The Industrial Revolution, which took place in the 1850’s, stimulated economic growth and implemented new societal norms within the workforce. This sudden increase in the number of laborers, though helpful to society as a whole, ultimately did nothing for an individual in the lower class because of their harsh conditions and extreme labor demands. Such is a position that is held by Bartleby, the title character in Herman Melville’s short story, Bartleby, The Scrivener. Bartleby is a young man of a lower socio-economic status who is currently employed at a law firm on Wall Street. When Bartleby rejects a task as requested by his employer, he defies the expectations of his job. In doing so, he burdens his co-workers by giving them the work that was assigned to him. Given the circumstances and societal expectations of holding a job, Bartleby fails to fulfill his duties as a worker. Therefore Bartleby’s behavior is unreasonable because of its selfish origins.
When Bartleby is asked to perform a task by his employer and he responds with “I prefer not to,” in refusing to do that Bartleby’s action can be interpreted as a gateway to a trend of American consumerism that centers on wanting more. This concept is personified by Bartleby’s desire to not perform his duty and still receive the benefits. The ideal goal was to milk the system even at the cost of others. Eventually Bartleby’s actions led to consequences which led to his downfall. His scheme was uncovered and he was removed of the privileged job he had.
Bartleby’s working conditions were nowhere as severe or harsh as his societal counterparts.
People argue that Bartleby is not to be blamed because of the horrid working conditions at the time and his circumstances, but I think that isn’t the case. Bartleby did not have any excuses to not perform his job and tasks assigned to him. I would have been more understanding of Bartleby’s protest to not do work if Bartleby was mistreated or kept under harsh working conditions, but the fact is that he wasn’t and that he just plainly “preferred” not to do anything.
Considering all these facts about how harsh and severe working conditions were during the 1850s, there was no reason for Bartleby to act the way he did. If anything, Bartleby was privileged; he had his own work station and was actually treated fairly decent by the narrator. The narrator found out he was sleeping in the office and didn’t really say anything, but all that was expected of him was for him to do some kind of work to contribute to the firm. Bartleby “politely” refused the slightest of requests made from the narrator and just spent his day looking out the window onto Wall Street. Bartleby was looking at what was to be the financial center of the world and he took the initiative to do things his own way and not follow societal norms. All in all Bartleby’s desire to get ahead at the expense of his co-workers revealed his selfishness and unreasonable response to his circumstances.
First off, your writing is so clear and concise. You make valid points in a really eloquent manner. And, you persuaded me that Bartleby's behavior is unreasonable. While reading the story, I also got annoyed by his character because of the reasons you pointed out: he was being selfish and taking advantage of the narrator's curiosity. The only issue that really stood out is that, since "Bartleby, the Scrivener" is a short story, the proper format when referring to it is quoting it, not italicizing it.
ReplyDeleteI liked your interpretation of Bartleby's phrase "I prefer not to" in the way that it diverges into the working conditions and socioeconomic statuses in the 1850s. This gives a solid evidence to support your reason that Bartleby's behavior is unreasonable to the circumstances that he is given. I think you could organize your structure to make your points clearer, but otherwise I think your approach to Bartleby's gave me another perception of his character.
ReplyDelete