Progress and Power in the "Angry Young Men"

The tap root of the "angry young men" is buried in the loam of progress and empowerment, or the lack thereof. As is seen in the budding and blossoming of the Industrial Revolution during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the working classes resisted progress at every turning. This seems mostly to have occurred because with progress, at least for the working classes, came a loss of empowerment. Montague states, "A change of power relations in a society is accompanied or followed by changes in the social estimation of honor attached to the group which has created a new, or assumed direction of a previously existing power situation," (134). As the Industrial Revolution began, individuals who had once been independent workers, who had estimation in the eyes of their peers, were transformed into the thralls of the industrial capitalists. Each of the characters, Jimmy Porter in Look Back in Anger, Joe Lampton in Room at the Top, and Smith in "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, deal with this feeling of powerlessness, and gain individual power, in different ways. However, one must look at whence one came to determine if there was, in fact, progress, and for whom.

Though English society was stratified before the late eighteenth century, the working class truly came into existence with the formation of the London Corresponding Society and other similar organizations. These organizations were used by their members to air their opinions on "economics and political themes," (Thompson 21). Finally, the working class had a place much like the middle and upper classes had had for years. One of their goals was to reform voting enfranchisement. At the time, only propertied men could voice their political opinion with a vote. Unpropertied men had no voting rights, even though many of the issues being voted on directly affected the working class. Thompson says of the issues:

Montague, writing of the burgeoning bourgeoisie, observed that, "...its power and status were mainly derived from the new forms of property relations, rather than from political office," (135). These same relations could be applied to the working class shortly after World War II, since there was full-employment, and the working class had access to more material goods than ever. What the working class lacked was "status," and with status comes real power. Montague also examines the growth of bureaucracy in relation to the working class, pointing out that "bureaucratic structure has expanded, and that with this development, not only has the bureaucratic official gained social honor, but that the functioning of the bureaucracy has resulted..in the leveling of status honor throughout society," (139). He concludes that the working class has gained power, and status, but that because there is still "customary social honor" attached to the upper and middle classes, there is a delay in a true gain of power for the working class. Much of this delay, in his opinion, is because the working class fails to recognize their own gains (140).

Another thing that had changed in Britain, as well as in the United States, was the development of youth as a separate class. Catherine Ellis writes, "a new social construction of ‘youth’ in the 1950s was central to the contemporary feeling that young people had become for the first time ‘a distinct cultural entity...palpably different from previous generations of young people," (201). She believes that the youth culture developed as a result of affluence, full employment, the success of the welfare state, and a perceived decline in popular political conviction...," (201). In this atmosphere, characters such as Porter, Lampton, and Smith developed and burgeoned. Each, however, chose to deal with society and its changes in distinct manners.

Jimmy Porter, the "hero" of John Osbourne’s play, Look Back in Anger, could be termed, what Richard Hoggart calls, a "scholarship boy." Hoggart writes of the scholarship boy:

And, thought the reader knows little of Porter’s situation before the opening of the play, since he is clearly of working class stock, something, or someone, obviously intervened to allow Porter to receive a higher education. Hoggart further notes that, "Almost every working-class boy who goes through the process of further education by scholarships finds himself chafing against his environment during adolescence," (225). By Porter’s actions, one might say that his is a case of arrested adolescence, since much that he does throughout the play is chaff against his environment, and against the people in it. For example, when reading the newspapers at the beginning of the play, Jimmy chides Cliff for being ignorant, (Osborne 11).

John Elsom says, "Jimmy was not just the critic of his society, he was also the object for criticism. He was the chief example of the social malaise which he was attacking," (Breaking Out). Elsom adds, "Through Jimmy Porter, Osborne had opened up a much wider subject that rebelliousness or youthful anger, that of social alienation, the feeling of being trapped in a world of meaningless codes and customs," (Breaking Out). Not only is Jimmy socially alienated, he does his best to alienate those around him that he claims to love. Jimmy is constantly doing his worst to push Cliff away, as noted above, and does end up driving Alison back to her family, if only for a short time. To Cliff’s credit, he does his best to neutralize Jimmy’s acerbity, saying at one point to Allison, "Don’t take any notice of him. He’s being offensive. And it’s so easy for him," (Osborne 14). "Hoggart posits, "...this kind of boy (Jimmy) tends to be progressively cut off from the ordinary life of his group," (226). But, Jimmy, by his own choice, chooses to go back to his group, pushing a candy cart in the local market. Where, by the strength of his university education, he could have been employed in a far more useful occupation, it is his choice to have power over himself.

In his/her essay, "Boredom and Social Meaning," J.M. Barbalet defines boredom as, "...the emotional feeling of anxiety that an activity or situation holds...," and writes that "...boredom is an emotional safeguard of meaningfulness and a defense against meaninglessness," (632-3). Jimmy Porter, then, could, and probably was suffering from boredom, especially considering his level of education compared to his chosen profession. For the reader, boredom is clearly involved when, in Act 1, Jimmy and Cliff are reading the Sunday papers when Jimmy says:

Yet, in Act III, scene i, the tableau is practically identical, with Helena replacing Allison. Jimmy’s life has basically become meaningless, a rut in which there is no ladder, at least no ladder which Jimmy chooses to climb. It seems that he would rather wallow in the bottom of it than climb out.

One of the methods people combat boredom, according to Barbalet, is to participate in "intergroup conflict," (634). He/she believes that "intergroup conflict affords opportunities for meaning construction and therefore satisfies a need for boredom-aversion...," (Barbalet 643). This "intergroup tension" is what provides Look Back in Anger its prevailing tension. Jimmy is constantly railing at, first Allison, then Helena, about the upper classes. First, with Allison, he harangues her about her brother Nigel, "The Platitude from Outer Space–that’s brother Nigel....But somewhere at the back of that mind is the vague knowledge that he and his pals have been plundering and fooling everybody for generations," (Osborne 20). Then, rebuking Helena about talking with the local reverend, Jimmy says:

Apparently, religion isn’t only the opiate of the masses, but of the middle and upper classes as well. Helena, with a little more animation than Allison, replies, "Jimmy, can we have one day, just one day, without tumbling over religion or politics," (79), so he must be attacking her with the same vigor with which he attacked Allison and Cliff. Partially by his own choice, Jimmy is as powerless against the system as any other individual in the working class. He also chooses to exercise his individual power by attacking those whom he claims to love.

Joe Lampton, in John Braine’s Room at the Top, also makes a choice, but his is diametrically opposite that of Jimmy Porter. Where Jimmy Porter chooses to rant and rave, or conduct clandestine raids on upper class parties, Lampton chooses to infiltrate the enemy. Thier methods aside, Lampton and Porter have much in common. Though Peter Fjågesund’s essay concerns Room at the Top and Stendahl’s Scarlet and Black, he makes points that can be applied to Joe Lampton and Jimmy Porter. For example, Fjågesund writes, "...Julien and Joe both combine a calculating and almost cruel streak in their character with a charm which women find hard to resist," (251). While it is hard to discern Porter’s charm, it is clear that there is something there which draws both Allison and Helena to him. When Allison met Jimmy, as she recounts to Helena, he "...seemed to burn, his face, the edges of his hair glistened and seemed to spring off his head, and his eyes were so blue and full of the sun. He looked so young and frail...," (Osborne 45). But, there the resemblance ends. Lampton is clearly someone who is out to climb as far up the social ladder as he can get. Instead of using his individual power on other individuals like Porter does with Allison, Cliff and Helena, he wants to grab a more collective power, power over as many others as possible.

In an examination of beliefs about class stratification, Stern and Searing compare and contrast the beliefs of Britons and American adolescents. Even though Lampton is post-adolescent, their findings apply to him. When delineating how adolescents use their knowledge of stratification, Stern and Searing posit that it assists them in "(a) locate their own and others’ positions in the social order, (b) interpret and evaluated that social order itself and (c) cope with personal problems," (191). Lampton definitely establishes a hierarchy of where he stands in the social order. Witness his Lampton-Lufford Report on Love:

He continues later, "I could hope for a Grade Six wife at the best and he would automatically attract a Grade Three wife," (42), making it clear that he has a clear understanding, that he "interprets and evaluates," of exactly where he fits in the social order, and what his prospects are for advancing in that order.

Smith, is a working class person in jail, in Alan Sillitoe’s novella, "The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner,"who has even less power than Joe Lampton, or Jimmy Porter. Convicts’ lives are orchestrated by the keepers and administrators of the institutions that they are confined in. They barely have power over their own bodies. Often, the incarcerated use the time of confinement to plan further misadventures once they are free. Even though imprisoned, the jailed have power over their own minds.

In Alan Sillitoe’s novella, "The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner," the protagonist-narrator, Smith tells the tale of his incarceration at Exeter Borstal. He is a recalcitrant criminal, and makes no bones about it, "I worked out my systems and hiding places while pushing scrubbing brushes around them Borstal floors, planned my outward life of innocence and honest work, yet at the same time grew perfect in the razor-edges of my craft for what I knew I had to do once free; and what I’ll do again if netted by the poaching coppers," (Sillitoe 54). Allen Penner, in his essay, "Human Dignity and Social Anarchy: Sillitoe’s ‘The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner," examines Smith in relation to societal structures. John Byers, in his essay, "The Initiation of Alan Sillitoe’s ‘Long-Distance Runner," concentrates on explicating the stories form and symbols. Penner sees the the story as "a powerful expression of the necessity of human dignity," (265) while Byers views the story as a reconcilement between Smith and his dead father which is an affirmation of Smith’s principles (591). Neither critic identifies Smith’s motivation, merely his existence in relation to others.

As a member of the working class, Smith is powerless in many aspects of his life, and in the Borstal he is even more powerless. After the governor tells him that he wants "hard honest work and we want good athletics," Smith points out, "straight after this I hear the barking sergeant-major’s voice calling me and two others to attention and marching us off like we was Grenadier Guards," (Sillitoe 10). By his actions during the race, Smith is simply accessing power in the only way he knows that is appropriate for the situation: By inaction. His is the power to embarrass the governor, the power to put him in his place, or the power to express himself as an individual.

Penner begins his essay by refuting the views of other critics that the purpose of the story is to "depict ‘moral decay,’" of Smith, or that he reaches a state of total honesty, (253-4). Interestingly, he identifies Sillitoe’s story as part of a long tradition of tales, those of rogue’s tales, or thief’s autobiographies (254). But, as many of his contemporaries, Sillitoe bent the form to his own means. While the traditional forms of these stories were used to let the reader learn the ways of the outlaws, or serve as cautionary tales, Sillitoe does neither of these things. If one were to try and learn something of criminal methods from Smith, all they would learn was what not to do to be successful. Penner adds that, "The moral in many instances is delineated by the repentant criminal himself. Sillitoe’s criminal...is not repentant, and the moral of the tale is not so simple as to promote the cause of virtue...," (254).

Penner goes on to examine the theme of rebellion, saying that it is most likely the dominant theme of all of Sillitoe’s work. What he does not even intimate is that this is tied directly for the quest for power. By losing the race, Smith asserts his individuality and grabs power from those who believed that they were the ones in control. Penner does note that in times of social prosperity, such as the 1950's, the theme of rebellion is problematical, at best. On the economic level, the working class of England had progressed, but socially this was not so. They were still mired in their swamp where they had no real say in the directions of their lives. This is especially true of the young during this time period. Here, again, Smith takes control of his own life. While some are unemployed through not fault of their own, this being a time of full employment in Britain, Smith chooses not to work. After the bereavement money from his father ran out, he says that he "just roamed the streets...hoping I suppose to get my hands on another five hundred nicker so’s the nice life we’d got used to could go on and on forever. Because it’s surprising how quick you can get used to a different life," (Sillitoe 21).

Tied to the theme of rebellion is the failure of the penal system to rehabilitate the youthful offenders. As noted above, Smith, at least, is by no means rehabilitated. Part of the failure is that of the administrators of the system to recognize the humanity of the inmates (Penner 257). After the governor tells Smith of his plans to shape Smith into a useful member of society, Smith thinks, "I’m not a race horse at all....I’m a human being and I’ve got thoughts and secrets and bloody life inside me that he doesn’t know is there...," (Sillitoe 13). It is Penner’s understanding that, "From Smith’s point of view, such an act (the cross-country race)–using another man’s talents–is more insidiously criminal than his own," (Penner 257).

Also tied to the theme of rebellion, in Penner’s view, is the concept of "moral inversion," (257). He describes this inversion as "...not the simple and obvious one commonly found in proletarian social thesis fiction, in which the ‘haves’ are flagrantly, by legally, dishonest, and those convicted of crimes are either innocent or perform their acts out of necessity for physical survival," (257). The morals which are inverted here are the morals of the dominant society, not those of Smith. Smith believes that he is being true to his own morals. And, by being true to his own morals, Smith has some control, or power, over his own life, even though he is more fully controlled by the administrators of the Borstal.

Penner’s conclusion is that, "the ‘governor’s’ of the world, who are the instruments of social order, must come to know that order is not in itself an end, that one may establish a well-ordered colony of animals through systems of force and of punishment and reward, with a resultant civilization hardly worthy of the name," (265). He implies that by subsuming the power of the individuals under their control, the society they create is a mockery, one that exists in name only. Penner continues, examining the issue from Smith’s perspective, "...what the Smith’s of the world must recognize is that the conceptions of human dignity are not the prerogative of any one social class–and that anarchy and social chaos are less likely to lead to freedom than to tyranny," (265). It is here that Penner seems to miss the point. Smith is not connecting human dignity to "anarchy and social chaos," but lives in a well-ordered world of "us" and "them." Losing the race is the only opportunity Smith has for expressing his belonging to, what he terms, the "Outlaws."

John Byers, in his essay, "The Initiation of the Alan Sillitoe’s Long-Distance Runner," chooses to focus on Smith’s growth as an individual, equating the track Smith follows while training, and the race itself, as a metaphor for Smith’s growing self-awareness. Early in his essay, he points out, "Smith, while nourishing his secret disdain for the governor’s ambitions, is willing to train for the race because it gives him a chance to do what he likes, running, and also to strike a blow at the governor by losing the race," (585). As in the case of Penner, Byers does not examine Smith’s motivations more closely. Doing what a person likes is often the only way they have of expressing control of power in their lives, especially in the confined quarters of a prison. Unlike Penner, Byers, believes that, "The point of the story is his (Smith’s) refusal to do so (win the race) to affirm his own values," (586).

For Byers, running is the main symbol of the story. He says that it, "...suggests three motifs: the experience of life, the endurance test, and the ‘lonely journey or pilgrimage on which the initiate becomes acquainted with death,’" (586). It is here that Byers explicates the metaphor of running with Smith’s growth as an individual and of the connection to his father. To these three motifs, I would add the quest for individual power. Byers uses these motifs as evidence that Smith is going through "initiation rites," though he never makes it clear what Smith is being initiated into. He cannot be going through an initiation into the "Outlaw" ranks; he is already in jail. It is almost as if Byers is throwing out as many psychological catch words as possible, hoping one will stick to the wall of the Borstal.

While both authors shed light onto the character of Smith, it is seems that they did not search deep enough, or wish to look for, the motivation of Smith. In his estimation, "The one fact is that all of us are cunning, and because of this there’s no love lost between us," (8), meaning that cunning is within Smith’s power, and if he is more cunning than the governor, he is the most powerful, at least, for that moment. Even after losing the race and the governor relegates Smith to doing the worst jobs imaginable to himself, Smith says, "The work didn’t break me; if anything it made me stronger in many ways...," (53). In another estimation of his own power to think, something he believes the governor incapable of, Smith adds, "I’d like to see the governor’s face when he reads it, if he does, which I don’t suppose he will; even if he did read it though I don’t think he’d know what it was all about." For the working class, even though many of the people higher up in society don’t believe it, sometimes the only power they have is that of their mind and imagination.

So, each in their own way, Jimmy Porter, Joe Lampton, and Smith take control over, at least, a portion of their lives. While Jimmy and Smith do not achieve a more general type of power, the power over large groups of people, they do manage to attain a degree of individual power, and a power over their near acquaintances. Lampton, on the other hand, seems, at the end of Room at the Top, to have gained a level of societal power.

List of Works Cited

Last Updated on 07/06/06 © t. mooney