A different type of prejudice: The allegory concealed in Lydia Davis’s "The White Tribe"

As people grow up and are exposed to the surrounding world, we develop subconscious stereotypes and connotations for particular words, based on our surroundings and culture. For those of us socialized in the Western cultural context, the word "tribe" generally is not associated with white people; the word has connotations of a more "primitive" native people, while white people are the ones arriving on their shores and "enlightening," or, more realistically, subjugating those "tribes." And yet, Lydia Davis’s "The White Tribe" mashes these stereotypes together into a single phrase – creating an internal tension and calling those stereotypes into question. The story goes on to present the primary conflict of the story as being between "civilized" and "primitive" actors, which initially appears to be a satirical commentary on these racial stereotypes; on a closer read, however, almost every element can be interpreted as well as a critique on how we treat the homeless – and implicates the reader as being guilty as well.

The title "The White Tribe" immediately places us in the framework of race; both the words "white" and "tribe" are associated with race, with "tribe" in particular connoting negative stereotypes of primitive, non-civilized, non-white people. Describing the tribe as "white" invites us to view this situation as a reversal of expectations: the whites are the primitive tribe, while the presumably non-white "we" of the narrator are the developed, civilized society, complete with windows, fences, and gravel terraces. Through using the inclusive pronouns of "we" and "us," the readers as well are encouraged to identify themselves with the narrator, building the assumption that the reader is from this same "civilized" background. No matter what the reader’s background actually is, for the duration of the story, the reader views things from the perspective of the narrator, identifying with their position and opinions; and by initially framing our thoughts around this racial framework, with connotations of historical oppression and conflict, the story invites us to view this scenario in terms of oppressed and oppressor.

However, other aspects of the story reveal that race is not the only factor at play here, and perhaps not even the primary factor – instead, as the narrator watches from the window of their home, we put together the clues that the white tribe has no such home, and the "primitive" figures are actually the homeless. Aside from the underlying basis of the narrator being inside the home and the white tribe outside of it, the first hint we have that this scenario is an allegory for the homeless comes from the description of the white tribe itself. "They are pitifully thin," we are informed, showing that these people are malnourished and lacking basic resources. They are "bloodless" – low-class, with none of the "blue blood" of the rich and noble. Less directly, they "rub the tops of their heads," suggesting that these people are suffering from lice and a lack of available hygiene resources.

Once we’ve recognized these descriptions and identified the allegory, the critique of the treatment of the white tribe becomes clear, as we uncover how the elements in the story relate to contemporary real-world practices. The people in the house put up "tall wire fences" – reflecting the way in which hostile architecture, designed to prevent the homeless from resting or sleeping in public, has become more and more prominent. When the white tribe overcomes these built obstacles, they are described as "grin[ning] fiendishly" – an expression that brings to mind the macabre grin of a skull more than any expression of joy, indicating that this "grin" is actually a grimace of pain. This pain is considered justified in order to keep the white tribe – or the homeless – from experiencing rest or ease in the proximity of those in the home. On a related note, what crime does the white tribe commit for which "extreme measures" are considered justified? They devastate the Heidelbergs and Lady Belpers, and take rocks from the woods: stealing nothing of practical value, but only offending the "civilized" people’s aesthetic sensibilities. Similarly, in the real world, the mere presence of the homeless is often criminalized only for aesthetic reasons, such as by making it illegal to pitch tents in public for being "eyesores."

Beyond satirizing concrete legal and physical persecution, "The White Tribe" critiques our ways of thinking about the homeless, through the lens of the narrator – the "we" in the story. We see how the white tribe is dehumanized: they are compared to demons directly, via the description as "fiendish," and compared to animals both directly and indirectly; directly when they spring over the fence "like gazelles," and indirectly when the "pale bugs" are described at the end of the story, calling back to the depiction of the white tribe. These dehumanizing comparisons invite us to consider our own internalized views of the homeless, such as often paying them the same attention we would to a dog or cat in the street or actively avoiding them – treating them no differently than an animal. The white tribe is also expected to make do with the "boulders" and "shards of stone" that are readily available. This expectation mirrors how, in the real world, we often expect the homeless to be satisfied with (and grateful for) the unwanted items that we give them, such as worn-out clothing or old food, even if those items are the wrong size, like the boulders, or unsatisfying and uncomfortable like the shards of stone. Relatedly, the white tribe is implied to be greedy, as they are "stuffing" the roses into their bags. So too, when the homeless are not satisfied with our castaways, they are characterized as greedy and ungrateful. The white tribe is additionally portrayed as untrustworthy and deceitful, putting on a "performance" in order to steal the roses. Similarly, we often mistrust the homeless, assuming that they are criminals and drug addicts, rather than victims of a system of class and property, in which public resources are privatized and locked away.

The text subtly critiques this privatizing of resources as well, telling us how the white tribe takes rocks from "our" woods – a natural, public resource, which has been turned into private property, and benefiting from it has been criminalized. Much like the "tribes" in the era of colonialism (invoked through the words "white" and "tribe") had their land, resources, and bodies seized and sold, here too, the public have their resources seized and locked away for only the rich – the "we" of the narrative, shallowly concerned with their Heidelbergs and Lady Belpers – to benefit from, disproportionately affecting the homeless.

The words "we," "our," and "us" appear a total of seventeen times in this work. The distinction between the "us" of the civilized world, as seen through the lens of the narrator, with our roses, terraces, and other trappings, and between the "them" of the primitive tribe, is clear. As the story continues, subtly critiquing the thoughts and behaviors of the "us" as the narrator, the sheer repetition of this concept of "us" and "we" drives home that these inclusive pronouns not only describes the narrator, but includes us – the readers. By building this allegorical narrative and constantly framing it as being about "us," "The White Tribe" makes it clear that it is not only the "we" in the narrative who are guilty, but we, the readers, as well. Throughout the story, we have viewed this unjust scenario from the perspective of the people in the home, having been forced to identify with them through the framing of the narrative being told from their perspective combined with the constant use of "we" and "us." Once we recognize that this perspective, which we have adopted for the duration of the story, is a prejudiced one, we are invited to reflect on our own attitudes – have we been unconsciously perpetuating a prejudiced perspective in the real world? Will we, too, continue to be temporarily "ashamed" of our actions and thoughts, but then take or ignore "extreme measures" in our own world?

Through the words "white" and "tribe," framing our thinking around race and specifically evoking connotations of historical oppression, the story directs our thinking towards the concepts of discrimination and prejudice – but then reminds us that there are types of prejudice beyond racial discrimination, that we may not be as constantly aware of as we are of race. The text reminds us that "we," the readers, who have been associated with the narrator and forced, through the text, to view the situation from their perspective, are guilty of all that the "we" in the narrative are guilty of, and gives us the opportunity to change how we think moving forward, allowing us to be more aware of – and able to address – our internalized biases and prejudices.

Works Cited

Davis, Lydia. "The White Tribe." Samuel Johnson is Indignant, McSweeney’s, 2001, p. 6.