Sula Essay On Identity

“Nobody knew my rose of the world but me…. I had too much glory. They don’t want glory like that in nobody’s heart.” This epigraph of Toni Morrison’s Sula introduces the novel’s primary theme of identity. In particular, Morrison frames identity through the lens of apparently binary conflicts, such as knowing versus ignoring, me versus them, or glory versus shame. These dualistic conflicts over identity demonstrate the interrelated themes of perception and power. But by creating characters who align with or enforce a binary, as well as a character who defies those binaries, Morrison is able to define the constraints of a binary and, more importantly, pinpoint how these constraints can be broken. In a comparable way, Henry James’ The Turn of
In Eva’s case, De Angelis claims that “[t]he story Eva creates is all her own” (172), but the wording of this statement implies two erroneous ideas: first, that Eva’s pursuits are entirely individualistic, and second, that Eva’s story is purely good or heroic. Rather, with the first point, De Angelis equates Eva’s self-sufficiency with independence. The story Eva crafts, the identity she creates, is not hers, not entirely; as illustrated before, her journey as a provider revolves around others over herself. Furthermore, the actions Eva takes in her dedication to the community lack ethical certainty. Rita A. Bergenholtz, in the article “Toni Morrison’s Sula: A Satire on Binary Thinking,” best captures the uncertainty in a question: “[s]hould we [the readers] admire [Eva’s] stout-heartedness and her ability to survive, or should we be horrified by her actions?” (89) Clearly, the deeds Eva does to achieve what she believes is best for her community are, in the audience’s eyes, morally questionable. But it is not necessarily a question Eva asks herself. She does not, for instance, regret or question the worst of her acts—that is, setting Plum aflame. Instead, she views the act as necessary to preserve Plum’s dignity in the eyes and ideals of the
The townspeople hold a strong “conviction of Sula’s evil,” calling her “the devil in their midst” (117). There are a few motivations behind doing so. The first is to give a physical, concrete form to the source of their problems, and in doing so they might overcome them more easily. Most of the varied problems that the townspeople face, such as racism or harsh weather, are not easily confronted. In assigning Sula the blanket title of “evil,” she is made the scapegoat for the issues that are unconquerable or intangible. The second motivation is to cement their own identity as correct, thus upholding the status quo. In othering Sula and labeling her as the evil side, the townspeople are made the good side by default. As such, the ideals that the townspeople hold—traditionalism, strict gender roles, conformity—are considered good. In the terms used in the epigraph, these ideals are cause for glory. Therefore, Sula’s identity, which opposes these ideals, is considered evil and cause for shame. And finally, the third motivation, which encompasses the previous two, comes from Patricia McKee, as cited in Geta LeSeur’s article titled “Moving beyond the Boundaries of Self, Community, and the Other in Toni Morrison’s Sula and Paradise.” McKee (qtd. in LeSeur) asserts that the townspeople insist on Sula’s evilness in order to create a presence to fill a perceived absence. The first absence to fill, in