Previous:
Next:

For Colored Only? Understanding “The Help” Through The Lens Of White Womanhood

August 21, 2011, 3:46 pm

Full disclosure: I was raised almost entirely by my white biological mother without the assistance of paid domestic labor.  This is neither a good thing or a bad thing.  It  just is.

I decided to begin this post with a title that would make my white readers uncomfortable in a way that “The Help” (Tate Taylor, 2011), and the Kathleen Stockett novel it is based on, will not.  Although I have overheard the word colored used intimately and fondly, I am outside a community that privileges me to actually speak it except when I am giving a lecture about segregation.

Which I am about to commence.

For a white person to describe African-American people as “colored” is too closely associated with the forms of thinly-veiled race hatred masquerading as civilization that characterized middle class white racism in the 1960s. White courtesies — like substituting “colored” for the curse words associated with racial intimidation — distanced middle-class whites (like me) from the public violence of white supremacy.  What do I mean by public violence? Think lynchings, police dogs, savage beatings, chain gangs and fire hoses. Of course, Jim and Jane Crow did private violence too. It is this private violence — orchestrated, articulated and enforced by white female employers — with which “The Help” is preoccupied.  This tension between the public and private spheres is why I decided to suck it up and go see a movie that I had planned not to see. “The Help” is taking up a lot of room in the academic blogosphere nowadays: you might want to visit Chauncey DeVega (who you should be reading regularly anyway), field negro, ColorLines and live Tweets from Melissa Harris-Perry to start yourself off. More commentary, some of it in the mainstream press, can be found here (hat tip), and probably on your Face Book feed.

So let’s begin. (Danger! Spoilers below!)

When “The Help” begins, aspiring journalist Skeeter returns from four years at Ole Miss to find that the Black servant who raised her, Constantine, has mysteriously disappeared from her family’s employ and no one will say why. I spent the first half of the movie thinking Constantine was buried under a dam with Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney.  It turned out, however, that she went to Chicago after her daughter used the front door in front of company, mouthed off about it, and caused her to be fired.  There, Constantine quickly died a natural death.  Skeeter assumes that her dear friend and caretaker died “of a broken heart,” as opposed to having been worked into old age with little or no health care, and this “fact” is allowed to stand.  Problem #1:  ”They” love “us,” and it is “our” inability to return that love and loyalty in equal degree that is the source of inequality between white mistress and Black servant.

Skeeter also finds that in her absence her high school friends, led by the evil Hilly, are now running the entire town of Jackson at the age of 22.  With Hilly’s leadership, and cowed by her social authority, these shallow white women are capable of appalling rudeness to their former caretakers and are collectively enforcing segregation with little iron fists in velvet gloves.  Hilly’s racist project, other than humiliating her maid, Minny, at every turn, is to ensure the complete and total separation of the races. She hopes to do this by passing a state ordinance that mandates that all white households have a separate “colored” toilet, banning their Black maids from the family bathroom.

Problem #2: the idea that Black people were a source of infection for whites was a truism of white housekeeping beginning in Reconstruction, as Tera Hunter has pointed out.  But middle class whites also believed this about working class whites, and it was not an idea peculiar to the South: see Judith Walzer Leavitt on Typhoid Mary. Therefore, by making private toilets the most prominent racial issue in town (as opposed to, say, public toilets, voting or education), the filmmakers propose that there was nothing real at stake in Jim Crow laws. The white desire for segregation becomes an aberrational, private, female fetish, rather than a set of public policies designed to concentrate power among wealthy white men (like Trent Lott, for example.) But it also frames black women’s resistance to segregation ahistorically.  Aibileen and Minny, the two principle Black characters, are moved to act because of a personal form of humiliation that stigmatizes their private parts as unclean.  Instead, real women like Aibileen and Minny were moved by radical class and race consciousness that wedded them to a social movement designed to relieve Black people of public humiliation, end racial restrictions to the use of public and commercial space and create democracy.

Banning beloved servants from “the family,” and the failure of Hilly and her friends to demonstrate the love for their former caretakers that she feels for the missing Constantine, causes Skeeter to question racism.  It is odd that the rudeness of her white friends to their servants is the catalyst for Skeeter’s redemption, as Mississippi Freedom Summer (three words that are never spoken as a phrase in this film) is, by coincidence, happening just downtown.

As Skeeter comes to consciousness that the system in which she was raised is unjust, she sees an opportunity to “help the help,” as it were, and at the same time promote her career by writing a book about what life as a servant in the Jane Crow south is “really like.” Here I would like to note that in addition to having misleading racial politics, this movie has no feminism either (I have not seen much commentary about this.) Skeeter doesn’t find it depressing that the newspaper work she is offered in Jackson is a housekeeping column, and she doesn’t find her lack of knowledge about housekeeping a barrier to accepting the job.  Skeeter assumes that she can get the expert knowledge she needs from a friend’s maid, Aibileen, but doesn’t see what she is doing as theft or misrepresentation.  Aibileen will ultimately become the principal interlocutor for the book and will use her moral authority to get Skeeter interviews with Minny and numerous other maids as well.Here we might also point out that the history of white, anti-racist women in the South who put their lives and reputations on the line to end Jim Crow is also occluded.  Which leads us to……..

Problem #3:  What is it, exactly, that motivates Skeeter’s transformation to anti-racism, given that she has never questioned segregation before?  Has education improved her moral sensibility?  Probably not her education at Ole Miss.  Is it her quest to find the missing Constantine, who has been disappeared from her own family, and who she regards as her real “mother”? Partly, although her view that Constantine is her mother is a confusion on that ought to be resolved as she acquires new knowledge from Aidileen and never is. But the overriding reason for Skeeter’s emergence as a class and race traitor is that she is thought by her friends to be an old maid and thus has no need for their approval. In addition, at 22, Skeeter has not yet had a baby, and thus has not yet transitioned from being cared for/”loved” by a Black servant to being dependent on/dominating the same Black servant.  This is an act of matricide that her friends have already completed, a critical life transformation that, the movie argues, is the foundation for white supremacy.

Hence, the central premise of “The Help”:  segregation’s perversion is not the color line itself, enforced poverty, political domination or the quiet, everyday violence done to black people in the name of a so-called natural racial order.  Its perversion is constituted by the cruelty and emptiness of white women’s emotional life in a heteropatriarchal system where men are almost entirely absent as agents of political or social power.  Jim Crow’s harm is, surprisingly,  the disruption of proper maternal and filial affections in white families that have been queered by too many mothers and the absence of fathers. White girls, who have good reasons not to love their own mothers, cannot maintain their authority and love anyone once they are grown; hence, adult white women are neither good mothers or good daughters.  The evil Hilly, for example, has no children and slaps her own mother in a nursing home for showing disrespect to her racial rule. Aibileen cares for a white girl so despised by her mother for being chubby and apparently not pretty (although she seemed pretty to me) that the child is allowed to sit in sopping diapers unless and until Aibileen arrives to change them.  Problem #3:  Under what conditions is it reasonable to argue that the drama of segregation was a Freudian drama that occurred primarily in the home?  Where are the men in this movie?  Attending a White Citizens Council Meeting or picking a jury to acquit Byron De La Beckwith?

Except for a brief pause on the murder of Medgar Evers (were there members of the audience who assumed he was a fictional character too?), the actual civil rights movement, and the violent repression of that movement, simply do not appear in this movie.  Instead, we have a southern version of Mean Girls (With Mammies.) It is a world in which servants are passed down from mother to daughter in their wills, without any character in the movie saying the word “slavery.” Instead of politics, white women are consumed with, and consume, excrement. “Hilly’s Law” mandating separate toilets goads Skeeter into an act of retaliation and public humiliation that she only survives because of her race and gender privilege; and Hilly fires Minny for using the family toilet when using the “colored” toilet would require going out in a tornado.

Minny retaliates by bringing Hilly a pie, pretending it is an “apology” and that she wants her job back, a pie into which she has baked her own excrement.  She watches Hilly eat it, and then tells her what she has done, causing Hilly to vomit (one of two moments of unnecessary public vomiting by white women in the film.) For reasons that were unconvincing to me (that Hilly would be unbearably shamed by her consumption of Minny’s excrement), this profoundly Freudian moment provides an unexpected source of power for the maids when Skeeter’s tell-all is published.  This gets us to……

Problem #4:  I don’t mean to pooh-pooh (as it were) the importance of excrement to a potential psychoanalytic critique of Jane Crow domestic culture, but I found this theme offensive and Minny’s action entirely implausible and out of character.   The only characters ever seen in bathrooms and on toilets are Black women and Aibilene’s young charge which, given the tremendous dignity and depth Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer brought to these roles, was a terrible choice.  Black women are simply awash in excrement in this movie, their own and white people’s. That Minny would choose to fight white supremacy by forcing Hilly to “eat my $hit,” and that she would actually say those words, was utterly inconsistent with her dignity.  What the scene actually conveys is that Hilly’s entire source of power is her purity as a white woman, not her social class, the laws of the state of Mississippi or her money, and that Minny has undone this power by tricking her into eating blackness.  But it does so at Milly’s expense.

The movie comes to a climax as the book is published, infuriating Skeeter’s former friends, transforming Skeeter’s racist mother into an anti-racist and, as an added bonus, putting the woman into remission from cancer (because racism is the real cancer — get it?)  Skeeter never does understand that she never was Constantine’s daughter; quite the reverse, in fact, since she has gained numerous other Black “mothers” to replace Constantine.  ”The Help” have become the midwives to her new career, as Skeeter is offered the job of her dreams by her New York publisher, while Aibileen and Minny are left with — well, what?  As an added touch, Aibileen is fired because of her organizing role and narrowly escapes being framed for theft (or not:  it isn’t clear.)

As Aibileen walks away from her place of employ, having finally confronted Hilly’s meanness in her own words, her cheeks streaked with tears.  As the white girl she cared for begs “Aiby” to please come back, Aibileen declares that she is finally “free.” Problem #5:  Free?  Seriously? A black woman with no job living in Mississippi in 1963, where fewer than 7% of Black adults were registered to vote? This masks the guilty truth of the movie:  of all the characters in it, only Skeeter has been freed, because she has learned the truth about Constantine, because her racist boyfriend has broken up with her and once again put off the tyranny of marriage and child-rearing, because she has resolved her conflict with her white mother (who killed off her Black mother), and because she is getting the heck out of Dodge and going to New York where there is no racism.

I found the most significant image in the movie to be the little girl beating on the window, shrieking wildly as Aibileen walks away without looking back and vows that she will never care for another white child.  It was corny to be sure:  the message is that these white women are all really children, unable and unwilling to care for themselves, separated by a clear but impenetrable barrier from the Black women they depend on and “love.” But this image of the “innocent” child suffering because of her mothers racism is, I think, meant to send another message: that we white people are all, in the end, actually innocent victims of racism too, even the Hillys among us.  ”We” are “all” coping as best they can in a racist system that “we” have inherited and for which no one seems to be responsible. Here we also see the deeper meaning of the white women of Jackson having “inherited” their help from their mothers:  the shrieking child is free because, like Skeeter, she will never inherit Abie and have to give up her love for her. As Aibileen walks away, she has in fact set white people free from the burden of her, a task she could not have accomplished without “the help” of Skeeter.

A mainstream review that best describes the movie I saw is by Steve Persall of the St. Petersburg Times who describes “The Help” as “a timidly well-intended Southern-fried fantasy.” The fantasy is that racism is a personal problem, not a political one, a social issue that can be overcome by honest communication across the color line rather than a fundamental redistribution of power, money and public resources.  It is certainly entertaining, and I don’t fault those people who get stuck there because there seem to be lots of them — Black and white.  But despite the compelling Black characters in this movie (and a wonderful, complex cameo appearance by the neglected Cicely Tyson as the lost Constantine) “The Help” is not about the help at all — but rather, how the help can help white women to displace responsibility for the various forms of exploitation and structural inequality that made Black women their servants in the first place.

This entry was posted in blame the women, cultural studies, feminism, history, racism. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • landrumkelly

    I wouldn’t touch this topic with a ten-foot pole.

  • mtboots

    I hope it is going to be dismantled instead of falling to the wrecking ball. Perhaps some money could be made in recycling the building’s glass, stone, etc.
    It would also be a more dignified and politically correct way of demolishing an architectural art piece.

  • garciad

    I had no idea Orozco had done any public works in the U.S. His work in Mexico is amazing, particularly Guadalajara, so this was a nice revelation.

  • df1995

    The then college president, Bob Suzuki, was a paranoid autocrat. The demotion of this building is a fitting metaphor for his disastrous term.

  • physioprof

    It sounds like the movie suffers from the fatal elision of the role of white dudes in creating, benefitting from, and perpetuating Jim Crow in the first place.

  • lesboprof

    I have some questions to ask in response to the review. First, doesn’t some part of Skeeter’s growing awareness of racism (and her own place in perpetuating it, and the ways it shaped her life) strike you as something important for white women to connect with? Haven’t we all had that first embarrassing moment of recognizing our own lack of understanding, our ignorance, and the ways in which we each benefit from and perpetuate racism? And don’t we keep discovering it, which only makes the earlier recognitions feel weak and problematic?

    Second, isn’t it true that part of the culture of this time period was a more strict gender split of male-public sphere/female-private sphere? Wouldn’t it make sense that a film focused on the women’s experiences takes place in the home, without many men present? they are invoked, they wander through, but it is the location of the women and the children. So, certainly while men are speaking to laws and policies that structure Jim Crow and Segregation, many white women were taking these policies and living the ideology behind them in their lives, having racist discussions about the hygiene of black women and men who worked in their homes. The men are invoked through mentions of the White Citizens Councils, the politics shown on TV, etc. But white supremacy was both official policies AND personal beliefs/practices, right?

    Third, must everything about segregation always be criticized for not focusing more on the politics, policies, etc? Aren’t our relationships, our interactions with other people who differ across lines of race and class, worthy of discussion and review? Don’t you think that sometimes it is the little rudenesses, the slights, the dismissals, that push us into action? Yes, the larger issues keep us moving, but sometimes I think the interpersonal stuff really challenges us in a very personal way. I have often read of specific actions that sparked people to advocacy.

    That said, I agree with you about Minny and her words about the pie (beneath her dignity), the ending (weak), and the plaintive crying of the little white girl (discomfiting in a good way). But I think the movie has something to offer lots of people, including and probably especially white people. And I think the story of racism is and must be a story that includes white people in a meaningful way, because that is the only way white people will engage with it. Is that messed up? Yes.

    • tenured_radical

      These are all great questions, lesboprof — I guess I would answer quickly:

      My own changes in consciousness came more from becoming deeply immersed in Black and Latina women’s work on the Lower East Side when I became a community organizer for a brief period, and subsequently by privileging the perspectives of academic colleagues of color, not from a one to one relationship with a single woman of color that I imagined as uniquely affectionate, or from becoming alienated from other whites.  This required from me a sublimation of the self, deferring to others and learning some harsh lessons about my own class/racial ignorance, rather than the emergence of a newly, empowered individual agency as Skeeter demonstrates.  While Skeeter demonstrates the possibilities inherent in listening, and a new sense of reciprocity (sending money from the book to each woman), her articulation as “a good person” throughout mutes what is actually a far more difficult transformation for white people.  Her passage into becoming one of the group also rings quite false to me:  she goes from outsider to insider in a heartbeat, and doesn’t have to demonstrate the ongoing earning of trust which I think is critical for white women even (especially?) in relation to our sisters of color in the academy.  And Skeeter *never* unlearns her privilege in any obvious way, although she does learn guilt (which Aibileen and Minny free her of, so that she can go take a job no Black woman would have been offered in New York in 1963.)

      Strict gender split?  Maybe.  But that said, do we really believe the elite women of Jackson knew nothing about what was being done in their name?  And that they read no newspapers, didn’t listen to the radio?  Do we believe the female Black workers of Jackson were utterly insulated from the Freedom Struggle?  As a historian I don’t think that is credible.

      This point that you make is so important:  “Aren’t our relationships, our interactions with other people who differ across lines of race and class, worthy of discussion and review? Don’t you think that sometimes it is the little rudenesses, the slights, the dismissals, that push us into action? Yes, the larger issues keep us moving, but sometimes I think the interpersonal stuff really challenges us in a very personal way. I have often read of specific actions that sparked people to advocacy.”  I agree.  But the problem is that the movie is making a far bigger claim for relationships — that in and of themselves they produce all the change we need.  Maybe it’s all the change white people like Skeeter needed, but it isn’t all the change the descendents of Aibileen and Minny, or any of their Northern counterparts, needed, nor was it all the change they wanted. Hence, for white women, that’s often the spark — but they get it at the expense of Black women privileging relationships over good jobs, decent education, wages and childcare — all policy questions.  I also think that by excluding politics the movie inadvertently sequesters women to the household, whereas we know that powerful female organizers — Ella Baker, Fanny Lou Hamer, Barbara Deming to name a few — have not received their due as the political visionaries that they were.

  • loumac

    Thanks for posting about The Help; I hoped you would.

    Have you seen Roxane Gay’s wonderful analysis? http://therumpus.net/2011/08/the-solace-of-preparing-fried-foods-and-other-quaint-remembrances-from-1960s-mississippi-thoughts-on-the-help/

    Among many other things, she discusses what bothered me the most about the film, which was the rampant use of the good old Magical Negro who is bound to be almost infinitely loving and dignified and wise, the better to help the white protagonist develop her front-and-centre subjectivity (and then effectively disappear, smilingly waving Skeeter into her bright new future). I wonder if the shit pie episode could be seen as making a feeble attempt to find another trope than the Magical Negro, albeit with an equally offensive and two-dimensional stereotype. I mean, Blacks shouldn’t have to bear the burden, in representation, of always being dignified – as you suggest, this relieves  white spectators of the discomfort of being confronted with anger, and allows us to continue in our United Colours of Benetton fantasy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/entomike Mike Quinn

    I grew up middle class in New Orleans in the ’60′s and briefly had a white nanny. I never witnessed  anything like what was portrayed in “The Help.”I read some of the negative reviews before seeing the movie. I don’t find entertaining movies with a lot of obligatory racism and thought the focus on peeing and pooing a bit much.
    To expect a female-centric novel-adapted movie set in Jackson, MS in the ’60′s to be the equivalent of a balanced thorough documentary is rather unrealistic. 
    I thought it was an okay movie, but only one character, the Skeeter’s mother, transformed from a racist to non-racist. Everyone else pretty much stayed the same. Did like the final scene where Aibileen finally tells Hilly what a bitch she had been. As Aibileen walks away, she suggests her new career path will be that of a writer, which is a bit unrealistic.
    I’m not sure that a book about southern racism would have sold as well as portrayed in “The Help.” I mean, how many people south of the Mason-Dixon Line read “Black Like Me?”
    Many of the criticisms expressed above about “The Help” are perhaps valid, but I think a greater criticism should be directed at today’s culture which is a lack of leading non-subservient roles for black actresses…

  • urbanexile

    Great post! This comment is not about The Help, which I have not seen, but rather about remembering how race, and probably racism, entered my consciousness.

    My first experience of racism and a white woman was with you. We were very young kids when our panicked mother got lost and drove to Camden by mistake. I recall her nearly hysterical voice crying out ‘lock the doors and windows and get down on the floor!!” And I remember having nightmares for a couple of years later in which Mother’s face in the front seat of the car morphed into a leering, scary cartoon Sambo. Our mother was educated at a fine eastern college, but just the sight of black people on the street sent her into panic mode, and that panic  (associated with probably my first experience of black people) was something that entered my unconscious that day and took hold to some degree for some time to come. 

    Odd to remember this from reading your post.

  • sundown

    Full disclosure: I was raised primarily in Africa, the daughter of international aid workers, with the help of African women (and men).  

    A few days ago, I finished reading The Help.  As such, I cannot speak to the movie — which, by the way, I plan to see (although only because I’m curious as to how the screenwriters translated the book and, frankly, because of all the hype, I want to get into the conversation).  Everything that follows, therefore, is based on my reading of the book and is not an analysis of the movie.  As a side note, I suggest you read the book as I am guessing that the movie’s portrayal of the three protaganists is a hollywoodized version that likely simplifies the characters as well as the issues.  I note first, that you mention that Hilly has no children.  In the book, her only redeeming quality is that she is a loving and affectionate mother to her two children.  Second, at least in my reading, Skeeter’s mother dies a racist. 
    As a preface, I was disappointed in the book.  Primarily at the ending which too easily tied up what should have been a much more complicated (and perhaps, tragic) conclusion.  That said, it’s a book.  A book aimed at portraying a sliver of life and a glance at what was, and continues to be, complicated relationships between and among women.  To give it more credit is to play into the notion that mainstream hollywood speaks truth and that this is somehow a pronoucement and/or a prescription of how to overcome racism.  I don’t think it is.  Nor should it be.  Nor, in fact, do I think that is what Katherine Sockett intended.  I  know very little about what it was like to be either white or black in Jackson, Mississippi in the mid-1960s.  I do know, however, what it is like to grow up white with black servants.  And I do know the swirl of complexity, anxiety and unwelcomed privilege that comes with that.  I also know how deeply and emotionally connected and bonded I felt (and still feel) to the women (and men) who helped raise me.  The book struck a chord with me and challenged me to think about these complicated relationships — and for that, I thank Ms. Sockett.To act as if The Help is intended as some cure-all for racism and the deep-seated institutional injustice that exists in this country is to give The Help too much credit.  Rather, for me, The Help is an exploration.  Of characters.  Of marriage.  Of friendship.  And of privilege.  It’s one from a white Southern woman’s perspective.  (Let’s not forget this is largely autobiographical).  Let’s leave it at that.  Once we do, it has value, warmth and, in the end, import.  But let’s leave it at that.

  • mrtaylor15

    I think this was a great post. I haven’t seen the movie (I believe I will now) but you did an excellent job painting a picture of it for me. Of course previews show what the movie is generally about but you shared some interesting specifics. I will be sure to keep up with your posts especially when they could tie with civil rights issues.

  • linzhi

    How many fashion brands do you know of sunglasses ? LV ,Gucci ,Prada, Oakley ,Ranban and so on. I fina a Sunglasses Online Sale e-shopping which offers most fashion brands of sunglasses ,and the items on website are very cheap and high quality , you should love it.

  • csmith52175

    I’d rather be called Ms. than ma’am.

  • graddirector

    Well, MS makes it easier also to deal with the large number of women who do not take their husbands last name.  I am never a Mrs simply because that is my mother-in-law and I do not use my husband’s last name for any purpose, even when in my mom role.

    But, actually I should be called Dr. even if the Chronicle is unwilling to give academics that honorific….

  • jack12kobe
  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037