“The reason Miss Ramchandin paid me no attention was that, to her mind, the outfit was not something to either congratulate or scorn – it simply was. She was not one to manacle nature, and I sensed that she was permitting mine its freedom.” (77)
The relationship between Tyler and Miss Ramchandin is both devastating and beautiful. They put together out of necessity; they share the need for understanding in a world that thrives off of the power obtained through subjugating their identities (Tyler as queer, and Ramchandin as a criminal.) The comparison is not exact, as these two identities are obviously not parallel. However, both function in a society that thrives off the power that they wield through the labels they provide and the assumed characteristics and dangers that are attached. While this relationship is tragic in its necessity, beauty is found in their shared “otherness”, as well as their shared acceptance of each other’s identity.
This passage represents Miss Ramchandin’s relationship with Tyler perfectly. Tyler, wearing the nurse’s outfit that Miss Ramchandin knew he wanted to put on, fails to elicit any response to an act that would invoke any number in reactions to others at the hospital. Miss Ramchandin, however, treats the act as she would any other natural occurrence. Tyler states later in the section that he had “never felt so extremely ordinary” (78) while wearing the outfit. Miss Ramchandin experienced his identity in the same way, as ordinary or natural.
There is an incredible irony in the choice of the phrase “She was not one to manacle nature…” (77), given that Miss Ramchandin herself is shackled to her bed, and in a way, shackled to an identity she is forced into. In order to survive, just as Tyler does, she is forced to perform an identity that is accepted by those in the positions of power. Whereas Tyler feels “ordinary” when wearing the nurse’s outfit, he must perform a more acceptably masculine role in order to be accepted by those he works with. In order to continue to receive care, Miss Ramchandin must cooperate with the identity she’s placed under. Because of this, she too (rather emblematically) remains silent.
In this case, however, Miss Ramchandin allows Tyler the freedom to express his natural identity. While she must remain (quite literally) shackled to her own misunderstood identity, she is “… permitting mine [Tyler’s] its freedom” (77). For a brief moment, one of the two “others” has the opportunity to embrace their “otherness” as non-deviant, unquestioned, and normal. The tragic beauty of their bond is developed through continued naturalization of each’s “otherness.”
I like that you pointed out ‘shared otherness’ between Mala and Tyler, and the fact that only Tyler gained his freedom of self identity in the moment where Mala let him be himself. What Mala’s otherness might be, why it was rejected and what could be naturalized could be interesting point to dig up. She is depicted as if she were uncultivated nature itself. But as we learn her story, her life before accusation as murderer also had agony. Her jungle-like house could mean abandoned existence from society, helplessness trapped in trauma but could also mean peace finally gained after struggle, and acceptance of herself. In this sense, what would ‘naturalization of otherness’ truly mean for Mala?