White Trash, Fat Chicks, and British Literature
The concept of social class is a powerful force. Our class has the ability to determine who we might date, to which clubs we might belong, and where we might live. This certainly isn’t a new phenomenon; it has been evidenced in history and literature for centuries.
Doyle’s The Hound of the Baskervilles exists on the brink of Victorian and Modernist literature. Traditional Victorian attitudes about social class, gender, and status populate the novel.
The concept of class distinctions becomes particularly interesting when we take a look at gender and social stratification. Much like a Victorian Austen novel, The Hound of the Baskervilles prizes women based on their appearance. A lady must be delicate and beautiful.
Miss Stapleton, the neighbor of the protagonist, is the epitome of a Victorian lady. She is young, single, and lives under the protection and guidance of a man whom the reader is led to believe is her brother. She is, of course, exceptionally beautiful, with a slim, elegant figure, rich, dark hair, and a sensitive mouth. Miss Stapleton seems to be the perfect match for her neighbor, the most eligible of bachelors, Sir Henry.
The reader encounters another lady a bit later on in the story (one of only three women to appear in the story at all, in fact). This lady is Mrs. Lyons, a potential witness to the investigation by Sherlock Holmes. Like Miss Stapleton, Mrs. Lyons is quite beautiful upon first impression. However, Dr. Watson is quick to note that his first impression of beauty is immediately undermined by an impression of coarseness. On the surface, there is no significant differential between Miss Stapleton and Mrs. Lyons in terms of physical appearance. The difference, rather, lies in social status. You see, Miss Stapleton is a young, single woman who lives under the guardianship of her “brother.” Mrs. Lyons, on the other hand, married against the will of her father, was deserted by her husband, and now lives alone. Although her husband was the one to commit the crime of abandoning her, Mrs. Lyons’ social standing is still significantly reduced by the mere fact that she is now separated from her husband. Before Watson even meets Mrs. Lyons, he describes her as a lady of “equivocal reputation.” His impression of her is marred before she ever has a chance to prove herself.
In the time of Sherlock Holmes, social status was dictated by wealth and moral behavior. Of course, social stratification still exists. However, I would like to take a look at how the parameters of social stratification have changed across the course of time and literature. In Holmes’ day, you knew that a woman was a good woman based on the fact that her dignity was guarded by a man. Mrs. Lyons, despite her attractive appearance, was white trash. Her reputation had been soiled, making her undesirable to any man of class. Her husband left her, making her undesirable despite her superificially acceptable appearance.
Today, we care less for moral distinctions. In fact, we champion women who are independent and unregulated by a male authority figure. So, have things gotten better? Have we rid society of unfair social stratification? I would argue that rather than eliminating classism, we have changed its standards. Women are still judged based on appearance, no different than what was happening 100 years ago. In many American cultural groups, the high priority of moral behavior has been minimized. Women can date many different men — even live with different men or get divorced — without being frowned upon by society or their social status being reduced. (There is the exception of certain strict religious groups.) The standards for a woman’s physical appearance have become much more rigid, though. Every woman is expected to possess the beauty and class of a supermodel. She should have a thigh gap and wear designer clothes, and every man wants to have access to that class of woman. Family reputation, old money, and marital history are irrelevant; physical appearance matters.
This stands in stark contrast to the parameters of social stratification in Victorian England. Then and there, physical appearance mattered. However, physical appearance seemed to exist as proof of a woman’s good moral character. Milky white skin meant that a woman was pure and untouched. Today, physical beauty is a wholly separate being from moral cleanliness.
The comedian Louie CK demonstrates the current emphasis on the stand alone value of physical beauty perfectly in an episode of his sitcom, Louie. (Season 4, Episode 3)
Louie is an overweight comedian who performs stand-up in a New York City comedy club. A new waitress at the club asks him out on a date. Despite the fact that the waitress is funny and charming and pleasant, Louie can’t bring himself to date her because she’s fat. After a lot of back and forth, the waitress finally calls Louie out on his behavior. She points out that he doesn’t want to date her because she’s fat — but he is fat, too. She says, “we go together!” Despite the fact that they are, essentially, in the same social class, Louie feels uncomfortable with dating a fat woman. He wants to raise his own social standing by dating a woman who is physically flawless rather than remaining in his current class. There is no mention of her marital or dating history, her family name or reputation, or her religious beliefs or moral behavior. All that matters is her weight.
Physical beauty has lost the Victorian connotation of moral character. However, there does seem to be an underlying current to female beauty suggesting that it must be bought or earned. It isn’t enough for a woman to be relatively thin or attractive. Instead, she must be very thin and have defined muscles that make it clear that she has earned her physique through hard work. Of course, there is also the option to purchase physical beauty through cosmetic procedures. In order to be in a position to afford to purchase this beauty, a woman must be wealthy and successful. Crooked teeth are a permanent indicator to every person that one encounters that the owner of that smile is not financially able to get braces and fix herself, which knocks her social standing down a peg. A fat person is seen as lazy or unambitious, because she could be thin and fit if she really tried. She just doesn’t have the drive to really make herself a valuable member of society.
Social stratification did not disappear with Victorian England. It hasn’t even changed all that much. The parameters have shifted a bit. In Doyle’s day, women were classified into social groups based on wealth, appearance, and moral character, with moral character referring primarily to the observance of strict rules for sexual behavior. Today, we classify women into social groups based on wealth, appearance, and moral character. However, moral character no longer refers to virginity or marital status. Instead, moral character is judged based on work ethic and ambition. In order to secure social status through her appearance, a woman must prize her own appearance sufficiently to devote her finances and efforts to improving it.
