“THE HISTORY OF ALL HITHERTO EXISTING SOCIETY IS THE HISTORY OF CLASS STRUGGLES.” The inspiration for Karl Marx’s "The Communist Manifesto" did not come from one point it time, but rather, from several decades of rapid industrialization, booming capitalism, and the growing economic divide between laborers and the business owners that exploited them. The solution: strip away the things that allow for class struggles, such as private property and inheritance, and divide the resources amongst the people. With his theory of communism, Marx believed in the possibility of a utopian society. There would be no need for money and all citizens would be economically equal. In bringing everybody, including the strong, weak, rich, and poor, into a collective whole, a community based on common value would emerge.
Whereas Marx sought to correct the economic divide between social classes, women in the United States were fighting for legal equality. In the hopes of amending the American constitution, some three hundred women joined at the Human Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. Elizabeth Candy Stanton, an important figure in the female suffrage movement, explained the injustice that occurs when women are denied the right to vote. In the “Declaration of Sentiments” she states, “Having deprived her of this first right of a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides”. Unable to elect their representatives, women are left without a voice within their community. Certainly, mid 19th century American society was divided into those with Constitutional rights and those without. However, the woman’s suffrage movement only gained momentum as time progressed, and showed that even females could fight for their rights. Yet this kind of determination and success became a rarity as time went on, especially by the turn of the 20th century. As the latter pieces of literature suggest, once a person was outcast from his community, he was never to be let back or to experience its associated privileges.
Herman Melville, in his story "Bartleby, the Scrivener", presents one of the strangest characters known to literature. The copyist Bartleby refuses to do anything that is expected of him, whether it is his duties at the law office or the simple expressing of human emotion. By making Bartleby so different from the narrator, Turkey, and Nippers, Melville is asking his readers to group all the other “normal” characters into one. When that is done, it is easy to see that these characters are all connected: they are part of a community that Bartleby does not belong to. Though Turkey and Nippers both have very inconvenient flaws, the narrator easily forgives them. When Turkey, who grows very irritable and messy in the afternoon, implores his boss to let him keep his job, the narrator agrees without much resistance. Melville writes, “This appeal to my fellow-feeling was hardly to be resisted…So I made up my mind to let him stay” (299). For the lawyer, it makes little financial sense to employ Turkey, but here, we see that his feelings are touched far more than his concern for money. The narrator’s kind decisions demonstrate that a sense of community, or the concern over the happiness of others, is very much alive, at least in the space that the narrator creates.
The last thing that Bartleby refuses to do is eat, and soon enough, he passes away on the cold stones of a jail. The narrator expresses deep melancholy as he reflects on the scrivener’s life and all of its dead ends, especially his job at the dead letter office in Washington. Melville summarizes Bartleby’s unfortunate death with the words: “Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity!” (321). Throughout the story, Bartleby and the rest of humanity are two distinct groups. Yet the author’s final words make us question whether a true union between these groups was possible. We see that society was not able to integrate Bartleby, yet we cannot blame it. The narrator persistently offered friendship and kindness to Bartleby, but Bartleby vehemently resisted it. With that decision, he remained an outcast by choice.
During his exile in Guernsey, Victor Hugo wrote his “Intellectual Autobiography”, which would not be published until after his death. In it, he described the second French Revolution in a very unconventional way. Instead of dwelling on the horrors of the war, he looked to the future with hope. He writes, “A whole society, with its laws, its manners, its religion, its beliefs, its prejudices, its art, its luxuries, its past, its history, encountering the sun blaze and foundering like a fisherman’s bark…All has disappeared, all will reappear…Behold the people greater” (228). Here, Hugo provides an impressive list of all the things that once unified the people of France, only to say that they have all vanished. Yet unlike his contemporary Herman Melville, Hugo indicates that a divided society is not a bad thing. In a seemingly religious way, he proclaims that with time, the people will join once again, stronger than ever. Yet will it be enough? The near future will tell.
Joseph Arthur Comte de Gobineau, the creator of scientific racism, believed that the human species was divided into more than just races. In his "Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races", he states, "Every people, great or small, has begun by making inequality its chief political motto. This is the origin of all systems of caste, of nobility, and of aristocracy in so far as the last is founded on the right of birth”. At the root of inequality was the existence of social class, one’s place within society that was determined by birth. But just like racial inequality, Gobineau asserted that the inequality of class was also natural and not to be changed. Though many of his theories are now rejected, Gobineau’s writing touches on an important theme that is to develop over the next several decades: Social outcasts, that are different from the norm due to their race, social standing, or mentality, have no means of entering the community that they live in. One thing that was destined to change, however, was the existence of community. Whereas Gobineau argues that there are distinct boundaries between each class and that each class is a unit, we begin to soon see that the cohesiveness between each level of society is slowly falling apart.
In 1859, Darwin released his greatest scientific work: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". In it he described his travels in the Galapagos Islands, where he observed the various species and their adaptations to the unique environment. It was there that Darwin developed his theory of natural selection, “the evolutionary process by which organisms with certain superior adaptive characteristics tend to survive and pass on those qualities” (TIME History's Greatest Events: 100 Turning Points That Changed the World 72). Likewise, the species that had worst-adapted to their environment were most likely to die off. This scientific discovery had a huge impact on the way that people viewed themselves, their race, and others. Now, people used the idea of biological inferiority in the animal world to suggest that the human species too was divided amongst the inherently superior and inferior members. As time transitions into the 20th century, people hold on to their belief in social Darwinism more tenaciously than ever. Literature brings us more examples of the strong members of society, as marked by their social standing, ability to manipulate others, and self-perception, that completely dismiss the weak. This, per se, is not something new to the world. But when people within one community, social class, or familial unit divide in such a way, we can see that “survival of the fittest” motto has taken on a whole new meaning.
Initiated by the Berlin Conference of 1884, the scramble for Africa would begin. Over the next three decades, the European powers would divide the African continent without considering the consequences to the native people. Some ethnic groups would be torn apart, while other enemy groups would be pushed together. Though this large scale break up of community was certainly against the wishes of the African people, it was an event that confirmed the themes established by authors like Melville and Tolstoy. Elements of society were falling apart. Yet for the first time, we see that it is impossible to bring them back together. Whereas Bartleby and Ivan Ilych could be absorbed by their communities, this could not be said of the displaced people in Africa. The various communities themselves were now fragmented beyond repair.
Leo Tolstoy’s story "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" begins with the news of Ivan’s death and the reaction that it generates amongst his acquaintances and family. The first concern that enters his colleagues’ minds is who will acquire Ivan’s prestigious job. His wife, now left without a source of money, similarly becomes preoccupied with receiving funding from the government. As the story progresses, Tolstoy expands on the similarities between these characters, all a part of the nineteenth century Russian middle class. In addition to being incredibly self-concerned, they all follow a strict decorum that emphasizes the “proper” and “pleasing”. Yet upon further inspection, we see that acting in such a way is not natural to these characters. Tolstoy provides an example of this inherent doubt by describing Peter Ivanovich’s thoughts at the funeral. He writes, “Peter Ivanovich, like everyone else on such occasions, entered feeling uncertain what he would have to do. All he knew was that at such times it is always safe to cross oneself. But he was not quite sure whether one should make obeisances while doing so” (742). Instead of mourning his friend, Peter is preoccupied with the appropriateness of his actions. Little does he know that everyone shares this concern. Though the characters must force themselves to act according to decorum, it is something that they share and are united by. Yet Tolstoy, by creating the character of Ivan Ilyich, shows the rewards that can be achieved by voluntarily isolating oneself from such a community.
Laying on his deathbed, Ivan Ilyich begins to understand that he did not live as he should have. Yet these troubling thoughts are resolved when he realizes that he can rectify his wrongs with one simple action. He chooses to effectively remove himself from the norms of his community and is thus able to see two truths: that his impending death is real and that its occurrence will end his family’s troubles. As Ivan passes away, Tolstoy describes the joyous moment with the words “How good and how simple!” (778). Yet this wonderful epiphany dies with Ivan. The people that he was once acquainted with continue on their struggle to abide by the superfluous rules of propriety, without understanding that they too could obtain true happiness by removing themselves from it. Unlike Melville and Kafka, who yearn for the cohesiveness of community, Tolstoy argues that even a united society can be filled with unhappy people.
Edvard Munch’s painting “The Scream” is one of the most famous pieces of art of the Expressionist movement. Like other paintings of the time, this one sought to reveal the innermost emotional and psychological state of the subject. The genderless person in the foreground is expressing a very powerful emotion of either distress or immense fear. There are two people in the background, yet they seem to be so far away from the subject, both in spatial terms and in their calm demeanor. This may indicate that the subject is also experiencing alienation. Though the definite source of Munch’s inspiration is unknown, his journals provide insight into his mind at the time that he started to paint this image. He writes “…The sun set. Suddenly the sky became blood—and I felt the breath of sadness… In my breast I heard a huge extraordinary scream pass through nature”. That day, the artist experienced two troubling events: he visited his sister at the mental institution and heard the sounds of dying animals at a nearby slaughterhouse. These events, that symbolize madness, death, and isolation, certainly manifest themselves in his painting. They also resonate with the story of Bartleby, who perhaps also experienced such a traumatizing event in his earlier years. His life was filled with dead ends, walls, and eventually, he became isolated from the rest of the world, just like the subject of “The Scream”.
Rabindranath Tagore’s short story Kabuliwala introduces a society that is more divided than ever before. Using the narrator’s family as a proxy for the greater community to which the characters belong, Tagore shows that people inadvertently break apart over time. At first, we see an unconventional family (consisting of a mother, daughter, and uncle) that is very close and loving. Over time, however, the connection between the young Mini and her new father begins to break. The author explains, “Gradually, as she grew older, girlfriends took the place of men: so much so that she was hardly ever seen in her father’s study. We were practically not on talking terms anymore” (903). Both the narrator and Mini are part of the elite Bengali society, but the break in their tie shows that this community is no longer whole. As Mini matures, spends more time outside of the family, and eventually marries off, she becomes a representative of the new generation in this story, whereas the narrator symbolizes the older one.
Not only does the new generation isolate itself from the older one, it is also incredibly unforgiving of people such as Rahamat. After being released from prison, Rahamat goes to see his old companion Mini one last time. As he approaches the house, the narrator is first to see him. Though usually very calm and reasonable, the narrator is instantly averted by the sight of a criminal. He soon realizes, however, that he shares one crucial characteristic with the old man: they both have immense love for their daughters. Yet the glory of the narrator’s great epiphany is short-lived. Mini, after being called in, listens to Rahamat tell the jokes that were once so dear. Yet just like she lost the attachment that she once had to her father, she can no longer find the connection that she had with her old friend. She looks away and leaves the room, untimely rejecting the company of the old fruit vendor. With this bitter sweet ending Tagore reminds us that the community that was once comprised of the narrator, Mini, and even Rahmant, is now broken. Taking its place is the elite new generation, which has no room for the older narrator, let alone the humble fruit vendor.
In 1905, Lord Curzon partitioned Bengal into its Eastern and Western parts with the purpose of improving administration. This led to two distinct reactions from the separated peoples. The Muslim majority of East Bengal greatly supported the partition; not only did it receive more funding for universities and infrastructure, but it gained a greater hold on its commerce. However, the Hindus of West Bengal, who heavily relied on raw supplies from the east, were angered by rising costs. By 1911, their protests convinced the British government to reunite the two parts of Bengal. These seemingly brief events within the long history of India revealed one crucial fact about its people: they were never part of one community. In essence, the partition of Bengal revealed an old conflict, perhaps more economic than cultural, between the people of the west and east. Even with the reunification of Bengal, this conflict was not resolved. Several decades later, in 1947, Bengal would permanently break into India and East Pakistan.
Mirroring Melville’s story, Fraz Kafka sets up a dynamic of two contrasting forces in "The Metamorphosis". Yet unlike the earlier story, Kafka’s shows that the divide between the two groups is irrevocable. As Gregor Samsa emerges from his room, he is instantaneously caught with a mixture of surprise, revulsion, and animosity from his family members. As the story progresses, they collectively decide to treat him like an animal, though his true physical state remains unclear. Gregor’s attitude toward them, however, does not change. As a human, Gregor was incredibly devoted to his family, working at a job that he disliked in order support his aging parents and young sister. Even after his transformation, he continued to love his family and wished for nothing more than to reunite with them. This is especially seen in the moment when Gregor, hearing his sister play violin, wishes that he could pay for her education at a music conservatory. Kafka writes, “After his declaration, his sister would burst into tears of emotion, and Gregor would draw himself up to her oxter and kiss her on the throat” (236). Here, Gregor is so consumed by emotion that he forgets the dangers of leaving his room. Though his sister is extremely disdainful toward him, Gregor wants nothing more than to please Greta, to resume his role as a provider for the family, and to receive affection in return.
After Gregor transforms into a bug, his father, mother, and sister seem to all unite against him. They form their own kind of community, with the common goal of keeping Gregor out. However, Kafka shows that this unity is façade for the parents’ clever scheming. While Gregor was alive and normal, they pretended to be old and disabled so that he would assume the task of earning money. However, once he transformed, the mother and father suddenly become well and took on jobs themselves. We see this form of dishonesty reappear at the end of the novella, following Gregor’s death. Kafka writes, “…they thought it was about time to find a suitable husband for her…and it felt like a confirmation …when their daughter was first to get up, and stretched her nubile young body” (241). It seems that they are preparing themselves to reap the benefits of having a fully matured and read to marry-off daughter. Their mischievous and selfish nature indicates that the Samsa family was never a true family. Its members are related by blood, but are never tied by true love or concern for one another.
The great authors of the late 19th and early 20th century wondered whether true unity could exist on the small scale. At the same time, the world at large was confronting a similar question: could there be universal cooperation, or in other words, a worldwide community? The adverse answer came with the onset of World War One, as the entire continent of Europe broke out into conflict. One of the long-term causes for this devastating event was the rise of nationalism, both in independent nations, such as Germany and France, and within minority ethnic groups, such as the Poles and Slovaks. Upon immediate inspection, the existence of such unified groups seems contradictory to the scenarios that Tagore and Kafka describe in their stories. Theses authors hint that community, as depicted by a social class or a family, is just a facade for individualistic motives. Yet when one considers each nation as an individual, then the writers’ ideas become applicable to antebellum Europe. The sharp boundaries between each nationalistic group resulted in a disunified continent, which would be thrown into four years of bloodshed. Similarly, the breaking community within “Kabuliwala” and “The Metamorphosis” would bring great pain and isolation to the central characters.
As a big proponent of the reunification of Bengal, Rabindranath Tagore started a life-long journey to join the people of India. In his speech “Nationalism”, Tagore states: “Only those peoples have survived and achieved civilization who have [the] spirit of co-operation strong in them. So we find that from the beginning of history men had to choose between fighting with one another and combining, between serving their own interest or the common interest of all.” Tagore believes that is imperative for the various people of India to join together. As a country, it is divided by castes and cultures, and to establish a shared sense of nationalism would be very difficult. With these words, Tagore touches on a theme that is prevalent within Lu Xun “Diary of a Madman”. Both writers argue that their respective nation cannot become a civilization without first joining into a strong community. Their literature, however, does not show this possibility. Rather, it gives an insight into the sad reality, and what happens when a community is broken.
After four years of the Great War, no part of the world was left untouched. American President Woodrow Wilson vowed that he would never allow for such a conflict to erupt again. In his “Fourteen Points” he outlined the steps necessary for assuring the independence and safety of nations throughout Europe. In his conclusion, he writes, “…We feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the Imperialists. We cannot be separated in interest or divided in purpose. We stand together until the end.” Wilson wanted the people of Europe to not only pledge allegiance to their respective nations, but to a greater goal of continent-wide peace. With his promise of community, Wilson gained widespread support in creating the League of Nations, an international organization that was meant to ensure cooperation and security amongst European countries. Yet this idealistic attempt at community was short-lived. Soon after his return to the United States, Wilson learned that Congress did not support his plans. Henry Cabot Lodge, as the biggest American opponent to the League of Nations, feared that it would be too costly for the US to keep peace in Europe. For some time, it seemed like the League would exist and carry on its duties, even without the help of the United States. Yet all its efforts would be undermined when a Second World War began. Perhaps the prospect of peace and community, like various writers in history have suggested, was only a dream.
The narrator of Lu Xun’s "Diary of a Madman" suspects that the townspeople are all cannibals, plotting to make him their next victim. But the narrator is not the only one who is anxious. Lu Xun also drops hints that even the vicious cannibals live in constant fear of each other. He writes, “They want to eat others and at the same time they’re afraid that other people are going to eat them” (250). A tradition as old as time, cannibalism now seems to haunt the townspeople and create massive tension between them. The author, as a big proponent of the Chinese Revolution, believed that it was futile to hold on to old tradition. He wanted his nation to modernize, and expressed this desire with the foreboding words: “If you don’t change, you’re going to devour each other anyway. And even if a lot of you are left, a real human being’s going to come along and eradicate the lot of you, just like a hunter getting rid of wolves” (252). Here, he shows that it is imperative for the Chinese people to unit and change because they are likely to be conquered by a more advanced civilization if they do not. In his words is a hint of helplessness and inferiority, which China undoubtedly felt after being defeated in the Opium Wars and losing territory in the Sino-Japanese War.
By the end of Lu Xun’s story, the madman’s burning desire to change the townspeople dies down. As if throwing his hands in the air and admitting defeat, he states, “Now that I know I’m someone with four thousand years’ experience of cannibalism behind me, how hard it is to look real human beings in the eye!” (252). Suspecting that he too ate the flesh of his younger sister, the narrator starts to think that he is just like the cannibals. The hope that he may one day change the people is now gone. Ultimately, he stops believing that the cannibals can join together to collectively improve and modernize.
Rising as the leader of the Bolsheviks, Vladimir Lenin took control of Russia after the October Revolution of 1917. Having defeating his opposition, Lenin was free to rule Soviet Russia according to Marxist principles. However, his effort to rid the country of class conflicts and establish a perfect form of communism was not successful. Seeing that his nation was suffering from civil war, famine, and unprecedented poverty, Lenin feared that his own security as a dictator was endangered. In March on 1921, he introduced the New Economic Policy, which turned Russia in the direction of capitalism. Peasants were now allowed to sell their surplus on the open market and some property became privatized once again. The condition of Russia improved. Perhaps this was an early indication that communism, defined by strict regulation and the enforcement of economic equality, was not an effective political model. Forcing people to be part of a community with similar values and goals was not feasible. Yet communism was reestablished several years after Lenin’s death. For the next several decades, the living standard in Russia fell behind that of Western Europe. Progress was minimal.
Over a decade after the Chinese Revolution of 1911, the leader of the Revolutionary Alliance was not pleased with the way that China had turned out. Lamenting the lack of unity within his nation, Sun Yat-Sen said “The Chinese people have only family and clan solidarity; they do not have national spirit...they are just a heap of loose sand”. Ironically, it was the burning nationalistic spirit that overturned the Qing dynasty in 1911. The revolutionaries were not happy with their weak rulers, the overbearing influence of Japan and the West, and China’s inability to modernize. However, even the leader of the revolutionaries soon realized that to have a fully collaborating nation was near impossible.
In the mid 19th century, the future of community was vague. Determined figures such as Karl Marx, Elizabeth Stanton, and especially the narrator of “Bartleby, the Scrivener” showed that all people, despite of their differences, could unite. Yet as time progressed, characters such as the mentioned narrator became increasingly rare, and social outcasts, such as Ivan Ilyich, Gregor Samsa, Rahamat, and the Madman, never found a place amongst others. Community itself began to fade. People, families, social classes, and even countries started to break apart. By the start of the 20th century, there was an outcry for people to band together. Some ties were kept, but people on the whole become loose and disunified. Community was no more.
We'd love to hear from you. Please send questions or feedback to the below email addresses.
Before contacting us, you may wish to visit our FAQs page which has lots of useful info on Tiki-Toki.
We can be contacted by email at: hello@tiki-toki.com.
You can also follow us on twitter at twitter.com/tiki_toki.
If you are having any problems with Tiki-Toki, please contact us as at: help@tiki-toki.com
Close