Far from criticising her society, Austen shows in Emma that she upholds the structure of society and
Sarah Emslay
In Austen's world, charity is still the chief theological virtue...Her characters are not allegorical representations of the virtues (faith, hope and charity, justice, temperance, prudence and fortitude)
Far from criticising her society, Austen shows in Emma that she upholds the structure of society and strongly supports the social conventions of the time
-what is your response?
There's two sides to this, i think...
- Austen was never critical of the society in which she lived in because from the beginning to the end, Highbury itself has not changed, in essence. The only "improvements" happen to be of the characters, namely Emma, possibly Harriet, Frank Churchill etc. Moreover, Emma ends up with Mr Knightley, which would imply that Austen wasn't writing for her *inner* anger at the social position of women at the time. Otherwise, Jane would've broken away from her engagement with Frank and Emma would not have realized that Mr Knightley "must marry no one but herself" etc. and she could not have said what a lady "ought to" have said when he proposed etc etc
-on the other hand (this is the section where it's confusing), class snobbery was a social convention in Victorian society, where it was customary to believe that if you were born of a family with "landed property", as are the Woodhouses, then your social status is elevated - ie snobbery was customary and so the snobbery of emma woodhouse, mr knghtley's own version of "snobbery" etc is not about whether or not you harbour it but about appropriate display of it?
-in addition, Austen does actually seem to go out of her way to make those in the higher class more prone to snobbery, impropriety etc- Emma, Mr/Mrs Elton, Frank Churchill? whilst the people who are good (the Bates', Jane Fairfax, Robert Martin) are lower on the social hierarchy of Highbury and so it can be argued that this was Austen's method of subtly showing that it was the higher classes that needed to be "educated" the most.
-or would it be safest to say that JA was making a shrewd social observation ie when Emma says "a single women of good fortune is always respectable"...(the differences between making a social observation and actively showing your dislike for social convention? - i really can't get my head around that bit)
and the novel has a role to show the reader her observations (using the characters etc etc) but because Highbury does not change during the course of the novel as a whole, then it can be said that JA was simply.....
what would be Jane Austen's motives to imply all these insights onto the reader yet finish the novel in such a way? was it because she thought society would not accept it?
does she disagree with the habitual snobbery of the upper class or does she disagree with the snobbery of individual of the upper class which differentiate them from true gentility?
and i was thinking...isn't Highbury based on social inequality anyway? it's like, this perpetual understatement which is never truly spoken of until Emma breaks the rules on Box Hill and puts this "hidden" snobbery into words in front of Miss Bates... and if Mr Knightley is in actual fact reprimanding her for voicing it and not for the fact she had these judgments about Miss Bates being in the "worst predicament in the world" simply because it was a true fact, then doesn't that point out Mr Knightley's own snobbery?
-okay...i've come to a weird conclustion: in the novel, Highbury's community is based on aristocracy. however, JA believes that a truly genteel society should ALSO hinge on meritocracy so she undermines the Elton's status by making them as vulgar and horrible as possible. so maybe she's trying to say that the true and deserving values of which a society should be based on have been lost/overlooked.
- i'm still confused as to whether or not she upheld the structure/social conventions!
In Austen's world, charity is still the chief theological virtue...Her characters are not allegorical representations of the virtues (faith, hope and charity, justice, temperance, prudence and fortitude)
Far from criticising her society, Austen shows in Emma that she upholds the structure of society and strongly supports the social conventions of the time
-what is your response?
There's two sides to this, i think...
- Austen was never critical of the society in which she lived in because from the beginning to the end, Highbury itself has not changed, in essence. The only "improvements" happen to be of the characters, namely Emma, possibly Harriet, Frank Churchill etc. Moreover, Emma ends up with Mr Knightley, which would imply that Austen wasn't writing for her *inner* anger at the social position of women at the time. Otherwise, Jane would've broken away from her engagement with Frank and Emma would not have realized that Mr Knightley "must marry no one but herself" etc. and she could not have said what a lady "ought to" have said when he proposed etc etc
-on the other hand (this is the section where it's confusing), class snobbery was a social convention in Victorian society, where it was customary to believe that if you were born of a family with "landed property", as are the Woodhouses, then your social status is elevated - ie snobbery was customary and so the snobbery of emma woodhouse, mr knghtley's own version of "snobbery" etc is not about whether or not you harbour it but about appropriate display of it?
-in addition, Austen does actually seem to go out of her way to make those in the higher class more prone to snobbery, impropriety etc- Emma, Mr/Mrs Elton, Frank Churchill? whilst the people who are good (the Bates', Jane Fairfax, Robert Martin) are lower on the social hierarchy of Highbury and so it can be argued that this was Austen's method of subtly showing that it was the higher classes that needed to be "educated" the most.
-or would it be safest to say that JA was making a shrewd social observation ie when Emma says "a single women of good fortune is always respectable"...(the differences between making a social observation and actively showing your dislike for social convention? - i really can't get my head around that bit)
and the novel has a role to show the reader her observations (using the characters etc etc) but because Highbury does not change during the course of the novel as a whole, then it can be said that JA was simply.....
what would be Jane Austen's motives to imply all these insights onto the reader yet finish the novel in such a way? was it because she thought society would not accept it?
does she disagree with the habitual snobbery of the upper class or does she disagree with the snobbery of individual of the upper class which differentiate them from true gentility?
and i was thinking...isn't Highbury based on social inequality anyway? it's like, this perpetual understatement which is never truly spoken of until Emma breaks the rules on Box Hill and puts this "hidden" snobbery into words in front of Miss Bates... and if Mr Knightley is in actual fact reprimanding her for voicing it and not for the fact she had these judgments about Miss Bates being in the "worst predicament in the world" simply because it was a true fact, then doesn't that point out Mr Knightley's own snobbery?
-okay...i've come to a weird conclustion: in the novel, Highbury's community is based on aristocracy. however, JA believes that a truly genteel society should ALSO hinge on meritocracy so she undermines the Elton's status by making them as vulgar and horrible as possible. so maybe she's trying to say that the true and deserving values of which a society should be based on have been lost/overlooked.
- i'm still confused as to whether or not she upheld the structure/social conventions!