Dickens uses satire in book 2 to critique the relations
between the lower class represented collectively by the union and the upper
class which consists of Bounderby specifically but it also includes Louisa,
Gradgrind, and Mrs. Sparsit. In Chapter 4, the extremely outspoken voice of the
union, Slackbridge, points his finger at the upper class saying, “Oh my friends
and fellow-countrymen, the slaves of an iron handed despotism…we must rally
round one another as One united power, and crumble into dust the oppressors
that too long have battened upon the plunder of our families, upon the sweat of
our brows, upon the labour of our hands, upon the strength of our sinews, upon
the God-created glorious rights of humanity.(136-137)” This extremist voice is
used to exaggerate the working man’s plight. For instance, Slackbridge compares
the upper class and its power through industry to despotism and its oppressive
nature on the people. On the other hand, in chapter 5, the overly aristocratic
voice of Bounderby exaggerates the viewpoint of the upper class. For instance,
Bounderby refers to the workers as “pests of the earth” and he also says, “ You
had better tell us at once, that that fellow Slackbridge is not in town,
stirring up trouble the people to mutiny; and that he is not a regular
qualified leader of the people: that is, a most confounded scoundrel. (145)”
Here Dickens exaggerates the evils of the lower class through Bounderby
maligning the mutinous band of rebels that dare rise up against the upper
class. Through exaggeration of both viewpoints, Dickens may be conveying the
frivolity of both sides of the spectrum. Thus, his viewpoint is most likely
expressed through Stephen who believes that the upper and lower class should
mend their relations, though through his actions he only ends up being
ostracized from both parties.
This is an interesting perspective. The fact that Stephen becomes ostracized just shows the extent to which neither class is really "right". And this is significant because I think Dickens tends to favor the working class in this book, yet he shows that even they are not all good,and they too have faults. I absoleutley agree that Stephen represents the narrator (author's?) veiwpoint, and additionally I think he's somewhat of a middle road between the wealthy businessman and the extremist Slackbridge Union leaders. Another question to consider: does his eventual death near the end of the book symbolize that the compromise between the two classes will never survive, just as Stephen didn't survive?
ReplyDelete-Brianna Maki