There comes a time in every man’s life when he must discuss the assertion, “Although Wilson populates his plays with African Americans, ‘Fences’ is a story that resonates with people of all backgrounds”. When this time comes, whether over dinner or in English class, at the theater or at the movies, he must be prepared to take the challenge as it comes. Ever watchful, ever vigilant, he must not shirk from grappling with this essential part of every man’s life. But how to answer the assertion? What methods may he use to confront this fundamental question that haunts his waking thoughts?

Aristotle provides us with an answer in, “Ethics”. This ancient thinker believed that the art of dialectics may provide answers to all questions, no matter how fundamental or complex. He argued that only the clash of thesis upon counter-thesis can yield anything close to that flightiest of concepts; essential truth. Whether correct or not, we will follow his method; for, even if it yields no results, it is often better to go forward on an erroneous path than to remain paralyzed by indecision.

The assertion that August Willson’s famous play resonates with people of all backgrounds seems unconquerable at first. How, you may ask, can we wrestle so broad a generalization into tearful submission. Aristotle recommends that we first isolate the problem so we may effectively deal with it.

Following his method we find that that the words upon which the assertion hinges are, “people of all backgrounds”. This fragment is a conspiracy of plurals, with both, “people” and, “backgrounds” signifying the anti-singular presence.

This makes the fight an even more uphill battle for, while a single person is easy to judge and quantify, a large group is far harder to analyze. And to add to this is the word, “all”, which causes, “backgrounds” to mutate from a mere plural into a terrifying generalization. “Backgrounds” may mean two or more but, “all backgrounds” means every group under the sun.

Therefore we must begin to pick apart the statement at what constitutes its weakest link. This is found in the word, “people”. Unmodified by an, “all”, people remains a manageable two or more. Though, “all people” can be invalidated by a single dissenter it takes only two people to validate the unmodified claim. I personally think that the story of, “Fences” resonates with me. My dad thought so too when he saw it. Therefore, the play resonates people of our background.

Implicit in the statement is the assumption that, “Fences” resonates with those of a background shared by the characters in the play, so now we have two backgrounds that the play resonates with. If that was all there was to it there would be nothing left to say, but we are once again thwarted by the modifier, “all”. The play must resonate with every background if it is to be proven true. But though a weaker man might fall to the floor weeping by the seeming impossibility of the task I refuse to be bested by an assertion.

Though I can speak for no one but myself or someone else’s direct words we can still use the dialectical method to delve closer to the statement’s essential truth. Of all the millions of people that belong to each ethnic background it makes sense to believe that, if the play resonates with several people of two different backgrounds, it should resonate with at least a few people of other backgrounds. Also, as the play is a classic and widely produced in a variety of languages, it is easy to assume that it receives equitable audiences of many races and creeds. Thus, though we have no proof, the odds against this being true are very slight.

But we are not done yet. Acting under the assumption that the assertion is true we are left to wonder the reason for this. Why is a play set so deeply in another time and another place so applicable to humanity today?

For an answer to this question let us turn to another connoisseur of theater , though admittedly one a little closer to our time.In, “The Art of Dramatic Writing”, Lajos Ergi states that a classic is created when a play deals with an essential and timeless part of human nature. Only through use of a fundamental human truth can we touch the hearts of those the writer has never and will never lay eyes on.

This notion seems irrefutable. “Romeo and Juliet”, is a classic still, though it is hundreds of years since its first performance graced the well worn floors of an English theater. Yet it is safe to say that few, if any, of its audience have been members of a warring family of aristocrats that cannot speak save for perfectly metered rhymes. The play grabs our interest because of its essential premise, that great love defies even death. The desperate need for love and to believe in a love wrought true has long been one of humanity’s most dominant cares.

In fences the fundamental story is one of the relationship between a father and son. Everyone in the world has had a father and most grew up knowing them, or at least someone who filled the role. The parental relationship is the play’s central theme. Troy is not so much afraid of a battle with death as he is of his own unimportance.

It is one of the cruelest injustices in the world for children, out of love and concern, to keep their troubles from their parents. Parents want to feel important and maintain their contact to their children’s lives. If they are shunted out they loose the role and feel awful because of it. How many parents complain that their children neither call nor write? It is because of this fundamental need to fight obscurity and remain close to their children.

The attraction of, “Fences” is threefold. The audience remembers their relationship with their parents, and even their children if they have any. They also live through Troy’s battles with death, empathizing with his gnawing terror of obscurity. Finally, they align with Rose’s acceptance of Troy despite the many wrongful acts he committed. These central relationships the audience has are irrelevant to race or ethnic background.
Even a play as far removed from the audience’s reality as this one is to me, may resonate if at its core lies an essential human truth.