Class Differences in Shaw's Pygmalion Pygmalion

Class Differences in Shaw's Pygmalion

Pygmalion illustrates the difference and tension between the upper and lower class. A basic belief of the period was that a person is born into a class and that no one can move from one class to another. Shaw, on the contrary, believed that personality isn't defined by birth. Instead, he thought that you can achieve social change if you really believe in yourself. As to the play, the barriers between classes aren't natural and can be broken down.

Eliza and Alfred Doolittle, originally living in bad conditions, represent the working class. What happens to Eliza and her father expresses Shaws belief that people are able to improve their lives through their own efforts, but they have to consider that their character might change as well. Thus it doesn't seem astonishing that the difference between a lady and a flower girl lies rather in her treatment than in her behaviour. Shaw's criticism is obviously in the paradox of Alfred's character: He is happy being poor and miserable being rich. In the same way, Doolittle shows how difficult it can be to change one's whole personality. Once he becomes wealthy, he adapts to the conventions of the upper class and fears the lower class. Instead of this development, one should develop one's own personal, flexible code of behavior.

The upper class regards background and wealth as decisive and is keen to preserve class distinctions. In the play they are represented by the Eynsford Hills appearing dishonest towards themselves. They escape from reality and prefer an illusion. This can be explained by the fact that the Eynsford Hills are lacking money, but refuse to go earning their own living. At the end, Clara can be seen as an exception because she makes up her mind and takes an honest, realistic look at her own life. [303]