Close Search Close

 

  • Comics
  • Theatre
  • Site News

The Grass is Singing

The irrationality of what seems to be reason.

Doris Lessing’s novel The Grass is Singing is a masterwork about her life in Rhodesia – as I understand it, she considered it what would happen if she’d made the opposite decision at every step of her life, with a protagonist – Mary – who is successfully publicly shamed into giving up her free-spirited individual life in a boarding house and marrying a farmer on impulse, only for both of them to get dragged down in a miserable and increasingly bleak existence. The novel’s illustration of racism and colonialism in a small environment is well-celebrated; Mary considers her black workers with a mixture of fear, contempt, and buried sexual attraction as she attempts to use them to run the farm, which is really a sublimated attempt to feel control and pleasure in her own life.

What’s less discussed, as far as I can tell, is the novel’s illustration of the pitfalls of reason, and even how this can be tied into larger thoughts about Western civilization and colonialism. One of the things that makes the novel so heartbreaking is that each step of the way is a perfectly rational action based upon what the characters know, how they think, what they want, and what they’ve experienced. Mary’s least rational step at right at the beginning, when she impulsively marries Dick Turner, and that’s driven by the entirely understandable humiliation she feels when her community – the most important thing to her – is making fun of her.

But the single most potent moment of Reason in the story – the ‘scenes’ that justify the whole book beyond its general beauty and sadness – is when Dick gets sick and Mary is both motivated and required to take over the farm. Dick’s irrational action was to keep his wife away from all the actual work of the farm; something that came from his desire to live up to the idea of a man (the most the story explicitly engages with the ideas of Western civilization, as opposed to demonstrating them through action). 

When forced to through sheer pragmatism, Mary quickly discovers Dick is unsystematic in his approach to the farm; aside from the disorganized approach to finances, Dick doesn’t really enforce any kind of discipline on his workers, who show up and leave when they feel like it and work on parts of the land when they feel like it. As laid out in the novel, her reasoning seems sound, and Dick seems foolishly haphazard. The novel then immediately flips this over as she brings her own approach; Dick was halfassing his approach to running a farm, but he was also working around human nature as best he could, and Mary’s inhuman punishment and enforcement of her own personal views of the world alienate the workers and drive them to rebel.

The overall effect isn’t quite that Dick and Mary are incompetent, it’s that the land itself is simply not suited to what they’re trying to get from it. Literally, in that it seems the land is not suitable for farming, but also in a general sense as they fail to appreciate the beauty of the place and keep trying to use it to generate the archetypes that even they don’t really believe in – the white man in control of his environment. The aggressive rationality is what really gets me here; what the characters do not only worsens their situation, it worsens their mental state, but you can’t really argue the characters out of their situation because it seems, based upon everything about them, the right move.

The connection to Western values is palpable. The main criticism of Western values from the outside that I’ve heard is valuing hard data and the bottom line more than spiritual matters or the big picture; businesses that chase ever-increasing profits over delivering a good service or product (or at least one that doesn’t poison the planet), for example. When you’re pursuing as much money as possible, it’s rational to dismantle elements of that service that are good but cut into profit, or to shove as many ads in as you can fit. 

The common defence of unfettered capitalism is that people are rational actors who will, ultimately, choose the safer and better option; the common response is that people aren’t rational, but it would be more accurate to say that, unfortunately, they’re extremely rational – chasing short-term and personal comfort over a bigger picture, either unaware of or indifferent to the larger consequences of their decisions, even when those decisions come back on them personally. Eastern thinkers – as I understand it – essentially argue that Westerners have it backwards; that we pick a goal that we ‘should’ rationally achieve that will make us a lot of money, and then make emotional decisions trying to get there, if we make emotional decisions at all, only to get neurotically caught up in decision-making because we’re doing things that make us unhappy.

The Grass is Singing shows that kind of ‘myth’ from the inside – from the people perpetuating it. Mary and Dick’s goal is to live up to an idea of a person and they’re stubbornly fighting reality to get there (the least rational aspect is Mary’s inherent, unshakeable contempt for the black residents); the last shot Mary had to be happy was to ignore the tittering of her friends and consider what she really, personally wanted over the general idea of being a Wife And Mother to fit in – to embrace an irrational desire.