Cross Generic Study

By James Cox, Student

How the issue of class is constructed in Nineteen Eighty-Four and The Importance of Being Earnest

An essay hosted at LiteratureClassics.com

Class is a notion that dates back to the beginnings of civilisation. Indeed, “Inequality is the price of civilisation.” It is only recently that class, as it relates to power, has been replaced by total cash and asset value. Two texts that depict class as a source of power are The Importance of Being Earnest, by Oscar Wilde, and Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell.

While Nineteen Eighty-Four and the Importance of Being Earnest both look at class, they are very different in their use of class and their approaches in General. Nineteen eighty Four is a novel, and The Importance of Being Earnest is a play, for one thing. In the novel, class is used to shock people about what the author saw as the future of English Socialism. It makes large use of description and scene building; the use of these make it vital that the novel form be used. In addition to this, large excerpts from a book central tot he meaning of the novel ar5e read out by the main character, Winston. The novel form allows us to actually read the ‘book.’

The play, however, uses class very differently. The story reflects upper class society as being trivial, prejudices, and lazy. It also trivialises marriage, a subject that Oscar Wilde though little of. The play is the right choice regarding the form of the satyr: the fast paced exchanges (often ‘one-liners’) and the use of only three sets fit this right in to the drama form. The formidable wit of Wilde would be dragged down if we had to read through large descriptions of scene, instead, we take it in from the stage. Of course, the forms 9of these two texts were not chosen as the result of the basic plot and idea: since George Orwell was primarily a novelist and Wilde a dramatist.

Marriage and relationships is the main theme of The Importance of Being Earnest, and this meaning is depicted very differently across the two texts. In 1984, marriage amend sex are banned to a large extent: sex was meant to be joyless and only to be used for the ‘production’ of new party members, the official description of marriage by the Party followed closely along the same lines. On3e of the Party’s aims was to do away with sex and desire altogether, and in the end just to have artificially fertilized eggs growing in test-tubes. In the world of 1984, there are no friends, you are all comrades, and fellow Party members. There is no trust: this being so, there can be no rebellion and the status quo will be maintained.

The play shows the upper class view of marriage as a result of Wilde’s opinions. “[Wilde saw marriage] as a practise surrounded by absurdity and hypocrisy.” Mixes and matches of suitable sones- or daughters- in law were continually being made by parents and relatives: in the play is the Lady Bracknell who both determines the eligibility of suitors for her daughter, Gwendolyn, and of young ladies for her nephew, Algernon. Eligibility is not determined by decency, humanity or affections: it is determined by class, lineage, and assets. Marriage is seen as a tool for both achieving and keeping social status. Indeed, after Lady Bracknell does a back flip because she hears of the large inheritance Cecily Cardrew will get when she comes of age, she consents to the engagement of Algernon adn Cecily, saying “I see now that there are distinct social possibilities in your profile.” Another point brought imp in the text is the ridiculous view that you could only find true love with someone of a particular name. In using this subject, Wilde shows his view that marriages based on class rather than love are as stupid as marriages based on something see a baby cannot control: say, his name. Thinking that Jack’s name is Ernest, she says that she could never truly love someone whose name was not Ernest. “It is a name that inspires absolute trust and confidence,” she says. This shows her superficiality, and also the view that marriages based on superficial feelings are stupid as well.

Division of labour, one of the main subject of 1984, appears in The Importance of Being Earnest as well. In 1984, labour is divided up among the three classes, the proletarians, the Outer Party, and the Inner Party. The proles are the3 very low class, they have basic, untrained labour ads their only work. The Outer Party seem to hold both middle management and ‘desk and cubicle’ work, depending on their rank witching the Party. The Inner Party lead lives of opulence and luxury, and take up executive type work mainly. These classes lie fixed, you are born into one class and spend your life there. There is never any movement up of down. Even an unusually precocious prole will be killed ass a possible threat, rather than being utilised and brought up by the party. AN interesting fact of the world of 1984 is that while masses of prol4es are used as labour, not much is actually produced. The endless wars that occur are only to use up recourses so the public cannot get them. As a result, shortages are a way of life for all but the Inner Party. The war is a “Convenient way of expending labour without actually producing anything.

While division of labour is a subject not at the forefront of the play The Importance of Being Earnest in the way that the subject of marriage and relations were, there are significant examples in the text that allow us to deduce some of the division of labour among the classes. The upper class, which all of the characters bar the servants fall into, seem to lead luxurious lives. They do nothing or little of value all day, and superficiality and triviality are a part of their lives. They are also noxiously lazy. Gwendolyn, a city girl, says to Cecily, a country girl, “ I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade.” Even the tough of work or looking at an object of work is distasteful to her. Two more quotes that illustrate the lives of the upper class are: “I have never allowed my duty as a gentleman to interfere with my pleases to the smallest degree.,” and, talking of the lower classes, “They seem, as a class, to have no sense of moral responsibility.” That last quote also shows the fact that some members of the upper class see themselves as more decently human than the lower orders. While many social commentators of the time wrote about the conditions of the poor to stir social and political freeform, Wilde preferred to show the lives of a class of which he was personally familiar.

The division of labour is linked to the division of power: it is often mentioned that labour seems to be inversely proportional to power. This means that those doing the work have no power, and those that have the power do no work. While the power side is not really shown in the play, 1984 is a novel all about power. When Winston is tortured and ‘rehabilitated,’ it is clear that O’Brien, an Inner Party member, is in complete control at all times.

Language, and literature in particular, are very powerful tools used all through history. In conclusion, the power relations depicted here are also a form of social commentary.
Nineteen Eighty-Four, a warning of the future of English Socialism, and The Importance of Being Earnest, a statement of the lives of the rich, both show thew unfairness, injustice and inequality of class. It is a credit to humanity and modern society that nim many cultures the ridiculous idea of class by birthright is disappearing.