Identity In The Road

Brian
EN 270
November 11 2007

On the surface, The Road is a novel about the physical damage done to the once proud civilizations of earth. When explored with more depth, however, it quickly becomes apparent that this novel is also about the damage this world destruction has on personal identity of the civilized population. Through the example of the unnamed father and son (who was born into this insane world), we are shown the many facets of identity that have been either completely destroyed or reshaped. The total fragility of identity becomes exposed, thus questioning how we define ourselves individually, when the Father is asked: “What are you?” and is unable to answer. In this desolate world, we see a once established, educated man’s presumably complicated identity become reduced to rubble along with society and its buildings. While piecing together this degeneration of sorts, and witnessing the barbarism of the rest of the population, the reader is forced to the startling realization that societal values and cultural trends do not in fact comprise our true identities. The old world, representing the old way of identity, shows its true fragile colors, making it clear throughout the course of the novel that our true identities are comprised of our core selves. At this core, McCarthy vividly portrays the polar opposites of good and bad characterized respectively by freedom and freedom with responsibility. The good in the novel realize that humans must realize their responsibility and calling to moral action. Through the destruction of superficial identity, and the exposure of self taking precedence over morality, McCarthy gives the reader a vivid glimpse into what true human identity could be, and what he thinks true human identity should be.
One of the first things that Cormac McCarthy establishes is the fact that in this world, self definition through the old values of society has become impossible. Current materialistic values have disappeared with the focus of most of humanity on survival. These superficial values are exposed through the hypothetical situation of world-wide destruction. The father, as the book progresses, finds many artifacts of his old civilization, and in turn, his realization of their fragility and superficiality grows immensely. While he does fully realize these qualities of the old world, he is reluctant to fully let go of his attachment to them, representing his inability to fully come to define himself without connection to the material goods of the former society. The son, as the voice of the new world and new identity, represents the opposing voice to his father’s reluctance to let go of the past world completely. He shows little care about his father’s memories, and instead focuses on what is left in their world. In grasping onto what little is left of the old world, the father shows how strong the ties of this superficial identity hold on to people.
The first artifact that the father finds along his journey is, simply, a can of Coca Cola. Rummaging around in a desolate store, the father reaches into a soda machine, “withdrew his hand slowly and sat looking at a Coca Cola” (McCarthy 23). While this may seem like a simple object, it symbolizes an entire way of life as both the father and son realize the fact that they will never taste the soda again: when the father hesitantly sips the soda, in order to let the boy have more, the boy says “it’s because I wont ever get to drink another one, isn’t it?” (McCarthy 24). This simple interaction shows us just how isolated the former society has become from the present one. The father responds to his son by saying “Ever’s a long time” (McCarthy 24). In his reluctance to cast off his old society as gone forever, the father shows his attachment to even the smallest symbol of who he used to be.
The next day after finding the Coca Cola can, the father and son happen upon the father’s old house. When they arrive there, the father asks the son, “don’t you want to see where I used to live?” (McCarthy 25). The son, in a rejection of the old values, responds with a cold “No.” The father goes into the house despite his son’s wishes, and as he walks through, he exhibits his immense longing for his old life as “he [pushes] open the closet door half expecting to find his childhood things.” Of course, he finds nothing, only emptiness in place of what he used to identify himself with.
While these examples do truly show the fragility of what the father based his identity on, the ultimate symbol of this attachment, and also the father’s realization that this world of false connections comes when the father wakes suddenly from a dream. After waking up, “he turned to look at the boy. Maybe he understood for the first time that to the boy he was himself an alien. A being from a planet that no longer existed. The tales of which were suspect” (McCarthy 153). This shows the father’s understanding that he has been living in one world which is new to him, whilst believing and teaching his child of the values and structures of the old world that he used to inhabit. The child and the unwelcome setting of the post apocalyptic world of The Road are unwelcoming to this teaching, and regard his priorities as alien.
With “the frailty of everything revealed at last” to the father, and “old and troubling issues resolved into nothingness and night” (McCarthy 28), the reader is left to look for what is left of the identity of the inhabitants of The Road. In highlighting what is actually alive in this world, it becomes clear that, through their actions, people become defined by their core morals and values. Sense of core individual identity is strong within the two travelers of The Road, and in their contrast to the majority, two given group identities are formed within the novel: Good Guys and Bad Guys. Through these two competing groups, the reader is able to see a clear division between correct and incorrect human values as perceived by McCarthy. On one hand, we see the amoral majority who has been reduced to irresponsibly using any means necessary to survive; on the other hand, we see the Father and Son together have clear moral boundaries which they refuse to cross. As the presence of Good and Bad are so strong, and the moral division so obvious, McCarthy is clearly showing the difference between freedom and freedom with responsibility.
As these moral distinctions are all we have to judge the current identity of the characters themselves, McCarthy is showing us through the stripped down prose what he feels humans could potentially be when stripped down to their core values. In contrasting the majority’s actions with the actions of the father and son, however, McCarthy wants to show the reader the responsibility and morality with which humans should use to mold their core values. Throughout these distinctions, it becomes clear that the main difference between the two groups is that the Good Guys define their true self as “the one you find through love and through your relations with family and friends” (Culler 113), while the Bad Guys will do almost anything for self-preservation. Truly, the father (besides his minor attachment to the old society) and son adhere to this version of the true self, as they were “each the other’s world entire” (McCarthy 6). They base their decisions on their true selves, refusing to make decisions that go against their moral code, whether the decisions would help them personally or not.
The major action that divides the Good Guys and Bad Guys in the novel is the practice of cannibalism. More than just an act to be horrified with, cannibalism in The Road represents the great selfishness with which people of the world act. The many instances of cannibalism show the ease with which the Bad Guys in this world sacrifice what should be meaningful personal connections for their own personal survival. For example, in a shocking event, the father and son witness two men and a woman walk by them on the road. Later, when they discover an untended campfire, they also find “a charred human infant headless and gutted and blackening on the spit” (McCarthy 198). The reader is left to assume that the only people who could have committed this act were the two men and pregnant woman. These two men, one of whom presumably caused the woman to become pregnant, clearly had some sort of significant connection since they were traveling together. All three of the travelers, in attempting to eat the baby that was born, sacrifice interpersonal connection in the name of personal survival.
Personal survival taking precedence over interpersonal connection should not happen, according to McCarthy. As the contrast to this bad quality, the father and son refuse to eat anyone. After finding a house in which people were imprisoned by Bad Guys specifically to be eaten, the boy asks his father “They’re going to kill those people, aren’t they?” after his father’s affirmation of the question, the boy asks “Why would they have to do that?” (McCarthy 127). The fact that the boy would question the reason for the murder of the people in the basement proves his unwaveringly good qualities by showing that the thought of doing something as horrible as this has never even crossed his mind. The subsequent conversation between the father and son verifies they will never eat anyone, no matter what: “We wouldn’t ever eat anybody, would we?” the boy asks. The man responds by saying “No. Of Course not” (McCarthy 128). They refuse to eat anyone, “even if [they’re] starving” (McCarthy128), and that shows the reader that, unlike the Bad Guys, the Good Guys have moral boundaries that they will never cross, even if staying on their side of that line means certain death, as starvation does. In this sharp contrast, we find that the father and son stay true to their higher moral code while the Bad Guys do anything for survival.
The Bad are unthinking in terms of morality, and the father and son are shown to hold their moral lines all throughout the novel. This contemplative morality brings the father and son face to face with two issues that are not attended to enough in this world: facing death and considering the nature of God. Through the course of the novel, it becomes clear that contemplating these two issues is very much a part of Good core identity, and as such, must be actively examined by every human being. The father and son provide an example of active inquiry of these issues by physically moving down the road itself, as well as the metaphorical road of their stripped down life.
The issue of death becomes quite important within the novel, and we are given a vivid account of the defining nature of this question. This happens when the father and the rarely seen mother of the son are arguing about death. While the father takes the stance that they should keep fighting and stay actively hopeful, the mother believes suicide is the best option because there is nothing to hope for, only things to hope against, such as rape and death at the hands of the various bands of Bad Guys who roam the countryside. In this conversation alone, McCarthy characterizes the father as having hope, refusing to leave this world without first trying to give his son what he deserves. This distinct right to life and subsequent right to hope of a better life is exhibited by the Good Guys. The mother selfishly chooses the comfort of death instead of keeping hope: “I should have [committed suicide] a long time ago…I’d take him with me if it weren’t for you” (McCarthy 56). The father, on the other hand realizes that, as one of the few moral beings left, he has a responsibility to correct moral action: “We’re survivors he told her across the flame of the lamp” (McCarthy 56). The flame in this case is representative of the small flame of humanity’s moral compass, which the father and son are carrying. While the mother sees death as an escape from this horrible world, the father sees death as something that will extinguish the flame that he and his son are carrying.
Sense of core individual identity is strong within the two travelers of The Road, two given group identities can also be found to inhabit the novel: Good Guys and Bad Guys. Through these two competing groups, the reader is able to see a clear division between given human values as perceived by McCarthy. On one hand, we see the amoral majority who has been reduced to using any means necessary to survive; on the other hand, we see the Father and Son together have clear moral boundaries which they refuse to cross.
While most of The Road contains very grim subject matter, the overall message The Road delivers is one of hope through the son’s ability to define himself merely through morality and human connection. He has been born into this wasteland and shows a way of thinking contrary to his father’s: that we should define ourselves only through the context of human connection.
One example of this extraordinary ability of the child’s is when, while traveling through a burned out city, the child thinks he sees another boy. When his father refuses to look for the boy, his son weeps for the lost child. This shows his ability to feel compassion for others in a world which clearly teaches its inhabitants to selfishly think of themselves first at all times.
The best example of the child’s compassion, however, lies in the event where he forces his father to stop for the night so they can feed Ely, a man who is certainly going to die and “”didn’t weigh a hundred pounds” (McCarthy 165). The boy feeds and allows the old man to stay the night with them, giving up precious food which they were running low on. We see extreme sacrifice from the boy, all in the name of compassion for other humans.
Whether it is compassionately feeding an old man who is surely bound for death or expressing the wish to befriend an elusive child, the son is constantly striving for true human connection. He certainly shows curiosity about the world and culture that was before him, and realizes the desolation of that world, but he seems predisposed towards defining his existence by goodness and a unique (in that world) compassion for others. The boy establishes this identity despite the total lack of material and cultural influence and is able to care about people, all the while grappling with the issue of his horrible condition and looming death at the hands of the Bad Guys. He is willing to risk it all for seemingly minor actions.
In the world of The Road, identity is a widespread, multi-faceted issue. It begs questions about identity in literature itself by giving many plausible examples of existing identity theory, and also begs the reader to empathize with the characters in the novel by reflecting on his or her own identity. This idea of identity is clearly important to the father, is naturally established by the son, and is something that is represented by many of the people in the story. Furthermore, this subtle emphasis on who we are and how we define ourselves as people must not be overlooked as one of the most important themes of this novel. Its exploration is useful in determining human predispositions towards identity as defined by Cormac McCarthy, and in exploring how we, the readers view our own building blocks of self-definition. McCarthy stresses the importance of morals to our identities, and in the end, our actions, moral or amoral, are all we have to truly identify ourselves and our humanity.

Works Cited
Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory, A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997.
McCarthy, Cormac. The Road. New York: Random House, 2006.