How Charles Dickens’ Depicts The Issue Of Social Inequality In His Novel Bleak House

Charles Dickens’s emphasis on social inequality brought attention to the need for help which urban poverty demanded. Dickens supplies a brutal depiction of this poverty in the Victorian era in his novel Bleak House. This essay will argue that Dickens critiques society’s neglect of urban poverty of mid-Victorian Britain through social inequality in Bleak House.

This analysis will be done by first assessing how the slums are represented as areas so alienated from the higher classes that Dickens must dilute the hardships in order to connect with his readership. These hardships will be maintained by outlining the contrasts between the Court of Chancery and Tom-All-Alone’s. Secondly, by investigating how the children living in poverty are considered in the novel, specifically by examining the treatment of Jo. Finally, this essay will examine Dickens’s presentation of disease in the novel, exclusively how disease and death can be understood in the novel through a literal and metaphorical interpretation of social inequality.

Charles Dickens provides a representation of the severe life of all layers of English society of the Victorian epoch with a particular focus on the most deprived (Gholami and Joodaki 644). This illustration, however, is diluted and distorted due to Dickens’s refusal to repel and offend his readership. This focus can be identified through his description of the brickmakers’ house. The dwelling is described as “one of a cluster of wretched hovels in a brickfield” (Dickens 118). Dickens gives a brutal account of the slums by describing their offensive nature and alluding to the high numbers of people living in these circumstances. This portrayal allows for a semi-realistic account of the conditions of those in urban poverty. Thereby enforcing the belief that these areas, and those living there, were being neglected due to their placement in the social hierarchy. These miserable renditions are supported by Phiz’s illustrations which provide a visual of the horror of the slums.

Nevertheless, while Dickens rouses a feeling of compassion “he refrains from describing the full actuality of slum-dwelling in Bleak House” (Carter 1). This prevents a repulsion from the extreme hardship, which would cause Dickens’s critique of social inequality to be overshadowed by the horrors presented, and allows for a connection to be made with those unaccustomed with urban poverty (Carter 1). This refrain from complete realism suggests that Dickens wrote this novel for those not living in urban poverty. Therefore, this novel was for those in mid-Victorian Britain who were benefiting from and augmenting social inequality. Bleak House is critiquing this abuse and making that critique evident to those who must change their ways in order to improve the situation. This permits Dickens’s call for action and awareness of urban poverty to be the focal point in his portrayals of the underprivileged.

Furthermore, the novel raises questions on the poor law system and the living conditions of the working class (Gholami and Joodaki 647). The moral corruption of Chancery is juxtaposed with the physical decay of the slums. This novel is, therefore, a social critique by emphasising how the English legal system is failing in its duties to its citizens. This is accentuated by Dickens providing a version of urban poverty by the example of the slum street in a manner similar to the Sanitary Reports (Gholami and Joodaki 649). The first delineation of Tom-All-Alone’s is followed by “this desirable property is in Chancery, of course” (Dickens 236). The omniscient narrator’s use of brooding sarcasm here amplifies the point being made; by following the vignette of this dilapidated, miserable place with the statement that it is so close to the house of law; the court of Chancery is synonymous with the faulty law structure. Separate from the critique of the Chancery court, Dickens also criticizes slum housing (Gholami and Joodaki 649).

This creates the link that the faulty law system is responsible for the social inequality resulting in the neglect of those in urban poverty. Dickens’s description of Tom-all-Alone’s can be read both as historical evidence and a powerful literary symbol of the Condition of England (Gholami and Joodaki 649). Uncontrolled industrialization contributed, in Dickens’s opinion, to misery, deterioration and disease. Similarly, Chancery is represented as a bitter metaphor of moral corruption which encompasses the upper classes (Gholami and Joodaki 649). The Court of Chancery is not protecting the weakest members of its society, those living in urban poverty, instead it is contributing to the financial support of its lawyers.

Dickens pays particular attention to the children of poverty suffering from this neglect, in his novel. This is conspicuous in the portrayal of Jo, the homeless crossing-sweeper. The child is described throughout the novel as being a “horrible creature” (Dickens 240). This description represents the disgust of the higher classes towards those less fortunate. Dickens’s choice to portray Jo as a juvenile asserts the cruel disregard that society condemned on urban poverty as children are often associated with innocence. This depiction also emphasises the severity of social inequality as it identifies that some were born into urban poverty and have no other options or chances to move up the social hierarchy. To further establish this point, repulsion is apparent in the meeting of Jo and Lady Dedlock. Despite the boy assisting the woman and her approaching him, she treats Jo as a savage whom she must fear and avoid for her own safety. This anxiety of Lady Dedlock’s would be relevant for the Victorian period as Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution would have been just surfacing.

The theory of humans evolving from a primitive species terrified people as they believed that this implied that human beings could also devolve. Thus, Dickens is using Lady Dedlock here to represent the Victorian society’s treatment of juveniles living in urban poverty and the neglect of the youth. This neglect is delineated to source from a fear for self. This is apparent when the Lady “recoils” (Dickens 240) from the boy and when she states “don’t talk to me, and stand farther from me” (Dickens 239). These statements appear to be reactions of panic and dread. An opposite form of social inequality is portrayed by Mr Chadband. As the minister pretend to be a deeply religious man, he presents himself as being pious by conforming to the Victorian beliefs that the poor’s most urgent need was for religious and moral elevation as “poverty was God’s just punishment for the culpable” (Fasick). Despite Jo’s demands that “you let me alone” (Dickens 377), Mr Chadband ignores these contests as he does not view Jo as a child or a person but rather as “a precious instrument in my hands” (Dickens 377). While the characters here believe that they are improving the boy it is evident that they are forcing their own ideals onto the boy as they perceive themselves to be more divine individuals as they have “the light of Terewth” (Dickens 381), which they deem Jo to be devoid of.

The young boy is presented as being so “stone blind and dumb” (Dickens 236) that he is incapable of experiencing any pleasure more than that of a brute. This belief is established when Jo is compared to “the other lower animals” (Dickens 237) in being unable to understand human expressions of reading and writing. This is encouraged when Jo is illustrated to enjoy “a band of music” (Dickens 237) along with a dog. Social inequality is urged in this society as the disadvantaged are not perceived as humans but rather more animal-like. There is a contradiction from the expected Victorian portrayal of these hardships, however, as the omniscient narrator states “how far above the human listener is the brute” (Dickens 238). This statement implies that those living in destitution are superior as they are unable to be contaminated by material possessions and human creations thus, allowing them to access and enjoy the simple joys in life, such as listening to music. The novel is, therefore, shown to not agree with the Victorian ideals that those living in urban poverty are lesser human beings.

Many of the deaths in Bleak House are due to bodily malfunction and disease. Illness can be seen “as a metaphor for systemic and systematic societal ills such as economic disparity” (Higgs 3). Through this metaphorical understanding of death and disease, Jo’s decease can be comprehended in two ways; his death represents economic disparity or his demise is resulted from economic disparity (Higgs 3). Both understandings link death with social inequality. This link results in the poor being regarded as impure due to the filth they live in. This further established a reason to enforce social inequality and to be negligent of urban poverty. Thus, a solution was resolved to prevent being ‘tainted’, by policing the bodies of the poor, literally and figuratively (Higgs 10). Dickens’s portrayal of Jo’s suffering and his sentimental decease demonstrates the misapplication of these solutions and their tragic results (Higgs 11). As a crossing-sweeper, Jo is responsible for moving away dirt and excrement to better allow pedestrians to pass by. His body, however, is associated with the grime that he helps to contain and dispel (Higgs 12). Therefore, he is that which must be swept away, or “move on” (Dickens 291), to allow for others’ safe passage through the city (Higgs 12). Neglect of urban poverty due to social inequality is again evident as the law regards this human boy as a contamination of filth.

While Dickens is operating on a metaphorical level, he also employs disease as a literal literary device. He presents a very realistic interpretation of smallpox as experienced in mid-Victorian England. Dickens employs illness in a literal understanding to achieve his goals for social reformation through his fictions. The build-up of filth on the streets and the threat of contamination were highly relevant fears of the Victorians. This is portrayed in the novel through reeking smells and sights in the slums and those living in such conditions being described as “the fever” (Dickens 331). Mr Snagsby and Mr Bucket are represented as visitors to these horrors, separated from such situations due to their economic well-being.

The underprivileged living in urban poverty, however, are forced to be subjected to those aforementioned environments continuously so that it becomes normalised to them. Disease and death are represented as being a regular occurrence for those living in urban poverty. This is supported when Jo states “they dies more than they lives, according to what I see” (Dickens 453). The slums are understood to be the diseased part of the social body in Victorian society. Dickens, however, depicts maladies as being careless to a person’s wealth. Disease does not take part in social inequality. It is, consequently, a human construct to associate urban poverty with disease as members outside of this category are also delineated to contract illnesses, such as Charley and Esther. Furthermore, Dickens provides an excuse for why the society of mid-Victorian Britain should not neglect those in urban poverty.

In conclusion, Bleak House represents a profound analysis of the great socio-economic problem of lower classes. This novel, therefore, reveals the importance of the material well-being and wealth in the life of English society (Gholami and Joodaki 644).

This essay argued that Dickens critiques society’s neglect of urban poverty of mid-Victorian Britain through social inequality in Bleak House. This was done by first assessing how the slums were represented by Dickens in a manner which allowed the higher-class readers not to be deterred. Furthermore, descriptions of the slums were illustrated as being victims of social inequality enforced by the Court of Chancery. Secondly, this essay investigated how children living in poverty are considered in the novel, specifically by examining the treatment of Jo. These children were related to animals and savages viewed through the empathetic lens of Dickens.

Finally, this essay examined Dickens’s presentation of disease in the novel, exclusively how disease and death can be understood in the novel through a literal and metaphorical depiction of social inequality. Hence, Bleak House is used by Dickens as an instrument to critique the social inequality suffered by those in urban poverty in mid-Victorian society due to the neglect of the English legal system towards the disadvantaged.