Philip Larkin

Larkin's poetry cynically portrays a society in which the proletariat “are deluding themselves” rather than presenting a hopeful picture of society where “they go beyond the limits which society sets for them” to what extend do you agree with this?




Larkin shows through a number of his different poems how he sees that the proletariat are trapped within a capitalist society. In his poem ‘the large cool store’ Larkin shows how the proletariat are entrapped by the bourgeoisie by making them feel the same. He uses harsh words like ‘simple’ and dark colours like ‘browns’ and ‘greys’. These choices of words show that he is almost mocking the proletariat, that they are dull boring people who are ill-educated. Through this he could be suggesting that the proletariat are deluding themselves due to the lack of education the bourgeoisie have provided them with. Marxism then enables this to be interpreted in a way which suggests that this lack of education is because the bourgeoisie own both the base and superstructure which shape our society. This then means that they control what is put into the education system to purposely benefit the bourgeoisie. During this poem Larkin also shows entrapped the proletariat are within this capitalist society. This is shown when the people who are buying the clothes from these 'large cool stores' are described to 'leave a dawn low terrace houses timed for factory, yard and site'.  By doing this Larkin is not only showing how entrapped the proletariat are but also how deluded they are, as they are making these clothes but then buying them. From a Marxist point of view this can then be taken and interpreted that this is a way in which the bourgeoisie keep themselves in power. This is because during the 1950's the people working in the factories would have been paid minimum wages for their labour, this therefore keeps the bourgeoisie in power because they then go and spend these wages back on the clothes they've made, which then transfers back to the owners of the shops, who are the bourgeoisie. Consequently this shows to the extent to which the bourgeoisie have created a false consciousness within the proletariat because although they feel like their developing their social situation by having these clothes they are really only reinforcing the existing capitalist society. Larkin again suggests that they are deluded by saying ‘to suppose they share that world’. Here this can be interpreted to show that the bourgeoisie have embedded a false consciousness within the proletariat to feel that they live in a same world with them. By saying ‘to suppose’ also gives of the impression that it will never happen it is just something they can dream of happening. Although this overall poem can in some ways be interpreted in a way which suggests that the proletariat aren't deluding themselves by thinking they are just as good, but that they are breaking down the boundaries that society has set them. Andrew Motion is a Marxist critic who suggests this by saying 'the argument is whether the shoppers are deluding themselves when they buy something... or are they going beyond the limits which society sets for them'. By saying this it could suggest that Motion is getting across a point of view which shows that maybe the proletariat aren't alienating themselves from their own personality be deluding themselves but are actually rebelling through the superstructure ideas the famous Marxist Gramsci had.



The poem 'here' is one that you can say has close relations to 'the large cool store'. This is because they both take reference to the desires of the proletariat to be like the bourgeoisie. In the poem 'here' this is shown when it says 'push through plate-glass swing doors to their desires'. This is similar because just like in the 'large cool store' the shops hold what the proletariat think will give them higher status. This is done by them creating an materialistic image of themselves to being better by having all these products which the bourgeoisie own. Unlike the 'large cool store' you could say that in this poem the protagonists are rebelling against the stereotype of the capitalist society because they are pushing through the doors which have been set by society to marginalise them, to be able to reach their desires. Although later on in the poem the word 'simple' is used. Here Larkin could be making links to the proletariat that are trying to reach their desires as simple due to their lack of education. This could then suggests that Larkin is showing that although the proletariat can try to break out of this society, they will always stay trapped because it has been their way of life for so long right from education meaning there is nothing they can do to get out of this cycle. Larkin here presents his cynical opinion to equality between the classes as he is almost showing that, again like in the large cool store, the proletariat may feel like they can get their 'desires' in life but because it has always been this way they cant.




In the poem Mr Bleaney Larkin suggests to the reader that the bourgeoisie own the proletariat. This is shown a number of times through the poem. An example of this is when it says 'he stayed the whole time he was at the Bodies, till the moved him'. Not only does this suggest the fact that his body is lifeless and has had to be moved away, the political view of Marxism could suggest that this shows control. This is because the 'bodies' can also be regarded as the shells of cars in a factory. This could be interpreted to show control because 'they moved him' showing that he has been moved from job to job to suit the needs of the bourgeoisie. The power and control the bourgeoisie are suggests to have in this poem can also be seen when it says ‘’I’ll take it’’. This gives off this impression because here Larkin is buying the whole of this man’s life in just 3 simple words, showing the power the bourgeoisie have. By saying ‘take’ could also suggests through Marxist criticism that the bourgeoisie are stealing the lives of the proletariat. This would have been due to the capitalist society they say we live in and the fact that the bourgeoisie own everything we do.




In the poem Mr Bleaney Larkin also shows how little the proletariat have, ‘having no more than one hired box’. From a Marxist point f view this shows how weak the proletariat are compared to the bourgeoisie. This is because they might have so little but it doesn't even own to them it is 'hired'. A Marxist would then take this and say that they have hired it from the bourgeoisie, therefore keeping them in a state of power. This shows the proletariat to be marginalised into a way of life that they can’t escape from as they will always be giving themselves to the bourgeoisie. Over all in this poem by Larkin there is no clear suggestion to the proletariat passively excepting the capitalist society or rebelling against it. This is because it is all about the control of a man’s life after he had died so there is no way he can rebel. Although you could say that his life before he died has lead this because he has always been stuck with these class inequalities.




'Ignorance' is another poem by Larkin which can be interpreted to explore class inequality. Just by using the word 'ignorant' throughout the poem could be making suggestions with the fact that the proletariat are unknown to their exploitation by the bourgeoisie. A Marxists may say that this is because the bourgeoisie totally control every aspect of their lives through things in the base and superstructure. Another way in which Larkin suggests that the protagonists in this poem are passively accepting the capitalist society in which they live in is when it says ‘all our lives on imprecisions that when we start to die have no idea why’. The ‘imprecisions’ could be showing the vague lives in which the proletariat live as they don’t realise what the proletariat are doing. This vague life then only becomes clear to them just before they die, meaning there is nothing they can do to change it keeping the bourgeoisie in power.




After looking at a number of Larkin’s poems his cynical view on class equality suggests that he feels the proletariat are passive victims to the society and although they may feel that they can become equal ultimately there will be no change.