Philosophers have been engaged in the debate of reason v passion since debate began. It seems that Dickens also enters the debate with Hard Times. Does Dickens create characters and the classes they represent that line up against one another in this debate? How so, and how effective is his portrayal? What consequence does he show in "Reaping," and does he suggest a solution?
Excuse, again, the late post. I haven't had access to a computer until now. Amazing, isn't it??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Dickens does create characters that represent reason on the one hand and passion on the other. On the reason side there is Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bounderby, and on the passion side there is Stephen Blackpool and Rachael, and Sissy Jupe. Hard times closely examines the philosophies of Gradgrind and Bounderby and offsets these with the Stephen and Rachael subplot, so it is easy to see how they differ. Gradgrind and Bounderby are merchant or gentry class people, and all that matter to them are facts. Especially with Bounderby, he appears to have no soft feelings at all. For example, the purpose of his honeymoon is to observe the Hands in Lyons – it isn’t a romantic getaway at all. In another instance, Gradgrind reprimands Louisa when he overhears her saying that she “wonders” about something, telling her never to wonder. All that matters are facts.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side of the coin are Stephen and Rachael. They are working class people, and are poor in material things, and yet it’s obvious that they care for each other. When Stephen’s wife is drunk/sick, Rachael comes over to Stephen’s house to care for her. Rachael doesn’t seem to see her as a rival at all, but she has compassion for her. Rachael prevents her from drinking a cup of poison. Stephen obviously loves Rachael. He tells her, “thou art an Angel,” and he kisses the border of her shawl. If they were behaving according to reason only, they probably would have no friendship at all because Stephen is trapped in a marriage that he can’t get out of.
The consequence of the Gradgrind/Bounderby approach to life is seen in the loveless marriage between Bounderby and Louisa. I think one example of a solution to the two philosophies is shown in Louisa’s reaction to Harthouse. It becomes obvious that Harthouse has manipulated Louisa’s emotions. In several places, Louisa shows that she has grown to like Harthouse. Harthouse observes her and thinks, “so much the less is the whelp the only creature that she cares for.” He knows that he had “established a confidence with her.” Even Mrs. Sparsit can see it, she sees “the changes of the face he [Harthouse] had studied . . . all absorbed in interest. So it’s obvious that Louisa is tempted by Harthouse. What really is interesting is Louisa’s reaction when Harthouse finally makes his move. Louisa reacts in a way that is rational – by running from Harthouse to her father. When she gets to her father’s house she is admitting her feelings about Bounderby – she admits that she hates him. So Louisa is at the same time combining reason and emotion in her actions. In this way, she prevents compromising her reputation with Harthouse but at the same time she gets out of a loveless marriage.
I do believe that Dickens enters the debate of reason v passion with Hard Times. Each character, both separately and jointly represent the sides of the debate that is manifesting in the era. Dickens creates his characters by separating them by class, and of course, by gender. He does so, in order to compare the two side by side. For example, both Bounderby and Thomas Gradgrind cease to rely on passion and are strictly about reason and facts. They are both of wealth and prominence in their society. At the other end of the spectrum, are Stephen, Sissy and Rachael. They are of a “lower” class with limited education and resources. Yet,in what Stephen, Sissy and Rachael lack in society status, they makeup in their humility, love and loyalty, none of which Bounderby and Thomas Gradgrind deem relevant in life.
ReplyDeleteTo further prove the sides of the debate, Dickens shows how Thomas Gradgrind experiments with his two older children by incorporating the Utilitarian movement of the time in both their education and upbringing. As far as Mr. Gradgrind is concerned, it is the only way to raise and educate children, and the only way to live. He continues to reassure Louisa and Tom (his son) that reason alone is what makes life complete. Yet, the reader encounters the consequences through Louisa’s loveless marriage and Tom’s destructive and selfish ways.
On the other hand, Stephen, Sissy and Rachael are on the complete opposite side, passion. They are very in tune with their emotions and allow them to form their attitudes and way of life. They accept their status in society and try to disregard any attempts to amplify their need for materialism. Instead, they have limited education and rely on passion to survive. Although Sissy enters the Gradgrind household and school, only as an experiment of Mr. Gradgrind, she is never really able to incorporate herself completely to the Utilitarian way of life. Her passions seem to hold her back from fully engaging her new family. In believing these characters to be worthless, both Thomas Gradgrind and Bounderby harden themselves even more toward them, explaining their existence away by their reason.
In “Reaping”, Dickens writes about the consequences of reason alone. With the mental breakdown of Louisa, the softening of Mr. Gradgrind in seeing his daughter’s despair, Dickens describes to his readers how reason alone can be destructive to the outcome of life and the condition of the human heart. “Reaping” seems to open the door to the side of passion in this debate. In it, Dickens suggests the need of both reason and passion as a solution to the consequences of reason alone.
Dickens effectively shows the two extremes (reason v. passion) and how each may have their own consequences. The obvious consequence of just following the laws of reason is the lack of compassion and being able to think outside of the box, so to speak. Gradgrind thought he was raising his children right, but the lack of love necessary especially in a child's life led to confusion and resentment, as we see early on in Louisa's life. Louisa didn't have a chance to live life on her own terms until Mr. Harthouse comes into the picture and messes up things for her. Mr. Harthouse forces Louisa into a compromising position that requires her action--whether she chooses to meet up with him or not. If she elopes with Harthouse, her dignity will be compromised and she will have to deal with the public scorn. If she stays with Bounderby, she will forever be stuck in a relationship where she does not love the person. Louisa at this point is feeling too much passion and the lack of being able to act on it earlier in life makes the decision all the more difficult. At the end of Book 2, Louis has not run off with Harthouse, but Dickens leaves the option open while Louisa talks things through with her father.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of passion, Sissy is a prime example of someone who only acts out of passion. She is a good person overall, but to those who believe strongly in Facts, Sissy is a threat to society because she may influence others to act on matters of the heart without thinking clearly. At least this is what Gradgrind would believe. We learn that Sissy is sympathetic and plays a vital role in the Gradgrinds' lives later in the story.
Dickens only shows us characters who are in either one or the other. Nobody has both. It is necessary that a human being is well versed in facts as well as passion and that, in being so knowledgeable in both aspects, that person will be able to use both to his or her advantage at the proper times.
zampak,
ReplyDeleteI failed to mention the separation of class in the story, but you reminded me of a good point. Those in the upper class are supposed to be led by reason and those in the lower class are run by passion, thus hinting at the lesser value of passion. But I think Dickens is leaning more strongly on the passion side because of course he shows us the consequences of only believing in facts.
I believe Dickens does effectively portray a debate this debate between reason and passion. His characters not only show contrast, but are specifically written to be antithesis to one another. Each character’s stand, either in reason or passion, is shown explicitly in how they live, and the result of such is shown in their relationships and reputations.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between Sissy and Louisa is a prime example of passion verses reason. Sissy’s upbringing in the circus environment is a stark contrast to that of Louisa’s. Though her fanciful ways do not suit her well in the school full of facts, her influence is shown upon the Gradgrind household and upon Louisa specifically. The reader can slowly see Louisa’s hard shell of facts falling apart to reveal the emotion she has kept so long within. She eventually reaches her breaking point when she visits her father and confronts him, telling him of his negative influence upon her and the result which it has brought. The end of “Reaping” does not show much of a solution, but rather possibly leads into one. It leaves the reader hanging.
Waggoner87,
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your quote:
"Though her fanciful ways do not suit her well in the school full of facts, her influence is shown upon the Gradgrind household and upon Louisa specifically."
I especially liked the way Dickens used Louisa's younges sister to contrast the difference in their upbringing and the influence Sissy has had on her. Having Louisa even notice it in her sister's body language shows the impact Sissy has had on their family.
Response to Claudia or Zampak (not sure?)
ReplyDeleteYou reminded me of the class issue in Hard Times. This may be slightly off topic, but I was thinking that part of Bounderby’s heartless attitude may be attributed to his wealth. Throughout most of the book, he talks about how he was brought up by his alcoholic grandmother, and managed to achieve success in spite of an abusive and neglectful childhood. We find out later, however, that this is not so. Maybe the reason why he cannot soften his attitude is because he is protecting his wealth. He wants to say that if he could be a success in spite of such a bad childhood, then so can anybody, so therefore he has absolutely no sympathy or patience with the Hands, and owes them nothing. As far as he is concerned, they are poor because they are lazy. This way he keeps the door shut to any emotional feeling toward the Hands, and by extension toward anybody else. But at the end of the story, he’s wealthier than ever, but yet he’s alone with all his riches. He drives people away with his attitude. Bounderby “for ever nauseate[s] all healthy stomachs with a vast amount of Bounderby balderdash and bluster” (286). He is such a pathetic character that he dies alone of a fit in the street. All his money couldn’t buy him friends. This seems to be an important message that Dickens is trying to communicate.
In response to Claudia,
ReplyDeleteI like that you pointed out that Dickens' characters focused solely on either passion or fact, never both. In real life we know that one needs to learn to utilize both in order to retain knowledge and emotion, and in turn, a balanced life. In this aspect, Dickens' book is not realistic as it takes the characters to the extreme, although the examples of consequenses stand firm in reality.
In the novel, Hard Times, I do agree that Dickens creates characters that do match their classes. For example, with Stephen, Rachael,and Sissy members of the working class who value love and life, and on the other side you have characters such as Mr. Gradgrind,Mr. Bounderby, Mrs. Sparsit, and Tom who are the upper class who value facts and the idea of overseeing the "hands" to create their wealth. Dickens provides us with a prime example in the Reaping section of the book when Lousia pays Stephen a visit(after he was fired by Mr. Bounderby)to see how the other side lives and too offer him money. She feels sympathetic and ashamed for what has happen to Stephen and tries to correct it by offering the money.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to reason v passion in the novel, Dickens demonstrates this thru several of his characters. For example, with Sissy she shows a lot of passion when she tries very hard to learn just the "facts" but accepts the fact that she can not learn just the facts without having passion. Mr. Gradgrind shows to be a man of reason with no passion. This is shown when he tries to convince Louisa that it is in her best interest to marry Bounderby and in so many words tells her that "love" will come later. Mr. Bounderby is a man of reason but shows some passion when he pursues Lousia and finally asks to marry her. Tom, is a character who I feel has both passion and reason because of his action towards Stephen and how he confessed to what he had done out of guilt.