Examine the view that Barker presents issues around class division as the most important theme in Regeneration

Essay plan:Intro: AO5: Class is presented as a dividing theme, one that separates men when war is often presented as unifying experience for men, a common pain. Briefly address other key themes Barker exploresAO4: Throughout genre documenting 1916-1918 class is explored – zeitgeist of the periodPara 1- engrained sense of class linking to identity – “I’m not proud. He should’ve stuck with his own… He’s neither fish nor fowl”- analyse language use to create distance, idiom used to display how Prior doesn’t fit into a category – the importance society places upon fitting into a category.Para 2- AO5: Triviality of separation- AO2 “it helps if your shirts are the right colour” – epitomises pointlessness of separation, identity of soldier within soldier so in rejecting Prior for his uniform he is rejected as a soldierAO2: “It’s made perfectly clear when you arrive that some people are more welcome than others.”- ancient class-based system, traditions engrained within British culture AO3: ‘Temporary gentlemen’ name given to officers who didn’t come from ‘quality classes as the need for officers grewPara 3- AO5: division infiltrates even to a person’s illness, something they have no inherent control over- suggests innate divide formed- irreconcilable differencesAO2: “It’s almost as if for the labouring classes illness had to be physical”AO3: War has historically blurred or muddied the lines between strict class divides- nostalgic view is ironicConclusion: Class division clearly massive influence- however Barker purposefully focuses on other more significant/ relevant themes to mimic the infiltration that class divides held within real societyIn Regeneration Barker presents a prevalent class divide and examines the pain which unites all soldiers creating a real sense of comradeship through a common endurance, bonding them together in a way never possible preceding the war. Indeed, in this sense, through characters such as Prior, Barker works to epitomise the zeitgeist of the period examining class boundaries so engrained within Britain’s very culture they seem impenetrable.Prior acts as Barker’s main authorial device to document this class divide. This is especially relevant as Prior acts as one of the only characters who was invented, with other main characters like Rivers being based off of real people, displaying a real sense of intentionality with Prior’s character. Barker presents an engrained sense of class within her character’s identity, this mirrors reality as class was used as a method of relating to people: those from other classes were shrouded in stereotypes and instantly rejected as potential acquaintances. Indeed, Prior’s father states in a declarative “I’m not proud. He should’ve stuck with his own… He’s neither fish nor fowl.” This denouncement or rejection of his own son shows how deep these class divides run as he feels unable to relate to his own blood due to a difference in class. The use of the possessive pronoun “own” creates distance with language use as a betrayal is alluded to. This strong language use suggests indeed, Prior has betrayed his ‘own kind’ connoting imagery of different species, suggesting the working class and middle class are so far separated they can no longer communicate. This suggests a multitude of barriers, for example in this case language. If Prior really has deserted his “own” he will be unable to communicate and verbalise himself effectively. Prior has isolated himself, despite it having been his mother’s rearing method, it’s Prior who ‘suffers’ the consequences and isolation. The use of the idiom “neither fish not fowl” despite not being linked to any class directly in relation to etymology, alludes to stereotypical working-class imagery connoting imagery related to farming and livestock. This further displays Prior’s separation as the term illustrates Prior’s inability to fit into a category. This is make more poignant as Prior’s own father rejects him, depicting the real importance society places upon fitting into a category. Prior doesn’t make sense and therefore he is marginalised by his own family portraying class division’s to be a prominent issue.Barker explores the triviality of the division as Prior bitterly tells Rivers “it helps if your shirts are the right colour.” This concept of colour dividing men is ludicrous and epitomises the pointlessness of class divides. Furthermore, in the army a soldier’s uniform was extremely important (resulting in sanctions for even the smallest infractions which are referenced throughout the novel) cementing their identity as soldiers. Therefore, in rejection Prior for the colour of his shirt he is humiliated but also his identity or worth as a soldier is thrown into question as though he truly doesn’t belong repeating this concept of Prior not quite fitting in. The Army is an established institute known for its class-based system which is based off of traditional British values. Prior continues “It’s made clear when you arrive that some people are more welcome than others.” Working-class officers were given the name ‘Temporary gentlemen’ to demonstrate how they didn’t fit it or come from ‘quality’ classes. This was caused for the growing demand for officers and the inability for volunteers to fill this demand. This displays a clear sense of unacceptance felt by the upper classes, Prior as a character is ostracised by both his “own” class and his ‘adopted’ class. This demonstrates class to have infiltrated the army’s very ethos, furthermore, this moves the text away from traditional texts (based from 1914-1918) which frequently emphasis on the unifying pain that war results in.The theme of mental illness is explored as Barker highlights the emasculation felt by men as they are forced to shun their stereotypical behaviour in place with ‘effeminate’ characteristics such as illness. This is especially seen in the portrayal of mental illness which was little understood at the time and was linked to cowardly insults like ‘shirker’ and ‘coward’. Even in sickness, something caused by external forces (in most cases), class is shown to be a defining theme as “it’s almost as if the labouring classes illness had to be physical.” This division infiltrates even to a person’s illness, something they have no inherent control over. This implies an innate divide, something forged by nature, caused by irreconcilable differences. This concept of the labouring classes suffering only physically links to this inability to accept a mental illness, men cannot comprehend mental illnesses so their bodies take over causing physical issues, this is evidenced through the character ‘Willard’ who refuses to accept he has no physical disability when paralysed from the waist down. This suggestion seems to implicitly suggest lower-class men have lower mental capacities and as a result cannot compute an invisible illness with no physical causality. This demonstrates that even in illness there is a divide, the classes cannot merge or even interact effectively. In conclusion, it’s clear to see class division is a massive influence and something that does not waver or budge throughout the novel consistent in its forming of rifts between people rather than the commonly depicted blurred line. However, it could be interpreted that this is because Barker’s novel takes place of the Home Front meaning circumstances may be different, perhaps the absence of combat reverts men back to their previous state. Furthermore, despite being a key issue Barker addresses, it’s apparent that class is not the most important theme. Others such as suffering, emasculation and regeneration as an anti-war novel are also explored in depth. One could interpret that this lack of focus could be intentional, perhaps Barker is intending to mimic how class divides are truly engrained within society by referencing it minorly throughout.