Contoversial Literary Analysis of “A Party Down at the Square”
The comprehensive examination of the short story “A Party Down at the Square” by Ralph Ellis exhibits a prominent relation to ethnic discrimination and effectual psychologic by standing. The story depicts a chaotic and dark perspective of historical rayonsim. Society is monstrous and emphatically unethical. In contrast with society’s abhorrent values, the narrator reflects empathy and humanistic characteristics. He is sickened by the lynching and wishes to escape. However, the narrator is not an individual, rather, he is a part of the collectivist populace. His thoughts belong to his own conscience, but the physical existence of his body belong to the crowd. He cannot move or rescue the victim, for he is horrified by the townspeople and their potential aggregated reaction to his resistance. Ellis’ story revolves around the concept of regionalism; in which the specific events in the work mainly occur within the focalized parameters. Additionally, the psychological affect that the collectivist crowd creates and infringes on one another is called the bystander affect, supported in the article, “Crowd psychology in South African murder trials” by Andre Colman. These barbaric behaviors are tolerated, accepted, and practiced with utmost proclivity in the setting. The historical perspective, having fueled ethnic discrimination and division, is explained by the article, “With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination” by the authors Anthony Greenwald and Thomas Pettigrew. Economics plays a minor role in the story, only illuminated by pretentious social status, whereas politics influence the setting more. Jed, for example, is to be promoted to become the Sheriff of Bacote due to his public popularity. In this instance, there is a connection between popularity and power. Ellis, a black writer, utilizes Marxist Criticism to weave detail in his story, as reflected here, “Notes on A Marxist Interpretation of Black American Literature”, by Gloria Hull. A writer is a writer, regardless of material status: religion, ethnicity, finance, and gender. Though, it is often because of a writer’s background that their style and perspective are unique. A writer can use their experiences to paint a new world filled with either affliction or resolution. Ellis, in this sense, leaves the reader to decide. Concludingly, Ellis’ piece can be analyzed from a socio-psychological perspective, a historical viewpoint related to societal discrimination, and a Marxist-related political stance.
Incipiently, the society appears compelled to inflict pain towards individuals they find different from themselves. For it is evident that their desire to discriminate others is ignited by their ignorant parochialism. Though the narrator is only a witness to the crime, he is not innocent nor excused of moral consequence. Despite ethical sentiments bystanders do not act to correct a situation. He did not speak out; he did not attempt to save the black man. Why? What force prevents someone from acting on their righteous instincts? Fear. ‘Fear’, according to “Crowd psychology in South African murder trials” by psychologist Andre Colman, creates conformity, group obedience, and bystander apathy (Colman). In relation to the scene where the black man is assaulted, stripped of his shirt and beat, the crowd partakes by screaming and laughing, exhibiting varying psychological responses to the perturbing situation. Their participation, howbeit passive or active, is a convictable act of mob violence attained from the adaptation to group conformity and group identity. Their tolerance is the epitome of submission to authority, or ‘group collectivity’, and therefore represents a prominent absence of sensible pragmatisms. Although the story does not include the conviction of mobsters with a legal responsibility, the article explains the outcome of multi-murderers within the same group setting. This concept is reflected here, “Under the legal doctrine of common purpose, individuals were often convicted of murder even if they took no part in the actual killing, merely by virtue of having associated themselves actively with the mob and its murderous goal: The acts of the mob were imputed to each individual member who was proved to have shared a common purpose with the mob.” (Colman). Deriving from a legal perspective, this concise conclusion emulates the potential result that would be reached if the bystanders in “A Party Down at the Sqaure” were to be sentenced. In the beginning of the story, the narrator says the mob occurs in front of a courthouse, perhaps directly symbolizing injustice and the general passivity of the mob, who believed they were wielding justice. In connection to the story, the narrator is bewildered by the events. Firstly, when the plane is crash landing, the narrator expresses, “I wanted to run, and I wanted to stay and see what was going to happen. Then, he directs his attention back towards the black man as he is being burned, and says, “I had enough. I didn’t want to see anymore. I wanted to run somewhere and puke, but I stayed. I stayed right there in the front of the crowd and looked.” (Ellis, 220), obviously conveying his expressed discomfort from the unraveling scene set before him. It is interesting how the individual becomes immobilized by group polarization. To enlighten us, the psychologist Dr. Colman, analyzed the reasoning behind bystander apathy and how the defendants in the case were able to idly watch murder. The explanation of this phenomenon is called ‘severe deindividuation’ — — “the loss of one’s sense of individuality and personal accountability that can sometimes occur in large, noisy, emotional crowds.” (Colman), which explains the crowd’s behavior in Bacote. Furthermore, conformity and obedience pressure the polarization effect, which causes collective decisions to fester into actions of extremism (Colman). The conventional psychology of the crowd does expedite parochialist views, in which can harbor the observed discrimination. It is an imperative, however, to reveal the forms of discrimination present in both sources. Ellis focuses primarily on the dissonance between white people and a black person. The white people, who make up the mob, partake in the immolation of the black man; reflecting multiple times their complex explaining that the blacks are at fault for the misfortune of their crops, mentioned here when a cropper said, “it didn’t do no good to kill the niggers’ cause things don’t get no better.” (Ellis, 222). The article is quite different from the story, in the sense that a black mob kills a black person as well; not reflecting an ethnicity-based discrimination, but rather, for a multitude of reasons, expresses anger towards their fellow people for their political views, loose moral values, and corruption. Destruction has a motive, and that motive varies greatly depending on the incentive of the Destructionist.
Subsequently, the story inhabits the historical perspective from the 1960’s, when the Civil Rights Movement was most prominent. The physiological ontology of ethnic inequality was promulgated during a time of civil uprising and renaissance which is why the movement successfully flourished. However, despite the move towards greater change, the pursuit had a price: moral dilemmas. Lynching, immolation, beatings, and other terrible forms of torture occurred during this time to act as retaliation from the opposing party who wanted to maintain societal segregation. The fuel to the fire, so to speak, was society’s amoral prejudice, which excited them to act inhumanely against individuals that are dissimilar to them, and as a result, express palpable violent intolerance. This is supported in the story when they blame the blacks and kill them in pairs to keep them in place (Ellis, 222). Instinctually, some people indicate disapproval and moral shock, but as mentioned within the psychology of the crowd, they do not repeal the actions, rather they continue to accept them. The narrator, embodied by his own volition to abandon the scene is pressured to stay. Ellis implements a few different incidents to evoke certain sentiment within his readers. The other event is when a mysterious plane coincidentally lands in near the square, almost intentionally placed there to be a distraction from the man’s torture. The narrator says even after the plane crashes, the crowd was running back to the black man, and he ran with them too. The narrator emphasizes the weather, saying it is, “The rain was falling cold and freezing as it fell” and “like the roar of a cyclone” (Ellis, 218–19) but amid the chaos, the main attention is turned towards the black man, even after a woman is executed by electrical wires, few stop to stoop in horror of her death. Whether her death was to act as a punishment for the crowds’ crimes, it is not coherent. It is elucidated that even when the airlines want to investigate who wrecked their plane, there is no legal reprimand for the death of the woman and or the death of the black man. The article, “With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination” by the authors Anthony Greenwald and Thomas Pettigrew defines discrimination by the characterization of, “lynching, property destruction, and hate crimes” which are widely understood to be consequences of prejudicial hostility (Greenwald and Pettigrew). It is evident that thus hostility is responsible for ideals creating acts of charity or acts of malice according to ingroup favoritism, in which discrimination is bore. The article elaborates that discrimination is not limited to ethnicity, but to religion, social caste, reputation, gender, political orientation, and occupation. In the context of the story, ingroup discrimination was facilitated by the color, rather, the ethnicity of the black man. Which further stimulated the hate crimes blinded by the ignorant belief that the wellbeing of the town was reliant upon the deaths of the blacks; people who society deemed were lesser in all realms of existence compared to themselves. It is in this instance, that we realize those who demanded ignorance perish in the hands of injustices on the basis of immoral creed were the most ignorance themselves. “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” a quote by Friedrich Nietzsche perfectly emulating the transgression of society in the story. On the contrary, favoritism is biased, and most times, unintentionally so. The article explicates, “often ingroup favoritism is hidden even from those who practice it.” (Greenwald and Pettigrew). Certain “psychological antecedents of favoritism” (Greenwald and Pettigrew) influence the role of favoritism and discrimination directly depending on the input of societal sentiments which can be incurred from intuition and as mentioned, bias. Similarity and attraction typically create ingroup favoritism and hence impose a specific inherent reason for liking someone when they share a homogenous connection. Whereas the “perception of conflicting beliefs and values triggers race prejudice more than does race itself” (Greenwald and Pettigrew) concerning the obligatory systematic discrimination. Thus, it can be revealed that bias itself is not arbitrary, but rather it is subconsciously intentional. The synchroneity of the article directly relates with historical perspective, further analyzing Ellis’ story, because of the intellectual approach explaining and quantifying crowd mentalities and reasoned sentiments.
The Marxist Criticism perspective is not as unequivocal as the other evidence. Though nevertheless, it requites a certain scale of presence when the societies’ structure becomes slightly pronounced. Ethic inequality established one of the domestic roles of the society, where in the story it is mentioned that blacks remain silent and tolerant of the white people’s acts. Additionally, the white who do not tolerate the acts and see their cruel ignorance are greatly disliked and viewed as weak and absurd by their counterparts. As expressed, when a poor and starving cropper speaks against the killing of the Bacote black, and receives disapproval, “he’d better shut his damn mouth” (Ellis, 222) which could be a hint of responsive guilt. When Jed refuses to slit the black man’s throat, the narrator says people laughed at his remark, and also said that, “They {the people} plan to run him for sheriff.” (Ellis, 220). Despondently, however, it is with brief ingenuity that the reader wishes for a reasonable of the despair events that transpires so carelessly. Perhaps, a response independent from psychological, moral, or historical criticisms. An explanation created from a Marxist point of view would suffice in the sense that material factors could have influenced the violent outburst. The most prominent example, besides the favoritism towards Jed, would be the financial proprieties associated with the deterioration of the crops. Intrepidly, individuals can manifest their own thoughts when group or societal pressure is absent from interdisciplinary dismal social science. Ellis is a black writer, which is why it was a novel consideration to include an article that focused on Marxist Criticisms focused primarily on black literature and their structural foundations. Construed from the article, “Notes on A Marxist Interpretation of Black American Literature”, by Gloria Hull, it is interpreted that the critical possibilities to reflect Marxism are paralleled by the presence of solidarity. The article delves into the Marxist views of the writers and points out some of their strategies used to convey politics and economic stance. The social consciousness affiliated with both Ellis’ story and the article are present in their political stature inflicted by a person of distinct hegemony. The article illustrates Robert Hayden’s Marxist disposition in his poem “Speech”, where he emphasizes the use of ‘Black brothers’ to infuse current ethic discriminations with politics. Ellis does a fabulous job of incorporating ethnic discrimination as a result of corrupt politics in his story. One can further analyze the story by considering the lenient policies protecting black people. Even the future sheriff, Jed, was the leader and primary organizer of these inhumane executions, which will no doubt continue in the future of Bacote. Jed is the epitome of a hegemonic symbol forcing submission and following, as well as corrupt systems. Ellis wrote with profound intention, for he did not include the specific detail of Jed without purpose. Perhaps Ellis was symbolizing the oppression condoned by the political structure surrounding his life or other’s experiences that he could have connected with. His embodiment of a corrupt political system is a great representation of Marxism; a brief shadow of anticapitalism and representative infraction. To further the discussion, the interpretation of Ellis’ piece, or rather, any collective piece denoted to belong to the realm of ‘black literature’ is often misinterpreted if the analyzer is not black, for many intentional points related to Marxism can be lost and unnoticed. This theme is most supported by the subject present in the article, “only one who is dedicated to the Marxist can see the ideology and the literature into the correct perspective.” (Hull, 6). Also including that this position is similar to the ‘black aesthetic’ which affirms that only black people can properly criticize and interpret black literature (Hull, 6). Ultimately Ellis’ story affirms Marxist relations to moral corruption towards black people and the empowerment of those who support the killings.
In the essence of “A Party Down at the Sqaure” enduring psychological prospects, historical-based ethnic discrimination, and political-related Marxist Criticisms are expressed. Analyzing the story from a socio-psychological perspective, it can be maintained that mob violence creates individualization, as observed when the main character in the story chooses to stay and watch the murder though he wishes to leave. In the context of historical perspective, it is conceded that the societal ideologies of the 1960’s are largely responsible for this piece of literature, pertaining to the Civil Rights Movement, when black people and other minorities advocated their right to vote and maintain civil liberties. Additionally, examining the story from a Marxist Critical perspective, economics and politics interlude with status and authority, specifically when the main instigator, Jed, is favored by the people and will most likely be voted to become the sheriff. Further predisposition indicates the presence of cynical disposition towards inferiority. This is most evident when not only the main focal point of the story accentuates the torture of the back man in spite of his ethnicity, but also when the townspeople express apparent mockery and disapproval towards the narrator. In predisposition to irrelevant pragmatisms, the killing of the Bacote victim cannot be justified in any menas; only explained and reasoned with contrasting hypocrisy. For, the colloquial disarray of the preceding abhorrent events has ultimately distilled the progression of mutual founded peace and coexistence. It is because of politics, power, class, and ethnicity that these grounds cannot be manifested.
Works Cited
Colman, Andrew M. “Crowd Psychology in South African Murder Trials.” American Psychologist, vol. 46, no. 10, 1991, pp. 1071–1079.
Ellis, Ralph. A Party Down at the Sqaure . Esquire, 1996.
Greenwald, Anthony G., and Thomas F. Pettigrew. “With Malice toward None and Charity for Some: Ingroup Favoritism Enables Discrimination.” American Psychologist, vol. 69, no. 7, 2014, pp. 669–684.
Hull, Gloria T. “Notes on a Marxist Interpretation of Black American Literature.” Black American Literature Forum, vol. 12, no. 4, 1978, p. 148.
