My apologies in advance for my timing of this post. It’s quite overdue but I still wanted to touch on a few things about the novel.

Emma, one of my favorite novels from this course, made me want to dig deeper about human nature when motives are tied in with the economy. When we introduce ourselves in present day we hardly ever announce our familial background, level of wealth, or how much land we hold. However, in Austen’s time, paying recognition to these factors was the standard, perhaps even mandatory, before conversing with the individual. So when Emma gathers sufficient information about Mr. Martin’s birth, nature, occupation and education before truly interacting with the tenant farmer, her superficiality underestimates his worthiness, sincerity and compatibility for Harriet. This makes her a slave to her manipulative imagination that prohibits her from engaging in matters perceptively. This becomes increasingly dangerous to those around her, for she often fails to understand the causes and effects of her thoughts once delivered through action.

Emma’s obsessive control over relationships and positional goods cripples her development in moral conviction, and in turn causes her to have a fall out with Mr. Knightley. In fact, her psychological and behavioural processes are tainted by her superiority, which acts as a device to justify her self-interested beliefs about other people. I don’t think Emma is incapable of understanding human relations in a perceptive and compassionate way, but rather it is her manipulative imagination and egocentric desires that impede her from developing empathy for those below her class and status.

I was wondering if anyone thought anything similar or different? I’d love to hear what you can add on!