Introduction
For many readers who have acquainted themselves with Harper Lee’s novel “To Kill a Mockingbird”, prior to reading critical reviews that praise this book as the work of genius, it often does not make a whole lot of sense that for her “masterpiece”, Lee was being given a Pulitzer Prize, despite novel’s dubious literary value (author is clearly having a hard time, while trying to logically interconnect Part 1 with Part 2). What also seems to be quite odd, is the fact that it has only taken one year, after “To Kill a Mockingbird” was being published, for the Hollywood producers to decide to make a film, based on Lee’s novel, even though that at this time, book’s actual popularity was not exactly reaching the sky, as literary critics are now trying to convince us. And finally – no serious literary studies have ever been conducted, on the subject of “To Kill a Mockingbird”, despite overwhelming majority’s of literary critics referring to Lee’s book as “insightful”, “progressive” and “fresh sounding”. Given the fact that analysed book was being written at the time when so-called “civil rights movement” was gaining a momentum, it appears that “To Kill a Mockingbird” should be discussed within a context of author’s ability to utilize her understanding of the essence of socio-political dynamics, for the purpose of generating a commercial profit, rather then a literary work, which was simply intended to relate Lee’s childhood experiences to readers, as it is being often suggested nowadays. Therefore, it will not an exaggeration, on our part, to refer to “To Kill a Mockingbird” as a literary piece that was meant to add an emotional appeal to the ideological dogmas of neo-Liberalism, as political philosophy, closely associated with White Americans being slowly deprived of their existential vitality. It is not simply a coincidence that the main elements of novel’s plot (racist White farmers, representing evil, wrongly accused Black man, innocent children, a “progressive” shyster with clearly Semitic facial features), are now being incorporated in contemporary Hollywood movies, meant to popularize “tolerance” among Americans.
However, after having served its original purpose of disarming White Americans psychologically, Lee’s novel has now fallen out of favour with the hawks of political correctness, as such that contains “racial slur” and ridicules the ideological tenets of modern feminism. Apparently, despite the fact that in sixties “To Kill a Mockingbird” was considered as “progressive” enough, it is no longer the case today, because Blacks in Lee’s novel are being presented as simply an agricultural workers, which contradicts modern Medias’ and Hollywood’s portrayal of African-Americans and Hispanics as solemnly software designers, police officers, progressive politicians and American Presidents. In other words – Lee novel’s “high literary value” is largely a myth, because it appears to have relativistic subtleties. If “To Kill a Mockingbird” was removed from public libraries and stopped being showed up students’ throats, as “compulsory reading material”, it would be forgotten within a matter of very short time. Therefore, in this paper, we will discuss “To Kill a Mockingbird” as what it really is – a literary reflection of idealistic White individual’s inability to come to terms with objective reality, which corresponds to the essence of neo-Liberalism as degenerative socio-political doctrine.
“To Kill a Mockingbird” as Reflection of Liberal Mentality
The fact that “To Kill a Mockingbird” is being written as child’s account of living in America’s South, during thirties, often prevents many readers from realizing that in her novel, Harper Lee was promoting a left-wing agenda, as its foremost goal. This is the reason why even in his dialogues with Scout, Atticus strives to instil his daughter with the spirit of tolerance and universal love to mankind, without realising that by doing it, he causes her more harm then good: “’Scout,’ said Atticus, ‘nigger-lover is just one of those terms that don’t mean anything—like snot-nose. It’s hard to explain—ignorant, trashy people use it when they think somebody’s favouring Negroes over and above themselves… “I certainly am (nigger-lover). I do my best to love everybody… I’m hard put, sometimes – baby, it’s never an insult to be called what somebody thinks is a bad name” (Lee 112). According to Atticus, only “ignorant” and “trashy” people are capable of utilising racial slang, without the thought that referring to them in such way is not something utterly tolerant either, ever occurring to him. During the course of this particular dialogue with Scout, Atticus reveals his existential essence as individual who is being even less tolerant then those that he considers as uneducated “red-necks”.
Just as any typical “leftie”, Atticus appears to be someone who is afraid of admitting the possession of politically incorrect thoughts even to himself: “Do you defend niggers, Atticus?’ I asked him that evening. ‘Of course I do. Don’t say nigger, Scout. That’s common” (Lee 115). Despite Atticus’ apparent professionalism, he does not seem to understand that ignoring defendant’s racial affiliation, within a context of conducting legal procedures, can hardly add to the effectiveness of a legal process. Even before having gotten to know Tom Robinson personally, Atticus convinces himself in his client’s complete innocence, which raises certain doubts as to Atticus’ professional adequacy. Moreover, he intends to utilize Robinson’s case as the tool of making a political stance: “Every lawyer gets at least one case in his lifetime that affects him personally. This one’s mine, I guess” (Lee 78).
These Atticus’ words provide us with the insight on metaphysical essence of Liberal “idealism”. Despite his claims that he only wanted to “help poor Negro” out of the kindness of his soul, Atticus does have a personal interest in seeing Robinson acquitted, simply because it would strengthen his reputation as a lawyer. In its turn, this points out at one of the most important conceptual inconsistencies of Lee’s novel – a lawyer can hardly be considered as someone capable of understanding of what the notion of intellectual integrity stands for, simply because of the very nature of his job. However, given the fact that without the help of Manhattan’s shysters, “civil rights movement” would not be able to acquire a political significance, the very profession of a lawyer had to be “nobilized” in citizens’ eyes. In fact, even lawyers’ legal mumbo-jumbo had to be presented as such that makes perfect sense, which is why Atticus never seem to get tired of explaining to his seven years old daughter of what such highly abstract categories as “compromise” stand for: “When Atticus looked down at me I saw the expression on his face that always made me expect something. ‘Do you know what a compromise is?’ he asked. ‘Bending the law?’ ‘No, an agreement reached by mutual concessions. It works this way’” (Lee 31). Despite author’s willingness to represent Atticus Finch as a “hero”, it is quite impossible for the readers to imagine him being able to actively defend his beliefs, as even by the time Bob Ewell spits in his face, Atticus prefers not to notice it. This incident provides us with better understanding of metaphysical essence of Liberalism as ideological descendant of Communism, which in its turn, had derived out of spirit of Christianity. It also explains a close historical affiliation between Commies, Liberals, and the members of Christian clergy – after all, they all promote the concept of equality, while actively striving to adjust the surrounding reality to their obscure ideological dogmas. Given the fact that it were people like Atticus, who had initiated the process of America turning into a Third World slum, as a result of more and more citizens in this country being preoccupied with “celebration of diversity”, the character of Atticus needs to be reassessed.
There can be no doubt as to the fact that many Atticus’ psychological qualities should be admired. It is the existential idealism and not some malicious intent, on his part, which prompts Atticus to defend Robison in the court of law. Idealistic White people have always strived to see representatives of other races being equal to themselves, without realising that the concept of racial equality is utterly unscientific, since the laws of thermo-dynamics point out at it as nice-sounding euphemism for “death”, as equality implies the absence of flow of energy. Atticus lives in artificially created world of legal notions, which is why it appears to be particularly hard for him to understand that these notions are the product of Western mentality, meant to be utilized within a context of social interaction between Whites. As practice shows, people’s legal equality does not necessarily correspond to their factual equality. Or, as George Orwell once said – all people are equal, but some of them are more equal then others. Therefore, Atticus’ “open mindedness” has simply been exploited by hook-nosed “experts on everything”, within a context of their active strive to undermine America’s national integrity. Once they had done their job, people like Atticus were no longer needed. In fact, they are now being increasingly referred to as “subtle racists”, because their willingness to help Blacks appears to be affected by their patronising attitude towards “underprivileged”. In his article “The Strange Career of Atticus Finch”, Joseph Crespino suggests that Atticus cannot be thought of as hero any longer, because he was actually patronising Blacks: “The secondary school teachers who assign “To Kill a Mockingbird” in their classes year after year should let Atticus come down from his perch as an emblem of American racial heroism…
Atticus Finch is a paternalistic white man with a superiority complex who does good things for his black client not because he thinks his black client is his equal, but because he believes only a white man can save blacks” (Crespino 10). It does not matter whether the person is Black or White – once he is being deprived of his sense of racial solidarity, it is only the matter of time, before people will lose a respect towards such individual, which is exactly what happened to the character of Atticus nowadays. Blacks view him as ignorant White paternalist and Whites view him as a traitor of his race, not because he wanted to help a wrongly accused Robinson, but because he strived to turn Robinson’s trial into the matter of political significance: “You know the truth, and the truth is this: some Negroes lie, some Negroes are immoral, some Negro men are not to be trusted around women—black or white. But this is a truth that applies to the human race and to no particular race of men.” (Lee 207). In other words – race does not matter. This is the ultimate message Harper Lee wanted to spread among people, by publishing her book. However, the realities of living in “multicultural” America suggest otherwise – race does matter. During the course of O.J. Simpson’s trial, not a single Black person of social significance would even consider criticising him publicly, despite the fact that it was obvious to everyone that Simpson did murder his wife. This is because, unlike White people, Blacks are being united by their acute sense of racial solidarity. As a result, their socio-political weight in this country continues to grow. The objective reality of our time shows that there can be no racial equality in multicultural society – when dominant race grows weaker, the underprivileged race grow stronger and eventually gains the status of dominant one. Despite Atticus’ “existential sophistication”, he had proven himself as an individual incapable of realizing this simple fact.
“To Kill a Mockingbird” and Feminism
As we have mentioned earlier, Lee’s book contains many motifs, which nowadays could have easily gained the author a fame of “racist”, “sexist” and even “male chauvinist”, if it was not up to the fact that “To Kill a Mockingbird” has been traditionally associated with promotion of left-wing agenda. This is the reason why we cannot refer to Lee’s novel as being deprived of literary value altogether, despite author’s affiliation with political Left. This can be explained by the fact that Harper Lee was growing up in time when there was no politically correct censorship, which nowadays causes the majority of White Americans to be afraid of their shadows, especially if they happened to have penises (“White male sexism”). Here is how Lee describes Tom Robinson: “Tom was a black-velvet Negro, not shiny, but soft black velvet. The whites of his eyes shone in his face, and when he spoke we saw flashes of his teeth. If he had been whole, he would have been a fine specimen of a man” (Lee 196). It does not take a psychologist to recognize the mentioned passage as such that contains a subconscious sublimation of woman’s sexual desire. “To Kill a Mockingbird” is often being discussed as semi-autobiographical account of Harper Lee’s childhood, but not many readers realize that, whereas the character of Scout relates to author’s inner being as a child, the character of Mayella Ewell actually relates to Lee’s inner being as grown woman. In her novel, Lee succeeded in portraying Whites’ racial biasness as being counter-productive to the well-being of this nation. However, she did it at the expense of revealing the conceptual essence of modern feminism as psychiatric deviation.
Mayella’s strong sexual passion has resulted in her trying to have sex with Robinson. However, after he rejected her sexual advances, Mayella’s embarked on the impossible task of riding herself of her sense of guilt, for what had happened. She accused Robinson of having raped her, while slowly growing to believe in her own lies: “So he come in the yard an‘ I went in the house to get him the nickel and I turned around an ’fore I knew it he was on me. Just run up behind me, he did. He got me round the neck, cussin‘ me an’ sayin‘ dirt—I fought’n’hollered, but he had me round the neck. He hit me agin an‘ agin—” (Lee 182). Lee describes Mayella as not being particularly pretty, which can only mean one thing – she has too much testosterone in her veins. Women with the excessive amounts of testosterone in their blood, besides suffering from rapid growth of hair on their legs, also have a hard time, while trying to keep their animalistic urges under control. When we take closer look at most famous advocates of feminism, such as Leonora O’Reily, Charlotte Gilman, Kate Chopin and Ida Wells, we will be able to realise that even their external appearance radiates masculinity – rough facial features, short haircuts, fat stubby fingers, fascination with men’s clothing etc. Harper Lee herself has often been confused with a man, in her early days. It is not by pure accident that she mentions Scout continuously indulging in fights with boys. Thus, by describing the character of Mayella Ewell, Harper Lee actually provides us with the insight on feminists’ mentality, as individuals who simply cannot prevent their female sexually from assuming grotesque forms. Feminists are incapable of exercising a control over their sexual urges, despite their “high morality” and “progressiveness”. However, instead of recognizing such their inability as having purely biological essence, they discuss it in terms of “artificially created gender inequality”. Therefore, the most important existential problem, with which feminists have to deal on daily basis, is the fact that their physiology causes them to chose in favour of behavioural irrationality, despite their strive to adjust their behaviour to rational reasoning. In its turn, it often causes feminists to suffer from split personality disorder. Just as Maylla Ewell, who during the course of Robinson’s trial became hysterical and convinced herself that Robinson did rape her, modern feminists blame the fact that they should have been born as men, on men’s “sexism” and “male chauvinism”.
Conclusion
Given the fact that advocates of turning America into a “welfare state” now enjoy a monopoly on interpreting the semantic meaning of works of literature, within a context of educational process in this country, more and more Americans grow increasingly incapable of relying on their own sense of rationale, while facing various challenges, throughout their lives. Modern America reminds Soviet Union, before its collapse – what people say openly does not correspond to what they actually think, especially when issues of racial or gender relations are concerned. This is the reason why in this paper, we strived to analyse “To Kill a Mockingbird” from traditionalist perspective, as we believe that people’s intellectual integrity relates to their value as individuals. Just as philosophy, literature cannot be discussed as “thing in itself”. The work of literature is like a tree – it might please the eye, despite the fact that it produces poisonous fruits. There can be no doubt as to the fact that “To Kill a Mockingbird” is solidly written novel, reading of which many people find intellectually stimulating and simply pleasurable. However, while doing it, they become spiritually poisoned by neo-Liberal ideas, despite their own will – after all, we cannot help but to feel sorry for wrongly accused Robinson. By doing it, we undermine our own analytical ability, when it comes to getting a grasp of today’s reality. There is overwhelming evidence as to the fact that it is in the very nature of Black men to strive to rape White women, whenever is possible – yet, we are simply incapable of realising the practical implications of this fact, simply because of having read “To Kill a Mockingbird”. Therefore, we need to refer to Lee’s novel as to what it really is – a literary tool of depriving White Americans of their racial immunity. This is like a semi-poisonous mushroom, which can only be consumed after being subjected to prolonged boiling. Only individuals who posses a racially-biological worldview can derive pleasure out of reading it, without becoming intellectually poisoned, as a result.
Bibliography
Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. New York: Grand Central Publishing, 1988.
Crespino, Joseph. “The Strange Career of Atticus Finch.” Southern Cultures 6-2, 2000: 9-29.