Our Previous Samples

George Eliot writes that a marriage is either a "gradual conquest or irremediable loss of union" (Eliot 832). In other words, marriage is a joint venture that has the goal of eventually culminating into the union of two separate persons. In Middlemarch, the "gradual" advancement towards union can be seen in the marriage of Mary Garth and Fred Vincy that only occurs when Mary forces Fred to become sufficiently developed as a person and chose a career that suits him. If either participant refuses to add to the functioning of the marriage, the marriage will become one of mutual enmity such as that of Lydgate and Rosamond Vincy. In this novel, a happy marriage can be said to encompass a perspective that is broad enough to know what another feels and a willingness to work together. The couples who are still together and happy at the end of the novel are the success stories, such as Fred Vincy and Mary Garth and Ladislaw and Dorothea-all of whom have matured enough to thoroughly know both themselves and their partners. Through the novel's couples, Eliot shows that marriage is an endeavor requiring a perspective that is inclusive of one's partner and provides adequate knowledge of the self.

To begin, Dorothea Brooke and Casaubon are a study in opposites as Dorothea loses grip of herself in order to more completely serve Casaubon while Casaubon acts with little regard to Dorothea's own desires. Dorothea's feelings for Casaubon are influenced by his supposed wisdom and her hopes that it will allow her to become more educated and have a higher purpose in life. She desires to be of constant usefulness to the weak and aging Casuabon by lending him her nineteen year old eyes for reading. But this preoccupation with Casaubon's wishes lead Dorothea to make the unwise decision to completely lose herself with Casaubon. Instead of continuing to pursue her pet project of building more adequate housing for farm workers, Dorothea wishes to become merely Casaubon's assistant. She in turn makes herself entirely dependent on him for her happiness and self-worth. When Casaubon chooses to exclude Dorothea, she is left with nothing to live for.

After her marriage, Dorothea is frequently characterized as ruminating on her regrettable decision. She falls into a state of bewilderment and self-catechism asking herself, "Is he worth living for?" (426). Formerly, she had an individual drive to better the world through the construction of more suitable cottages. Dorothea needs the consent of a man to construct these cottages as men hold the money and the land. Ironically, if Dorothea had married Sir Chettam his willingness to cooperate with his partner may have made the cottage project a success. Casaubon is so adamant about his own pursuits that he neglects his union with Dorothea. Casaubon is "buried in books" (Eliot 447), and wishes to exclude Dorothea from his studies to the point where he neglects her on their honeymoon.

Their marriage had a short courtship and thus a weak foundation for marriage. Eliot is disposed to think of short courtships as providing an unsteady foundation for the later marriage: "A fellow mortal with whose nature you are acquainted with solely through the brief entrances and exits of a few imaginative weeks called courtship, may, when seen in the continuity of married companionship, be disclosed as something better or worse than what you have preconceived, but will certainly not appear altogether the same" (Eliot 195). One needs time to learn the other before endeavoring to be united within them for a lifetime. The marriage of Casaubon and Dorothea is of course a failure. Instead of face to face mediation, their marriage is cemented through letters. Casaubon ruminates on how the acquisition of Dorothea, however prized, does not make him happy, "his surprise that though he had won a lovely and noble-hearted girl he had not won delight" (Eliot 85). Likewise, Dorothea is miserable and often ruminates on her unhappiness. Their meetings however short are strained because of their mutual displeasure. In their first attempt at conversation, the hostility is highly evident. Dorothea claims that Casaubon speaks to her "as if [she] were something [he] had to contend with" (Eliot 282). Despite that Dorothea addresses the animosity between them, Casaubon's only reply is to ignore the obvious contention in his marriage in favor of again pursuing his own self-interests, saying that he has, "neither the leisure nor energy for this kind of debate" (Eliot 282). In this instance, "this kind of debate" would refer to Casaubon paying any mind to Dorothea's stature or personal needs within the union. The author's query of "but why always Dorothea? Was her point of view the only possible one with regard to this marriage?" may be answered by the fact that Casaubon's silence on marital subjects means he is less proactive in attempting to gain insight into his wife's personality. The reader gets more of her perspective because her perspective is not stagnated and is less concentrated on herself alone.

In the same way that Casaubon views Dorothy as an ornament, both Lydgate and Rosamond view each other as luxury items to acquire and not so much as people. Lydgate does not acknowledge that Rosamond is a person with personal whims. He views Rosamond as a plant, and by "marrying her, he could give her a much-needed transplantation" (Eliot 350). He takes it for granted that her only desire in life will be to facilitate her union with him. However, Rosamond is entirely concerned with how financial circumstances affect her and her alone. Lydgate's lack of devotion to his own dreams leads him to eventually believe that he was a "failure: he had not done what he meant to do" (Eliot 835). Similarly, Rosamond views Lydgate not as a person but as more like an object. Rosamond wishes to meet and later marry Lydgate because he is a novelty she wishes to acquire, "She was tired of the faces and figures she had always been use to -- the various irregular profiles and gaits and turns of phrase distinguishing those Middlemarch young men whom she had always known as boys" (Eliot 97). Their refusal to view one another as anything but objects forecasts their eventual inhumane treatment of one another.

Rosamond and Lydgate's poor opinions of one another create an environment in which Lydgate ridicules Rosamond, and she withdraws from him. Though very savvy and persuasive, Rosamond never manages to gain respect from her husband. She purges her feelings of her own negligible existence within her marriage to Dorothea, claiming, "Tertius is so angry and impatient if I say anything" (Eliot 796). Rosamond becomes practiced at "inwardly wrapping her soul in cold reserve" against any attempts at what she perceives as criticism (Eliot 792). Rosamond's happiness deteriorates as she is not allowed to express herself without insult. Lydgate is also unable to express himself as others think, "him enviable to have so charming a wife" and he chooses to speak in superior terms to intentionally ridicule and perplex Rosamond (Eliot 835). Shortly before his death, Lydgate calls Rosamond, "his basil plant," and when she asks for an explanation does not explain the reference's origin but only says it flourishes "wonderfully on a murdered man's brains" (Eliot 835). It is evident that Lydgate thinks of Rosamond as something that kills his intellectual advancement. Upon being remarried, Rosamond, "often spoke of her happiness as 'a reward'-she did not say for what, but probably she meant that it was a reward for her patience with Tertius" (Eliot 835). Thus Lydgate's lack of respect for Rosamond as a person causes her unhappiness.

Through their insufficient courting and mutual resolution not to attempt to understand one another, Lydgate and Rosamond doom their marriage to perpetual unhappiness. Both refuse to re-analyze their situation and to attempt to find relate to one another. Lydgate does not view Rosamond as an intelligent creature and as this perspective is never adjusted she withdraws from him. Their failure to value one another's strength leads to strife within the marriage. Lydgate and Rosamond fail to work together to solve the financial dilemma that causes a rift in their marriage. Their mutually negative views of each other cause Rosamond and Lydgate to become progressively unhappy.

Unlike the marriage of Rosamond and Lydgate, Dorothea and Ladislaw's marriage is based on a lengthy, well-developed courtship that has many trials. Their first meeting is one of complete misunderstanding of the meaning of each others' speech. Dorothea meets Ladislaw whilst he is painting and comments that paintings are like a "Greek sentence...which means nothing to me" (Eliot 79). Upon hearing this statement, the infrequently wise Mr. Brooke exclaims, "Bless me, now, how different people are!" (Eliot 80). Mr. Brooke, having lived with his niece for several years, knows that this is a simple comment on Dorothea's self. But her statement on her ignorance of art is taken by Ladislaw as "a covert judgment" and "was certain that she thought his sketch detestable" (Eliot 80). At present both Ladislaw and Dorothea have an infantile perspective of the world, discerning all events and others' thoughts as strictly relating to themselves. They are married after a suitably long period of acquaintance and after both parties have been given adequate time to weigh the consequences of their relationship.

An important part of what makes the marriage of Dorothea and Ladislaw contented is that Dorothea is allowed to broaden her perspective before marrying Ladislaw. She has always desired to do well for the world but she changes charitable causes from the ostentatious construction of cottages to becoming an unknown benefactor of the New Hospital. For Dorothea, at least, charity is something one does to make one's self feel good, not so much for the sake of others. She first dwells on a portrait and then looks out of windows realizing the life that exists outside her self. After surprising Ladislaw and Rosamond, Dorothea has a night of woe but then, "began to live through yesterday morning deliberately again, forcing herself to dwell on every detail and its possible meaning" (Eliot 787). Dorothea is becoming a better reader of people and taking into account their perspectives, asking herself, "Was she alone in that scene? Was it her event only?" (Eliot 787). Empirically, of course, the answer is no, she is not alone and this self-remonstration is evidence of Dorothea overcoming her former view that it was her world. She now acknowledges the desires of others and that events affect all involved. Her newly adjusted perspective allows Dorothea to acknowledge Ladislaw's own motives and relationships outside of the connection they have.

Dorothea and Ladislaw have a more successful marriage than others due to their coordinated efforts and acceptance of each others' self prior to the marriage itself. Dorothea's wish to aid humanity fails not because of Ladislaw's hindering her, but rather because of the construction of patriarchal authority and Casaubon's will which makes her choose between love and the funds to grant charitable wishes. While it is true that "there was always something better which she might have done," her inefficiency to complete her dreams is not due to self-neglect but rather a product of this period which restricted women from endeavoring to have both a home life and dreams (Eliot 835). Ladislaw is concerned about Dorothea's possible regret of their union. Ladislaw allows Dorothea to be self-oriented and has concerns of his own such as his writing. They both willingly lose status and wealth to move to a house in London. Their devotion to one another is unquestionable. Dorothea gives up the money and the becoming effect of outward propriety and assent of public opinion. Will Ladislaw makes public proclamations of his love for her, such as "No other woman exists by the side of her," a sentiment that the by nature inwardly focused Dorothea (Eliot 778). He proves his love by depriving himself of his hometown for sake of her happiness and fulfillment of her own wants.

A like capacity for willful deprivation is seen in the marriage of the Bulstrodes, a couple whose relationship is not chronicled but that demonstrates an uncanny ability to perceive and empathize with others. Both Bulstrodes appear to be consummate interpreters of public opinion and the effect of external forces. At the town meeting subsequent to Mr. Raffle's death, Bulstrode "since the first mention of his name, had been going through a crisis of feeling" proof that he is highly aware of that he is in low estimate by others in the room (Eliot 726). Mrs. Bulstrode is not foretold of the negative opinion her husband now holds in the community and characterized as an "imperfectly taught woman; she learns of it by communicating with Mrs. Hackbutt (Eliot 749). Though her husband is marked by scandal and public opinion means to ostracize him, Mrs. Bulstode stands by him, uttering the simple words, "Look up, Nicholas," to him when he is in the deepest trenches of despair. The scandal is too ugly for Mr. Bulstrode or Mrs. Bulstrode and both "shrank from the words which would have expressed their mutual conscienceness" but through a well-developed understanding of one another they communicate and sympathize with one another.

A similar knowledge of both the self and of one's marriage partner is what makes the marriage of Mary and Fred different. Mary has worked to develop a distinct self-knowledge. Through self-examination, Mary has come to important conclusions on what is suitable for her, such as when she acknowledges she would not make a good school master. Mary Garth works to maintain her personal happiness before her wedding. When faced with burning Featherstone's will, Mary acts out of self-preservation and her belief in what is proper. She acts righteously despite the promise of more than enough wealth to settle her family's debt brought on by Fred.

Mary's strength and knowledge of both herself and Fred create the circumstances that allow them to have a happy marriage. She refuses to marry Fred until he has an occupation which suits him, because she realizes that pursuing the wrong career endangers not only his happiness but her own. Instead of giving way to despair, Fred's respect for Mary inspires him to work harder. He finds a new sense of self and takes more pride in who he is. His newly developed faith in himself and enables Fred to stand up to his father and conventional thought, decreeing that, "I think I can be quite as much of a gentleman at the work I have undertaken, as if I had been a curate" (Eliot 568). Fred, though ignorant of the idea that Farebrother may admire Mary, recognizes the value of using him to address Mary on a subject that he is too timid to speak to her about.

Mary, despite Fred being considered by most to be screw-up, does not ridicule her partner to submission, but develops the tactic of recognizing the forces outside her and her husband which they must both contend with together. Instead of finding fault in her husband, Mary blames forces outside of him, for example when Fred purchases a bad horse it "was of course the fault of the horse, not of Fred's judgment" (Eliot 833). By not blaming Fred, as Lydgate blames Rosamond for her imperfections, it frees her to love him and him to receive love, not shame. By means of Mary's guidance, Fred obtains a vocation and a girl that makes him happy.

The marriage of Fred Vincy and Mary Garth is the antithesis of the unhappy marriages of the Lydgates and Casaubons. Their marriage is the exemplar of good. They are described as having, "achieved a solid mutual happiness" (Eliot 832). Their long courtship spans almost their entire lives. They have a thorough knowledge of one another. They both have some pursuit to occupy themselves. Both take up writing. Unlike the normative proscribed roles of masculinity and femininity, it is remarked by the townspeople of Middlemarch that in their home both can be and write however they wish, hence the controversy over the authorial rights to Fred's Cultivation of Green Crops and the Economy of Cattle-Feeding and Mary's supposed children's book, Stories of Great Men, taken from Plutarch (Eliot 832). The freedom from typically proscribed gender roles within the marriage is a hard test. Breaking from traditional roles could mean ostracism from the rest of the town, but Mary and Fred are so accepting of one another that they have seemingly allowed one another the praise for the other's work.

The author of Middlemarch smartly advocates that acknowledgement of external forces is pertinent to the happiness of one's self. Eliot proclaims that a human being needs to take notice that every person is subject to external forces and other people, writing that "there is no creature whose inward being is so strong that it is not greatly determined by what lies outside it" (Eliot 838). The notion that the partners in a marriage should respect one another is a distinctly feminist viewpoint. Middlemarch, though subtle in its proclamations, does contend that the female perspective should be addressed and that society is faulty in its exclusion of females, "Society never made the preposterous demand that a man should think as much about his own qualifications for making a charming girl happy as he thinks of hers for making himself happy" (Eliot 279). The personal pursuits and career efforts of Middlemarch's citizens must be obtained in order for a person to be happy in his or her marriage. An effort at cooperation and acknowledgement of the other member in the union must be made for a marriage to be a happy one.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Eliot, George. Middlemarch. Penguin Group. New York. 1994.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, also known as the LGBT community, is being noticeable at this point in time. The LGBT community wanted to be appreciated and accepted by the nation because with them, they believe that they are still part of the nation and there is nothing wrong with loving themselves in their own way as long as they do not step unto someone else’s dignity and identity and as long as they are on the right track of life. Today, the modern era is now aware of the liberated relationship that the LGBT community is trying to showcase. It is in a different perspective of the people to give their opinion about this. Some may not be comfortable with what they see in this kind of relationship because they maybe close-minded with this situation especially when it comes to those conservative and religious individuals. They believe with what the bible had to say regarding homosexuality. Yet some are still open-minded and is comfortable with how they see same-sex relationships. They believe that there is no problem as long as they love each other and they do not step into someone’s life. With this relevant topic revolving on relationships and homosexuality, marriage is one of the issues that is being discussed. Most nations, especially those roman catholic nations, are deeply concerned and having arguments with same-sex marriage. This kind of marriage is very offensive to what the bible says. But the relevance of time speaks that nations should accept the fact that we need to face the change and learn to appreciate gender equality.

Marriage is an exclusive lifelong union of a man and a woman bounded by love. They are committed to each other and is responsible of bringing children into the world. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children. Husbands and wife give themselves totally to each other in their masculinity and femininity. They are equal as human beings but different as man and woman, fulfilling each other through this natural difference. This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage. For several reasons a same-sex union contradicts the nature of marriage: It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female; it cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Persons in same-sex unions cannot enter into a true conjugal union. Therefore, it is wrong to equate their relationship to marriage. However, according to statistical data of united states regarding divorce, yearly there is an increase of growth rate of divorce in different states. On the other hand, there is also an increase of same-sex relationship that developed through civil union. This maybe a potential source that same-sex relationship is healthier bond than conventional relationship.

Love is the greatest virtue of all. Marriage talks about healthy relationships and love. The ingredient for a healthy marriage is faithfulness, loyalty, and love. Traditional relationship and same-sex relationship both blessed with the spirit of love, but the sacrament of marriage is devoted for the relationship of a man and woman in love with each other. But this do not limit the boundless spirit of love. This do not dictate that love is only for man and woman but rather accepts love for both gender.

Society must learn to understand and accept that we are in the modern era and where most of the individuals had already adopted liberated way of living. The same-sex relationship had gone far over the world. Accepting the fact that this kind of relation exist, will make way of respecting gender equality. However, the LGBT community must then accept the fact that marriage is not for them but still they have the right to get wed under the law of man. Everyone has the right to choose their life time partners. There is nothing wrong who we choose to be with no matter what gender, or what identification he or she maybe, as long as there is a concrete development of healthy relationship. Love is something that no words can ever define.

As discussed above, every individual has the choice of having a life time partners, it is going to be unfair if people will not try to understand, accept, nor respect the identity and relationship of those who belong to the third sex community, but nevertheless, those who build a same sex relationship must know how to deal with such circumstances that marriage is for uniting man and woman to and that differs from civil bond.

The nation must know the limitations behind marriage, that it is basically a vow for a man and a woman in love with each other. Marriage is uniting of two souls to procreate children and to make responsibility through it. If nations will accept same sex marriage, the whole concept of marriage may be revoked, on the other hand, if the nation will not accept same-sex union as marriage this might end up disrespectful to gender equality. Most of the people who will be affected with this are those conservative and religious individuals and of course the LGBT community. For me we have the right to get wed to whom we wanted to be as long as love keeps them together. However, there must be a half way between religious law and civil law. That marriage is a sacred vow and same-sex union is a civil vow.

Love is something that no one can ever define nor predict. Love is something that we feel enthusiastically. Some may say that through love there is nothing wrong as long as there is no one being stepped or being degraded. I am not against about the relationship that same-sex couples have. I believe that we all have our own partners in life and I don’t question how you choose your other half. We all have the right to choose our partners in life, no matter if it is with the same gender. We can never question the chosen love of an individual. We can say that stepping up a relationship in to second level means something more of just infatuation. Marriage is what defines true and holistic bond of two individuals. The concept of marriage as defined by the religious sector must not be change because this is what the divine personas initiated and we must learn to accept and respect it. That marriage is for bonding man and woman to be as one with the power of the holy spirit. Although the LGBT community still has the right to be wedded with the person they preferred to be with for the rest of their lives, the government must initiate a civil law that corresponds with the same sex bond in order to accept the LGBT community’s belief. It is true that same-sex marriage is not a sacred vow. Because initially a sacred vow is a promise done in front of a religious law. Same-sex marriage is just a bond or a relationship being legalized in accordance with the civil law.

We all have our own concept of marriage. Every nation, every religion, and every individual have their own belief and principles of marriage. But let us take in to consideration that marriage from the religious sector as defined is uniting man and woman as one to live as one, and that no law made by man can ever tear them apart. Same-sex marriage is not supported by the law that a holy persona initiated. It is by civil law that they unite the bond and relationship of this both individuals. There is a big difference between a promise made in front of a divine entity and with the law created by man. Therefore, same-sex marriage is not a sacred vow and it is just a relationship strengthened and legalized through civil law. Same-sex marriage is not a marriage but rather a civil union or a civil bond. There should be a specific term used to bond a same-sex relationship.

REFERENCES:

1. Nussbaum, M. (2009). A Right to Marry? Same-sex Marriage and Constitutional Law | Dissent Magazine. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/a-right-to-marry-same-sex-marriage-and-constitutional-law
2. Rainey, D., & Lepine, B. (2013). Why We Oppose Same-Sex Marriage. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from http://www.familylife.com/articles/topics/life-issues/challenges/cultural-issues/why-we-oppose-same-sex-marriage
3. Boehi, D. (2008). The 'Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' in Marriage. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from http://www.familylife.com/articles/topics/marriage/staying-married/gods-plan-for-marriage/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-in-marriage
4. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2018, September 27). Same-sex marriage. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/same-sex-marriage
5. Stances of Faiths on LGBTQ Issues: Roman Catholic Church. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-roman-catholic-church
6. 'All We Want is Equality'. (2018, March 08). Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/02/19/all-we-want-equality/religious-exemptions-and-discrimination-against-lgbt-people

From her start in Three Gnossiennes, to her last dance, Maple leaf Rag, Martha Graham's technique was present throughout. Although she had to stop because of health relate issues, her soul was still boogieing. Her method of dancing was inspired by not only her frustrations to unleash to emotion inside but to create her own persona in this vast world of dance.

Martha Graham was born in 1894 in a small city outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She was born to a physician who specialized in human psychology. The town "alienist" had instilled his motto of "Movement never lies" into his eldest daughter. While it seemed these words ran right through her, they stayed, engraved.

At the age of fourteen, her family relocated to California. Approximately three years later, she attended a Los Angeles dance recital by Ruth St. Denis. This presentation was the first dance she had ever seen. As with all outstanding performances, she was overwhelmed by the type of dance. She knew then that this was her future.

In 1916, she enrolled into Denishawn. At twenty two, this petite, timid, but insightful and diligent girl impressed Ted Shawn, one of the leaders in the studio. She was chosen to dance in his rendition of Xochilt. Then, abruptly, she left Denishawn to dance solo at The Greenwich Follies.

In 1925, Graham became the dance instructor at the Eastman School of Music and Theater in Rochester, N.Y. "I wanted to begin," she said, "not with characters or ideas but with movement.... I wanted significant movement." It was here that she began experimenting with modern dance forms. "I did not want it to be beautiful or fluid. I wanted it to be fraught with inner meaning, with excitement and surge." She abandoned the straight steps and techniques of classical ballet. Graham wanted the dancing body to be linked to natural motion and to the music. She started to experiment with what the body was capable to do therefore developing "percussive movements."

By 1930, she started to recognize a new system of movement and new principles of choreography. "Based on her interpretation of the Delsartean principle of tension and relaxation, Graham identified a method of breathing and impulse control she called "contraction and release." For her, movement originated in the tension of a contracted muscle, and continued in the flow of energy released from the body as the muscle relaxed. This method of muscle control gave Graham's dances and dancers a hard, angular look, one that was very unfamiliar to dance audiences used to the smooth, lyrical bodily motions of Isadora Duncan and Ruth St. Denis. In her first reviews, as a result, Graham was often accused of dancing in an "ugly" way."

Her first dances were nonfigurative and sharp, almost "cubist". "Like the modern painters," she said, "we have stripped our medium of decorative inessentials." The dances were presented on bare stages with only costumes and lights. The dancers' faces almost reflected them because they were tight almost rigid, and their costumes were immensely inadequate. Later on, she supplemented backdrops and costumes for the surreal effect. The music was contemporary and usually composed special for the dance.

Martha Graham introduced a number of other improvements to dance. She established the use of mobile scenery, symbolic props such as those in Phaedra, and communication with dancing. She was the first to mix her group racially, using minorities in her regular company. She replaced the usual ballet tunic or folk dress with either a straight, dark, long shirt or the common leotard. Using the stage, the floor, and props as part of the dance itself, in all she produced a whole new world of dance.

Following the harsh evaluations, she continued her dancing with her same technique until her health started to suffer. Afterwards, she rose again but not dancing solos but teaching and changing the lives of many. She inspired her dancers to move abstractly, and not to follow only the beat but to promote feeling. Her technique became the first significant alternative to classical ballet, and her influence extended worldwide through her choreography and her students.

"The unique must be fulfilled. Martha Graham

The purpose of this essay is to present a forgotten aspect of Martin Luther King’s vision that I found most important. A vision that extends far beyond black and white children holding hands. The aspect that struck me as most important was the restructuring of the American political and economic system. King believed that the America should be working to be a more just society. King was dangerous to those who benefit from the misery of the many. He aimed to showed that America is a nation built by the wealthy for the wealthy.

From the beginning of his career King aligned himself with the disenfranchised. He was not only a leader of black Americans but an advocate for humanity. King’s entire vision was predicated on the value of ending the suffering of others. His vision was to address the issue of inequality through a peaceful revolution that would change the entire America political and economic structure. To King it was not enough to be integrated into this society. What was necessary was to be integrated in a society that values social justice. Because of structural inequality, many who were born into poverty died in poverty.

In America, a small minority of the population has always controlled the majority of the wealth. Over time wealth seems to become more concentrated. Thus, the problem of inequality is structural. To understand this problem, we must go back to 1787 and review the statements made by James Madison. Madison declared, “When the number of landholders shall be comparatively small… will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections… if elections were open to all classes of people the property of landed proprietors would be insecure” (National Archive). King seemed to understand this underlying system that guarantees inequality and pledged to change it. We do not know about this part of King’s legacy because it is controversial. It is easier to ignore King’s vision then to entertain the thought of what could have become if we followed through with his vision.

King questioned the ethics of American capitalism. He pondered how a society so wealthy could be saturated with poverty. He realized that for America to be truly equal, power needed to be given to the masses. King writes, “Calling for a radical redistribution of economic and political power as the only way to meet the real needs of poverty in America” (Harding). He planned on attaining his goal through nationwide civil disobedience. King was a superb speaker and writer which made him a threat to the current system. A system that frowned upon government reliance for the poor. King wanted to make spending on poverty mandatory not discretionary. He realized that the only way to eradicate poverty was to pass anti-poverty legislation. He insisted for an economic bill of rights that guaranteed annual income for every American citizen. This contrasted from previous indirect programs to fight poverty, in that King’s proposal would have directly addressed poverty.

Of the various forgotten aspects of King’s vision, the redistribution of power struck me as the most important. King was seen as a radical in his time period. Many people who stood by him during the civil rights movement did not stand by him when he called for a revolution. We are doing King a great disservice by not mentioning his struggle for the redistribution of power.

Works Cited

1. Harding, Vincent. “Beyond Amnesia: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Future of America.” Sep. 1987.
2. “Founders Online: Term of the Senate, [26 June] 1787.” National Archives and Records Administration.

Martin Luther King’s metaphors try to influence the clergymen to put themselves in the shoes of African Americans. He expresses the privation of African Americans with a metaphor when he wrote; “When you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an air-tight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society….” King compares "smothering in an air-tight cage" to the poverty African Americans are suffering under. A second metaphor depicted racial injustice as “quicksand”. Using the metaphor “quicksand” provides urgency to the issue.

This quote demonstrates how racial injustice is hurting America and putting its citizens into dangerous circumstances. Even though racial injustice and quicksand are different, they both are negative elements that are the cause of destruction.

Also, metaphors can be seen again in King’s letter where it is used to convey injustice as immoral. King highlights this situation by stating that it is painful like “a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light…” In other words a healing boil is parallel to racial injustice being exposed so it can be resolved. When racism is exposed, people may see the true hideousness of the issue. He believes this use of metaphor will make his audience think about these circumstances in detail.

Also, in the second sentence of paragraph 14, King juxtaposes the rate of change in Asian and African cultures with the rate of change in American culture. To achieve this juxtaposition, he creates a metaphor, stating that Africa and Asia are “moving with jet like speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at a horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter.” The effect of this metaphor is shocking, as America, being one of the most powerful countries on Earth, is less progressive than a third world country. The way he says it as well is extremely powerful, which shows that the people of Africa are extremely close to something huge like complete political independence but Americans are not even close to being able to eat at the same restaurants as one another.

However, there is even more to this metaphor than meets the eye. The cup not only represents being able to eat alongside white men, but it also represents total equality, which is something that is extremely desirable. “There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair.” Once again he refers to this cup as what Negroes are trying to achieve. One day their dream will be achieved and their cup will be full. A simple object such as a cup can symbolize something much grander than its physical appearance.

Martin Van Buren was the eighth President of the United States (1837-1841), in the wake of filling in as the eighth Vice President and the tenth Secretary of State, both under President Andrew Jackson. While the nation was prosperous when the "Little Magician" was chosen, under three months after the fact the budgetary frenzy of 1837 punctured the success.

Martin Van Buren dressed critically. His immaculate appearance misrepresented his amiability– and his unassuming foundation. Of Dutch plummet, he was conceived in 1782, the child of a tavernkeeper and agriculturist, in Kinderhook, New York.As a youthful legal advisor he wound up plainly engaged with New York legislative issues. As pioneer of the "Albany Regency," a successful New York political association, he insightfully apportioned open workplaces and abundance in a manner ascertained to bring votes. However he reliably satisfied authority obligations, and in 1821 was chosen to the United States Senate.

By 1827 he had developed as the foremost northern pioneer for Andrew Jackson. President Jackson compensated Van Buren by naming him Secretary of State. As the Cabinet Members delegated at John C. Calhoun's suggestion started to show just optional faithfulness to Jackson, Van Buren developed as the President's most confided in consultant. Jackson alluded to him as, "a genuine man with no trickiness."

The fracture in the Cabinet ended up plainly genuine due to Jackson's disparities with Calhoun, a Presidential competitor. Van Buren proposed an exit from an inevitable impasse: he and Secretary of War Eaton surrendered, so Calhoun men would likewise leave. Jackson designated another Cabinet, and looked for again to remunerate Van Buren by naming him Minister to Great Britain. VP Calhoun, as President of the Senate, make the choosing choice against the appointment– and made a saint of Van Buren.

The "Little Magician" was chosen Vice President on the Jacksonian ticket in 1832, and won the Presidency in 1836. Van Buren dedicated his Inaugural Address to a talk upon the American analysis for instance to whatever is left of the world. The nation was prosperous, yet under three months after the fact the frenzy of 1837 punctured the flourishing.

Fundamentally, the inconvenience was the nineteenth century repeating economy of "blast and bust," which was following its customary example, yet Jackson's monetary measures added to the crash. His pulverization of the Second Bank of the United States had evacuated limitations upon the inflationary practices of some state banks; wild theory in lands, in view of simple bank credit, had cleared the West. To end this hypothesis, Jackson in 1836 had issued a Specie Circular requiring that grounds be acquired with hard money– gold or silver.

In 1837 the frenzy started. Several banks and organizations fizzled. Thousands lost their properties. For around five years the United States was wracked by the most exceedingly awful discouragement up to this point in its history. Projects connected decades later to reduce monetary emergency escaped both Van Buren and his adversaries. Van Buren's remedy– proceeding with Jackson's deflationary policies– just developed and delayed the melancholy.

Proclaiming that the frenzy was because of neglectfulness in business and overexpansion of credit, Van Buren dedicated himself to keeping up the dissolvability of the national Government. He restricted not just the production of another Bank of the United States yet additionally the putting of Government subsidizes in state banks. He battled for the foundation of an autonomous treasury framework to deal with Government exchanges. With respect to Federal guide to inner changes, he cut off consumptions so totally that the Government even sold the instruments it had utilized on open works.

Slanted increasingly to restrict the extension of servitude, Van Buren hindered the addition of Texas since it without a doubt would add to slave territory– and it may carry war with Mexico. Crushed by the Whigs in 1840 for reelection, he was an unsuccessful contender for President on the Free Soil ticket in 1848. He passed on in 1862.

According to Marx and Engels, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. The oppressor and oppressed standing in constant opposition to one another, in an uninterrupted fight, one that each time ended either in a revolution of society at large or in a common ruin of the contending classes. In earlier times, there were complicated arrangements of society which formed a manifold gradation of social rank. The modern common society that has evolved from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms, but instead has established new classes, new conditions of oppression and new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

The period of bourgeoisie possesses a distinctive feature, one that has simplified the class antagonism and society is splitting up more and more into two hostile classes directly facing each other, the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. After the discovery of America, the feudal system of industry no longer suffices as the manufacturing systems takes its place. Meanwhile, the markets continue to grow as the demand rises. Stream and machinery revolutionized industrial production and the place of manufacture was taken over by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies known as the modern bourgeois. Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way and has given an immense development to commerce, navigation as well as communication by land. In turn, this development has reacted on the extension of industry and while industry, commerce, navigation and railways extended, the bourgeoisie increased its capital, developed as it pushed every class handed down from the Middle Ages into the background. The modern bourgeoisie is the product of a long course of development of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and exchange. Since the establishment of Modern Industry, the bourgeoisie have conquered the modern representative state. They have played a large part in the revolutionary era. They have resolved personal worth into exchange value and in place of the countless indefensible chartered freedoms and have set up a single unconscionable freedom, known as Free Trade.

The bourgeoisie tore away from the family’s sentimental veil, reducing the family relation to a mere money relation. They cannot prevail without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production as well as the relations of production and with those, the relations of society. The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie across the world. It must nestle, settle & establish connections everywhere. During it rule of one hundred years, the bourgeoisie created more massive and productive forces than any preceding generations put together. Over time there arises a crises in the existence of the entire bourgeois society, a large part of the existing as well as previously created productive forces are destroyed, this causes an epidemic of overproduction. Industry and commerce appear to be destroyed as well because there is too much civilization, too many means of substance, too much industry as well as too much commerce. This causes the bourgeois property to become endangered which in turn affects the bourgeois society. Now the working class, also known as the proletarians, developed a class of laborers who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital. These laborers must sell themselves as piecemeal are considered a commodity like every other article of commerce and are consequently exposed to all the diversity of competition to all the fluctuations of the market. Masses of laborers are crowded into factories and organized like soldiers. They are slaves of the bourgeois class and State and are enslaved daily and hourly by the machine, the over-looker and most of all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The less the skill and exertion implied in manual labor, the more modern industry becomes developed. There is no longer any distinctive validity for the working class and all are basically considered instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use according to their age and sex. The lower level of the middle class consists of small tradespeople, shopkeepers and retired tradesmen, generally the handicraftsmen and peasants.

The proletariat goes through various stages of development; it’s struggle with the bourgeoisie, where the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the country, but broken up by their mutual competition. At this stage, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but instead, the enemies of their enemies such as the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois and the petty bourgeois. The growing competition among the bourgeois and the current commercial crisis, make the wages of the workers fluctuate more so. The organization of the proletarians into a class and eventually into a political party is continually being upset, once again by the competition between the workers, once again rising up stronger and mightier.

The ruling classes advance in industry and precipitate into the proletariat. In times when the class-struggle approaches the process of dissolution and the old society assumes a violent and glaring character, a small section of the ruling class cuts itself loose and joins the revolutionary class, the strong future class. The lower-middle class; the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan and the peasant all fight against the bourgeoisie so to save the middle class from extinction. The “dangerous class,” also known as the social scum; a rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society may be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; it is more prepared for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue due to its conditions of life and being without property. The worker becomes poorer, the more wealth he produces and the more his production increases in power and extent and the worker becomes a cheaper commodity the more goods he creates and the devaluation of the human world increases in direct relation with the increase in value of the world of things.

In Katherine Mansfield's "The Garden-Party", the socioeconomically-derived false consciousness discussed by Michael Bell in "The Metaphysics of Modernism" initially blinds the protagonist Laura from viewing the world in any context outside of her household. While the story's pivotal actions do not change Laura's physical existence and setting, they drastically alter her metaphysical social awareness in such a way that the depth of her "awakening" underscores the extent to which her social context initially shielded her perception of the world.

Immediately, Katherine Mansfield paints an almost painfully idealized image of a garden party: the weather is flawless, the lawn is trimmed to perfection, the flowers and plants are blooming with an almost divine beauty. Extrapolation sets the story in some sort of socially-advantaged household, where the extent of the children's worries stretches no further than the problem of locating an optimal setting for a marquee. The almost absurd nature of this idealized setting gives the reader the impression that this Modernist story is, in fact, accenting the ignorance of the family in question. This is a point that Bell emphasizes in his discussion of Marxist appearances in modernism: "Marx had analyzed the external realm of social and economic process and laid bare the 'false consciousness' by which the advantaged classes unwittingly rationalized their own condition" (Bell 9). Indeed, Laura initially seems to regard social class as a prerequisite for casual conversation, as her reaction to the Bourgeoisie workman's informal conversation would suggest: "Laura's upbringing made her wonder for a moment whether it was quite respectful of a workman to talk to her of bangs slap in the eye" (Mansfield 853). As the conversation continues, Mansfield maintains the socioeconomic distinction between Laura and the workmen, but simultaneously allows Laura's esteem for the workmen and their alien nature to slowly elevate her perception of the world outside of her social class.

The subsequent change in Laura's social perception seems to exemplify Bell's contention regarding the Marxist hermeneutic of a human life:

It is not just that external appearances, and the commonsensical or rational means of understanding them, are limited and fallible. It is that such appearances and reasoning may be actively disguising contrary truths to which, by definition, there is no other access. (Bell 10)

An important aspect of Laura's experience with the workmen is that her exposure to their informality leaves her lighthearted; her only frustration stems from the fact that she doesn't "have workmen for friends rather than the silly boys she danced with and who came to Sunday night supper" (Mansfield 854). Bell's commentary suggests that Laura's interactions may have challenged the paradigm inherent in her social class: "modernist literature is often concerned with the question of how to live within a new context of thought, or a new worldview" (Bell 10). Shortly thereafter, Mansfield juxtaposes a new situation that forces Laura to defend her blossoming social perceptions.

While Laura's family is somewhat unresponsive to the news that a man from the infamous alley across the street has died, the evidence of Laura's interaction with the workmen from earlier that day quickly manifests itself. She sees something as serious as death as legitimate grounds for canceling the party, out of sensitivity for the family. She notes that her family does not view the death as an important event: as her mother coldly explains, "People like that don't expect sacrifices from us" (Mansfield 859). The obvious distinction between these two reactions highlights Laura's novel perceptions in a new contextual world, while underscoring her family's preference for Marx's "false consciousness" (explained vicariously through Bell). In order to fortify Laura's "awakening", Mansfield has Laura visit the family of the deceased man. The readers, and likely Laura's family, expect Laura to feel uncomfortable in this foreign setting, particularly considering her reason for visiting. Of course, Laura does initially feel uncomfortable: her hat, which had garnered her a plethora of complements at an earlier party, suddenly seems ridiculous and socially burdensome. However, upon beholding the "young man, fast asleep" (Mansfield 862), the depth of Laura's change in perception becomes evident. She asks Em's sister to forgive her hat, but in fact she seems to be asking forgiveness for the ignorance of her social origin. Laura has evidently answered Bell's question regarding metaphysical self-perception, but her brother Laurie, who sees melancholy in her tears instead of marvel, demonstrates the continuation of her family's false consciousness.

Continuing his discussion of modernity, Bell cites Martin Heidegger's contention that "the fact that the world becomes a picture at all is what distinguishes the essence of the modern age" (qtd. in Bell 12). The most important transition in Mansfield's "The Garden-Party" is Laura's ability to change from seeing the world physically to considering the world metaphysically; she can now see herself not only in first-person perspective, but also as a contextual object from a third space. Consequently, Mansfield herself seems to complement modernity's overarching search not only for answers, but for new methods for considering existentialist questions.

Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. Marxist ideas in Wuthering Heights
3. Conclusion
4. Works Cited

Introduction

Emily Bronte’s classic novel, Wuthering Heights, is not simply the tragic love story it may appear to be on the surface, but is an example of class differences and the role of capital in eighteenth century Victorian England. Using Karl Marx’s essay Wage Labor and Capital, one can see the ways in which Wuthering Heights uses the rise and fall of Heathcliff as a reminder that one cannot change his socioeconomic status in this society, and that no matter how hard one tries to climb the socioeconomic ladder, he will only be left with misery in modern, capitalist society.

Marxist ideas in Wuthering Heights

In Wage Labor and Capital, Marx writes about the processes through which wealth accumulates. He argues that in a capitalist economy, the wage laborer is trapped within a system that does not reward him for his work. Marx argues that the class structure of society is based on the capitalist system, and that one cannot change his or her position in society. When discussing the relationship between the capitalist and the wage laborer, Marx writes, “The capitalist, it seems, therefore, buys their labor with money. They sell him their labor for money. However, this is merely an appearance, because in reality, they sell their labor power to the capitalist.

Labor power, therefore, is "a commodity, neither more nor less than[any other product”. Marx emphasizes that there is a difference between being paid for labor, and collecting capital. The laborer exchanges his commodity, his labor power, for the capitalist’s commodity, money. The capitalist does not pay the laborer’s wages with the money he makes from the product, but from capital which he has already accumulated. The money invested in the materials and tools used to make the product as well the labor all come from “money already on reserve” . This means that while the capitalist is making money from the product that the laborer produces, by selling it, the wage laborer is making less than the value of his product and often only enough money to survive.

Laborers spend their wages on food and shelter, while the capitalist has money reserved for that and is not using the money he makes from the product on the cost of living. Within this system, the wealthy remain wealthy and the poor remain poor. Marxism is based on the idea that the world in which we live is broken up into a base and a superstructure. The base is the material conditions of society, and the superstructure is the social world dominated by our culture and ideology. Marxism argues that we need to study the base, and it’s impact on our lives. Our ability to survive in society is dependent upon our material conditions.

With an understanding of the ideas presented by Marxist criticism, one can turn to Wuthering Heights and see the way in which Marxism is represented through Heathcliff's misery. At the onset of Nelly Dean’s story about the Lintons and the Earnshaws, the reader is introduced to Wuthering Heights, where the Earnshaws have adopted the wretched orphaned Heathcliff. There are several significant  differences between Heathcliff and the rest of the family. Heathcliff was found wandering the streets of Liverpool by Mr. Earnshaw who brought Heathcliff home with him. His background is unknown to the family, and his skin is of a darker color than theirs, leading the family to believe that he is not a native of England. This lack of a background, as well as the fact that he was adopted, means that he is different from everyone else in the novel. He remains of lower in class than the Earnshaws, but a higher in class than the servants, putting him in an awkward position. When Heathcliff is first introduced to the family, Nelly Dean says,

I was frightened, and Mrs. Earnshaw was ready to fling it out of doors: she did fly up - asking how he could fashion to bring that gipsy brat into the house, when they had their own bairns to feed, and fend for? What he meant to do with it, and whether he were mad?

The master tried to explain the matter... seeing it starving, and houseless, and as good as dumb in the streets of Liverpool where he picked it up and inquired for it’s owner- Not a soul knew to whom it belonged, he said, and his money and time, being both limited, he tought it better to take it home with him.

It is clear that Heathcliff is not seen by the family as human, more so as a piece of property which can be discarded if not wanted. Not knowing where to put him for his first night at the Heights, Nelly Dean puts it “on the landing of the stairs, hoping it might be gone on the morrow”. Not only is Heathcliff treated by the family (excluding Mr. Earnshaw) like a stray dog who they hope might run away, but he is referred to as a thing rather than a human. Mrs. Earnshaw sees Heathcliff as a burden to their own economic status, and possibly as a threat to their social status as well.

Once several years pass, Heathcliff and Catherine become friends and the two start to wander around the moors together. One day, they reach Thrushcross Grange, where they are caught by the Linton's who release their dogs on Heathcliff and Cathy. Catherine is taken in by the family after their dogs injure her, but they throw Heathcliff out of their home, because he is rude to them, and his lower class origin is evident in his dirtiness. Catherine remains at Thrushcross Grange for five weeks as she recuperates from her injury. When she returns, it is evident that she has raised her social status by acting as the Linton’s do.

Cathy stayed at Thrushcross Grange five weeks, till Christmas. By that time her ankle was thoroughly cured, and her manners much improved. The mistress visited her often, in the interval, and commenced her plan of reform by trying to raise her self-respect with fine clothes and flattery, which she took readily: so that, instead of a wild, hatless little savage jumping into the house, and rushing to squeeze us all breathless, there lighted from a handsome black pony a very dignified person...

Hindley lifted her from her horse, exclaiming delightedly, “Why, Cathy, you are quite a beauty! I should scarcely have known you - you look like a lady now...

By staying with the Linton’s, and by eventually marrying Edgar Linton, Cathy is able to raise her socioeconomic status. She is able to “class up” and move from Wuthering Heights, a farm, to Thrushcross Grange, an estate. In doing so, Catherine became “worth more” in the eyes of the men in this society. Women, similar to Heathcliff at the beginning of the novel, are considered property. The women themselves aren’t capital, but if a man were to marry a woman, all of her assets become his, and the woman becomes a means for accumulating more capital for the man. Women at the time of the story were not allowed to own anything, meaning that if a man were to marry a woman who put him in line for property, then he would increase his capital.

When Catherine marries Edgar Linton, Heathcliff mourns the loss of his one true love and runs away from the Heights, only to return three years later a much wealthier and more dignified man. Heathcliff plans to exact revenge on the Earnshaws for treating him poorly, and on the Lintons for stealing Catherine away from him. According to Marxist theory, within a capitalist economic system, somebody has to lose for somebody else to win. A man can only increase his capital at the loss of somebody else's, and this is true of Heathcliff in this narrative. Although we are never told how Heathcliff comes into his money, we do know that Hindley loses the Heights to Heathcliff when the two are gambling together. Heathcliff takes advantage of Hindley’s gambling problem and gains capital, reversing the capitalist-laborer dynamic, in the process.

The guest was now the master of the Wuthering Heights: he held firm possession, and proved it to the attorney, who, in his turn, proved it to Mr.Linton, that Earnshaw had mortgaged every yard of land he owned for cash to supply his mania for gaming; and he, Heathcliff, was the mortgage.

In that manner, Hareton, who should now be the first gentleman in the neighborhood, was reduced to a state of complete dependence on his father’s inveterate enemy; and lives in his own house as a servant deprived of the advantage of wages, and quite unable to right himself, because of his friendlessness, and his ignorance that he has been wronged.

Capital outweighs inheritance in this instance, and Heathcliff is able to raise his class, at least for a short while. Not long after this, Heathcliff marries Edgar’s sister Isabella, bringing him closer in his plan to take Thrushcross Grange as well as the Heights. Heathcliff acts as a capitalist in that he treats the people around him as laborers that he can use to generate even more capital for himself.

Not even Heathcliff’s own son is spared in his quest for social capital and revenge on the Earnshaws and the Lintons. Isabella’s son, Linton Heathcliff, stays with Isabella, away from his father, until she dies, upon which the boy is returned to the Heights. Heathcliff also looks after Hindley’s son, Hareton Earnshaw and treats him like an animal, degrading him as revenge for his own degradation at the hands of the Earnshaws and the Lintons. When his son is returned to him, Heathcliff does not even pretend to love him and even refers to his mother, Isabella, as a “wicked slut.” In Heathcliff’s eyes, both Linton and Hareton are his property and are simply pawns is his plan to take both estates and bring each family to ruin.

Conclusion

Heathcliff serves as a reminder that as hard as one tries to change his status in society and raise his class, forces will push downward towards misery against his presumptuous rise. The story emphasizes the Marxist argument that in a capitalist society, the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. As hard as Heathcliff tries to accumulate capital and take control of the properties of Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange, in the end he is left with nothing other than the misery of knowing that he hurt everyone around him and will die alone.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Heathcliff realizes this in his final days and says that he can no longer bear to exact his revenge on Cathy and Hareton as they remind him too much of Catherine and himself. At the end of the novel, Heathcliff dies, leaving behind all he owns to Hareton, who plans to marry Catherine. Hareton, who was once homeless, had no capital, and no education, now owns everything at the end of the story. He has a wife, money, and he owns both Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange. Unlike Heathcliff, who had to overcome his class, race, and ethnicity, Hareton did absolutely nothing and had no desire to attain his capital, but he of course is only returning to the social status that he was born into as the son of Hindley and grandson of Mr. Earnshaw.

Works Cited

1. Bronte, Emily. “Wuthering Heights.” Wuthering Heights: Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism. Ed. Linda H. Peterson. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2003. 25-288. Print.
2. Marx, Karl. “Wage Labor and Capital.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. 659-664. Print.

Christopher Paul Curtis certainly makes a point to address class in his telling of the Watsons’ story, but beyond this, The Watsons Go to Birmingham carries more direct allusions to specifically Marxism. The novel chronicles a snapshot in the lives of the Watson family in Flint, Michigan up to and including their summer trip down to Birmingham, Alabama in 1963. The trip coincides with the historic bombing of a Black church—a cataclysmic tragedy that critically impacted the Civil Rights Movement. Curtis writes the story in such a way that seems to naturally carry Marxist overtones, not necessarily in a sense that supports Marxist ideology but, rather, in a sense that more deeply illustrates the complexities of White America’s angst in the struggle of race relations.

The novel is set in the year 1963, and this year marks arguably the dead-center of a period in American history when citizens and government alike were madly disquieted by the threat of Communism, which is a socioeconomic ideology inclusive of Marxism and several other schools of thought (e.g. anarchism, general anti-capitalist perspectives, etc.). From the mid-1950s to the early 1970s, J. Edgar Hoover’s special, FBI program, COINTELPRO, operated to “ensure financial and public support for the FBI” under the guise of pursuing the deliberately exaggerated threat of Stateside Communism (Time Archives). This is a period in American history retrospectively dubbed the “Red Scare,” and it greatly influenced the historical episteme of the era; that is to say that the language people used and what they chose to talk about were affected by the FBI’s heavy anti-Communist propaganda campaign.

There were many African Americans prior to this who had embraced aspects of Communism because Capitalism had not served them economically as a people. Some as early as Booker T. Washington wrote radical essays on the subject, advancing the notion that Blacks should be proponents of Communism. It can be argued that the backlash of these events manifested in events much like Hoover’s impetuous campaign and, most tragically, the church bombing around which Curtis’s novel is centered. There is evidence throughout the book of the ideological influence of this propaganda as well as that of the Cold War, such as, Byron’s fake movie: “Nazi Parachutes Attack America and Get Shot Down over the Flint River by Captain Byron Watson and His Flamethrower of Death” (Curtis 64). It is a rather playful chapter in that its title is comically lengthy and that Byron is merely playing with toilet paper; however, this scenario, much like several others throughout the story, speaks to the preoccupation of the common, American civilian with eastern European evils, so to speak.

These are markers of an ideology, and ideology is a concept on which Marxism hinges. Another concept that serves as a cornerstone of Marxist theory is termed dialectical materialism, “the theory that history develops as a struggle between contradictions that are eventually synthesized” (Dobie 87). It originates from The German Ideology, Karl Marx’s own 1845 publication. To an observable extent, this is a concept that holds true in many contexts, especially that of the Civil Rights Movement. The struggle between the violent and nonviolent methods of the movement—between early Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.—is often considered a very necessary struggle for the movement to achieve the success it achieved. As comforting as it is to imagine that leaders like King and Thurgood Marshall were the primary drivers of change in America, the persecution of Blacks would arguably have snuffed out this movement were it not for the acrimonious steps taken by leaders like X and Louis Farrakhan. Similarly, the struggle to come of age is negotiated from opposite ends of an ethical spectrum in the story, as rendered between Kenny and Byron. Both approach maturation differently, but both begin as mischievous children. The struggle between them, though, is necessary because it culminates in the trip to Birmingham and the subsequent experiences that cause them to grow.

Even the use of a coming-of-age story to broach these subjects is replete with meaning as the coming-of-age model is traditionally considered to be of German conceptualization in origin—hence the literary term, bildungsroman. This speaks to the German influence on American culture at the time in a small and subtle way. Another subtle allusion comes by way of Grandma Sands whose name, in and of itself, is a spoonerism, a type of pun that swaps the order of consonants to create a play on words. The allusion reaches back to Bill Withers’s classic, Blues standard, “Grandma’s Hands,” which carries immense ideological meaning due to it being pregnant with religious and spiritual connotations. Specifically Althusserian Marxism, also known as production theory, symbolically associates the hands with the concept of manual labor, and it establishes manual labor as a proletariat (working class) characteristic, which comprises the base—the means of production. The proletariat, however, is the majority in whose hands, Louis Althusser argues, rest the power for revolution or, more appropriately in this context, change.

Most fundamentally, Marxism criticizes Capitalism and calls for the proletariat to exact change with the hands of the people, and it is to Grandma Sands that the Daniel and Wilona bring Byron to change his behavior. More broadly, everyone experiences change, whether large or small, with Grandma Sands, including Grandma Sands herself in the perception of the reader inasmuch as she simply turns out to be far more virtuous than initially anticipated. Curtis uses certain Marxist elements as a theme to advance various parts of the story but more so to bury nuanced references to what was perceived as a universal conflict in the discourse of the period—Communism vs. Capitalism.

Works Cited

1. Curtis, Christopher P. The Watsons Go to Birmingham—1963. New York City: Random House, 1995. Print.
2. Dobie, Ann B. Theory into Practice: An Introduction to Literary Criticism. 4th ed. Boston: Thomson Heinle, 2015. Print.
3. Kessler, Ronald. The Bureau: The Secret History of the FBI. New York City: St. Martin’s Paperbacks, 2002. Print.
4. “The Truth about J. Edgar Hoover.” Time Magazine. Archive online, 1975. Web.