Chicken soup with barley: analysis of a social background

The play written by Arnold Wesker was written in 1956 and performed in 1958 in Belgrade
Theatre, Coventry. It is a part of a trilogy of plays representing different periods in a life of a
working class, socialist Jewish family. Play is in itself strongly biased toward left handed
politics and represents an important landmark in the history of political theatre in United
Kingdom. It is almost impossible to exclude a political and social approach from the analysis
of this work, as it is obviously engaged in multiple levels of criticizing the English society.
Even more so, politics and political activities play the major and deciding part in the life of
the presented family: they base all their hopes, expectations and concrete actions on their
struggle to introduce socialism to their society. We could go even further so and say that the
politics here present a mirror to this family state of affairs: in the first act of a play, family is
stable and functioning; members are filled with enthusiasm and plans for the future. Their
engagement is at its beginning and it a promising one: they are demonstrating and obviously
are quite successful in provoking the current government; they are sending their comrades all
over the world to participate in civil wars and ongoing revolutions. But seeing how their
struggle is still young and at its beginning (as well as they are), life is quite difficult. They live
in a small apartment, obviously are not very rich and socially advanced. The second act brings
us to an apartment which is a little more comfortable and better placed, to a life circumstances
that are a little more relaxed. We are informed that the political option the family is
supporting had gained a couple of seats in the Parliament, and that fact is related to the
familys wellbeing and progress compared to their previous state. But as everything smells of
middle age, we are able to see the first signs of resignation and doubt in the mutual cause.
Parents are not as full of enthusiasm as they once were, but they persist in their belief: older
daughter is completely disappointed, tired, ready to give up the fight and leave the city (which
she eventually does), while the son is high on hope of becoming a proletarian, socialist poet
who will speak for the masses and bring important changes to society. However, his eagerness
is clearly more a result of his age than it is a profoundly based belief in a certain idea. The
notion of decline is further underlined by fathers first stroke and a contrast between old
friends who have long given up their ideals and became well-to-do conformists, and the
family which persist in struggle for their ideas and thus sinks lower and lower.
The third act puts us in front of a completely decomposed and dysfunctional family, the fact
being amplified by the fathers second stroke and related inability to go to the bathroom by
himself or to maintain a coherent communication with his interlocutors. Mother cannot afford
to change her glasses, and we are given several other signs that their incomes are rather
meager. The son had returned to his home and we see he has become a bitter cynic who lost
all of his illusions, ready to give up on his once most sacred ideals. The countrys political
course is in line with this change of atmosphere: socialism is nowhere to be seen, the
government is as capitalist as it ever was, and the familys financial state amplifies the
negativity of that trend. It is interesting to mention that the years in question, the fifties, where
considered as a beginning of a prosperous period in Englands history. The industry was
booming, finding job was a rather easy venture and the period was known as the best there
ever was. However, the course of national politics was ever so capitalistic and growingly
liberal, which is contrary to our characters beliefs: therefore, their situation is not to be
envied.
Given details are but one aspect of the political presence in this play, one that is closely
related to the familys state of affairs at the given moment and its connection to countrys
politics. Numerous other aspects are present and of no lesser importance. We will try to
present them laid out to a particular social background.
The family in question is Jewish, the fact that bears certain importance for this plays
atmosphere and overall tone. Rather than going into detail about Jews in literature and
possible influences present in this peace, or reports about their unique situation throughout the
history of Western Europe, we will gather our attention to a certain moment in British society
in which this play had happened. The first part of the play is placed in the thirties in Great
Britain, second in the forties, right after the Second World War and the third in the fifties, at
the very beginning of the mentioned national economic progress.
If we start from the first part, we might recall the general atmosphere in Europe towards the
Jewish question. At the beginning of the twentieth century, influenced by romantic literature
and different state affairs, there was a strong anti-Semitic current in the entire Europe. In
France, Dreyfus affair divided French society and was the reason of some bitter and fierce
contempt against Jewish people we can very well observe this ambience in the works of
Proust, where in the higher society it was presented as a en vogue attitude and even a matter
of good taste to be anti Dreyfus, and analogous to that Anti-Semitic. For example, Duchess de
Germantes proudly states how she is very pleased to say that she does not know or would like
to know anyone of Jewish origins, and certainly would not let such a person in her circle of
friends. Similar situations are easily found in the Joyces The Ulysses, placed roughly around
the same time as Prousts roman. This attitude towards Jewish people persisted throughout the
twenties and thirties, and had its malign finale in Hitlers Germany official anti-Semitic
politics.
However, as much as Germany is not geographically in the nearest neighborhood of United
Kingdom, we are given multiple examples (from the testimony of live witnesses and other
writers, such as Harold Pinter) that the general atmosphere amongst the Jews of the thirties
was one of fear and anxiety: they thought (are were not much mistaken) that Germanys
politics will soon overcome its frontiers and inundate the entire Europe. Of this, we are
informed in the Weskers play as well: in multiple occasion characters are saying that the
Britain is sure to bow before Hitler and accept his peculiar ways. Fear of Nazism was also
present in countries other than Germany, and Great Britain was no exception. Author of this
play wanted to underline the notion by placing familys origins in central Europe. It is a well
known fact that the greatest atrocities of Second World War took place exactly there, in
Central Europe, where numerous concentration camps where located.
Aside the threat from fast spreading Nazism, Jewish people in Great Britain had numerous
other problems as well. English society of the thirties was, as it was in the forties, fifties or
any other time, as it is even today, more than often strongly accused of latent fascism and
great racial prejudice. In most cases people of Jewish origin could not exactly pretend to take
high positions is society or to contribute to its better part. They were rather confined to
proletariat or, at best, lower middle class of artisans and craftsman. General atmosphere
amongst Jewish community was one of disadvantage and social handicap: one was destined to
stay in narrow borders of the class he was born into. In the display of ferocity and iron fisted
fascism regime could at times go to great lengths, and in Weskers work we are given some
sound example to this notion. It is mentioned that the seven years old boy was driven through
the glass window during the demonstrations: various participants was brutalized by the police
force: some of them came out seriously wounded. That situation is not necessarily related to
Jewish question, as we can very well assume that not all participants of the mentioned
demonstrations were Jewish: but it goes to show a certain atmosphere of fear, inequality and
constant menace our characters are thrown into.
To further emphasize fore mentioned atmosphere of social disadvantage and discrimination,
the family in question is strongly inclined to left-oriented politics, namely socialism. England
of the era had to be one of most right-oriented (if one does not count in Germany, Italy or
Francos Spain) societies of the old continent. It still is. It was (and is), in fact, a Monarchy
whose economy was based in capitalism: so it would be rather difficult for a country to get
any more righter than that. Socialism and left-oriented politics in general are thoroughly
against both of these features. Considering left oriented attitudes towards race and nation (that
they are completely irrelevant) it is easy to understand why such notions would have been
easy to accept by a racially discriminated and socially challenged minority. It is even easier to
understand how unpopular and further discriminating would it be to fight for those ideas in
such a society.
However, seeing as this play is not (just) politically engaged propaganda, but a work of
substantial artistic quality, we are given some subtle nuances of this familys social stature.
More than often family members are seen drinking tea: mother is insisting upon her guests or
pretty much anyone who happens to be around to have a cup of tea every time a person enters
the room. Even when her son comes back from Paris, where he spent a lot of time separated
from his family, one of the first things which come to her mind is tea. Of course, it is needless
to point how the tea is perhaps Englands most famous feature. Of all things English, tea it is
perhaps the most recognizable one, a British ritual par excellence. There are several possible
reasons why the writer is so insistent on family members drinking tea more than water. One of
them is certainly a try to adapt to their new environment and to embrace local customs.
We have already mentioned that this family came from Central Europe: so in a way, they are
double strangers (Jewish and foreigner), which makes it twice as hard for them to adapt,
especially in a traditionalist, right oriented Monarchy such as Great Britain. Therefore, they
need to work twice as hard to adjust themselves to the new environment, at least as hard as
they are trying to adjust their new environment to them. Other possible interpretation of this
important detail is that perhaps they do not try at all but are already a part of mentioned
society: they drink the tea spontaneously, like all British do. In that case, the message would
be a notion that they do belong to that country, foreign Jewish socialist or not: it is theirs as
much as it is of any other homebred Anglo-Saxon.
One could say that having tea all the time is not a detail of great subtlety, perhaps up to the
point where it is not a detail at all: but this particular play sports a good number of much finer
particularities. For example, at the very beginning the mother is telling about the socialist
demonstrations participants, who they are and what they do. Among expected low class and
low middle class occupations we hear that one of the participants was an Oxford student. It is
known that Oxford is an elite institution known for academic excellence, accessible only to
people of considerable finances or great intellectual capacity: more than often, however, it is
rather the first category than the second.
This notion can stand for different meanings. One of them is quite subversive, given the
countrys class division: in majority of cases Oxfords scholars come from high or high
middle class. So the participant of the demonstrations is either an unsatisfied member of the
high class (which would mean that the system is not good even for them, not only for lower
classes) or that he is an intellectual who came to realize how socialism is better than the
countrys current politics. Of course, the presence of an Oxford student amongst the
demonstrators does not have to mean either of these two things. It could also mean that the
society has already begun to deny the class system and to turn towards a greater equality.
Other professions which are mentioned are tailor and a female artist: that way, we have nearly
all classes mingled together and united under one banner a true socialist utopia. This
solution would, in my subjective opinion, be the most subversive of all offered interpretations.
In numerous other aspects this play tries to separate itself from pure propaganda and insists on
humanity. At a certain point, mother of the family asks herself and other family members, in a
rather temperament way, what good is socialism if one has not a human heart and warmth?
Here, however, politics move away from engagement and propaganda: they are becoming an
integral part of the play. We will try to explicate on this. In well-to-do a social circle, that is
higher classes, it is common to have a certain financial base, a solid background which allows
relaxed and somewhat uninterested regard of daily affairs. We could assume that a family of
certain wealth (especially in Great Britain, where capital is distributed in a relatively small
circle) is not touched by changes in state politics because their wealth keeps them above all
economic fluctuations. So in a way, a wealthy man can allow himself to be apolitical: that
particular aspect does not need to make a part of his everyday life.
On the other hand, underprivileged class is in many a way touched by even a smallest change
in social affairs or change in course of national politics. More than often, their very existence
depends on decisions that shape the country politics. So in a way, contrary to higher classes,
they are obliged to keep their eyes peeled and to observe every detail in country management.
Likewise, in quite a round-about manner, they are encouraged to survey and participate as
much as they can. Seeing as to how their very existence depends on a certain decision the
Government will take, politics become very personal issue: they also become a very intimate
part of everyday life. If, for example, a member of an underprivileged and socially challenged
family must fear certain decisions (for example, whether his factory will be closed or
relocated) because he know that other family members depend on those very decisions, in that
case, politics mingle and melt in with very feelings that particular man (or woman) has for his
or hers family.
In this play, this very notion is underlined in several key situations. In this particular family, it
seems impossible to maintain a communication that is not placed in political context. Again, it
is not (just) because this play is a piece of propaganda, but because it is easily imaginable that
in a family of such qualities (foreign Jewish socialist) politics do play more than important
role. All the conversations family members are having between themselves and with their
friends are more or less directly related to politics. Sometimes, it is about their life choices
and decisions, ideals and ongoing struggle: still, all of those things are centered in change of
regime and introducing socialism to society. A common situation where old friends had grew
apart, given at the end of a second act, is outlined on the surface of political struggle and a
contrast between staying in the cause and leaving it. Weskers subtlety and artistic valor
comes out in this scene, leading it further away from pamphlet theatre, where we are able to
see that the ones who have decided to abandon the cause are actually doing much better than
the family who persists in upholding their ideals. On one hand we have middle aged
conformists satisfied with blending in the society they once tried to change: on the other we
have a dysfunctional, impoverished couple whose misfortune is further accentuated by
fathers stroke and inability to control his bodily functions.
This situation, a meeting of two couples who once shared their everyday problems and ideals,
one successful and other quite the opposite, could have been conducted in numerous other
ways: but here, it is closely related to politics. We will take another example. Young,
idealistic son goes to Paris hoping to become a writer, a socialist poet who will bring great
ideas to publics consciousness (it is not difficult to assume that this part is probably closely
related to authors real life). He returns a bitter, disillusioned man blaming not himself, but his
mother for giving him false hope and wrong ideals. Again, this situation is quite common in
literature as it is in everyday life. Unsuccessful, frustrated child blames not himself but his
parents for his failure: he claims he had been raised to believe in certain values that turned out
to be not so appreciated by the world. On the other hand parents, or in this case mother, are
taking their defense by saying that it was the best they could do. This rather usual situation
was again permeated with ideology and politics. Son is accusing his mother of being blind in
her faith in left-oriented ideas: mother does not succumb and is claiming that there is actually
nothing else in the world but ideals, no matter how hard or evidently pointless the struggle for
them may be. Again, this is a text book example of a clash between young, temperament,
easily excited son (or daughter) and older, experienced parent. But this family is not talking
directly about decisions they had made or where exactly they have gone wrong: they are
discussing whether the socialism as a political system is worth fighting for or not. In this
scene, seeing how it is a crescendo of a play, we have a genuine pathos skillfully melted in
with a political discussion.
In that particular moment of the most heightened drama, we are presented to an important
detail. In his accusing rage, son calls his mother a communist. This takes place in the fifties,
in the beginning of the cold war. We know all too well to what extent the propaganda war
between the east and west was merciless and widespread (for example, in the history of
Western Europe devil was always presented as a green skinned creature: that particular color
was related to a certain nuance of yellow and highly disagreeable smell of sulphur. After the
beginning of the cold war, devil was more and more presented as red, because red was a color
of Soviet Russia and a symbol of communism. Even today, when the Cold War is long over,
in popular culture devil is still presented as red, up to the point where it is commonly taken for
granted that he indeed always was red). We also know to what extent paranoia and manic fear
of communism was imposed by propaganda upon the common folk.
So, when the son is calling his mother a communist, he is using one of the worst insults
available at the time. At the same time, that is a quite clever insult, because his mother is
socialist, and while there are significant differences between the two both socialism and
communism are left oriented ideologies and have a good deal of things in common. What the
son is trying to say is, also, that his mother is overly eager and extremist, up to the point
where she ceases to be what she wants to be. If we (grossly) simplify things, we could say that
communism is a more radical version of socialism. So, by saying to his mother that she is a
communist her son is actually trying to tell her how she is not what she think she is: this is
perfectly in line with his major argument that her entire life is nothing but a lie. Also, he is
referring to Soviet Russia and his disappointment in that country: the high hopes the left
oriented world invested into that society and what it had eventually become, an exact opposite
of utopian place of equality and freedom.
With these examples we have tried to point out how politics are present in the life of this
family not only on ideological, but also on very emotional and intimate level. However, those
are not only aspects of life politics saturate with this family. We are given a number of other
examples how politics impose themselves even when characters are not overly eager to
participate. It is on this very aspect that most of the critics that are directly pointed to British
society are based. Other that the famous kitchen sink, which is a detail giving us information
rather about the class and everyday life than ideology or political attitude, we are presented to
scenes where we see and indirect critic of an un functional system and its everyday
concretizations. Mother is slaving away over unnecessary complicated administrative work.
Father is constantly losing jobs and after his strokes the society provides no support or help
for a heavily disadvantaged man. Mother is unsuccessfully trying to change her glasses but
cant afford to: and so on.
There is another reason, outside of artistic coherence and propaganda value, to inundate this
familys life with politics in such a manner. Other than being a part of a class whose life is in
a greatest possible measure influenced by fluctuations and everyday changes, this family
stand as an archetypical example of a proletarian people. Father has given up on life even
before he got sick: one child managed to escape from this particular atmosphere, the other
took the path laid out before him by his class. Mother is valiantly trying to keep them all
together even when it is plainly visible that such an effort has lost all sense and purpose.
As we have already mentioned, this family is an archetypical one, and in that certain aspect is
interesting for analysis, social or otherwise. For that certain aspect the family is so permeated
with politics. We will try to further elaborate on this. Almost every political system, in theory
and in praxis takes family rather than individual for a basic social unit. Society is constructed
from families rather than from individuals: this notion being amplified by the fact that family
is a micro social structure in itself, where we have all the relations and connections featured in
a macro structure, only duplicated on a smaller scale. So, a family is not just a picture of a
society in small: it is also a basic unit, a building block of that same society. In that quality a
familys life is the best demonstrator of a social health and being: it is a best way to reproduce
and more successfully analyze (and consequently criticize) the entire society.
This notion could make us think about Zolas experimental theatre or roman, where he in a
comparable manner used stage to analyze social and political wellbeing. Wesker is
reproducing major problems of his time on a minor scale, close to everyday life and
understandable to ordinary man. In such a way, he is able to touch more universal issues: also,
in such a way political criticism, engagement and artistic quality are brought down to a same
level. We could suppose that this particular family might have had the same life even if they
were not as politically engaged as they were: problems and questions raised in this piece are
of universal, human quality, here given trough a certain ideological prism: but that fact in
itself actually speaks favorably of this plays artistic integrity and valor.