Life in the Iron Mills/The Bluest Eye : Social Darwinism in Literature

As seen in "Life in the Iron Mills" and "The Bluest Eye," there are vastly varying opinions over what causes Social Darwinian failure. Rebecca Harding Davis' "Life in the Iron Mills" dictates that an individual who is socially subordinate will remain that way despite opportunity, while Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye" counters this, noting that it is primarily opportunity that dictates Social Darwinian status. Furthermore, while both authors find a similarity in noting the importance of companionship in elevating one's confidence, esteem, and ultimately social status, they approach this topic in opposite ways. Davis' short story depicts a character who, because is socially subordinate, pushes any viable chance for companionship away, while Morrison paints a story of a young girl who fails, simply because she is never given a chance at all.

"Life in the Iron Mills" paints a bleak picture for those placed on the lower rungs of a Social Darwinian hierarchy. Davis' short story depicts the tale of Hugh Wolfe; a lower-class worker who isolates himself from society. While he has a commendable work ethic and a talent for sculpture, he remains stationary in his social status. Even when given the opportunity to succeed, encountering quite a bit of money and the occasion to keep it without being noticed, Wolfe cannot push himself to accept the new possibilities. Instead he slips into a state of seeming paranoia, which ultimately leads to his suicide.

The view that Davis' conveys in "Life in the Iron Mills" is that advancing in the Social Darwinism hierarchy is relatively impossible. This short story denotes social status as unchangeable, and furthermore, not a matter of talent or work ethic. Rather, Davis describes it as a type of inborn stamp, indelible and unchangeable. In "Life in the Iron Mills," Wolfe attempts to achieve success through his mimicking of upper class actions, yet every action he takes is clouded by this invisible mark.
It may be said that Wolfe succeeds in bringing about his own downfall by depriving himself of any real human connection. While he has a relationship with Deb, it is an unbalanced friendship at best. She cares more than he ever will, and while he is responsive, he's hardly compassionate towards her. While this appears on the surface as a fault of his own, under the ideas of Davis, this may be grouped in as a result of his fatal personality flaw. His focus was on becoming what he could not, not on personal connections.

When it is said that Davis' work is not written out of "condescending pity," it is an understatement. (69) "Life in the Iron Mills" rather sentences those of the lower classes to a life of continued struggle, portraying them as incapable of achieving anything other than the suffering they are born into. Wolfe could have made himself into the twin of Mitchell, Kirby or May, the three aristocratic men detailed in the story, yet never have achieved their success. Davis relates that Social Darwinian success is an inborn quality, not to be taught or earned.

However, how is this idea to fit into the modern idea of Social Darwinism as a ladder of success and social standing? If Davis' ideas were to be accepted as a common truths, a stagnancy would occur within social evolution itself. The lower classes, unable to advance despite even the most valiant attempts, would leave a void within the social structure. Within no one advancing forward, the spots voided by those of higher social standing who has declined due to failure would remain unfilled.

An exception that may be considered, is that Davis meant to relate that not all of the lower classes are born with this mark of failure. Social Darwinian success is not branded as to your class or ability, but an unnamed quality which isn't definitively attached to one's social class. While Hugh Wolfe did have this quality, other workers in the factory at which he was employed may not. They may have been able to run away with the money guilt-free, while Wolfe's mind, grappling with this unexplainable nervousness, did not allow him to.

Yet, this allowance for some advancement within the impoverished does not provide any real relief. Davis' views still condemn certain members of society from birth to death. If Davis' views are to be true, Hugh Wolfe's suicide could be seen with compassion; a life ended because of the sheer despair of knowing one's existence would be an unending stretch of struggle. If this was to be widely accepted in modern society as a truth within Social Darwinism, the implications would be devastating. It is often quoted, "Never deprive someone of hope. You never know when it's all they have left." This is ultimately what killed Hugh Wolfe; the deprivation of hope. If this were accepted as common truth and magnified over a larger population, the despair would be inconceivable. Not only would an understanding such as this devastate those who were marked with this mysterious inability to advance, but also those who had faced repetitive failure, yet destined for advancement. Since this quality cannot be defined, or identified during one's lifetime (only in retrospect), individuals both possessing such a quality and not may see the future as hopeless under such a concept, and face a fate as bleak as that of Hugh Wolfe.

While Toni Morrison's message in "The Bluest Eye" may not be much more positive, it at least offers some bit of hope for a change in a life that seems confined to the lower rungs of the Social Darwinian hierarchy. Toni Morrison's message centers around a lack of opportunity as the cause of imprisonment in the bottom of society. Her character of Pecola is subordinated, not specifically because of her personality, but because of the life she has been handed. While others of similar character, and to a certain extent, even appearance, thrive, she fails to attain any level of satisfaction or achievement because of the life she has been handed, not any quality in her own being.

Morrison's novel revolves around the life of Pecola Breedlove; a young black girl who is impregnated by her own father, and as a result, shunned by her community and treated as either the subject of pity or scorn. Her pregnancy is a controversial issue that makes her guilty even as a victim, because by feeling sympathy, others seem to fear associating themselves with the girl, and embroiling themselves in her tragedy. As said by Claudia MacTeer, the narrator of the novel said, "We listened for the one who would say 'Poor little girl,' or 'Poor baby,' but there was only head-wagging where words should have been. We looked for eyes creased with concern, but saw only veils." (190)

Yet even before the pregnancy, Pecola is the subject of ridicule and isolation. Her family is broken, her father an alcoholic and her mother a harsh, cold women who is unfeeling even to her rape. The community is aware of her situation, and as a result, single her out as different. Children especially react to her reputation, taunting her with jeers such as "Black e mo Black e mo Ya daddy sleeps nekked" (65). Pecola is surrounded by judgement, facing no opportunity to escape. This is ultimately what appears to cause her downfall.

It may be considered that her race played a part in keeping down in society, yet it does not seem this is a major issue. The community described in "The Bluest Eye" become a microcosm unto themselves, where, although whites are mentioned, they are an afterthought. It's as if the black community creates their own social hierarchy. While the highest in this ranking would still be considered lower than he lowest white, their scale is separate from that of the white community, sustained by its own levels of upper, middle and lower class. Her race, however, does play some part within her judgment in the black community. Pecola is darker than most black children, and thus considered less desirable, as light white children such as Maureen Peal are favored.

However, race seems to matter more to Pecola that to her surrounding community. She desperately wants to be white, or at least to obtain inherently white attributes, such as bright blue eyes. While the boys may tease her, calling her "Black e mo," other children such as Claudia and Frieda rarely give it any thought. They notice white children such as their neighbor Rosemary Villanucci as outsiders more than they ever would Pecola. Therefore, while her "blackness" may play a part in affecting her own self-esteem, it's affect on her placement in a Social Darwinian hierarchy within the black community is trivial.
Rather, as said before, it is Pecola's lack of opportunity to create her own life and reputation, and lack of support and familial love that causes her ultimate destruction. Her family assigns her place in society, robbing her of the opportunity to invent herself. Like Hugh Wolfe, she was never given the chance to be anything other than a label.

However, while Pecola's fate may seem bleak, Toni Morrison's take on Social Darwinism and the fate of those oppressed in the lower ranks has a more positive edge than that of Rebecca Harding Davis. While Pecola faced unfortunate events one right after the other in "The Bluest Eye," it is never portrayed as a flaw in her personality that creates her oppression. Rather, the novel conveys a sympathetic tone, never condemning Pecola, but rather pitying her. Morrison conveys the thought that Pecola does not thrive merely because she is never given the opportunity to. This can be seen in the comparison of Pecola's life to the flowers Claudia plants which fail to bloom: "This soil is bad for certain kinds of flowers. Certain seeds it will not nurture, certain fruits it will not bear…" (206)

Therefore, one could deduce that given a different environment, Pecola could in fact, prosper. When facing oppression, assigning the blame to one's surroundings instead of one's self allows for a sense of hope. Regardless of whether or not a person's personal situation ever changes, and they move to a new location to build a new reputation, or discover a new faction of people similar to themselves who relate to them, the very hope that change is possible if these actions are taken puts a so-called "light at the end of the tunnel." If they can break away from their social situation, they can make a change, as the flaw is located in the association they have in society, and the opportunities such a society allows them. It does not follow them as Davis seemed to convey in "Life in the Iron Mills."

An example of such a difference in the outcome of one's life is seen when pitting Claudia MacTeer against Pecola. While Claudia and Pecola have differing personalities and appearances, their basic statistics are the same: young black girls living in Ohio, trying to understand life and the complexities of growing up. However, they face one unsettled difference; Claudia has love in her life, while Pecola's only example of so-called love is associated with pain and shame. Were Pecola and Claudia to switch lives, there is no saying whether or not Pecola would thrive. It is, in fact, likely she would, as her attitude when living with the MacTeers is, if not positive, at least complacent. Morrison writes her character as if she's one of the MacTeer sisters while in their home, and, having skipped over previous chapters, it would be difficult to tell her apart from them. All three girls, Claudia, Frieda and Pecola, all appear as average adolescent girls, holding onto the same fear of their mother when she is angry and the same confusion over the meaning of menstruation.

Also, it is seen that Pecola is in fact capable of companionship and maintaining social connections. As seen through her friendships with the Maginot Line, the reader can see that Pecola is not anti-social, but merely deprived of any real friendships because of her family situation. The Maginot Line are the only people who do not judge her. However, if given the opportunity to change her community, others would not know her life, and she may have enjoyed the same connections with people her own age as she did with these older women.

Yet, because Pecola is deprived of the opportunity for love that the other girls are given, she cannot thrive. Morrison extends this theme into generations of the Breedlove family. Her father, Cholly, was considered socially subordinate because her was orphaned by his mother at birth. Her mother's lame foot always put her on the lower rungs. These missed opportunities, and poor lots in life seem to snowball throughout generations, leading to the ultimate result of a broken and loveless home.
One may argue that naming missed opportunities as the cause of one's submission to the lower ranks of a Social Darwinian hierarchy still marks an inherent weakness. By not making the change for themselves, a person shows their inability to advance. For example, it could be argued that Pecola is in fact unable to change her social situation because of an inherent weakness. If she was meant to show herself as socially superior, it could be argued that Pecola would actively seek out a change, instead of accepting her family and reputation without argument.

However, how is one to expect this of such a young child? It seems that such a view of Social Darwinism does not take into account children. They do not have the same opportunities to change as adults, so are they still be to blame for their social standing, and marked as subordinate in the Social Darwinian hierarchy as a result? It is hardly logical to blame a child for a situation they cannot change. Also, how can they be blamed as marked with an unnamed quality which indicates submission, when their social situation is determined by the family they are born into, and the reputation handed to them. There are no clear answers to these question; Social Darwinism is not a definite science. However, such considerations introduce new thoughts on the aforementioned theories of Davis and Morrison.

Davis' "Life in the Iron Mills," as well as Morrison's "The Bluest Eye," introduce readers to the effects of being ranked at the bottom of a Socal Darwinian hierarchy. While neither provides a clear cut answer on how to remove one's self from such a rank, they each provide their own take on why a person is assigned such a place. They explore whether Social Darwinian assignment is an unchangeable lot in life, or an unfortunate occurrence that can be changed through new opportunity. If nothing else, they give possible explanations for those experiencing a harsh life which seems to have no reason.

Works Cited

Davis, Rebecca Harding. Life in the Iron Mills. New York: 1985, The Feminist Press
Morrison, Toni. The Bluest Eye. New York: Penguin Books, 1994.