138
Now he is able to develop meaningful communication and sympathetic interpersonal relationships with his workers which will lead him further to develop caring relations
grounded in the ethics of care manifested in the scheme of communal catering arrangement and the institution of common dining room. This personal transformation eventually leads to
improvement of industrial relations beyond commercial relationship.
4.2.2. Higgins: The Mothering Person
Through the dialogical encounter with Margaret and Thornton, the complexity of Higgins‘ subjectivity is dialogically represented beyond the gender and class stereotypes. At
the beginning of the story both Margaret and Thornton still hold prejudices against Higgins. However, through their interpersonal relationships with Higgins, Margaret and Thornton can
overcome their class prejudices. Margaret at first supposes him as a typical of ignorant, careless and drunkard worker, yet he appears to be a judicious and fair-minded man in voicing
his opinion about industrial issues which subsequently Margaret listens with interests and respect. Thornton, on the other hand, at first treats Hig
gins merely as ‗hands‘ or instrument to produce labor and profit and threatening ‗wild beast‘ which is yearning for unlawful
ownership of others‘ property. He disapproves Higgins for his lack of decency, sobriety and dutifulness to work hard, yet he appears to be a virtuous man whose patience, tenderness and
generosity to take care of other man‘s children. Through his interpersonal relationship with Higgins, Thornton no longer treats
Higgins as object or as ‗hands‘. He no longer sees Higgins as collectives, but an individual. He recognizes him as a human being who is vulnerable and
suffers from industrial exploitations. This awareness is highlighted when Thornton goes to Higgins‘ house. There he notices how impoverished Higgins‘ life is, ‗I saw such a miserable
black frizzle of a dinner--a greasy cinder of meat ‘ 467. Being aware of the workers‘
impoverished lives, Thornton initiates to build common dining room and arrange communal catering to provide better provisions for his workers.
139
Through dialogic encounter with Margaret and Thornton, the novel reveals the complexities of Higgins‘ characters. He is depicted as having both masculine and feminine
traits. The rigid boundary of masculinity and femininity becomes blurring in the depiction of Higgins‘ character. He is both a tough, hard-working and caring person. He is a respected
leader of strike among his peers, yet he is also a caring man who takes care of not only his terminally ill daughter, Bessy, but also
Boucher‘s children. The novel especially highlights Higgins as a mothering person who is unafraid to openly express profound emotion in
contrast to the codes of hegemonic masculinity. When he hears about the death of her daughter, he is drown in intense sorrow, Ay it is, it is--brushing away the tears with the
back of his hand.--But yo know, shes lying dead at home and Im welly dazed wi sorrow …‘
295. Higgins shows a bitter regret that he cannot provide better life for his daughter. He wails how unfortunate his daughter‘s fate to be a victim of exploitative industrial system in
such a young age: It canna hurt her now, muttered he. Nought can hurt her now. Then, raising his voice
to a wailing cry, he went on: We may quarrel and fall out--we may make peace and be friends
—we may clem to skin and bone--and nought o all our griefs will ever touch her more. Hoos had her portion on em. What wi hard work first, and sickness at last,
hoos led the life of a dog. And to die without knowing one good piece o rejoicing in all her days Nay, wench, whatever hoo said, hoo can know nought about it now.‘
286 So profound his sorrow, that Higgins needs a drinking binge to relief his sorrow 287.
Higgins also shows similar sorrow when he witnesses Boucher‘s agony for his hopeless
circumstances and his inability to feed his family during the strike. In a quarrel with Higgins, Boucher desperately wails out that the strike does not bring any good to their lives. It will
only clem his children to death: Hoo cannot stand th‘ sight o‘ the little ones clemming. Ay, clemming. . . There‘s our
lile Jack lying a-bed, too weak to cry, but just every now and then sobbing up his heart for want o‘food. . . our lile Jack, who wakened me each morn wi‘ putting his sweet
little lips to my great rough fou‘ face, a-seeking a smooth place to kiss,- an‘ he lies clemming. 199
140
Hearing this woeful cry, Higgins sympathizes with ―with eyes brimful of tears‖ 200.
He is in dilemma that the strike he struggles for bring much agony for Boucher and his family. Yet, he cannot give up the strike because it will bring greater common good for the
workers. Hence, to relieve Boucher‘s agony, Higgins offers his own money to feed Boucher‘s children during the strike,
―Houd up, man. Thy lile Jack shall na clem. I ha getten brass, and well go buy the chap a sup o milk an a good four-pounder this very minute. Whats mines
thine, sure enough, i thoust i want. Only, dunnot lose heart, man ‖ 200. This scene shows
how Higgins assumes responsibility to take care not only his biological family, but also Boucher‘s family during the strike. Here, the novel highlights Higgins‘ maternal quality
without necessarily totally effeminates him. Higgins
‘ intense emotion to the suffering of Boucher‘s children and his bodily reaction of shedding tears highlight his compassion and sympathetic response to the suffering
of others. These qualities mark his humanity. Though the master attempts to elide his humanity by referring him as
‗hands‘, as the extension of industrial systems, his body subversively resisted to be essentialized with this dehumanizing label. His body makes his
moral response visible and thus, asserts his humanity and confirms the sufferings of working class under exploitative industrial system.
It is his sympathy for Boucher ‘s family that makes Higgins puts aside his pride to ask
for a new job opportunity from Thornton. Assured by Margaret that Thornton will listen to him, Higgins tries to overcome his prejudices and antagonism with the master,
―for th‘ childer. Measter, do yo‘ think we can e‘er get on together‘ 422. Encouraged by Margaret, he
is willing to engage in interpersonal relationship with the master. This interpersonal relationship develops into further cooperation between him and Thornton in planning
communal catering arrangement and dining room. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
141
4.3. Conclusion
