AYJW

Parrot Trick Training

Poicephalus

Parrot Forum

The Revolution in France, during the 19th century, gave power to the people for the first time in France.  French citizens now had faith that they could form a strong, independent country; but what they did not realize was that there must be some form of financial or monetary backbone present for a country to excel on its own in the modern world.  This gave way to the rise of capitalism and all its follies, debaucheries, and mainly the exploitive nature it excites in people.  Two authors, who were writing and observing these changes during this time in France, Honore de Balzac, and Gustave Flaubert, exemplify the demoralization of a people caused by the onslaught of capitalism, especially concerning the influence of this exploitive system as it stains everyday life with its deceptive characteristics.  Through evaluating Balzac’s Pere Goriot and Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, it is evident that the exploitive aspects of capitalism permeate not only through the lives of a spectrum of characters, but also throughout the government as it exploits its country’s citizens.
       Balzac comments on the exploitation of family member via the actions of Eugene Rastignac and Pere Goriot, the main characters in Balzac’s Pere Goriot.  Pere Goriot’s role in the exploitation of family members is rather overt; however, Eugene’s role is easy to overlook.  Eugene uses whatever means necessary to work his way into the high ranks of Parisian society.  His desperation to join these wealthy individuals proves to be his demise, but it is not the entirety of his flaws.  The influence of capitalistic ideals of Eugene’s time forces him to exploit his family for his own selfish ends by requesting that his mother and sister send the little money they have.  Vautrin comments to Eugene about his actions, as he sees through the deception of Eugene, by saying that his mother has “bled herself white” so that Eugene may “be able to have [his] fun,” and “go around in high society” (Balzac 88).  Eugene’s actions are exploitive because he has no regard for the well-being of his family by asking for their life-savings.  Eugene also does not take into account how he is going to recover the sums he unethically acquires.  However, capitalism’s influence does not stop with Eugene in this instance.  The idea of needing expensive clothes and flashy attire influences his sister Laura that she should use her sewing and clothes making skills in order to save Eugene some money, and therefore have a better chance of Parisian high society accepting him.  Eugene says that his sister has “become as crafty as a thief” (87), which comments on the changes within her caused by the minute exposure to modern, capitalistic, ideals.  However, really Laura is stealing from herself by willingly exploiting her own labor without compensation of any sort.  Here, along with the ever-present portrayal of Goriot’s daughters bamboozling him for money, Balzac illustrates the most pathetic and demoralizing form of exploitation: when one exploits or unfairly takes advantage of their own family in a way that can lead them to starvation or even death.
       Pere Goriot and Eugene are not only involved with family exploitation, but they are also taking advantage of each other in hopes of gaining Delphine’s undying love and affection.  When Eugene learns that Pere Goriot is the father to both Delphine and Anastasie, he decides to acknowledge Pere Goriot as a father, a person, and as a key player in his ploy for the acceptance of Pere Goriot’s daughter Delphine, thus the acceptance of those in higher social ranks.  Until this point in the novel, “Eugene…had not been in Pere Goriot’s room before,” (Balzac 118) and it is not until then that Eugene’s motives become clear.  Pere Goriot asks Eugene which of the two daughters he prefers, to which Eugene answers that he “prefers Madame Delphine… because she loves [him] (referring to Pere Goriot) more” (119).  Eugene feeds on Pere Goriot’s desperate desires for love in order to gain love of his own accompanied by wealth and high social standing.  However, this is also a main transition point for Pere Goriot as he alludes to someone rather than his daughters for the chance to feel appreciated and loved.  After their conversation, Pere Goriot sees “himself coming a little closer to his daughter…, he [sees] himself being welcomed more warmly if Eugene endeared himself to the baronne” (122).  Pere Goriot now sees that in order to be close to his daughter again, he will have to use Eugene to obtain what he covets.  It is now clear that Pere Goriot and Eugene will exploit each other in an attempt to gain what they each desire.  It is only ironic then that the only person who truly cares about Pere Goriot when he is dying is Eugene, and in the end, neither character achieves his goal.
       One of Balzac’s major, and probably least recognizable, depiction of exploitation is that done by the government.  A capitalistic economy requires liberal laws, so the people can control their own business as they see fit in order to make the greatest profit in the most efficient way possible.  The only way to ensure a non-oppressive enforcing agent into this equation is with bureaucratic enforcement: the police.  With this in mind, Monsieur Gondureau, the police agent, now becomes the allegorical representation of the bureaucratic enforcement agent, which in turn becomes the allegorical representation of the government.  Even though the government is not supposed to oppress the people, it does via the enforcement agent, which exploits the social and financial status of lower class citizens in order to manipulate its own gain: “Actions which these poor people would never take in their own interests, they hasten to perform as soon as the words ‘His Excellency’ are pronounced” (Balzac 151).  This quote refers to Monsieur Gondureau’s inclination that if he mentions “His Excellency” (i.e. Minister of Police), then he can gain power over Mademoiselle Michonneau—he uses his high position as leverage to convince, almost con, the gullible Michonneau to do what he likes.  Monsieur Gondureau wants Michonneau to check for the marking on Vautrin, which would prove his false identity, thus proving Vautrin to be the Death Dodger.  The police do not attempt this risky task because the Perfect of Police’s position is in jeopardy, and any mistake in the identity of Vautrin will cost the Perfect his job.  Taking advantage of Michonneau’s financial and social position, the government bribes her with money for a task that could end her life, but might otherwise just cost a man his position.  Michonneau is not the only exploited party in this scene.  There seems to be an assumption that not only will Michonneau get the three thousand francs for doing this deed, but that she might also receive some fringe benefits.  Those benefits could be as simple as either good standing with the Perfect of Police—a high position holder, thus Michonneau gains power by association —or the possibility of earning more money.  Whatever the case may be, there is definitely a two fold exploitive force, and the social and political realms thrive because of it.  
       Flaubert, as is depicted in his novel, Madame Bovary, shares with Balzac the conception of the exploitive aspects of love and money, and government onto its country’s citizens due to the rise of capitalism.  Emma Bovary is exploited only twice in the novel: first, and continuously, Lheureaux takes advantage of her material lust; and secondly, Rodolphe uses her for his own sexual gratification and desire.  
Lheureaux is a dynamic character, not in the traditional sense, but rather because the reader sees him as merely a background figure when the Bovary family first arrives at Yonville-l’Abbaye; however, later he becomes a central character, although still in the background, who not only shows the reader Emma’s weakness, but also plays a detrimental role in the rising actions of the story.  The shift of Lheureaux’s character in the novel tells the reader quite a bit about him.  Even though he appears to serve, with pleasure, Emma as he goes out of his way to retrieve objects she desires, he is actually a calculating, exploitive mastermind.  Lheureaux’s simplistic façade plays to Emma as he lulls her worries about the cost of all the extravagant items she purchases by passively making notes of credit and kindly offering to fetch more items for her as if to say that the last purchase was gratis.  It would appear to Emma that she is manipulating him, thus exploiting him for his services; however, Lheureaux is the one who swindles Emma into accumulating such a large debt.  Even though Emma is at fault for not accounting for her excessive spending, Lheureaux purposely allows her an extravagant credit limit because he knows her lust for material possessions is endless, thus exploiting her material need.  It is not until the Bovarys’ credit is expired that one can see Lheureaux’s true character: he is the ultimate embodiment of exploitation of material desire.
       Contrasting Lheureaux, by means of ends, Rodolphe exploits love in order to obtain the lust he needs to feed his insatiable desire.  At the agricultural fair, Rodolphe speaks to Emma about romantic ideals and satisfies the romantic void in her life.  He knows that to acquire Emma’s sexual desire, he must first attend to her need for Romantic love—he does and says everything in his power to persuade Emma to feel that love for him.  Rodolphe exploits every aspect of Emma’s desire for love, sex, and Romanticism, however only lets Emma maintain the physical part of him.  This action solidifies his emotional and physical domination over Emma, thus allowing him to “[conduct] their adulterous affair as he pleased” (Flaubert 147).  This power also allows him to end their affair, without her consent, just as it had begun.  It is only when Rodolphe decides to end the affair does he exhibit any compassionate feeling towards her; however, the feeling is immediately crippled as he asserts himself, “Well, what do I care?  ...I just want to get this over with!” (Flaubert 175).  Rodolphe’s complete emotional detachment from Emma and his uncompassionate declaration towards Emma’s wellbeing proves his ultimate goal of exploiting her for his selfish desire of sexuality.
       Rodolphe’s multitude of sexual victims and his commonplace attitude towards them shows Flaubert’s recognition of exploiting love singularly for sexual pleasure as a stock practice among men at the time.  Rodolphe is the extreme embodiment of all men who act or say anything to persuade women to succumb to their sexual desires—money is not excluded here.  The “cookie box in which he kept most of the letters he had received from women” (Flaubert 173) is a symbol for Rodolphe’s sexual imprisonment of all the women he has conquered.  Reminders of his victims, thus parts of them, are enclosed in a small box in which he can remember his sexual conquest whenever and however he feels.  This dominate, male control of women’s sexuality mimics the ideas of prostitution, thus making a connection between Rodolphe and those who use prostitution for sexual control and selfish gratification: both aspects are a part of the demoralization of traditional love through the exploitive aspects of the rise of capitalism, and alludes to the imprisonment of women’s sexuality and bodies.
       Flaubert also comments on the governmental exploitation of French citizens through allegorical representation.  The speaker at the agricultural fair represents those who hold high positions and is thus the allegorical representation of government.  Flaubert constructs the novel so that Rodolphe and the speaker at the agricultural fair speak at the same time.  This parallel indicates that both speakers’ words are worthless and are spoken merely to play to the crowds.  The government representative speaks of the “usefulness of agriculture” (Flaubert 125), to gain the interest and acceptance of the farmers.  Here the speaker tells the farmers that the people of all social standings, especially those of higher rankings, appreciate their work, even if that appears not to be the case.  Combining the formality and extravagance of the speakers opening with the embellished importance of the farmers work, the speaker, through his use of rhetoric, mentally inflates the social status of the farmers closer to those who hold high positions.  It is now easy for the speaker to exploit the farmers.  Even though there appears to be no need for this, the exploitation is a necessity in keeping the farmers loyal to the government—the arbitrary awards add to the false sense of importance.  Through exploiting the simplemindedness of the farmers, the government can keep them under control, maintain productivity, and continue to benefit accordingly.  Industrialization is also on the horizon, and many people are moving to the cities because of the popularity of urban life, and the prospect of making more money.  Through the government’s exploitation, the farmers feel that their jobs are the backbone of the country as they produce the things necessary for the entire existence of France.  The speaker is there as a means of control by means of exploitation.
       Balzac and Flaubert’s depictions of exploitation are very similar in that they both seem to say that it is inevitable in the modern world.  It appears that both authors have conflicting views on the idea of people exploiting each other’s love.  On the one hand, Balzac and Flaubert portray it as a demoralization of one’s character and use it when referring to the unethical; but on the other, both authors present the idea that taking advantage of another person is probably the only way to get ahead in life or to be happy.  Even Charles Bovary exploits Emma in the way he takes advantage of her single status in order to fulfill his own emptiness.  On discussing the authors’ conviction on monetary exploitation, it is clear that both Balzac and Flaubert agree with the notion that it is necessary and evil at the same time.  In no instance do all parties benefit from this act; however, one person always profits from the scheme, no matter how many parties are involved.  The government’s role during the rising of capitalism is seen as an oppressive force that cannot be overthrown.  Balzac portrays the government as something that openly deceives public in order to benefit the most with no regard to the human condition.  On the other hand, Flaubert portrays the government as quasi Machiavellian in that it covertly deceives its country’s people.  Although the authors’ beliefs may not be clear on how they conceive the exploitive aspects due to the historical significance of capitalism, it is evident that they are aware of this social change and all of its influences on society.

Work Cited
Balzac, Honore de. Pere Goriot. Trans. A.J. Krailsheimer. New York: Oxford, 1991.
Flaubert, Gustave. Madame Bovary. Trans. Lowell Bair. Ed. Leo Bersani. New York: Bantam       Classics, 1972.