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.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteThe question of the status of human and to whom that status gets ascribed in the novel struck me while I was reading it as well. The “hands,” the workmen are periodically described as animals by the narrator, particularly during moments of strife such as the riot scene: “inarticulate as that of a troop of animals” (178); “some were men, gaunt as wolves, and mad for prey” (177); “it was as the demoniac desire of some terrible wild beast for the food that is withheld from his ravening” (176). The description of the men as animals is effective in showing what the results of such conflicts are, but the dehumanization can also make them less sympathetic. I think, though I'd have to double check, this vein of men-as-less-than-human disappears some as Thornton builds a relationship with Higgins, although it could also be a result of Margaret's removal from Milton.
Your observation that Gaskell is introducing the relatively new rhetoric of human rights through Margaret's Christianity is crucial. On what grounds can any of these characters/class representatives argue for their "rights," which are differently grounded and constituted depending on the context you assume. These debates definitely a collision of philosophies and foundational assumptions as well as concrete positions about labor practices.
ReplyDeleteMatt,
ReplyDeleteI'm onboard with your analysis here--I especially like your claim that Margaret attempts to "reconstitute a personhood" for the workers in the eyes of Mr. Thornton. Taking up a similar question that you posed for me, I wonder how morality plays into this particular scene, in terms of class relations and "speaking-for" the dispossessed? We might be able to say that Margaret espouses a humanitarian logic here, which is typically valorized by majoritarian society. However, as critics like Didier Fassin have suggested in various places (such as his awesome book 'Humanitarian Reason: A Moral History of the Present'), humanitarianism often ends up simply reproducing inequalities between the helper and the victim. Fassin is writing about 20th century politics, but I think that his argument resonates with what you're saying about Victorian class relations. Margaret's attempt to sway Mr. Thornton is well founded, I think, but at the same time, her attempt to impart inalienable rights to the factory workers might just reinforce Mr. Thornton's objectification of his workforce--the only difference is, now they are 'objects' deserving of empathy and charitable aid. What do you think? As I'm writing this, I realize that I sound terribly nihilistic. However, after reading recent accounts about the "politics of life" and what it means to be "human," I wonder if humanitarian desires are actually transforming the class consciousness of those in power, or if they simply change the method of objectification that reinforces structural inequalities.
Wes,
DeleteI think this is why Higgins' matters so much as a character. He underscores the limitations of Margaret's Christian charity (although he accepts it, for he has no choice really) by claiming a materialist atheism. I don't think you're being nihilistic to point out the objectifying nature of the humanitarian impulse or sympathy (and I don't think Jaffe is either), and I agree that often humanitarian impulses end in reinforcing "structural inequalities" (see my favorite arguments from Slavoj Zizek to this end against Starbucks's charitable efforts). In the end, what I think is crucial is that relationship between charity and justice we talked about in class, and I think the justice piece in the novel might have been a bit more satisfactory if Mr. Dickens had let Gaskell grow her novel to the page count of one of his. I think a philosophical conception of "personhood" is what I find lacking (at least on the front end) in the "scenes of sympathy" in the novel, and Thornton makes the same mistakes, just more obviously than Margaret. I don't think justice (in the distributive sense rather than retributive sense) can exist without a premise of equality of personhood, something like the Unitarian tenet of "the inherent worth and dignity of every human"--I think Margaret learns this more as the story unfolds. For what its worth, I actually tend to think that justice cannot happen without some notion of charity; I like Cornel West's definition of justice as "what love looks like in public." Conversely, charity can be empty without an attempt on the part of the one with the power to grant charity (whatever form that may take) to actually listen to what stakeholders really need THEN, God forbid, take strides to recognize their class privilege in order to enact positive change. But I'm skeptical that this can happen at the systemic level, which is why I agree with someone like Critchley (or at least am starting to agree) that solutions to human suffering are more morally accountable when they happen outside of a political structure, maybe approaching something like localized anarchism. It is hard for me to do justice to someone (based on an ethic of love) if I do not know who they are, but if I share life in their vicinity in a community over time, justice might be possible. This is pretty all over the place, but I think the indeterminacy of who "wins" the debates in the novel, as Dr. Rosenman argued, opens up the space to talk about these issues really generatively. This is probably why I liked the book so much. While Thornton can be painted as the asshole capitalist, he still does some good things. While Higgins is the worker suffering from systemic violence, he refuses to be a victim and shows faults in his own right. Margaret, I agree with some of the other posters, has to mediate these competing tensions, but she is far more complicated than some peace-weaving heroine throwback from medieval literature or something. She has to navigate the competing moral obligations of family, human suffering from Bessy, and to her brother all the while gaining economic and political knowledge which creates the grey area of the middle class.
This is a really rich exchange. Matt, your comments interest me because they reconsider what many have understood as the great weakness of Gaskell's novel -- that it locates a "solution" to class conflict in interpersonal relations. Critics often consider this a wimpy approach (if I can be technical for a moment), one that seems to value private life and local feeling at the expense of political/economic analysis. But you suggest a way of re-evaluating her approach as recognizing the limitations of official economic/political structures as avenues for change. I hope you'll talk about this in class.
DeleteMatt,
ReplyDeleteI said something very similar in my blog about the treatment of workers; however, I attributed this difference in treatment to a difference in class ideology between Margaret and Mr. Thorton. I feel that Margaret represents the educated, liberal upper class that encourages humanitarianism grounded in Christian values. Essentially, I think Margaret has the luxury and self-ascribed duty to care for the less fortunate. Mr. Thorton and his family, on the other hand, had to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and still envision themselves in competition with a working class striving towards financial gain through strikes. In this vain, do you Mr. Thorton’s perceived ownership over his workers is tied to his need to maintain class status through his workers as a kind of laboring property, like a farm animal?
I think that's spot on, that he has to think of his workers as cogs in order to justify is power, but I'm not sure he's ever conscious of this in the book. We get glimpses of this with Thornton's relationship with Higgins later, but Thornton is far more troubled by his feelings for Margaret, as far as we can tell.
DeleteKadee -- Ditto! Your analysis of Margaret & Thornton's positions is astute, especially because it takes us out of the realm of individual psychology and into social structures and subjective categories. I also like your analysis of Thornton as continuing to see himself as competing with his workers.
Delete