COLONY IN MANSFIELD PARK- Exploring the silence of Antigua

“ the Bertram’s could not have been possible without the slave trade, sugar and the colonial planter class” (Edward Said)

It is true that the imperialist theme is central to the whole setup that is Mansfield Park; Sir Thomas’s landholding’s in Antigua made productive by slaves, finances the extravagant lifestyle of the Bertram’s. However, as much as the Antiguan colony is what I call THE RUNNING ENGINE OF MANSFIELD and as much as Said emphasizes it as the “sustaining force”, he is irked by Austen’s lacking attention to the colony except for its few “casual references” and “reticent appearances”.  Even to me Lady Bertram’s connection to the colony  limited to “ I may have a shawl. I think I will have two shawls” or Sir Thomas’s “dead silence” upon Fanny’s question of slave trade in Antigua was disturbing. But Said’s frustration boils to an extent that from criticizing Austen as “only vaguely aware” he makes a more charged up remark :“…everything we know about Austen is at odds with the cruelty of slavery.” Well sorry Mr. Said but I beg to differ!

 Austen is not acting neutral towards Antigua by not rebelling against the colonial order of subjugation of the “other”, “There is meaning  in the silent, “uninflected, unreflective citations of Antigua”  which Said is CONFUSED about. Earlier on he acknowledges Antigua as a “usable colony”. This reflects the subject -object relationship at play between Sir Thomas and Antiguan people, which when expanded, creates master/slave, victim/victimizer and Self/Other dichotomies that penetrate from the outside (Antigua) into the inner domestic sphere of Mansfield - Fanny is viewed as a “transported commodity”.  Antigua is all about land’s utility. In projecting the colonizers gaze it MUST ONLY be mentioned in relation to “the poor returns” and “a large part of his income was unsettled,". This does not mean Austen is assuming the importance of Antigua to the situation at home.” The utilitarian approach of Sir Thomas materially links  Mansfield to Antigua, commodifies it, de-individuates its people, and strips it of its history. She show exactly that.

When such is the colonizer’s gaze, then what did Said expect from Austen? To give Sir Thomas extra lines that would elicit compassion for the slaves ?  Or show a change of heart that would shatter his authorial control?  Well, NO. The subjugation of the colony maintains the CONTINUITY of and order in Mansfield. One shouldn’t expect accountability or humanity from a character grafted in colonial worldview.  Said’s statement about Austen’s indifference to the slave condition  is an irrational attack  that undermines her mastery employed  in the silence of Antigua. As a literary device it speaks of the colonizers unconcern,  his selfish relation to the land, objectification of people and the silent stories of the slaves that would loose effect if verbally expressed. It evokes the inadequacy of language to portray the subjective experience: "... there is simply no  no common language for both" says Fanny. Perhaps, it is  in  “dead silence” that the unknown (Antigua) can be known.  So much for Said’s “contrapuntal reading” !