Introduction

This article argues that violence is never justifiable, regardless of the cause, and explores this through the lens of normative ethics. The inquiry extends to considering the permissibility of resorting to violence in service of a cause and discerning the criteria by which some causes are deemed just while others are not. This perspective will be applied to the contemporary issues surrounding immigration and the widespread civil unrest witnessed across the United Kingdom. I posit that violence should be avoided when multiple alternative approaches are available. While asserting one’s rights via peaceful means is justifiable, resorting to violence contradicts the principles of rational discourse and leads to loss for all parties involved.

With this in mind, we should highlight strategies to avoid violence. For instance, the critical discourse around violence should recognise the inherent link between literature’s ability to illuminate societal issues and how much it can achieve actual change. It is important to note that while literature can highlight these issues, it is not a solution. Often, a perception of elitism within the discourse oversimplifies the issue and fails to investigate the underlying causes of hatred. I introduce a theoretical framework that integrates literature with a historical-psychological methodology to examine violence through the lens of socioeconomic disparities. Using the philosophical model of normative ethics, I advocate for analysing historical and contemporary instances of hate and violence within their real-world contexts and recognising that the influence and interconnectedness of literature and history are significant. To understand this, we must look at the recent scholarship and what it reveals about how violence is being studied.

Literature review

The critical discussion of violence in its many forms is wide-ranging but can be characterised into three subgroups.

Religious violence

Chouraqui thoroughly examines the concept of “religious violence” (Chouraqui 2021, 21) and its profound implications. The analysis underscores the intricate nature of religious violence, emphasising that its association is not intrinsic to religion but rather linked to the formulation of obligations (Chouraqui 2021, 21). Chouraqui scrutinises the ongoing discourse concerning religious violence, encompassing its correlation with secular modernity, initiatives for prevention, and meta-ethical considerations. Additionally, it delves into the phenomenology of duty and its role in perpetuating violence, particularly mass violence (Chouraqui 2021, 21).

Chouraqui analyses the connection between religious violence and specific justifications, as well as the defining characteristics of religious violence, such as generalisability and immoderation. The assertion is made that religious violence is set apart by its universal purpose and lack of regard for context (Chouraqui 2021, 21). The primary argument in the essay that links deontological ethics to extreme forms of violence is rooted in the concept of “phenomenological necessity” (Chouraqui 2021, 35). Chouraqui contends that excluding context from the realm of justification, a characteristic of deontological ethics, results in a phenomenological necessity associated with extreme and extensive forms of violence (Chouraqui 2021, 35). The nature of deontological ethics, which prioritises duty over contextual considerations, may lead to situations in which violence is perceived as the sole plausible resolution (Chouraqui 2021, 35). Chouraqui posits that this correlation is not merely coincidental but an inevitable consequence of duty implementation, distinguishing it from other ethical frameworks. I agree with many of Chouraqui’s insights; however, his main contention is flawed. Context is always present and evident in some way or another. The violence may seem mindless, but the reasons why people do the things they do always have contextual explanations.

Racial Violence

In contrast to religious violence, Petteway analyses the prevailing methodologies in epidemiological research on racial disparities within the United States. It sheds light on the power dynamics and injustices inherent in knowledge production, underscoring the marginalised status of community knowledge and the predominance of white scholars (Petteway 2023, 6). Petteway asserts that we must address the structural racism and colonialist underpinnings of the research enterprise. Petteway advocates for the transformative use of poetry to counter the epistemic types of violence that spread across large portions of populations and groups, such as in instances of racial hatred (Petteway 2023, 7).

This approach employs poetry as a vehicle for knowledge production and expression. It aims to centre marginalised voices and present counter-narratives to the detrimental impact of epidemiology (Petteway 2023, 8). Poetry is a strategy for healing which challenges established scientific discourse and promotes discourse on the representation of diverse perspectives. My assessment of this approach is that it constitutes an elitist proposition. While poetry and literature may yield positive effects, it is presumptuous that individuals entrenched in poverty and adversity will alter their perspectives because of poetry. Often, people in these situations have little access to books and no need for them when being able to feed and clothe their families is their main struggle. Literature is more valuable for viewing people’s situations rather than as solutions to the situation.

Further to Petteway’s analysis, Lawrence and Hylton study Critical Race Theory (CRT), which has evolved from academic circles into mainstream discourse and focuses on racialised experiences in Western social democracies (Lawrence and Hylton 2022, 256). It emerged in the mid-1970s as a response to the inadequacies of critical theory regarding race, aiming to address systemic racism (Lawrence and Hylton 2022, 257). Broadly, CRT posits that racism is pervasive and operates through systems of white supremacy and emphasises the importance of including black and marginalised voices in scholarship (Lawrence and Hylton 2022, 258). The aim is to challenge the neutrality of research, highlighting the need for methodologies that address racialised power dynamics and advocating for a more critical perspective (Lawrence and Hylton 2022, 260).

Lawrence and Hylton advocate for incorporating language studies into the development of race theory, theorising that racism is perpetuated through language systems (Lawrence and Hylton 2022, 261). They assert that a crucial area of focus lies in examining racial hierarchies and their cultural implications as conveyed through language (Lawrence and Hylton 2022, 261). This perspective gives rise to Critical Race Semiotics (CRS). CRS seeks to scrutinise visual culture, emphasising the harm of racial representations in society (Lawrence and Hylton 2022, 261). By understanding these impacts, we can effect change. Rejecting the notion of fixed racial categories, CRS promotes a flexible understanding of racialisation and its interplay with other social identities. Critical Race Theory (CRT) promotes research that directly caters to community needs, advocating for the fusion of scholarly work and social justice (Lawrence and Hylton 2022, 262). CRT underscores the need for sustained engagement and contemplation of racial justice in contemporary culture.

Political Violence

Tongeren discusses violence and language politically, stating that: “actions speak louder than words” (Tongeren 2023, 17). Tongeren further states that: “[philosophers] work with words’ and therefore the theme of violence, we probably feel a greater sense of powerlessness than we do when discussing other themes” (Tongeren, 2023, p. 17). Tongeren distinguishes two types of violence within political violence. Firstly, one is “characterised by absurdity and irrationality [which] conflicts with reality so we cannot comprehend it” (Tongeren 2023, 17-18). Secondly, quoting Verhoeven, violence is “something that we… think about…but [also] something that we are against and thus think against” (Tongeren 2023, 18). Tongeren validly observes that “[t]he aim of violence in its pure form is to silence and objectify the other” (Tongeren 2023, 20). Tongeren states that:

violence can only exist for humans, who are the only creatures to have language and logos. Although like ourselves animals are also subjected to what we call the violence of nature, they do not comprehend this as such. This is because, as far as we know, man is the only creature to contemplate the meaning of life, to seek its sense or significance, for which purpose it needs language. However, violence is a senseless phenomenon, and in that sense it is ‘dumb’. It is not so much that senseless violence is a particular category of violence, but rather that senselessness is a defining characteristic of violence’ (Tongeren 2023, 24).

Tongeren’s analysis presents valuable insights but has a significant flaw. Many disenfranchised individuals assert that actions carry more weight than words, as they resort to violence when they perceive no alternative means of expression. Their perception stems from feeling unheard, leading them to employ physical means to convey their message. Additionally, philosophers, in their exploration, engage not only with words but also with human actions, at times verbal and at times otherwise. Language constitutes an integral facet of the human organism and race; hence, the discourse concerning language embraces the entirety of humanity.

Moreover, violence is not devoid of rationality, as socioeconomic factors significantly contribute to incendiary behaviours. Tongeren’s view generalises the worlds in which many different people live, where daily violence is a stark reality. The prevalence of irrationality serves as a daily reality for many. Humans are influenced by language, but people are also bodily beings; as much as language, our bodies influence us and our decisions. The primal urge for destruction and the impulse to break through our daily existence drives many in the acts they commit. Finally, I cannot entirely agree with the term “senseless violence”; there is no such thing as “senseless violence”. Comprehension and contextual drives are always present in violent acts. A primal and thoughtless crime has stemmed from a prior cause enabling “senseless” acts. Further, it is contradictory in that Tongeren says humans are the only creatures capable of language and logos, of being able to attribute violence to a concept, to an end product, as it were. However, violence is also “senseless”. This is, in my view, not true.

Considering these three types of violence, we find that the prevailing body of critical literature exaggerates the significance of language while diminishing the role of environmental and contextual factors. While both aspects hold importance, it is imperative to strike a more equitable balance that acknowledges the applicability of literary and linguistic analyses to real-life societal challenges, particularly those involving hate and violence. An aura of elitism arises when individuals who lack firsthand experience with poverty or economic hardship endeavour to expound upon matters beyond their complete comprehension. While this in no way justifies hate and violence, it is evident that denigration alone does not offer a solution. Understanding an issue is a prerequisite for its effective mitigation. A more profound comprehension of the catalysts perpetuating entrenched prejudicial perspectives, particularly concerning class and economic disparity, can be attained by employing a theoretical model that integrates literature with a historical-psychological methodology. The deployment of the normative ethics philosophical model accentuates this issue by meticulously examining historical and current instances of hate and violence within real-world contexts. It is not simply a question of literature or history in isolation but rather the conjoined influence and interplay of the two. To understand this, we need a mode to highlight their interconnectedness supplied by normative ethics.

Methodology

It must be stated from the start that the immigration issue is inherently multifaceted, with varied impacts on individuals. I recognise the limitations in fully comprehending the experiences and challenges of others, whether they are rooted in economic disparities or a sense of neglect by their homeland. While acknowledging the fundamental right to express dissenting viewpoints, it is essential to exercise discretion, as expressions inciting hatred and violence are self-defeating. As a guiding principle, normative ethics is a critical lens through which permissible actions and avoiding violence are contemplated, ensuring our decisions are informed and thoughtful.

With this in mind, normative ethics states: “[there] is one and only one factor that has any intrinsic moral significance in determining the status of an act; the goodness of that act’s consequences” (Kagan 1998, 70). From this, normative ethics argues that “morally forbidden” (Kagan 1998, 71) acts are prohibited even if they serve a moral good. Many who support a normative ethics perspective highlight examples where a great evil is committed for the collective good. Kagan uses the example of five patients needing a specific organ to survive. One patient has all the organs needed for the others to survive. Therefore, is it morally justifiable to sacrifice this one patient for the benefit of the other four? Kagan states that this is incompatible with normative ethics because of the need for violence and harm to achieve its aims (Kagan 1998, 72).

One scholar whose research looks into ways to define acts as morally good or bad is Taylor, whose area of focus is Normative Case Studies (NCS), which serve as empirical instruments for examining normative philosophical inquiries and addressing tangible societal issues and educational disparities (Taylor 2024, 302). NCS differentiates itself from philosophical thought experiments and qualitative case studies by its empirical grounding and emphasis on normative examinations (Taylor 2024, 305). Taylor observes a current trend in philosophy towards greater engagement with empirical realities through case studies. NCS works by straddling the domains between fictionalisation and abstract philosophical inquiry as they engage with realistic social contexts alongside intricate normative inquiries (Taylor 2024, 307). NCS represent a form of empirically engaged philosophy that integrates both practical and theoretical dimensions, enriching normative analysis (Taylor 2024, 310).

Utilising my theoretical model derived from normative ethics, we can contextualise the underlying causes of persistent violence across diverse cultures and historical eras. To exemplify this, I will provide some background literary and historical examples and then select a textual piece, William Faulkner’s ‘Dry September’ (1931), to demonstrate this. This selection underscores the crucial role of literature in providing insights into normative ethics and societal issues, as literature reflects and critiques societal norms, albeit without necessarily providing a definitive resolution. Normative ethics will be used to evaluate historical and contemporary examples of violence to highlight their commonalities. Historically, violence has consistently failed to achieve its aim, and as in the past, violence has failed, so will it fail in the present and future. Using normative ethics in my analysis will draw out the evidence for this contention through textual and historical examples to exemplify how the values of normative ethics are frequently ignored.

Analysis

Before beginning my textual study into normative ethics, we must collate some background information on how violence has historically been understood. Throughout history, the use of violence as a basis for moral judgment has consistently failed. Machiavelli, in The Prince (1532), advocated for ruthlessness, stating that in the absence of a higher authority, the end result should be the primary consideration:

in the actions of all men…one must consider the final result…let a prince conquer…and his methods will always be judged honourable and praised by all’ (Machiavelli and Bondanella 2005, 62).

This implies that a leader should be praised for employing violent methods to maintain power. This attitude justifies the committing of violence for the right cause. However, this belief in the necessity of relentlessly pursuing power has led to prolonged suffering for humanity. History, with its numerous examples, has shown that violent regimes collapse. Even those with good intentions, initially aiming for liberty and equality, descend into reigns of terror. This historical evidence is crucial in understanding the futility of such methods.

In connection with this, Jahnke et al. studied the causes of political violence in young individuals. The study delved into the influence of depression, empathy, aggression, and identification with political violence (Jahnke et al. 2022, 113). The findings indicated that personal, push, and pull factors influence political violence outcomes (Jahnke et al. 2022, 114). Push factors, encompassing political dissatisfaction, personal discrimination, trauma, humiliation, and group deprivation, may propel individuals toward violent acts when exposed to ideologies and social networks advocating violence to achieve political objectives (Jahnke et al. 2022, 120). Pull factors play a significant role in motivating participation in political violence and pursuing social acceptance that is not readily available in their daily lives (Jahnke et al. 2022, 121). Lastly, personal factors such as empathy, depression, and aggression highlight the underlying issues experienced by many who join violent causes. This suggests that societal support inadequately addresses their concerns, leading them to seek alternative means of addressing their challenges (Jahnke et al. 2022, 122).

The identification and understanding of psychological risk factors associated with political violence outcomes among adolescents and young adults are crucial for comprehending the underlying psychological factors for political violence. Jahnke et al. delineate three primary psychological factors. Firstly, a deficiency in empathy or diminished empathic concern may heighten the probability of participating in politically violent acts (Jahnke et al. 2022, 123). Secondly, depression is correlated with an increased risk of engaging in politically violent conduct (Jahnke et al., 2022, p. 124). Lastly, propensities towards aggressive behaviour increase the propensity to partake in politically violent acts (Jahnke et al. 2022, 125-126). Comprehending these psychological risk factors is imperative for formulating impactful prevention and intervention strategies. These strategies, once implemented, hold the potential to significantly reduce the risk of political violence among adolescents and young adults.

If we examine this issue from a UK-specific standpoint, it becomes evident that resorting to violence is an unsound foundation for instigating change. A pertinent illustration is the 1958 Notting Hill race riots, during which individuals from the impoverished white working class engaged in acts of rioting against perceived Caribbean migrant threats, who they felt jeopardised their economic opportunities. Although rooted in misinformed beliefs, the decision to employ violence failed to serve the interests of the white working class; on the contrary, it exacerbated the situation. The violence resulted in the imprisonment of nine rioters and aggravated racial tensions, leading to subsequent eruptions of violence. Violence perpetuates further violence in an unending cycle. In contrast, historical figures exemplified by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. have demonstrated that non-violent resistance yields notable achievements, albeit not flawless, but with superior outcomes and heightened emancipation for the oppressed. What is needed is a more direct approach to the issue that deals with the underlying issues which contribute to violent and extremist behaviours.

Dire circumstances often prompt individuals who are economically disadvantaged to seek a target for their frustrations. However, these individuals find it challenging to identify a tangible entity to hold accountable, as governments and their departments tend to be impersonal and distant. Individuals who voice their concerns about their methods within disadvantaged communities are also susceptible to social exclusion. To draw out how literature with a historical basis can aid in understanding this issue, I will refer to an excerpt from William Faulkner’s ‘Dry September’ to elaborate on this perspective and show how a normative ethic framework can be discerned from the story.

‘Dry September’

Normative ethics stresses the need never to allow violence to guide your decisions. Even if you think you may be right, violence is never the way to achieve justice; this is doubly true when dealing with speculation, speculation that ignites widespread hatred. In Faulkner’s fiction, impoverished and marginalised whites are depicted as trapped in a world of white anxieties that skew their perception of blackness as a means of compensating for their ongoing oppression. They exist in a realm where they invent and project their fears onto African Americans. This distorted projection of white fear is exemplified in Faulkner’s short story ‘Dry September’, which is the story of a rumour. It is alleged that an African American man named Will Mayes has sexually assaulted Miss Minnie Cooper, a white woman. This rumour is being discussed in a barbershop where the proprietor of the barbershop, Hawkshaw, and the other customers discuss the rumour, with Hawkshaw being the only person present to doubt the rumour, the rest of the men prefer to “take a white woman’s word before a nigger’s” (Faulkner 1951, 161). Eventually, another man named John McLendon enters the barbershop and rouses the rest of the men to come with him to hunt down Will In a lynch mob led by McLendon, a man with deep-seated issues in his personal life. The story concludes with the lynch mob kidnapping Will to lynch him, whilst Hawkshaw takes no part but significantly cowers and hides. Hawkshaw is the only character who attempts to question the validity of Minnie’s claim and tries to dissuade a lynch mob from forming to hunt Will.

In ‘Dry September’, the ideology behind bigotry and hate is exemplified by McLendon, who strives to assert his importance to Jefferson’s society by upholding the normative ethics of his society. As he enters the barbershop, it is highlighted that “[h]e had commanded troops at the front in France and had been decorated for valor” (Faulkner 1951, 160). What he does in Jefferson is not stated, but it can be assumed that his role is less noble than in the war. He enlists his men in the barbershop to undertake a mission that he feels is vital for maintaining the moral code of his society. Whether Will is guilty or not is of no consequence; McLendon wants a reason to maintain white power and his power as a paragon of white virtue over African Americans. McLendon wants to go back in time and be a commander again, upholding the customs of Jefferson and the traditions of the South he has been ingrained to believe in since birth, which are his only recourse to achieving this. To relive his prior importance in the war in his present circumstances. McLendon’s leadership of the mob in ‘Dry September’ is his only route to achieving this. Therefore, he must transcend normative and moral boundaries to remain significant.

Faulkner’s works explore the “white mind”, unearthing its innermost struggles in reconciling a tumultuous past. In Faulkner’s fiction, poor and disenfranchised whites are shown to be stuck in a world of white fears which distort blackness as a form of compensation for their own continued oppression. Such a phenomenon can be understood as psychological projection, whereby white anxieties are projected onto the black community. This distortion of reality perpetuates harmful stereotypes and reinforces systemic oppression. Faulkner’s works explore themes related to racism and prejudice by incorporating literary techniques alongside horrific real-life events such as acts of racial violence like lynching and torture. These real-life events are more terrifying than anything literature could conjure up. Through this approach, Faulkner’s works expose the evils of racist thinking and prejudicial attitudes. They invent their fears and cause them to become a reality to themselves when they are nothing more than mere fantasy. What is shown as the true horror is what these fears cause whites to do to others so they can exorcise the ghosts in their heads. For whites, the horror is only real psychologically because they invented it.

What will be highlighted is the distorting force that either destroys individuality or allows a person to avoid their responsibility when perpetrating evil. Faulkner depicts the absurdity of white men, such as the tradition of upholding racist values and societal views on white women’s purity. The story portrays the loss of individuality in the lynch mob and how nameless citizens, who are not unique in any way, are capable of the cruellest acts. The fiction details horrific events like lynching and racist violence and Faulkner’s representation of them to portray the reality of life in the US for African Americans at the time. However, the insidiousness of the “white mind” is pronounced where many of their fears are psychological and self-imposed, creating a warped worldview.

One explicit example of this issue is McLendon, who projects onto his life his racist fantasy in terms of protecting Southern women from an imaginary, yet to McLendon real, threat of predatory African American males. McLendon lives in a gothic world, which he views in romantic terms but is anything but that to others, and he becomes a villain whose villainy stems from his fears of anything non-white. Faulkner studies white identity as it is influenced by the predominant social circumstances of the story’s locale. The white Southern male, when presented with a situation that challenges his society’s codes and ethics in terms of protecting Southern women from predatory African American males, alongside the opportunity such a situation presents for the white Southern male to project their insecurities onto another, serves as a lethal combination.

When we consider this in terms of normative ethics, we see that hatred distorts rational thinking skills. Despite there being no evidence as to the crime having taken place, hatred overrides any consideration of morality; they feel that committing a moral evil like murder is preferable to allowing their worldview to be challenged. Normative ethics can then help reveal two tenets of bigotry. Firstly, the perpetrators of violence often are afraid of what they will be without their whites, and they commit violence in the name of this as it is all they have to cling onto, hence why they are so murderous in maintaining it. The story presents marginalised whites as being imprisoned in a world of white anxieties. These anxieties pervert blackness to excuse the continued subjugation of them. This creates a psychological projection in which white fears are transferred to blacks. This kind of factual distortion feeds damaging preconceptions and keeps systematic oppression alive. The white male characters in ‘Dry September’ feel powerless in their everyday lives, but the chance to victimise others weaker than themselves gives them a chance to regain power. All attempts to dissuade the mob are disregarded. They do not care if Will is innocent because he is an African American, and society has taught men like McLendon to expect African Americans to act this way. If Will has not committed the crime, it does not matter because he is an example to all African Americans of the white man’s power. The story begins thus:

the rumor, the story, whatever it was. Something about Miss Minnie Cooper and a Negro…

“Except it wasn’t Will Mayes,” a barber said…” I know Will Mayes. He’s a good nigger. And I know Miss Minnie Cooper, too”…

“Believe, hell!”…”Wont you take a white woman’s word before a nigger’s?”

“I dont believe Will Mayes did it,” the barber said. “I know Will Mayes.”

“Maybe you know who did it, then. Maybe you already got him out of town, you damn niggerlover.” (Faulkner 1951, 158-159).

From the beginning, it is reported as a rumour, unconfirmed and pure speculation, which the barber emphasises. However, the youth insults the barber for taking Will’s side and questions his loyalty to his race for even questioning a white woman compared to an African American male. This insult carries over to questioning Hawkshaw’s Southernness. A white man who defends an African American is not a Southerner, and their identity is called into question for even suggesting Will may be innocent. At the beginning of the story, many different white men are present in the barbershop, and the rumour is discussed for its validity. No one suggests a lynch mob; for all its racially charged discourse, violence is not immediately present. As the scene progresses, McLendon starts discussing violence and convinces two other men in the barbershop to join him in hunting down Will:

The screen door crashed open…His name was McLendon. “Well,” he said, “are you going to sit there and let a black son rape a white woman on the streets of Jefferson?”

Butch sprang up again…”  That’s what I been telling them! That’s what I–”

“Did it really happen?” a third said…

McLendon whirled on the third speaker. “Happen? What the hell difference does it make? Are you going to let the black sons get away with it until one really does it?”…

“Find out the facts first, boys. I know Willy Mayes. It wasn’t him…

“You mean to tell me,” McLendon said, “that you’d take a nigger’s word before a white woman’s? Why, you damn niggerloving” (Faulkner 1951, 160-161).

McLendon enlists the members of the mob by appealing to their Southernness, their code to uphold the purity of the white woman from a black menace, illustrating their masculinity to do anything for the South and its values. Wyatt-Brown outlines these Southern values in three essential “Southern honor” (Wyatt-Brown 2007, 14) components. The first is “self-worth” (Wyatt-Brown 2007, 14), which, if successful, gives the Southern male a sense of his part in society and that he is an influential member who contributes. The second component is “the claim before the public of that self-assessment” (Wyatt-Brown 2007, 14) that the Southern male expresses this view and ensures all those in his society recognise their value. The third component is “the assessment of the claim by the public” (Wyatt-Brown 2007, 14), which is that the Southern males’ claims are accepted by his community and his prestige is assured. All three components show that the Southern male craves acceptance and power. Failing to achieve this aim led to deep “shame and guilt” (Wyatt-Brown 2007, 155). Psychologically and societally, the Southern man would become an outcast from himself and from Southern society who would question his value. This perspective leads to men needing to assert their value at any cost, and therefore, normative ethics is discarded in favour of an artificial set of values.

From a contemporary viewpoint, Wyatt-Brown’s tenets apply to all societies, such as the one in the UK during the riots, where a supposed enemy to the “white British” way of life is threatening to overtake the nation. This challenges people, predominantly men, to step up, as it were, to defend their homeland. This demonstrates their worth to the nation, which they feel has often forgotten about them. If you come from a low-income working-class family and you dare to step out of place, you also risk becoming conflated with the “other”; you become the enemy yourself. Likewise, in Faulkner’s story, being on Will’s side threatens to place that person in the same bracket as Will, outside the norms of society and at risk of violence if they persist in supporting an outsider. This fear led to joining the mob or remaining silent about their true thoughts: “[another] rose and moved toward him. The remainder sat uncomfortable, not looking at one another, then one by one they rose and joined him” (Faulkner 1951, 161). The only person who leaves the barbershop with the compulsion to stop the event is Hawkshaw:

The barber went swiftly up the street…When he overtook them McLendon and three others were getting into a car parked in an alley…”Changed your mind, did you?” he said. “Damn good thing; by God, tomorrow when this town hears about how you talked tonight-“…

“Will Mayes never done it, boys,” the barber said…

…

They stood a moment longer, then they ran forward… “Kill him, kill the son,” a voice whispered. McLendon flung them back.

“Not here,” he said. “Get him into the car.” “Kill him kill the black son!”…The barber had waited beside the car. He could feel himself sweating and he knew he was going to be sick at the stomach (Faulkner 1951, 164-166).

After this moment, Hawkshaw jumps from the car to escape his situation. Hawkshaw, in some sense, is a part of the spectacle, but unlike most whites, he is disgusted by racial violence, yet he is not confident enough that he can stop it. He cannot bear to participate in the lynch mobs’ activities, yet Hawkshaw realises the danger he has placed himself in by exiting the car and not participating. Realising this, he hides in a ditch to avoid the car returning from murdering Will: “he left the road and crouched again in the weeds until they passed” (Faulkner 1951, 168). Hawkshaw is exposed, and the story ends. We never see how society would treat him after the story’s end, but it is safe to assume his standing in the community is damaged. This situation also bars them from living in reality; they must try to pretend to themselves and others that what they know is wrong is right. Therefore, this could imply that some whites in the story who voice racial prejudice may not feel this way themselves. However, people like McLendon and Southern society pressurise these people to conform and take part.

Because of the powerlessness they feel, poor whites project their anxieties onto the black community. This often stems from the economic positions many find themselves in. From Faulkner’s story’s perspective, this powerlessness stemmed from the end of the US Civil War and the fear of the crumbling of the plantation system and the switch to sharecropping by landowners. Godden draws attention to “tenant slavery” (Godden 1995, 24), which encompassed whites and blacks. However, whites were blind to how African Americans could be an ally in the fight against white oppression of the poor. The “white mind” cannot see beyond race, and it remains strong enough in the “white psyche” to avoid the possibility of working alongside African Americans. Instead, it leads to more hate as they feel threatened for their jobs by blacks because they share some similarities in that owning class whites control them both.

Therefore, this system marginalised poor whites. Debt peonage in the sharecropping system had, in the mind of whites, made them equal to the African Americans, who still only just recently had been their inferiors; therefore, they became violent and attacked what they felt erased their whiteness. The Southern-owning class benefited from poor Southern whites reacting against African Americans as it aided them in maintaining white superiority over African Americans and superiority over the poor whites who were fighting their battle for them. The white tenant was enslaved to the labour market, which perpetuated poor white poverty because it gave them employment, which was all they had (Godden 1995, 25). Therefore, preying upon white fears allowed the system to remain. If African Americans were attempting to steal jobs, this would mean death for poor whites. Therefore, the poor white’s “virtual slavery” (Godden 1995, 26) persists in an endless cycle of hate. Whites saw black sharecropping families competing with their families, which precipitated the problem.

Godden highlights a pertinent point that white tenants were “not slaves, but nor were they free” (Godden 1995, 27). The white tenant occupies a surreal middle ground where they are part of a pure “white race” who rule over others. Nevertheless, they are poor and under the rule of an owning class who use them like they use African Americans. Therefore, doubt creeps in about whether they are any different from African Americans. It is this that scares poor whites and causes a crisis in their sense of racial superiority. Any groups or persons who can offer comfort from this fear are welcomed; this helps explain the prominence and success of hate groups like the KKK as they could prey on this fear. If you remove African Americans from the equation, the problem should disappear. Poor whites will have more opportunities, and blacks will be enslaved once again. Work was the only way for poor whites to gain back their autonomy and humanity now that African Americans were emancipated and were human rather than commodities.

Godden highlights how the owning class is not unburdened in this situation: “neither owners nor labourers were “free’’ (Godden 1995, 30). All are tied to a racist capitalist system which persists and traps all within a system which oppresses all and causes whites to continually oppress others whilst killing their inner humanity and strengthening their fears. The Gothicness of a persisting system is evident where it becomes a repeated process, a curse that the whites hope to kill and bury but keeps reappearing. In stories like ‘Dry September’, Faulkner’s oeuvre shows that racial thinking has “[owned America] body and soul” (9) since its inception. This point can be extended to the white Western experience generally. McLendon’s hate consumes him so much that it causes him to neglect all other aspects of his life. The fear of the other predates the US yet exemplifies the US. It is a disease which has entered the bloodstream and continues to corrupt and turn these white men into African American-hating zombies who are always hungry. McLendon is a descendant of the poor white who believes in a prewritten text about what the African American represents. This inbuilt indoctrination makes McLendon and the other men who join the lynching mob zombies who oppress those weaker to remain strong whilst dehumanising themselves.

The characters introduced in ‘Dry September’ exemplify the poor and disenfranchised whites. Poor whites are portrayed as being confined in a world of white anxieties that distort their view of blackness to compensate for their continued oppression and the attitudes that have emerged from it. The South contained racist societies, laws and traditions which forbade public interracial relationships. Miscegenation and the history of what miscegenation leads to are unique to American literature in that although African Americans were no longer enslaved people, they remained exploited. Faulkner studies the workings of crowd psychology on individuals and how it drives them to participate in horrible events. Faulkner’s portrayals of lynch mobs, particularly his portrayal of the individuals who become a part of them, challenge the often-cited viewpoint about individuals not being responsible for their behaviour in a crowd. The most disturbing and explicit evidence for this is the celebratory nature of the process of lynching and its aftermath in the popular pastime of commemorating a lynching with photographs and postcards of people posing alongside the dead body of the lynch victim with glee, as can be seen from the image below (see Figure 1):