#the symbolism of like. your parents in rebellion as well as biological parents. who do you learn from

[rotzaprachim]

very interested in/turning over and chewing slowly the idea of cassian and jyn in some kind of the americans fx meet mr and mrs smith au moment where like. they’re /both/ working for rebellion, obviously, collecting information and acting as the deep cover agents the rebellion needs so badly, but it’s all a set up, cassian still (tenuously and with great friction) reports to luthen as his handler and jyn still reports to saw and their whole fake marriage is in many ways both truce-meeing point and stand-off between the luthen and saw schools of rebellion: if i sell you out, the whole cell falls with you. 

[floatingbook]

On names and naming

- Reading: Tales of the Lavender Menace by Karla Jay

Discussed during a consciousness-raising meeting:

“For instance, many of us grappled together and by ourselves with the implications of naming. The most obvious manifestation of this power is the fact that in most countries women bear the surname of their fathers and then of their husbands. A woman “loses” her name when she marries, but in fact she has never had her own name. only her father’s. Worse still is the possibility of not having a father because to be “illegitimate” is to lack the imprimatur of patriarchal approval.” p. 55

As a woman, you have your father’s or your husband’s name, you’re dispossessed of all your matriarchal origins. It also is very likely that your patriarchal origins are a lie—and I do not mean this as a critic of the women in our ancestry who had children who did not get the name of their biological father, but as a critic of this despicable tradition. Men do a fraction of the work and yet get to brand a newborn as their own, as if the woman giving birth was no more than a possession.

We all know what weights names carry. There’s no denying it. Some names get you despised, some get you laughed at, some drown you in their commonness. They used to reveal who you were: names were carved out of professions (take “Smith”, “Steward”, “Butler”, “Cook”, or “Lefevre/Lefebvre” in French, “Mercier” as well) or out of places of dwelling (e.g. “Hall”, “Brooks” in English; “Dupont”, “Dubois” in French). But that meaning is fast lost with physical and social mobility, with traumas and rebellions, with the pace of society.

“Many of the women in Redstockings changed their names in rebellion against the patriarchy, often choosing to use their mother’s names. In addition to being a symbolic gesture, adopting a nom de guerre made it just a tad more difficult for the government to figure out who we were and where our paltry bank accounts were stowed when it came time to incarcerate us. As much as I wanted to drop my patronymic, however, I wasn’t eager to claim my mother’s name. Instead I decided to substitute “Jay”, my middle initial, for my last name. // When I tried out my new name, Karla Jay, it felt immediately like a more accurate representation of who I was. I realized changing my name was not only about challenging the patriarchy—it was also about untangling my own identity from my family history.”

Changing your name, starting with a brand new one, is a way to give yourself a clean slate. It’s a statement: I don’t want to belong to this family, I am not one of your possession. It’s a form of rebellion against the tradition that hands out last names. The point is to get rid of the branding connotation of the last name (either inherited from the father or taken in marriage) that turns a woman into just another piece of furniture that makes up the wealth of the men in her life.

“I understood for the first time that I had, in fact, always detested my birth name, Karla Jayne Berlin. Well, not all of it. Karla seemed to me an original first name, and I felt comfortable with it. […] His [Karla Jay’s father] first fought was to name me Gale because I had  been born in a blizzard. My mother objected, so he chose my name from a list of freighters he spotted in the shipping news that he read every day in conjunction with his work. I’m lucky, I suppose, that a ship with a name like the Brunhilde didn’t dock then. Fortunately, the Karla Dane steamed into or out of port the week I was born, and my father was determined that would be my name. My mother persuaded him to change my middle name to Jayne instead of Dane, with the addition of an elegant Y.

But if I liked my first name, I hated the surname Berlin. For one thing, I’m not German. My ancestors came from the finest shtetls in England, Austria, and Ukraine. My paternal grandfather was from England, and for a long time I supposed that he had been assigned the name of a city when he entered the United States; immigration agents had a way back then of altering what they considered unpronounceable names. Years later, I discovered that my grandfather had changed his name himself. […]

I wasn’t particularly fond of my middle name either; people often assumed it was hyphenated to my first name. My mother and even Jessica, my best friend, called me Karla Jayne to get my attention when they were angry. As far back as I could remember, I had used my middle initial in place of Jayne. But I did like the “Jay” part. Some of my fond association with the word was based on pleasant times in summer camp. During my first summer there I was only five. I was placed in J-Bunk—probably an abbreviation for Junior Bunk—a place for children considered too young to be away from home for two months. J-Bunk was my first taste of freedom, a fun-filled life in the Catskills. Furthermore, Jay rhymes with “gay”.” p. 55-56

First names are given to us by our parents, who can be short-sighted, equipped with a taste that does not intersect with ours, or just unconscious of what a certain name entails. First names both mean a lot and nothing at all, and by that I mean that a first name is attached to you yourself first and foremost. Its main vocation is to designate you personally, to make you as individual, separated, specific in your existence, as opposed to the surname, which marks the bearer as part of a whole, the family, the bloodline, and as a woman a part of the possessions of a man. So it’s easier to grow into your first name, to make room into it for all the facets of your existence, than it is to get rid of the yoke of the surname. Hence the question, what to do with these patriarchal, misogynistic surnames?

Should we shun the surnames we were born or married into? What do we replace them with, then? Something that sounds nice to us? Something that holds a personal meaning? Something that describe an occupation we hold, a place we settled in? Do we choose a system that allows for the tracing of the matrilineal line? But then how do we agree collectively on a system, so that it is lisible and understandable? Where do we find the coherence? Do we even need the coherence?

“Changing my name was also a way of to “divorce” my parents, to let them know that I had never accepted them in that role. As children my brother and I both fantasized that we had been adopted.” p. 56

Again, a rupture with patriarchy and with abusive parents. We have surnames because there are too many humans on this planet to be able to identify them easily with just one name. Do we need those surnames to keep us sequestrated with our parents? Or could they just be changed to something like “of” followed by the name of the city we live in? Rejecting the surnames we get from birth is also a rejection of the obligatory love and respect we are supposed to feel for our parents, who can sometimes be undeserving of them.

“I didn’t change my name legally until 1978. I felt that it would be a paradox for me to petition a male court to change a name that patriarchal law had imposed on me in the first place. But after I had co-edited three anthologies as Karla Jay, only old friends, relatives, and old people at work new that I had any other name. I felt fragmented and decided to hire a lawyer to execute a legal name change.” p. 57

We live in a society, not in a vacuum. Sometimes we have to go through processes we find tasteless or distasteful, because we still need them to be understood, to be perceived by others around us. Here is information on the process in France (Site officiel de l’administration française).

“I have now spent a full three-fifths of my life as Karla Jay. In the rare instances when I run into someone from my childhood or high school who still calls me Karla Berlin, I have the distinct feeling that they have mistaken me for someone else.” p. 57

So who gets to do the naming? Are our names things that should be gifted from us by our parents? By our mothers only? Should every daughter get to name herself, when she feels or knows she has found a name for herself? When she has made name for herself?

[medisinals]

character solidifying 1 & 2!

character solidifying questions | @ferocioushonesty | no longer accepting

blackwell + parents!

1. How does your character think of their father? What do they hate and love about him? What influence - literal or imagined - did the father have?

        First off, Blackwell doesn’t see anyone in his life as his father. There’s Augustus, his mother’s husband, who was probably the most present in his life, but wasn’t his father biologically and made it exceedingly clear he didn’t want to be his father socially. There’s Eoin, his biological father, whom he never met. And there’s Cathair, the gardener on his mother’s estate, who was probably the closest he had to an actual father figure, but… still not all that close, tbh.

        Augustus was entitled and insecure, a son of old English nobility reduced to marrying the noveau riche for money. He kind of hated the child’s existence. The child was a product of an extramarital affair; Augustus couldn’t look at him without seeing evidence of his wife’s infidelity and his own emasculation. He was all in favor of offloading the child elsewhere- they had three sons already, they didn’t need anyone else’s brat- but his wife Florence held the financial power in their relationship, and if she wanted the child raised as part of their family, Augustus had no way to refuse.He coped poorly, including projecting a lot of his rage and disgust onto the child.

        Publicly, of course, the child was Augustus and Florence’s own. The family knew of Florence’s infidelity, as did certain of their staff, but that secret wasn’t supposed to spread. The child looked more like his mother than either of his alleged fathers, so he didn’t seem out of place among the family, but Augustus worried that something about the child would give him away, so he wasn’t often brought with when the family went out in public. This was a matter of uneasy compromise between Augustus and Florence.

        When the child first started asserting his own gender, Augustus was… violently opposed. It took Florence’s interference to establish safety for the child, and even then Augustus only tolerated the child in the absolute worst sense of the word “tolerate.” If he couldn’t do anything about the child, he figured grudgingly, he might as well keep someone else’s bastard son as someone else’s bastard daughter.

        As soon as Florence died, Augustus found a way to get the child out of his sight. Florence’s will provided for the child’s schooling at a well-renowned boys’ school in England; what mattered to Augustus was that he would be gone. He sent the child away under another name, and gave him no reason to return.

        Blackwell doesn’t see Augustus as having had a significant impact on him or his life, but really- Augustus taught Blackwell to expect no compassion and no understanding. He taught him spite and stubbornness and survival, and to seek security wherever and however he could find it. He taught him how quickly things could be taken away.

        Eoin, as previously mentioned, was never part of the child’s life. Everything the child knew about him was secondhand: that he was a local (read: Irish), that he was a tailor, that he was a drunkard, that he left town six months before the child was born, that there must have been something wrong with him and that that must be why the child walked with a limp from his very first steps. Even then, the child held doubt on most of what he heard.

        And then there was Cathair, the gardener. Cathair taught the child the names of flowers and how to coax them into beauty. He taught him superstition and safety; he taught him which plants were safe to eat and how. He taught him Gaelige in stories and jokes and songs, even if the others would rip it back out of the child’s mouth. Cathair was the one who pulled the child out of the half-frozen pond when he nearly drowned one March. Cathair was the only one to show him kindness for kindness’s own sake.

        The child was attached to Cathair, of course. He tailed the gardener as he made his way through the grounds, listened to everything he said. They were far closer than Augustus and the child had ever been. Still, Cathair wasn’t exactly a substitute father. Close, but Cathair wasn’t available or reliable in the way a child requires. Which isn’t Cathair’s fault- it was never his responsibility to adopt or even care about his terrible boss’s creepy kid. The fact that he chose to show the kindness and care that he did, even if he couldn’t step in as an actual parental figure, did make a significant impact on Blackwell as a child, and on the person he would become.

2. Their mother? How do they think of her? What do they hate? Love? What influence - literal or imagined - did the mother have? 

        Florence was… very smart, and very driven, and very strong-willed. She was also petty and self-centered and often lacking in compassion.

        She cherished her fourth child as a symbol of her autonomy. She felt trapped in a loveless marriage, living a life that wasn’t entirely within her control. Her affair with Eoin was a rebellion against those trapped feelings, a way to prove to herself that she could break the rules that bound her. Her decision to tell Augustus about the affair came from the same impulse to prove he had no control of her, as did her decision to keep the child.

        She was the child’s first and strongest supporter when he began to assert his own gender. That, for her, was another power play. She knew how Augustus hated the child; defending and supporting the child was more about her showing her defiance of Augustus than it was about any actual affection or care for the child. 

        Of course, Blackwell was young when he knew his mother. A lot of the nuances of her motivations escaped him. He was always sharp, though, and he could read a situation well enough to know not to expect certain things from her: she wasn’t warm, she wasn’t particularly attentive, she wasn’t very interested in anything he had to say to her unless she could find a way to use it towards her own goals. But she was still the closest thing he had to a figure of safety. She defended him from Augustus’s wrath. She allowed him to grow up as himself. Whatever her motivations, she was a vital supportive presence in Blackwell’s early life.

        And then again, she was also the first of many relationships in his life to use caretaking as an excuse for controlling behavior. The fourth child was forbidden from many of the freedoms that his older half-brothers were allowed to enjoy (including such things as being able to leave the manor grounds), with his “delicate constitution” always being cited as the reason. (“Delicate constitution” can mean many things. Here, it is being used to mean you’re trans and disabled and we have no idea what to do with that.) To be fair, there may have been valid concerns about the child’s health- but no one ever brought up his health except to use it to prevent him from doing something. The real reason he was kept so cloistered was a compromise with Augustus. Florence had to give some ground, and that ended up being that the child’s existence was mainly hidden from the larger world.

        Florence taught Blackwell the importance of having allies stronger than he was. He learned that it wasn’t important whether or not someone loved him- what mattered was whether or not they were willing to defend him. She also taught him that any perceived vulnerability could and would be used against him, even by those who nominally stood on his side.

        And her death when he was 8 was what convinced him he wanted to be a doctor, but hoo boy that’s a whole nother post coming.

[thomascstanier]

“The Kite Runner is not primarily about the suppression of minorities but about their defiance. “To what extent do you agree with this view?”

Throughout Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner, many minorities are portrayed as defiant, rebellious characters who resist against society and the forms of oppression which are inflicted upon them. Primary examples of these defiant individuals are the characters of; Hassan, who defies society through his friendship with Amir, as well as through the protection which he provides by adopting a paternal role towards Amir. His emotional intelligence is also a clear example of this as he is defying Pashtun society as through the use of this emotional intelligence he is fighting society’s attempts to keep him subjugated and easily manipulatable. The character of Sanaubar, Hassan’s mother,  is also another primary example of the novel being centred upon the subject of minorities defiance rather than their suppression. Sanaubar is portrayed as one of the primary, rebellious figures in the novel, she is a woman (a minority) who is forced into a marriage she doesn’t want and therefore she defies her husband and the men in her life by leaving for a life of liberty. Another primary female character within the novel, Sofia Akrami, Amir’s mother is also portrayed as a defiant figure, as she rebels through her education and profession as well as through the way she tries to learn about the censored history of the Hazaras, perhaps implying that she possessed sympathy for them and their struggles.  However, the character of Ali could be seen as a direct counter-argument to this view as he is never defiant, instead, he is seemingly unresponsive to the taunting and insults he constantly receives from the Hazara-hating, Pashtun society of Afghanistan.

To begin, the friendship between Amir and Hassan can be considered to be a clear sign of defiance towards Afghan society at the time. Their friendship is something of a rarity that defies Afghan society at the time. The relationship between Hazaras and Pashtuns at this time was based upon the lines of servitude, Hazaras were often servants for the dominant Pashtun society and they were treated with inferiority. However, the relationship between Amir and Hassan defies this, their relationship is not solely based upon servitude, in fact, one could interpret the relationship as one wherein Hassan actually possesses the power, something that on a surface level is not particularly clear but Hosseini alludes to through the constant references to Hassan’s long-lasting impact upon Amir. The first time that Hassan is mentioned by Amir is in fact, indirectly, in Chapter 1 of the novel from the present-day perspective of Amir in America.  “Then I glanced up and saw a pair of kites, red with long blue tails, soaring in the sky.” is a clear metaphor for the friendship and relationship between Amir and Hassan. The fact that Amir mentions these kites is clearly not a simple brief description, the kites are symbolic of this relationship, the fact that they are in a pair and are identical reflects the similarity between Amir and Hassan and hints towards their later revealed biological relation to each other. The fact that this is at the start of the novel emphasises the importance of Hassan as a character, Amir still is impacted by Hassan in the present, he is overcome by guilt at his failure to intervene but most importantly Hassan’s impact upon Amir can be seen as something highly unusual from the perspective of Afghan society. It is unusual in the fact that from the perspective of the Pashtun dominated, Afghan society, Hazaras were considered to be unimportant and inferior, however, the powerful impact that Hassan had upon Amir clearly defies this and demonstrates that Hassan possessed “power” and “control” in their relationship, something that would be deemed highly uncommon and rare in Afghan society. 

The power that Hassan possesses through his friendship and impact upon Amir is further referenced by Amir referring to him as “Hassan the harelipped kite runner.” This reference to Hassan clearly paints out Hassan to be an iconic figure akin to the ones that Amir often reads about, as if he too was a legendary figure. In fact one could say that Hassan, unlike Amir, is the main focus in the story, the novel is titled after Hassan “The Kite Runner” and the novel is primarily a story of redemption, for Amir to redeem himself for what he did to Hassan. The close relationship between Hassan and Amir is yet again emphasised when Ali reminds the boys that “there was a brotherhood between people who had fed from the same breast, a kinship that not even time could break.” This yet again alludes to and “forebodes”  the fact that the boys are related, however, it also is a reminder of how this relationship between the boys is a form of “resistance and rebellion” it is clearly defiant. From a more analytical perspective one could interpret this quote from Ali as a sort of warning, that regardless of what society tells the boys, their bond is something special and strong, and should not be broken, their relationship is a defiance against society, henceforth Ali has to remind the boy of their “connection” as society will try to tear it apart. One can perceive the main antagonist “Assef” to be the one who tries to destroy this relationship. However, Hassan is the one who defends and protects this relationship from aggressors like Assef as Baba (his father) states whenever Amir is in trouble with the “neighbourhood boys” “Hassan steps in and fends them off” this is yet another example of Hassan’s defiance, “resistance and rebellion”. He is defying Afghan society through his exhibition of strength, as aforementioned Hazaras were meant to be subordinate to the Pashtun dominated society of Afghanistan, through his strength and resistance against subordination and “oppression” Hassan defies society by defending himself and others, rather than giving into the powers which try to threaten him and  break him and Amir apart.  

One of the most notable instances of Hassan’s defiance is when Assef, the aforementioned primary antagonistic figure in the novel, threatens and approaches Hassan and Amir, stating that “Afghanistan is the land of the Pashtuns.” and that “His (Hassan’s) people pollute our homeland.” Assef states that “you (Amir) bother me more than this Hazara here. How can you talk to him, play with him, let him touch you? Assef as a metaphor for Pashtun, Afghan society at the time, clearly detests their relationship as it marks a union between two races which traditionally hate each other. Hassan’s response to Assef is something that clearly shows that he is more defiant than suppressed "You are right, Agha. But perhaps you didn't notice that I'm the one holding the slingshot. If you make a move, they'll have to change your nickname from Assef 'the Ear Eater' to 'One-Eyed Assef,' because I have this rock pointed at  your left eye." He said this so flatly that even I had to strain to hear the fear that 1 knew hid under that calm voice.” This is clear evidence of Hassan being a defiant character, he stands up to and even threatens Assef, a character whose dream is of a world in which the Hazaras have been racially cleansed. Through defying Assef, Hassan gains “power” and “control” over Assef as he refuses to crumble under the “climate of fear” that Assef and by extent Afghan Society has built around the Hazaras. In fact, one could consider the very existence of Hassan to be a clear defiance against society. As we learn later in the novel, Hassan is, in fact, the son of Baba and Sanaubar, making him half Pashtun and half Hazara. Hassan is the physical culmination of “rebellion” and “resistance” from his parents. Sanaubar and Baba clearly defied society through their relationship due to the racial barriers instilled by society, therefore their child, Hassan is essentially the very epitome of defiance, he defies social barriers between Hazaras and Pashtuns. But he also defies religious ones between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Contextually, Sunni and Shias have been in conflict many times in history, one of the most current examples of this conflict is The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’s attempted genocide against the Shia’s, the fact that Hassan is a physical representation of these religious barriers being defied yet again shows how Hosseini presents him as a defiant character, even from birth. 

Hassan’s purity and innocence are other defining aspects of his personality that can be seen as defiant. Through this pure nature, one could perceive Hassan as defying the views that the Pashtun, Afghan society possesses towards Hazaras, “dehumanising” and devaluing them, Hassan at his very core is simply at his core a humane and gentle character who will do anything for anybody. Through his kind nature, Hassan breaks through negative perceptions that the Pashtuns would have about the Hazaras, as throughout the novel he is thoroughly “humanised” by Hosseini, which in itself is an act of defiance, “rebellion” and “resistance”, as “dehumanising” Hazaras such as Hassan is one of the Pashtun-Afghan society’s preferred methods of oppression. Ultimately, Hassan’s defiance is best shown through his death, he ultimately dies as a rebellious and defiant character who refuses to allow the Taliban to confiscate Baba and Amir’s house in Kabul, this is one of the most significant examples as the final actions of individuals often hold significance to their character, this is clearly true for Hassan as he lives and dies as a defiant and iconic character.

The characters of Sanaubar and Sofia Akrami and even Baba to an extent can also be considered to be a character that proves that the Kite Runner is not primarily about the suppression of minorities but of their defiance. Sanaubar is rebellious in the way that she defies what Pashtun, Afghan society expects of a woman, for them to not possess sexual freedom but instead to be good mothers and subordinate wives. Sanaubar is the complete contrast to these expectations and therefore defies them. Sanaubar is a character who exhibits sexual freedom and is therefore deemed as an “unscrupulous woman” by the male, Pashtun dominated society. From the lens of the feminist Critical Theory, one could perceive Sanaubar’s sexual freedom as a form of liberation from Sanaubar, through her defiance of society’s expectations of purity and chastity she was no longer constrained by the unequal treatment that the Patriarchal society. Sanaubar’s defiant actions from the lens of the Feminist critical theory could also be perceived as highlighting the vast inequalities that women are subjected to in the patriarchal Afghan-society. For example, the way we learn about Sanaubar is constricted to solely male perceptions, one of the most notable descriptions that is given about Sanaubar is by an Afghan soldier whom she had sexual relations with. He describes Sanaubar in an extremely derogatory and dehumanising manner. He brags about his relations with Sanaubar, in a way that can be seen as the soldier discrediting her reputation and treating her as merely a sex object, “ I knew your mother, did you know that? I knew her real good. I took her from behind by that creek over there.” This dehumanising, boastful way in which the soldier speaks about his mother illustrates these aforementioned, vast inequalities in Afghan society. Sanaubar is deemed “unscrupulous” due to her various sexual relations, however, the soldier openly brags about his with confidence and pride. 

This shows the hypocrisy of Afghan society they shame Sanaubar and by extent women in general for their sexual relations, whereas men are excused and omitted from these rules of “oppression” and “control”. Through defying society’s expectations and constriction of sexual freedom, Sanaubar clearly defies and rebels through her actions, illustrating her “resistance” against the subjugation which she faces as a minority (woman). Another way in which she can be perceived as defying society is through her abandonment of her maternal and wifely duties, through this abandonment of her roles, Sanaubar directly defies Afghan society which expects women to be above all else, good mothers and wives to their husbands. Through her failure to fulfil this expected role, Sanaubar is clearly defying society and removing their “power” and “control” over her. However, one could also perceive Sanaubar as not only defying Afghan expectation and tradition but also the religion that the country follows, Islam. Through further use of the Feminist critical theory, one could interpret the religion of Islam as inherently sexist. For example Quran 4:22 34 is quite clear on this topic"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them" As is clearly evident, Sanaubar defies these religious expectations, she has abandoned her marriage and is clearly disobedient and defiant towards the male-dominated, Pashtun society of Afghanistan, she has lucidly defied Islam’s expectations of being wifely and subordinate. These religious, patriarchal views of oppression and obedience can be clearly be seen as shaving strongly influenced  Afghan society when Amir states that Sanaubar was lost to “a fate most Afghans considered to be far worse than death: She ran off with a clan of travelling singers and dancers.” 

This quotation lucidly demonstrates these Islamic-influenced viewpoints, another example of this being the fact that Afghan society was surprised that a man like “who had memorised the Quran, married Sanaubar” clearly confirming the fact that Sanaubar was perceived as defying Islam, which also shows the “power of religion” in Afghan society. Her abandonment of her maternal and wifely roles can also be seen as an act of defiance and “rebellion” in the aspect that the marriage occurred solely for the benefit of the men in her life. As stated in the novel the marriage was solely a ploy to “restore some honour” upon her father's name. Therefore we can see Sanaubar defiance of this marriage to be justified upon the basis that it was something that she had no freedom or choice in and therefore the abandonment and defiance of the marriage was the only way in which she could escape. Continuing, one can interpret Sanaubar’s relationship with Baba and the birth of their child Hassan as yet another act of defiance against Afghan society, as aforementioned, relations between the Hazaras and Pashtuns was based upon the lines of subordination on the part of the Hazaras. The fact that Sanaubar willingly engaged in a relationship with a “Pashtun specimen” like Baba and produced a child that essentially is a bridge between two very divided cultures ultimately confirms that by nature, she is a defiant character with Hassan being a physical representation of this. 

As aforementioned the character of Sofia Akrami can also be perceived to be proof that the novel at its core, primarily focuses on the defiance of minorities instead of their suppression. Sofia Akrami akin to Sanaubar is solely presented to us as a reader through the perhaps-inaccurate perceptions of males. The first time that we learn about the character of Sofia is from a photograph that Amir sees in his living room. Through this photograph, she is described as “a smiling young princess in white.” this description depicts Sofia to be a beautiful almost fantasy-like individual, however, the depth of her character isn’t explored, through the picture she seems to be slightly “dehumanised”. One can infer that although Baba did indeed love Sofia, their marriage was also based upon honour. This can be viewed as Sofia being yet again “dehumanised” and instead turned into a “tool of honour” to be utilised by the Patriarchal, honour-based society in order to benefit men and men only. Sofia is described by Amir as a “highly educated woman universally regarded as one of Kabul's most respected, beautiful and virtuous ladies.” this description further displays the sexist Afghan society at the time, whilst Sofia is praised for her intelligence she is also praised for being “beautiful and virtuous” this is further confirmation that in Afghan society, women are valued highly upon their physical appearance and also their moral standards, hence the emphasis on her “virtue.” The fact that Baba often “playfully rubbed” Sofia’s royal status in the face of sceptics who never thought he would “marry well” yet again shows the “power” and “control” that women have over women in this novel, they are yet again utilised as “tools of honour. The way in which Baba refers to Sofia as “my princess” also further increases the aura of dehumanisation that exists around her character, almost as if she was not a person but instead a possession. However, Sofia defies society through her education, contextually, in Afghanistan, women were experiencing increased opportunities at the time, something that Sofia clearly took advantage of. Through her education, she defied society by being more than what they expected of a woman. In fact, one can perceive society through the lens of the Feminist Critical theory, even though Afghanistan did experience reforms in the 20th century in terms of women rights, they were in fact limited. For example, the 1964 constitution of Afghanistan granted women equal rights and universal suffrage, and they could run for office. However, the majority of women lived as housewives and were excluded from these opportunities, as these reformed Afghan judiciary laws were most effective in cities only. Whilst Sofia’s life ended before these changes (1963 marked Amir’s birth and her death) change still occurred e.g. with the election of Mohammed Daoud Khan in 1953, who as one of his main goals focused on trying to break woman free from being treated as second-class citizens by ultra-conservative, Islamist tradition. Through the use of this lens, one could perceive the plight of these Afghan women trying to break away from their roles as housewives to be the beginnings of the second-wave feminist movement in the 1960s. 

This relation can be perceived due to the similarities in both the inequalities which western and Afghan women faced at the time, they were trying to break away from the “housewife archetype”(Sofia) and be free from problems such as the oppression of sexuality and also the issue of domestic violence. Therefore by Sofia taking advantage of the new opportunities that Kabul was offering to women and becoming a “highly educated woman” and a teacher of “classic Farsi literature” at a university in Kabul, a clear example of her defiance, “resistance” and “rebellion”. The final way in which Sofia can be perceived to be presented as a defiant minority rather than a suppressed one is through her engagement with literature. When Amir secretly reads one of the books from Sofia’s collection he learns more about the history of the Hazaras and that the Pashtuns had, in the past “quelled them with unspeakable violence” when they had tried to “rise against the Pashtuns in the 19th century.” Amir later takes the book to his teacher who disapproves as the book, claiming that the Shia’s are good at “passing themselves as martyrs.” After Amir states that “the book said a lot of things I didn’t know, things my teachers haven’t mentioned. Things Baba hadn’t mentioned either,” Sofia’s defiance and “rebellion” is lucidly evident. Hazaras and the history of their oppression are clearly things which are censored and erased from Afghan education and literature, by Sofia’s willingness to engage in this often “censored” literature it perhaps shows that she had compassion for the Hazaras and was like Sanaubar, defiant in nature. This shows the power of “literature” within the novel, it gives Sofia freedom as she is able to learn about topics that are otherwise not discussed and censored. Through the literature collection and profession she influences Amir even from beyond the grave, she “feminises” him, driving a wedge between him and Baba. The strong influence and defiant nature that Sofia possesses would have been perceived as something unusual from the perspective of Afghan society, a powerful, defiant and educated woman was an abnormality. 

 One can also view the character of Baba to be defiant to some extent, although he does strictly adhere to the honour-based society of Afghanistan, his defiance against Islam can also be seen when Amir tells Baba what he has learned from his Islamic Teacher Mullah Fatiullah Khan, who made Amir and the rest of his classmates do things such as “memorize verses from the Koran” that he “never translated” Khan also ensured that the children pronounced “the Arab words correctly” through the occasional use of a “stripped willow branch” so “God would hear them better.” Baba’s response to Khan’s teachings is one of clear defiance, he responds to Amir by stating “I see you’ve confused what you’re learning in school with actual education.” Baba continues the conversation by further stating to Amir that he’ll “never learn anything of value from those bearded idiots” and to “piss on the beards of all those self-righteous monkeys” (in reference to the Mullahs.) These anti-Islamic views that Baba possesses are something that can be considered to be an extremely defiant act of “resistance and rebellion” as it shows that Baba disregards the Islamic culture that surrounds Afghanistan. It’s important to remember that within Afghanistan Islam is at this time, a major influence on daily life and Afghan culture e.g. the split between the Hazaras and Pashtuns is partly due to religion. Aspects of Islam such as the call to prayer gave the day a rhythm. The major values of Islam such as love, sin, forgiveness and the importance of family are really woven into the culture in the novel, illustrating the great influence that Islam as a religion has over society in the novel and in real life. Baba’s defiance against this powerful religion is continued when he states that “They (The Mullahs) do nothing but thumb their prayer beads and recite a book written in a tongue they don’t even understand. Whilst on the surface level this can be perceived as Baba pointed out the hypocrisy of the Mullahs, they teach things that they themselves don’t understand, on a deeper more subtextual level, one can view this comment to be a warning from Baba to Amir that when people practise a religion that they don’t fully understand, they can sometimes interpret it in a harmful way. One of Baba’s most notable lines from this exchange is when he states “God help us all if Afghanistan ever falls into their hands.” Through this defiant statement, Baba is perceived by the reader as a defiant and rebellious character who goes against the grain in a society that is majorly influenced by Islam. One can perceive Baba as an intelligent and wise character when one realises that his predictions were correct for current day Afghanistan, his comments were a form of “foreboding” and “foreshadowing” by Hosseini. Groups like the Taliban began to misinterpret religion and utilise it as a tool of oppression for their own good, all of Baba’s worries were completely justified given the fact that eventually, Afghanistan would crumble under the tool of weaponised religion. When one perceives the novel through the use of the lens of Marxist Critical Theory one can interpret characters who defy religion such as Baba, Sofia, Hassan and Sanaubar as the rebellious Proletariat of society, with Weaponised religion and the ones who associate and promote it as the Bourgeoisie. One can interpret the Mullahs of the novel to be state apparatuses for the oppressive force of Weaponised Religion. As aforementioned, The Mullahs were a compulsory part of Amir’s education in Afghanistan, yet again illustrating just how vital and connected Islam and Afghan are, they are intertwined. However, Amir does reference that the Mullah carried a “stripped willow branch” in order to ensure that the children would pronounce the Arabic words correctly so God would “hear them better.” 

Whilst the Mullah is merely a state apparatus for the rising power of the Bourgeoisie who utilises weaponised religion to control and subjugate,  the fact that physical violence is acceptable in order to ensure that these children pronounce words correctly does indeed show how Religion can easily be weaponized and altered in order to cause pain. The idea that God would “hear them better” if they pronounced the words correctly is an unacceptable excuse for the use of physical violence. One can interpret the small threat of a “willow branch” utilised to enforce religion as “foreshadowing” for religious events to come, wherein physical violence is frequently utilised in the name of religion and Islam. Sanaubar, Sofia, Baba and Hassan can be interpreted as the rebellious Proletariat as they are all harmed by this weaponised and oppressive version of Islam, Sanaubar is harmed as she is a Hazara and therefore a Shi’a Muslim, her past is full of religious oppression wherein her people have been killed and abused solely for the fact that they were Shi’a instead of Sunni Muslim. Sanaubar can also be seen to be harmed by Islam as it defines the gender roles that put her at a disadvantage within Islamic-Afghan society, however, through her sexual freedom and abandonment of her marriage and motherly role she defies what Islamic-Afghan society expects of her. Sofia doesn’t seem to be harmed by the sexist, oppressive expectations of Islamic society as she manages to make the most of the newfound, educational opportunities in Kabul, however, she does indeed rebel by accessing literature that showcases the oppression of the Hazara people due to weaponised religion. As aforementioned, Baba is a member of the rebellious Proletariat as he warns Amir of weaponised religion and views Islam in it’s misinterpreted, weaponized form a something inherently dangerous. He also views state apparatuses such as the Mullahs to be ultimately hypocritical, as they misinterpret and misunderstand the very thing that they teach. Finally, Hassan can be considered the ultimate defiance against the Bourgeoisie as he is the culmination of two cultures that have each been harmed by religion with their relationship being left ultimately damaged. His stand against Assef can also be considered to be a defiance against the Bourgeoisie’s weaponised. Continuing, the aforementioned character of Assef can be perceived to be part of the Bourgeoisie. Assef clearly utilises religion as a weapon against Hassan, deeming him as lesser and shaming Amir for being associated with him. Assef’s intolerant views clearly lead him to transform into the hateful, oppressive Taliban member that he is shown to be later in the novel, who utilises religion as a tool to harm others and as an excuse for his barbaric actions. 

However, whilst one can consider the Kite Runner to be focused upon the defiance of minorities rather than their suppression, there are some arguments which support the idea that the novel focuses on their suppression over their defiance. For example, the character of Ali can also be perceived to be evidence that supports this argument. Ali as a character is presented as a quiet and subservient character, who possesses great religious faith. However, Ali is the subject of much abuse in the novel, he is abused for being a Hazara due to his inferior position within society. An example of this the way in which he is abused by children in the novel for his crippled appearance, due to his “congenital paralysis” in his lower face muscles and also his “twisted, atrophied right leg” a result of polio. Ali is referred to by the children as “Babalu” meaning boogeyman in English, showing that Ali is considered to be monstrous due to his abnormal appearance. Ali’s failure to respond to these comments can be seen as evidence that he is suppressed as a minority rather than defiant, he is labelled as “flat-nosed” by the children, a common derogatory term for a Hazara yet again illustrating his suppression as a minority due to his race and religion. Ali never responds to these comments, instead seemingly apathetic and unresponsive to them, however, the fact that he is taunted and abused by children can be perceived as evidence of just how suppressed and devalued by society he is. This is only one of the various examples that Ali is a suppressed minority than a defiant one. Continuing, Ali can be seen as suppressed character through the fact that he is still faithful to Baba regardless of the fact that he had relations with Sanaubar and fathered Hassan, his faithfulness and servitude towards Amir and Baba is something that eventually backfires, he eventually has to leave the household due to Amir and therefore loses his relationship with Baba. Ali, as a character, is ultimately depicted as a martyr, who is a victim of his own selflessness and compassion. He becomes caught up in the conflict present in Afghanistan that is fueled and driven by weaponized religion, something that he ultimately becomes a victim of when he inadvertently steps on a landmine leading him to be perceived as a kind, altruistic yet suppressed character who became the victim of his kind nature, he was left in Afghanistan whilst Baba and Amir escaped and therefore was left to live in the mass conflict of Afghanistan. However, to refute this argument, one can perceive Ali as unsuppressed when one considered the facts of why he never responded to his abusers. “Ali never retaliated against any of his tormentors, I suppose partly because he could never catch them with that twisted leg dragging behind him. But mostly because Ali was immune to the insults of his assailants; he had found his joy, his antidote, the moment Sanaubar had given birth to Hassan.” ultimately confirms why Ali was so content and apathetic with his unfair existence, he had found his light and hope within Hassan, which  was enough to make up for the oppression and suppression  which he faced and through the character of Hassan, who although is biologically the son of Baba, Ali’s altruistic and kind-hearted nature was passed over to Hassan. Hassan’s and Ali’s kind and selfless nature can be seen as an act of defiance in itself, they are two shining rays of kindness in a society that is ever so cruel. 

In conclusion, it is true to say that in my opinion, The Kite Runner is not primarily about the suppression of minorities but about their defiance. This is true in the sense that, although, yes the characters in the novel are indeed suppressed, when they are viewed as single characters, their rebellious and defiant nature is often what is at the forefront of the readers' minds, it overshadows the suppression they face. As aforementioned the characters of Ali, Hassan, Sofia Akrami, Sanaubar and to an extent Ali are lucid examples of the fact that the novel focuses primarily upon the defiance of minorities rather than their suppression. Hassan defies the Pashtun dominated, Sunni society through his friendship with Amir, something that society condemns due to the fact that they are of two different ethnic backgrounds and denominations of Islam. Hassan also defies society through his lasting impact upon Amir and also through his existence. His existence is defiant in the fact that he is half Hazara, half Pashtun, therefore Hassan can be perceived as a defiant bridge between these two cultures. Ultimately Hassan is confirmed to be defiant at his very core by the way he dies within the novel, he is executed for an act of defiance against the Taliban, refusing to allow them to take control of Baba and Amir’s house in Kabul. Sanaubar is defiant as she defies the strict gender roles that are enforced within Afghanistan, she defies Islam and the patriarchal Afghans society through her sexual freedom and abandonment of her maternal and wifely expectations. Her defiance is also clear through her relationship with Baba, a “Pashtun specimen” and also through the aforementioned birth of Hassan, the bridge between two races.  Baba can also be perceived as defying society through the same way as Sanaubar, through the birth of Hassan and their relationship. Moreover, he can be seen as a defiant character due to the fact that he criticises and illustrates the hypocritical nature of the “Mullahs” and also the danger in misinterpreting religion as it can lead to disastrous consequences, something which can be perceived as foreshadowing and foreboding by the reader. Sofia Akrami, Baba’s wife, also defies society through her utilization of improving women’s rights in Kabul to her advantage. Through these increased opportunities, Sofia manages to become a teacher of Farsi literature defying the expectations of the Patriarchal society of Afghanistan. Sofia also influences her son even beyond her death, driving a wedge between Baba and Amir through his love of literature, something which she also seemed to use to educate herself on issues that were otherwise censored in Afghan society (The Hazaras history of oppression). Finally, Ali can be perceived to be a defiant character through his kindness, which he transmits to his son, through this kindness Ali defies society through his difference, he is a gentle spirit in a world that is full of malevolence and cruelty. Overall, it seems that the defiance of minorities is a key theme that is laced throughout the “Kite Runner” it is something that most of the book’s characters possess and it also acts as a fuel which motivates Amir to redeem himself towards the end of the novel. 

(Taken from one of my past English Literature Essays.) 

By Thomas Stanier