What is the tone of this short article in Punch, thesame journal in which Vanity Fair first appeared?
What is it advocating? Does it seem odd to be writing about whipping children in the newspaper?
Life in Victorian London
Fictions and Forms of Revolution: London 1848
I appreciated this article for its brevity, yet distinct point. To me, it does not seem odd to be writing about whipping children in the newspaper, as childrearing has always been a much-discussed issue, especially since philosophers like Locke and Rousseau made their theories prominent. This article showed me that Victorians were aware, or beginning to become aware, of the fact that cultural and societal influences could be just as impacting as parental styles. Parents could not teach their children civics or morality if society was not demonstrating what they were trying to portray. In our readings this quarter, I will try to pay attention to different characters' concepts of morality, and whether it reflects the societal concept of morality or not.
ReplyDeleteGood question, Anneke -- what did the Victorians see as more essential to human character? Nature versus nurture was becoming a big debate in mid-century.
ReplyDeleteI, like Anneke, also appreciated this article’s short and precise point. I really liked the fact that the writer ended the piece with such an open-ended question. I believe it draws the reader to think not only about children being whipped, but the true meaning behind the actions (and of course who is really at fault). I kept thinking about the voice of the writer. I think he or she is subtly hinting at the fact that society rather than the children should be at fault for not doing a better job raising the children. It makes me wonder what the writer’s true intention of putting this comment in the newspaper was? I find it a little strange that this topic would be found in the newspaper only because, if I’m not mistaken, child labor was a prominent movement during the Victorian era. And does it imply that the harsh conditions they worked in were okay, but whipping them for punishment was not?
ReplyDeleteLike Anneke, I wasn't very surprised to see this in a newspaper. It reads like a Victorian version of modern columnists - mentioning the bare facts of a piece of "news" to comment on the moral/philosophical/political implications of the event. I appreciate the ambivalence the reporter seems to feel toward the subject: He is not, after all, advocating a lack of punishment for rule-breaking. But it is also true that society holds responsibility for how its members turn out, and it is much more difficult to figure out the proper "punishment" for such a large and vague concept.
ReplyDeleteI also was not surprised to see this in a newspaper, but that's because I didn't see the article so much about whipping as about society; the topic of whipping is a vehicle for the argument about society's involvement in moral instruction of the day's youth. I also would not be surprised if this article were a subtle jab at the Wandsworth police (yet there is really nothing overt about the article that suggests this) - or it might be a jab at the reporter who wrote the original article, as this reporter "records the fact with seeming satisfaction." Though the writer takes a logical standpoint here - what, really, is this whipping doing to help? - there's also that "Victorian sentimentality" we were talking about in class when the writer asks "What has society yet done for these children?" With that sentence, the children are presented as victims: society has not done anything for these poor kids. I don't doubt that this appeal to the reader's emotions made Victorian readers think more on the matter than perhaps a less emotional piece would.
ReplyDeleteThis article kind of brings to mind Becky Sharp; Thackeray presents her as a young woman who is in a sense "whipped" by society because she has a no-good father and a dead mother, and because of her rough life, she acts out maliciously at times. But there's a different tone in Vanity Fair to this character, as Thackeray uses words to describe Becky as an almost evil creature (it's a novel without a hero, so Becky is no rags-to-riches character with whom we should empathize). Was Thackeray perhaps addressing and maybe even criticizing the type of sentimentality seen in the Fetch article for children who have had tough starts?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Sar, I don't believe that the article is condoning harsh working conditions while criticizing whipping. Rather, I think the author serves as a vehicle of social change by posing questions of societal ethics, and in doing so, represents a growing group of critics opposed to the harsh conditions that the lower class was exposed to. Although child labor was highly prominent in the Victorian era, it was not without criticism or reform. Authors such as Friedrich Engels wrote his work on the conditions of the working class in this time and multiple labor laws were passed limiting the number of hours children could work.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think this article reflects an increasing social awareness and a movement for social change in the Victorian era.
After reading this post, I was reminded of Amy Chua's book "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" about her controversial parenting style. She doesn't physically abuse her children, but she does rule with a strict and harsh hand. The book caused a lot of backlash, just as this article was responding to a similar question of "public parenting" style. I wonder how Victorian parents would've responded to Chua's book? Was strict parenting/punishment considered the norm during the Victorian period?
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Ann and Allison that this article shows an increasing awareness of social responsibility. It's a conversation that only would've been possible through these sorts of columns.
The author's focus on the thieves as "mere boys," "children," is interesting for a time without enforced child labor laws or compulsory elementary education. This is in fact almost a century before developmental psychologist Jean Piaget will really advance the idea that children think differently than adults. The article is brief, consisting of a few sentences relating the events of the whippings and the rest posing increasingly accusatory questions to the readers. The article is interesting in that it was written, not because whipping of minor delinquents is newsworthy, but due to the author's dismay that it is not, that the authorities or public would allow this to be the norm, and actually take satisfaction in such a thing.
ReplyDeleteThis article introduces an interesting question regarding the role of society in teaching "right from wrong" in an increasingly industrialized and secular society. As others have mentioned, this article demonstrates a growing awareness of social responsibility. The author accuses society as the one in need of a whipping, but does not provide further opinion of what society's role should be.
As many have already mentioned, I really appreciated the way this article was written. It is much more concise and to the point than articles that we read today, and it was very controversial and condemning of the current societal structure. The way it is written, one can tell that the ideas, though brief, are radical for their time. I agree with Ann about perceiving the article as a critique on society, and not as an acceptance of harsh work conditions while criticizing whipping but as an attempt at social change away from the poor treatment of the lower class.
ReplyDelete