The Working Class In Edith Wharton's The House Of Mirth

Edith Wharton is well known for her vivid descriptions of wealthy, upper class New York society and their old-fashioned mores. The Custom of the Country illustrates not only the strict values of ‘old money,' from which Wharton herself descended, but, also, the variance in customs held by those with new money, as well as those from other states and abroad. Two of the novel's main characters that attempt to join this society exemplify the conflicts they face as their imbedded small-town, yet, somewhat modern values clash with those of New York society, further demonstrating the shift of values in American society near the end of the Gilded Age. As Undine Spragg and her family move to New York in hopes of securing a fortune and social status

In The Scarlet Letter Hypocrisy is evident everywhere. The characters of Hester, Dimmesdale, Chillingworth, and the very society that the characters lived in, were steeped in hypocrisy. Hawthorne was not subtle in his portrayal of the terrible sin of hypocrisy; he made sure it was easy to see the sin at work , at the same time however, parallels can be drawn between the characters of The Scarlet Letter and of today’s society.

In “Debasing Exchange: Edith Wharton’s The House of Mirth,” author Wai-Chee Dimock argues that the society portrayed in the novel, which is a reflection of 19th century upper class New York, revolves around the idea that the business ethics of the economic “marketplace” determines all aspects of the culture. More specifically, this causes all forms of social interactions to be viewed as “currency,” with the precise value of a certain act or relationship determined by whoever possesses the most power. As Dimock herself puts it, “as a controlling logic, a mode of human conduct and human association, the marketplace is everywhere and nowhere, ubiquitous and invisible” (375). While some might wonder whether the marketplace really is the ultimate guiding structure for this particular fictionalized society, Dimock contends nevertheless that this interpretation is a viable one, due to the marketplace’s “ability to reproduce itself,” and thus “assimilate everything… into its domain” (375). I myself find Dimock’s argument both interesting and useful in interpreting The House of Mirth because of the clarity with which she presents the often complicated, critical lens of Marxism.

In her last paragraph, she identifies herself as the upperclassman, stating that we rich people “. . . save our money, eschew status symbols, cut coupons, practice puritanical sacrifice to amass a million dollars” (Cottom 1015). This could be classified as a simple jest, to be honest. To me, it sounds sarcastic, which is probably what the author intended. Her argument is informative, yet entertaining. Mocking the snobbish attitude of some who believe they are superior, she skillfully disguises her sentence to appear innocent while the message it delivers is not quite. The point of this sentence is for you to realize

From the ideas shared in the novel, it is evident that the writer defines his ideal society in the form of an antithesis of existing society. The author takes the initiative of informing the American population - using the novel’s romantic medium - on matters concerning individualism, which is notable in an argument by Andrew Carnegie who claims

The Gilded Age in American History was a time period of great controversy. Those in wealthier classes believed the changes that had been made socially were for the best. For instance, Andrew Carnegie in the The Gospel of Wealth sees the industrialization in a positive light. He, along with other Robber Barons of the late nineteenth-century are the ones that created the idea of a “Gilded Age”. His class of folks believed their contributions to society was bringing back a Golden Age. Carnegie, though, didn’t necessarily approve of the wealth distribution and was aware there was an issue. However, others didn’t feel exactly the same. Upton Sinclair shows this in the novel, The Jungle. The novel highlights the social injustice and unfair treatment of the working class in the nineteenth century. Although a work of fiction, the novel brings to light true occurrences from heavily populated cities during this time period. In several instances, the novel details how the quickly rising issue of poverty in the United States wasn’t treated, as it should’ve been. In addition to Sinclair and Carnegie, there were several other views on either ends of the spectrum. Whether it was a view of the poorer class; or that of the wealthy class, the opinions were very controversial and gave a strong sense of the issues that occurred throughout the Gilded Age.

In his novel, Making Societies, William G. Roy expresses class as “social relationships that are understood by participants to be hierarchical on the basis of socioeconomic group membership, reinforced by major institutions and recurrent over time” (Roy, 158). With this definition in mind, my family would be considered upper-middle class in today’s societal terms, or upper class based upon Roy’s explanation. Max Weber identifies three concepts that determine the class categories: education, religion, and medicine. We can use these parameters in order to argue that my family has used class advantages in order to get into ISU.

Novelist Edith Wharton wrote her defining work, 1905's the House of Mirth, on a subject she knew all too well: the style-over-substance realm of New York's upper-crust society during the Gilded Age. Having been raised in this "fashionable" society, Wharton knew both its intricacies and cruelties firsthand. The triumphant rise and tragic fall of protagonist Lily Bart demonstrate both the "sunshine and shadow" of the Gilded Age. The House of Mirth not only exposes the reality of how "the other half live," but also satirizes and condemns their elitist existence.

In The Paradise of the Bachelors and Tartarus of Maids Melville demonstrates how the oppressive power of the upper class over the working class, molds and kill the social, emotional and physical life of the working class while they benefit from it. Melville depicts how industrialism created an economic separation of classes that although seemed unrelated and contradictory in their different spaces, both sustained each other. The upper class, the bachelors, needed the labor of the lower class to maintain the wealthy life they had and the lower class, the maids, survived with the small wages gained with their labor. In order for the upper class to continuously enjoy their privilege, they had to exploit in any way possible the working class.

Based on the ideas of Karl Marx, this theoretical approach asks us to consider how a literary work reflects the socioeconomic conditions of the time in which it was written. What does the text tell us about contemporary social classes and how does it reflect classism? Jane Eyre depicts the strict, hierarchical class system in England that required everyone to maintain carefully circumscribed class positions. Primarily through the character of Jane, it also accents the cracks in this system, the places where class differences were melding in Victorian England. For example, the novel questions the role of the governess: Should she be considered upper class, based on her superior education, or lower class,

Nonetheless, the third mode is which Carnegie beckons as the start of a great evolutional growth in the distribution of wealth amongst classes. Carnegie believes that the rich must supply the poor with not money directly to their pockets, which would coax temptations. Rather, the rich must supply the less fortunate with the means to grow as people, to heighten ambitions, and raise the level of class. This is done through, for example, the construction of a public library. Carnegie, in fact, tells a tale of Mr. Tilden. Mr. Tilden, a wealthy man, builds a large public library in New York City. This distributes more than a couple quarters could ever, the ability for any man to enhance his learning and opportunities for free.

Mr. Butler represents capitalistic society taking advantage of the common people: Mr. Haskins and his family. After Mr. Haskins had worked towards purchasing the farm from Mr. Butler, he is met with resistance in the form of an unexpected price increase, to which he rebuts, “But you’ve done nothing to make it so. You hain’t added a cent. I put it all there myself, expectin’ to buy” (Garland 761). Garland, as if to emphasize the element of naturalism, writes, “Butler laughed” and has Butler respond to Mr. Haskins, “The law will sing another tune” (Garland 761).

Because of Wharton's slight deviation from naturalistic conventions, a literary debate exists among critics as to the validity of viewing The House of Mirth as a novel which embodies

Yet, this very society that demand its women be superficial creatures that merit worth only by appearance is also one which immediately rejects a woman who seems intent on marrying a man with wealth-the one course open to women who wish to be accepted in society.  This may be where one of Lily's character qualities prevents her from being able to join such a society.  She is no good at hiding her desire to marry a man of wealth.  In fact, she even tells Selden, her true love, that she "is very expensive" and "must have a great deal of money" (Wharton  31).  These kinds of admissions make Lily appear to be the one thing this superficial society cannot bear-a scheming adventuress out to snag a rich

Despite the bourgeoisie’s strong desire to rise above their social status, their wish was still unattainable;