Marxist criticism of "Fences"

“Look for the deepest meanings in the least elevated places. Be more radical than anyone has ever been about the unknown, because what has never been asked is probably what we most need to know.” – Catharine MacKinnon

Fences: Private Property

Introducing On Society and Social Change, Neil J. Smelser writes:

Every intellectual period, Lewis Feuer has observed, has an anthology of Marx and Engels appropriate to itself. He might well have generalized the point: whatever the nature of any person’s concern with the human being and his social and cultural condition, he may read many parts of Karl Marx’s works with interest and profit.

These are incredibly lofty words of praise, words which ring true and astutely observant of history. The work of Karl Marx has been appropriated countless times: from W.E.B. Dubois, to Che Guevara, to Martin Luther King Jr., and to Angela Davis, some of the greatest minds of the twentieth century; they were all deeply influenced by the writings of Marx. There is a Marxist contribution, certainly a Marxist explanation for, almost every facet of individual and social life imaginable – human nature, economics, religion, politics, philosophy, and social stratification, to name merely a few. One could describe Marx as an “extreme generalist”: his works so diverse in scope, he simultaneously plays the role of economist, sociologist, political scientist, historian, philosopher, prophet, moralist, revolutionist, journalist, and agitator.¹ In a word, Marx wore many hats. Marx tackles such a wide range of issues, it raises the question, how can anyone be a Marxist critic, focusing on a miniscule spectrum of the human condition: when Marx critically approaches the human condition, with a vigor and passion unmatched in his times? So is the Marxist critic contradictory to the very nature of Marx? Indeed. Those who claim to be Marxist critics are undeniably the antithetical adversary of Marx. The narrow-minded work and analysis of Marxist critics prove that statement to be true. Because of the unique relationship between Troy and Cory and the prevalent idea of property in Fences, by August Wilson, one would think Fenceslends itself easily to the discourse of Marxist criticism. It does. However, the work of Marxist critics of Fences is embarrassingly myopic, and apparently blind to the fundamental ideas of Marx.

In the eyes of Marx, the relationship of Troy and Cory is akin to the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat: Troy being the bourgeoisie and Cory being the proletariat. For Marx, this relationship is by definition, the personification of oppression. He writes:

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. (Marx 33)

Despite Cory’s high academic achievement in high school, and the interest of college football coaches, Cory can do nothing to please his father. And after the culmination of a lifetime of suppressed emotions, all Cory can feel is the oppression of his father. In a stirring scene, he shouts, “You ain’t never gave me nothing! You ain’t never done nothing but hold me back. Afraid I was gonna be better than you. All you ever did was try and make me scared of you.” (Wilson 86) Are not those words the unexpressed thoughts of the proletariat class? Undoubtedly, Marx would say yes: for the oppressor and oppressed stand in constant opposition to one another.²

To further highlight the unique relationship of Troy and Cory, let us recall a conversation earlier in Fences. Troy says, “Your first chore is to help me with this fence on Saturday. Everything else come after that. Now get that saw and cut them boards.” (Wilson 31) Notice, glaringly absent is the word please or the slightest hint of respect from Troy for Cory. Troy simply commands, as a master commands a slave. A connection to Marxism is readily apparent. Marx writes:

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least continue its slavish existence. (Marx 19)

These “certain conditions” are the iron fist in which Troy rules his household. There is no room for questions; there no time for football practice.³ Cory must obey the commands of his father explicitly, just as the proletariat is forced into submission by the bourgeoisie into a “slavish existence.”

As noted earlier, Fences lends itself easily to Marxism because of the ubiquitous nature of property. Troy continually strives to own his own property. He says, “See now…I’m gonna tell you what I’m gonna do. I’m gonna take and build me a fence around what belongs to me. And then I want you to stay on the other side.” (Wilson 77) Private property has an interesting place in Marxism. Its existence greatly troubles Marx. He writes, “In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: Abolition of private property.” (Marx 22) However, Marx’s disdain for private property was only when it was in the hands of the bourgeoisie.⁴ Although Troy is the bourgeoisie in relation to his son Cory, in relation to society he is undeniably the proletariat. As such, Troy has the endearing support of Marx. Marx writes:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the ground work of all personal freedom, activity and independence. Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying daily. (Marx 23)

Troy is “the small peasant” and his property is “self-acquired” and “self earned”. From this viewpoint, Troy represents everything Marx wants for the proletariat: their own private property.

(I didn’t have time to write a conclusion because it had to be turned in by 12:00 exactly.)

Bibliography/Works Cited

“Fences”, August Wilson

“The Communist Manifesto”, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

“On Society and Social Change”, Karl Marx