Au Revoir, Paris

When I first got to Paris, I opened the window in my accommodation, which was facing the courtyard where I could see everyone else’s windows. It felt kind of romantic in a way. It reminded me of Beauty and the Beast where people would just open their windows in the morning and say “Bonjour!” to each other. I got excited about exploring Paris, as I was very eager to understand one of the most important cities in Europe. 

The accommodation

Honestly, my expectations were not very high before coming to Paris. I had obviously heard about how people fall in love with the city and how Paris was so romantic, but I had also heard that it was overrated, dirty, and that the people were rude. 

To me personally, I loved my time in Paris. It was a city full of life, beauty, and soul. It is extremely diverse and the amount of culture and history within the city fascinates me. I enjoyed walking past cafes with people chatting over a cup of coffee, a croissant, and a cigarette. I enjoyed exploring beautiful churches that reflect the French’s attention to beauty; it really reflected France’s commitment to preserving their culture and how longstanding their art is. And I especially loved bookpacking and going to locations mentioned in A Tale of Two Cities and Les Miserables, as it made my experience more immersive. It wasn’t as dirty as I expected, but compared to many other Asian cities that I’ve been to, it definitely wasn’t the cleanest. 

Yet the fact that Paris isn’t squeaky clean and extremely organized was tolerable to me because it represented the freedom that it has. Perhaps it was also because it was balanced out by the beautiful architecture and streets. But the point of a city isn’t just to be a museum display. It’s a place where people work, live, and explore. It’s a place where people experience both their highest and lowest points in life. I can accept the fact that sometimes it’s okay for a city to be a bit more rugged; it displays what humanity truly is. 

Victor Hugo mentions how he believes that Paris is a “summation”, and “the greatest achievement of the human race.” I honestly can see his point. I believe Paris represents a society that represents multiple facets of human nature, or a “summation” of humanity. It’s a city that appreciates the beauty of the arts, including fashion, food, music, and visuals. But it’s also a city where people feel free to flaneur around, smoke cigarettes, and push and shove to squeeze onto an already packed train… It represents the extent of humans and what we can achieve. I completely appreciate this about Paris. 

At the same time, I’m not sure if Paris is necessarily “the greatest achievement of the human race” nowadays. I can understand that back then, it definitely was one of the greatest cities in the world due to France’s domination and imperialism on the world stage. However, cities all across the world are developing into global and diverse hubs. I especially believe that many major cities in the United States, such as New York City, are just as much of an achievement as Paris, as the U.S. was founded on exploring “new” lands and searching for liberty. In America, there is a different sense of freedom, one that is newer and more individualistic. The idea of America to me, is just as great as the idea of Paris. While I recognize its ugly past, I can appreciate the idea and values of America. It’s a nation where so many people have flocked to in order to chase their dreams. It’s a nation that has built itself up from a few British colonies to the most powerful nation in the world. It’s a nation where people are able to go out in their pajamas without being judged. 

This is just one example of another great human achievement. You could also talk about how Nordic countries have built social democracies that have placed them in the position of the happiest countries in the world. Or you could talk about how Singapore built itself from the ground up after years of British colonization. But in my eyes, Paris is a city of neverending exploration. While Paris does have many flaws, it is an extremely unique, accomplished, and beautiful city that I will definitely return to. The beauty, culture, and freedom of the city have appealed to me, and allowed me to understand not only French society, but also the possibilities of what our global society can achieve.

Palais Garnier

“For Paris is a summation. Paris is the greatest achievement of the human race. This whole marvellous city is a compendium of ways of life past and present.”

Think About the Women's March From Versailles!

I was tired. The sunlight was beating down on our bodies. It was 80 degrees out. There were too many tourists. I enjoyed my experience but I had enough; it was time to go home.

On a sweltering summer Saturday, my classmates and I were walking through the gardens of Versailles. We had just finished looking through the Petit Trianon, but we still had a long walk ahead of us. The massive size of Versailles was unexpected for me, so what took about 40 minutes felt like hours. But I had a thought that came to my mind that I told my classmates: “If the women during the French Revolution could march from Paris to Versailles, walking to the Palace’s entrance is nothing.”

The long path we walked from…

These were some joking words of motivation, as I don’t really believe in comparing one’s suffering to another. However, I am fascinated by the extremities that many revolutionaries go through due to their utmost passion and willingness to sacrifice for the cause. The Women’s March on Versailles is a good example of this. The rightful rage that the French had because of not only the extreme societal inequality and the French ruling class’ oppression, but also because of the meaning of Louis XVI being in Versailles, fueled a complete overhaul of France’s social and political structures. It meant that the king was able to be isolated from Paris, the capital of the nation, because he felt that he was above them. It meant that the leader of the nation was able to escape the wishes of the people. The people had had enough of this centuries-old hierarchical structure. A five-hour march to Paris was nothing compared to the suffering they had been enduring. The payoff from spending five hours of their time was so great, as anything was better than living under an autocracy. 

I also thought about how marches are significant parts of many revolutionary movements throughout world history. In 1965, Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders led a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama in protest of oppressive Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation. Protestors were tear gassed and brutally beaten by police officers during this march. But they kept going. Being tired was not an excuse, as they were also tired of centuries of white supremacy and the consistent oppression and stripping of humanity from Black Americans. Their goal of voting rights and racial equality needed to be accomplished. In 1934, Mao Zedong led the Long March during the Chinese Civil War, which was an escape from the corrupt Chinese Nationalist forces. From the Chinese perspective, the Long March represented the communist revolutionary struggle for liberation from hierarchies that had oppressed the working class for millenia. Despite a multitude of attacks and casualties, they kept going; to them, this suffering was needed to achieve their goal of a communist China.

Why are marches so important though? When does a walk become a march? Marches represent the great lengths a movement is willing to go through, or “march” in order to achieve a goal. In this case, it’s essentially a glorified walk. But marches also refer to military demonstrations that display the pride and strength of a nation. Soldiers “march” in an organized and glorified manner to show greatness. 

From a revolutionary perspective, these events that I mentioned above are more than just walks, journeys, runs, or any form of travel by foot. There is a sense of determination and “glory”, similar to how soldiers march to represent their nation. Revolutionaries march for the sake of a societal cause, which is their “destination”. Marches are walks that encapsulate the spirit of what one is truly fighting for and the suffering one is willing to endure in order to achieve a goal.  

Pondering about this march on Versailles led me to also think about the revolutionaries that started the 1832 Revolution in Paris, which was depicted in Les Miserables. While the revolution was not even close to the scale and impact of the 1789 French Revolution, the revolutionaries were also extremely committed and were willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the revolution. The catalyst for the revolution, which was the funeral of General Lamarque, could be compared to a “march”.

“So on the fifth of June, a day of sunshine and rain, General Lamarque’s funeral procession passed through Paris… Then came a strange, excited, countless multitude, local sections of the Friends of the People, the Law School, the School of Medicine, refugees of all nationalities, Spanish, Italian, German and Polish flags, horizontal tricolours, every conceivable banner, children waving green banches… unorganized and yet united in spirit, now a tumultuous mob, now a column. Insurgent groups chose leaders for themselves.”

This excerpt encapsulates unity. The people of Paris are gathering and “marching” through the streets as a way to express their discontent with the July Monarchy. They are coming out and taking action for a purpose: To revolt against Louis Philippe and liberate their nation for the sake of equality and self-determination. We can see that multiple social groups are uniting for a revolution and putting themselves at risk just so that they can fight for a France where they can be free from autocracy.

We later find out in the book that the revolution was unsuccessful. Sometimes sacrifice and revolutions do not work out in the end. Yet, it is still beautiful that there was a united attempt from French society to call out the establishment and take collective action against hierarchy and oppression. 

Sometimes protests and revolutions have imperfect or unexpected outcomes as well. For example, the civil rights movement and their marches were successful in terms of the passage of the Voting Rights Act and desegregation, but many Southern states are still led by right-wing governments who implement policies that are considered to be oppressive to Black Americans, women, and other marginalized groups. China had some initial success with dismantling oppressive institutions and social structures through land reform and gender equality initiatives, but they ended up becoming an authoritarian government that engages in the oppression of minority groups and imperialism against other surrounding nations. 

Perhaps France is an example of what countries or regions could have been in terms of states with a long history of revolutions and change. Maybe China could have achieved a liberal democracy if it had gone a different path. Maybe states in the American South could have voted in more liberal governments that would have implemented more progressive policies to alleviate poverty and inequality. But opposing forces are always present and can often impede on efforts to achieve true liberation.

To me, the fact that the revolutionary spirit of France was so profound, as that is how I believe a society progresses. Progress is not an easy path, and it only comes when people express dissatisfaction, whether it be a small protest or a major revolution that changes the soul of the nation. I am inspired by Enjolras, Marius, and the student group’s determination and drive that allowed them to organize a revolution, as well as their free discussion of ideals that are crucial to achieving democratic values in a society.

France had still partaken in centuries of imperialism throughout the globe during these times of domestic revolutions, and radical political forces and ideals from the left and right that could threaten democracy and liberalism are still present in the nation today. But I can appreciate that great change was still able to occur and a vibrant Western democracy was able to emerge from this process. After all, it is the existence of democracy that allows these radical values to gain traction. Perhaps it was because of France’s established position as a dominating and developed European power compared to other nations that had undergone colonization or poverty that hindered their growth, as it allows them to avoid the dangers of populist and authoritarian forces that often emerge through developing nations. 

So was our walk from Versailles a march? Probably not. But maybe you could argue that our walk to the train station had a greater purpose of us writing these blogs and thinking about ideas that could potentially inspire us to contribute to a greater good. Maybe we are all engaging in a mini-intellectual revolution right now and marching through the streets of Paris to expand our worldviews and forming ideals that will be revolutionary in the future. 

Stubborn Fathers

Fatherhood is an interesting concept. We don't think about it as much in comparison to motherhood. Our society places a strong emphasis on motherhood. Mothers are meant to be nurturing, protective, and sources of support. We refer to our ancestral nations as our “motherland”. We refer to our planet as “Mother Earth”. Mother’s Day was declared a national holiday in 1914, while Father’s Day wasn’t declared a national holiday until 58 years later in 1972. Mothers are rightfully seen as the ultimate protectors of our well-being and providers of a sense of warmth, love, and security that we often yearn for. 

But what does fatherhood represent? Traditionally, fathers are the breadwinners of the family who are out at work. They are the ones bringing in the most resources for the family in order to provide stability for their loved ones. Men in general are seen as more self-sufficient and in less need of praise, love, or emotional reinforcement. Yet that does not mean that fathers are any less loving than mothers. Fathers generally still deeply love, care, and spend time with their children just as much as mothers do. They express these feelings in different ways though, probably because of societal standards and the idea of what it means to be a father. Mothers traditionally represent the love and acceptance of vulnerability that one needs to feel fully supported. Mothers are by your side in times of distress and provide you with a sense of warmth that makes home feel like home. Fathers, on the other hand, traditionally set up the structure and building blocks of the family. They are the ones you play with when they come home from work, and the ones who you view as your hero when you’re young. They are meant to be strong, inspiring, and resilient.

Victor Hugo touches on this concept of fatherhood in Les Miserables through the characters of Georges Pontmercy and Monsieur Gillernormand, Marius’ father and grandfather, respectively. In the novel, fatherhood is initially depicted in a very traditional sense until the characters’ vulnerability, emotions, and love are exposed.

Firstly, when we are first introduced to Georges, he is depicted as a man who had abandoned his son and did not want to undertake the responsibilities of fatherhood. Marius subscribed to this negative impression of his father until he was told at church that his father had been secretly coming to mass regularly to see how Marius was doing. 

“The father kept behind this pillar so he wouldn’t be seen. He would gaze at his child and weep. He adored that child, poor man!”

Victor Hugo shows a sense of paternal vulnerability. When I went into the church where Marius and his grandfather would attend mass, I could picture a father hiding behind a pillar and staring at his child in a paternal way in such a spiritual setting, trying to cherish the joyous period of youth that his son is experiencing and hoping that his son his living his best life, even without his father. It is the location best suited for this sense of vulnerability, as it is a public space where one builds their personal relationship with God.  It’s traditionally paternalistic in a sense that Georges is resilient against his own desires to fully be with his son and instead watches Marius from afar, rather than trying to reclaim him. He only hopes that his son is living happily.

At the same time, Hugo shows a different side of fatherhood, one that is deeply emotional. Georges lets go of his son, but also lets out deep emotions when he weeps about Marius, imagining a life where he could be a proper father figure. While fathers are typically portrayed as figures who provide structure for their loved ones without being driven too much by emotion, they still can share a sense of love and vulnerability that mothers also provide. Hugo perfectly illustrates this through Georges’ character and does a great job of showing the nuances behind fatherhood.

Monsieur Gillernormand is also a father figure that is portrayed in Les Miserables. Hugo depicts a relatable gruffness and harshness through this portrayal. These quotes show how traditional paternal characteristics eventually peel off overtime, and how masculinity can shield our true emotions about loved ones.

“[Monsieur Gillenormand] felt like opening his arms to [Marius], calling his name, rushing towards him; his heart melted in rapture, affectionate words swelled his breast to bursting. Finally all his tenderness came to the surface and reached his lips and, by virtue of a contrariness that was the very essence of his nature, what came out was harshness. He said abruptly, “What are you doing here?”

“Monsieur Gillenormand wrung his hands with a dreadful burst of laughter. ‘He’s dead! He’s dead! He’s dead! He’s got himself killed on the barricades! Out of hatred for me! It was to defy me that he did it!”

 Gillenormand is a classic stubborn father figure most of us know in our lives, whether it be a grandfather, father, or uncle. He is one that does not prefer to show emotion due to a societal norm of fathers being strong and unwavering. I see this fatherly nature through my own father, who I have frequent political conversations with. While understanding and emotional to a certain extent, he still holds a sense of paternal stubbornness. Gillenormand views him showing his love to Marius after years of not seeing each other as a form of surrendering his own beliefs, which was a primary cause of Marius leaving his home. Slowly, Gillenormand can’t help it anymore and his bottled up emotions burst out.

Hugo shows us how love and emotion is a natural part of being human, despite societal factors that determine our actions and expressions. While mothers are often the ones you confide in and someone you go to when you need a shoulder to lean on, and fathers are the ones you talk politics or go play ball with, they both are figures that love and care deeply, and Hugo shows that maybe motherhood and fatherhood aren’t so different after all. 

Fish and Chips or Coffee and Croissant?

Before arriving in London and Paris, I expected two cities that were both representative of the deep history and rich civilizations of Britain and France, two of the historically most powerful nations in Europe. I expected old and historical buildings, prideful people, and quintessential European walkable cities. To me, London and Paris do contain those aspects. They do contain a deep history and a sense of pride that represents their recognition of their achievements for Western civilization and the utmost power they had relative to the world. They are culturally rich and traditional cities while holding a sense of globalism due to their size and appeal to people from all over the world.

While both London and Paris contain these two aspects, they are extremely different as well. The stark contrast between the two cities was not something I expected coming to London and Paris. But the thing is that I would not have felt and understood this contrast if it weren’t for furthering my understanding of British and French history, as well as Londoner and Parisian experiences through the lens of literature, such as through Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. Through these two vessels of understanding these European cities, I notice the differences in cultures and auras between the two cities. I can feel the historical context behind the streets I walk through and the people I walk past.

My view of London is one that holds onto a sense of tradition and order. Walking through the streets of London, I notice that novelty and experimentation do not stand out. While grandiose and beautiful, the streets and buildings feel sterile, and they give off a sense of conservatism; it feels very structured and uptight. While London is a bustling and diverse city that contains a melting pot of different cultures, I don’t feel the lively density and freedom that I feel in cities such as Paris. People walking by seem to have a purpose and destination that they need to achieve. Hundreds flock to Buckingham Palace to celebrate the British monarchy. Rather than wandering through endless street stalls, people find restaurants, sit down, and order fish and chips. Maybe they’ll drink a beer on a good (or bad) day.

London’s streets

 It feels representative of the Anglo tradition that you also see in the United States. For example, in New York City, there is a sense of hustle culture, where people are serious and focus on efficiency and work. But even in NYC, I feel more of a sense of freedom and creativity, probably due to the fact that the United States is a much less traditional nation and was founded on the basis of freedom, individualism, and “chasing the American dream”. London feels much more established, especially walking past the gentleman’s clubs and buildings occupied by the British establishment. In a way, it matches the stereotype of British people – one that portrays them as uptight, well-mannered, and hierarchical. 

Charles Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities touches on this idea of London in his book when he describes Mr. Lorry, who is a British banker.

“Very orderly and methodical he looked, with a hand on each knee, and a loud watch ticking a sonorous sermon under his flapped waistcoat”

The description of Mr. Lorry perfectly encapsulates the British’s orderly and conservative nature. Their habits are to dress orderly and follow “how things are” in British society. Their expectations are to follow routines and conform to societal expectations and norms. While Britain is a nation that has progressed immensely in terms of allowing for diversity and freedom of thought, there seems to be routines and traditional ways of doing things that have not changed much, even to this day. 

Paris, on the other hand, gave me a completely different impression. It is a city and society that feels like it is full of life and freedom. You have the freedom to go downstairs from your apartments and run into a plethora of food options, from small stands selling crepes and paninis to upscale restaurants serving steak and escargot. You have the freedom to flaneur around and find markets selling fruits, shoes, and knock-off handbags. You have the freedom to sit down in an outdoor seating area of a cafe and eat a croissant, drink a coffee, and smoke a cigarette. 

Parisian restaurant

At night, the streets are bustling with people drunk off of wine, chatting away, and probably buying a crepe from the stand next door. Young people are coming home from wine bars or clubs, enjoying their period of youth and freedom. Although the French hold onto a sense of pride and value their fashion and presentation, it differs from British pride. To the Brits, their pride stems from the “great” nation that their rulers and establishment had built. It stems from the years of British imperialism and the accomplishments of the ruling class. To the French, their pride stems from the culture and diversity that all people built and fought for. It celebrates the revolutionary ideals that set aside room for intellectualism, art, romance, politics, music, and more. It recognizes what the people fought for and holds its accomplishments on a high pedestal.

People watching the Eiffel Tower sparkle while drinking wine.

I can recognize this free, revolutionary, and liberal view of Paris through A Tale of Two Cities. Dickens describes the chaos and rage of the French Revolution in the novel. 

“With a roar that sounded as if all the breath in France had been shaped into the detested word, the living sea rose, wave on wave, depth on depth, and overflowed the city to that point. Alarm-bells ringing, drums beating, the sea raging, and thundering on its new beach, the attack had begun.”

The narrative of the revolution perfectly represents the uprising of the people and the Parisian tradition of revolting when injustice occurs. The people are the ones who control France’s future, not the upper class. The common folk are the ones who drive France’s culture, traditions, and politics. It is liberation that gives Paris its charm and culture of freedom. Parisians are not just tolerant to change, as change and novelty is expected. The collective power that builds Paris’ bustling streets, artistic expressions, and fashionable people is what holds their community together. 

To me, this relationship has parallels to other cultures’ relationships, such as Japanese and Chinese culture, where the former holds a sense of order and tradition while the latter is much more lax and has more of a culture of change.

Learning about British history and its hold onto tradition reminds me of Japanese culture and history. Japan is known for having a culture that holds manners, cleanliness, and order to utmost importance. They follow their centuries-old traditions to this day and hold very conservative and prideful views when comparing their culture to other cultures. Their culture is extremely hierarchical; even their language, which contains honorifics that are essential for understanding Japanese grammar, has components that reflect one’s place on the social pyramid. Even walking and eating is frowned upon, because to them, meals are moments of gratitude and not something that you should multitask. 

Walking through the streets of Kyoto, one of Japan’s more major, but traditional cities, I notice that despite the crowds of tourists that flock to visit, there is still a sense of order and extreme cleanliness to the streets. It is a city where you can really get a sense of Japanese traditionalism. Finding trash on the ground is extremely rare. You can still see Japanese women walking around wearing kimonos. Traditional Japanese homes and upscale (but extremely discrete) restaurants line the streets. You feel a culture of routine in Japan. While I would consider Japanese culture much more conservative than British culture and Japanese cities much more clean and orderly than British ones, there are similarities in the sense that both societies grip onto their traditions and hierarchy. 

Restaurant-lined streets in Kyoto

Even in Taiwan, which had been colonized by Japan during the 19th and 20th centuries, I can see a microcosm of Japanese culture. In metro stations, people naturally line up and politely wait their turn to board the train. People speak very politely, even to a point where it gets indirect at times. Grandiose buildings that were built by the Japanese are still intact and remind Taiwan that it was an established and industrialized island before other nations such as China and Korea were able to modernize.

National Taiwan University Hospital, built in 1912 during the Japanese colonial period

Perhaps this conservatism is due to the fact that Britain and Japan are both island nations that were able to preserve their culture against a multitude of invasions. Britain was able to protect itself against Napoleon’s conquest because of the English Channel, and Japan was able to protect itself against Kublai Khan’s conquest because of the typhoons in the Sea of Japan. Another reason could be because both nations have not gone through radical revolutions that had completely uprooted their respective nations’ political systems. Britain and Japan have always been monarchies and the major revolutions that occurred in these countries were primarily led by the upper class; the common folk did not have a major role and radicals did not gain enough power to completely do away with the established system. For example, the Glorious Revolution in 1689 was led by aristocrats, and the Boshin War that overthrew the shogunate was led by nobles and dissatisfied members of the samurai class. These factors most likely led to a more conservative culture that does not leave as much room for challenging societal norms. People feel a need to subscribe to the established customs and routines.

Japan’s history, society, and culture contrasts with Chinese culture. While I have not been to China (which is currently a horrible representation of the free-spirited nature of Chinese culture), Taiwan is a nation that is majority Han Chinese. In terms of Chinese culture’s influence on Taiwan, it shares similarities to my perception of Paris. The bustling night markets with people selling a multitude of foods fill the streets. Old women sing karaoke and dance in parks by the riverside. Old men sit on plastic chairs on the side of the road and talk about politics and their families while drinking tea. Beautiful and vibrant temples are scattered throughout the city, honoring various Chinese deities. These are the elements of Chinese culture that I feel are similar to Paris. There is a sense of freedom and tolerance, as well as a more lax view on their society. In Taiwan and France, people are seen as the cultural aspect that is celebrated, not the establishment’s achievements. 

Night market in Keelung, a port city located 25 km away from the capital, Taipei

In regards to a possible explanation for these similarities, maybe it is because France and China are both continental nations that have been exposed to a multitude of different cultures. France shares borders with other European nations, which has allowed for greater cultural exchange between them. For example, French culture and language is prevalent in Belgium, Switzerland, and parts of western Germany, which are all very distinct countries. China shares borders with a multitude of other east and central Asian countries, and has even been conquered by many foreign forces, such as by the Mongols and the Manchus. Or it could also be because of the fact that France and China have both undergone revolutions that had completely uprooted their respective political establishments. France went through various revolutions that had completely changed the course of their political systems, and they eventually abolished their monarchy. China had also gone through various dynasties, and eventually got rid of their monarchy during the Xinhai Revolution. They even went farther and established a communist government, which is the current People’s Republic of China. These moments of diversity, change, and revolutions allowed room for a tolerance of ideas and a sense of freedom. France and China’s history were both defined by change, which forced their societies to grow towards a more casual and novel path. 

There is not one better culture or society. There is not one model that we should strive to follow. In my opinion, it really is subjective. Some may like the order and tradition that London upholds, as it distinguishes itself from other nations and allows for a more organized society. Others may enjoy the freedom and liberating spirit of Paris, where you can flaneur around the city and indulge in drinking, smoking, and eating to your heart’s desire. 

I enjoy how Dickens captures this contrast through A Tale of Two Cities, because it does not only describe the dynamic between London and Paris, but it also encapsulates the dynamics between other neighboring cultures around the world. 

British Greatness and the Status Quo

While walking through the chambers of Westminster Abbey, I felt an overwhelming sense of “British greatness”. The idea that the church was centuries old, the colorful stained glass, and the names of the greatest contributors of Western culture that has seeped its way throughout the entire world reminded me of the United Kingdom’s cemented position as a world power. It is a nation that many countries look up to in a way. Shakespeare’s plays, Dickens’ literature, the Beatles’ music, and even the royal family’s elegance, are essential parts of knowing culture, history, and entertainment. Westminster Abbey is more than just a church or historical landmark; it is a standing reminder of Britain's tradition, achievements, and power. However, we cannot forget what it took to get Britain into this position. Centuries of imperialism, stealing, slavery, and slaughter, lifted Britain up to its powerful status and allowed the nation to develop the largest empire in world history. It is part of the British tradition to hold onto this concept of pride and exceptionalism. After all, it is uncomfortable to challenge the status quo in any society.

Charles Dickens explores the notion of the British status quo in the Tale of Two Cities through various aspects of society in the novel:

“Any one of these partners would have disinherited his son on the question of rebuilding Tellson’s. In this respect, the house was much on a par with the Country; which did very often disinherit its sons for suggesting improvements in laws and customs that had long been highly objectionable, but were only the more respectable.” 

The refusal to challenge or even improve upon traditions encapsulates Britain’s conservatism and the British people’s cemented notion of their nation being the greatest in the world. Tellson’s Bank holding onto its old-fashioned traditions shows how even smaller aspects of British society reject change and progress. Dickens shows us through storytelling that holding onto tradition is ingrained in British culture. 

We still see this British traditional perspective today through the United Kingdom’s politics. The success of Brexit is an example of this; the British people voted to leave the European Union, partly because of British society’s holding onto the notion of the UK being superior to Europe and the world due to its former position as the largest empire on the globe. A large proportion of British society refuses to recognize that the world has changed and clings on to its former glory by a thread. It fascinates me how this traditionalist mindset has continued to linger throughout history and still remains today.

Dickens’ portrayal of gripping onto the status quo not only reflects British society, but also societies around the world. Japan remains a deeply traditional and conservative society with strict social etiquette rules. Taiwan holds onto a notion of preserving its constitutional status as the “true” China. India still has its hierarchical caste system in place that influences interclass relationships between their people. I believe that the beauty of Dickens literature comes from the fact that it is a universal reflection of society. He presents the small details in a way that is significant to the readers’ connection between his fictional narratives and reality. 

In one of Westminster Abbey’s corridors, I walked past a plaque commemorating the British civil servants in India when it was a colony of the empire. The plaque states, “Let them not be forgotten for they served India well”. This plaque is a remnant of the glossing over of British atrocities committed during their imperial rule. From the British perspective, the times of their vast colonial empire were their glory days. They reminisce about that period, as that was when their nation had the most power, pride, and influence. To them, they “served India well”, because the exploitation of the region resulted in immense wealth for England. To India, their people suffered under institutional violence, theft, and oppression. This directly highlights the blind patriotism that is prevalent among the establishment, as the history in Westminster Abbey is simply told through praise of the British Empire. 

“Neither did [Roger Cly] call it a curious coincidence that true patriotism was his only motive too. He was a true Briton, and hoped there were many like him.”

We see this concept of blind patriotism in A Tale of Two Cities as well as through the characters of John Barsad and Roger Cly. They are presented as credible witnesses due to their “patriotism”. However, they are later revealed to be conmen and spies by Mr. Stryver. I think that it is quite intriguing how Barsad and Cly’s credibility were simply determined by their “patriotism”. The establishment failed to use other perspectives or factors to evaluate a witness’ character. The plaque commemorating the British colonization of India directly aligns with this incident in the book in my eyes. British pride holds utmost importance over anything else, including morality, justice, and human rights. 

Reading A Tale of Two Cities and walking through Westminster Abbey has made me understand that pride and nationalism is a primary driving force of the British establishment’s sense of patriotism, rather than a genuine care of its people. It ignores the grave wrongdoings they have conducted in the past and does not make the effort to improve and change the status quo. In my eyes, being able to talk about and expose the ugliest aspects of one’s nation while having discussions regarding how to progress as a society is true patriotism and greatness. 

Even before discussions regarding British imperialism entered the mainstream, Dickens was still able to highlight the flawed aspects of British society that drive a sense of nationalism. His literature has allowed me to reflect on the implications of British history and Western imperialism. I recognize the violence, oppression, and lies that the nation depended on to achieve its greatness. I recognize Britain’s obsession with utilizing pride and tradition to drive them forward while leaving morals and justice in the dust. However, I believe that we can celebrate the great progress that the West has made, including Britain. I appreciate the diversity, freedom of thought, democratic processes, and scientific feats that Britain has allowed to flourish, as well as the notion that we can fully criticize the history, culture, and actions of the nation; these aspects – not the blind patriotism that ignores the ugly history of the nation – are what makes Britain great.