Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights is a depiction of the intricacies of class structure during the 19th century; an idea had been addressed to some extent in nearly every piece of Victorian literature we had read thus far. The relationship between Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliff is perhaps one of the strongest ways that Bronte addresses the plights of minority classes, by injecting it into a bleak love story that cross-examines both women and Africans. Heathcliff’s love for Catherine is unattainable because of his social status. William Blakes’s The Chimney Sweeper and The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim’s Point are both representative of some of the struggles of African’s during this time. Heathcliff’s specific situation is more complex, being that he went from poor orphan to being raised as an upper-class individual. Following the death of Mr. Earnshaw, Heathcliff is redelegated so a subservient role due to Hindley’s resentment of him. It is Heathcliff’s role that is the reason Catherine’s love for him is equally unattainable. Catherine must shroud her desires for Heathcliff because to be with him would mean subjecting herself to being viewed as lowly, in comparison to being with Edgar who is a much more suitable partner from a societal standpoint. This can be connected to “Margaret Fuller and Mary Wollstonecraft”, where the conditions of women and the way in which they are subjected to a position where they have to sort of mold to the sensibilities of their husband.

Thomas Carlyle’s Past and Present and Harriet Martineau’s Society in America were written within six years of each other, and it is because of this that I find the stark contrast between their social ideologies so compelling. At its most basic, the main difference is obviously Martineau’s persistence for the equality of women and Carlyle’s disinterest in allowing for any change in the social hierarchy if it infringes upon the power that men have (in relation to women or minorities). This is blatant, and it is a consistent theme throughout this time period, as women pushing for equal rights would continue to remain prevalent through the 20th century. However, my intrigue in this comparison is due to the distinct difference in how Carlyle and Martineau strive to get their point across. Carlyle, in essence, idealizes a feudal work system where there is nobility in living a difficult life, draws from the Bible for nearly every argument he states, and overall exudes an arrogant persona. Martineau is substantially more concise in her argument, and instead of clouding her values with religious imagery, she primarily uses the Constitution and basic definitions to showcase how the United States is very contradictory in its treatment of women. An important distinction is that Martineau is looking to propel society forward, whereas Carlyle is looking to the past for guidance, often referencing values of nobility and chivalry. This is apparent towards the end of Section VII where Martineau states “The kings of Europe would have laughed mightily, two centuries ago, at the idea of a commoner, without robes, crown, or sceptre, stepping into the throne of a strong nation. Yet who dared to laugh when Washington’s super-royal voice greeted the New World from the presidential chair, and the old world stood still to catch the echo?”. Martineau is saying that at one point even the President of the United States, who is held in such high regard, was viewed as “less than” in comparison to others. Although hindsight should be noted, Carlyle’s argument seems very antiquated both in his ideals and execution compared to Martineau.