When first reading The Hungry Women, and Medea’s character, we are quick to judge that Medea is simply an unstable, delirious mother who ultimately kills her son out of anger and abnormal psychological behavior toward her ex-husband. As infanticide seems absolutely crazy, this post investigates a moral and biological perspective on the murder of one’s own children. Obviously, killing your daughter or son isn’t and allowed and rightfully so, but this investigation works toward illuminating some of the history and reasoning past cultures have had infanticide; reasons other than insanity and lack of judgment.
Sarah Hrdy’s Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives takes a look at the history and biological aspects of infanticide. Hrdy writes, “Infanticide has been practiced on every continent” and even cites a researcher who came to the conclusion that historically “murdering ones own child was a common human trait.” (Hrdy, xi). Taking a biological perspective, we may view Medea as protecting her own life through her execution of her son. The fear of having her son become “corrupted” through her ex-husband would leave Medea ultimately ruined: her precious son forever turned against her via abandoning his mother. The impact of Chac-Mool dying, honoring the biological perspective that is, leads us to believe that his abandonment through Jason would have been much more detrimental to Medea’s health.
Furthermore, we learn about more historical findings of infanticide, such as within the Bible where “God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as a test of faith” (Hrdy, xxii). Does this, or the fact that Medea was protecting her own wellbeing (in a Darwinian sense) justify her killing of Chac-Mool? I would argue no, but some may find grounds to pursue this matter as one of self-defense, as Medea is basically looking out for her own survival and health.
However this may be true, Medea does show us a great deal of possessive, unstable, irrational qualities, such as her inability to maintain a relationship with her girlfriend, husband, and now, son, which lead us to see the infanticide as a result of a psychological disorder. Another issue to raise is the the unparalleled love a mother has for a child. This makes it less plausible for a parent to kill his/her own child (in a biological sense) — it goes against human nature in the sense that the destruction of one’s DNA works against basic survival qualities; humans are inherently prone to spreading their DNA, not condemning it.
This post works toward illuminating other plausible explanations for why one may execute their offspring. We are quick to assume that those who do this are simply mentally insane — but could it be for other reasons as well? I think this notion/biological view of self-defense and securing one’s own survival may have a part in some of the infanticide cases; probably the more historic ones.
Cited:
Hausfater, Glenn, and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy. Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives. New York: Aldine Pub., 1984. Print.
What really struck me about this observation was definitely the notion of infanticide as self-defense. While it has been something that I did consider, it has continued to leave me uneasy because it makes me think of two other viewpoints in regards to Medea’s character. On the one hand, she becomes th self-less mother, almost to the point where she can be seen as sacrificial. It is clear that she loves Chac-Mool dearly and would do anything to protect him. Thus, the fact that she would kill him just to make sure that he was saved from his father and his possible future, even if it means that she’s going to lose her own flesh and blood makes her seem like the ideal mother. After all, there is this idea that a mother will do anything to protect her child from all the evil in the world. Even if that means going against human nature.
On the other hand, it can also reinforce this stigma that she has as being selfish. She wants everything for herself, and if killing Chac-Moolmeans mainting her land and her son’s connection to her, then it’s justified. Also, if she does believe that by murdering her son she is preventing herself from going insane then yes she is using self-defense, but mostly for that reason: “self.”
I find Medea’s predicament most similar to that of the mother in ‘Beloved’ though with more selfish intentions. In ‘Beloved’, the mother kills her child rather than have it become a slave. In this way, Medea kills her son to protect his innocence and keep him from becoming like his father. However, she also does this to maintain her bond with him that she inevitably believes would be severed if he was allowed to become a man. It is also a mode of self preservation, as you said, for she has a history of being oppressed and abused by men. By allowing her son to go to Aztalan to become a man, she is allowing him to become someone who will eventually have control over her. Rather than allow the thing she loves most in the world become something that had power over her, she kills him.
I also saw this connection when reading “The Hungry Woman”. “Beloved” is one of my favorite novels and it also has that same haunting, creepy atmosphere. the infanticide in Morrison’s novel was done to prevent a great evil, the insertion of an innocent creature into a life of hostility, bondage and hopelessness. Medea has her own reasons to preserve Chac-Mool’s naivety and keep him from being a true man. I saw this decision as a way for her to maintain the purity of her son and, in a way, have more authority over her ex-husband by sending Chac-Mool to a place where he could never have control. But I can also see it being a way for Medea to have eternal sovereignty over her offspring after having lost control over so many aspects of her life.
I think this is a very good analysis on Medea’s character and her actions. I think the act of infanticide is a very barbaric and obscene one, and most people would be very quick to judge if a mother were to do that to her children–regardless of the circumstances. However, when you bring up the aspects of a biological connection between her mother and her children, (and this sense of protecting them) it almost sounds romantic. (Keyword being ALMOST). I think another analysis can be brought forth with the idea of post-partum depression, which is a very real conflict that many mothers face. Many mothers feel hormonal imbalances or the heart-breaking “distance” a mother feels towards her children in a society that tells us that a mother has an unbreakable bond between her children. I think there are many educated reasons that would reinforce the back-up story behind her actions; however, it is much more plausible and reasonable for people to believe that she was simply insane and an incredibly unfit mother.