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 family’s 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 father’s 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 father’s 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 country’s 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 family’s 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 England’s 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 family’s state of affairs at the given moment and its connection to country’s 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 play’s 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 Joyce’s The Ulysses, placed roughly around the same time as Proust’s roman. This attitude towards Jewish people persisted throughout the twenties and thirties, and had its malign finale in Hitler’s 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 Germany’s politics will soon overcome its frontiers and inundate the entire Europe. Of this, we are informed in the Wesker’s 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 family’s 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 Wesker’s 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 Franco’s 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 family’s 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 England’s 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 country’s class division: in majority of cases Oxford’s 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 country’s 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. Wesker’s 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 father’s 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 public’s consciousness (it is not difficult to assume that this part is probably closely related to author’s 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 can’t afford to: and so on.

There is another reason, outside of artistic coherence and propaganda value, to inundate this family’s 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 family’s 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 Zola’s 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.