Barker suggests that war exposes the hypocrisy of Edwardian society. Do you agree?

Writing with the feminist and post-war hindsight of 1991¹, Pat Barker's historical novel Regeneration scrutinises the rigid social structures of Edwardian Britain, examining how the psychological devastation of the First World War exposes the deep hypocrisy underlying patriotic duty and class divisions. While the narrative affirms that the conflict exposes² the deceit of a society that cloaks industrialised slaughter in the rhetoric of honour, it simultaneously proposes that the trauma of the trenches strips away these facades to reveal subversive, deeply empathetic connections between men. Barker ultimately challenges her contemporary readership³ to interrogate the institutions that perpetuate such moral contradictions, illustrating that the true cost of war is borne by individuals forced to negotiate the hypocrisy of Edwardian society.

Barker asserts that the entrenched class hierarchies⁴ of Edwardian society are violently unmasked by the war, revealing the deep hypocrisy of elite military leadership. Confronting Rivers in his consulting room, Billy Prior aggressively rejects the illusion that "class distinctions at the front⁵" are suspended, wielding his sharp northern defensiveness to expose the absurdity of maintaining "absolute dominance" in a flooded trench. Here, Barker develops the motif of social division by portraying the working-class officer's resentment of a system where men are treated as "pack animals" by their superiors, mocking the arrogance that demands futile sacrifices. The strained relationship between the privately educated physician and his socially insecure patient intensifies this friction, since Prior views Rivers's polite inquiries as an extension of the "stuffed shirt" authority that carelessly dismisses his suffering. Contextualising this resentment within the rigid stratification of 1917 Britain, Barker contrasts the romanticised propaganda of the cavalry charge with the grim reality of men ordered to be tied to a limber as punishment, relying upon Prior's cynical detachment to dismantle upper-class myths. Thus, the narrative illuminates how the superficial nature of Edwardian social mobility merely ensures that men remain trapped by the "military mind" they despise. Where Prior articulates the domestic resentments⁶ of the working class, Siegfried Sassoon’s intellectual rebellion escalates this critique, exposing the moral bankruptcy of the nation's political elite. Arguing with Robert Graves over his controversial "act of wilful defiance⁷", Siegfried Sassoon condemns the "callous complacence" of a civilian populace that demands endless sacrifice while remaining blindly indifferent to the slaughter. Introducing the rhetoric of pacifism, Barker exposes the deceit of institutional authority, showing how the establishment dismisses genuine moral outrage as a "severe mental breakdown" rather than confront the inconvenient truth of the carnage. The complex friendship between the two poets highlights this ideological impasse, since Graves insists upon fulfilling the requirement to "sign a contract" of military service even while privately agreeing that the nation's leaders are "feathering their own nests" at the expense of soldiers. Adopting a sharp satirical style to mock the civilian establishment, Barker frames the concept of "gentlemanly behaviour" as a fatal trap, revealing how conformity to elite Edwardian manners suppresses ethical dissent. By portraying this systemic denial, the text suggests that the demand for unwavering patriotism functions as a deceptive mechanism to ensure the "continuance of agonies" without accountability. Across these varied encounters with authority⁸, Barker reveals that the unrelenting demands of military duty inevitably expose the deep hypocrisy of Edwardian class structures.