Log in

View Full Version : Charles Dickens - and socialism



chamo
19th January 2003, 22:12
The following is an extract from my english coursework, "Dickens criticising Gradgrind's school"
It is about the book hard times and highlights Dickens moral and social views of the industrial age. As it's and extract some of it may look out of place.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

We can see all through these first two chapters that Dickens is very socially aware and that the industrial revolution is in need for an unquestioning workforce, where people do not use their imaginations. He is outraged that the employers are in need for, and are therefore creating, a morbid and passive society of workers. He can see that the bourgeois are designing the proletariat as an unconscious workforce that will, without question, respect authority and work more efficiently for less wages. He can see that this is a disgusting display of exploitation and that people are brought up like this from the minute they start their education. This is a society where facts condition the thinking of the State; all things are reasoned by facts, that emotions and the imagination are an inferior form of thinking. Even personal and moral decisions are governed by statistics and facts and fantasy is useless.
Attention to the development of self is the moral focus of the novel. This is because the effect of any action can be calculated in terms of the personal advantage to be derived from it.
Dickens thinks that this kind of thinking, everything governed on facts, has a high risk on the health and moral attitude of humanity. If everything were to be governed by fact, then personalities could not flourish, no one could excel above the rest and people are only respected for their knowledge of facts and not their moral or personality attributes.
Utilitarianism, the theory that all actions are justified if they benefit the majority, created attitudes affecting the relationship between classes, employers and employees. Workers are only measured by the profit that they could make for the employees and were not seen as individuals, and that people inspired by love and imagination were regarded as useless and inferior, people like Charles Dickens himself.
Dickens did not make politics a direct object of his novel, he generalised it and was more concerned about society as a whole. Although he would not have put his trust into one political party of the time, we can see that he is primarily a socialist. This is because he thinks that the individual is more important than the financial condition of the State and he is concerned about the disadvantages of the industrial revolution, which it is creating a monotonous society where people go about their work indisputably.
The novel is as much, even more, to do with authoritarianism than the economic practices of the period. Dickens attacks Gradgrinds school because it is creating these drones needed for the faceless society of workers. The pupils come into their education with empty heads, which are filled with facts until they are near bursting, and then they go to work in factories and will never question authority.

truthaddict11
20th January 2003, 11:40
i dont know about dickens he really made the higher classes look good in the Tale of Two Cities

legot
21st January 2003, 18:05
heres what our(mine and happyguys) teacher gave to us concerning this

DIckens social vision
Two ideas in particular rove dickens while writing hard times:one,that industrial capitalism was having a unhealthy effect on the development of the nation,and the other that treating children as small adults was having a unhealthy effect on there development as individuals

theres some other stuff but i can't find it now

Rastafari
30th January 2003, 16:43
Just for the record, Charles Dickens really sucks. Bad
He is an imperialist scum who is a product of that century. His writing is subpar as well. Read romantics or transcendentalists or SturmundDrang or something 10x better.

praxis1966
3rd February 2003, 17:47
Rasta's right. The Jungle Book was a veiled vote of support for the colonial war in India. Not to mention that I believe he was the first to coin the term "white man's burden." In other words, it was the duty of the good, Christian, white men of the world to subjugate the darker peoples of the the world in order to "civilize" them (stamp out their native cultures, religion, values, and replace them with that of the Christian).

chamo
3rd February 2003, 22:34
Rudyard Kipling wrote the jungle book fool.

Rastafari
4th February 2003, 01:17
Thank you. I don't really care for Rudy either, though, while I'm on the topic. He was a better writer, but just a fowl product spit out by even worse of a society.

Just Joe
4th February 2003, 23:50
yeah, Kipling was the colonialist. Dickens was actually alright considering his time.

loobylane
5th February 2003, 18:28
Dickens was keenly aware of Social issues, not a Socialist per se; but certainly closer than most. And as for the suggestion that 'A Tale of Two Cities' somehow celebrated the upper classes, that suggestion is entirely false. The hero of the piece is a man who was a convicted criminal (then a social underclass), and the emotive portrayal of events such as the killing of the poor man's child can only serve as an argument for social reform. What Dickens was against, rightly or wrongly, was using violence as a means of forcing change; whoever perpetrated that violence.

chamo
26th February 2003, 19:12
For the time that Dickens lived in he was a, I would not go so far as to say a revolutionary, but he was doubtful of the consequences of the Industrial Revolution and what effects it would, and was already having on society. He was not caught up in the attitude of the time that workers serve the bourgeoisie and he spoke out against the government and the education system, as well as public hanging. I don't know how some think he is a big imperialist and definetly not a product of the time. He was the oppposite of what the country was trying to produce, and a danger to the British Industrial Revolution.


(Edited by happyguy at 5:14 pm on May 2, 2003)

Invader Zim
1st March 2003, 11:31
Quote: from truthaddict11 on 11:40 am on Jan. 20, 2003
i dont know about dickens he really made the higher classes look good in the Tale of Two Cities


I take it you have not read Oliver Twist ect which are all very anti upper/middle class.

chamo
2nd March 2003, 14:35
Thank you, someone who sees sense. I got a very high mark for my coursework, very high :biggrin:

RedPirate
2nd March 2003, 19:07
I wouldn't say socialist as much as a man thats liked to speak truth and spoke and worte it well...

loobylane
3rd March 2003, 19:13
yeah, I'm hearing that; I certainly don't recommend that everyone rush out and buy his books because they think they're a big political read, because they're not. They're works of fiction, great literature; with a leftist political slant, what could be better? For anyone who wants to make the obvious allegories, etc; I'd probably recommend 'A Tale of Two Cities' (truly riveting stuff, and very eye-opening about the revolution, the way the workers are treated, etc). I feel that Dickens tried to be slightly more objective with ATOTC. However, 'Hard Times' is extremely emotive and quite shocking in its compelling force. Certainly a 'must-read...'

Invader Zim
14th April 2003, 16:03
Read this its a brief extract from the book Oliver Twist, talking about the poor law.

The members of the board are very sage, deep philosophical men; and when they came to turn their attention to the work house, they found out at once what ordinary folks would never have discovered... the poor people liked it! It was a regular place of public entertainment for the poorest classes; a tavern where there was nothing to pay; a public breakfast dinner and supper all year round... 'Oho!' said the board, looking very knowing, ' we are the fellows to set this to rights; we'll stop it in no time'. So they established the rule... of being starved by a gradual process in the house or by a quick one out of it. With this view they contracted the water works to lay an unlimeted supply of water; and with the corn-factor to supply periodically small quantites of oatmeal; and issued three meals of this thin gruel a day, with an onion twice a week and a half role on Sundays. They... Kindly undertook to divorse poor married people... and instead of compelling a man to support his family, took his family away from him and made him a bachelor. There is no saying how many applicants for relief... might have started up in all classes in socioty, if it had not been coupled with the work house; but the board were long-headed men and provided for this difficulty. The relief was inseperable from the work house and the gruel, and that frightened the people."

That is not very complementary of the authorities you have to admit.

chamo
15th April 2003, 17:00
Charles Dickens has always been very anti-bourgeois and had class awareness, revolutionary for his time.

the pen
19th April 2003, 22:28
charles dickens is not anti bourgeiose
he did have a social concienece and was a liberal reformist type. he would be at home today in labour. as orwell wrote on a christmas carrol "the world that socialists want to create is one that does not rely on kind old men handing out turkeys" also lenin thought that a christmas carrol was full of "petit bourgeoise sentamentalities"

truthaddict11
26th April 2003, 01:18
i find christmas carrol funny taking the capitalist and making him sort of the hero at the end. I guess Orwell and Lenin were right in there critiques.