Fanny’s Changing Price: Mansfield Park and the Conflation Between Economic Mobility and Human Worth.  

One edition of Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park, published by Modern Library Classics in 2001, begins with an introduction by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Carol Shields, in which she discusses the prevalent juxtaposing themes found throughout the story. Among these themes is the particularly vague pairing of “action and stillness” (x), raising questions about the significance of mobility in Austen’s novel. How does the contrast between action and lack thereof prove significant to Austen’s characters? And how does it contribute to her signature commentary on wealth and class? 

Mansfield Park is Austen’s third novel, first published in 1814. The plot follows Fanny Price, a timid girl from an impoverished family, who, at the age of ten, is taken in by her wealthy aunt and uncle, Lady and Sir Thomas Bertram. While she is raised alongside the four Bertram children, she is continuously reminded of her low birth, mainly by her elder aunt Mrs. Norris. As a teenager, Fanny develops romantic feelings for the Bertrams’ second-born son Edmund, who, to her dismay, is considering marriage to the beguiling Mary Crawford. All the while, Fanny grows conscious of her blossoming appearance, which begins to impact the treatment she receives from various characters. One of these characters is Mary’s brother Henry, who finds himself with a growing desire to marry Fanny—a desire that goes unrequited, creating drama for both families. The concepts of “action” and “inaction” are mainly found in the context of social mobility, and whether or not people in the novel's world have the potential to move upward on the economic scale. Throughout Mansfield Park, Austen uses this juxtaposition between class mobility and stagnancy to illustrate how early-nineteenth century society equated human worth with one’s potential for financial and social gain; this is significant because it highlights a system that both objectified and dehumanized the individuals within it.

Throughout Mansfield Park, Austen establishes how people are devalued when they are not seen as capable of financial gain. This is apparent how various characters perceive each other—particularly in Mary Crawford’s perception of Edmund. When Mary finds herself developing feelings for Edmund, she is praised by the narrator for appreciating him “without his being…an elder brother” (56), as this means he is not the heir of the Bertram family. In the same sentence, the narrator implies flattery and worldliness are desirable qualities, contradicting the underlying themes of sincerity and Protestant sensibilities; this would suggest that the biases of the sentence are not reflective of the narrator, but rather a reflection of Mary, through free indirect discourse. This frames the idea of Edmund being inferior, for his lack of prospective inheritance, as an opinion of Mary herself, outlining her correlation between a man’s financial and societal prospects and his inherent worth. Her biases are further demonstrated by her opinion on his plan to become a clergyman. Upon first learning of his career plan, she expresses surprise that anyone would willingly pursue such a profession. She comments that distinction—both social and financial—is nearly impossible to achieve in the clergical field, and subsequently concludes that “a clergyman is nothing” (79). With the admittance of this thought process, Mary outrightly expresses her belief that a person incapable of social or economic growth is lacking in value. This attitude is not unique to her, but can be found in the behavior of other characters, as well. The very first chapter opens with Fanny’s mother marrying a man of little financial prospect, which her family sees as a valid reason to devalue her presence, even going so far as to cut her off from their lives (3). At one point, Henry Crawford says that people should marry “as soon as they can do it to advantage" (37), presenting the alternative to be “throw[ing] themselves away” (37). The latter phrase, while referring to those who marry “down,” evokes imagery of disposable garbage; this displays Henry’s view that, by failing to marry prosperously, one forfeits dignity and intrinsic value. The story also touches on a much more extreme example of lacking financial prospects: chattel slavery. The Bertram family profits off of a plantation in the West Indies, which is both implied and outright stated to be dependent on slavery. The system of slavery (particularly chattel slavery) leaves its victims virtually incapable of social or financial climbing. In his article “The Ethics of ‘Mansfield Park,’” Allen Dunn highlights Fanny’s indifference to this aspect of the family business: “Fanny seems to lack a developed sense of social justice and that her notions about Christian compassion and enlightenment reason are difficult to reconcile with her commitment to feudalism or with her apparent tolerance of the plantation system (including, perhaps, slavery)” (485). Fanny’s lack of concern for her uncle’s involvement in the slave trade, in spite of her typically empathetic nature, highlights, to an extreme degree, how people without financial prospects are devalued and dehumanized. These various expressions of disrespect, performed by Austen’s characters on the account of financial stagnancy, affirm the idea that people in her society are devalued on account of said stagnancy. This sets the stage for a contrast between the constraints of immobility and the respect that comes along with mobility.

The perception of characters who do have prospects of gaining wealth and nobility is vastly different than the treatment of those in less fortunate positions, with the former receiving significantly more respect in comparison. This dichotomy is prevalent in Mary’s view of Tom Bertram. While she fails to see value in Edmund, given his humble career choice and lack of inheritance, she quickly acknowledges the worth of Tom, who, in contrast, is set to inherit a large fortune. The latter’s expected social and financial mobility frames himself, in Mary’s eyes, as an ideal husband (41), while this is decidedly not the case for Edmund. And her disrespect for Edmund’s “stagnant” career choice creates another contrast, this time between the confines of being a clergyman and the mobility accessible to sailors: when Fanny’s brother William, who is a sailor in the navy, visits Mansfield, Henry views him with admiration and envy: “[Henry] wished he had been a William Price; distinguishing himself and working his way to fortune and consequence with so much self-respect and happy ardour instead of what he was!” (203). Not only does Henry view William’s career as worthy of respect—a stark contrast to Mary’s distaste for Edmund’s profession—but as perhaps more fulfilling than Henry’s own life; this emphasizes how one’s ability to climb the social and economic ladder not only adds to their perceived value, but, in some regards, paints them as even more worthy than those born into fortune. Along with career, marriage also plays a significant role in one’s ability to rise in rank during Austen’s time, particularly for women. Readers witness this on the very first page of Mansfield Park; the story kicks off with the marriage between Lady Bertram and Sir Thomas Bertram, which is described as raising the former’s rank and financial class (3). Lady Bertram is then described as obtaining “consequence” (3) from the match; this term is repeated later in the story, when describing the potential benefits that the Bertram’s elder daughter, Maria, could obtain from her planned marriage to the wealthy Mr. Rushworth. The word “consequence,” in the context of Austen’s world, refers to one’s significance in society. The fact that individuals are considered to gain consequence from marrying up the economic ladder further affirms the idea that a person’s perceived value is directly linked to their social mobility. The name “Mansfield Park” is, in itself, a reference to the newfound social and economic mobility of formerly enslaved people: the name can be seen as an allusion to the Mansfield Judgement (or, Somerset vs. Stewart), a 1772 ruling that outlawed practices tied to chattel slavery from England. This was a significant step towards abolition—the destruction of a system that barred minorities from societal mobility. Given that slavery is subtly mentioned throughout the novel, there is good reason to believe that the allusion to the Mansfield Judgement was intentional on Austen’s part, possibly creating an association between the title estate, or the even story as a whole, and newfound mobility. This would sharply juxtapose the constraining conditions likely  faced by enslaved people on the Bertrams’ plantation, and the dehumanization resulting from such a system, framing. These various aspects of Austen’s novel underscore the value equated with one’s ability to climb the social and economic ladder, in contrast to the dehumanization and disrespect associated with stagnancy.

This juxtaposition between the respect given to individuals capable of financial gain, and the disrespect allotted to those who aren’t, is most poignantly demonstrated through Fanny Price’s character arc. The name “Price,” in itself, encourages readers to consider Fanny’s relationship to wealth and class. If Fanny were to be given a monetary “price,” based on her potential for financial gain, that value would skyrocket in her eighteenth year. Up to that point, she had never been seen as capable of much gain: as a girl lacking family wealth, her only opportunity for such progress would be through advantageous marriage, which was not to be expected, given her “low” birth and decidedly unimpressive looks (10). Furthermore, it would be seen as improper for a man to pursue Fanny, given that, in the words of Mary Crawford, “Miss Price is not out.” The state of being “out,” in the context of the early-nineteenth century, indicates that a young woman has been formally introduced to high society, and, more significantly, is on the marriage market. So, between Fanny’s birth, plainness, and lack of introduction to society, it would have appeared highly improbable for her to rise in status. However, at the age of eighteen, Fanny begins to experience some changes. In the words of Edmund, she begins “growing into a pretty young woman” (170). This, alongside her improved sociability, gives her the potential to attract suitors who could lift her status—one of which is Henry Crawford. And, while Fanny never officially “comes out” to society, she functionally does so. In an early conversation with Edmund, Mary classifies a girl who attends balls and dines at others’ houses as one who is “out.” While Fanny does not, initially, fit this description, she starts to acquire such criteria in the second and third volumes of the novel, receiving an invitation to dine with the Crawfords’ family and beginning to attend balls. All of these new developments frame Fanny as a desirable young woman, capable of winning the heart of a wealthy man. The two distinct phases of her life (“low-price” Fanny and “high-price” Fanny) act as a clear demonstration of how one’s perceived value depends on their prospects of fortune: “low-price” Fanny is ignored by those around her, while “high-price” Fanny is praised and courted. This contrast captures how significantly a person’s perceived value and entitlement can alter as their prospects of climbing the social and economic ladder brighten. This is only further proven when Fanny rejects Henry’s marriage proposal: by turning down an opportunity to gain fortune and status, she is once again considered “low-price” Fanny, causing the people around her to cease valuing and respecting her presence, and even going so far as to send her back to her destitute parents (319). When Fanny ultimately redeems her social mobility by marrying Edmund, she is once again considered valuable, with Sir Thomas classifying her as a “great acquisition.” The aligning contrasts between Fanny’s levels of social mobility and perceived respectability provide a clear illustration of how deeply the two factors are conflated by early-nineteenth century society.

Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park employs juxtaposition between those who can climb the social and economic ladder, and those who cannot, to underscore how an individual’s potential for economic growth is conflated with their intrinsic worth in the eyes of early-nineteenth century society. The devaluation of those who have dim prospects of financial or social gain can be seen in Mary’s disrespect towards Edmund career in the clergy, and his status as a second-born son; in contrast, William is praised and valued for his career in the navy, and Tom for being the eldest, as both positions set the characters up for financial gain down the road. Marriage that does not financially benefit a particular party is seen, by various characters, as a forfeit of that party’s claim to respect; “advantageous” marriages, on the other hand, are a means of increasing one’s worth in the eyes of society. Fanny’s character arc highlights the significance of this latter type of marriage, following her as she receives starkly different manners of treatment based on her perceived potential to find a wealthy suitor. Finally, Austen alludes to the slave trade—an extreme example of social and economic immobility—to highlight the extent that stagnation can cause dehumanization in her era; this is contrasted by the titular location of the novel, which alludes to abolition, framing the story as one of newfound mobility. The tendency, in Austen’s era, of equating human value with an individual’s capacity for economic and social growth, set the stage for the dehumanization of certain people and groups, leading to systems of oppression that continue to this day.

Work Cited

Austen, Jane. Mansfield Park. Modern Library, 2001.

English Heritage. “The Somerset v Stewart Case.” English Heritage, www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/kenwood/history-stories-kenwood/somerset-case/.

Dunn, Allen. “THE ETHICS OF ‘MANSFIELD PARK’: MacIntyre, Said, and Social Context.” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 78, no. 3/4, 1995, pp. 483–500. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41178718. Accessed 24 Apr. 2026.