marriage as a social contract in Pride and Prejudice

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife”. With these famous words, Jane Austen launched into what has come to be regarded by many as the greatest romance novel of all time. Written in late 1790’s England, in a time of radical social upheaval and political change, ‘Pride and Prejudice’ presents a mixed bag of social ideas relating to marriage, the meaning of femininity, love and the fluidity of class structure. The time of writing put ‘Pride and Prejudice’ in the middle of a fictional war of ideas between female writers of the time, arriving as it does at a sort of middle ground between the feminist views of Mary Wollstonecraft and the more rural traditionalist views of Hannah More (Jones, V., ‘Introduction to “Pride and Prejudice”’, (1996) London: Penguin). This lead to much confusion among critics as to exactly what Austen’s views regarding marriage and feminism were, and in many cases continues to do so today. In this essay I will attempt to clear up some of this ambiguity, while closely examining the idea of marriage itself, the nature of the ‘socia

When we say then that marriage in Jane Austen’s ‘Pride And Prejudice’ can be viewed as being a kind of social contract, we mean in so far as it enabled the women of the time to amass fortune and social respect, and allowed their men to protect the ruling culture which was threatened at this time by outside political influences. Marriage was a mutually beneficial agreement between the man and the woman – in exchange for the woman’s inheritance (if any), body, and the social respectability and support of the rural traditions that possession of an ‘accomplished’ wife offered, the man gave financial support and social status. This leads to charges of marriage being akin to “legal prostitution” (Wollstonecraft, Mary: A Vindication of The Rights of Woman) – women were seen by some as selling their bodies for societal betterment. Mr. Darcy is naturally the object of the mercenary desires of the women of Pemberley, as he is rumoured to be in receipt of a fortune of ten thousand pounds a year – it has been said by some commentators that Elizabeth Bennet merely falls prey to these mercenary desires, and engages in a marriage as a social contract, using romantic love as an excuse, not a reason, for unity with Darcy. I must disagree – I feel this argument has a critical flaw, in so far as Elizabeth not only turns down Darcy at his first proposal, while being fully aware of his riches (although perhaps not yet confronted with all the glory of Pemberley), but also refuses the advances of the well-off, yet exceedingly boring, Mr. Collins. If Elizabeth Bennet were purely mercenary in her designs, why then would she turn down two apparently suitable matches in an attempt to hold out for her goal of personal happiness?

Some topics in this essay:
Elizabeth Bennet, Jane Bennet, Jane Austen’s, Enlightenment England, Jane Austen, Bennet Austen’s, Ms Lucas, Bennet’s Wollstonecraftian, London Penguin, Jane Elizabeth, ‘pride prejudice’, social contract, elizabeth bennet, marriage social, marriage social contract, view marriage, rural traditionalist, effectively disinherited fine, ‘the sadeian, 1790’s england, mercenary desires, sadeian woman’, fine print father’s, ‘the sadeian woman’, writing ‘pride prejudice’,