Preliminary information
I found myself asking how so many people could live in blatant filth literally streets next to people who lived in relative prosperity (the thieves, Mr. Brownlow, and the Maylie family). While I am in no way saying that those with money should give handouts to the poor or that those who have done well for themselves did not earn or deserve it, I do see a blatant wealth gap in the novel, and this wealth gap was also present in the nonfiction life of people at the time. While it would be easy to say that the reason that poor people lived as they did was that they were immoral, lazy, and/or criminals, I think that there is more to the case than a simple character flaw. Ultimately, humans are mere animals, glorified, yes, but animals nonetheless. If we think of society as we would think of a savannah, I think it is clearer to understand that humans will do what it takes to survive. It is no different than a lion or, my favorite, a leopard on the hunt or going to the watering hole. Animals understand that they share the watering hole, so they go there to drink, but they also understand that they will be hunted by those same animals they share the watering hole with. While these animals have no social construct of laws to protect them, we humans have invented the law as a way to keep our savannah (society) working for our survival, but who is included in this “our?” Has the law itself turned into a predator-prey situation? Has it always been that way? Is equality a grand ideal or utopia and not a concrete, palpable reality? Can the ideal be implemented into reality? With these questions in mind, I looked into the Reform Acts that allowed more people the “right” to vote. Remember, rights are a social construct. We create rights and deny them through the construction of our society.
Reform Act of 1832
The Victorian Era obviously saw incredible growth economically, but the cities also grew in population size. Parliament, an invention that structured this society, was not even close to equally representing everyone. I do not mean that the representation of beliefs alone was unequal. I mean, based on geography or where (location) one literally lived was indicative of if one was to be represented in Parliament or not. The Great Reform Act of 1832, according to Glen Everett, an Associate Professor of English at the University of Tennessee at Martin, “…did way with ‘rotten’ and ‘pocket’ boroughs like Old Sarum, which with only seven voters (all controlled by the local squire) was still sending two members to Parliament.” Furthermore, Everett claims that in addition to reallotting Parliamentary representation it also “…gave the power of voting to those lower in the social and economic scale, for the act extended the right to vote to any man owning a household worth €10, adding 217,000 voters to an electorate of 435,000. Approximately one man in five now had the right to vote.” While this Act did allow more people to participate in legislation promotion, it did not include working class men. So, our Fagin, Sikes, and Bates, would not have been eligible to vote in Victorian England for more than thirty years. Mr. Brownlow may have been able to. Nancy, Rose, and Mrs. Maylie would not be able to vote for almost one-hundred years.
Connecting to the Text
From this understanding of the complete lack in any say in the structure of society (even though voting is a relatively small say), I can somewhat empathize with the thieves and, even, the prostitute. Why would they want to contribute their labor to a society that, structurally speaking, does not acknowledge them nor allow them to even have a drink from the watering hole? For Oliver, being born into a workhouse does involve chance, but the workhouse was a product of these social reforms. Oliver was born into a society in which he was already of little value regardless of his character. Without legal representation, a person with a hardened heart, such as Sikes or Mr. Bumble, has no reason to value another person in the dog-eat-dog world of survival this work of fiction reflects.
Emotional Sidenote
Last comment, although this is a work of fiction, these characters are likely not uncommon. Dickens gave a voice to many people through these fictional characters, and I think that is something in itself.
Everett, Glen. “The Reform Acts.” The Victorian Web. May 2018. http://www.victorianweb.org/history/hist2.html