The prestigious members of the upper class generally had little respect towards the lower class with less money, and didn’t wish for them to damage, or even contaminate a family’s reputation through marriage to a person of status high above their own. Examples of this can be seen in the characters of Caroline Bingley and Mr. Darcy’s opposition to the marriage of Jane and Mr. Bingley. In a discreetly snobbish letter, Caroline
Heathcliff, on the other hand, learns to classify himself as a member of the lower class, as he does not possess the qualities of those at the Grange. The critical essay explains a main point in Wuthering Heights, Catherine's decision to marry Edgar Linton rather than Heathcliff, and this decision widens the gap between social classes. Edgar Linton is a wealthy man of high status, and Heathcliff is poor and possesses no assets. Catherine does not consider personal feelings, but instead, she focuses on her outward appearance to society. "Edgar Linton will be rich and I shall like to be the greatest woman of the neighborhood whereas if Heathcliff and I married, we should be beggars (81).
Context to era Marriage was the primary way that women were able to achieve stability. Contrary to the social-norms of the Regency era, Austen portrayed love in marriage to be more important than wealth. Example of what the author does Elizabeth initially rejects Darcy and will not marry him until she comes to love him. Similarly Forster in "A Room With A View" shows Lucy rejecting Cecil Example of what the author does using characters and his wealth in order to marry a man of lower social class and limited financial security in the name of Love. Austen and Forster both show that marrying for love does not make for a successful marriage without the element of wealth.
Although the idea of money and social class was very important in Dickens’ time he had a different outlook on this. Victorian society was very class orientated and gentlemen were the elite of their world. Traditionally gentlemen came from good backgrounds, were wealthy and conducted themselves in a proper and gentlemanly manner. Victorians had a very definite view of what they believed a gentleman was. The first major asset for defining a gentleman would certainly be wealth.
However, I disagree that this English poverty is worse than the Third World poverty because the poor in England have a chance to live well, but in India the poor have no chance to live well, and there are many people in Third World countries who are also spiritually poor like England, so that means this English poverty is not the worst. First, the poverty in England is not economic, but moral and cultural because the English poor do not have good family relations and strong family ties. One of the important elements to be moral is to have good family relations. If a person has strong family ties, he or she will take care of much more things about life because this person will build his or her life on family members, their benefits and their goodness, so that will lead to a person to
Haffar 1 Nadine Haffar Mr Marsh ENG4U 10 December Love vs Money in Marriage Marriage in the early 19th century was not usually something derived from love or need for emotional support, but more so by the weight of a man’s wallet and the need for financial relief. The need to marry in order to secure comfortable living is demonstrated in the opening sentence of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice when the narrator states: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.” During a time where it was socially unacceptable for women to be working and to provide income for their family, was there still hope for love in marriage? Throughout the novel, the protagonist, Elizabeth Bennet goes against social beliefs in order to follow her heart and marry for love. Within the story of Pride and Prejudice, Austen effectively uses character development in order to identify that in marriage, love always conquers all. Evidence of this development can be found through character dialogue, the relationship between Elizabeth and Darcy, as well as the comparison of other couples in the story.
She relates to one of Hofstede’s dimension which is the “individualism- collectivism”, the degree to which a culture relies on and has allegiance to the self or the group. (Lustig & Koester, 2010, p. 117) Miss Daisy in the beginning was very hesitant to allow someone to drive her around town. She liked her privacy and the last thing she wanted in her life was change. She acted like she didn’t need a driver. She didn’t want to be seen as a rich woman that had to be taken care of.
Your place in society was extremely important and made a huge impact on who you married. Upper and lower classes were not to be mixed and if done so, you were looked down upon. This concept is shown when Lady Bracknell interviews John before allowing her daughter, Gwendolen, to be with him. She has no interest in approving of John until she finds out that he is in fact from a very wealthy background. Wilde also does a good job of mocking the way men and women think of each other.
Imagine the average American becoming the wealthiest individual in the world, would they retain their values? Or would they get rid of them? Fitzgerald shows the lifestyle of the immoral Washington family, as well as their attitude towards others. Also, Fitzgerald expresses John’s acceptance of their way of life, appearing as if he would do anything to continue receiving the luxuries from the extremely wealthy Washington family. By utilizing symbolism in “The Diamond as Big as the Ritz,” Fitzgerald demonstrates America’s obsession with wealth through the relation of immorality and money.
He thinks that the Senior House is a better choice for the both of them as his mother would be happier there. Despite in actuality, Meursault’s mother did enjoy a blissful before her death, the fact that Meursault shows no emotion towards both his mother and her demise is incongruent to the social trend. His lack of sensitivity is severely chastised by the society in which he lives. The other citizens cannot understand his insensitivity, and more importantly, will not bother. They are merely concerned with the inconsistency that Meursault’s actions pose to the social norm.