{"title":"Regulating Alcohol Consumption and Structuring Life in Dickens's Our Mutual Friend","authors":"D. Graber","doi":"10.5325/dickstudannu.49.1.0107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract:In Our Mutual Friend, Charles Dickens paints a complicated portrait of alcohol consumption that resists following any one vein of contemporary sociological, medical, or religious writing about alcohol. Instead, he senses the roles of economy and geography in the circulation of alcohol through individuals and city alike and structures the narrative as an investigation of the possible outcomes of differing efforts to regulate that movement. Within this physical and economic landscape, Dickens creates two competing examples of working-class and abject poor drinking economies. In one, Miss Potterson maintains strict control over her tavern, The Six Jolly Fellowship-Porters, which she operates as a small-scale, moralized yet dictatorial economy that provides orderly community and relative healthfulness. In the second, metropolitan disciplinary administration oversees the citywide drinking economy, in which Jenny Wren's father drinks himself to death. Ultimately, Our Mutual Friend refrains from fully endorsing one model of alcohol regulation as a metropolitan or national solution, illuminating the failures of large-scale, sanitary-disciplinary efforts while also implying that Miss Potterson's more effective, small-scale, moralized economy relies upon her autocratic control of an idiosyncratic space—and therefore could (or should) not apply to the whole city of London.","PeriodicalId":195639,"journal":{"name":"Dickens Studies Annual: Essays on Victorian Fiction","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dickens Studies Annual: Essays on Victorian Fiction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/dickstudannu.49.1.0107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
abstract:In Our Mutual Friend, Charles Dickens paints a complicated portrait of alcohol consumption that resists following any one vein of contemporary sociological, medical, or religious writing about alcohol. Instead, he senses the roles of economy and geography in the circulation of alcohol through individuals and city alike and structures the narrative as an investigation of the possible outcomes of differing efforts to regulate that movement. Within this physical and economic landscape, Dickens creates two competing examples of working-class and abject poor drinking economies. In one, Miss Potterson maintains strict control over her tavern, The Six Jolly Fellowship-Porters, which she operates as a small-scale, moralized yet dictatorial economy that provides orderly community and relative healthfulness. In the second, metropolitan disciplinary administration oversees the citywide drinking economy, in which Jenny Wren's father drinks himself to death. Ultimately, Our Mutual Friend refrains from fully endorsing one model of alcohol regulation as a metropolitan or national solution, illuminating the failures of large-scale, sanitary-disciplinary efforts while also implying that Miss Potterson's more effective, small-scale, moralized economy relies upon her autocratic control of an idiosyncratic space—and therefore could (or should) not apply to the whole city of London.
在《我们共同的朋友》一书中,查尔斯·狄更斯描绘了一幅复杂的饮酒画像,它拒绝遵循当代社会学、医学或宗教关于酒精的任何一种写作风格。相反,他感觉到经济和地理在个人和城市之间的酒精流通中的作用,并将叙事结构为对调节这种运动的不同努力可能产生的结果的调查。在这一自然和经济景观中,狄更斯创造了两个相互竞争的例子,即工人阶级和赤贫的饮酒经济。在其中一个故事中,波特森小姐严格控制着她的酒馆“六个快乐的同伴搬运工”(The Six Jolly fellowshipportters),她把它经营成一个小规模的、道德的、独裁的经济体,提供有序的社区和相对健康的环境。在第二个,大都会纪律管理局监管全市范围内的饮酒经济,其中珍妮·雷恩的父亲酗酒致死。最后,《我们的共同朋友》并没有完全赞同某一种酒精管制模式作为大都市或国家的解决方案,它说明了大规模卫生纪律努力的失败,同时也暗示了波特森小姐更有效、小规模、道德化的经济依赖于她对一个特殊空间的专制控制,因此不能(或不应该)适用于整个伦敦市。