In entitling this collection of essays Changing the Victorian Subject, we are not
supposing that the Victorian subject has ever been singular or monolithic.
Indeed, we take Martin Hewitt’s caution against just such an assumption to be
self-evident. In 2001 Hewitt wrote:
The denomination ‘Victorian’ continues to be widely used in the 1990s
both denotatively and connotatively, but in ways which make no attempt to
interrogate the nature of the ‘Victorian.’ Where the ‘Victorian’ is subject to
direct critical enquiry, it is almost always as part of a conventional reading
against the grain, in which some monolithic ‘Victorian’ identity is conjured
only for the doubtful and unenlightening pleasure of deconstructing it.
Taken to its logical conclusion, such a stance leaves Victorian Studies as a
label of purely temporal convenience. (143)
As academics based in Australia but working within a field that goes by the name
of a British sovereign, we are fully cognisant of the plurality of what might
fall under the rubric ‘Victorian’. The imagined relationships of colonial subjects
to a foreign monarch, and a foreign yet hegemonic culture, need always to be
imagined in the plural. For colonial subjects, the ‘Victorian’, even taken as ‘a label
of purely temporal convenience’, is fraught with complexity and nuance, since
in the colonies that very epoch saw the emergence of discourses of nationhood
and of anti-colonial rhetoric, alongside strident declarations of allegiance and
conformity to metropolitan values. In the colonies, the Victorian and the anti-
Victorian co-existed: indeed, the colonies were the prime sites of contestation of,
and ambivalence about, metropolitan values and social mores.