Better Slaveowner, Worse Person, Rufe's Paradox
Introduction
When we first meet Rufus Weylin as an adult slave owner in Octavia Butler's Kindred, it's tempting to measure his cruelty against his father's and call it progress. Rufus doesn't seem to go out of his way to brutalize his slaves the way Tom Weylin did. He protects some of them, even calls them friends. But this apparent improvement reveals something far more disturbing. Rufus is a "better" slave owner than his father, but he's ultimately a worse person. This paradox shows us both the success and the failure of Dana's influence on him, and it forces us to ask an uncomfortable question: what does it mean to be a "better" slave owner when you understand your slaves are fully human?
Tom Weylin's cruelty is impersonal and consistent. He brutalizes his slaves, seeing them as property that needs to be controlled through fear and violence. Rufus is different. He doesn't physically punish most of his slaves as frequently. He protects certain slaves, like when he prevents his father from selling Nigel. He treats some slaves as friends or at least as people rather than pure property.
But the systemic cruelty continues. The field slaves still suffer under the overseer. The work is still grueling. Rufus may be less personally cruel in some ways, but he still runs a plantation built on human suffering.
Where Dana Comes In
Over Dana's longest stay of eight months, Rufus only physically abuses one person among the named characters she's close to: Alice. Despite her relationships with Nigel, Carrie, and Sarah, Dana doesn't witness Rufus whipping or beating any of them. And this isn't because Dana has become desensitized. She still reacts strongly when Rufus sells Sam and Tess. She's grown closer to Nigel, Carrie, and Sarah, and she would absolutely notice and mention if Rufus abused them.
Rufus's relationship with Nigel shows this most clearly. He treats Nigel as a friend and as a human being. They were raised together, and Rufus protects him from being sold.
Rufus' Relationships
Here's where things get disturbing. Rufus's worst cruelty doesn't come from seeing slaves as property. It comes from seeing them as human beings whose feelings he can manipulate and whose suffering he causes while fully understanding what he's doing.
His treatment of Alice is the most horrifying example. Rufus doesn't treat Alice as mere property. He treats her as someone he "loves," someone he's in a relationship with. But this is actually worse than simple ownership. It's a twisted, abusive relationship where Rufus has all the power and Alice has none. He uses psychological manipulation alongside physical violence. He understands her feelings well enough to hurt her in the most painful ways possible.
The comparison to modern domestic abuse is unavoidable. Rufus's treatment of Alice has all the elements: manipulation, violence, possessiveness, cycles of harm and false tenderness. But it's domestic abuse with an absolute power imbalance and zero protections for the victim. His "love" directly causes immense suffering, and he causes it while fully understanding Alice's humanity.
Dana gets caught in this same dynamic. And Sam gets sold for the crime of talking to Dana. Rufus punishes people not for breaking plantation rules, but for getting in the way of his possessive "love."
Rufus can be more cruel than his father precisely because he sees slaves as people with feelings he can manipulate and hurt. His father's cruelty was terrible but impersonal. Rufus's cruelty is personal and calculated.
Conclusion
When I first finished Kindred, I thought Dana's influence on Rufus had completely failed. But the situation is more complicated. Dana absolutely pushed Rufus in the right direction. He's less casually cruel than Tom Weylin to most slaves. He forms genuine human connections with Nigel. He doesn't go out of his way to punish slaves outside his twisted emotional entanglements.
The problem is that Rufus's recognition of slaves' humanity gets corrupted by the absolute power he has over them. He has all the power with no checks on it. So he takes the humanity Dana taught him to see and turns it into something poisonous. He turns it into possessive, abusive "love." He uses his understanding of people's feelings to manipulate them more effectively.
Dana influenced him. She succeeded in teaching him that slaves are people. But she couldn't save him from what power does to someone who sees others as human yet still owns them.
This is a really interesting perspective. I completely agree that Tom's treatment of the slaves is often more impersonal, so the ways he hurts them almost make sense. Whereas Rufus' treatment comes from his belief that they are humans who he can manipulate and use to his will. I never thought about how much worse this is because obviously he is framed as better than his father. But when you factor in Dana's influence on him and his own views of the slaves, it becomes clear that he is a worse person because of his personal closeness to the slaves. Great post!
ReplyDeleteYour point about Dana's influence on Rufus is very interesting. I feel like this perspective is especially clear in the case of Alice. Dana's interracial relationship with Kevin influenced Rufus to try and have some twisted version of that with Alice, although it just ended in him treating her worse. Whereas, without Dana's influence, his relationship with Alice may have looked more similar to the way his father abused female slaves. While I don't think that Dana is solely responsible for Rufus's behavior, I agree that, in some cases, she implicitly influenced him for the worse. Great blog!
ReplyDeleteHi Kyle! This blog makes so many great points. Rufus' "love" really does make him a twisted and corrupted person. I find myself mourning what Rufus could've been if his love and care were directed towards actual good. Amazing Blog!
ReplyDeleteHi Kyle, you make some really excellent points in this blog. I completely agree that Dana's influence on Rufus worked, but might have backfired given the context of the environment he was in and the power he held over his slaves, which could definitely be worse and or more directly targeted at specific people. It kind of makes you wonder what kind of person Rufus would be like in a different context--maybe during Dana's time. Amazing job!
ReplyDeleteOne thought I often have when reading this novel is that there's nothing even remotely appealing about Rufus's role in life: it's true that he is "better off" than the enslaved people on the plantation in a range of ways, but the novel never enables us to somehow "envy" Rufus's power and prestige in this society. As you note, his father represents "the system," as he just embodies his role fully, without the emotional messiness that Rufus brings to the table. But precisely *because* Dana gives him these crazy ideas about his "feelings" for the enslaved people on his plantation (specifically Dana and Alice, but also Nigel and his family), he ends up being even *worse* than his father, as he becomes emotionally manipulative, dishonest, scheming. So she HAS influenced him in various ways, and he genuinely does seem to envy what Dana and Kevin have in 1976--his greater awareness of the humanity of the enslaved people on his plantation in many ways only makes him more miserable. The *system* is "diseased," as Dana puts it, and the disease afflicts everyone who is a part of that system. We don't read this novel wanting to be Tom, or Margaret, or Rufus. They are miserable people.
ReplyDeletehi kyle! I really liked the structure of your blog. I like how theres an argument that dana possibly did more harm and good in terms of influencing rufus. She definitely introduced him to an idea that him and alice can love each other in the future, but it ended up being used as an excuse to treatment that (while wrong) was actually accepted in rufus's version of society. I enjoyed reading your blog! great post!
ReplyDeleteThis is a really sharp interpretation of Rufus, especially the point that recognizing someone’s humanity doesn’t automatically make you moral, power can twist that recognition into a tool of control. The comparison to modern domestic abuse also feels accurate without oversimplifying slavery. Kindred forces readers to sit with the idea that individual kindness can’t undo a violent system, and your analysis captures that tension really well.
ReplyDelete