Cindy Weinstein claims in Family, Kinship, and Sympathy in Nineteenth-Century American Literature, with respect to Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women, that this piece of sentimental literature has a “profound awareness of the relative fragility of the biological family and a commitment to strengthening and redefining it according to the logic of love”(Weinstein 4). Through Weinstein’s claim, she states that biological, familial ties are not what define a family; it is, however, through the love that the family shares with one another which makes them a true family.
In agreement with this claim, Alcott’s novel Little Women shows that despite the biological, familial ties that the March family shares with each other. It is their strong bonds of love with one another and commitment to each other that allow them to truly bond as a family. This concept is shown in the overall text through the depiction of various relationships, such as that of Josephine March and Amy March, although sisters, find it difficult to get along, as Amy even goes as far as to burn Jo’s cherished manuscript.
Jo March and Theodore Laurence who are able to form a close relationship through a familial type of love without actually being blood-related Meg March and John Brooke’s familial tie as husband and wife alone is not enough to keep their relationship strong, as John expects Meg to be the happy wife who has dinner prepared when he comes home with company. Before their marriage, Jo March and Fredrick Bhaer are able to form a strongly close bond without any familial ties as Bhaer gives constructed criticism to Jo’s writing.
In Louisa May Alcott’s novel, Little Women, Alcott depicts the weakness of bonds based solely on genetics in her portrayal of protagonist Josephine March’s strained relationship with her younger sister Amy. Jo and Amy March are at odds for the majority of the novel. As children, they are stark opposites, divided by conflicting interests and priorities, as well as a large age gap. Their separation can be seen in Jo’s closeness with her sister Beth, while Amy clings to her older sister Meg. Jo cherishes her close relationship with Meg as well, induced by their nearness in age.
Yet Amy remains an outsider to her sister. Their estrangement can be seen when Amy retaliates against Jo for excluding her by burning Jo’s cherished manuscript. This transgression is heartbreaking for Jo, and is evidence of Amy’s immaturity. Despite Amy’s apologies, Jo is unable to forgive Amy; “She had cherished her anger till it grew strong and took possession of her, as evil thoughts and feelings always do unless cast out at once” (Alcott 134). When Jo, Laurie, and Amy go iceskating, Amy falls through the ice and nearly drowns, showing Jo her error.
As the two mature, they continue to butt heads, especially when Amy is asked to go abroad with the girls’ Aunt March. Their struggles to cooperate illustrate “the relative fragility of the biological family. ” With the help of Marmee, Jo and Amy are able to come together by the close of the novel. The sisters choose to be close; they are not forced to be so because of their relationship. Through Jo and Amy March’s everevolving relationship, Louisa May Alcott shows her commitment to relationships based on genuine love and commonality and not simply on biological threads.
Louisa May Alcott in her novel, Little Women, manages to question and thoroughly examines what constitutes a family. She proves the point that it is not always shared genetics that build a family. The bonds that form through the characters in her novel proves that “family” is a broad term and does not have a definite requirement. Josephine March and Theodore Laurence are the perfect example of a strong relationship that formed without a biologically relation. Laurie loves Jo, “but the love is altered, and I have learned to see it is better as it is”(Alcott).
The love that Laurie feels towards Jo is one of sibling compassion rather than a romantic interest. Laurie views Jo as a best friend who gave him the confidence he needed to be himself. She supported him by showing him unwavering compassion and in doing so, she “strengthened and redefined it (family) according to the logic of love” (Weinstein 4). Jo invites Laurie into her family and combines her biological family with the person she loves as a brother. Louisa May Alcott proves through the companionship between Jo and Laurie that family is not limited through biological relationships.
She illustrates that bonds formed through love and support are stronger than the bonds formed simply through blood relation. A third example in which the ideal that biological bonds are weak is shown in the relationships between Meg and John and Jo and Frederick Bhaer; these relationships depict strength as they are constantly at work to obtain balance, they are willing to compromise because they are not related and cannot rely on the bond of blood. When Meg and John first marry, they expect their love for one another to sustain them and solve all problems, but they soon learn this is not the case.
Meg begins to feel John does not treat her responsibilities with respect, and this causes a skirmish between them that comes from an untimely joke. John brings home company, expecting his wife to be at the ready with dinner and happy at the surprise. She is distressed at the notion that she must entertain as she felt her house was not in order and her meal was not well made. She was embarrassed as she felt she was failing her duties as a housewife; but John could not see as societal pressure to perform in the house was not put on men at this time and was out of the home most of the day, so he did not see how much work went into keeping house.
This anger is shown in the following statement: “It’s like a man to propose a bone and vulgar bread and cheese for company. I won’t have anything of the sort in my house. Take that Scott up to Mother’s, and tell him I’m away, sick, dead anything. I won’t see him, and you two can laugh at me and my jelly as much as you like. ” (Alcott 360-370). In this exchange it is clear that relying on the love of one another is sometimes not enough. John meant to make light of the situation, but for Meg it was her reputation, for which a woman could be destroyed by.
To again obtain the balance they once had, they realize they must take responsibility for what they both had contributed to the argument. This need to compromise for balance is best shown when discussing Meg is thinking over the married life she expected against what her mother had taught her; as shown in the quote: “Oh dear, married life is very trying, and does need infinite patience as well as love… ” (Alcott 372). This thinking shows the recognition in Meg that a marriage is not just a commemoration of one’s love for another, but a union that needs constant work.
This idea reinforces the quote that one must constantly be “strengthening and redefining” a relationship “according to the logic of love”. The ideal that one cannot rely simply on blood relations to uphold a family is again reinforced in the relationship of Jo and Frederick Bhaer. Before they are married, they still have a very different mindset in terms of literature. Jo refuses to accept the criticism Bhaer offers to her writing. She believes that her stories must be wild and righteous to be well received. But she tries to read it from his viewpoint as to remedy their friendship and raise her writing.
This is clear in the following quote: “There is a demand for whisky, but I think you and I do not care to sell it. If the respectable people knew what harm they did, they would not feel that the living was honest. They had no right to put poison in the sugarplum, and let the small ones eat it. No, they should think a little, and sweep mud in the street before they do this thing. ” (Alcott 470-471) Here, Bhaer reprimands Jo and others alike that write sensational stories to make cheap money while poisoning the minds of those that read it.
From this Jo is able to recognize that writing for money rather than substance is a waste of her skills and the reader’s minds; which help her become more talented and grow closer to Bhaer as she sees him as a caring ally. By listening to Bhaer’s advice Jo shows her willingness to receive criticism so that their relationship can better itself and maintain the love they share. This assertion of fragile relationships requiring work and compromise is shown when Jo is willing to give up her passion to share a new one with Bhaer.
Jo gives up her writing so to open a home for boys where Bhaer is able to pursue his dream of teaching. Jo shows how willing she is to change so that she can see her partner happy, as that brings her happiness as well. These instances in the text between the relationships of Meg and John, and Jo and Bhaer support the idea that the “biological family” possesses a “relative fragility” that constantly requires work to remain balanced, as one cannot depend on a simple familial bond or romantic love.
As Cindy Weinstein’s claim in Family, Kinship, and Sympathy in Nineteenth-Century American Literature states that there is a “profound awareness of the relative fragility of the biological family and a commitment to strengthening and redefining it according to the logic of love”(Weinstein 4), in regards to Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women, she shows that strong relationships in a family can only be obtained through the act of love and cannot be obtained merely through the reliance on having shared genetics.
Alcott’s novel Little Women agrees with this statement as she shows that through the depiction of various relationships, such as that of Jo and Amy, as well as Meg and John, that familial ties are not enough to keep a strong relationship in a family; while the relationship of Jo and Laurie, as well as that of Jo and Bhaer, show that through their love for one another, they are able to form close bonds without any shared biological ties. Overall, both Weinstein and Alcott prove the idea that it is only through that act of love, not through the sharing of familial blood, that one is able to maintain a close bond with one another.
