Say it, Jim: The Morality of Connection in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

TLDR: Huck's reticence to speak is not simple courtesy, nor, certainly, a test of Jim, who has already proven himself a morally admirable figure as mentioned in this paper, but rather, it reveals an alternate moral code that has, in fact, driven him through the novel: a code based on the maintenance of relationships, not on an abstract hierarchy of values.

Abstract: The American literary tradition has often been defined by its moments of radical autonomy-Thoreau at his pond, Ishmael offering his apostrophe to "landlessness," Huck "light[ing] out for the Territory ahead of the rest" (Twain 1995,265). In fact, Twain's novel is often taught as the text that epitomizes this tradition, with Huck held up as its exemplar: a boy courageous enough to stand against the moral conventions of his society, to risk Hell itself rather than conform to the "sivilizing" process of communities he rejects.1 Yet such a focus belies an alternate strand in the tradition: moments of radical connection that call into question not just the value but even the possibility of autonomy. The passage from which my title is drawn illustrates this point. At the very moment Jim's freedom seems most in crisis, when Tom's injury puts the escape on hold while Huck goes for the doctor, the two characters speak as one through Jim's voice. Knowing Jim will say what they both think, Huck asks Jim to say it: "`No, sah-I doan' budge a step out'n dis place, `dout a doctor, not if it's forty year!"' (1995, 251).While the moment certainly contains troubling elements, we must acknowledge the profound, almost telepathic connection between characters in this encounter.2 That the connection involves a moral choice is particularly appropriate in this novel that hinges on such moments. This particular decision reveals the two major threads of morality examined in the novel. Emerging from a set of assumptions most readers (and teachers) of the novel probably expect, Jim's argument prevails: he claims that the risk to Tom's life trumps his own need for freedom, that the doctor must be fetched even if it means Jim stays where he is-a slave-for "forty year." This proposed timeframe brings Jim to the moment of Twain's composition, representing Jim's willingness to extend his slavery not just past an historical end Jim cannot foresee but quite possibly for the remainder of his life. In his mouth, the words become a willing sacrifice--one Huck cannot offer on his behalf. Yet Huck's reticence to speak isn't simple courtesy, nor, certainly, a test of Jim, who has already proven himself a morally admirable figure. Huck's silence reveals an alternate moral code that has, in fact, driven him through the novel: a code based on the maintenance of relationships, not on an abstract hierarchy of values. Huck never moves into the realm of "abstract" morality; he never asserts a conviction that when two moral principles come into conflict, one will have priority because of the nature of the moral principle itself. Instead, he acts strictly through his sense of commitment to his friends-and in the moment when Tom is shot, Huck finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. Both friends have powerful and immediate claims upon him.Yet Huck has no recourse to abstract assumptions to establish that preserving Tom's life is the highest moral obligation at that moment-or even the reverse, that Jim's need for freedom takes priority over the arguably small risk to Tom's life (or perhaps only to limb, as he's been shot in the leg rather than in a more vital region). My point is not that one value or another should have priority but rather that Huck's decisions are not based on abstract moral reasoning. His loyalty to both friends means that, in the face of their conflicting needs, Huck is paralyzed. Huck needs Jim to say what must be done because if Huck says it himself, the demand for a doctor betrays Jim's need for freedom-and so betrays Huck's relationship with Jim. Only after Jim insists on the doctor can Huck act: "[S]o it was all right, now, and I told Tom I was a'going for a doctor" (1995, 251).The key is "now": only after Jim has said "it," acknowledging the demand Tom's injury places on them, does the moral hierarchy become "all right," releasing Huck to respond accordingly. The hierarchy of values Jim describes-that liberty must give way when a life is at stake-doesn't free Huck to act. …