Gwen Pichette, “A Colonizer’s Mindset in Morrison’s ‘Sweetness’”
A general parallel among all of the critical literary theories that involve oppressive forces is the workings of some type of ideology. Ideology is rooted in people’s thoughts, behaviors, or the actions. The focus for postcolonialist criticism is how anticolonialist or colonialist ideology operates within literature. That is, how the unconscious forces that pertain to the domination of another group of people and the indoctrination of Eurocentric culture can unconsciously drive characters’ behaviors. Toni Morrison’s short-story “Sweetness” follows the protagonist, a light-skinned black woman, who has a dark-skinned daughter, Lula Ann. Throughout the text, the mother, who has her daughter refer to her as “Sweetness” as opposed to the traditional name of “mom,” resents Lula Ann for what she sees as an inferior race. Upon first glance, it is incredibly difficult for the reader to sympathize with the protagonist—a protagonist who appears to detest her own daughter merely because of her skin. Their relationship is tragically devoid of anything other than the strict obligation of a caretaker. However, postcolonial criticism allows us to have a more empathetic view of Sweetness, as it reveals the drive behind her deplorable treatment of Lula Ann. This is not simply a mother’s individual failure to be maternal and foster a loving, healthy connection with her daughter. Rather, Sweetness’s seemingly unwarranted distaste stems from Eurocentrism’s lasting impact in a postcolonial world. These Eurocentric ideologies are evident in the structures of the society around her which value whiteness, which she internalizes, and then unwittingly projects onto her own daughter. Sweetness unknowingly creates a power dynamic between her, as the colonizer, and her daughter, the colonized. Through othering her own daughter, submitting to white ideals through mimicry, and struggling to reconcile her conflicted identity due to double consciousness, Morrison magnifies how colonialist ideology is the drive behind Sweetness’s otherwise inexcusable behavior.
Thus, the debate lies not in whether Sweetness’s behaviors should be classified as poor, which can be clearly discerned upon inspection; rather, the focus lies in where these abhorrent behaviors stem from—and how they are driven by colonialist forces. This can be reflected in the Eurocentric beauty standards that Sweetness values, particularly those of Nordicism. Tyson, in Critical Theory Today, defines Nordicism as an ideology that views white people as “genetically superior to the other races” with the idealization of “fair skin, blond or brown hair, and light-colored eyes” (Tyson 402). While “Sweetness” is somewhat limited in its exploration of explicitly white characters, it is difficult to ignore the way in which the mentioned white characters are described in comparison to the Black ones. For instance, the German couple Sweetness refers to is described as being “white as snow” (Morrison 3). Snow evokes an image of something light, glistening, and natural. It generally has a positive connotation, and lends to Nordicism’s glorification of fairer skin. Notably, the German couple are minor characters that are only mentioned once in an anecdote about being white and having a dark-skinned child. They are complete strangers to Sweetness, yet she still finds a way to unconsciously idealize their skin. In comparison, when describing her own daughter’s skin, she claims that “she was so black she scared [her],” and that “tar is the closest thing [she] can think of” (Morrison 3) While snow is something that elicits a peaceful scene, tar is thick and clinging, and is not as aesthetically desirable. Even the unconscious word choice that Sweetness uses within the confines of her very own mind is a stark reflection of her perception of race. There are further telling Eurocentric beauty standards within the text, like when Sweetness rejects Black features, as when she notes that her daughter has “what [she] think[s] are too thick lips” (Morrison 5). The standard of too- thick lips is based upon the “universal” standard of the thinner, European lips which are deemed superior, mirroring internalized colonialist ideals at work.
However, this perception of inferiority does not simply reflect her individual beliefs, but a generational result of the colonialist environment into which she has been born. This inferiority ascribed to African Americans can be found deeply within Sweetness’s own family name. She names her daughter Lula Ann, deriving it from Sweetness’s own white-skinned mother’s name, Lula Mae. This connection to whiteness, even if only through the Black grandmother who can pass as white, is Sweetness’s attempt to connect her daughter to what she sees as inherently good. However, the choice instead magnifies the erasure of Black culture and identity. The text includes no trace of Sweetness and Lula Anne’s African American roots, implying that it is somehow shameful or unworthy of being passed on. Thus, when Lula Ann renames herself as simply “Bride,” while it is also implied that she is marrying a darker-skinned Black man, it is a moment of power and reclamation from her mothers’ white ideals (Morrison 8).
Erasure of Black names is further reflected in Sweetness’s negative undertone when she discusses Black lineage. She asks the reader directly, “Can you imagine how many white folks have Negro blood hiding in their veins?” then implores us to “guess,” which is followed by “Twenty percent I heard” (Morrison 3). Sweetness presents this percentage of Black blood as some grotesque fact, and with the personification of “Negro blood” as something that is “hiding,” she implies that it is something that ought to be hiding, something to be shunned. This mindset is a product of the environment that her family has immersed her in, which has largely hierarchized race. Sweetness desperately attempts to justify her poor decisions and guilt for her parenting decisions when she says, “you should’ve seen my grandmother; she passed for white, married a white man, and never said another word to any one of her children ” (Morrison 3). She easily justifies her mistreatment of her daughter by implying that she had the potential to be much worse, like her family, but chose good—to be the “sweetness” in her daughter’s life. Sweetness’s delivery of this line about a mother leaving her children merely based on their skin is so casual that it is completely dismissive of its evident wrongness. Ultimately, since her family has modeled behaviors and traditions that reject darker skin, Sweetness now views this behavior as acceptable and acts on them.
Sweetness clearly adopts such behavior when she participates in the act of “othering”her own daughter, presenting her as something demonic and alien. When describing her, Sweetness says Lula Ann “has funny-colored eyes, crow black with a blue tint—something witchy about them too” (Morrison 5). The comparison of her daughter to an animal—a crow—hints at how she perceives her daughter to be less than human. She then brings in something that is historically demonic and wicked, a symbol of evil: a witch. Through the belittling of darker-skinned African Americans through the demonization of her daughter, it becomes increasingly clear that she imposes Eurocentric values onto Lula Ann as a way to guide the colonized because they are “inferior” beings. Instead, the colonized are viewed as something alien that needs to have normal standards driven into them in an attempt to civilize them. This idea is exhibited when she forces Lula Ann to adhere to mimicry. She says her daughter needs to learn “to keep her head down and not make trouble” because “she didn’t know the world” (Morrison 6). Sweetness compromises her own identity in an attempt to adhere to “civilized” behavior, and forces the same on Lula Ann, because she views the naive colonial subject as unaware of the world and in need of being reshaped.
Sweetness is utterly blinded by colonialist ideology into believing that she is not doing her daughter a disservice in inculcating her with these standards of inferiority, but instead fulfilling her duty as a colonizer to guide the inferior and misguided. While Sweetness is also Black, she believes herself to be superior to Lula Anne due to her lighter skin. Yet the colonized darker-skinned people are not perceived as fully human themselves. This becomes increasingly evident in her tone and word choice when describing them. She ponders about how times have changed from when she was young, for “Blue-blacks are all over TV, in fashion magazines, commercials, even starring in movies” (Morrison 8). Her nickname for darker-skinned African Americans as “blue-blacks,” reveals that she perceives them to be a species all their own. Furthermore, while she does have the scope of recognition of African Americans’ involvement in society to see that their role has drastically changed from her youth, she sees those who are darker skinned as being “other.” Not because of “savage” behaviors, but because of what she finds to be an exotic and primitive beauty, which marks them as inhuman. All of these professions and accomplishments of the “blue-blacks” on television shows and magazines pertain strictly to the entertainment industry, and therefore to appearances. Such things are intended to please the eyes of white people, “reduc[ing] the other to main subjects of observation” (Bartiza and Zrizi 71). Thus Sweetness is not seeing these real people as actual, full-fledged, individual human beings with their own personalities and aspirations. Instead, this line reveals that she views them as “other” beings, who are useful solely for their “exotic” beauty that is only acceptable to her because of its benefit to white people.
Furthermore, while certainly subtle, there are instances of Sweetness showing human emotions of guilt and empathy, which reveal her postcolonial identity that is confused with what to align with. This confusion renders her poor behavior as somewhat plausible for someone in her position. Her confusion further lends itself to the postcolonial idea of double consciousness, a fractured “way of perceiving the world that is divided between the two antagonist cultures,” that of the colonizer and that of the colonized (Tyson 403). This can be exhibited in the contradictory feelings she expresses about her parenting: “but it’s not my fault. It’s not my fault. It’s not. I feel bad sometimes about how I treated Lula Ann when she was little, … but you have to understand: I had to protect her” (Morrison 6). She first enlists repetition, as if she is convincing herself that her behavior is not her fault, before acknowledging her guilt. However, she then diminishes this acknowledgement completely with her justification of a mother’s protection, brushing it off as a necessity. Furthermore, Sweetness admits that she “was really upset, even repelled by her [daughter’s] black skin when… . . No. I have to push those memories away—fast. No point. I know I did the best for her under the circumstances” (Morrison 8). These lines exhibit colonialist ideology taking over, and her split into a double consciousness. The frenzied dashes and pauses represent her confusion about her role, as the cultural programming of a colonizer combats with her maternal instincts. It is imperative to acknowledge the multiple perspectives of Sweetness’s character; it allows us to see how these perspectives interact—and how these colonialist forces produce her postcolonial identity.
Ultimately, Sweetness’s behavior reflects how cultural colonization is often “disguised in noble intentions” (Bartiza and Zrizi 69). Sweetness believes herself to be noblely assimilating her darker-skinned daughter, who she falsely believes would be lost without her. Yet postcolonialism works to unveil these “hidden hideous premises which bring about division and defamation,” in this case, the fracturing of something as pure as a mother and daughter’s relationship (Bartiza and Zrizi 69). Sweetness’s behavior is rooted in fear of her own mistreatment as a light-skinned Black woman as well as fear of society’s rejection of her dark-skinned daughter, thus leading to a ceaseless perpetuation of Eurocentric standards.
Works Cited
Bartiza, Salma, and Hassan Zrizi. “Postcolonialism: Literary Applications of a Decolonizing Tool.” International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, vol. 5, no. 12, 2022, pp. 69–75 , https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2022.5.12.9. Accessed 25 Apr. 2023.
Morrison, Toni. “Sweetness.” The New Yorker, February 2, 2015.
Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User-friendly Guide. 3rd ed., Abingdon, Routledge, 2015.
This essay was written for Professor Wilson in the Spring 2023 semester.