消费中国:简·奥斯汀《曼斯菲尔德庄园》中的帝国贸易与全球交流

IF 0.1 3区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM LIT-Literature Interpretation Theory Pub Date : 2019-07-03 DOI:10.1080/10436928.2019.1619129
Pamela Buck
{"title":"消费中国:简·奥斯汀《曼斯菲尔德庄园》中的帝国贸易与全球交流","authors":"Pamela Buck","doi":"10.1080/10436928.2019.1619129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to postcolonial critics, Jane Austen’s 1814 novel Mansfield Park is an imperial text. In Culture and Imperialism; Edward Said contends that it is complicit with Britain’s colonial enterprise, and through its references to the slave trade in the West Indies and similar exploitation at home, it reflects what he calls a “domestic imperial culture” (93). While feminist scholars, such as Susan Fraiman and Ruth Perry, claim the novel condemns imperialism more than Said acknowledges, recent critics continue to read it in this fashion; for instance, Jon Mee claims that it embraces a nationalistic vision of England, while Saree Makdisi aligns it with Britain’s expanding imperial ventures abroad. However, the current critical conversation does not adequately address Austen’s allusions to China, a colonial context that is as important as the Caribbean trade for understanding the novel. British diplomacy and commerce with China in the early nineteenth century constituted an informal empire, yet one that allowed for and encouraged exchange (Chang 9). As Peter Kitson explains in Forging Romantic China, relations between the two countries were “governed by global flows of trade and existing networks of collaboration” (2). He contends that this interplay of trade and exchange necessarily complicates “any simple and straightforward binaries between colonial self and colonized others” (Kitson 16). China’s cultural prestige had long grounded a strong consumer demand for Asian products in the West, which in turn challenged Britain’s imperial views of the country and compelled it to recognize China’s economic and political strength (Kitson 17). As Britain constructed its national identity through its encounters with the East, it came to see itself as part of a larger global network (Kitson 2–3). Building on Kitson’s model, I argue that Austen employs the China trade to provide critical commentary on a British class system rooted in imperialism. In Mansfield Park, she presents a domestic story of trade and cultural exchange that serves as an allegory of Britain’s relations with the East. Adopted as a child into the household of her wealthy uncle, Sir Thomas Bertram, Fanny Price grows up an outsider amongst her upper-class relatives at their country estate of Mansfield Park. Austen satirizes the Bertrams’","PeriodicalId":42717,"journal":{"name":"LIT-Literature Interpretation Theory","volume":"30 1","pages":"211 - 229"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10436928.2019.1619129","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consuming China: Imperial Trade and Global Exchange in Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park\",\"authors\":\"Pamela Buck\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10436928.2019.1619129\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"According to postcolonial critics, Jane Austen’s 1814 novel Mansfield Park is an imperial text. In Culture and Imperialism; Edward Said contends that it is complicit with Britain’s colonial enterprise, and through its references to the slave trade in the West Indies and similar exploitation at home, it reflects what he calls a “domestic imperial culture” (93). While feminist scholars, such as Susan Fraiman and Ruth Perry, claim the novel condemns imperialism more than Said acknowledges, recent critics continue to read it in this fashion; for instance, Jon Mee claims that it embraces a nationalistic vision of England, while Saree Makdisi aligns it with Britain’s expanding imperial ventures abroad. However, the current critical conversation does not adequately address Austen’s allusions to China, a colonial context that is as important as the Caribbean trade for understanding the novel. British diplomacy and commerce with China in the early nineteenth century constituted an informal empire, yet one that allowed for and encouraged exchange (Chang 9). As Peter Kitson explains in Forging Romantic China, relations between the two countries were “governed by global flows of trade and existing networks of collaboration” (2). He contends that this interplay of trade and exchange necessarily complicates “any simple and straightforward binaries between colonial self and colonized others” (Kitson 16). China’s cultural prestige had long grounded a strong consumer demand for Asian products in the West, which in turn challenged Britain’s imperial views of the country and compelled it to recognize China’s economic and political strength (Kitson 17). As Britain constructed its national identity through its encounters with the East, it came to see itself as part of a larger global network (Kitson 2–3). Building on Kitson’s model, I argue that Austen employs the China trade to provide critical commentary on a British class system rooted in imperialism. In Mansfield Park, she presents a domestic story of trade and cultural exchange that serves as an allegory of Britain’s relations with the East. Adopted as a child into the household of her wealthy uncle, Sir Thomas Bertram, Fanny Price grows up an outsider amongst her upper-class relatives at their country estate of Mansfield Park. Austen satirizes the Bertrams’\",\"PeriodicalId\":42717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LIT-Literature Interpretation Theory\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"211 - 229\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10436928.2019.1619129\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LIT-Literature Interpretation Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10436928.2019.1619129\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LIT-Literature Interpretation Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10436928.2019.1619129","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

根据后殖民主义评论家的说法,简·奥斯汀1814年的小说《曼斯菲尔德庄园》是一部帝国文本。《文化与帝国主义》;爱德华·赛义德(Edward Said)认为,它与英国的殖民事业沆瀣一气,通过对西印度群岛奴隶贸易和国内类似剥削的提及,它反映了他所谓的“国内帝国文化”(93)。虽然女权主义学者,如苏珊·弗雷曼和露丝·佩里,声称这部小说谴责帝国主义比赛义德承认的更多,但最近的评论家继续以这种方式阅读它;例如,乔恩·梅(Jon Mee)声称它包含了英格兰的民族主义愿景,而萨丽·马克迪西(Saree Makdisi)则将其与英国在海外扩张的帝国冒险联系在一起。然而,目前评论界的讨论并没有充分讨论奥斯丁对中国的暗示,而在理解这部小说时,中国的殖民背景与加勒比贸易一样重要。19世纪初,英国与中国的外交和贸易构成了一个非正式的帝国,但它允许并鼓励交流(章9)。两国之间的关系“受全球贸易流动和现有合作网络的支配”(2)。他认为,贸易和交换的这种相互作用必然使“殖民地自身和被殖民地他人之间任何简单而直接的二元对立”变得复杂(Kitson 16)。中国的文化声望长期以来在西方建立了对亚洲产品的强烈消费需求,这反过来挑战了英国对中国的帝国主义观点,并迫使它承认中国的经济和政治实力(Kitson 17)。随着英国通过与东方的接触构建其国家认同,它开始将自己视为一个更大的全球网络的一部分(Kitson 2-3)。在基特森模式的基础上,我认为奥斯汀利用中国贸易对植根于帝国主义的英国阶级制度进行了批判性的评论。在《曼斯菲尔德庄园》中,她讲述了一个关于贸易和文化交流的国内故事,作为英国与东方关系的寓言。范妮·普莱斯小时候被她富有的叔叔托马斯·伯特伦爵士收养,在曼斯菲尔德庄园的上流社会亲戚中长大,成为一个局外人。奥斯丁讽刺伯特伦夫妇
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Consuming China: Imperial Trade and Global Exchange in Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park
According to postcolonial critics, Jane Austen’s 1814 novel Mansfield Park is an imperial text. In Culture and Imperialism; Edward Said contends that it is complicit with Britain’s colonial enterprise, and through its references to the slave trade in the West Indies and similar exploitation at home, it reflects what he calls a “domestic imperial culture” (93). While feminist scholars, such as Susan Fraiman and Ruth Perry, claim the novel condemns imperialism more than Said acknowledges, recent critics continue to read it in this fashion; for instance, Jon Mee claims that it embraces a nationalistic vision of England, while Saree Makdisi aligns it with Britain’s expanding imperial ventures abroad. However, the current critical conversation does not adequately address Austen’s allusions to China, a colonial context that is as important as the Caribbean trade for understanding the novel. British diplomacy and commerce with China in the early nineteenth century constituted an informal empire, yet one that allowed for and encouraged exchange (Chang 9). As Peter Kitson explains in Forging Romantic China, relations between the two countries were “governed by global flows of trade and existing networks of collaboration” (2). He contends that this interplay of trade and exchange necessarily complicates “any simple and straightforward binaries between colonial self and colonized others” (Kitson 16). China’s cultural prestige had long grounded a strong consumer demand for Asian products in the West, which in turn challenged Britain’s imperial views of the country and compelled it to recognize China’s economic and political strength (Kitson 17). As Britain constructed its national identity through its encounters with the East, it came to see itself as part of a larger global network (Kitson 2–3). Building on Kitson’s model, I argue that Austen employs the China trade to provide critical commentary on a British class system rooted in imperialism. In Mansfield Park, she presents a domestic story of trade and cultural exchange that serves as an allegory of Britain’s relations with the East. Adopted as a child into the household of her wealthy uncle, Sir Thomas Bertram, Fanny Price grows up an outsider amongst her upper-class relatives at their country estate of Mansfield Park. Austen satirizes the Bertrams’
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
LIT-Literature Interpretation Theory
LIT-Literature Interpretation Theory LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Alex as the Product, Producer, and Consumer of Art in the Dilapidated State, in Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange Friendship and Art in Valerie Martin’s I Give It to You Reading As Conversation with the Overarching Blended Author (Or Roberto Bolaño): Joint Attention, Immersion, and Interaction The Objects of Jane Gardam The Book, Meaning, and Densities of Essential Forms in J.M. Coetzee’s Foe
×
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