Wednesday, April 25, 2012


Maigun Gaardbo Olsen, Utilitarianism and Hard Times.
Exam paper from the Department of English, Aalborg University.

1 Introduction
In this paper I have chosen to write about one of the major philosophical theories, namely the theory of utilitarianism, and from this the discussion will inevitably move in the area of some theories that go against it, its opponents. In the course of the research one major background source will be used and that being Charles Dickens’ novel ’Hard Times’. This because Dickens in this work has both described and criticized utilitarianism in a most extraordinary and convincing way.
One can surely say that ’Hard Times’ is a great novel in itself, but when one thinks about the criticism that lies behind the work, the criticism of a whole system of thinking, a whole ideology, the novel becomes more than just a good novel, it becomes a masterpiece. This is what I would like to focus on in this paper – how Dickens manages to transform the system of the time, utilitarianism, into a rather ridiculous system, and gets away with it most splendidly.
The paper will be presented in the following way: First a section on utilitarianism, a presentation of the theory so to say. This is considered important because utilitarianism was the main philosophical ideology in Victorian time. It sort of became a political economy of that time, shown in the face of materialism. So an introduction of what that ideology consists of is a very important factor in order to reach an understanding of Charles Dickens’ reasons for criticizing the system so intensively.
The next section will still be dealing with utilitarianism, but here the characters in ’Hard Times’ are the main focus of attention. It is considered important to sketch out how the different characters present different ways and degrees of this ideology that is so important in this novel. And how these characters change in the course of the novel is also a very exciting factor to explore. Therefore, a presentation of the main characters will be given and what they each stand for, and also very important - how their views upon the world change in the course of the events that they are faced with.
Then a discussion of Dickens in ‘Hard Times’ follows, where the aim is to find out how much of the ideology derived from the novel is his own personal belief. This is considered important, because in this novel, more than any other, one can see his clear opinion on the subject. He is very much "present" in the text. So a discussion of Dickens’ disbelief in the utilitarian ideology and his political or ideological beliefs shall be presented in this section.
To sum up the paper, a conclusion will then be presented. In this section there will be a sum up from all the previous sections in order to find out whether or not the paper has completed the work it set out to do.

2. Utilitarianism
In this section an overview of what utilitarianism actually is will be presented, and which theories go against it. There will be a short presentation of the main utilitarian values.
First of all it should be mentioned that utilitarianism is a moral or ethical theory which says that the ethically right action is the one that in comparison to other possibilities brings out the largest amount of positive values. Utilitarianism belongs to the philosophical category of consequentialism. The basis of the theory is that in order for a property to be valuable "it must be a universal feature, capable of being realized here or there, with this individual or that". So the most important feature of this theory is that anyone in the world would chose one action over the other on the basis of the same moral judgment; this judgment works as a set of rules for everyone to follow.
Another term for consequentialism is teleology, which is an older term. Moral theories are usually divided into two different sides – teleology and deontology. To sum it up quickly, teleological ethics say that one should always judge an action from its consequences, whereas deontological ethics say that one should not judge actions from their consequences, but instead from what is the right thing to do in each separate situation. So the teleological view is the "good", the greatest good for the largest amount of people, while the deontological view is the "right", to do the right thing.
A teleological ethic must be connected with a theory of what is good in itself, a philosophy of value; deontological ethic, however, must also consist of a teaching of duty.
To sum it up quickly, utilitarianism leaves nothing up to the imagination. Everything is to be explained by the help of logic and facts. Individualism and egoism are important factors in this system. Attention is put on the individual and his/her goals to receive most pleasure out of life. Of course, individual pleasure and most positive values out of each given situation doesn’t sound that bad to begin with. But this ideology has too many holes in it to include everyone. This sort of individualism becomes more like the survival of the fittest, and that leaves a lot of "unfit" people out of its consideration.
The utilitarian philosophers, who are mentioned most often, are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. These two, however, represent two totally different aspects of this ideology. Bentham is the one who stands for the ideology described in the paragraph above. Utility, well-being and pleasure are the main sources for action in every human, in his opinion. This philosophy was very dominant at the time ‘Hard Times’ was written.
Mill was also very influenced by utilitarianism, but at the same time he had a very critical relationship to this theory. Instead he turned more to the classical liberalism and has been considered one of the pioneers of social-liberalism, which turns its back on the laissez-faire politics. His central points or values are personal freedom, self-respect, integrity, and social well-being. It could be claimed that his philosophy was a little bit closer to what Dickens believed in, but this shall be elaborated on later in the paper.
Having presented these two philosophers views on utilitarianism, it may have opened the path for a better understanding of the view that Dickens had on this ideology. Mill was a bit of a rebel in that field, but still he was a follower of that same ideology - he had lived under it his whole life; his father, John Mill, was very devoted to this system, as was Bentham.
Having presented the aspects of utilitarianism, the next step will be to spot this philosophy among the characters in ‘Hard Times’. It is not difficult for the reader to find out that Dickens satirizes this theory, but the interesting thing is how he does it through the characters. This will be discussed in the following section.
3. Utilitarianism in ’Hard Times’
"Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out nothing else." These are harsh words, spoken to a classroom full of young children. These are also the first sentences in the novel, so the reader is put into the utilitarian way of thinking as soon as he/she opens the book.
When reading the novel, the reader quickly gets acquainted with this ideology that was so dominating during the period it was written. But it is through the characters themselves that the reader receives most of the impressions, or experiences most emotions, and not least, forms his/her own ideas and opinions about the subject. Of course the characters are the most important ingredients in any novel, but in this one the characters seem to represent a whole lot more than just being characters in a story for the people to read. Perhaps it is because Dickens himself felt so strongly about the subject that his own ideology shines through so clearly in this novel especially, so he, himself, steps into the story and influences the characters directly (this will be further discussed in section 4 and in the conclusion).

3.1 Utilitarian aspects among the characters
In this discussion I have chosen to include only those characters that are of most importance to the context of this paper.
Mr. Thomas Gradgrind and Mr. Josiah Bounderby are the most outstanding representatives of utilitarianism in the novel and very good followers of this system they are indeed. Facts alone are the principles to live ones life by in their opinions, facts alone will lead you forward in society. And these facts of life must be taught to the children from their birth, so to speak. One very good example of this is Louisa, Mr. Gradgrind’s favorite daughter. She is the character who seems to be the living proof of the success of this factual system (or at least, so Mr. Gradgrind thought).
The one scene which stands out most clearly to the reader as a representation of this system’s firm ideology is the scene when Mr. Gradgrind introduces his daughter to the marriage proposal from Mr. Bounderby. This scene exposes this ideology right to the skin as far as compassion and love goes. For example, the following part of their dialogue appears very harsh (Louisa has just asked her father if Mr. Bounderby asks her to love him, and Mr. Gradgrind says that that expression is perhaps a little misplaced):

"What would you advise me to use in its stead, father?
…"I would advise you (since you ask me) to consider this question, as you have been accustomed to consider every other question, simply as one of tangible Fact."
And then he gives her a long impersonal speech consisting of a number of facts about different marriage statistics, and Louisa tries again:
"What do you recommend, father,…that I should substitute for the term I used just now? For the misplaced expression?"
"Louisa…it appears to me that nothing can be plainer. Confining yourself rigidly to Fact, the question of Fact you state to yourself is: Does Mr. Bounderby ask me to marry him? Yes, he does. The sole remaining question then is: Shall I marry him? I think nothing can be plainer than that."
Thus, love is not the major issue in a marriage. Only the facts are important in every situation. The decision of sharing one’s life with someone for the rest of ones life should be no different than any other decision to be taken in the course of one’s life. The facts of the matter are what is of importance, and the facts were that she had received a marriage proposal from Mr. Bounderby. So, was she to accept it or decline it? As a perfect example of the system she was brought up by, she accepts the marriage proposal, even though she was not the least in love with her future husband.
Louisa is a character in the novel who is touched by both "worlds" - the world of facts and the world of fancy. But surely the world of facts is the most dominant to her. She does break "free" from it, but obviously not entirely. One reason for claiming this is the fact that she was a grown woman before she was able to stand up to it - therefore it may have been too late for her to leave everything ever taught to her completely behind. Another reason is at the end of the novel, where one is led to believe that she was left to a destiny of not knowing about the future. She could still only see facts that were presented to her very eyes, but could not see things for herself in the future. Things were just to be. She could see things happening to other people around her, but for herself she could not imagine anything good happening.
Tom Gradgrind, the son, is a completely different example of this ideology. Under the roof of his parents, he, of course, has no other choice than to oblige his parents’ wishes or commands, so he is thereby brought up by the same principles as his sister. But as the story goes on we find out that his character is more ridiculous than serious. He is constantly being referred to as the "whelp", his actions are dubious when it comes to consequences or fairness. Of course, it could be claimed that he is a perfect copy or example of utilitarianism, because every action he commits he commits out of self-interest. So the consequences of his actions are determined by what he himself can get out of it.
Therefore, one can say, in a strictly consequentialist manner, that by letting everyone think that Steven Blackpool robbed the bank, less people were likely to get hurt than if he said that he had done it himself. Then he would have hurt his sister, his whole family, and not least Mr. Bounderby. Whereas by letting people think that Blackpool did it, less people were going to get hurt – first, he was already unpopular among his people; second, he didn’t really have any family; and of course, third, he was poor. So it could be claimed that young Tom does live up to the utilitarian standards as much as anyone, perhaps even more than any of the other characters (with Mr. Bounderby as a possible exception).
Mr. Gradgrind is a very interesting character to study. In the beginning he presents the very image of utilitarianism and most convincingly too. In the way that he brings up his children, in his way of taking over Sissy Jupe’s ’education’, through the marriage proposal-talk with Louisa, etc. These examples all show a man dedicated to the world of facts. But something happens to his devotion to that world. When Louisa comes to him, crying and in a miserable state, something changes in this ’hard’ man, something softens up his heart, and he becomes a different and more compassionate man, and, more important, a little more caring father.
When Louisa confronts him with her open-hearted call for help and critique of his role as a father, and overall critique of everything she had ever known to be the truth, her words to him astonish him:
"If I had been stone blind; if I had groped my way by my sense of touch, and had been free, while I knew the shapes and surfaces of things, to exercise my fancy somewhat, in regard to them; I should have been a million times wiser, happier, more loving, more contented, more innocent and human in all good respects, than I am with the eyes I have."
…."I never knew you were unhappy, my child."
"I never knew you were unhappy", was his reply to his daughter. And he really didn’t know it, or at least he did not want to know it. The last sentence in that chapter of the novel is: "And he laid her down there, and saw the pride of his heart and the triumph of his system, lying, an insensible heap, at his feet." Everything that he had ever believed to be true and right, lied there at his feet now, shattered. His life’s work had crumbled together in a matter of minutes. And after this scene it seems as if he wants to make it up to her, her lost childhood, his fatherly love and protection, as he takes her in his house, protects her honor from Mr. Bounderby. So only a few words of reason, of love, were enough to break down a whole system of ideas.
In the beginning of the novel, Mr. Gradgrind was a very strong-minded and dominating character, but after this episode it seems as if he falls into the background, becomes more neutral in some sense. And he takes the whole utilitarian ideology down with him. After this the world around all of the characters becomes different, as if in some way the ideology was firmly held together by him alone. And when he starts to lose his confidence in the system the system falls apart. Of course, on the other hand, it can also be claimed that after this incident things sort of take off and he takes action in cases that he wouldn’t have done before – he keeps Mr. Bounderby from his daughter and he helps his son escape.
Mr. Bounderby is also a character of importance when it comes to utilitarian beliefs. He is probably the only one that keeps a firm belief in the system all through the novel, although he, as much as the other characters, does go through some individual problems and changes. But he is the one that ends up in the exact same situation as he started out with, as a bachelor. So he is at the same point at the end of the story as he was in the beginning. And one cannot really claim that he has undergone as much personal development as the other characters. While Mr. Gradgrind seems to be the one who holds the ideology together, Mr. Bounderby seems to represent the very essence of the ideology. He ends up all alone, even without his biggest fan, Mrs. Sparsit.
But as it turns out even Mr. Bounderby is a character living on an illusion; that is what makes this novel so interesting too. He represents the very essence of this harsh ideology that has no place for imagination. And still he lives in the illusion that he is the living proof of the self-made man. That he has found his way out of the misery and poor circumstances that his grandmother left him under. But as it turns out, none of the stories that he so proudly talked about seemed to be true. So one can claim that he has quite an imagination for a utilitarian mind. He has defended the whole system of inequality by demonstrating himself as the perfect example that anyone can do it; the poor have no excuse for not bettering their own situation. If he could do it, they could too, if they put their minds to it. He was living on a lie.
Sissy Jupe is also a character worth mentioning in this context. Sissy is one of the few who never completely becomes a victim to this cold, factual world. Although she spends a large amount of her life in the Gradgrind home, she never loses the qualities taught to her from her own "people", from her own social background. This innocent young girl, who was mocked by the teacher and presented as the "dumb" girl in the beginning of the story slowly turns out to be the most central character in the whole novel. And more important, she becomes the person with the "surviving" or "winning" ideology, if one can call it an ideology. Perhaps just the word "values" would say just as much as ideology.
Sissy functions as a sort of mediator between the two worlds - the world of facts (or utilitarian liberalism) and the world of "plain" liberalism, where feelings are the main concern, or serve as the basis of ones actions (this will be elaborated on in the discussion about Dickens’ view on utilitarianism). So suddenly Sissy has been given a huge responsibility in the novel, even though there is quite a large section of the novel where she is not mentioned at all. Sissy is sort of "gone" from the story from the time that Louisa accepts the marriage proposal and until she brakes down at her father’s home. But still she serves as one of the most important characters in the novel, as the reminder and messenger of the good and plain.
Last, Steven Blackpool also needs a presentation in this discussion. He represents the complete opposite pole to this ideology of facts. Sissy, of course, is also an outsider from this system, but still she has been acquainted with it for many years and is living under its roof. She has no choice but to accept the circumstances that put her into the Gradgrind home. She still has all the pure qualities in her, but there has been put a sort of a lid on them, she can’t express her true feelings under those circumstances, not openly at least. Although she does influence people anyway, quietly and unknowingly at first. After all the "troubles" in the family she steps out more openly and full-hearted.
Steven is driven only by pure and unspoiled feelings and he is as genuine as a person can ever be. And of course he belongs to the underclass, the hard working people, the undermined people that Dickens had turned it into a "mission" to save; to create an awareness of the existence of this people and the pure qualities that they possessed. Steven, thus, represents the unspoiled, pure human being. Not spoiled by any political or ideological opinions or persuasions; merely a man with the feelings a man is born with, such as love, compassion, loyalty and pride, as well as humbleness.
The relationship between Sissy and Steven can perhaps be explained in the same manner as the one between Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bounderby. Steven represents the true and pure values that are so much searched for in this novel, the pure human values, and Sissy serves as the one that holds it all together. Mr. Gradgrind, with the help from Louisa, had the power to hold the utilitarian ideology together or make it fall apart, and Sissy has the power to influence and present people to her qualities or to let everything be. So they are presented with the power to make everything all right, to make things better.
The characters in the novel, therefore, play a large role in showing the wrongs of the system. But where is Dickens himself in all of this? This is an interesting discussion, which will be presented in the following section.

4 Dickens in ‘Hard Times’
In this novel, in particular, it is very difficult to separate the writer from the text. All through the novel one can almost feel Dickens’ presence through the characters.
Dickens was very much against the system of individualism and egoism. And not least, he was against the lack of imagination that this ideology stood for. Imagination is a natural part of the growth of each individual and without it the personality is left ‘naked’; one becomes merely a product of the society one lives in, without any personal distinctiveness.
In his work on Dickens in ‘Appreciations and Criticisms’, Gilbert Keith Chesterton argues that Dickens was a firm believer in liberalism. Not the utilitarian liberalism that was practiced by Bentham and his followers, but the liberalism that had begun in the American and French Revolutions. In the section about ‘Hard Times’ he argues that the English only inherited some aspects of the Revolution: "The English people as a body went blind, as the saying is, for interpreting democracy entirely in terms of liberty. They said that if they had more and more liberty it did not matter whether they had any equality or any fraternity." He goes as far as saying that there was one man who kept his head straight, and this man was Dickens. Dickens was the man who "was there to remind the people that England had rubbed out two words of the revolutionary motto, had left only Liberty and destroyed Equality and Fraternity". ‘Hard Times’ is a very good example of this mission, where he does all he can to remind people of the qualities of equality and fraternity.
So Dickens sets off to serve as the mediator between the harsh world of facts and the world of equality and fraternity, exactly in the same way that he lets the characters in the novel do it. Sissy, therefore, sort of serves as the disguised writer in the novel. Dickens’ mission becomes Sissy’s mission: to serve as a reminder of the important qualities in a world of seemingly hopeless chaos. She was the one who took care of Louisa and Rachel, the one who found Steven, the one who helped young Tom and his father; she was the final link to a world of equality and fraternity.
Dickens wanted the focus on facts and statistics in the education of children to be removed, and a focus on developing the children’s imagination to be practiced instead. Reading of literature, fairy tales, and the development of aesthetic values overall were considered important factors to him. Of course, in a system that has no room for people’s imagination to explore the world with, where does that leave Dickens? Everything he lives for turns into nothing. Thus, he turns into a rebel, a man set out to convince his fellow Englishmen that the world of fairy tales is not nonsense.
Most of all, in my opinion, Dickens sets out to set his countrymen straight on the issue of equality and fraternity, on real liberalism. Throughout many of his works focus is put on the poor and the working people of London. Especially in ‘Hard Times’ he spotlights the lack of equality and fraternity in England at that time.
Then one can ask oneself - which philosophical ideology did Dickens believe to be true? This may be difficult to determine. Maybe he just plainly believed in democracy. Besides Bentham and Mill, there were a number of other outstanding European philosophers in that period. One of them was a German named Emanual Kant, a great philosopher of morals and ethics. He clearly breaks free from the utilitarian points of view. He does, like the utilitarians, put most emphasis on the individual, but in a totally different manner. Kant believed that the individual’s self-worth is essential; everyone is on equal terms and the juridical and political institutions are to secure freedom and equality for all.
The utilitarian discussion about whether or not one should sacrifice a few in order for the majority to prosper is out of the question for Kant. It is always unfair to violate an individual’s rights. Therefore, laws and morals are not to be determined from their best consequences for the majority of people. Instead, the individual’s rights, which are necessary for people to live in moral freedom, are important, and those are for example: the abolishment of slavery and other kinds of inequality, abolishment of war, and a constitutional government.
The reason why Kant has been included here is that in my opinion Dickens’ views are somewhat alike Kant’s. Dickens was, of course, also influenced by the thinkers in his own country, but still there is a lot of Kant’s ideology present in his criticism of the system. Dickens floats somewhere between John S. Mill’s and Kant’s ideology, if one is to put him in any box of categorization at all.



5 Conclusion
Working with this subject of utilitarianism and ‘Hard Times’ has led to many interesting questions, both concerning the novel itself and concerning Charles Dickens as a person. Which roles do the characters of the novel really play, in a broader perspective? Are the different characters representatives of different systems of thinking? What is Dickens’ direct mission with this novel?
These are all questions that, in my opinion, have been more or less discussed and answered throughout the paper. As mentioned in the introduction, one interesting thing about this novel is how well Dickens manages to make a fool out of the system, and gets away with it perfectly well. The ideology so strongly held together by Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bounderby is broken down, piece by piece. These two men are presented as authorities in the beginning, men to look up to. Sissy Jupe steps in as the "stupid" little girl who knows nothing of reality, but turns out in the end to be the only one who can work out the mess that the other characters have got themselves into. Mr. Gradgrind, the prominent politician, turns out to need help from the little girl that he set out to "help" in the beginning.
Steven Blackpool, the poor, hardworking man, the man who nobody took seriously, except Rachel, turns out to be the most honest and warmhearted man in the novel, and of course he was innocent of the crime he was accused of. He dies by the hands of those who betrayed and questioned him; the innocence is thereby killed by the system.
Louisa, who was portrayed as the perfect daughter and perfect result of the utilitarian beliefs, turns out to curse this ideology altogether. From the discussion in section 3.1 about the end of the story and what it meant in regard to Louisa, she, in my opinion, represents the system gone wrong. Dickens gets his most successful criticism of utilitarianism through her. We hear of a longing and sad young woman, unable to realize any of her potentials. She represents what Dickens believes to be wrong about the system – the lack of imagination, real childhood, compassion, understanding, etc. Sissy and Steven are there as the opposite poles, the world that Louisa wants to join, but cannot, because she has been "spoiled", her personality has not been given free hands to grow. And being in between is almost as bad as being part of the former ideology, she never becomes whole, never gets back what has been lost.
As a concluding remark it can easily be claimed that Dickens felt strongly about the subjects discussed in ‘Hard Times’. He was a strong believer in equality for all, and a loyal "speaker" for the poor people in England. He most certainly gets away with making the utilitarian ideology look pretty ridiculous through this novel, and it is presented very convincingly too. It is up to the individual to decide whether or not Dickens was a liberal or of some other political conviction. But personally, I find Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s arguments pretty convincing and very interesting. In his opinion Dickens was an unspoilt liberal who had remained rather hopeful.