IMPROVED the large cool store

The Large Cool Store – Philip Larkin

How does Larkin explore ideas of inequality between social classes?

This poem is a description of a Marks and Spencers shop in Larkin’s time. Since then, they have moved further upmarket and the store has been become a more respectable retail chain. However, in the 1950s, M&S was a shop equivalent the Primark of today – providing cheap, fashionable clothes. Class is presented within this poem, and some could argue Larkin is looking down on the lower class. “The large cool store”, for example, is ambiguous with a dual meaning; with “cool” either meaning vacuous, or more in a literal sense that the shop is actually cold in relation to temperature. “Cheap” for those purchasing the goods would be a positive thing as money is saved, but the idea of “cheap” has negative connotations such as “cheap and nasty” and other such idioms. The predominant impression the poem gives is that there is a clear inequality between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The working class desire to have gain the lifestyle of the bourgeois class by aiming to dress in a similar sense to them, however, they fail to realise some similar styled clothes do not escape their day to day ‘drab’ lives and they will never gain the equality they desire.  Marxists aim to fight for the socialist transformation of society on a national and international scale in order to end exploitation and create a new and higher order society in which men and women will relate to themselves as human beings, and so this poem would illustrate the inequalities present, and provide a motive for change.

The opening stanza of the poem is a brief overview of the store, here the narrator highlights a host of clothes available in store, an abundant amount of which are affordable clothes most commonly purchased by the proletariat. Immediately, this appears ironic to the reader as the proletariat produce the clothes that they then go on to buy with their wages. A repetitive, monotonous society is exemplified through the description of the store. Similarly, simplistic language is used here which reflects the monotonous lives of the proletariat – predominantly the use of monosyllabic words are used to evoke the look and feel of department stores. Similarly, this use of dull language reflects the empty, materialistic workers that shop there. Larkin cleverly uses the contrast in colours between ‘browns and greys’ of weekday clothes, in comparison to the more glamorous ‘lemon, sapphire, moss-green’ of the nightwear to show how advertising creates a sense of false consciousness for the proletariat as they believe they can be equal to the bourgeoisie by wearing similar versions of their clothing. Also, these colours are natural and cool which perpetuates the idea that the clothes are naturally made, and produced in a hygienic and open environment. However, the reader is aware of the abysmal state of many factories during the 20^th century, and the unfair conditions for workers which inhabited these factories. The false consciousness created within the proletariat also encourages people to believe they can escape their drab lives in these ‘unreal wishes’. Marx believed being alienated from the objects of a man’s labour and from the process of production, he is also alienated from himself – therefore he cannot fully develop the many sides of his personality. Similarly, the poem has an ABABA rhyme scheme throughout, like the lives of the working class; it’s repetitive, monotone and boring.

This poem also relates to women in various places. Some argue Larkin emphasises the manner in which shops rely on images of women/femininity in attempt to sell their products and therefore fuel consumer desire. The underwear on stands of Modes of Night is described as ‘thin as blouses’ and some items are personified by Larkin to ‘flounce in clusters’. This simile creates the impression to the reader that the clothes and women alike are fragile and insubstantial as women are given the same value here as a mass produced item of clothing. the clothes have been described in this disparaging tone in order to convey the idea to the reader of the personalities of the members of the proletariat that shop in this store. The idea of ‘thin’ givs the impression they are shallow and lacking of personality as they are merely puppets in the superstructure. A Marxist would believe this is because working is not part of a man’s nature; consequently he will not fulfil himself in his work but he denies himself instead. The worker therefore only feels his true self during his leisure time, whereas at work he feels a sense of homelessness. In contast, the use of the verb ‘flounce’ provides a clear comparison of flirtatious female behaviour with the manner in which the clothes attempt to attract the attention of customers. A feminist interpreter would immediately criticise the way Larkin exemplifies images of female sexuality/female nature to relate to how consumerism functions. A feminist may also suggest that the poem supports the idea of women being objectified and used for men, by men in a phallocentric world. This type of reading would most likely lead to the conclusion that Larkin was a misogynist.

The proletariat depicted within the poem are alienated within the capitalist society that they are most unfortunate to inhabit. However, this is only a result of the bourgeoisie limiting their potential. They have every characteristic and level of potential intelligence in order to gain equality, but the higher powers within society deny them of this opportunity to break free of marginalisation. They are consumed by what some could describe as a reassuring sense of false consciousness.  This idea can be highlighted within the poem due to ‘To suppose, They share that world, to think their sort is’. The working class continue to believe that they will be accepted by the authoritative figures within their world, by dressing in a similar manor to them. However, they fail to recognise the irony within their lives as they consistently ‘leave at dawn low terraced houses’ to un-skilled labour jobs in which they produce the products that they later buy for a considerable amount more than the cost is to produce. This strengthens the power and influence of the bourgeoisie as they continue to entrap the working classes within their materialistic world – the small earnings the workers gain from their labour is wasted on goods that they have mass produced for a fraction of the price; therefore the profit that arises only strengthens and continues to empower the bourgeoisie.

As the workers fail to recognise that this is continually occurring to them, they are blinded by the small wages they earn. They perceive the weekend (two day escape from monotonous daily life) as something that allures them into an ideology that their lives are enjoyable and contented. However, as the bourgeoisie controls the superstructure they intelligently foresee this love for the weekend in which a host of people stereotypically waste hours in local pubs for example. Even when the proletariat are not working they are still reified and transformed into puppets as everything they do is controlled by superior powers. The alcoholic beverages they choose to consume (that cause them to delve into a deeper sense of false consciousness and temporarily forget their issues) are taxed by the bourgeoisie and so they still parsimoniously take the little wages away that the working classes have been granted. This reoccurring conundrum of weekday working to weekend spending engulfs the workers further and empowers the already dominant forces within the capitalist society. This idea reflects Andrew Motion’s view that these people are attempting to escape their ‘drab’ lives by ‘trying to change by night into something they are not’. This idea of the workers relying on the weekend could be seen as a reflection of Marx’s view that ‘religion is the opiate of the people’ as they always need something that blinds them and force them to believe that everything is okay in order to sustain their existence and sense of false consciousness.  Marxists criticise the functionalist view as many argue religion is a unifying force that only strengthens the value consensus, they see religion as a feature of only class-divided societies. Subsequently Marxists believe there will be no need for religion and are under the impression that it will eventually disappear. Larkin cleverly recognises the inequalities present within the society due to ‘How separate and unearthly love is’. This shows his acknowledgment of the level of power the bourgeoisie possesses and perhaps their abuse of power as they exploit and restrain the lives of everyone below them in the superstructure. A Marxist could interpret this as a way in which Larkin is sympathising towards the workers and exemplifying what inequalities have arisen with society, but ultimately Larkin’s lack of power and inability to make a difference. Alternatively, some readers recognise Larkin’s ideas (words such as ‘synthetic and ‘natureless’) to illustrate the stupidity of the proletariat as they continue to attempt to be accepted within an unfair world that regularly alienates them. A world in which materialistic, selfish people inhabit. People who are only trapped by money and they too will never be completely free until death, who live by the control of economic determinism. Consequently, perhaps the people do need an ‘opiate’ as Marx states in order to empower their lives and strive for something more – a fundamental characteristic of human nature. Many people do argue that Larkin is a sneering, condescending man who is not highlighting oppression but who is revelling in it as he wasn’t a member of the proletariat – Larkin graduated from Oxford and managed to publish many works within his time. For this reason some people argue that Larkin was not dissatisfied with the status quo of his society but he in fact ostracised the proletariat like so many others, the fact he had more social authority over the working classes actually satisfied him as it gave him a sense of self-worth and power.

At the end of the poem, the speaker refrains from describing the clothes in order to consider the broader impact of advertising on humanity as a whole. Despite it initially appearing Larkin is accusing women of being ‘natureless in their ecstasies’  (as they believe ‘Bri—Nylon Baby—Dolls and Shorties’ have potential to offer them an improved quality of life). Larkin’s true target actually focuses on the men that dominant society. The ending lines could actually be viewed to critique the men whose ‘young unreal wishes’ initiate this concept of female desire, or alternatively the consumer culture itself which feeds it to produce money. In this way, the poem is not misogynistic as women are ultimately victims.