English Literature Marxism Essay: Large Cool Store

How does Larkin explore ideas of inequality between social classes?

The large cool store by Phillip Larkin was written in the early 1960’s. The society then was divided between the Bourgeoisie (ruling class) and the proletariats (working class) whom were exploited via the means of production which the Bourgeoisie own in the base. At the time of The Large Cool Store being written, Britain was impoverished and between 2-5 million citizens were living in poverty. Many of the citizens were living in slums and there was no minimum wage, therefore the proletariats were enduring labour so they could live, meanwhile the Bourgeoisie were benefiting from this as they could make the proletariats work extensive hours for little money, and gain lots of profit and earn plenty of money.

From the title that Larkin has chosen the ‘cool store’ doesn’t mean that it is positive, the title is ambiguous as it can mean it is cool or cold. But  ‘cool’, representing the Bourgeoisie, are emotionless, dispassionate and cynical towards the proletariats, as they don’t have a duty of care they are only focused on profit and only care about their own interests of the capitalist system and of the capitalist class within that system, and disregard the rest of society and all its members. Another way that 'cool' could be interpreted would be in terms of the clothes being fashionable is that the proletariats are buying these clothes in order to fit in and seem to be a part of the group. But really the Bourgeoisie has hegemony over the proletariats and they will never fit in. Marxists would argue that being ‘cool’ they would need to buy the things classified as high culture by the Bourgeoisie, which benefits the capitalist profit. Larkin describes Marks and Spencer’s and what the shop used to be like as it used to be discounted shop. He describes the items they have in it as Larkin says ‘ simple sizes plainly’ this suggests that that not only are the clothes plain and boring, but the models within society are all the same, and there is no individualism between the members of the culture. The colours of the clothes are also significant, as they are symbolic to the inequalities that are faced in the society in that time. Larkin says ‘ Browns and greys, maroons and navy’ the colours are dull, plain, indolent and represents the workers as they show signs of brain washing into a false-consciousness, and it’s the boring lives of the proletariats in society. The colours are also the ones used in labour, as the browns and dark colours don’t look as dirty as they probably would be and are easier to hide the stains and work that they do. The ‘navy’ colour would be the colour of the collar that the workers would wear to show their place in the workplace, the Bourgeoisie would wear white collars as they don’t do manual labour  and they are kept clean so they can wear white to show the cleanliness and  the freedom the ruling class have.

In the second stanza, Larkin drifts away from the store and talks about the factory workers and how the workers change between day and night. Larkin states ‘leave at dawn low terraced houses’ this shows that the workers leave very early in the morning to do intensive labour which is the only option they have to literally earn their living. The houses are small and rundown, this indicates that the proletariats are poor and can’t afford to live in anything else. However, Larkin could have said this in order to emphasize with the proletariats as they are alienated from the ruling class. In the next remark Larkin is stereotypical and misogynist towards women. To mention men he says ‘heaps of shirts and trousers’ this suggests men are consistent, chronological and simplistic, it shows men are just messy and don’t care on their aesthetics. However, for women he makes the conjecture that ‘Modes for Night: Machine- embroidered, thin as blouses’ this suggests that women are plain pretty and empty, they are manikins only to be looked at and shown off. This is the reification of women as they are only viewed as a commodity and have no inner beauty or depth to their personalities, but then it was a patriarchal society and people would have agreed, but in today’s society this represents and promotes the inequalities feminism have fought against. This also links to Marxism as the ‘heaps’ would be all the work that the proletariats complete and their consistent lives of work and little free time to themselves to socialise and go out, as their lives are surrounded by working all day, sleeping and going back to work. Whereas the Capitalist system are in admirable clothes, having freedom whilst they attend parties and events and relax, as they benefit off the capitalist society, and the working class are exploited for their work.

Larkin follows on from that stanza into some more colours, he deliberately makes these more descriptive and emphasizes and exaggerates in it. He says ‘ Lemon, sapphire, moss-green, rose’ the colours get brighter as it shows a pathetic fallacy from working in dull colours, to the weekend when they don’t need to work and the mood and atmosphere is happier. The colours are more descriptive and emotional, as if a woman was to writ that in contrast to a male gendered language. He then moves away from that and says ‘They share the world; to think their sort is matched by something in it shows how separate and unearthly love is.’ This could advocate the capitalist society, and how the proletariats aren’t worthy of equality to the Bourgeoisie. Although, it could also contrast to women never being able to match the phallocentric world men believe they have.

In the final sentence of the poem Larkin says ‘ unreal wishes seem to be: synthetic, new and natureless in ecstasies.’ Larkin proposes that wishes are man mad and cannot happen as they are an impossible target to achieve. He believes that society make the citizens believe in consumerism and that they need to buy the latest trends in order to be happy. And to get wealthy you need to invest into products, however the more you buy the less money you have and you don’t get a kick into buying products, therefore it’s a vicious cycle of consumerism to move classes, but it is more complex and is unachievable.  This results in the reproduction of the inequalities as there will also be the class divide as the proletariats spend to climb the social ladder, the Bourgeoisie are the ones benefiting making them more rich and the proletariats still poor. Larkin also, describes the real things in life as ‘ ecstasies’ people are just hallucinating on the fact that society could improve and be better, and if they ever did question outside of the proletariats false-consciousness then the questions would be un-answered. But like Karl Marx said ‘ opium of the people’ as people believe in something that is unreal and irrelevant, and they should see society how it is. Marx believed in communism for the people, but there is no attempt from the people that this will ever happen, as the inequalities are taught and conditioned into believing the superstructure is above all and the base supports this.  This again then reinforces the ideology that reproduces the inequalities between the classes, and there will never be an equal society.