Throughout history there has always been a power struggle within the factors of race and class. This can be seen in the story of A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner which follows an elderly Southern woman who was constantly scrutinized by townspeople due to their attitudes of pity and jealousy towards her. Similarly, in Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell an English police officer in Burma felt the expectations of Burmese villagers of whether or not he should kill a rampaging elephant. Even though racial and class dynamics drove both of these stories, they also highlighted the concept of patriarchy and questions who is truly in power.
In A Rose for Emily, the main character was seen as a fragile and impotent woman due to her history of tragic events. Emily was seen as a high class citizen, but she depended on the help of a manly figure. Because of this, the town would intervene when it comes to issues that would concern her. One of the main conflicts presented in the story was the gross smell coming from Emily’s house. However rather than resolving the problem with Emily herself, the town decided to sneak into her backyard and “broke open the cellar door and sprinkled lime there, and in all the outbuildings” (Faulkner 39). This example conveys the town’s patriarchal ideals when they acted as her “father” and convinced themselves that it was their moral obligation to take care of her. This is especially true because of the stereotype of being high class that she is incapable of dealing with her problems by herself. Additionally in Shooting an Elephant, the British imposed the culture of colonialism where they would father and rescue the passive and weak citizens of Burma. This is established in the passage by having an English narrator who polices the Burmese villagers and deals with the violent elephant terrorizing the community. The narrator claims that as a Westerner “it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the ‘natives’, and so in every crisis he has got to do what the ‘natives’ expect of him” (Orwell 47). The narrator believes that as a more superior race it is his responsibility to protect the childish and helpless Burmese from the current threat of the savage elephant.
Faulkner and Orwell’s stories contrast in the sense that they are told in two different perspectives. A Rose for Emily presents the point of view of the townsmen peering into the life of a public figure, while Shooting an Elephant exhibits a first person narrative of their thoughts towards the Burmese crowd. Irony comes to play with the fact that these perspectives pity and look down on the weaker parties of the story, but in reality they are really the ones who hold the power. Emily controls the town with her silence and mysterious behavior, and the police officer heavily cares about his image and pleasing the villagers. As the characters try to take an upper hand in their individual situations, they fail to do so because of their fascination of the opposing side. This proves that even if class and race are involved, true power comes from public and individual manipulation.
Word Count: 540
Your summary of the two stories in your intro is the perfect length and you had a good thesis that tied the two stories to what was going on at the time it was written. In the last paragraph it would have been interesting if you elaborated why the oppressed party actually had more power. Overall, good analysis of how the town of Jefferson acted as a father to Emily and how British colonialists tried to act in the same way to the Burmese people.
ReplyDeleteYour post is overall well organized and I liked that there was a clear distinction between the second paragraph where you do an analysis of patriarchy in A Rose for Emily and colonialism in Shooting an Elephant, and your third paragraph where you talk about who really holds power in the short stories. However, I would have liked more evidence from the texts that show the irony in the townspeople and Emily as powerful figures. Good post overall!
ReplyDelete