Hunt argues that epistolary novels in the 18th C. caused connections of "[fundamental] inner feelings" through a novel's characters and readers, resulting in a "sense of equality and empathy." I agree that empathy can be learned, practiced, and genuinely felt through reading fictitious novels that portray ordinary characters or events. It allows readers to identify with characters they relate to in their own lives. Through narrative form, people recognize their inner feelings through the writing in front of them. The involvement with this narrative form helps readers identify those inner feelings as reflected in another character. I also believe that novels are not the main source of empathetic feelings within people, but I concur that the increase in production of novels consequently led to the increase in new readers. Additionally, I acknowledge that the rise of empathetic readers results in the rise of recognition for bodily autonomy, as well as the need for human rights. However, the hypothesis Hunt presents does not align clearly with the “birth” of human rights. Apart from the famous authors Hunt outlines such as Richardson, Rousseau, and Diderot, there are other authors before them who wrote about the rights of man. For example, Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan was published in 1651, which could also be considered a pivotal work for the growth of human rights and is arguably more influential to the ruling elite compared to novels about ordinary people. In conclusion, I think that fiction and epistolary novels are important for people to read because they help the ordinary person practice their empathy and understand the need for human rights through reading a characters’ experience. Furthermore, I think that although the fundamental connection and understanding of empathy and the need for bodily autonomy may further the growth of human rights, it in itself is not enough to change the “political and social order” of society around these issues.
I agree with you that the novel itself is not enough to change the order of society around human rights. I do wonder, though, if you think that novels are not the main source of empathetic feelings within people, what you would say the main source is. I think that as a society, we are gradually becoming much more aware of other's situations simply through how we approach life (imitating the people around us, schooling, etc) than the upper classes would have been in the 1800s. But what is it that still pushes us to be more empathetic today?
I also appreciate that you pointed towards other works that were pivotal in human rights. However, I think that the reason Hunt argues novels were pivotal is that they didn't give the framework of human rights that authors like Hobbes may have, but rather convinced the general public that others were deserving of human rights. People needed to believe en masse that human rights were important, and (this is just my assumption) novels were more approachable than philosophical works. I think that once most people understood human rights through the novel's perspective, they could then turn to Hobbes to find the ways to implement their new empathy-- so perhaps the two are both necessary for societal changes.
I also appreciate that you pointed towards other works that were pivotal in human rights. However, I think that the reason Hunt argues novels were pivotal is that they didn't give the framework of human rights that authors like Hobbes may have, but rather convinced the general public that others were deserving of human rights. People needed to believe en masse that human rights were important, and (this is just my assumption) novels were more approachable than philosophical works. I think that once most people understood human rights through the novel's perspective, they could then turn to Hobbes to find the ways to implement their new empathy-- so perhaps the two are both necessary for societal changes.
I think it is true that we become empathetic through interactions with other people in life, and much more compared to the 1800s. I also agree with you on Hunt's argument around novels. It is important for the general public to understand the importance of human rights and recognize its significance in their own lives. I like that you pointed out that most people can use novels to further their understanding of the significance of human rights, and then resort to past works. Furthermore, it is a good point to note that each is necessary to push for societal changes. In short, all of this does in fact further the growth of human rights.
I agree with your argument here, I think that it would have been beneficial to Hunt's argument to include these other works and examine them as well; however, I understand that they are not actually the point of her argument. That said, I think that it would be interesting to examine how these different sorts of work at this time complement and support one another. In other words, can the works of Hobbes build off those of Diderot? Can we formulate empathy by working the two together and connect them to human rights?
I think you make an interesting point! It is true that using both earlier works such as Hobbes, Diderot, and Richardson are all necessary to formulate our understanding of empathy and how it furthers human rights. In order for these ideals to be translated to policies, however, first it needs to gain the attention of elite persons in power who have the control to make change. Thus, reading novels is not enough, although beneficial for furthering the widespread recognition for human rights. In Hunt's lecture, she talks about the influence of novels in the 1800s and how the birth of human rights was established around the same time, however I still wonder what the missing link is––if these novels truly influenced policies. Did people in power read them? Did ordinary people read these novels then push for change from their representatives?