No, Mrs. Bennet Is Not Actually a Subversive Feminist Icon
I recently read an article entitled “Jane Austen’s Most Widely Mocked Character is Also Her Most Subversive” which argues that Mrs. Bennet, and similarly Lydia, of Jane Austen’s 1813 classic Pride and Prejudice, is subversive towards the misogynistic society in which they live and is in fact ahead of her time, being a revolutionary feminist by not accepting the constraints of her culture. The article claims that Mrs. Bennet is unfairly mocked for her obsession with getting her daughters married because she “shoulders the burden of her family’s future alone” as the only one who takes the future maintenance of her daughters seriously. “Love is lovely,” claims the article, “but Mrs. Bennet’s mission is about survival.” It further claims that “the willful disregard Mrs. Bennet shows to the sensibility and decorum most of her compatriots value so highly is not her weakness but in fact her greatest strength” and argues that her refusal to condemn Lydia’s behaviour in running off with Whickham, and Lydia’s lack of shame or acknowledgement of wrongdoing, is laudable and “not just kind but revolutionary” as a feminist action. Mrs. Bennet is set up as a feminist icon who, “rails against the confines of the misogynistic society she inhabits” for complaining about the injustice of the entail of their estate though doing nothing proactive to fight it.
The article paints Mrs. Bennet and Lydia as radical feminist icons and denounces Lizzie and Jane as complacent with the misogynistic society they live in and taking no action to change their situations. However, I will show that neither Mrs. Bennet nor Lydia are actually subversive in their actions and the truly revolutionary characters are, in fact, the heroines for their steadfast adherence to their principles against the expectations and pressures of society, as opposed to short-sighted or selfish rebellion of Lydia and Mrs. Bennet.
My core critique of the article stems from a seeming disregard for or perhaps willful misunderstanding of Pride & Prejudice itself. It makes many logical jumps that do not follow and/or are incorrect. It attributes feelings and motives to certain behaviours that are by no means supported by the text, nor do they have any other backing to lend them credence. It takes characters out of context and unfairly celebrates or condemns them based on modern values, and it fails to understand the truly subversive messages and characters that Austen was trying to convey in favour of feelings attributed by the author not supported by the text.
The article begins with a seeming intent to shock, calling everyone in the novel other than Charlotte Lucas an idiot, which is by no means the case. Every character has different flaws, but these are by no means the same, of the same magnitude, or make them “idiots.” In fact, the core premise of the book is that Lizzie and Darcy each come to realise their own flaws and work on bettering themselves. The characters in the book we are meant to admire all engage in some self-reflection and try to improve themselves over the course of the novel, something which neither Mrs. Bennet nor Lydia do.
While I agree that Mrs. Bennet’s mission of marrying off her daughters is laughed at unfairly, her methods, means, and attitudes are far from laudable. Had she really wanted to succeed in finding wealthy and respectable husbands for her daughters, she would have acted within the bounds of society and not injured the family respectability by breaking social customs, encouraging what in that day was the extreme of vice and scandal, and being rude to people like Mr. Darcy. Even if she didn’t like him personally or have a hope of him as a possible husband to one of her daughters, Lizzie makes an important point, “what advantage can it be for you to offend Mr. Darcy? You will never recommend yourself to his friend by so doing!” (Pride and Prejudice, ch 18). The article states that “Mrs. Bennet is revolutionary in her simple and abiding refusal to shut up, even as those for whom she chiefly advocates desperately wish for her do so.” A “refusal to shut up” should not be characterised as “revolutionary” as it not only has no positive effects on the situation or society as a whole, but actually works against her and her goals. Just because it was proper for a lady to be quiet and passive, does not mean the reverse is “revolutionary.” Miss Bates in Emma is just as talkative as Mrs. Bennet, if not far more, but I would be surprised if anyone claimed she was revolutionary for it. I don’t mean to defend the misogynistic, repressive, and hierarchical society itself, which we know has many problems, but there is an important difference between acting against an unjust system naively and ineffectually and actual revolutionary acts — it’s only progressive if it makes actual progress.
There is an important difference between acting against an unjust system naively and ineffectually and actual revolutionary acts — it’s only progressive if it makes actual progress.
Further, the article’s point that Mrs. Bennet was the only character who cared about the entail while Jane and Lizzie merely accepted it peacefully is a great mischaracterization. While it is something to be lamented and I won’t claim she doesn’t have a right to complain (she absolutely does!), the entail is something that simply cannot be changed under the existing legal system, therefore merely complaining about its injustice and refusing to understand it does no good. It is not as if Mrs. Bennet led a march on Westminster to protest unjust estate law. Jane and Lizzie have no way of “rebel[ling] against the injustice or actively seek[ing] to nullify it.” Moreover, the text never describes how Jane or Lizzie feel about the entail directly, merely that they try to make their mother understand the legal situation and recognize it as an unfortunate but unalterable circumstance. They are never shown to think it a “simple, obvious absurdity [for] a woman [to inherit] a house,” nor are they said to consider the “sexist concept” as “logical,” as claimed by the article. They do not accept the entail merely because they are okay with the patriarchal society and think it right, but because it is “an unavoidable consequence of fate.” In the same novel, we see that it is not unheard of to allow women to retain property, as the widowed Lady Catherine maintains Rosings Park and even boldly states “I see no occasion for entailing estates from the female line. It was not thought necessary in Sir Lewis de Bourgh’s family” (chapter 29). If we look at Sense and Sensibility, we find a similar situation in the entail of Norland Park which is not about gender directly, but rather to benefit a specific person (Harry Dashwood). Entails were an unfortunate reality of the time, but that does not mean accepting the situation implies supporting the injustice. It is absolutely unjust to blame the Miss Bennets for accepting the parts of their fate that cannot be changed and working within the areas that they can influence. Additionally, Mrs. Bennet is protecting her own interests as much as those of her daughters in trying to marry them off; if she survives her husband, she will need her daughters to support her.
It is absolutely unjust to blame the Miss Bennets for accepting the parts of their fate that cannot be changed and working within the areas that they can influence.
By taking these characters out of their context and imposing modern values on them, not only are they misrepresented and given motives that do not follow, but the characters that are shown to adhere to their own principles and society’s standards are painted in a negative light, despite being arguably the truly subversive characters for so doing. While characters like Lydia are no doubt rebellious to the constraints of society, it does not necessarily follow that their behaviour is laudable, subversive, or anything other than selfish. The article argues that “Mrs. Bennet isn’t afraid of mistakes, frequently acting with what is judged as too much liberty but never once embarrassed or apologetic for it. And that is remarkable given how highly reputation is valued in her world and how little it takes to destroy one.” While it is indeed remarkable that Mrs. Bennet is not embarrassed by her want of proper manners, it is not something that benefits her or makes her ahead of her time, but rather demonstrates a lack of self-awareness and understanding. Manners and society have indeed changed to where Mrs. Bennet being loud, foolish, and meddlesome and Lydia running away and living with a man before marriage are no longer the social taboo they were (though it is valuable to remember that Lydia was only 16 when she ran away with Wickham), but that does not change how those manners and actions were perceived in the context of the society they lived in. In this context, they were highly reprehensible and had social consequences not only for the individual, but for their connections as well. If we remove the offence itself and just look at the behaviour surrounding it, neither character is painted in a good light. If Mr. Darcy hadn’t acted, which he by no means had to do, the respectability and reputation of the whole family would indeed have been sunk much further and removed the chances of the other girls from making respectable matches, which is Mrs. Bennet’s whole goal. Mrs. Bennet’s support of Lydia’s actions is not feminism or a sexual awakening ahead of their time, but rather evidence of her lack of understanding, principle, and inability to deeply consider consequences. Both characters are self-centred and unthinking and were this not a novel, their fortunes would likely not have ended as well as they still did.
The article’s claim that “Lydia is only saved from assured ruin through the help of a rich male benefactor, Mr. Darcy. He acts not from any sense of morality or charity…but out of love for another, better-behaved woman and the need to protect his own reputation by association” is contradicted in the novel. Mr. Darcy acts out of a sense of morality and personal responsibility because he believes his silence toward Wickham’s past indiscretions directly led to the scandal with Lydia. Mrs. Gardiner explains to her niece that “the reason why all this was to be done by him alone, was … It was owing to him, to his reserve and want of proper consideration, that Wickham’s character had been so misunderstood, and consequently that he had been received and noticed as he was” (Pride and Prejudice, ch. 52). Mr. Darcy may have been further motivated by his love for Lizzie to assist her family and lessen their distress, but that was not his only guiding factor. In fact, his actions are performed in secret and he does not mean for Lizzie or her family to know he was involved. It was only by Lydia’s unthinking comment that Lizzie discovered his involvement and thanked him, bringing on his second proposal. At the time, he had no way to know she loved him or whether his reputation would be affected by an association with the scandal.
It is also unfair to attribute Jane and Lizzie’s continued financial support of Lydia and Wickham to selfish motives of protecting their own respectability, as the article does. At that point, they were both well married and respectable in society; having a sister who was married but poor would not injure their social standing. They supported Lydia because they loved her as their sister, not out of self preservation.
The novel makes no attempt to attribute morality to the circumstance itself of either Mrs. Bennet’s desire to marry off her daughters or Lydia’s elopement. They are not celebrated or denounced in themselves, though it is assumed that readers understand elopement to be morally wrong, as that was the belief of the time. In fact, the first time I read Pride and Prejudice, I was at a loss to understand what was the big deal of Lydia’s elopement until I understood the culture further and learned what a social taboo it was. Instead, the book only shows these circumstances in terms of their effects on the other characters. Mrs. Bennet, and to some extent Lydia, are intended to be comedic and to further complicate the path for Lizzie and Jane. The circumstances could be different, as in Austen’s other novels, but they are there as obstacles to the heroines, whether by embarrassment or social disgrace, not as a comment on morality. Just because we now understand that much of Regency society and culture was sexist and repressive, and Lydia and Mrs. Bennet acted outside the cultural norms, does not make their actions subversive or good in themselves.
The truly subversive characters and messages in (most of) Austen’s novels are indeed her heroines. Lizzie and Jane Bennet, Elinor Dashwood, Anne Elliot, and Fanny Price dare to eschew the social pressure to marry for convenience or prudence and instead dare to marry for love. In a society based on rank, money, and social status, these characters maintain their principles and morals and refuse to bend to the will of society in entering into marriages they did not want, despite their propriety and the fact that society would not only not have a problem with a marriage of economic or social advantage, but actually looks down upon these characters for daring to reject it! Fanny Price is condemned as foolish and wrong in rejecting Henry Crawford and Elizabeth is berated by her mother for not accepting Mr. Collins and would have been considered wrong in her initial rejection of Mr. Darcy, were it known. While we are not meant to see her rejection of Mr. Collins as wrong from our view as readers, we can see how normal her acceptance would be considered by society’s positive reaction to Charlotte’s marrying him. Though the Bennets consider it foolish or unfortunate because they find Mr. Collins ridiculous, they still understand that it is a good establishment for her. In fact, we can view Charlotte as a foil to this message. In marrying Mr. Collins she did nothing wrong, though we and Lizzie may view it as unfortunate, and in fact, she followed a respectable and expected course of action for the time. We as readers are made to understand her choice as prudent and see that, though she may not love or respect Mr. Collins, she knew what she was doing and made her life and her home comfortable and happy. In contrast, Lizzie had the same option to prudently marry Mr. Collins, which would have likewise been expected and respectable, but instead chose to defy society (and her mother) and reject him in favour of a marriage based on love. Even Jane briefly worries whether it would be right to marry Mr. Bingley asking Lizzie, “But, my dear sister, can I be happy, even supposing the best, in accepting a man whose sisters and friends are all wishing him to marry elsewhere?” (chapter 21). Jane understands that her own love and happiness would be viewed as less important than society’s views on respectability and good connections.
Lizzie had the same option to prudently marry Mr. Collins, which would have likewise been expected and respectable, but instead chose to defy society (and her mother) and reject him in favour of a marriage based on love.
Further, Lizzie rejects many of the accepted norms of hierarchy, refusing to feel beneath Miss Bingley, Mrs. Hurst, and Lady Catherine despite their best efforts to impose their own social superiority on her. On her first meeting with Lady Catherine, Lizzie notes her shock when Lizzie declines to give her age, “Lady Catherine seemed quite astonished at not receiving a direct answer; and Elizabeth suspected herself to be the first creature who had ever dared to trifle with so much dignified impertinence!” (chapter 29). Lizzie is also described as the only one of the visitors who felt equal to the situation and not awed into respectful silence by her imposing manners and status. “Elizabeth’s courage did not fail her. She had heard nothing of Lady Catherine that spoke her awful from any extraordinary talents or miraculous virtue, and the mere stateliness of money and rank she thought she could witness without trepidation” (chapter 29). More importantly, Lizzie dares to directly oppose Lady Catherine when she impertinently tries to intimidate and influence her against marrying Mr. Darcy. Her actions would be completely opposite to the social norms of deference for a person of rank, though Lizzie maintains politeness throughout the interview, despite Lady Catherine’s rudeness and disrespect. In refusing to be intimidated by these ladies, Lizzie, not Lydia, shows her “bravery and confidence to believe [her]self worthy without validation, [and] to demand what [she] want[s] from life rather than accepting every injustice as fate.”
The article argues that “Lizzie is an excellent woman of her era, but she lives within the boundaries of her place in society and doesn’t expect more for herself or from others,” however Lizzie’s behaviour throughout the novel rebels against social norms while still remaining respectable. She expects more for herself than settling into a loveless marriage of propriety like her friend Charlotte. In walking alone to Netherfield to see Jane, in her lively manner of speaking, particularly to Mr. Darcy, even in her simply refusing to dance with Mr. Darcy at Lucas Lodge when Sir William tries to set them up, Lizzie displays her independence and refuses to confine herself to the very limited expectations of women in society. She aspires to a marriage of love and respect and even dares to advise her father against allowing Lydia to go to Brighton, which is highly out of place in a society where children are expected to respect their parents completely, particularly a daughter to her father. Similarly, women were expected to respect and be subservient to their husbands, so it is not surprising that “at first [Georgiana] often listened with an astonishment bordering on alarm at [Lizzie’s] lively, sportive, manner of talking to her brother. He, who had always inspired in herself a respect which almost overcame her affection, she now saw the object of open pleasantry” (Pride and Prejudice, ch. 61). The important distinction here is that all Lizzie’s rebellious acts are done respectfully and without hurting others. Even teasing Mr. Darcy is done playfully and portrayed as endearing to him rather than cruel or disrespectful. She uses the little agency she has in society to express herself and influence her circumstances, teaching Georgiana “that a woman may take liberties with her husband,” and assisting Jane in improving the behaviour and understanding of Kitty (chapter 61). In this way, Lizzie begins to influence society toward more agency for women, not “reinforc[e] the oppressive system that she accepts without question.” It can be safely assumed that Lizzie’s children would be brought up with similar lessons, taught to read, improve themselves, and speak their minds in a polite manner.
Lizzie’s behaviour throughout the novel rebels against social norms while still remaining respectable. She expects more for herself than settling into a loveless marriage of propriety like her friend Charlotte.
The characters we are meant to value and respect are those who stick to their morals without hurting others. It’s true that other characters who do not meet these criteria by giving in to societal pressures, following expectations, being selfish or mercenary, or even being duplicitous and manipulative, do have happy endings in Austen’s novels. Lucy Steele, Mary Crawford, and Charlotte Lucas all end up okay in their respective stories, but Austen is fairly clear in her portrayals that these are not the characters to be admired. Rather, they are shown as antagonists or foils to the main characters because (excepting Charlotte) they were selfish or hurt others in their pursuit of their goals, whereas their counterparts get their happy ending, not always in marrying the excessively rich man, but finding love and happiness by sticking to their principles despite their circumstances. Fanny Price does not marry the rich Henry Crawford whom she does not respect, but the more modest Edmund Bertram whom she loves, and Elinor Dashwood marries Edward Ferrars who remains essentially thrown off by his mother while the duplicitous Lucy is rich and accepted by Mrs. Ferrars in marrying Robert. Nevertheless, we as readers can respect and honour these heroines for going against the social expectation of marrying the “best” match in terms of financial and social eligibility, and instead adhering to their principles and marrying for love.
It is not subversive to be disrespectful and unsympathetic to those around you and to ineffectually rebel against the morals and manners of society, but rather to understand the world in which you live, determine what you have power over, and use what agency you have to take charge of your fate in accordance with your principles.
The article makes a valid point in showing that Mrs. Bennet is unfairly portrayed negatively for wanting to get her daughters married, however the arguments are unsupported by the text and considered out of context. Mrs. Bennet and Lydia are not revolutionary feminist icons but in fact, they are women of their time who are poorly behaved, self-centred, meanly educated, and who lack empathy and self-awareness. Though marriage was important for the Miss Bennets as a future provision, it does not excuse the manners and means of Mrs. Bennet, nor the imprudence and selfish hedonism of Lydia. It is not subversive to be disrespectful and unsympathetic to those around you and to ineffectually rebel against the morals and manners of society, but rather to understand the world in which you live, determine what you have power over, and use what agency you have to take charge of your fate in accordance with your principles. Only then, can you be considered a subversive character whose legacy “shapes the future.”
