Social oppression persists in many aspects of life and forces individuals into imposed roles that drastically shape their mindset and identity. The oppressed are not accepted into such societies and are instead forced into positions of submission. These roles then become the entire identity of these individuals as they become incapable of seeing themselves as anything other than what they are exclusively perceived to be. "Dave's Neckliss" by Charles W. Chesnutt depicts several examples of such oppression both through the use of female characters and through the backdrop of slavery in the framed story. By viewing the tale through both a feminist and postcolonial lens, the subservient roles of some individuals and the harmful effects of society's oppressive nature are revealed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Chesnutt's short story features only two female characters who receive little attention or development. Despite this apparent lack of women in the text, the plot of both the main and frame narratives hinges on their existence. Without Annie, the narrator's wife, Julius would not have had the opportunity to dine at John's house, and subsequently would not have had the opportunity to tell his story. Also in Julius' tale of Dave and his "neckliss" (Chesnutt), Dilsey, Dave's boyfriend? and the object of desire for many others, and the lack of her causes the trial in which Dave receives punishment for allegedly stealing meat. While these women are essential to both stories, they are used simply as tools to advance the plots and are never given development beyond the roles specifically designed for them. Both women perform subordinate roles for men and are defined only by their relationships and needs towards the male. type. Annie's only appearances throughout the narrative all depict her fulfilling her expected social role as a dutiful, hard-working housewife. At the beginning of the story, the narrator notes that she "had served dinner" (Chesnutt) and then expects his wife to serve him breakfast, "at breakfast, the next morning, it occurred to me that I would like a slice of ham . I told my wife” (Chesnutt). This clearly shows the male expectation of an obedient and domestic wife, and Annie willingly fulfills this role only extends to that of traditional domestic life since possesses the hospitable nature expected of housewives and women in general, "when he happened to be in our house at mealtimes, my wife never let him go away hungry" (Chesnutt. Also the fact that Annie you call Julius "Uncle Julius" (Chesnutt), who displays greater familiarity and friendliness than her husband, submits to preconceived notions of femininity Dilsey has little character development beyond that of men and submits to the conceptions of femininity of society. Julius presents Dilsey as a woman who "can't stand any stupidity from any man" and focuses excessively on her beauty, "Dilsey was a monstrous pear-colored, good-looking, gingerbread girl" (Chesnutt). Julius makes no note of her character, mentioning only her physical appearance and resistance to sexual advances from most men. While this may show a strength of character, this description simply also conforms to the traits expected of women: beauty and virtue. These two unique characteristics of Dilsey transform her into a sort of prize that men can win and own, an idea perpetuated throughout history.history. Dave wins her affection, but Wiley continues to try to earn it, eventually committing criminal acts to have her for himself. Because Dilsey's worth is due only to men's desire for her, she becomes both a literal slave and a slave to the patriarchy. Both women in Chesnutt's story play the role of a creature subservient to men. Although they both literally serve men, Annie serves food to John, Julius, and Dilsey is Mars Dugal's slave: they also figuratively serve the patriarchy by conforming to the idealized concepts of women conceived by the patriarchal system. Just as patriarchy perpetuates male dominance, the manipulation of both women portrays their intellectual inferiority to men. Julius's well-crafted story causes Annie to fall prey to his plans to get the ham. He has no thoughtful view of the story and instead takes it at face value, simply focusing on the heart of the matter and not the psychological aspect of the story. Julius aims to exploit the emotions of his listeners and thus unconsciously convince them to do what he wants, however, only Annie, not John, falls for it due to the male chauvinist notion of women's emotional nature.Dilsey also experiences manipulation by the patriarchy. , only more indirectly than Annie. When she returns from her trip, she quickly learns of Dave's punishment and wholeheartedly believes the lies she was told, however, Dilsey doesn't hear it from a man, but from a woman, "de fus' nigger 'ooman she met he tells her “…Mars Walker went to the trouble of stealing his bacon and went and put a ham around his neck, so he can’t get it off” (Chesnutt). Although the man does not directly manipulate his mind, the idea of ​​Dave as a thief originates from two men: Wiley, who causes Dave's downfall, and Mars Walker, who inflicts punishment on Dave and announces the madness to everyone of Dave, thus directly affecting the “nigger 'ooman” (Chesnutt) and subsequently indirectly affecting Dilsey. Just as men manipulate Dilsey and Annie, patriarchy itself forces them into their roles as submissive, traditionally feminine women. Society convinces women how they should act, preventing them from developing beyond the type of woman men have idealized. Such oppression is what prevents Annie and Dilsey from becoming dynamic characters, forever forcing them into a subordinate, domestic, and prize-like role. This role that society has forced them into allows for their perpetual manipulation and use by men who they cannot escape due to years of mental conditioning into believing in their own inferiority. In conjunction with an oppressor conditioning their subordinates to believe they are who they are perceived to be, the racial disparity that forms the backdrop to both the master and frame narratives of Chesnutt's story reveals many layers of oppression that influence the outcome of both the stories. In both stories a white man holds power over those he deems inferior to himself: Mars Dugal owns his slaves and treats them as property he can control and mistreat and John, the narrator, is Julius' employer and he sees as a freeloader and a child. , “his curiously undeveloped nature was subject to moods almost infantile in their variability” (Chesnutt). Both have preconceived notions of how they believe those deemed inferior to them should behave and act, which influences the plots of both stories. In Julius' story, white men oppress their slaves both physically and psychologically. While Mars Walker asserts his dominance by beating and physically harming his slaves whothey disobey, the most powerful weapon is the power Mars Dugal wields over the minds of blacks. Since Mars Dugal embodies Southern society, he also prevents his slaves from any form of education other than that which would help reinforce the idea of ​​the white man's superiority, "'it's 'g'in de law ter l'arn neggers how ter read, er 'low 'em ter hab books” (Chesnutt). Mars Dugal's psychological oppression is subtle as he treats his slaves quite well and behaves quite friendly towards those he prefers, however, juxtaposition. between the two "Mars" and Dugal's ability to quickly become angry with even his favorites keeps the slaves submissive and in fear of his wrath. This power dynamic between the oppressor and the oppressed creates an imbalance in which thoughts of those in control directly influence the culture and mentality of their subordinates. Whites convince blacks of their own inferiority and convince their slaves to act like them too. When Mars Walker labels Dave a thief and ties the ham around his neck, lowers Dave's status lower than before as a mere slave. Just as whites oppress those they deem inferior, their slaves emulate that precise quality by marking Dave as inferior to them and then oppress him too through isolation and ridicule, "de niggers all turnt ag'in' 'im" (Chesnutt ). While the white man holds power over them, the slaves look for someone over whom they can claim superiority to feel less inferior and emulate those they unconsciously deem superior. By forcing Dave into an inferior and even more oppressed role, Dave becomes an “other” within his own community and becomes an outcast among those who once revered him. This “other” is based solely on the ham, which becomes the Dave's only association and, consequently, his only source of identity. This “other” he becomes has very little power and social standing. Everyone treats him as an outcast and a type of anomaly who does not belong in their society to fight his new label, he finds the literal and figurative stigma of an "other" and marginalized inevitable and develops a double consciousness. In this Dave sees himself on two separate planes, one being his old identity and his old life,. and the other his new life as a labeled thief whose only sign of identity is a ham around his neck. This double consciousness between two separate and conflicting identities slowly drives Dave mad and once Dave loses everything about his old life. : his fiancé, his leadership position within the slave community and the respect, "of the last one he had "think" about those around him had gone back, and they didn't want to be anything more than what they they had to say. He could no longer hold a pra'r meeting, because Mars Walker would not lower him to preach, and the niggers would not listen to him if he preached. He didn't even have his Bible to comfort himself, because Mars Walker had taken it away and burned it, and he said if he got any more niggers with Bibles on the plantation, he'd make them. like Dave did” (Chesnutt), he begins to lose his sense of self and completely surrenders to the new identity dictated to him by the slave community. Since he has nothing else to define himself by, he begins to see himself as others perceive him, associating himself with the ham and essentially becoming the ham himself. This deeply rooted oppression that is based on many layers of a dichotomy of inferiority and superiority and Dave's eventual suicide because of it reveals the harmful effects that society and biased speech can have on someone's mind. These aspects ofcolonialism applied to race and those deemed inferior leads to an erroneous notion of oneself. Dave became a ham in death by hanging himself just like the ham hung around his neck, “hangin' fum one er de rafters, wuz Dave; dey wuz a rope around your neck” (Chesnutt) represents how badly society influences one’s identity. While a person may see themselves a certain way, how others perceive them greatly influences their identity and what they do. Society's oppression of a person by imposing a new identity on them has harmful effects, as seen through “Dave's Neckliss”. The use of a feminist lens on Chesnutt's short story shows the powerful impact of the lack of female characters. The noticeably brief descriptions and appearances of the two named female characters, despite their direct involvement in the realization of both plots, show how women are only considered when necessary by men. This adds to how women are seen as servants of men since the only purpose they serve in this story is to cause conflict. Neither Annie nor Dilsey develop beyond what attracts men, proving once again how from a male perspective women are not dynamic and do not need to have a real personality beyond what attracts men. This lens also offers detailed information on patriarchy and its effects on women and how they operate in a phallocentric society. By analyzing the position of these two women in the story, the theme of the harmful effects of social oppression and the perception of what one should or is takes on another level and more meaning beyond individual identity. Despite the many benefits of analyzing through a feminist lens, this lens, applied to this story, can lead to blindness to anything beyond oppressive patriarchy, as well as overly complicated conclusions due to a lack of material from which to infer. Only viewing through this lens also limits the perspectives that can be seen in the text. Another disadvantage of this goal is drawing on a culture's definitions of masculinity and femininity which can vary by culture. This lens is also based on femininity as an abstract construct, while some of the notions underlying this paradigm are based on scientific and indisputable facts such as anatomy and biology. The feminist lens relies heavily on theory and the idea of ​​everything as a social construct while being rooted in a certain truth. Just as the feminist lens has both advantages and disadvantages, the postcolonial and racial lens also has both. This type of lens allows for a keen look at the roles of those forced under the rule of a more powerful oppressor. This lens highlights the true horrors of such a system and how it continues to pervade even when such imbalance is supposedly destroyed. This lens also focuses on the side effects of oppressive systems and how those who are ethnically and racially different from the “superior” group are treated with very specific and often stereotypical or romanticized discourses. Postcolonial and racial criticism opens the conversation about how oppression affects both those who are oppressed and how it continues into modern society. While a postcolonial and racial lens allows a critic to gain much through a text, some aspects of a text are lost when viewed. exclusively through this type of criticism. As with the feminist lens, viewing through one lens eliminates any other type of perspective that might be discovered on the text. This lens, even through his. 2016.