In the book, “The Classic Slum: Salford Life in the First Quarter of the Century” by Robert Roberts, the author makes an interesting thesis statement about the relationship of the lower to the upper classes. Before he has established the true reasoning and highlighted it with examples such as the lower class adoration of the monarchy and the lives of the royal family, he states in one of the important quotes from “The Classic Slum” that, “the class struggle, as manual workers in general knew it, was apolitical and had a place entirely within their own society” (28). One can only assume that this is the case because of the perception that the social order was something ordained by nature and thus there was nothing about that should warrant outrage. Because of this feeling of a natural hierarchy, the upper classes did not have much to fear from their lower class counterparts, especially considering that they were incredibly committed to traditional values and voted in favor of the Tories almost unanimously. Roberts notes in “The Classic Slum”,“the city and borough held close on a million people, for the most part solid in allegiance to society as it was, and these had no time at all for foreign workers or discontented labourers” (101). To those living in the slums and seemingly accepting of their “natural” station in life, the complaints of the liberals would have seemed almost unpatriotic.

Although there was a new and vital socialist movement beginning in the country (not to mention throughout the West) the people who might have most benefited from such a wide scale movement abhorred the idea. Certainly, nothing could have been better for their upper class Edwardian counterparts and Roberts states that they were not at all (in the beginning) afraid of a proletariat uprising since this was not at all in the nature of these generally patriotic and pious citizens. “If however, one had any secret fear that the working classes might yet rise in ‘unvanquishable number’ it was overlain by the conviction that, put to patriotic test, they would do precisely what their masters ordered—a belief that the First World War fully bore out.” (184). Indeed, instead of looking past patriotic sentiment, these men marched off to one of the most grisly and deadly wars in history, all at the behest of the revered upper class. While the Great War might have changed life in the slums forever, it cannot be forgotten that these lower classes were not the eternal victims of the class order (at least not explicitly). Until the changes brought about by the Great War they were some of the most steadfast and loyal supporters and admirers of the royal family. They emulated the lives of the rich, even with a barebones existence and instead of retaliating against them; they simply strove to honor them through a sort of misguided flattery. While this may have allowed them to live for something higher than themselves, this seems almost as though it must be somehow backwards, especially when thought of in the context of proletariat revolts that were occurring in Russia, for example.

This acceptance of the social order during the period of rapid industrialization as something natural was one of the main reasons why there was not a great deal of grumbling among the lower classes prior to the First World War. Furthermore, although their lives were tough, it was not as though their lives merely consisted of impersonal attempts for daily bread. These were people with diversions and interests just as the upper classes had (although doubtlessly of lower quality). “Every industrial city, of course, folds within itself a clutter of loosely defined overlapping ‘villages’. Those in the Great Britain of seventy years ago were almost self-contained communities… Culture, pleasure, and need found outlet through one theatre (and later, three cinemas) a dancing room, two coy brothels, eight bookmakers, and a private moneylender” (16). In other words, the acceptance of the social order as a sort of predetermined fate shifted the focus from the “other” (in the case the exploitative behavior of the upper classes) to the self. Communities grew and although many of these denizens were likely to suffer a great deal, it was simply “the way things were” in life and one had to make the most of it and survive.

This brings up the question of the difference between being poor and living in poverty. Although these people were extremely poor and suffered a great many setbacks throughout their lives, they were not morally or spiritually bankrupt. Roberts notes that they were often very generous, and relied on their complex social networks for security. Furthermore, aside from having at least some degree of compassion for one another, they also lived lives according to strict moral codes, emulating the upper classes. Being respectable in Edwardian times was just as important for a family of good standing as was for these lower classes and thus their lives had a great deal of meaning. If they lived in poverty, this would mean that they would do anything for money and would resort to murder and violence to obtain their needs. As an example, Roberts points out, “Prestige was not automatically increased by [such] proofs of affluence. One needed to know how wealth had been acquired. The fruits of prostitution we condemned.” (36). This shows that there was a strict morality underlying this society, even in the midst of grinding financial strife.

One of the key points in of “The Classic Slum: Salford Life in the First Quarter of the Century” by Robert Roberts is that the Great War, while devastating on many levels, was the answer the problems of the slums and lower and working class peoples throughout England. Roberts states, “The First World War cracked the form of English lower-class and began an erosion of its socio-economic layers that has continued to this day” (186). Although society was beginning to change rapidly after the war, it did take some time for all the liberal ambitions to truly reach the majority of the working people in slums. Still, the Great War did begin to solve some of the problems. “By around 1916 “abject poverty began to disappear from the neighborhoods. Children looked better fed. There were far fewer prosecutions for child neglect.” (203). The people living in these slums had deserved this for all of their hard work—without them England would not have grown into the industrial and military powerhouse it was around and just after the Edwardian period. Literacy, health, and general working conditions improved and ushered in a new age in England.

Other essays and articles related to this topic in the Literature and History Archives include :The Impacts of the Industrial Revolution on the New England Family •   American History Since 1865: Major Events and Trends  •  The Economics of Socialism: An Historical Perspective  •    Marx and Locke: Comparison of Views on Government, Property and Labor