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.
Deirdre,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Margaret acts as the voice of reason and the mediator between the masters and workers, and I like how you point to the scene where she physically places herself between the two groups as a literal manifestation of that role. I think it is especially significant that she is an unbiased outsider seeing this relationship between master and worker for the first time. She does not have a stake in either side of the issue, thus while she is willing to listen to both sides she is also willing to argue against both sides. Based on what she learns from Nicholas Higgins, she tells Thornton that workers “speak as though it were the interest of the employers to keep them from acquiring money” (119). She also takes what she learns from Thornton to argue with Nicholas that “the state of trade may be such as not to enable [masters] to give you the same remuneration” (134). Interestingly, both Thornton and Higgins at first dismiss Margaret in the same way, with Thornton saying she is “just like all strangers” (123) and Nicholas calling her “a foreigner” (134). Her position as an outsider makes them reject her authority to even join their debate. However, that position is what ultimately forces them to listen to each other because neither the masters nor the workers will start an honest discussion with each other of their own volition. In addition, I think Margaret’s status as outsider makes her more relatable to any readers who grew up with her background, living their whole lives away from industrial towns like Milton and unaware of the situations in those towns. Through Margaret, Gaskell provides readers with a window into a typical industrial town and gives them a chance to see the reasonable justifications and the misjudgments coming from both the masters and the workers.
Do you see Margaret as a kind fo sacrificial victim in the strike scene (which, btw, is often read as a symbolic rape)? How does this role fit or not fit with her position as an impartial voice of reason who is effective because of her verbal and intellectual ability?
ReplyDeleteDeirdre,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your approach with this blog post, particularly your discussion of Margaret's reasonable nature. I actually have now written about Margaret's position as a mediator as well, though with a slightly different approach. However, I have a question that may be interesting. We see in various places throughout the text that Margaret is reasonable and treats most situations with a strong dose of logic. In light of the Victorian tendency to support the male/female and reason/emotion binaries as connected, what do we make of Margaret's strong identification with reason? Is Margaret therefore an unnatural figure? Of course, one can always go overboard with assertions about binaries, but I am curious what you make of Margaret in this light.