The answer to this complex question lies within the personalities and character traits of the two classes. This is exemplified in the Pocket family by how they raise their children and the difference from how the Gargery’s raise Pip. Pip shares his description of the Pocket family in action on page 179, “Thus advised, Mrs. Pocket took it the other way, and got its head upon the table; which was announced to all present in a prodigious concussion” (Dickens). Mrs. Pocket clearly has no understanding on how to raise her own children as seen by holding her baby upside down and giving it a concussion. The upper class in some ways believes that knowing how to raise their children is not worth their time since they can always just hire someone to take care of it for them. The bond between parent and child is never created when the children are handed off to someone else to receive a fraudulent feeling of motherly love. Dickens demonstrates the injustices of growing up without love from parents. The entitlement of money gave the Pocket family the false reliance that wealth and a high social class takes care of everything. Estella is another casualty who falls at the expense of love and happiness given from lack of parenting. Mrs. Havisham never raised Estella with any true feelings of motherly love and happiness, she often just let …show more content…
Dickens childhood somewhat mirrors Pip’s and the reasons he felt betrayed as a child come out in the character's personality. As well, the historical class system of Victorian London comes through and highlights certain aspects of every character, from Estella’s snobby attitude to Joe’s hardwork and dedication. The upper class cares more about their social status and money than anything else, while the lower class focuses their life on their loved ones. Money can truly change a person affecting their personality and the way they raise their children. Overall, is being in the upper class worthwhile and beneficial for a