Pygmalion

Higgins’s poor social skills are emphasized by his mother’s reaction to his unexpected arrival on her day for social visits. She insists he “[g]o home at once,” as he “offend[s] all [her] friends” (Act III, Page 68). Mrs. Higgins is established as a Victorian lady who understands and follows social expectations. Higgins fails to understand the importance of small talk for Victorian high society when he states, “I know I have no small talk; but people dont mind” (Act III, Page 69). He is unaware of the detrimental effect of his behavior, as he does not place value on other humans or social interactions. Higgins continues to disrespect Victorian social convention when he invites Eliza to Mrs. Higgins’s house. Not only does he not ask her permission, but he also brings a lower-class woman into a higher social space. Higgins does not think of the impact his test could have on his mother’s social life.

The first interaction between Higgins and his mother also reveals that he is a mother’s boy. After insisting he won’t get married, Higgins states that his “idea of a lovable woman is somebody as like [his mother] as possible” (Act III, Page 69). This perception of women reveals Higgins’s misogynistic view of gender roles, as he sees a wife not as a partner but as a caretaker.

Shaw describes the Eynsford Hill family as living in “genteel poverty” (Act III, Page 71). This term indicates a romanticized idea of an English family who, despite possible inheritances, has little cash and struggles to maintain the genteel lifestyle. The Eynsford Hills further emphasize Shaw’s argument that English class differences are illusionary and performative. Mrs. Eynsford Hill follows the conventions of small talk in her visit, but Clara’s language disrupts the family’s “genteel” image when she refers to “men as rotters” and calls “everything filthy and beastly” (Act III, Page 79). Her language is much closer to Eliza’s than to Mrs. Higgins’s. Mrs. Eynsford Hill tries to excuse Clara’s language by stating that they’re “so poor,” and Clara “gets so few parties” (Act III, Page 80). Unwittingly, she comments on the performativity of genteel manners and how they must be practiced. Like Doolittle’s subdivision of poor people into categories of the deserving and the undeserving, Shaw suggests that the genteel can also be subdivided. Class divisions are arbitrary and incomplete, which Shaw sees as the justification for increased social mobility in the English hierarchy.

Eliza appears “exquisitely dressed” and “produces an impression of such remarkable distinction and beauty” (Act III, Page 74). Her appearance contrasts sharply with her first appearance in Act I and her arrival at Higgins’s laboratory in Act II. Eliza’s dress supports her phonetic transformation, but these clothes are only a costume, as she still breaks small-talk conventions in her visit. Mrs. Higgins ascribes her superficial change to her son’s lessons and “her dressmaker’s” art (Act III, Page 81). Eliza’s transformation is incomplete because Higgins treats her only as a doll-like object, not as a full human being.

At the ball, HIggins meets a former student, Nepommuck, who works as a translator and now speaks “32 languages” (Act III, Page 87). His success illustrates that Higgins is extremely capable. Yet Nepommuck’s failure to expose Eliza also reveals Higgins’s failure: Because he focused only on phonetics with Nepommuck, Nepommuck was unable to recognize Eliza’s performative use of language. When the host and hostess use the imperfect “How d’ye do” (Act III, Page 89), Eliza uses language “[t]oo perfectly” (Act III, Page 90). Because she so successfully performs genteel manners, Nepommuck identifies her as Hungarian because “[o]nly foreigners who have been taught to speak it speak it well” (Act III, Page 90). Shaw shows how the genteel use language to exclude the lower class but do not fully adhere to their own standards.

The act is bookended by Eliza’s two tests. In her first test, her improved speech is not enough to pass her off as a duchess. While he shows this failure, Shaw does not show the play’s climax on stage. By focusing on Higgins and Pickering, Shaw replicates their overlooking of Eliza’s role in the bet. He resolves the conflict of the bet to shift focus to the true conflict. In not showing what is the expected climactic moment of triumph, Shaw removes the glory and romance from the story. Eliza no longer has one Cinderella moment. This shift suggests that her actual transformation happens outside this scene and not in this theatrical moment with a costume and audience.