One theme that we tend to see constantly throughout most of the literature we analyze in this class is the criticism of politics in society. This is why it is important that we understand the context of when these different types of literature were written. The reason why I chose this connection amongst the writings as particularly interesting is because it has been a very pertinent topic in the writing of Harriet Martineau and Carlyle. They both go in depth on describing society and the political climate of the world around them. Harriet Martineau discusses the impact of the “governments power” in Society in America. I believe the idea of greed and power is touched on briefly in both writings. Carlyle in his own way and own style of writing discusses the greed of those that have wealth and power. The reoccurring issue that they feel they can do as they please without taking into account other peoples situations in the same society. Carlyle mentions a society where there is wealth all around yet there is still pain and suffering. This aligns with Martineau’s ideals in the fact that the government has so much power to correct society yet they use their power for greed.

In Eliot’s “Women in the Nineteenth Century,” Eliot addresses the idea that men do not want women to explore their own talents and aspirations because they don’t want women to be more successful than themselves; in other words, they feel threatened by strong, determined, and inspired women. Instead, men continue to suppress women in society with unfair legislation, representation and treatment on the individual level. In Carlye’s “Democracy” Carlyle takes on a condescending tone in a couple of instances that was reminiscent of the idea of a Victorian male with a superiority complex over women to me. For example, Carlyle writes about Africans in an inherently condescending way, implying that “Englishmen are so bad that even these poor Africans are better than them.” Carlyle’s tone gives a look into the psyche of a male during this time. Looking at his air of superiority here, it is clear that Victorian men don’t only assert their superiority over women but on other races and social classes. I find it interesting that while Carlyle does have many open-minded views, his inflated ego still manages to come through in his writing. This shows me that there may be a feeling of superiority that is deeply ingrained in the Victorian man, that likely largely contributes to their unjust treatment of women in society.

The excerpt from Harriet Martineau’s Society in America, “Political Nonexistence of Women,” deals with a concept established in the Declaration of Independence: consent of the governed. Specifically, Martineau makes the claim that women, by virtue of being entirely excluded from all political activity, are being controlled by a government to which they have never assented to. Ultimately, Martineau calls for a reformation of the government through suffrage and equal representation for women.

Thomas Carlyle employs the metaphor of clothing in Sartor Resartus to communicate the need for social change. Instead of focusing this argument on the basis of gender, however, Carlyle calls for action from the oppressed classes who are forced into their societal roles with little say in the matter. He urges them to reject the customary clothing that was pushed upon them and to make their own clothing. This directly relates to the issue of consent of the governed that Martineau speaks about in her piece. While there is some ambiguity in Sartor Resartus as to who has the authority to restructure, or retailor, governmental and societal institutions, Martineau maintains that women be given equal representation in political matters. This effectively tasks women with the responsibility, or perhaps rather the right, to retailor such institutions.

In Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus, there is a section under the chapter Natural Supernaturalism that tackles the topic of custom. Carlyle says, “…Custom has hoodwinked us…we do everything by custom, even Believe by it; that our very Axioms, let us boast of Free-thinking as we may, are oftenest simply such Beliefs as we have never questioned” (11). Although Carlyle goes on to talk about how people may think miracles become less miraculous by way of custom and repetition, this quote got me to think more deeply about our own customs in society.

At the time the work by Margaret Fuller and Mary Wollstonecraft was being read and discussed, women did not have the right to vote. In the excerpt from from Rights of Women by Wollstonecraft, she says, “Women have been allowed to remain in ignorance and slavish dependence many, very many years…”(10). To me, this slavish dependence she mentions is similar to the custom brought up by Carlyle in that people are set in their ways and don’t always question whats been done for many years. Fuller and Wollstonecraft are seemingly calling from a break from this custom, this treatment of women, for people to see that women should have a say in how they are governed, especially if they have to abide by the laws in place.

In both Carlye’s Sartor Resartus and Ada Lovelace’s biography, they use metaphors to express the emotions evoked by the changing society around them. In Sartor Resartus, he examines the structure of the social caste system that pervades 19th century England. He specifically looks at how the greed of the elite is damaging the overall quality of their society. In order to fix this problem, Carlyle suggests that society “change their clothes” so to speak, by altering the status quo of power in society. He did not want to simply strip away the social order, but rather re-establish a society with improved morales.  By doing this, he is effectively showing how clothes can be an expression of freedom. Carlyle is shedding the old clothes of society in favor of a new perspective. We see a similar sentiment expressed by Ada Lovelace through her love for learning. She takes advantage of her opportunity to be educated as a woman by striving to attain as much knowledge as she can. Similar to Carlyle, she feels the unique ability to express herself in a society with such rigid standards. Lovelace is also changing the clothes of society by proclaiming her love for mathematics. This was a  freedom that was not granted to all women at the time. She proudly exclaims, “I am now happier than ever in my life before. I have never been happy, even in the ordinary earthly sense of that term, until just lately…” This sense of hope is reminiscent of Carlyle’s optimism in a new social order that solves the injustices plaguing society.

Thomas Carlyle’s Past and Present and Harriet Martineau’s Society in America were written within six years of each other, and it is because of this that I find the stark contrast between their social ideologies so compelling. At its most basic, the main difference is obviously Martineau’s persistence for the equality of women and Carlyle’s disinterest in allowing for any change in the social hierarchy if it infringes upon the power that men have (in relation to women or minorities). This is blatant, and it is a consistent theme throughout this time period, as women pushing for equal rights would continue to remain prevalent through the 20th century. However, my intrigue in this comparison is due to the distinct difference in how Carlyle and Martineau strive to get their point across. Carlyle, in essence, idealizes a feudal work system where there is nobility in living a difficult life, draws from the Bible for nearly every argument he states, and overall exudes an arrogant persona. Martineau is substantially more concise in her argument, and instead of clouding her values with religious imagery, she primarily uses the Constitution and basic definitions to showcase how the United States is very contradictory in its treatment of women. An important distinction is that Martineau is looking to propel society forward, whereas Carlyle is looking to the past for guidance, often referencing values of nobility and chivalry. This is apparent towards the end of Section VII where Martineau states “The kings of Europe would have laughed mightily, two centuries ago, at the idea of a commoner, without robes, crown, or sceptre, stepping into the throne of a strong nation. Yet who dared to laugh when Washington’s super-royal voice greeted the New World from the presidential chair, and the old world stood still to catch the echo?”. Martineau is saying that at one point even the President of the United States, who is held in such high regard, was viewed as “less than” in comparison to others. Although hindsight should be noted, Carlyle’s argument seems very antiquated both in his ideals and execution compared to Martineau.

This week’s reading of Harriet Martineau’s Society in America really fascinated me as I was interested to hear about the roles of women or lack there of in society. I really like how Martineau started out by referencing the Declaration of Independence (which was written and signed by men alone) and how despite women being a part of society, they had no say in government. She also states the irony in the fact that the government has the “power to tax women who hold property; to divorce them from their husbands; to fine, imprison, and execute them for certain offenses” and yet women had no say and gave no consent in these laws being created. The government, after all, is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. 

While I was reading Society in America by Harriet Martineau I quickly made a connection to what Thomas Carlyle talks about in both Past and Present and Sartor Resartus. He talks about the many differences in society as it relates to social class and how people are treated. I think this is important because Carlyle essentially explains that a “good” government heavily relies on the people in which are being governed. The people in society have an impact on what type of government they will be governed by. In relation to Martineau’s Society in America, it’s important to realize that all people make up a society, not just men but women too. And governments are put in place to govern over all its people to the best of their ability, taking into consideration the feelings of all its citizens. It’s amazing to see how far we have come since this time and how many obstacles women had to go through in order to finally have their voices heard. 

One intersection of Carlyle and Eliot’s text I find particularly interesting is their discussion of virtue. Yet, their discussions of virtue are not linked in agreement, but rather disagreement, with Eliot’s text allowing for an expansion of how to read Carlyle’s virtue. To wit, Carlyle’s conceptualization of virtue should be read as ‘virtue to exist’ while Eliot’s conceptualization is that of ‘virtue to subsist.’ In characterizing Carlyle’s ‘virtue to exist,’ this quote from paragraph 10 serves nicely as he notes, “All human interests, combined human endeavours [sic], and social growths in this world, have…required organising: and Work, the grandest of human interests, does now require it.” This quote is in direct reference to what Carlyle’s virtuous men must do, and that is to aspire and achieve. In contrast, Eliot’s conceptualization is colored by female disenfranchisement as she notes in paragraph 16 that the prescribed virtue to women (from the overarching masculine structure of Victorian England) is one of idleness. In other terms, the masculine conceptualization of virtue for women is pure subsistence, and only off of the most dominant male figure in their lives. This dichotomy of virtue in both the male and female conceptualization is important as the masculine reading (from the Victorian elite) of virtue lends men as aspiring to be leaders, whereas the female reading of virtue designates women as followers. Indeed, this unpacking of gendered virtues shows how patriarchal Victorian England subsists as women are either complacent within the system and retaining their virtue, or cast out and placed firmly as an enemy of structural normalcy.

In Past and Present, Carlyle poses an interesting argument about the position of men in the middle of his anti lassiez-faire position. “Life was never a May-game for men: in all times the lot of the dumb millions born to toil was defaced with manifold sufferings, injustices, heavy burdens, avoidable and unavoidable; not play at all, but hard work that made the sinews sore, and the heart sore.” He says this essentially only about men. That men have never had it easy, face injustices, and it is hard work that not only molds them, but tires them. He completely leaves out women, which in a way I believe makes sense for this time period. The audience of this essay is clearly, well-educated high society men, so of course, he doesn’t include women in this narrative. But, In Margaret Fuller and Mary Wollstonecraft, a different arugment is made.

On the flip side, Margaret Fuller and Mary Wollstonecraft is about the condition of women during the 19th Century. At one point she states: “On one side we hear that woman’s position can never be improved until women themselves are better; and, on the other, that women can never become better until their position is improved – until the laws are made more just, and a wider field opened to feminine activity. But we constantly hear the same difficulty stated about the human race in general. There is a perpetual action and reaction between individuals and institutions; we must try and mend both by little and little — the only way in which human things can be mended.” She gives us the other side of the narrative during the 19th century, exposing the basic injustice against women during this time of inequality. 

Where I see a connection is in the line, “But we constantly hear about the same difficulty stated about the human race in general.” Although these texts are on two very different sides, writing about two very different things, there is a commonground of the theme of difficulty presented. Eliot starts to pose it in a way of using “human” instead of gendering the struggle, to acknowledge that there is injustice within the system that can only be mended a small bit at a time.

In George Eliot’s article called “Margaret Fuller and Mary Wollstonecraft,” she states that “There is in some quarters a vague prejudice against The Rights of Woman [by Mary Wollstonecraft] as in some way or other a reprehensible book.” This is not a surprising observation due to the severe opposition to women gaining anything even resembling more rights when Wollstonecraft’s groundbreaking essay was published in 1792. This refusal to accept anything that challenges the status quo reminds me of a sentiment expressed by John Stuart Mill in Autobiography: He states, “My course of study had led me to believe, that all mental and moral feelings and qualities, whether of a good or of a bad kind, were the results of association; that we love one thing, and hate another, take pleasure in one sort of action or contemplation, and pain in another sort, through the clinging of pleasurable or painful ideas to those things, from the effect of education or of experience.” Here, Mill really hits home on exactly why humans are so opposed to change–we as humans are so used to the things we know and have been trained–like Mill said, by either “education or experience”–to accept what we know and be fearful of any diversion from that concept. In other words, people in the 1790s rejected Wollstonecraft’s work not because it wasn’t persuasive, but because the place of women in society was rigidly defined and people could not fathom a world in which women were emancipated beyond their clearly-defined roles.