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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that you point out the Christian ideals behind Margaret’s conciliatory role in the novel, and how that perspective, while better than the despotic rule that Thornton originally espouses, does not tear down the problematic social hierarchy, but rather it brings about a somewhat superficial alteration to that system. While looking at the pacifying role of religion in the novel, I think it is also important to look at Margaret’s constant insistence that Bessy think of the afterlife, in spite of Higgins’ tendency to go against that idea in the early sections. Margaret assures the dying Bessy that “some of us have been beggars here, and some of us have been rich,—we shall not be judged by that poor accident, but by our faithful following of Christ” (150). The extent to which the idea of Heaven has been used to keep people submissive, for if they are good they might eventually see divine rewards, is striking. It reminds me of Nietzsche’s description of the “counterfeit and self-deception of impotence” among the weak, as he points to those (like Bessy) for whom submissiveness “acquire[s] flattering names, such as ‘patience,’ and are [is] even called virtue itself; his inability for revenge is called unwillingness to revenge perhaps even forgiveness” (Genealogy of Morals 46, 47). All of these positive religious terms—goodness, forgiveness, meekness—that allow for rewards in the afterlife simultaneously prohibit change in the earthly systems of power. While in some ways Gaskell’s text feels like it wants to be radical, its conservatism is so often embedded in ideas of religiosity that, as you say, maintain the status quo.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, your last comments state a powerful critique of the novel and a recurring issue in criticism (your comment, too, Valerie). Do you think the novel offers a sop to reform with its emphasis on personal interaction because it is content with the status quo, or do you think it is pessimistic about the possibility of fundamentally changing industrial capitalism?
ReplyDelete