The Conflicted Conscience in Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain explores the question of what constitutes good moral action. Twain illustrates how when good morals are contrasted with bad ones, the issue of moral action is simplified to the point of leaving no middle ground. Interestingly, in the novel, bad morals are often associated with society: Huck finds that he must make moral choices, which is problematic because society's morals often clash with his own personal morals. Huck's moral choices reveal that humans have an innate conscience that dictates moral action, or the right thing to do. In his article "On Human Intimacy in Huckleberry Finn," Michael Lackey argues that the "conscience is [not] an impartial judge of moral values, but that it is a social construction, a receptacle of his culture's values and ideology" (495). While Lackey says that the conscience is not an impartial judge of moral values, he is wrong about his assumption that the conscience is only societally based. In fact, through Huck's moral choice-making, Twain reveals that there is an innate personal conscience that exists outside of social ideology. Twain illustrates Huck's ethical conflict to reveal the absurdity that results from caving to societal pressure, ultimately suggesting that one must always follow his or her own personal beliefs rather than society's collective conscience.
Twain's satire of what it means to be civilized suggests the absurdity of society's conscience. Twain sets up the novel by describing how the Widow took Huck in as her son and was to "sivilize [him]." Huck describes his experience with the Widow: "...it was rough living in the house all the time [...] and so when I couldn't stand it no longer I lit out [...]. But Tom Sawyer he hunted me up and said [...] I might join [Tom's band of robbers] if I would go to the widow and be respectable. So I went back" (Twain 1). Huck's dissatisfaction with moral standards is thus emphasized very early in the novel. The moral standard is to be "sivilized" and that evidently is something Huck does not wish to be, which is why he "lite[s] out" in order to be free of societal law. However, this freedom is only temporary, as Tom tells Huck that Huck must stay with the Widow and be civilized if Huck is to join Tom's band of robbers. In this manner, Twain uses satire to portray the ridiculousness of what it means to be civilized if robbers are considered civilized. Huck's decision to stay at the Widow's and simultaneously join the band of robbers is Huck's attempt to satisfy both his absurd societal conscience and his personal conscience. Even so, as Huck begins new adventures he finds that such reconciliation of societal law and his personal beliefs is not realistic.
Huck's rejection of the Widow's teaching represents Huck's personal conscience overcoming his societal conscience. Huck's socially imposed conscience drives him to think that he is doing wrong by not turning Jim in for running away. One night on the river, Huck has trouble sleeping due to his moral conflict and begins to think that Miss Watson must have done something terrible to Jim: "that I could see her nigger go off right under my eyes and never say one single word. [...] Why she tried to learn me my book, she tried to learn me my manners, she tried to be good to me every way she knowed how. That's what she done" (Twain 87). Huck questions why he allows Jim to be free if all Miss Watson, Jim's owner, did for Huck was try to be "good" to him. The answer Huck finds to his actions is that Miss Watson "tried" to make him a civilized person which ultimately instilled society's pro-slavery conscience in him. The problem is that what society defines as good is not actually morally good. Huck is able to recognize that this conscience is not his own, and is not morally correct by his definition of "good". In this manner Huck realizes that he cannot stand following his society imposed conscience. In his paper on "Human Intimacy in Huckleberry Finn," Lackey, believes that "the moment [Huck] rejects conscience and decides not to re-enslave Jim, [is the] point in the novel that [Huck] begins processing and articulating the transformation" of his own conscience "occurring within him" (Lackey 495). It is at this point, as Lackey states, Huck's socially trapped mind transforms into one that is able to think for itself without any outer societal interferences. In addition, Lackey states that "Huck's feelings for Jim outweigh his respect for the moral law, [as] he chooses human friendship" (Lackey 497). Lackey is partially right in Huck's feeling for Jim outweighing his respect for moral law, but Lackey fails to specifically state that the moral law is society's and not Huck's. Also, Lackey believes that Huck abandons morality in general for friendship; however, it is Huck's morality that guides him to pursue the interest of friendship over societal obligations.
After evaluating the consequences of following his personal beliefs, Huck finds that it would be morally correct to allow Jim to be free. Huck's assessment that a free Jim is a threat to society suggests that Huck is able to overcome society's influence by listening to his own personal views. As Jim speaks of trying to one day buy back his children and if that doesn't work then to steal them, Huck finds that Jim "wouldn't ever dared to talk such talk in his life before. It was according to the old saying, 'Give a nigger an inch and he'll take an ell.' Thinks I, this is what comes of my not thinking. [...] My conscience got to stirring me up hotter than ever [...but then] I just felt sick" (Twain 88). The conscience being referred to here is the societal conscience, not Huck's personal belief based one. And it is this societal conscience that "stirs" Huck so much and almost gets him to think that he is "not thinking" rationally, when in reality, he is. Also, "giving a nigger an inch" is exactly what Huck's personal beliefs tell him to do, because by allowing this to happen, Jim will be able to take the step to "take an ell" and therefore gain freedom from slavery.
Huck's investigation of whether to turn Jim in leads to Huck's rejection of religion and by extension, societal morality. Huck's decision to not report Jim to Miss Watson shows Huck's disregard for slavery, and more generally society. Huck decides: "I would do the right thing and the clean thing, and go write to that nigger's owner and tell where [Jim] was […I'd] got to decide forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: 'All right, then, I'll go to hell'-- and tore it up" (Twain 213-214). Even though Huck initially writes the letter due to his socially influenced conscience telling him to do so, he ultimately decides that by "tearing" it up he will "go to hell." In Huck's sense, "hell" is associated with his upbringing and therefore by "tearing" the letter, he disassociates himself from societal obligation of following its influence if he is to go to heaven. Thus, hell is a place that stands in opposition to society. It is ironic that Twain reverses the idea of Heaven and Hell, and by doing so, makes it seem that Hell is a place that people with good morals go to, rather than Heaven. Moreover, Huck is no longer interested in society's values. It is in this very moment that Huck finally decides "betwixt the two things" of whether to follow his own morals or society's, and chooses his own morals. Huck's morals tell him that Jim should be free and not a slave. But Huck is not only interested in Jim's freedom, but is also interested in his own freedom. In his article, "The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn", Bennet says that Huck does not have the "will or strength" to do what society has made him think is the right thing to do (Bennett 126). Huck's choices are not due to weakness in battling his socially imposed conscience, but rather due to his personal desires finally overcoming his societal obligations.
In addition, through the metaphor of the raft, Huck concludes that it is not worth following society's collective conscience. While a part of society, Huck was obligated to be civilized. However, being civilized came at the price of Huck's own freedom. After leaving Aunt Sally's house, Huck, Tom, and Jim "struck out, easy and comfortable, for the island where [Huck's] raft was; and [they] could hear them yelling and barking at each other all up and down the bank, till [Huck and companions were] so far way the sounds got dim and died out. And when [Huck and Jim] stepped onto the raft [Huck] says : 'Now, old Jim, you're a free man again' " (Twain 274). Tom's association with society is what caused Huck in the first place to follow the influence of the societal conscience. The fact that Tom is left behind due to his shot in the arm reveals Huck's full dissociation from society. Also, the river symbolizes Huck's freedom where he does not need to comply with societal law. The same logic applies to Jim and his status as a slave. In this manner, the moment Huck and Jim step onto the raft, they become free, especially as the "sounds" of civilization fully "[die] out" and the river blocks out the "barking" of civilization. It is for this very reason of comfort in the isolation of Huck's personal conscience that Huck has an emotional pull toward the river. Bennet explains that "unreasoned emotional pulls" overcome "general moral principles" (Bennett 127). It is unusual that Bennett calls the emotional pulls "unreasoned." There is reason behind an emotional pull, and Bennet does not consider "unreasoned" to mean irrational. Huck's emotion is based on his feeling rather than his societal conscience, and it is this very feeling that drives Huck to take action on his choice to free Jim. In his article, "Society and Conscience in Huckleberry Finn", Levy states that it is sometimes said that Huck acts out of simple affection for Jim; but affection does not determine a moral attitude. It is more reasonable to say that Huck defies "conscience" on the basis of an unformulated but very real sense of responsibility – to the notion that it is wrong, for example, to contribute to the enslavement of another human being. And this is a matter of conscience too, to which we may assume Huck's experiences with Jim have contributed in a fundamental way. (Levy 389)
Levy is right to state that affection - a type of emotion - does not completely determine Huck's moral attitude. It is Huck's defying society's conscience that allows his own personal beliefs to tell him that he has a responsibility to free Jim of enslavement. Such a sense of responsibility as well as the different experiences and adventures Huck goes through with Jim shape Huck's personal conscience. It shapes Huck's personal conscience in such a way that it allows Huck to abandon his societal conscience.
As Huck explores the meaning of the moral standard of being civilized, Twain reveals the hypocrisy surrounding it. Huck realizes that his definition of morality opposes that of society, and he tries to come to terms with his societal and personal conscious. Huck attempts to find a middle ground, but realizes that that is not possible and that he must choose between the two. After Huck explores the results of following societal law he sees that these situations always result in things that go against his inner personal beliefs. He then goes on to evaluate the results of his own personal beliefs. The consequences of these situations make it clear that societal law is not absolute and is in no way better than personal belief.
Bibliography
Bennett, Jonathan. "The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn." Philosophy 49 (1974): 123-34. JSTOR. Web. 20 Apr. 2013. This article provided a unique interpretation of the contrast between morality and sympathy in the novel. I found it interesting that the author, Jonathan Bennett, decided to use the term sympathy rather than personal morality, even though according to his definition of sympathy, it means the same thing as personal morality. In his article, Bennett seeks to prove that "sympathy wins over morality" (Bennett 126). Although I do agree with this statement, further down in his article, Bennett says that Huck does not have the "will or strength" (Bennett 126) to do what society has made him think is the right thing to do. I believe that the reason for Huck's decisions for his actions are not because of Huck's weakness to battle his socially imposed conscience, but rather because his personal desires can overcome his societal obligations. Another interesting point Bennett brings up is that "unreasoned emotional pulls" overcome "general moral principles" (Bennett 127). I find it unusual that Bennett calls the emotional pulls "unreasoned." It is interesting to note what exactly Bennett means by "unreasoned". Perhaps he means irrational since he emotionally tends to be tied to something beyond reason. In this manner, Huck's choice is based on feeling rather than thought. I personally thought that there is always a reason for an emotional pull, and I thought in Huck's case the reason for his pull was his desire to define who he really is, but Bennett believes otherwise.
Colwell, James L. "Huckleberries and Humans: On the Naming of Huckleberry Finn." PMLA 86 (1971): 70-76. JSTOR. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.
Lackey, Michael. "Beyond Good and Evil: Huckleberry Finn on Human Intimacy." Amerikastudien / American Studies 47 (2002): 491-501. JSTOR. Web. 20 Apr. 2013. I found this article to be very useful because it gave me further insight into the theme of morality in the text. I learned that the author, Michael Lackey, concurs with my original thoughts on the subject of morality and how a person's own morals overcome the morals of society. More specifically, Lackey believes that "the moment [Huck] rejects conscience and decides not to re-enslave Jim, [is the] point in the novel that [Huck] begins processing and articulating the transformation" of his own conscience "occurring within him" (Lackey 495). I think it is at this specific moment when Huck decides to not re-enslave Jim that we are able to see the transformation of Huck's previously socially trapped mind into one that is free to think for itself. An interesting point that Lackey brings up in his article is that the "conscience is [not] an impartial judge of moral values, but that it is a social construction, a receptacle of his culture's values and ideology" (Lackey 495). Many would say that a person's conscience is not influenced by anything or anyone but the person who controls their own conscience. But both Lackey and I disagree with this standpoint. Lackey's point is that Huck's conscience embodies both his own and society's values, but it is important to add what Lackey fails to say, and that is that that the problem is that the two consciences are in conflict with each other. Although I agree with many points that Lackey makes in his article, one that I do not completely agree with is when he says that "Huck's feelings for Jim outweigh his respect for the moral law, [as] he chooses human friendship" (Lackey 497). Lackey is partially right that Huck's feeling for Jim outweighs his respect for moral law, but either he is wrong or his idea is simply incomplete, because he does not specifically state that the moral law is society's and not Huck's. Although the statement is unclear, I later find out in his article that Lackey is indeed referring to moral law, and that Lackey believes that Huck abandons morality in general for friendship. It is here that I disagree with Lackey since I believe that morality is very important for Huck as it is the deciding factor in all his actions. In fact, it is Huck's morality that guides him to pursue the interest of friendship over societal obligations.
Levy, Leo B. "Society and Conscience in Huckleberry Finn." Nineteenth-Century Fiction 18 (1964): 383-91. JSTOR. Web. 20 Apr. 2013. I found this article interesting because it opened up a question that I will probably answer in my paper. Levy brings up the question of whether Huck's decision to escape is an "isolating experience" or whether it is one in which Huck finds himself more "deeply rooted in society than he has ever known" (Levy 385). I believe that it is this isolating experience that allows Huck to come to terms with these "deep" societal "roots" and ultimately overcome them. Levy is incorrect to state that Huck is only able to overcome the racial barrier due to Huck and Jim's "recognition and fulfillment of mutual needs" (Levy 385) which is what their relationship is built on. The reason that Huck is able to overcome the racial barrier is because he is able to follow his innate personal conscience rather than his societal one that in the first place set up the racial barrier. Levy is right to state that affection - a type of emotion - does not completely determine Huck's moral attitude. It is Huck's defying society's conscience that allows his own personal beliefs to tell him that he has a responsibility to free Jim of enslavement. Such a sense of responsibility as well as the different experiences and adventures Huck goes through with Jim shape Huck's personal conscience in such a way that it allows Huck to abandon his societal conscience. Levy writes about how Twain focuses on the "enormous, and crippling guilt that conscience can engender" (Levy 390). The conscience he is referring to is the bigger conscience which is composed both an innate personal conscience and a societal conscience. The "guilt" Levy refers to is actually the consequence that the "personal conscience" has on Huck. Twain, Mark. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. New York: Bantam Dell, 1981. Print.
Wexman, Virginia. "The Role of Structure in 'Tom Sawyer' and 'Huckleberry Finn.'" American Literary Realism 6.1 (1973): 1-11. JSTOR. Web. 20 Apr. 2013.