Kara Ireland
Dr. Diop
LING 3020
December 4, 2018
Seeds of Happiness
Happiness is a fleeting state that is largely characterized by subjectivity. What constitutes happiness varies amongst the masses, but most would agree that there is no single, overarching component that defines or influences the idealistic state. Psychologically, there are five proposed elements of happiness: good physical and mental health, good relationships, good standard of living, perceivable beauty, and having a philosophic or religious point of view. I will refer to those elements as the seeds of happiness. With the tangibility of those components, however, the degree of happiness often varies. The pursuit of happiness depends largely on one’s desire and methods of sowing those seeds. Within the medium of Happiness by Aminatta Forna, such seeds of happiness have been contextually proposed for Jean Turane. In this paper, I will conduct a semiotic analysis of the text to explore how social codes impact Jean’s pursuit of happiness in Aminatta Forna’s novel: Happiness. In doing so, I will consider how Forna uses characterization throughout the novel to illuminate and deconstruct the governing social codes of Western cultures.
Marcel Danesi initially defines code as: “systems of signs that people can select and combine in specific … [and] meaningful ways (75). If a code is composed of a system of signs, I must first isolate and identify which signs I plan to scrutinize. The first signs I will make use of are the characters within Happiness, namely: Jean and Attila. The primary signs are the relationships between Jean and Attila, Eddie Hopper, Ray, and Luke. The other sign is the motif of the foxes and the implications surrounding them.
The codes I will observe are the social codes that authorize behaviors and ideologies in London, which Danesi specifies as the “zone” (84). According to Danesi’s definition, a zone is “a sign of social proximity;” this confines the analysis to the culture in London, as depicted in Happiness (84). Danesi also suggests that social codes merely implicate “social communication and interaction,” and Jean fares against several codes that complicate her navigation through society (84). Such codes include misogynistic work-based codes, romantic codes, and codes that provide the framework for various relationships. Due to the widespread notion that “codes are perceived as representing reality, until proven otherwise,” Jean is forced to dismantle a body of codes that precedes her own ideologies before she can express them (Danesi 81).
Jean Turane has a fixation on monitoring and documenting the behavior of the foxes inhabiting London. She has made fond attachments to them and demonstrates gentle possession, as she has described them as “our fox” to Tano (Forna 242). There is such an apparent degree of fulfilment in the text that I would classify her occupation as her most rewarding passion. The everlasting gratification she gets from her job, from fulfilling her passion, is a seed of happiness. Delving into a passionate activity stimulates her mental health as she finds beauty and fulfilment in performing her duties. Jean was at her happiest when she “immersed herself in work, gradually and pleasurably, as though she were walking into a warm lake” (Forna 73).
However, for many other Londoners, foxes are a seed of fear; the prominence of the foxes invokes fear and hostility by the masses as a result of social codes. The social codes that mold the general public’s interpretation of foxes have been heavily influenced by the prevailing negative rhetoric within the press. This is not specific to the medium, Happiness, because this is prevalent beyond the book in our society. Hearsay has tainted public opinion regarding foxes by continually referring to them as a “nuisance” and reiterating that “children [are] being attacked” by them, which instigates fearmongering (Forna 245). Attila even asked Jean: “which words [people] associated with foxes;” to which she answered: “urban, disease, destruction,” acknowledging their popular impressions (Forna 83). The spread of similar descriptors damages the ethos of the fox and perpetuates their negative connotations, thus inviting the skewed confirmation bias. Attila affirms this notion by reminding Jean that “people believe it because they read it in the papers and whatnot” (Forna 83). That is disheartening to Jean and adversely influences her happiness because of the misrepresentation of something she is so enamored with.
Jean is simultaneously forced to combat the misogynistic code assumed by the men who invited her to speak on their radio station. On the Eddie Hopper show, Jean experiences a torrent of misogynistic interactions, depicted in both their dismissal of her credentials and their misplaced attraction. For the latter, Jean’s looks were inappropriately acknowledged within the context of their radio session as he dubbed her a “fox-y lady” in a pun towards her profession (Forna 73). Such an unnecessary comment worked to derail her focus from being an “urban wildlife biologist” as she was then made uncomfortable by the recognition of her favorable appearance (Forna 75). Even so, she perseveres through the interview despite how she is faced with his misogyny again when he continually “interrupted” her, deeming his input more important than hers (Forna 74). In their subsequent radio interview, Eddie Hopper even “held up a hand to silence her” to forward a question to the Mayor, another misogynistic code under the assumption that men’s commentary is superior to the commentary of women (Forna 245). Together, they verbally stripped Jean of her credentials as they denounced her to “Miss ... sympathizer” (Forna 245). The usage of such a name is drawing on the sensitivity generally associated with women that saturates several codes in Western society, thus effectively negating her status as a “scientist” as a result (Forna 245).
Jean is having to deconstruct these codes that precede her to express her sentiments around her field of work. Although engaging with her passion is a seed of happiness, she is barred from true engagement because of codes that have already dictated the limited scope of her interaction. In spite of Jean’s possession of this seed of happiness, it is not able to be nurtured due to the codes of that environment. That seed is not allowed to grow because the “environment ... that governs interpretation” she is subjected to does not permit her to water it (Danesi 78). The contextualized space of interaction severs the flow of those nutritional waters she is attempting to offer to her passion.
Happiness delves into the dominant social codes that shape romance in Western societies. Autonomy is marked by embarrassment or incompleteness; It is “the deviation” from social code (Danesi 83). Marriage is the default, unmarked entity whereas autonomy is the atypical, marked entity. “Markedness provides an insight into social behavior and structure,” which Jean and Attila subconsciously adhere to (Danesi 83).
In a conversation with Attila, Quell’s encouragement that “it’s time” references the societal time restriction placed on individuals who are unwed by a certain age, despite the causes of their autonomy (Forna 207). Due to the notion that “codes are perceived as representing reality, until proven otherwise,” Jean had been negatively interpreting her autonomy because of the saturated media around her (Danesi 81). Those negative connotations around her independence infringed on her happiness, arguably more than the emotional toll from losing her husband and son. It would be more damaging to Jean because of the constant reiterations of the supposed void in her life.
With Jean’s status as a divorcee and Attila’s as a widow, there is societal pressure to move on from their past spouses, rooted in the assumption that everyone is “owed a happy ending” (Forna 37). Forna supplements the disparity by noting that “men ... [are] raised to expect unconditional love ... from every woman” whereas women are “raised to believe love was something to be earned” (Forna 71). Because Ray apparently “did not love [his job] more than his [home or his] family,” Forna conceivably paints Jean as an anomaly for finding genuine contentment outside of her family and in her job with such comparative language (Forna 71). In that weighted comparison, Jean could be negatively implicated because she does not prioritize them in the way the social codes mandate. Instead, I maintain that Forna orients Jean as a character that exudes security and opposes social codes because she did not “work ... in order to forget,” “she worked without guilt ... the way she had always wanted” (73). Hence, Forna engages in social commentary by challenging the codes that dictate society and creating characters who exist in opposition to them – in spite of them.
Even so, some social codes are too embedded in the culture to ignore. Jean then succumbs to the prominent social code of having to secure herself with another relationship, as that gives her existence more merit. When considering how she “felt that if their eyes were to meet he would see what was inside,” I identify it as when she first begins instigating romantic interest with Attila out of proximity (Forna 188). “Attila passed through the door and into the knowing,” suggests that the aforementioned “knowing” would insinuate the romantic interest they both share (Forna 237). The mutuality of it is attested by this coming from Attila’s point of view rather than Jean’s. Evidenced in the intimacy of “[describing] her own scars” following intercourse, they are both experiencing the distant need for conformity by fashioning an estranged romance (Forna 254). In this, Jean is subconsciously assuming a pattern she is convinced will bring her happiness.
Validation is a widespread barrier perpetuated by social codes that suggest thoughts and feelings only have merit when seconded by another. Although Forna has effectively created Jean as a character that functions contrarily to social codes, human nature sometimes overrides that propensity. Human nature makes everyone susceptible to the influences of the codes and eventual concession is unavoidable. The lack of validation affects happiness because it provokes indignation and insecurity as it can usually become the “source of ... irritation” (Forna 251). Jean assumed the position of the validator on the Eddie Hopper show when “[the callers] thought Jean should laud their efforts and were annoyed when she didn’t” (Forna 75). Some of the social codes were validated, however, as Jean sought fulfilment from her short-lived romance with Attila. Because Jean had, to some degree, invested a portion of her happiness in her budding relationship with Attila, she was subjected to anger and resentment when she realized “their relationship might end where it had begun” (Forna 281). Social codes had conditioned her to believe that Attila might coddle her following their encounter, thus she experienced disappointment upon the reality. Because she was not immune to the codes, she “was angry at herself, at the possibility of a misjudgment or misstep” (Forna 282).
Additionally, Jean was disposed to believe that children should address their parents in a variation of mom and dad, rather than by their first names. She was under that impression because of the social code dictating relationships between parents and children. Luke remedied the rift between mother and son as he resorted to calling her “Mom” for the first time after Jean wondered “how come Ray was still Pops, but she had become Jean” (Forna 105). By affectionately referring to Jean as “Mom,” Luke unknowingly provided her some form of validation because “at least he was calling her Mom again” (Forna 248). Rekindled relationships are a seed of happiness because reestablishing familiarity after time away from one another rouses old, warm feelings.
Although Aminatta Forna has done a remarkable job at crafting a character that so seamlessly deconstructs various social codes, Jean’s permeability is still evident. I propose that incorporating Jean’s flaws into the story make her more of a strong-willed human and less of an unrealistic, social contrarian that is fixed on solely dismantling the system. Forna has created realistic characters that fit within the human condition; they are not functioning in a glorified, idealized world of her creation. Moreover, Jean exists in opposition to the codes she is continually up against, and she still finds ways to nurture her seeds of happiness. There is no greater imbalance on either side; Jean is neither driven by chasing her happiness with reckless abandon nor her incentive of deconstructing the codes. I have consumed Happiness as a model for how to potentially reach one’s own happiness, or how to sow their seeds accordingly. Forna has documented an intuitive means of preparing sustainable ground by indulging in portions of everything that contributes to the overall happiness of her characters; thus, she is suggesting similar methods for her audience to interpret.
Works Cited
Danesi, Marcel. The Quest for Meaning: A Guide to Semiotic Theory and Practice. University of
Toronto Press, June 2007.
Forna, Aminatta. Happiness. Atlantic Monthly Press, March 2018.