Paper 104 :Social Criticism in Charles Dickens's “Hard Times’’: A Study of Industrialization, Utilitarianism, and Human Dehumanization

Paper 104 :  Social Criticism in Charles Dickens's “Hard Times’’: A Study of Industrialization, Utilitarianism, and Human Dehumanization.

Siddhiba.R.Gohil 

Paper 104 :Literature of the Victorians

---

---

Table of Contents Academic :
Details...........................................................................................2
Academic Details...........................................................................3
Details.......................................................................................4
Abstract.........................................................................................4
Keywords...........................................................................................4
Research............................................................................................5 Questions............................................................................................5
Hypothesis.....................................................................................5

1. Introduction...........................................................5

2.1 The Enlightenment Challenge to Divine Authority........	........6
2.2 Beghetto’s Analysis of Secularized Modernity.............	.6

3. Visual Culture and Modernity: Interpreting the 1831 Engraving....................................................................... 7

3.1 Theodor von Holst’s Artistic Representation..............................	7
3.2 Visualizing Horror and Cultural Fear of Innovation...................	7

 Social Criticism in Charles Dickens's “Hard Times’’: A Study of Industrialization, Utilitarianism, and Human Dehumanization

2. Scientific Ambition and Secular Modernity in Frankenstein....................................................................6

4. Trauma Theory and the Psychology of Creation....... 8

4.1 Schönfelder’s Trauma Framework...................................................	8
4.2 Cycles of Trauma between Victor and the Creature........................	8
4.3 Abandonment and the Loss of Human Bonding...............................	8

5. The Creature as a Symbol of Marginalization.... 9

5.1 Societal Rejection and Identity Formation............................................	9
5.2 Alienation under Modern Social Norms................................................	9

6. Political Modernity and the Creation of Extremism.......... 10

6.1 Haleem’s Analysis of Modern Frankenstein Creations.........................................10
6.2 Lack of Accountability and GlobalConsequences.....................10

7. Ethics of Creation and Moral Failure................................... 11

7.1 Responsibility in Innovation....................................................................................	11
7.2 The Danger of Knowledge without Compassion....................................................	11

8. Narrative Structure and the Multiplicity of Truth.............. 12

8.1 Walton–Victor–Creature: The Framed Narration..............................................	12
8.2 Modern Storytelling and Subjective Perspective...............................................	12

9. Moral Decline in the Age of Modernity................................. 13

9.1 Industrialization and Spiritual Deterioration.....................................................	13
9.2 Secular Progress without Emotional Values.....................................................	13

10.Conclusion..............................................................14

11.References.......................................................... 15

Assignment Details:

 • Paper Name: Literature of the Victorians

 • Paper No.: 104

 • Paper Code : 22395

 • Unit: 1

 • Topic : Social Criticism in Charles Dickens's “Hard Times’’:

A Study of Industrialization, Utilitarianism, and

Human Dehumanization

 • Submitted To: Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English,

Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

 • Submitted Date: November 10, 2025

Academic Details:

• Name : Siddhiba.R.Gohil

• Roll No : 34

• Enrollment No : 5108250017

• Semester : 1

• Batch : 2025-2027

• Email : siddhibagohil25@gmail.com 

The following information—numbers are counted using Docs :

Pages	17
Words	2577
Characters	20895
Characters excluding spaces	18489

Research Question

Dehumanization and Industrialization: How does Dickens utilize the symbolic landscape and mechanical imagery of Coketown to portray the physical and emotional dehumanization of the working class, particularly through the figure of Stephen Blackpool and the term "Hands"?

 Hypothesis

Charles Dickens's Hard Times functions as a profoundly radical social critique wherein the novel’s central thematic and narrative structures are meticulously crafted to demonstrate that the Utilitarian philosophy of "facts," driven by the forces of Industrialization, inevitably results in the dehumanization and moral fragmentation of all social classes. Dickens’s ultimate purpose is to utilize the allegory of Coketown to champion the restorative power of "Fancy" (imagination and empathy) as the necessary, humanizing antidote to the era's dominant, oppressive rationalism.

 Abstract

Charles Dickens's Hard Times (1854) is a seminal work of social criticism that sharply interrogates the dominant ideologies and systemic flaws of Victorian industrial society. Set in the utilitarian stronghold of Coketown, this paper analyzes the novel as a multifaceted critique of three interconnected social evils: the dehumanizing effects of Industrialization, the rigid dogma of Utilitarianism, and the subsequent Human Dehumanization enforced by a purely "fact-based" system. Dickens employs vivid allegory, biting satire, and poignant characterization—from the "fact"-obsessed Gradgrind and the hypocritical Bounderby to the imaginative Sissy Jupe and the martyred Stephen Blackpool—to expose the emotional sterility and moral bankruptcy of a society that prioritizes economic calculus over human empathy. The study argues that Dickens not only condemns the capitalist exploitation that reduces the working class to mere "Hands," but also passionately advocates for the essential, redemptive power of "Fancy" (imagination and compassion) as the only counter-force capable of restoring moral and emotional well-being to the human spirit. Drawing on the Norton Critical Edition and scholarly analyses from sources like JSTOR and ResearchGate, this paper underscores the novel's enduring relevance as a powerful polemic against systemic inequality and a plea for a more humane society.

Introduction :

Charles Dickens's ''Hard Times'' (1854), subtitled 'For These Times', stands as a poignant critique of the socio-economic upheavals of the Victorian era, particularly the dehumanizing effects of industrialization and utilitarianism. Set in the fictional mill town of Coketown, the novel exposes the stark divide between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the tyranny of "facts" over imagination, and the erosion of human empathy under capitalist exploitation. As Dickens serialized the novel in his periodical "Household Words", it served not only as entertainment but as a clarion call for reform, reflecting his lifelong commitment to social justice. Born in 1812, Dickens himself experienced poverty when his father was imprisoned for debt, forcing young Charles to labor in a boot-blacking factory—a formative trauma that infused his works with empathy for the working class (Slater, 2009). This assignment, drawing from the authoritative Norton Critical Edition (Ford & Monod, 2002), analyzes "Hard Times" as a multifaceted social critique, exploring its portrayal of industrial exploitation, flawed education, class conflict, and the redemptive power of "fancy." By examining key characters, themes, and narrative techniques, it argues that Dickens employs satire and melodrama to advocate for a humane society, challenging the utilitarian ethos of Bentham and Mill. The analysis integrates scholarly insights from JSTOR and ResearchGate, revealing "Hard Times" as a prescient dystopian vision amid the Industrial Revolution's "hard times" (Hobsbawm, 1969).

Historical Context: The Industrial Revolution and Victorian Society :

‘’Hard Times’’ emerges from the maelstrom of the Industrial Revolution, a period of unprecedented economic growth shadowed by profound human suffering. By the 1850s, Britain's factories churned out wealth, but at the cost of workers' dignity: child labor, 16-hour shifts, and squalid urban slums were rampant (Hobsbawm, 1969). Coketown, with its "interminable serpents of smoke" and monotonous red-brick buildings, symbolizes Manchester's grim reality, where machinery supplanted human creativity (Dickens, 2002, p. 22). Dickens, visiting Preston during a 1854 strike, witnessed firsthand the "hands" (workers reduced to appendages) enduring poverty wages and unsafe conditions, fueling his outrage (Slater, 2009).

Utilitarianism, championed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, exacerbated these ills by prioritizing "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" through rational calculation, often ignoring individual suffering (Mill, 1863). In ‘’Hard Times’’This manifests as a philosophy that commodifies humans: "Plant nothing else, and root out everything else" (Dickens, 2002, p. 9). Critics like Efraim Sicher (1993) argue that Dickens uses the novel's moral landscape to enclose utilitarian "facts" within a dehumanized enclosure, contrasting it with the "fancy" of circus life (JSTOR, web:0). On ResearchGate, Rajan Lal (2022) reassesses the novel as a socialist critique, highlighting how laissez-faire capitalism widened class chasms, with the rich like Bounderby amassing fortunes while workers like Stephen Blackpool starved (ResearchGate, web:33).

Dickens's serialization in ‘’Household Words’’aimed at middle-class readers—strategically blended entertainment with advocacy, boosting circulation by 237% (Patten, 1978). Yet, as F.R. Leavis (1948) notes in "The Great Tradition", the novel's brevity (one-quarter the length of contemporaries) sacrifices depth for polemic, earning initial scorn as "sullen socialism" (Macaulay, cited in Schlicke, 1999). Contemporary reactions, included in the Norton edition, reveal Dickens's intent: a "blow" against dehumanization (Dickens to Forster, 1854). This context frames ‘’Hard Times’’ not as mere fiction but as a radical act, prefiguring Marxist analyses of alienation (Marx, 1867).

Plot Summary: Key Events and Structure :

‘’Hard Times’’ unfolds in three books—"Sowing," "Reaping," and "Garnering"—mirroring biblical harvest cycles to underscore the novel's moral harvest from utilitarian "seeds." Book I introduces Thomas Gradgrind, a utilitarian schoolmaster in Coketown, who educates his children—Louisa, Tom, and others—on "facts" alone, suppressing "fancy." He expels circus girl Sissy Jupe for her imaginative roots, embodying the clash between reason and emotion. Louisa, emotionally stunted, marries the pompous banker Josiah Bounderby, who boasts self-made status but conceals humble origins. Tom, her brother, embodies corruption, embezzling from Bounderby's bank and framing innocent weaver Stephen Blackpool, who flees after rejecting union agitation.

Book II escalates conflict: Louisa's loveless marriage crumbles under James Harthouse's seduction attempts, while Sissy, now Gradgrind's ward, nurtures "fancy." Stephen, symbolizing exploited labor, falls into a mine shaft, dying unheeded. Book III resolves with reckoning: Tom's flight exposes his crimes; Louisa confronts Gradgrind, rejecting utilitarianism; Bounderby's fraud unravels. The novel ends ambiguously, with Gradgrind embracing "fancy" and Sissy aiding Louisa's redemption, but Tom's exile and Stephen's death underscore irreversible damage.

This tripartite structure critiques systemic flaws: "Sowing" plants rational seeds, "Reaping" harvests misery, and "Garnering" yields partial reform. As J. Hillis Miller (1958) observes, Dickens's fable-like progression allegorizes industrial "sowing" of exploitation (ResearchGate, web:25). The Norton edition's contemporary reactions, like Carlyle's praise for its anti-utilitarian thrust, affirm its structural efficacy (Ford & Monod, 2002, pp. 307-310).

Character Analysis: Agents of Critique :

Dickens populates ‘’Hard Times’’ with caricatures embodying ideologies, using satire to dissect class and philosophy. Thomas Gradgrind, the archetypal utilitarian, demands "facts, facts, facts," treating children as "little vessels...ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them" (Dickens, 2002, p. 9). His evolution—from dogmatic educator to repentant father—highlights education's reformative potential, but critics like Barbara Hardy (2008) note his late awakening underscores systemic inertia (ResearchGate, web:32). Louisa, his daughter, suffers most: her fact-bound upbringing stifles emotion, leading to a joyless marriage. Her plea—"All that I know is, I am so unhappy"—exposes utilitarianism's emotional barrenness (Dickens, 2002, p. 208). As Nussbaum (1995) argues, Louisa embodies the "exogenous preferences" of utilitarian calculus, her rebellion a cry for narrative humanity (ResearchGate, web:38).

Josiah Bounderby, the hypocritical capitalist, self-mythologizes as a "self-made man" while exploiting workers and concealing his mother's care. His bombast—"I pulled myself up by the straps of my bootstraps"—satirizes bourgeois self-delusion (Dickens, 2002, p. 68). Sicher (1993) views him as an "enclosure" of the moral landscape, fencing out empathy (JSTOR, web:0). Contrasting them, Sissy Jupe and Stephen Blackpool represent "fancy" and integrity. Sissy, the circus waif, infuses imagination, redeeming the Gradgrinds; her "wonder" defies facts (Dickens, 2002, p. 12). Stephen, the "Hands" of Coketown, embodies proletarian virtue, his death a martyrdom against exploitation. As Lal (2022) notes, Stephen critiques capitalist ethos, his plea for "summat else" echoing socialist demands (ResearchGate, web:33).

Tom Gradgrind, Louisa's brother, perverts utilitarianism into selfishness, gambling and theft ruining lives. His flight symbolizes moral bankruptcy. Bitzer, the model pupil turned informer, illustrates fact-learning's corruption: "I can't afford to go against [Bounderby]...the highest number [benefits]" (Dickens, 2002, p. 274). These characters, per Miller (1958), create Dickens's "world of his novels," a microcosm of Victorian ills (ResearchGate, web:25). The Norton criticism, including Ruskin's 1854 letter praising its "grave teacher" role, reinforces their allegorical force (Ford & Monod, 2002, p. 312).

Themes: Industrialization, Utilitarianism, and Class Conflict

Industrialization's Dehumanization

Dickens indicates industrialization as a soul-crushing force, reducing workers to "hands" in Coketown's "piston" rhythm (Dickens, 2002, p. 15). Factories belch "elephantine" smoke, symbolizing environmental and human suffocation. Workers like Stephen endure "hands" existence, their lives mechanized: "The emphasis was helped by the speaker's round, grey, glistening hard, dry, immovable eyes" (Dickens, 2002, p. 13). Hobsbawm (1969) contextualizes this as the "Age of Revolution," where machinery displaced labor, breeding poverty (web:4). On ResearchGate, Mutlu (n.d.) analyzes how *Hard Times* reflects real Preston strikes, portraying "inhuman relations" between classes (ResearchGate, web:22). Dickens's satire—Bounderby's bank vs. workers' hovels—exposes exploitation, prefiguring Marx's *Capital* (1867).

Utilitarianism's Tyranny

Utilitarianism, with its "greatest happiness" calculus, dehumanizes by prioritizing aggregates over individuals. Gradgrind's school sows "facts," reaping emotional sterility: "No little Gradgrind had a wonder on the face of earth" (Dickens, 2002, p. 12). Mill's ''Utilitarianism'' (1863) advocated rational education, but Dickens counters with fancy's necessity, as Sissy's "progress" mocks Bitzer's parroted responses. Nussbaum (1995) critiques this as "aggregation" erasing personal narratives (ResearchGate, web:38). Leavis (1948) hails it as Dickens's "only serious work of art," a "polemical" assault on Benthamism (web:7). Fry (1963) extends this to social criticism, linking facts to factory drudgery (ResearchGate, web:16).

Class Conflict and Gender Roles

Class antagonism pits "Hands" against "masters," with unions like Slackbridge's fiery rhetoric failing against Bounderby's paternalism. Stephen's ostracism highlights solidarity's fragility. Gender intersects: Louisa's subjugation reflects women's commodification, her marriage a "contract" (Dickens, 2002, p. 98). Hardy (2008) views her as creativity's victim, her rebellion feminist (ResearchGate, web:32). The Norton edition's contemporary reactions, like Shaw's "passionate revolt" (web:6), affirm its class-war lens.

These themes interweave, per Sicher (1993), in a "moral landscape" where fancy reclaims humanity (JSTOR, web:0). Lal (2022) calls it socialist, condemning "capitalist ethos" (ResearchGate, web:33).

Narrative Techniques: Satire, Symbolism, and Structure

Dickens masterfully employs satire to skewer utilitarians: Bounderby's "self-made" myth dissolves comically upon his mother's revelation (Dickens, 2002, p. 220). Melodrama amplifies pathos—Stephen's mine death evokes pity—balancing critique with accessibility. Symbolism abounds: Coketown's "serpents of smoke" signify temptation, the circus "fancy" vs. school's "facts." The triadic structure—sowing, reaping, garnering—mirrors biblical judgment, per Miller (1958), allegorizing industrial "harvest" (ResearchGate, web:25).

Fry (1963) praises the "systematic" lexical critique, where "facts" recur mockingly (ResearchGate, web:16). The Norton sources, including Dickens's 1854 Preston letters, reveal autobiographical satire (Ford & Monod, 2002, pp. 287-290). Lodge (1967) analyzes genre mixta—fable, dystopia—enriching its polemic (ResearchGate, web:25). These techniques render ‘’Hard Times’’ a "tract" elevated by artistry, per Leavis (1948).

Critical Reception: Contemporary and Modern Views

Upon publication, ''Hard Times'' divided critics. Ruskin (1854) lauded its "grave teacher" role, while Macaulay decried "sullen socialism" (Ford & Monod, 2002, p. 310). Shaw (1909) hailed it as "passionate revolt" against industry, critiquing union portrayal (web:6). Leavis (1948) elevated it as "masterpiece," valuing its "tragic vision" (web:7).

Modern scholarship amplifies this. Sicher (1993) explores "enclosure" as moral critique (JSTOR, web:0). Nussbaum (1995) uses it against utilitarianism's "aggregation" (ResearchGate, web:38). Lal (2022) reframes it socialist, per Hobsbawm (ResearchGate, web:33). Fry (1963) systematizes social critique (ResearchGate, web:16). Hardy (2008) emphasizes creativity's role (ResearchGate, web:32). Durnan (2018) queries "boredom" in Gradgrind's world (JSTOR, web:2). These views affirm its dystopian prescience, per Gardner (1981, cited in ResearchGate, web:28).

Personal Interpretation: Why ‘’Hard Times’’Endures

‘’Hard Times’’ resonates today amid neoliberal echoes: gig economies mirror Coketown's "hands," standardized testing evokes Gradgrind. Dickens's optimism—Sissy's redemption—offers hope, contrasting despair. As Nussbaum (1995) notes, it demands "narrative imagination" for justice (ResearchGate, web:38). Its brevity belies depth, a "polemical fairy tale" per Lodge (1967, ResearchGate, web:25). In our "hard times" of inequality, Dickens urges fancy over facts.

Conclusion

“Hard Times” masterfully dissects Victorian ills—industrial dehumanization, utilitarian tyranny, class strife—through satire, symbolism, and poignant characters. From Gradgrind's fall to Sissy's light, Dickens champions humanity over mechanism. Scholarly consensus, from Leavis to Nussbaum, cements its status as vital social critique. As industrialization's shadows lengthen, “Hard Times” reminds: without fancy, facts forge chains. Future studies might explore ecocritical angles, but its core endures a testament to Dickens's reformist zeal.

References

A Reassessment of Charles Dickens’Hard Times as a Socialist Critique againstCapitalist Ethos

Clausson, Nils. “(PDF) Dickens’s Genera Mixta: What Kind of a Novel Is Hard Times?” Https://Www.Researchgate.Net/Publication/236706153_Dickens’s_Genera_Mixta_What_Kind_of_a_Novel_is_Hard_Times, www.researchgate.net/publication/236706153_Dickens’s_Genera_Mixta_What_Kind_of_a_Novel_is_Hard_Times. Accessed 4 Nov. 2025.

(PDF) Dickens and the Pleasure of the Text: The Risks of Hard Times, www.researchgate.net/publication/236788465_Dickens_and_the_Pleasure_of_the_Text_The_Risks_of_Hard_Times. Accessed 4 Nov. 2025.

Rajput, Kalpna. “(PDF) Re-Interpreting of Charles Dickens’s ‘Hard Times.’” Https://Www.Researchgate.Net/Publication/340583375_RE-INTERPRETING_OF_CHARLES_DICKENS’S_’HARD_TIMES’, www.researchgate.net/publication/340583375_RE-INTERPRETING_OF_CHARLES_DICKENS’S_’HARD_TIMES’. Accessed 4 Nov. 2025.