Get Your Paws Off of Me! : Laissez-Faire Governance during the Victorian Era

During the 19th century, the British Empire was in a position of immense power with imperialist control over approximately 59 countries. (Victorian School) In the midst of the Victorian Era, the British Empire would sometimes employ select leaders to watch over the people and the land that they had recently annexed in order to ensure that everything remained dandy for Britain. In general, military powers or governmental agents were meant to carry weapons in order to discourage rebellion and to enforce quotas for the production of specific materials for the conquered population to adhere to.

The principles of laissez-faire governing system state that those who were “left to their own devices” are apt to “develop habits of sturdy self-reliance” whilst those who are “supported by the state” are bound to “sink into a mode of dependency.” (Evans, BBC.) I believe that the laissez-faire concept alludes to the fact that Britain was eager to profit off of the lands that they invaded and the people that they had exploited without claiming moral responsibility for the state that they had created when things ended poorly. (Economically or even in relation to declining health amongst the population due to exhaustion.)

Throughout the text, there is ample evidence to suggest that the “white and terrible” Dr. Moreau imposes human characteristics and human thoughts upon the beasts against their will. (36.) Much like imperialists in the Victorian Era, men with guns would omit the culture and the natural inclinations of a native population in order to “civilize” them. However, Prendick acknowledges his ignorance of what is natural for these Beasts and states that he “does not know how far they were yet from the human heritage that [he] ascribes to them.” (40.)

I envision Dr. Moreau as the physical embodiment of laissez-faire principles in which Britain keeps producing more power through the acquisition of land and subjects, but it does not accomplish or produce much beyond the creation of chaos. The population becomes too massive to control and both Britain and Moreau have bitten off more than they can chew since they are overextended and understaffed. The idea that only auditory and visible pain could cause Prendick to care about the creatures is a fascinating statement because it bluntly admits to the ugliness of humanity. (54.) Laissez-faire production justifies the acquisition of land and subjects in bulk because it is hypothetically easy to maintain and it rationalizes the belief that the imperialists are not responsible for the horror that they indirectly create. When Dr. Moreau states that he “always falls short on the things [he] dreams,” I am reminded of the insatiable hunger for victory and conquest during the Victorian Era. (58.)

 

 

 

Sources in addition to Wells:

http://www.victorianschool.co.uk/empire.html (Victorian School)

“Laissez-faire and the Victorians” (Evans, BBC)

By Professor Eric Evans

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/trail/victorian_britain/education_health/laissez_faire_02.shtml

 

 

 

2 thoughts on “Get Your Paws Off of Me! : Laissez-Faire Governance during the Victorian Era”

  1. I like the idea that Moreau represents Victorian Britain. I think it’s accurate to interpret Moreau’s oppression over the beasts as imperialistic, because the beasts have their own form of “society,” one that is animalistic but still valid. Part of the problem with colonization is that colonists think their way is “better,” or more “enlightened,” but they fail to realize the merits of the culture they colonize. While the beasts perhaps do not have a culture, per se, they remain entitled to choose how they want to live. I think it is smart to apply British imperialism to Moreau’s island.

  2. I like your comment about Prendick needing to hear or see the pain for him to care. I think that could easily tie into a lot of the imperialist wars and issues of the time, but it really made me think about slavery in Britain. The Longman Anthology says that slavery was abolished in British territories in 1833, but much of their trade still depended on slave labor in the US and other territories (1063). They were still supporting slavery, but indirectly, so it was easier to forget about it and stop caring as much.

Comments are closed.