Blog # 2: post due Sunday, Feb. 2,  5:00 pm; comments due Monday, Feb. 3, 5 pm.

1. How is Jaffe's theory -- that "scenes of sympathy"  unsettle and consolidate middle-class identity -- relevant to North and South? Are there ways in which her ideas would distort or misunderstand cross-class encounters in the novel?

2. How would you describe Felix's class position in Felix Holt? Esther's? How do you know, and what difference does it make?

Blog 1: Jaffe and "North and South"

Jaffe makes note of a couple of ideas that fascinate me particularly in its connection with the idea of the definition of class and North and South. First, if I understand Jaffe correctly, sympathy is an imaginative thought process where a middle-class individual first sees a ‘degraded’ or dis-respectable member of society, imagines themselves in their place, notices the tenuous distance between one of their own position and that of the social pariah, and then discovers sympathy as they recognize they could never be that person. In that moment of dis-identification is first relief and then sympathy. This makes sense in some regard because the overwhelming wealth of words people expended on defining the middle-class speak to some form of identity crisis. They are neither aristocrats nor beggars. In this large spectrum, who they are becomes very important and a very important place for a power play. As Jaffe notes, “sympathy in Victorian culture…is sympathy both for and against images of cultural identity” (10). So sympathy becomes a way for the middle-class to separate themselves out from the high and low classes. However, sympathy also seems to imply other characteristics that might be meant to distinguish the middle-class. First, this type of imaginative recognition and dis-recognition requires critical thought and reflection, so they must be intelligent or educated.  Second, in coming to sympathy for a ‘pathetic creature’ they might also have a sense of morality that moves them to action, i.e. charity work. Third, and this one I’m less certain about, they might demonstrate tolerance. In order to work and live in between classes a certain level of tolerance, of understanding the other party is necessary. However, they may be synonymous with sympathy to some extent.

Margaret is an interesting person of sympathy in this novel. For while she is of the middle-class, raised by aristocracy, and used to having sympathy with the poor as a clergyman’s daughter, who she must learn to have sympathy with is the wealthy tradespeople of the North. However, I can’t quite make her fit into Jaffe’s neat process in the reverse. While Margaret does learn the ways of the North and even falls in love with a man of trade, she never has to really identify herself as a tradeswoman since she inherits the money and property. In essence, she converts Mr. Thorton to her identity. This conversion to middle-class strikes me as one of the true middle-class ideals.

Blog #1: On Margaret's role

In my view, Margaret desires to reconcile the masters and the men with each other. This is not to suggest, however, that she wants to fundamentally alter the structure of their relation. Rather, she wishes for masters and men alike to realize that “God has made us so that we must be mutually dependent” (112). The crux of her position, then, is that masters need laborers as much as laborers need masters. But such mutual dependence entails trust, respect, and fairness or else it breaks down into conflict, which is clearly what happens in North and South. As Margaret observes in her argument with Mr. Thorton regarding the strike, “I don’t know—I suppose because, on the very face of it, I see two classes dependent on each other in every possible way, yet each evidently regarding the interests of the other as opposed to their own” (109).

This appears to be a simple insight, but it in fact pinpoints the major problem between the masters and the men, namely, that the masters refuse to acknowledge the basic interdependence between them and their laborers. Instead of treating the laborers like “men,” they treat them like “merely tall, large children—living in the present moment—with a blind unreasoning kind of obedience” (109-10). Furthermore, although Mr. Thorton insists that he respects the laborers’ “independence” outside of work, he believes that “despotism is the best kind of government for them” inside the mills. Indeed, he thinks that the “owners of capital” have a “right” to choose what to do with it, but he does not think that the laborers have a right to “prevent the employers from utterly wasting or throwing away their money” (108). To admit this, after all, would be to relinquish some of the mastery he exercises over his “hands.” What Margaret discerns, then, is that the masters have systematically stripped their laborers of the “independence of character” that Mr. Thorton himself attributes to them (114). For this reason, there is no “equality of friendship between the adviser and advised classes" (112), which is what both Mr. Hale and Margaret desire. Far from masters and men working with each other, the men work for the masters and the masters for themselves.

But while Margaret wants the relation between masters and men to be fairer and more equal, there is no evidence that she wants this relation to be done away with completely. She espouses an idealistic Christian point of view that seeks harmony over antagonism, which is partly why she opposes the strike. Such harmony, however, does not imply a change in the social hierarchy. Margaret passionately believes that the masters ought to treat the men better, but not that there should no longer be "masters and men." Thus, the question is whether the Christianity that Gaskell affirms in North and South serves as a solution to class conflict or works mainly to resign men to the status quo.  

Hands vs. Humans: Perspectives on the nature of the Working Class

Before I delve into my discussion of the chapter, I must simply start by saying that looking back on history with the eyes of the present will surely skew my opinions as to the "correct approach" that should have been taken during this time period. It is easy to pass judgments on people of the past without the burden of cultural norms and ideology of their contemporary moment. Finally, this battle of ideologies has not gone away with the passage of time. Those who control the means of production are often still at odds with the people they employ and workers suffer the consequences of capitalistic greed. Now, to the novel . . . 

In "Masters and Men," Gaskell utilizes a debate structure to lay out the ideological and capitalistic issues surrounding the treatment of the working class in Milton. While Mr. Thorton and Margaret represent the opposing sides in this particular chapter, with Mr. Hale serving as mediator due to his relationship and fondness for both parties, Mr. Thorton is also in debate with Mr. Higgins, Margaret's "factory worker" friend, who voices his argument in "What Is A Strike?" The complexity of the multiple layers of dialogue Gaskell employs speaks to the complexity of the issues surrounding wage labor and the treatment of the working class.  

It seems to me that main differences between the Thortons and the Hales in their views on the working class are their own experiences of class. Mrs. Thorton raised her family up from nothing and her son continues in the steadfast tradition of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps." Since her family was capable of working their way out of their destitution, surely every man is capable of the same betterment in her eyes. Because Thortons worked for their property and wealth, rather than inheriting it, they are fiercely protective of what they have and perceive any action that might hinder their profit making as a personal attack on their way of life. Mrs. Thorton says working class are striking "For the mastership and ownership of other people's property . . . That is what they always strike for. If my son's work-people strike, I will say they are a pack of ungrateful hounds. But I have no doubt they will" (116). Even though Mrs. Thorton initially addresses them as "work-people" they become "ungrateful hounds" at the first sign of disobedience. From her perspective anyone who works for her is beneath her and mean to be completely obedient, no questions asked.  

Mr. Thorton shares his mother's sentiment, which is reflected in his calling the work-men "hands" (120). By calling them hands, he is not only dehumanizing his workers so that he can make calculating business decisions, but also metaphorically dismembering their bodies and utilizing the only parts he deems valuable/useful to his business.  Workers aren't people their just "hands," another mechanism in the factory process. When Margaret asks him why he does not try to better communicate the reasons for bad trade and the effect it has on his ability to pay his workers, Mr. Thorton fires back, "Do you give your servants reasons for your expenditure or your economy in the use of your own money? We, the owners of captial, have a right to choose what we will do with it" (117). Again, I think this goes back to being a business class dependent on the changing winds of the market rather than necessarily the landed gentry class whose inheritance and property are secured by more stable means.  

Margaret, on the other hand, is from a more refined background and a religious one at that. Her formal and religious education has taught her that those with means have a "human responsibility" to be a good steward to those without means (117-118). This belief is so ingrained in her that she cannot help but see the society of the North as quite strange. She sees two groups who are quite dependent on each other and yet each side seeks to "run the other down" (118). The fact that Margaret even befriended a factory worker and his family speaks volumes about her sense of Christian duty to reach out to the less fortunate than herself. Margaret characterizes the workers as children in need of parenting (which is really problematic, but it's the 19th century), which in her mind is allowing workers independence, education, or at the very least awareness of things that occur in the trade markets that will directly effect them. Mr. Thorton, however, purports to respect their private lives and sees no good in counseling them on morality when he already demands their time and labor.  

In sum, two opposing sides seem to represent a very familiar divide in ideology between social responsibility and capitalistic gain. On the one hand, there's the group that envisions a person capable of bettering himself/herself and a failure to do so is entirely upon the individual. There's only a finite amount of wealth and one must accrue as much as possible to sustain one's self. On the other hand, there's a social responsibility to strive for better conditions for everyone in the society. As Robin in the Northern Star argues, there are inherent challenges and inequalities within the system which leave people starving and destitute, resulting in driving people to desperate actions (such as violent strikes). Therefore, those with means should seek to better the less fortunate with religious belief, education, and work programs, which theoretically will add more well-rounded able-bodies into the workforce. Unfortunately, competition is an innate part of capitalism that dehumanizes people so that it can continue to function. The rest is silence.

Blog #1: To Strike or Not to Strike?

In many sections of North and South*, Elizabeth Gaskell uses dialogue to show how masters and workers are pitted against each other and how each group has different opinions. As the worker Nicholas Higgins puts it, “I’ll tell yo’ it’s their part, - their cue, as some folks call it, - to beat us down, to swell their fortunes; and it’s ours to stand up and fight hard, - not for ourselves alone, but for them round about us – for justice and fair play” (134). Interestingly, in the chapter “What Is a Strike?” Gaskell brings in another dimension that complicates the seemingly two-sided debate on strikes as Bessy, a member of the working class, reveals that she is against strikes. The dialogue in this chapter thus shows that neither masters nor workers make up homogenous groups that are diametrically opposed. Each group is made up of diverse individuals, and some members of each group are actually in agreement with each other. Like many of the masters who claim that strikes just harm the working class, Bessy asks her father, “What have ye gained by striking? Think of the first strike when mother died – how we all had to clem – you worst of all; and yet many a one went in every week at the same wage, till all were gone in that there was work for; and some went beggars all their lives after” (133). Bessy’s argument conveys how fragmented the working class is because not everyone will be willing to starve and go without work indefinitely. The masters will still always find poor workers who are desperate for work at any wage, even when this involves outsourcing and obtaining work from Irish immigrants as Thornton later does.

However, Nicholas Higgins remains firmly in favor of striking. He complains that Bessy is “so full of th’ life to come, hoo cannot think of th’ present. Now I, yo’ see, am bound to do the best here. I think a bird i’ th’ hand is worth two i’ th’ bush. So them’s the different views we take on th’ strike question” (132). Nicholas’s comment draws a parallel between the different working class views on strikes and on religion. Throughout much of the novel, Bessy represents the type of worker who is so devoutly religious that she will endure whatever miserable lot she has in life in hopes of peace in the afterlife. Her religious beliefs are largely grounded in her illness because she thinks death is so near. Without much time left to live, Bessy’s only option is to look forward to the afterlife, and she understandably wants to finish out her days without the added strife and hardship that she knows a strike will inevitably bring. Nicholas, on the other hand, is more of a skeptic when it comes to religion and the afterlife. Earlier in the novel, he tells Margaret, “I believe what I see, and no more” (91). This comment emphasizes how much he is grounded in the daily life and trials of the working class.

Like Bessy, Margaret, who is neither a master nor a worker, plays an interesting role in the dialogue in this chapter. At some points she plays devil’s advocate, arguing against Nicholas: “‘But,’ said Margaret, determined not to give way, although she saw she was irritating him, ‘the state of trade may be such as not to enable them to give you the same remuneration’” (134). At other points, she acknowledges that she has no right to join in the debate about workers’ wages and strikes: “‘Don’t ask me,’ said Margaret; ‘I am very ignorant. Ask some of your masters. Surely they will give you a reason for it. It is not merely an arbitrary decision of theirs, come to without reason’” (134). With both of these roles that Margaret takes on, she reminds Nicholas that masters have a different point of view and that Nicholas may not understand as much about that point of view as he thinks. She prompts him to honestly consider the other side, and she even encourages him to engage in a dialogue with the masters themselves. By highlighting that the masters have reasons behind their decisions, she also shows that masters and workers are not so different; they are all humans with the capacity to reason, and they all have valid arguments that they are making. An honest discussion between members of the two groups could help reach a compromise. Ultimately, Margaret helps create this interchange between Mr. Thornton and Nicholas.

Another example of an interchange between worker and master can be seen in the Northern Star article. In this article, the worker Robin makes a very strong case for trade unions and strikes, adding even more justification to his side of the debate than what Nicholas Higgins provides in North and South. He argues that many other groups already form “combinations” similar to trade unions, including the House of Lords (7), bishops/parsons (7), and soldiers/sailors (8). He also argues, “So as poor folk havn’t a slice of the representation, they’re obliged to combine again law” (11). With these arguments, Robin shows that workers do not have equal rights to other groups throughout England and that the debate about unions and workers’ strikes is something that concerns the nation’s legal system as a whole. The dialogue in the Northern Star enlarges the debate that we see in North and South, showing that the relationship between masters and workers is an important issue that is not merely confined to those two groups.

*Page numbers refer to the 2003 Penguin Classics edition

Matt's Blog the First: Of Humans and Humans

Considering the different debates in Gaskell’s North and South, I was most struck by “Masters and Men” due to its stringent qualifications for what it means to be a human.  As we discussed in class last Tuesday (and, of course, Marx argued more broadly), one acquires legal standing in Milton—and may be called “Master”—when he has control over the means of production of capital.  I am thinking particularly of when Thornton says to Margaret, “Do you give your servants reasons for your expenditure, or your economy in the use of your own money?  We, the owners of capital, have a right to choose what we will do with it.” 

While, I am not certain how colloquial the use of “master” was in speaking of labor issues, the connotations of ownership signified by “master” were certainly reinforced by the different “Master and Servant Acts.”  The notion of ownership itself seems to be the real rhetorical sticking point in the discussions throughout the chapter.  Thornton never claims to own the workers themselves, but he does have a legal right to their time.  Margaret recognized Thornton’s legal rights with regard to his workers, but she turns to scripture (itself in interpretive flux in this book) to draw a crucial distinction between legal (or political) rights and human (or God-given) rights—“there is no human law to prevent the employers from utterly wasting or throwing away all their money, if they choose;...there are passages in the Bible which would rather imply—to me at least—that they neglected their duty as stewards if they did so.”  Margaret’s role here is to introduce a conception of human rights into the debate that makes the claim of inalienable rights to workers as “humans,” rather than just “hands.”  Margaret is trying to reconstitute a personhood for the workers in the eyes of those who have the most power to change their situation, the masters.

 What I find even more interesting is how Gaskell complicates this even further through Thornton’s status as a master as the narrative progresses.  In a way, Thornton learns that he is, in fact, also human, whereas before he seemed to consider himself a stand-in for capital rather than a moral agent.

Of Masters and Men in Gaskell's North and South

There are a couple of interesting, and enlightening, conversations taking place in this chapter. The first is between Mrs. Thornton and the Hales in the Thornton house. The second is between Mr. Thornton and the Hales in the Hale home. I choose to focus on the first part of the chapter because I think a great deal can be discerned about the two cultures/classes in that first section. Though this conversation has only a little to do with the politics and economics of strikes, it is a quite revealing interaction. The interaction begins with Margaret’s classism before even finding the Thornton residence. She had expected a larger home, like her own, and was surprised by the smallness of the house and its proximity to the mill. This tells us too a little something about the type of home she lives in. While it may not be preferred to her old home in Helstone, her house in Milton is apparently larger than the Thornton home, though her family income seems to be less or maybe somewhat equal to that of the Thorntons. Further, based on her judgments of the Thornton home, her house must be more comfortably furnished. She is taken aback by the sterility of the Thornton home. It seems, to her at least, to lack a comfortable and welcoming atmosphere where “everything reflected light, nothing absorbed it” (112) and where everything was bagged up and covered to protect the items and materials. What Margaret does not see, but what Mrs. Thornton would have no doubt taken much pride in is the “peculiar cleanliness required to keep everything so white and pure….or of the trouble that must be willingly expended to secure that effect” (112).

Once Mrs. Thornton enters, we see the difference in how each perceives politeness, refinement, and good manners. Mrs. Thornton is offended by Mrs. Hale’s absence and assumes it is because of some “fine lady” behavior rather than a real illness. She also is not especially polite in her language and bearing—not in the same way that Margaret and Mr. Hale are. For instance, when an uncomfortable conversation comes up, Mr. Hale tries to switch the subject or tries to sweeten his words where Mrs. Thornton directly confronts with aggressive questioning. When Mr. Hale asks if Mr. Thornton plans on keeping his Thursday appointment, Mrs. Thornton says, in essence that he might, but that his business may keep him from it. In a brief, rude statement, she makes it clear that her son is “rarely ill” and does not speak of it if he is ill and even then doesn’t make it “an excuse for not doing anything,” insinuating the difference in their cultures. In Mrs. Thornton’s mind, the Hale’s world of polite and genteel people make excuses to get out of doing things they’d rather not do, talk too much about their ill health, and are too often ill. The implication is that they are weak and made weak by their lazy, indolent lives frittered away in books and colleges. As such, she believes that her son is wasting his time in learning the classics since he needs all his time and energy for running a great business and becoming a leader in the business world. She makes it very clear their worlds and where they place value are very different. Her world values money, self-sufficiency, and climbing to the top through ambition and hard work; whereas the Hales value less tangible assets of education, principle, easy life, nature, books, and other refinements of London and the countryside.

Image of cotton mill taken from the movie adaptation of North and South.

Eventually, the conversation turns to the strike and we see that Mrs. Thornton is suspicious of the motives of the strikers. Mr. Hale asks if the people are striking simply because they want more money. But Mrs. Thornton says “that is the face of the thing” (116), meaning that she believes that the people are lying. They say they want more money, but the reality is that they want to completely overthrow the business owners and take over the businesses for themselves. But then she hints at what the Northern Star article talks about. She says, “If they turn out, they mayn’t find it so easy to go in again. I believe the masters have a thing or tow in their heads which will teach the men not to strike again in a hurry…” (116). The Northern Star talks about how the masters are just as guilty of breaking the law about “combining” as the workers are. I think the Northern Star article might help Mrs. Thornton understand the interconnectedness of the master and workers; it might also help her understand how similarly the workers and masters are behaving. Both groups are forming alliances to fortify their positions. I think it might also help her to understand that the workers aren’t looking to completely take over the businesses but instead to receive fair wages for their work. They still want a job to go to, they still want to make money, but they want fair wages to feed their families. They also want fair business practices. For instance, they seem to understand that the market determines the work and are wiling to accept lower wages whenever necessary. However, but then when the market improves, they expect their wages to also improve. Instead, the bosses keep the wages low while they increase their own wealth. And regardless of how low the wages go, the bosses are only interested in seeing how they can get the wages lower. While Mr. Thornton seems to operate with honesty and fairness, it’s important for Mrs. Thornton to see that a great many businessmen are not honest and fair; they are too greedy and care little how much abuse and suffering they heap on their workers.

Blog #1: Structural Violence in Gaskell's 'North and South'

In "Masters and Men," Gaskell employs dialogue as a formal device for critiquing the inequalities intrinsic to industrialism. Mr. Thornton's exchanges with Margaret suggest that the masters' perspective on class relations is marred by an incognizance of structural violence. Margaret's rejoinders establish a counter-position that underscores the continuity between master and worker on all planes of existence.

First, Mr. Thornton upholds a delusion of neatly separated working hours and non-working hours. He states, "'I choose to be the unquestioned and irresponsible master of my hands, during the hours that they labour for me. But those hours past, our relation ceases; and then comes in the same respect for their independence that I myself exact'" (114). Mr. Thornton hedges his position here, simultaneously indicating that he maintains a position of authority over his workers--as an "unquestioned and irresponsible master"--while also respecting them--he imparts "the same respect for their independence" that he requires during work. This statement represents a critical blind spot in Mr. Thornton's understanding of class relations. When he claims "those [working] hours past, our relation ceases," he indirectly affirms his inability to see how class inequality is created by socioeconomic structures.

These structural relationships are inherently violent. To quickly reference another source on this topic, Didier Fassin explains in "The Trace: Violence, Truth, and the Politics of the Body" that structural violence constitutes "the creeping inscription of inequality within bodies. Political violence tends to be denounced. Structural violence tends to be denied. The former is erased by the perpetrator...The latter is made invisible by the dominant but may be claimed by the oppressed" (294, emphasis mine). Fassin suggests that structural violence is a social phenomenon that takes shape in the form of "inequality within bodies." In the case of North and South, the workers experience this violence in the form of "clemming," a bodily pain directly connected with the material conditions of the mill/factory.

When Mr. Thornton suggests his relationship to his workers changes after working hours, he implicitly denies the fact that his position as a master affects any part of their livelihood. The claim "those hours past, our relation ceases" represents a denial of socioeconomic culpability. In other words, Mr. Thornton makes his complicity in his men's lives "invisible." He indirectly reinforces his critical blind spot when he tells Margaret, "'I must just take facts as I find them to-night, without trying to account for them; which, indeed, would make no difference in determining how to act as things stand--the facts must be granted'" (112) and "I agree with Miss Hale so far as to consider our people in the condition of children, while I deny that we, the masters, have anything to do with the making or keeping them so'" (110). These statements each represent Mr. Thornton's values as a master. Since he is the "perpetrator" of structural violence toward his workers, he has the prerogative to "just take facts" as he finds them, and to deny that masters "have anything to do with" the oppression and infantilization of workers. At this point in the narrative, Mr. Thornton articulates the position of the masters in terms of exceptionalism; since they don't experience the material effects of low wages in the form of bodily pain (clemming), they are able to deny that their position as masters has any repercussions for workers after the work day has ended. For the masters, the master/worker relationship does end. For workers, the relationship persists, pervading all aspects of social existence.

Gaskell underscores the reality of structural violence through dialogue, depicting Margaret as a foil to Mr. Thornton. Margaret argues that Mr. Thornton should not freely impose his views onto his workers, just because he is in a position of economic power (112). Her reason is, rather, that Mr. Thornton should refrain from doing this because of his shared humanity with his men. She states, "'you are a man, dealing with a set of men over whom you have, whether you reject the use of it or not, immense power, just because your lives and your welfare are so constantly and intimately interwoven. God has made us so that we must be mutually dependent" (112, emphasis mine). Margaret's comments challenge Mr. Thornton to see the inextricable connection he has with his men. In underscoring how the very life of the masters and workers is "constantly and intimately interwoven," Margaret advocates for seeing industrialism for what it is: a system of relations that boils down to supporting or destroying life itself. Therefore, when Margaret says "'The most proudly independent man depends on those around him for their insensible influence on his character--his life'" (112, emphasis mine), she espouses a humanitarian view of industrialism that affirms the shared commonality of "life" between master and worker.

This dialogue is usefully framed by the Northern Star article in a couple key ways. First, the form of the article suggests that social relations can change the consciousness of masters. This notion is supported by the fact that, by the end of the article, Robin has managed to change Mr. Smith's understanding of "combination" and the motivations the poor have for unionizing against injustice: Mr. Smith says, "'perhaps your information may be the means of originating that beginning [of change], even upon the old common'" (18). Secondly, the article actually advocates for Margaret's position by ascertaining the value of human life. Robin expresses a desire for a more humane set of socioeconomic relations when he says, "'my old head reels when I think of olden times, when folk were cared for, because they were worth summat'" (18). However, rather than present the value of human life in terms of an elusive nostalgia, the article actually asserts the real possibility of establishing favorable working conditions through well-reasoned dialogue.

Blog #1: Margaret as Mediator

Margaret’s role in the conflict between the masters and workers is that of the voice of reason and, by extension, compromise, which is witnessed in the way her relationships with Mr. Thornton and Nicholas Higgins eventually bring the two sides together. She is a reasonable go between because most of the time she makes more-objective comments regarding the relationship dynamics between the two groups, counseling talks rather than violence. For example, Margaret is the first character to comment, from an outsider’s less-biased perspective, that the “two classes [are] dependent on each other in every possible way, yet each evidently regarding the interests of the other as opposed to their own; I never lived in a place before where there were two sets of people always running each other down” (118). She also encourages open dialogue between the two groups: “‘Don’t ask me,’ said Margaret; ‘I am very ignorant. Ask some of your masters. Surely they will give you a reason for it. It is not merely an arbitrary decision of theirs, come to without reason’” (134).

This role is made explicit during the riot scene in which Margaret first instigates Mr. Thornton to address the crowd of strikers and then places herself bodily between the men and Mr. Thornton. During this scene, Margaret’s attempts to maintain her role of reason, telling Mr. Thornton to “Speak to your workmen as if they were human beings…speak to them, man to man” (177) and to the workmen “Go peaceably. Go away” (178). Margaret’s cautions fall unheeded, however, and “If she thought her sex would be protection…she was wrong” (179). Margaret, as the voice of reason, is struck down through the “reckless passion” of the workmen (179), spurred on by Mr. Thornton. The significance of this bleak representation of the conflict between masters and workers is that reason falls victim to violent passions, and is restored only when blood is drawn and the parties become “ashamed” (179) with their behavior. This chafes with the amount of talking which takes place in the novel regarding the relationship between masters and workers, but does not provide any possible solutions for how to rectify this.  

Blog #1: Why Listen If You Can't Hear

The use of dialogue or other forms of multi-voiced discourse in North and South makes apparent one of the morals that Mrs. Gaskell is trying to hand down through her novel—explicitly, that being a master over industrial laborers does necessitate that one rule blindly over those lower in the social hierarchy, but rather that a respectful community should be formed between the classes. Throughout the novel, we see Thornton evolve in his understanding of the relationship between himself and his laborers. In “Masters and Men,” Thornton espouses his form of harsh governance over his workers, a “wise despotism” that will allow him to decide what is best for him and for those who work for him: “I will use my best discretion…to make wise laws and come to just decisions in the conduct of my business…I will neither be forced to give my reasons, nor flinch from what I have once declared to be my resolution. Let them turn out!” (120). Margaret pushes back against him in this exchange, reminding Mr. Thornton that, though there be no earthly rules requiring him to treat his employees kindly, there are religious responsibilities that mandate that he care for those who are beneath him (118). Because of Thornton’s admiration and respect for Margaret, he is willing to listen to her voice in this scene, and ultimately, inspired by her example, he befriends Mr. Higgins and experiences the benefits of a relationship between masters and men in which both sides actually listen to the other’s voices: “The advantages were mutual: we were both unconsciously and consciously teaching each other…Such intercourse is the very bread of life” (431-32). Rather than a single voice dictating what is right and wrong, Margaret (and Gaskell) proposes and Thornton comes to learn that there can be a healthy exchange of ideas between the rulers and the ruled.

While the article on “The Employer and Employed” in Northern Star takes the format of a conversation between Mr. Smith and Old Robin, it is obvious that Mr. Smith is merely a foil who gives Robin reason to speak his cause, and ultimately Smith is so easily drawn to Robin’s opinions that it seems that Smith really not need be present at all in the story (of course, one cannot really complain of a flatly drawn character in a propagandistic periodical article). It seems unlikely that Old Robin is going to take any nourishment from the “bread of life” that Thornton sees developing in his connection to Higgins and others among his men. Old Robin holds that “it’s not necessity—its [sic] avarice and love of gain” (14) and that “one would think that operatives live like princes, and that they held out for seventeen weeks for wages that the maisters couldn’t afford to give” (15). Old Robin could be speaking directly to Thornton’s reasons why he could not give into the demands of his men before the strike. And while Thornton is more willing to see the men on egalitarian terms by the end of the novel, this only changes the way he views the men, not the way he sees his business situation as a whole, so at the conclusion of the novel Thornton cannot say that his change in perspective will stop future strikes, but only “that they may render strikes not the bitter, venomous sources of hatred that they have hitherto been” (432). If we return to the quote from page 120, it looks as though Thornton would now let his workers know his reasons, but would still let the workers strike before changing his own mind. Gaskell’s novel may open up a space for dialogues between masters and men, but the question of how much this really matters remains if neither side can fully trust in what the other says in this conversation, and if neither side can be swayed from their opinion in spite of hearing other voices.

Blog # 1: post due Sunday, Jan. 26 5pm, comment due Monday Jan. 27, 5 pm

Choose one:

(1) Choose one of the "debate" chapters -- "Masters and Men" (V. I, ch. 15) or "What Is A Strike?" (V. I, ch. 17), and consider the intention and effect of Gaskell's use of dialogue to establish different points of view on industrialism and the relationship between masters and workers. What beliefs and values does each speaker hold? How would  the Northern Star article change the debate?

(2) What's Margaret's role in the conflict between masters and workers?

Test blog for ENG 738

Just wanted to test things out!