Nazneen’s Journey Through Downtown London

I decided to map Nazneen’s journey as she purposely loses herself in downtown London, as well as a few points within her normal, comfortable block on Brick Lane. In making this map, I realized that although she likely went further than I drew her journey to be, she still could not have gone too far to end up in downtown London – Tower Hamlets is only a few miles from downtown. This is incredibly representative of how she has been shielded from London since moving there, whether by her own doing or someone else’s, as she has stayed to herself on Brick Lane so much that a couple miles down the road feels like another universe. This is one of the most crucial scenes in Nazneen’s character development because it awakens a sense of freedom that she did not know she had. She finds comfort in the fact that “unless she did something, waved a gun, halted traffic, they would not see her”, “they” being the British people swarming to their places of work around her (40). She realized the joy in being hidden, the comfort in being able to proceed with her day without the same community of people watching her every move. Despite the fact that she was in immense pain from various injuries she had sustained in the short journey, as well as found herself to be “without a coat, without a suit, without a white face, without a destination”, she knew that the people passing her “could not see her any more than she could see God” (40). This was a surprising moment of relief, for Nazneen and the reader, as she realizes she may not be the fish-out-of-water she thinks she is. To make things even better, she encounters a man who looks more like her than all the white people she has so far passed who attempts to speak to her in Urdu and Hindi, neither of which she understands. When he tries English, she can only say “sorry”, cueing the man to go along with his day. It was only one word, but to Nazneen it was the first time “she had spoken in English, to a stranger, and she had been understood and acknowledged” (43). She is a fly on the wall in her own home, and within hours of venturing into the city on her own she (almost) had a conversation with a stranger – this is more progress toward settling into her new life in one day than she has made in over a year.

These were the good things to come of the journey, but there was also the overwhelming guilt Nazneen carried with her about her own foolishness getting lost in the city as well as her sister’s loneliness in Dhaka. The journey as a whole had an almost sadistic undertone, as much of it seems to be her getting into painful, scary, or uncomfortable situations in a way that mirrors how she thinks Hasina must feel. As she notices how lost she has become, and also how much the baby has pushed on her bladder, Nazneen realizes “she, like Hasina, could not simply go home…they were both lost in cities that would not pause even to shrug” (42). Here, Nazneen does not mean home as her flat in Tower Hamlets, but rather her village back in Bangladesh. She did not venture far, and she can figure out how to get directions back to her physical residence, but the place that she cannot get to no matter how long she walks and how many turns she takes is Bangladesh, the only place she really feels is home.  Overall, this journey is representative of Nazneen’s battle with her personal life, assimilation, and a simultaneous desire to be both seen and unseen.

Naipaul and Engels with Regard to Social Indifference

V. S. Naipaul’s journey through Egypt and Friedrich Engels’ movement through the streets and slums of London contain many similarities. In particular, both authors have an outsider perspective regarding the landscape they discuss in their writing, as a traveler passing through, and their eyes are opened to the social indifference of those who live within the landscape they see. 

In The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, Friedrich Engels is a German visitor in London who criticizes the upper and middle class citizens’ tendency to ignore the horrific slums they have created in the new industrial world. Engels claims “that the traveller [or outsider] appreciates the human suffering which has made all [of the modern lifestyle in London] possible” in a way that the citizens do not (1102). According to Engels, thousands of Londoners have given up their potential “in order that a small, closely-knit group of their fellow citizens could” have the fullness of life that they all deserve (1102). Not only are the poorer classes struggling, but they are doing so in order to lift up the upper classes which in turn have no regard for them. Engels writes that “[n]o one even thinks of sparing a glance for his neighbor on the streets” and there is a “brutal indifference” throughout the city (1102). Men and women are homeless, penniless, suffering on the streets, and being demoralized daily for the sake of those who are benefitting from their suffering. Thus, as Engels moves throughout the streets, he is astounded at how little people seem to care about each other’s conditions. They have grown so used to the system they have created in their industrial city that only a foreigner can notice how backwards and wrong the English urban lifestyle is. Thus, as Engels travels throughout London as a stranger to the city, his eyes are opened to the painful indifference and issues within the foreign society he sees. 

V. S. Naipaul likewise travels to a foreign place in his text. Though he is British born and raised within British society, he writes of far off places in brutal detail. In his epilogue entitled The Circus at Luxor, Naipaul’s narrator is traveling, or moving, through Egypt as a tourist. While traveling, he notes the indifference of the Egyptians to the people he observes. When in Cairo at the rail station, Naipaul mentions there are “men with shrunken faces” crowded and dejected on the floor of the station (2680). These men were fighting for Egypt as “the guardians of the land and the revolution,” but they are seen as “only common soldiers, peasants, objects of disregard” to the Egyptian citizens (2680). Just like Engels notices how the upper classes disregard all that the lower classes do to hold them up, Egyptians overlook these dejected soldiers that are fighting for them and let them waste away in places like this rail station. Later, Naipaul’s narrator encounters young Egyptian boys who trail tourists, hoping for food or money. When the narrator sits at the resthouse in the desert, he watches the young boys inch closely to the tourists looking for food, only to be shouted at by an older Egyptian man and smacked at with a camel whip. As the boys are lured in by curious tourists who toss food out to them like ducks, the Egyptian man becomes angrier and more violent with his whip. All the while, “there [is] no disturbance” and others “[pay] no attention” to the abuse until the narrator finally stands up, “[takes] the whip away, [and throws] it on the sand,” shouting at the man (2682). Naipaul’s narrator is sickened by the abuse to the local children, just as Engels is sickened by the abuse to the lower class in London. Yet, no one seems to want to take responsibility or even acknowledge those who are being rejected. So, Naipaul must be the one to stand up and say that such neglect and abuse is intolerable. Thus, his movement throughout a foreign space, like Engels, disgusts him and forces him to write about what he sees in order to raise awareness about the hurting and the ignorant.

Parallels Between Darwin’s “Savages” and Mayhew’s Urban Poor

In his 1839 book, The Voyage of the Beagle, Charles Darwin recounts his encounters with the Fuegian peoples of South America. Darwin described them as being prone to violence – at one point telling of a boy who died after being thrown against the rocky shore by his father for dropping a load of sea-eggs. This same stance on the value of life seems to be echoed with Mayhew’s studied group, with the Watercress Girl telling of how she was “hit three times, ever so hard, across the face with his cane” by the schoolmaster. Despite being young, neither of these children were spared from the violence of their community.

Likewise, Mayhew described the Watercress Girl as being “dressed in a thin cotton gown, with a threadbare shawl wrapped round her shoulders.” This is similar in some ways to Darwins’s description of the Fuegians as being poorly clothed for their climate.

In both cases, it was quite sad to see how poor the quality of life was the children – though the adults weren’t doing much better. It is quite likely that these children – had they been brought up in a more hospitable environment, could have lived much nicer lives than they actually did (much like the Fuegians who were returning home with Darwin’s group).

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the two accounts is just how valued money of any sort seems to be by both groups. Mayhew described children who worked long days – almost enthusiastically – for tiny amounts of money. This was not unlike the Fuegians that Darwin described, who traded a small child for a single button. As commodities of any sort were scarce in these places, they had a greatly inflated values to these impoverished groups.

Darwin and Mayhew’s Detachment from and Pity for the Lower Working Class

Both Charles Darwin and Henry Mayhew view the subjects in their writing as anomalies, a part of humanity that they are detached from. Darwin extensively describes the savagery of the Fuegians he meets while aboard the HMS Beagle. In fact, he states that he “could not have believed how wide was the difference between savage and civilized man” (1263). These Fuegians are “loud,” “stunted, miserable wretches,” and Darwin cannot relate to them because he is a civilized man (1262-1263). Likewise, Mayhew “interviewed hundreds of street people,” and though he is giving a voice to an underrepresented lower working class, he too does not relate to their lifestyle (1108). When he speaks to the Watercress Girl, he “first treat[s] her as a child” that has had experience with toys, games, and parks in order to “remove all shyness” he assumes she’ll have when they begin talking (1108). Mayhew assumes that the Watercress Girl, since she is a child, must have nurturing childhood experiences like the middle and upper class children he is probably more familiar with, proving that he may not interact with lower class working children often. Consequently, he is amazed when he realizes that she has “lost all childish ways,” and that “[a]ll her knowledge seemed to begin and end with water-cresses” (1108). In other words, this girl has not had a nurtured childhood like other children Mayhew may know. Here, Mayhew’s amazement of a part of humanity he is not familiar with—poor working children— because of his higher class parallels Darwin’s amazement with the savageness of the Fuegians that he knows nothing of because of his civilized lifestyle.

Additionally, Darwin and Mayhew both seem to look down on and pity these “lesser” groups of humanity in their writings. The Fuegians disturb Darwin as he mentions their “hideous faces,” their “filthy…greasy” skin, their “violent” gestures, and their “entangled” hair (1266). Based on this visual that Darwin creates, the Fuegians are not pleasing to look at, and perhaps they do not deserve to be looked at at all while they live in their current filth and nakedness. Though Darwin looks down on these Fuegians, he also pities them. Multiple times throughout his journal entries, he calls the Fuegians “miserable” or “poor wretches” (1268). Though these savages are lesser than the civilized man, Darwin still pities them because of the ignorant, dirty state they are in. It seems as though he is looking down on them from some higher place, wishing he could save them from their ignorant, uncivilized way of living. 

Darwin’s view of the Fuegians parallels with Mayhew’s view of the children he interviews. When he discusses the Watercress Girl, he mentions her “little face, pale and thin” that “was wrinkled where dimples ought to be” (1108). She was a “poor child,” that had “long rusty hair” and “shuffled” as she walked (1109). Mayhew pities this young girl’s circumstances and how much she has to grow up at just eight years old. Furthermore, Mayhew describes a boy who cross-sweeps. This boy has “naked feet,” “matted hair,” and “the complexion of dirt” (1111). He is a homeless, abused orphan—clearly a pitiful sight. Yet, even though these two children are pitied by Mayhew much like Darwin pities the Fuegians, Mayhew still looks down on the children. The most blatant example of this is the fact that he does not give either child a name in his work; they are simply the Watercress Girl and “A Boy Crossing-Sweep” (1108,1111). Mayhew cares more about assessing their life experiences and pitying their conditions than he cares about making their stories personal. Not naming them allows Mayhew to detach himself, in a small way, from this lower working class.

Mayhew and Darwin – Two Sides of the Same Coin

In Darwin’s Voyage of the Beagle, most of the account of his travels through South America consist of imperialistic, racist observations told from the viewpoint of pity and superiority, the same way in which Henry Mayhew describes his encounters with poor children on the streets of London in London Labor and the London Poor. Henry Mayhew first recounts his conversation with the “Watercress Girl”, an eight-year-old girl who “had entirely lost all childish ways, and was, indeed, in thoughts and manner, a woman” (1108). He describes seeing and speaking with her as “something cruelly pathetic”, and mentions how after trying to ask her about toys and games to only be met with confusion her answers “put an end to any attempt at fun on [his] part” (1108). He repeatedly calls her pathetic, poor, naive, and more derogatory terms regarding the things which she cannot change about herself. This perception was similar for the crossing-sweeper boy, who he recalls “moaned for his halfpenny” when approached (1111). He details how horrid the boy looked, describing his “crop of hair which had matted itself into the form of so many paint brushes” and his skin with a “complexion of dirt”, a tone Mayhew says had an “almost Indian look about it” (1111). Mayhew’s accounts of these two children differ slightly from that of Darwin’s with the natives of South America in that the poor children of London actually are in a more disadvantaged position than the author, but the concept of perceiving someone living a different lifestyle as lesser than is still very apparent in both writings. Much of Darwin’s travel writings are endless descriptions of people different from him in a negative light, portraying them as dumb, menially skilled, helpless, or in need of saving, when in fact they simply live a different lifestyle. This is exactly what is happening in Mayhew’s writings, as he describes these children as naive and pitiful when they are currently working harder than he probably ever has in his life. They have the street knowledge of grown adults, they can sell anything for twice what they bought it, they speak with the confidence and experience of those 20 years their senior, and yet he still only views them as helpless children. As stated before, the stark difference here is that Mayhew’s writing subjects are in fact in a rough condition which could be made better, but the idea of seeing real humans as merely helpless pawns that you can write about to likely later profit off of or gain notoriety from is an imperialist viewpoint on humanity present with both authors. Darwin and Mayhew have a sense of superiority which they feel allows them to view anyone else as lesser than, and it is especially disgusting with Mayhew because if he really felt bad for the kids he could help them out financially or give them shelter, yet all he does is copy their statements of their awful living conditions for a few minutes and go on his way.

The Enlightenment and Romanticism in ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844’

In The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, Engels is extremely critical of the effects of the Industrial Revolution on the poor and the indifference of the middle and upper classes to their suffering.  His outlook and writing are rooted in both aspects of the Enlightenment and Romanticism.

For one, Engels greatly values “experiencing” the problems and conditions faced by the poor more so than simply reading about them and he is particularly critical of the middle class for isolating the poor and isolating themselves from the poor.  For example, on page 1102 Engels writes, “He can only realise the price that has been paid for all this magnificence after he has tramped the pavements of the main streets of London for some days.”  Romanticism places greater value on direct experience and Engels utilizes this to encourage the individual to actively seek to better understand the plight of the poor.  In a similar manner, Engels appeals to the senses, utilizing the sense of smell in particular to generate sympathy and to encourage an emotional and physical reaction from the reader.  This utilizes the Romantic emphasis on emotion and the senses.  Engels also makes a point to directly criticize the Enlightenment view of the self as having value as an economic unit.  On page 1102 he writes, “Here men regard their fellows not as human beings, but as pawns…everyone exploits his neighbor.”  Romanticism criticized this view of humanity as well, placing greater emphasis on the individual.

At the same time, Engels does employ aspects of the Enlightenment as well.  The clearest example of this is Engels emphasis on reason and his attempts at appealing to one’s sense of reason (so greatly prized by the Enlightenment).  On pages 1106 and 1107, he criticizes the illogical city-planning and construction, describing it as “unplanned” and “chaotic.”  In this way Engels argues that not only has the Industrial Revolution led to the poor’s suffering but that it has not always progressed with attention to reason, overlooking certain areas and leading to serious problems within English society.