Edward Said 's essay 'Jane Austen and Empire ' (1993) states that Mansfield Park (1814) is an imperialist novel, Austen imploring us to accept and appreciate the role imperialism had in society at the time. I disagree with this view point, believing that Austen is instead using Antigua as an ironic statement on the planter-class emerging at the time. Through writing on the function of space, geography, and location in Mansfield Park, Said suggests that Austen uses small scale relocations in order to imply the larger scale tensions occurring across the globe. The movement of Fanny from Portsmouth to Mansfield in the opening chapters of the novel can easily be seen as synonymous with the movements of the slave trade around the globe. Fanny becomes
…show more content…
Said impresses upon us that the ideals we lay upon Austen 's work, that she is the peak of morality and conduct within society at her time, therefore force us to read the Bertram 's slave owning as something natural of the time, ignoring the implications. I believe that Said is correct in this, however he fails to indicate the possibility that Austen 's moral affirmations may be towards the idea of amelioration that was circulating during the early 1800 's. Amelioration, as Boulukos defines it 'was [...] a moderate, even a consensus position—one both sides were eager to link to their own efforts, and one that forgave much to planters, especially those willing to reform, as it condemned slave traders as the true villains. ' Austen is therefore sitting in a 'middle-ground ' appealing to as many people as possible in order to maintain her audience. She is suggesting that Sir Thomas is a good person for 'treating his slaves well ', yet disregarding the fact that he still owns and uses people for slave labour. Austen once again uses small scale domesticity to parallel this situation through Fanny 's growing affection for Henry Crawford upon finding out how he helped the impoverished inhabitants of his land - ignoring the fact that he is the reason they 're impoverished in the first
Said impresses upon us that the ideals we lay upon Austen 's work, that she is the peak of morality and conduct within society at her time, therefore force us to read the Bertram 's slave owning as something natural of the time, ignoring the implications. I believe that Said is correct in this, however he fails to indicate the possibility that Austen 's moral affirmations may be towards the idea of amelioration that was circulating during the early 1800 's. Amelioration, as Boulukos defines it 'was [...] a moderate, even a consensus position—one both sides were eager to link to their own efforts, and one that forgave much to planters, especially those willing to reform, as it condemned slave traders as the true villains. ' Austen is therefore sitting in a 'middle-ground ' appealing to as many people as possible in order to maintain her audience. She is suggesting that Sir Thomas is a good person for 'treating his slaves well ', yet disregarding the fact that he still owns and uses people for slave labour. Austen once again uses small scale domesticity to parallel this situation through Fanny 's growing affection for Henry Crawford upon finding out how he helped the impoverished inhabitants of his land - ignoring the fact that he is the reason they 're impoverished in the first