A Marxist Approach to Jane Eyre Based on the ideas of Karl Marx, this theoretical approach asks us to consider how a literary work reflects the socioeconomic conditions of the time in which it was written. What does the text tell us about contemporary social classes and how does it reflect classism? Jane Eyre depicts the strict, hierarchical class system in England that required everyone to maintain carefully circumscribed class positions. Primarily through the character of Jane, it also accents the cracks in this system, the places where class differences were melding in Victorian England.
For example, the novel questions the role of the governess: Should she be considered upper class, based on her superior education, or lower class, because of her servant-status within the family? What happens when relationships develop between people of different classes, such as Rochester and Jane? Insomniac Jane’s ambiguous class status becomes evident from the novel’s opening chapter. A poor orphan living with relatives, Jane feels alienated from the rest of the Reed family. John Reed tells Jane she has “no business to take our books; you are a dependent . . . ou ought to beg, and not to live here with gentleman’s children like us. ” In this quote, John claims the rights of the gentleman, implying that Jane’s family was from a lower class, and, therefore, she has no right to associate on equal footing with her wealthy cousins. Jane’s lack of money leaves her dependent upon the Reeds for sustenance. She appears to exist in a no-man’s land between the upper- and servant classes. By calling her cousin John a “murderer,” “slave-driver,” and “Roman emperor,” Jane emphasizes her recognition of the corruption inherent in the ruling classes.
As she’s dragged away to the red-room following her fight with John Reed, Jane resists her captors like a “rebel slave,” emphasizing the oppression she suffers because of her class status. When Miss Abbot admonishes Jane for striking John Reed, Jane’s “young master,” Jane immediately questions her terminology. Is John really her “master”; is she his servant? Emphasizing the corruption, even despotism of the upper classes, Jane’s narrative makes her audience aware that the middle classes were becoming the repositories of both moral and intellectual superiority. Jane’s experiences at Thornfield reinforce this message.
When Jane first arrives, she is happy to learn that Mrs. Fairfax is a housekeeper, and not Jane’s employer, because this means they’re both dependents and can, therefore, interact as equals. Mrs. Fairfax discusses the difference between herself, as an upper-servant, and the other servants in the house; for example, she says Leah and John are “only servants, and one can’t converse with them on terms of equality; one must keep them at due distance for fear of losing one’s authority. ” As a governess, Jane is in the same category as Mrs. Fairfax: neither a member of the family nor a member of the serving classes.
The ambiguity of the governess is especially pronounced, as we see with the example of Diana and Mary Rivers: the well-educated daughters of upper-class parents who’ve fallen on hard financial times, the Rivers are better educated than their employers, though treated with as little respect as the family cook. Victorian society brutally maintained the boundaries between governesses and the upper-class families, practically prohibiting marriages between the two groups and attempting to desexualize governesses, who were often accused of bringing a dangerous sexuality into the family.
Blanche, for example, calls governesses “incubi,” and Lady Ingram believes that liaisons should never be allowed between governesses and tutors, because such relationships would introduce a moral infection into the household. The relationship between Jane and Rochester also emphasizes class issues. In a conversation preceding their betrothal, Rochester treats Jane like a good servant: Because she’s been a “dependent” who has done “her duty,” he, as her employer, wants to offer her assistance in finding a new job.
Jane confirms her secondary status by referring to Rochester as “master,” and believing “wealth, caste, custom,” separate her from him. She fears he will treat her like an “automaton” because she is “poor, obscure, plain and little,” mistakenly believing the lower classes to be heartless and soulless. Claiming the aristocratic privilege of creating his own rules, Rochester redefines Jane’s class status, by defining her as his “equal” and “likeness. ” Before she can become Rochester’s wife, Jane must prove her acceptability based on class. Does she have an upper-class sensibility, despite her inferior position at Thornfield?
For example, when Bessie sees Jane at Lowood, she is impressed because Jane has become “quite a lady”; in fact, her accomplishments surpass that of her cousins, yet they are still considered her social superiors based solely on wealth. The conversation emphasizes the ambiguities of Jane’s family’s class status and of the class system in general: Should a lady be judged based on academic accomplishments, money, or family name? The novel critiques the behavior of most of the upper-class characters Jane meets: Blanche Ingram is haughty and superficial, John Reed is debauched, and Eliza Reed is inhumanely cold.
Rochester is a primary example of upper-class debauchery, with his series of mistresses and his attempt to make Jane a member of the harem. In her final view of Thornfield, after Bertha has burned it down, Jane emphasizes the stark contrast between her comforting, flowering, breathtaking dream of Thornfield, and the reality of its trodden and wasted grounds. The discrepancy emphasizes that the world’s vision of the upper classes doesn’t always capture the hidden passions that boil under the veneer of genteel tranquility.
One of Jane’s tasks in the novel is to revitalize the upper classes, which have become mired in debauchery and haughtiness. Just as Rochester sought Jane for her freshness and purity, the novel suggests that the upper classes in general need the pure moral values and stringent work ethic of the middle classes. At novel’s end, Rochester recognizes the error in his lifestyle, and his excessive passions have been quenched; he is reborn as a proper, mild-mannered husband, happily dependent on his wife’s moral and intellectual guidance.