Adam Smith Knew Why We’d Love Jane Austen
Cynthia Argentine and Julianna Argentine for AdamSmithWorks
"Though Smith died before Austen’s novels were published, his Theory of Moral Sentiments anticipates the reason her books affect us. As Smith says, we take on the feelings we imagine others feel."
"Though Smith died before Austen’s novels were published, his Theory of Moral Sentiments anticipates the reason her books affect us. As Smith says, we take on the feelings we imagine others feel."
We have been Jane Austen fans for years—since we each discovered Pride and Prejudice in high school. Like many readers, we’ve wondered what makes Austen’s stories of village life and courtship so poignant and timeless. Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments delivered a revelation: the lens of “the impartial spectator” is one reason they engage us so deeply.
Dr. Joy Buchanan's Speaking of Smith, "Taylor Swift's Anti-Hero as a Smithian Anthem," led us to this connection. Buchanan introduced Smith’s “impartial spectator” this way:
The impartial spectator is a key concept in Smith’s theory of moral behavior. According to Smith, individuals are able to judge their own actions by imagining how they would appear to an impartial observer. This imaginary figure serves as a guide for moral behavior, helping individuals to understand how their actions affect others and to conform to societal expectations.
The quote brought to mind Austen’s Emma and the Box Hill scene, where Emma is unkind to the older Miss Bates. The characters are picnicking in the English countryside when a young man proposes a game to enliven the group’s conversation. He asks each person to say either one very clever thing, two moderately clever things, or “three things very dull indeed.” Miss Bates, soft-spoken but loquacious, responds first, saying with self-deprecating good nature that she will choose the third option, as she is “’sure to say three dull things as soon as ever I open my mouth.’”
Emma replies, “’Ah! ma’am, but there may be a difficulty… you will be limited as to number—only three at once.’”
We wince as the quip escapes Emma’s mouth.
Adam Smith predicted we would.
Though Smith died before Austen’s novels were published, his Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS) anticipates the reason her books affect us. As Smith says, we take on the feelings we imagine others feel:
[T]he emotions of the bystander always correspond to what, by bringing the case home to himself, he imagines should be the sentiments of the sufferer. (TMS I.1.I.4)
This can be as true when we read fiction as when we observe others in real life. Reading makes us “impartial spectators.” From outside the story, we observe its plot and characters. Smith acknowledges this too, saying we experience the joy and distress our literary heroes feel. (TMS I.1.I.4)
We also experience the joys and distresses they don’t feel, but that we would feel if we were in their situation. We are embarrassed for them, as Smith puts it:
We blush for the impudence and rudeness of another, … because we cannot help feeling with what confusion we ourselves should be covered, had we behaved in so absurd a manner. (TMS I.1.I.10)
Austen was a genius at drawing us into the “impartial spectator” role. Her dialogue and narration bring us fully into scenes and allow us to feel a character’s plights and emotions. She designs ordinary situations that enable us to spy on the slights, spars, and reactions of her characters. As we read her novels—and thereby practice “impartially spectating”—we broaden our experience, think deeply about values and motivations, and consider consequences, all from a safe distance.
Interestingly, Austen also uses the “impartial spectator” device within her stories. Was this a conscious decision? It’s impossible to know, though she was likely familiar with Smith’s ideas. Sometimes one of her characters is literally an “impartial spectator” to another. The picnic scene in Emma exemplifies this, too. Here’s how the story plays out after Emma’s hurtful quip to Miss Bates.
First, Mr. Knightley chides Emma:
“How could you be so insolent in your wit to a woman of her character, age, and situation?”
Then, Emma tries to “laugh it off”:
“Nay, how could I have helped saying what I did? – Nobody could have helped it. It was not so very bad. I dare say she did not understand me.”
But Knightley is sure Miss Bates understood. He tells Emma how embarrassed Miss Bates was. Austen has cast Mr. Knightley in the role of impartial spectator. When Emma sees her remarks through his eyes, she owns her mistake.
Smith and Austen knew that our own view of our actions might differ from an outside observer’s. If these views were the same, there would be no need for an “impartial spectator” to guide us. Both writers also knew that we could learn to be our own “impartial spectator.” As Emma progresses, our main character begins to understand this. She grows more aware of how her actions have been perceived and moves closer to Smithian prudence. This is true in several Austen novels: a heroine’s character arc often follows her progress toward self-realization and virtue. Elizabeth Bennett realizes her prejudice; Marianne Dashwood realizes her impulsivity.
Austen leaves us room to wonder what Emma Woodhouse thought or felt right after her comment, before Mr. Knightley’s reprimand. Did Emma really need Mr. Knightley to point out her error? Did she suspect she had done wrong, but downplay her comment out of pride? Did she have “perfect knowledge” but not “self-command,” to use Smith’s terms (TMS VI.iii.1)?
Whatever the answers, we grasp how an “impartial spectator” awakened Emma to the benefits of being kinder. Reflecting on that helps explain why we love stories: they let us practice being “impartial spectators” in all sorts of situations. That nudges us toward a truth we hope society may universally acknowledge: best behavior comes from considering not only our own perspectives, but also those of others.
AUTHORS’ NOTE:
We wish to thank Dr. Art Carden for introducing us to Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments and Dr. Joy Buchanan for writing the article that sparked us to write this one.
Want more?
Renee Wilmeth, Adam Smith and Jane Austen
Shannon Chamberlain, Jane Austen’s Theory of Moral Sentiments: The Failed Speculator in Persuasion
Shannon Chamberlain, Adam Smith Suggests You Read a Romance Novel (and Have a Laugh at Yourself)
Sarah Skwire, Sir William Lucas Should Have Read Adam Smith
We wish to thank Dr. Art Carden for introducing us to Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments and Dr. Joy Buchanan for writing the article that sparked us to write this one.
Want more?
Renee Wilmeth, Adam Smith and Jane Austen
Shannon Chamberlain, Jane Austen’s Theory of Moral Sentiments: The Failed Speculator in Persuasion
Shannon Chamberlain, Adam Smith Suggests You Read a Romance Novel (and Have a Laugh at Yourself)
Sarah Skwire, Sir William Lucas Should Have Read Adam Smith
Comments
Jennifer Froehle
Thanks for sharing this thoughtful piece tying the impartial spectator concept to Austen (I’m also an fan) and also to the reason literature and story hold value for all of us as humans.
Mary
I love Jane Austen's work, it's so fun to see a connection to other scholarship in her story as an example.
Connie Wooldridge
Terrific insights and a connection I'd never noticed before.
Philip Abruzino
Thankyou for a very stimulating essay on Austin and Smith. Much more should be written on the literary nonfiction influence on the writings the Scottish School, Smith in particular. I am referring to the popular novels of Richardson, Smollett, Sterne and their sentimentalism. Surely the Scottish School must have been aware of this popular sympathetic/empathetic literature, mostly of the weak status of women but also the unequal status of the landed gentry and its workers. The most popular book in Europe and in America was Man of Feeling by Henry Mackenziee published in 1770 and first published in America in 1782. Like the Austin works, too late for Smith bur the theme of sentimentalism was quite powerful in this century. For an analysis of sentimentalism of the America Founding Fathers, I recommend historian Andrew Burstein's 1999 Sentimental Democracy.
You may wish to make this recmmendation to Amy Willis at Liberty Fund