Marxism, which is the belief that "the means of production control a society's institutions and beliefs," originated with Karl Marx in 1845 (Dobie 86-87). Marx was a philosopher and economist who believed that the workers of society would rise and overturn capitalists, take control of the means of production, and distribute wealth fairly (Dobie 87). Literature plays an important role in such a society. Some writer "use Marxist interpretations and evaluations of society in their work" (Dobie 88). Know that an author writes with this particular bias would make one question how a piece of literature fits into the Marxist ideology. One may analyze a work to determine whether is promotes the current hegemony or seeks to inspire change.
Lydia Davis's short story "The House Behind" is the story of two sets of tenants--those in the front house and those in the back--who are in different economic classes. The two groups constantly clash and this conflict turns violent when a resident from one house kills a person from the other. The narrator resides in the back house and discusses the climate before the incident and the changes after it. "The House Behind" is subtly revolutionary and the changing attitude of the narrator promotes a change in the status quo.
In the story, the powerless people live in the back house. The narrator explains that the house behind is filled with "shopkeepers, salesmen, retired post-office employees, and unmarried school teachers" (Davis 199). These people are the proletariat and their work produces wealth for the bourgeoisie (Dobie 89). These people make a meager living and don't live in the best conditions. While the bourgeoisie in the front house live in apartments that are "lofty and comfortable," the narrator lives in the back house in an apartment that is "cramped and graceless" (Davis 199).
The narrator concedes that "we can't readily blame the people in the front house for their wealth, but we are oppressed by it" (Davis 199). The powerful people, the bourgeoisie who reside in the front house, are "high civil servants" (Davis 199). Because the story is told from the point of view of one of the back house tenants, the people in the front house are always described favorably. The narrator admits, "most of them don't speak to us" (Davis 200). It is remarked that someone from the back house would never "be the first to speak to a person from the front house" (Davis 200). The narrator always makes the front house tenants superior in this way.
The material circumstances of the society in the story have created a historical situation in which it is acceptable for the people in the front house to be revered in this manner. The proletariat gives the bourgeoisie their power by treating them as if they are superior. The people from the front house are described as "high civil servants," which means that even they are not ultimately the owners in society. However, since all of the tenants have been interpellated to condone this division between the two houses, the people in the front treat the people in back as if they are inferior.
The story's setting lends itself well to Marxist analysis. The bourgeoisie live in the "front house," while the proletariat live in the "back house." This arrangement implies that one group is superior to the other. It is noted that the people in the back house "can't see the street: [their] back windows look [...] into the kitchens and bathrooms of the front house" (Davis 199). They are physically between a rock and a hard place. Even the maids in the front house live better than the tenants in the back house, for they "live in neat little rooms and look out upon the spires of St-Etienne" (Davis 199).
This division causes conflict between the two classes that occupy this space. The narrator explains that the economic disparities aren't "enough to explain the ill will that has always existed between the two house," and goes on to describe a murder that took place in the courtyard between the buildings. Mr. Martin, a resident of the back house, killed a woman from the front house. The narrator, who witnessed the incident, remarks that Mr. Martin "had no real reason to kill her" (Davis 199). Instead, the narrator speculates that when they crossed paths, the woman said something insignificant to Mr. Martin in such a tone that was "enough to make him see that he was doomed to remain where he was" (Davis 200). The narrator explains Mr. Martin "must have realized that for him the evening could never be as soft as it was for her" (Davis 200).
Mr. Martin's frustration did not come from his current status, but rather from his realization that his status, but rather from his realization that his status would never improve. "For years he had wanted to live in the house in front," the reader is informed, "and it was becoming clear to him that he never would" (Davis 200). His false consciousness was beginning to shatter and he could no longer accept that he would always live in the back house; he would always work to build the wealth of someone other than himself.
Mr. Martin's act of violence marked the beginning of him realizing his lack of power. Many tenants of the back house did not recognize that they were powerless. Because of their interpellation, they accepted their position inferior to the people who lived in the front house. In fact, the narrator remarks that after the murder "[they] lost traces of [their] self-respect [...] because [they] all assumed responsibility for the crime" (Davis 201). Instead of joining together against the bourgeoisie, the powerless turned on each other: "everyone became surly and mean: we stopped speaking to one another, told tales to outsiders, and left mud on each other's landings" (Davis 202). The proletariat is trapped in "the sense of identity and worth that the bourgeoisie wants them to hold" (Dobie 93). The residents of the back house don't realize this and they "wear the rags of their dignity proudly" (Davis 201).
Seeing Mr. Martin's crime and its aftermath made the narrator see the cycle of powerlessness. Furthermore, the narrator realizes that this isn't an isolated situation: "many pairs of houses in the city suffer from bad relations like ours," the narrator informs the reader, "the people in the front houses become locked in their cold dignity and the people in the back house lose confidence" (Davis 202). This realization makes the narrator decide to leave: "If I don't leave now I will be incapable of making the effort" (Davis 202). The narrator also recognizes the hopelessness in the people who live in the back house (Davis 202).
Throughout the story the class divisions are clear. The shopkeepers, salesmen, and postal workers who live in the back house create the wealth for the high civil servants in the front house. The social construct between the two houses creates a society that favors the residents of the front house and the residents of the back house do not question or attempt to change this society. Once Mr. Martin commits his crime, the narrator becomes aware of the errors of such a society and seeks something different. This plot makes the work revolutionary in nature. A reader may read this story and see some aspects of his or her economic situation in it. The narrator's decision to leave may inspire the same change in the reader.
"The House Behind" condemns the kind of hegemony it describes. Mr. Martin murder of a resident of the front house symbolizes the death of this ideology. The realization of the narrator (who is a member of the proletariat) that this problem isn't unique to this pair of house alludes to a greater social problem. Though the narrator doesn't actually say that the back house tenants should change the situation, the narrator's decision to leave encourages the revolutionary action that the proletariat needs to take in order to rise above the bourgeoisie. Marxist theory helps illuminate these aspects of the story for the reader and connects them to the reader's own economic status.
Works Cited
Davis, Lydia. “The House Behind.” The Art of the Story. Ed. Daniel Halpern. New York: Penguin, 1999. 199-202. Print.
Dobie, Ann B. Theory into Practice. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. 86-97. Print.
Davis, Lydia. “The House Behind.” The Art of the Story. Ed. Daniel Halpern. New York: Penguin, 1999. 199-202. Print.
Dobie, Ann B. Theory into Practice. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. 86-97. Print.
Comments
Post a Comment