Scott McNeill
Prof. Flores
ENG 421
12 September 2006
Critical Response-Summary
Personal Credit in the World of Moll Flanders
            Carol Kay, in her book Political Constructions: Defoe, Richardson, and Sterne in Relation to Hobbes, Hume, and Burke, examines how Daniel Defoe places Moll Flanders in a highly politicized setting wherein she must capitalize on the trust of others to get along.  Although she engages in many questionable activities, Moll remains free from blame because she operates under the auspices of men with money.  In fact, many of the seeming disadvantages Moll suffers throughout the novel become strengths for her.  Kay argues that “the lack of an economically secure, legally defined position in society is a terrible threat and yet also a powerful incentive, an opportunity for creativity” (92).  However, Moll echoes the role of Hobbes’s theoretical counselor.
            The Hobbesian relationship between lord and advisor is “secret rather than public, and it has an emotional ambience of trust rather than of suspicion and agonistic debate” (94).  To preserve the master-servant relationship in spite of the advisor’s superior perspective, the counselor waits until asked before leading the lord to wisdom.  Kay presents the initial incident between Moll and her nurse as an example of this exchange.  By way of her protestations and crying, the young girl prompts the nurse to inquire further and eventually agree to keep her from working as a servant.
            Moll maintains this relationship by assuming pleasing personae that raise no suspicions.  Kay notes that “she must gain the credit of trusting others and the power that comes from patronage yet still develop enough independent resources to protect herself” (96).  Her persistence marriage spawns from her understanding that her options are limited as a single woman.  Thus, she actively seeks out social superiors so she may submit to them and reap the rewards; this is not to say that Moll played the complete subordinate, for her “skill in negotiation shows that consent to obedience is not a single gesture of submission, but a dialogue conducted under the constraints of respect to authority” (111).  She plays by masculine rules but only on the surface.
            Kay’s final assertion builds on the analogy of Moll Flanders as Hobbes’s blameless counselor by deflecting any moral criticisms the protagonist faces.  She addresses the unreliability of the novel (seen in the preface and in Moll’s aptitude with crafting lies) by opposing it to the only other institution that seeks to judge her: the courts.  Hobbes’s philosophy “underlines the artificiality of every political order and the inadequacy of any narrowly legalistic code to address the variation of human needs” (112).  The legal system, crafted by privileged men, attempts to preserve order in pursuance of their own aims.  Defoe shows us examples of how corrupt and harsh the judiciary of the time could be, and, as Kay notes, given the entirely subjective texture of the story, one cannot find any easy means of condemning or condoning Moll’s actions.
            Kay’s argument strikes at the heart of Moll Flanders’s modus operandi and seeks to justify her actions in light of her circumstances.  Much of the novel focuses on how society judges Moll through labels; she is called a whore, a wanton woman who acts as a snare for men.  And yet the protagonist cannot be blamed for many of the situations she struggles with.  Kay notes how “Defoe makes situations that are morally and legally unclear into creative opportunities.  They bind the reader to the book in repeated efforts of judgment” (107).  It is not logical to blame people for things beyond their control; likewise, self-preservation cannot be faulted easily.
            Moll survives thanks to her “artful management of the opinions of other people,” which, while manipulative, is necessary to ensure her security (93).  She is not so much interested in money as she is in stability.  Some critics question the sincerity of Moll’s account, for she has been known to use falsehoods to her advantage before.  I initially resisted her account due to her unreliable nature, but Kay cites her Virginia marriage as evidence of her earnest nature.  When Moll discovers that she married her brother, she could easily have kept the matter secret: she was the only one to know.  However, she is driven to divulge the information and repent by her conscience, even though there is no profit in it.
            This desire for stability, internal and external, keeps Moll credible and redeemable.  When she actually begins to value material goods, she becomes a hardened thief in London.  Her time as a criminal represents a fall from grace, if you will, wherein she loses the innocent aim she once had.  We cannot simply accept the ruling of the courts or of those privileged folks in society, for Moll Flanders denies us access to an objective standard from which to assess the character.  Defoe, as Kay writes, “confines us to the realm of opinion and authority rather than of truth” (102).  That may be one of the greatest points the novel has for its readers.