When Money Talks

When money talks, everyone listens. When father talks, son sometimes listens. In The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen by Bruno Lessing, the conflict between father and son, the divergence of values, the clash of ideologies are on the stage. But what is behind it? Dollars, which create, ruin and recreate the stage. Karl Marx is right again. Economy determines infrastructure. I am reluctant to admit that utilitarianism plays a major role in shaping the relationship between father and son in the story.

Gaining money to expand business is the main goal of sons’ invitation to father to live with them. Father is regarded as an owner of property and a source of capital, yet not a creator of life or a caretaker of sons. Although “an effusive greeting” or expression of affection is far beyond his expectancy, he still finds humor in the charge of the purse-strings. Little conversation exists in the absence of common interest and the discord between sons’ urge to be so-called Americanized and father’s tenacity to old habits and customs makes things worse, so father begins to find that money becomes “the only bond between him and his sons”.

Father never loses his temper or upbraids his sons until the refusal of one of his sons to introduce his future wife to him, with the concern that his old-fashioned way of life may “spoil everything”, ignites his suppressed anger. He decides to take control of everything, including the business. As the business of father increases with his “money-making spirit”, which “in the mercantile realm” makes him a real father compared with his sons, even his sons see “vistas of prosperity beyond their wildest dreams” and begin to “look upon their father with increasing respect”. It seems the aptitude and ability to make money and the prosperity of business are closely related to reverence. The reputation among businessmen wins further admiration from his sons. Under the severe supervision of their father, sons are forced to obey “every tenet of their religion”. The management structure finally changes their attitude towards religion and customs. In essence, “the turning of a worm” is the shift of power, resulting in the accumulation of wealth and the acceptance of values.

Happy ending comes as the future daughter-in-law meets father, forming the image of a patriarch in her mind. Of course his son is satisfied. So is father.

The popularity of utilitarianism justifies people’s desire to maximize their benefits and disregard of their moral obligations. Love and care, shame and pride, religion and morality are all decided by the generated benefits, consisting of money, power, fame and a girlfriend. If father boosts business and gains prestige, why not obey and admire him? If girlfriend disdains father’s image, why take her to father? If Americanization helps get involved in the community, why not adopt it? If Judaism earns more money, why get rid of it? Such logic manipulates realistic sons’ choices, and is manipulated by perspicacious father to win sons’ hearts.

Geographical distance causes spiritual distance. Long time’s separation and lack of communication may have something to explain for the gap between father and sons. Even after their reunion different ideologies drive them apart. Moreover, father’s profound love, reflected by tolerance and generosity, is unable to undermine sons’ intense shame of him. Therefore, “the turning of a worm” becomes the only choice, an involuntary choice though. And it does work out.

If money didn’t talk, would a worm turn?