Worldview in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird

by Shawn Hassen

Harper Lee’s eclectic mix of worldview ideas (as opposed to one overwhelming philosophical bent) give readers plenty to consider in her timeless novel, To Kill a Mockingbird.  

Theme: Education

John Dewey was a catalyst in the progressive education movement in America—hence, the humorous misinformation from Jem as he explains the “new” teaching to Scout. Presumably Harper Lee was not a fan of this movement. Scout looks forward to starting school more than anything, only to be stunned and disappointed by teachers who discourage early reading and bore the students with menial lessons and silly stories. Through Scout’s tough introduction to the new ways of teaching, Lee suggests that experiential learning does not seem to translate to the classroom. Experiences from real life, however, do carry weight with Harper Lee. Several of the children, not just Scout, are savvy beyond their years, implying that their world of economic hardship and farm labor (or town life) have taught them a great deal (and will continue to do so throughout the novel). Through the Finch household (including Calpurnia), Lee also emphasizes the educational power of reading.

Theme: Social Stratifications/Prejudice

Lee creates a gripping story that brings to light the horrors of racism. In addition to her powerful attack on this form of inequality and injustice, she also reveals that other residents of the town and county are under the microscope of judgment, as well. The foot-washing Baptists judge and condemn Miss Maudie; the townspeople condemn the Ewells for their filthy living habits; Scout initially judges her poorer, farm-raised peer for not having table manners; Alexandra judges people based on their lineage; the most reputable woman of the church is a blatant racist; Calpurnia is judged by her neighbors for bringing white children to a black church; the reclusive Boo Radley is an object of mockery . . .and the list goes on. It would seem that no one is safe from the scathing critique of neighbors. Harper Lee reveals—with disgust—this harsh, painful reality to Jem and Scout as they come of age.

Theme: Coming of Age

Watching their father try to defend Tom, Jem and Scout learn more about racism than they previously understood (having been saturated in it to some degree in their small hometown yet at the same time sheltered by Atticus’s egalitarian principles), and they are confused and stunned by their aunt’s dissertations on family lines, genealogy, and daily habits as a means of judging people. Atticus has been their model of justice up to this point, and the realities they learn about prejudices and even evil come as a shock. With these revelations and experiences, both children mature. Jem becomes increasingly cynical about society, while Scout manages a more optimistic attitude (perhaps because of her more personal experiences with her aunt, Miss Maudie, and the true Boo Radley).    

Theme and Symbolism: Innocence vs. Evil

Lee creates the mockingbird to be a symbol of innocence, and this parallels two characters in the novel: Tom Robinson and Boo Radley. Tom Robinson is a man innocent of the crime for which he is unjustly convicted. With his death, one “mockingbird” is destroyed. Boo Radley, a victim of cruel speculation and mockery in his own town, is the innocent mockingbird who is ultimately spared. Lee creates a controversial situation where both the sheriff and Atticus must lie in order to protect the reclusive Boo from having to face the publicity of a trial for the murder he committed as he saved Jem and Scout. With these decisions that the characters make, Lee postulates that the end sometimes justifies the means when it comes to protecting the innocent.

The notion of innocence plays yet another role in the novel. Lee demonstrates the evils of racism throughout the novel, but she also explores human nature through Atticus and Bob Ewell. Atticus continually defends people not just in the courtroom, but personally. He respects people and views them with equal dignity, and he teaches his children that people are good beneath the surface. Lee emonstrates, however, that this may not be the case, after all. Expecting the best from people, Atticus dismisses Ewell’s threats and arguably sets the stage for Scout and Jem to be attacked. Miss Maudie and even the frustratingly prejudiced and cynical Aunt Alexandra may have it right: everyone else is not necessarily like Atticus. There are, in fact, people who perpetrate evil. Evil does exist, and Atticus’s wish that everyone is basically good down deep does not make it so.

The Novel’s Correlations/Contrasts to Scripture

The Book of Revelations makes clear that all nations and all tongues will worship the Living God. Racism is evil, and this novel powerfully demonstrates the ugliness of such sin, not only through the tragedy of Tom Robinson’s death, but also through the indomitable spirit of Atticus Finch, who believes in the value and dignity of all peoples. A “division of peoples” is also found in Jem’s recognition of hard social realities. He describes different stratifications of people in Maycomb, some who are respected more than others. His aunt advocates these divisions, which is basically no different from being racist. Scout mirrors her father’s approach and refuses to label people as anything other than people. This is absolutely the biblical approach to recognizing the unique value and dignity of all peoples. Humans are individuals created in the image of God, not stereotyped divisions. Mr. Ewell is a violent, abusive, racist man who has lied to frame someone else for his crimes, and it is on this alone that he should be judged--not because he is poor.  

While Harper Lee shows a complexity to good and evil in the world, she does not make her own position on the nature of humans perfectly clear; it makes sense simply to review with students the biblical positions on good and evil. Evil exists in the world both within and apart from people (Satan). Good also exists in the world, but never apart from God, and in humans, it is never perfectible this side of eternity. While Atticus is a character worthy of our admiration and aspirations, he is almost too near perfect. His consistency of character and his methods of parenting make him an extraordinary character, but not necessarily a realistic one unless his solitary Sunday worship is indicative of the Holy Spirit at work. Jem’s and Scout’s responses to Atticus’s very hands-off style of parenting should also give us pause. Our fallen human nature suggests that very few children (who are not innocent by nature) would thrive with such minimalist parenting. This biblical understanding of human nature should also raise questions (as Lee did) about education. Not to be confused with the “pragmatism” of trade schools, for instance, which train people for necessary and valuable careers, the focus on experiential, individualized learning such as Dewey initiated can easily turn into a one-sided, customized education (i.e. Montessori-style learning). All educators and home-schooling parents should be wary of extremely individualized learning. Our understanding of human nature reminds us that humans of all ages are prone to sloth and self-absorption. We must be taught a wealth and variety of information, not merely allowed to do only what we want.

Finally, the novel’s climax is nebulous for Christian readers. Atticus and Tate must agree to lie about the crime scene in order to protect the reclusive Boo Radley from a public court trial. Lee posits, ever how tempting, the notion that the end justifies the means. Uh oh. Her suggestion that obstructing justice in order to protect someone “innocent,” within the contexts of the novel, is arguably appealing. The Old Testament recounts histories of people whom God blessed for, arguably, deceiving or manipulating authorities in order to achieve the greater good. But this is a slippery slope. Very slippery. We are instructed to obey those who govern us—i.e., crime scenes should not be altered or tampered with. And vigilante justice, while sometimes well intended, is also the fallacy of two wrongs (not) making a right. Given the fact that this is fiction, a discussion and warning about the complexities of justice and the slippery slope into the abyss of “the end justifies the means” will probably suffice instead of trying to parcel out the minute right and wrong of the two characters’ decision.