Charles Dickens novel Hard Times is sharp commentary on the values and practices of English society in the nineteenth century. Dickens tackles a number of important issues in his novel, including education and the public good. In the novel, the hypocrisies of the culture are exposed. Using the characters of Gradgrind, Bounderby and Cecilia, Dickens exposes the potential harm of blind obedience to a particular set of values or philosophy. While Gradgrind and Bounderby reflect the dangers of educational dogmatism and moralistic expediency, Cecilia Jupes character symbolizes the triumph of the human spirit and the power of the individual imagination and intelligence.
Hard Times takes a critical view of how the poor were treated in England at the time. English society was highly regimented at the time, and the social classes were clearly defined. There was, however, a great amount of change and innovation during this period as well. Many towns, like the novels fictional setting of Coketown, were transformed by the industrial revolution and experienced an economic transformation. The success of the mill allows a character like Bounderby to ascend the social ladder and influence his community.
The school where Gradgrind teaches is an important example of how Bounderbys influence is felt by the town. In many respects, Gradgrinds teaching methods seem to be informed by mechanical processes at the towns mill rather than a genuine desire to impart knowledge. In the opening sequence of the book, Gradgrind expounds on his philosophy in a voice that is described as being, inflexible, dry and dictatorial. At the beginning of the novel, Gradgrind believes that there is only one objective in education, as well as life itself. He tells his assembled students In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir nothing but Facts (p. 8). The students are described as a little vessels . . . ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim (p.8). This description provides the reader with important insight into how the role and function of education is understood by Gradgrind and his supporters. Learning, rather than being a lifelong process fueled by curiosity and personal growth, is a finite exercise that is complete once the vessel has been filled to the brim. In Gradgrinds classroom, there is room only for facts. The limitations of this approach are demonstrated by Cecilia Jupes failure to describe a horse. After grilling Cecilia on her fathers occupation, Gradgrind demands that she provide a definition of a horse. In the text, we learn that she is alarmed by this request.
Gradgrind, however, misinterprets this alarm as ignorance. He states Girl number twenty unable to define a horse . . . Girl number twenty possessed of no facts in reference to the commonest of animals (p. 11). It is clear to the reader that Cecilia Jupe, by virtue of her upbringing, is not only well aware of what a horse is but also likely to possess greater insight and knowledge of the animal than most of her peers. Yet she is labeled as a failure, because she cannot produce a factual description of the animal on demand. It is clear that education as it is defined in towns school is somewhat limited. The definition provided by her fellow student Bitzer may be factually accurate, but it is unlikely to be of any great use to anyone who wants to truly understand the animal and its nature.
Josiah Bounderby is another character who privileges facts over so-called fancy. Throughout the novel, he takes great pains to establish his reputation not only as a self-made man but a sensible plain-spoken one. He thoroughly rejects the imagination. Near the end of the novel, he tells Gradgrind
I know the bricks of this town, and I know the works of this town, and I know the chimneys of this town, and I know the smoke of this town, and I know the Hands of this town. I know em all pretty well. Theyre real. When a man tells me anything about imaginative qualities, I always tell that man, whoever he is, that I know what he means. He means turtle-soup and venison, with a gold spoon, and that he wants to be set up with a coach and six. (p. 316)
In comparing the bricks and mortar of the town over the more subjective forms of knowledge, Josiah privileges his viewpoint over all others. Furthermore, Josiahs privileging of reality over the more tenuous elements of supposition and fancy becomes ironic, since much of his life is based on lie. He fabricates a history for himself that is a fanciful as any childs invention. Ultimately, Josiahs supposed preference for reality and fact ultimately turns out to be hypocritical. He twists the facts to suit his own purposes. At the conclusion of the above-noted speech, Josiah justifies his abandonment of Gradgrinds daughter by saying that she expects fripperies and luxuries like turtle-soup and gold spoons. He abjures all responsibility and tells Gradgrind if this is what his daughter expects then Gradgrind, as her father, can provide it for her. Ironically, it is the dissolution of this marriage that brings about in part Gradgrinds emotional and intellectual awakening.
Cecilia Jupe emerges as one of the novels most sympathetic characters. Not only is she kind and good, but she also possesses a straightforward and sensible view of the world. She is the only character who seems to possess any moral authority, as evidenced by her ability to shame James Harthouse into behaving like a decent human being. In sharp contrast to her fellow classmates Thomas Junior and Louise Gradgrind who later falter in spite of having succeeded in the school environment, Cecilia Jupe leaves school yet still leads a meaningful life. Thomas Junior thrives in school and takes the teachings and philosophy espoused by his father to heart. Although he has all the outward signs of being a success, Thomas Junior remains a deeply selfish character. In comparison, Cecilia Jupe, who appears by all external measures to be his social inferior, is the one person who makes the most significant contribution to the Gradgrind family. She alone understands the destructive potential Harthouse holds not only for Louise but the family as well. She is the one who sends him away, telling Harthouse You may be sure, sir, you will never see her again as long as you live (302). Unlike many of the other characters who use their detached intellectualism to justify and rationalize their behavior, Cecilia is able to distinguish right from wrong.
In many respects, Dickens novel is an indictment of the morality of his time. He recognized the hypocrisy that surrounded him. The Bounderby character is a criticism of the countless individuals who profited during this period at the expense of others. Dickens abjures Bounderby and other other like him for their lack of compassion and social responsibility. In the novel, he skewers the lies and justifications this group of people develops in order to rationalize their own selfishness and harmful behavior. Similarly, Dickens attacks another group of people using the character of Gradgrind. In the novel, Dickens is highly critical of those who adhere dogmatically to philosophies of education and knowledge. He satirizes these theorists by exposing the limitations of such behavior, using the example of Gradgrind. Cecilia emerges as Dickens heroine however, this is not because of her wealth, her status or her philosophy. Ultimately, it is both her imagination and her emotion that redeem Cecilias character. Although she is disadvantaged both in her upbringing and education, Cecilia is the novels emotional center, because she acts without guile or motive. Through this character, Dickens proves that our emotion and imagination are often what redeems us as human beings.
No comments:
Post a Comment