Jack Burden makes a political reading of All the King's Men more difficult. The first-person narrative limits our understanding of Willie Stark's motives and colors the novel's portrayal of his domination of state politics. Jack's resistance to the gritty side of politics--made most evident in his reaction to Willie Stark and Judge Irwin's confrontation, where he says, "to hell with both of them"--precludes him from becoming a political man himself; he is instead relegated to mediocre journalism, having failed at academia.
On one level, he represents rebellion. A product of Burden's Landing, Jack comes from the political and cultural elite. His education and his outlook both arise out of that upbringing. Yet, Jack abandons that lifestyle when he attaches himself to Stark's political machine, distasteful as he finds the political process. Rather than dwell on Willie's ethically questionable methods, Jack finds himself captivated by a man who can "do" something, who can make sweeping changes. The uncomfortable tension between his privileged upbringing and his commitment to Stark's political machine allows him to navigate between the two sides of the populist argument, the wealthy, landed gentry and the poor farmers. Yet, as an apolitical man himself, his unease with the political process makes him unable to render a judgment about which side, if either, makes a more meritorious argument.
His value, then, is his ability to present both sides. He frustrates efforts to evaluate both sides, however, because he himself cannot conclude anything about them.
That he seeks to escape the politics becomes his most significant contribution to a political reading. People of Jack's character and temperament, it seems, are not equipped to enter politics, which necessitates certain sacrifices of morality and conscience. While Willie and Judge Irwin are willing to make these sacrifices for political power, Jack is not. This conclusion reorients the politics of the novel. While the poor farmers and wealthy landowners might be one opposite ends of the political spectrum in terms of policy goals, their political leaders undergo the same corrupting transformation when they enter the political arena.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
A Definition of Populism
I've decided on a final definition of populism. The entire thing is too long to reproduce here, but in short:
Populism as an historical concept represents the conflict between labor and capital. For the purposes of this thesis, which will deal with southern populism and the agrarian revolution, labor signifies poor farmers, while capital encompasses wealthy, landed, southern aristocracy. The political goals of this movement include free silver and government control of transportation and communication. Paradoxically, these socially progressive policy goals coexist with populist nostalgia, a sentimental view of rural, agrarian life, and a desire to maintain the status quo.
Warren, though he portrays the socioeconomic conflict to great effect, concerns himself more with the sociocultural implications of the above definition than the socioeconomic ones. Poor farmers have no power over what is considered culturally significant, have no access to the knowledge that drives the political process; the elites do. Simply put, this system decimates any hope the poor might have of contributing substantively to the political process.
This dualistic representation of populism would be remiss if it did not consider Warren's tone when dealing with populist movements. The poor farmer never receives a face, an identity, a history--never anything but a brief description of the exterior. The elites, conversely, are fleshed out and loaded with personality. The conflict, then, is not Manichean; no one could reasonably suggest that the poor farmer is "good" whereas the landed gentry are "bad." Instead, Warren complicates the representation, suggests obliquely that no one involved in the movement or fighting the movement is inherently "good." I intend to expound on this idea by doing a close reading of the first encounter between Judge Irwin and Willie Stark in All the King's Men, post to follow.
Populism as an historical concept represents the conflict between labor and capital. For the purposes of this thesis, which will deal with southern populism and the agrarian revolution, labor signifies poor farmers, while capital encompasses wealthy, landed, southern aristocracy. The political goals of this movement include free silver and government control of transportation and communication. Paradoxically, these socially progressive policy goals coexist with populist nostalgia, a sentimental view of rural, agrarian life, and a desire to maintain the status quo.
Warren, though he portrays the socioeconomic conflict to great effect, concerns himself more with the sociocultural implications of the above definition than the socioeconomic ones. Poor farmers have no power over what is considered culturally significant, have no access to the knowledge that drives the political process; the elites do. Simply put, this system decimates any hope the poor might have of contributing substantively to the political process.
This dualistic representation of populism would be remiss if it did not consider Warren's tone when dealing with populist movements. The poor farmer never receives a face, an identity, a history--never anything but a brief description of the exterior. The elites, conversely, are fleshed out and loaded with personality. The conflict, then, is not Manichean; no one could reasonably suggest that the poor farmer is "good" whereas the landed gentry are "bad." Instead, Warren complicates the representation, suggests obliquely that no one involved in the movement or fighting the movement is inherently "good." I intend to expound on this idea by doing a close reading of the first encounter between Judge Irwin and Willie Stark in All the King's Men, post to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)