Introduction
Sula is a difficult and morally challenging novel focusing on the story of two girls Sula and Nel who grow up in vastly different upbrings within matriarchal households in a struggling African American community, ‘the Bottom.’ One of the major themes identified in the scholarly examination of this text is the juxtaposition between individual freedom and moral codes established by society. Sula lives her life to the full extent, largely ignoring rules and acting as she sees fit, pushing the limits of personal freedom that are viewed as immoral. Meanwhile, Nel follows social conventions and lives a mundane, locked-in life of broken dreams but is viewed by society as an exemplary, moral woman. This paper will seek to explore the concept of freedom exemplified by Sula and whether the actions reflect amorality. Freedom portrayed in Sula is the attempt of the protagonist to find self-awareness and identity in the midst of a chaotic upbringing but is also used as a symbol of breaking convention and rebellion which pushes boundaries of morality.
Problem of Freedom
Stein explains freedom as a concept that Sula adopts to defy social conventions and break free from any potential bonds such as family, relationships, and otherwise. She views herself as free from these societal expectations and defined constraints that African American women may face, instead, she can experience life to the fullest and be honest with herself and others, even if it means she will be hated for it (Stein 148). Stein’s article focuses on examining the story in the context of a traditional hero’s epic. It is common for heroes to defy norms and expectations as they seek the freedom to find themselves, and that freedom becomes a source of power. However, Sula takes on a different perspective of freedom. In a way she abuses it, as it ends up not serving much benefit to her. Her use of freedom to obtain knowledge, push her sexual boundaries, and experiencing life are either seen as mundane or even detrimental, leading to more loneliness and isolation. As Stein describes, Sula is “free but empty” (Stein 148). That is because she never ended up committing to a principle, her freedom ends up being an undisciplined and chaotic existence which bears little impact on herself, her few close relationships, or her community.
In many ways, Stein’s argument agrees with the author of this paper. The main problem is not that Sula defied social conventions and violated norms that led to such universal hate and distrust of her in the community, labeling her as an outcast and immoral. The issue is that Sula did not use that freedom to find a purpose. Even though she went and experienced life, the freedom that is emphasized that few in her community have or choose (including Nel, that always envied Sula for her bravery to venture out and experience the world that she always wanted to see), is not capitalized upon. Sula does not find the answers to her internal problems, she does not find peace, and she does not find self-development. To an extent, she has self-awareness, but when that awareness is not used for anything positive, it becomes redundant. The freedom which characterizes Sula is potentially liberating but it is in many ways self-destructive, regardless of the morality aspect, in her life it becomes a waste rather a true liberation from conventions.
Morality
Sula lives in a community that is devoid of means and outlets which Sula could use in her attempts to find herself, be curious, and being creative. She has no way of creating herself or finding understanding of the void and tragedy that has touched her early years. Therefore, she adopts a formula of survival that mimics one of her grandmother Eva, a self-destructive force, that also leads to her rebellion against the community and its values, which ironically produced the suffering that had affected her so much (NcNeer 23).
Morrison takes the approach of breaking the traditional primordial dualism of good and evil and juxtaposing them in a manner where it is ambiguous. The character of Sula represents the evolution of this idea. On one hand she is both egoless and egoistic, she has no knowledge of self and refuses to recognize much herself. However, she has a doubting and questioning nature. Sula demonstrates certain antagonism towards Manichean ethics, which is seen in her dialogue with Eva when she challenges the perspectives of good and evil in Christianity, “Which God? The one watched you burn Plum?… Whatever’s burning in me is mine!” (Morrison 89). Much of Bottom’s community was built on these ancient Christian morals and African-American culture that valued concepts of Christianity, family, community, and others. Sula challenges this notion, undermining not only the juxtaposition of good or evil, but the substantiality of evil itself (Nedaee and Salami 120).
It can be said, “sometimes good looks like evill sometimes evil looks like good – you never really know what it is” (Middleton 369). Sula chose to live her life exploring her own thoughts and emotions, giving in to them and feeling no obligations or the need to please anyone unless it directly affected her pleasure. She was willing to feel pain and pleasure, as well as to give it, it was an experimental life. From a philosophical standpoint, it was an approach that almost reflect solipsism, to the extent that she violated social conventions (Middleton 376). However, was this free and careless approach amoral? In many ways, yes as she seems to have an absence of moral reference and rejection of absolutes. She opposes the brand of morality established by the community, due to her personal experiences. Furthermore, her individualism is driven by the introspective contemplation of emotions which reject exterior ethical principles (Nedaee and Salami 121). At the same time, the Boom community is the only place where Sula can exist. Both Nel and Sula end up in Bottom because one never leaves while the other comes back because she does not fit in anywhere else. Due to Sula’s unorthodox beliefs and amorality, she is not welcome anywhere else at this time in the mid-20th century when conservative values were highly prevalent. However, her hometown allows her to exist, not only because of familial ties but also of her role as giving the community an opportunity to unite against her (McNeer 26).
The very alienation that Sula is provided in the story makes her an appealing character. She is independent and fierce, leading away from traditional themes of powerless virtue or sentimental pathos, she is not tragic or pathetic. Furthermore, from both white and black perspectives, she does not represent the established literary stereotypes. This is the complexity which makes the morally ambiguous and eccentric character that is seen in Sula (Nedaee and Salami 120).
Connection to Girlhood
Sula was an outcome of her upbringing in many ways. She was a combination of Eva’s arrogance and her mother Hannah’s self-indulgence. The trauma that she experienced such as bearing the guilt of Chicken Little’s death, watching her mother burn to death, and witnessing many other instances of that very amorality or immorality from her family and community when it benefited them led to certain psychological issues in Sula. The idea of freedom that Sula pursues is actually part of her strive to fill a void inside her, created by her growing up. She was missing the comfort, love, and care that a child needs, and grew up to be a spirit of self-reliance, something she carried to her death. This includes having her own moral codes and disregarding conventions (Nedaee and Salami 121). She travels where she wants, sleeps with whom she chooses, and virtually does everything to define the values in which she grew up. However, this is also done as a matter of desperation to find meaning to her life. Just like when Sula seduces Nel’s husband Jude, she does so not to spite her friend, but because for a moment Jude filled some part of her void and lonely existence. It may have been an immoral act, but because in her freedom Sula has become amoral, it makes no difference as her existence is so self-oriented because of the experiences of her childhood.
Making the Right Choice
In its larger concept, Sula is a novel of ambiguity as it contrasts the concepts of good and evil, morality and amorality, social conventions and breaking them. Neither does it ever provide a solid answer or conclusion. Towards the end when Nel visits Eva, the grandmother reflects on Chicken Little’s death, “You. Sula. What’s the difference? You was there. You watched, didn’t you?” (Morrison 157). Nel realizes gradually that she is just as much guilty and ‘evil’ as Sula was. The problem is that Sula had the capacity to realize and admit it, she was self-aware, and lived her life to the very end with this passionate freedom. Sula cared little for social convention as her freedom meant so much to her, but it also allowed her to face life and her inner demons. In a manner of speaking, she atoned for her evil by facing it.
Meanwhile, Nel put on a mask her entire life, living in deception both to others and most importantly herself. She lacks the freedom that drove Sula, and towards the end realizes the contempt she may have experienced of watching Sula be the cause of the drowning accident. Freedom that pushed Sula towards ‘immoral’ social conventions was also her element of accepting responsibility for her actions and life. She may not have shown public remorse over the tragedies such as the boy’s death, the burning of her mother, or even seducing Jude, but in many ways suggests she has a subconscious awareness of her wrongs. In the end, Sula believes that she had made the right choices and accepting the full consequence of their outcomes, which by all consideration, is a strong indication of a strong moral compass.
Conclusion
One of the main themes presented in Sula is the conflict between individual freedom and group moral codes. Sula who is highly independent and self-reliant is viewed by society as highly amoral. An examination of the personal freedom that the character exemplifies shows that she does push boundaries of what is acceptable and potentially moral in society. However, there is a certain ambiguity to morality in the context of this freedom, and as Sula defies the shallow moral codes, she no longer fits into that definition of the ‘evil.’ By all accounts, Sula has no moral reference, but that does not make her immoral, but rather a complex and ambiguous character that struggles with internal demons of her past while acting in amoral ways by ignoring convention. Morrison intentionally never defines the moral of the plot nor the specific morality of each character, emphasizing the inherent ambiguity of the concept and the need for each individual to decide for themselves to what extent they are willing to balance social moral conventions and personal freedom.
Works Cited
Middleton, Victoria. Sula: An Experimental Life. CLA Journal, vol. 28, no. 4, 1985, pp. 367-381.
Morrison, Toni. Sula. Vintage, 1973.
NcNeer, Elizabeth B. The Search for Completion in Toni Morrison’s “Sula.” 1996. William & Mary. Master of the Arts Thesis. W&M Scholar Works.
Nedaee, Naeem, and Ali Salami. Toward an Affective Problematics: A Deleuze-Guattarian Reading of Morality and Friendship in Toni Morrison’s Sula. Atlantis – Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, vol. 39, no. 1, 2017, pp. 113-131.
Stein, Karen F. Toni Morrison’s Sula: A Black Woman’s Epic. Black American Literature Forum, vol. 18, no. 4, 1984, pp. 146-150.