Second Glance at He

It occurred to me during the second read-through of “He” that Katherine Anne Porter may be making a statement about the concept of utilitarianism. The utilitarian philosophy discusses the idea: 1) the value of a thing is based on its utility 2) all action should tend toward benefiting the greatest number of people with the greatest amount of happiness. Porter may be suggesting—through Mrs. Whipple’s treatment of her son He—that utilitarianism as a philosophical theory practiced as a lifestyle is a selfish and unrealistic lifestyle.

Mrs. Whipple treats He as if his value were based only on what he can do to assist the Whipple family on the farm. She used him to do the dirty work of the farm. When stealing the pig away from its mother proved too tedious a task for her or her daughters, Mrs. Whipple “gave Him a little push toward the pen” (52). When Adna cannot handle the bees, she employs He to do the task because “if He gets a sting He really don’t mind” (51). When Mrs. Whipple refused to go get the neighbor’s bull to breed because “she was scared sick of bulls” she had no problem asking He to fetch it (55). He is a commodity to Mrs. Whipple and the farm; his worth is correlated with his ability and his utility.

The “actions” of Mrs. Whipple’s relationship with he, furthermore, emulate the facets of utilitarian. Everything associated with the boy stems from her desire please the greatest amount of people despite the hurt she brings upon her child. She steals blankets off his cot in the wintertime and provides only her daughters with warm clothing because she believes he can do without those necessities, and it is better to benefit the healthy minded children because they can further the family’s successes. Mrs. Whipple “loaded up a big plate for Him first, before everybody” when her brother’s family comes to dine to put on the presentation of happiness. To create the allusion of having He taken care of puts the rest of the family—and her brother’s family—at ease so they may enjoy their meal. Finally, she benefits the good of her family rather than the good of the individual son by shipping He off to the County Home. She claimed that although “she had loved Him as much as she possibly could, there were Adna and Emly to be thought of too;” there was herself to think of too, her belly to feed, her reputation to protect.

What interests me about this “utilitarian” relationship Mrs. Whipple has with He is the angle of He being a symbol of Christ. For the reasons we’ve discussed in class, He symbolizes Christ and the “innocent [who] walks with God” (50). Is Porter saying, then, that we treat Christ as a utility and his value to humanity is only from what he can do for us? Is she saying that like Mrs. Whipple who turned to God in prayer only when her reputation was at stake for mistreating her son—she prayed “Lord, you know they’ll say we didn’t take care of Him. Oh, get him home, safe…Amen” when she feared for her own status—we too, only turn to Christ when we need to get something out of him and help our own happiness? Is Christ’s role in the lives of humanity merely the utilitarian sacrifice for universal happiness? Is that wrong?