Purity is an aspect revered by many cultures. The concept that one can be "free from contamination," "innocent in the ways of society," or "chaste" in a sexual or moral sense was highly valued by Victorian England. As the Victorian age lingered through the mid and late 19th century, the authors of the time became suspect of whether this purity actually existed. The contamination of industrialization, the ongoing imperialistic military ventures, and the lifting of the veil of middle class respectability led writers to question their own Victorian sensibilities.
Thomas Hardy was the last of a line of writers critical of the social, moral, and economic policies which defined the Victorian age. Hardy’s mostly unmentioned subtitle, A Pure Woman, raises the question of Victorian ethics. Critic, and teacher, Andrew H. Miller believes nineteenth-century literature was a “response to a crisis of human purpose” and that the Victorian age was one "destitute of faith, but terrified by skepticism.". Hardy could be seen as challenging the Victorian quest for faith of purpose and adding his own sense of skepticism. Therefore, his audience would have questioned his use of the word “pure” to describe Tess. Currently our post-modern American skepticism circumvents the challenges poses by writers critical of the Victorians. We see ourselves as an accepting, democratic people who have risen above the traditional, archaic nationalism of the past and embrace a global culture. So the debate has moved organized social movements such as Stormfront, Kau Inoa, Amnesty International, and the United Human Rights Council who have found a purpose in crisis. Is our society better than that of the Victorians? Or are we muddling through the same quagmire of philosophical dilemmas fought over a century ago?
What is your view on Miller's criticism? Post comments, share ideas, and comment on each other's views in a polite and professional manner.
I think in some ways our society is better than the Victorian Era, but we still face many similar issues today. I must say first and foremost that our views upon women and purity have certainly improved. Women have become more than mere objects meant to obey men for the most part, but there are some social behaviors that still exhibit these thoughts, but these are usually within the media and not reflective of reality. As far as purity, we have greatly moved away from this ideal. In pop culture, it is portrayed as very normal for ones spouse not to be their first, and casual encounters are almost glorified. While many members are afraid to speak up when they fall victim, sexual assault is seen for what it is, and prosecuted accordingly. There are double standards which still exist today involving these things, but they are not nearly as prevalent as they were in Victorian times. We still are a judgmental society, but we are constantly changing. I think we still see many of these issues, we are just more accepting of those who speak out or differ from the norm of society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the two big points you make. Our society as come a long way since the Victorian era in the equality aspect. Now girls are treated better in the way that they have as much right as men have. Although yes there are still the small amount of close minded people around, laws and other rules have been put in place to atleast legally allow them to have the rights. But like you pointed out being a virgin isn't a big deal like it used to be. It's more common for girls and guys to both not be when they get married. It dose't seem like a big deal to most people, but it's getting taken to another level. People act like it's a game and "hook up" with whoever they want to. I believe that that is a huge difference in era's, and the morals of people today are very different than those of the Victorian ages.
DeleteI agree with this, especially the different sexual views. Our attitude as a society toward sex has seemed to relaxed since the Victorian era. If you tell your significant other that they aren't your first, they most likely won't flip out on you and leave. It might not even come as a surprise to them, and you might not be their first either. Back in the Victorian era, if you were not a virgin (especially if you were a female), you were going to have a hard time in keeping a relationship. There would be troubles even getting into a relationship because of all the gossip and the bad reputation you would receive. The one sexual view that hasn't changed is the view on rape. It is still one of the worst things that can happen to anyone.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with your major point about how the sexual characteristics of the Victorian era have become extremely relaxed today. But I do disagree with the point that people have always believed that rape is a terrible thing. When Tess had tried to explain that she was raped people hadn't believed her and just thought that she was impure due to the fact that she was having a bastard child. They refused to believe her and neglected her because she was a woman. So not only have the sexual characteristics of the Victorian era greatly changed, but social views of women have also changed greatly along with it to a respect.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with both responses so far. I do see our modern society as somewhat of an improvement from the Victorian Era, at least on this topic. As previously mentioned, our attitude regarding sexual reputation, as well as the rights to all people have had to adjust as human behavior has evolved. Now that the concept of sex and the pedestal in which a woman is held upon has become both more common and widely speculated, we would tend to view the concept with less judgement and more compassion. I would also like to contribute the opinion that perhaps what we think we see about ourselves as a society, isn't necessarily the case. Sure, we may think we are "an accepting, democratic people who have risen above the traditional, archaic nationalism of the past and embrace a global culture" (and in some/many instances, that is the case) but we cannot exclude the reality that there are also many members of society that still have traditional beliefs and refuse to conform to the more modern ones. For instance, there are obviously members of society who still hold traditional sexual, marital, and social values/judgements. There are members of society who believe it isn't right to condone same-sex marriages or some that refuse to have sympathy for victims of rape and sexual assault. Does that make those members nonconformists and therefore not contributing representatives of today's society? It would appear as though we are just as conflicted today as we were then, given the hypocrisy still present within our own culture. Furthermore, is our conflicted society a result of causation or correlation in our history? It's possible we could either be repeating history or that the conflictions embedded within the Victorian Era have just tagged along in a constantly evolving society.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, many of the same cultural divides over social aspects of life are just as prevalent in America today as they were during the Victorian era, but societal consensus over the issues is shrinking. In my opinion, two of the most controversial social aspects to American society are the issues of gay marriage and abortion. As a nation, we are greatly divided on these issues. Many people would assume that religion plays a considerable factor in some debates, but that isn't necessarily true. In the Victorian era, a heavy focus was placed on God and the church, and fewer people had differing ideas than those who do today. The church hasn't changed their standpoint on these issues, but it is becoming more socially acceptable to disagree. In the Victorian age, you were an outlier if you disagreed with the church as Hardy did. This would have made for easy congressional debate because 90%+ would have defended the church's traditionalist views. Today, many people will still support these views, but a growing number oppose them, which leads to the controversy. Basically, I believe that many of the social "issues" of today simply weren't "issues" 200 years ago. I would have to disagree with Miller's statement that the Victorian people were "destitute of faith." In my opinion, faith is not defined by one's views over various social issues. If someone tells a lie, fails to miss a Sunday mass, or supports a friend who has feelings towards someone of the same gender, does that make you faithless? Of course not. The Victorians had faith, but they also understood that times were changing. In my opinion, disagreements over social issues cannot be measures of one's faith.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Taylor. Although society has made many improvements since the Victorian era there are still many deeply rooted issues that have yet to be resolved. Many American's beliefs are founded off those of the church. Although the laws binding man and church are far less strict they still exist. Many peoples view on purity among women are still the same. If a girl has sex with someone today and others find out they call her names. She seems to be shunned especially if the two are not in a relationship. So, as time passes many views are altered but others are left unchanged.
DeleteI strongly agree with Taylor that the issues today have changed from what they were in the Victorian age. A key difference in today's social standards is that a lot of the "consequences" are not caused by the Church. Especially in America today, there is not just one church with one set of values and expectations. In the Victorian Age there was mainly the High Church and Low Church-both man made with the Pagan religion not popular. Today when social barriers are broken there is not a united high power that makes society disprove. There are strong values common among the people but today they are much more open minded because we aren't all under a common set of moral standards, many don't follow a religion- not to say they don't have strong values. In America there are many lifestyles and much diversity, making the breaking of traditional values more acceptable than they were in the Victorian age.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn any society, there are bound to be social chasms. In the 19th century Victorian-era, the social chasms revolved around the idea of "purity" and whether it could be truly achieved by its members. This was seen in Tess, by the social condemnation of Tess's impurity. Nowadays the organized social movements revolve around the idea of hope that we have come further than the problems of the past, and can cope with the societal crises of today. In both societies, there are still vast social problems. As Taylor mentioned, two of the most controversial ones today are abortion and gay marriage. As in the Victorian era, those two topics often can speak to society's vision of one's purity. The concept of purity is prevalent in both times of society. I believe that the root of the problems of society are similar to the ones of 200 years ago, however the actual problems themselves are vastly different. Essentially, I do think that we are muddling through the same quagmire of philosophical dilemmas as 200 years ago. That being said, I disagree with Miller's statement. People in society should be and are allowed to believe in what they want to believe in. Social chasms or inequities cannot be measured by one's level of faith.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Nakia said concerning womens' rights today. They are clearly much better than they were, however there is still progress to be made. For example, rape culture still exists today (which may or may not be as intense and awful as it sounds). No, it's not a cult where people go around raping stuff; rather, it is the societal attitude towards women and their rights concerning their bodies. Take movies, and games, and advertisements as examples. The posters with women in skin tight suits displaying some booty for the sake of ticket sales: that is rape culture. That is the shameless display of "sexiness" that violates women because it is not a 50/50 exchange between men and women. Men show some skin for cologne ads, but that's about it. You don't see Iron Man pelvic thrusting the audience on the Avengers poster, however you do see Black Widow with her tight suit, prominent lady chest parts, and a zipped down top to show some cleavage. That shows some of the same negligence to the sexual rights of women that Alec showed Tess. This is what Hardy wanted to see changed and it still needs work today, so I would say that yes, we are better than the Victorians, though we could be better.
ReplyDeleteAlso, regarding Miller's comment, I would agree that Hardy's work is a "response to a crisis of human purpose", however it seems to me that it is a response to his own crisis of faith and purpose. Surely there were other people that experienced the same feelings that he did, but his work dials in on his own questioning of the purpose of life.
Is our American society better then the Victorians?; of course not. We still blindly follow what the norm is with a small minority of our population questioning that issue and criticizing it, like our own "Hardy". Those people just criticize the problem, by writing about or talking about it, but that's only a passive approach to fixing the problem. Writing about a problem wont actually change anything, in the short run, it would take decades, before your idea's about why a certain issue is wrong, before anything would change; that's assuming people care enough to read about your view and understand it enough to spread that idea around. In class, we talked about how a lot of Hardy's criticisms are subtle in Tess, they don't jump out at you and say "this is wrong" and "you fix it like this". I don't know how the average intelligence levels compare between the Victorian's and the American's, but unless you blatantly say what's wrong with our society, no one will see your point. I had no idea that Hardy was criticizing his society until we talked about it. There's also the fact that most writers wont be as famous as Hardy in our time as he was during that time; there's just an abundance of great writers, or soon to be great, that most of their work will sadly go unnoticed. I agree with Taylor and Eamon that the issues facing our time is vastly different from the issues of the Victorian time but the way we handle those problems are the same. Just because everything looks different now, from our fancy new technology, doesn't mean anything has changed or that we're any better.
ReplyDeleteWould you say that we are still the same sheep that are following the old herder through this point in time?
DeleteI agree with both Nakia and Erikka in the concept of what "purity" can mean. Purity has so many definitions throughout the years that it is an instantaneous word. In short, the definition of purity has changed in society from the victorian era, but woman in modern American culture are still turned away because they are found to be "unpure" weather by rape or forms of prostitution or cheating. In current day unpure is no longer never having sex, but having too much, being to frivolous of it, or having emotional distress result from it. There is really no way a woman can win in modern society, emotionally, socially, or economically, referring to beauty pageants, the glass ceiling, and the fact that "on her period" has become an acceptable reasoning for acting badly. Over all, we are no better than the victorian society, and the only change is that woman no longer care about "saving face" and men have adapted to judging them even harder for it, although they take it out on woman different ways in today society.
ReplyDeleteI'm rather torn on this issue in its entirety. I suppose the simplest way for me to break this down (and pardon me for using my writing to come to my own conclusions much like Hardy) would be to simply analyze the question. Is post-modern, chaotic American society an improvement from that of Victorian society? Just as Taylor and Eamon said, a social chasm will always exist where ideas differ greatly. In the 19th and early 20th century, English Victorian society revolved around different conventions and found a focus of "purity", especially in women. Whether a women was sexually "pure" or not or whether a person was righteous in the eye's of God was of great importance to the heart of society. And strangely enough the heart of society during this era was the religious (Protestant) male. Godly men had control. I'd like to make the argument like others, that society may have slightly improved, but not to the point where we can critique the visceral and societal differences. The focus has shifted, but I see no improvement. The concept of Victorian purity, especially the purity of women, was highly exemplified through Hardy's Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Tess, a victim of poor circumstances and also the victim of rape (forced seduction as Victorians would see it) was socially condemned by those around her and even lost the love of her life due to her "impurity". When Tess lost her virginity without choice, society began to scrape away at her. She was viewed as different simply by something beyond her control; fate maybe. But, my overall point is, society and those who conformed to the Victorian ideal of purity, exiled and ostracized those who went beyond the pale and didn't conform to the norms. Sure, purity isn't the debated norm anymore but, norms certainly are beginning to differ. The debate in Victorian society was the role of women. Women's role in society is currently growing, but isn't perfect. That much growth and difference we can notice. The things we have overlooked is the fact that the society has shifted. People are still ignorant to those who don't conform to what society has dictated is normal. A great example would be as Taylor said, the concept of gay marriage and the heated debated over it. Those who don't believe the way society says they have to believe are ostracized and treated as unequal. I'd like to argue that this change in focus from Victorian society to modern society is probably one which society was totally unaware of. We think we're aware of the growth, when in actuality, we're clueless. I mean, social equality is growing right? Women have growing equity, nontraditional marriages are becoming more and more socially acceptable, etc. But, do we know why? Someone, somewhere decided that all these things were important to society and everyone conformed to that ideal as well. All society is, is a conformation to what a group-think decides is best. Most people have no idea now, just as most people had no idea in Victorian society. Which is why I think although society may have become more accepting of differences, people still are unsure of why. And that lack of knowledge as to why we think the way we think: why Victorian's thought women should be pure: and why we think everyone should be equal now: is all simply based upon the opinion of a select few who decide that whatever they want is best for everyone. So yes, society has improved. People are beginning to think for themselves. But we still are dilly-dallying in the quagmires of philosophical dilemmas as the Victorians were. The dilemmas are different, but we still have no idea why they are socially accepted.
ReplyDeleteOur country was built upon strong Christian values, such as the sanctity of marriage and the whole concept of purity. These concepts still are a strong part of society, however, Tess was published in 1891, over 100 years ago. In that time, the American population has changed quite a lot. There have been immigrants with different religions and values. Also, although there are still Christians with extremely conservative values, there are many people who believe in God but differ in their societal beliefs from the Victorian Christians. For example, many people who believe in God and go to church every Sunday have pre-marital sex. The values have changed over time because the religion of the masses has veered more to modern society and away from tradition. We've obviously come a long way- like Erikka said, it's not likely that a woman would be broken up with for not being a virgin. However, we do still have a long way to go in the way of preventing rape. Rape culture that Kraig brought up is very prevalent, but it can be even worse than the media examples given. One example is the Steubenville Rape Trial, a case where a teenage girl was raped by a football team at a party. Since the boys were popular, athletic and seen as having bright futures, the case made national news. After the boys were sentenced, the CNN coverage focused on the effects on the two boys who raped her. The announcers used the words "promising futures" and "star football players, very good students" in describing the guys. This is so wrong because the football players obviously had it coming to them, the fact that they were good students does not excuse the fact that they raped somebody. The victim is going to be much more psychologically traumatized. Things like this show what a long way we have to go in overcoming these issues. If we live in a culture where a girl can be blamed for her own rape simply because of her clothing or alcohol consumption, we're not much better than the villagers in 1890 who ostracized Tess for her rape. Yes, we have improved a little, but we as a society are nowhere near there yet.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you Saorla! We aren't even close to being different from the Victorian's in the rape situation. Even today people can get raped because they look "hot" in the clothes they wear. I like the fact that you added the story about the football team raping the girl really made your point. I remember when that story happened and everyone was worried for the boys' future, but what about that poor girl who has to go through years of therapy. I also agree with the fact that even though we have improved a little we are nowhere near where we should be at this point in history. I believe we should be further than the Victorians in every way because it was so long ago, but apparently that wasn't meant to be.
DeleteI agree with pretty much everyone who has commented so far. We've pretty much come to the same conclusion that while our society has changed quite a lot, we are still dealing with some large issues, some of them involving similar issues of the Victorian era. Taylor and Saorla's examples really stood out to me. Obviously gay marriage and abortion are big issues in society today, but weren't even imaginable in the Victorian age. But we are making improvements. Women are considered almost equal to men in the United States. Everyone can vote, apply for the same jobs, etc. There's still unequal pay and what Kraig mentioned about women's sexuality being overly portayed, but eventually we'll figure that out too. Saorla brought up the rape case with the "great students and football players." This happens in many cases; the rapists are almost excused for their actions because they were considered good citizens. At some point our society should figure out all these issues. Looking back 100 years we can't even imagine people of different races not being equal. Hopefully we'll continue on that path so 100 years from now we'll be even more developed socially. We're not muddling through the same dilemmas of the Victorian age, we solved those and developed new ones. But I'd say we are a bit better off as society because we have more equality than the Victorians.
ReplyDeleteHow can we measure whether or not the Victorians were 'better' or 'worse' than our post-modernist western society, when both are plagued by the same quandaries that promote irresponsible views on the way that people 'should' interact with one another? Society is always critical of the effects of the problems, but never really identifies the actual causes of our dysfunctionality.
ReplyDeleteFor example, "Why are women treated unequally?" Logically speaking the only reason that they could be treated unequally is because of men, since it wouldn't make since for women to just up and decide that they should take away their rights and their pay. But rather than getting fixated on how men are a bunch of big mean stupid uglies, perhaps it would be more productive to look at the reason why men don't treat women fairly. And a lot of it has to do with characteristics, and not the characteristics that people were born with, but rather the ones that they develop when society decides that we should take every baby boy, and within 10 seconds of their birth, conceptualize their lives with intense physical pain. And again later when they are of few years of age, when society deems it necessary that we should teach them misguided ideas about what being a 'man' is, teaching them to be physically tough without comprehension of emotions except anger, raising them to be disposable & inhumane, rather than forging them into loving and compassionate human beings who take care of their own and care for others. It doesn't help that after implanting these images in their minds, that we then dump them in preschool were they are for the first time in their lives in a social gathering of people of their same age, quickly learning from observation that there is no reason to apply yourself because you will always make less mistakes than the children around you, promoting narcissistic ideas into the children who will one day form the backbone of society. Then, wondering 'why' that when the stereotypicaly kind and gentle female meets the stereotypicaly - and pardon my language, ''ass hat who gives no shits about nobody'' male, that the females end up getting taken advantage of. Which is terrible for society, because nature always strives to produce the most perfect of things, and since men & women are produced in equal ratio. Both by nature must be imperfected, and only are we perfected when we are brought together.
If the state of affairs in both Victorian and post-modern society is to take away the rights of women, simply just because they are women, than you can't really distinguish which one is better than the other, because they are both essentially 'shit'. Sure, post-modernism may seem like shinier 'shit' than Victorian society, but the fundamental problems behind the reasons why we aren't equal haven't been resolved, so you can't expect the shinier poop to not smell as bad, simply because it looks more attractive.
I love you so much Cole. Nevertheless, is there a way to bring up a child that is 100% neutral to the facts of what men/should be? How can you tech them that there is no difference? Call me what you will but there is a reason we stereo type because a majority of the time it happens to be true. Don't get me wrong women can do anything, yet how can you raise a observational child that women can do anything? I'm just up late pondering this.
DeleteOur society compared to the Victorian society is very different and is challenging to compare. Agreeing with many of the comments above, we have evolved as a society positively in some aspects. Women have gained many rights. However in the workforce women still receive seventy-seven cents for every dollar a man makes and the "glass ceiling" is still relevant. One may even argue that when President Obama would try appealing to the audience constantly by addressing women as "our wives, sisters and daughters" shows that women need to be labeled as someone's in order to really grab people's attention rather than having individual ownership for ourselves. But there are men’s rights that have been created such as child custody favoring the mother, still needing to “man up”, and rape cases. Double standards have grown strong in our society. Miley Cyrus is harassed for being nude in her music video while Robin Thicke and other popular men artists feature naked girls dancing around and nothing is said to them. We are being brainwashed by the pop culture rather than focusing on important issues of the world. We’ve grown accustomed to constant political disagreements. I believe as a society our values have decreased but our high standards towards people still maintain high. So are we better than the Victorian era? In certain ways yes but as a society we have created new situations and problems.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Abby. In many ways, women's rights have advanced since the Victorian Era. For example, feminism exists now. Yay! But, again, as Abby said before, we still have our own problems. Problems that have stemmed from aspects of our society that we have made from our so-called "culture". Specifically, pop culture has begun to de-humanize women (see: Blurred Lines) by sexually objectifying them. This is the complete opposite of Victorian Culture. In the Victorian Era, women were objectified as being child-bearers; if there was even a hint of sexuality surrounding them, they were deemed 'impure' and shunned. Hence why critics of Tess reacted so harshly. By saying that Tess was "a pure woman", the public assumed he meant that she was not sexually active/had nothing to do with the mere thought of sex. In reality, Hardy assumedly meant that Tess was a woman of pure thought. It wasn't her fault that she got raped (our society is very quick to blame the victim). But, as she was associated in a sex act, she was considered impure, and thus started the criticizing of Tess, and of Hardy. Where as our society today is all about the sexualization of women. Yet, we still represent the Victorian society. It's a double-edged sword. In conclusion, I'd say we've made some changes as a society, but we still have the same beliefs as those of the Victorian Era, yet some are from the exact opposite end of the spectrum.
DeleteFrom the time that Hardy was alive, there has been little progress. The advancing of technology has occurred and has become the new cold war of the century. Very little has changed, women can vote, join parts of the military, choose their lovers (which we can see what that does in Hard´s books), and work for a similar pay as men. Just because of these slight changes, there is still hardly any change from the Victorian age and now. The problems are the same but caused by newer things, such as computers. Women still are lower than an average male, even if we would like to believe otherwise. If Hardy was alive, he would have made a tv show on HBO about his books (something that could not compare to Game of Thrones). In the more modern age, we have become self limiting to what we hear and see. Weddings are still based upon wealth and greed. Lust can be said to be higher than ever, and we lived in a more polished Victorian era.
ReplyDeleteIs Victoria society better then post-modern america? My answer is kinda. Not because of the women issue that we beat to death already. We mostly suck because we are superficial. After I write this I go back to a mind set that isn't the healthiest that of a 4 year old has. The "mine" mindset or"my" mindset. In my house on my computer working my grades caring about how to fix my car worrying that my brain is the dumbest in class. How myself works. You think after we see a "my" system fail over and over again, we would get it. We all could be the best thing in the damn universe but we fight because, you to "my" toy, you took "my" land. If one person suffers we all suffer, no matter how you look at it. The reason I'm up at 12:30 is to not end up like a bum,because we don't give to damns about real homeless people. This shows we haven't moved on from pass mindset that ruined Victorian and Roman culture. Right now in Congress we are fighting because we don't care for the better good it's all about "my way" Getting nothing done at all. Yet, does selfishness make us better or worse? The only thing that makes it really bad is that we know we are selfish. I'm giving benefit of doubt to Victorians that they just wanted to be free and live the dream. The utopia hope no one would be in pain, yet now we have the true possibility for a close utopia but everyone's to busy worrying about themselves to do it. To help humanity, That's why we aren't better.
ReplyDeleteI think that society as a whole has come a long way, but quite possibly way past the point that's just right on the spectrum of women's rights. In the Victorian Era, if women were caught doing anything that could be even remotely sexual they were cast out because of their impurity. Today, women are over-sexualized in everything; commercials, ads, movies, magazines, you name it. We completely passed the point where women are allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies and are not over-sexualized or cast out for having any scrape of sexuality.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure which is worse so I don't know if today's society is better than or worse than Victorian society. Obviously we've made some drastic changes, those of which oppose Victorian values, but they still have the same effect that Victorian values did. So therefore, isn't society today a lot like Victorian society but with different circumstances?