Housekeeping (1987): Being Versus Doing

I haven't seen "Housekeeping," starring Christine Lahti, in a long time. Yet it stays with me. I think one reason is the unique plot. I also identify with one of the characters. A young woman goes insane, leaving behind her two young girls with their father. She abandons the family. A few years later the girls are teenagers. It's the 1950s. One sister wants to be "normal" - get a job, have a boyfriend, and live like the rest of the society. She wants to "keep house." The other sister is content to just be - to do nothing except read books and listen to music, or whatever else she wants. In walks the girls' aunt - Christine Lahti. She's sort of like her sister and her homebody niece. She's content to do nothing - except ride the rails [illegally board trains]. In the end, the "normal" sister moves into town to be like the society she admires. The other sister and her aunt burn most of their belongings and leave the house, in order to ride the rails and see the country. They don't want to "keep house."

So what's so great about this movie? It questions normalcy and personhood, where someone's identity originates. Who's the "normal" sister? I think the homebody one is. And here's why. Capitalistic society today doesn't value people unless they do something. They insist that a person's identity come from their work, from what they do, instead of who they are. The result of this ideology has been disastrous. Those who don't or can't work are used, abused, and in extreme situations exterminated. Sometimes they're locked up. I still haven't figured out why vagrancy and loitering are crimes. As long as they're not doing anything illegal, or planning it, why can't society leave these people alone? What's so bad about standing on a corner and minding your own business - or just people watching because you enjoy it? The homeless, the unemployed, vagrants, the mentally and physically handicapped, senior citizens, children, the unborn - all these people cannot or do not work. And as a result, society tells them they're useless, that they have no identity, and therefore should be removed from society - or from this earth. These different groups of people are not allowed to just be.

Why do we have to do anything? Why can't we just be? We need to work to survive, to provide the basic necessities for ourselves and our families. But this is true only if we're capable adults. If we're not, why is work expected of us in order for us to be valued as human beings? And why are love, value, and praise withheld if we don't perform as others expect us to? Our identity shouldn't come from what we do but from who we are. For example, we're all members of a family - spouse, sibling, parent, child. We're also members of a certain race or ethnicity. Basing one's identity on what one does (extrinsic) is exhausting. Basing one's identity on whom one is (intrinsic) allows us to rest.

My fear is that we have the same attitude toward God that capitalistic society has toward people. Many people, Christians included, don't value or worship God for who He is but for what He does. And if God doesn't do X for us, in the time and manner we want, we ignore Him. We cannot perform for God. The concept is ridiculous. The things we do for Him won't earn us brownie points or a trip to heaven either. Yet some Christians perform for God thinking it's the only way He'll notice and love them. Wrong. They've bought into the lies of capitalistic society. So why do we think that God has to perform for us, in order for us to notice and love Him?

Just something to think about. . . .