“Beasts of the Southern Wild” and Cultural Relativism

September 28, 2012
Posted by Jay Livingston

The crucial moment in “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” for me at least, was the sight of Hushpuppy  in a new purple dress.  Hushpuppy, a seven year old girl is the central figure in the film, and up until that point we have seen her, dressed in the same clothes every day, living in The Bathtub, a bayou area south of New Orleans, on the unprotected side of the levee.



Life in The Bathtub is harsh.  The people there (“misfits, drunks and swamp-dwellers,” – WaPo) live in shacks cobbled together from scrap metal and wood.  They fish from boats that are similarly improvised.  They scavenge.  The children’s education comes from the idiosyncratic stories of one woman. 




They are wild people living among wild things, unconstrained by laws or walls, reliant on ancient prophecies and herbal cures, at home with the water that may overwhelm them at any moment. [New York Review]

After a Katrina-like flood, the authorities force the evacuation of The Bathtub.  Hushpuppy and the others are housed in a shelter - a large, brightly-lit room (a high school gym?) – and given new clothes.  This is when we see Hushpuppy in her new purple dress heading out the door, presumably to a real school.

No, no, no, I thought. This is all wrong. This is not her.  She belongs back in The Bathtub, for despite its rough conditions, the people there are a real and caring community.  Her father loves her and prepares her for life there.  The people there all love her and care for her, as they care, as best they can, for one another.

That was the voice of cultural relativism telling me to look at a society on its own terms, with understanding and sympathy.

At the same time, though, the voice of ethnocentrism was whispering in my other ear.  This is America, it said.  These conditions are the things you deplore and want to improve – lack of decent health care, education, clothing, shelter, and basic safety.  (In an early scene, Hushpuppy tries to light her stove with a blowtorch, nearly incinerating her shack and herself.)  It’s wrong that people in America live like this. 

It was not much of a contest.  Cultural relativism won.

In turning the audience into cultural relativists, the movie plays on old themes in American culture.  We’ve always had our suspicions of civilization and refinement, and we’ve had a romantic attachment to the unrefined and rugged.  In “Beasts,” the shelter – sterile, impersonal, and bureaucratic – is contrasted with The Bathtub – rough-hewn, but an authentic community nonetheless. 

Then there is Hushpuppy. I’ve commented before (here, for example) that children in American films are often wiser, more resourceful, and more honest than the adults, especially those who would try to change them.  Add Hushpuppy to the list.* 

In the end, the audience seemed relieved when she and the others make their escape.  We don’t want Huck to be civilized by Aunt Sally.  And we do want Hushpuppy to light out for the territory of The Bathtub. 

-------------------
* I should add that much of the credit for convincing the audience goes to the six-year-old actress who plays Hushpuppy – the unforgettable girl with the unrememberable name – Quvenzhané Wallis. 

9 comments:

Uomo di Speranza said...

I know the feeling so much...there always seems to be a battle between logic and emotion inside of me, and emotion, most of the time, is winning.

Jay Livingston said...

Thanks for the comment UdS. Emotion is what movies and TV are very good at; policy, not so much. As I said, “Beasts” relies on some conventional American themes to sway the audience. Our reaction (mine at least) was much different when we saw the real victims of Katrina and what the government was or was not doing for them.

Bob S. said...

Interesting post. I note that you strongly approve of few cultures though.


KKK, skinheads, and racists -- if they are white - not acceptable, right?

People depriving their kids of a decent education, housing, food in order to stay in a shack -- acceptable, right?

If cultural relativism wins, why doesn't it win each and every time?

Bob S. said...

Jay? Cat got your tongue?

Jay Livingston said...

Did you see the movie? Did you read the post? What I said in the post was that the movie calls on themes in American culture to move the audience towards favoring their return of Hushpuppy and the others to their own way of life. But movies are not the real world, which was pretty much the point of the post.

Do I find the people who live in The Bathtub more acceptable than racists, skinheads, and the KKK? Yes. Is it because the latter are White while the former are a racially diverse group? No. My preference just might have something to do with what these groups do and want to do. The people in The Bathtub do not try to promote the domination of one single race over all others. They do not visit intimidation and violence upon those who are racially or politically different from them. They want only to go back to their own life in their own world.

If only that were true of racists, skinheads, and the KKK.

(I didn’t respond originally because I thought it might be embarrassing if I had to point out the obvious. But since you insisted . . .)

Bob S. said...

Jay,

I see. The New Black Panther Party's call for dominion are okay but the KKK's call isn't.

The cultural that keeps people poor and illiterate is okay if they are African American but the skinhead's are wrong to do it.


That was the voice of cultural relativism telling me to look at a society on its own terms, with understanding and sympathy.


Guess it doesn't work when you dislike the terms of a society, eh?

Who did Mayor Ray Nagin represent when he declared his views on racial dominion?

"We as black people, it's time, it's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day."

They do not visit intimidation and violence upon those who are racially or politically different from them.

Really and you know this for a fact? Or was it just from watching one movie?




Jay Livingston said...

You must be confusing my blog with some other. I said nothing about Mayor Nagin’s comments or about the New Black Panther Party.

I sympathize with you. I sometimes I can’t remember where I read what. I suggest that you find the blog that supported those statements and post your comment there.

Bob S. said...

Jay,

I'm not confusing your blog with anything else. I'm talking about what you said.

After you talk about how rough life is, you said:

That was the voice of cultural relativism telling me to look at a society on its own terms, with understanding and sympathy.


Yet you don't look at skinheads with understanding and sympathy, do you?

Are the residents of the Bathtub area their own separate society or are they as much a part of our society as the skinheads?

My preference just might have something to do with what these groups do and want to do.

I mentioned the New Black Panther Party and Mayor Nagin to show that racism and plans for domination aren't one sided.

Where do you think people like the NBPP get new members? Get their funding -- sure isn't from the KKK now is it?

I've read many of your posts and there is a theme through out many of your posts "Whites bad, other races good".

And by the way -- the government that should or should not have done the most for the people of the Bathtub was Mayor Nagin's government. wouldn' you agree?

Jay Livingston said...

After you talk about how rough life is, you said:

"That was the voice of cultural relativism telling me to look at a society on its own terms, with understanding and sympathy."

There was a paragraph immediately following this. I suggest you read it.

Yet you don't look at skinheads with understanding and sympathy, do you?

I confess, I haven’t seen any movies about skinheads, certainly none that resemble ethnographies. Nor have I ever posted here about them, except one recent sentence and that was only at your behest. I would suggest that, if only to give the appearance that you have read the posts you are commenting on, that you comment on what a writer has actually said rather than on things that he hasn’t written about.

a theme through out many of your posts "Whites bad, other races good".

I’m afraid that this theme too is more a product of your imagination than of what I have actually written. I don’t recall any posts that say that Whites are bad. Some posts say or imply that I disagree with some things done by some people who happen to be White. I’m pretty sure that I have never written about Whites as a racial group. (This blog has over 1000 posts going back six years, so I may have forgotten some.) Nor can I recall any posts where I say or imply that other races are good.

I have had good things to say about individuals of other races, Stevie Wonder for example. But I can’t recall ever having written about non-White races per se, and if I have, I doubt that it was to hold that race up as exemplary. I have probably also had good things to say about some White people and even some groups of White people.