A Marxist Critical Reading of Great Expectations
‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.'
(Marx 1977, p.222)
Dickens wrote about class and he was undoubtedly motivated by his own social and economic experiences. His empathy with the experience of the proletariat greatly informed much of his work. Also the popularity of his work signified attitudes of and towards the proletariat.
It is difficult to read any of Dickens work without imagining it as even the least bit autobiographical. In most cases, taking a purely autobiographical reading of any text can be limiting, but in relation to Dickens and in the case of a Marxist interpretation of Great Expectations , the autobiographical content becomes even more pertinent. From a Marxist perspective, Great Expectations advances the classical anti-Hegelian Marxist theory that material circumstances shape ideas. Or in the words of Marx, ‘It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.' (Nation Master, June 2004)
This can be seen in Great Expectations in Pip's relationship with Joe over the course of the novel and through the development of Pip's character through his transformation from proletariat to capitalist. The broad themes of Marxism itself make themselves evident in Great Expectations much more readily than do the themes of Marxist literary theory. For one, Dickens & Marx were contemporaries, and their picture of the working class, however variously imagined through ‘fiction' or philosophised via economic theory, seems to integrate with Engels examination of the conditions of the working class in England . His sociological observations level the historical and sociological context of the time at when both Dickens and Marx were writing. Engels descriptions give us the basis on which we can assess the accuracy of the ‘social realism' that Dickens produced. Engels described London as a place where ‘the social war, the war of each against all, is here openly declared.' (Engels 1987, P.69)
Dickens was acutely aware of the class struggle. He had experienced it first hand from an early age: ‘Two days before his twelfth birthday the boy began work at a blacking warehouse…' this, coupled with the shame of family debt ‘gave Charles a shock which transformed him' and ‘which haunted him till his death.' (Calder 1994, p.7)Here we see that two of the central themes of Great Expectations, and two symptoms of class struggle, work and debt, come from Dickens life.
A Marxist reading of Dickens must also take into account whether Dickens sought to effect social change through his writing. To do this we must look at the words of Dickens himself and the arena in which his works were read.
Firstly, Dickens made his attitude towards social change explicit in that through his writing he sought to ‘mark what important social improvements have taken place around us' (Dickens 1994, xii) He saw his writing as being ‘to the present convenience and advantage of the Public' (Dickens 1994, p.xii) and adding to ‘the certain destruction, in time, of a host of petty jealousies, blindnesses, and prejudices, by which the Public alone have always been the sufferers.' (Dickens 1994, pxii). In particular reference to his own life he wished that ‘the laws relating to imprisonment for debt are altered.' (Dickens 1994, p.xii)
Secondly, Dickens wrote for and about the public. The popularity of his novels was as much due to their themes and Dickens skill as a writer as it was in the form in which they were published: serially and in what was called at the time Cheap Literature (Dickens 1994, xiii). In other words it was designed for mass consumption, the Victorian version of the soap-opera.
Marxist theory makes something of the relationship between popularity and value. As Marxist critic Alick West put it, ‘the popularity or unpopularity of work of literature does not create or destroy its value.' (Eagleton & Milne 1996, p. 104) Although Dickens popularity was an indication of the ‘value' of his work, it was also because it was relative to the social norms of the time: ‘The value of literature springs from the fact that it continues and changes the organization of social energy; we perceive value through the awakening of the same kind of energy in ourselves.' (Eagleton & Milne 1996, p. 105)
Therefore, Dickens popularity was somewhat due to his intent to empower the public through his work. In Dickens, the public were able to identify their own circumstances: ‘If we realise in our own lives that we have to contribute to making a society, we like the literature that embodies that creation.' (Eagleton & Milne 1996, p.105)
Great Expectaions also offers a synthesis of the relationships formed, and how these relationships develop, when class is the determining factor of behaviour. The characters are motivated by the ‘expectations' put upon them by class rather than basic human traits. However, Pip's journey seems to be a transformation of values rather than one of ‘capital.'
Each of Dickens characters adheres to a Marxist interpretation of class. And, apart from Pip, maintains the ideological archetypes of that class.
Dickens characters look like caricatures because they are, in the words of Della Volpe, ‘poetic symbols.' In the case of Great Expectaions , Della Volpe maintains that the ‘semantic autonomy' of even the title is a ‘literal poetic symbol' which contains enough force in itself to ‘develop and structure entire expressive worlds (literary works).' (Eagleton & Milne 1996, p.168) Furthermore, the critic Harry Stone comments that ‘Pip's errors of vision, a result of his and society's upside-down morality, are at the core of the fable.' (Eagleton & Milne 1996, p.184.)
If Dickens can be said to be writing from a Marxist perspective then the extent of Pip's ‘errors of vision' are better understood if one takes into account Marxism's rejection of the ‘determination of social decisions in accordance with private profits rather than human needs.' (Lebowitz 2003, p.1) That said, the characters make their social decisions based on a status accorded to them by ‘capital.' Pip's anxiety over Joe coming to visit him in London (Dickens 1985, Ch. 27) can be seen as a commercial relationship that is ‘the opposite of the social relationship.' (Marx 1977, p.117) Pip's ability to relate to Joe on a personal level has been corrupted by capital. Pip even imagines that his anxieties may be assuaged by means of capital, ‘If I could have kept him away by paying money, I certainly would have paid money.' (Dickens 1985, p.240) This is evidence that their relationship has become the opposite of the social relationship. However, Pip is no mere flotsam on the wave of capitalism. He expresses an ability to analyse his situation from a personal level, ‘As I had grown accustomed to my expectations, I had insensibly begun to notice their effect upon myself and those around me… I lived in a chronic uneasiness respecting my behaviour to Joe' (Dickens 1985, p.291) Here we see in Pip an awareness that his behaviour is based on the expectations of his new found social status.
Other characters too express themselves according to their social status. Pumblechook is an interesting character in this respect. As a shopkeeper, he occupies ‘the lower strata of the middle class' (Marx 1977, p.227) that ‘sink gradually into the proletariat' (Marx 1977, p.227) through advances in the means of production. Seen in this context, Pumblechook's behaviour towards Pip may suggest that he seeks some kind of vicarious social status by taking credit for Pip's advancement. Perhaps Pumblechook realises that his position in the social pond is tenuous and he is subconsciously looking for another rock to leap to once he is gradually swamped by capitalists.
For another example of how class effects behaviour one can also look at Magwitch. As a criminal, Magwitch occupies what Marx saw as the ‘lumpenproletariat.' His actions reflect an awareness of his status too. Magwitch does not use the money he made to advance his own social status because he realises something that it takes Pip nearly the course of the novel to come to: that he cannot transcend the limitations put on him by the class he was born into. Magwitch cannot be, as Lukács put it, ‘distinguished from (his) social and historical environment.' (Eagleton & Milne 1996, p.143) He does not try to pass himself off as a gentleman because then he would have to operate in the bourgeois sphere where ‘law, morality, religion are to him so many bourgeois prejudices behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.' (Marx 1977, p.230) Magwitch's life on the rough end of the law has been series of these bourgeois ambushes. Because he understands bourgeois prejudices perhaps he seeks to undermine them, or out-ambush them, by setting Pip up as a gentleman. As Pip says, ‘His boast that he had made me a gentleman, and that he had come to see me support the character on his ample resources, was made for me as quite as much for himself; and that it was a highly agreeable boast to both of us, and that we must be very proud of it, was a conclusion quite established in his own mind.' (Dickens 1985, p.355)
Although Pip realises that his attitudes have changed due to his expectations it takes a great battle of will to overcome them. Take for example his ‘repugnance towards the man who had done so much for me.' (Dickens 1985, p.355) Pip is still thinking in terms of class in his dealings with Magwitch even though he experienced an internal ‘repugnance' towards his own attitude, even after this realisation, he continues to base his social relationships upon it. Perhaps his self loathing was so great that he was unable to summon even the most basic of personal empathies for others.
Pip's despair is further compounded by debt (Dickens 1985, p.292). Marx described credit as ‘the economic judgement on the morality of man.' (Marx 1977, p.114) This may indicate that Pip was feeling uncomfortable with becoming the physical embodiment of capital itself, ‘the mediator of exchange' (Marx 1977, p.114) Also, Pip regrets that he had not ‘risen to manhood content to be partners with Joe in the honest old forge' (Dickens 1985, p.291). The key word here is ‘honest'. The means on which he lived were dishonest and devoid of ‘personal meaning.' He felt further ‘alienated' from his actual needs; he was functioning as a commercial entity rather than a human one. As Marx said, a relationship based on capital showed that “the need of a thing is the most evident and irrefutable proof that the thing belongs to my essence.” (Marx 1977, p.116) If that ‘thing' that Pip needed was the ability to maintain his line of credit in order to exist, his essence was an even further ‘externalisation' of the inner self and therefore his existence had become meaningless.
References
Calder, A. 1994, Introduction , in Dickens, C. 1985, Great Expectations , Penguin Books Ltd, Suffolk .
Dickens, C. 1985, Great Expectations , Penguin Books Ltd, Suffolk .
Dickens, C. 1994, Pickwick Papers , Penguin Books Ltd, Berkshire .
Della Volpe, G. 1960, The Semantic Dialectic, in Eagleton, T. & Milne, D. 1996, Marxist Literary Theory, Blackwell Publishers Inc, Massachusetts.
Engels, F. 1987, The Condition of the Working Class in England , Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex.
Lebowitz, M.A. 2003, Beyond Capital , Palgrave Macmillan, New York .
Lukacs, G. 1957, The Ideology of Modernism , in Eagleton & Milne (ed) op.cit.
Marx, K. 1977, Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford University Press, Oxford .
Nationmaster Encyclopedia, June 2004 < http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Marxism>
West, A. 1937, The Relativity of Literary Value , in Eagleton & Milne (ed.) op.cit
-- Luke McKay
this overview was very insightful, and helpful. thank you =)
Post new comment