One of the main messages I see in Kindred is how the passive forms of harassment and abuse are just as bad as, if not worse than,the obvious and aggressive forms. Throughout the book there are characters that are more aggressive, like Tom and Margaret Weylin, which were not well liked but were at least understood. We can anticipate the actions of obviously prejudiced people because they wholeheartedly believe in their views and have voiced them, and by knowing what reactions we can expect from these characters we worry less about what they're going to do. It is the people that are morally ambiguous and partake in more passive and less regular forms of harassment that we should  worry about. These are the people that normalize racist and sexist behaviors and make it less obvious that it's wrong to perpetuate such attitudes.

The passive aggressive prejudices I've found so far in Kindred is not a complete list: guilt tripping and emotional blackmail, and fetishization all three of which are based on sex/race. Rufus is the most obvious example of all three--convincing Dana it's her responsibility as a fellow woman and as a friend to make Alice come to bed quietly and taking absurd interest in Alice beyond the natural growth of a childhood friendship. However, Dana's family also plays on her emotions when she wants to marry Kevin, telling her how betrayed they are and how she owes it to the family to marry an African American. And, not to leave out the example of fetishization, there's Alice's and Kevin's coworker who is constantly talking to them about how they could make interracial porn. Beyond how this is a huge case of sexual harassment in the work place, he also isn't valuing them as a couple or two people who genuinely love each other;he cannot look past their race and how that makes them different.

These three examples are all instances that society has brushed past, even though they are obviously wrong when isolated. It is not right to toy with someone's morality in order to have an easier time raping someone. It is not right to hold inheritance and familial values over a person's head in order to get what you want out of them. It is not right to dismiss the validity of a relationship in favor of inquiring about their sexual activities. Yet, these kinds of situations are for the most part ignored because they are "isolated incidents" and "not everybody is that way"

Extended in Class Arm Comments

So in class we were asked to comment on Dana losing her arm and I wanted to continue my thoughts from my notebook.

The arm presents a weird correlation, is it the arm she lost the one she used to stab Rufus? Maybe she lost that arm because it was the one that finally ended her "job" of keeping Rufus away from death. Every time Dana gets home it's because she fears for her life; I think many of the reasons she has feared are caused by Rufus. While there may not be a direct correlation, like him being the one about to hurt her or doing something so extreme as to drive Dana to suicide, if nothing else we can link her fear of death to being transported back in time in the first place which Rufus causes. My thinking is, if Rufus causes her fear of death, but he's dead, maybe she had to pay an alternative price (a physical one instead of a mental one that could cause trauma).

This theory does read a lot into the writing, but the point was also brought up that she lost her arm from wear Rufus grabbed her, down. It's a really interesting point that I can't believe I overlooked. In his last moments Rufus's clingy-ness and desperation not to be alone took more freedom from Dana. In his own time Rufus was able to steal her agency by emotionally manipulating her and reminding her of their co-dependence-- basically, much of his abuse is mental. However, in the end Rufus's desperation reaches new heights and he finally stoops to truly stealing her physical agency. Yes, he had had her whipped before and beaten, but I believe all of those instances had mental undertones. When he chooses to try to replace Alice with her and grabs her arm as she travels back (which I'm going to assume is the reason she lost it) he stoops to the level he treats the slaves with. He stoops to physical manipulation, which is the last shred of freedom she has in the past.

Agency confusion in Kindred

This is a weird way of saying this, but, I think in an odd way, agency is forced on Dana in Kindred. Until she gets her bearings, Dana does not want to cause waves and get noticed. Then after she understands her surroundings, she especially doesn't want to influence her environment. This is her choice; being a passive observer is her original goal. However, as Rufus ages and Dana's trips become longer and more frequent there is really no way for her to remain un-involved, so she is therefore forced to choose work (or she would be whipped) and forced to save her abusive and unstable ancestor ( lest her existence cease to exist.) It's like having the illusion of choice when in actuality there are no real options. Having real options would mean there was a path she could take with a desirable outcome.

Really, the very nature of Dana's trips is involuntary, yet she has to accept her circumstances (does her acceptance mean that they aren't really involuntary?). Maybe her agency is not forced upon her, but certainly decision she would have options for in her own time are ambiguous and have no real options (having to convince Alice to be raped passively, submitting to field work rather than suffering through a whipping).

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, even though there are hardly any positive answers to any of her problems, does the presence of a choice however negative it may be mean that she has agency?