Name Ayesha Amjad

Class Roll No 2
University Roll NO 34439
Social Mobility Reflected in Anton Chekov’s The
Cherry Orchard (1904)
MARXIST APPROACH
Social mobility
 refers to the shift in an individual’s
social status. Shifts can be
 higher or lower
 inter-generational or intra-
generational,
 Upward or downward
 Horizontal or vertical
 According to Davies and Moore in
Saunders(2001), people’s position
in society influence how their rank
and reward formed. It meant that
peoples’ position in modern class
is not determined by birth(parents’
opportunity). This movement may
occur within one individual.
Marxist Approach

 Karl Marx(1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels(1820-1895)

were the founders of this school of thought.

 Advocates historical centrality of class struggle.

 Determines status of forces with relation of production.

 A Revolutionary theory.

 Practice of social and political transformation.

 Centers the exploitation of working class.

 Theorizes the concept of social revolution.

Social mobility in The Cherry Orchard

 Literature can be an indicator of social change and how society is formed.

 Orchard is an illustration of social mobility of past.
 There was a division among classes.

Social division in Haves Feudal capitalists

society lords

Have not serfs workers

 The Cherry Orchard is the Story of Lyobov, the owner of orchard who had a great
love for it but she has many debts.
 Estate go to auction because of debts.
 Social mobility made changes. Lopakin, a merchant, becomes a new owner.
 There are proper indicators of social mobility.
Indicators of social mobility

 The indicators are divided on the basis of Kerbo’s theory.

 The indicators of social mobility are
 Occupational
 authority
 property
 Each of the indicator is divided into five classes, upper ,corporative, middle,
working and lower class.
 Occupational
 In Cherry Orchard several occupations are acted by characters.
 Occupations make a difference between them.
 Lyobov main character inherited ancestral estate.
 Her dialogue “O my orchard’ shows her occupational upper class.
 According to Kerbo, upper class inherited property and authority.

Authority
 Authority was power of dominance depending on occupation.
 Individual with high occupation has high authority to control.
 Lyobov the owner of estate had an authority to control.
 Dialogue between Lyobov and Yasha indicating authority.
 She summoned yasha to pick up the coin that she dropped.
Property
 Property was people’s ownership that they got from their ancestors.
 It was Individual authority which they can control.
Depiction of social mobility

 Characters, setting, events and diction depict the social mobility

 Chekov shows the mobility through characters so there are different kind of
characters which have different attitudes.
 Hardworking character like Lopakin he is a merchant and busy man
 Worked and bought the estate where his father was a serf
 Setting of the drama shows the identities. Lopakin’s father’s shop in village
because of which he became a merchant
 Events describe the situation related to social mobility
 Lyobov is in debt because of her extravagant attitude and estate should go for
auction to pay debts
 Several Dictions are related to issue of mobility like debt
Addressing the social mobility

 Written in 1890 when economic goes wrong.

 Orchard shows the perspective of social mobility and economic and political.
 Cherry orchard demonstrates redundancy of social order.
 Indicates social progress.
 Social classes in the beginning
 Lyobov
 Gayev
 Pishchik
 Anya
 Varya
 Lopakhin belongs to lower middle class.
 Working class consists of Dunyasha, Yasha and Firs.
Social mobility at the end of the play

 At the end social mobility was in the sense that Lopakin was the owner of orchard
and new upper class.
 Lubov, Leoind and Anya were in the upper middle class because orchard was sold
to Lopakin.
 Working class was placed by Yepikhidov as clerk, Yasha as footman and Varya as
housekeeper.
 The Lower class was placed by Dunyasha and firs because both of them did not
get job yet.
 Several characters experienced social mobility. It can be upward and downward.
Upward and downward mobility

 Upward mobility was experienced by Lopakhin. He becomes the owner.

 Lyobov and his family became upper middle class. They experienced downward
mobility.

 Varya adopted daughter, She has nothing but position exercised by her mother.
When mobility happened her class became downward because she becomes a
housekeeper.

 Dunyasha and firs also experienced downward mobility.

Conclusion

 Social mobility IS experienced by all characters in play.

 Marxist utopia is never fully achieved.
 Social mobility was there in society but the society was never classless.
 There was a whole new setup where upper class was replaced.
 One status queue was replaced by other, one power setup was replaced by other
power setup.

Social division in haves Feudal lords capitalist

society
Have not serfs workers
Thank You