Charles Dickens, Fred Kaplan, Graham Law, Jane (AFT) Smiley, Sylvere Monod - Hard Times

Charles Dickens? Hard Times subtly addressed the problems of the economic, and social situations of Victorian England through the fictitious industrial Coketown. In this era, progress is the main concern and industrialization is the tool used to achieve this goal. However, industrialization?s side affects in this period are poverty and deplorable living conditions. The working class were thought of by factory owners, such as Josiah Bounderby, as merely ?hands?. They were thought of not as people, but as instruments of progress and profit. Social Darwinism, the thought that only the strong should survive in a society, gave the wealthy an excuse for their actions toward the lower classes. The fact that this theory is immoral, and unjust, rings clear throughout the novel. In this essay I shall take three members of the working class and discuss their plight and what Dickens would suggest to remedy their situations. Louisa Gradgrind, Stephen Blackpool, and Cecilia Jupe all display the negative effects that industrialization has brought upon the working class of Victorian England.
Louisa Gradgrind was the oldest daughter of Thomas Gradgrind. Thomas believed that rearing children was a mere matter of teaching facts. If Louisa wanted to learn about a horse, she would have to memorize its dimensions and read about its digestive system. Never would she be allowed to ride the horse in order to learn more about it. Thomas referred to his children as ?little pitchers?, to be filled only with fact. This idea of education grew out of the fancy-free ideals of progress. In other words, Louisa was taught that every second spent learning fanciful information was a second lost forever. The negative ramifications of this on Louisa?s childhood were obvious, if not stunning. As she matured every choice made in her adult life was solely based upon fact. When she married Josiah Bounderby, who was a wealthy factory owner, she did not realize what the sacrament of marriage was truly about. She believed as her father taught her. When she asks him if she loves Bounderby he replies, ?Consider the question simply as one of tangible Fact.? Whereas one can take love out of marriage, and make it simply a question of progress. Can marriage simply be a vessel toward a higher station in life? In this case it worked, but the ramifications of a loveless marriage would end up destroying Louisa?s happiness, and sending Bounderby back into lonely bachelorhood. To remedy this situation I believe that Dickens would have advised them not to get married in the first place. In this point in history, taking the ?heart? out of something meant streamlining it for more progress. However Dickens would argue that removing the emotional aspect of life also removes the purpose of life. When the meaning of the action is removed, the action itself loses face; as the marriage of Bounderby and Louisa did.
However, is Stephen Blackpool?s case, marriage can also be forfeited to alcohol. His first wife, who left him long ago, could not handle the deplorable living conditions of the time, and turned to alcohol for comfort. Upon her return to his life she has not changed at all. Her drunken stupors made Stephen fall out of love with her. His eyes turned toward the ?angel? of the factory. Rachael, a worker, holds in her heart all of the goodness and love that Stephen wants. When Stephen, a power loom weaver, asks the only man capable of remedying the situation, Mr. Bounderby, he is rejected. Stephen learns only one thing: the laws are truly for the benefit of the rich. If he leaves his drunken wife, if he harms her, if he marries Rachael, or if he just lives with Rachael without the sanction of marriage, Stephen will be punished. Stephen learns that the only body that can grant him a divorce is the courts, and the only thing that opens the doors of the courts is money. Dickens is making a political statement towards the laws of the land. He feels that they are set up only in the benefit of the wealthy, and dispose of the rights of the common man. Stephen is left to live without his wonderful Rachael, who is the only thing he now desires in life. I believe that Dickens would recommend that these two, who were obviously meant for each other, should elope to America and start over. There they would experience the freedom they needed to be happy. They would still live in run-down settings and work in progress driven factories, but they would have the advantage of basic human rights. Dickens never focused on the solution of emigration, however when Tom Gradgrind escapes England in search of work his character dies alone in exile. Even though he dies, it seems as though he was somehow vindicated in his separation from the oppressive Coketown.
Cecilia ?Sissy? Jupe was originally removed from the working class of Coketown. She was a member of the circus people, whose mission was to make people happy. Sissy, forsaken by her natural father, who believed that she would have a better life away from the circus, is a warm, loving individual who brings warmth and understanding to the Gradgrind home. She is taken in by Thomas Gradgrind. He attempts to educate her in the school of facts. She has never experienced this approach and fails to see the importance of detracting one?s self from the natural emotions of life. She does not see the benefits of progress. Her refusal to accept this loveless way of life serves as a beacon to the rest of the characters. They see, through her, that there is a place for caring. Also they see that progress need not be heartless. She brings warmth and understanding to the Gradgrind home. Jane Gradgrind, the youngest, evolves as the only character to understand both the school of ?facts?, and the school of ?emotion?. Consequently, she grows up happily and has a wonderful family. Sissy, on the other hand, never learns the facts that Thomas Gradgrind tries to force feed her. She never truly fits in with the mainstream progress driven society of the time. She finds console in her new friend Rachael. They are oppressed by similar situations, and find comfort in each other. When the go for a walk in the fields of Coketown they find Stephen near death. He says, among other things, that all men should learn to live together with understanding. Sissy later learns from another character, Bitzer, that this whole system of progress is based upon ?self-interest?. This explains to Sissy why she could not get ahead in this system. She cared for others so deeply that she had too much ?heart? to be effectively assimilated into the society. Even though this plight negatively affected her characters development, I believe that Dickens would not instruct her to conform. For in conformity they would lose the hope of a day when society was concerned with people rather than progress. Dickens displayed Sissy?s plight as a problem with society and the political structure of the Victorian Era. His suggestions for this problem would be reform on all levels.
Dickens wanted to display the problems of his society, and subtly hint toward the solutions. Each character faced a common problem; progress at the sake of humanity. Not only was Victorian England an era of reform, industrialization, and achievement but also a time when man struggled to assert, and gain, his independence. Although eventual sweeping reform, like the child labor law, would overtake the society, this example of social Darwinism at work should be an example to us all. Life can not, and should not, be driven solely by progress. A machine does not have a soul, and by designating groups in society as no more than machines we are removing their souls. A society without a soul has no moral fiber with which to make the distinction between right and wrong. This can be a dangerous consequence of society?s acceptance of the ?doctrine of progress?. Dickens saw through the dense choking smoke to this end. In Hard Times he attempted to display this and give cause for hope.