The Slavery Kaleidoscope: Blurring Family and Profit

Excerpt from Octavia Butler's Kindred:

      I looked over at the boy who would be Hagar's father. There was nothing in him that

      reminded me of any of my relatives. Looking at him confused me. But he had to be

      the one. There had to be some kind of reason for the link he and I seemed to have. 

      Not that I really thought a blood relationship could explain the way I had twice been

     drawn to him. It wouldn't. But then, neither would anything else. What we had was

     something new, something that didn't even have a name (29). 

Critical Questions: 

1. If Rufus is her relative, why is she unable to identify him?

2. What kind of lines are blurred when the whites and blacks are intermixed into "familial" ties? 

3. How is it possible to differentiate between family and property when a person's status encompasses both spaces? 

     In the text, "family" has an ambiguous definition. There are certain notions of what a family should be, but the characters in Kindred do not encompass this definition: the lines are not clearly drawn. Butler derives two definitions of family: they differ from the master to the slave.  

    This is most obvious through the character Tom. While he shouldn't beat his white son, he does. He punishes Rufus in an animalistic way that is similar to the manner in which he punishes his slaves. At the same time, after Tom's death, Rufus inherits all of the "property" including the slaves. By this definition, family acts as a place-holder for the maintenance of power by the master's definition. In retrospect, because the slaves cannot foster the typical familial relations and they have no property to claim, the slaves identify their family with who they live and work with. They act as a community when they teach each other to read, introduce new skill sets ( Sarah teaching Dana to cook/Dana teaching Nigel to read), etc despite whether or not there is a blood relation. However, as the excerpt above reveals, the division between the master and slave is blurred once there is a master and slave relation.

     Dana is unable to name what Rufus is to her in the excerpt above. He "confuses" her, and therefore she isn't able to identify him as anything specifically. Her definition doesn't match up to what Rufus is, yet she feels inclined to save him and help him throughout the book. She refers to him as a "link" in the above quote recognizing that he is more than just another person; but also not necessarily "family". Her interrogative nature in the quote demonstrates the true confusion that comes with slavery when profit and family become inter-twined. As Dana travels back and forth between times she realizes "...slavery of any kind fostered strange relationships" (229).  Rufus expresses confusion in the book as well. He treats Dana differently than he treats the other slaves while also treating her as if she is his "property" when he punishes her and forces her to work in the fields.

 He respects her to a degree and allows her to have certain privileges that other slaves are denied, he confides in her. But the fact remains that family and profit cannot exist together. This is apparent  Rufus attempts to kill Dana, and when Dana later kills Rufus.