1995
DOI: 10.1086/448775
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Jane Austen and Edward Said: Gender, Culture, and Imperialism

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, Said accuses Austen of failing to explore the significance of Sir Thomas's comings and goings, thereby ensuring that we interpret the events in the novel and the lifestyles of the ‘higher classes’ as disconnected from and unconcerned by empire, and especially the role of slaves (then considered ‘capital’). As Susan Fraiman has put it, Said offers up ‘Austen as exhibit A in the case for culture's endorsement of empire’ and perhaps the writer ‘who made colonialism thinkable by constructing the West as center, home, and norm, while pushing everything else to the margins’ (1995: 809). But, Austen, Fraiman goes on to claim, is more subtle than Said appeared to realize and needs to be treated not as a source to be mined for facts, apropos Capital , but as a critical commentator on the connections between property, class and imperial power (also Tuite ).…”
Section: Capital and The South: ‘Dead Silence’mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Nevertheless, Said accuses Austen of failing to explore the significance of Sir Thomas's comings and goings, thereby ensuring that we interpret the events in the novel and the lifestyles of the ‘higher classes’ as disconnected from and unconcerned by empire, and especially the role of slaves (then considered ‘capital’). As Susan Fraiman has put it, Said offers up ‘Austen as exhibit A in the case for culture's endorsement of empire’ and perhaps the writer ‘who made colonialism thinkable by constructing the West as center, home, and norm, while pushing everything else to the margins’ (1995: 809). But, Austen, Fraiman goes on to claim, is more subtle than Said appeared to realize and needs to be treated not as a source to be mined for facts, apropos Capital , but as a critical commentator on the connections between property, class and imperial power (also Tuite ).…”
Section: Capital and The South: ‘Dead Silence’mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Let us return to the principal claim against Jane Austen levelled by Said; namely, that she, is ‘naive, complacent, and demurely without overt political opinion’ (Fraiman : 807; also Boulukos ). The key text in Mansfield Park to support his point is the conversation between Fanny Price, Sir Thomas's niece, and her cousin, Edmund, in which she asks ‘Did you not hear me ask him [Sir Thomas] about the slave trade last night?’ Edmund replies, ‘I did – and I was in hope the question would be followed up by others.…”
Section: Capital and The South: ‘Dead Silence’mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The point Austen makes is that whilst law and propriety are built upon the possession and control of land in England, the whole edifice of the estate, house and household at Mansfield Park, though apparently insulated and self-contained, is in fact underpinned and sustained by colonialism and slavery. Rather than validating a vision of England's uncontested imperial prerogative, Fraiman (1995) argues that the tensions and jealousies within Mansfield Park demonstrate Austen's intention to highlight the depravity within social and spatial relationships based on slavery, both abroad and at home.…”
Section: Colonial Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(1993: 87). I do not want to enter the debate as to whether or not Austen approved of slavery (although it seems to me that the evidence points to her disapproval of it; see Fraiman, 1995). Said explains that:…”
Section: From Pride and Prejudice To Pride And Prejudice And Zombiesmentioning
confidence: 99%