What does being ostracized mean? William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily”, and Louise Erdrich’s “Fleur”, are two stories that explore the idea of exclusion. These stories depict characters who are on the edge of social exclusion, unable to escape their community. Fleur, Emily and their fellow citizens were treated as a threat when they challenged societal norms. Both women responded to their stereotypical confinements due to gender, race, age and class. Emily and Fleur defied socially acceptable gendered behaviors and dared to defy gender normativity. Fleur’s character was misunderstood. She exhibited raw masculinity in her entire story. Her clothes were the first thing that made her appear masculine. She was said to be “dressed as a man” by Erdrich (803).
When she worked at a butcher’s, her masculinity was unfiltered. The uncompromised maleness of hers was once again on display in the way she played cards. Her co-worker Lily thought she was abnormal, because “a woman can be intelligent enough to play card” (Erdrich 806). The relative community feared these displays of masculine characteristics. Fleur’s strength, her uncompromising nature made her unreachable and dangerous. Once a skillful card player, her ability to play quickly turned from impressive into suspicious (Erdrich 806). Fleur had to shed her feminine traits of daintiness and meekness because she could not be masculine. Emily was also seen as defying gendered expectations. Emily fought openly against men, and disregarded the superiority of their claims (Faulkner 1 1).
Emily refused to pay her taxes when gentlemen came to collect them (Faulkner 1 ). She defied normal gender expectations on how women should present themselves by shaving her head (Faulkner 1,). Emily defied her gender expectations by her relationships with other women in the community. In this period, women were expected to be polite (Faulkner 3) and adhere to certain cultural norms. Emily rebelled against this notion, going so far as being individualistic and ignoring the ideals for polite femininity. (Faulkner 3) Fleur, Emily and others were brave when they decided to go beyond the boundaries of gender roles. They were bonded together by their actions of defying social expectations, but they also contributed to their exclusion from their communities. Along with gender roles, race and class were also a source of conflict for Fleur. They were governed by these two elements of society in how they should act and behave. Fleur, a young Indigenous girl, was clearly the lowest-ranking individual in her own society. Within her own tribe, she was degraded by being compared to animals and not people. For example, Erdrich described her as “a bear” or that she had “grinned with the white-wolf grin”.
Fleur, who fled her home to find refuge in another town, was still classified as an inferior Indigenous woman. Fleur was still fiercely self-reliant, despite the obnoxious class system. Fleur refused to believe that she was owed anything by anyone. She didn’t listen to what the elders said and followed her own convictions. Fleur did not seem to be affected by the advances of gentlemen in her era who were viewed as superior. (Erdrich 805-808). Emily, much like Fleur, defied her class label. Emily, who was supposed to have been demure, often refused this notion. She was described a strong woman, who defied her class and was a rebel. Faulkner 2 said “she conquered them” when referring to men. Her interaction with the pharmacist also demonstrated that she was unable to perform the role. She intimidated and stared at the male druggist when she was going to collect poison.
Emily also rejected the notion of only dating men in her class. Instead, she defied that idea and got involved with someone below her class. Emily and Fleur’s nature was defiant. They acted outside of the boundaries of class, social propriety, and gender. The women’s rights movement was a strong belief in both “Fleur”, “A Rose for Emily” and the community. They rejected the women because they were so adamant about rejecting societal expectations. Fleur broke community rules that were not discussed or predetermined by dressing in male clothing (Erdrich 803), acting animalistic, (Erdrich803-806), as well as defying social rules (Erdrich803-808). She was not controlled by the social barriers, but instead she was liberated. This made her appear as a danger and evil. It is clear that the most violent way to end this threat was by letting Fleur Pillager drown (Erdrich 802 ). On the other hand, it was reported that “the next year Fleur Pilager was twenty-years-old and nobody touched her”(Erdrich 802). Fleur’s identity was not accepted in the town. The town did not accept Fleur for who she was. Fleur’s co-workers feared her again (Erdrich 805-1010). Her abilities and attitude were not understood by the gentlemen (Erdrich, 805-810).
In response, she received a rape punishment (Erdrich 809). Emily’s age was the sole reason she was deemed less of a danger. She came from a protected generation and was therefore a burden. She was punished less violently for breaking the rules. She was ignored, gossiped at and subsequently isolated (Faulkner 1, 5-7). She was isolated in such a way that, for many years, no one knew she had a corpse in her home (Faulkner 7). Women were punished for defying social rules. It is a challenge to one’s own beliefs when you defy socially constructed norms. Both Emily and Fleur challenged the functions and constructs in their respective realms. This caused their communities to punish and fear them for social defiance.
Fleur suffered a harsher punishment than the other women. They shared a common trait of bravery. Defiance of unjust laws and being strong is what makes people fearful and frightened. Emily and Fleur both showed impressive strength and suffered the consequences of defying rules. Yet, they remained outsiders rather than change their ways and conform to society’s expectations. Fleur, Emily, despite the fact that their stories ended in different ways and they received varying punishments, showed unmistakably that being strong, feared, and not compromising on their individualism is still their choice.