Printable View
hello my name is dawn schofield, i live in lancashire in england and started an english degree in september last year. one of my all time favourite books is pride and prejudice by jane austen and i am currently doing a paper on marxism within the same. any help with that would be gratefully recieved as it's the first time i;ve tried to apply marxism to a text
thanks
dawn :thumbs_up
Hello and welcome.
I don't understand.
You are required to apply something to the text that isn't there?
I'm sorry, but the idea of that thought outrages me to the uttermost.
Why is it that people are no longer satisfied with understand what WAS put into the text raher than fabricating what wasn't? (The feminists do the same thing.)
Just a rhetorical question.
Nothing personal. I'm sure it's the "system" that forces this.
I just think it's a ridiculous system.
Perhaps the task involves writing on the absence of various Marxist ideas?
You can refer to the topics of money, marriage and the middle classes. Even though Austen didn't write the novel basing on Marxist ideas, you can use these topics to interpret the novel in this way.
I can see where they ae coming from, but the idea to me is total nonsense as Elizabeth is herself part of a Bourgeois background. Although she doesn't have a dowry and is not Darcy's league, she is part of teh Bourgeois class, so I don't see where Marxism comes in although it has all shine of it. To be truly marxist, P&P had to end with Darcy working and Elizabeth working alongside him. Not very rich in their mansion...
Although, drawing this conclusion of sourse, it could become a very interesting essay.
kiki1982, I don't think P&P is "marxist" but it can be seen from a marxist perspective. A text can be interpreted in many ways even if the author didn't mean them. The novel can be seen in a marxist perspective if you look at social aspects and money. I think one of the issues of the novel is the importance of money in society. For Elizabeth it's not such important but it is for the rest of people in middle classes. They want to get richer and they compare themselves to aristocrat families. In fact, that is what Capitalism is about and it was begun to be seen in that period.
The novel can be seen from a Marxist perspective but it doesn't mean Jane Austen's ideology was related to it or that she wrote the novel with this intention.
I didn't mean to disagree that it could be interpreted (allowed) in a marxist context, but as for that marxist context, there is a serious problem with the middleclass and aristocratic nature of all people in the novel. That is profoundly unmarxist, although maybe the thing about money and the like can remotely be considered as marxist.
Marxists themselves would have seriously shunned P&P because it was just about that, no matter wether the heroine goes against all odds to marry a man much richer than hersel.
I said I can see where they come from, but I don't think that it can be fully read in a marxist way as below the surface there are serious problems with that. Only the theme, in my opinion, could be considered marxist. (poor marries rich, although that can't be called ideal from a marxist perspective)
Marxism is much more than distribute wealth. It is about equality amongst all people and I think P&P stands very very far from that. In fact marxism is against possession, P&P is downright in favour of it ('I fell in love with him when I first saw his grounds'; '10000 a year'). Granted, Elizabeth wants a husband for his manners, not for his possessions only, but the last thing she was thinking was to marry a farmer with no money and that also counts for the readers. Her mother's wish was to have her 'well-settled'. How can that possibly be marxist?
What you are right about, though, is that it is maybe something capitalist, being the total opposite of marxist. Only starting capitalist, though.
I think that marxist perspective does not refer to Marx itself but a social or socio-economic view. If you say Freudian view, it may only mean 'psicological view'.
Precisely because what I said was part of Capitalism, the novel can be seen in marxist perspective. The novel challenges all those values: the male-centred society and the power of money and marriage.
This debate on Marxist analysis has been too theoretical to make much sense to me. I would have thought that most Western literature prior to Marx challenges one or more of these values.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Dalloway
@ Mrs Dalloway:
And how does it challenge the very core of society: male supremacy? Does Mr Bennet not have to get acquainted with Mr Bingley before they can even talk to him? do all the girls not stare out of the window when Mr Bingley comes to sit in Mr Bennet's library?
If Elizabeth at the end tells Lady Catherine that she cannot promise her that there will never be a marriage between her and Darcy, that is not because she intends to ask him herself and is planning to get her clutches into him (as Lady Catherine suspects), but because she waits for him to ask her after which she will say yes.
The fact that she doesn't stay in her own class does not depend on her, but depends on Darcy. Her refusal of Collins was a perfectly normal thing to do: you didn't think you suited, you refused. Her rejection of Darcy, on the other hand, was all the more shocking, because in male- and money-centered society it is unthinkable that a Mr Darcy would get rejected on the mere basis of his manner. That said, when his manner changes Elizabeth has not the least objection anymore and even falls in love with him. But then the problem is not over: she needs to win the consent of her father.
I don't think P&P challenges the very core of society: money, marriage and male supremacy. I think it rather challenges everything around that, satirising it into a whole ridiculous situation: the rules of acquaintence, the rules of courtship (you don't know your partner before you ask for marriage), the rules of secrecy/honour (Darc-Wickham), the rules of inheritence; all that together is a web that ties people to their place and actually ruins all without really wanting to ruin anything. If the rules on secrecy/discreteness had not existed, Lydia would never have eloped with Wickham. But those rules compelled Darcy to keep Wickham's escapades a secret, for himself and for his sister, with all consequences we know. If there were not the rules on entailment, Mr Collins would never have been able to inherit Longbourn and Elizabeth would never have been asked to marry Collins.
Where the book does challege the views on marriage/class, it also undermines its own statement: Jane and Elizabeth marry rich/for love, while Lydia marries poor/for passion. Not all of them have succeeded to get out of their class and have established a financially good existence. In that, P&P creates an image of society as it was, but looked at through satire: there were good marriages, despite all the rules, and there were bad marriages, which could have maybe been prevented by scrapping the rules (who knows?). But we feel it strangely funny that Lydia pays for her mistake. :D And we feel also happy that Lady Catherine swallows her pride to go and see Darcy and his new wife (out of loneliness maybe?). :D And we also find it funny that Caroline has to swallow her pride and has to leave the housekeeping to Jane, who will never trust her again. :D Despite the ideal picture we get in the end, the web of rules is not at all gone. How could it be in the same society as the book begins? The problem Wickham is still present in Darcy's life: still no-one knows (apart from Elizabeth), still Georgiana needs to get married and so her honour needs to be preserved. Jane cannot throw Caroline out of the house for lying. Instead she needs to put up with her until the bloody girl gets married, and after that she will have to endure her sometimes. Mr Bingley has to suffer Mr Bennet and Mrs Bennet for very long periods of time. Mr Darcy needs to suffer his in-laws. Mr Darcy can also not break off acquaintence with his aunt because she was rude about his fiancé. Essentially, everything stays the same despite the dislike of the people involved :lol:.
P&P satirses but does not do anything more than that. It is up to the reader to do something about that web of rules, but as all people in society think of each other that the rules are necessary, nothing will happen. :p Despite them thinking themselves that all rules are obsolete. P&P does not offer a solution, it only offers an image and in that, it does not really challenge.
I only disagree, Kiki, on the lack of challenge in Pride and Prejudice. Austen satirises with the funniest irony the relationships between her characters, and through this irony we may infer many discomforting truths. Her satire involves placing each character in a spotlight that reveals much about the society in which they live. Unpalatable truths about the morals, values and hierarchy of English society may be perceived in Pride and Prejudice, if only dimly.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Unlike the monumental Emily Bronte, who was very much an outsider, the subtle Austen is no crusading revolutionary. Nevertheless she does critique English society, though she wounds from behind, as it were.
I agree with the critique, otherwise there is no satire, but Austen does not challenge radically by giving another option. (as for example the Brontės).
It is the same kind of work as Moličre. He puts on the stage a few types of people like the 'Hypochondriac', 'the scrooge' etc. and satirises them. All very funny and the public recalls the same people in their own lives, but it doesn't move people to do something about it.
So it is with Austen: all very funny, but neither the people who read the satire, nor the people in it will change anything about the system that is oppressing them. And that is probably the real big joke. And as Mr Bennet, the people who read P&P will laugh at the world, but consequently end up alone in their library with their own ideas, surrounded by the vast majority of sad individuals who are not aware of the situation.
The challenge to male supremacy is Elizabeth herself. She rejects Collins and then Darcy. She does not marry for money as her best friend does. She does not mind 'reputation' when she goes to Netherfield walking and arrives with muddy clothes. She says whatever she wants without minding other's opinion. That was not usual in that period...
Her refusal of Collins was not a normal thing to do. Elizabeth is criticised after that because her family does not have too much money. You're saying the rejection of Darcy is shocking. Why does she reject him? and why does she accepts him later?
Satire is a way of challenge too, don't you think Kiki? It may not offer a solution but it criticizes all that. This is another way of challenge. I don't think challenge must necessary imply or include a solution. Austen just compare marriage related to money and to love. And the one who succeds at the end is the one of love.
Don't you see a solution here? When I think/read Elizabeth, these statements come to my mind: 'you must marry for love not for money', 'you must do what you want without minding other's opinions'.
There is challenge and challenge. One can just criticise and then say: 'never mind', and one can challenge and say: 'this is better'. Austen is the calmer kind.
Refusing a marriage happened then more than now. Elizabeth's refusal is shocking to her mother because she wants to keep the family-estate in the family. And as it is entailed on Collins, whoever he chooses, must marry him. It is sad of course, that he chooses Elizabeth. What's more, she didn't need to marry him for money, really, because the man was a curate. The same as Patrick Brontė's family and Austen's own family. They were not reallty well-off. What would generate him an income is the Longbourn estate, but Mr Bennet needs to die first. What made Elizabeth's refusal of Collins a little controversial was the lack of men compared to women due to the Napoleonic wars. Because of that, a lot of elligable men had died in Elizabeth's league: officers and normal men who enlisted as soldiers. So, she probably would not meet another suitor, which of course will turn out not to be true.
Refusing Mr Darcy is more shocking, as he is amazingly rich, as Elizabeth is not in his normal league, and she should be grateful for his proposal.
The act of refusal itself, is not that shocking. Charlotte Brontė refused three times on logical grounds, Bryon was refused once and then married the same woman out of revenge, Austen refused at least once. Marriage was something serious and for life. 'It was not to be undertaken lightly' (as said in the film and also still in the Anglican Church service) and so the question was approached in a logical manner: do we suit? how is his character? is he a good man (is he a womaniser)? has he got money to care for me in an adequate manner and for our children? does he go about gambling which will maybe result into loosing all his money? has he got a steady income?
Darcy might have money, might not gamble, might be constant in his feelings, etc But he's got one big defect which is really decisive: he is a proud, arrogant and rude man. Imagine being stuck with that in a country-house or in a townhouse for the rest of your life... Elizabeth does not even have to think about it and sends him packing. They don't suit. The refusal has nothing to do with not loving him, it has everything to do with his attitude which she will have to live with, whether she loves him or not. And that also counts for Mr Collins. Charlotte was able to bear that attitude of groveling for Lady Catherine, but Elizabeth couldn't, so she didn't marry him.
As far as I recall the mouth of Caroline Bingley also did not stand still so often. She also expressed opinions without caring for others' opinions, particularly about the petticoat and about Lizzie's suntan. At a certain time she even asks Darcy when he's going to get married to Elizabeth. That is certainly impertinent of her, but that was probably in an attempt to try to make out his feelings to herself. The main impertinence of Lizzy is embedded in her speeches to Darcy, that are 'bordering on the uncivil'. They are not so sly as Caroline's remarks, though. But, it needs to be said, Darcy's remark about Lizzy's beauty is also not really above board. Keeping in mind that there were women who organised salons, I don't think that it was that much frowned upon to speak your as a woman, unless of course it was done in an uncivil way.
What we shouldn't forget in the 'free' nature of Elizabeth, is her family upbringing. Darcy addresses the liberties of her family in his first proposal, and to a certain extent he is right to be offended. It was not normal for a girl to be 'out' if her elder sister was not married. In that, having all the Bennet-girls 'out' is certainly not done. Nor is the behaviour of Mary (hogging the piano or making moralising remarks), or the quite suggestive behaviour of young Lydia and Catherine. Concerning the petticoat: it was a remark from Caroline Bingley, and she was out to get Elizabeth on her inferiority in order to emphasise her own superiority and to claim her place next to Darcy. It is ironic that she accuses Elizabeth of exactly the same in Netherfield. As such, maybe the remark that the petticoat was covered in inches of mud is maybe not so right... But it puts her own character in perspective: she never goes out and is idle as she never has a suntan or a dirty petticoat. The question is who is the most attractive. It stands no doubt that the men find a Lizzy-type more attractie than a Caroline-type. A Caroline-type, moreover, will probably marry a Hurs-type: as idle and useless as herself, not someone energetic like Bingley or Darcy, because they want action.
Marriage for love is not so much idealised as it is at first sight. Lydia and Wickham marry also for love, or she at least. But the love does not last. And why? Because Wickham is a bad man, who squanders his money, who is unfaithful. If he had proposed in a normal manner, her parents would have said no on the logical base that he would never care properly for their daughter. But because of the elopement, they are forced to marry. Darcy provides them with a good base, paying off Wickham's debts and giving them some money to boot, but the man will not change and as such he is a bad partner. He does have a steady job, good manners, reasonable breeding, is handsome, but is not trustworthy and so does not make a good husband.
For Darcy, whose good nature was overshadowed by bis pride and conceit, he has changed and has grown into a man who can become a good husband. And that is the point when Elizabeth falls in love. They finally suit.
The quesiton is, though, what is meant by 'marrying for love'. I cannot believe that one can in such a situation where one has not realy spoken with one's partner unless after the accepted proposal, where one cannot speak freely with another of the other sex, where one might be lucky and be able to say a very few words during a dance or two, that one is able to marry for love. How do we start to love? By only looking at someone? That is falling in love and that might go away like in Lydia's case, or might not occur like in Charlotte's case. It is a pure coincidence if that feeling stays (in Elizabeth and Darcy's case, in Jane and Bingley's case, in Anne and Wentworth's case). Maybe there is more in the father's words at the end: 'My child, let me not have the grief of seeing you unable to respect your partner in life.' Respect is the main thing in this. Partners could not see wether they liked each other then, they did not have a lot of time to do that, not like we do now, they did not have hours to talk in private. Mr Bennet married for love. We have seen how it has ended. Had he thought more about what they had in common, how his wife would be, whether she suited him, he had probably not proposed.
Lizzy respects Darcy and vice versa, Jane respects Bingley and vice versa, Lydia did not respect Wickham (she hadn't thought of it) and the vice versa we not have to address... Marrying for love is maybe more marrying for esteem and respect, marrying for suiting, marrying for what you have in common, marrying for friendship, marrying for any logical reason combined with love, but not 'love' alone...
Or perhaps another great question - what of all those servants? It seems, the "poor Bennets" may not perhaps be so poor after all - what about all their underlings, who work for them. By poor, they mean not filthy rich to the point of flauntability, which I guess back then meant poor for all the people who could read (given that the servants most likely could not, as they probably couldn't afford books (300$ in today's cash per volume, books usually between 3-5 volumes in length. or like 50$ or so from the lending libraries for a book), or perhaps were not literate) and perhaps not thought worth inquiry into within the text.
After all, the so called cottage that, in Sense and Sensibility for instance, the characters move to, is far, far bigger than most homes, and is also fully stocked with underlings.
What we have in these books is really two lower classes. The lower class, and the Bourgeois lower class, who is lower within a completely different category, stemming perhaps from the aristocratic displacement of power that had not completely thinned by this point in time.