Wirth and Mary Barton

Louis Wirth’s “Urbanism as a Way of Life” made me think about the ways in which living in the city has affected our social life. It was also interesting to note the connections to our own time and also with Gaskell’s time. The first claim I found interesting was when Wirth said that you could still see the influence of the countryside in the city: “a mode of life reminiscent of this earlier form of existence persists” (3). The juxtaposition of an earlier time with an older time is something I kept thinking about while reading Mary Barton. There’s a great moment when Mary reminisces about the old times: “And then came a strange forgetfulness of the present, in thought of the long-past times…” (224). She reminisces about her mother primarily. I find that Mrs. Barton is such a strong symbol for the countryside. From the beginning of the novel, Barton and Wilson’s comments about Mary and Esther’s beauty sets them apart from the typical Manchester factory girls. The country sisters provide a beautiful contrast to the ugliness of city life. While Mrs. Barton dies early on, her symbolic “country-ness” continues on through her daughter. Through the daughter, we can see an “earlier form of existence” living on; although, I am admittedly still working out that train of thought.

                There were some moments that I came at odds with Wirth’s points, especially as I kept thinking of the characters in the novel. For example, Wirth states, “personal mutual acquaintanceship between inhabitants which ordinarily inheres in a neighborhood is lacking” (11). I see great models of acquaintanceship between old and young characters alike in the novel. The Barton and Wilson family have a great bond throughout the entire plot. Mary, being the younger character and most vulnerable to the changes in life that Wirth suggests, maintains a great friendship with Margaret. In that respect, I see some limitations to Wirth’s argument.

                  However, one point I did agree with in Wirth that lent itself to Gaskell’s characters is through the idea of the “segmentalization of human relationships” (12). Wirth explains that the contact people have with one another does not give them a “whole” view of each other. The limited contact people have with one another and the limited capacities in which people meet leaves them with a “less intensive knowledge” of one another (12). I find this idea fascinating and I couldn’t help but immediately think of Esther. Initially, she was such a grand character who evoked so much mystery and intrigue. Yet, when we find out what really happened to her, we quickly realize we didn’t know that much about her to begin with.

                Other points I made between Wirth and the novel had to deal with John Barton. Wirth notes that the “individual counts for little, but the voice of the representative is heard with a deference roughly proportional to the numbers for whom he speaks” (14). I couldn’t help but chuckle at the “deference” with which John was treated. Also, the change in John’s character throughout the novel closely fits Wirth’s description that “frequent close physical contact, coupled with great social distance, accentuates the reserve of unattached individuals toward one another and, unless compensated for by other opportunities for response, gives rise to loneliness” (16). As I usually find this to be true with any representation of father/daughter relationships, I found it heartbreaking to see John change with Mary and his overall demise, being such the strong character that he was.