“White
Pride and Prejudice” by Ross Douthat
“My dear Mr. Douthat,” said the internet one day. “Have you
heard that the alt-right has laid claim to Jane Austen?” I replied that I had not. “But they have,”
returned she; “for The Chronicle of
Higher Education and The New York Times have told me all about it.” I made no answer. “Do you want to know how they
have taken possession of her?” cried the internet impatiently. “You want to tell me, and I have no
objection to hearing it.” That was
invitation enough….
[….]
…amid
all the academic arguments about whether [Austen] was a Tory or a
crypto-radical, much of her popular appeal clearly rests on the contrast
between her social world and ours — the sense that hers was more romantic and
more civilized, and that in becoming more liberal and egalitarian we have maybe
also sunk a bit toward barbarism. This feeling, common to many Janeites of my
acquaintance, is a reactionary frisson, not a real step away from liberalism.
Nor is the overt misogyny and racism of alt-right Austenites likely to woo many
normal Austen readers down that particular rabbit hole. Unless someday illiberalism comes as a Darcy rather than a Wickham.” END QUOTE
Mr.
Douthat,
Be not
annoyed on receiving this open letter, by the apprehension of its containing
any disrespect toward your clever and provocative riff on Jane Austen as posthumous
victim of an alt-right attempted literary coup. The effort which the formation
and the perusal of this letter must occasion, should have been spared, had not a
shade of Mr. Darcy’s character (in contrast to the liberalism your last
sentence assumed) required it to be written and read. You must, therefore,
pardon the freedom with which I demand your attention; your feelings, I know,
will bestow it unwillingly, but I demand it of your justice.
Two issues
of a very different nature, and by no means of equal magnitude, occurred to me
as I read your op/ed piece.
The
first was prompted by your final sentence “Unless someday illiberalism comes as
a Darcy rather than a Wickham”. I assume you chose your words carefully, and
that you wrote about Darcy and liberalism, because you knew that the word “liberal”
is used six times in Pride & Prejudice to describe Darcy:
“Can
such abominable pride as his have ever done him good?” “Yes. It has often led
him to be LIBERAL and generous, to give his money freely, to display
hospitality, to assist his tenants, and relieve the poor.
“…His
pride never deserts him; but with the rich he is LIBERAL-minded, just, sincere,
rational, honourable, and perhaps agreeable—allowing something for fortune and
figure.”
“…But
he is a LIBERAL master, I suppose, and that in the eye of a servant comprehends
every virtue.”
“It was
acknowledged, however, that he was a LIBERAL man, and did much good among the
poor.”
“…you
yourself, when last at Longbourn, heard in what manner he spoke of the man who
had behaved with such forbearance and LIBERALITY towards him…”
“It was
reasonable that he should feel he had been wrong; he had LIBERALITY, and he had
the means of exercising it…”
And so I
understand why you --- and almost everyone else who has read P&P during the
past 2 centuries --- believe that Jane Austen meant for us all to take those
half dozen “liberal” usages to heart, and to come to realize, as Elizabeth Bennet
does, that Mr. Darcy really is a good (liberal) guy after all.
However,
my dear Mr. Douthat, perhaps there is more to Jane Austen’s novels than has
been dreamt of in your philosophy; and had
you read my following blog post…
…. you would
realize that those last words you wrote have a secondary meaning you did not
intend.
I
assume that you require further inducement to read my above-linked post, so
allow me to briefly explain myself, beginning by borrowing from Bill Maher’s
joke last night about the Freedom Caucus. Maher drily observed that these 26
powerful white gentlemen are too polite to deal with women’s genitals by
grabbing them – they prefer to control them by legislation.
In that
same vein, the Mr. Darcy of what I call the “shadow story” of Pride & Prejudice is no gentleman,
he’s an aristocratic ogre who was not, like Wickham, so heavy-handed a rogue as
to run away with a young lady outside wedlock, using lies and flattery. Rather,
he preferred to quietly take complete control over the woman who has dared to
refuse his proposal of marriage, by other means.
Darcy’s
far better plan was to set in motion a calculated disinformation campaign,
fueled by his vast resources of money,
power, and prestige, including a fully stage-managed trip for his “mark” to a
fantasy world in which Mr. Darcy is portrayed by well-prepared surrogates as a
god among men. That “show”, in short order, successfully manipulates an impressionable,
vulnerable young woman (Elizabeth, not Lydia, Bennet).
By double-dealing
and disguise (which actually is the shadow Darcy’s delight rather than his
abhorrence), he reduces to rubble Elizabeth’s initial audacious and
well-founded resistance to his attractions. And, for good measure, this duke of
Darcy corners lets her dangle in the wind, believing all is lost for herself
and her family, before he finally moves in to close the deal. And that’s the
unintended meaning I saw in your final sentence --- Jane Austen deliberately
created two alternative Mr. Darcys, and illiberalism did indeed come in the
form of one of them!
This, sir,
is a faithful narrative of every event regarding the true character of Mr.
Darcy, in which we have been concerned together; and if you do not absolutely
reject it as false, you will, I hope, acquit me henceforth of cruelty towards him.
As I’ve briefly summarized, above, I believe I know in what manner, under what
form of falsehood, he had imposed on you and everyone else; but his success is
not perhaps to be wondered at. Ignorant as you previously were of everything
concerning either, detection could not be in your power, and suspicion
certainly not in your inclination.
For the
truth of everything here related, I can appeal more particularly to the
testimony of Jane Austen, who, by virtue of writing Pride & Prejudice, has been unavoidably acquainted with every
particular of these transactions. If your suspicion of my being a crazy
conspiracy theorist should make my assertions valueless, you
cannot be prevented by the same cause from confiding in her.
Which
brings me to my second principal point, which consists of a large irony, that I
believe Jane Austen would have recognized in all of the above, and which ---all
joking aside ----- actually goes to the heart of the alt-right’s attempted Jane
Austen coup, and why it matters even more than you’ve already suggested.
We all
know by now that the first page of the alt-right playbook contains one
sentence:
“It is
a truth universally acknowledged that when you lie, and your lie is challenged,
you will avoid political damage, if you just claim that you’re telling an “alternative
fact (or truth).”
The
left and the mainstream media so far have a pretty poor track record in defeating
that Machiavellian (or Bannonesque) strategy. But here’s the irony – I am well
aware that the alt-right’s “alternative facts” sound a lot like my claim that each
of Jane Austen’s novels, including Pride
& Prejudice, is a double story, with two independent, parallel
fictional universes. So who am I, then, to be calling them out, when I seem to
be working from the same playbook?
I
explain that crucial distinction by pointing out that I also claim that Jane
Austen was a secret radical feminist, who strove to give her mostly female
readers the experience of interpreting a love story in two different ways,
depending on point of view (i.e., reading her narration as objective,
infallible fact, or reading it as subjective, fallible opinion). In contrast, Donald
Trump et al have succeeded in confusing many of their followers, by making it
seem as if there can never be any truth at all, which opens the door wide to
emotional manipulation on a nationwide scale.
Stated
another way, Jane Austen’s didactic goal was to help her female readers learn,
by safely practicing their debunking skills reading and rereading her “romance”
novels, how to protect themselves from both the Wickhams and the Darcys of her world – because, in the end of the day, the
small piranha and the large killer whale both eat you up.
Perfect
objectivity is a goal humans can never reach, but the healthy response to that
central fact of human cognition is not nihilistic passivity. There is no
omniscient narrator perched on our shoulder in real life, so we must struggle every
day toward objectivity. By learning to recognize how our subjective pride and
prejudice distort our vision, we can avoid being persuaded by con men using
heavy handed methods of persuasion which prey on our perceptual vulnerabilities.
As a people, via that struggle, we can continue to strive toward the more
perfect union our founders dreamt of. And, for what it’s worth, I am also
convinced that Jane Austen would have cheered upon hearing Madeline Albright’s opinion
about women who don’t help other women. If you attend the next Annual General
Meeting of the Jane Austen Society of North America (JASNA) in Huntington Beach
in mid-October, I’ll be elaborating on that very theme as one of the
presenters.
I will
only add, God bless you---but perhaps more important, Jane help us all learn
how to get much better at knowing when we’re being lied to, when we’re being
turned on to a good new idea that at first seems too strange to be valid, and how
to develop the wisdom to know the difference.
The Real
Internet (aka Arnie Perlstein)
@JaneAustenCode
on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment