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.