InterChange Conference on Social Class in Forster's Howards End (Chp.1-22)

June 12, 2000

Karin Westman:

Consider how social class is presented in Forster's novel, given the 200 pages you've read so far. Perhaps begin with the character of Leonard Bast: How is he presented to the reader in Chapter 6, for instance? Why do Helen and Margaret "take up" Leonard Bast? How are we asked to evaluate their endeavors and Leonard Bast's response?

Karin Westman:

(You can just respond to one of these questions in your first posting...)

John Brooks:

Forster writes, "All men are equal--all men, that is, who possess umbrellas." I think that's the key statement about Leonard Blast. He is obviously of lower class, but he wants to move upward--it's that whole 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps' sort of thing. Of course, Forster seems to be saying that this is something very difficult to do given the class system in England. He almost seems embarassed to like the symphony, like he's not allowed to because he's lower class. Either that or he feels like he has to like it in order to move upward.

Banks Yatsula:

it seems that we are asked to view Bast from the standpoint that the reader can identify with the speaker. We the readers are working under the assumption that we understand the author's social position. It is almost as if we are to pity him, but at the same time we are forced to see or admit that Bast is in his position because of the social structure of which we are a part. I t is a s though we are indirectly responsible for his impoverished state, and he is merely being held up as an example

Laura McGeorge:

Leonard Bast seems to me to be represented in a mixed light. He is obviously worthy of Margaret and Helen's interest, but he is bound by books so much - he doens't seem able to capture the spirit of his adventure but instead insists on discussing books he has read, much to the sister's dismay (although they discuss literature as well, so I don't know that I see the difference...). His portrayal in Chapter 6 is somewhat sad - he appears to be trapped in his class but struggling to get out by reading different books to broaden his horizons. He is also obviously loyal to Jacky, even though he obviously does not want to marry her, and he is funny, too. His attempt to rewrite Ruskin's line is so comical: " 'Let us consider a little each of these characters in succession, and first (for of the absence of ventilation enough has been said already), what is very peculiar to this flat - its obscurity.' " (51)

Karin Westman:

Do you think that Forster's narrator asks us to be sympathetic to Leonard's situation, his percarious social class position without a good umbrella?

Karin Westman:

Oops -- Banks has already posted about sympathy...other thoughts about the comedy of the scenes with Leonard?

Banks Yatsula:

It also seems that we are offered some dehree of hope in terms of the fact that he (bast) has not yet fallen into the "abyss"(47)

Laura McGeorge:

Banks, I agree with you that Forster questions this. I think the whole situation with Helen and Margaret trying to help him out is an example of this, and in Chapter 22 when Helen is so dismayed that Mr. Wilcox has wrongly informed them of the instability of Leonard's company and caused him to get another (lower-paying) job, it is obvious that Forster is arguing the class problem. (I also tend to side with Banks, the sister's, and with what I think Forster is saying, that we are indirectly responsible for Bast's situation.

Banks Yatsula:

also, in relation to the umbrella....it is almost comic that our whole perception and description of Bast comes from an object--the umbrella.

Karin Westman:

Yes, and I wonder how that comedy interacts with the kind of socail commetnary Laura's mentioned. Are we laughing with Leonard or at him?

John Brooks:

I think the umbrella scene is supposed to point out the ridiculousness ofthe British class system. Blast is so worried about his umbrella that he can hardly sit still--because, of course, no respectable Eniglishman can go walking about without an umbrella! It's maybe like cell phones today or something. It is his one material connection to being seen as a respectable Englishman.

Banks Yatsula:

the umbrella seems in a way to represent the shield that holds Bast back from being able to fit in to society, or to advance in the society, but also, ironically, it is the tool wwhich catapulted (sp?) into the lives of the Schlegels

Laura McGeorge:

The umbrella is a very comic reference. The idea of it being stolen is SO uppermost in Bast's mind, and we find out later that the umbrella is "appalling" (43). It is also a striking example, however, of the situation that Bast is in - he is trying to improve himself and "pull himself up by the bootstraps," like John said, but it must be EXTREMELY difficult to do such a thing when he has to preoccupy himself with issues like the umbrella, which to me seems to stand for the other petty difficulties of his life that keep him from pulling out of his class situation - he can't even enjoy the rest of the symphony or Margaret's conversation because he can't stop worrying about it.

Karin Westman:

Do you all think that the Schlegels and Wilcoxes are subjected to the same kind of humor that Forster's narrator uses for Leonard's percarious social position?

Banks Yatsula:

we are expected to both laugh as well as pity bast....but in everyone's pity or humor there is truth

Banks Yatsula:

and often, the extremes do bring light upon one's own faults

John Brooks:

Also, Blast's reading of books seems to be different from the Schlegel sisters. He seems to read because he feels he has to, or that he should, and that it makes him better. It isn't the IDEAS that make him better, which is perhaps what the Schlegel sisters are after, but it is merely the fact that he has READ something. "Oh, I've read Ruskin." But what did he get out of it? It may be, though, that Blast is forced by society to do this.

John Brooks:

oops. all this time i've been calling bast blast.

Karin Westman:

Good points, John: That the type of experiences Bast craves are not what Helen and Margaret believe to be the correct ones.

At one point the narrator says, speaking Margaret's thoughts, that she was beginning to doubt the ability of culture to improve those who needed it, and that they might be lost to such necessary redemption. Does this position suggest that either you have culture or you don't--that one can't actually "become" the Schelegels, as Leonard want to do?

Banks Yatsula:

most definitely teh Schlegels are subjected to teh same sort of Forster's humor. I really am not sure I am able to back that up though...

Laura McGeorge:

The other two families are so difficult for me to interpret - obviously some of the Wilcoxes are subjected to humor, like Charles Wilcox fussing with the chauffer after his mother died, and Dolly the whole time is trying to tell him something important. Dolly is treated almost contemptuously as well, and Evie too. The two younger females in the Wilcox family appear pretty flaky so far.

Banks Yatsula:

well, in terms of class and Meg's comments, it would seem odd if she really believed that one could not advance, for she anmd her sister really are not the upper crust of London. They are not truly the wealthiest, though they are well off.

Karin Westman:

But does money=culture, or does culture=money alone? That is, are we getting another yardstick of social worth with the Schlegels that may not be tied directly to money?

Laura McGeorge:

I don't think that Forster is necessarily trying to say that one cannot become like the Schelegels. Even though Margaret doubts the ability of culture to improve people like Leonard Bast, she still insists on trying to help him out. It is almost like the "nature v. nurture" controversy - does some have to be born into a situation where culture is predominant in his life from an early age, or is it something that is inborn and can be acquired at a later time if a person was denied the opportunity to experience culture growing up.

John Brooks:

No, I don't think that the Schlegels or the Wilcoxes are subjected to the same kind of humor that Bast is. We do see the Charles Wilcox as pompous, but that seems to be the only kind of thing like that. I don't think, as someone questioned, that we are to laugh at Bast. His predicament is not funny. What Forster is doing is highlighting the ridiculousness of English society. THis is, after all, a society that forces a man (Bast) to be so preoccupied with the horror of having his umbrella stolen that he can't enjoy the symphony. The irony is that if he weren't poor, he wouldn't have worried the least bit about that stupid umbrella. And also, if he weren't poor, it wouldn't be such a big deal for him not to enjoy the symphony because he could buy tickets any time he pleased. Of course we see the silliness in worrying about an umbrella because we've never had to worry about that kind of poverty ( I assume).

Banks Yatsula:

if you look back to Helen's first letters to her sister, she does seem to question the Wilcoxs' character, in that she does seem to see the ridiculousness of the croquet games....and how they seem superficial to a degreee.

Karin Westman:

If you'd like to switch to the other conference, you can....just use the "Join a conference" function, and wait for all the messages to load in.

Laura McGeorge:

I certainly don't think that Forster means for us to measure the social worth of the Schlegel sisters simply based on their money. I know I'm getting the little I know about Forster and the Bloomsbury Group mixed up in this, but I just can't see that he would value them only because they have money - I think it is their intellectual pursuits that interest Forster (and the reader - me, at least!) the most.

Karin Westman:

John: So, if the Schlegels and Wilcoxes are not subjected to the same kind of humor as Bast, then isn't Forster making his points at the expense of Leonard alone?

John Brooks:

Banks, I agree with you. Helen does point out the ridiculousness of the leisurely lives of the Wilcoxes. He also points out the silliness of the aunt.

Banks Yatsula:

Forster definitely presents all parties in terms of his own subjective humor; however it is very clear as to how and what Forster is trying to say about that society and its superficiality.

Laura McGeorge:

I agree with John one hundred percent - it is very easy for us to laugh at Bast's predicament with the umbrella when probably very few of us have had to worry about that kind of poverty, as he said. I still think the scene is comical, however - I can just imagine Bast's reaction when he walks in the house and Helen is going on and on about stealing umbrellas and hats. The language of the passage makes me think that Forster also intends this to be comedic, though not necessarily at Bast's expense.

Banks Yatsula:

so, in a way, no one is exempt from ridicule...is it human nature to condemn others, or poke fun at those who our different from ourselves?

John Brooks:

I agree with Laura that Forster doesn't want us to like the Schlegels just because of theor money. But it is precisely that money that allows them to pursue their intellectual interests instead of worrying about an umbrella. On page 63, he writes: "You and I and the Wilcoxes stand upon money as upon islands. It is so firm beneath our feet that we forget its very existence." Exactly.

Banks Yatsula:

and does this mean that Forster thinks society is cruel, but also that we are slaves to it, so there is NO hope?

Doug Grant:

I feel that Leonard Bast is poorly misrepresented by Forster. His desire to climb the Englilsh social ladder takes something away from his character, as if he is willing to make the climb only by forfeiting some part of himself. It would seem as a more effective method for Forster to use if Bast were to bring some signifcant aspect of his personal self to the relationships he's created with the others so that the reader may see more into his character than simply his poor social status and desire for a better one. The fact that he tragically dies abruptly doesn't really help either, in my opinion.

Karin Westman:

Good comments about the humor associated with Leonard....

Here's another moment when class seems to stand out: What did you make of the debate Helen and Margaret and their friends have about what to do with a million dollars to help the poor -- the debate itself, as well as the decisions advocated by the group?

Karin Westman:

John's introduced a really interesting quote from Margaret about the degree to which money allows the Schegel and Wilcox ways of life. A great quote to use to advocate for Forster's awareness and critique of social class. Is Margaret the only one who is aware of this "fact"?

John Brooks:

I think Laura is correct in saying that Forster intends the umbrella scene to be funny, but not at Bast's expense. There is humor even in pity, as someone said. Banks had an interesting comment, that it is human nature to ridicule those who are not like us. To an extent that is true. I think Winston Churchill said that we're all hypocrites to some extent. That's true, I think. The key is to try and be the littlest hypocrite you can be. I don't think Forster wants us to feel sorry for the Wilcoxes for Charles' pompouness in the same way that he wants us to feel sorry for Bast. But then again, it is not pity that Forster wants us to feel at all. He wants us to open our eyes to the intricacies of Bast's situation, to be aware of what his life is like when compared to the croquet games at Howards End.

Laura McGeorge:

The debate itself amuses me but disgusts me as well - it is exactly the type of thing that I would think of the Bloomsbury Group talking about, and it just seems so futile to me. Go out and help some of the poor through social work (I'm not sure what the volunteer opportunities were in England during this time) rather than sit around in someone's parlor and discuss it! As for the decisions from the group, I am predisposed to Margaret's ideas. While there are certainly exceptions, I think that poor people are not stupid and that they are perfectly capable of making rational decisions about money, so giving Bast (or someone like him) the money directly is fine, although more obviously like charity, which gets into another sticky situation (whether someone like Bast would directly take the money). The other decisions, however, like giving the money to public works to create public art galleries and tennis courts is good for the public in general, but can people like Bast be expected to utilize these things if they are working and struggling to stay afloat?

Karin Westman:

****In order to wrap this first half of our discussion, offer a final posting in response to this question: Does social class encourage connection between people, or prevent it?

Banks Yatsula:

Yes, John, it is intended as an impetus for all who read the novel...OPEN YOU EYES. we can all affored to open our eyes, and stop the ridicule and labeling and stereotyping, Is that not one of the Bloomsbury messages. Ironically I am stereotyping, I guess...

John Brooks:

Doug has an interesting point. Bast does seem willing to give up a part of him to climg the social ladder. The question is this--isn't it always that way? Don't you lose some part of you when you become something you were not? The ideal thing would be to take what you knew as a poor person and appl it to your new life as a rich person. But it doesn't seem to work that way.

Laura McGeorge:

At this point in the novel, I'm not sure if Forster is advocating connection between people - the Schlegel sister's are not very successful (so far) in joining with Bast (or the WIlcoxes, with the exception of Mr. WIlcox's proposal to Margaret), but they are still trying, and Margaret does think "only connect" in Ch. 22...

Doug Grant:

I think Margaret's statement about money is one of the most significant of the novel. It shows that despite the social influence of English culture on everyone trying to find their place in it, someone on the top such as Margaret, who has all the money she needs, can truly appreciate what she is trying to be careful not to take for granted. Through her, it shows growth and maturity and maybe some hope for the negative aspects of this English society.

Banks Yatsula:

Social class is human nature. We need to classify., to sort, to order our lives so that we may ultimately define ourselves. This seems to be what all Howard's End cahacters sre striving for. But there is also a need for us to part from our notions in order that we may continue to learn and grow spiritually. Thus, in this way, I might say that social class does encourage connection as well as its inverse. For when you classify you are also admitting to a relationship among those classes

John Brooks:

I think there is no doubting that social class prevents connection with people. If Bast hadn't been worried about his umbrella or the girls following him home and robbing him, he could have had tea that first day. Conversely, though, the Schlegels would have never met the Wilcoxes if they had not been traveling abroad. So perhaps it is that one can connect within his or her own social class but it is very difficult to connect with someone outside ones social class. Even in the U.S. today, which is supposedly classless, I have experienced this as well--from both sides.

Return to English 395