Money Can’t Buy Happiness: Using concepts from the Marxist theory to analyze Hemingway’s

The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber

Have you ever taken at look at our hollywood stars and their seemingly happy marriages? These financially well off stars appear to be somewhat caught up in their riches that it directly affect their ability to survive in healthy relationships with their spouses. Lets take for example Kim Kardashian who pulled off the grandest event of the year; her wedding to an equally rich man. Her relationship sadly never lasted beyond seven two days. Yet, one would think that this marriage is going to last since they appeared to have had everything anyone could ever ask for. However, missing from this marriage was happiness, and sad to say, your riches do not define your happiness. Happiness is a feeling of content that comes from within after you have accepted yourself for being you, this way you can share these feelings with others. This was however not the case in Ernest Hemingway’s The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber where two wealthy people struggled to survive in a nonfunctional marriage. Using concepts from the marxist theory one will examine the effects of capitalism on the lives of these characters.

Lois Tyson believes that our socio economic existence determine how power is distributed. It also determines, “how we are educated, and it influences our religious beliefs, which altogether control to a great degree how we perceive ourselves and our world” (53). To counter this, marxist theorist supports a society with no class by claiming that the world we live in promotes ideologies which divide society. Some of the basic concepts described by this theory include classism and capitalism. Marxist theorist believe that capitalism promotes greed among its people, for we constantly compete with each other for wealth. Additionally, classism has the same effect on our society as it merely divides us into groups based on how much money we have and the luxuries we can afford.

Tyson describes classism as “the belief that our value as human beings is directly related to the social class to which we belong: the higher our social class, the higher our natural, or inborn, superiority” (55-56). In Hemingway’s piece we can definitely see classism being played out. For instance, Francis Macomber and wife Margot Macomber, travel to Africa for a getaway. As a recreational activity, they enjoyed regular hunting of the wildlife's there. This emphasises their obvious wealth and status. Here they encounter Robert Wilson, “the white hunter” (Hemingway 1) who later on became the catalyst to their tragedy. Being in Africa is an obvious contrast to this married couples existence and only sheds more light on how classism divides us. We meet native submissives, as one would call them,  who worked extremely hard to make just a little. We meet these natives who, despite the fact that beating was illegal would succumb to beating at any given time rather than being fined by their masters (2) for ill doings. This is the tragedy we face in our world today, and this is the indifference that the marxist theory wants to correct. These natives suffer inhumane treatment from their wealthy masters as they obviously belong to the struggling lower class. This therefore meant that, they cannot afford certain luxuries like their master and the Macombers. It leaves one to ponder whether there is hope for the people, who makes a living serving the elite who cares little for them.

Capitalist ideologies are also evident in Hemingway’s piece.  There are evidence of both competition and commodification. According to Tyson, “Marxist theory suggests that unrestrained competition is oppressive because it tends to ensure that the most selfish, unethical people will rise to the top, as they’re the ones willing to do whatever it takes to win” (58). Mr Macomber despite evidence of an opponent is obviously engaged in competition. He is somewhat competing with himself as though trying to overcome his fears. He is yearning for his wife’s distant affection and so on this trip he makes it a priority to prove himself worthy to her. But can we blame him, when his wife is attracted to their hunting guide? She constantly emasculates him by constantly verbally abusing him despite the presence of others (Hemingway 1-3).

Mrs. Macomber also engages in competition for affection despite the fact that she searches for it in the wrong places. Her constant infidelities are no secret to the readers and sadly to her husband. Mrs. Macomber hopes for a man unlike her husband; one who is physically strong and appealing; the few qualities lacking of her husband. She found all of these qualities in Wilson, who one night she ran off to sleep with (Hemingway 12). She in no way tries to conceal her wrong doings, it is as though she is hosting a competition where deep down she hopes her husband might come out victorious. After her husband again, failed at killing one of the wild life’s she did not hesitate to show her resentment. When he places his hand on his wife she quickly removes it they later turns to Wilson and kisses him on the mouth (Tyson 10).

Tyson describes a commodity as “anything that has a price tag”. He further continues to state that “we commodify something when we relate to it in terms of how much money it’s worth or put another way, how much money it can be exchanged for” (58). In Hemingway’s piece, Mr Macomber commodifies his wife's beauty. He sees his wealth as staking claim to her for he believes that they have survived this long due to his money. Mrs Macomber some what share the same belief only that she believes that her husband will never leave her due to her beauty (Hemingway 11).

Tyson, Louis. "Using Concepts from Marxist Theory." Learning For A Diverse World. Routledge, 2001. 53-61. Print.

Hemingway, Ernest. The Complete Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway. The Finca Vigia Edition ed. New York,NY: Simon Schuster, 1992. Print.