Downton Abbey is a Brit Masterpiece Theatre drama about a semi-Royal and rich aristocratic family in the early 1900’s and their servants. It’s as much or more about the servants as the family who employs them. I watched a few episodes and could hardly turn it off.
Don’t wait in hopeful suspense that the action will suddenly erupt into a spectacle of violence or sex. I was captivated by irony and contradiction, not breasts or bombs. If you are appreciative of the subtle yet intense emotions that can be expressed through British understatement, this has your name written all over it.
In one sequence a young egalitarian-minded new-comer to the aristocratic circle associated with the estate of Downton Abbey was provided a valet. The new friend presented himself to the family of the estate as odd, talking about vulgar things like “working” and “weekends,” unheard of concepts among the Downton Abbey elite. A real gentleman certainly does not work, according to the Downton Abbey circle.
Being uncomfortable with being waited upon, the young man did most things for himself like putting on his jacket and cuff links. At one point he made the comment to the valet that being a valet seemed like a silly occupation for a grown man. This was depicted as ridiculously insensitive, even if you could interpret the remark as an awkward backhanded encouragement of the valet’s independence. Later the young man mentioned to the “man of the house” of Downton that he thought he might dismiss the valet since he didn’t need his services. The lord of the house reprimanded the idealistic egalitarian for being so thoughtless as to do things for himself, disallowing the valet to perform the tasks that he took such pride in doing, and considering putting the valet out of work. “We all have our role to play, and how dare you deprive your valet of his” is a paraphrase of one of the lines.
It reminded me of the difference in attitudes that I experienced when I owned my own business and socialized with other business owners who had employees. Some employers had no concern for their employees and didn’t hesitate to lay people off it seemed like a good business decision. Others felt a duty as an employer to continue providing a job to their employees if possible and still maintain the business. And as you can imagine, the personal respect they showed toward their employees varied accordingly. I learned that an employer could have a sense of duty toward their employees and think of their business as an opportunity to provide jobs for people they come to care about, not just a way to earn money.
It also reminded me of the Indian caste system and it was clear to me how the British class attitude could be so compatible with Indian culture. The Bhagavad Gita depicts Krishna telling Arjuna that despite his feelings of compassion for his relatives who he was supposed to fight in battle, he has a duty to his role as a member of the warrior caste. Arjuna was instructed to avoid the arrogance of thinking he could just disregard the duties that everyone around him expected (yes, to support an oppressive social order, I’ll get to that).
Another sequence was about a maid who saved her money and bought a typewriter so she could study to become a secretary and “leave service.” Most of the other servants were morally indignant about her aspirations to “go beyond her station” or some such language. But another maid and secretly one of the ladies of the house supported the young woman and the message was clear that in this case the class system was oppressive to individual initiative and personal choice.
What caused me to reflect (usually a good thing at least at the start) was how the assumption of egalitarianism could manifest itself as insensitive to human dignity and pride in one’s work. When the young egalitarian finally asked his valet to help him with his cufflinks and jacket, it seemed like a psychologically realistic, touching moment of caring and respect. He was giving his valet an opportunity to find dignity in performing service well and reliably, even though the service wasn’t necessary from a practical point of view. I found it to be a moving, almost tender scene, and felt like I understood a dimension of class societies that I hadn’t completely understood before. It also made me aware of my tendency to assume that individual economic advancement is a central human right that might trump a “mere” personal experience like finding dignity and meaning in service to someone else. How capitalist and Calvinist is that!
Ah, the power of ideology and the hegemony of exploitive cultural values, a Marxist would be quick to point out. True enough, on one level. But “the Buddhist in me” has to acknowledge the compassion of providing the opportunity for service at that moment, even though the “Marxist in me” wants to point to the bigger picture and find the whole situation perverse. Its the juxtaposition of those two responses that kept me watching. And the remarkable acting.
Recent Comments