Class Conflict in The Cherry Orchard - Assignment Example

Conflict in The Cherry Orchard While the gist in Anton Chekov’s The Cherry Orchard could be interpreted in many ways, it is absolutely clear that one of its most outstanding elements is its depiction of the class struggle that was taking place in Russia at the turn of the 20th century. As Sara Haslam writes, it could indeed be understood as an “allegory of class struggle” (2005, p. 59). There are parts of the play that deal with romantic relationships, marital problems and failures, as well as the difficulties experienced by certain sectors in old Russia amidst the change that was sweeping the nation. However, even these turn out to be figurative representation of what Chekhov was conveying as regards the conflict of social classes that existed then. Such style of writing a play or presenting the series of events is, however, expected of Chekhov. His was not storyteller know for the fantastic. What he was most known for was his ability to present a very ordinary situation that could be construed as a scene loaded with an extended metaphor. Haslam explains that Chekhov “is often seen as a stimulating, rather than a dogmatic, author – one who resists telling people what to think” (2005, p. 20). Instead of spoon-feeding the audience the concepts that he wishes to convey, Chekhov merely arouses the audience with striking dialogues. He writes of lines that would leave the audience thinking about the state of affairs in society. It then becomes the responsibility of the audience to react to the insinuations that he conveys in his play. Chekhov has shown his trust in the capabilities of the audience to grasp the essential but less conspicuous features of The Cherry Orchard. Throughout the whole play, one could barely read any line that directly discusses this particular issue. In all the four acts, what are more obvious are the scenes and dialogues that portray the human emotion when it comes to matters of the heart, to subjects pertaining to the loss of properties with sentimental value, and even to gaiety amidst the controversies brought about by social changes in the play’s historical setting. Nevertheless, in the middle of Act II, Chekhov sheds off the trimmings and goes down expressing his concepts on the social conditions of the time. He does not go to the extent of telling the audience his own standpoint though. However, by explaining the stratification of Russian society and the conflicts arising among the classes, formulating assumptions on Chekhov’s view on society and social change is not complicated. It is important to refer to the historical context of The Cherry Orchard in order to conclude that Chekhov did write the play to describe the dynamics of the class struggle that took place in Russia during the period which the story evolved. Audiences who are knowledgeable of the circumstances in Russian society in the later part of the 19th century could not miss the allegory that Chekhov employed. The story took place at a time when the Russia’s elite was reeling from the effect of the abolition of serfdom in 1861, which was an event that benefitted Chekhov himself since he would have been a serf too had his grandfather not been freed. Haslam describes that “from this point in time, the control of the aristocracy began to decline, although even after the emancipation, as is made clear by the play, wealthy families still owned servants” (2005, p. 39). Of the main characters of the play, Lubov Andreyevna Ranevsky and her family, exemplify such declining aristocratic landlords. The Cherry Orchard presents a complicated conflict of the classes in Russian society prior to the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. It describes the three-way struggle among the aristocratic landlord families, the rising capitalists or bourgeoisie, and the younger generation of radicals who would later evolve into socialist revolutionaries. Adding further complication to the conflict were the former serfs who have yet to grasp the essence of being from bondage to both their masters and the land and who have ambiguous attitudes towards their emancipation. The Ranevskys, for example, have to contend with the bourgeois concept of Ermolai Alexeyevitch Lopakhin. Both Lubov Ranevsky and Lopakhin, on the other hand, are astounded by the more radical and egalitarian ideas of the young Peter Sergeyevitch Trofimov. Although almost peripheral in presentation, the mindset of Fiers, the emancipated serf of the Ranevskys, describe the confusion of the former serfs in the midst of the changes sweeping Russian society. It is in the dialogues in Act II that the said characters expose their viewpoints and attitudes towards the historical events taking place in Russia. It is also in their lines that the play’s audiences would not fail to notice Chekhov’s description of the class struggle. The Ranevskys are beset with the problem of failure to maintain their beloved cherry orchard. There are two main factors that surround the problem. The principal one is that the abolition of serfdom had deprived them of cheap labor and the secondary factor is that they did not effectively manage their landholdings because they were more engrossed in dealing with their caprices and romantic affairs. Nevertheless, Lubov continue to hold high regard for the land due to its mere sentimental value in the face of efforts by the emerging bourgeoisie represented by Lopakhin to acquire it. The contradiction portrayed here between Lubov and Lopakhin is based on the former’s nonchalance over the latter’s vehemence that the cherry orchard must be leased off at once so that they could acquire money. Lopakhin, a merchant, is an epitome of the nascent bourgeoisie; one who is interested in the land not for its agricultural value alone but as a potential source of capital. It is, therefore, clear that the conflict between him and Lubov is not just about the choice between sentimental and monetary value. It is based on the clashing interest of the classes they respectively represent. It is also a reflection of the struggle between the new concepts on property proposed by Lopakhin and the old and regressive ideas held on by Lubov. Trofimov, however, forwards a more novel concept on private property and labor. Although his philosophy is obviously in contradiction with that of Lubov’s, the subject of his criticisms is that of Lopakhin. Harvey Pitcher writes that the basic difference between Trofimov and Lopakhin is that one tends to be “idealistic and revolutionary, the other materialistic and conservative” (1985, p. 159). In relation to Lubov’s old aristocratic points of view, Lopakhin’s may seem to be new and progressive. However, Chekhov presents Trofimov’s perspective as another alternative, one that is more humane and egalitarian. Trofimov considers that the value of a property lies not in sentimentality or in the money that could be made out of it. Instead, he sees the value of property as representative of the human labor employed to make it useful. In this regard, although Chekhov does not go to the extent of portraying him as a socialist, Trofimov actually represents the fast developing political consciousness of the Russian working class; the resulting standpoint of which is in discord with the bourgeois Lopakhin. The dialogue between Trofimov and Lopakhin may not display deep antagonisms but the satirical elements employed by Chekhov, nevertheless, are effective enough in depicting the contradictions between the classes. Various productions of The Cherry Orchard have been made ever since the first done by Constantin Stanislavsky. However, the manner in which it is being delivered to audiences actually depends much on how the director treats the essential points of the play and its story. Chekhov may had in mind the portrayal of the class contradictions existing in Russia during his time but the succeeding directors and producers may not have captured well the essential class analysis in the plot. It is also possible that they decide to intentionally blur this important aspect in order to make The Cherry Orchard less radical and more commercial or more appealing to middle and upper class audiences. A case in point in the script is when Trofimov said that “all Russia is our orchard.” For the politically conscious, working class they would have understood this as a call to seize power in Russia because it is, after all, the product of their labor. However, for the bourgeoisie, it would be a reflection of their notion that the entire country is a source of capital. It is obvious, however, that what Chekhov meant was the former since it was the idealistic and radical Trofimov who delivered the line. Nevertheless, in the Stanislavsky production, even Chekhov would be forced to remove some lines “in which Trofimov indicts the Ranevsky family for having owned serfs” (2006, p. 25). If the playwright himself could make adaptations and blur the theme of class struggle, then it is certainly possible for the succeeding directors, actors, and producers to do the same. They could do so not just by removing certain lines; they could also highlight some scenes that are funny to make the entire play a comedy instead. They could also concentrate or put more weight on the scenes that are melancholic, particularly those in Act IV to make it appear as a tragedy, as what Stanislavsky successfully did. With the only a portion of Act II providing serious focus on the theme of class struggle because of the lines that Chekhov wrote, de-emphasizing class contradictions would not be difficult to do. Even Act II is not entirely devoted to the class struggle theme. It was only in the middle of it that the characters deliver lines that explicitly describe their respective views on the situation of the cherry orchard, which are all anchored on their respective class interests. The Cherry Orchard may indeed have elements that pertain to the class contradictions and struggle that took place in Russia at the turn of the century. However, with the manner that Chekhov presents this particular theme, he leaves to the audience the choice of character they wish to sympathize with. Conscious of the fact that his play’s audiences, could come from different class backgrounds, Chekhov manages to make the play subject to the individual’s appreciation according to the class he or she belongs to. References Haslam, S. (2005). Anton Chekhov, The Cherry Orchard. In R.D. Brown and S. Gupta (Eds.), Aestheticism & Modernism: Debating Twentieth-Century Literature 1900-1960. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge. Loehlin, J.N. (2006). Chekhov: The Cherry Orchard. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pitcher, H. (1985). The Chekhov Play: A New Interpretation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Read More