The novel Housekeeping really reminds me of the Novel The Glass Castle as it highlights more frequently faced struggles of the lower and working class. As opposed to Freud’s Psychoanalysis, I want tot focus on a more concrete argument or what Tyson refers to as “material circumstances.” More specifically how the class/SES of specific characters in the novel can be seen through a Marxist criticism. This criticism is in direct contract to New criticism. So, instead of seeing things through an ageless filter Marxist criticism views things in context to the time and social class/ economic background affect the characters and the decisions they make.
Most if not all of the main characters in the story fall into the category of low SES. This is …show more content…
Media and society have told us that we need to earn an income and live in a nice house and have things to be happy. For Ruth and Lucille’s grandmother happiness was derived from the safety of having a roof and good health. For Helen this could have been the same concept, since she makes the decision to leave the girls with her mother. Lucille and Ruth are exposed to both urban and rural backgrounds with their mother then their grandmother. Ruth is content in that she does not want more material possessions, but she also does not value the house that her grandmother left them. Lucille on the other hand having the same experience as Ruth has chosen to a different path where she does want to move up the economic ladder. Nona and Lilly are a very good example of how an urban ideology dropped into a rural setting makes a person uneasy. Coming from their own sense of what safe and secure is, having their brick apartment as opposed to what they are living in now that creaks and is cold. They do not have the same views of what is acceptable, and this is based on their background and what their socioeconomic status tells them is acceptable. This all goes back to the Marxist idea that social class, a completely societal construction, is an indicator of happiness. The higher one is in SES, the more things they can afford, and the happier they will
Most if not all of the main characters in the story fall into the category of low SES. This is …show more content…
Media and society have told us that we need to earn an income and live in a nice house and have things to be happy. For Ruth and Lucille’s grandmother happiness was derived from the safety of having a roof and good health. For Helen this could have been the same concept, since she makes the decision to leave the girls with her mother. Lucille and Ruth are exposed to both urban and rural backgrounds with their mother then their grandmother. Ruth is content in that she does not want more material possessions, but she also does not value the house that her grandmother left them. Lucille on the other hand having the same experience as Ruth has chosen to a different path where she does want to move up the economic ladder. Nona and Lilly are a very good example of how an urban ideology dropped into a rural setting makes a person uneasy. Coming from their own sense of what safe and secure is, having their brick apartment as opposed to what they are living in now that creaks and is cold. They do not have the same views of what is acceptable, and this is based on their background and what their socioeconomic status tells them is acceptable. This all goes back to the Marxist idea that social class, a completely societal construction, is an indicator of happiness. The higher one is in SES, the more things they can afford, and the happier they will