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. The popularity of utilitarianism justifies people’s desire to maximize their benefits and disregard of their moral obligations. It is a shame that utilitarianism shapes the relationship between father and son in the story.
The story starts as sons “saw an opportunity of investing further capital in it [their store] to good advantage … [and] wrote to their father to come to this country.” Gaining money to expand business, rather than family reunion and improvement on father’s living condition, 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. Geographical distance causes spiritual distance. Five years’ separation and lack of communication may have something to explain the gap between father and sons, but what matters more is what has happened in the last five years. Sons come to America alone with little money, start their business from scratch and probably struggle to survive in the poor sections occupied by the minority like other Jewish immigrants. Fierce competition and harsh burden compel them to accept utilitarianism as a guiding principal of their life, which undoubtedly shapes their attitude towards their father. The motivation is the premonition to a disappointing gathering.
At the first sight of “their father [wearing] a gabardine-the loose, baglike garment of the Russian Ghetto…[having] a long, strangling grey beard and ringlets”, “they looked at each other in dismay”. The typical appearance of immigrants has been the target of sons’ distain. They welcome their father with persuasion to trim his beard instead of “an effusive greeting”, before father declines the advice without any hesitation. The assumption that the reason why sons crave the Americanization of their father is that they hope the immediate adaptation to the new environment, including the change of appearance, can protect father from local residents’ discrimination and make him happier is obviously wrong, because father enjoys keeping his own tradition, ignoring others’ opinion. We can deduce that the actual reason is their fear that father’s way of life might impair their image, thus hindering them from entering mainstream class. Sons’ shame of father is just the byproduct of the fear. The cold war goes on with the discord between sons’ urge for father to be so-called Americanized and father’s tenacity to old habits and customs. “After all, I have no one but you two.” This is a father’s plea for sons’ love. Nevertheless, we can see that father’s profound love, reflected by tolerance and generosity, is unable to undermine sons’ intense shame of him. It can be inferred that sons determine everything by its utility, the dogma of utilitarianism. Father’s love itself can hardly satisfy sons’ demand, as their focus is on the benefits father can bring. Here a classification is vital in analyzing sons’ value system: a benefit and a thing measured by its generated benefits. Money, social status and fame fall into the first category, while father’s love into the second.
The refusal of one of his sons to introduce his future wife to father, with the concern that his old-fashioned way of life may “spoil everything”, ignites father’s “suppressed anger”. It is believed that such refusal is so tremendous an insult that almost no father can endure. It is at this moment that father confirms his doubt of sons’ shame of him and their utilitarian judging style. Father must have been aware of the fact for a long time, but he is reluctant to admit it and still hopes that his love will help sons find the lost cohesion of the family. At last he embraces the cruel reality that his sons immersed in utilitarianism will love him only if his love manufactures such benefits as money and fame. “The turning of a worm” becomes the only choice, an involuntary choice though.
Now father discovers the shortcut to establishing a close relationship with sons. He increases business with his “money-making spirit”, which “in the mercantile realm” makes him a real father compared with his sons. When his sons see “vistas of prosperity beyond their wildest dreams”, they begin to “look upon their father with increasing respect”. 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 profitable management structure and lifestyle 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. It can be concluded that the emotional reunion of the family is the victory of father’s mastery of utilitarianism.
If father boosts business and gains prestige, why not 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? Love and care, shame and pride, religion and morality are all decided by the generated benefits, consisting of money, power, fame and a girlfriend. Such logic manipulates realistic sons’ choices, and is manipulated by perspicacious father to win sons’ hearts.
If money didn’t talk, would a worm turn?
