The Management of Grief (Style)

Style

Social and Cultural Critique

In a 1989 interview with The Iowa Review, Mukherjee criticizes contemporary American fiction for “exist[ing] only in a vacuum of personal relationships.” She believes that “[a] social and political vision is an integral part of writing a novel, or being a novelist.” In light of these comments, “The Management of Grief” must be understood through a social-political lens. While it is a deeply moving exploration of Shaila Bhave’s individual response to the Air India crash, it is also a critique of Canada’s racialized society and its inadequate attempts at “handling” the tragedy. In this way, the story is more than a personal narrative, it is a politicized account, offering a social, cultural and political critique.

Through the story, Mukherjee criticizes the Canadian policy of multiculturalism. A superficial reading may fail to discover this subtle critique. The word is briefly but pointedly articulated when Judith Templeton calls on Shaila. Shaila’s first words to her are “Multiculturalism?” referring to the Ministry of Multiculturalism that sent her. Judith’s misunderstanding of the Indian immigrants and the several culture clashes that ensue are indicative of mainstream Euro-Canadians’ ignorance about Canadian immigrants. Judith refers to the Indian Canadians as “them” and “lovely people,” in other words, definitively different from the mainstream she represents. But as different as “they” are from “her,” “they” are all the same. Judith fails to differentiate among Indians, asking Shaila, a Hindu, to go with her to visit a Sikh couple, oblivious and unconcerned that Hindus and Sikhs have a history of antagonism, exacerbated by rumors that Sikhs bombed Flight 182.

Remembering Mukherjee’s comments about the political responsibility of fiction, the miscom-munication and awkwardness between Shaila and Judith, and Judith and the Indian Canadians, can be interpreted as a microcosmic representation of the tensions between mainstream Canadians and ethnic Canadians in general. In one sense, Shaila could be read as the voice for Mukherjee’s political views, though her character is not limited to this function. In another brief but pointed statement, Shaila brings up the government’s sloppy investigation of the case because of the opinion that this is an “Indian,” not Canadian, matter. When Judith tells Shaila that “[w]e” [the Canadian government] do not want to make mistakes,” Shaila wryly replies: “More mistakes, you mean.”

Shaila also expresses a criticism of patriarchal Indian traditions. By framing her individual experience in the larger context of Indian cultural mores, the story uses Shaila’s personal struggle to free herself from her the crippling memories of her past life to symbolize a break from oppressive cultural traditions, particularly those that constrain women. The stagnant life of self-abnegation and mournful clinging to memories is the expected behavior of an Indian widow. By refusing to give in to this stultifying tradition, Shaila frees her personal spirit, but also symbolically rejects oppressive and outdated cultural mores. The association of a certain kind of “Indian-ness” with personal oppression is highlighted by Shaila’s grandmother’s lifetime of “mindless mortification.” Kusum follows in this tradition, neglecting the living (both Kusum and Shaila’s grandmother forsake their daughters) in order to choose a life of self-denial and personal repression. Shaila is “trapped between two modes of knowledge” but her ultimate return to Canada and dropping of the symbolic “package” implies that she has rejected personal stagnation and the patriarchal Indian traditions associated with it.

Point of View

The perspective in “The Management of Grief” is Shaila’s and allows the reader to understand the world as she sees it. This narration may be called “third person limited” as the reader is privy to Shaila’s deepest thoughts but does not have access to any other character’s thoughts. The intimate revelation of thought and motive provides justification for Shaila’s judgment of people and events. For instance, when Shaila tells Kusum that she is “running away” by going back to India to follow a religious life of mourning, we understand Shaila’s logic from her description of the “mindless mortification” of her grandmother.

But this point of view has its limitations also. While it allows the reader to identify closely with, or reject, the main character, it flattens the point of view of the other characters. Kusum, for example, explains that going back to India will help her find “inner peace,” but the reader is not given any way to understand her logic, only Shaila’s rejection of it. In this way, limited third person narration can obscure opposing views, depriving the reader of alternate interpretations of events.

Narrative Tone: Understatement and Detachment

The tone of the story’s third person narration can be described as melancholy and subtle. While the story has great emotional impact, that impact works through understatement and detachment. Shaila’s account is almost journalistic in tone, neutrally reporting events. But the weightiness of tragedy behind the narration belies Shaila’s unaffected tone. The poignancy of the story is derived not from any outright declarations of misery, but from the readers’ recognition of Shaila’s voice as speaking from a tenuous, shell-shocked calm.

Understated tones can give increased credibility to opinions or social critiques. Consider, for instance, testimonies of individuals convinced of government conspiracy or alien invasions. Accounts spoken in calm and rational tones tend to be more believable than emotional, raving harangues that make the speaker look unreliable because of instability. Compare headlines in tabloids that shout excited claims, “Woman Gives Birth to Ape!” versus matter-of-fact headlines in respected newspapers that report “Scientists Combine Primate and Human DNA.” Thus, when Shaila softly comments that the Canadian government is mishandling the investigation, or that the reason that the crash is not well broadcast is “we’re [Indian Canadians] not that important,” her criticisms of mainstream attitudes are not likely to be dismissed as the rants of a radical political agitator. Her controlled attitude offers an interesting contrast to the agitated and violent behavior of the terrorists who are rumored to be responsible for the crash. Shaila’s only overt display of emotion is at the airport when she calls the customs official a “bastard.” But she herself is surprised at her uncharacteristic outburst and, while not wholly regretting it, ponders it as indicative of a deep change.

Similarly, a detached tone can give the narrative voice greater credibility in describing volatile, politically charged events. Shaila’s detached tone is especially effective because she maintains an emotional distance in the face of a devastating personal loss. Importantly, Shaila’s calm is only a mask for the “screaming” inside. On the other hand, Shaila’s detached attitude may be construed as callousness; Shaila comments to Judith that some of the “hysterical Indians” are appalled by her lack of outward emotion.