Much is made of “middle class morality” in Pygmalion. To what extent is this phrase an oxymoron? What is Shaw suggesting about the rules and traditions of his class?
George Bernard Shaw uses the term "middle class morality" a lot in his play, Pygmalion, but what point is he trying to make in so doing? Especially in the case of Alfred Doolittle, one of the "undeserving poor", even the lowest in society has their place, but just because they are 'economically-challenged' does not necessarily mean that they are the lowest of the low in society.
It could be said that the condescension of the high class onto the other two puts their moral standing lower than them, but at the same time both the middle and lower classes use everybody else with persuasive antics and unenviable standards to swindle their way to getting what they want. Alfred Doolittle in this sense extorts money from Higgins merely by outwardly playing the card of a beggar. Higgins certainly does not believe him, but since he is delighted by how well he plays his game, he pays Doolittle anyway.
Alfred is most certainly not one of the "lowest" of the low. Being a retired pickpocket and con artist, he knows how to play people-- especially the higher classes. In a sense, there is a sort of superiority to him in those capabilities, but would it be fair to say that it makes him better than those he steals from?
Shaw uses his satirical play of Pygmalion to depict what he wants his audience to see-- a fallacy in the social structure. We are taught to see the high class as "better-thans" and privileged, but are they really? They look down on the working class for merely needing to work to earn their keep, and their politics and ruthless social gambits are fueled by greed and the unnecessary to be on top. The low class consists of the beggars, laborers, and the unemployed, and they resent the upper classes for walking over them to the extent that they do. To some extent, though, their condescension is justified in that the low class does its best to play its thieving games on the other classes in order to gain some sort of social ground back. Lastly, the middle class has the best of both worlds in the sense that they get to both look down on the poor and hate the rich. They work for their keep and get by as a result, but they hate the upper class for not needing to and having more money and better privileges anyway.
All of this is to say that stereotypes interrupt the way of conscious, intellectual and reasonable thought. The descriptions of all these classes likely encompasses less than half of each of their true population, but it is what everyone defines these classes to be. The point Shaw is trying to make in this, through the play Pygmalion, is that no class is truly above the others, because their virtues and faults balance out, and while the hierarchy depicts these classes as a very defined pyramid, it would be more accurate to express the classes in a three-circle Venn diagram. There is overlap for all.
George Bernard Shaw uses the term "middle class morality" a lot in his play, Pygmalion, but what point is he trying to make in so doing? Especially in the case of Alfred Doolittle, one of the "undeserving poor", even the lowest in society has their place, but just because they are 'economically-challenged' does not necessarily mean that they are the lowest of the low in society.
It could be said that the condescension of the high class onto the other two puts their moral standing lower than them, but at the same time both the middle and lower classes use everybody else with persuasive antics and unenviable standards to swindle their way to getting what they want. Alfred Doolittle in this sense extorts money from Higgins merely by outwardly playing the card of a beggar. Higgins certainly does not believe him, but since he is delighted by how well he plays his game, he pays Doolittle anyway.
Alfred is most certainly not one of the "lowest" of the low. Being a retired pickpocket and con artist, he knows how to play people-- especially the higher classes. In a sense, there is a sort of superiority to him in those capabilities, but would it be fair to say that it makes him better than those he steals from?
Shaw uses his satirical play of Pygmalion to depict what he wants his audience to see-- a fallacy in the social structure. We are taught to see the high class as "better-thans" and privileged, but are they really? They look down on the working class for merely needing to work to earn their keep, and their politics and ruthless social gambits are fueled by greed and the unnecessary to be on top. The low class consists of the beggars, laborers, and the unemployed, and they resent the upper classes for walking over them to the extent that they do. To some extent, though, their condescension is justified in that the low class does its best to play its thieving games on the other classes in order to gain some sort of social ground back. Lastly, the middle class has the best of both worlds in the sense that they get to both look down on the poor and hate the rich. They work for their keep and get by as a result, but they hate the upper class for not needing to and having more money and better privileges anyway.
All of this is to say that stereotypes interrupt the way of conscious, intellectual and reasonable thought. The descriptions of all these classes likely encompasses less than half of each of their true population, but it is what everyone defines these classes to be. The point Shaw is trying to make in this, through the play Pygmalion, is that no class is truly above the others, because their virtues and faults balance out, and while the hierarchy depicts these classes as a very defined pyramid, it would be more accurate to express the classes in a three-circle Venn diagram. There is overlap for all.