In the last segment of the analysis of Kenny Rogers’ Lucille, I only moved down past the first two sentences. Yes, it seems ridiculously pedantic to hardly make it so far. At the same time, however, it felt like a worthwhile exercise to get to grips with the song. As I said in that initial analysis, Rogers effortlessly sets the scene in no less than the first two lines, and tees us up for a story of tragedy through which the narrator is still trying to find his true feelings and come to terms with how he should remember the incident in his mind. The song is a vessel through which the narrator can explore his thoughts, and we, the audience, are offered front row seats at the tragedy he produces in his mind.
At this point, however, it’s necessary to move on, to move on like Lucille hopes to do. We’re not going to go too far ahead, however; only a few lines down to finish off the rest of this opening verse. Again, for the benefit of us to dissect, here it is with the first two sentences redacted:
…
On a bar stool she took off her ring
I thought I’d get closer
So I walked on over
I sat down and asked her name
When the drinks finally hit her
She said I’m no quitter
But I finally quit livin’ on dreams
I’m hungry for laughter
And here ever after
I’m after whatever the other life brings.
Lucille, Kenny Rogers, 1977. Source: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/kennyrogers/lucille.html, date accessed 28/07/2020.
Lucille, after arriving at the bar, does not mess around in making herself an object suitable for men’s attention. The removing of the wedding ring (a fair assumption, I’d say, on what ring is being referred to) seems to take on a symbolic meaning in the song, and is perhaps a reflection of the role of women in country-machismo culture. It’s almost like there is a conflict between this country-machismo of men being dominant over women and also the idea of the Culture of Honor. I would argue that this is further complicated by the clear indication, as the song goes on, that the narrator himself is a victim of this triangulation of competing ideas as well as the realities of the situation he finds himself in. This is perhaps where I should try and define these terms a little.
Firstly, I’ll start with the Culture of Honor. This concept is a little more defined, and in the nature of this being a blog by a disinterested philosopher, it’s going to be a little loose around the edges anyway. The Wikipedia entry on the “Culture of Honor (Southern United States)”, introduces and surmises the topic as,
… a culture where people avoid intentionally offending others, and maintain a reputation for not accepting improper conduct by others. A theory as to why the American South had or may have this culture is an assumed regional belief in retribution to enforce one’s rights and deter predation against one’s family, home and possessions.
Culture of Honor (Southern United States), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_honor_(Southern_United_States), date accessed 28/07/2020.
The near-synonymous connection between Southern culture and country music implies that beliefs like this, if testable and provable, would potentially have an enduring effect on the songwriters from the region and could surely be witnessed in their songs, particularly those which reflect the storytelling nature of country music.
So how does this tie back to the image of Lucille removing her ring and Rogers’ narrator subsequently singing that, “I thought I’d get closer/ So I walked on over/ I sat down and asked her name…”? As the Wikipedia page goes on to state, “The Southern culture of honor also includes a notion that ladies should not be insulted by gentlemen. Southern gentlemen are also expected to be chivalrous towards women, in words and deeds.”
Hmmm. So what we’re seeing is that Rogers’ narrator sees the removing of the ring as potentially opening an invitation for her to be approached. It would be gravely insulting for a man to question a woman’s chastity and fidelity to her husband by approaching her whilst still clearly married. At the same time, the narrator, now aware that the women within his sights is not part of another man’s family or even is not his “possession”, may feel able to move in on her without fear of retribution from a husband.
But she could be still seen as a “possession” of another man, even by removing her ring. I guess this is what I mean by her being the subject of a country-machismo. There is an underlying need that she be “looked after” by a man. With the removal of a wedding ring, she is no longer the property of another man and the narrator is now able to move in. The ring is, to an extent, an oppressive instrument by the nature of its very being. With it, she is owned and without it, she is subject to being owned again.
Just by way of a side point, however, there is an almost proto-feminist quality to the action of Lucille removing the ring too. I would argue that the song is supremely feminist in its entirety anyway, although I would feel less keen on backing this statement up right now. What I will say, however, is that Lucille’s removal of the ring, despite her not having a time-out period between being single (so to speak) and being approached by another suitor, she is taking control of her destiny. Perhaps it’s the act of fleeing from her marital home combined with the removal of her ring, but she is asserting her womanhood and is making herself free. Albeit, the song suggests there is still a reduced status for women in that she is unable to stave off the approaches of the narrator, although this is more critical of the environment and the men that surround her. Furthermore, Lucille seems keen to engage with the narrator, so there is the touch of the two-way street about their interaction too.
It is important to remember, through all of this analysis, whose perspective we are getting the song from: of course, it’s the male narrator. The narrator is embedded into both the country-machismo of wanting to assert his dominance over a woman, as well as the Southern culture of honor, through which women must be respected and another man’s “woman” must not be insulted. Here, we see both of these dynamics at work almost seamlessly. On the other hand, it is important for a future analysis to lay out that these two cultural codes are the fountains through which the latter parts of the song flow. They are the origins of the significance of this song. The tragedy which spills out for the narrator later on stem from the fact that both of these attitudes are found to be built on false premises’ and conflict, and there in we see the sorrow which Rogers’ narrator is still coming to terms with.
Until next time; another enjoyable analysis about a beautiful song. X.
The Disinterested Philosopher Gets By 