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.
