In Hard Times, Bounderby claims to be a self-made man: but as the story progresses we see this may not be completely true. What is Dickens saying about the self-made man through the character of Bounderby, does he exist?
I think an important addition to the question would be "does the self-made man exist in utilitarianism(the Gradgrindian system)?" The reason that I think the question needs that end to it is because I don't think that Dickens would say that a self-made man is impossible, but I do think he is saying that in a class defined society a self-made man doesn't exist. Part of the difficulty of becoming a self-made man is shown through Stephen Blackpool because when Bounderby meets with Stephen he constently refers to the "Hands" who "expect to be set up in a coach and six, and to be fed on turtle soup and venison, with a gold spoon" (72). This shows how the society doesn't allow for self-made men because of Bounderby's repetitive complaining about how the "Hands" want to be given everything and not work for it. But he never gives them anything above the minimum living conditions. Stephen expands on the "Hands" living standards the second time they meet when he says "look at how the mills is awlus a goin, and how they never works us no nigher to only dis'ant object - ceptin awlus, Death" (148). He speaks of how horrible the "Hands" living conditions are, but Bounderby makes no changes to the system. Without changes there is no way that they can move up a class. Therefore, the fact that Bounderby wasn't a self-made man shows that it is impossible to become a self-made man in a class defined system because Bounderby prevents anyone from being able to become wealthier.
Gabby, I think that is a very strong point, and an important addition to the question. I think Stephen's death is further (indirect) evidence to support this claim about Dickens's intent. Although most of the characters seemed to get what they deserved at the ende of the novel, Stephen alone did not fit the pattern. He was clearly a pure, moral character, yet he died. However, his death was graceful and sad: "through humility, and sorrow, and forgiveness, he had gone to his Redeemer's rest" (265). His death was described as "rest"--not at all described like a punishment. Instead, I think it was meant to evoke sympathy in the reader for the plight of the poor. In effect, I think Dickens wanted to show that honest Hands like Stephen could try to work their way up the social ladder, but in the end it would be futile. The society was oppressive and the ideal of being "self-made" was implausible, even for the most hard-working, idealistic people represented by Stephen.
Bounderby frequently reminds us that he is “Josiah Bounderby of Coketown.” This over the top phrase usually follows a description of his childhood poverty which include claims that he was born in a ditch and later abandoned by his mother and forced to support himself by his own labor. Despite these humble beginnings he is able to become wealthy through the owning of a factory and a bank . In the passage Bounderby represents the possibility of social mobility, claiming that an individual can overcome all obstacles, including poverty and poor education to reach success. Bounderby uses this philosophy and his own childhood "experiences" to suggest why the Hands are impoverished, his explanation is they simply lack ambition. However, the "self-made" man is ultimately exposed to be a fake. Mrs. Pegler, his mother, ultimately reveals the truth that he was raised by loving parents, who saved up their money to give the "self-made" man a good education. By showcasing the lies of Bounderby, Dickens questions the myth of social mobility, thus suggesting the Hands cant achieve success through solely ambition and determination, but through the compassion and charity of the wealthier class.
***While suggesting the myth of a completely self made man (such as Bounderby) is nothing but a fallacy and is simply not possible without external support.
I think an important addition to the question would be "does the self-made man exist in utilitarianism(the Gradgrindian system)?" The reason that I think the question needs that end to it is because I don't think that Dickens would say that a self-made man is impossible, but I do think he is saying that in a class defined society a self-made man doesn't exist. Part of the difficulty of becoming a self-made man is shown through Stephen Blackpool because when Bounderby meets with Stephen he constently refers to the "Hands" who "expect to be set up in a coach and six, and to be fed on turtle soup and venison, with a gold spoon" (72). This shows how the society doesn't allow for self-made men because of Bounderby's repetitive complaining about how the "Hands" want to be given everything and not work for it. But he never gives them anything above the minimum living conditions. Stephen expands on the "Hands" living standards the second time they meet when he says "look at how the mills is awlus a goin, and how they never works us no nigher to only dis'ant object - ceptin awlus, Death" (148). He speaks of how horrible the "Hands" living conditions are, but Bounderby makes no changes to the system. Without changes there is no way that they can move up a class. Therefore, the fact that Bounderby wasn't a self-made man shows that it is impossible to become a self-made man in a class defined system because Bounderby prevents anyone from being able to become wealthier.
ReplyDeleteGabby, I think that is a very strong point, and an important addition to the question. I think Stephen's death is further (indirect) evidence to support this claim about Dickens's intent. Although most of the characters seemed to get what they deserved at the ende of the novel, Stephen alone did not fit the pattern. He was clearly a pure, moral character, yet he died. However, his death was graceful and sad: "through humility, and sorrow, and forgiveness, he had gone to his Redeemer's rest" (265). His death was described as "rest"--not at all described like a punishment. Instead, I think it was meant to evoke sympathy in the reader for the plight of the poor. In effect, I think Dickens wanted to show that honest Hands like Stephen could try to work their way up the social ladder, but in the end it would be futile. The society was oppressive and the ideal of being "self-made" was implausible, even for the most hard-working, idealistic people represented by Stephen.
ReplyDeleteBounderby frequently reminds us that he is “Josiah Bounderby of Coketown.” This over the top phrase usually follows a description of his childhood poverty which include claims that he was born in a ditch and later abandoned by his mother and forced to support himself by his own labor. Despite these humble beginnings he is able to become wealthy through the owning of a factory and a bank . In the passage Bounderby represents the possibility of social mobility, claiming that an individual can overcome all obstacles, including poverty and poor education to reach success. Bounderby uses this philosophy and his own childhood "experiences" to suggest why the Hands are impoverished, his explanation is they simply lack ambition. However, the "self-made" man is ultimately exposed to be a fake. Mrs. Pegler, his mother, ultimately reveals the truth that he was raised by loving parents, who saved up their money to give the "self-made" man a good education. By showcasing the lies of Bounderby, Dickens questions the myth of social mobility, thus suggesting the Hands cant achieve success through solely ambition and determination, but through the compassion and charity of the wealthier class.
ReplyDelete***While suggesting the myth of a completely self made man (such as Bounderby) is nothing but a fallacy and is simply not possible without external support.
ReplyDelete