In the novels we have read so far, I have been most
interested in the ways that everyday life becomes organized and quantified in
terms of what Simmel has defined as a “money economy.” What I was most
concerned with this week is the appearance of funerals in Gaskell’s Mary Barton, and in particular, Mary and
Margaret’s conversation regarding the death of Miss Simmond’s husband. While
death (by means of deprivation) could be interpreted as the ultimate
manifestation of failed economic and capitalistic success, and therefore the
end of economic contribution (or the attempts thereof) what I find fascinating
in the novel, is the way that characters cannot escape being defined by capital
or value throughout the duration of life, as
well as death.
In the novel, death itself has economic value and is somehow
part of the system. When someone dies in the novel, the next major concern is
how to pay for the proper burial, as if paying, secures some recognition of
their existence, a recognition their own lives and labor could not secure. Emotion is quantified. “’This mourning,
too, will cost a pretty penny,’ said Mary” (45). In this scene, Margaret and
Mary do not refer to the funeral itself as an event that will cost money; instead,
they refer to the expense of emotional hardship and mourning.
Margaret tells Mary, “But th’ undertakers urge her on, you
see, and tell her this thing’s usual, and that thing’s only a common mark of
respect, and that every body has t’other thing, till the poor woman has no will
o’ her own…and she thinks to make up matters, as it were, by a grand funeral,
though she and all her children, too, may have to pinch many a year to pay the
expenses, if every they pay them at all” (45). Margaret, a character who seems less concerned with material
value, subtly critiques the social expectation of mourning, and yet Mary, a
character who seems rather preoccupied with her life in terms of monetary
value, returns to language that quantifies emotion. “I often wonder why folks
wear mourning.”
Margaret responds and says, “I do believe, in setting people
(as is cast down by sorrow and feels themselves unable to settle to anything
but crying) something to do….that they might have something to talk over and
fix about” In her response, Margaret uses language of activity, of production,
of labor.
In a class that has been limited to defining themselves
merely through their power to labor and to work, not by their possessions or
capital, they labor to give value to their dead; they work to set up a funeral,
an acknowledging of an individual life among the masses, they even wear their
mourning, a symbol of their labor and their own production.
Thoughts?
Jene: I think that your analysis of what Gaskell is trying to say about funerals is, to borrow a phrase from Dr. Roy, "spot on." However, I also think that you are thrown off by the absence of speech tags, which has caused you to impute a materialism to Mary that's not justified by the text. "I often wonder why folks wear mourning" is spoken by Mary, not Margaret. And "I do believe, in setting people . . . something to do" also belongs to Mary. So, even though Mary balks over the funeral cost, she thinks it provides a practical benefit by keeping the mourners busy. Margaret, on the other hand, leans toward the attitude of Old Alice, that what's "sent" is sent.
ReplyDeleteI see capitalist competition as a zero sum game. For every Steve Jobs, there are scores of entrepreneurs like him who failed. If, as you say, death can be interpreted as a manifestation of failed capitalist success, then clearly the capitalist winner is the funeral "home."
Good catch, Bill. Thanks for your response! I think you're definitely onto something about the funeral home, and I had not considered that. I like the idea of the funeral home as an industry that benefits economically from the failure of others to achieve that same success. I'll have to consider this more.
ReplyDelete