How is society, and the individual in society, pushed forward? The past undeniably happens, even if you do not know its exact details (as is the case with Joe Christmas). It also undeniably defines your identity in the present, as we saw with the controversy surrounding Mormon Senator Smoot’s seat in the U.S. Senate. In an existential sense, the passage of time makes these two, the past and present, fundamentally at odds with each other because, although one informs the other, they can never, by their very definitions, be the same thing. So, progression from one to the next, which inherently defines all life, time, and history, must de-facto be marked with conflict¬, hence why there is never such thing as a fluid societal transition¬— to describe one as such would essentially be to assert that no transition had occurred at all. Without conflict, we would have no idea that time existed. From here, I guess we could either assert that society is pushed forward by conflict or conflict makes it possible for an individual to see that society is being pushed forward.
A bit of a tangential introduction, I know, but part of what I think connects our past three texts that reflecting upon them as a unit made me realize this.
Through the grouping of Reed Smoot with a specific group and merging his identity with the past traditions of Mormonism, Flake’s text shows us that the past cannot be ignored¬— it’s what we base our functioning in the present on. Notice how it wasn’t so much Smoot that people took issue with (in fact, I believe one of the first chapters discusses the merits he possessed as a politician and how he was absolutely qualified for the job), but the history of the Church he represented. Conflict here gave way to compromise (see page eight for the summary), and the American reader is therefore able to watch their society advance in this case study. Reading the results of the Smoot trial and noticing the changes that directly resulted from the conflict show us that time is passing.
Next up: A Light In August. No better proof exists than Joe Christmas that an individual, the very base unit of society, cannot prevent his past from governing his present. Joe concretely understands very little about where he comes from, but, because the reader is provided with an omniscient point of view, he or can very clearly see how incidences like his childhood run-in with Miss Atkins govern key parts of his life, like his tumultuous relationship with women. The inner-turmoil and he never stop experiencing shows us that his life is propelled (quite literally- he never stops running) by conflict. The passage of his own time is thus denoted by conflict. I am not quite sure how to work in the fact that he is murdered into my theory though. If conflict is supposed to denote/ bring about advancement, what does it say when the most conflicted character we’ve come across is actually terminated? Does this mean that conflict can only drive to a certain extent? Perhaps that’s where compromise comes in and we return to Smoot again¬— it’s not just enough for conflict to exist, human agency needs to be applied to it to soothe it out some. If conflict is allowed free reign and no attempted submission is applied to it, it will ultimately self-combust, which we see with the fact that Joe essentially brings about his own doom by committing and running from one crime after another until he runs out of places to go.
“Summer For the Gods” picks up on and demonstrates the necessity of human mitigation in conflict to progress society and individuals within. Here, the transition from traditionalism to modernity happens in one of the most essentially human (and American) constructs, the court. The “conflict” over evolution also occurs in one of the most “civilized” arenas possible— fancy rhetoric and debate. This clues us into the fact that, regardless of the outcome, the process of conflict and the advancement it yields cannot occur without human interaction and argument with it. There was no one to present the other side of the story to Joe Christmas, he had to deal with it all on his own, and ultimately he was destroyed. But, because the Scopes trial saw the involvement of two sides in the argument, issues could be fleshed out to the point where they became productive rather than destructive— they yielded and demonstrated advancement because of societal participation. In this light, perhaps “Summer for the Gods” is meant to be something of a play-by-play snapshot for us American Civ students of the discussion I presented in the first paragraph. The past (creationism) is used to define a process (education) in the present, and ultimately comes into conflict with it because they are fundamentally at odds with each other. The process of compromise and human mitigation that occurs in this book seems to be the focus here.
Also up for discussion: the idea that “otherness” is a precursor for “Americanness” that Miranda is working with for her annotated bibliography. The Mormons had to exist as an outside group and had to come into conflict with the in-group, and then participate in the key “American” process of compromise to come to be seen as the quintessentially “American” religion it is today. Joe Christmas’s hybrid “race” status marks him as the ultimate other, as there is no place he can really fit in, and yet I’m sure every American Faulker fan can find something to identify with as they encounter his inner-turmoil. Finally, heroes are made and broken in “Summer For the Gods” based on the extent to which they do not or do buy into the dominant view of the Southern world around them. William Jennings Brian comes off as bumbling and antiquated as he stays firmly rooted in an idea that, though dominant in the area, is not concurrent with the times, and Clarence Darrow is painted as a master of rhetoric while he defends a more current, but less popular side. By going with the other, he becomes something that “Americanness” can attach itself to.