What Would Elizabeth Bennet Do?
An article in the journal Evolutionary Psychology claims that classic 19th century novels such as Pride and Prejudice (though the title of the paper refers to all of these novels as “Victorian”) help shape the reader’s view of how society should work. From the abstract (PDF):
Novels therefore apparently enable readers to participate vicariously in an egalitarian social dynamic like that found in hunter-gatherer societies.
In other words, asking ourselves What Would Elizabeth Bennet Do? (or insert the name of your favorite protagonist there) allows us to understand how to behave in our society; a conclusion that seems obvious, but we kind of wish more people would ask themselves What Would Lizzy Do? (Or better yet: What Would Jane Austen Do? and really take it seriously.)
The researchers used an online survey that listed 435 characters from 201 novels. A very quick scan of the paper reveals that these characters included (at least) Augusta Elton and Elizabeth Bennet. Oh, boy, would we love to see the raw data from that survey! 
It’s very dense and academic, but the findings are broken down a bit in New Scientist and the Guardian. In the Telegraph, Jojo Moyes shows the possible drawbacks of this literary approach to life.
Among their subjects, Elizabeth Bennett in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, for example, scored highly on “conscientiousness and nurturing”, while Bram Stoker’s Count Dracula scored highly on “status-seeking and social dominance” (not to mention “good dental hygiene”, presumably). Dr Joseph Carroll, whose work is published in the New Scientist, believes such novels have the same effect as tales told around the campfire in older societies: “They have a function that continues to contribute to the quality and structure of group life.”
Well, I can see how behaving like Lizzie Bennett might not be a bad thing. Especially if it bagged you a stately home and a wet-shirted love god in the process. But if former generations really did take their subconscious cues from such books, you’ve got to hope that they were selective. What would reading Thomas Hardy tell us after all, except of the essential futility of being human – or indeed of doing almost anything other than dig turnips, accept your humble lot, become ostracised, and die?
If “bagging a stately home and a wet-shirted love god” is all one takes away from Pride and Prejudice, then we despair, we really do.
Comments are closed.
Er. Maybe it should be something more like: bagged you a stately home and a wet-shirted love god and a clever, intensely loyal philanthropist. Less interesting, I suppose, and not exactly in line with the film versions. Hmph! (*waves Team Darcy flag*)
Someday, I hope that “Darcy” will never occur in the same sentence as “wet,” “transform” or “Heathcliff.” Unless the phrase “and now for something completely different” shows up between them.
I have to admit to also being slightly perplexed by Elizabeth the SuperNurturer. She’s conscientious and then some, but nurturing? A bit too sharp and hard (and sparkly!) for that.
The original thesis is rather interesting, however – though I’d probably go with ‘what would Anne Elliot do?’ Or Mr Knightley, at a pinch.
Someday, I hope that “Darcy” will never occur in the same sentence as “wet,” “transform” or “Heathcliff.” Unless the phrase “and now for something completely different” shows up between them.
*polite golf claps*
From a staunch member of Team Tilney, well-said, madam.
?! Why did they dig up such a minor character as Augusta Elton?
They wanted to measure responses to antagonists as well as protagonists.
Sudden thought: was Mansfield Park included, and did it skew the results? Hmm. *evil grin*
While asking “What would Jane Austen do?” would surely yield the most sensible advice, asking “What would Emma do?” would certainly lead to some interesting mischief
I also questioned the “nurturing” label for Lizzy Bennet at first. She did, however, visit Netherfield to check on Jane- and stayed to nurse her. She appeals to her father to refuse Lydia’s trip to Brighton and to curb Lydia’s flirtatious behavior. Lizzy cuts short her own vacation to give support to the Bennets when Lydia “elopes”.
These are all gestures that reflect a nurturing person. Someone in a family had to nurture. Not Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Bennet nor even Jane take the role- so I guess it falls to Lizzy.
baja janeite, I totally agree with you. Mrs. Bennet didn’t act so much like a mother (not at all, actually), so Lizzy had to be nurturing, for the sake of her family.
Well, Mary was doing her best to nurture their souls! In her own mind, she was probably taking care of everyone the best she knew how… and patting herself on the back whenever she did.
Hm – sorry, but I’m not convinced. Those actions, in my opinion, reflect a loyal and sensible person who steps up to the plate in a crisis. But nurturing isn’t about dealing with emergencies, surely? From what we see of Elizabeth’s daily life, she hardly interacts with her younger siblings when she can avoid it – and at least part of the reason they turned out so badly is because, while someone in the family ought to have nurtured them, it doesn’t mean that anybody did.
(It’s not remotely Elizabeth’s fault, however – nurturing sisters only three and five years younger than herself is hardly her responsibility – those someones are her parents; but her agonies of humiliation are a far cry from, say, Fanny’s efforts with her sister Susan, or Emma’s constant support and care of her father.)
“What would reading Thomas Hardy tell us after all, except of the essential futility of being human – or indeed of doing almost anything other than dig turnips, accept your humble lot, become ostracised, and die?”
That’s a pretty good point, though.
I wonder if the authors mean the same thing we are thinking with the term “nurturing.” I tried to skim the article to see if I could find out, but it looks like I have to take more time to read it. Since Elizabeth was a dominant figure in her family, maybe her affiliative behavior fell into the category of nurturing, as baja Janeite and Elaine Dashwood described.