This essay was written for Introduction to Literature 211.
Grace A. Poynter
Dr. Julie Steward
English 211
30 October 2020
The Beggars and Bourgeoisie
In 1955, Walt Disney Animation Studios released a film called Lady and the Tramp. Many children have grown up watching Lady and the Tramp, and older age groups watched along with the younger, resulting in multiple generations of people who can probably give a solid storyline from their memory. The story focuses around two dogs: a ritzy, upper class cocker spaniel called “Lady” who lives in a nice neighborhood and sleeps in a cozy bed, and a scrappy mutt called “Tramp” who frequents the dog pound and sleeps in a tunnel near the train tracks (Lady and the Tramp). When I was a young child, I had not experienced class differences and did not recognize this as a story about just that. Over the years, I slowly began to recognize this as a poverty versus luxury story, and have continually been amazed that Disney just snuck this idea into childrens’ heads at a young age. Before Lady and the Tramp was conceived, Katherine Mansfield’s “The Garden Party” showcased the difference between living a life in poverty and living a more privileged life. Through this story, Mansfield uses a Marxist lens to bring focus on social class, revealing the hefty divide between the uppity bourgeoisie and the lower class proletariat.
Mansfield uses diction throughout the story to focus on the theme of bourgeoisie entitlement and proletariat misfortune. The narrator grossly describes the cottages next to the Sheridans’ neighborhood as “the greatest possible eyesore” and tells of older Laura and Laurie’s walks through the neighborhood: “It was disgusting and sordid. They came out with a shudder” (Mansfield 7). The diction used by the narrator is as though they, too, cannot fathom the sight of the cottages, giving thorough descriptions of life there and even calling the chimney smoke “poverty-stricken” (Mansfield 7). Mrs. Sheridan’s diction to describe these cottages, calling them “poky little holes,” is a clear visual image on what she thinks of these houses (Mansfield 8). In contrast to the negative diction used to describe the cottages, the Sheridans’ home is described positively and almost heavenly. The narrator describes their garden party as being so special that even the roses bloom especially for it, “Hundreds, yes, literally hundreds, had come out in a single night” (Mansfield 1). Inside the home, Laura is describing the air as “little faint winds playing chase” (Mansfield 3). The settings of the lower class and upper class are very opposite: one is “disgusting” and one has “been visited by archangels” (Mansfield 1; 7).
Another revelation the Marxist lens focuses on is the absurdity of the upper class ideology. After the death of a neighbor that occurred outside the Sheridans’ gate, Laura’s first instinct is to call off the garden-party out of respect for the dead man’s family (Mansfield 6-7). Mrs. Sheridan is briefly concerned, but only because she thinks the man died in the garden and it would ruin their party (Mansfield 7). Mrs. Sheridan’s outlook shows how the bourgeoisie turns a blind eye to people and events that do not directly affect them. Her privilege is built from not having any concerns but garden-parties and piano-playing, whereas the proletariat must focus on real-life responsibilities and the heightened danger of death caused by their hard jobs. This absurd ideology does not stop with Mrs. Sheridan, but passes down to her daughter Jose. When Laura tells her the news of the man’s death, Jose is unbothered and tells Laura to not “be so extravagant” (Mansfield 7). Additionally, Mrs. Sheridan’s idea of sending a basket of their extravagant leftovers to the “poor creature,” the man’s wife, shows how ignorant this upper class family is (Mansfield 10). Mrs. Sheridan suggests taking arum lilies as well, but Jose, again, shows her upper class snobbery by saying, “The stems will ruin her lace frock” (Mansfield 10). Like many bourgeoisie families, the Sheridans are too concerned with their own luxurious lives to think about how pretentious this may look to the other family. The Sheridans’ outlook on life, an outlook that represents bourgeoisie society, is that as long as it does not directly concern them, they remain unconcerned.
The third discovery the Marxist lens makes is how the characters respond to the bourgeoisie ideology. Em, Scott’s widow, reacts silently. Though Em does not speak, the narrator’s diction tells us that Em does not understand why Laura was there: “What did it mean? Why was this stranger standing in the kitchen with a basket?” (Mansfield 11). Em’s reaction to the bourgeoisie’s gift is expected, simply because a basket of gifts will not bring back the father of her children, the breadwinner of the family. After the news of Mr. Scott’s death, Laura is frequently troubled with her family’s lack of respect for the lower class. However, she first becomes aware of the false idea that lower class people are bad when she talks with the marquee workmen, discovering “How very nice workmen were!” (Mansfield 1). Mansfield uses a very simple visual image of bread-and-butter when Laura is with the workmen: “Just to prove how happy she was, just to show the tall fellow how at home she felt, and how she despised stupid conventions, Laura took a big bite of her bread-and-butter as she stared at the little drawing” (Mansfield 2). When Laura first brings the bread-and-butter outside with her, she feels no shame in eating it in front of the workmen until she realizes they are not lowly like she has been brought up to think (Mansfield 2). Her bourgeoisie upbringing kicks in and tells her she should not be casually eating in front of men who “looked impressive,” but Laura eventually brushes that ideology away and eats her bread-and-butter anyway (Mansfield 2). After this consciousness buds, Laura struggles with internal conflict and wrestles with the idea of morality versus family-ideals throughout the story. When Laura tells her family members about the unfortunate event, she expects them to be considerate, but instead is told to not “be so extravagant” and to “use your common sense” (Mansfield 7-8). Through sincere diction, Laura shows her concern for taking the basket of goods to the family simply by asking,"But, mother, do you really think it's a good idea?" (Mansfield 10). Being young and naive, she does not want to tell her mother she is wrong for wanting to bring a basket to them, but she feels unsure about bringing this extravagant basket into the grieving family’s home.
Much like Lady and the Tramp, the bourgeoisie society in Mansfield’s story seemingly does not realize the impact they are making on the proletariat world. Lady flaunts her lavish lifestyle just like the Sheridans do, but Laura slowly makes the realization, as Lady does, that their flashy lifestyle is ultimately hurting the world that Mr. Scott and Tramp come from. Through stories like “The Garden Party,” authors expose the shameless philosophy of the elite, but also uncover the humanity of commoners in society.
Works Cited
Lady and the Tramp. Dirs. Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson, and Hamilton Luske. Walt Disney
Animation Studios, 1955. Film.
Mansfield, Katherine. “The Garden Party.” The Katherine Mansfield Society,
http://www.katherinemansfieldsociety.org/assets/KM-Stories/THE-GARDEN-PARTY1921.p
Comments