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
*Page numbers refer to the 2003 Penguin Classics edition
This is very true -- the working classes are themselves divided (you can add Boucher here too). How is this also true of the middle classes? What specific social and economic positions do each of these characters occupy (beyond "diversity" of opinion)? Also, I like the way you highlight reason and honesty as key values in these debates. Can we push these qualities further to see why they're important in historical context?
ReplyDeleteI like how you bring up the division in the working classes because I think it shows that even in a "union" there is division and not all workers necessarily seek the same ends. This is hinted at in the Masters and Men chapter where Mrs. Thornton thinks the workers only want to overthrow the masters and Mr. Hale thinks they want an increase in pay. Chances are, both are correct. And, as much as Margaret is a mediator between the men (workers and masters), I think she is also a mediator between the women (servants [seen in Dixon], the worker [seen in Bessie], the masters' women [seen in Mrs. Thornton], and the gentile class [seen in her own mother]); it's interesting how all these "types" of women and classes are mediated through and perhaps even converge (on some level) in the character of Margaret. Your post helped me think through this issues some. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteCristy,
ReplyDeleteI think that your analysis of the dialogue in North and South is spot-on. So much of the novel’s meaning is found in the rich conversations between its characters. Furthermore, I like your point that masters and men share the ability to reason and to have lucid, honest discussions. Gaskell does a brilliant job of showing how class relations break down when reason and honesty are not respected.
One question that would be worth pursuing is why exactly masters and laborers fail to respect these values. Throughout the novel, the laborers are blamed for their “ignorance and stupidity.” Interestingly enough, however, Thorton balks at Hale’s idea that the laboring class needs to be better educated. The implication here is that the masters require their laborers to be ignorant, so that they can use their supposed stupidity against them. If the masters were transparent with the laborers about their business operations, it would not only reduce the laborers’ subordination but also make the masters accountable for their actions. Hence, they deliberately keep the laborers in the dark. As Thorton admits to Hale and Margaret, “But because we don’t explain our reasons, they won’t believe we’re acting reasonably” (107). But there is simply no reason why masters and laborers cannot meet, as Hale proposes, for a “good talk” in order to discuss “subjects which it is for the mutual interests of both should be well understood by both” (212). Indeed, it is not clear why in her article “Political Economy in North and South” Jo Pryke calls this proposition “fanciful” (554). The masters’ failure to engage in such discussion with their laborers is a failure to act “reasonably” and honestly. Thus, although the strike is described as being savage and irrational, it is actually a response to a lack of reason and honesty.
Moreover, I think that the problem of violence looms large in North and South and raises questions that are still pertinent in contemporary society. The primary reason why Margaret (and Gaskell, I would venture) opposes the strike is because of its inherently violent nature (even a peaceful strike carries a minimal degree of violence, since it constitutes an opposition to the status quo). She believes that the conflict between masters and men can be resolved peacefully once they both realize the spiritual truth that transcends and unites them (i.e., mutual dependence). One can argue, however, that peace does not fundamentally change anything. On the contrary, it seeks ultimately to keep things the way they are. Even though Margaret’s conception of violence no doubt differs from our own--given that hers derives from a different social-historical imaginary--its problematic role in class conflict remains the same today.