American Literature

This paper draws on linguistics and sociolinguistics in an effort to accomplish three broad goals. The first is to help illuminate the nature and scope of gender itself the second is to highlight the various theoretical approaches (past and present) which search for differences between male and female speech patterns, and the third aim is to evaluate these theories on what light they have shed on the ongoing interplay between language and gender. Early researchers, in an effort to put forward their claim on gender differences have drawn attention to marked differences in interruption, use of tag questions and directives. These three patterns featured prominently in findings and so, will also be included in the discussion.

 The concept of gender is broader than the restrictive notions of being assigned one of the biological labels 2male2 or 2female2. Socially, we have been trained to think that everyone fits neatly into one of these two categories. We also have the tendency to equate gender with sex and even using both concepts interchangeably at times. The fact is, there is a fundamental difference between one2s sex and one2s gender. Sex is defined by many researchers as a binary and biological distinction between male and female. On the other hand, the gender of a person is said to be socially determined. As such, gender entails how a person behaves socially, and encompasses attitudes and expectations in relation to being male and female. Many researchers agree that gender and sex are indeed two different constructs. Wodak (1997) sees gender and gendered identities as social, individual and also variable. Johnson and Meinhoff (1997) point out that the widely held view of men and women as binary opposites needs to be seen in a much broader way in linguistic thinking. Whatever the views, gender differences have sparked heated debates starting from as far back as the 19202s. The fact is, wherever there are males and females, communication (written or spoken) is bound to happen. In addition, there is no doubt that there will be interplay (consciously or unconsciously) between both genders.

Man talk or woman talk

 There is an age-old assertion that men and women use language in different ways, for different reasons and for different things. This assertion is widely accepted as valid in most societies and presumably offers a reason why men and women tend to communicate differently. According to Butler (1990), gender is socially and culturally constructed through everyday discourse. It is not all about ones biological makeup as male or female but gender also entails 2doing2 or performing our gender. This he says entails choosing from among norms of language suitable and intelligible for performing gender. Butler implies that gender is learnt. This implication ties in with the assumption that the identities of both male and female are constructed by and within the society. Language is also socially constructed. As the major tool for communication, language conforms to the language standards of society. People are who they are and communicate the way they do because of societal and cultural norms. Cameron (1998) adds that people activate power whenever they produce meaning. In short, gender encompasses how language is used by males and females and considers ways in which people use language to express ideas about each other.

 Another point is that how we say things about males and females reflects the ideology of our society. People2s language use captures the biases and stereotypes prevalent in our society. These biases and stereotypes are later passed down to children. Children learn attitudes and values, assumptions and expectations from parents and they also pick up other values in the communication act while interacting with each gender. Still, this and many other competing schools of thought do not account for the differences in male and female speech patterns.

 Researchers continue to search for an explanation into the differences between male and female speech patterns. Given the popular currency of thought at the time, a significant fact worth noting is the many and varied theories that were born out of such competing perspectives on language and gender. Many researchers have put forward possible explanations as to why these differences exist many of these explanations have further 2muddied2 the water, providing contradictory findings which reflect the polarized views at the time. Three such past theorizations are based on the female deficit approach, the cultural difference approach and the dominance approach.


The (female) deficit approach

 The framework for the deficit approach can be traced back to the 19202s when the popular linguist Otto Jespersen proposes that the speech patterns of women differs from that of men. This he claims is as a result of marked differences in biological make up. He classified women2s speech as 2deficient2 when compared to that of men. His work later inspired Robin Lakoff (1975) who tenders a list of speech acts that typifies women speech. Her work should be viewed against the backdrop of the militant feminist movement at the time. The feminist movement has greatly influenced early developments in studies pertaining to language and gender. This movement was highly political in nature and focused on empowering women in a male dominated society.

 Lakeoff agrees with Jespersen on the premise that women2s speech is different from that of men. In a bid to prove her point, she proffers a list of features that are prominent in women2s speech. The list includes the use of polite forms such as euphemism, avoidance of swear words, use of tag questions such as 2don2t you2 haven2t we2 emphatic stress and evasive devices such as 2sort of2 2I think2 2I would be very grateful2 among others. Lakoff also claims that women2s speech is characterized by modification in grammar and pronunciation, all of which render women2s language powerless, trivial and tentative. As such, women are disqualified from occupying positions of power and authority. Here, she sees language as a tool of oppression.

 Although Lakoff2s assertions have contributed much to the debate on language and gender, her findings have done little to change the biases and stereotypes of her time. As a matter of fact, her findings as well as Jespersen2s were deeply rooted in the ideologies of their time. Lakoff2s findings have courted much scrutiny and her work was heavily criticized and challenged. Bergvall, Bing and Freed (1996) label Lakoff2s suggestions as 2a list of alleged female linguistic offences.2 Talbot (1998) points out that empirical study have backed up a few of her speculations including women2s tendency to use tag questions. Later research was conducted in an effort to verify Lakoff2s claims. Some research focused on women2s excessive use of tag questions. The findings turned up mixed results. O2Barr  Atkins (1980) continued further work on women2s language to ascertain whether female speech is powerless. They made use of Lakoff2s list of features applying it in American courtroom settings to both males and females. They added to the debate by proposing that women2s language is 2powerless language2 a term he also applies to those of inferior status. Crosby and Nyquist (1977) conducted further research which included use of tag questions. Their findings show that women use more tag questions than men. Dubois and Crouch (1975) challenged the prevailing stereotypes by positing that men use tag questions too, sometimes more often than women. The many conflicting views surrounding the deficit approach have not presented any clear-cut evidence to prove that women2s speech patterns are different from that of men.

 The methods used in data collection were also questionable. According to Coates (1998), early researchers in gender differences focused much on mixed talk. What they show however, is that gender language patterns are not as straightforward as assumed. Wolfram  Schilling- Estes (1998) point out that Lakoff 2relied on literary texts, casual observation, and reflections on her own linguistic usages rather than on large bodies of empirical evidence in forming her generalizations.2 What the researches show however, is that gender language patterns are not as straightforward as is assumed. Overtime, the deficit approach became outdated and researchers courted a newer perspective, the (cultural) difference approach.

The Difference approach

 Unhappy with the findings of the deficit approach, researchers turned to other ways of explaining the differences in male and female speech patterns. The difference theory sees female speech as being 2different but equal2. It looks at men and women as belonging to two different social groups. The approach is based on Maltz and Borker2s work (1982) which argues that cultural differences are formed in childhood when boys and girls interact within their same sex groups. Boys are oriented in same-sex groups where there is a hierarchical relationship. In such groups, power and proving oneself oftentimes through words is of utmost importance. Hence boys tend to develop language patterns that are competitive rather than cooperative in nature. Their speech is said to be more aggressive and dominant and usually less polite. Girls on the other hand are trained to be cooperative, interactional and polite in their speech patterns. This can be seen in the games they play which involve low levels of aggression or conflicts and encourage intimacy and friendship. It is within these groups that communicative competence is learned. This is in accordance with Butler2s (1970) views that gender is socially constructed.

According to the difference perspective, differences in orientation are made more evident within mixed sex conversation. It is assumed therefore that in mixed sex groups, typical features of male and female speech patterns will occur. Males will interrupt, take longer turns and females will be more polite and cooperative in conversation with men. Zimmerman and West (1975) conducted their research in same sex and cross sex conversation and came up with the following findings women ask more questions than men, women are compared to children in that they cannot be taken seriously and their verbal and non-verbal behaviours are questionable, men tend to interrupt more in cross sex conversations while females have the tendency to be more silent. Zimmerman postulates that this shows that women can be treated as children. Their turn in conversations with men can be easily forfeited. In their research, Zimmerman and West point out that interruption is usually done by the dominant party. Again, there is a mixed reaction to the above-mentioned findings. Talbot (1998) did not wholly agree with the findings of West and Zimmerman. She reports that there is nothing significant about interruptions in same sex conversations but that there are more interruptions in mixed sex groups, most is done by men. Further work was done by Murray  Covelli (1998) and Beattie (1993) using more sophisticated psychological approach. Their findings showed that women also interrupt men and vice-versa. In terms of men interrupting women, Talbot points out women try to avoid interrupting men2s turns, deferring them instead.

 Talbot sees their methods for collecting data as questionable and 2crude2. She hastens to point out that the data Zimmerman and West collected were not available to ascertain credibility. This, she says, can cause their findings to be discredited. The approach offers little by way of accounting for differences in male and female speech patterns. Like the deficit approach, this new approach is now outdated as it also focuses on the binary distinctions between both genders and upholds the dichotomy between men and women language.


The dominance approach

 There are overlaps between the difference and the dominance theories. The dominance theory is centred on the belief that men and women2s language use is as a result of social dominance and the positions they occupy within society. Men are seen as occupying superior positions to women. Men have therefore developed dominant modes of expressing themselves in any society. The position is that if women want to be understood by men, they will have to act and speak like men. Again, male speech patterns are seen as the norm and female speech as deficit. Another implication of the dominance framework is that since society is patriarchal in nature women are oppressed within a system that empowers only males. This dominance is demonstrated in conversation between males and females. Goodwin2s (1992) work in investigating girl2s play offers interesting insights on how boys and girls interact in same sex groups. Her aim was to find out how girls2 directives and social organization change in different activities. She observed children accomplishing tasks while playing. Her findings support the assertions that men and women are from two different social groups. In organizing tasks, girls tend to be more cooperative and considerate in their utterances. They are more democratic in organization. Their interaction was free of rude comments, coercion and insults and all worked together to achieve a common goal. A rare occurrence in girls2 speech is the use of directives. Girls tend to use more cooperative and inclusive language such as 2Let us go2 2why don2t we2. Goodwin notes that girls employ different ways of getting things done. If a directive is issued, it is often accompanied by an explanation as to why it is to be carried out. This contrasts markedly with the behaviour of boys in their groups. Boys employ a 2top down2 approach in their group. The more knowledgeable male asserts his dominance and this is often reflected in the issuance of directives. Others in his group complied by carrying out orders. If the dominant male is challenged, more aggressive measures such as insults and expulsion will be used to maintain the hierarchy. This has great implications as to what happens in cross sex conversation. It is assumed that men will no doubt enact their competitiveness in setting the trend for conversation and women will be cooperative using supportive questions and back channel utterances. Coates (1998) posits that these findings along with others are hardly conclusive. She points out that the few studies done overtly suggest that poor communication in cross sex groups are as a result of how boys and girls are socialized.

 All three views emphasize a simple male-female dichotomy. According to Freed (1996) they all downplay the power relations that underlie the different interactional styles into which boys and girls are socialized. They also emphasize male and female opposition, cater to the unchallenged ideologies of the time and disregard linguistic and social reality. Most look at spoken discourse and not the written. They look at all utterances as indicative of gender instead of pinpointing salient stretches of gendered discourse. They were more quantitative in nature and their methods for collecting and storing data was subjected to scrutiny. Another point to note is that much earlier work was conducted from a feminist perspective and emancipatory in aim (Christie 2000). As such, they were limited in scope. Researchers over the years have been moving away from all three approaches to concentrate more fully on how gender as a social construct affects language use.


The dynamic approach and Communities of practice

 Researchers today are more concerned with how males and females are constructed through language. Their view of gender as active and interactive has put a slightly different spin on the issue of how language differences between genders are viewed. According to the dynamic approach, gender is something we do in our everyday activities, including linguistics acts. Language plays a major role in 2doing2 gender. The dynamic approach has ties to post structuralism which suggests the notion of performativity (Butler 1990). Males and females use language patterns and styles typical of their own gender group. It is through these speech acts that gendered identities are formed.

The communities of practice theory looks at individuals as a part of a group or groups. Specifically, they are interested in how gender identities are formed and replicated through participation in different communities of practice. In such communities, there is a chance to see the different ways in which language, identity and social context interact and how meaning is constructed in these diverse socio-cultural domains. This is in keeping with Butler2s view that gender is a social construct. Hence, studying male and female language patterns can be viewed in real contexts, in real situations and with real people. Mullany (2007) has provided valuable insights in public discourse in workplaces. In her study, she reports that male and female managers utilize a range of speech styles that were once associated with feminity. This goes against past approaches that argue that speech acts in the workplace usually reflects male domination.

The new research paradigms differ from the old essentialist paradigms in that they take on a more multidisciplinary approach. This approach is based on the premise that we all belong to communities of practices (Cofps). When males and females come together in a cause, perform a task or share in a mutual endeavour- ways of doing things, ways of talking, beliefs, values, power relations, in short, practices will emerge, (Eckert  McConnell-Ginet, 1992). In such social settings, gender identities will be defined, redefined and contested as participants assume roles within these communities. These approaches are more concerned with intra-gender and cross-gender interaction. They emphasize context as an integral part of gender-based language patterns. They give special consideration to the interaction of gender with other social categories including age, ethnicity, religion and class. Meaning is constructed within local contexts or settings such as the home, the workplace, a club etc. They challenge polarized stances of society regarding deficit, dominance and difference offering the proposition that because of the constant interplay of competing discourses speakers will constantly vary. The communities of practice approach and the dynamic approach make use of new theoretical and methodical ways of indentifying the range of discourses at play in the various contexts. They are more qualitative then quantitative in scope and hence are more descriptive. As such, they are geared towards moving away from overgeneralization and concocted accounts that once typify the analysis of data in the past. Both approaches look at gender not in binary terms but in a celebratory way. Last, they embrace other methodological approaches such as Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis as integral in examining language and discourse.

Unanswered questions

 There are two problem areas on which both past and current theories have not fully agreed nor have offered a plausible explanation the first is, what really constitutes gender and how does one know what part of an utterance should be lifted from a string of discourse and be labelled a 2female pattern2 or 2male pattern2. What if gender does not play an integral role in a piece of text or an utterance There are still many unanswered questions because gender still features prominently in all theories as plausible explanations for human behaviours.

 In concluding, there have been advances in analyzing male and female speech patterns. The results of past approaches have proven to be quite fruitful and though outdated, have added more fire to the ongoing debate on gender issues in the public arena. We have come a long way from the simplistic deficit perspective to perspectives that take a more interdisciplinary approach. It is hoped that as old approaches continue to inform new and emerging approaches, there will be a difference in the way we as human beings look at language use in general.

While some political analysts of the period and historians since have argued that Roosevelts pull away from the lawful isolationism following World War I was a matter of political maneuvering that directly resulted in the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the subsequent loss of American lives, still others view it as having been a necessity for the security of the world. In his essay, Charles Callan Tansell embraces the isolationist view point that the actions of Roosevelt not only led to the American involvement, but was orchestrated in such a way as to guarantee it. On the other side of the coin, historian Robert Divine viewed Roosevelts actions as a response to the international upheaval created by the spread of Nazism and the Japanese and though America did eventually join the war it was out of necessity and not the personal desire of Roosevelt and his administration. Though Tansell makes a compelling argument, illustrating an almost covert manipulation of American resources to assist the British against the Nazis, from providing destroyers to the British Navy and engaging in sea skirmishes with German U-boats, his facts are too narrow and complimentary to his own point of view to be taken as the only components (9). Noting that Roosevelts support of the British led to the view of America as a non-neutral participant in the offensive against Germany, Tansell makes a leap of reason that pushes this material and ideological support into the realm of provocation and out of reality. He truly pushes his reasoning into the notion of conspiracy when, while not outright stating it is the truth, he implies that Roosevelts administration and the militarys slow-reaction to intelligence that could have prevented the bombing of Pearl Harbor were purposely negligent (12). As Divine explains, there is little, aside from facts taken out of context, to support such a view. Instead, initially weary of a conflict with either Germany or Japan, American leaders sought to remain at a distance from an offensive against the warring countries. When diplomacy failed and the situation began to spread far beyond the original boundaries of Europe and Asia, American leaders could no longer ignore the worldwide threat of leaving such powers unchecked.

Essay 2 Trumans Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb by Samuel J. Walker
    Samuel J. Walkers middle ground take on Trumans decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki presents the validity behind both the revisionist and traditionalist views of what would become the catalyst in the campaign against the Japanese. While noting the effectiveness of the bombs in forcing the Japanese government to surrender to the Allies, he does support the revisionist sentiment that while the bombs may have been effective they were not as necessary as presented at the time. However, this was based not on necessarily in the manipulation of the facts by officials at the time but rather a genuine belief in the high cost of a continued campaign. Several points, both traditionalist and revisionist in nature, support Walkers interpretation of the event. A need, first and foremost, to end the war was the primary reasoning behind the decision. The other benefits including justification of the large expense of the bomb gaining the diplomatic edge against the Soviet Union the lack of reasons not drop the bombs and lastly, though largely unspoken, a hatred of the Japanese. In viewing the circumstances surrounding the use of the bombs, such as the eventual price tag and the growing negative views of the Japanese due to the war, he shows how a single decision can have many determining factors and beneficial or negative effects. As he explains, the bomb was necessary to end the war at the earliest possible moment  the bomb was probably not necessary to end the war within a fairly short amount of time without an invasion (56). His essay really shows that there is simply no black and white in this debate, but a broad spectrum of gray to support both sides.

Walt Whitmans poetry, from the very start to the finish, of Leaves of Grass, was known for its empathetic tone. The Sleepers, very much a part of the first edition of the book, turned out to be an extremely important poem in the edition. In a style thats simple, yet lyrical in its beauty, Whitman puts together disparate images and makes them come together for the reader, in what one can easily call a dream of a poem. The piece displays a poet that has evolved tremendously in his writing, and is still considered an absolute masterpiece.

At first glance, it would seem like Whitman rambles on about sleepers, exposing vulnerabilities and carefully hidden sides. On closely examining the nuances of the poem, we see that Whitman lends himself to several readings and interpretations. He oscillates from sleep to awakening, from the self to the many roles he makes the self portray, from innocence to sexual perversion of sorts, from clean images to sordid, Freudian undertones. All this magic, Whitman manages to pack into The Sleepers. The paper that follows will study the eight distinct parts of the poem that Whitman divides The Sleepers into, consider the most important image that is evident in each part and the primary idea that accompanies it.
In the first part of the poem, Whitman begins almost in a self-introductory mode as he describes to the reader what he is doing. The immediate image that is conjured is one of an apparition, that is making its way, swiftly and calmly through multiple places and people, as if simultaneously. Sometimes wrecked by curiosity, wrecked, confused, gazing, stopping, and sometimes just gripped by a certain disdain, this apparition seems to look on with certain awe or the lack of it at some points corpses, murderers, lovers, all sleep. Whitman, simply by listing the several roles in this first part, uses sleep extremely effectively as the ultimate leveller of people, class, creed and gender.
And yet, he does so without detracting from the extreme diversity of each of those roles and the way in which they lie beside each other. The reader is then immediately moved from a state of passive watching, to active participation. From just watching from a distance to pass my hands soothingly, pierce darkness, actively taking on the dreams of the dreamers he sees, ever-laughing , and playing mindgames with the journeymen. And then again, he reintroduces his theme of equality by stepping into multiple roles with the one costume he possesses sleep He slips into clean roles, grimy roles and finally ends with a sexually explosive role, all the while maintaining that sleep pervades all.
In the third part of the poem, Whitman makes a shocking transition. From siding with the old, almost empathetically, he moves into a section that openly mocks the arrogance of youth. Whitman begins by commenting on the sheer beauty and perfection of the swimmer, his admirable qualities of courage and persistence as he moves his white body in gripping charm  only to come to a sudden, brutal end. The harshness of his death, is vividly portrayed to the reader  head foremost on the rocks. Whitman literally dashes the youths head into a rock, in sadistic pleasure, only to mockingly later ask the waves why they crushed the prime of youth The poet reduces all that gigantic strength to nothing, in one dash. Making the gigantic swimmer turn into drops of blood, scattered into the expanse of the ocean, circling now, gone in an instant, out of sight.
In the next section of Whitmans poem, he addresses a nightmare that everyone has had to deal with  death. In this section, he chooses death in a shipwreck, and describes to the reader the utter helplessness that he is prone to bear if one were to conjure up images of crashing to death at sea. The inability to save oneself, to run away from the scene of the crime, to swim to the shore  the impossibilities of these actions are hard-hitting in this section of the poem and Whitman is a silent, morbid spectator  watching as the icy wind blows against perhaps a heart that shows the lack of warmth, the howls that pierce his ears but make no difference to him, and all he does his wring his fingers, and rush to the surf, to get wet To get a better view And through the dream of complete death that surrounds him Whitman chooses to stay alive, burrowing through corpses, piling them neatly in a manner that is almost robotic, and dealing with the guilt that accompanies such dreams  the guilt of being alive, while the world around him has died.
Keeping close to the boundaries of death, in the section that follows, Whitman heads into the blood-stained fields of war. He seems to describe the haunting nightmares of a soldier who has been prone to the utter injustice and pointlessness of war. All colour is drained from the cheeks, all emotion is turned into copious weeping, and for as long as the eye will stretch, he sees slaughter, and the faces of parents confiding in him about the death and the merciless killing of their sons. Once again, Whitman seems to allow the image of the survivor guilt to surface. Men all around him killed in war, but he continues to live.  At the tavern, the return of soldiers, the return of peace, is cause for celebration. But to the war-worn man, all the rejoicing boils down to nothing. The sounds refuse to jingle in his ears, the kisses refuse to make an impression, all he can seem to do is cry over all that has been lost, and bid farewell to a cause he once believed in. Except, even in his dream, he knows the farewell cannot right the wrong or undo the damage and slaughter caused.
In the sixth part of the poem, Whitmans sleeper moves into a story  a dream that has a beginning and an unending, haunting finish. Whitman describes the longing for beauty, the long last arrival of beauty, the sheer admiration and awestruck look of wonder at its appearance, its sudden disappearance and the longing that follows. Was the young girl who waited for a never-returning waif, the symbol of all dreams that are wrapped in hopelessness Whitman suggests to the reader that these dreams may be fed by mirages that appear out of nowhere and quickly disappear into nowhere. What purpose do they serve In the same section, Whitman tackles the very fount of hopelessness itself  that of Lucifer. Whitman comments on the abject oppression he can cause, the terror, the destruction , the captivity, the defiling acts that follow, and the derisive laughter as one watches the disappearance of the hopeless dream that never belonged.
In the last section of his poem, Whitman begins to delve not into incidents, but into feelings and intangible emotions. He begins with amour, jealousy, over and seasons. He talks of the joy of returning to the known and the familiar  of the sailor who finds his way back home, the unharmed fugitive and feelings of childhood. It seems like Whitman is digging into his past to dredge up emotions that are evocative of turning moments in his memory. Even through these emotions, he reiterates that nationality or creed or caste or gender, none of it play a role in an emotion as basic as returning home, dreams of returning home, to where the heart is, are common across people and places. And Whitman uses these lines to begin the setting to the end of his poem.
Ending the way he began, Whitman draws out the commonality that sleep bestows upon all of mankind, stating in words that cannot get clearer, I swear they are averaged now, one is no better than the other, night and sleep have likened them and restored them. Drifting into the intangible again, Whitman comments on the beauty of everything that Is dim, and the beauty of everything in the dim. He draws parallels from the most extreme circumstances, and finds a way to link the two the rotting skull and the newly born child, the black and the white, the father and the son,  the teacher and the student, the boy and the man, the paralyzed and the supple, and so on. 
Whitman, in his inimitable style, wraps up in a way that only he can. He picks the very theme he has focused to stretch to its limit, and pays his obeisance to it, giving it its due, staying in its beauty, dwelling in the solace it offers, seeking shelter from the richness of day and flowing from night to night, from dream to dream, some his, some others. In conclusion, Whitmans strongest image comes through of the night and dreams when he compares it as if to his mother, giving the night the right to produce life itself, making it the fount of everything there is, and acknowledging its power to create and nurture life in every form of existence.
The masterpiece that Whitman left can be fathomed in a million ways, but at the heart of this poem lies the theme of sleep and dreams, and the leveller that these two can be, the bond that they inadvertently form with all of mankind and the commonality that it introduces in all of us, irrespective of whether we choose to notice it or not. It is interesting to note that while he calls it the Sleepers, and focuses on the plural, what he chooses to do is to also zone in on the large individual that all of mankind really is.

TELL ALL THE TRUTH EMILY DICKINSON
Emily Dickinson spins a superb truth in her own poem on truth. With more than eighteen hundred poems written, of which less than a dozen were published, each of Emily Dickinsons poems were windows into her introverted soul, to say the least. And while she may have gone down in history as an introvert, she was an introvert with the deepest of insights into the human soul, its traditions and behaviours, its methods and ways.
And so it is with this poem as well.  One glance at the title, it seems like Dickinson is all set to write a preachy poem on how one should insist on telling the truth no matter what the circumstance or the audience. Tell all the truth Tell it always, to all you meet. But therein lies the most surprising part of this poem for me. The fact that the poem is titled tell all the truth, and in truth, all its saying is, tell anything but the truth. The irony of this poem lies in the fact that anything that is even a degree away from the truth, by default becomes a lie. And when Emily Dickinson makes her suggestion in the poem, to tell the truth a certain way, all shes really saying at the end of it, is telling her reader to lie.
The ease with which she justifies her claim to serve untruths is fascinating to take note of. In her first line, she gives truth a character, a posture of its own, a light-like quality, so to speak. And she insists that we tilt that character a little, we dont allow it to stand straight or be erect or shine directly into ones eye. Instead she urges the reader to look at truth from an angle, from a direction that is slant, to tilt ones head perhaps, for the human heart was never meant for head on collisions with truth.
Dickinson makes truth telling a game, and the art of telling it, a success or a failure. So she condones the art of going round in circles, beating around the bush, telling anything but the truth, for the success of telling the truth, lies in being able to steer clear of telling it, just by going around in circles. The poet offers us her reasons why this would be the most preferred method  simply because of our infirmities, our deep-rooted weaknesses that while outwardly claiming to want the truth, are in reality not ready for it, and may even be repulsed by it, its purity, its brightness and the shock and surprise that one would have to grapple with when met with faced in all its glory.
Dickinson likens truth to the way one would shield a child away from lightning. At first, the child would have to be taught about the phenomenon kindly, and bit by bit, allowed to watch it, eased into its brilliance, and then be able to watch it completely from a distance, never up front, or they would be blinded. And Dickinson says, so it is with truth, explanations ought to be gently dropped on the human soul, truth must be mildly told or it would just lead to blindness
In this poem, the aspect that most surprises me, is the fact that Emily Dickinson, talks about untruths and lies and white lies and mans tolerance for it, the prevalent existence of lies, while all the while, supposedly telling us to tell the truth Thats the surprise that took me by surprise.

EMILY DICKINSON I DWELL IN POSSIBILITY
Given that Emily Dickinson was a woman poet of her times, known to live life as a recluse, this poem in the context and setting that she must have written it in, lends itself to so many beautiful interpretations. The poem is no doubt an absolute work of art, simple in structure, limitless in meaning.
What I find most surprising about this poem, once again, is the absolute irony in the title of it. Dickinson begins by telling her story of living life as a thorough romantic, a dreamer, a creative, wandering soul, and that is her chosen path of possibility, that she prefers to tread. While she begins by talking about how she picks possibility over prose, the irony of the poem lies in the fact that there are limitless impossibilities in her chosen way of possibility
The poet describes her world to us, giving us a window into her home that is little by no stretch of imagination. For if the house she lives in is called possibility, then like she says, her windows are infinite in number and her doors are far superior than those of any other house on earth, or on realms beyond.
In place of rooms, she chooses cedars, towering trees of the strongest wood, fresh and clean and uplifting in nature, impenetrable, strong as you will it to be, indestructible by the human eye. For a roof she chooses for herself the vast expanse of sky, the gambrels of a blue starry stretch that no man or woman has seen the ends of. Is that a possibility No, surprisingly, thats the impossibility element that she tweaks into her lines, without actually saying the very word
Its a house fairer than prose, which could very well indicate the structured nature of prose or non-poetic writing  not so lyrical, staid in meaning and not prone to multiple definitions. Dickinson could be mocking the laws of her times as she condones possibility which could mean the magic of her poetry in this case, over the technical chasteness of prose.
Visitors in this house, she insists are simply the fairest of all the visitors that houses the world over will receive. Why Because stepping into a world of possibilities or impossibilities, makes one as much of a dreamer and hopeful romantic that Emily Dickinson portrays herself as in this poem. And it is only those who dare to dream the impossible possibilities that will dare to set foot into her house of non-prose, with the sky as the roof, and cedars as chambers.
Her preferred occupation she says is simply to do this spread narrow hands, that in a world of prose will not be able to grasp too much. But thats not the world that Emily lives in. In her world of possibility, her narrow hands can grasp paradise, and she gathers it and stows it away in her home set against the sky.
Another aspect of this poem that surprises me no end, is the fact that, although Dickinson was known to write a lot about death and leaving and the like, in this piece, she takes the optimistic, life-is-full-of-an-impossible-number-of-opportunities-route. The poem could be interpreted in feminist undertones, given the age she wrote in and what was expected of women definitely not fancy, flighty dreams and lines such as these. It could also go to mean an ode to death and heaven itself, considering she is gathering paradise.

EMILY DICKINSON I HEARD A FLY BUZZ WHEN I DIE

This is her forte Emily Dickinson, when she writes about death, as she has in so many of her poems, is truly in her morbid, melancholic, yet accepting element. Although she wrote extensively on the themes of death and dying, Dickinson never portrayed the theme as one she feared or hated. Instead she looked at it as something she had come to terms with, and often put herself in the role of the dying person or the dead.

She does just that, in this poem. She has died, and is probably hovering on earth in her spirit form, making her last mental notes to take away before she leaves earth altogether. She observes everything thats going on around her, the stillness except for the fly, everyone around her who had cried themselves dry, awaiting the king which could be a reference to God who would take her spirit out of the earth, or reference to a funeral service in a church or in a house of worship. She states matter of fact-ly, that her worldly possessions are taken care of, her keepsakes have been bequeathed, everything of her that she has left on this earth has been assigned to someone, her legacy left behind. And just as she is about to wipe her slate clean and move on, she is stopped in her tracks by the common fly. Otherwise considered a pesky creature, of no use to anyone, and generally annoying in nature  Dickinson chooses to use this creature to be her last point of contact before she sees the light, (perhaps heaven or God). And in those last moments, she is able to appreciate the beauty of Gods creation, it its blue, stumbling buzz, it its sky-like blue appearance, and draw succour from its clumsy journey around her, reminding her of her own journey into the next realm.

And again, Dickinson has managed to surprise me  by using the common fly as a work of creation and art that even a spirit, on its way out of the world, should pause and notice its beauty. She could have chosen to pass it off as an annoyance, especially since it was almost her last millisecond one earth. Yet the poet, chooses to teach us that even something as simple and inconsequential as the fly, has its part to play in our lives, its role in the bigger picture and not one little creature of the Kings creation is something that will go in vain.

While this is one way of looking at it, another way of considering the fly, is as a symbol of heaven itself. Given that the fly is described as blue, much like the sky where the heavens are attributed to, the fly serves as a reminder of the poets destination, or where she is headed. In that sense, this could be the image that Dickinson tries to convey through this poem.

In the era of multiculturalism, it is very hard to define the real American identity. Every person in the United States may have been called American yet differences in races still matter. Since the birth of this nation, it has long sought for an identity. Who are the Americans Is it the white people who speak English Are Blacks, Hispanics and Indians considered Americans These are the questions that so long hunted for an answer yet were only resolved at the dawn of the twenty first century after harsh riots and civil rights movement. It may be correct that all citizens sing the Star Spangled Banner, pledge allegiance to the Constitution yet not everyone has been granted equal rights. Sometimes equity and equality need to be fought for. These may be are the reasons why representatives of these oppressed cultures have written literature to express their sentiments.
    Ralph Ellison may argue that his novel, The Invisible Man, had universal characters, wherein anyone who suffers the same oppression could relate himself to the protagonist however, the case that it has been written by an African-American could lead to the conclusion that the novel articulated the sentiments of the Black people. The novel has been about the narrators quest for freedom, identity and selfhood.  Though the narrator has accomplished his goals in the end of the novel, the identity that he has taken on is that of an invisible man. Invisibility is a major theme of the novel. In fact, there are three types of invisibility that has been discussed. The first is partial invisibility that people would not see a person fully yet only limited to what the people ought to see. The second is invisibility by denial, people would see you as another person and the last is full invisibility, which is resignation from the community. Thus, the novel stressed the worse consequences of prejudice due to race difference. Though the novel has been nihilistic and individualistic, the novel has inspired freedom movements and has produced leaders like Malcolm X.
    Nevertheless, Philip Roths impasse in Defender of the Faith is of no less different from the predicament of Ellison. It is not of grave importance if Grossbart has been serious or not about his grievances. His machinations and mischief were not enough to hide the pressing quest for attention by the Jews in the army. Even Sgt. Marx has been persuaded by Grossbart to give special consideration to the Jews. Yet in the end Marx has turned the table and was able to exercise fairness for all, which earned him the title defender of the faith.
    Though N. Scott Momaday was not writing accurate history in his book The Way to Rainy Mountain, however, it has well described the conception and the growth of the Kiowa people, their journeys and their stories. Momaday wanted to look at his heritage at as many angles as he could. He wanted to show the world that his ancestry had civilizations and did not belong to what some early white men called as noble savage.
    Thus, all of these novels are stories about seeking identity. The similarities are marginalized and oppressed people in the society have written all of these stories. Their goal is to seek a space in the American culture where their identity would be accommodated. The demand may be as small as Momadays request for respect and recognition for his people to freedom from harassment and equity and equality. However in these modern times, we have now realized and understood the doctrines of our founding fathers. The American identity is an ever-expanding context wherein the future people would have a hard time identifying which is American.

Woman as breadwinners is an issue that demands justification amidst the various notions on the female gender that include their role in the family, whether their domain should be the home or they should also work to earn money. Historically however, it has been found out that women had been so productive and had played a great contribution to the progress of her family in particular as they do extremely hard work both in their house and in the farm. Nevertheless, their contributions were often unnoticed or are less valued in terms of wages as compared to men, because of a serious restriction, which operates against the recognition of the womens contribution in societies, which are bound by ancient traditions and beliefs.
While the purpose for assigning women in the home was to make her family ideal, the economic downturns during the past decades necessitated the family for income augmentation forcing women to find work in order to meet the pressing economic demand of the family. Thus, the question on women as breadwinners arises.
The question however about the working women should rather be seen in the context of rights and needs rather than in the context of consequences. Carnoy (2002) stated that many of the working women finds fulfillment in their jobs than in keeping the home. Citing the statements of some working women working on the computer assembly lines, Carnoy puts it At least here, we have a social life said one. I have friends, conversation, other adults another commented (p. 105). Apparently this scenario reflects that beyond the economic need of the family, the social aspects of womens life were grossly neglected.  However, the scenario at the computer assembly lines which Carnoy pointed out depicts an even bigger economic picture. Women working in a traditionally male territory, women earning money, skilled women were some of the ideas that could be drawn from the scenario. Carnoy argued that since the 1920s the smaller family gradually led married women to returning to the workforce. Canoy cited that the development of modern technology such as refrigerators, stoves, washing machines, and home tools that revolutionize homework made it interesting for men to come home and do things around the house.
Given this economic trend, there is no doubt that women can greatly contribute to the economic needs of the family. Indeed in many countries around the world, there are many women who are the sole breadwinner in the family
The concept of women breadwinners though, was not new at all. In fact if one would care to check on women contribution to the welfare of the family in particular and the society in general, one can find that women had greatly contributed to the economic needs of the family in general in terms of dollars and foods, to the household activities.
Roland Robertson and Kathleen E. White calls todays society as the new society which requires the transformation of womens condition. According to them, at the root of this transformation, which has taken place at accelerated pace since the 1960s, are two interrelated phenomena the massive entry of women into the labor market in most advanced economies and the social movements based on the defense of identity that nurtured the development of the womens movement and of feminism in general (76)
Evidently, the transformation of women from a domestic person whose abode is the home, she is now part of the economic workforce which greatly contributes to the need of the family. With their great contribution on the family welfare in terms of dollars and foods, there is nothing more to prove on the capability as breadwinner.
The question that should be asked then is what is the real issue on women as bread winners This is a very important question because despite of the women contribution on the society in general women were seen as inferior. One factor is the fact that during the past centuries, men have dominated society in its entire realm relegating women to the subordinate task of rearing the children and providing the need of the husband, particularly during the colonial times. Women were confined in her home having no educational or economic opportunity in the society other than to marry at a young age, and to take care of her family. Her life revolved only around the context of the family leaving her no place in the society as her full time job was home making, such as cooking meals, make clothing, attending to sick family member, aside from taking care of their animals, making household goods to use or sell and a lot more difficult jobs.
In reality, it was not because women were perceived to be weaker or intellectually inferior, or that men outsmart women that they were confined in the home and their efforts marginalized, but because of the popular mens notion of machismo. Men tend to dominate women simply because they want to protect their ego being men and often they expressed it terms of abuses and violence on women. Women are discriminated against by labels, that is, a gender issue which restrict them to a reproductive role, and reject access to resources, which could enhance their social and economic contribution to the society.
Nevertheless, over the years, this gender based discrimination has been gradually blotted out and women are now beginning to assert their contribution in the household needs. According to an internet article entitled Nearly Half of the U.S. Workforce Are Women recent study indicates that close to fifty percent of U.S. workforce is comprised by women and they are the primary breadwinners or co-bread winners in nearly two-thirds of American families (City TownInfo.com Staff). Citing the Shiver Report entitled A womans Nation Changes Everything the article cited 65.3 percent of women and 61.2 percent of men strongly agreed they are comfortable with women earning more than in a household (City TownInfostaff).
The article pointed out that while the changing role of women were a direct consequence of the economic downturn at the expense of nearly seventy-five percent of about seven million workforce who have lost their jobs in the recession, it also augmented the familys economic needs. Therefore, woman as breadwinners not only depicting the entry of women in to the work place, it also herald a new era for women in the new society. Women who were transformed from a domestic or home body, to more productive and socially active individuals whose contribution great transformed the economic and financial needs of the household activity.
Since this transformation on the condition of women was largely caused by the economic downturns, it cannot be denied that there are some consequences that had to be addressed. Philip Cowan stressed that woman as bread winner have an impact on children. Cowan recognized that there is a need of the family that must be met. Thus Cowan stresses that when the economic condition of the family necessitates mothers to be a bread winner its impact on the family should be discussed as it will depend on what their husbands will do inside. This however is very much possible because aside from the fact that more and more men agrees that women should also work, the home technologies which made house hold chores easier and exciting, encourages husbands to come early and do what women used to do in the past.
 In connection to the above, there is overwhelming evidence that it was the gender issue that had prevented women from becoming bread winner in their own way rather the socio-cultural notion on the role of women in the family as the impact of the absence of the mother can be resolved by quality discussion about the roles of the husband and wife. It is high time that the society acknowledges women as breadwinners in view of the economic realities currently confronting the society. Women should not be deprived of their right to be employed nor be subjected at once to the gender discriminations that had long oppressed them through unequal wages, limited employment opportunities, or disproportionate opportunity for promotion and improvement. It is now high time that women contribution to the society in the twentieth century particularly in the third world countries that could be seen in the production and processing of agricultural products.
Indeed, the role that women played and the contribution they made in the development of the society in the twentieth century proved that women potentiality is equal with men in many aspects. Today, women have gone far from being less educated, homemaker, and being confined to her domestic chores. Women today are more intelligent, more skilled, highly educated more committed in the work, resourceful, strong, and reliable and intelligent all boils down to a description that todays women is fit to contribute further in the fast technologically transforming global economy. Womans participation and contribution can no longer be ignored, as she can be an F16 pilot, a head of state, a lawyer, or anything she wished to be. Any discrimination on the womens rights or to what can women do is practically impractical and denying her the opportunity to contribute in her own way toward the development of the society. Women today are no longer what has been perceived of her as seductress or vulnerable who are in need of protection, although as a sort of being man, men care and protect women. What is meant here is that women can now exist in this world even without the protection and provision of men. Gender issue then should no longer be used as an excuse for men to once again establish their dominance on women. Women should be acknowledge as part of the economic workforce and their entry into that traditionally male dominated economic area should be seen as an emerging economic trend.
Jessica Hanan pointed out in her book that today women entry into the workforce has become the most social trend of the last fifty years and that more and more American men are agreeing on the entry of women into the workforce (25). Hanan cited the 1997 issue of National Forum magazine which states that over 80 percent of Americans agree that two incomes are needed to financially support the family (25). The main issue therefore that should be considered regarding women as breadwinner is the economic significance of their contribution on the household. It cannot be ignore anymore the impact of the current economic downturn on every family and the family economic situation is calling women to become co-breadwinners.
The gender based male dominance on women therefore which are often expressed through spousal abuse and domestic violence should be seen as an obstacle not only to womens progress but more importantly, to the familys economic welfare and development. Thus, the society particularly the business community should leave enough room for women employment and for their social, emotional, and intellectual development.