Robert Frost’s "Mending Wall" and Langston Hughes’ "Let America Be America Again" offer starkly different visions of societal boundaries and national identity. While Frost's poem, published in 1914, presents a seemingly pragmatic, albeit ironic, perspective on the necessity of separation, Hughes’ 1936 work critiques the exclusionary nature of American ideals. Both poems grapple with the concept of walls, both literal and metaphorical, yet they arrive at opposing conclusions regarding their utility and impact on society. Frost’s speaker seems resigned to the idea that "good fences make good neighbors," finding a strange comfort in physical barriers, whereas Hughes passionately advocates for dismantling the walls that prevent America from living up to its promise of equality for all its citizens.
Frost's "Mending Wall" centers on the annual ritual of repairing a stone wall separating his property from his neighbor's. The speaker expresses a philosophical ambivalence, even a mild annoyance, towards the wall itself. He muses that "there is something that doesn't love a wall," suggesting nature itself abhors such divisions. Yet, his neighbor is steadfast: "He will not come behind his father’s saying, / And he likes having thought of it so well." The speaker finds the labor tedious, the stones "just some more people to rub the wrong way." Despite this internal critique, he participates in the ritual, even offering a playful, almost paradoxical, explanation for the wall's existence: "It makes it seem there there is something else / That doesn't love a wall as much as I do." This suggests a certain acceptance, or perhaps a cynical resignation, to the established order, where physical separation is a given, even if its purpose is unclear or questioned. The "mending" itself becomes a performative act, reinforcing the boundary rather than challenging it.
In contrast, Langston Hughes' "Let America Be America Again" is an impassioned plea and a biting indictment of the American Dream as it has been historically denied to many. The poem opens with a direct rejection of a romanticized vision of America: "Let America be the dream that was never dreamed." Hughes lists the ideals that America purports to uphold—freedom, equality, opportunity—and then systematically demonstrates how these have been withheld from "the poor, / The ragged, the proud, the workers, / And I." He points to the historical exclusion of Native Americans, African Americans, and immigrants, asking, "I am the farmer, born on the side of the mountain, / Whose fields were taken away." The "wall" in Hughes' poem is not a physical barrier between neighbors but the systemic oppression and prejudice that prevent a truly democratic America from emerging. His call is not to mend, but to fundamentally rebuild: "Let America be the land that never has been yet— / And still has yet to be."
The core difference lies in their fundamental understanding of what constitutes a "good" society. Frost, through his speaker, implies that separation, even if arbitrary, can maintain a certain social equilibrium. The "mending" is a cooperative, albeit grudging, act that allows for continued coexistence. The poem is a quiet observation on human behavior and the persistence of tradition. Hughes, however, sees such divisions not as a means of maintenance but as a profound injustice. His "walls" are the very structures of power and privilege that have created an unequal nation. He doesn't seek to reinforce these by mending them; he seeks to tear them down entirely to create a new, inclusive reality. The tone of "Mending Wall" is contemplative and understated, laced with irony. Hughes' poem, however, is urgent, angry, and hopeful, a direct challenge to the status quo.
Ultimately, "Mending Wall" and "Let America Be America Again" represent two divergent responses to societal divisions. Frost’s poem, while subtle, suggests a natural order or at least a human inclination towards boundaries, finding a peculiar necessity in their maintenance. Hughes, on the other hand, exposes the violence and exclusion inherent in such boundaries when they are used to deny fundamental rights and opportunities. The former accepts the fence as a fact of life, while the latter demands its demolition to realize a more just and equitable future.