Critique:

Galsworthy wrote this play at a time when the rights of laborers were only beginning to be
asserted. STRIFE presents a picture of both sides of the strike question, for Galsworthy was
always an impartial realist. Aside from its social implications, the play is also notable for
several very real and forceful characters, Roberts and old Anthony among them.

The Story:

The strike at the Trenartha Tin Plate Works had lasted so long without any sign of a
settlement that the directors had begun to fear for their dividends. They had all gathered at
the Underwood home at the request of the workers, and at first there was some talk of
compromise. Facing them, however, was the stern figure of the chairman of the board,
seventy-five-year-old John Anthony, who refused to consider any plan for compromise.

Anthony belonged to the old school of businessmen who refused to move with the times.
For him there could be only one master at the plant, and that was John Anthony himself. He
had defeated four strikes in his thirty-two years as chairman of the board, and he was
certain that a little more perseverance would defeat the strikers once more.

The other directors were a little uneasy under his stern refusal. In his report Underwood,
the plant manager, had made no attempt to disguise the terrible suffering of the striking
workers and their families. The directors were also aware that if the strike lasted much
longer their stockholders would begin to protest strongly.

Although the union had withdrawn support from the strikers because two of their conditions
exceeded the prevailing standards, Simon Harness, a Trades Union official, had been sent to
attempt mediation between the board and the workers. His interview with the directors
accomplished nothing because of Anthony’s obstinacy. The meeting between the
representatives of the workers and the directors was equally unhappy. Roberts, the leader
of the striking workmen, was just as unyielding on his side as Anthony was on his. Both
sides faced a deadlock.

Conditions among the workers were so terrible that many of them were ready to give in, but
Roberts remained adamant. Mrs. Roberts was dying; her weak heart could not stand the
cold and hunger which the strike imposed upon them all. At one time she had been the
maid in Underwood’s home, and one afternoon Enid Underwood went to visit her. Mrs.
Underwood had tried to send food to Mrs. Roberts, but the strike leader was too proud and
too stubborn to accept help from the daughter of John Anthony. Mrs. Underwood tried to
plead with Roberts, asking him, for his wife’s sake, to give in and end the strike. But he was
fanatic in his certainty that in the end the workmen could bring their employers to terms.

At a meeting of the men and Harness, the Trades Union official, it became evident that most
of the strikers were willing to compromise, to accept the union suggestions. A few were
willing to give in completely. When Roberts appeared at the meeting, the men did not wish
to hear him speak. But Roberts was a powerful orator, and as he talked to them again about
the eventual victory which they could win if they refused to give in now, they were once
more moved and convinced by his oratory. As he was speaking, a young woman
approached the platform and told him that his wife had died. With this tragedy as an
example of what they must expect if they continued to resist, the men decided to accept the
terms of the union compromise.

The news of Mrs. Roberts’ death was a blow to the directors. Edgar Anthony, in spite of the
respect which he had for his father, now faced his colleagues and accused them of
responsibility for the woman’s condition and death. They felt uncomfortably that what he
said was very close to the truth. Old Anthony, weak and unwell as he was, still insisted that
the company should not yield. But the directors had decided to act in spite of him, although
they knew that should they decide to accept the union terms, Anthony would resign.

That evening the meeting between the workers, Harness, and the directors was painful in
the extreme. Anthony found himself outvoted by his colleagues. Wearily, with an
acknowledgement of his defeat, he resigned. Roberts, who knew nothing of the action which
his men had decided to take after he had left the meeting, arrived at the Underwood home
in time to watch Harness complete the settlement. The terms agreed upon were those
which the union had suggested to both sides before the strike began, but it had needed
months of suffering to bring agreement in the dispute. The two leaders stared at each
other, both deserted by their supporters, both defeated by the compromise. As they
recognized the courageous battle which each had put up, their expression of hate turned to
one of grudging admiration and mutual respect.

Further Critical Evaluation of the Work:

It was with the production of STRIFE in 1909 that John Galsworthy’s reputation as one of
Britain’s foremost playwrights was established and, although one of his earliest stage works,
it remains, in the opinion of most critics, his finest dramatic effort. Even today, when the
issues of economic agitation and social change have become much more complex and
ambiguous than they seemed in Galsworthy’s time, STRIFE retains its power and relevance
because it is not rooted in the problems of a particular situation, but in a clash of wills
between sharply defined, forceful, believable characters.

The ostensible dispute in STRIFE is between the Directors of the Trenartha Tin Plate Works
and their striking workers, but, as the play progresses, it becomes evident that the conflict
is actually between John Anthony, the Chairman of the Directors, and David Roberts, the
leader of the strikers. Thus, the play is not so much about Capital versus Labor as it is
about the relationship between leaders and followers and the thin line that separates
dedicated, courageous idealism from egocentric, self-destructive fanaticism.

Both leaders are adamantly opposed to compromise and have, at least for most of the play,
the power to impose their views on the others. Each of them sees the conflict solely in
terms of total victory or abject defeat. Both Anthony and Roberts believe that the future of
the entire economic and social system is at stake in this particular strike.

Each man’s intransigence, however, is also fed by motives that are purely personal, even
petty. Hardened by advancing age and precarious health, Anthony has identified with the
company to the point where he sees it as an extension of himself; he can accept no
questioning of his motives or judgments by anybody. On the other hand, because of a
profitable invention that he feels was “stolen” from him for a pittance, Roberts nurses a
personal vendetta against the company. Thus, both men are deeply committed to their
respective causes and to the social classes they represent; at the same time, both are
obviously flawed and bring questionable personal motives into the struggle. It is this
mixture of good and bad, strength and weakness, idealism and petty spite, that gives these
characters their reality and stature and adds a tragic dimension to their clash.

However, in spite of his awareness of human fallibility, Galsworthy was essentially a believer
in man’s rationality and capacity to control his own fate. In fixing their rigid postures,
Anthony and Roberts have both ignored the human element, but before the confrontation
leads to ruin for the company and general starvation for the workers, the moderate
elements on both sides rise up and shunt their fanatical leaders aside. However, it takes the
death of Roberts’ wife to provoke those followers to action.
Man’s moderation and sensible self-interest, Galsworthy seems to say, will ultimately win
out over fanaticism, but the process is slow, painful, and very imperfect. And, in the
meantime, the innocent will suffer—for nothing.