Down and Out in Paris and London - George Orwell

imagining.

   In a very few days after I had written to B. he replied

to say that there was a job he could get for me. It was to

look after a congenital imbecile, which sounded a

splendid rest cure after the Auberge de Jehan Cottard. I

pictured myself loafing in the country lanes, knocking

thistle-heads off with my stick, feeding on roast lamb and

treacle tart, and sleeping ten hours a night in sheets

smelling of lavender. B. sent me a fiver to pay my

passage and get my clothes out of the pawn, and as soon

as the money arrived I gave one day's notice and left the

restaurant. My leaving so suddenly embarrassed the

patron,

for as usual he was penniless, and he had to pay

my wages thirty francs short. However he stood me a

glass of Courvoisier '48 brandy, and I think he felt that

this made up the difference. They engaged a Czech, a

thoroughly competent

plongeur, in my place, and the poor

old cook was sacked a few weeks later. Afterwards I

heard that, with two first-rate people in the kitchen, the

plongeur's

work had been cut down to fifteen hours a day.

Below that no one could have cut it, short of

modernising the kitchen.

                     XXII

FOR what they are worth I want to give my opinions

about the life of a Paris

plongeur. When one comes to

think of it, it is strange that thousands of people in a

great modern city should spend their waking hours

swabbing dishes in hot dens underground. The

question I am raising is why this life goes on-what

purpose it serves, and who wants it to continue, and why.

I am not taking the merely rebellious,

fainéant attitude. I

am trying to consider the social significance of a

plongeur's

life.

   I think one should start by saying that a

plongeur is

one of the slaves of the modern world. Not that there is

any need to whine over him, for he is better off than

many manual workers, but still, he is no freer than if he

were bought and sold. His work is servile and without

art; he is paid just enough to keep him alive; his only

holiday is the sack. He is cut off from marriage, or, if he

marries, his wife must work too. Except by a lucky

chance, he has no escape from this life, save into prison.

At this moment there are men with university degrees

scrubbing dishes in Paris for ten or fifteen hours a day.

One cannot say that it is mere idleness on their part, for

an idle man cannot be a

plongeur; they have simply been

trapped by a routine which makes thought impossible. If

plongeurs

thought at all, they would long ago have formed

a union and gone on strike for better treatment. But

they do not think, because they have no leisure for it;

their life has made slaves of them.

   The question is, why does this slavery continue?

People have a way of taking it for granted that all work

is done for a sound purpose. They see somebody else

doing a disagreeable job, and think that they have

solved things by saying that the job is necessary. Coal-

mining, for example, is hard work, but it is necessary-we

must have coal. Working in the sewers is unpleasant,

but somebody must work in the sewers. And similarly

with a

plongeur's work. Some people must feed in

restaurants, and so other people must swab dishes for

eighty hours a week. It is the work of civilisation,

therefore unquestionable. This point is worth

considering.

   Is a

plongeur's work really necessary to civilisation?

We have a feeling that it must be "honest" work,

because it is hard and disagreeable, and we have made

a sort of fetish of manual work. We see a man cutting

down a tree, and we make sure that he is filling a social

need, just because he uses his muscles; it does not

occur to us that he may only be cutting down a

beautiful tree to make room for a hideous statue. I

believe it is the same with a

plongeur. He earns his bread

in the sweat of his brow, but it does not follow that he is

doing anything useful; he may be only supplying a

luxury which, very often, is not a luxury.

   As an example of what I mean by luxuries which are

not luxuries, take an extreme case, such as one hardly

sees in Europe. Take an Indian rickshaw puller, or a

gharry pony. In any Far Eastern town there are

rickshaw pullers by the hundred, black wretches

weighing eight stone, clad in loin-cloths. Some of them

are diseased; some of them are fifty years old. For miles

on end they trot in the sun or rain, head down, dragging

at the shafts, with the sweat dripping from their grey

moustaches. When they go too slowly the passenger

calls them

bahinchut. They earn thirty or forty rupees a

month, and cough their lungs out after a few years. The

gharry ponies are gaunt, vicious things that have been

sold cheap as having a few years' work left in them.

Their master looks on the whip as a substitute for food.

Their work expresses itself in a sort of equation-whip

plus food equals energy; generally it is about sixty per

cent. whip and forty per cent. food. Sometimes their

necks are encircled by one vast sore, so that they drag

all day on raw flesh. It is still possible to make them

work, however; it is just a question of thrashing them so

hard that the pain behind outweighs the pain in front.

After a few years even the whip loses its virtue, and the

pony goes to the knacker. These are instances of un-

necessary work, for there is no real need for gharries

and rickshaws; they only exist because Orientals con-

sider it vulgar to walk. They are luxuries, and, as any-

one who has ridden in them knows, very poor luxuries.

They afford a small amount of convenience, which

cannot possibly balance the suffering of the men and

animals.

   Similarly with the

plongeur. He is a king compared

with a rickshaw puller or a gharry pony, but his case is

analogous. He is the slave of a hotel or a restaurant,

and his slavery is more or less useless. For, after all,

where is the real need of big hotels and smart

restaurants? They are supposed to provide luxury, but

in reality they provide only a cheap, shoddy imitation of

it. Nearly everyone hates hotels. Some restaurants are

better than others, but it is impossible to get as good a

meal in a restaurant as one can get, for the same ex-

pense, in a private house. No doubt hotels and restau-

rants must exist, but there is no need that they should

enslave hundreds of people. What makes the work in

them is not the essentials; it is the shams that are sup-

posed to represent luxury. Smartness, as it is called,

means, in effect, merely that the staff work more and

the customers pay more; no one benefits except the

proprietor, who will presently buy himself a striped villa

at Deauville. Essentially, a "smart" hotel is a place

where a hundred people toil like devils in order that two

hundred may pay through the nose for things they do

not really want. If the nonsense were cut out of hotels

and restaurants, and the work done with simple

efficiency,

plongeurs might work six or eight hours a day

instead of ten or fifteen.

   Suppose it is granted that a

plongeur's work is more

or less useless. Then the question follows, Why does any

one want him to go on working? I am trying to go beyond

the immediate economic cause, and to consider what

pleasure it can give anyone to think of men swabbing

dishes for life. For there is no doubt that people-

comfortably situated people-do find a pleasure in such

thoughts. A slave, Marcus Cato said, should be working

when he is not sleeping. It does not matter whether his

work is needed or not, he must work, because work in

itself is good-for slaves, at least. This sentiment still

survives, and it has piled up mountains of useless

drudgery.

   I believe that this instinct to perpetuate useless work

is, at bottom, simply fear of the mob. The mob (the

thought runs) are such low animals that they would be

dangerous if they had leisure; it is safer to keep them

too busy to think. A rich man who happens to be

intellectually honest, if he is questioned about the

improvement of working conditions, usually says some-

thing like this:

   "We know that poverty is unpleasant; in fact, since it

is so remote, we rather enjoy harrowing ourselves with

the thought of its unpleasantness. But don't expect us

to do anything about it. We are sorry for you lower

classes, just as we are sorry for a cat with the mange,

but we will fight like devils against any improvement of

your condition. We feel that you are much safer as you

are. The present state of affairs suits us, and we are not

going to take the risk of setting you free, even by an

extra hour a day. So, dear brothers, since evidently you

must sweat to pay for our trips to Italy, sweat and be

damned to you."

   This is particularly the attitude of intelligent,

cultivated people; one can read the substance of it in a

hundred essays. Very few cultivated people have less

than (say) four hundred pounds a year, and naturally

they side with the rich, because they imagine that any

liberty conceded to the poor is a threat to their own

liberty. Foreseeing some dismal Marxian Utopia as the

alternative, the educated man prefers to keep things as

they are. Possibly he does not like his fellow-rich very

much, but he supposes that even the vulgarest of them

are less inimical to his pleasures, more his kind of

people, than the poor, and that he had better stand by

them. It is this fear of a supposedly dangerous mob that

makes nearly all intelligent people conservative in their

opinions.

   Fear of the mob is a superstitious fear. It is based on

the idea that there is some mysterious, fundamental

difference between rich and poor, as though they were

two different races, like negroes and white men. But in

reality there is no such difference. The mass of the rich

and the poor are differentiated by their incomes and

nothing else, and the average millionaire is only the

average dishwasher dressed in a new suit. Change

places, and handy dandy, which is the justice, which is

the thief? Everyone who has mixed on equal terms with

the poor knows this quite well. But the trouble is that

intelligent, cultivated people, the very people who might

be expected to have liberal opinions, never do mix with

the poor. For what do the majority of educated people

know about poverty? In my copy of Villon's poems the

editor has actually thought it necessary to explain the

line «

Ne pain ne voyent qu'aux fenestres" by a footnote; so

remote is even hunger from the educated man's

experience. From this ignorance a superstitious fear of