We Will Be Heard

Article Summary from the Christian Science Monitor: African’s Newest Form of
Dissent: Blogs

By

Varo Borja


This article from the Christian Science Monitor discusses the use of blogging as a means for residents of Sub-Saharan African nations to voice their opinions on local, national, and regional events, and even voice dissent against their respective governments. The article opens with some comments from a Congolese blogger named Cedric Kalonji. Mr. Kalonji states, in regard to his blog, “I am Congolese and I talk about what is happening around me—the truth.” Mr. Kalonji’s blog is on congoblog.net, and is:


read by thousands of people around the world…it [sic] receives about 250 pageviews per day and has won international awards including the prestigious Best of Blogs award for the top French-language blog in 2007.


Mr. Kalonji states in the article that blogging provides a means of voicing his opinions about the state of the Congolese government that wouldn’t be afforded to him in any other manner. The article goes on to state that Bob LaGamma, director of a Washington-based advocacy group named Council for a Community of Democracies, supports these efforts by African bloggers as a means of exercising free speech. However, some of the recent African blogs go beyond free speech and delve into the realm of propaganda, such as the Niger rebel group, Movement of Nigeriens for Justice. Another rebel group makes its news known to the world on a blog found at makaila.over-blog.com, where posts are made on developments in the country of Chad, some of the posts calling for the deposition of the Chadian president, Idriss Deby. A tale of heroism and determination comes from the blogger responsible for the makaila.over-blog.com site, Makaila Nguebla, who sleeps next to his computer and takes phone calls and text messages twenty-four hours a day in support of the Chadian rebels. Mr. Nguebla states in the article that the Chadian government is, “not happy about his blog”, but he will post anything that, “serves to destabilize the regime.”


On a more disturbing note, Africa expert Leonard Vincent states that, “while expanding freedom of speech in Africa is important, some opposition and rebel blogs are taking it [blogging] too far.” Mr. Vincent states that, in particular, the political blogs in Sub-Saharan Africa publish, “whatever they want—full of libel, defamation, violence, [and] sometimes very graphic images.” However, Mr. Vincent states that the African governments, for the time being, have much more important issues at hand, and haven’t really begun to suppress blogs of dissent in the region. He does state that as the internet becomes a ubiquitous feature of African daily life, as it has in the west, the repressive regimes of the Sub-Saharan region will become increasingly more intolerant and belligerent towards these bloggers, who with enough pageviews per day, could lend a hand in either the elimination of tyranny or the continuance of the same in the Sub-Saharan region.


For further analysis, I have chosen to compare the situation of the bloggers in Sub-Saharan Africa to the arguments of Stephen D. Krasner and Kimberly Weir in their article on the survival of the sovereign state titled, “Will State Sovereignty Survive Globalism?”. Stephen D. Krasner states in “Will State Sovereignty Survive Globalism?” that, “states are better able to respond [to threats to their sovereignty] than in the past.” This is a double-sided statement, because, according to the Christian Science Monitor article, the Sub-Saharan states are aware of African bloggers, but aren’t taking any real steps to suppress them. Mr. Krasner also states that, “the impact of the global media on political authority (the so-called CNN effect) pales in comparison to the havoc that followed the invention of the printing press.” Is the lack of action on the part of the African authorities a sign that the bloggers of the Sub-Saharan region aren’t causing enough “havoc” to merit a crackdown? According to the article, the authorities were completely aware of Mr. Nguebla’s blog, but had only threatened him with censorship; a mild form of punishment considering the usual savagery displayed by Sub-Saharan leaders. Or are the African authorities afraid of global repercussions for the suppression of the dissenting blogs, like Mr. Nguebla’s, because of their worldwide readerships? According to Kimberly Weir’s argument (that state sovereignty will not survive Globalism) in “Will State Sovereignty Survive Globalism?”, “communications have been chipping away at the state since the printing press was invented.” Ms. Weir also states that the proliferation of technology, especially of the internet, will continue to threaten state sovereignty because technology puts power in the hands of the erstwhile disenfranchised and powerless denizens of nations like Chad and Zimbabwe, and makes the suppression of political dissent, within a sovereign state, more difficult. The question is then, is blogging chipping away at state sovereignty enough to merit widespread suppression? This too is a double-sided query, answerable depending on the time frame in question. In the Christian Science Monitor article, Mr. Leonard Vincent states that the issue of dissenting blogs in Sub-Saharan Africa, for the time being, is a minor issue, but in the long term, he expects to see the widespread suppression of dissenting blogs there, in full accordance with the characters of Sub-Saharan rulers. This statement lends credence to both arguments, with the lion’s share going to Ms. Weir, who in the long term, will most certainly be proved correct.


My thoughts on this issue, as a blogger myself, are in support of free speech everywhere, but with the responsibility of telling the truth. I do not agree with the practice of needless defamation, or the proliferation of violent scenes across the web where children may view them carelessly. However, I visited the two blogs mentioned in the article (m-n-j.blogspot.com and makaila.over-blog.com) and found them to be quite harmless, if a little too politically charged. I read very little French, but the m-n-j.blogspot.com blog featured mostly name calling, red-ink propaganda, and harmless pictures of freedom fighters arrayed in battle garb. The makaila.over-blog.com blog seemed to me more intelligent and better put together, and featured what seemed to be insightful, concise articles and commentary on the state of the Chadian government. I found nothing in either blog that was objectionable, let alone reprehensible, or unworthy to be viewed by anyone surfing the web. I also feel that, with the current tyrannies in existence in the Sub-Saharan region, political defamation, in most cases, would be an inappropriate term when connected with the rulers of Chad, Niger, and Zimbabwe. I believe, like Malcolm X and the Chadian blogger Makaila Nguebla, that political freedom, equality, and justice, must be attained for all people by “any means necessary”, and I applaud the determined efforts of Mr. Nguebla and his associates throughout Sub-Saharan Africa for their non-violent, expressive means of achieving those goals.

Ashes of American Dreams

Ashes of American Dreams: An Analysis of Death of a Salesman

by

Varo Borja

The jungle is dark but full of diamonds – Arthur Miller

The American Dream, according to Arthur Miller, is a type of ubiquitous delusion, fueled by the fumes of the Reformation, leaving in its wake the bones of the Willy Lomans of this world to bleach in the setting sun of the modern age. However, Mr. Miller’s vision was almost assuredly clouded by his resentment of the white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant path to success. In Death of a Salesman, the victors are those devoted to efficient study—not just the perusal of mathematics books and law treatises, but the profitable study of human nature. Willy Loman’s brother Charles and his son Bernard, if not for the implied ties of blood to the other Loman’s, could easily be mistaken for Brooklyn Jews: shrewd, studious, and devoted to the realistic conquest of the Almighty Dollar, be it through a game of casino or a case tried before the highest court in the land. This stereotype is at first misleading and ultimately erroneous. However, Mr. Miller portrays Willy Loman and his sons as red-blooded, pugilistic, yet foolish Anglo-Saxon social warriors bent on the appropriation of the American Dream to their hot-tempered wills—a much more harmonious characterization. Whatever Mr. Miller’s motives for the way he crafts his characters, there seem to be forces at work within the play other than that of race. Socio-economic, psychological, and religious connotations abound throughout Death of a Salesman. In reference to these determinants, I have selected an article titled, “Is There a Science of Success?” by Nicholas Lemann that explores these elements from the point of view of a social scientist, the noted Dr. David McClelland. Dr. McClelland propounded that, in light of certain personality tests that he created, the American psyche is composed of three distinct elements: the needs for achievement, power, and affiliation. Furthermore, in Death of a Salesman these three underlying personality motivators are displayed quite distinctly in the characters of Willy Loman and his nephew Bernard, and contribute on the one hand to Willy’s eventual demise and Bernard’s ultimate success.

The need for achievement, or more properly termed, the ability to be efficient, is considered by Dr. David McClelland to be of prime importance to the young man or woman determined to succeed in the American system (Lemann 88). Dr. McClelland compares the man or woman driven by the need for achievement to be like a person competing in a ring toss who takes the position from the goal with the maximum prospect of success (Lemann 95). In Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman’s focus on achievement is low, based on the qualifications that Dr. McClelland sets down, and Willy’s achievement is based almost solely upon the attainment of money, material comforts, and personal glory: a goal that Dr. McClelland deprecates as an end in itself (Lemann 92). By contrast, Bernard’s character in the story is highly focused on achievement, as set down by Dr. McClelland’s principles, and consequently Bernard succeeds where Willy Loman and his progeny fail. In Death of a Salesman, Willy Loman asks of Bernard regarding the latter’s success,

Willy (small and alone): What—what’s the secret?

Bernard: What secret?

Willy: How—how did you? Why didn’t he [Biff] ever catch on?

Bernard: I wouldn’t know that Willy.

Willy (confidentially, desperately): You were his friend, his boyhood friend. His life ended after that Ebbets Field game. From the age of seventeen nothing good ever happened to him.

Bernard: He never trained himself for anything. (Act II)

This quiet conversation between Willy and Bernard is quite revealing. Willy, the once proud purveyor of charm and physical prowess cowers at the feet of his erstwhile despised, yet now successful nephew, pleading with Bernard to pass on to him the secret of success that is almost self-evident after reading Dr. David McClelland’s principles. Bernard valued achievement through patient study and training, while Willy Loman and his sons placed their bets in the gamble of life on fleeting displays of vainglory such as the Ebbets Field game, thereby equipping themselves poorly for the quest for success and engendering their eventual failure in the race for the American Dream.

Next, Dr. McClelland propounds that the desire for power is one that can either lead to extreme fortune or abject poverty (Lemann 92). Dr. McClelland uses an analogy of two gamblers to contrast the seeker of achievement and the pursuant of power. Dr. McClelland relates that at a hypothetical roulette wheel, the seeker of achievement would bet on a color, while the power hungry person would bet on a number, therefore lowering his/her odds dramatically, but raising the possible stakes of a win exponentially (Lemann 95). Furthermore, Dr. McClelland states those primarily in need of power are, “more likely to have glamorous lives” (Lemann 94), but that they also, “want the world to beat a path to their door” (Lemann 95). Willy Loman is certainly a devotee of the power cult in America, but his quest for power turns on him like a boomerang and all but cuts him to pieces. Willy Loman, in Death of a Salesman, is akin to the man who bets all he has on a number on the roulette wheel (his sons, his ability to physically dominate, and his ability to sell himself, or be “well-liked”) and loses in pathetic fashion, taking his fortune and his family down into the abyss together (Requiem). Conversely, Bernard channels his desire for power into a patient and determined, yet educated effort to succeed by surer measures. Bernard doesn’t count on his ability to be liked or to physically dominate other men and women; he counts on his training, his ability to perform his job, and ultimately on his aptitude for achieving realistic, worthwhile goals (Act II). In Death of a Salesman, while Biff, Happy, and Willy are indulging in dreams of pomp, power, and the subjugation of others by their overly-masculine dominance, Bernard seeks more realistic aims,

Bernard: Biff, where are you? You’re supposed to study with me today.

Willy: Hey, looka Bernard. What’re you lookin’ so anemic about, Bernard?

Bernard: He’s gotta study, Uncle Willy. He’s got Regents next week.

Happy (taunting, spinning Bernard around): Let’s box, Bernard!

Bernard: Biff! (He gets away from Happy.) Listen, Biff, I heard Mr. Birnbaum say that if you don’t start studyin’ math, he’s gonna flunk you, and you won’t graduate. I heard him!

Willy: You better study with him, Biff. Go ahead now.

Biff: Oh, Pop, you didn’t see my sneakers! (He holds up a foot for Willy to look at.)

Willy: Hey, that’s a beautiful job of printing!

Bernard (wiping his glasses): Just because he printed University of Virginia on his sneakers doesn’t mean they’ve got to graduate him, Uncle Willy!

Willy (angrily): What’re you talking about? With scholarships to three universities they’re gonna flunk him?

Bernard: But I heard Mr. Birnbaum say—

Willy: Don’t be a pest, Bernard! (To his boys.) What an anemic! (Act I)

Bernard is cast off as a harbinger of doom by the Lomans, when in reality Bernard seeks a much surer path to victory in the American system than Willy and Biff with their fancied sense of entitlement based on dominance, or Happy with his foolish boxing antics in the midst of a real crisis. This “channeling of the Power motive” by Bernard and contrasting lack of balance displayed by Willy, Happy, and Biff is fully in line with the McClelland system, and at least in Bernard’s case, results in long-term success within the American system (Lemann 98).

Finally, the need for affiliation is evident in Death of a Salesman through the constant and unsuccessful attempts of Willy Loman and his offspring to be both “well-liked” and exert undue influence upon their peers (Act I). Throughout the story, Willy Loman is obsessed with who he is connected to and with how other people feel about him and about his ability to sell himself. Dr. David McClelland, in his book The Drinking Man, explored the need for Affiliation and likened it to the ability to “love and be loved” or “a feeling of optimism and of being in control of one’s life” (Lemann 96) expressed through interaction with one’s family and society at large. Willy Loman certainly places a high rating on the need for affiliation, but overly so. Willy Loman is not only interdependent with his wife, sons, brothers, and with society, he is ultimately in abject dependence upon them for both his livelihood and his sense of well-being (Act II). When Willy Loman pays his final visit to his brother Charlie to ask for money, this abject dependence, coupled still with the desire to exert the power motive, is quite evident,

Willy (moving toward the chair): I’m keeping an account of everything, remember. I’ll pay every penny back. (He sits.)

Charley: Now listen to me, Willy.

Willy: I want you to know I appreciate…

Charley (sitting down on the table): Willy, what’re you doin’? What the hell is goin’ on in your head?

Willy: Why? I’m simply…

Charley: I offered you a job. You can make fifty dollars a week. And I won’t send you on the road.

Willy: I’ve got a job.

Charley: Without pay? What kind of a job is a job without pay? (He rises.) Now, look, kid, enough is enough. I’m no genius but I know when I’m being insulted.

Willy: Insulted!

Charley: Why don’t you want to work for me?

Willy: What’s the matter with you? I’ve got a job…

Charley: Then what’re you walkin’ in here every week for?

Willy (getting up): Well, if you don’t want me to walk in here—

Charley: I’m offering you a job.

Willy: I don’t want your goddam job!

Charley: When the hell are you going to grow up? (Act II)

Such dependence could only lead to an unbalanced life, and eventually, to the ruin experienced by Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman. In opposition to this sort of dependence stands Bernard, the once quiet, shy and socially unacceptable lad who becomes, through the relinquishing of this sort of dependence for a healthier interdependence with co-workers and family, a man brimming over with self-assurance and quiet contentment. Perhaps the starkest contrast between the McClelland-type healthy, successful man and that of the man suffering from a “cruel delusion” (Lemann 98) is in the last meeting of Willy and Bernard before Bernard leaves to try a case before the Supreme Court (Act II). Willy Loman’s high reliance on affiliation, in the end, places him in the position of both a beggar of money from his brother Charlie and a humble, broken and nearly psychotic flatterer of the nephew he once regarded as a “pest” (Act II).

In conclusion, the “cruel delusion” (Lemann 98) suffered by Willy Loman throughout Death of a Salesman is all too accurate, but still quite pessimistic. Dr. David McClelland, although well-meaning in his attempts to define human motivations and train men to, “become the kind of people economists think everybody is” (Lemann 92) still falls far short of defining what truly makes life worthwhile. Perhaps Willy Loman and his kind are too aware of the systems laid down by Dr. David McClelland and his brood of social scientists. McClelland’s system, like most of the social propaganda of the 20^th century, is based on the tenets of Charles Darwin and his “process of natural selection” (Lemann 98) which likens men more to beasts of burden than intelligent, compassionate, and loving sons of God. Perhaps the greatest fault of Dr. David McClelland’s theories and of the American system is the absence of grace and mercy found in the writings of the men whom Dr. McClelland ascribes the promulgation of the American Way: the fathers of the Reformation (Lemann 89). To go back even further, the writings of Solomon might be ascribed to the competition of man against man when he said, “Do you see a man skilled in his work? He will serve before kings; he will not serve before obscure men” (Proverbs 22: 28-29). However, it is in the words of Jesus of Nazareth that we find the solution to the infinite and vain struggle for achievement, power, and affiliation, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). Perhaps the trouble with Willy Loman and his like is the ultimate absence of the ability for true relation to both man and God. Bernard, in Death of a Salesman, seeks neither to dominate nor to manipulate Willy Loman and his sons—Bernard seeks only to love Biff and humbly “carry his shoulder guards” (Act I). Near the end of the play, Bernard fistfights with Biff after Biff’s return from New England, not out of a desire to dominate Biff, but out of a sense of brotherly concern for his failing hero (Act II). In a final act of generosity and magnanimity, Bernard seeks to cheer Willy Loman when Willy’s metaphorical roulette number had finally cost him all (Act II). It is chiefly in this aptitude of Bernard for quiet, humble service and genuine concern for his fellow man that he dignifiedly lives out the American Dream, and not only is he a winner in the American system, but in the grander scope of Creation as a whole.

Works Cited

Holy Bible. New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985.

Lemann, Nicholas. “Is There a Science of Success?” Atlantic Monthly 1072

(1994): 83-98. MasterFile Premier. EBSCO. Caldwell Community College

and Technical Institute Learning Center, Boone, NC. 25 March 2008

http://wf2dnvr8.webfeat.org/

Miller, Arthur. “Death of a Salesman.” The Bedford Introduction to Literature.

Ed. Michael Meyer. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 1908-1972.

Zimbabwe

Article Summary and Analysis: Coming to a Crunch: From The Economist March 18, 2008

by

Varo Borja

This article, from The Economist March 18 edition, discusses the coming parliamentary and presidential elections in Zimbabwe on March 29. The article begins with a warning: Don’t re-elect Robert Mugabe. Mr. Mugabe, through extreme leftist disbursements of land and capital to his cronies, violent suppression of dissenting voices, and outright corruption, has almost bankrupted the sovreign state of Zimbabwe since it won its independence from British control in 1980. The 84-year-old Mr. Mugabe, instead of retiring and handing over power to his nominal successor, Mr. Emmerson Mnangagwa, is scheming for continued control over the state of Zimbabwe by his tired methods of nepotism, subversion, bribery, and threatened violence. However, Mr. Mugabe faces at least one viable rival in the person of Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai, and a lesser, but perhaps more capable opponent in Mr. Simba Makoni, “a former finance minister whom many of Zimbabwe's black and shrinking white professional middle class see as the decent and competent face of ZANU-PF” (the mostly corrupt ruling party in Zimbabwe). Mr. Mugabe has already begun to rig the elections and, according to the article,

The media are hugely stacked against the opposition, which is rarely given even a cursorily polite airing by the all-state-run radio and television services. The election commission is chaired by a Mugabe man, a former general. The registrar-general, another loyalist, presides over an electoral roll that is notoriously unreliable and incomplete, and contains thousands of dead people whose votes are expected to go to the president. Unless voting is extended beyond one day, many town-dwellers may be unable to cast their ballots, because there are too few urban polling stations. The diaspora, some 2m-3m mostly disenchanted Zimbabweans, is barred from voting.

Also, many Zimbabweans see Mr. Makoni as entering the election too late to make a difference, with some Zimbabweans going as far as to label him an agent of Mr. Mugabe’s, sent to disrupt the rallying party of Mr. Tsvangirai, much like the Nader vote has done and will do in the American election of 2008. Also, Mr. Tsvangirai is seen by many to talk loudly and carry a big stick, but to have no real plan for bolstering the economy should he win on March 29. According to the article, the economy is certainly the biggest contributing factor in the discontent of most Zimbabweans, with astronomical inflation rates of 100,000 % yearly, and an almost worthless Zimbabwean dollar weighing in at 30,000 to 1 U.S. dollar. According to the article, in most sections of the country basic necessities such as maize, sugar, and salt in are in desperately low supply, with most the of the nation subsisting on either remittances from exiled Zimbabweans or UN relief. Astonishingly, the Zimbabwean unemployment rate is at around 80%, mainly because of the nepotism and greed displayed by the Mugabe administration. The article ends with a sobering, if gloomy thought that even if Mr. Makoni or Mr. Tsvangirai win the presidential election on March 29, it may be too late for the sinking ship that is the nation of Zimbabwe to recover from its long, corrupt and violent lethargy.

For further analysis of this article I’ve chosen to relate this piece to the machinations of the International Criminal Court. According to the article,

Mr Makoni has called for a government of national unity, bringing together both wings of the MDC and the supposedly acceptable bits of ZANU-PF, along with his own team. Mr Mugabe would be allowed to go into a dignified retirement, and not be sent to The Hague for crimes against humanity.

Would this action, or lack of action, be just? The International Criminal Court is in place to try those accused of “crimes against humanity” and other global offences. Mr Mugabe clearly meets this criterion through his ruining of the Zimbabwean economy, his underhanded political dealings and overt theft of private property, and his various violent crimes against the citizens of Zimbabwe. The manifesto for the ICC also states that there must be “repeat offences” to merit an inquiry by the ICC, but Mr. Mugabe has been in power for over 20 years and repeatedly violated the statutes set up by the court. Perhaps this lack of action by the ICC is in accordance with John R. Bolton’s argument that the court is both ineffective and hindered by the same bureaucratic straight-jacket that the UN and other multi-national organizations wear.
If this is the case, perhaps the United States should further decline membership in the ICC, in accordance with (ugh) President Bush’s former refusals.

My thoughts on this article are myriad in scope. How can such a tyrannical, unjust, violent and oppressive regime be allowed to continue in power with the means available to depose it? Obviously, the ICC isn’t fulfilling its obligation to enforce global justice. The United States is stretched to the hilt in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sub-Saharan Africa is in such turmoil as to be ineffective in combating injustice. From an idealistic standpoint, I can’t help but look with chagrin at the inaction of the rest of the world on this issue. However, I am ever more becoming a realist in the realm of global politics. Perhaps Zimbabweans and the rest of sub-Saharan Africa aren’t ready for peace, justice, prosperity and equality. Obviously, the imperial pursuits of European nations have played havoc with Africa and Africans in the past. Mr. Mugabe and his lot sought to completely cast off the shackles of their former European masters, but what have they gained? Chaos, cruelty, starvation, and bankruptcy seem to permeate the African landscape. It seems that only time and evolution will heal the hurts of the sub-Saharan African nations. In the meantime, I suppose it is up to the UN and the rest of the civilized world to act as midwife for sub-Saharan pre-adolescent growing pains.

Venerable Oaks and Steel Magnolias

Venerable Oaks and Steel Magnolias: A Response to “A Rose for Emily"

By

Varo Borja

The past is not dead. In fact, it’s not even past. – William Faulkner

The sun set properly upon the Southern Way in the wake of the red tide of defeat suffered by the gray coats that ended the Civil War and ushered in the period of carpetbaggers, worthless Confederate cash, and corrupted traditions known as Reconstruction. Out of the alloy of war, defeat, dissimulation, poverty, and time was hammered some of the finest prose ever to be composed by an American. William Faulkner presented to the world, through his stories, the stage on which the great drama of the human condition could be explored at depths previously unforeseen, but perhaps his greatest gift to the world of letters was to explore this drama in microcosm, especially as the theatre of the human heart was beheld in the South. In “A Rose for Emily” Faulkner laid bare the duties and passions of a woman and a town confined within the amphitheater of Jefferson, Mississippi many years after the last, thin, gray wraiths had disappeared beneath the tombstones of Faulkner’s, “cedar-bemused cemetery” (Meyer 95). However, the specters of Southern pride and antebellum anachronism are alive throughout this self-proclaimed “ghost story” as the passage of time refuses to give rest to these ever-present phantoms of the past. Primarily, in “A Rose for Emily,” the past exerts its influence upon the present through the machinations of tradition and duty; these devices exert their sway upon each of the sexes in different ways and assign each sex specific roles, but much like the gray uniforms of their not-so-distant kin, the gender roles of the good people of Jefferson become blurred at times, if not entirely inextricable from each other.

As the only real first-class citizens of the American south, the traditional role of southern white men was to fulfill their duty as protectors and patriarchs. First and foremost, the past holds sway in the present tense through the role assigned the southern man of protector of the weak; in this case the “weak” one happens to be Emily. Near the beginning of the story, we are informed that Colonel Sartoris, the once-renowned patriarch of Jefferson, protected Emily in a financial sense by remitting her taxes (Meyer 96). However, to preserve not only Emily’s livelihood but her pride as well, Colonel Sartoris is forced to resort to an elaborate ruse to accomplish this feat of contrivance, therefore resorting to silly, feminine subterfuge (Meyer 96). Furthermore, the men of Jefferson protected Emily’s reputation by scattering lime on her yard to avoid a lingering stench emanating from her mansion. However, the good men of the town “slunk about the house like burglars” (Meyer 97) in a tragic-comedic act of desperate, duty-bound civil service, taking special care not to be seen and further Ms. Emily’s disgrace. This scene portrays the elders of Jefferson more as hens than as roosters, and lends a feminine subtlety to their innate southern chivalry.

The traditional duty of patriarch was exemplified by southern men as the heads of their families and their towns; the supreme patriarch in “A Rose for Emily” is her father. Emily’s father exerts his influence, from the past, upon Emily in a figurative sense by becoming irreplaceable in her life and demanding, from the grave, utter obedience and ongoing implied deference. The childlike crayon drawing found in Emily’s home at the end of the story is the perfect example of Emily’s unwavering devotion to her father, and represents a lifetime, by her, paid in homage to the ghost of a dead patriarch (Meyer 101). Emily’s father also exerts his influence, from the past, upon Emily in a literal sense as shown by the choices she makes well into adulthood. Emily would rather kill her lover than suffer her father’s name to be tarnished through the unutterable act of adultery. However, the traditional role of patriarch is somewhat blurred by Emily’s character in the story. Emily also demands utter obedience from the druggist (Meyer 99) and deference, although somewhat backhanded and hypocritical, is paid her throughout the story, especially in her encounter with the city authorities (Meyer 96) and the visit paid her by the Baptist minister (Meyer 99).

The traditional role of the Southern woman, as portrayed in “A Rose for Emily” is one of pity-driven and gossip-laden domestic service, dutiful subversion and silly subterfuge. When Emily’s father dies, the ladies of the town fulfill their domestic duties by calling on Emily in her time of crisis. Faulkner must add, however, that “at last they could pity Miss Emily”, as if pity were a pre-requisite for love (Meyer 97). The ladies of the town also fulfill their domestic duties via the traditional Southern ingredient of gossip, which they relish as if it were a fine Swiss chocolate or a respectable form of vice, much like Homer Barron’s cigar (Meyer 99). The distant relatives of Emily, the Alabama Griersons, fulfill their obligation to subvert the scandalous activities of their wayward cousin and Homer Barron upon their arrival in Jefferson, all at the pious behest of the minister’s wife (Meyer 99). Finally, the ladies of the town fulfill their time- honored penchant for silly subterfuge when they enter Emily’s house, upon her death, with “hushed, sibilant voices and…quick, curious glances” (Meyer 101). Faulkner implies that the ladies of the town are more concerned with the lurid pleasure of seeing the inside of Emily Grierson’s house one final time than in paying proper tribute to the fallen, once-dreaded matriarch of Jefferson. However, upon further perusal of the text these same silly, traditionally feminine, and half-cowardly actions are found to be carried out by the men of the town as well in the sometimes-begrudged and constantly-chronicled domestic service performed by the Aldermen and elders of Jefferson on Emily’s behalf, particularly displayed in the awe and respect shown her when confronted (Meyer 96). Moreover, it is the voice of the town itself, not just the women, that claims alternate pity and indignation at the eccentricities and extravagances of the Grierson matriarch (Meyer 99).

In conclusion, the gender roles exemplified in “A Rose for Emily”, although interwoven and ambiguous at times, are just as true today as when this story was penned over fifty years ago. I am a Southerner and always have been, and I have experience with each of the roles portrayed in this story through the agency of my own family. My grandmother, the alternating spy, backbone, and comfort for our family here in Boone could just as easily be a staunch Alabama Grierson. Furthermore, my grandfather, a quiet, reserved and brave, yet compassionate man would most certainly spread lime on the yard of a neighbor in the dead of night to avoid general embarrassment, yet he still had the fortitude to serve his country during times of trouble. I have ghosts of my own in local “cedar bemused cemeteries”. Several of my relatives have served both the home front and the front lines in the conflicts of this country, much like those elders of Jefferson who stemmed the tide of Northern aggression in the 1860’s. Faulkner portrayed his subjects accurately in all their anachronisms and ambiguities, but the gender roles of the southern people are more than an admixture of cowardice and fortitude. These roles add vibrant splashes of color to the gray clothing of the south found in Faulkner’s stories and still provide diversity, humor, and depth to the experience of living in the south today.