Zeki Michael Keskin

Existence and Reality in Wesker’s Chicken Soup With

Barley

“Everything happening in the world has got to do with politics.”

-Sarah Kahn
 A good example of compressionist drama is noticeable in Wesker’s Chicken Soup with
Barley. It’s power as an allegory consists of a dramatic metaphor of the 20th century working
class struggle and a loss of faith in all relational systems. The disintegration within the family
parallel to the society is also a complex metaphor used for the reinstatement of the essential
conditions of human existence. 1

The main focus of the play is set up on the interplay between the husband and wife of
the Jewish Kahn family. Their position in the society and their failing relations are actually
their connections to reality. The play portrays the family’s existence and each character’s
journey throughout history. Time’s effect on their existence shows that Harry and Sarah do
not change while the structure around them- the family and the party fall apart.

Family is thought to be a whole, a unified concept relational within itself when not
isolated from its structure. On the contrary, Chicken Soup with Barley over turns the family
concept and dismantles it in order to draw the attention of the audience to the relationships
between all members and their real existences. The Kahn family is no longer a whole in itself.
With a drop of class struggle it becomes an inter-relational concept. The same can be said for
the existence of the Party for without participation of each member it is nothing, yet with
human participation it becomes as real as the war and struggle. It is almost there for a mutual
contract, similar to marriage. As the play slowly expands its compression, one witnesses the
party’s fall through the perspective of the Kahn’s, yet all the former members still exist with
their characteristics. Wesker in Chicken Soup with Barley deconstructs in order to construct
the true essence of the family and the party. Although both concepts seem to fail throughout
the play as a unity, the plot portrays each character naturally in their existence and essence.

Even though ‘Harry’s pathetic condition seems to be a metaphor for the predicament
of the English Proletariat’ (Beichtman, p. 67) his laziness and non-committal view for politics
resonates with the existential idea based on one’s sense of disorientation in a confused
universe.

“Harry: I don’t know whether he knows or he doesn’t know. I didn’t discuss it

with him- I took the kids, that’s all. Hey, Sarah- you should read Upton Sinclair’s
book about the meat-canning industry-it’s an eye opener.”

1
Human conditions: Essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth,
emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality." (Wiktionary)
 Whether watched or read the play introduces Harry and Sarah as two contrast
characters despite their common political ideas. Their contrast views are guides to their
freedom. Harry is a reflection of an existentialist, while Sarah’s belief in change reflects the
characteristics of an essentialist.

“The reality of our freedom is so unbearable that we refuse to face it. Instead of
realising our identities as free conscious subjects we pretend to ourselves that we are
mechanistic, determined objects. Refusing to freely make ourselves what we are, we
masquerade as fix essences by the adoption of hypocrital social roles and inert value
systems. “(Sartre, 2001, p.204)

Every single line by Sarah in the play consists of a direct or indirect complaint of
Harry’s ignorance. She expects him to be a bit more active and expects him to fight for
freedom.

Sarah: Books! Nothing else interests him, only books. Did you see anything outside?
What’s happening?”

The two opposite characters are strengthened in the following parts of the play. Sarah’s
questioning has no effect on Harry.

“Sarah: Harry, you know where your cigarettes are, don’t you? [This is her well-
meaning but maddening attempt to point out to a weak man his weakness.]

Harry: I know where they are.

Sarah: And you know what’s on at the cinema?

Harry: So?

Sarah: And you also you know what time it opens? [He grins.] So why don’t you know
what time they plan to march? [Touché!]”

A few lines later we learn that Harry does actually know what time the march started.
Sarah’s nagging attitude is a reason for Harry’s crisis, her approach, her fight for freedom
eventually leads to the disintegration of the family. The moral question of theatre, the
argument whether art is for art sake or for public sake is taken to a further level with the two
opposite characters. L'existence précède l'essence as a proposition haunts us throughout the
play.
 The play presents Harry as a lazy, weak and compulsive liar, but he still exists. Sarah’s
essentialism is based on the idea that there is a set of values necessary to the human being. For
her one of them is fight for freedom. She believes in political activism and social awareness.
Her belief in the movement surpasses her own existence. She criticises her husband who is
not active in politics. Her family falls apart due to her extreme interest in politics. At this
point we are faced with a clash of roles. Her role as a mother and her role as communist
surpasses her role as a being. Her judgements are mostly determined broadly. Conversely,
Harry’s view of the world is more of an intimate one. He creates his own values and explores
his own meaning for life by casting the inherence of the revolution aside. His belief in a
revolution against fascism does not overcome his own emotional existence and his own
personal values. As a father, he may also be blamed for the disintegration of the family, yet he
is aware that the socialist movement and the society have lost their initial value.

“Harry: Sarah will you please stop nagging me, will you? What difference if I had tea
there or I didn’t have tea there?” p.16

Other characters in the play also contribute to the contrast between existence and
essence. The conversation in the first act foreshadows the waning of the communist ideals
after World War II.

“Dave: The war in Spain is not a game of cards, Monty. You don’t pay in pennies
when you lose. May they lose many more! What kind of talk is that? Sometimes Monty,
I think you only enjoy battle, and that one day you’ll forget the ideal. You hate too
much. You can’t have brotherhood when you hate. There’s only one difference
between them and us- we know what we’re fighting for. It’s almost an unfair
battle.”p.22

Dave subsequently explains that a man should not enjoy shooting a man who calls
himself a fascist, which may be viewed as a question of moral judgement. The main conflict
of the play can only be understood when this paradigm is closely examined. The verb in
Dave’s example is a tricky one. His pacifism is obvious, but what Dave may not be aware of
is that men naturally tend to name things due to the contingent nature of learning. The
sentence could also have been used vice versa. A man who calls himself a Fascist, should not
enjoy shooting a man who calls himself a Socialist. Putting the deconstructive value of the
examination aside, Fascism and Socialism are Meta terms, and generalizations at a certain
point. When people reject the deterministic excuse- which may be exemplified with the act of
shooting- because the opposition is a Fascist not a human, one becomes aware of his
responsibility for his behaviour. His behaviour overcomes his social status and essence.
Therefore, it would not be wrong to say that the play is shaped around the existential
argument in many ways. The major conflict of the Chicken Soup with Barley draws a line
between the individual and his political participation in a meaningless world. From this point
of view the contrast between free will and determinism becomes the contrast between Sarah
and Harry.

Harry is not sure if he should follow his essence or his existence. He has to either
agree with Dave or comply with Sarah at that moment, and is unaware that Dave’s statement
is a philosophical one. Rather than focusing on his self he focuses on what may happen to
him.

“Harry: Sometimes you live in a way you don’t know why- you just do a thing. So you
don’t have to shout you are shouting at yourself! But a pacifist, Dave? There’s going
to be a big war soon, a Fascist war: you think it’s time for pacifism?”

Realism versus idealism is also notable in Chicken Soup with Barley. The play uses
similar motives to Sean O’Casey’s Shadow of a Gunman in sense of the political activism.
First of all, Harry Kahn may be compared to Donal Davoren -who mistaken for an IRA
gunman has to make a choice between the ideal or the real. Harry and Donal are both
portrayed as weak, but thoughtful characters. They seem to be selfish, lazy and ignorant when
thought in connection with their female counterparts’ political ideals. Their weak
characterisations strengthen the dramatic effect on the plays. They hide their inactive and
selfish characteristics in order to survive in the society. Harry manages to remain in the
background until he suffers from the strokes, which may be associated with Sarah’s
expectations and her political activity. On the other hand, Minnie Powell’s heroic belief in
Donal are connected to the romantic side of the being a gunman (the essence) in Shadow of A
Gunman. Both plays draw attention to the forgotten ideals of the political movements that
were finally ended by selfishness, disunity and deviation. These diversions are results of
emotional statements which are as real as anything in the play. We do not associate Dave with
pacifism, Harry with ignorance and the person who calls himself a Fascist with Fascism
without knowing their personal values. Ironically, both plays subtly expect us to weigh our
own values and apply them to the situations, yet we are still under the influence of the
structure of the play. For example, we know that Sarah’s fuss is hurting Harry and we know
that Harry is a passive member of the family and inactive in social situations. Moreover, we
feel sympathy for neither Harry nor Sarah. Our value system clashes when we are asked to
make a choice between the two, we let the play undo itself. These layers of the play hold a
“faithful mirror” to human existence.

Hymie: “If there is one thing Sarah loves it’s someone who’s ill to fuss over.” p.25

Nietzsche in the Preface to On the Genealogy of Morals suggests that “our thoughts,
values, every ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ ‘if’ and ‘but’ grow from us with the same inevitability as fruits born
on the tree — all related and each with an affinity to each, and evidence of one will, one
health, one earth, one sun.”

Observing the play one no longer is obliged to generalize Sarah as a socialist extremist
or the opposition as Fascist. The tendentious aspect of the play is to present the audience with
a question, Howard Barker’s approach to the stage is applicable to the play at this moment.
The play offers the audience ambiguity, rather than insulting them. (Lamb, pp. 63- 66) The
audience is seduced by the broken relations and knowing this prefers to wait- to relate each
tree with its fruits, each act with its outcome and motivation. Hymie’s reaction to how the
Fascist police were tamed and made fun of by the group is a good example for the emotional
effect of the conflict.

“Hymie: We threw stones and bottles at them, Sarah. They were on horseback with
batons and they kept charging us so we threw stones. And you should have seen Monty
when one policeman surrendered. Surrendered! A policeman! It’s never happened
before. He didn’t know what to do, Monty didn’t. None of us knew. I mean, who’s ever
heard of policemen surrendering? And after the first came others- half a dozen of
them. My goodness, we made such a fuss of them. Gave them cigarettes and mugs of
tea and called them comrade policemen.” P. 30

The reaction in the group to the situation of the police promotes the emotional focus on
human values. They react as such a thing had never happened before. For them this is a
success.

Harry: “I tell you, show a young person what socialism means and he recognizes life!
A future! But it won’t be pure in our lifetime, you know that, don’t you boys? Not even
in hers, maybe- but in her children’s lifetime- then they’ll begin to feel it, all the
benefits, despite our mistakes.” P.32
 For Harry socialism is not life. For him the fight for socialism does not necessarily
mean it exists, but means that socialism one day may exist. It may exist in the future, but for
him at that very moment socialism’s meaning, surpasses the ideals of socialism itself. In Act
Two, Sarah moans again: “Sleep! That’s all he can do. You didn’t peel potatoes or
anything?” p.37 Sarah’s fuss underlines Harry’s ignorance again, but this time we see that he
is ignorant to most things, he has no difference from a plant or a stone.

“Human-reality is free because it is not enough. It is free because it is perpetually

wrenched away from itself and because it has been separated by a nothingness from what it is
and from what it will be.” (Sartre, Being and Nothingness, p. 440)

“Everything happening in the world has got to do with politics.” p.61

Sartre states “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is
responsible for everything he does.” Similarly, the audience should be free, as it is the reader,
the audience who is also responsible for what they evaluate.

“Sarah: You did not bring her up. You were not concerned were you? You left it all to
me while you went to your mother’s or the pictures or out with your friends.” p.44

“Sarah: Look at you! Did you shave this morning? Look at the cigarette ash on the
floor. You shirt! When did you last change your shirt? He sits. Nothing moves him,
nothing worries him. He sits! A father! A husband.” P.45

Ronnie’s ideas also reflect Sartre’s ideas. He is aware that the world is at his
fingertips, yet similar to his father he does not know how to evaluate his existence.

Ronnie: “I have all the world at my fingertips. Nothing is mixed up. I have so much
life that I don’t know who to give it to first. I see beyond the coloured curtains of my eyes to a
world.”...“Waiting for time and timing nothing but the slow hours, lay the thoughts in the
mind.”

Ronnie’s epiphany at the last scene of the play may be a metaphor for the waning of
such concepts as family and politics.

“I’ve lost my faith, and I have lost my ambition. Now I understand him perfectly.” P.
72

Sartre’s Nobel prized novel “Nausea” is about Antoine Roquentin, an examiner and
questioner who throughout the novel questions his existence: “I hadn’t any right to exist. I
had appeared by chance, I existed like a stone, a plant, a microbe.” (Jean-Paul Sartre,
2001,p. 23) Harry’s in-betweenness is not dignified in Chicken Soup with Barley, but his and
Ronnie’s actions almost remind us of Antoine Roquentin. Harry and Ronnie lack courage to
take responsibility for their actions. They obey other people, but don’t use freedom for the
betterment of their lives. Their intellectual existence, and actions taken do not surpass their
physical existence. This aspect is pitied by Sarah all throughout the play and is a reason for
her nagging. The significance of the title comes to daylight at the end of the play when we
learn that Ada would not have survived without Chicken Soup with Barley.

Sarah: “When Ada had diphtheria and I was pregnant I asked Daddy to carry her to
the hospital. He wouldn’t. We didn’t have money because he didn’t care to work and I
didn’t know what to do. He disappeared. It was Mrs. Bernstein who saved her... It was
Mrs. Bernstein’s soup.” P.74

This is the biggest twist of the play, Ada’s existence was once in the hands of someone
else. Mrs. Bernstein may not even be a character in the play. Ronnie may not even have met
Mrs. Bernstein, but her actions changed the family life. An action taken by her existence
overcame the physical reality. Sarah aware of this or not and believes in the working class
struggle and believes that she can change the world.

“If you don’t care, you’ll die.”

The collapse of faith in the play is turned upside down with the dramatic focus on the
two distinct characters and their value oriented perspectives. It will not be wrong to say that
Chicken Barley with Soup is a great compressionist great play that succesfully reflects human
nature. “Wesker writes one of the great scenes of post-war British drama, one in which head
and heart come into collision and neither is the victor.” (Billington, 2005)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Beichtman P., The Theatre of Naturalism: Disappearing Act, 2011, New York,
Peter Lang Publishing
- Nietzsche F., Geneology of Morals Edited by Keith Ansell-Pearson, 1994,
Cambridge University Press, New York
- Lamb C.1997, Howard Barker’s Theatre of Seduction, Routledge, London and
New York
- The Dominican House of Studies Website, Sartre. J. P. Being and Nothingness,
retrieved on 11 Oct 2015 from
http://www.dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Sartre/BeingAndNothingness.pdf
- The Guardian Website, The Party’s over, Billington, Michael, 9 April 2005
retrieved on 07 Oct 2015 from:
http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2005/apr/09/theatre
- Priest S., 2001, Jean-Paul Sartre: Basic Writings, Routledge, New York
- Wesker A., The Wesker Trilogy, Penguin Books, 1964