Larkin's poetry cynically portrays a society in which the proletariat "are deluding themselves" rather than presenting a hopeful picture of a society where "they [go] beyond the limits which society sets for them" To what extent do you agree with this statement? Make close reference to FOUR Larkin poems.

Larkin's poetry cynically portrays a society in which the proletariat "are deluding themselves" rather than presenting a hopeful picture of a society where "they [go] beyond the limits which society sets for them" To what extent do you agree with this statement? Make close reference to FOUR Larkin poems.

The statement that: Larkin's poetry portrays a society in which the proletariat "are deluding themselves" rather than presenting a hopeful picture of a society where "they [go] beyond the limits which society sets for them" is proven to be correct in four of his poems. This is demonstrated in 'The Large Cool Store' because Larkin presents the proletariat as trying to buy clothes from Marks and Spencers (the equivalent to Primark in this time) in order to make themselves look as if they have more money than they actually do. Similarly in Larkin's poem 'The Whitsun Weddings' this statement is proven to be correct because the proletariat see marriage and religion as a way of escaping their social class label, however this does not happen. Furthermore, in the poem 'here' by Larkin, this statement is backed up again because it is similar to 'the large cool store' in the sense that Larkin describes yet another store where the proletariat are purchasing cheap commodities in order to try and look as if they are part of the bourgeoisie. However, this statement is no backed up in Larkin's poem 'nothing to be said' because in this particular poem, he seems to be showing a side where he feels sympathy for the proletariat.





Firstly, in 'The Large Cool Store' Larkin does portray a society in which the proletariat "are deluding themselves" rather than presenting a hopeful picture of a society where "they [go] beyond  the limits which society sets for them" because of how the word 'cool' is used. One of its meanings is whether something is popular or fashionable or not and by using this word in the title it's an example of commodification and how the proletariat buy clothes based on the way they look and not actually for practical reasons and what their function is. They will try to buy clothes to make them look as if they are a part of the bourgeoisie to attempt to escape their oppressive, miserable lives. Also with the second interpretation of the word 'cool' it's cold and heartless and emotionless, this could be seen as to represent the feel of the actual store itself. It could be cold because it represents the capitalist society in which Larkin presents to us and emotionless like the bourgeoisie because they can so easily oppress the proletarians in order to keep themselves more rich and better off. Therefore, the society portrayed does show the proletariat 'deluding themselves' rather than representing a hopeful picture of society where 'they [go] beyond the limits which society sets for them' because of the fact they shop in this store and buy cheap clothes that look expensive to try to look as if they've got more money than they have. They're evidently 'deluding themselves' because "your social circumstances determine much, if not all, of your life" as stated by Bertens, thereby suggesting that you can never escape your social class due to buying things - you may be able to make yourself look a different way however the truth of a capitalist society is that you cannot escape your social class.

Also in the 'Large Cool Store' Larkin presents a society in which the proletariat are "deluding themselves" because of when he describes the colours that they wear for work like 'browns and greys' and then the contrast of colours for their 'weekend' clothes which are much brighter colours like 'lemon, sapphire, moss-green'. This demonstrates how advertising creates a false consciousness because the proletariat will think they're free at the weekend because they wear brighter clothing and feel as though this frees them from their boring day-to-day lives at work but actually they're "deluding themselves" because they can't escape the reality that they belong to the lower working class. Therefore in this case, Larkin does not portray a hopeful picture of society where "they [go] beyond the limits which society sets for them".









In addition to this, In Larkin's poem 'The Whitsun Weddings', he again portrays a society in which the proletariat are "deluding themselves" because they see marriage as an escape from their social class  and especially because it was on a religious day in the poem and that religion promises the proletariat the reward of heaven in their after life as long as they're 'good' and continue with their work that is boring and unrewarding. Therefore from a Marxist perspective, religion is just another way of keeping the proletariat in their place and making sure that they won't go against the status quo of the capitalist society although the proletariat view it as a chance to be able to get freedom from the capitalist society. The function of religion in society (according to Marxists) feeds into false consciousness because it allows the proletariat to think and feel as if they live in a free society where they can achieve any ambitions they may have, even though this is wrong. In actual fact religion allows the proletariat to accept their place in society without questioning the inequality that they experience. Furthermore, Marx believed that the function of the family in a capitalist society is to teach the children obedience and how to comply to authority which goes in favour of the bourgeoisie because this means the proletariat will obey and comply to the bourgeoisie unquestioningly.







Therefore this isn't a picture of a society in which the proletariat "[go] beyond the limits which society sets for them" because marriage is essentially a trap which the proletarians fall into so that they think they have gained freedom when in actual fact, they have not. This is evident as Larkin describes the different classes of people involved in weddings 'fathers with broad belts under their suits and seamy foreheads; mothers loud and fat; an uncle shouting smut; and then the perms'. These descriptions may demonstrate how Larkin may not be showing any sympathy for the proletariat as victims of the capitalist society  but how he's actually sneering at them and looking down on them as he's from a higher class than them and as his character is on the train journey at the time with all of these people from the wedding joining, it could be showing his true opinions of the proletarians.

Furthermore, in the poem 'here' by Larkin, he portrays a society in which the proletariat seem to be "deluding themselves" yet again because of the fact that he describes yet another store (which is a bit similar to 'The Large Cool Store') that's selling cheap items for the proletariat. We know this store is selling cheap things because of when he describes the store's shoppers as 'a cut-price crowd, urban yet simple'. This demonstrates a society that is not going "beyond the limits which society sets for them" because they're trapped in this endless cycle of only being able to buy their essentials such as 'electric mixers' and 'toasters'  from this particular store with low prices, therefore they're entrapped within the ways of the capitalist society throughout Larkin's poems in the way he depicts the proletariat lives.







Moreover, Larkin then goes onto describe the 'solitude' of this area where the proletariat live in the 'raw estates' and it demonstrates to the reader how with them being stuck within the ways of their society that it brings them loneliness so they feel the need to buy things like 'cheap suits' in order to make themselves forget about the limits that society puts on them due to their economic position. However, this is how the proletariat are "deluding themselves" because they create a false consciousness for themselves  by thinking that buying these possessions will make them look a certain way so therefore they think people in society will respect them more if they appear to be richer than they are however this is not actually the case because the truth is that they can never escape their social class and this is what the proletariat don't realise so they're creating a false consciousness for themselves.









However, in contrast to Larkin's previous poems that I've looked at, for Larkin's poem 'nothing to be said', I disagree with the statement that he is portraying a society where the proletariat are "deluding themselves" rather than going "beyond the limits that society sets for them". This is because in this poem I believe he is demonstrating a sympathetic approach to his views of the proletariat because he describes 'life' as 'slow dying' which could suggest that he understands that as a working class citizen in a capitalist society; that life will be almost like 'slow dying' because of how little respect you get with having to suffer on low wages for your entire life with no escape from your social class.



Also, Larkin identifies that life for the bourgeoisie is not like 'slow dying' because they spend their days 'holding a garden-party' as opposed to the proletariat (who spend their days 'hunting pig') which could demonstrate how Larkin is actually showing a side where he feels sorry for them as he notices that their lives are of a lower quality than people of his social and economic class and the fact that these people don't have the same economic power as him and so they don't get to enjoy a materialistically rewarding life like Larkin can. Therefore, in this poem, I disagree with the view that he is presenting a society where the proletariat are "deluding themselves".









To conclude, across the four Larkin poems, he does present a society in which the proletariat do not "[go] beyond the limits that society sets for them" apart from his poem 'nothing to be said'; I disagree with this view as he seems to be writing the poem from a different perspective towards the proletariat. However, throughout the other three poems, I do agree that Larkin is portraying a capitalist society in which the proletariat are in fact "deluding themselves".

Marxism and Literary Criticism

How did Marx and Engels view literature?


They both viewed literature as insignificant.


What is the sociology of literature?

The sociology of literature is concerned with distribution and exchange within a particular society, how books are published, the social position of their authors and audiences , levels of literacy and the social determinants of 'taste'. It also looks at the social relevance of texts.

What did Matisse believe all about art?

He believed that all art represents its historical time period.

What is 'original' about Marxist literary criticism?

It's original because it doesn't have a historical approach to literature, but instead a revolutionary understanding of history itself. Also, a German idealist philosopher (G.W.F.Hegel) had a big influence on Marx's own aesthetic thoughts of history and literature.

Why is art part of the superstructure?

Art is a part of the superstructure because it's a part of society's ideology, it's a complex structure of social perception which ensures a situation where one social class has power over the others and is either seen by society's members as 'natural' or it's ignored  and not seen at all.

What, according to interpretations of Conrad's work was the crisis facing the Western bourgeois class?

The ideological pessimism of the Western bourgeois class was marked by Conrad's work.

Which four elements make up the levels of 'unity' which Marxist criticism focuses on?

The four elements that make up the levels of unity are the 'text',  the 'ideology', the 'social relations', and 'productive forces'.

In his letter Joseph Bloch, what did Engels want to deny about the base and superstructure?

He wanted to deny that there is any mechanical, one-to-one correspondence between the base and the superstructure.

Why does Marx believe we enjoy classical Greek literature?

Marx believes that Greek art still gives us aesthetic pleasure because it's a nostalgic lapse back into childhood.

Them and [uz]

The author's social and economic class shows through the work because of the language he uses. It's evident that he's a proletarian because his classmates always tell him to 'E-nun-ci-ate!' and he's constantly reminded that he should be saying '[As]' and not '[uz]'. As he's attending a private school, his classmates will be a part of the bourgeoisie in society and therefore the narrator will be alienated and marginalised within the school setting because his background will be different to those he shares a school with. The author was given a scholarship and therefore he's not at the school because his family are able to afford it, but because he possesses the required intelligence. This demonstrates the social inequalities present in a capitalist society because the only reason someone of his social status is able to attend this school is because he got a scholarship, the peers he would've grown up with would not have had this same opportunity unless their parents possessed the economic power and the money to be able to send their children to a private school.

The poem does not support the economic and social status quo of society because the author rebels against the requests of his peers and teachers on how he should be speaking. This is demonstrated when he says 'RIP, RP, RIP, TW' because he also dislikes the fact he's known as 'TW' instead of his name, 'Tony Harrison'. The work advocates for change because the author states his views on how the bourgeoisie have double standards because of the fact that 'Wordsworth's matter/water are full rhyme' and  that is accepted by the bourgeoisie however Tony is picked up on the fact that he doesn't pronounce words properly.

The class system plays the role of separating the proletarians and the bourgeoisie in the work because there is a clear division between the two different social classes. This is shown when we're told that the narrator only gets the worst roles in school plays due to his social class which was shown when he said he 'played the Drunken Porter in Macbeth'. The fact that he doesn't speak like his classmates and the fact that he's got a different background and upbringing to them is what decides that he shouldn't have equal roles as his peers in school productions. This highlights to us how he is alienated as a result of being a part of the proletariat.

The author's analysis of class relations is that he seems to disagree with the separation of the classes because of his rebellion to the ways of the bourgeoisie towards the end of the poem which is demonstrated when he says 'I'm Tony Harrison no longer you!'  This could imply to the reader that he's frustrated with the ways of the social class systems because he goes against what they've asked of him.

The author does overcome the oppression of the bourgeoisie in the poem because he's given a scholarship for the school to be able to get the chance to get the same level of education as an upper class child. However, within the school he's still held back with being patronised and overlooked by the bourgeoisie because of the fact he's given the worse parts in the school plays. On the other hand, he does overcome the oppression in this situation because at the end of the poem, he stands up to them by saying '[uz] can be loving as well as funny'. By saying this he's proving a point that he thinks the bourgeoisie, although they pronounce words properly, they're not loving and they aren't funny because that's not how they're 'supposed' to act.

The literature reflects the author's own class because of the language he uses for example when he calls the upper class people 'buggers' it demonstrates how he would be a proletarian because upper class people wouldn't speak like this. Also he disagrees with the structure of social classes because he rebels against the norms of capitalist society and doesn't allow the bourgeoisie to oppress him anymore.  

How does Larkin explore ideas of inequality between social classes?

How does Larkin explore ideas of inequality between social classes?

Larkin explores ideas of inequality between social classes through the poem 'The Large Cool Store' which is about a store which sells the kinds of clothes that working class people would buy and how the style and colour of them reflects their boring, repetitive everyday lives. Ideas of inequality are explored in this poem because Larkin highlights to the reader how the proletarians' lives seem unfair.

Firstly the title of the poem could reflect the capitalist society in which Larkin was writing in because he employs the word 'cool' which has the meaning of being cold, emotionless and heartless. This demonstrates how Larkin explores the ideas of inequality between social classes because the proletarians would've viewed the capitalist society as being cold, emotionless and heartless as a result of suffering exploitation from the bourgeoisie and experiencing low wages in work places. It's evident that the proletarians would've viewed society in this way because of the colours they dressed themselves in which were 'browns and greys'. These are dull colours to reflect their dull lives due to the way the bourgeoisie treat them. 

The structure of the poem is very consistent and repetitive which again, could be deliberate in order to depict the lives of the proletarians as their day to day lives would've been very consistent and repetitive. This is because they would have had the same work to do every day while the bourgeoisie are free to do as they please in the capitalist society. This is how Larkin explores ideas of inequality between social classes through the structure of the poem and he highlights the alienation of the working class and how they were marginalised by the bourgeoisie because the superstructure's job is to keep the base in order.

Furthermore, Larkin presents the idea of social class inequality through the descriptions of where the working class live; in 'low terraced houses'  and how he mentions the fact they work in 'factories, yard and site'. This demonstrates how they're at the bottom of the hierarchy order of capitalist societies because they have the smallest houses and have low paid, low skilled jobs. This highlights how the proletarians were oppressed by the bourgeoisie because they kept them in low paid, low skilled job deliberately to empower themselves more in their society by paying low wages to keep more money for themselves. 

Larkin also enables the reader to see how the proletarians try to escape their dull work lies in the evenings and  at weekends by dressing in brighter, more glamorous  colours such as: 'lemon, sapphire, moss-green' which contrast with the original colours of 'browns and greys' that they wear for work. The colours may represent how advertising creates the illusion that people can escape their dull, boring lives in creating false needs for lots of different clothes to show different wealths and different classes. 

The society in which Larkin was both capitalist and patriarchal. This is shown through the language used in 'The Large Cool Store' and the way in which Larkin not only presents the working class, but women too and women's clothing. He uses the verb 'flounce' in order to describe women's clothes which could be to represent his views on women and how he sees them as flirtatious. It comes across very strongly in this poem that Larkin does not have a high opinion of women, which would've been typical of men in this society. As Janice Rossen states: 'To call Larkin a misogynist would be an overstatement - to call him a misanthropist might be closer to the mark.' 

To conclude, Larkin explores the idea of social class inequality through the structure of the poem, the title of the poem and the language he uses to describe the colours, houses and work lives related to the proletarians. He also shows how the proletarians had boring and mundane lives compared to the bourgeoisie which also suggests the class inequalities that were present.