Blog Post 2 Topic 1

            When analyzing the influence the Southern whites from Falkner’s “A Rose for Emily” and the Englishmen from Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” exert over the early 20^th century societies that each story focuses on respectively, an interesting contrast appears between the ways in which similar cultures could form radically different power dynamics when dealing with nearly completely foreign situations. While both communities employ a nearly identical form of patriarchal dominance over the civilizations they wish to control, ones which seems to be fairly flexible in certain situations even to the point of them being flipped around and used against those to whom it is meant to advantage, the ways in which they both go about doing so are actually very different in their execution.  

            In the town from “A Rose for Emily”, the power dynamics between the differing levels of society are influenced not by law or violence, but instead by the societal expectations created by the Southern genteel culture of the time. The culture of the early 20^th century South was almost completely defined by these expectations, with special attention dedicated to how people should present themselves in proper society, as well as to how they should deal with and respect the upper classes. In no place is this treatment more present than in the town’s treatment of Miss Emily. Due to her upper class status as a “high and mighty Grierson” as well as the influence her father had on the town when he was still alive, the town considers her to be a “hereditary obligation” rather than just an antisocial and grumpy outcast (37,39). In doing so, the town exerts its patriarchal influence on her while she also in a way exerts hers on it. For example when she begins to see a “Yankee” named Homer Barron, the town doesn’t even consider her affections to be anything more than a passing fancy, as it was considered near unacceptable at the time for someone from the Southern upper class to marry some one of a northern origin such as he, and instead began to refer to her as “Poor Emily” therefore both disrespecting and shaming her independence as a woman due to her breach of societal norms. Miss Emily however also uses this patronization to her advantage in some situations, such as when the city council comes to her house with the goal of getting her to finally start pay her taxes and she instead uses a story Colonel Sartoris, a man who was the mayor of the town decades before the story takes places, made up in order to deny having to do so and then when they question her, she stubbornly tells them to speak with him if they really had any issues with her explanation, even though he has, in reality, been dead for a long time (38). In the end there was nothing that they could do to her due to who she was in society so she ends up getting away with it simultaneously breaking the power dynamic, while upholding all the same.

            The power dynamic of the society in “Shooting an Elephant”, however, was seemingly built almost as if to be in complete opposition to the one in “A Rose for Emily”. As Burma was a colony of Britain, one that was brought under its control by the subjugation of its people, the British enforced the power dynamics they had created almost completely through law and violence with very few actual expectations placed on the residents of the nation other than one of their non-resistance. Neither the Burmese nor the British seemed to like each other, but they were both stuck in this situation due to Britain’s imperialistic nature. This can be seen in both the narrator’s attitude towards the people he is meant to police, at one point saying that he once thought “the greatest joy would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s guts”, and the Burmese peoples treatment of him, with one of them going out his way at one point to trip him on the soccer field while the rest of them laughed at his misfortune (44). Dynamics between the British and other natives of the Indian subcontinent similar to these continued through out the nation for the most part until Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance finally drove out the British out in 1948. Similarly to “A Rose for Emily” although the power dynamics in place in this society were solely meant to benefit the group in charge, it at one point in the story instead twists around to help the other. When the narrator shoots the elephant, he does not do so out of duty, but rather he does so because of the peer pressure placed upon him by the Burmese crowd behind him, even using the excuse that “a white man mustn’t be frightened in front of ‘natives’” to justify his actions (47). While trying to keep order and assert his dominance he ironically shows his and his nations own weaknesses in front of those they are trying to control.

            The power dynamics of both societies were flawed in their own special ways. While the Southern society upheld the virtue of respect, it itself had none for others, and while the Englishmen strived to subjugate the Burmese people, in some ways they were instead subjugated themselves. As time moved forward both societies ended up gradually collapsing as attitudes began to change, leaving their power dynamics to ultimately be considered antiquities of an older and less progressive era.