Bronte and Martineau Eng 436 Midterm

Grant Wengeler

Dr. Torgerson

2/11/2020

Midterm Essay

Victorian Inequality in Jane Eyre and Demerara

Charlotte Bronte’s work Jane Eyre and Harriet Maritneau’s Demerara from Illustrations of a Political Economy each depict separate examples of social exclusion through perpetuated hierarchies. Such hierarchies are based on completely superficial elements of human identity. The superficial elements can be observed when analyzing the texts with an objective lens. One may question how objectivity is attained, and they’d be right to do so. True objectivity is ultimately unattainable by any human means, but through the concept of equality there is some degree of understanding to be attained. Equality, therefore, requires some strict definitions. Equality is ultimately the concept where rules, opportunity, and regard apply to everybody to the same degree. 

“Rules” refers to how an individual is expected to behave within society, and what regulations are placed on them. Opportunity refers to an individual's ability to exercise their liberty, or freedom of choice, within the realm of possibility afforded them by the rules. Regard applies to how society treats a particular individual and which rules and opportunities are afforded to them. 

For rules to be applied equally the focus on superficial aspects of a human must become disregarded. For, after all, it is the focus on the superficial which had led to discrimination and inequality in the first place.  Race, gender, and class are all merely surface-level elements of a human which any particular individual has no control over, and thus should be discarded when determining how the rules should apply to them. Injustices which have been inflicted upon Jane Eyre were primarily due to her gender, which at the time related directly to her genetic sex. Women were cast out of society in many ways, and Jane was especially outcast compared to most of her “class.” Her social image was entirely determined by her status as an adopted girl, and her status as a female cost her many opportunities. Still, she was afforded opportunities such as acquiring an education, but females of African lineage within Demerara were afforded none. 

The rules which dictated the life of Jane were far different from the rules which governed the life of Nell. Jane was at a loss for privilege, but Nell had far more rules placed upon her. Nell, as a slave, was restricted to her plantation with Mr. Bruce whereas Jane was eagerly sent away to school. The condition of her school, though dismal at first, was still far better than Nell’s state as a slave under a cruel master. If this were not so, why would Nell run away with Willy only to be hunted down? The inequality between Nell and Jane is based on how the rules applied to them differently. The rules allowed Jane to achieve an education, and eventually gain some semblance of autonomy and liberty as she grew older which allowed her to become a governess by her own free will. Nell, on the other hand, was not afforded such liberties because the rules governed that she had no right to make her own life decisions. 

In Jane Eyre, Jane is exposed to horrible cruelty. Yet, despite her burdens she attains the opportunity to remain in a state of safety. Meanwhile, Nell and Willy are hunted with lethal force for leaving their plantation, “Willy, Willy! Hark to the hounds! The hounds are after us!” (Martineau, 127). During Jane’s excursion into the wilds she was faced with the elements of nature, but wasn’t chased down with hounds. Therefore, the rules and opportunity were each applied differently between Jane and Nell. Jane and Nell are both female, and presumably their gender reflects their sex. So only their race differs, yet on this single superficiality they are regarded differently by society. Thus, their individual standings within the social hierarchy were different from one another. Although, Julia Lee points out some similarities between Jane Eyre and a slave narrative: “the language of the slave narrative emerges most distinctly at moments of crisis, as Jane desperately grasps for the words to articulate her condition” (Lee, 318). The term “slave narrative” describes essentially the same thing, an attempt to describe the condition of human suffering. Still, Jane is afforded opportunities that Nell has no access to because one is regarded higher within the social hierarchy. 

The opportunity, much like the rules, is dispersed based on superficial elements. In Jane Eyre, Mr. Brocklehurst serves as the patriarch of the school despite the attendants being women. Even the Superintendent, leader of the school, falls under the jurisdiction of Brocklehurst. There is a clear gendered hierarchy here. The male sex held automatic social control over the females, and this distinction is based entirely on their given sex. This shows the inequality of opportunity within Victorian society, and the hierarchy is clearly based on superficial attributes. 

 Since sex is assigned at birth, it becomes a superficial aspect of a human being. After all, the mind determines ideology, faith, behavior, and more. Yet, aspects of the body such as race or sex become the focus of social institutions, and the results of this prove how superficial aspects of a human are unreliable as a measure for merit. Brocklehurst’s greed, and ignorance of disease, led to the plague infecting the school which forced those in attendance to suffer. Brocklehurst was held in high regard by society, but his actual merit was not of the same caliber. This discrepancy shows how unreliable the superficial elements are when determining merit.

Regard is determined by which rules and opportunities apply to any given individual based on social norms. Again, in the Victorian age this was entirely dependent on superficial aspects of a human being. Patricia McKee describes specifically the social ideology on the impact of race, “The asymmetric construction of racial contamination in Bronte’s novel indicates that, whereas white persons may succumb to corruption, they can be purified; while dark persons are impervious to spiritual regeneration” (McKee, 71). In essence, this means that the regard toward dark persons was quite dismal because the common belief dictated that they were not capable of “assimilation.” Thus, no opportunities are afforded to those perceived as inherently incapable of capitalizing on them. 

The social systems which discriminate how rules, opportunity, and regard are applied are heavily tied to the political systems which govern them. Whether society dictates politics, or vice versa, is a matter of debate. However, the resulting inequality bars many from fully participating in political developments which impact them. Annette Van observes, “The utility of political economy, as Martineau describes it, is connected to an understanding of nationalist duty whereby the success of the English political system is predicated upon the common man’s grasp of the fundamentals of political economy” (Van, 117). If the “common man” is key, then it is essential that they are equipped with the knowledge required to grapple with the complexities of social policy. The term “common man” is somewhat misleading because it stipulates gender, but under the application of equality this would refer to all citizens despite their superficial identity. If all citizens are guaranteed equality under political law the ideal result would be that the common people capitalize on their opportunities. 

Unfortunately, ideals aren’t based on reasonable expectations. Van remarks, “because the Illustrations rely on the realist form to instruct the reader, they would seem to produce a form of realism that cannot tolerate misinterpretation” (Van, 117). A realist view on the matter requires that the effects of interpretation are analyzed. Therein lies the issue. Rules, opportunities, and social regard are highly reliant on interpretation and there is no guarantee that every individual will interpret them the same way. However, based on the definitions previously outlined some conclusions can be drawn to assist the common person in their understanding. When rules apply equally to all people despite their race, gender, and social standing there is equality, but even equality has ideological repercussions in reality. For example, if rules apply equally in criminal cases there is no room for discrepancy for the punishment for crimes. In other words, a particular crime would absolutely require a particular punishment, and there would be no room for an argument to intercede. Realistically this practice can become insidiously bureaucratic, and excludes a degree of human reason from the judgement. For example, if stealing food and stealing stereos invoke the same punishment because they’re both crimes of theft, then the hungry will fear and the greedy will capitalize. Thus, the rules must be applied equally, but also must not be independent from reasonable argument. However, such arguments include interpretation and are thus rendered invalid as reasonable discourse by Van. Ultimately, the effects of interpretation rob equality of its clarity. 

When rules, opportunity, and regard are applied equally to everybody, despite superficial elements such as race, gender, and class, the social hierarchies become defunct. These hierarchies serve to discriminate which opportunities are afforded to individuals based on superficial aspects of their identity, which prove to be less meaningful than they were perceived by Victorian society as they do not have direct correlation to ideology, faith, and behavior. Also, an individual’s place within the hierarchy determines which rules are placed on them. Instead, the same rules should apply to all in order for equality to be attained. In order for the rules and opportunities to be equally applied to all the perpetuated social regard toward those in the lower social classes and higher classes must be equated. Since an individual’s place in the hierarchy was determined by a superficial aspect of their identity it stands to reason that equality can be achieved by disregarding the superficial and embracing the real. The real then refers to elements of character and identity which aren’t determined by birth, but instead by merit. Ideology, faith, and behavior are determined by an individual’s internal identity, and are more closely related to merit than race, gender, or social class. By disregarding the superficial aspects of humans when determining how to apply the rules and distribute opportunity, society comes closer to equality. By understanding this, the common person can uphold the vision of equality and therefore continue toward the goal of reducing human suffering. 

Work Cited

Martineau, Harriet. Illustrations of Political Economy: Selected Tales. Edited by Deborah Anna Logan. Broadview Editions, 2004.

Martineau, Harriet. “Demerara”. Illustrations of Political Economy, vol. 2, Charles Fox, 1932, oll.libertyfund.org/titles/martineau-illustrations-of-political-economy-vol-2 

Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. New York: Carleton. 1974. Web.

McKee, Patricia. “Racial Strategies in Jane Eyre.” Victorian Literature and Culture, vol. 37, no. 1, 2009, pp. 67–83. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40347214. Accessed 24 Feb. 2020.

Van, Annette. “Realism, Speculation, and the Gold Standard in Harriet Martineau's ‘Illustrations of Political Economy.’” Victorian Literature and Culture, vol. 34, no. 1, 2006, pp. 115–129. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25058739. Accessed 24 Feb. 2020.

Lee, Julia Sun-Joo. “The (Slave) Narrative of ‘Jane Eyre.’” Victorian Literature and Culture, vol. 36, no. 2, 2008, pp. 317–329. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40347190. Accessed 24 Feb. 2020.