God, Darwin, and the Question of Morality in Great Expectations Janika Carey
Some critics have argued that Great Expectations promotes a Christian worldview (Cunningham 49), but there are many examples in the novel that question this assumption. My suggestion is that Great Expectations confronts us with a society that has decentralized God in favor of a Darwinian universe in which morals have been replaced by egoism and materialistic values. Great Expectations was written in a time period that was marked by drastic changes (Williams 28). Not only did Dickens find himself in the midst of the industrial revolution, which altered his own life and the lives of so many dramatically, but it was also the time of Charles Darwin who, with the publication of Origin of Species in 1859 (one year before Dickens started writing Great Expectations), introduced his evolutionary theory into intellectual discourse (Morgentaler 708). Whether Dickens actually read Darwin’s book is not known (only that he owned a copy), however, the general landscape of Great Expectations seems to imply Darwinian influences. There is, first of all, the idea of ‘not being fit’ to survive, exemplified in Pip’s dead brothers who have succumbed to the “universal struggle” (Dickens 3), a term that, as Goldie Morgentaler points out, appears to be copied right out of Darwin (Morgentaler 707). Another example of this is Miss Havisham, whose mental condition makes her unfit to deal with other people, and who has therefore imprisoned and outcast herself, something that is not acceptable in her society. It is important to note that she is a victim of capitalism insofar as her lover Compeyson betrayed her because of her money. Pip realizes that “in shutting out the light of day, she had done infinitely more; that, in seclusion, she had secluded herself from a thousand healing influences; that her mind, brooding solitary, had grown diseased,” recognizing her “profound unfitness for this earth” (Dickens 322). Other examples of “unfitness” are Herbert, who strikes us as pathetically helpless without Pip, Magwitch, whose criminal history prevents him from leading a normal life in England, or from living there at all. Furthermore, there is the beautiful but cold-hearted Estella, whose only purpose in life is to break men’s hearts, a mission that leaves her deeply scarred and disoriented. And then there is Joe: when he visits Pip in London, his inability to adapt to the city life (symbolic of civilization itself) becomes obvious. Many of the characters in Great Expectations are not ‘fit’ for this changing society that has abandoned human concerns, that uses or shuts out the weak in order to gain a profit. Mr. Jaggers is certainly a brilliant example of this: helping others is merely a way for him to earn money (134-136). In Dickens’ novel, we are confronted with a very negative individualism that appears very close to Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.” The frequent comparisons between humans and animals, as when Pip is related to a pig (22), Magwitch’s eating habits are described as those of a dog (16), or Molly is characterized as a “tamed beast” (163) bear a strong connection to Darwin and the evolutionary theory as well. Somewhat opposed to individualism and the growing power humans acquired during the industrialization, this comparison evokes the idea that the value of a person is still not higher than that of an animal – unless he or she has enough money. Dickens parodies this distinction when describing Pumblechook’s changed attitude towards Pip after the boy has become wealthy (124-127). Many critics have pointed out the wealth of religious allusions in Great Expectations, a discovery that has led some of them to interpret the novel as promoting a Christian worldview (Cunningham 49). It is, however, much more complicated than that. While Dickens is using biblical symbols, such as Christmas, the flood and references to Noah’s ark, the idea of resurrection and baptism, he parodies and therefore, questions those images at the same time. The novel starts on Christmas Eve, with a kind of birth for the seven year-old Pip, who ‘finds’ his identity on the cemetery when confronted with the graves of his family and the realization that he is all alone in the world: My first most vivid and broad impression of the identity of things seems to me to have been gained on a memorable raw afternoon towards evening. At such a time I found out for certain, that this bleak place overgrown with nettles was the churchyard; and that Philip Pirrip, late of this parish, and also Georgiana wife of the above, were dead and buried; and that Alexander, Bartholomew, Abraham, Tobias and Roger, infant children of the aforesaid, were also dead and buried; and that the dark flat wilderness beyond the churchyard, (...) was the marshes; (...) and that the small bundle of shivers growing afraid of it all and beginning to cry, was Pip (Dickens 3). This is highly cynical. John Cunningham describes Pip’s experience as a kind of birth into “metaphoric and moral death” (Cunningham 37), something that is strongly opposed to the new life Christmas represents. As if to emphasize Pip’s loss of innocence, the convict Magwitch calls him a “little devil” (Dickens 3) and later on forces Pip to steal for him. Thus, the novel begins with the protagonist’s moral downfall, and in order to further de-construct the symbol of Christmas, Dickens employs imagery of darkness – not only in the opening paragraphs, but all through Christmas day, which ends with the hunt for Magwitch and the sentence: “Then, the ends of the torches were flung hissing into the water, and went out, as if it were all over with him” (33). The prison-ship Magwitch is taken to reminds Pip of a “wicked Noah’s ark” (33). This allusion to the biblical flood – which is related to baptism and also symbolic of a new beginning – will come up later on in the novel and is always associated with Magwitch: the night he returns from Australia to reveal himself to Pip as his benefactor, there is heavy rain (254). As well as the first meeting with Magwitch changes Pip’s life, so does the second one: Pip is humbled by the discovery that all his wealth was provided by the convict who sacrificed his whole life for him (another biblical allusion: Magwitch suffers for Pip, as Jesus did for human kind), and he learns to see the human side in Magwitch, which in turn helps him rediscover his own compassion and morality. The third time we are confronted with flood-imagery is comparatively more impressive than the first two: here, Magwitch, Pip and the convict Compeyson suffer shipwreck (359); Compeyson dies, and Magwitch is rescued, but only to be sentenced to death (368-370). While Cunningham considers this a “genuine figure of rebirth” (Cunningham 42), arguing that Magwitch is transformed by this experience into a true Christian and a worthy “type of Christ” – exemplified in his acceptance of the death sentence as coming from the “Almighty” (Dickens 370) –, it is still ironic that Magwitch cannot escape, and that it is of no use to him to survive the shipwreck. What Cunningham understands as “rebirth” probably refers to the salvation of Magwitch’s soul – he dies as a believer –, nevertheless, his death contributes to the bleak world of Great Expectations. The gloomy atmosphere of the beginning runs all through the novel, there seems to be constant darkness, shadows and mists, and although the mists rise at the end of the book, when the scarred Pip and Estella meet again in the ruined garden of Satis House (the garden often being compared to the biblical paradise), there is no guarantee: I took her hand in mine, and we went out of the ruined place; and, as the morning mists had risen long ago when I first left the forge, so the evening mists were rising now, and in all the broad expense of tranquil light they showed to me, I saw no shadow of another parting from her (391). One could argue that because the mists rise, there will be a bright future for Pip and Estella, but the fact that Dickens sets the “evening mists” of the ending in relation to the “morning mists,” referring to the time Pip left his past behind to find an even bleaker future, suggest that there is not much hope for improvement. Pip and Estella leave the ruins, but where are they headed? Dickens’ ending is highly ambiguous, and though often viewed – as intended by the publisher – as a happy ending, it is in fact darker than the original ending Dickens had in mind, which ends also with Pip and Estella, but with the words: “she gave me the assurance, that suffering had been stronger than Miss Havisham’s teaching, and had given her a heart to understand what my heart used to be” (392). The original ending offers more closure and a sense of comfort, whereas the ‘real’ ending is rather open – especially considering the fact that the last few words were later changed by Dickens into: “I saw the shadow of no parting from her.” Despite the fact that Pip forgives Estella and that they seem to be reconciled, we do not know what becomes of them. Dickens leaves us with a million options and the uncomfortable feeling that life is extremely uncertain, and maybe indifferent to our fate or happiness, and, most importantly: that there may not be any guidance, no godly hand leading the way. We are all alone and insignificantly small and powerless, driven and determined by (natural) forces outside of our control. Supporting this atmosphere is the impression that there is no clear line between good and evil in Great Expectations, no distinction between innocent and guilty, between convict and gentleman, between victim and oppressor. Paul Pickrel argues that Great Expectations introduces us to Dickens’ “vision of the moral universe”, namely that “good and evil (...) are inextricably intertwined,” rendering it impossible for any human to draw a line between them (Pickrel 165). During the court scene in which Magwitch is sentenced to death, the sun suddenly shines through the window, creating “a broad shaft of light between the two-and-thirty and the judge, linking both together, and perhaps reminding some among the audience, how both were passing on, with absolute equality, to the greater judgment that knoweth all things and cannot err” (Dickens 369). While the bible teaches that we are all equal before God, it also distinguishes between good and evil: the Ten Commandments educate Christians about which is which. Deriving from the bible, a general assumption of morality in Western society is the idea that there exists a clear distinction between what is considered good, and what is not. Dickens, however, dissolves this distinction. The only thoroughly good people in the book seem to be Joe and Biddy, who live a conservative life vastly unaffected by the changes going on in British society. Perhaps this will help us in understanding where Dickens’ blurred picture of morality stems from: the industrial revolution, as mentioned above, had a tremendous impact on the status and the lifestyles of people, but also on their world view. Joseph W. Childers notes that the industrialization of England caused people to question traditional beliefs about, among other things, religion and science (Childers 77). Considering the practical effects of the industrial development, one of the main changes was certainly that man could suddenly manufacture so many things; with the help of machines he became powerful, and money became more and more important. In fact, I would suggest that the problem with morality in Great Expectations is directly related to the over-emphasis on wealth: money made people greedy. Of course, Pip is the perfect example: his wealth turns him into a shallow facade of a gentleman, never satisfied with what he has and ruining himself more and more as he loses touch with reality. In many ways, Dickens seems to portray materialism as a threat to spirituality and morality (Smith 174). Great Expectations is a reflection as well as a critique of this progress, condemning the fact that people began to worship money instead of God. In a way, capitalism became the new religion. Therefore, the absence of God, and of morality in Great Expectations, is a reflection of this time period. John Kucich describes this development as a “loss of spirituality in a morally incoherent world” (Kucich 214). While Christian morals play a crucial role in Dickens’ earlier novels (Hardy 9-10), they are pushed aside in this one. Whether Dickens himself had a crisis of faith, caused by the discoveries made in science and the relativity of morality that went along with the industrial revolution, or whether he regretted society’s movement away from God, is a difficult question. Kucich, for example, argues that while Dickens was a Christian, Great Expectations expresses his belief that “God is absent from the world and uninvolved in his creation” (Kucich 215). In Great Expectations, God is decentralized, if not, according to the Nietzschean “death of God,” symbolically killed, and replaced by a heightened emphasis on materialistic values, and on the individual. As Kucich points out, along with Darwin’s theory of evolution, Auguste Comte’s theory of Positivism was another major influence during and before the time of Great Expectations. Both theories rejected a theological or metaphysical order, insisting on the regularities of natural law while denying divine interference. In a way, Positivism became a “Religion of Humanity,” substituting the latter for God “as an object of worship” (Kucich 219-220). Against all the darkness, death and decay presented in the novel, we have to acknowledge that Great Expectations is also a Bildungsroman: though capitalistic progress and financial growth are dismissed as amoral and as harming to one’s character, we do get moral growth in the character of Pip. After Pip’s innocent child-self has been corrupted by his desire to be a gentleman and win over Estella, he later learns that he was mistaken to depend on money for happiness, and that what really counts in life is family – whether in the form of his brother-in-law and adoptive father Joe, or in Magwitch, who sacrifices his whole life for Pip and becomes a second father figure. Pip also learns to forgive Estella. Forgiveness is a major theme in the novel: Mrs. Joe asks Joe for forgiveness before she dies and is forgiven (Dickens 229), Miss Havisham asks Estella (through Pip) (325), Pip asks Joe and Biddy (387), and Estella asks Pip (391). Cunningham argues that this emphasis on a clearly Christian value supports the idea that the world of Great Expectations is structured by a Christian order (Cunningham 42); however, it is highly questionable whether these individual acts of morality affect the greater picture at all. Although morality seems to be somewhat regained at the end of the novel, society is still the same: a moral ruin, exemplified in the ruined garden. The moral regeneration of Pip and of other characters, such as Magwitch, Miss Havisham and Estella, seem insignificant against the moral indifference of nature and society. Perhaps the real question Dickens poses is this: in a society that has become increasingly amoral, how does one survive? Who does one turn to for guidance if there is no God? Where is one’s place? It is false to assume that morality is altogether removed in this novel because it still exists in individuals. Rather, there is a conflict between the moral individual and the immoral society, or between humans’ yearning for morality and meaning, versus nature, which is completely free of such notions (Morgentaler 714). It is, therefore, the conflict between a Christian worldview and a Darwinian one and also, and this is of great importance, between Dickens and the increasingly secular world of his time. Clearly, the religiously motivated glimpses we get in the novel (e.g. the court scene) are the narrator’s voice emphasizing his desire for the existence of a God, but at the same time, he reveals doubt when parodying biblical images. Great Expectations reflects Dickens’ struggle with this new worldview and his desperate attempts to reconcile it with his religious beliefs. As a result we get a highly unsettling novel, with an ending that is very vague and extremely uncertain: Great Expectations is Dickens’ discourse on the individual in a world between God and Darwin. What remains is a big question mark.
|