"Attention, attention must be finally paid to such a person:" A men's studies rereading of Arthur Miller's "Death of a salesman"

Re•·ista de Estudios No rt eamericanos. 11.º 10 (2004), pp. 21 - 46 «ATTENTION, ATTENTION MUST BE FINALLY PAID TO SUCH A PERSON:» A MEN' S STUDIES REREADING OF ARTHUR MILLER'S DEATH OF A SALESMAN1 ]OSEP M. ARMENGOL Universitat de Barcelona Arthur Miller\ Death ofa Salesman [is] still the most eloquently profound single slalement of mainstre¡¡m contemporary American male dilemmas. HARRY Blwn, The Maki11R of Masculinities: The New Men's Swdies (198 7) Arthur Miller's Death of a Sa/esmmz ( 1949) may be the most compelling porlrait of lhe palhos of middle-class manhood and its consequences in literary histnry. MllHAEL S. KlMMET .. Ma11/10od in America: A Cultural Historv (1996) DE-ESSENTIALIZING TRAGEDY THROUGH MEN'S STUDIES Sorne of thc most relevant critica! approaches to tragedy may be said to be (at least partly) flawed by their reliance upon a number of influential essentialist notions This articlc is ¡¡ rcvised and adapted vc rsion of my PhD research projcct (University of Barcelona, 2002). directed hy Dr. Angels Carabí. I would like to lhank Dr. Carabí for h er generous assistance. Her comments and insightful suggestions proved extrcmely valuable. I remain immcnsely indebted lo her. I also want to thank D r. Michael Kimmel (State University of Ncw York at Stony Brook) for having: rcad an early draft and for having provided a number of valuable comments on it. 22 Josep M. Armengol that have long pervaded drama criticism.2 Indeed, much drama criticism neglects tragedy's specific sexual politics, repeatedly equating the tragic hero's masculinity with notions such as human nature and universality .' Not surprisingly, of course. After ali, as Judith Butler stresses, in Western patriarchal discourse «the universal person and the masculine gender are conflated, thereby defining women in terms of their sex and extolling mcn as the bearers of a body-transcendent personhood» (9). Women's studics have already shown how the patriarchal elevation of man as male to Man as generic human has oftcn lcd to the dismissal of women's specific experiences and opinions within an eminently androcentric society. However, it is equally important to note that «the implications of this fallacy for our understanding of rnen have gone largely unrecognized» (Brod, «The Case» 40). And yet it is a fact that just as the crroneous assumption that male exp erience equals human experience has affected literary criticism's treatment of women as chara cters and authors, «so has it restricted our perceptions about men in literaturc» (Riemer 289). That is why a (rc)reading of gender in (American) lragedy might benefit from the so-called Men 's Studies, which Harry Brod defines as Thc study of masculinities and male experiences as spccitic and varying socialhistorical-cultural formations. Such studies situate masculinities as objects of study on a par wi th femininitics. instead of elevating them to universal norms. (« The Case» 40) In fact, Men's Studies is a small, though growing, and relatively recent ficld of study, which analyzes masculinitics as socially constructcd (and as such liable to be socially dc-constructed and changcd). context-specific, and culture-bound. So Men's Stu<lies no longer treats masculinity as the universal and unchangeable «referent against which standards are assessed but as a problematic gcn der co nstruct» itself (KimmeL Clw11gi11g Me11 10). Tndeed, Mcn's Studies has shown how, while seemin gly about men, traditional treatment of gencric man as the human norm «in fact systematically cxcludes from consideration wha t is unique to mcn qua mcn» (Bro<l, «The Case» 40). In othcr words, not only <loes iL distort «Our understanding of what, if anything, is truly generic to humanity» but also, and more importantly, it precludes the analysis of masculinity as a «specific male expericnce, rather than a universal paradigm for human experience» (Brod, «The Case» 40). Therefore, Men's Studics can help broaden our analysis of masculinity in literature as it examines our culturally defined ideals of the concept and how they affect men 's lives, thus transfonning supposedly universal «human experienccs into ones that are distinctly masculine» (Riemcr 289). 2 For an excellent summary (and critique) uf a number orrecurrenl essentialisl (mis)interprelations of tragedy. see Drakakis. 3 One should not forget. though, that tragedy. as Drakakis insists, has tra ditionally becn a masculine genre. inscribed withín an eminently palrian:hal system of values. "Allenlicm. attenrion must be fin a lly paid to such a persnn: " ... REREADING ARTHUR MILLER'S DEATH OF A SALESMAN FROM A MEN'S STUDIES PERSPECTIVE: SOME IMPLICATIONS 23 Rereading Death of a Salesman (1 949), A rthur Miller's bestkn own traged y, from a Men 's Studies perspective may pro ve be nefi cia! for several reason s.• It is true that Mill er's tragedies have not b ee n so r ec urrently esse nt ialized as Gr eek or Shakesp ea rean tragedies. Indeed, he is on e of th e playwrights most consisten tl y classified into the so-called tradition of «soc ial drama» (Murphy, «The Tradition» ). ' Moreover, Miller himself has always taken for grante d, both in his plays6/ Onc sho u ld be remi nd cd. however. that there is sti ll an on go ing debate around the best generic classifkacion for Death of a Sales man . Mor e specifica ll y. op inio ns are divided as to whe ther Mill er's play can actually be classificd as a tragcdy or not. Throughout th is cssay, 1 sha ll be assuming. despite a numbcr of diffcring views. th at Miller's play may be considcred a cr agedy, with Willy Loman as ils trngic hero. As Miller first argued in his we ll -known essay « Tragc dy and the Common Man» (1949) -a nd as severa! oth er scho lars have subsequently ratified el scw h erc- D eatlr may be seen as a tragedy because the average man is «as ap t a subjcct fo r tragedy in its h ig h cs t scnse as ki ngs wcre» as long lL~ he is willing to «lay down his li fe. if need be. to secure one thing -his sense of person al dignity» ( 143-144). Even though it is do ubt fu l if Willy's death is neccssary , ami if ic secures «dignity.» it is ckar that he dies to secure Iris se11.1e of personal dignily. and may thus be sccn as a tragic hero. It is necessary to stress, howevcr, that apan rrom being socially committed, Mi ll er is also interested in thc psychological aspccts of identity (scc, fnr cxamp le. Rodríguez Celada). In fact, thc individual vs. socicty dichotomy or the private/public dilemma has been one of the ma in cricical axes around which much work on Miller has consistently revolved. Mille r Jlimselr has repeatedly talked about this question. For instance. in bis « ln troducti on to Col/ected Play.1 » (1957). Miller refcrrcd to society as «a powcr and a mystery of custom am i insidc thc man and surrounding him, as the !i sh is in the sea and the sea insidc t he tish. his bi rt hplace and burial gro un d, prnmise and threat» ( 164). And in ann t her of his essays. «Ün Social Pla ys.>• which servcd as un in truduction to the 1955 cdition of A \l/e1r .fmm tire Bricl!(e. Miller sees the integration of the personal/psychological and the puhlic/social as one of the greatesl achievements of d assical Greek tragedy. Writing in the aconlext of a theatre that was prcoccupicd. in thc Unitcu Stat cs p ar ticu lar l y. with the individual, ;md with psychological ana\ysis divorccd from the social contcxt beyond thc domc~tic confines uf the fam il y» (Murphy, «Thc Tradition» 11). Mi ll er put forward the idea that drama improve' if il deals wi th more and more of the whole man. not cither his subjective or his so<.:ial life alonc. and the Grcek could not conceive of man or anything clsc cxccpt lL~ a wholc (Millcr. «Üu Social»). It is beyond t hc scopc of this work to 'pcci fy thc numero us and varied social a.~pcc c s dealt with in each or Millc r' s plays. Sufficc to say thac thcy are anything but monothematic. In other words. thcy are no! just about this or that. but rather they teml to th ematizc more than one (social) issuc at once. However. il is also true that a number of main social concems. often in conjunction with other «mi nar » unes. tends to recur in Mill cr's plays (Coy. «Las conscantcs» ). Among thesc, onc Cilll talk about Jew i ,h n ~ss/ant i- Scmitism (Focus. lncident at \lichy, Playii1!( for Tim e. Broke11 Glas~'). the Deprt!ssiun (A Memm :v of Tu·o Mmulays. T/le Price. The Americm1 Clock). the prublems of the working-dass commun i ty in Am er i ca (711e H ook). che War (Tir e Story of G. l. loe, Sit11atio11 Normal). artistic frccdom/censorship (The Archbislwp "s Cei/ing). social responsibi li ty beyonu individual/familia! necds (Ali My Som). tbe indivi du ality vs commun it y/kinship dichutomy (A Vieiv fmm the Bridge, Afler the Fa//). or M cCa rt byis m ( The Crucible, A11 Enemy of rhe Peopl e) . In this Ja st r es pec t. ir may be notcworlhy th at in 1956 Mi ll er was obliged to tcstify beforc the House uf Un-American Ac li vities Committcc, th oug h he refused to name other peop le a1t ending meetings organized by Communist sy mp ac hizer s. 24 Josep M. An nengol essays7 and in his own «private» life,8 the eminently soci al function of the playwright.9 And, in fact, his plays have b ee n already approached from a number of innovati ve materialist/anti-essentialist critica] perspectives focusing on different ra ce, class, and (a few) gender issues. However, there are two main reasons for which I wish to argue that Miller's Death of a Salesman might benefit from a Men's Studies rereading. First, because I think it is important to con te st the widely held assump tion that gender is not an essential category in Miller's (early) play s. Second, because I believe essentialism is still especially recurren! in the widely shared critica] ass umption of Willy Loman as representativc of a universal and timeless human essence. As David Savran suggests in this latter respect: Althou gh attempts have been made in recent years to hist or icize th eir work , most no tably by C. W. E. Bigsb y, theat ric.:al and critica! fashion continues co champion the ostensibly universal qualities of plays such as Death of a Salesman (1949) and Car on a Hot Tin Roof (1955). (6) GENDERING MILLER While nobody would deny that the issues of ra ce (espccially Jewishness) and class (particularly the conflicts of the working class) have been ali pervasive in his plays, Miller has usually been said to marginalize gender and sexual concerns within his works. Unlike Tennessee Williams.' for instance, Arthur Miller's plays have usually bccn acc us ed of lacking in thc sensual (see, for examplc, Corr igan). ' 01' coursc. his constan! worry about social issucs is nowhere be tter expresscd than in bis auto h1o graphy. Ti mebends. Ther c are. howcvcr. fo ur kcy essays that ar e al so wo rth cons idering in this rcspcct: «Ün Social Plays:» « The Family in Modern Drama.» originally a lcccure given at Harvard (April 1956): «Introduction to the Collected Plays:» «T he Shadows uf the Gods » (Augusc 1958). Most. if nut ali. of thcsc cssays can be found in Martin's 711e 111eater Essays of Arthur Miller. His sccond co llcccion of essays. Echoes Dow11 tlze Corridor (2000 ), alsu expresses his pcrennial social co mmitmcnt. In other w urd ~. wha t all chese works suggcsc is that, d cs pite significant changes anti cvol uc ion in Mill cr's drama/poctics. he «does not hack away from thc individual in society or scparate individu al desirc from societal responsibility» (P oner 10 7). F ur an intcresting analysis uf this question, ~ee Coy (<<Arthu r Miller» ). Mill cr has puhlicly supported several causes. Hi s social commitmcnt was manifesc, for instance. whcn he a tt ackcd Ezra Pound in 1945 for his pro-Fascisc acciv iti es: wh en he h ec am e thc President of PEN in 1965 a nd defe nd ed imprisoned writers worldw id e. or whcn he hclped win the release of Brazilian director/playw ri ght Augusto Boa! in 1971. to name bur a f cw social/ li tcrary activities in which he has becn accively/politically invulvcd. • Little wonder Miller was awardcd the «Premio Príncipe de Asturias de las Letras» (Spain, 200 2) for his «C ritica! re alism .» As the playwright himself has always insisted: 1 do think t ha t in a very small way. prob a bl> hist Mkally of no 1mportancc, what one writes c an change penple in th c scn sc thal it g iv cs them a new idea of t h c ms e l ve~ r .. 1 you will shi ft thc co n sc iousncss of a ccnain numhcr of people. (Mil kr ln1c rview: emph as" addcd) " A11 e111icm. attemion 11111st be final/y paicl to such a person: " ... 25 Actually, it could be argued that Miller's av o idance of the iss ue s of gender and s ex uality in his plays is no different from the dominant fictional pattems in American Jit e ra ry history. D. H. Lawrence talked about an obvious presence of «masterless men» in American fiction (5), and Am bro se Bi erce and Leslie Fiedler (Lave and Death) also suggested that American authors are either evasive or perverse in their treatment of sexualit y. Strongly influenced by Puritan ideals, American (literary) men seem to much prefer the frontier, the We st, and male comradeship, to women. As An dr e Le Vot puts i t: From Moby Dick to Huckleberry Finn, from Jam es Fenimore Cooper to Jack London. the American imagina ti on rejected women and the subtleties of amorous intrig ue . Ro otlessness and violence we re th e only legitimate ways fo r its solitary heroes to kn ow a nd affirm themselves. (9) None thc less, Ano Massa 's cdition of Amer ican Declarations of Love (1990) contests «F iedler's arrest in g assenion that American writing is e it her evasive or perverse in it s treatment of Jo ve; or both» (4 ). M assa suggests t ha l although Miller initia ll y avoided dealing with adult heterosexual love and women (i n fact, she argues that in his early plays characters seem to stand for «e mbodiment of issues,» aspects of the human condition, or parts of the social structure [ 126]), things appeared to ha ve changed by the l 960s, especially after Miller wrote Aft er the Fal/ (1964 ). This scholar suggests, therefore, that from the ! 960s onwards tbere is in Miller an increasing treatment of heterosexual love and women, the only exce ption being, in her opin io n, fncident at Vichv (1964 ), a play in which womcn are obviously marginalized. Massa also hints at thc fact that Marilyn Monroe, th e woman who in all likelihood inspired th e creation of the Maggie character in After the Fall, was perhaps «the catalyst in his work,» the onc who «caused the shift in the Miller oeuvre from studies of representational relatedness to the exploration of adul t heterosexual rclationships» (9). Indecd, this feminist c ri tic shows how with After the Fall Miller could finally «acknowledge indirectly that a Ma gg ie (espccia ll y in her 'masculin e' long in gs for success) ora Marilyn, a woman, can be as significanl and tragic a fi gure in(his pl ays) as Willy Loman and comp an y» (134). Like Massa, Thomas E. Port er ( 1996) has arg ued that, in his plays of thc 70s a nd thcreafter. Miller cnters into a «major new phase» of creative ac ti vit y. Th is change, as Bi gsby describes it in his «Afterword» to The Archhishop 's Ce il i11g, is a fascination with «the problematic status of the r ea l> ) (93). As Po rter strcsses. an imp or1 ant aspect of the probl ema ti c real, «foreshadowed in the nightmare vision of family in thc early dramas. is the role of sexuality in family life» (95). According to th is critic, then, Miller 's (later) plays present an unresolved conflict between the individuaJ's :-;exua l d es ire and the nccd to control it ( 108). Finally, Iska Alter has also suggested that, in Mill er's Jater plays, men, «bundles of uruesolved Oedipal parado xcs.>) turn first to duty and responsibility and then to 26 Josep M. Amzengol female sexuality -despite its anarchic potentialas a «redemptive, even sanctifyin g» force (117). So ali these scholars appear to contend that sexuality and gender, often exclusively equated with femininity, is only/especially relevant to t he analysis of Miller's later plays. Unlike them, 1 will try to show that Death of a Salesman alr eady presents a number of important sexual and gender concems worth discus sing in d ept h, concerns that involve questions on both f em ininity and masculinity. DECONSTRUCTING ESSENTIALIST CONCEPTIONS OF MASCULINITY IN MILLER'S DEATH OF A SALESMAN As has bcen suggested, apart from gcndering Miller's plays, Mcn 's Studies, may also challenge a number of essentialist approaches to Death of a Salesman. In fact, esscntialism has been especially recurrent, as has also been pointed out, in the widespread view of Willy Loman as representative of a universal and timele ss human essencc. Soon after the play 's first performan ce , Robert Garland, for examplc, already argued that «in Arthur Miller's salesman thcre's much of Everyman» (200; emphasis added). Similarly, William Hawkins underlined that «the failure of a gr eat potential could never be so mo ving or so 1111i versa/ly understandahle as is the fate of Willy Loman» (202; emphasis added). John Masan Brown, in an essay (significantly) entitled «Even As You and I» (l 963), also referred to Death of a Sal esman as «the most poignant statement of man as he must face himself to have come out of our theatrc» (207; emphasis added ). Moreover, he added thal Miller 's « ri ghtful concern is with the dilemmas which are timeless in the drama because they ar e timeless in life» (207; emphasis added). With an cqually tc lling title, A. Howard Fuller's «A Salesman Is Evcrybody» (1949) described Willy Loman as « sy mbolic of the true spirir al large» (241 ; emp hasis added), arguing that «in the deeper, psychological sense. he is Eve rynu111 » who, obscssed with material success, «has lost his es senri al -his re al - 11att1r e» (243: emphasis added). For his part, Allan Seager views as one of Miller's main concerns his anxiety «spent in thc gap betwccn man as he is and man as he could be. (That it is man , and not _pcoplc from Brooklyn or Americans, is cle ar from th e succcss of his plays abroad)» (3 37). Ann Massa has also argued that Miller 's play «focuses not on society bu t on wz American Evetymw1» (122; emphasis added) and that the playwright's general perspeclive in his early plays is «S o broadly and deeply and ambitiously philosophical and m et aph ys ical that at times it b ec omes depersonalising» ( 127; emphasis addcd). As she cxplains: He is conce rn ed with abstractions. [ ... ) It is Jess thi s imaginary man and that imaginary woman and th eir relationship that concerns him; it is Ma11. [ ... ] Whcn he writes in hi s essay of 'm an ' and when he creates pla ys which focus on fathcrs, "Attention, atlention must be final/y paid to such a person: " ... 27 sons and brolhers, he is writing of figures and relations hips which are emblernatic of the whole human race. (127; emphasis added) Finally, Miller himse lf has sometimes faJlen pr ey to essentialist biases, too. For instancc, he has suggested that as Willy's tragedy extends beyond the family uni t into society, it broadc ns its vision out of the «merely particular toward the fate of the generality of me11.» (Martin, The Theater 74; emphasis added) Though essentialism is still pervasive in much criticism on the play, the bel ief in Willy Loman as the tragic embodiment of a univer sa l and timeless human essence can be, and has been, questioned in a number of ways. It is true that Willy's tragic fate seems to traverse intercultural borders. lndeed , since its premiere, there has never been a time wh en the play was not being performed somewhere in the world and, cer tainl y, «rnany au<lience m em bers watching the 1990 Vienna production wcpt, as did the Chinese audience after seeing th e 1983 Beijing run » (Roudané, «Death» 63). Moreover. the play has even been performed befare a native audience in a small Arctic village «with the sarne villagers retuming night after night to witness the performance in a language they did not understand» (Murphy, Miller 106). None the less. one sho uld not for ge t that the play is popular in many co untries worldwide not be cau se Willy embodies a human esse nce unaffected by social and historical conditioning, but rather because of the grow ing internationalization of capitalism. In other words, the critique of the capitalist system that the play so forcefu ll y conveys is no doubt sympathetically und ers tood in many different nations aH over th e world. especially as capitalism -though originally American/Westernis bccoming the hcgemonic economic sys tem worldwi de. Second, and even more importantly. perhaps, if the play also appears to be wcll-liked in many pre-industrial countries, thcn this is probably so bccause it «brings audiences back to the edges of prehistory itself:» Postmodcrn in tcx tu re, rcifying a world in which cxpc ri ence is 'always read y' for the Loman s. thc play gains its th eatrical pow er from ancicnt echoes. its Hc ll enic mixture of pity and fear stirring primal emotions. (Roudané, «Death» 63) As Miller hims el f has put it: It's a well-tokl, paradoxical story. It scems to catcb th e paradoxes of being alive in a technological civiliza ti on. In one way or another, differcnt kinds of pcople [ ... ] apparcn tl y feel that th ey're i11 the play [ ... ]. It seems to have more or less the sa me effcct everywhere therc is a dominating te chnology. Although it's also po pular in places where lif e is far more pr ctechnological. Maybe it involves some of th e mosl rudimentary elements in th e civili z. in g proccss: family cohesion. death and dy in g, parricide, rebirth, and so on. The elements, J guess. are rather 28 Josep M. Arme ngol fundamental. Peoplc fe el these themes no matter where they are. (Roudané, Conversations 360 -3 6 1) Moreover, Miller has also said that th e best way to present a universal in drama is in terms of a «really specific story» (Miller, « Morality » 177). So in De ath <~f a Salesman universal feelings may be seen to derive from a particular tragic conflict, too. Finally, it must be stressed that even if everyone «feels» the play, irrespective of his/her specific social background, it is not always equa!ly felt everywhere. As Ann Massa has suggested, «if Death of a Salesma11 is a play that works in England, Spain, Norway and Beijing, il does so because it has some how allowed itself to be read in a bewildering variety of ways,» so that one even ends up wondering whether Willy's suicide is «a triumph or a tragedy» (123).'º Another (innovative) way of challenging widespread beliefs in Willy Loman as representative of a universal and timeless human essence may be through a Men's Studies approach. Indeed, Men 's Studies radic aUy contests, as has been suggested, essentialist assumptions of human universality and timelessness. In what fo ll ows, therefore, I shall be rereading Miller 's play not in terms of a universal and timeless human tragedy, but rather as a work dealing with a specifically ma sculine (or human) conflict, which has unremittingly affectcd American men ev er since the time of the Revolution in the eighteenth century. DEATH OF A SALESMAN AS A HUMAN TRAGEDY Traditionally, D ea th of a Sal es ma11 has been read as Miller 's harshest c ri ti que of the American Dream of success. In this respect. Matthew C. Roudané suggcsts, for exa mple , that Mill er's pl ay challengcs «a rich matrix of enabling fables that define lhc myth of lhe American Dream.» Indeed, the principlcs Witly Loman valucs ( «consumerism, economic salvation, competition, the frontier, self-sufficiency, public re cog nition. personal fulfillment,» etc.) are ali co nstitutivc, according lo Roudané ( « Deat/ 1» 60), of the definition of the American Dream. For his part, Gerald Weales has also shown how Willy Loman ha s «completely ernbraccd thc American myth,» sugge sting that «h is continuing s el f-delusion an d his occa sional self-awareness serve th e same purpose; they kccp him from questioning thc assumptions that lic beneath hi s failure and hi s pretense of success» ( «Arthur Miller: Man» 356-357). In his « lntr oduction to the Collected Play s,» Miller himself put forward the idea that whereas Biff Loman seems to believe in a new «system of !ove,» his father Willy is ruled by the «law of success,» that is. by the pursuit of «power, 1-.. ] success and its tokens» (169). 'º Fo r an ex ce ll e nt analysis of Mill cr's influence on thc Span is h stage. see Espejo. "A1te11t io11 . attentimi must be fi11ally paid to such a person: " ... 29 While it seems undeniable -a nd it is gene rally accepted-that Miller's play subverts the so-called American Dr eam of unlimited access to wealth and business success, it is equally true -though seldom a.rgued- 11 that in subverting th e Dream, Miller was also inevitably undermining the dominant id eal of American self-made masculinity upon which the Dream invariably rests. That the relationship between t he American Dream of success and the ideal of self-made masculinity in Death of a Salesman has not of ten been emphasized is particularly unusual if one bears in mind that se lf-made masculinity has been defined as a typically American model of manhood that «derives identity from a man's activities in the public sphere, measured by accumulated wcalth and status, by geographic and social mobility» (Kimmel, Manho od l 7)Y Granted that a fortune is «as easily unmade as it is made,» the self-made man is «uncomfo11ably linked to the volatile marketplace,» ai1d depends heavily upon «continued mobility.» As American sociologist Michael S. Kimmel explains: Of course, Self-Made Mcn were not unique to America; as th c natural outcome of capitalist economic life, they we re known as nouveaux ricltes in revolutionary France (and also known as noblesse de robe, as well as other, less pleasant terms, in the preceding century), and they had their counterpru1s in every European country. But in America, the land of immigrants and democratic ideals, thc land without hereditary tilles, th ey were present from the start. and they carne to domínate much sooner than in Europe. (Ma11hood 17) In the «growing commercial and, soon, industrial soc i ety of the newly independent America,» the self - made man was born at thc same time as his country. «Mo bile, competitive, aggressive in business,» the self-made man has always been «temperamentally rcstless, chronically insecure, and desperate to achieve a solid grounding for a mascul ine identity» (Kimme l, Manhood 17). Last but not least, the se lf-ma de man's desire for success is indissolubly linked to an individualistic conception of masculinit y. Th at is logical enough: after ali, selfmade men are the direct byproduct of the emerging capitalist markct in the early nineteen th - century d em ocratic America. So American self -made men , unlike " Thcre are. of course. sorne notable recent cxccptions. See, for instance. Bcy er (230). Biennan. H:u1, and Johnson (269). Ben -Z vi , Kimmcl (Manlwod), Savran. and Babcock. This chapter is indcbted to ali of them. 12 This (almost total) lac k. of masculinity-oriented analyses of Mi ll er's tragcdy is (even more) shocking if Iska Alter's, Kay Stanton's, or Jan Balakian·s opinions are takcn in to account. As Stanton argues. for instance: C ar eful ana lysis reveals that the American Dr cam as pr esent ed in Death of a Salesmcm is male-oriented. The play is heavily masculin e. Willy Loman is the trag ic prolagonist, and the effects of bis lrng ic ílaws are clearly engraved upon bi s sons. The roots of Willy's trage dy seern to be in his lack of attenti on from his fathcr and his perceived in adeq uacy to his brolhcr. Ben. Ali conílicts seem 10 be malc-rnale-Willy versus Biff . Willy versus Howard. Willy versus Charley. (6 7) 36 Josep M. Armengol On thc oth er hand, we also Jeam that Biff «borrows» a football from the sch oo l Jocker room so that he can practise wi th a «regulation ball,» and that his father !aughs with him at the theft and rewards the action by saying, «Co ach' ll probably congratulate you on your initiative» (29-30). As Babcock suggests in this respect, «initiative, even in Franklin's day, is one of the key elements of masculine autonomy, and here Miller insists that initiative is a form of thefl» (76). Fina lly. one could a!so be reminded that later in th e same sce ne Biff tells his fat her, «This Saturday, Pop, th is Saturday -j ust for you, I'm going to break through for a touchdown» (32). Though Happy reminds Biff th at he is «supposed to pass» (32), Biff ignores his brother's warning and says, «l'm takin' one play for P op) > (32). «What is lost in Biff's taking,» though, «is the team .» Act ua ll y, Bi ff's initiative, and his desire to place himself above the rest of the team, «jeopa rdizes the collective goal of the team - to win th e City Championship» (Babcock 76). As Babcock insist s: Miller problematizes Wi ll y's pedagogy by suggesti ng that evcn sanctioned cxpressions of masculinity involve th e ft. [ ... 1 This, of course, is a par ody of Ben 's logging operations in Alaska, but it also suggests that the individualism that the succcss ideology sanctions legitimates thcft. just as that ideology legitimates the expropriation of foreign land and mineral resources. (75) Tn fact, even Bill Oliver is stolen from Biff twice. In attempting to deflect their father's fury at learning that Bi ff plans to leave the business world and return to t he West, Biff is convinced by Happy that he should pay a visit to Oliver, with a view to stak in g thi s man in a new business venture, «The Loman Brothers.» Happy's <<feas ib le» idea is to have Biff bo rr ow money from Oliver, to start a line of sporting goods with his brother. Obviously, the idea is doomed to failure from the very beginning, not only because Biff has not seen Oliver for fifteen years but also be ca use he stole merchandise while he worked for him as a shipping clerk. Oliver, of co urse, rcfuses to give him any mon ey. And his decision, one is lcd to conclude, may be an intelligent one, for, after all, Biff cannot refrain himself from stealing from Oliver once again during their interview, this time his fountain pen. As he confesscs to his fat her at the clase of the pla y, « Yo u kn ow why I had no address for thr ee months? I stole a suit in Kansas ci ty and I was in jail. [ ... ] I stole myse lf out of every good jo b sincc high school!» (131) So although Miller himself intended Biff Loman to represen! the «law of J ove)> against the «law of success)) that his fath er embodies, it is not fi nally clear at a ll whether he is, in fact, as positive a model as is traditionally assumed. THE SELF-MADE (LO)MAN'S SEXUALITY Besides that, and even more importantly, perhaps, is the question of whether Biff Loman's sexual politics can lay a claim to a really new pattern of masculinity. "Attentio11, atte11tio11 must be final/y paid to such a perso11: " ... 37 Indeed, it is doubtful whether he will eventually succ ee d in getting rid of his family's sexist/mascuJinist heritage. Though Frederik L. Rusch has claimed, for example, that Bíff «rep re sems the matriarchal society» that subverts hi s fa ther's more «patriarchal order>> (98-99), '" I believe patriarchal values are engraved both upon the father and the son. In fact, Biff's masculinist biases become appa rent in two ways: first, through his openly derogatory opinions on effeminate men; and second, through his various misogynist drives. Indeed, hegemonic masculinity, as originally defined by Bob Connell, is not only based on the subordination of women but of sorne men as well. In particular, effemina te men must be disdained according to this cano nical definition of masculinity. Biff, fo r instance, tells his broth er that rather than devote their lives to the effete business world, «men buílt like we are should be» usíng «our muscles» and «working out in the open» (23). Endowed with thc muscularity and, in fact, sorne other ideals of the heroic artisan, Biff wishes, in other words, « to be outdoors, with your shírt off,» among cattle herders and farmhands» (22). Happy is equally frustrated wi th his effemínate boss: «Sometimes I want to jusi rip my clothes off in the middle of the store and outbox that goddam merchandise manager» (24). As Savran suggests: Both Biff and Happy dream of a male wor ld whose boundaries -unlike those of the unruly fcmale bodyare clearly defined, on that opposes hard muscle to a pregnable natural world. At the sarne time, th ey envision amale communíty whose borders are clearly demarcated, onc that uses ritualized combat as a form of social control (to express and contain aggressive impulses) aad pointedly excludes both women and effeminate mcn. (40) Actually, both Biff and Happy regard Bernard as «an anemic» and «a worm» (33, 40) because, despite his intellectual abilities, he la cks athletic prowess. Willy has told his sons that in order to succeed and become a self-made man, one has to be loved and «Well-liked.» That is why they look down on Bemard, just as Willy despises Charley (remember that in act l Willy descri be s Charley as «disgusting ,» «not a man,» because he «can't handle tools» [44]). In their opinion, Bemard is simply a failure, since he is no good at sports and is not «well-liked.» None the less, the Lomans' belief in athletic prowess and appearance as conduci ve to success and se lf -made masculinity proves illusory. As Charley warns " Rusch's argument presents, or so it seems to me. two main problems. First. it fails to acknowledge Biff's masculinist biases. Second. it is based on mono lithic conceptíons of patriarc hy and. espccially, matriarchy. In fact, he believcs patriarchy to be ba sed on the power of the state. man-madc laws. and obedicnce to them, wh ile he associatcs matriarchy with !ove, unity, ami pcace (98-99). Of course, this view not only fails to account for the culturally-speci fic variely (and strength) of patriarchal regimes, but also, and more importantly, it neglects the existence of a number of matriarchies with goddesses and women warriors. So Rusch's argument proves ultimate ly simplist ic and essentialis t. In fact, at times he seems to cquate matriarchy with patriarchal and reductionist notions of fcmininily. 38 Josep M. Armen gol his friend Willy, «Why must everybody like you? Who liked J. P. Morgan? Was he impressive? In a Turkish bath he'd Iook like a butcher. But with his pockets on he was very well liked» (97). Linda Kintz rightly notes that in here Charley gives Willy «the key to 'reading,' or deciphering, publicity and appearance,» which , of course, Willy misses its implications. In talking about J. P. Margan, Charley deconstructs the notion of being liked and locates the 'real' within the image. [ ... ] Money, as Charley knows but Willy does not, is the site where value is established. (111) So by the cnd of the play, Biff and Happy, despite their muscles and being «Well-liked,» are still unsuccessful, whereas Bemard's intellect has made him rich, successful, and (apparently) happy. Indeed, he finally appears before the Supreme Court as a respectable citizen as well as a happy father of two sons. In this way, then, Miller clearly shows that believing the bluster <loes not lead to the success one is promised. 19 As regards effeminate men, one should also rcfcr to Mr. Birnbaum, the math teacher who supposedly hates Biff because «One day he was late for class so 1 got up at the blackboard and imitated him. 1 crossed my eyes and talked with a lithp» (118). In fact, the play establishes a significant connection between (The) Woman and Mr. Birnbaum (Savran 40-42) In effect, as Willy bursts out laughing at his son's imitation of the teacher, «The Woman joins in offstage» and she enters, lisping like Mr. Birnbaum (118). As Savran suggests, the scene «explicitly thematizes a symmetry bctween the two lisping individuals who barge in unexpectedly and sabotage the hopes of Loman father and son: The Woman and Mr. Birnbaum.» Furthermore, Mr. Birnbaum and Biff are also linked «(as an original is to its imitation)» to become «a sign of the fear that the feminine always inheres inside the male subject» (41). Savran concludes, therefore, that for Biff, an oral transgression, the imitation of his math teacher, signals his «attempt to rescue his athletic achievements and embattled manhood by impersonating and casting offthe feminized man,» though the possibility that this scapegoating ritual will not succeed, that «his effeminacy will suddenly burst forth [ ... ] is the unacknowledged nightmare» lurking behind these «masculine myths» (42). The masculinist heritage Biff Loman has been bequeathed <loes not only become apparent, however, in his disdain for effcminate men. As has been suggested, it is also ev ident in his treatment of women in the play. 20 lndeed, Biff has had severa! 19 It might also be Millcr's way -as a liberal intellectual himself- of allowing the nerds to gct their revenge. 20 It is true that the burden of this !bsenesque «big secret» has taken hold of Biff. Unlike his brother Happy, to whom «sexuality» clings «like a visible color,» Biff has a «worn air>> (19). Wh en questioncd by Happy. he denies that he «still run[s] around a lot» with women and adds, «l don't know-what l'm supposed to want» (25. 22). However, thathis sexual activity appears to have decreased "A11e11tio11, atte11tio11 must be final/y paid to such a person: " ... 39 occasional affairs -i f we are to take Happ y's word far it -, although he, like his brother, appears to have failed to get on with any wo man for more than one night. In effect, he is already thirty-four years old and remains single, and one can by no means rest assured, g iv en his typically masculine/ist fantasies of escape to the West, that he will soon stop being a bachelor. In fact, Biff's sexual politics can only be fully und erstood if one takes into consideration the fact that he has been brought up in a Lr adition of (would-be) self-made frontiersmen, for whom important relations hip s are always homosocial (Savran 35-42), whereas heterosexual relationships, if pr esent at ali, are invariably bascd on the di sparagemen t, subordination, and exploita tion of women. Indeed, Father and Ben Loman seem to much prefer Alaska or thc African jungle to their wives; Willy keeps interrupting Linda when she talks and is unfaithful to her (though, as he tells Biff, The Woman in Boston means «nothing» to him, he was just fee li ng «terribly lonely» [p. 120 ]);~' and Happy, like h is brother , has also becn socialized into the se lf -m ade man's sexual paradigm. Indeed. a central requirement se t out by t he self-made masculinity ideal (und one which Happy seems to fulfill perfec tl y) i s, as has been sugges te d, the mascu li ne disparagement of womcn. Indeed, although Ha ppy repeatedly voices his firm decision to marry, he is already thirty-two years old and, like his brother, still single. Not surprisingly, of course. After all, he can just describe thc first pickup as a «strudel» wi th «binoculars» (100), and, as one of J an Balakian's stude nt s skilfully notes, «Happy says he wants somebody with character like hi s mother, but for him that means somebody who will cook u nd clean a nd mend. Remember, Biff says, 'They broke the mo ld when they made her. She's a saint fo r pu tting up with Will y'» (Balakian 122). Rather than marry, establish a se ri ous relationship, and settle do wn, Happy seems to prefer to fantasize along with his brother about a future masculinc dream of escape to the West and, m ea nwhile, taking his business competitors' girls. As he tells bis brother: That girl Charlotte 1 was wit h ton ight is engag cd to be married in fi ve weeks. [ ... ] the guy is in li ne for th e vice-presidency of the store. I don't know what gets into me, maybe I just have an overdeveloped sense of competi tion or somcthin g, but I went a nd ruined her[ ... ]. And h e's the third executi ve I've done that to. [ ... ] And to top it a li , 1 go to their weddings! (25) afler 1h e Boston scene should not lead us to conclude, of course, that his masculinisl assumptions as regards women have proportiona ll y shifted. lndeed. his «post-Bostonian» relalionships with women such as Letta and Miss Forsylhe seem to suggest otherwise. 21 Though Willy Loman st rives to co nvin ce his son 1hat The Woman means nothing to him, she never disappears completely from Willy's {or Biff's) mi n d. and so she certainly p la ys a crucial role as the lbsenesque «big sccret» within the play. which secms to conlradict (at least in part) J an Balakian 's contention 1hat «The Woman, like Mi ss Forsythe and Letta, has 1w power and almost no characteriz at ion» (11 7; emph as is added). 40 Jos ep M. Armengol «The only trouble» is, of course, «it gets like bowling or something. I just keep knockin' them over and it doesn't mean anything» (25). As Happy confesses to his brothcr: «l don't know what the hell I'm workin' for. Sometimes 1 sit in my apartmem -ali alon e. And l think ofthe rent I'm paying. And it's crazy. But then, it's what I always wantcd. My own apartment, a car, and p/enty of women. And still, goddanunit, I'm lonely.» (23; emphasis added) Through (Un)Happy Loman, then, wc can clearly see how the success ideal is invariably associated with a sense of fierce competition that usually ends up engulfing men and, abovc all. objectifying women. So it seems, as David Savran (35-42) argues, th at both Biff and Happy Loman havc been brought up in what French theorist Luce Irigaray would ca ll an eminently lwm(m)o-sexual environment. In lrigara y's tcrms, hom (m)o-sex uality describes a system of exchange under patriarchy always referring to the «production of women, signs and commodities [ ... ] back to men.» 22 Tnsisting further, she sugges ts that it is a social monopoly in which «W ives, daughters, and sisters have value only in that thcy serve as the possibility of, anri potential benefit in, relations among men.» In this system, «man begets man as his own likeness» and women function simply as conduits, esteemed only insofar as they articulate male homosocial relations, relations between men (lrigaray, l 70-172).2' Applying Irigaray's ideas to the analysis of Miller's play, Savran argues: Throughout the play, women are associated with a chaotic and disruptive natural realm that must be r ... ] controlled so that it cannot undermine the three cardinal masculinc characteristics: achievement. responsibility, and authority. Like Ben's jungle or the ma re and colt that Biff finds so thrilling, women ( ... ] are rendered sources of inspiration and beauty only when subdued by che conquering male. (36) " T n<leed . hom(m)o-scxuality often tums women into commo<lities. In Death of a Salesmcm. for example, Thc Woman is ctearly objectified by Wilty. and Miss Forsythe and Letta, the ca lt girls in thc restaurant, are also regarded by Biff and Happy a~ «objects that can be tra<led» (Balakian 11 7). Only apparentl y. of course. As these women are not wives. they are not totally under men·s control: «They can 'tempt" sons to desert their father in a restaurant or, worse, cause a father to alienatc his son. Women are indccd propcrty of a dangcrous sort» (Austin 63). Ali this seems to lend furthcr support, of course, to the subversive power/potcntial of Miller's play in terms of sexual politics. zJ Gayle Austin makes a similar point. Staiting off from Gayle Rubin's seminal study «The Traffic in Women» (1975) -an essay that synthesizes in turn the theories of Marx, Lévi-Strauss. and Freud (vía Lacan) to offer a model of feminist anthropology (Austin suggests) as Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick (Berween Men) did in relation to other major literary worksthat in Miller's play women are r ep rcsented as objects to be exchan ge d among men. As Deatlz of a Salesman is cent ra l to modern American drama. it constitutes. Austin contends, an importan! obstac le to the inclusion of women's expe ri ence in serious theatre. See also Ba lakian ( 1 t 9-121) in this respect. "At1e11tio 11 , a11e11tio11 mus/ he final/y paid to . mch a person: ", .. 41 Indeec.1, it appears that throughout Miller 's work th e female body is «constantly in danger of overt1owing its limits.» It is often «uns table and unfi xe d» and its boundaries [ar e] always in di spute. It s interior -c onstituted indifferently of speech, sexual desire, or partially digested food- [is] alwa ys threatening to erupt an d cngulf men in a se a of laug ht er, chaos, and stink. (Savran 38) Savran adds that, because of that, men in Death of a Sa!esman must always be on guard, to repress the female body: Ma sculinity in Miller's pl ay i s, therefore, both aggr essively heteros ex ual and homosocia!Y However, eve n if men are required to police «the feminine» with in th em , they have ali b ee n tainted by it: The Woman in Boston is not only the symbol of Willy 's adulterous liaison, threatening both hi s «own masculine self-sufficiency and the very stability and durability of the patrilineal eco nomy,» but si nce that fatal day Biff has also become a compulsive liar and a th ief, «declining in initiative, feeling 'mixed up vcry bad ' (p. 23), th e prey of de spair anc.l 'self-loathing' (p. 1 24 )» (Savran 40 ). Moreovcr, as Victor Seidler and othe rs have suggested, since the sixteenth century the male de sire to regulate others (most notably women) has led to mas cu line s elf -discipline, self-control, and, ultimatel y, to men's estrangement from their own bo di es. «When this self-control is extended to the control of others,» Savran concluc.l es, it is called «masculinity:» It is thc powe r-always st riven for but on ly fitfully attainedt hat e na bles the men in Miller's work to master and regulate women's promiscuous desires and to stcm the vornit, to k ee p the female body from spilling over and, lik e a sewer, contaminating th e se!f-contro ll ed, sel f-contained, and se lf-reliant male s ub jec t. (39 ) CONCLUSIONS From what h as been argued so far, it seems ne cessary to draw a number of general conclusions. First, it appears that alth ough mat erialism has in sistently challenged its main cr itica! assumptions, essentialism is still recurre nt in much critici sm on t ragec.ly. Essentialist views are al so identifiable in much criticism on Arthur Miller 's Death of a Salesman, esp ec ially in the widely shared critica! assump ti on of Willy Loman as representative of a timeless a nd univ ersa l human essence. Second, th ough essentialist views on Willy Lom an can be, and have b ee n, challenged in a numb er of ways, Men 's Studies may prove partic ul arly help fu l in this respect. Indeed, Men's Studi es analyzes masculiniti es a nd male experiences as " Though the play docs not opcnly describe any homos ex ual or homoero ti c relati on ship, Miller's description of Biff 's and Happy"s muscularity and physical prowess is certainly charged with (homo)erntic undertones. 42 Jos ep M. Armengol specific and changing social-historical-cultural formations, a nd , ther efore, si tuates masculiniti es as ob ject s of study on a par with femininities, inst ea d of elevating them to universal paradigms (Brod, «The Case» 40). So rereading Miller 's play from a Men 's Studies perspecti ve can help us (en)gen de r Willy's tra ge dy as a specifically masculi ne , rather than timeless and univer sa l, conflic t. In eff ect, in subverting the Ame ri can Dream of success, Death of a Salesman. may also be seen to undermine the Am erican ideal of se lf - ma de masculinity to w hi ch the Dr eam is indissolubly linked. An in-depth analysis of the play suggests, in fact, that the critique of this masculine ideal is vividly conveyed through most of Willy Loman's daydreams and self-delusions. Although the play's indictment of th e se lf -made masculinity ideal is nowhere bett er expressed than in Miller 's portrait of Willy 's failed li fe and tr agic death, as well as in his sons' in ability/unwillingness to live up to his fath er's expectations, there are other (self-made) men in the pl ay, such as Father Loman and B en , who, des pite Will y's idealization of them, also become the targ et of Miller 's critique. It also seems right to conclude tha t, notwithstanding Miller's severe critique of the American self-made man, he fails, ultimately, to provide any alternative, consistently positive models of masculinity. In deed , despite Biff Loman' s rejection of (some of the elements informing) his fath er 's dream of self-made masculinity, Willy's influence on his s on is still all pervasive. Moreover, his treatment of women (and men) throu gh out the play is un a ba shedly masculinist, which shows the pervasive influence of his familial patriarchal heritage. That the male characters in the play prove both ho mophobic and misogynist does not mean, though, that Miller's play advocates such attitudes. z.• Indeed, the whole argument underlying this essay suggests otherwise. If Mill er's play is readable as a critique of the American Drearn of success, and therefore as a powerful indictrnent of the sel fmade masculinity ideal on which the Dream invariably rests, th en the play rn ay also be seen to (at least implicitly) undermine the masculinist and misogynist bi ases on which th is ideal of self-rnade masculinity is based. As Balakian has suggested in this respect (and I would agree): Death of a Salesman does not co nd one the locker-room treatment of women any more th an it approves of a de humanizing capita li sm, any more than A Streetcar Named Desire approves of Sta nl ey Ko wa ls ki 's brash c hau vi ni sm or David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross ap proves of sleazy real-estate salesmen. Instead, th e pl ay as ks us to question whether th e dichoto mi ze d irnage of wo man as either mother or whore is a desirable cultural val ue. (1 24 ) As a general concludi ng rernark, it might not be t oo fanciful to insist on th e usefulncss of (re-)reading Miller 's D ea th of a Sa l esman (and his other classical pl ays) u Indeed. Sav ran 's text is seriousty jeopardized because it k eep s mistaking description for prescription. "Aue11tio11, att ention must be final/y paid w such a perso11: " ... 43 from a Men's Studies perspective. After ali, an in-d ep th analysis ofthe play's central c on ce rn with gen de r i ss ue s and (self-made) masc ulinity is long overdue. Th is work ai ms at contributing to filling in this gap. 1t is high time that we, as critics/readers, began to take seriously Linda Lo man's famous (though long-ignored) plea, for, after ali, Willy Lo man is a « hum an being, and a t er rible thing is happ en ing to him. So attention must be paid. [ ... ) Attention, attention mus t be finally paid to such a person» (56; emphasis added). WORKS CITED Alter, Iska. «Betrayal and Btesse dn ess. Explorations of Feminine Power in The Cruci ble, A Viewfrom the Bridge, and After tlze Fall.» Feminist Rereadings of Modern American Drama. Ed. Ju ne Schlueter. London a nd Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1989. 116-145. Armengol, Josep M. «Gendering the lrish Land: Seamus Heaney's 'Act of Union' .» Arlan/is: Revista de la asociación española de es111dios a11glo - 1101 1 eam ericanos 23.1 (Ju ne 2001): 7-26. Austin, Gayle. «The Ex change ofWomen and Male Homosocial D es ire in Arthur Mi ll cr's Death of a Salesma11 and Lillian Hellman's Another Part of the Furest.» Femi11is1 Rereadings of Modern Am erican Drama. Ed. June Sc hluet er. London and To ronto: Associated Univcrsity Presses, 1989. 59-66. Babcock, Francis Granger. «'What's th e Secret?' Willy Lom an as Desiring Machine.» American Drama 2.1 (fall 1992): 59-83. Balakian, Jan. «Beyond the Malc Lockcr Room: De ath of a Salesman fr om a Feminist Perspective.» Approaches to Teaching Miller's Death of a Salesman. Ed. Matthew C. Roudané. New Yo r k: The Modcrn Language Association of America, 1995. 115-124. Ben-Zvi, Linda. «' Home Sweet Home': Deconstructing the Masculine Myth ofthe Frontier in Modern American Drama.» The Frontier Experience and the American Dr eam. Eds. David Mogen, Mark Busby, and Paul Br ya nt. Austin: Texas A&M U ni versi ty Press, 19 89. 217-225. Bey er, William. «The State of the Theatr e: The Season Opens.» 1949. Death of a Salesman. Ed. Gerald Weales. New Yo rk: Viking Penguin, 1996. 228-230. Bierce, Ambrose. The Enlarged Devil's Dicrionary. 1906. Lo nd on: Víctor Gollancz, 19 67. Bicrman, Judah, James Hart, and Stanley Johnson. «Arthur Miller: Death of a Salesman.» 195 8. Death of a Snle.mzan. Ed. Gerald Weale s. New Yor k: Viking Penguin, 1996 . 265- 27 1. Bigsby, Christopher. Afterword. The Archbfa'hop's Ceiling. By Arthur Miller. London: Methuen, 1977 . 342-350. Brod, Harry. «The Case for Men 's Studíes.» The Making of Masculinities: The New Men 's Studies. Ed. Harry Brod. Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1987. 39-62. -. The Making of Masculinities: The New Men 's Studies. Bosto n: Allen and Unwin, 1987. 44 Josep M. Armengol Brown, John Mason. «E ven As You and l. » 1963. Death of a Sal es man. Ed. Gerald Weales. New York: Yiking Penguin, 1996. 205-211. Butl er, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism a mi the S ub ver sion of / de ntity. New York: Routledge, 1990. Conncll, R. W. Gender and Power. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Pr ess, 198 7. Corrigan, Robert W. «lntroduction: The Achievement of Ar thur Miller.» Arthur Miller: A Collecti011 of Critica[ Essays. Ed. R obe1 t W. Co rrigan. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1969. Coy, Ja vier. «Art hur Miller: Notas para una interpretación sociológica.» Filología mod em a 23-24 (1966). -. «Las constantes temáticas de A1thur Miller.» Presencia literaria (1 7 oct. J 971 ). Drakakis, John. «lntroduction.» Slzak es pearean Tragedy. Ed. John Drakakis. London and New York: Longman, 1992. 1-44. Espejo. Ramón. «El teatro de Arthur Miller y su repercusión fuera de los EE .U U. durante los años 50: el caso español.» Diss. Universidad de Sevilla, 2000. Fiedler, Leslie. Love ami Death in the Am erican Novel. 1960. Illinois: Dalkey Archive Prcss. 1997. -. «The Novel in America.» A Fiedler Reader. Ncw York: Stein a nd Da y, 1977. Fuller, A. Howard. «A Salesman Is Everybody.» 1949. De mh of a Salesman. Ed. Gerald We alcs. New York: Yi king Penguin, 1996. 240-243. Garland, Robert. «Audience Spcllbound by Prize Play of 1949.» 1949. Death of a Salesman. Ed. Gerald W ea les. New York: Viking Penguin, 1996. 199- 20 l. Gordon, Lois. «Death of a S al es ma 11 : An Appreciation .» The Forties: Fiction, Poetr y, D ra ma. Ed. Warrcn French. De land, Fla .: Everett/Edwards, 1969. 273-283. Ha wkins. William. «Death of a Salesman P ow erful Traged y.» 1949. Death of a Salesman. Ed. Gerald Weales. Ncw York: Viking Penguin, l 996. 202-204. Hurt, James. «Family and History in De at h of a Salesman.» Appr oa che s to Tea ching Mi/l er' s De ath of a Salesman. Ed. Matthew C. Roudané. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 1995. 134-141. Irigara y, Luce. This Sex Which Is Nor One. Trans. Cathcrine Porter with Carolyn Burke. Ithaca, Ncw Yo rk: Co rn ell University Press, 1985. Kimmel, Michael S., ed. Changing Men. New Directio11 s on Research 011 Men and Masculinity. Newsbury Park: Sage, 1987. -. Manhood in America: A Cultural Histor y. 1996. New Yo rk: The Fr ee Press, 1997. Kintz, Linda. «The Sociosymbolic Work of Family in Death of a Salesman.» Approaches to Teaching Miller' .1· Dea th of a Salesman. Ed. Matthew C. Roudané. New York: The Modem Language Association of America, 1995. 102-114. Ko lo dny, Annette. The L ay of the Land: Metaphor as Experience and His to1 y in Am erican Lif e and Letters. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975. Lawren ce , D. H. Studies in Clussical American Literature. New York: Thomas Seltzer, 19 23. Le Vot, Andre. F. Scott Fi tzgerald. Trans. William Byron. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1983. Martin, Robert A .. ed. Th e Theater Essays of Arthur Miller. New York: Yiking, 197 8. Mason, J eff rey D. «Paper Dolls: Melodrama and Sexual Politics in Arthur Miller's Early Plays.» Feminist Re readings of Modern American Drama. Ed. June Schlueter. London and Toronto: Associated University Pre sses, 1989. 103-115. "Atte 11tim1 , attentio11 mmr be final/y paid to suc h a person: " ... 45 Massa. Ann. «Sorne Kind of Love Story: Arthur Miller.» American Declarations of Love. Ed. Ann Massa. London: Macrnillan, 1990. 12 2-136. Miller, Arthur. Situation Normal. New York: Reynal a nd Hitchcock, 1944. -. The Story of G. l. loe (screenplay), 19 44. -. Fo cus: A Novel. 1945. New Yo rk : Penguin, 2001. -. Ali My Smu. 1947. New York: Penguin, 2000. The Ho ok (screenplay). 1947. Death of a Salesman. 1949. Ed. GeraJd Wcales. New York: Vik ing Penguin, 1996. «Tragedy and thc Common Man.» 1949. Death of a Salesman. Ed. Gerald We ales. New York: Viking Penguin, 1996. 14 3-147. - . A Memory of Two Monda ys . 1955. New York: Dramatist s Play Scrvice, Inc., 1995. « Ün Social Plays.» 19 55. The Theater Essays of Arthur Mil/er. Ed. Robert A. Martín. New York: Viking, 1978. 51-69. «Thc Family in Modern Drama.» 1956. Modern Dram a: Essays in Criticism. Ed. Travis Bogard and Williarn l. Oliver. Ncw York: O xfo rd UP, 1965. 2 19 -23 3. «Introduction to th e Colle cted Pl ays.» 1957. Death of a Salesman. Ed. Geraid Weales. Ncw York: Viking Penguin, 1996. 155-17 1. « The Shadow of the Gods.» Harper's Magazine 217 ( 1958): 36. Inddent at Vichy. 1964. New York: Penguin, 1985. The Price. 1968. Los Angeles: L. A. Theatre Works, 2001. The Archbislwp's Ceiling. 1977. New York: Dramatists Play Servicc, ln c., 1985. The American Clock: A \laudeville. 1980. Ncw Yo rk: Dramatists Play Service, Jnc .. 1981. Playing f or Time. 19 80. Woodstock: Drama ti c Publishing Compan y, 1985. Timebends: A Lije. New York: Grove, 1987. Brokell Glas s. 1994. New York: Penguin, 1995. Echoes Down the Corridor: Collected Essays. 1944-2000. Ed. Steven R. Centol a. Ncw Yor k: Viking-Penguin, 2000. Murphy, Brenda. Miller: Death of a Salesman. Cambridge: CUP, 1995. -. «The Tradition of Social Drama: Miller and His Forcbe ar s.» The Cambridge Companion to A11h11r Miller. Ed. Christophcr Bi gsb y. Ca mbridge: CUP. 1997. 10-20. Po rt er, Thomas E. «Strong Gods and Scxualit y: Guilt and Responsibility in the Later Plays of Arthur Miller .» American Drama 6. I ( fa ll 1996): 89 - 11 2. Rieme r, James D. «Rereading American Literature from a Men's Studies Perspective: Sorne Impli ca ti ons .» The Making of Masculinities: The New Men 's Studies. Ed. Harry Brod. Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1987. 290-299. Rodríguez Celada, Antonio. Arthur Mill er, la sociedad, el existencialismo y el mito. Salamanca: AJmar, 1980. Roudané, Matth ew C. Cmzversations with Arthur Miller. Jackson: UP of Mississippi, 1987. -. «Dea th of a Salesman and the Poetics of Arthur Miller.» The Cambridge Companion to Arthur Miller. Ed. Christophcr Bigsby. Cambridge: CUP, 1997. 60-85. Rubin, Gayle. «The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Po litical Economy' of Sex.» Toward an Anthropology of Wom en. Ed. Ra y na R. Rei te r. Ncw York: Monthly Review Prcss, 1975. 157-210.