Jamie’s Violent Behavior, Unavoidable? Essentialist Feminists Would Say So. And I Disagree.
In Carolyn Corman’s What Jamie Saw, the young protagonist experiences a number of forceful outbursts preceded by maternal scolding or console. Jamie's behavior toward his mother, Patty, privileges the essentialist feminist idea that male children must assume a violent posture toward the maternal world in order to develop as men suitable for the patriarchal system (Rivkin and Ryan). Despite his gentle, loving disposition, Jamie exhibits signs that he will grow into a man who uses aggression to assuage frustration with his feelings. According to essentialist feminists (who I personally disagree with but am intrigued by), this cycle is inevitable because of the inhenrent difference between the sexes.
Patty’s role as mother nearly defines her, and the man to whom Jamie was closest is not present in his life. According to essentialists, “[This] father-absent, mother-involved nuclear family perpetuates the abuse of women” (Kahn 827). Jamie’s matriarch-centered environment typifies child-rearing-defined femininity. Since he is male, “women’s activities must be denigrated” and Jamie must base his identity on behavior other than Patty’s (829). Patty unwittingly encourages Jamie to “starve inwardly for deeper affiliation…and build his life on…aggression” (830). In addition, because Jamie is male, the stifling nearness to Patty in their womb-like trailer reviles him, as do any signs of his own likeness to Patty. This disgust causes Jamie to act out against his mother and Nin, both of whom represent the maternal world due to their gender.
[As an aside, I think that essentialist feminist theory is total bs. It is, however, written quote literally into our cultural code, and it therefor comes up in storytelling. Feminism - yes, "boys will be boys" attitudes stem from a form of feminism with roots in the 1860s - has come a long way, thank goodness. But you will still find people today who believe that men are essentially aggressive neanderthals incapable of emotion or good behavior, so the theory is far from obsolete.]
[As an aside, I think that essentialist feminist theory is total bs. It is, however, written quote literally into our cultural code, and it therefor comes up in storytelling. Feminism - yes, "boys will be boys" attitudes stem from a form of feminism with roots in the 1860s - has come a long way, thank goodness. But you will still find people today who believe that men are essentially aggressive neanderthals incapable of emotion or good behavior, so the theory is far from obsolete.]
Patty unknowingly pushes her son away in order to harden the boy. After Jamie kindly suggests that he give his stuffed animal to his little sister, Patty yells at her son. “Who are you looking at?” she asks in a voice that, to Jamie, is “so mean” (Corman 67). Patty’s ability to alienate her son after his expression of tenderness validates the female tendency to push sons out of identification with themselves (Kahn 828). In retaliation toward his mother’s coldness, Jamie uses physical force. “Without thinking, without any plan at all, Jamie lunged over to the drawer [that his sister lay in] and kicked it” (Corman 68). Jamie could have cried or pouted in response to his mother’s scolding, but instead, he kicks his sister. It is clear that Jamie’s nurturing capacities have been curtailed, and the boy uses aggression to cope with his frustration (Kahn 829). Inadvertently, Patty is producing a male who represses his feelings (835).
Left alone in the trailer during another scene, Jamie again expresses himself through aggression instead of tears or softness. Upon return from momentarily leaving her son, Patty realizes Jamie is hurt and apologetically “picks him up like he was a baby” to comfort him, “stroking his face and brushing the hair away from his eyes” (Corman 90). Because Jamie is male, this maternal tenderness stifles him. Suddenly, “Jamie understood that Patty wasn’t gone. No sooner did he know that…he pulled back and kicked her, kicked Patty with all his might” (90). These kicks represent Jamie’s hurt feelings as well as the male child’s natural disgust with closeness to the mother’s body. “The original union of mother and infant” (Kahn) must be avoided if the boy is to become a man within the patriarchy. I'm not buying that, but Jamie does sever himself from his mother and her tenderness by kicking her away, as if to say, “I must not identify with your body or nurturing behavior.”
Because of his sex, Jamie’s severance from the maternal world is a violent one, and this does not bode well for his future with women. Males, according to essentialists, "naturally" repress their emotions in order to distinguish themselves from their mothers. Because of this, Jamie will continue to kick his emotions away, sometimes violently. He will become a man incapable of tenderness, suitable for the patriarchy. (sad face)
Personally, I do not view the Jamies or the Pattys of this world as helpless. Jamie can rise above Freud's script and become a nurturing husband and father...with a little help from this thing called his brain. :) Patty, especially in this day and age, can reach out to people other than abusive men for help. Her situation is grim, and she does have limited options, but nothing is impossible with a simple shift in thinking.
good wordpress explanation of essentialism here
Personally, I do not view the Jamies or the Pattys of this world as helpless. Jamie can rise above Freud's script and become a nurturing husband and father...with a little help from this thing called his brain. :) Patty, especially in this day and age, can reach out to people other than abusive men for help. Her situation is grim, and she does have limited options, but nothing is impossible with a simple shift in thinking.
good wordpress explanation of essentialism here
Corman, Carolyn. What Jamie Saw. Ashville, NC: Front Street, 2008. Print.
Kahn, Coppelia. “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd Ed.
Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Plackwell Publishing, 1998. 826-837.
Print.
Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan. “Introduction: Feminist Paradigms.” Literary Theory: An
Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Plackwell Publishing, 1998. 765-769. Print.
