crosspost: Elizabeth, Darcy, and individuality vs society

[anghraine]

I was writing about this for a seminar paper during my MA (Jan 2015), and burst into this ramble as I tried to put my thoughts into words. 

Elizabeth is typically seen as individualist in contrast to Darcy’s conventionality, but in fact she places an enormous value on adherence to social conventions. Pretty much all her errors come down to valuing those forms over substance, to the point that she completely fails to register people as individuals rather than representatives of a type or a class. 

She doesn’t really think of the particulars of people’s circumstances and personalities but of them as social figures. “My friend” and “amoral asshole aristocrat” and “sweet gentleman”, not “Charlotte” and “Darcy” and “Bingley.” Because she doesn’t understand them as people rather than predictable social types, they inevitably ‘break character’ in her perception. At the same time, her value for people in the abstract above and beyond individuals makes her courteous, considerate of those she dislikes for the sake of the group, and respectful to anyone who remotely deserves it.

On the opposite side, while Darcy has internalized certain conventions, when challenged, he readily reconsiders them and discards them if necessary. His real problem is that he’s antisocial. Not in the sociopath sense, but in the sense that he’s willfully out of sync with society. He refuses to play his social role because of extremely individualistic reasons. 

It’s all “but I don’t want to” and “these people are super obnoxious” and “strangers make me uncomfortable” and “who the fuck cares”. Where he does fulfill social obligations, it’s not out of adherence to norms but a deeply personal conscientiousness. He insists to the end that he acts on his observations and his beliefs and his conscience. Persuasion works on him, but not social pressure.

This is basically what he and Elizabeth argue about at Netherfield, actually. She argues that people should indulge their friends’ whims because that’s what friends do; you shouldn’t have to be argued into it. Darcy argues that everything depends on the particulars of the case—what whim are we talking about? how close are the friends? what are the reasons to do it (or not)?

(End result: neither is selfless, but Elizabeth is much more so. Neither has perfect judgment, but Darcy’s is much better.)

I’M TRYING TO THINK OF A TITLE THAT CONVEYS THIS ;AFJDK