Mowgli and Morality: Ambivalence in "The Jungle Book"

In class we discussed morality in children’s media as being polarized. Morality is made black and white to help children distinguish right and wrong. In the various versions of “Little Red Riding Hood” we read, the wolf was a personification of evil. It was very obvious because there was nothing redeeming about him, and the acts he committed (rape and murder) are uncompromisingly bad.

            “The Jungle Book” felt more gray with Shere Khan being the exception.  Motivated by greed and power, he wanted to kill Mowgli. Mowgli, the young “man cub,” wants to stay in a place he knows and refuses to leave his comfort zone and grow up. He interacts with several “adult” animals on his journey that seem mixed morally. Bagheera is the softhearted panther that has Mowgli’s best interests in mind. He originally introduces the man cub into the animal world and take responsibility to bring him back to civilization. However, he is shown with weakness. He leaves Mowgli several times because of a lack of patience, and this results in several mishaps for Mowgli. In the end, Bagheera’s loyalty and love are obvious (and it’s those that save the day), but it’s more his characteristics that are polarized rather than the character himself. Baloo welcomes Mowgli into his life without reservation. He is fun and carefree, but it often leads to recklessness. Baloo’s characteristics are polarized with his irresponsibility having harsh consequences while his sacrifice is praised. Kaa and King Louie also show complications in morality. They are manipulative and cause trouble for Mowgli, but they’re not evil. Kaa saves Mowgli from Shere Khan. Even if his intent was selfishness, the consequence is good.  King Louie displays selfishness, too, but he treats Mowgli well enough and does not intend harm. Coronel Hathi and the wolves also have conflict in character. Coronel Hathi is a family man heavily influenced by his wife. The wolves also prioritize family. They nurture Mowgli, but choose their own pack when threatened with danger. They have good intents, but do some damage along the way.

Unlike the quote by Bruno Bettleheim posted by Benjamin on the class blog, I feel ambivalence exists in this tale--ambivalence in character, but not in characteristics.  Negative consequences occur on the basis of bad behavior, but the characters are not holistically evil. “The Jungle Book” teaches that there is light and dark in everyone, but that we should act on the light parts of ourselves. 

Perhaps a child won’t recognize these nuances, but adults watching with the child can. This introduces the idea of parental responsibility within the realm of media. Will the parent watching with a child be humble enough to recognize in themselves the contradictory characteristics they possess? Will the parent care enough to help a child watching understand the complexities? Children can then learn that not only is growing up essential, but also that as one grows up there are choices to be made in which characteristics to develop.

Other media to consider: Moroni 7:12-17 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/7?lang=eng 

Feminist side note not necessarily related to class discussion: At the end, when Mowgli returns to civilization because of his attraction to a girl, Bagheera says he "couldn't help himself." This disregards our ability to reason and use agency as humans. To claim we are controlled by only hormones makes us nothing more than animals. This contributes to the complexity of Bagheera because for the most part he encourages Mowgli to be more human, but here he allows for him to be more animalistic. See Elder Holland's "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments" : 

"Our sexuality has been animalized, stripped of the intricacy of feeling with which human beings have endowed it, leaving us to contemplate only the act, and to fear our impotence in it. It is this animalization from which the sexual manuals cannot escape, even when they try to do so, because they are reflections of it. They might [as well] be textbooks for veterinarians. [Fairlie, Seven Deadly Sins, p. 182]

In this matter of counterfeit intimacy and deceptive gratification, I express particular caution to the men who hear this message. I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot. What an unacceptable response to such a serious issue! What kind of man is he, what priesthood or power or strength or self-control does this man have that lets him develop in society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of the world, but yet does not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, "I will not do that thing"? No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have us say, "He just can't help himself. His glands have complete control over his life--his mind, his will, his entire future."

To say that a young woman in such a relationship has to bear her responsibility and that of the young man's too is the least fair assertion I can imagine. In most instances if there is sexual transgression, I lay the burden squarely on the shoulders of the young man--for our purposes probably a priesthood bearer--and that's where I believe God intended responsibility to be. In saying that I do not excuse young women who exercise no restraint and have not the character or conviction to demand intimacy only in its rightful role. I have had enough experience in Church callings to know that women as well as men can be predatory. But I refuse to buy some young man's feigned innocence who wants to sin and call it psychology." (http://www.familylifeeducation.org/gilliland/procgroup/Souls.htm)