George Wilson's Separation Of Social Class

In this passage, the author Elizabeth Gaskells shows, through the point of view of George Wilson, a millworker, the difference between the working class and the upper high class during the 1840s in England. She criticized the upper class and sympathized the working class. Gaskell uses several specific elements such as point of view, selection of detail, dialogue, and characterization to create a social commentary.
Firstly, by writing the passage through the point of view of Wilson, a millworker, Gaskell introduces the separation of the social classes during this time. Social classes were a big deal back in the 1800s. It was either you were rich or you were poor, no in between. As Wilson walked in through the back door of Mr. Carson’s kitchen,

Gaskell describes the behavioral difference between the two social classes, “The servants seemed very busy with preparation for breakfast; but good-naturedly, though hastily, told him to step in, and they could soon let Mr. Carson know he was there” (Lines 18-21). In these lines, Elizabeth Gaskell explains how the servants, which were considered part of the working class, were very kind and courteous to Wilson even though they weren’t in the high status. Dissimilarly, the upper class was oppressive, “A servant, semi-upper-housemaid, semi-lady’s-maid, now came down with orders from her mistress; you’d better all of you mind your P’s and Q’s, for she’s very black this morning” (Lines 61-62, 70-72). Saying this, Gaskell explained how the lower class was friendlier and more kind than the upper class. The problem was that the upper class considered themselves superior to the working class.
The author’s use of selection of detail helps create a social commentary.

As George Wilson walked to Mr. Carson’s house, he saw how people of his own class, the working class, were struggling to maintain their households, “One or two miserable-looking women were setting off on their day’s begging expedition” (Lines 8-9). On the other hand, the upper class had more economic advantages. Arriving to Mr. Carson’s home, Wilson describes the house in a manner that helps differentiate the two social classes, “But in addition to lavish expenditure, there was much taste shown, and many articles chosen for their beauty and elegance adorned his rooms” (Lines 11-13). Gaskell uses the selection of detail to help explain the differences between the rich and the poor, and make social commentary.
Elizabeth Gaskell used dialogue to contrast the literary skills between the rich and the poor. She made the lower class look very illiterate compared to the upper class, “No! I put th’ horses up in th’ stables at th’ Spread Eagle, and went mysel’, and got a glass or two by th’ fire” (Lines 50-53). Gaskell made the working class look as if they had never had any education while the upper class did, “Thomas, you must ride to the fishmonger’s, and say missis can’t give above half-a-crown a pound for salmon for Tuesday; she’s grumbling because trade’s so bad”(Lines

63-66).
Characterization is an important factor in this story. Gaskell only focuses on characterizing George Wilson. She describes him as a poor man in need, “The coffee steamed upon the fire, and altogether the odors were so mixed and appetizing, that Wilson began to yearn for food to break his fast, which had lasted since dinner the day before” (Lines 30-33). Characterizing Wilson as a poor hungry man, the author again helper classify who was in the upper class and the lower class.
Overall, Elizabeth Gaskell used various literary techniques to create a social commentary. She included techniques such as point of view, selection of detail, dialogue, and characterization to create her own social commentary; that the rich people will always feel superior and grander that the poor people. Gaskell wrote this passage to express how social classes worked in the 1840s and how the poor dealt with the injustices aimed at them.