Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Review Article: ‘Jane Austen & the Empire’ by Edward Said
In his essay “Jane Austen and the Empire”, from the book Culture and Imperialism, Edward Said outlays an argument surrounding Austen’s work on the British life which is related to the geographical positioning and politics in her novel “Mansfield Park”. At the same time he also criticizes her upon taking two extreme notions relating to European and American justification but most importantly the writer’s ignorance of colonialism, its impacts and the social criticism of Western authors writing about colonialism, its political order and its justification. Mansfield Park is Jane Austen’s third and most controversial novel. The themes it deals with have three different layers centering on Colonialism, Imperialism and Slavery in England. Looking at it in its historical context, British Empire’s colonization of the America resulted into American colonies which forced a larger demand for resources to be spread around and increased slave trade. On the other hand, the British Empire used Imperialism to control West Africa and Caribbean islands which aided in the success of slave trading, sugar plantations and expansion of the British territory.
The storyline of the novel revolves around, Fanny Price; one of the main characters’ in the novel who is sent to live with her wealthy Aunt and Uncle in Northampton-shire at Mansfield Park. Fanny was from a poor line of the family, and her parents were not assiduous and sensible managers of wealth. Her uncle was a plantation owner in Antigua, and belonged from a rich class. There is a typical Jane Austen ending to the novel where Fanny ends up marrying her cousin. The most significant element in the text which is also relevant to Edward Said’s argument is that her uncle is a plantation owner.
Said while arguing in his essay, highlights the importance of historical context while reading the great literature of the Modern Western civilization. He contextualizes imperialism as: “the practice, the theory, and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling a distant territory.” Moreover he contends onto the idea, that no less than in the territories that the British occupied and dominated, the reality of empire pervaded the entire culture as per dictated by the power narratives. Said constantly alludes to Austen’s lack of concern for the slave trade, because her narrative lacks the description which is needed to properly illustrate the subject, and the setting. Said argues that without the slave trade, the Bertram’s could not have been possible. He also believes that Austen is fully aware of the fact that slavery enables the Bertram’s to flourish in Mansfield Park. Otherwise, she simply would not have written so much about wealth and class in relation to the success of women, in her novels; for that matter. Within the novel “Mansfield Park” we see a dialogue taking place within Edmund and Fanny:
“Did not you hear me ask him about the slave-trade last night?”
“I did – and was in hopes the question would be followed up by others. It would have pleased your uncle to be inquired of farther.”
“I longed to do it – but there was such a dead silence!”
Edward Said on this instance notes that Jane Austen devotes little time to the logical explanation of the colonies or the management thereof. But he identifies throughout the novel, her proclivity to accept the colonies as a proper means of maintaining the wealth of England. While slavery doesn’t take a central role in Mansfield Park, much of the action occurs due to the fact that Sir Thomas Bertram spends two years in Antigua on urgent business. This urgent business is vague in its nature, but Austen gives readers some information with statements about the “poor returns” from the Antiguan property and that “a large part of his income was unsettled.” What’s problematic is that, Readers are left to sort out for themselves the causes and solutions of these financial problems. Standard economy histories note a slump in sugar prices in the West Indies, but Austen fails to provide a specific cause for Bertram’s Antigua plantation’s financial struggles. The causes of the declining profits and “unsettled” income could be related to a diminished labor force which happened as a result of the Abolition Act of 1807, which would have put his plantation in direct competition with foreign sugar-producing colonies that continued to practice the slave trade. Furthermore, Said also notes that England, unlike the Spanish and to some extent the French, was more focused on long-term subjugation of the colonies, on managing the colonized peoples to cultivate sugar and other commodities for the English. Said uses the literature of that period to illustrate the extent to which acceptance was shown towards the notion of slavery.
In the novel, Antigua represents the colonies and Mansfield Park, the British Empire. ‘Sir Thomas’ is an archetypical master who exploits the slaves in the West Indies in order to run his estate and earn money for his English countryside mansion. Fanny represents the possibility of social advancement by marriage to a member of the superior class. Said shows a two-sided view on Austen’s intention when writing the novel. On the one hand, he highlights Austen’s failure to mention the reliance of Mansfield Park on the slavery of the plantation in Antigua which shows her intentional glorification of slavery. On the other hand, he expresses a respectful consideration of Austen’s work by appreciating her portrayal of the British life, geographical positioning and its political implications. He also states that Austen’s implicit representation of the colonial order between the superior white class and the slaves shows her assumption of this order as natural and not man-made. It is the same approach that he talks about in ‘Orientalism’ and the binary that he draws between the ‘Other and the One.’ Furthermore, he states that authors of those times were often blamed for being “white, privileged, insensitive, complicit” and also for depicting the topic of colonialism and slavery on their own defined terms conforming to a greater cause. It has been argued within the essay that the discussed novel could not be considered as one of the “great literary masterpieces” due to its incompetency of engaging with the imperialist narrative to the point where it does justice to it. It is rather the reinforcement or the justification of the actions upheld by the one in power, on their acquisition of the territory for their own self benefit. In light of the given historical accounts, all the evidence clearly states that holding slaves on the West Indian sugar plantation was sheer cruelty. In lieu of that Austen’s ideology and vision of bringing about social change within the society and her incessant values are completely at odds with this cruel act of slavery. Also her character Sir Thomas on the inquisition of Fanny gives away “dead silence” when she asks him about the slave trade. This clearly gives away the biased approach wherein one narrative holds superiority over the other also in terms of common language barrier.
A few pages later in Culture & Imperialism, Said points out the importance of this deeper and more complex criticism, he has offered us of Austen’s Mansfield Park. Said calls it ‘the structure of attitude and reference’ and does not intend this postcolonial perspective to replace other prevalent perspectives. He is of the view that such criticism should be used in addition to the traditional literary criticism. His emphasis is on the fact that slight references to the colonial world which are made are of huge importance in great literature. He furthermore suggests that it is precisely in great literature that we are able to see the internal structure of conflict over a morality that, though not acceptable in the polite society of the empire, has permeated the thinking of those for whom the great literature was written. Jane Austen’s sensibility could not deal with the issue of the ‘slave trade,’ which, in the novel, was met with ‘dead silence.’ Edward Said’s comments:
‘In time there would no longer be a dead silence when slavery was spoken of, and the subject became central in a new understanding of what Europe was.’
From a critical point of view, the focal point of Said’s main argument is the “dead silence” towards the idea of slavery and the indifference that Austen’s characters show by staying silent to this, from which he interprets the suppression of the colonial discourse and its justification. But this is not the only way to look at it, many scholars argue that Austen’s silence to this whole idea could be the sign of the guilty conscience and it could be the writer’s effort to keep the tone of the novel light and not to ignite the plot or charge it emotionally. Moreover the indifference of her characters towards this whole economically and politically penetrating ideas could’ve been portrayed dislikable, on purpose. Moreover, Said has also ignored the gender dimension of colonial writing in the writer’s work and the idea that abolitionist campaigns were mostly supported by women from Austen’s generation. In the novel, Austen seems to condone the way of life she has represented. We can either look at it the way she tells it or we can dig down the sentiments regarding slavery which prevailed in her surroundings. The referential passage about dead silence referring to slavery could be nothing more than just a reference to the realities of life lived in England at the time Austen was writing. Austen’s historical knowledge blatantly questioned by Said could also be mooted down, in this regard; keeping in view her extensive social awareness.
While Said does a good job at showing how Austen does not address slavery and imperialism, within her novel and shows that there is a ‘dead silence’ on the issues, he does not provide enough satisfactory evidence to conclude that these subjects are a major part of the plot and how there is a need which has to be established to further explain them. On the contrary, quite often he falls into the trap which he himself warned against, accusing an author of allowing an abusive system to flourish due to their silence within their novels. Said is correct in pointing out the subtle hints of the economy of Mansfield Park and is quite right in saying that ‘The Bertrams could not have been possible without the slave trade’, but hanging a theory on these straws would be ignoring the far bigger themes and lessons which could be derived from the novel. The novel might have a number of logical flaws yet it certainly exceeds in raising the awareness of the nuances happening in the setting of the novel. Edward’s contribution to this whole thing could be addressed as an example of how one can take their historical knowledge and use it to improve one’s understanding and the ability to appreciate the complexity knitted within the text, without jumping to any conclusions, producing an accurate reading which is true to the text itself.
Works Cited
- Deb, Janeite. “Quoting Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park ~ The Issue of Slavery and the Slave Trade” Jane Austen in Vermont, WordPress, 28 August 2014,janeausteninvermont.blog/2014/08/28/quoting-jane-austens-mansfield-park-the-issue-of-slavery-and-the-slave-trade/
- “Austen and Antigua – Slavery in Her Time”, Considering Jane Austen, WordPress consideringausten.wordpress.com/austen-and-antigua-slavery-in-her-time/
- Emsley, Sarah. “Jane Austen’s “dead silence,” or, How Guilty is Sir Thomas Bertram?” Sarah Emsley, 29 August 2014, sarahemsley.com/2014/08/29/jane-austens-dead-silence/
- Dorrycott, Elizabeth. “Mansfield Park Historical Context”, 1 August 2016, Youtube, youtube/KsnJ7u48Lg0
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.