ENGL 510: The City in the 19th Century

            In the battle of “all against all” described by Engels in “Competition”, there seems to be little hope for the proletariat to escape the misery or, at best, subsistence afforded to them by the bourgeoisie.  The basic human drive of hunger seem enough to coerce any man to turn against his fellow men.  It was due to this expectation that John Barton impressed me so much in this week's reading.  His willingness to suffer and starve in order to provide for others is extraordinary; certainly, there is no other character in Mary Barton who gives so much.  However, I can't help but wonder at the motivation of John Bartnn.  Is his self-sacrifice the result of his incorruptibility or the result of his unwillingness to be corrupted?  Is he immune to the forces of the industrial revolution or is does he simply resist being controlled out of spite?  It is a subtle distinction and, to be honest, I don't think more or less of his character in either case, but the answer could hold significant implications for Gaskell's view of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

            Barton, perhaps more astute than most workers, is not merely powerless against the bourgeoisie; he is also eerily aware of these powers.  This is perhaps why he seems to suffer more than others.  While others are content to take what they need when they need it, Barton is skeptical of receiving charity.  When she sees her father's suffering, Mary asks why he doesn't seek the help that, as an able-bodied man, he is certain to get from his union.  His response is perhaps overly idealistic: “I don't want money, child! D—n their charity and their money!  I want work, and it is my right.  I want work” (112).  Barton refuses money in a society where nothing at all can be had without money.  While he understands the need to work for the factory owners in order to survive, his assertion that he has a right work might as well be an Edenic fantasy—he yearns for a world in which he can gather fresh water from the same source that waters the crops he has nurtured for his food.  However, hew has no power to return to such a world.  He understands that men starve who, like himself, are fully willing to work.  It is only natural, then, that he should be aware of the consequences of taking charity without work.

            His refusal of the support in his unemployment stems from his knowledge that the unions and the town have a limited amount of money to give.  Were Mary younger and unable to work, he might be willing to accept charity for her sake, but he is unable to do so for his own.  Even though the Trades Union would have given him money, he instead says, “Give it to Tom Darbyshire [ . . . ] He's more claim on it than me, for he's more need of it, with his seven children” (113).  knowing that every thing he might take could be given to another, he cannot indulge in this charity without setting himself in opposition to other members of the proletariat.  He yields to opium addiction and even murder to avoid playing a part in the forces of competition explained by Friedrich Engels.  However, his apparent loss of humanity and starvation do not truly release him from the forces of the bourgeoisie.  By coming to the rescue of others, he leaves himself powerless to save himself.

            Therefore, I wonder whether the climactic murderous act of John Barton's story is not an act of spite.  By shooting Harry Carson, John Barton exerts control over the bourgeoisie that have since exerted control over his own life.  Without this crime, Barton is only reluctantly subject to their control but not free of it.  Such is the role of John Barton's decay in Mary Barton.  Barton uses his character to illustrate how the proletariat are driven to crime in order to maintain any semblance of control over their own lives.  In short, Barton is driven to inhumane means in order to preserve his own humanity and avoid becoming an easily replaceable cog in the capitalist machine.