Scouting for a Tomboy: Gender-Bending Behaviors in Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird

Georgia Southern University

Georgia Southern Commons

Electronic Theses and Dissertations Jack N. Averitt College of Graduate Studies

Spring 2010

Scouting for a Tomboy: Gender-Bending Behaviors in

Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird

Laura Hakala

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd

Part of the English Language and Literature Commons, and the Feminist, Gender, and

Sexuality Studies Commons

Recommended Citation

Hakala, Laura, "Scouting for a Tomboy: Gender-Bending Behaviors in Harper Lee's To Kill

A Mockingbird" (2010).

Electronic Theses and Dissertations

. 176.

https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/176

This thesis (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Jack N. Averitt College

of Graduate Studies at Georgia Southern Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic

Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Georgia Southern Commons. For more

information, please contact [email protected].

SCOUTING FOR A TOMBOY: GENDER-BENDING BEHAVIORS IN HARPER LEE’S TO

KILL A MOCKINGBIRD

LAURA HAKALA

(Under the Direction of Caren Town)

ABSTRACT

In Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, Scout Finch challenges gender stereotypes in her

determination to remain a tomboy. Scout interacts with five parental characters (Atticus,

Calpurnia, Aunt Alexandra, Miss Maudie, and Boo Radley), who offer models for Scout’s

behaviors. Though primarily unconventional in terms of gender, these parental figures fluctuate

between ideals, demonstrating that gender is an unstable standard that alters according to each

individual. Lee depicts characters who resist conforming to the paradigms of masculinity and

femininity and instead fill middle positions between the stereotypes, as Scout’s tomboyism

exemplifies. After encountering different models, Scout consistently exhibits these gender-

bending inclinations. Scout’s exploration of her identity as a tomboy functions as her coming-

of-age journey.

INDEX WORDS: Tomboy, Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird, Young adult literature, Gender

stereotypes, Parents, Role models

SCOUTING FOR A TOMBOY: GENDER-BENDING BEHAVIORS IN HARPER LEE’S TO

KILL A MOCKINGBIRD

LAURA HAKALA

B.A., Jacksonville University, 2007

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Georgia Southern University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF ARTS

STATESBORO, GEORGIA

2010

LAURA HAKALA

SCOUTING FOR A TOMBOY: GENDER-BENDING BEHAVIORS IN HARPER LEE’S TO

KILL A MOCKINGBIRD

LAURA HAKALA

Major Professor: Caren Town

Committee: Richard Flynn

Candy Schille

Electronic Version Approved:

May 2010

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this Master’s thesis to my family, who endured countless discussions

about gender issues when they would have preferred other conversational topics. Thank you for

your support, encouragement, and love. Also, I would like to thank my parents for teaching me

to cherish unconventional behaviors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis director, Dr. Caren Town, for her guidance. I appreciate her

willingness to read multiple drafts, offer research advice, and listen to my attempts to articulate

my ideas. I would also like to thank my Committee members, Dr. Richard Flynn and Dr. Candy

Schille, for their thought-provoking comments and suggestions for improvement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 6

CHAPTER

1 “A RAY OF SUNSHINE IN PANTS”: DEFINING SCOUT’S TOMBOYISM .................... 8

Scouting for Gender Stereotypes ...................................................................................... 10

Scouting for Tomboys Throughout History ..................................................................... 13

Scouting for a Typical Tomboy ........................................................................................ 15

Scouting for an Atypical Tomboy .................................................................................... 17

Scouting for Conventions in Adolescent Literature ......................................................... 24

2 BENDING THE LAW: ATTICUS’S PATERNAL INFLUENCE ON SCOUT .................. 28

3 THE (NOT SO) MOTHERLESS CHILD ............................................................................. 41

The “Double Life” ............................................................................................................ 42

The Southern Belle ........................................................................................................... 47

The “Chameleon Lady” .................................................................................................... 53

The Tomboy ..................................................................................................................... 57

4 GO SET A WATCHMAN: BOO RADLEY’S IMPACT ON SCOUT’S TOMBOYISM ...... 61

5 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 77

NOTES .......................................................................................................................................... 81

WORKS CITED ........................................................................................................................... 82

CHAPTER 1

“A RAY OF SUNSHINE IN PANTS”: DEFINING SCOUT’S TOMBOYISM

In Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, Aunt Alexandra tells Scout Finch to act like a

lady and wear a dress so she can “be a ray of sunshine in [her] father’s lonely life.” Scout does

not respond positively: she retorts that she can “be a ray of sunshine in pants just as well” (89).

In fact, Scout does not respond positively to anything feminine, preferring reading instead of

sewing, playing outside instead of inside, and the nickname “Scout” to the girlish “Jean Louise.”

On the other hand, the culture that Lee depicts does not respond positively to Scout’s tomboyish

inclinations. Scout lives in Maycomb, Alabama, a rural Southern town, during the Great

Depression. In this setting, society dictates strict gender stereotypes, and people rarely cross the

barrier between masculinity and femininity. Maycomb is a place where “[l]adies bathed before

noon, after their three o’clock naps, and by nightfall were like soft teacakes with frostings of

sweat and sweet talcum” (11). Scout, however, refuses to be a “soft teacake.” To Kill a

Mockingbird is a story about a man wrongly accused of rape and a lawyer who confronts racial

prejudice, but it also chronicles the journey of a girl who challenges gender stereotypes in her

determination to remain a tomboy.

Lee sets this novel during three years of Scout’s childhood in which she encounters

everything from a defiant lynch mob to the “foot-washing Baptists,” as well as the town’s

“malevolent phantom.” Scout’s coming-of-age tale unfolds as her father, the champion attorney

Atticus Finch, defends an innocent black man, Tom Robinson, charged with raping a white

woman. Since its publication in 1960, this story has maintained a widespread popularity. As

Claudia Johnson writes, “To Kill a Mockingbird is one of those books that has reached large

numbers of readers and has made significant differences in the lives of individuals and the

culture as a whole” (13). To Kill a Mockingbird has never been out of print, probably due to its

presence on school reading lists. Furthermore, in 1991, the Book-of-the-Month Club and the

Library of Congress’s Center for the Book conducted a survey, in which people only ranked the

Bible higher than To Kill a Mockingbird as “making a difference” in their lives (14).

Though generations of readers have enjoyed Scout’s story, attorneys, rather than literary

critics, have paid more attention to the novel. The first book-length study from a literary

perspective, Claudia Johnson’s To Kill a Mockingbird: Threatening Boundaries, did not appear

until 1994. Prior to Johnson’s book, only six short literary articles existed on To Kill a

Mockingbird, including one that became the final chapter in Johnson’s study, and no one had

written a dissertation on the subject (Johnson 20). However, recent publications suggest that

critical trends concerning Harper Lee are changing. Since the 1990s, scholars have steadily

produced more articles, and in 2007, Alice Hall Petry edited a collection entitled On Harper Lee:

Essays and Reflections. Often, these publications discuss Atticus and Tom Robinson’s trial,

exploring the book’s racial and ethical themes. A few critics center their arguments on gender

issues, the most extended of which include Dean Shackelford’s comparison between Scout’s

narrative voice in the novel and in the film, Laura Fine’s discussion of the patriarchy in To Kill a

Mockingbird, and Gary Richards’s assertion that Lee destabilizes heterosexuality. These three

scholars provide valuable insights, and I join them in shifting the focus from legal and racial

topics to gender.

Though Shackelford, Fine, and Richards all discuss Scout as an unconventional female, I

provide more details about the adults that shape Scout’s conceptions of gender. Furthermore, I

place Scout within the context of the tomboy’s multifaceted history, which emphasizes her

gender-bending behaviors. I will also consider To Kill a Mockingbird as adolescent literature, as

opposed to the many scholars, including the aforementioned gender critics, who approach the

novel as adult fiction. When published in 1960, To Kill a Mockingbird was not originally

intended for a young adult audience, but, as Petry notes, it contains the elements of “an ideal

teaching text for young people,” including its short length, its uncomplicated style, and its

presentation of complex issues “in a nonsensational fashion” (xv). Furthermore, contemporary

scholars often regard To Kill a Mockingbird as an adolescent text, perhaps because a vast number

of high schools place the novel on mandatory reading lists.

Viewing the novel as adolescent

fiction is useful because Scout’s journey towards understanding her identity as a tomboy aligns

with young adult coming-of-age stories. Scout’s struggle between tomboyism and ideals of

femininity constitutes a central conflict in the novel, which is, after all, her story and not

Atticus’s. For these reasons, To Kill a Mockingbird’s gender issues deserve further examination.

Trying to live as a tomboy, Scout experiences the opposition that arises when people cross the

boundaries of gender stereotypes.

Scouting for Gender Stereotypes

In Maycomb, stereotypical views concerning masculinity and femininity are prevalent.

Scout’s Aunt Alexandra emphasizes these conventions when she suggests that Scout play with

small stoves and tea sets, desiring that Scout submit to domesticity (89). While women complete

these tasks in the home, men journey outside. Scout expresses her awareness of these codes

when she describes the fathers of her classmates: “manliness” entails working labor-intensive

jobs, such as driving a dump-truck or farming, as well as engaging in outdoor physical activities,

such as hunting and fishing (97-98). Regional stereotypes about gender also influence these

standards. Starting on the first page of the novel, Scout establishes her family as Southerners,

mentioning several significant aspects of the Southern lifestyle: her family’s pride in their

heritage, their agrarian history on Finch’s Landing, and her ancestor’s ownership of slaves (9-

10). That way of life also draws on the nineteenth-century model of the Southern lady and

gentleman. In her book about Southern belles, Kathryn Lee Seidel explains, “Southerners were,

in their moral ideals, Victorians who reacted strongly against the corruption of their society”

(Southern Belle 4). Seidel further describes these figures:

The patriarchal South had made white men the dominant group. . . . Women and

blacks, on the other hand, were deemed subordinate in status, role, and

temperament; a woman’s status depended upon her father or husband, her

economic role was that of a marriage alliance-maker before marriage and a

homemaker after marriage, her sexual role was that of a chaste maiden or a

faithful wife…and her ideal temperament was passive, docile, ignorant, and

virtuous. (Southern Belle 147)

Though the Old South in the nineteenth-century established these stereotypes, Seidel notes that

they continue into the next era, and twentieth-century fiction allows these characters to evolve

(Southern Belle xii). This evolution appears in To Kill a Mockingbird. I assert that Lee contrasts

the unconventional characters with these stereotypes to illustrate their progression beyond

standards. They no longer feel bound to Southern womanhood and manhood.

Further emphasizing the dominance of these standards, gender stereotypes spread beyond

Scout’s white, middle-class environment. For instance, in the poverty-stricken, working class,

Bob Ewell exerts patriarchal authority over his household and forces his daughter Mayella to

claim that Tom Robinson raped her. He wields so much power over her that he beats her into

submission, giving her an arm full of bruises and a black eye (179). Likewise, other racial

classes remain aware of gender stereotypes. Reverend Sykes, a leader in Maycomb’s black

community, suggests that ladies are fragile and should be protected from the more lurid aspects

of society, the aspects that men can freely discuss. When Jem discusses the alleged rape in

Scout’s presence, Reverend Sykes remarks, “this ain’t a polite thing for little ladies to hear”

(221). While it remains unclear if Reverend Sykes refers to ladies in general or just white ladies,

this comment still evidences the pervasiveness of stereotypical gender expectations.

These examples also demonstrate the intersection of gender, race, and social classes in To

Kill a Mockingbird. In all of these areas, one group of people tends to privilege themselves over

another group; therefore, similarities exist between women and blacks, who white men have

subjugated throughout history. Likewise, the upper or middle-class tends to marginalize the

lower class. In addition to privileging, barriers have existed between white and black, middle-

class and poor, and masculinity and femininity. Lee repeatedly draws connections between these

elements to emphasize how a character challenges stereotypes. For instance, Calpurnia’s

atypical behavior as a black woman accentuates her rejection of standards in general. Often, if a

character opposes one set of standards, then they likely resist another set, which typically

includes gender. As Claudia Johnson concludes, “It is essentially a tale about a variety of

boundaries—those of race, region, time, class, sex, tradition, and code—boundaries that are at

times threatening to collapse, that are threatened by circumstances and community members”

(31). Since characters simultaneously challenge multiple barriers, this gender analysis will

frequently include racial and social issues.

Adding to Johnson’s argument, I assert that gender boundaries become unstable as the

characters subvert stereotypes. These characters do not divide gender into two opposing

binaries; instead, they occupy middle positions between masculinity and femininity, as well as

blend their masculine and feminine qualities. Furthermore, I will show how the characters’

behaviors illustrate different types of masculinity and femininity. The female characters do not

conform to the same ideal of womanhood, just as the men do not conform to identical standards

of masculinity. Scout’s tomboyism, however, best exemplifies this fluidity of gender roles, and

the behaviors of her parental figures also contribute to this theme.

When considering a character’s gender-bending behaviors, it is always useful to consult

Judith Butler. Butler asserts, “Gender is the repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated

acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of

substance, of a natural sort of being” (33). Due to these repeated acts, Butler views gender as “a

kind of becoming or activity” (112). In other words, gender is more of a verb than a noun (112).

Therefore, through their actions, Scout and her parental figures demonstrate this flexible view of

gender. Scout is not born with an innate predisposition to be a tomboy; rather, her behaviors

define her as a tomboy. As she and her parental figures consistently repeat unconventional

behaviors, they present their conceptions of what gender means. Lee ultimately depicts gender

as an unstable standard that alters according to each individual, as opposed to the paradigms of

stereotypical masculinity and femininity.

Scouting for Tomboys Throughout History

Placing Scout within the context of the history of tomboys reveals the unconventional

nature of her behaviors, both in comparison with gender stereotypes and also with other more

“typical” tomboys. Like gender issues in To Kill a Mockingbird, tomboys have also received

limited critical attention. Michelle Abate’s Tomboys: A Literary and Cultural History (2008) is

the first book-length study on the subject, and Abate finds it useful to give information on the

origin of the term. In the sixteenth century, society first used the word “tomboy” in reference to

“rowdy gentlemen courtiers” (xiii). Then, in the 1590s and early 1600s, the word developed its

modern meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a tomboy of this era as “a girl who

behaves like a spirited or boisterous boy; a wild romping girl; a hoyden” (qtd. in Abate xiii).

Abate emphasizes that society’s views about tomboys have changed throughout different

eras. For instance, in the mid-nineteenth century, tomboys became more popular in culture and

literature for young girls. When society became concerned about the health of middle and upper

class white women, the idea of the “tomboy” emerged as a desired health-status for women (xv).

Abate derives much of this information from Sharon O’Brien, who examined Victorian advice

guides to learn about nineteenth-century health issues. O’Brien reports, “The rowdy tomboy

would make a better wife and mother than her prissy, homebound sister, they argued, for

participation in boyish sports and games would develop the health, strength, independence, and

competence she would later need as a wife and mother” (354). However, upon reaching puberty,

girls were expected to submit to stereotypical femininity and confine themselves to the domestic

sphere, as well as abandon the desire for physical and intellectual activity (355). Books for girls

began to chronicle and reinforce this submission, including Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women,

Elizabeth Stuart Phelps’s Gypsy Breynton, and Susan Coolidge’s What Katy Did. Elizabeth

Segel also studies tomboys during this era, and concerning these three novels, Segel comments,

“These books created and defined the tomboy heroine who has persisted as a stock character in

American children’s books” (48). From the end of the Civil War to the Depression era, Abate

points out that critics characterize these years as the “golden era” of tomboys in literature

because the characters were so prominent (xv). Although nineteenth-century culture held

somewhat positive views toward tomboys, society still emphasized gender stereotypes in the

notion that tomboyism could not continue beyond adolescence.

The twentieth-century brought further shifting attitudes toward tomboys. During the

years in which Lee grew up and set her novel, America advocated the home as a woman’s

domain. Then, once World War II erupted, views changed. As men went to battle, women

entered the workforce, assuming positions previously considered to be masculine. Abate refers

to Rosie the Riveter as an icon of “tomboyish toughness,” asserting that, “[a]midst this new

global conflict, tomboyism had the potential to help save the world from the destructive powers

of European fascists” (146). However, society’s high regard for gender-bending females was

temporary: when the war ended, women once again returned to their homes (150).

Subsequently, as Abate notes, society felt anxious about the changing roles of women and

viewed tomboys as “freakishly queer and queerly freakish” (156).

Scouting for a Typical Tomboy

During this “freakish” era, Scout Finch joined the ranks of her tomboy predecessors. As

society has both promoted and criticized tomboys throughout history, To Kill a Mockingbird also

reflects this ambivalence concerning gender-bending females. The novel contains characters

who both support and disapprove of Scout’s tomboyism. For instance, Aunt Alexandra wants

Scout to wear a dress, while Atticus allows her to wear overalls. Moreover, other characters

paradoxically condemn feminine mannerisms while simultaneously expecting them. Scout’s

brother Jem, for instance, frequently teases her for being a girl, but he also commands, “It’s time

you started bein’ a girl and acting right!” (125). Even though she endures these conflicting

principles, Scout stays resolute. For example, when Jem criticizes her “girlish” fear of the

Radley house, she shows masculine bravery and joins him in sneaking into the Radley yard (59).

On the other hand, when he suggests she “take up sewin’ or something,” Scout replies, “Hell no”

(238). Reflecting the twentieth-century’s hesitation over the changing roles of women, Jem has

shifting expectations for Scout as a female. Scout, however, remains steadfastly opposed to

conventional femininity.

In general, Scout is a tomboy because she prefers masculinity over femininity.

Specifying several of these preferences, a psychology study by Shawn Meghan Burn, A.

Kathleen O’Neil, and Shirley Nederend assessed childhood tomboyism based on 12 factors, five

of which particularly characterize Scout. They discussed women who “preferred shorts/jeans to

dresses,” “resembled a boy in appearance,” “preferred traditionally boys’ activities (e.g. climbing

trees, playing army) over traditionally girls’ activities (e.g. ballet, playing dressup),” “preferred

playing with boys rather than girls,” and “engaged in rough and tumble play” (422). Fulfilling

the first two features of this study, Scout’s penchant for boyish attire, even when she is criticized

for it, is one of her most defining traits. For instance, the Finches’ curmudgeonly neighbor, Mrs.

Dubose, exclaims, “[W]hat are you doing in those overalls? You should be in a dress and

camisole, young lady! You’ll grow up waiting on tables if somebody doesn’t change your

ways—a Finch waiting on tables at the O.K. Café—hah!” (110). As Mrs. Dubose reinforces

stereotypes, she also connects gender to class, intimating that unconventional behaviors will

lower Scout to the working class. Aligning tomboys with waitresses, Mrs. Dubose emphasizes

the disdainful manner in which Scout’s society views her behaviors, as well as the prejudice that

middle-class Maycomb holds towards people of a lower social class. Though Scout feels

“terrified,” she does not let Mrs. Dubose’s comment deter her tomboyish behaviors, and she

continues to wear overalls throughout the remainder of the novel (110).

In addition to boyish attire, Scout demonstrates several other aspects of Burn, O’Neil, and

Nederend’s study. Scout frequently plays with her brother and enjoys his boyish hobbies: rolling

in a tire, shooting air rifles, joining him in his tree house, and building a snowman. They also

engage in gender-neutral activities, such as acting out dramatic incidents in Boo Radley’s life.

As the youngest, Scout plays the female supporting roles, but she only does so “reluctantly” (46).

Never once does she don a string of pearls or a fancy hat to perform these parts. Incidentally,

Jem stars as Miss Stephanie Crawford, the town gossip, demonstrating that Lee does not relegate

all women to minor roles. Next, Scout has no female friends: she only plays with Jem and Dill.

In fact, all of the children that Scout interacts with are male—Walter Cunningham, Cecil Jacobs,

Little Chuck Little. Finally, Scout involves herself in more “rough and tumble play” than the

boys. She is notorious for initiating schoolyard brawls. For example, when her teacher unfairly

punishes her for discussing Walter Cunningham’s poverty, Scout later reacts by “rubbing his

[Walter’s] nose in the dirt” (20). Walter does not deserve blame for this incident, but Scout

fights him to release her frustrations with her teacher. Acting more conventionally feminine than

Scout, Walter submits to her strength, failing to return her punches. As these examples illustrate,

Scout displays a significant preference for masculine behaviors.

Scouting for an Atypical Tomboy

Although these masculine attributes appear common for tomboys, and Segel classifies the

tomboy as a “stock character” (48), Scout demonstrates the complexity of the term. She both

resembles and resists being a typical tomboy. However, defining a “typical” tomboy often

proves difficult because not all tomboys possess the same traits. As Abate writes, “Indeed,

tomboyism is commonly considered a monolithic phenomenon—with individuals making

frequent reference to ‘the tomboy’ as if this figure were both singular and static—but I

demonstrate how it is an unstable and dynamic one, changing with the political, social, and

economic events of its historical era” (xii). Abate uses three examples to illustrate this point:

For instance, wearing bloomers may have been the epitome of tomboyish daring

during the nineteenth century, but that is no longer the case today. Similarly,

working outside the home is often seen as the apogee of tomboyish independence

for wealthy women, but it is a basic fact of life for their working class

counterparts. Finally, plowing the fields, baling hay or herding livestock might

seem acutely tomboyish for many urban girls, but it constitutes a common chore

for those who live on a farm or ranch. (xvi)

Essentially, one must examine a character’s environment, as well as a character’s response to

that environment, to determine the exact features that define her tomboyism. Thus, I regard the

Southern setting, as well as Scout’s position in the middle class, as significant when assessing

her gender-bending behaviors.

In To Kill a Mockingbird, especially, Lee demonstrates the influence of region and social

class on gender roles. For example, although gender stereotypes are present in all social classes,

one would not expect Mayella Ewell and Scout to exhibit identical behaviors. As Atticus

explains, Scout is a member of the “common folk” (37). The Finches live in town, are educated,

and work respectable professions. The Ewells, on the other land, live like “pigs” (204).

Uneducated and unemployed, they live in the country beside the town dump (37). Though never

physically described, Mayella’s appearance is probably similar to her brother Burris’s, who

Scout labels “the filthiest human” she has ever seen: “His neck was dark gray, the backs of his

hands were rusty, and his fingernails were black deep into the quick” (33). While dirtiness is

normal and expected for Mayella, however, this feature identifies middle-class Scout as a

tomboy. Society expects Scout, more than Mayella, to uphold stereotypes because of her

position in the middle-class. When Scout appears “mud-splashed” and “covered with sand”

before the Maycomb society ladies, Aunt Alexandra is dissatisfied because she believes a genteel

lady should always remain clean (142). Alexandra also condemns Scout because a lady should

not play in the dirt but rather amuse herself with tea sets and small stoves (89). For Scout,

dirtiness is an effect of her tomboyish behaviors, as she can choose to be unclean. Living in the

economic conditions she does, Mayella does not have that same choice.

According to Charles Shields, author of the unauthorized biography Mockingbird: A

Portrait of Harper Lee, Scout’s tomboyish behaviors mirror those of Lee’s. During her

childhood, Nelle, as her family and friends called her, was “the roughhousing boss of the

playground who scampered up trees” (39). Once, when several older classmates attacked her

friend Truman Capote, she fought off the boys and saved him (31). A “female Huck Finn,” she

spent her time with Capote reading detective novels and crafting stories on their typewriter (34).

In A Bridge of Childhood: Truman Capote’s Southern Years, Marianne Moates provides a

similar description: Lee “had short, cropped hair, wore coveralls, went barefoot, and could talk

mean like a boy” (28). Lee’s tomboyism continued into high school. After noticing a group of

boys playing football, she joined them, insisting that they increase the intensity of the game from

touch to tackle (Shields 62). Her behaviors made such an impact on Capote that he later

modeled Idabel Tompkins, the wild tomboy in Other Voices, Other Rooms, on her. These

parallels between Lee and Scout—her fictional counterpart—evidence the autobiographical

nature of To Kill a Mockingbird.

In another instance of art imitating life, Lee models Scout’s friendship with Dill on her

relationship with Truman Capote. She and Capote bonded during their childhood in

Monroeville, Alabama and remained lifelong friends. Charles Ray Skinner, a friend of Lee’s

brother, describes their camaraderie: “Nelle was too rough for the girls, and Truman was scared

of the boys, so he just tagged on to her and she was his protector” (qtd. in Shields 34). Also

reflecting this friendship, Capote’s Other Voices, Other Rooms presents Idabel Tompkins and

Joel Knox. A common thread between these friendships is the combination of a tomboy and an

effeminate male. According to Abate, tomboys frequently have “sissy” friends (xvii). Dill is

certainly a sissy boy: he’s small for his age; he is the winner of a “Beautiful Child” contest; and

he wears “blue linen shorts that buttoned to his shirt,” as opposed to the overalls that Jem wears

(13-14). As much as athletic Jem represents masculine stereotypes, Dill defies them. Because

Dill does not play baseball, his father even comments, “You’re not a boy” (154).

Abate also observes that these tomboy/sissy friendships often hold no “erotic charge”

(xvii), which is consistent with Scout and Dill’s bond. Though they pretend to one day marry, it

is only a game. Also, Abate notices that these relationships reinforce gender stereotypes:

“Contrary to expectations, these figures frequently police each other’s gender transgressions

rather than serving as company in which to safely display them” (xvii). For example, in Little

Women, Jo helps Laurie lose his feminine traits (Abate xviii). Lee defies this pattern because

Scout does not transform Dill. In fact, Jem does more to masculinize Dill, such as teaching him

to swim while Scout remains at home (252). Abate also notes that sissies do not reverse the

tomboys’ efforts and help her become more feminine (xviii). This holds true for To Kill a

Mockingbird: Scout and Dill accept each other completely. They never criticize each other’s

gender-related traits or suggest a different way to behave, evidencing the novel’s tolerance of

gender-bending traits—for both boys and girls.

Frequently, Scout exhibits the tomboy characteristics that Abate discusses, but she does

so in her own way. For instance, Abate reports that tomboys typically do not have mothers (xix).

Indeed, Scout’s mother dies from a heart attack when Scout is two-years-old (Lee 12). Scout

compares to other motherless tomboys in both children’s literature, such as Katy Carr in What

Katy Did, and adult fiction, such as Frankie Addams in Carson McCullers’s The Member of the

Wedding. For some mothers, they remain alive but absent, unable to affect their daughter’s

conceptions of gender. In Cynthia Voigt’s Homecoming, Dicey Tillerman’s mother abandons

her and her siblings. Similarly, in Louise Fitzhugh’s Harriet the Spy, Harriet’s mother remains

detached from her child’s life, similar to many mothers in children’s and adolescent literature.

Though these tomboys interact with other women, Scout differs from these characters because

she has multiple female role models that fill the void of her biological mother’s absence,

primarily Calpurnia, Aunt Alexandra, and Miss Maudie. She also gains “maternal” guidance

from men, such as her father and Boo Radley.

In addition to having mother figures, Scout differs from the typical tomboy when she

refuses to be tamed, which is a common conclusion to stories about gender-bending females.

Historically, this plot was common in nineteenth-century books for girls, but it still surfaces in

twentieth-century fiction. Often, as Abate notes, a girl changes her behavior in preparation for

marriage (xix). In Little Women, for instance, Jo quells her temper and abandons her boyish

demeanor when she marries Professor Bhaer. Furthermore, as she becomes a wife and mother,

her plan to “write books, and get rich and famous,” which is unorthodox for a Victorian female,

now seems “selfish, lonely and cold” (Alcott 118, 379). If the tomboy is too young to marry,

like Scout, then she typically endures a “life-threatening illness or injury” or moves to “a strict

boarding school or the home of urban relatives” (Abate xx). Tomboy taming also occurs in adult

fiction: in the final section of The Member of the Wedding, Frankie Addams changes her name to

the more feminine Frances, replaces her track shorts with a dress, and acquires a female friend,

Mary Littlejohn (McCullers 118, 129). For these girls, tomboyism is a temporary detour on the

path to womanhood.

Scout experiences none of these repressive conclusions. When the novel ends, Scout is

still only nine years old. She never faces the difficult choices of adolescence. Some critics

suggest otherwise, predicting that she ultimately becomes a conventional woman. Dean

Shackelford, for instance, claims that the adult narrator “has presumably now assumed the

feminine name Jean Louise for good” (111.). Likewise, Kathryn Lee Seidel makes a clear

distinction between Scout, the tomboy child, and Jean Louise, the adult lady, referring to Scout

as if she were two separate entities (“Growing Up” 79-80). I find these assertions problematic

for several reasons. First, Lee never indicates that Scout changes her name when she ages.

Second, even if she changes her name, nothing indicates that she completely abandons her

tomboyism. There is no way to know what happens after the novel ends. Since Scout tells her

story as an adult, readers can infer some general information: she finds importance in reflecting

on her past, and she mentions that she has discussed her childhood with Jem, which suggests that

she retains a close relationship with her brother (9). However, the specific details of her adult

life remain a mystery. She never reveals if she dates, marries, has children, obtains a career, or

becomes a 1950s housewife. Because Scout focuses on herself as a child, readers must direct

their attentions likewise. During the ages of six to nine, from the first page of the novel to the

last page, Scout remains the same tomboy. After encountering feminine conventions, she

remains unsatisfied, and she makes a conscious decision to retain her gender-bending traits.

Though Scout typically rejects feminine standards, a few instances in the novel appear to

suggest otherwise. Abate places To Kill a Mockingbird among the Cold War’s conservative

trend to feminize tomboys. She compares Scout to Nancy Drew. In the original Nancy Drew

series of the 1930s, Nancy “is an autonomous and adventurous figure who is capable, confident,

and courageous” (167). However, the revised editions from the late 1950s present a contrasting

portrait of Nancy: she loses her athleticism, and she heavily relies on her father and other male

police officers (168). For this reason, Abate believes that Scout exhibits tomboyish behaviors

but also wears a dress, wants a baton, and pretends to have a courtship with Dill (169). I do not

view these tendencies as undermining Scout’s tomboyism. (I will analyze the dress scene in

Chapter III.) As for the baton, she desires one “bedecked with sequins and tinsel” so she can

“grow up and twirl with the Maycomb County High School band” (109). Since Scout only

mentions this ambition once, it must not be a strong desire or she would reference it more often.

Also, as Gary Richards aptly notices, Scout has “scant success”: when she tosses a stick in the

air, she only “almost” catches it (123). She has far more success completing masculine

activities, such as punching Walter Cunningham.

Finally, her courtship with Dill is a game, similar to the dramas they perform in the

Finches’ front yard. Like the baton twirling, this endeavor also proves unsuccessful. Scout

explains that Dill “had asked me earlier in the summer to marry him, then he promptly forgot

about it. He staked me out, marked as his property, said I was the only girl he would ever love,

then he neglected me. I beat him up twice but it did no good, he only grew closer to Jem” (48).

Dill’s “neglect,” coupled with Scout’s insertion of fighting, creates an unconventional romance.

Always intending to marry Scout, Dill never actually completes his plan, once imitating adult

behaviors and blaming a lack of finances (126). Dill’s disregard for their courtship may hint

towards his sexual orientation as homosexual, especially since Lee models him on Truman

Capote, who was openly gay. Also, in not allowing the marriage to come to fruition, Lee resists

presenting a more feminine side of Scout. Furthermore, this quote reflects the patriarchal

society’s view of women as men’s “property;” however, Lee mocks this notion when Scout

exerts physical power over Dill, as if he belongs to her. Ultimately, her tomboyish tendencies

are far more consistent than her feminine ones, even though her femininity may occasionally

surface.

Scouting for Conventions in Adolescent Literature

As Scout learns about gender issues, she experiences the coming-of-age journey common

to adolescent fiction. Writing about female development, Elizabeth Abel, Marianne Hirsch, and

Elizabeth Langland assert, “With few exceptions, the relationship between the individual and

society, as it is represented in the novel, is marked by clashes of unique human possibility with

the restraints of social convention” (6). This assessment applies to Scout: she encounters these

“clashes” as she tries to remain a tomboy in a world that advocates stereotypical femininity.

Abel, Hirsch, and Langland specifically contend that female development differs from male

development. Women face more tension as they must come to terms with both masculine and

feminine standards (11). Lee represents this conflict by contrasting Jem’s development into a

stereotypical male adolescent with Scout’s gender-bending behaviors. Lee emphasizes the

opposition that Scout encounters.

In viewing Scout’s development as a tomboy in opposition to societal structures, I find it

useful to consider Roberta Trites’ power/repression model. Trites asserts that power unites the

variety of books that compose the genre of young adult literature (7). As teenage characters

negotiate power structures, they feel repressed. In turn, this repression inspires them to rebel

against societal institutions in order to gain power (54). Though only a child, Scout experiences

this dynamic. Gender conventions try to repress her tomboyish desires, but she rebels and gains

a sense of her identity, which empowers her. Trites also includes parents as part of an

adolescent’s power structure (55). In some respects, though, Lee diverges from Trites’s model

concerning Atticus and Scout’s other parental figures. With the exception of Aunt Alexandra,

Scout’s mentors encourage her gender-bending behaviors. They may repress her in other

aspects, such as Atticus’ insistence that Scout attend school (37), but concerning gender, they

allow her to gain power by subverting expectations.

In To Kill a Mockingbird, five parental characters assist with Scout’s development:

Atticus, Calpurnia, Aunt Alexandra, Miss Maudie, and Boo Radley. Incidentally, though not

Scout’s biological mother, these characters still function in maternal roles. As Nancy Chodorow

asserts, “Being a mother, then, is not only bearing a child—it is being a person who socializes

and nurtures. It is being a primary parent or caretaker” (11). Furthermore, Chodorow views

“mothering” as a verb instead of a noun; therefore, “[w]e can talk about a man ‘mothering’ a

child, if he is this child’s primary nurturing figure, or is acting in a nurturant manner” (11).

These five characters act nurturing when they offer Scout guidance about the world, growing up,

and femininity. Even Aunt Alexandra offers assistance with becoming a conventional female,

although Scout rejects that aid. Thus, Chodorow’s ideas about nonbiological mothers as

nurturers illuminates Atticus, Calpurnia, Aunt Alexandra, Miss Maudie, and Boo Radley as

parental figures; however, most of the novel resists Chodorow’s conclusions.

Chodorow ultimately argues that women act as mothers, which in turn “produce[s]

daughters with mothering capacities and the desire to mother” (7). This cyclical pattern, which

Chodorow terms the “reproduction of mothering,” creates the “sexual and familial division of

labor”: it produces females who develop the stereotypical desire to nurture and care for children

and males who do not parent (209). According to this cycle, girls do not maintain control over

their future: they will inevitably become mothers. To Kill a Mockingbird resists this essentialist

conclusion, however. Because Scout demonstrates personal agency in her decision to be a

tomboy, she aligns more closely with Judith Butler’s theories about gender fluidity and

performativity. Though Scout has parental figures, they do not force her to follow a certain path

in life. Just as a writer includes stage directions in a play, suggesting a guide for an actor’s

performance, Scout’s parental figures offer her a model for unconventional gender roles.

Ultimately, though, an actor must decide for himself how to deliver a scene, which Scout

similarly concludes about her own tomboyism.

In addition, because of the prominence of these parental characters, Lee diverges from

trends in adolescent fiction. According to Kenneth L. Donelson and Alleen Pace Nilsen, who

compile the characteristics of the “best of modern young adult literature” (28), absent parents are

a feature of this genre. Donelson and Nilsen write, “With formula fiction for young readers, one

of the first things an author does is to figure out how to get rid of the parents so that the young

person is free to take credit for his or her accomplishments” (29). Scout, however, does not

make her accomplishments alone; her parental figures offer support, encouragement, and love.

For the most part, Scout develops healthy relationships with her parental figures, and as

Donelson and Nilsen note, teenagers and parents rarely share “good relationships” in adolescent

fiction (124). Even though Aunt Alexandra offers criticism, she is still more present than Scout

desires, and she prepares Scout for a world that opposes gender-bending behaviors.

The parental characters are strong role models because they personally subvert

expectations and present Scout with models of gender-bending behaviors. I will examine

Atticus, Calpurnia, Aunt Alexandra, Miss Maudie, and Boo Radley because these characters

influence Scout’s tomboyism more heavily than any other character in the novel. Chapter II

discusses Atticus as an unconventional Southern man in both his own behaviors and in his

encouragement of Scout’s tomboyism. Also, his behaviors resemble some feminine stereotypes.

Scout then uses her father as a model for “bending the law” of gender expectations. Chapter III

presents an analysis of Scout’s three mother figures—Calpurnia, Aunt Alexandra, and Miss

Maudie. These women both reinforce and reject conventions, and their movement across gender

divides encourages Scout’s divergence from feminine standards. Ultimately, Scout identifies

with Miss Maudie, who becomes a stronger model for womanhood than Calpurnia or Aunt

Alexandra. Last, Chapter IV examines Boo Radley. Boo’s reclusive refusal to take part in

society establishes him as the most peculiar and unconventional character in the entire novel.

Though she does not directly imitate his behaviors, Scout learns an important lesson: Boo proves

that a person can resist conformity and still find happiness.

Through these characters, Lee presents the novel’s theme of deviating from gender

expectations. As Laura Fine writes, “Harper Lee fills her novel with examples of acceptable

breakings of boundaries, codes, or laws, and these violations set the stage for Scout’s own

boundary breaking” (“Structuring” 64). Not only do the characters differ from stereotypes, but

the structure of the novel also differs from features common to adolescent fiction, even though

contemporary scholars place the novel within that genre. Within the pattern for tomboys, Scout

diverges from several of those standards. Also, parents are not background characters; they

serve a significant role. The following chapters will examine their influence on Scout, revealing

how they guide her to be “a ray of sunshine in pants” (89).

CHAPTER 2

BENDING THE LAW: ATTICUS’S PATERNAL INFLUENCE ON SCOUT

Critics have called him everything from “Christ-like” and “Olympian” to “racist” and

“elitist” (Petry xxv; Freedman 21). No matter the qualities attributed to him, Atticus Finch is the

most critically examined character in To Kill a Mockingbird, and scholars often give him a

larger-than-life status. Surprisingly, attorneys have analyzed Atticus more often than literary

scholars, and Alice Hall Petry terms him “a folk hero in legal circles” since he seems to represent

an ideal of morality and social justice much needed by lawyers (xxiii). However, I would like to

shift the focus away from a legal perspective and turn to a gender analysis, even though I will

still reference some legal topics as they influence gender. After all, as Miss Maudie notes,

“Atticus Finch is the same in his house as he is on the public streets” (53). Critics have also

heavily explored the novel’s racial elements, which interact with gender as well. As Claudia

Johnson explains, “In the novel, the limitations of gender run parallel to the more obvious theme

of the limitations of race” (101). Therefore, I will emphasize the racial and legal issues as they

impact Lee’s construction of Atticus as an unconventional man in terms of gender expectations.

When examining Atticus’ masculinity, it is necessary to consider Southern conceptions of

gender because in Lee’s novel, Southern manhood is the only type of manhood examined.

Maycomb regards gender stereotypes as seriously as they view the code that a black man should

not have relations with a white woman, and these unwritten laws form the foundation of their

culture. From this perspective, Atticus is particularly atypical. In some instances, he completely

subverts expectations by acting stereotypically feminine, but in other instances, he only bends

conventions by demonstrating features that differ from the dominant male traits in his

community. As a male “mother,” for example, Atticus is not completely unconventional—after

all, he hires Calpurnia to cook and clean—but he is not completely conventional either. His few

feminine traits combine with his masculine traits, raising questions about the notion that people

must conform to one standard or the other. While Atticus reveals the gray areas of racial

concerns, he also exposes the gray areas of gender issues, both through his own behaviors and

through his acceptance of Scout’s tomboyism.

Though a successful lawyer, Atticus functions in this novel primarily as Scout and Jem’s

father, and he is an important role model for his daughter. As Michelle Ware says, “[Scout] has

no memory of her mother, so she looks to Jem and Atticus as her guides to appropriate behavior”

(286). While Scout has several parental guides, Atticus is the most significant mentor because

he is her only biological parent, and she spends the majority of her time with him. Also, Scout

strongly admires her father’s gender-bending preferences. Dean Shackelford makes a similar

observation: “Exactly why Scout identifies with Atticus so much may have as much to do with

his own individuality and inner strength as the fact that he is a single parent and father” (109).

Because of his own unconventional behaviors, both as a man and as a father, Atticus serves as a

model for Scout’s tomboyism.

In his family life, Atticus particularly challenges societal expectations. Breaking the

“tradition of living on the land” at the family plantation, Atticus leaves to study law and then

resides in Maycomb (10). Then, elevating his career over his personal life, he waits to marry

until he reaches middle-age. After his wife suffers a heart attack and dies, he never remarries

(12). These decisions seem unusual because a conventional lifestyle entails having a nuclear

family. Historically, as Kathryn Lee Seidel points out, courtship played a large part in the

Southern lifestyle; therefore, a man worked to attain a family from a young age. Also, a

gentleman was charged with “protecting” his belle (Southern Belle 5-6). Without a wife,

however, Atticus cannot fulfill that task. The Finches’s neighbor, Mrs. Dubose, reflects these

conventional views when she pities Atticus, believing that Jem and Scout need a stepmother.

She maintains that a woman could tame their “wild” ways (108). Atticus clearly feels capable of

raising his children alone, though. As Shackelford maintains, he has an androgynous nature

because he functions as mother and father (108). As a father, he disciplines the children. For

example, he makes Jem read to Mrs. Dubose everyday as punishment for destroying her camellia

bush with Scout’s baton (115). As a mother, he nurtures them. When Scout worries that Mrs.

Dubose will shoot Jem with a Confederate pistol, she climbs into Atticus’ lap. Although she is

“mighty big to be rocked,” he still wraps his arms around her and comforts her (113). Also

accentuating his androgyny, Atticus never shows interest in the opposite sex—or in sex at all. A

newspaper cartoon depicts him “diligently writing on a slate while some frivolous-looking girls

yelled, ‘Yoo-hoo!’ at him” (126). While an accurate representation of Atticus’s diminished

interests, this cartoon also reveals Maycomb’s propensity to ridicule those with unconventional

behaviors.

Besides providing an unconventional family structure, Atticus is also an atypical parent.

The children call him by his first name, and he exposes them to issues that some would consider

beyond their maturity level. For instance, when Scout asks about the meaning of rape, he

honestly (and legalistically) describes it as “carnal knowledge of a female by force and without

consent” (145). He doesn’t believe in shielding his children from the world, even if they learn

information that some might regard as inappropriate for children. In his open discussions with

Scout and Jem, he always speaks with the same vocabulary he would use during an adult

conversation. Often, as in the previous situation, he resorts to legal language. For instance,

when Atticus rejects the instructions of Scout’s teacher, who insists that Scout no longer read at

home, he tells Scout to keep this decision a secret. Atticus says, “I’m afraid our activities would

be received with considerable disapprobation by the more learned authorities” (38). Though

Scout requests a “translation” (38), Atticus first challenges her to converse more professionally

and intelligently. His language inserts a level of equality into his relationship with Scout; he

refuses to talk down to her and emphasize his authority as an adult, unlike patriarchal fathers

who constantly maintain dominion.

Atticus’ explanation about reading reveals another unconventional attribute: he

encourages rebellion against unfair institutions. Much to Scout’s dismay, her teacher Miss

Caroline claims that Atticus teaches her to read incorrectly, disregarding his status as one of the

most intelligent men in Maycomb (24). Atticus, however, still reads to her every night. He

maintains that Scout can act as she pleases, as long as she doesn’t tell Miss Caroline. Atticus

concludes, “Sometimes it’s better to bend the law a little in special cases” (37). As an attorney,

Atticus’s job entails upholding the law, yet he advocates breaking regulations when the law is

wrong. He teaches Scout that some issues, such as the right to an education, transcend the law.

Disregarding the stereotype of an obedient female, he encourages a girl—not a boy—to revolt

against these rules.

Though gender conventions are not official laws, Atticus also finds these regulations

worthy of “bending.” As Scout explains, her father differs from the other men in Maycomb:

Our father didn’t do anything. He worked in an office, not in a drugstore. Atticus

did not drive a dump-truck for the county, he was not the sheriff, he did not farm,

work in a garage, or do anything that could possibly arouse the admiration of

anyone . . . . He did not do the things our schoolmates’ fathers did: he never went

hunting, he did not play poker or fish or drink or smoke. He sat in the livingroom

and read. (97-98)

Atticus’s love for reading is a significant gender-bending trait in the South. As Scout indicates,

the typical man works a labor-intensive job, suggesting that these lower class men outnumber the

professional members of society. Atticus is in the minority because he has more leisure time to

read, as well as the necessary education. Even if the average farmer or garbage-truck driver is

literate, he would probably not read “Bills To Be Enacted into Laws” or “the diaries of Lorenzo

Dow,” as Atticus does (24). Instead of engaging in aggressive activities, he prefers this passive

pursuit of knowledge, and passivity is a stereotypically feminine behavior. On the contrary,

other men in Maycomb spend their time playing football, including men in Atticus’s social class,

such as Cecil Jacobs’s father, who lives on the same street as the Finches (41). When the fathers

of “everybody in town” participate in the Methodist v. Baptist football game, Atticus sits on the

sidelines with the women and children (100). In Maycomb, scoring touchdowns secures respect,

not handling difficult court cases. Jem, in particular, expresses this stereotypical mindset: he

“gloomily” mopes when Atticus refuses to participate in the football game (100). Because of his

passive preference for reading, Atticus bends these gender “laws.”

Even Scout recognizes feminine traits in her father: she remarks that his “feeble” age of

fifty—older than the fathers of her classmates—detracts from his “manliness” (97). In this

environment, masculinity constitutes youthful strength and vigor, which Atticus notably lacks.

Ironically, Scout initially regards Atticus’s “unmanly” characteristics with disappointment

instead of admiration. Even though she wants to remain different from other girls, she still wants

her father to embrace conventions. For instance, at school, Scout feels left out of discussions

about her classmates’ fathers and their abilities (97). However, I do not think her disappointment

undermines her desire to subvert gender stereotypes. She prefers “manly” features, so perhaps

she wants a “manly” father with whom she can more directly identify. Perhaps she, like Jem,

wants to share aggressive activities, such as football, with her father.

Moreover, her comment about Atticus’s “manliness” occurs in the novel’s first section.

As with all typical coming-of-age stories, Scout’s opinions change as the novel progresses and

she learns about life. The more she views her father’s and her own gender transgressions, the

more she comes to value them. In the end, Scout and Atticus may have contrasting personality

traits, such as his passivity versus her aggression, but she ultimately identifies with his decision

to “bend” gender conventions. She realizes that Atticus’s unconventionalities are worthy of

“admiration.” Like Miss Maudie, Heck Tate, and several other prominent town members, Scout

respects her father’s effort to defend Tom Robinson, as evidenced when she attacks her

classmates for insulting him (82). His uniqueness becomes an asset rather than a liability. If he

drove a dump-truck or farmed or was a typical man, then he might be the type of father to force

his daughter to wear dresses or he might treat his daughter like Bob Ewell treats Mayella. As

implied during Tom Robinson’s trial, Bob Ewell beats Mayella and possibly rapes her (194,

206). Though hideous, their relationship aligns with conventions more than Scout and Atticus’s

relationship. Bob Ewell physically exerts a patriarchal force over Mayella, but Atticus “never

[lays] a hand” on Scout (96). Perhaps because of his education, Atticus is more open-minded

regarding women and children. Without a father who spends his time reading, Scout might be a

different girl. Atticus allows Scout the freedom to exhibit the traits she desires.

Since Atticus privileges literacy, he instills these values in his daughter, teaching Scout to

read at an early age. As a result, Scout views this skill as highly necessary: “Until I feared I

would lose it, I never loved to read. One does not love breathing” (24). Because reading is a

passive behavior, one could argue that Atticus encourages stereotypically feminine mannerisms,

but Lee presents literacy as unconventional for Scout. Just as literacy separates Atticus from the

men in Maycomb, it also separates Scout from her first grade classmates, who “print” instead of

“write” (25). Scout can read far above her age level, commonly reviewing newspapers and legal

reports with her father (24). Historically, men of their social class acquire more education than

women, but Scout is on the path to surpassing the educational level of everyone in her class,

including the boys.

Though Atticus differs significantly from the fathers of Scout’s peers, he occasionally

appears conventional. For example, he heroically wields a gun and slays a mad dog. However,

instead of using this scene to accentuate Atticus’s masculinity, Lee demonstrates the opposite.

Atticus chooses not to hunt like a stereotypical Southern man. As Scout and Jem learn, Atticus

may be “the deadest shot in Maycomb County,” but he abstains from the sport because “God had

given him an unfair advantage over most living things” (106-107). Atticus does not feel the need

to exert power over animals simply because he is capable of that authority. He treats his children

likewise: though capable of forcing Scout to wear a dress, he never once opposes her overalls.

Atticus’s desire for less power separates him from the patriarchal men who inhabit his

community.

While I view Atticus as decidedly unconventional, some critics disagree. In particular,

Laura Fine asserts that Atticus exhibits “the traditional masculine qualities of heroic

individualism, bravery, and an unshrinking knowledge of and dedication to social justice and

morality” (“Gender Conflicts” 125). Atticus does seem to possess these features—but only in

the view of modern-day readers. From a historical perspective and from the view of the majority

of the novel’s characters, a white, Southern male defending a black man and favoring a black

man’s word over a white woman’s word is abnormal. As Alice Hall Petry observes, “It is

perhaps impossible for students and scholars born after around 1955 to appreciate what a

groundbreaking, even shocking book To Kill a Mockingbird seemed in the early 1960s . . . . No

one could believe that a white attorney would risk his life—yes, and his children’s lives—to

defend a black man, even if that man were unquestionably innocent” (xxiii). In the context of

the novel, the Maycomb community does not consider Atticus heroic or brave. In fact, they view

him as upsetting the social order. “Order” in pre-Civil Rights Alabama involved the persecution

of African Americans, which Atticus attempts to prevent. For these reasons, children tease Scout

at school and people stare at her in town. As Scout informs Atticus, “most folks seem to think

they’re right and you’re wrong” (114). Even his own family views his actions negatively: Aunt

Alexandra tells her grandson Francis that Atticus is “ruinin’ the family” (91). Through the

course of the novel, Lee tries to subvert this antiquated perception, but nevertheless, Atticus’s

involvement in Tom Robinson’s trial only further separates him from the men in his community.

As Dean Shackelford concludes, “Atticus is far from a stereotypical Southern male” (109).

Furthermore, Fine accurately observes that the novel contains bravery, but Lee portrays

this trait in an unconventional manner. First, bravery is not a specifically masculine

characteristic. After all, Mrs. Dubose is “the bravest person” Atticus knows because she

overcomes a morphine addiction and dies “beholden to nothing and nobody” (121). Second,

courage is not, as Atticus reminds the children, “a man with a gun in his hand” (121). Maycomb

regards bravery in this manner: for instance, Miss Maudie and Heck Tate praise Atticus for

shooting the mad dog (105-106). Atticus, however, teaches his children that courage entails

moral strength rather than physical power: “it’s when you know you’re licked before you begin

but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what” (121). In this explanation, Atticus

indirectly refers to his defense of Tom Robinson, acknowledging that he, too, possesses bravery,

but he aligns himself with Mrs. Dubose instead of with male valor, as represented by the gun.

After Scout learns this lesson, she demonstrates this new type of bravery when she—not

Atticus—stops the lynch mob from attacking Tom Robinson (164-165). Without her, they could

have severely injured Atticus in their efforts to reach Tom. In this scene, Scout exhibits more

power than her father. Though Atticus initially asks that the children return home, he does not

insist on retaining the control just because he is a man or he is an adult. Realizing that Scout’s

words are more effective than his, he lets her assume this authority.

In addition to his behaviors, Atticus subverts gender conventions because of his

innovative ideas about women. Atticus believes that women should have opportunities, as he

demonstrates when he teaches both Jem and Scout to read. Laura Fine disagrees, maintaining

that fathers in To Kill a Mockingbird “represent the oppressive patriarchal structure” (“Gender

Conflicts” 123). Atticus delivers one statement that suggests this mindset: when he explains why

women cannot serve on juries, he remarks, “I guess it’s to protect our frail ladies from sordid

cases like Tom’s. Besides . . . I doubt if we’d ever get a complete case tried—the ladies’d be

interrupting to ask questions” (234). Though this statement seems suspect, I believe that Atticus

speaks with a note of sarcasm, especially since he grins after expressing it. The grin suggests

that he mocks the idea that women are “frail” and should be “protected” from society’s evils.

While Scout agrees with her father, commenting, “Perhaps our forefathers were wise” (234), she

only makes this remark after imagining Mrs. Dubose on a jury. Scout’s response indicates that

stereotypical women—such as Aunt Alexandra and her hypocritical missionary society—would

impede legal proceedings. Perhaps unconventional women with more of an unbiased mind, like

Scout, would benefit juries.

Fine, however, argues that Scout’s rage against “fathers as guards of patriarchy lurks

beneath the surface of the text and finds form in her violent projections against other fathers, bad

and good” (“Gender Conflicts” 124). Her rage is then “enacted” by Boo Radley, who stabs his

father with a pair of scissors and kills Bob Ewell. Fine groups Atticus with Mr. Radley, who

keeps his son locked inside the home, and Bob Ewell, who may have raped his daughter (124).

However, Atticus doesn’t actually resemble these men because he is not oppressive. Unlike Mr.

Radley, he lets Scout run wild through the neighborhood streets, and unlike Bob Ewell, he

“never [lays] a hand” on Scout (96). Furthermore, Atticus allows his daughter the freedom be a

tomboy.

Contrary to Fine, I contend that Scout does not feel rage against her father because he is

not patriarchal. In the scenes where she feels dissatisfied with her father, Scout’s emotions never

reach the level of rage. For example, when Scout expresses her displeasure over school, she

does not yell or use harsh words. She merely states that she does not want to attend the first

grade anymore, and then she calmly states the reasons why (36-37). While she complains,

Atticus waits in “amiable silence” (36), indicating that he approaches this disagreement with

tranquility rather than aggressive, physical force. In a subsequent scene, when Scout’s

unhappiness about school drives her to curse, Atticus again responds passively and ignores her

(87). Uncle Jack, on the other hand, delivers a stern lecture and threatens to “lick” Scout for

using profanity (93). In response, Scout shows true rage when she screams, “I’ll never speak to

you again as long as I live! I hate you an’ despise you an’ hope you die tomorrow!” (93). This

rage manifests itself in a physical action when she slams the door to her room (93). Frequently,

Scout’s temper flares but never against her father. For example, feeling significantly angrier

towards Aunt Alexandra, Scout starts to attack her when Alexandra insults her tomboyishness.

She explains, “I don’t know what I would have done, but Jem stopped me” (238). Scout loves

her father because he completely embraces her gender-bending behaviors. Never once does he

tell her to wear a dress or act like a lady. On the contrary, he defends her when his sister protests

Scout’s propensity to wear overalls. As Scout comments, the incident “was the only time I ever

heard Atticus speak sharply to anyone” (89). He feels so insistent on Scout remaining a tomboy

that his normally calm composure falters. With the exception of this incident, Atticus’s

interactions with his daughter emphasize his lack of masculine aggression, which contributes to

his unconventional demeanor.

Critics also condemn Atticus for his involvement in directing his children’s careers. For

example, Monroe Freedman believes that Atticus reinforces gender stereotypes because he

encourages Jem—and not Scout—to be a lawyer (21). However, Jem is four years older than

Scout and closer to adulthood. Perhaps when Scout reaches Jem’s age, Atticus will also guide

her towards a legal profession. More importantly, he speaks to Scout in the same manner that he

speaks to Jem. By using legal language, he does not shield her from the world of law. For

example, he makes a compromise with her about attending school (38), and he explains “at

length” about Walter Cunningham’s entailment (165). Scout then uses this knowledge to deter

the lynch mob, speaking with the same eloquence her father uses when he delivers his closing

address in court. Moreover, Lee’s personal life suggests that she supports the idea of female

lawyers. According to Charles Shields, the author of Lee’s biography, Lee enrolled in law

school because her father wanted her to become a lawyer. Though she dropped out after several

semesters, she left to pursue a writing career, not because she wasn’t capable of the work (100,

109). Also, before retiring, her sister Alice served their community as a well-respected attorney

with a “booming” practice (101). Since To Kill a Mockingbird contains so many

autobiographical qualities, it seems logical that Lee would embrace female attorneys in reality

and in the novel.

Also, contrary to Freedman’s argument, I assert that Atticus treats his children equally

concerning gender. For instance, refusing to give Scout a different Christmas present because of

her femininity, he purchases an air-rifle for both children (87). This rifle indicates that he

encourages masculine behaviors in his daughter. Additionally, Atticus does not teach his

children to assume gender stereotypes. Aunt Alexandra wants him to impress upon Scout and

Jem their stature as “the product of several generations’ gentle breeding,” so they will “behave

like the little lady and gentleman” of their social class (143). However, after a tense and

awkward attempt, Atticus ultimately tells his children to forget everything he previously said

(144). He doesn’t want them to live according to society’s expectations.

Though Atticus accepts Scout’s tomboyish behaviors, there are some tendencies that he

discourages, such as her proclivity for fighting. Scout explains, “Atticus had promised me he

would wear me out if he ever heard of me fighting anymore” (82). However, he does not forbid

fighting because it is anti-feminine but because Scout is “far too old and too big for such childish

things” (82). He views physical violence as an immature way to handle a situation, for men or

women. Treating his children equally, Atticus also disapproves of Jem’s violent behaviors.

When Jem mutilates Mrs. Dubose’s camellia bushes, Atticus sends him to apologize and

sentences him to a month of reading to Mrs. Dubose after school (113-114). Again, Atticus does

not discourage Jem’s aggression due to its masculinity; destroying “a sick old lady[’s]” flowers

is simply rude (113). Scout, though, does not abide by Atticus’s rule, and she attacks Cecil

Jacobs, who insults Atticus (82). Lee does not mention if Atticus learns of this incident, but even

if he does, he never “wear[s]” her out. He opposes Scout’s aggression, but he does nothing

forceful to stop it, which reinforces his feminine passivity and allows her assertiveness to persist.

Once, when faced with the disapproval of Aunt Alexandra, Scout explains, “I asked him

if I was a problem and he said not much of one, at most one that he could always figure out, and

not to worry my head a second about botherin’ him” (239). With this statement, Atticus

expresses his acceptance of his daughter’s tomboyism. Though he doesn’t win the trial or make

any groundbreaking efforts to end racism or earn the overwhelming respect of Maycomb, he still

earns the admiration of his daughter. To Scout, he remains a hero because he challenges

stereotypical gender expectations, and Scout learns that she can do likewise. As a result, she

cherishes her ability to read; she courageously and powerfully uses her voice to stop a lynch

mob; and she disregards her aunt’s criticisms. Atticus once states, “[B]efore I can live with other

folks I’ve got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s

conscience” (114). This comment refers to his decision to defend Tom Robinson, but it doubly

applies to the values Atticus instills in Scout concerning gender. Scout must live her life the way

she wants, not how Aunt Alexandra or Mrs. Dubose or Jem or her teachers want. She may face

condemnation, but she will remain a tomboy in order to fulfill her personal desires. She imitates

her father, who “bends the law” of conventional masculinity in order to live with himself.

CHAPTER 3

THE (NOT SO) MOTHERLESS CHILD

Life as a single father is challenging, especially with children as rambunctious as Scout

and Jem. Reflecting on Atticus’s failed conversation about proper behaviors, Scout remarks, “I

know now what he was trying to do, but Atticus was only a man. It takes a woman to do that

kind of work” (145). As an adult, Scout realizes that maternal influences are sometimes

necessary. Even though Atticus tries to act as a male mother, he cannot complete the job on his

own. Scout’s mother, however, died when she was two-years-old (12). Critics often propose

that tomboys develop their gender-bending behaviors due to a lack of a mother. Using Scout as

her primary example, Michelle Abate observes, “Whether the absence of a mother stems from a

physical or psychological source, it is seen as the cause or impetus for tomboyism in many

narratives” (xix). Likewise, in her analysis of tomboys in the works of Carson McCullers,

Louise Westling writes, “Without mothers, these feminine protagonists define themselves most

comfortably in masculine terms” (155). Even Aunt Alexandra reaches this conclusion, intruding

upon the Finches halfway through the novel to exert upon Scout “some feminine influence”

(137). With an older brother, a caring uncle, and a devoted father, masculinity seems like a

strong component to Scout’s life. However, Scout is not entirely bereft of feminine influences.

The novel contains a variety of women exposing Scout to different ideas of femininity,

including Mrs. Dubose, Mayella Ewell, Miss Stephanie Crawford, Helen Robinson, Scout’s

teachers, and the Missionary Society members. Nevertheless, three characters are particularly

significant because they function as Scout’s mother figures: Calpurnia, Aunt Alexandra, and

Miss Maudie. Despite their importance, critics often present limited examinations of these

women. For instance, Dean Shackelford titles his article, “The Female Voice in To Kill a

Mockingbird: Narrative Strategies in Film and Novel.” While Shackelford provides an engaging

analysis of Scout’s voice, he primarily focuses on Atticus’s influence on Scout, provides a brief

discussion on Aunt Alexandra, and only makes a passing reference to Miss Maudie and

Calpurnia. These female voices deserve an analysis because they impact Scout’s tomboyism.

Though they did not give birth to Scout, Calpurnia, Aunt Alexandra, and Miss Maudie

still serve as mother figures. They demonstrate Nancy Chodorow’s assertions that nonbiological

mothers can “parent just as adequately as biological mothers” (29). Calpurnia, Aunt Alexandra,

and Miss Maudie all nurture and care for Scout. Part of that nurturing entails presenting Scout

with a variety of ideas about femininity. Like Atticus, they show how gender stereotypes are

unstable standards. As each of these women both reject and reinforce conventions, their

inconsistencies allow Scout to question femininity and ultimately embrace tomboyism.

The “Double Life”

Though not blood related, Calpurnia unquestionably belongs in the Finch family. As the

housekeeper, Calpurnia presents the stereotype of a woman working in domesticity. However,

Calpurnia is more than a cook or a maid. As Michelle Ware points out, Calpurnia resembles the

Mammy figure, but “Lee’s characterization extends beyond that limited portrayal” (287).

Calpurnia offers a constant presence, providing for Jem and Scout, who she labels “my children”

(128). As with many parent/child bonds, Scout is not always happy about Calpurnia’s presence.

Scout explains,

She was always ordering me out of the kitchen, asking me why I couldn’t behave

as well as Jem when she knew he was older, and calling me home when I wasn’t

ready to come. Our battles were epic and one-sided. Calpurnia always won,

mainly because Atticus always took her side. She had been with us ever since

Jem was born, and I had felt her tyrannical presence as long as I could remember.

(12)

This quote aligns Calpurnia with Atticus in a parental manner. As Kathryn Lee Seidel observes,

Atticus and Calpurnia resemble “a husband-wife team presenting a united front” because

“Calpurnia treats Scout well and defends her father as her father defends Calpurnia” (“Growing”

87). Calpurnia seems “tyrannical” because she demonstrates complete control over Scout, and

Scout’s protests often amount to nothing. In effect, she acts more patriarchal than Atticus does.

For instance, when Scout insults Walter Cunningham at the dinner table, Calpurnia sends her to

the kitchen to finish her meal alone. Atticus patiently listens to Scout’s complaints, but

Calpurnia interrupts her protests and gives her a “stinging smack” (31). Of all her parental

figures, Calpurnia is the only one who reprimands with physical force. Since black women held

a lower position than white women during this era, Calpurnia challenges both gender and racial

codes with this stereotypically masculine power.

Calpurnia’s efforts to discipline Scout reveal her paternal attributes, but she also displays

a mother’s nurturing qualities. After Scout experiences a harrowing first day at school,

Calpurnia makes special crackling bread, kisses Scout, and admits that she misses Scout during

the school day (35). No matter how ugly Scout speaks to her, Calpurnia will always care for her.

She only admonishes Scout to make Scout a better person, as any good parent would treat his or

her child. These interactions demonstrate the love-hate nature of their relationship, a trait that

parent/child bonds typically exhibit. Scout often responds to Calpurnia’s “tyrannical”

admonishments with anger, once threatening to drown herself in order to “fix” Calpurnia (31).

Even though Scout feels angry, her drastic remark reveals her understanding of how deeply

Calpurnia loves her. This particular threat is the ultimate punishment because Scout knows that

her own death would devastate Calpurnia. Love and hatred mingle, and Scout occasionally seeks

comfort from Calpurnia, as a child would regard her mother. When Jem teases her, Scout

immediately runs to Calpurnia, who welcomes Scout into the kitchen (125). In this scene, Scout

begins to view Calpurnia as a model of femininity. Scout comments, “[B]y watching her I began

to think there was some skill involved in being a girl” (125). This interaction is one of the rare

instances that Scout views femininity in a positive perspective, as opposed to the negativity she

associates with other women, especially Aunt Alexandra. Calpurnia’s femininity combines with

her masculine authority to demonstrate the fluctuating nature of gender standards. This

fluctuation sets a precedent for Scout’s tomboyism.

Calpurnia influences Scout because her behaviors exemplify bending the rules of society.

For instance, when Calpurnia chastises Scout for criticizing Walter Cunningham’s poverty, she

echoes Atticus’s views about equality: “Don’t matter who they are, anybody sets foot in this

house’s yo’ comp’ny, and don’t you let me catch you remarkin’ on their ways like you was so

high and mighty!” (31). Calpurnia’s beliefs differ from those of the majority of people, both

black and white. Maycomb enforces strict barriers between social classes, but Calpurnia

encourages Scout to treat everyone with kindness. Despite her patriarchal reprimand in this

scene, Calpurnia combines gender standards by evoking the tradition of mothers instilling moral

lessons in their children. According to Chodorow, mothers have functioned as “nurturant moral

models” ever since the Victorian era (5). Calpurnia is effective as this model because Scout later

refers to her ideology of equality. Ignoring social barriers, Scout wants to invite Walter to play

at her house. Even when Aunt Alexandra refutes this request because of the class differences,

Scout emphasizes their similarities: both she and the Cunninghams enjoy “fiddlin’ and things

like that” (236). Scout’s unprejudiced view towards social classes accentuates the overarching

theme of equality. If one can treat a poor child and middle-class child the same, then perhaps

one can apply the same lesson to a man and a woman.

Calpurnia sees beyond social barriers because she is an unconventional black woman in

pre-Civil Rights Alabama. Like Atticus and Scout, her education level separates her from her

peers. Scout observes, “When in tranquility, her grammar was as good as anybody’s in

Maycomb. Atticus said Calpurnia had more education than most colored folks” (31). In fact,

out of the entire black community in Maycomb, Calpurnia is one of only four literate people

(134). Not only does Calpurnia teach the Finch children to read and write, exposing them to a

primer at a young age, but she also instills literacy in her son Zeebo. Calpurnia further

emphasizes the value of education when she explains her methods of teaching Zeebo: “There

wasn’t a school even when he was a boy. I made him learn, though….I made him get a page of

the Bible every day, and there was a book Miss Buford taught me out of” (135). The lack of a

school for black children indicates the efforts of whites to keep blacks uneducated during this

era, but Calpurnia does not let this discrimination stop her. She finds a way to educate herself

and her son, refusing to mold to society’s standards. She also overcomes the historical gender

stereotype that men should remain more educated than women. She probably can read far better

than Bob Ewell, who does not even send his children to school (195).

Calpurnia’s journey beyond conventional boundaries becomes further apparent when she

takes Jem and Scout to her home community, the First Purchase African M.E. Church, where she

is an outsider due to her association with the Finches. During this scene, Scout notices that

Calpurnia leads “a modest double life”: she speaks “nigger-talk” at the church but grammatically

correct English with the Finches (136). Calpurnia recognizes the differences between the two

groups, but she can navigate between them. As Laura Fine writes, “She manages to fit in with

both blacks and white by withholding the part of her identity each group might find offensive.

Lee’s point here is that Calpurnia is fully cognizant that crossing boundaries involves subtlety

and subterfuge” (“Structuring” 66-67). Moreover, Natalie Hess examines this scene, asserting

that Calpurnia’s “insider/outsider status” demonstrates code-switching (9). Hess writes,

Code switchers, by their very definition, exist between spheres of reference and

move between structures. The marker of their conversions, modulations,

transitions, and variations is code switched language. In literature such linguistic

cavorting on the part of even a minor character may well underpin an entire set of

thematic intentions. (6)

Adding to Hess’s analysis, I propose that Calpurnia’s transitions between black English and

standard English illustrate Lee’s overall theme of crossing boundaries and displaying fluid

behaviors. Hess also concludes that this code-switching behavior makes Calpurnia a liminal

figure—one who inhabits “a state of eruption in which new forms and categories emerge” (6).

Calpurnia is a new form of a black woman: an educated black woman who defies both racial and

gender stereotypes.

Like Calpurnia, Scout also moves between blacks and whites. According to Michelle

Abate, tomboys “do more than simply exist on the boundaries between male and female, adult

and child, heterosexual and homosexual, masculine and feminine; they also occupy a liminal

position between blackness and whiteness” (xii-xiii). Authors visually represent this liminal

position by giving tomboys dark features, such as Jo March’s dark hair or Laura Ingalls’s tanned

skin (xii, xxvi). While Scout’s hair color and skin tones remain unknown, Lee does show her

crossing racial boundaries through her interactions with the black community. When Scout and

Jem attend church with Calpurnia, the shocked reactions of the other church members reveal the

unconventionality in white children associating with blacks. One woman, Lula, exclaims, “You

ain’t got no business bringin’ white chillum here” (129). Scout does not let these barriers stop

her, though. She wants to visit Calpurnia’s home (146), and she sits in the “Colored balcony”

during Tom Robinson’s trial (175). She feels a connection to the blacks because they, like her,

are less powerful than the white males who dominate Maycomb’s society.

Scout’s disregard for racial boundaries evidences her willingness to defy conventions.

Maycomb society dictates the inappropriateness of worshipping God on the bench beside a

person with a different skin, just as they dislike a girl running around in overalls. Calpurnia

teaches Scout that one does not have to submit to these rules. Furthermore, by emphasizing

Calpurnia’s power over Scout, Lee suggests that blacks and women are capable of exerting

authority. Subjugated figures can obtain control over their lives and their personal choices. Just

as Calpurnia can attain an education, Scout can be a tomboy, even when her overbearing aunt

asserts otherwise.

The Southern Belle

Fortunately for Scout, Calpurnia never wages battle over the issue of Scout’s tomboyism;

Aunt Alexandra is another case altogether. As much as Scout occasionally dislikes Calpurnia,

Scout’s feelings for Aunt Alexandra inhabit a deeper level of detestation. Scout’s relationship

with Aunt Alexandra resembles the power/repression dynamic presented by Roberta Trites. As

Trites points out, “The conflict with parent-as-authority-figures seems to be one of the most

pervasive patterns in adolescent literature” (54). Although Calpurnia exerts patriarchal authority

over Scout, she does not demonstrate Trites’s model because Scout rarely rebels against her and

Calpurnia does not specifically oppose Scout’s tomboyism. Aunt Alexandra, on the other hand,

tries to repress Scout’s gender-bending inclinations, but Scout revolts and becomes more

tomboyish.

Primarily, Scout rebels because Alexandra wants her to become a genteel Southern belle.

As Scout explains,

Aunt Alexandra was fanatical on the subject of my attire. I could not possibly

hope to be a lady if I wore breeches; when I said I could do nothing in a dress,

she said I wasn’t supposed to be doing things that required pants. Aunt

Alexandra’s vision of my deportment involved playing with small stoves, tea

sets, and wearing the Add-A-Pearl necklace she gave me when I was born;

furthermore, I should be a ray of sunshine in my father’s lonely life. I

suggested that one could be a ray of sunshine in pants just as well, but Aunty

said that one had to behave like a sunbeam, that I was born good but had

grown progressively worse every year. She hurt my feelings and set my teeth

permanently on edge, but when I asked Atticus about it, he said there were

already enough sunbeams in the family and to go on about my business, he

didn’t mind me much the way I was. (89)

This passage reveals several significant aspects of the Finch family. First, Alexandra’s

conceptions of femininity emphasize clothing and behaviors that utilize feminine items, such as

jewelry, stoves, and tea sets. This quote also expresses the ongoing argument between Scout and

Aunt Alexandra over her desire to wear pants. Second, Alexandra views Scout’s purpose as

being “a ray of sunshine” for Atticus (89). By defining Scout in terms of her father, Alexandra

uses a patriarchal assessment. Ironically, Scout already serves as “a ray of sunshine” in Atticus’s

life, which is not entirely lonely because a prosperous legal career, two busy children, and a

nagging sister consume his time. Third, Alexandra only believes that Scout can warrant worth in

her father’s life if she conforms to gender stereotypes and wears dresses. However, Alexandra

again misjudges the situation. For Atticus, Scout is “a ray of sunshine” because she wears pants

and is unique. Finally, this excerpt evidences Scout’s core belief about her character: she wants

to find alternate ways to live life. Since she opposes dresses, she will “be a ray of sunshine in

pants just as well” (89).

Due to Alexandra’s concerns about Scout’s tomboyism, she leaves her family and moves

to Maycomb to exert “some feminine influence” on Scout (137). In response, Scout wonders

why Calpurnia cannot serve that purpose, revealing her preference for Calpurnia over her aunt,

but Alexandra is determined to impact Scout’s life whether Scout wants her to or not.

Deliberately using Scout’s feminine name, Alexandra expresses the two issues with which she

will assist: “It won’t be many years, Jean Louise, before you become interested in clothes and

boys” (137). Incidentally, a woman’s appearance and her marriage prospects constitute the two

main features of a southern belle’s life. According to Kathryn Lee Seidel’s The Southern Belle

in the American Novel, the American south “produces a woman whose appearance is emphasized

from babyhood, to the detriment of her intellect, personality, and talents” (xv). Rebelling against

this notion, Scout thinks, “I would never be interested in clothes” (138). Alexandra personally

focuses on appearance by wearing a corset to obtain an hourglass shape. Scout only responds

negatively to this behavior: she views Alexandra’s body as “formidable” and equates

Alexandra’s irritable mood with the uncomfortable corset (138). For Scout, wearing a corset

would be equivalent to confining one’s body in a prison.

In addition to emphasizing her appearance, Seidel explains that society expected an

antebellum belle “to stay at home until such time as a suitable—that is, lucrative—marriage was

arranged for her” (6). She would then participate in the courting process and become “a hard-

working matron” assisting her husband on his plantation (6). While plantations no longer exist

in the twentieth century, this ideal still pertains to To Kill a Mockingbird because Alexandra

wants to mold Scout into this antiquated figure. Seidel believes that the “remnants of plantation

life” are still popular in modern times (xii). In addition, Seidel observes that the fathers of

modern belles are lawyers “whose task is to preserve legal tradition” (157). However, by leaving

Scout a child, Lee avoids the conventional plot of a belle flirting, courting, and ultimately

marrying. Even Scout distances herself from these elements, commenting, “[I]t would be many

years before I would be interested in boys” (138). Sexual “interests” are not a significant part of

this narrative, and Scout never again mentions them. Detailing Lee’s subversion of form, Seidel

applies her theories of southern belles to To Kill a Mockingbird in a separate article, asserting,

In a conventional novel of the belle, Scout would focus on her appearance and

practice flirtation with Atticus as a rehearsal for the cultivation of some young

fellow as a potential mate.

Lee rejects this paradigm, but is fully aware of it as she writes. In this novel

the person who is most like the southern belle is Mayella, whom Lee dissects with

damning precision. In contrast, Lee examines how Scout as a southern girl can

become fully human and not a Mayella or one of the many versions of southern

women we meet in the novel. (“Growing” 81)

As a child, Scout never concerns herself with these issues. Lee does not force Scout to age and

to choose whether to submit to conventional standards of dating and marrying. Nevertheless,

Alexandra still lectures Scout about appropriate suitors, ruling out the “trashy” Cunninghams

because “Finch women aren’t interested in that sort of people” (237). Alexandra regards a

feminine education so highly that she does not lose any time trying to impress these standards

upon her six-year-old niece.

Hypocritically, as much as Alexandra tries to adapt Scout into a lady, Alexandra does not

always adopt this same value system. For instance, she is not a model wife and ignores her

husband Jimmy. Scout comments, “I never saw any reason to take notice of him. Neither did

Aunt Alexandra” (85). Progressing further away from patriarchal submission, Alexandra leaves

her husband and moves in with her brother’s family. Even though she attempts to prepare Scout

for a future husband, she functions without one, and the novel never again mentions Jimmy.

Furthermore, Alexandra not only dominates her own marriage, choosing when to stay and when

to leave, but she also attempts to rule the Finch household. She causes Atticus—the most level-

headed, rational character—to feel angry: as Scout explains, “the only time I ever heard Atticus

speak sharply to anyone was when I once heard him say, ‘Sister I do the best I can with them!’ It

had something to do with my going around in overalls” (89).

Also, Alexandra tries to control Atticus, who, according to stereotypes, should hold

power over her. Atticus explains her presence by saying, “We felt it was time you children

needed—well, it’s like this Scout . . . . Your aunt’s doing me a favor as well as you all” (139).

The fact that Atticus—the lawyer who excels at elocution—stumbles over his words and cannot

fully express himself indicates his unease with his sister’s visit. Scout perceptively notices his

discomfort and concludes, “I had an idea, however, that Aunt Alexandra’s appearance on the

scene was not so much Atticus’s doing as hers. Aunt had a way of declaring What Is Best For

The Family” (139). Atticus clearly feels ambivalent about Alexandra’s presence, but her

authority prevents him from protesting or asking her to leave. Consequently, her attempts to

dominate the household create tension, but Atticus does overcome her authority in several

circumstances. For instance, Alexandra allows the children to attend Tom Robinson’s trial only

because Atticus grants them permission (220). Alexandra’s inconsistent behavior, wavering

between dominating and submitting, call her notions of femininity into question. Why should

Scout show interest in boys if Alexandra does not show interest in her own husband? Why

should Scout define herself in terms of her father if Alexandra acts so independent?

Paradoxically, by trying to exert a “feminine influence” on Scout, Alexandra encourages Scout

to be less feminine and more tomboyish.

Adding to her inconsistencies, Alexandra encourages gender-bending behaviors in her

grandson Francis. She plans to teach Francis to cook because, as Francis explains, “Grandma

says all men should learn to cook, that men oughta be careful with their wives and wait on ‘em

when they don’t feel good” (90). This statement contradicts the patriarchal notion that wives

should serve their husbands. Ironically, Scout responds to his statement in a conventional

manner by laughing and replying, “I don’t want Dill waitin’ on me….I’d rather wait on him”

(90). Scout’s reaction indicates that she understands the standards of her society. While she

seems to contradict her steadfast tomboyism, Scout’s comment may suggest that she wants to

maintain the control in her “relationship” with Dill, just as her aunt controls her own marriage.

Furthermore, perhaps she wavers between tomboyism and femininity because her aunt—her

model for femininity—does the same.

Scout also quiets her tomboy tendencies during the Missionary Society tea party.

Concerning conceptions of gender, this social gathering is one of the most significant scenes in

the entire novel. Scout adopts the appearance of a lady, consenting to wearing a dress and a

petticoat, and she offers to help Calpurnia prepare refreshments (241). Furthermore, when

Alexandra’s friends inquire whether Scout desires to become a lawyer, Scout replies, “Nome,

just a lady” (243). This comment seems to indicate that Scout acquiesces to Alexandra’s code,

as critics often interpret this scene. Eric Sundquist contends that Scout “learn[s] to be a lady”

(197). Likewise, Shackelford contends that Scout’s hatred for Alexandra lessens “as she begins

to accept certain aspects of being a Southern female” (110).

However, I assert that Scout does not accept Southern femininity; she merely learns to

tolerate it. When Scout says, “Nome, just a lady,” (243), I can’t help but imagine her smirking,

much like Atticus’s grin when he comments that ladies are too “frail” to serve on juries (234).

Perhaps she simply tells the Missionary Society what they want to hear and replies in this

manner to avoid later conflict with her aunt. Because the entire novel celebrates Scout’s

tomboyishness, I do not believe Scout submits to femininity as easily as the Missionary Society

believes. In fact, previously in the novel, her uncle Jack asks if she “wants to grow up to be a

lady,” and Scout replies, “not particularly” (87). Therefore, instead of submitting to Aunt

Alexandra’s femininity, Scout looks to Miss Maudie as a possible model.

The “Chameleon Lady”

Critics rarely discuss Miss Maudie, and if they mention her, they only make a brief

reference. For instance, Shackelford notes that she is one of the few “pleasant” female

characters (110). Fine refers to Miss Maudie as “the only woman with sense besides Calpurnia

in the whole book” (“Structuring” 65). Ware classifies her as “a strong potential role model for

Scout” (287). However, she is more significant and complex than these succinct labels suggest.

Scout shares a closer relationship with Miss Maudie than she does with the other neighborhood

women. When Jem and Dill reject Scout from their schemes, she visits Maudie, and Scout

begins to regard their relationship as “friendship.” Scout even spends time with her at the risk of

her brother calling her a “g-irl,” a label she detests (48-49), and a special bond develops.

As the novel progresses, I contend that Miss Maudie becomes more than just a role model

or a friend. Functioning as a maternal figure, she offers comfort when Scout’s brother abandons

her, provides advice about Atticus’s trial, and discusses other complex issues, such as Boo

Radley’s seclusion. Although Scout mentions that Miss Maudie “was not at all interested in our

private lives” (52), which suggests a bond too distant for a parent, this comment only indicates

that Miss Maudie does not pry into information Scout does not want to divulge. She respects

Scout and treats her in a mature manner. Furthermore, Miss Maudie provides a model of a

woman who proudly displays gender-bending behaviors.

While she belongs to the same social circle as Aunt Alexandra, Miss Maudie is quite a

different female. A widower, Miss Maudie is independent and she stays unmarried, much like a

female equivalent to Atticus. She displays tomboyish qualities, donning overalls to complete

yard work and preferring to remain outside. As Scout explains, “Miss Maudie hated her house:

time spent indoors was time wasted” (49). Like Scout, Maudie endures condemnation for these

unladylike tendencies: the “foot-washing Baptists” claim she will go to hell for working in her

garden (51). Scout clearly disagrees with the Baptists, indicating that she respects Maudie for

challenging expectations. Scout concludes, “That ain’t right, Miss Maudie. You’re the best lady

I know” (52). As this comment indicates, Scout reveres Maudie more than the other women she

encounters, including her other mother figures.

Further violating gender norms, Maudie is very outspoken, even when her comments

seem too scandalous for a genteel lady to voice. For instance, Maudie tells Scout, “Stephanie

Crawford even told me once she woke up in the middle of the night and found him [Boo Radley]

looking in the window at her. I said what did you do, Stephanie, move over in the bed and make

room for him? That shut her up a while” (53). Scout agrees that Maudie’s words can silence

anybody, illustrating that Maudie uses speech to wield power over other adults. This is a trait

that Lee normally attributes to males, such as Atticus, Heck Tate, and the other men involved in

the court system. Consequently, Scout observes this behavior and mimics it. The morning after

Miss Maudie relays the story about Boo Radley and Stephanie Crawford, Scout confronts Jem

and Dill, declaring, “This yard’s as much mine as it is yours, Jem Finch. I got just as much right

to play in it as you have” (53). Like Miss Maudie’s words, Scout’s pronouncement silences the

argument about her presence, and the boys include her in their schemes again.

As with Calpurnia and Aunt Alexandra, however, Maudie does not entirely reject

conventions. Scout refers to her as “a chameleon lady who worked in her flower beds in an old

straw hat and men’s coveralls, but after her five o’clock bath she would appear on the porch and

reign over the street in magisterial beauty” (49). Both masculinity and femininity fit into

Maudie’s world. She loves the outdoors, but she will return inside to fulfill social obligations

and attend the Missionary Society meeting. Gary Richards views her feminine appearance as a

“deliberately staged” performance (134). Using Judith Butler’s theories about gender

performativity, Richards writes, “Unlike Alexandra, Miss Maudie is not overtly distraught about

the transgressive performances of gender and indeed has constructed a public identity contingent

upon adroit manipulations of such performances” (132). Thus, like Calpurnia’s fluctuation

between racial barriers, Miss Maudie crosses gender boundaries, appealing to Maycomb’s

society when necessary but also indulging her gender-bending desires in other instances. She

chooses to have both masculine and feminine traits.

Though feminine at times, Maudie behaves differently from the other women in

Maycomb, which becomes evident at the Missionary Society meeting. They condemn Atticus

for defending a black man, but Maudie admires his efforts and supports Tom Robinson. She

comments, “[A]s I waited I thought, Atticus Finch won’t win, he can’t win, but he’s the only

man in these parts who can keep a jury out so long in a case like that. And I thought to myself,

well, we’re making a step—it’s just a baby-step, but it’s a step” (228). As Richards observes,

“With the exception of Atticus, Miss Maudie emerges—even if problematically—as the novel’s

most racially enlightened white character” (134). This feature also becomes apparent during the

Missionary Society meeting when she refuses to participate in the hypocritical conversation.

Then, as the ladies gossip about “the good but misguided people” in Maycomb (245), a phrase

that could classify themselves, Maudie interrupts the conversation with a derogatory comment

and ends the dialogue. Interestingly, Aunt Alexandra gives Maudie a grateful look, suggesting

that Alexandra may also slightly deviate from the community she supports (245). While at the

meeting, Maudie wears a dress and performs the role of a stereotypical woman, but her sharp

tongue betrays her unconventional inclinations.

Similar to Maudie, Scout crosses gender boundaries, wearing a dress to the meeting but

also remaining different: she wears her britches under the dress. Lee repeatedly aligns Scout and

Miss Maudie at this meeting. Instead of helping Calpurnia in the kitchen or assisting Alexandra

with the serving, Scout sits next to Maudie. Moreover, unlike the other women, Maudie does not

laugh when Scout announces that she still wears her pants. Maudie does not demean Scout by

finding her comment endearing or amusing; Maudie simply accepts her. Then, providing

comfort and support, Maudie squeezes her hand when Miss Stephanie rudely tells Scout to wear

dresses more frequently (242). By allowing such a respectable character to condone Scout’s

tomboyism, Lee demonstrates the novel’s theme of tolerating those who deviate from gender

standards.

The Tomboy

After viewing these three models, Scout must decide what type of woman she wants to

be. Will she become a lady, as she informs the Missionary Society? She certainly entertains the

notion: “There was no doubt about it, I must soon enter this world, where on its surface fragrant

ladies rocked slowly, fanned gently, and drank cool water” (246). But Scout is intuitive because

she realizes that the Missionary Society’s world is only the surface. She may don a dress on the

outside, but she still wears pants under the petticoat ruffles (242). On the inside, she remains a

tomboy. Essentially, the dress is a costume, no more important than the ham outfit she wears in

her school pageant (266). Richards asserts that Miss Maudie wears her dress in a gender

performance, and I believe that Scout does the same.

When Scout wears her pants under her dress, she demonstrates Judith Butler’s theory

about the separation between gender identity and gender performance. In her discussion of

cross-dressing and drag, Butler identifies three elements of an individual: anatomical sex, gender

identity, and gender performance (137). Butler writes, “If the anatomy of the performer is

already distinct from the gender of the performer, and both of those are distinct from the gender

of the performance, then the performance suggests a dissonance not only between sex and

performance, but sex and gender, and gender and performance” (137). In other words, the

gender depicted in a performance differs from the gender with which an individual identifies.

For Scout, her anatomical sex is female, and her gender identity is masculine. During the

missionary society meeting, her gender performance is female, but she still retains her gender

identity, which Lee deftly illustrates by placing pants under the dress. Butler continues, “[A]cts,

gestures, articulated and enacted desires create the illusion of an interior and organizing gender

core, an illusion discursively maintained for the purposes of the regulation of sexuality within the

obligatory frame of reproductive heterosexuality” (136). Therefore, in order to appease the

Missionary Society, Scout creates the “illusion” that her “gender core” is feminine. According to

Butler, this illusion is “a strategy of survival” (139). Since strategies are premeditated plans with

an expected outcome, Scout knowingly wears the dress to survive her aunt’s party. Like

Calpurnia, she leads a “double life,” appealing to the audience before which she appears.

Underneath the surface, however, Scout reveals her true inclinations and consistently

sides with masculine tendencies. Scout explains,

But I was more at home in my father’s world. People like Mr. Heck Tate did

not trap you with innocent questions to make fun of you; even Jem was not highly

critical unless you said something stupid. Ladies seemed to live in faint horror of

men, seemed unwilling to approve wholeheartedly of them. But I liked them.

There was something about them, no matter how much they cussed and drank and

gambled and chewed; no matter how undelectable they were, there was something

about them that I instinctively liked . . . they weren’t—

"Hypocrites, Mrs. Perkins, born hypocrites," Mrs. Merriweather was saying.

(246-247)

Male behaviors that women deem unsavory, such as cursing, appeal to Scout. In fact, she often

uses profanity throughout the novel. However, in Scout’s view, hypocrisy is a far worse crime

than gambling and drinking. Men do not have complicated layers, purporting one image but

actually being a different type of person. Scout’s appreciation for this type of a world suggests

that Scout would prefer to live in a society where she does not have to give gender performances.

Nevertheless, that type of a world does not exist in Maycomb, Alabama in the 1930s. At

times, Scout must bend her tomboyish preferences and tolerate being a lady, just as Miss Maudie

demonstrates. At the culmination of the Missionary Society meeting, Scout and her maternal

figures share a significant moment in the kitchen when Atticus informs them of Tom Robinson’s

death. In the seriousness of the moment, the women forget their differences and unite in

mourning. Miss Maudie emerges as the most authoritative woman in the group: she orders Scout

to stop shaking and commands Alexandra to return to the meeting. Then, almost as one, these

two women graciously begin serving their guests, and modeling them, Scout starts offering

cookies (250-251). Scout concludes, “After all, if Aunty could be a lady at a time like this, so

could I” (251). Lee complicates definitions of womanhood by presenting this alternate type of

lady. The lady to whom Scout refers is not one who sits in the Finches’ living room and gossips;

in this moment, Alexandra, Miss Maudie, and Scout are ladies because they control their

emotions, overcoming grief and shock to complete the task at hand. They are ladies like Mrs.

Dubose, who exhibits bravery and composure during trying situations (121). Lee shows that

womanhood is not monolithic and encompasses multiple aspects, including tomboyism. All

ladies do not have to share the same characteristics. Furthermore, a lady can move from one

type of womanhood to another, as Scout’s mother figures illustrate. After all, Scout is only a

lady “at a time like this” (251).

As the novel concludes, Lee leaves the reader with one final scene that celebrates Scout’s

tomboyism in conjunction with her mothers. After Bob Ewell attacks Scout and Jem, Scout

returns home in her undergarments, and Alexandra brings her overalls to wear (278). This detail

seems lost among the worry over Jem’s injuries and the terror of the assault, but it significantly

links Scout’s gender journey with the overarching plot of the novel concerning Tom Robinson,

Bob Ewell, and Boo Radley. Alexandra’s brief gesture speaks volumes about Scout’s

relationship with her aunt. Scout believes that Alexandra brings her overalls as a result of

distraction, which is a logical explanation. However, Alexandra spends an entire novel

ostracizing boyish attire. For Alexandra, dresses are normal. Therefore, wouldn’t she

instinctively reach for a dress rather than overalls? Instead, she immediately considers what

Scout would prefer, and she does not argue the point. Finally joining Calpurnia and Maudie’s

mindset, Alexandra tolerates the tomboy.

Alexandra’s acceptance is another example of her inconsistent behaviors, but Lee uses

these inconsistencies to show the fluid nature of gender roles. Through these mother figures,

who present a variety of personalities and behaviors, To Kill a Mockingbird demonstrates that

notions of femininity are not static and uniform; an educated black woman, a southern belle, a

“chameleon lady,” and a tomboy can all coexist. They even have the freedom to fluctuate

between conforming to and defying conventions. In the end, Scout’s interactions with these

women lead her to embrace her tomboy qualities. Calpurnia crosses racial and social boundaries,

illuminating the feasibility of defying conventions. Miss Maudie inspires Scout to assume power

and wear overalls. Scout’s hatred for femininity motivates her to act contrary to Alexandra’s

attempted restrictions. Alexandra’s inconsistencies also undermine strict notions of femininity.

Though Scout interacts with each woman differently, they all function as her mother because

they assist her in recognizing her identity as a tomboy. Collectively, they fill the void left when

Scout’s mother died, providing her with the maternal influence that Atticus cannot give, no

matter how unconventionally masculine he may appear.

CHAPTER 4

GO SET A WATCHMAN: BOO RADLEY’S IMPACT ON SCOUT’S TOMBOYISM

As Scout races to answer Calpurnia’s beckoning calls, retreats outside to escape Aunt

Alexandra’s criticisms, and runs across the street to visit Miss Maudie, Boo Radley pushes aside

his curtain, peers through his window, and watches her. Scout encounters Boo far less than she

interacts with her mother figures, but he still significantly impacts her conceptions of gender and

tomboyism. She does not engage in conversations with him, but his quiet presence speaks louder

than Aunt Alexandra’s lectures or Miss Stephanie Crawford’s gossip. Due to the rampant and

often ridiculous rumors, it is difficult to compose an accurate portrait of Arthur Radley, known

as Boo by the Finch children. Does he truly have the power to freeze azalea bushes by breathing

on them (15)? Does he really spy on Miss Stephanie in the middle of the night (52)? As Dill

claims, has Boo been “shut up for a hundred years with nothin’ but cats to eat” (54)? Initially, in

Scout’s imaginative mind, all of these attributes seem possible, and she fears him. However, as

she obtains privileged knowledge about Boo’s true personality, her fear transforms into intrigue.

Though this captivation, Scout allows Boo to influence her.

Boo is a mysterious character. While several scenes allude to his presence, Scout only

directly encounters him once at the end of the novel. He also remains elusive in criticism,

meeting the same fate as the mother figures: the scholarly examinations of Atticus tower over the

other characters, such as the women and Boo. Articles often devote a couple sentences or

paragraphs to Boo, comparing him to Tom Robinson or noting that he represents the

mockingbird it would be “a sin to kill” (98). Offering the most extended analysis, Claudia

Johnson discusses Boo throughout To Kill a Mockingbird: Threatening Boundaries. Also, Gary

Richards analyzes Boo as a representation of closeted homosexuals (146-157). Like Johnson and

Richards, I find great interest in Boo, and I believe his impact on Scout warrants further

examination. He does not force his ideas upon Scout or expect anything from her; he merely

exists for Scout to observe from a distance, presenting another model of ways to bend

conventions. As Scout learns more about Boo and his peculiarities, their similarities become

apparent. Lee frequently aligns Scout and Boo’s experiences and behaviors, connecting their

positions as outsiders.

Also, Lee presents Boo as a parental figure, specifically a mother because he

demonstrates several nurturing qualities. In several instances, he offers maternal care, and

throughout the novel, he provides a model for unconventional behaviors. Unlike the other

parental characters, Scout does not directly imitate her behaviors on Boo’s mannerisms, but,

rather, she obtains ideas about gender subversions from him. Reinforcing the opinions presented

by Atticus, Calpurnia, and Miss Maudie, Boo demonstrates that people can resist conforming to

society’s expectations. One may face punishment for that resistance, but one can also find

happiness in this decision. This lesson encourages Scout to embrace her tomboyism.

Like so many characters in To Kill a Mockingbird, Boo exists outside the bounds of

societal conventions. In fact, he progresses farther beyond these boundaries, mainly because of

his seclusion. Except for a few instances, Boo does not emerge from his home. As Johnson

notes, Boo represents the Other: “The Other—any entity, markedly different from the sheltered

self—can conceivably take many forms. In its most extreme manifestation, it is a literal alien

from outer space” (73). Though Boo does not come from outer space, the town still attributes to

him an otherworldly aura: he is called a ghost (18), a “hain’t” (30), and a “malevolent phantom”

(15). Through Boo, Johnson adds, “The theme of the Other is especially strong in a community

that is described as being homogeneous to the point of intermarriage, for the dark Unlike is more

pronounced than usual in a town where most of the people in ‘acceptable’ society are virtually

alike” (73). Boo’s deviations, therefore, appear much more noticeable in Maycomb than they

would in a large city with a diverse population.

As a whole, the Radleys differ from their “homogenous” neighbors in appearance,

temperament, and habit. Scout explains,

The shutters and doors of the Radley house were closed on Sundays, another thing

alien to Maycomb’s ways: closed doors meant illness and cold weather only. Of

all days Sunday was the day for formal afternoon visiting: ladies wore corsets,

men wore coats, children wore shoes. But to climb the Radley front steps and

call, ‘He-y,’ of a Sunday afternoon was something their neighbors never did. (15-

16)

Besides discouraging visiting, the Radleys fail to participate in other town activities, such as

attending church or joining a missionary circle (15). Rejecting all notions of Southern

hospitality, the Radleys choose to remain separate. By keeping their shutters and doors closed,

they undergo a kind of self-inflicted imprisonment, suspended only when Mr. Radley purchases

supplies in town, Mrs. Radley waters her flowers, or their son Nathan visits (18). Mr. Radley

furthers his family’s alienation when he refuses to reply to Scout and Jem’s greeting whenever

he passes them on the sidewalk (18). While the Radleys in general rarely emerge from their

seclusion, creating a sense of suspicion in Maycomb, Boo differs even more from his parents and

brother because he almost never surfaces. Consequently, the town spreads rumors about the

family, and a great fear develops. For instance, children believe that pecans from Radley trees

will kill them (15). Adults also regard them negatively. Calpurnia, who normally treats all

people with a level of respect, spits on the ground in disgust when Mr. Radley dies, remarking,

“There goes the meanest man God ever blew breath into” (18).

Mr. Radley is especially “mean” in his treatment of his son, Boo. Long before Scout,

Jem, and Dill entice Boo to “come out,” Boo leads a public life. During his adolescence, he

forms a gang with several of the Cunninghams from Old Sarum, but Mr. Radley is displeased

with his son’s association with the “wrong crowd” (16). A generation later, Aunt Alexandra

echoes Mr. Radley’s sentiments, revealing why Boo’s involvement in the gang causes his

father’s disapproval. As Aunt Alexandra tells Scout, the Cunninghams are “trash” and “not our

kind of folks” (236-237). Since the Radleys live in town, on the same street as the Finches, the

Cunninghams also fall below Boo’s social class. Lee never explains why or how this gang

forms, but it demonstrates that Boo defies Maycomb’s unwritten code of associating with people

in similar social classes. Incidentally, Scout’s behaviors mirror Boo’s, and she also receives

condemnation. When she desires a friendship with Walter Cunningham, Aunt Alexandra does

not permit her to invite him to dinner or to play (236). Aunt Alexandra and Mr. Radley remain

entrenched in traditional caste systems. After all, Miss Maudie divulges that Mr. Radley is a

“foot-washing Baptist,” part of the same group that thinks “women are a sin by definition” (51-

52). Thus, one can assume that Mr. Radley supports stereotypical views concerning gender, in

addition to his prejudice towards lower social classes. Once again, Lee presents another

character that discriminates based on both gender and class.

Just as Scout argues with Aunt Alexandra over these issues, Boo also rebels against his

father by joining the gang. However, even when trying to live in society, Boo’s unconventional

behaviors create discord. While in the gang, Boo challenges the laws of Maycomb by loitering,

visiting the local “gambling hell,” and drinking whiskey. Most notoriously, the gang eludes

arrest and locks a police officer in prison. As a result, Boo becomes branded as a juvenile

delinquent. The town charges the boys with several misdemeanors and sends them to the state

industrial school. Boo, however, faces a different punishment: his father imprisons him inside

his home (16). Perhaps Mr. Radley feels that he is better equipped to handle his son’s problems

or perhaps Boo is above a detention center for lower class delinquents. Nevertheless, Boo’s

separation establishes his isolation and sets a precedent for his gender-bending behaviors: he

always remains different from other men.

In his adulthood, Boo retains his reputation as a criminal. The town often blames him for

“stealthy small crimes,” even when his innocence is obvious. For instance, “Once the town was

terrorized by a series of morbid nocturnal events: people’s chickens and household pets were

found mutilated; although the culprit was Crazy Addie, who eventually drowned himself in

Barker’s Eddy, people still looked at the Radley Place, unwilling to discard their initial

suspicions” (15). Since Boo never emerges from his home, people never gain an accurate

portrait of his personality, and they assume the worst about him. Due to these false allegations,

Johnson notices similarities between Boo and the “classic witch”: “For centuries, whole

communities persecuted supposed witches as demonic Others in the same way that much of

Maycomb and the novel’s three children project witchhood onto Arthur Radley” (75). Though

they never burn him at the stake, people like Miss Stephanie Crawford destroy Boo by spreading

rumors. These rumors isolate Boo even further: because of fear, people like Cecil Jacobs walk a

mile out of the way to avoid the Radley house (41). Boo does not actually do anything to be

branded as a “witch,” demonstrating that society labels him as more bizarre and unconventional

than he may actually be. Scout, however, understands that appearances can be deceiving.

Simply because one is an outsider, it doesn’t mean they intend to cause mayhem and terror.

Though Scout is never attributed with committing a crime, she also faces false accusations. Mrs.

Dubose charges Scout and Jem with skipping school (on a Saturday) and breaking Miss

Maudie’s scuppernong arbor (110). Maycomb’s citizens consistently place blame on people who

seem a little different, and this blame links Scout and Boo even further. They live in a culture

that does not embrace their unconventional behaviors.

Though Boo remains innocent of most offenses, he actually commits one crime. While

“cutting some items from The Maycomb Tribune to paste in his scrapbook,” Boo stabs his father

in the leg with scissors. Since Scout and Jem hear this story from Miss Stephanie, it probably

contains embellishments, but an incident clearly occurs because Mr. Radley “ran screaming into

the street that Arthur was killing them all,” and the sheriff locks Boo in the courthouse basement

(17). Thus, Boo “comes out” of his isolation only to face this further imprisonment. This

incident reveals numerous aspects of Boo’s mysterious and unconventional character. Laura

Fine points out the childish nature of Boo working on his scrapbook (“Structuring” 73). A

grown man completing childish activities may indicate a mental illness, but it may also hint at

Boo’s artistic abilities, which Lee later exposes in his gifts to the children. In addition, Gary

Richards asserts that this incident “hint[s] at Lee’s appropriation of an unresolved Freudian

Oedipal conflict” (151). Though Richards’s reading seems possible, I contend that Boo stabs his

father due to rage that he can no longer restrain. Ever since the gang incident, Boo resents his

father for imprisoning him in their home. Even Atticus, who normally refuses to partake in

gossip and speculation, believes that Mr. Radley turns his son into a “ghost” (18).

Using scissors, a female instrument, Lee connects Boo to a history of mad females in

literature and culture, who endured similar situations. As Kathryn Lee Seidel observes, “The

mysterious Boo is the novel’s madperson in the attic, the projection of Scout’s own fears and a

victim of town codes that, having been carried out literally, have led to the isolation and

confinement of this youthful transgressor” (“Growing” 88). I agree with Seidel that Boo

functions as a “mad double” for Scout’s rage against society, but I also believe that his “mad” act

expresses his own rage against the patriarchy. He exhibits similarities with the “madwoman in

the attic” ideal. According to Elaine Showalter, during the Victorian era, “mad” women

developed hysteria to protest their marginalized positions and their lack of power (61). These

women felt so unhappy that they committed drastic actions, such as infanticide or suicide (58).

Boo Radley echoes these actions by stabbing his father. His “madness” also demonstrates the

American South’s preoccupation with Victorian ideals. In The Southern Belle in the American

Novel, Seidel reports, “Southerners were, in their moral ideals, Victorians who reacted strongly

against the corruption of their society . . . . The Victorian counter to the corruption of the

materialistic, industrialized world was the home” (4). When Boo causes trouble with his gang,

Mr. Radley views the home as the solution. Furthermore, after Boo attacks his father, the town

suggests that his father commit him to an insane asylum. Instead, Mr. Radley once again places

Boo inside their home (17). Lee aligns Boo with women who feel powerless against the

patriarchy. As Carolyn Jones concludes, Boo is “one of the least powerful members of

Maycomb society” (61). Scout also experiences Boo’s lack of power. As a woman, Scout

potentially faces confinement within the home, but by making her a tomboy, Lee enables her to

escape from those strictures.

As these connections to women’s disempowerment illustrate, Boo is not a conventional

male. According to Scout, men in Maycomb typically drive dump-trucks, work in a garage, play

football, hunt, fish, drink, and smoke (97-98). Scout presents these attributes to show how her

father differs from other men, but Boo also noticeably does not “do anything” (97). Just as

Atticus’s defining feature entails sitting and reading, one can assume that Boo also spends the

majority of his time sitting since he never leaves his home. At least Atticus has a career; it is not

clear if Boo completes any type of work or if he is capable of work. In addition, Boo diverges

even further from masculine stereotypes because he has sewing skills. When Jem returns to

retrieve his pants after his nighttime flight from the Radley’s yard, he notices that Boo—

although he does not realize it is Boo at the time—has repaired the hole from where the pants

ripped on a fence. Jem tells Scout, “They’d been sewed up. Not like a lady sewed ‘em, like

somethin’ I’d try to do. All crooked” (66). Interestingly, Lee does not depict Boo with

completely conventionally feminine traits since his sewing skills are not perfect. Instead, he

presents elements of both masculinity and femininity, as does Scout and her other parental

figures. Also, by fixing the pants, Boo must know the children hid in his yard, and he must have

guessed that Jem would return for his pants. Boo knows more about them than they realize. The

children spy on Boo, but he also spies on them.

Watching is a significant theme in To Kill a Mockingbird. According to Charles Shields,

Lee originally titled the novel Go Set a Watchman, referring to the scene where Atticus guards

Tom Robinson’s jail cell (114). Boo also functions as a watchman over Jem and Scout, and this

tendency demonstrates his parental attributes. Similar to Atticus protecting Tom Robinson, Boo

keeps harm from befalling Scout and Jem. He overcomes his shyness and his anti-social desires,

so that he can kill Bob Ewell, who attacks the children when they walk home from a pageant.

Frequently, Lee hints that Boo secretly observes their antics. When Dill dares Jem to touch the

Radley house, Scout notices movement in the window shutter (21). Also, when rolling in a tire,

Scout accidentally enters the Radley yard, and she hears laughing (48). The laughter contradicts

Atticus’s insistence that the children offend Boo. Boo finds great interest in the children, and he

always remains present, both for the good and bad times. These consistent references to

watching suggest that Boo is the unknown audience for their dramas. Like Atticus, who stands

on the sidewalk and observes their game, and Miss Maudie, who stares with “her hedge clippers

poised in mid-air” (47), Boo probably peeks out from behind his curtain and laughs when Jem

pretends to stab Dill’s leg.

Boo joins the other parental figures in watching because he also functions similarly. As

Amy Lawrence writes, “the major potential mother figure besides Atticus is, oddly enough, Boo.

Unlike father figures who attack children or pass judgment, Boo does motherly things—making

toys, sewing Jem’s trousers, watching over the children, protecting them from harm” (183).

Although Lawrence makes this comment in reference to the film’s depiction of Boo, it also

describes his character in the book. Boo’s watching particularly reflects his nurturing, motherly

instincts. For example, when Scout stands outside in the middle of the night, observing a fire

devour Miss Maudie’s house, Boo takes care of her. He braves the world outside his home to

place a blanket around Scout’s shoulders (79).

Perhaps because Boo enjoys watching Scout and Jem, he leaves them a series of gifts in a

tree. Although Miss Stephanie’s gossip often obscures Boo’s personality, these gifts reveal his

true character. For instance, Boo constructs soap doll replicas of Scout and Jem. Boo has spent

a large amount of time observing the children since the dolls are “almost perfect miniatures”

(67). Moreover, the dolls link Boo to conventionally feminine items. Other men with carving

skills do not fashion dolls. Mr. Avery, for instance, makes toothpicks, which are notably phallic

(68). Another gift, the spelling medal, aligns him with Scout. Like Scout, who can read “most

of My First Reader and the stock-market quotations from The Mobile Register” before her

illiterate class, Boo once excelled in school (23, 68). For Boo, the ability to spell is a gender-

bending trait because men traditionally dominate in science and mathematics, while females

excel in the language arts. As Atticus demonstrates, Maycomb regards a love for words as an

unconventionally masculine trait.

These gifts establish a connection between the children and Boo. Discussing this bond,

John Carlos Rowe traces the importance of gift giving throughout the novel, referring to Boo’s

gifts as “primitive fetishes, which substitute their own forms for Boo’s expression of interest in

and affection for the two children” (9). Furthermore, when Jem and Scout remove the items

from the tree, they validate the bond because “[t]o accept a gift involves as much responsibility

as to make a gift” (6). While Rowe fails to consider that Jem and Scout do not know the identity

of the giver, his assertions still illuminate the special link established by the gift exchange. This

link is important because, as Rowe asserts, the real gift is not the actual item being exchanged

but language: “the giver and receiver enter into a social contract primarily as a consequence of

their agreement to communicate with each other” (6-7). Though Boo does not literally talk to

Scout until the end of the novel, the gifts demonstrate that he does communicate with her

throughout the duration of the story. He may not verbally convey messages, but he still shows

that he cares for the Finch children. As a parent would pass down prized possessions to his

child, Boo gives Scout and Jem these gifts. This interaction creates the bond that will ultimately

allow Scout to regard Boo as a model for gender-bending behaviors.

Scout does not realize that Boo is the one who provides these gifts until the final pages of

the novel, but long before her awareness, Scout begins to lose her fear of Boo. Partly due to Jem

and Dill’s obsessive desire to make Boo “come out,” Scout paradoxically feels drawn to this

ghostly man. The children’s intrigue most prominently manifests itself in their reenactments of

Radley legends, including the incident when Boo stabs his father. These imitations demonstrate

a desire on some level to be like him. Laura Fine views these dramas in psychoanalytical terms,

asserting that Boo functions as a “projected double” for Scout (“Structuring” 73). Fine writes,

“In acting out Boo’s life, Scout is able to fantasize about being unfairly punished for minor

transgressions and then enacting revenge against the father, the patriarchy, the transmitter of

constricting rules, as represented by Mr. Radley” (“Structuring” 74). Although Fine fails to

mention that Scout does not play the role of Boo in their dramas and therefore does not

physically “act out” this rage, she astutely points out that Scout identifies with Boo. Scout views

him as another outcast, like herself, who unfairly endures restrictions. Similar to Mr. Radley

belittling Boo, Jem relegates Scout to the minor role of Mrs. Radley, who barely completes any

tasks in the play (46). Outside of the game, Boo’s father imprisons him, just as the “starched

walls of a pink cotton penitentiary” threaten to confine Scout (147). Boo revolts by stabbing his

father, while Scout revolts by wearing overalls, fighting, and engaging in a plethora of gender-

bending behaviors. Though Scout does not directly imitate his behaviors as she does with

Atticus, Calpurnia, or Miss Maudie, he indirectly influences her. He proves that one can

succeed in rejecting conventions, even if that rejection comes at the high cost of injuring a family

member and facing further confinement.

While Boo initially faces a forced imprisonment in the home, eventually his

imprisonment is self-imposed. After all, his father’s death should grant him freedom. Although

his brother may serve as another patriarchal enforcer (19), Lee offers another explanation.

Essentially, Boo prefers isolation. This preference further separates him from societal standards;

most people prefer interacting with others. He is capable of leaving the house, illustrated when

he places the items in the tree and retrieves Jem’s pants, but he does not emerge often because he

desires seclusion. Initially, Scout does not understand why Boo stays inside because. She

maintains that “there’s just one kind of folks. Folks” (240). This comment reflects the views of

her society: people typically conform to one standard. However, Jem makes a more accurate

observation, expressing the message Scout will ultimately acquire:

That’s what I thought, too . . . when I was your age. If there’s just one kind of

folks, why can’t they get along with each other? If they’re all alike, why do they

go out of their way to despise each other? Scout, I think I’m beginning to

understand something. I think I’m beginning to understand why Boo Radley’s

stayed shut up in his house all this time . . . it’s because he wants to stay inside.

(240)

Jem astutely concludes that Boo stays inside because his preferences differ from the preferences

of others. Lee does not explain why he develops this inclination, but knowing why is not

important. What is important is his choice to conduct his life as he chooses, even if that involves

diverging from conventional habits. This is the central message that Scout learns from Boo: no

two people should have to follow the same path. He is a model because he illuminates this

notion, which allows for people to have gender-bending behaviors when others exhibit

conventional traits.

After Jem delivers this statement, Scout endures the ill-fated Missionary Society meeting.

Clearly, in a world where some women wear corsets and others wear overalls, more than “one

kind of folks” has to exist. Subsequently, Scout develops a new, mature perspective concerning

Boo Radley: “I sometimes felt a twinge of remorse, when passing by the old [Radley] place, at

ever having taken part in what must have been sheer torment to Arthur Radley—what reasonable

recluse wants children peeping through his shutters, delivering greetings on the end of a fishing

pole, wandering in his collards at night?” (255). In this passage, Scout refers to Boo by his given

name “Arthur,” acknowledging that he is a person and not a “malevolent phantom” or a “hain’t.”

She still desires to see him, but she understands that she must respect Boo’s wishes. Her wish to

have a conversation with him is “only a fantasy” (256).

Ultimately, though, Scout’s fantasy becomes a reality, and Boo’s penchant for watching

them saves their lives. When Bob Ewell attacks Scout and Jem, Boo kills Ewell, and Scout

finally meets her guardian. Incidentally, when sitting next to him on her porch, just as she sits

beside her own father, Scout refers to him as “Mr. Arthur” again (286). The “Mr.” indicates a

Southern title of respect, and Scout’s use of his first name, rather than “Mr. Radley” reveals a

level of personal familiarity. Furthermore, Rowe points out that the name Arthur evokes the

“aura of Arthurian legend surrounding this southern knight-errant” (15). Again, Lee blurs the

line between gender paradigms by invoking the masculine archetype of King Arthur. Though his

unconventional traits appear more frequently, Boo possesses some masculine bravery and

heroism.

Although Boo kills Bob Ewell in self defense, Boo now commits a real felony, ironically

living up to his reputation as a killer. However, Atticus, Heck Tate, and Scout all determine that

the real crime would be exposing Boo Radley to society and indicting him with this deed.

Instead, they report that Bob Ewell accidentally killed himself. In another one of Atticus’s

“special cases” of “bend[ing] the law” (37), they disconnect Boo from the rules of society,

reinforcing the idea that more than “one kind of folks” exist. If everyone were the same, then

they would all be subject to the same laws, and “bending” would not occur. Moreover, if one

can bend the official laws, then one can bend unofficial codes, including gender stereotypes, as

Lee’s characters demonstrate.

In the attack scene, Fine again views Boo as a projection of Scout’s “outsider status”

(“Structuring” 74). Suggesting that this “outsider status” also includes homosexual desires, Fine

asserts, “[S]he may be projecting through Boo a realization that, just as he can never fit into

‘normal’ life in Maycomb, neither can she. If Scout tried to lead a lesbian lifestyle, she would be

shunned or even attacked, while if she pretended to lead a ‘straight’ life, she would be miserable.

On some level, she must identify with Boo” (“Structuring” 74). I agree with Fine that Scout

identifies with Boo as an outsider; however, I hesitate to label Scout a lesbian, primarily because

the adult narrator indicates otherwise. When Aunt Alexandra lectures Scout about marriage,

Scout comments, “[I]t would be many years before I would be interested in boys” (138),

implying that she has heterosexual preferences as an adult. Though many tomboys develop

lesbian desires, gender transgressions do not automatically denote homosexuality.

Furthermore,

recalling the assertions I made in Chapter I about tomboy taming, I maintain that Lee purposely

ends the novel with Scout as a nine-year-old child. If Scout’s future sexuality were important to

the story, than Lee would have brought Scout into adolescence or adulthood and definitively

addressed these issues. But there is no way to know what happens after the novel ends, and

speculating about her future detracts from the information that Lee actually provides in the text.

Just as Boo remains elusive to Scout, Scout’s future remains elusive to her readers.

Though heterosexual, Scout still shares connections to the homosexual experience

because she is an outsider. Gary Richards reaches a similar conclusion concerning Boo:

“[B]ecause Lee surrounds Boo with so many of the silences and absences that structure the

frequent closetedness of same-sex desire, she invites readers to speculate that Boo’s

reclusiveness is comparable to closeted sexuality and thus explore what bearing this literal

representation of closetedness might have on an understanding of the figurative” (146). Richards

adds, “To assert that Lee’s representation invites such a reading is not, however, to argue that

Boo is gay” (147). One can apply the same reading to Scout. Scout does not fit in, especially in

overtly feminine settings, such as the Missionary Society tea party, just as lesbians may not feel

that they belong in a predominantly heterosexual society.

As the novel ends, Scout and Boo share one final moment, and she escorts him home.

Taking her father’s advice, Scout “stand[s] in his shoes and walk[s] around in them” (294), and

she sees the world from Boo’s perspective. She realizes that Boo has always watched her, and

she refers to herself and Jem as “Boo’s children” (294). These interactions demonstrate Scout’s

growing respect for Boo, as well as her conclusions about unconventional behaviors. In seeing

herself as “Boo’s child,” she acknowledges that he is a maternal figure. For these reasons, I

agree with Carolyn Jones, who terms this scene “Scout’s rite of passage in the novel” (61).

Jones adds, “Scout looks in the face of the phantom and into Arthur Radley’s human heart and

realizes that her life and Boo’s have been and are interrelated: that she is Boo’s child as well as

Atticus’s, nurtured and protected by both to this moment” (62). Although the rest of Maycomb

may fear him, Scout will not conform to their beliefs. Instead, she creates her own opinions,

realizing that Boo is not “malevolent,” but he is “real nice” like the ghost in the story Atticus

reads to her (295). Similar to a ghost, Boo’s presence is not always obvious, but he is always

there, watching behind his window.

While completing her maturation, Scout now regards Boo as a watchful parent and a

gender-bending model. By refusing to come out when everyone, including Scout, finds this

tendency peculiar, Boo illustrates that people can rebel against society’s expectations. Through

these characters, Lee presents the view that everyone can follow their own path in life, as further

demonstrated in an exchange between Scout and Miss Maudie. When Boo’s seclusion perplexes

Scout, Miss Maudie asks, “Wouldn’t you stay in the house if you didn’t want to come out?”

Scout then replies, “Yessum, but I’d wanta come out” (51). Scout disagrees with Boo’s personal

choices; however, her preferences can differ. As Boo teaches her, people should have the

freedom to conduct their lives as they please. Just because society deems it unnatural to stay

inside, that does not mean Boo should submit and emerge into the sunlight. Likewise, society

deems it unnatural for Scout to wear overalls and play in the dirt, but she does not have to accede

either.

As Scout grows from fearing and ridiculing Boo to accepting and respecting him, she

begins to value her own deviations from standards. This is a central journey of the novel: Boo

illuminates and reinforces Scout’s appreciation of her tomboyishness. Scout learns this lesson

during the final pages of the novel because it is the natural conclusion to her growth process as a

tomboy. By viewing how Boo fits into the world (or, rather, refuses to fit into the world), she

starts to understand her place in society. She realizes that people do not perfectly “fit” into

society, but they can still lead a happy life, as long as they remain true to their personal desires.

Those desires can involve anything from being a recluse to being a tomboy.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

In the three years that To Kill a Mockingbird depicts, Scout’s exploration of tomboyism

represents an exploration of her identity. Adolescent protagonists commonly undertake this

quest. As Patty Campbell writes, “[T]he central theme of most YA fiction is…finding the

answer to the question ‘Who am I and what am I going to do about it?’” (485). Throughout the

novel, Scout asks herself this question. Will she remain a tomboy or will she adapt to

conventions? Scout’s five parental figures guide her towards finding an answer. As they

challenge gender expectations, they offer models for Scout’s own behaviors. As her biological

father, Atticus is her primary influence, and he bends the “law” concerning masculine

conventions. He has feminine attributes, such as his passivity, and he demonstrates tendencies

that differ from the Southern men in his community. Furthermore, by embracing her gender-

bending behaviors, Atticus encourages her tomboyism.

Next, Scout benefits from maternal guidance. Calpurnia functions as a liminal figure,

crossing racial divides, and Scout applies Calpurnia’s teachings to her own movement across

gender barriers. Aunt Alexandra offers conventional femininity, and her criticisms motivate

Scout to rebel against those standards. Furthermore, Alexandra’s inconsistencies allow Scout to

question her code. Underneath the mask of her petticoat ruffles, Alexandra is an independent,

powerful woman who voices her opinions even when they contradict the head of the household,

Atticus. A “chameleon lady,” Miss Maudie introduces the option of gender performances. She

often wears overalls, but she also knows how to use a dress to her advantage. Ultimately, Scout

views Miss Maudie as a feasible model to follow, and she presents her own gender performance

at the Missionary Society meeting.

Last, by refusing to “come out,” Boo Radley resists societal and gender expectations. He

faces similar patriarchal repressions as Scout, and Scout’s gender-bending traits often mirror his,

illustrating the bond they share. As another mother figure who watches and protects her, Boo

proves to Scout that one can reject stereotypes and still find contentment.

Ultimately, though, Scout chooses her own path. At nine-years-old, she will probably

face many twists and turns throughout the continuation of her youth, but she understands her

core identity as a tomboy. Her development resembles Roberta Trites’s assessment about

adolescent growth in literature of the current era: “In modernism, maturity often takes the form

of a conscious rejection of society; separation, rather than transcendence, serves as the mark as

the mature modernist” (18). As Scout embraces her tomboyism, she diverges from societal

expectations. She becomes an outsider, like Boo Radley. However, Lee does not present

outsiders in a negative light. Instead, Lee depicts them as figures deserving admiration; they

have the courage to resist conformity.

Further celebrating Scout’s tomboyism, Lee does not show Scout aging and becoming

tamed, a fate that so many of Scout’s literary counterparts experience. In keeping her a child,

Lee leaves Scout’s future largely ambiguous. She frees Scout from the constraints of inevitable

female issues, such as puberty, dating, or marrying. While the adult narrator briefly indicates her

interest in boys, Lee does not explore Scout’s sexuality or depict her acting upon these interests,

as many tamed tomboys experience. Moreover, heterosexuality does not equal conventional

femininity. Even in Scout’s “marriage” with Dill, she exerts dominion over him and beats him

(48). Ultimately, the reader never learns if Scout marries, has children, or becomes a housewife.

She could obtain a career, choosing to remain unmarried and independent. She could still be a

tomboy as an adult, wearing pants instead of dresses and insisting that people call her “Scout”

instead of “Jean Louise.” A number of possibilities await her.

If Scout had discussed remaining a tomboy throughout adolescence and adulthood, her

story may have contained significant conflict and strife, as Lee personally experienced. For

Lee’s biography, Charles Shields contacted people who attended college with Lee, and they

discuss her tomboyish habits and appearance, which “rankled” them. Shields explains, “Nelle

Lee was different, and not in a fun or delightful way, but in a manner that ignored convention,

which could be interpreted as a kind of backhanded insult to everything these young ladies stood

for” (77). These girls felt appalled when Lee cursed, smoked a pipe, or wore “jeans or white

Bermuda shorts” instead of skirts or nice slacks (76). Consequently, Lee remained an outsider.

Perhaps for these reasons, knowing what an adolescent tomboy endures, Lee allows Scout to stay

a child.

This type of open-ending is a common feature of adolescent literature. As Richard Peck

writes, “The last page of every YA novel should say not ‘The End’ but ‘The Beginning’” (qtd. in

Campbell 486). After Atticus tucks Scout into bed on the final page of To Kill a Mockingbird,

Scout will awake the next morning ready to begin a new adventure. The readers do not know

what that new adventure will entail, but the readers do not need to know. All that is important is

the completion of her current journey to embrace tomboyism.

By establishing Scout as a tomboy with an ambiguous future, Lee opens the door for

tomboys in contemporary young adult fiction to also resist becoming tamed. Many authors no

longer change their protagonists’ behaviors when those girls reach adolescence. For example, in

Cynthia Voigt’s Homecoming (1981) and its many sequels, Dicey Tillerman consistently refuses

to submit to feminine conventions throughout her teenage years. In Mildred Taylor’s The Road

to Memphis (1990), Cassie Logan pursues a career as a lawyer. Incidentally, like Scout, Cassie

also shares a close bond with her parents. Adult fiction also exhibits these gender-bending

females. In Fannie Flagg’s Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café (1987), Idgie

Threadgoode remains tomboyish throughout her adulthood and into her elderly years. In

Dorothy Allison’s Bastard out of Carolina (1992), Bone Boatwright identifies with her uncles

and yearns for the freedoms of masculinity. Like Lee, Allison allows Bone the freedom to

remain a young girl. Though Idgie and Bone are both lesbians, they remain connected to

heterosexual Scout because they do not become tamed. Perhaps because Scout sets this

precedent, these authors allow their tomboy protagonists to deter even further from the bounds of

feminine stereotypes and explore their sexuality. As these books evidence, contemporary girls

have more options than their nineteenth and early-twentieth-century predecessors. They can be

“a ray of sunshine” in pants, dresses, skirts, shorts, or whatever clothing item they desire.

Harper Lee, after all, demonstrates the freedoms of modern females. She never married,

never had children, and never acquired the life of a conventional woman. Instead of relying on a

husband or a father, she supports herself by her own efforts: she lives off the money generated by

To Kill a Mockingbird. Though she only wrote this one novel, it offers a powerful message

about gender stereotypes. As Scout embraces her tomboyish traits, she demonstrates how the

paradigms of masculinity and femininity are open to fluctuation. In a world that seems filled

with restrictions, Scout and her parental figures cross gender boundaries and choose to exhibit

whatever behaviors they desire. Scout can run down the sidewalk in her overalls, knowing that

her parental figures will always support her gender-bending decisions.

NOTES

1. In their textbook on young adult literature, Donelson and Nilsen categorize To Kill a

Mockingbird as an “adult book that set the stage for contemporary YA novels” (72). However,

To Kill a Mockingbird may not have been intended as an adolescent text because publishers did

not widely market books specifically to teenagers until after its publication date. According to

Roberta Trites, young adult literature was not considered a “distinct literary genre” until the end

of the 1960s, and, although critics disagree about the first book marketed to young adults, some

critics believe that S.E. Hinton’s The Outsiders (1967) holds that position (9).

2. Fine joins many gender theorists and critics who contend that tomboyish behaviors in

childhood indicate lesbianism in adulthood. Michelle Abate presents the history of this belief,

noting that it first developed in the late nineteenth-century. Sexologists, particularly Richard von

Krafft-Ebing, claimed that women who act like men would ultimately develop the same sexual

desires as men (52). In the postwar era, during the rise of the homosexual movement, tomboys

became further linked with lesbians. In 1967, Harvey E. Kaye’s presentation at the Society of

Medical Psychoanalysts reported that adult lesbians typically viewed themselves as tomboys

during their childhoods. Abate places To Kill a Mockingbird in the group of literature that

reflects these ideas (166-167).

WORKS CITED

Abate, Michelle Ann. Tomboys: A Literary and Cultural History. Philadelphia: Temple UP,

2008.

Abel, Elizabeth, Marianne Hirsch, and Elizabeth Langland, eds. The Voyage In: Fictions of

Female Development. Hanover: UP of New England, 1983.

Alcott, Louisa May. Little Women. Ed. Anne K. Phillips and Gregory Eiselein. New York:

Norton, 2004.

Allison, Dorothy. Bastard Out of Carolina. New York: Plume-Penguin, 1992.

Burn, Shawn Meghan, A. Kathleen O’Neil, and Shirley Nederend. “Childhood Tomboyism and

Adult Androgyny.” Sex Roles 34.5/6 (1996): 419-28.

Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge,

1990.

Campbell, Patty. “The Sand in the Oyster: Middle Muddle.” The Horn Book Magazine 76.4

(2000): 483-487.

Capote, Truman. Other Voices, Other Rooms. New York: Modern Library, 2004.

Chodorow, Nancy. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of

Gender. Berkeley: U of California P, 1978.

Donelson, Kenneth L. and Alleen Pace Nilsen. Literature for Today’s Young Adults. 7

ed.

Boston: Pearson, 2005.

Fine, Laura. “Gender Conflicts and Their ‘Dark’ Projections in Coming of Age White Female

Southern Novels.” Southern Quarterly 36.4 (1998): 121-129.

---. “Structuring the Narrator’s Rebellion in To Kill a Mockingbird.” On Harper Lee: Essays and

Reflections. Ed. Alice Hall Petry. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P, 2007. 61-77.

Fitzhugh, Louise. Harriet the Spy. New York: Yearling-Random House, 1964.

Flagg, Fannie. Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café. New York: Doubleday, 1987.

Freedman, Monroe. “Atticus Finch, Esq., R.I.P.” Legal Times February 24, 1992: 20-21.

Hess, Natalie. “Code Switching and Style Shifting as Markers of Liminality in Literature.”

Language and Literature 5.1 (1996): 5-18.

Johnson, Claudia Durst. To Kill a Mockingbird: Threatening Boundaries. New York: Twayne

Publishers, 1994.

Jones, Carolyn. “Atticus Finch and the Mad Dog: Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird.”

Southern Quarterly 34.4 (1996): 53-63.

Lawrence, Amy. Echo and Narcissus: Women’s Voices in Classical Hollywood Cinema.

Berkeley: U of California P, 1991.

Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1960.

McCullers, Carson. The Member of the Wedding. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1946.

Moates, Marianne M. A Bridge of Childhood: Truman Capote’s Southern Years. New York:

Henry Holt and Company, 1989.

O’Brien, Sharon. “Tomboyism and Adolescent Conflict: Three Nineteenth-Century Case

Studies.” Women’s Being, Women’s Place: Female Identity and Vocation in American

History. Ed. Mary Kelley. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1979. 351-72.

Petry, Alice Hall, ed. On Harper Lee: Essays and Reflections. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P,

2007.

Richards, Gary. “Harper Lee and the Destabilization of Heterosexuality.” Lovers and Beloveds:

Sexual Otherness in Southern Fiction, 1936-1961. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP,

2005.

Rowe, John Carlos. “Racism, Fetishism, and the Gift Economy in To Kill a Mockingbird.” On

Harper Lee: Essays and Reflections. Ed. Alice Hall Petry. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P,

2007. 1-17.

Segel, Elizabeth. “Tomboy Taming and Gender-Role Socialization: The Evidence of Children’s

Books.” Gender Roles Through the Life Span: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Ed.

Michael R. Stevenson. Muncie, IN: Ball State UP, 1994. 47-61.

Seidel, Kathryn Lee. “Growing Up Southern: Resisting the Code for Southerners in To Kill a

Mockingbird.” On Harper Lee: Essays and Reflections. Ed. Alice Hall Petry. Knoxville:

U of Tennessee P, 2007. 79-92.

---. The Southern Belle in the American Novel. Tampa: U of South Florida P, 1985.

Shackelford, Dean. “The Female Voice in To Kill a Mockingbird: Narrative Strategies in Film

and Novel.” Mississippi Quarterly 50.1 (1996-1997): 101-13.

Shields, Charles J. Mockingbird: A Portrait of Harper Lee. New York: Henry Holt and

Company, 2006.

Showalter, Elaine. The Female Malady: Women, Madness, and English Culture, 1830-1980.

New York: Pantheon Books, 1985.

Sundquist, Eric J. “Blues for Atticus Finch: Scottsboro, Brown, and Harper Lee.” The South as

an American Problem. Ed. Larry J. Griffin and Don H. Doyle. Athens: U of Georgia P,

1995.

Taylor, Mildred D. The Road to Memphis. New York: Puffin Books, 1990.

Trites, Roberta Seelinger. Disturbing the Universe: Power & Repression in Adolescent

Literature. Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 2000.

Voigt, Cynthia. Homecoming. New York: Ballantine Books, 1981.

Ware, Michelle S. “‘Just a Lady’: Gender and Power in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird.

Women in Literature: Reading through the Lens of Gender. Ed. Jerilyn Fisher and Ellen

S. Silber. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2003. 286-88.

Westling, Louise. “Tomboys and Revolting Femininity.” Critical Essays on Carson McCullers.

Ed. Beverly Lyon Clark and Melvin J. Friedman. New York: Hall, 1996. 155-65.