EVERYONE LOVES JANE AUSTEN

When I first started to explore the conservative Christian blogosphere, I was surprised to learn how much affection there is among these folks for my very own Jane Austen.  If there is one thing extreme social conservatives and raving feminists have in common, it is a strong affection for Jane.  I suspect, however, that we see quite different things in her novels. 

The thing is that Jane Austen harshly criticized the social structures of her era but she was no revolutionary.  She wrote in a clear-eyed fashion about the very unromantic consequences of complete female dependence.  Notwithstanding the frothy, lighthearted surface of many of her novels, she always makes it quite clear that the marriage and courtship game was one of great and serious risk for women.  Refuse a man's proposal and you might well wind up enduring a lifetime of poverty and humiliating spinsterhood.  Austen, however, never proposed any alternatves to the strictures placed on women.  All of her heroines, spirited though some of them were, operated within the confines of their societal roles.

The lack of any open rebellion against patriarchal norms in Austen allows social conservatives to embrace her as one of their own.  Pride & Prejudice ends with a happy marriage, exults Charlotte Allen of the Independent Women's Forum.  The Feminists must hate that!   And oh how wonderfully chaste and "proper" the manners were in those days, notes Plugged In, the Focus on the Family online entertainment magazine. (That is assuming one considers it "proper" to obsessively discuss other people's income and to make material considerations primary when assessing another person's suitability as a marriage partner.)  Such interpretations, of course, completely overlook the fact that much of what conservatives love about Austen were simply conventions of her time (like the title "Mrs.," the fact that Austen remained in her father's household into adulthood or the fact that Mr. Bennet was the "head" of his house).  The areas in which Austen deviates from the conventions of her time however reveal the heart of a feminist forerunner. 

The agency with which Austen invests her female protagonists -- even in the face of unimaginable social and material pressures -- is in and of itself feminist.  In Pride & Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet refuses to pander to Mr. Darcy, even though he was an eligible bachelor of rank and wealth, well situated to rescue her from a difficult future.  Ultimately, when Lizzie finally wins Mr. Darcy, it is not  because he has been captivated by her "fine eyes," but because he respects her intelligence, respects her spirit, and repsects her character. 

Even more impressive, Elizabeth Bennet declines quite decisively a marriage proposal from the dreadful and pompous Mr. Collins.  It is impossible to overstate what a gutsy move this is for Lizzie Bennett. Due to the quirk in the manner in which her father had inherited the house in which they all lived, Lizzie and her mother and her four sister were all to be turned out off the house upon the death of their father so that the house could pass to Mr. Collins.  And still Lizzie said no to Mr. Collins's proposal.  Jane Austen wrote this chapter in the most hilarious way possible -- with the condescending Mr. Collins refusing to take Lizzie's refusal seriously ("I shall chuse to attribute [your rejection of me] to your wish of increasing my love by suspense, according to the usual practice of elegant females.") and Lizzie insisting, "Do not consider me now as an elegant female intending to plague you, but as a rational creature speaking the truth from her heart."  Jane Austen may have been the first woman to insistently make the political point that No Means No! 

I don't mean for my discussion of Austen to be overly divisive.  There is something for everyone to love in Austen whether you are a feminist or not.  One loves Austen not only for the spiritedness of her protagonists and harsh social critique, but for her witty dialogue, the intimate portrait of domestic life in this period, strong characterization, and her basic values regarding the development and honing of one's character and behavior.  One romanticizes Austen's time and place at one's peril, however.  While there is no way to know what Austen would have thought about modern day feminism, she definitely didn't let the patriarchy off the hook and for that, among other things, I will always love her. 

NOTE:  I found some good stuff while I was surfing around to see what other feminist bloggers have to say about Jane.  This review by Bad Feminist of the recent Pride & Prejudice movie starring Keira Knightley is right on target.  And a major Austen fan, Amanda at Pandagon, notes about the movie as well:

. . . it irritated me to no end that Austen’s delicate portrayal of Charlotte Lucas’ decision to marry Mr. Collins was changed from a sad statement on the state of women to a tedious swipe at women who had to make unfortunate choices under oppression. And that’s mostly because the filmmakers’ didn’t want to trouble the audience with the idea that Mrs. Bennet’s desperation to marry off her daughters might have more to it than just a stereotypically shallow love of weddings.

SECOND NOTE:  The other reason Austen qualifies as feminist is that she's funny as hell.  She's exhibit A in opposition to the old canard that women aren't funny.

Comments

[Ismone]

I wonder what the conservative christians have to say about Willoughby's callous abandonment of Eliza Williams after he gets her pregnant--and the fact that our very own Elinor forgives him for it and does not expect him to marry Eliza!

The only ones who responded to the situation appropriately were Col. Brandon, who set off to rescue his ward, and Willoughby's aunt or whoever, who cut him off for not marrying her (although maybe I shouldn't give her a break as she later seems to have made it clear that Willoughby marrying Marianne would have suited her just as well.)

Not Christian at all, yet Elinor (and I think Austen) forgives him for it.

That said, I love Austen's books. She is bound by her time in some ways, but her women characters are so strong and fascinating. (Except mothers. If you think about it, they are all bumblers or annoying saps in her books. Or just not there.)

[The Happy Feminist]

Now that you mention it, the mothers all do seem to be complete idiots -- especially Lady ? in Sense and Sensibility who has nothing to say unless she is talking about her children. Of course, beating up on mothers isn't very feminist in modern day terms, but it's not very family values-ish either.

[A Pang]

Was planning on blogging about this later, but -- I'm reading Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman alongside Pride and Prejudice. One of Wollstonecraft's arguments is that women have been made weak and silly and inferior by lack of education, as they are only supposed to concern themselves with the domestic sphere. Maybe that's what Austen's mothers reflect?

[Cassandra]

That's the best defense of Austen I've ever heard; I am one of two people I know who is nowhere near a fan, and this certainly hasn't converted me (most of my issues with her regard her abilities as a novelist, and the only constrant of her time that I think affects this is that the novel hadn't been around all that long, unless I'm hopelessly misremembering her dates), but at least I sort of get what at least some people see in her now.

[Jenn]

If conservative Christians are holding up Pride & Prejudice as the model in which modern woman should aspire, they need to go back and read the rest of Austen's books. I hardly find Maria Bertram's decision to leave Rushworth and run off with Henry Crawford in Mansfield Park as "chaste" or "proper". In fact Mansfield Park is ripe with characters who do everything but act in a chaste and proper manner. What would they think of the priggish, prim Fanny Price openly defying her uncle by refusing to marry Henry Crawford? (Full disclosure: Mansfield Park is my second favorite Austen novel).

In contrast, what about the high emotional and spiritual price Anne Elliot pays for obeying the advice of her family and refusing the hand of Captain Wentworth?

[Roy]

Shocking! -ro8i56l1

[Lanoire]

I totally agree. Great post. Especially about Austen's humor.

[The Happy Feminist]

Jenn, I was of the impression though that Austen didn't approve of Maria Bertram's behavior at all.

[Laurelin]

Now I want to go back and re-read all the Austen novels...

[Sydney]

Your observation that both feminists and conservatists like Austen's books, but read different things into them was really interesting to me. It made me wonder how many books or other forms of media that happens with. I know that this could be opening up a huge can of worms.... but couldn't the Bible be interpreted in similar seemingly contradictory ways? I'm definitely not an expert on the subject, though...

[Jenn]

Happy,

I think Austen disliked Maria Bertram on principle (she is awful) and that conservative Christians would think she got her (well deserved) comeuppance.

I have to wonder whether they would read the book at all because the behavior of most of the characters is despicable and could be said to set a "bad example" for the reader. I've seen some truly mind boggling challenges to books and Mansfield Park would not be that far out of bounds for someone to find "offensive".

[Ally]

I've just finished reading Claire Tomalin's biography of Austen. It's very readable and does a really good job of setting her novels in the context of her time. Austen herself had no money of her own before middle age and her novels first began to be sold; and when her father decided to give up their house and move the family to bath he did it without any consultation with her at all, resulting in her becoming very unsettled and unable to write.

My favourite is 'Sense and Sensibility' :)

[Martin Wisse]

Allow me to plug revie of Pride and Prejudice, which sort of made the same points you made.

[thebewilderness]

I have been a devotee of Ausen since I was 16. In fact I still have the battered copy of Sense and Sensibility I got from the high school library. Her dialog is brilliant. I recommend reading "Lady Susan". While she always places responsibiltiy squarely where it belongs, her evocation of sympathy for characters who in less able hands would be unsympathetic in the extreme, delights me.

[C. LaFemme]

Slightly late to the party here, but what has always struck me about Darcy is that he is the only male character in the book who really *listens* to a female and learns from her. True, it takes a humiliating rejection of his proposal of marriage to make him do so, but he really thinks about what she said during her refusal and ends up changing for the better because of that. In contrast, the other men in the novel clearly don't value the opinions of women: Mr. Bennett doesn't listen to his wife's worries about the importance of arranging good marriages for their daughters and doesn't listen to Lizzie's warnings about letting Lydia follow the regiment, and disaster ensues; Mr. Bingley almost loses Jane because he listens to what Darcy has to say about her feelings for him rather than trusting the signs of interest that she herself has given him; Mr. Collins, of course, has to be hit over the head with Lizzie's rejection and ends up being managed and manipulated by his wife, who to a certain extent tells him what he wants to hear*. I'm not saying that the female characters are all that good at listening to one another--after all, the book is all about real vs. perceived knowledge--but I think it's interesting that the guy who listens to and learns from a woman is the one who ends up with the happiest ending. And it strikes me as very feminist of Austin to have written it so.

*Interestingly, Mr. Collins *does* listen to Lady de Bourgh, whose title and money give her manlike power and authority.

[Katenka]

(I know I'm responding to this late, and probably no one will read it, but I had to share my 2 cents!!)

I think it's very important to note that, when comparing Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy as men and as suitors for Elizabeth, that Mr. Collins is not financially independant and Mr. Darcy is. Austen's work pays as much attention to class issues as feminist ones. You have said that E's mother is motivated by pragmatic and at that time /necessary/ concerns in encouraging marriage, Mr. Collins is equally so. He certainly isn't a pauper, but he must work for his living and his concerns in marrying are economically and socially (thus economically) motivated. Can we blame him for that? I don't think Jane Austen did; her depiction of him is certainly critical and humorously so, but his cowtowing to de Bourgh and lack of idealism are understandable given his position.

[Anupma Srivastava]

Jane Austen is the forerunner of feminism. She is one of those writers, who greatly influences the early development of the novel, incorporating domestic and feminine concerns, and set a successful precedent for aspiring women authors, making way for the novel to become a genre both by and for women. But the question of Austen's feminist credentials has long been a puzzle for critics. The six novels--those "little bits of Ivory" on which she worked "with so fine a Brush"--hardly seem the canvas for revolutionary expression. Still, critics have tried to establish in her works the kind of explicit message that associates her with more modern feminist writers. She is blended as a proto-feminist, who laid the foundation of feminism.

[rate my body]

this is so crazy to even think about.

[rate my camel toe]

this is always so hard to do.