New Historicism in “The Lottery”: Cold War Anxieties

“The Lottery” is a rather well known short story written by Shirley Jackson. The story revolves around a village performing their annual “lottery” that essentially decides who is going to be sacrificed so that the town will have a good harvest. The story was written in 1948 which locates it a few years after the end of World War II and in the beginning stages of the Cold War. This is a time when anxieties about the conflict are skyrocketing in both countries.

Simply locating the story within a timeframe is not enough for new Historicism though, as its goal is more complex. Tyson describes one of the ways new Historicism is distinguished from the traditional “New historicism is concerned not with historical events as events, but with the ways in which events are interpreted, with historical discourses, with ways of seeing the world and modes of meaning”(Tyson 278). “The Lottery” focuses on the anxieties and events surrounding the Cold War and Jackson uses them to show the  conflict and discourse between the U.S. government, and the average U.S. citizen of the time.

Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery"

The way that the lottery functions is that one of many strips of paper is marked with a black dot, and then they are all put into a specific black box which has been used for years, and then the next day the box is drawn from to select a family, and then a family member. The “winner” of the lottery is then stoned to death by every man, woman, and child of the village together. This system is the closest thing there is to an authority or system of government in the story. It is mentioned that there are other villages and that these villages also partake in the lottery, so it is not just a random phenomena. The lottery may reflect a general anxiety and distrust in fellow citizens felt among all at that time, but I believe it more specifically is referring to the government’s distrust among its population and those in power, and the beginning of Mccarthyism. The government was seeking to maintain an idealised version of the United States and the “American Lifestyle™” and through their attempts at protecting their conceptualization of the world, harmful laws and legal events occured. The villagers, on the other hand, are simply “victims of the machine” and only want to survive, and have enough crop to survive. Among the villagers there are even those who distrust the lottery and wish to end it “‘They do say,’ Mr. Adams said to Old Man Warner, who stood next to him, ‘that over in the north village they're talking of giving up the lottery’” (Jackson). Old Man Warner promptly replies that “There’s always been a lottery”(Jackson) and dismisses him. The villagers only partake in the lottery because they feel trapped, they have never known a life without it and believe that if they do not participate they will have insufficient crops to feed themselves. The villagers take part in the lottery for survival. Jackson interprets the U.S. population’s fear at the time of the potential conflict and contrasts it against the government’s idealized values and willfulness to strike against its own people through the conflict between the villagers and the tradition of the lottery. “‘It isn't fair, it isn't right,’ Mrs. Hutchinson screamed, and then they were upon her” (Jackson).

Communist Pigs: New Historicism in Animal Farm.

Tyson interprets New Historicism as what happens when we read a historical account and ask ourselves: “what does thus account tell us about the political and ideological conflicts of the culture that produced and read the account?” (Tyson 268). When New Historicism is applied to literary texts Tyson states that these texts are often viewed as “cultural artifacts that can tell us something about the interplay of discourses, the web of social meanings, operating in the time and place in which the text was written” (Tyson 277). When pondering both of these topics, the first example that came to my mind was George Orwell’s famous novel: Animal Farm. At first glance, Orwell’s novel seems to be about a bunch of animals who overthrow their farmer, fight for control, and ultimately just end up in a situation worse than what they came from. In a nutshell, that’s it; but if you do a deeper reading of the novel and apply New Historicist thought to it, traces of communism come out from the framework.

When we read the novel while keeping in mind “the political and ideological conflicts of the culture that produced” it and asking what the “interplay of discourses” within it might be we see the plucky pig leaders, Napoleon and Snowball in a different light. Written in 1945, a time when communism was striking fear in the hearts of many people throughout the world, Animal farm perfectly fits into the social discourse of post WWII/Cold war era Russia. The overthrow that the animals partake in against the humans is often seen as parallel to the communist revolution, and the pig that starts the revolution, Old Major, is often compared to Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the revolution in Russia. We also see reflections of other communist Russian leaders such as Joseph Stalin (Napoleon) and Leon Trovsky (Snowball) in the pig leaders who take over after Old Major’s death. We slowly start to see the discourse of communist Russia and the communist revolution play out through the characters of the animals, something that was heavy on many people’s hearts at the time of Animal Farm’s publication.

Thus, when reading Animal Farm with a new historicist point of view, we view it as a reflection of the political conflicts of communism in Russia in the 1940s. We see the “web of social meanings” in the way the pigs lead the animals in revolt, the way Napoleon overthrows his partner snowball, and in the way he changes the “Principles of Animalism” from their original purposes to a more sinister interpretation. By the end of the book, one pig has taken over the whole farm, (kind of like Stalin took over, but let’s not name names….) and the animals can’t see any difference in their post revolution farm from the pre-revolution version. This strikes a lot of similarities with communism at the time, because it certainly was nothing like anyone expected it to be. Just like communism spread and overtook several countries through one leader, the corruption of the pig Napoleon spread throughout the farm and he banished anyone who tired to stop him. Talk about a thirst for power. Overall, Animal Farm can be read in a new historicist light by the way in which it reflects the communist discourse of the time in which it was written (and takes the term "communist pigs" to a whole different level).

New Historicism in "Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep"

“Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep”

by Mary Elizabeth Frye

Do not stand at my grave and weep

I am not there; I do not sleep.

I am a thousand winds that blow,

I am the diamond glints on snow,

I am the sun on ripened grain,

I am the gentle autumn rain.

When you awaken in the morning's hush

I am the swift uplifting rush

Of quiet birds in circled flight.

I am the soft stars that shine at night.

Do not stand at my grave and cry,

I am not there; I did not die.

New Historicism in “Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep”

Mary Elizabeth Frye’s “Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep,” arguably the most famous poem about death in human history, benefits from a New Historicist reading because it was based on her personal experiences, written for a friend in need, and revealed in a particularly precarious, poignant time.

            In order to get to the real business of New Historicism—figuring out how a work comments on and relates to the historical and sociocultural contexts behind it—interpreters first have to know what those contexts are (“New Historicism”). Historically, this 1932 masterpiece was created in an unsafe global setting. In Germany, there was growing anti-Semitic unrest resulting from the prolonged national economic crises produced by World War I beginning nearly two decades earlier (“What Happened in 1932”). The United States was no stranger to financial trouble, either, with the Great Depression lasting from 1929 through 1939 in full swing and unemployment affecting an astonishing 24 percent of the total domestic population (“What Happened in 1932”). Meanwhile, in India, paragon of peace Mahatma Ghandi was just settling into his cozy jail cell after the current British regime, which did not agree with his plans for Indian independence, had performed one of the many arrests that would define his story (“What Happened in 1932”). To top it all off, in Russia, agricultural policies were causing mass starvation and death (“What Happened in 1932”). Discrimination, poverty, oppression, and suffering were a common international theme.

            Consequently, then, the socially relevant background Frye provided, in being well-equipped to live in such a difficult era, contributed significantly to her concise masterpiece. Orphaned at age three, she had been compelled to endure harsh struggle prior to finding happiness as a successful housewife and florist, developing both noteworthy compassion and resilience (Bates). She and her husband hosted their German Jewish friend Margaret Schwarzkopf at their home the year she suddenly became a poet (Bates). While staying, Schwarzkopf, subsequent to discovering that her mother was severely ill in Germany, felt distraught over being unable to travel to her side in the midst of the reigning unstable political conditions—especially the resentment against Jews fermenting in that country (Bates). Once her mother died due to her sickness, the poor woman told Frye that she wished she could be at the graveside to shed a tear there (Bates). Since Frye understood her visitor’s exquisite pain and the effort implicated in continuing with life following tragedy, she was immediately inspired to jot down “Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep” on a brown paper shopping bag (Bates).

            Of course, although Frye did not intend to design a masterwork with stunning kairos—a soothing reminder that the memories of those who have passed on remain with their surviving loved ones, or “[do] not die” (Frye 12), and are resurrected in simple environmental instances of beauty—that helped to heal broken hearts around the world, she did (Bates). In gracefully expressing that the happinesses the dead have nurtured in their grieving companions are brought to mind by everyday spectacles in nature, like light sparkling on snow (Frye 4), she gave them a new perspective with which to withstand their challenges: an acknowledgement that, despite the fact that someone dearly beloved dying, and deep misfortunes as a whole, must sometimes be accepted, how survivors move on is a personal choice. Their most positive, and likely ultimately healthy and productive, option is to celebrate the time that they were blessed with the deceased’s presence—smile at the small miracle of a soft patter of rain outside their windows (Frye 6). Frye’s writing to comfort and encourage a buddy ended up being a universal coping tool.

            Jews in Germany already starting to confront the unearned bitterness that would later, in the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust characterizing World War II, hurt them still more; destitute families in shanty towns across America; mistreated Indians crying for a nonviolent hero championing freedom and forced to exist behind bars; and overworked Russians praying for their next meals each benefitted from the determined hope that Frye communicates in “Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep.” And in the twenty-first century, diverse nations are continuing to do so.

Works Cited

Bates, Jordan. “The Most Celebrated Meditation on Death in Human History.” HighExistence.com, highexistence.com/do-not-stand-at-my-grave-and-weep-mary-elizabeth-frye-death-poem/.

Frye, Mary Elizabeth. “‘Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep.’” FamilyFriendPoems.com, www.familyfriendpoems.com/poem/do-not-stand-by-my-grave-and-weep-by-mary-elizabeth-frye.

“New Historicism Introduction.” Shmoop.com, Shmoop, www.shmoop.com/new-historicism/.

“What Happened in 1932: Important News and Events, Key Technology, and Popular Culture.” ThePeopleHistory.com, www.thepeoplehistory.com/1932.html.

New Historicism and it's tackle on Uncle Tom's Cabin

New Historicism, according to Lois Tyson in her book: “critical theory today”, is the study of “The history of stories cultures tell themselves about themselves” (pg. 274) or even more cynically “the history of lies cultures tell themselves” (274). Furthermore, literary text of the past are “cultural artifacts that can tell us something about the interplay of discourses,  the web of social meanings, operating in the time and place in which the text was written.” (277) This is significantly evident in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin was written in 1852  America when slavery was still an unsavoury common practice. The book describes various sub plots, such as Eliza’s journey to freedom, which more often than not intertwine with other plots, such as Uncle Tom sacrificing himself for the greater progression of everyone else’s journey. However, the book can be analysed with a new historicist eye to see how black people were portrayed at the time.

The main character Uncle Tom, despite being a fully grown and strong man, is depicted as being very childlike. This is evident when Stowe describes him as: “Tom, who had the soft impressible nature of his kindly race, ever yearning toward the simple and childlike.” Therefore Stowe, as a white author, not only individually describes Tom, but also his “race”, as being simple and childlike. Which in turn, a new historicist can interpret as the general opinion of society at the time.

Furthermore, Stowe portrays the majority of black characters as childlike and uneducated through the way they talk; we can especially see this when the likes of Andy and Sam talk. For example, when following the scene where Haley’s horse has gone running off, Andy is talking to Sam and says ““Lor, I seed you… an’t you an old hoss, Sam?”” (51) Here we see “Lor” instead of Lord; “an’t” instead of “aren't” and “hoss” instead of horse. These words display rather broken English which could be described as something as simple as a Kentucky (where the book is set) accent, yet the white characters speak virtually perfect English. Therefore this reinforce the social and cultural opinions of the time.

Tyson explains discourse as “a social language created by particular cultural conditions at a particular time and place, and it expresses a particular way of understanding human experience” (270). Therefore this could mean that the way the black characters talk is of their own making, to help create their own “social language.” Or from the white author/ audience’s “culture” creating “conditions” to help them seem more superior to the black characters. The latter Tyson hints at as he says “The word discourse draws attention to the role of language as the vehicle of ideology,” (270) therefore the white ideology of the time would suggest their superiority over the black race and thus resulting in the black characters seeming more ‘dumbed’ down compared to the way the white characters tend to speak.

Another way black characters are displayed as childlike is through the dependency on their white masters. Uncle Tom has been told of his immediately selling and has been presented with the opportunity to run away but instead decides not to: “I an’t going.. Mas’r always found me on the spot- he always will.” (44) This could be interpreted by the community of the time as Tom’s submissive and childlike dependency on the white characters (his owner Mr. Shelby).