Poverty as Portrayed by Charles Dickens in his book Hard Times
Charles Dickens focuses intensely on the theme of poverty in his book “Hard Times.” He attempts to draw the readers’ attention to the differences in philosophies between the social classes in the 19th Century. During this period, poverty was one of the most significant social burdens in England. The book is centered around the town of Coketown in England, where the main characters of the story interact through different social and philosophical scenarios portraying the wide gap between the wealthy and the poor. The main characters in the story include Mr. Gradgrind, an affluent school owner who, through a series of circumstances, takes in a poor girl named Sissy Jupe after her father abandons her.
The philosophical differences between the wealthy class are brought to the fore in the very beginning of the book. The wealthy class is represented mostly by Mr. Gradgrind and his friend Mr. Bounderby, and the poor represented by Signor Jupe and his band of circus performers. Mr. Bounderby and Mr. Gradgrind are firm proponents of facts and only facts while the poor adjust their philosophies depending on the prevailing situations at the time. This ideology is portrayed in the first chapter when Mr. Gradgringd is described as emphasizing the importance of facts to his teachers and students in the very first scene of the book. He says, “All I want is facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but facts” (Dickens, 1854, p. 3). Their utter disregard for anything but facts is displayed when they visit the home of Sissy Jupe, where they encounter the members of the performing group. This difference in ideologies was used by the author to illuminate the deep social segregation and isolation that existed during this period in England.
In this paper, the theme of poverty is discussed on different layers, including the material, philosophical, and spiritual viewpoints, as illustrated by Charles Dickens in the book. The author is very definite in explaining the social differences during the great industrial revolution in England and uses different settings to cut across each social and ideological divide. Wealthy Englishmen during this period had convinced themselves of the idea that they were above the logic used by poor people and viewed themselves as the real keepers of facts and truths. They also endeavored to acquire material possession that would display their affluence for all to see, as demonstrated by Mr. Gradgrinds house. The author notes that Mr. Gradgrinds’s house was a “cast up, balanced and proven house” (Dickens, 1854, p. 13), as opposed to the identical brick houses that covered most of Coketown. The material aspects of society during this period have described in the book have not changed much in modern times. The author, however, does not delve deeply into the lives of the poor, since the book has more wealthy characters than poor ones. He gives the readers a glimpse of these livelihoods and leaves it to them to ask the questions that illuminate these hardships.
From the first few chapters of the book, it is evident that children from wealthy families received a very different kind of education compared to children from low-income families. It can be said that this system of education would continue to widen the social gap between the different classes, and the lack of interaction could, inadvertently, differentiate their ideologies. This fact is evident when Mr. Gradgrind boasts to himself of the type of education his children were receiving that set them apart from the common folk. The author notes that the Gradgrind children had never seen a face on the moon or sang a silly jingle and that they had been sent to school as soon as they could walk (Dickens, 1854, p. 13). This fact is contrasted to the poor children in Jupe’s group that had been taught the ropes and tricks of circus performance from a young age and had not received any formal education. Through this contrast, Dickens illuminates the outcomes of wealth inequality in English society at the time. However, he touches on the issues through dialogue and monologues that provoke questions about poverty in the readers’ minds.
The author portrays the life of a regular working man through the life of Stephen and the other more impoverished characters. Through the contrast between the poor peoples’ lives and that of wealthier people such as Mr. Bounderby, Dickens hopes the provoke the readers into thinking about the consequences of severe poverty and how it comes about. Is it from sheer bad luck, lack of skill, or cruelty from people from the higher classes? These questions help the reader understand the severity of the more impoverished people in the population of England during the 19th Century. Dickens looks at these concepts through a material perspective as Stephen’s life lacks some of the basic requirements afforded only to the wealthier class of the English society at the time. Stephen lines in a house above a small shop in a narrow street. It is a tidy little room with a few furniture, some books, and a small hearth (Dickens, 1854, p. 86). Compared to the big houses portrayed by the comfortable mansions owned by Mr. Bounderby and Mr. Gradgrind, Stephen’s room can only be described as quaint. The reader can get a more precise illustration of the gap the existed during this period.
The wealthier people are portrayed as self-important and arrogant people who only they considered facts and disregarded what people of lower classes believed with impunity. Mr. Bounderby is shown to be surprised when he agrees with Stephen on a particular matter (Dickens, 1854, p. 87) but, in most cases, is shown to be a bashful man who liked to boast his confident persona. When Mr. Gradgrind decides to take in the abandoned Jupe, Mr. Bounderby is shown to argue vehemently against exposing his children to the poverty exuded by the girl. Philosophically, Mr. Bounderby believed that contact wilt the poor girl would taint the perfect morals taught the Gradgrind kids. Considering that he had set his eyes on Gradgrinds daughter and him considering himself a man who was above mixing with poverty any more, Mr. Bounderby was whole-heartedly against the adoption. Mr. Grandgrind is displeased with the rate at which Cecilia Jupe was learning fact. He says, “You are extremely deficient in your facts. Your acquaintance with figures is very limited. You are altogether backward and absolutely below the mark (Dickens, 1854, p. 114). This incident occurred after Sissy Jupe failed to impress his guardian after what Mr. Gradgrind considered sufficient indoctrination of facts from M’Choakumchild. Dickens insinuates that Mr. Gradgrind considered differing views expressed by the girl as utter fallacies, which deserved no merit whatsoever. Most wealthy people in the book portray society as full of snobby rich people who only believed in what they considered facts. More impoverished people seemed to embrace the more relaxed set of mind and were more accommodating intellectually.
Dickens approaches the concept of marriage life in different scenarios throughout the book to illuminate the differences in the beliefs about love and marriage between the different social classes. Wealthy people planned marriages of convenience as portrayed by Mr. Gradgrinds belief that Louisa was suited for Mr. Bounderby due to their social compatibility. Dickens describes the impact of poverty on marriage through the lives of the different characters in the book. Beliefs about love were as varied as there were characters in the book. However, general notions such as philosophical ideals held by the different social classes had some similar elements. Belief in the same “facts’ was shown to be a great contributor to suitability in marriage partners among the wealthy. It was unsurprising for parents of wealthy children to force their children into arranged marriages.
Dickens also portrayed the adverse impact that poverty had on children. Abandonment of poor children is a common theme among Dickens’s books, and in “Hard Times,” Dickens shows this through Sissy Jupe. Jupe’s father abandons her after he realizes that he may not have the ability to provide care for his daughter. Although physical abandonment is the most common among poor children, Rich children also experience other forms of neglect too. Louisa feels emotionally abandoned when his father suggests that marriage to Mr. vwould be to her best interest (Dickens, 1854, p. 114). This form of abandonment also influences these children in different ways. Poor children, however, are portrayed to experience the most traumatizing forms of neglect since poor people at the time faced harsher times. Sissy Jupe is left without a guardian appointed or any means to fend for herself. The troupe takes the initiative to offer their willingness to care for her after her father goes, but Mr. Gradgrind decides to offer his home.
The book also portrays the effects of industrialization on the living conditions of the poor people in towns. The air around the industrial factories, which were located next poor people, was portrayed as heavily polluted and contaminated with smoke. The rivers are also full of chemicals from the factories and the water full of waste products. The wealthy, like Mr. Bounderby, who own these factories build mansions further from these factories, although the overall atmosphere of the town was highly polluted. Mr. Gradgrind notes that houses in the streets near Sissy’s former home ere blackened by smoke from factories.
In conclusion, Dickens hopes to evoke the questions that most readers think about when looking at society as a progressive community that should provide facilities to help the poor. Living conditions for people during the 19th Century varied depending on the social classes determined by wealth and ideologies. To a great extent, wealth influenced the material and philosophical standpoints of this society. Poor people lived subpar lives as portrayed by characters such as the Jupes. Wealthy people are also staunch believers in facts. The differences in ideologies are highly stratified, and Dickens hopes the readers can think about and come to their conclusion regarding these philosophies.