Abstract
This thesis delves deeper into an analysis of Jane Austen’s novel Mansfield Park (1814) and its relevance within the abolitionist discourse. Following Edward Said’s influential work, Culture and Imperialism (1993), Austen’s writing has faced critical scrutiny. He asserts that Austen and authors like her, such as Joseph Conrad and Rudyard Kipling, support and perpetuate British imperialist values in their writing. However, Said’s interpretation excludes a proper discussion of how gender roles affected opportunities in Britain during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This study has employed an intersectional approach to address this omission, combining postcolonial and feminist theories with a new historicist methodology. It explores the opportunities and limitations available to women writers of the Regency era and their ability to comment on slavery and the slave trade in a predominantly male-dominated public sphere. Furthermore, it argues that Austen skilfully alludes to these egregious institutions through carefully veiled and implicit commentary, employing the same contrapuntal technique Said promoted in his work. The narrative’s commentary on slavery emerges in the margins, manifesting through Austen’s intentional selection of words, metaphors, relationships, names, and British country houses. These elements shed light on Austen’s ability to apply social criticism from the domestic sphere while navigating the societal expectations of her time.