Dean Winchester, Season 1 Character Analysis: Reflecting on Step-Mothers.
Notes and no fat-trim musings on the eye-catching themes in Season 1 of Supernatural, focused specifically on Dean (my sweet Sammy-bear next, God willing). Discussion on complacent step-mothers, surrogate spouses, and the parental child — standard Dean package!
Preface to the preface: this is just my own for-fun interpretation journal entry as I watch the show — not the one true truth! I don’t intend to make conclusions about authorial intent — I’m only wanting to discuss what my eyes and ears are processing, and thus what I feel the show is inviting me to process. I can only notice what I notice, and I’ve got my own subjectivity serving as the railway for my train of thought. If anything here doesn’t align with what others think, no problem, kisses to you!
PART I: Early Beginnings (It Starts in The Cradle) Season 1, Episode 1: Pilot.
The first instance of a “family-stuck-in-time” theme we are exposed to is in Episode 1: Pilot. Mary goes up into flames (spoiler alert), and John has surrendered Sam to Dean’s protection. Dean is given specific instructions:
JOHN shoves SAM at Dean. (John) “Take your brother outside as fast as you can and don’t look back! Now, Dean, go!” DEAN turns and runs. JOHN turns back to the nursery. (John) “Mary!” The entire room is on fire. MARY herself can barely be seen.
This is foreshadowing for two overarching themes we can assume will follow the Winchester family for the remainder of Season 1: (A) Dean is barred from the past (literally, as he exits the home and stares back at the house from the front lawn) — barred from the American Dream life he was promised, that he only got a nibble of. Instead, he is tasked with protecting his brother, putting Sammy in opposition to this idealized life Dean is left dreaming of. (B) John returns to the past by walking back to the nursery, unable to save Mary but still returning to watch her burn, despite Sam and Dean still being alive and thus warranting his attention.
This, abstractly, introduces us to the first theme for Dean’s character: pushed (shoved, to match the transcript’s verb) into a domestic, care-taking role and forced to uptake “feminine” labour (Ember, 1973) — handle the child (Sam), while I (John) go investigate the danger.
We have to make an extremely important distinction here: Dean is not a woman. The “traditional”, culturally-constructed “woman” is not an ontological role Dean occupies, but rather a function he serves. I would argue that beyond his looks, there isn’t anything feminine about Dean. Instead, boys parentified in the father-son relationship — boys who do more traditionally feminine work in or outside the home (Ember, 1973) — may take on a more androgynous orientation (Jurkovic, 1997), and may even, in some cases, present as more masculine (Ember, 1973). It’s often been hypothesized that, when a male character is pushed into occupying this “non-natural” position against their conscious will, they are likely to produce a compensatory performance of hegemonic masculinity. We see this performance emerge in Dean’s misogynistic interaction with Jess, who he comes onto slightly, re-asserting the presence of his masculinity (evolutionary perspective).
This is my first impression of Dean.
PART II: Defending the Man of the House
In this same episode, we also get another interesting interaction, in which Dean defends his father’s clearly atypical behaviour:
(Sam) “Yeah? When I told Dad I was scared of the thing in my closet, he gave me a .45.” (Dean) “Well, what was he supposed to do?”
Here, Dean does what he can to preserve his family’s homeostasis. He resists the alternative worldview Sam presents so as to not address familial anxieties. Alternatively, if we approach this dialogue through cognitive dissonance theory, Dean’s belief that (A) his father is a good man contradicts with (B) the knowledge that he has done (is doing) something categorically wrong. Thus, by reframing the potential abuse as ethically warranted (Jurkovic, 1997), anxiety and/or tension caused by these conflicting thoughts is reduced.
We see Dean engage in similar behaviour again in Season 1, Episode 14: Nightmare. In this episode, Sam and Dean venture to stop Max Miller from using his psychic abilities to kill his abusers: his father, his uncle, and his step-mother. The step-mother is of particular interest, as she parallels Dean’s earlier behaviour of defending the circumstances Max (Sam) grew up in.
First, it’s established that Max is a parallel to Sam:
(Sam) “The thing I don’t get is why, man. I guess it’s because we’re so alike?” (Dean) “What are you talking about? He’s nothing like you.” (Sam) “Well, we both have psychic abilities. We’re both—” (Dean) “Both what?
Dean’s interruption of Sam feels important, as if he’s already aware that Sam is about to draw an abuse parallel between himself and Max. This is the first inkling we have that Dean functions as a non-offending parent — or, in his case, a non-offending parentified child. Dean shuts down any potential claim that abuse took place before Sam can speak it into existence.
(Dean) “Sam, Max is a monster, he’s already killed two people and now he’s gunning for a third!” (Sam) “Well, with what we went through, the beatings… to want revenge on those people, I’m sorry, man, I hate to say it, but it’s not that insane.” (Dean) “Yeah, but it doesn’t justify wanting to murder your entire family.” (Sam) “Dean—“ (Dean) “He’s no different than anything else we’ve hunted. Alright? We’ve gotta end him.”
Dean interrupts Sam, again. If we turn to Bowen’s Family Systems Theory, we might say that Dean is preventing John from taking the outsider role in terms of triangulation (Haefner, 2014). Triangulation refers to a three-person relationship (normally a husband, wife, and child — based on Part I, I think it’s safe to start suggesting that John, Dean, and Sam interact in a manner that reproduces patterns associated with this traditional triangle) that is used to stabilize the relationship of a duo within that trio. When tensions arise between individuals, it can be relieved by pulling in a third person and creating an “odd man out”, shifting the emotional force of anxiety towards that person (Haefner, 2014). By bringing up John’s poor parenting choices, Sam attempts to resolve the argument he is having with Dean by situating John as the odd man out — Dean, however, prevents this through his interruption of Sam (Episode 14) and his rationalization of John’s actions (Episode 1).
We see this pattern again in Episode 21: Salvation. Dean attempts to interrupt Sam and quell his misbehaving, but with John present, Dean is no longer the authoritative figure: John is. Thus, we see Dean’s interruptions become interjections.
(Dean) “Ah, crap. Here we go. Sam!” (John) “What the hell was that?” (Sam) “We need to talk.” (John) “About what?” (Sam) “About everything. Where are going, dad? What’s the big deal about this gun?” (Dean) “Sammy, come on. We can Q and A after we kill all the vampires.” (John) “Your brother’s right, we don’t have time for this.” (Sam) “Last time we saw you, you said it was too dangerous to be together. Now, out of the blue, you need our help! Now, obviously, something big is going down, and we wanna know what!” (John) “Get back in the car.” (Sam) “No.” (John) “I said, get back in the damn car.” (Sam) “Yeah, and I said no.” (Dean) “Yeah, alright, you made your point tough guy. Look we’re all tired, we can talk about this later. Sammy, I mean it, c’mon.” DEAN moves SAM away from JOHN. (Sam, under his breath) “This is why I left in the first place.” (John) “What’d you say?” (Sam) “You heard me.” (John) “Yeah. You left. Your brother and me, we needed you. You walked away, Sam, you walked away!” (Dean) “Stop it, both of you!” (Sam) “You’re the one who said ‘don’t come back’, Dad. You’re the one that closed that door, not me. You were just pissed off you couldn’t control me anymore!” (Dean) “Listen— stop it, stop it. Stop it! That’s enough!” DEAN gets in between SAM and JOHN. He looks at JOHN, SAM at his back. (Dean) “That means you too.” SAM and JOHN get into their respective cars, leaving DEAN standing outside, still geographically between them.
Here, Dean’s interruptions of Sam have become downgraded to interjections. Dean does not address John during the fight, pushing instead for Sam to let it go. Dean also calls Sam “Sammy” here — not uncommon for him to do, by any means, but in the context of an argument, it serves to invoke the parent-child hierarchy on Sam in the face of John. Reassert that John is the one with authority, not Dean, and especially not Sam. Furthermore, Dean’s function in this argument is not dissimilar to the culturally-constructed woman who gets in between her men, operating as a bullet-proof vest as she ventures into the crossfire of their argument, shouting “Boys! Boys!” to settle them down.
Season 1, Episode 18 cements the notion that Dean operates as a pseudo-maternal figure in the Winchester’s post-Mary family system, operating as a confidant for his father and a caregiver for his brother. For more on the pattern of parentification we can already identify from Season 1 alone, see Part IV.
So, why does Dean interrupt and shield John in spite of Sam? Referring to Bowen’s four basic relationship patterns (pertaining to the nuclear family), we might look to “dysfunction in a spouse” to give us some explanation as to why (Haefner, 2014)
Dysfunction in a spouse refers to the pressure one spouse applies to another (Haefner, 2014) — in this context, I extend this to the pressure applied onto a spouse-adjacent figure, who is responsibilized for the non-sexual, instrumental and expressive tasks a spouse would normally fulfill. Rather than both individuals compromising to achieve harmony/homeostasis, the subordinate spouse yields. Sam tells us that Dean has a tendency to yield to John’s demands in Season 1, Episode 11:
(Sam) “I don’t understand the blind faith you have in the man. I mean, it’s like you don’t even question him.” (Dean) “Yeah, it’s called being a good son. You’re a selfish bastard, you know that? You just do whatever you want. Don’t care what anybody thinks.”
Sam isn’t a selfish bastard, as Dean says here — instead, he is demonstrating frustration with what Bowen would call “differentiation of the self” (Haefner, 2014). In other words, he feels he has no autonomy, wanting to break apart from the undifferentiated ego mass that is his family’s emotional stuck-togetherness (Haefner, 2014). But Dean’s frustration, from Dean’s perspective (even if it’s subconscious), is not exactly unwarranted, either: Sam doesn’t need to contend with spousal dysfunction, as he demonstrates no interest in resolving John’s anxieties (and has never been demanded to via the parentification process). To be clear: both Sam and Dean are put in a really sad, hard spot here, but they struggle to see each other’s perspectives because the mechanisms causing this negative emotionality are not the same. They as characters (and as sons) don’t serve the same function in John’s life.
Interlude: a Note on Dean and John’s Atypical Dynamic Entangled Identities and Function Filling
We see Dean yield to John’s insistence that he think and act in certain ways again in Season 1, Episode 18:
(Dean) “He looked at me different, you know? Which was worse. Not that I blamed him. He gave me an order and I didn’t listen. I almost got you killed.”
In Season 1, Episode 20: Dead Man’s Blood, we see this deference and yielding behaviour again (again, again). Sam and Dean are confused and frustrated by their father’s sudden re-appearance, suggesting he’d like to help with a vampire-hunt and avenge an old friend. Sam voices his confusion by asking a series of interrogative questions. Dean, however, sits for the most part silently, staring at his father’s face without much interruption. Dean’s focus on John’s face, even as Sam is the speaking party, is definitely interesting!
As John drives off, Sam and Dean continue to bicker as Sam voices his (rightful, mind you) grievances, and Dean attempts to (once again) shut him down:
(Sam) “It’s just the way he treats us like we’re children.” (Dean) “Oh, God.” (Sam) “He barks orders at us, Dean, he expects us to follow ‘em without question— he keeps us on some crap need-to-know deal!” (Dean) “He does what he does for a reason.” (Sam) “What reason?” (Dean) “Our job. There’s no time to argue, alright, there’s no margin for error, it’s just the way the old man runs things.” (Sam) “Well, maybe that worked when we were kids, but not anymore. Not after everything you and I have been through, Dean. I mean, like, you’re telling me you’re just cool with falling into line, and letting him run the whole show?” (Dean) “If that’s what it takes.”
I think the choice of words here — specifically the use of “old man” — is interesting. Via Merriam-Webster, “old man” is a noun that can be used in reference to a father (as we see it used here), a boyfriend, a husband, and/or (informally) an authority figure. Consider subsequent dialogue, where we see one such alternative use of “old man” deployed:
(John) “You gotta understand something. After your mother passed… all I saw was evil, everywhere. And all I cared about was— keeping you boys alive. I wanted you prepared. Ready. See, somewhere along the line, I, uh… I stopped being your father. And I— I became your, your drill sergeant.”
In my opinion, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that, for Dean, John occupies every definition of “old man.”
Furthermore, in Episode 20, we see John and Sam argue:
(Sam) “How can you be so sure?” (Dean) “Sam—“ Here, Dean attempts to interrupt (again). (Sam) “I just wanna know that we’re going in the right direction.” JOHN stares at Sam. (John) “We are.” (Sam) “How do you know?” (...)
With a little more talking, the little spat John has just had with Sam seems to end here (for now), but not before John re-directs his anger/frustration at Dean. He can’t get Sam under his boot, but he is secure in the knowledge that he is safe to behave that way with Dean (this is one example of the differing kinds of abuse both Sam and Dean endured).
(John) “Hey, Dean, why don’t you touch up your car before you get rust. I wouldn’t have given you the damn thing if I thought you were gonna ruin it.”
We can interpret this in two ways. We can look directly at the text: John is frustrated, and takes this frustration out on Dean to regain a feeling of control and authority knowing Dean will not challenge him. We can also extend this read by looking at the sub-text. The Impala (the car) was given to Dean by John, and there is an expectation that he take good care of it because it was given to him by John. Similarly, Dean was given Sam to take charge of — because Sam was given to Dean by John, there is an expectation that he take good care of it (which he failed to do in the flashback provided in Episode 18). By pointing out that the Impala has become “rusty”, John is alluding to Sam’s unacceptable behaviour, behaviour that Dean has let fester. Sam should not be rusty, much like the Impala should not be rusty, because Dean should be working in the maternal, nurturing and (connectedly) correctional role to prevent that behaviour and remove rust before it ever aggregates. John is expecting Dean to operate beside him in a complementary pair, typically seen between spouses.
Another interesting visual feature I only managed to notice in Episode 20 (as Dean leans over the guts of his car) is the silver band he wears on the ring finger of his right hand. Wearing a ring (especially one as non-descript as the one Dean wears, not particularly fashionable but not not fashionable) is symbolic of commitment or dedication, normally to a significant other — it can also symbolize a promise. It’s interesting that he wears the ring on the right ring finger: although we normally attach weddings rings to being worn on the left hand, several cultures (EuroAmerican-centric or otherwise) have worn them on the right (e.g., Greeks, Germans, etc.) Alternatively, the ring being on Dean’s right hand may signify his non-traditional commitment to his family, operating as John’s “right hand” or as the subordinate spouse.
The utilitarian, non-traditional spousal theme between John and Dean is also present in Season 1, Episode 21: Salvation. In this episode, we see Dean and John as being in opposition to Sam in the way they’re seated: John and Dean in the background, Sam in the foreground. As John learns about Sam’s visions — which are happening to Sam, mind you — he directs his frustrations at Dean instead.
(Sam) “Yeah. It’s like… I don’t know, it’s like, the closer I get to anything involving the demon, the stronger the visions get.” JOHN turns his head to DEAN. (John) “Alright, when were you gonna tell me about this?” (Dean) “We didn’t know what it meant.” (John) “Alright, something like this starts happening to your brother, you pick up the phone and you call me.” (Dean) “Call you? Are you kidding me? Dad, I called you from Lawrence. Sam called you when I was dying. I mean, getting you on the phone, I got a better chance of winning the lottery.” (John) “You’re right. Although I’m not real crazy about this new tone of yours, you’re right. I’m sorry.”
John reiterates to the viewer that Dean is responsible for overseeing Sam.
It’s also interesting that John mentions Dean’s tone here — we might wanna conclude, at first, that he does this because Dean is his son, and children should respect their parents. However, we just saw across these last two episodes that Sam has used a tone that ought be considered a lot more disrespectful. Similarly, if we look at Bowen’s framework, isn’t it usually the child that has their tone corrected when speaking to a parental figure? I think this scene raises an interesting idea: Dean does serve a complimentary, psuedo-spousal function when it comes to Sam, but when Dean pursues this duty in a way that contradicts John, John invokes the parent-child hierarchy. In other words, Dean is given parental responsibility without receiving the typical parental authority that would come naturally to a true spouse (i.e., Mary).
That is NOT to say that John is somehow letting Sam slide or showing favouritism to Sam — not at all. Instead, it represents the different ways in which John views his sons, subconsciously or consciously.
Another interesting feature of Episode 21 is John’s understanding of his son’s goals.
(Sam) “You want us to stay here… and kill this demon by ourselves?” (John) “No, Sam. I wanna stop losing people we love. I want you to go to school. I want— I want Dean to have a home. I want Mary alive.”
John has constructed an identity for Dean that is so contingent on his care for other people that the only goal — the only future or reality — John can even imagine for him is one in the home. Dean is nothing if he cannot be interpreted through someone else. To mean something, he must be in service to others.
In Season 1, Episode 22: Devil’s Trap, Dean identifies John as having been possessed by the yellow-eyed demon. Sam, who doesn’t recognize this, must pick between believing his father or Dean. Of course, he picks Dean. He moves to stand behind Dean, shielded by him.
The yellow-eyed demon stops hiding, then, and starts talking a bit of madness across several quotes.
(The Yellow-Eyed Demon, via John) “Your Dad? He’s in here with me. Trapped inside his own meat suit. He says hi, by the way. He’s gonna tear you apart. He’s gonna taste the iron in your blood.”
I was curious why the demon directed this dialogue to Dean specifically: why not Sam, who both the demon and John have arguably been tormenting for years? Why not both sons? Returning to Bowen’s “undifferentiated ego mass”, which is the opposite of autonomy (i.e., clear thinking via the separation of emotional dependence from logic) (Haefner, 2014), we can identify Dean as the least differentiated member — he is extremely stuck to his family. Correspondingly, his identity is the most entangled with John’s. By emphasizing violence perpetrated by John against Dean, the yellow-eyed demon attacks not only Dean’s loyalty to John, but also his self-concept. Additionally (as I’ll get into in the next section) Dean spends a lot of this season defending John’s choices, John’s actions — well, here goes John’s body doing something indefensible! It’s particularly salient to come at Dean in this situation since his role as the mediator and the preserver of the family’s equilibrium is no longer valid.
Another thing — why iron? Well, compared to “he’s gonna taste your blood” (which sounds more general), the addition of iron makes this more intimate and visceral. We imagine John literally devouring Dean. Until now, we’ve only encountered this idea thematically: John consuming Dean’s sense of self, feeding on Dean’s emotional labour. John has already consumed so much of Dean, and might now even consume his body. Stretching the metaphor: any iron (think iron spine, iron stomach, etc.) — any bit of Dean that has yet to yield, that is still metal, any lingering stubbornness — is going to be taken from him, too. In a way, Dean’s imminent death is symbolic of a total breakdown of his identity.
Anyway. On siding with John. So, if Dean and Sam are brothers, why do some of these Season 1 episodes implicate Dean as being “more on John’s side” (almost purely on John’s side, no shade, right up until we get to the end of the season)? We return to the question: why does Dean defend John, despite being aware of his poor behaviour not only towards Sam, but in general?
Part of parentification is serving as a “confidant, companion, or matelike figure” (Jurkovic, 1997, p. 8). This is an intimate role, as per the words Jurkovic uses to describe it. The parentified child serves not only to take care of their sibling(s), but also their parent(s) (p. 9) — in other words, the “object of caretaking” includes both Sam and John, utilizing different mechanisms (rooted in culturally-constructed, traditionally-gendered duties) to do so. Season 1 does some work to illustrate that Dean is a caregiving figure to Sam (as discussed above), but it also does work to show us that, thematically, Dean is also serving a spousal function to John.
The demon’s focus on Dean — Dean being the one it starts to kill — makes sense narratively from this perspective. Mary and Jess, to this point, are relational characters: we understand their value through Sam and John, respectively. They play the spouse, the maternal figure, and in Jess’ case, the could’ve-been-bride. Dean, though explored much more in-depth than these two, serves a relational function to his family: he gets in-between Sam and John, he acts as an emotional sponge, somebody they can bounce ideas off of, someone that can comfort them and guide them, where needed. The demon says it best when it’s still masquerading as John:
(The Yellow-Eyed Demon, via John) “Sam and I… we can get pretty obsessed. But you watch out for this family. You always have.”
The demon has thus far focused on spousal, caregiving figures. So, thematically, the natural next-step is for Dean to die.
Let’s look at something more based in character narrative as compared to bodily movement. In Episode 18, we hear Dean’s description of his failure to protect Sam from the Shtriga. But, rather than describing typical parental disappointment that most people experience, he goes on to say:
(Dean) “He looked at me different, you know? Which was worse.”
Dean acknowledges that his stint at the arcade put Sam in danger — the discussion about where Dean failed should thus end there. Instead, Dean goes on to describe the responsibility he feels for John’s emotions. This attitude is typically not reserved for children, and instead a partner — a confidant (Jurkovic, 1997).
John’s concern in Episode 18 is mostly regarding Sam — that makes sense, though, since Sam was the would-be victim of the monster. However: John should’ve also been concerned that Dean would feel compelled to leave the room (he went as far the reception, according to the transcript) to go play at an arcade. Children need activities to do — they want to play about, especially at arcades, and they want to enjoy themselves in ways that appeal to them. Sure, kids want things they can’t have all the time. Kids throw tantrums, and lash out unnecessarily. But that isn’t what Dean describes:
(Dean) “Fort Douglas, Wisconsin. It was our third night in this crap room and I was climbing the walls. Man, I needed to get some air.”
Dean, as a child, should not be left to feel that he was “climbing up the walls” so much so that he’d leave his younger sibling unattended when he DOES know better, and shouldn’t have done so. Similarly, Dean should be able to eat the foods he likes without having to feel like he’s sacrificing them (referring to the Lucky Charms he “surrenders” to Sam’s aegyo). John is not concerned with these things, however — with why the urge to vacate the room is so strong. That is, John expresses little care because Dean is not a child, instead functioning as an adult. Thus, the set of premises that would explain a child’s “abandonment” of the room are no longer valid in his worldview, and Dean is instead evaluated on an adult checklist.
In Episode 22, the yellow-eyed demon makes sure to take a jab at this, saying:
(The Yellow-Eyed Demon, via John) “You know, you fight and you fight for this family, but the truth is— they don’t need you. Not like you need them. Sam? He’s clearly John’s favourite. Even when they fight, it’s more concern than he’s ever shown you.”
The demon is (obviously) playing it up for the ouch-factor. Neither Sam nor Dean is John’s favourite: as I mentioned earlier, they represent two different functions to John. If one of Dean and Sam was his favourite, they probably wouldn’t be monster-hunting and bleeding out against pavement halfway through every episode. John clearly loved his wife a lot more than his sons, considering this goose-chase is all in her name (see Episode 21-22).
But, anyway. Let’s move on. We know Dean is thematically and functionally occupying the role of the subordinate spouse where John is concerned. But, how much acquiescence is too much? Season 1, Episode 14 is extremely interesting in that it asks us to reconsider Dean’s role in the family dynamic, moving past just a well-meaning surrogate spouse and caregiver towards a pretty negative character profile: an evil step-mother.
PART III: The Non-Offending Parent Season 1, Episode 14
Okay, “evil step-mother” was a bit click-rage-bait-y. But consider: Episode 14 invites comparison between Dean and Max’s step-mother, two characters that partly function to preserve a harmful family system.
In Episode 14, Sam and Dean show up to Max’s house, hoping to prevent the death of Max’s step-mother, who had “never lifted a finger” to save Max from the heart-wrenching abuse he endured for his entire life.
We see three on-screen divisions take place: first, the uncle and father (the key perpetrators of abuse) are murdered, and thus not present in the final scene. John, the perpetrator of Sam’s abuse, is also absent. Second, we see Max and Sam sit together in a kind of hostage-negotiation meeting. Sam has already drawn parallels between himself and Max, which is further supported by the discovery that the yellow-eyed demon was responsible for the murder of both their mothers. Together, they occupy the living room. Lastly, we see Dean get relegated to the upstairs bedroom with Max’s step-mother. Both Dean and the step-mother are non-actors: they don’t intercept instances of abuse, but instead serve to rationalize and normalize these harmful occurrences. So, overall, the scene divides our cast into three categories of character.
Downstairs, Sam attempts to convince Max to let his step-mother go. But first, he investigates their history.
(Sam) “Did she beat you?” (Max) “No. But she never tried to save me, she’s apart of it too.”
Paired with Sam’s introspective, choked-up expression, this may serve as a reference to Dean’s failure to leave John behind, to effectively pick Sam’s needs and over John’s wants. Because, for all that Episode 18 shows us that Dean raised, tended to, and tried to protect Sam, the thought of getting up and walking away was never a strong one — a fleeting one, if it was there. Dean appears to be loyal to his father above and beyond what is good for anyone else, including himself and Sam.
The final parallel between Dean and the step-mother exists in the final moments of the episode, in which the step-mother sits alone on the couch, weeping that she’s lost everyone. Though absolutely more emotional, this resembles Sam leaving to attend college, and John leaving to go solo. Dean, in the end, is left alone, too. This is a tension that the shapeshift-ed Dean in Season 1, Episode 6: Skin, points out:
(The Shapeshifter, via Dean) “See, deep down, I’m just jealous. You got friends. You could have a life. Me? I know I’m a freak. And, sooner or later, everybody’s gonna leave me.”
I want to be clear: I’m not trying to imply that Dean didn’t love Sam, or that he loved John more. What I think the show is illustrating to us is that, while Dean loves Sam, he also is pressured to preserve his family: that is his function, instilled in him by John. To do so, he sides with John — he chooses to side with the spousal figure, as we see in Bowen’s examinations of the nuclear family, therein alienating Sam. We see this in Episode 1: Dean comes to find Sam, but with the intention of reuniting the family unit as a whole.
So. Is Dean a “maternal” figure to Sam? I think that’s way too simple of a conclusion to make just from what we see in Season 1. Is Dean an evil step-mother? I think that’s also way too restrictive. There’s a lot of nuance to the way Dean acts. Is Dean as indifferent to Sam as Max’s step-mother was to him? Not at all! Dean loves Sam, and shows us this with both words and actions throughout the series. But he isn’t perfect — he uses mechanisms planted in him through his lack-of-childhood to try and mold Sam into what he thinks will reduce tension in their family, which is not (for the most part) a good thing. He loves Sam, but he has a long devotion to John, and these two loyalties are often in contention. Dean expresses this, in a way at, the end of Episode 14:
(Sam) “Aren’t you worried, man? Aren’t you worried that I could turn into Max or something?” (Dean) “Nope. No way. Know why?” (Sam) “No. Why?” (Dean) “‘Cause you got one advantage that Max didn’t have.” (Sam) “Dad? Because Dad’s not here, Dean.” (Dean) “No. Me. As long as I’m around, nothing bad’s gonna happen to you.”
Even in this expression of deep care and love, Dean is evoking John’s expectations for himself: protect Sam. He also advertises maintaining their family unit to Sam, sweetening the deal by suggesting that the safest place for Sam is with Dean, something he won’t be able to have if he goes away to school again. In this way, while Dean clearly means to show his love for Sam, the toxic, borderline abusive narrative John has drilled into Dean’s head is now directed at Sam. In a way, Dean is trying to cage Sam in, mimicking techniques John used to cage Dean in.
PART IV: Parentification and the Non-Existence of Innocence
In hindsight, this part probably should’ve gone first. But, anyway.
Season 1 was an interesting look at the influence of parentification on adult relationships between family — but, an in-depth look at parentification is definitely needed (and definitely a fun exercise). Was Dean parentified?
Parentification doesn’t really have a unanimous definition, likely due to the variety of factors and presentations it has in increasingly diverse family units. But generally, parentification involves the sacrifice of a child’s needs and wants (e.g., attention, comfort, etc.) in favour of dedicating resources and time towards the fulfillment of a parent’s needs, wants, and/or responsibilities (Hooper, 2007). Parentified children can be split into four categories — a “type” can be determined after examining nine conditions: overtness, role assignments, extent of responsibility, object of caretaking, age appropriateness, internalization, family boundaries, social legitimacy, and ethicality.
The first criterion for parentification is overtness (Jurkovic, 1997). Does the role of the child involve an overt protection and/or caretaking of another family member? Is the child excessively loyal in the face of a deprivation of basic necessities (e.g., food, shelter, etc.) or an acceptable standard for human living and connection? We see from Episode 1 and 18 that Dean has been tasked with taking care of Sam, at least prior to his leaving for Stanford. Episode 18 also establishes that, as a child, Dean is left wanting: he feels stuck in the motel room, and abandons his post as a result.
Second: the type of role assignment (instrumental vs. expressive) (Jurkovic, 1997). Instrumental tasks are functional: they include things you must do to survive (e.g., engaging in child care, cooking, nursing the ill, earning money, etc.) In Episode 18, we see Dean engage in child-care, handling Sammy’s dinner. We also see Dean take part in expressive tasks, which involve catering to your family’s socioemotional needs (e.g., mediating conflicts, providing comfort, etc.). Thus far, we don’t have an example to pull on from Dean’s childhood in the show (note: both expressive and instrumental role assignment are not necessary for a child to be considered parentified). But, for now, we can look to the early-learned, comfort-providing patterns Dean shows in adulthood. Dean reassures Sam that he won’t turn into Max in Episode 14. Another example of this is in Episode 21, Salvation:
(Sam) “So, basically, this demon is going after these kids for some reason. The same way it came for me?” JOHN stares at SAM, and says nothing.
Interesting here that John is given an opportunity to comfort Sam, but he instead covers his mouth with the side of his palm. Not too unlike when a teacher puts out a question, and you look deep in thought so as to avoid being called on.
(Sam) “So, mom’s death… Jessica, it’s all ‘cause of me?” SAM is looking at JOHN.
We see, next, that Dean takes the comfort-providing responsibility from John, alleviating the pressure Sam puts on him.
(Dean) “We don’t know that, Sam.” (Sam) “Oh, really, ‘cause I’d say we’re pretty damn sure, Dean!” (Dean) “For the last time, what happened to them is not your fault.” (Sam) “Yeah you’re right, it’s not my fault, but it’s my problem!” (Dean) “No it’s not your problem, it’s our problem!” (John) “Okay. That’s enough.”
That’s all John says. He offers no reassurances to Sam. Dean is the comfort-giver (functioning in the culturally assigned “mothering” role), where as John performs a stoic, distant, and wholly-rational culturally-curated masculinity.
We see Dean continue to monitor his father’s emotions in that same episode, when the Winchesters learn about Pastor Jim’s death. After breaking the news, John pauses at his truck, with his head hung, looking tormented.
DEAN calls out to his father. (Dean) “Dad?” JOHN nods to himself. (John) “Yeah. It’s Jim. You know, I can’t… This ends now. I’m ending it. I don’t care what it takes.”
So interesting here that Dean is calling out to his father inquisitively — “Dad?” — but John doesn’t treat this as a question. He doesn’t turn around and ask Dean to elaborate or go on. He already knows what Dean is doing: checking in on his emotions, hence why he gives us a little more insight on his mental state.
The parental child’s failure to engage with these expressive and/or instrumental tasks as assigned to them (e.g., protecting Sam and watching over him) is often accompanied by guilt inducement (Jurkovic, 1997), which we see John engage in as he scolds Dean for letting his car rust, and for abandoning the motel room, and Dean’s subsequent description of the “change in his father’s face”.
Third: extent of responsibility. Jurkovic (1997) defines this as: “Excessive caretaking that extends beyond a situational adaptation to become a chronic process that depletes the child both emotionally and physically.” (P. 9). John’s long-hunt for the yellow-eyed demon likely begins sometime after Episode 1, and has followed him into his children’s mid-twenties. As such, his need for Dean to take care of Sam while he engages in his hunting duties is no longer a situational adaptation, or a temporary setback in which Dean must fill John and Mary’s boots while his father regains his bearings after his wife’s sudden death. Similarly, we can think about it like this: if Episode 1 is the first time Dean is given charge of Sam (to any capacity), and he is still looking after Sam in Episode 18, some years later — that’s a pretty long (excessive) duration. In Episode 18 more specifically, we learn that John has been gone for three days; it’s normal for parents to leave their children at home for a day or a night. Three is excessive.
Fourth. Object of caretaking: the function of a child relates to another family member. For Dean, this is primarily Sam, and secondarily John (though, arguably, this flip-flops).
Fifth: age appropriateness. As Jurkovic (1997) states, children just don’t have the resources needed to “cope with caretaking assignments” (p. 10), and especially young children may have none at all. A sixteen-year old Dean looking after Sam is not the same as a six-year old Dean looking after Sam. So, we know Dean was not of an appropriate age: we see him as a ten-ish-year old looking after his six-ish-year old brother in Episode 18.
Sixth: internalization. Does Dean identify with the role John has given him? Does he compulsively caretake? I would argue yes: in Episode 18, we see Dean’s regret at having “failed” Sam. Throughout the Season, we also see Dean try to sway Sam towards certain decisions (if not make them for him, such as when he “suggests” that Sam engage with Sarah Blake in Episode 19: Provenance), and reassure him.
Seventh: family boundaries. Jurkovic (1997) describes this best: “In the worst instances, children have excessive caretaking responsibilities that are neither supervised nor shared with other family members. They are also triangulated and enmeshed with (or perhaps cut off from) undifferentiated parental figures, having become a defining aspect of their identities.” (P. 10). We see that Dean largely does not share the expressive tasks (e.g., providing comfort) with John (recall John’s silence when Sam questions whether Jessica and Mary’s death is his fault, followed by Dean’s attempt at a soothing-interjection). Dean’s caretaking tasks in Episode 18 are also unsupervised (had John been there, we wouldn’t have had an Episode 18 to talk about). As we discussed in the Interlude, John is also a huge part of Dean’s identity.
Eighth: social legitimacy. This is where we remind ourselves again that this is taking place in the United States, where extensive caretaking (not baby-sitting) of family members by children is not socioculturally typical. There isn’t a normative expectation that Dean should be engaged with the aforementioned tasks.
Finally, ninth: ethicality. This, in my opinion, is the most interesting aspect of parentification in the Winchester context, as well as the only one Dean actually discusses. Is it ethical for John to behave this way? In my view, the answer is no. He does have a choice: not to hunt. To let it go. Instead, he creates an unfair and unethical situation, in which Dean and Sam must both bear the brunt of his choices, debilitating them in different ways.
Adhering to these nine criterion, I think it is more than appropriate to conclude Dean was parentified. Another interesting quote to consider from Jurkovic (1997) is as follows: “Neither the child nor the parent is able to identify the child’s underlying desire for contact and support, which then continues to be met indirectly through his or her parentified role.” (P. 51) I think this fits some of Dean’s behaviours and his support of the familial system as-is pretty well.
In fact, Dean is so entrenched in his role as a parental-adjacent, non-child figure that, in Episode 18, when Sam says:
(Sam) “Sometimes I wish that…” (Dean) “What?” (Sam) “I wish I could have that kind of innocence.”
Dean responds:
(Dean) “If it means anything, sometimes I wish you could, too.”
Dean doesn’t even think to point to himself and say “me, too. I wish that for myself, too. I wish that for us.” His identity is so contingent on being this caregiving, spousal-replacement that he cannot imagine a return to childhood. In fact, there is no childhood to return to. Thus, he can only wish it for Sam.
Parentification is not evaluative — whether Dean was good or bad at being a parent is not up for debate, as none of Bowen’s criterion examine the “success” of a “parental-child”. If he was a good parent, great. Good for him! Also consider: what is even "good" parenting in this context? What could Dean possibly glean from John that would improve his parenting ability? So, the prospects were pretty bleak. But even generally: what child could be a good parent? He hasn’t finished developing — hasn’t been given the opportunity to be raised himself.
Conclusion and Overall Thoughts on Season 1 From a Dean-Perspective
Dean is a really interesting character in Season 1. We see him as a smart-ass, a misogynist, a playful older brother, the spouse-by-deduction to an elusive old man, a lonely figure, and a desperate son. By the end, we know him as a repressed, burdened relational character. I think Dean’s insistence on maintaining family — his reliance on Sam and John (Sam through John and John through Sam), and his caretaker-characteristics contribute to an overarching view of him as a “feminine” character. It doesn’t really help, either, that he has a very feminine beauty/allure to him, and his Whiteness invokes a sense of purity in some viewers. But when we look at the themes and narratives and structure of the show, I think it’s safe to say that Dean is not “feminine” or female-coded in the ontological sense, but rather situated in a traditionally-feminine function. Although the show supports a read of these themes (hopefully the references to in-show dialogue, scenes, and set-up is reflective of that), I think it kind of struggles to address this in a nuanced way because, in 2005, the general consensus really was that it was unnatural for men to be in “care-giving” positions, something Jurkovic (1997) briefly touches on.
By the end of the season, we see Dean start to break out of his dysfunctional spousal relationship with John — talking back to him. Take Season 1, Episode 20: Dead Man’s Blood, as an example. Here, John is (once again) arguing with Sam:
(Sam) “But after, we’re gonna meet up right?” JOHN is silent. (Sam) “…use the gun together. Right?” JOHN is silent. (Sam) “You’re leaving again, aren’t you? You still want to go after the demon alone. Y’know, I don’t get you. You can’t treat us like this.” (John) “Like what?” (Sam) “Like children.” (John) “You are my children. I’m trying to keep you safe.”
Interestingly, we see John turn his attention to Dean as he says this, perhaps in anticipation that Dean will take his side as he always has, pulling Sam back into line. Instead:
(Dean) “Dad, all due respect, but, uh, that’s a bunch of crap.” SAM and JOHN both look slightly taken aback if not outwardly surprised by Dean’s refutation of John’s argument. (John) “Excuse me?” (Dean) “You know what Sammy and I’ve been hunting. Hell, you sent us on a few hunting trips yourself! You can’t be that worried about keeping us safe.” (John) “It’s not the same thing, Dean.” (Dean) “Then what is it? Why do you want us out of the big fight?”
Here, Dean gives John an opportunity to resolve the cognitive dissonance — to provide a plausible, acceptable explanation to prevent further fragmentation of the relationship, and to reduce anxiety/tension from the Bowenian perspective.
(John) “This demon… it’s a bad son of a bitch. I can’t make the same moves if I’m worried about keeping you alive.”
John fails to provide an adequate explanation, now occupying the outsider position. As such, Dean continues:
(Dean) “You mean you can’t be as reckless.” (John) “Look… I don’t expect to make it out of this fight in one piece. Your mother’s death… it almost killed me. I can’t watch my children die, too. I won’t.” (Dean) “What happens if you die? Dad, what happens if you die and we could’ve done something about it? You know, I’ve been thinking, I… maybe Sammy’s right about this one, I think we should do this together. We’re stronger as a family, dad, we just are. You know it.” (John) “We’re running out of time. You do your job and you get of the area. That’s an order.” JOHN walks away.
Well, that's it for that! The first entry of a long CDA-adjacent diary.
Overall, I’m excited to (hopefully) see Dean’s character continue to evolve, and for him to acknowledge some of his flaws in relation to his treatment of Sam, in Season 2.
As all good researchers do, let me outline some next steps: to review Season 1 again, but with my darling Sam as the focus! So exciteddd!
References
Ember, C. (1973). Feminine Task Assignment and the Social Behavior of Boys. Ethos (Berkeley, Calif.), 1(4), 424–439. https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1973.1.4.02a00050
Haefner, J. (2014). An Application of Bowen Family Systems Theory. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 35(11), 835–841. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2014.921257
Hooper, L. M. (2007). The Application of Attachment Theory and Family Systems Theory to the Phenomena of Parentification. The Family Journal (Alexandria, Va.), 15(3), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480707301290
Jurkovic, G. J. (1997). Lost Childhoods: The Plight Of The Parentified Child (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315825762
