LOTR - classist?

[littlemanpoet]

According to Tolkien's letters and other sources, he believed in hierarchy. He would have preferred monarchy to any other form of government. Along with monarchy comes inevitable aristocracy and peasantry. I think "classist" is a slightly different thing since it has more to do with modern political philosophy. Tolkien did not much like many developments that occured after the 1500s, nor English literature that was written after perhaps 1600, and deplored modernism.

[Selmo]

Tolkien was born in the 19th Century and grew up in England in the early years of the 20th. His attitude towards the master/servant and empolyer/employee relationship reflect those of the place and the time.

In his letters, Tolkien has written that some of his inspiration for the character of Sam came from the men under his command during the Great War. Even in the 21st Century, private soldiers do not address Officers by their first names. Likewise, it would be unthinkable for me to speak to the head of the organisation in which I work by her first name. I would address her as "Ma'am" or "Vice-chancellor", never "Janet".

Class structures exist in all human societies, whether you like it or not, and were even stronger in the society in which Tolkien was raised.
.

[Aiwendil]

No time for a thoughtful post right now - but I'm afraid I cannot be as dismissive of the charge of 'classism' as LMP and Selmo are.

Yes, Tolkien was born in the late 19th century. He was born into a world that had already seen the work of Marx, a world in which the stirrings of class-revolution were already visible in many places in Europe. The world in which he grew up was a very modern one in many respects; it was certainly one that did not take notions of class-structure for granted. Tolkien was aware of all this and he still chose to portray class-structures as he did. I'm not saying that he was necessarily wrong to do so; but I do not think that the views of class presented in LotR can be put down to it being written a long time ago.

Nor, I think, can one say that Tolkien was not interested in modern political theory and leave it at that. It's true that he did not much care for many things post-1500 or so. But this is avoiding the question. Why did he not like things post-1500? And, specifically, why did he choose to portray and even glorify the class structures that he did? One would hardly excuse a proponent of slavery by saying "he doesn't much like developments since 1865"; and while I think the charge made here against Tolkien is far less serious, it should still not be thus dismissed.

[Selmo]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Tolkien .... was born into a world that had already seen the work of Marx, a world in which the stirrings of class-revolution were already visible in many places in Europe. The world in which he grew up was a very modern one in many respects; it was certainly one that did not take notions of class-structure for granted

Tolkien did not portray the class system of Marxist ideology in his works because he set his story in an earlier time and place where there had never been a Marx.
I assume Tolkien was aware of Marxism/Stalinism/Communism but I doubt whether he ever read Das Capital (he might have done had Marx written in Gothic or Old High German but he doesn't seem to have been interested in modern politics). He was at least inteligent enough to see that all the isms in the world were not doing away with class structure, just replacing old ones with newer ones.

I'm not sure that we should call Tokien a "classist" but he was certainly a hopeless romantic, hankering after a golden age from the past which never existed.
.
.

[Lush]

Oooh, controversy!

I'm not sure that we should call Tokien a "classist" but he was certainly a hopeless romantic, hankering after a golden age from the past which never existed.

You might catch flak for the above statement, Selmo, so I am going to preempt all that by saying I agree. The word "romantic" may be problematic - but I find that Tolkien often longs for the mythical picturesque, particularly within power structures. This is why Sam lovingly refers to Frodo as "Mr. Frodo," and never appears to buckle under the weight of his subservience. When Sam is tempted by the Ring - I almost see that as Tolkien's way of highlighting the potential dangers of threatening the hierarchy. As in, "look at our dear, sweet Sam, look at what he would turn into."

Of course, we must also remember the very nature of the Ring - it implies a tyrannical master of great power, a supremely negative figure.

So I do believe that Tolkien had a distinction in mind - there is "good" class structure, and "bad" class structure in the books. The Orcs serve Sauron out of fear and terror, while Sam, we are lead to believe, does so out of love (right?).

Yes, Tolkien was born in the late 19th century. He was born into a world that had already seen the work of Marx, a world in which the stirrings of class-revolution were already visible in many places in Europe. The world in which he grew up was a very modern one in many respects; it was certainly one that did not take notions of class-structure for granted. Tolkien was aware of all this and he still chose to portray class-structures as he did. I'm not saying that he was necessarily wrong to do so; but I do not think that the views of class presented in LotR can be put down to it being written a long time ago.

Indeed. I believe that Tolkien, like any intelligent man, had a complex perspective on the entire thing. On one side, you had an abused under-class, on the other side, the violent excess of Bolshevik Russia. I'd be fascinated to find out more on his thoughts here (anyone have any letters they can cite? ).

[Boromir88]

So I do believe that Tolkien had a distinction in mind - there is "good" class structure, and "bad" class structure in the books.~Lush

I agree, I would like to point out, Sam does become mayor and is re-elected several times after all.

There may be a hierarchy, you could even make a good argument for class. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is a caste system in Middle-earth. A system where the caste you are born in (or the caste of your parents) is the caste you stay in...there is absolutely no political, social, or economic mobility at all.

Because again if we look at Sam, he rises from a servant of Bilbo's and Frodo's to becoming the Mayor of the Shire. And while it does seem as if the Mayor is more of a figurehead that simply precides over ceremonies and such...I would definitely say that Sam did at least rise in political status. If there was a caste system this would not be possible.

[Lalwendë]

In fact in showing Sam's rise to high status Tolkien shows us how old barriers of 'class' in Middle-earth were broken down after the War of the Ring, in much the same way that WWI saw huge shifts in the expectations and perceived limitations of class in Britain. It was following WWI that we saw women gain the vote and the working classes began to rise into positions of power and influence. The aristocracy in Britain entered into the decline into shabby gentility that continues today, just as the Elves became less exalted as the Third Age ends. A new power takes over, Men, just as the rising power of the working and middle classes in Britain accelerated following the Great War. Aragorn heralds a new age of Hope, the Modern Age.

[the phantom]

Here's a question- does the rise of Sam really fly in the face of a class structure?

You could say it proves that there is an allowance for a rare case of mobility, but it certainly doesn't disprove the notion of upper/ruling class sorts being better than others and deserving to be followed.

Generally the higher ups were the strongest/fastest/bravest and most wise/noble/intelligent. Sam certainly does not disprove that. He is, after all, shown through the course of events to be by hobbit standards extremely brave, resourceful, tough, sharp, and worthy of honor. And sure enough, he ends up being the mayor at the end.

Sam only helps highlight the differences between classes in some ways. The rulers and such were generally superior, and when on rare occasion a superior person was born into a lower class (like Sam), his superiority would lead to him being absorbed into the ruling class. It's a case of circular reasoning- being ruling class generally makes one superior, and being superior generally elevates one to ruling class.

So did Sam really break any barriers? Is he really a common hobbit who rose to the top? Or is he a superior hobbit that was inexplicably born to commoners and rose to take his rightful place among the elite?

Fyi, I'm not trying to promote any argument or another. I'm just thinking out loud.

[the.landlord]

thank you all for your answers. reading them has been very interesting for me.

Originally Posted by Selmo

In his letters, Tolkien has written that some of his inspiration for the character of Sam came from the men under his command during the Great War. Even in the 21st Century, private soldiers do not address Officers by their first names. Likewise, it would be unthinkable for me to speak to the head of the organisation in which I work by her first name. I would address her as "Ma'am" or "Vice-chancellor", never "Janet".

Class structures exist in all human societies, whether you like it or not, and were even stronger in the society in which Tolkien was raised.

of course you are right about most of societies having a sort of class structure... i would not agree on every society having class structures, because i think that there may be some hunter-gatherer societies, which do not.

i am not an expert of class structure... but i think that the society i live in, germany, has not a class structure as shown in lotr. actually i never saw the man, who owns the company i am working for... we only see the headman master, whom we adress by his firstname and sometimes call boss if we like too. i think most people in germany adress the guys they are working with every day by their firstnames.
i think germany is a little bit different then england or the usa... because we call each other by the firstnames most of the time. when i was a pupil, wev even called some teachers by their firstnames. american friends have told me, that something like that would be unthinkable for them.
so probably that is one reason why i am so unlucky with sam calling frodo "sir all the time".
if i would meet the man who owns the company i work for i would adress him by his lastname and call him "Sie" (a respectful form of "you", probably like calling one "Sir")... but if he would take me on a quest, to destroy the one ring and i would go trough thick and thin with him... i would probably stop calling him "sir" very soon... because i would consider him as equal to me than.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

According to Tolkien's letters and other sources, he believed in hierarchy. He would have preferred monarchy to any other form of government. Along with monarchy comes inevitable aristocracy and peasantry. I think "classist" is a slightly different thing since it has more to do with modern political philosophy. Tolkien did not much like many developments that occured after the 1500s, nor English literature that was written after perhaps 1600, and deplored modernism.

Tolkien most certainly did like literature written after 1600! He loved both recent and contemporary work, including H Rider Haggard, ER Eddison, Isaac Asimov (yes, he was a sci-fi fan!), Mary Rennault, even 'literary fiction' by Iris Murdoch. William Morris, the socialist and prime mover of the Arts and Crafts movement, was a huge influence. Tolkien also knew his art and was a fan of Burne-Jones. He took newspapers including 'leftist' Sunday paper, The Observer. He was fully up to date with current affairs and enjoyed 'popular' fiction, he was not locked in a Medievalist's bubble, and had even owned a car when he needed one for his family.

Tolkien's politics are ambiguous, as there is an essential conflict between his idealisation of both monarchies (Gondor) and anarchism (The Shire), so we cannot say he liked one or the other; as in many other areas, Tolkien often contradicts himself in his letters so its not entirely possible to fix on what he did think. And nothing wrong with that, it seems entirely ordinary to me to have some conflicting views; bear in mind that Tolkien was not a politician nor was he a Political writer so we cannot expect him to have fixed on one ideology. The only thing we know for sure is that he did not approve of massive machines of State.

But as I was once told, we might not set out to concern ourselves with Politics but as we exist in the world we cannot avoid them. And Tolkien made (maybe unwittingly, but I suspect not) some marvellous satire on the English classes with his Hobbits. Look at this satire and he is anything but 'classist' (and I am particularly sensitive to this ) as he pricks a lot of bubbles.

He makes fun of the 'nouveau-riche' in his portrayal of the Sackville-Bagginses - and allegedly also of the aesthetic, intelligentsia Bloomsbury set of the Sackville-Wests. He shows how bumbling the English country squire could be by showing the 'all lads together' japery of Merry and Pippin, the squires' sons. He makes humour out of the narrow world vision and superstitions of the local farm labourers. And he makes us laugh with his portrayal of Bilbo and all his suburban, Daily Mail influenced paranoia about 'strangers' and keeping up appearances (Bilbo effectively goes on his quest because he is so horribly English and cannot say "clear off!" when the Dwarves arrive at his door).

[the.landlord]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

He makes fun of the 'nouveau-riche' in his portrayal of the Sackville-Bagginses - and allegedly also of the aesthetic, intelligentsia Bloomsbury set of the Sackville-Wests. He shows how bumbling the English country squire could be by showing the 'all lads together' japery of Merry and Pippin, the squires' sons. He makes humour out of the narrow world vision and superstitions of the local farm labourers. And he makes us laugh with his portrayal of Bilbo and all his suburban, Daily Mail influenced paranoia about 'strangers' and keeping up appearances (Bilbo effectively goes on his quest because he is so horribly English and cannot say "clear off!" when the Dwarves arrive at his door).

i never looked at this that way! but you are right...
nevertheless: i think there is a class he never made fun of at all. the highest class: aricstocratic folks (the elves. to my mind they are sort of aristocrats... at least there is no story of elves working for their money, is there?)