses Sula of harming the boy and the residents of the community side with her; consequently, Betty rises herself to the role of a good mother for the benefit of the public eye and to gain social superiority over Sula. After Sula’s death, Betty turns back to her irresponsible patterns of mothering (Morrison 114).

Indeed, there is an evident deficiency of maternal love in the novel, which can be noted in the mothers’ treatment and attitude towards their children; which can be linked to Sula’s realisation that a mother’s love is neither guaranteed nor unconditional. However, to borrow Morrison’s words “Love is always passing us by” (Bakerman 60), and it still can be found in the Bottom’s community. For example, there is unity and understanding between the women, as a collective they make what Zhu terms as “community motherhood” which he describes as providing help in the care and wellbeing of other people's children, he also argues that this is an important aspect in maintaining a connected community (Eva’s Power 441).

This is illustrated in the case of BoyBoy and Eva, when he leaves Eva and their three little children destitute, the women of the community help in feeding and taking care of the children, Eva also entrusts one of her neighbours, Mrs Suggs, to take care of her children during her eighteen months absence, which the woman does with no questions asked and no promise of compensation (Morrison 32-34).

Another type of love the novel handles is female friendship, specifically the friendship of Nel and Sula.
In her interview, the Seams Can’t Show, Morrison states that Sula and Nel “are the two sides to one personality, if they were one woman, they would be complete" (Bakerman 60). This idea of merging two figures to achieve a state of completeness alludes to the idea of soulmate in the Greek methodology; the original humans used to have dual souls in one body, fearing their power the gods separate and condemn them to live the rest of their lives searching for their missing half (Plato 59). Before their meeting, Sula and Nel were two shapeless and incomplete creatures that found solace and relief in the other. Furthermore, their friendship is described as intense and fortunate, both the daughters of emotionally distant mothers and unavailable fathers (Morrison 52-53).

The love dynamic in the girls’ relationship varies between extreme and mild according to each girl's level of maturity, even though their love for each other is equally strong and tense, each girl expresses it according to her accumulated intersectional experiences and upbringing. Sula grew up in a hectic environment, governed by headstrong and uncontrollable women; as a result, her reactions and display of emotion is vigorous. For example, in an incident where Sula tries to protect Nel from bullies, she slices off her fingers as a threat to show what she is capable of inflicting onto their tormentors (Morrison 54-55).

On the other hand, Nel is raised by the hand of her strict mother who taught her to repress her feelings and reactions; thus, her expression of love appears calm and pensive. This difference between the girls is illustrated in their behaviour during Little Chicken's funeral–whose accidental death they were accomplices in–Nel’s face and whole body is stiff from feelings of guilt, while Sula is more emotionally animated letting tears run down her face (Morrison 64-65).

Even though the girls find solace and equilibrium in each other's company, their disproportionate reactions to the threats they face create a gap in their relationship. To elaborate, Sula’s return to the Bottom does not only change the behaviour of the residents of the community, but it also changes her relationship with Nel.

In the same manner of her mother's loose morales, Sula commits an act of infidelity with Nel’s husband, Jude–the girls do not confront each other after this incident until the final scene when Sula is on her deathbed. Interestingly, Nel’s reaction to the infidelity was mere detachment, which could be argued is the result of the shock of seeing her best-friend with her husband; however, Nel continues to ignore her true feelings and does not allow herself any display of anger or distress, she merely declares to herself that she hates Sula. It is important to note that hate is not the opposite of love–it is apathy, which is what Nel feels to her now estranged husband.

During their last encounter, Nel finally confronts Sula about the affair, demanding to know the reason behind it, Sula however does not provide her with a satisfactory answer, saying that Jude was a way to fill up an emptiness inside her. It could be argued that Sula's romantic liaison with Jude is because of her intersectional experiences and the indirect teaching of her grandmother and mother; to seek and accept the presence of maleness in whatever form it represents, the narrative highlights this, stating that “[the] Peace women loved all men.
It was manlove that Eva bequeathed to her daughters.” (Morrison 41). Nel, angered by this answer, accuses Sula of being a bad person and a friend, which is why everyone in their community hates her (Morrison 144). Arguably, this communal hatred directed at Sula is the result of the anxieties she prompts in those whose paths she crosses, because in the eyes of the people of the Bottom, Sula is living the amoral possibilities most of them are repressing. The possibility of this suggests that at the heart of this hatred lies a large amount of yearning–and is not yearning a fundamental component of love (Rodríguez 11).

Sula is aware of this and believes that eventually, when the time comes, the people of the Bottom will love her “[She] raised herself up on her elbows. Her face glistened with the dew of fever. She opened her mouth as if to say something, then fell back on the pillows and sighed. ‘Oh, they’ll love me all right. It will take time, but they’ll love me.” (Morrison 145).

There are two ways to look into their conversation: the first, the community will understand Sula better and begin to love after her death and the passage of time. Their perspective on life and people will develop into reason and sympathy for Sula. The second, the community in their conversation is a metaphor for Nel, for she is thoroughly assimilated into it; Sula is implying that Nel’s love for her will come back, it will take time, but eventually it will come back. As mentioned before, Nel tends to repress her feelings and reactions, after the discovery of Jude and Sula’s affair a grey ball appears in Nel’s peripheral vision which she determinately ignores.

This grey ball, which symbolises Nel’s repressed pain, continues to hover around her until near the end of the book. Fifty five years later, Nel pays a visit to the nursing house in which Eva is residing, and during their encounter, Eva accuses her of the death of Little Chicken, stating that both Nel and Sula are the same. Frightened by the accusation, Nel flees away from her and passes near Sula’s grave, where she breaks down in a “fine cry—loud and long—but it had no bottom and it had no top, just circles and circles of sorrow.” (Morrison 174), acknowledging at last her painful longing for her friend, Sula.

In conclusion, Morrison draws a complicated picture of the theme of love through the characters of her novel Sula. Love can be violent and unreasonable; it could consume to the point of destruction, either the destruction of the self or others–it can also be welcoming and generous as shown in the case of Eva Peace. Through the characters of Eva, Sula, and Nel, the narrative notifies the reader to not take things at face-value, and to consider the intersectional conditions affecting people’s lives in order to understand and better analyse different situations.

Moreover, the mothers in the novel show that maternal love and fatherly love and presence, whether emotionally or physically, is not always a guarantee. The depiction of Sula’s and Nel’s upbringing and relationship demonstrate that love is a taught emotion that if not dictated and shown through actions correctly it could ruin its giver and receiver.

الرجوع لأعلى الصفحة