Victorian nostalgia- Kaitlin Scott
Gange’s interpretation of Victorian nostalgia and “downfall,” as well as his interpretations of other historians’ theses, is interesting. Gange draws from Martin Weiner who suggests that, in part, as the Victorians began to see their world negatively, there was a move to simplification. According to Weiner, Much of the late Victorian period is marked by an interest in a non-industrialized, rural past: “Paradoxically, the most urban nation in the world had begun to imagine itself as one large meadow” (185). Weiner uses the Arts and Crafts movement and Gothic Revivalism as prime examples. Gange disagrees and writes that Weiner’s theory is one of a Victorian “mass delusion” and “national self-sabotage.”
Ganges disagrees with Weiner and suggests that the decline at the later part of the Victorian age was more to do with an inevitable economic righting: “The British economy had not failed. For some, the loss of economic primacy might have seemed like an affront to Britain’s ‘imperial destiny.’ But to those whose vision was less inflicted by fantasies of entitlement, the economic rebalancing after 1870 was less unusual or remarkable than the strange circumstances that has previously allowed a handful of small Atlantic islands to extend phenomenal influence over much of the earth’s surface” (194). The larger issue here is the assumption that things would always be on the rise for the Victorians. Such a system is not sustainable.
It’s telling that Margaret Thatcher had her cabinet members read Martin Weiner’s book. I think that this says something about the larger nature of nostalgia. We tend to feel nostalgia when we romanticize the past and believe it is better than the present. Thatcher was a conservative prime minister in both the political and moral sense. In my own limited experience, people with those views tend to see contemporary society as in a state of decline.
Anyone who either romanticizes or demonizes the past does so because they are not viewing history complexly. To romanticize the Victorians is to ignore the horrendous living and working conditions prior to reforms, the cruelty of imperialism, and the vast class divides. To demonize them is to ignore the incredible technical innovations, art, and political developments.
If there is such a desire now, it is because we find it difficult to imagine people in the context of the history they lived. Perhaps if we see our own society in decline it is because, much like Martin Weiner, we fail to see all declines as inevitable regulating.
This relates to some of our class discussions on why the Victorians are still so interesting to us. The Victorians are a mixture of the strange and the familiar. I think we tend to cleave them into one category or another depending on the topic, rather than thinking about how their historical context informs their motivations and culture.
You wrote, “Anyone who either romanticizes or demonizes the past does so because they are not viewing history complexly.” I wonder – is this possible to do?
My other question would be: have the readings assigned for Honors helped mitigate the desire to either romanticize or demonize the Victorians? In what sense?
Is it possible to view history objectively? You bring up some really good points! I really like your metaphor. “ We tend to cleave them into one category or another…”. You bring up a very good point when you describe how declines are inevitably regulating? Do you think Victorians were so forward thinking that they would see their decline in this way? Was the Roman decline inherently regulating? Can you specify a little bit what you mean about inherently regulating?
To answer Professor Lane’s question, I feel that the comprehensive reading list did mitigate the desire to romanticize or demonize the Victorians. In Frakenstein both Victor and the monster are relatable due to Shelley’s incredibly nuanced and sophisticated writing. The way we read Frankenstein, although its pre-Victorian, serves as a metaphor in my mind for how we can interact with Victorian history— as a whole. Whether we negatively chacterize Frankenstein or the beast, we inevitably feel empathy for both.
I feel empathy and understand the plight of many Victorians. I also don’t view the history as black and white. Economic progress and technological progress was incredible, although it did come at the expense of others.