Patrick DePeters

CORE Essay 3

Age of Iron by J. M. Coetzee

Selected Writings Karl Marx

The House of Mirth Edith Wharton

Introduction:

Communities are inherently composed of a melting pot of individuals with like and dislike beliefs and experiences. The similarities among individuals foster a unique connection that provides the group of individuals with a sense of belonging and culture, but more importantly, order, security and happiness for the individual himself. Contrarily, the differences, frequently superficial, tend to separate a connected people—and prevent such people from the aforementioned aspirations of community. This separation suppresses the actual individualistic beliefs and desires for fear that distinctive behavior and ideas will result in the prevention of assimilation into society, and therefore, the inability to have order, security and happiness.

In the works Age of Iron by J. M. Coetzee, Karl Marx’s various essays, and The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton, there is an omnipresent conflict between motivations and limits: the first, between passion and righteousness which is derived from innate desires, and the second being logic, principle and propriety, pressed upon by the comfort of being the same as those in one’s community and not startling the status quo. Each author writes about the limits and motivations that culture imposes on individuals who are in pursuit of the “ideals” of security, order and happiness. Because of the vastness of the topic and length of each book, I found it appropriate to only have one section, instead of diluting three or more sections. In Section I, I will focus on comparing and contrasting the limits and motivations of individuals in relation to community in each of the novels, and identify its impact on shaping action for individuals. And finally, in my conclusion, I shall share my reasoning as to why I find The Age of Iron the most convincing.

Section I: Focusing on Individuals in various communities

In The Age of Iron, the protagonist, Mrs. Curren is motivated by her staunch opposition to the lies, brutality, and injustice of apartheid, but she is limited by her weakness, or inconsequentiality to battle the macro-problem in her community by herself. Perhaps because she is ashamed of her failure to effectively do anything, or maybe because her feelings of insignificance given the severity and magnanimity of the issue, her anger and despair begin to mount, but her action remains stagnant. She writes, “I lose my sense of shame, become shameless as a child. The shamefulness of that shamelessness: that is what I cannot forget that is what I cannot bear afterward” (119).  

This conflict is very similar to the proletariat versus the bourgeois class struggle that Marx defines and analyzes in Communist Manifesto. Though Mrs. Curren isn’t directly exploited like the people of the proletariat, she still feels unable to fight the system for what she knows is just. Similarly to the class struggle, little can be done as fragmented individuals; however, as a united body fighting for the same cause, change is unlimited.  In the conflict ridden world that Mrs. Curren lives in, a sense of order and security cannot be found anywhere other than inside her home’s familiar milieu. To Mrs. Curren, her home is something that she can actually manage, and understand; whereas just outside her property, relentless chaos dominates the community. And as a result, individual security is at stake. Finding herself in a conundrum, Mrs. Curren is motivated to create her own security and order, but because of her egalitarian nature, she is limited from happiness given the genocide just outside of her safe haven.

Originally isolated from the horrors in her own community, Mrs. Curren is shocked when she must finally acknowledge the “iron-hearted rage” first hand. The spiteful death of her servant’s son and the destruction of a black township in the greater community elicit pure emotions such as fear, disdain, sympathy and helplessness from Mrs. Curren. She writes, “I am trying to keep up a sense of urgency. Sitting here among all this beauty, or even sitting at home among my own things, it seems hardly possible to believe there is a zone of killing and degradation all around me. It seems like a bad dream” (119). Though not as severe, Lily is similarly distracted from the reality and truth of all things by superficial beauty in The House of Mirth. Mr. Thabane comments on the distance between Mrs. Curren and the bloodshed of which she detests: “You voice is very tiny, very tiny, and far away. I hope you can hear me” (149). 

The conflict between her humanistic passion for justice and her fear of being different from everyone else is the central issue of the novel. Mrs. Curren had bars installed on her windows to prevent the troubles of her community from affecting her, and similarly, they keep her from actively acknowledging and combating the issue. Mr. Thabane says, “It is what you cannot understand, because you are too far away” (150).  As a result, this internal struggle withers away at Mrs. Curren’s physical and mental body, and her sickness hallows out her structure, leaving her physically and emotionally feeble inside her home. To her daughter, she writes; “What happened to me no longer mattered. I thought: My life may as well be a waste. We shoot these people as if they are waste, but in the end it is we whose lives are not worth living” (104). Perhaps Mrs. Curren thinks that if she were to rebel against the system of exploitation and genocide, her own security will be at risk. It is always easier to leave things the way they are; for other people to deal with. Edith Wharton thinks similarly of Lily Barton, “What she craved and really felt herself entitled to was a situation in which the noblest attitude should be the easiest” (Intr.).

            Karl Marx understanding of community is much more mechanical because, to him, every member of society is a part and parcel of the vast machine that is the economy. According to Marx, the superstructure of the political system, law, religion, morality, and ideology can be best understood by studying the origin of all of such elements, the foundation which is economics. I think that Coetzee’s perspective is in opposition with Marx because he views people’s actions to be a result of religion and beliefs, not the other way around. In Age of Iron for instance, the depraved actions of community members is a result of their beliefs regarding race supremacy and purity. Marx believes that in a bourgeois society, the “past dominates the present,” meaning that the conditions of coercion and exploitation present in the past, will dictate similar conditions of the status quo. He questions why people reproach him for his idea to banish private property, and challenges that nine tenths of the population doesn’t have private property, but because of their inability to act (be the “head and hands”) in their best interest, they cannot change the system. “But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few” (170). In relation to Age of Iron, the white people are the few, and the black are the many, but the white people, like the bourgeois, own the means of production—or more specifically, make the decisions in the community structure.

            Unlike in Wharton’s The House of Mirth, there is order in Marx’ view of society because every individual knows his place in the system, and similarly, cannot do anything about it. Though order exists, it is not stable. According to Marx, the struggle between the exploited class and the ruling class will result in a revolution, whereupon communism and the abolition of private property will be the new world order. Marx acknowledges that there is no security in terms of one’s job because of the surplus of labor, meaning that any given laborer can be fired and easily replaced by the next laborer willing to work for the meager wage. Because individuals are exploited and cannot move up the economical system, Marx believes that the despondent lower class will struggle and eventually revolt—taking control as the ruling class.

In The House of Mirth, the protagonist, Lily struggles to both comply with the unforgiving expectations of a class, money conscious society and concede to the pure passion of her heart and true aspirations. The upper class New York society in which Lily mostly lives is inundated with this notion that money not only buys happiness, but also determines class and therefore one’s worth. Lily is only content when she is surrounded by people of money, things of beauty, and other ostentatious displays of affluence. It is likely that she acquired this money conscious perspective because of the obvious similar values of those in the community. Lily, having come from a modest background, utilizes her innate gift of beauty in pursuit of her ultimate goal of wealth and high class. From the first scene of the novel, Lily is particularly concerned with what other people think about her, and more specifically, her personal finances and love life.

Though she is occasionally distracted by her ultimate goal by romance, but her quest to marry a wealthy suitor remains an active part of the novel. She is never satisfied with any men who cannot provide her with a wealthy lifestyle, and consequently, drops men easily for someone better. She says, “

“It was part of the game to make him feel that her appeal had been an uncalculated impulse, provided by the liking he inspired; and the renewed sense of power in handling men, while it consoled her wounded vanity, helped also to obscure the thought of the claim at which manner hinted. He was a course, dull man who under all his show of authority was a mere supernumerary in the costly show for which his money paid; surely, to a clever girl, it would be easy to hold him by his vanity, and so keep the obligation on his side” (88).

To Lily, dealing with men for the purpose of acquiring wealth is nothing short of a game.

Conclusion: Why I find The Age of Iron the most convincing, and closing remarks.

This conflict between what we want to be and what society insists we become is at the heart of this novel, the other three novels, and at the very core of society today. I found the Age of Iron to be the most convincing because of its development and progression of Mrs. Curren and her vantage point. The world in which she lives can easily be identified for a reader of the 21^st century. It is a tragedy of our time that there are more indolent bystanders who recognize the issues at hand, but find it easier to pass them on to someone else.  I can say without reservation that most individuals know what is right and wrong, they are aware of the true passions and aspiration within their heart, but the cultural façade erected to hide the truth of our nature frequently proves impenetrable, at least as an individual. The protagonist Lily and Mrs. Curren tried to blend in with their communities instead of trying to pursue individualistic values such as righteousness, love, and happiness. In the end, there was an element of order and artificial solidarity, but the result was despondency, greed, offensiveness, torn soles and death.