The Critical Insurgency of Austen’s Suffrage Afterlife: “I hope I shall not be accused of pride and prejudice”

Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1353/tsw.2022.0004
Elizabeth Shand
{"title":"The Critical Insurgency of Austen’s Suffrage Afterlife: “I hope I shall not be accused of pride and prejudice”","authors":"Elizabeth Shand","doi":"10.1353/tsw.2022.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT:This article argues for a broader inclusion of public criticism within reception histories, using suffrage discourse on Jane Austen as a case study. It argues that although public criticism, aimed at ordinary and everyday readers, is regularly overlooked in academic discourse, its methodologies invite compelling and timely re-readings; in the case of Austen, public critics originated an unequivocally feminist reception. An examination of the debates over Austen’s femininity or feminism in suffrage periodicals from the 1910s and 1920s locates the origins of Austen’s feminist criticism in suffrage voices rather than second-wave feminist scholarship. This article presents previously undiscussed suffrage articles about Austen and responds to the question of why this history has been untouched in Austen studies. It then turns to current conversations on Austen’s raced and imperial legacy to show how contemporary writers are similarly re-reading Austen for contemporary audiences. Beyond Austen studies and suffrage history, the essay more broadly contributes to on-going discussions about how and why academics might “undiscipline” nineteenth-century studies. It shows that in order to circumvent gendered, classed, and raced barriers embedded in academic criticism, reception studies must broaden the type of sources considered within any author’s historical reception.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tsw.2022.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT:This article argues for a broader inclusion of public criticism within reception histories, using suffrage discourse on Jane Austen as a case study. It argues that although public criticism, aimed at ordinary and everyday readers, is regularly overlooked in academic discourse, its methodologies invite compelling and timely re-readings; in the case of Austen, public critics originated an unequivocally feminist reception. An examination of the debates over Austen’s femininity or feminism in suffrage periodicals from the 1910s and 1920s locates the origins of Austen’s feminist criticism in suffrage voices rather than second-wave feminist scholarship. This article presents previously undiscussed suffrage articles about Austen and responds to the question of why this history has been untouched in Austen studies. It then turns to current conversations on Austen’s raced and imperial legacy to show how contemporary writers are similarly re-reading Austen for contemporary audiences. Beyond Austen studies and suffrage history, the essay more broadly contributes to on-going discussions about how and why academics might “undiscipline” nineteenth-century studies. It shows that in order to circumvent gendered, classed, and raced barriers embedded in academic criticism, reception studies must broaden the type of sources considered within any author’s historical reception.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
奥斯汀死后选举权的批判反叛:“我希望我不会被指责傲慢和偏见”
摘要:本文以简·奥斯汀的选举权话语为个案研究,主张将公众批评更广泛地纳入接受史。它认为,尽管针对普通读者和日常读者的公共批评在学术话语中经常被忽视,但其方法论却吸引了令人信服和及时的重读;在奥斯汀的案例中,公众评论家发起了一种明确的女权主义接受。对1910年代和1920年代选举权期刊中关于奥斯汀女性气质或女权主义的争论进行研究,可以发现奥斯汀女权主义批评的起源是选举权声音,而不是第二波女权主义学术。这篇文章介绍了以前未经讨论的关于奥斯汀的选举权文章,并回答了为什么这段历史在奥斯汀研究中没有受到影响的问题。然后,它转向当前关于奥斯汀种族和帝国遗产的对话,以展示当代作家如何为当代观众重新阅读奥斯汀。除了奥斯汀研究和选举权历史之外,这篇文章更广泛地为正在进行的关于学术界如何以及为什么可能“不守纪律”的十九世纪研究的讨论做出了贡献。它表明,为了规避学术批评中的性别、分类和种族障碍,接受研究必须拓宽任何作者的历史接受范围内所考虑的来源类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1