Denying Responsibility: Newland Archer’s Convenient Compliance and Blame Attribution in The Age of Innocence

Authors

  • Pichamon Boonchuay Business English Program, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dhonburi Rajabhat University

Keywords:

Attribution of Blame, Conformity to Tradition, The Age of Innocence

Abstract

The protagonist of Edith Wharton’s 1920 novel The Age of Innocence, Newland Archer, represents a man of social privilege caught in the web of hypocritical social norms that defined New York’s elite society in the 1870s. Despite his many advantages, he consistently refuses to act on his genuine desires or pursue the life he truly wants. Drawing on prior interpretations of the novel’s historical and social contexts and on studies of Archer’s hypocrisy and psychological complexity, and incorporating attribution theory, this essay reads his characterization as a reflection of the tragic human tendency to absolve oneself of responsibility, a tendency that persists throughout his life. Archer passively, and for reasons of convenience, submits to circumstances, and when the consequences of his inaction frustrate him, he deflects responsibility by attributing blame to the woman he claims to love, the socially ideal wife he chooses to marry, and even to fate itself. Beyond characterization, Wharton’s traditional narrative structure further mirrors Archer’s conformity to social expectations and his inability to break free from them, even by the end of the novel.

References

Daigrepont, L.M. (2007). The Cult of Passion in “The Age of Innocence.” American Literary Realism, 40(1), pp. 1–15.

Goldberg, S. (2020). Newland Archer’s Doubled Consciousness: Wharton, Psychology, and Narrational Form. In A. Zibrak (Ed.), Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence: New Centenary Essays (pp. 99–114). Bloomsbury Academic.

Hadley, K.M. (1991). Ironic Structure and Untold Stories in “The Age of Innocence.” Studies in the Novel, 23(2), pp. 262–272.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. John Wiley & Sons.

Kress, J. (2002). The Figure of Consciousness: William James, Henry James, and Edith Wharton. Routledge.

Moseley, E.M. (1959). “The Age of Innocence”: Edith Wharton’s Weak Faust. College English, 21(3), pp. 156–160.

Orlando, E.J. (1998). Rereading Wharton’s “Poor Archer”: A Mr. “Might-have-been” in “The Age of Innocence.” American Literary Realism, 1870-1910, 30(2), pp. 56–76.

Saunders, J.P. (2008). Afterword. In E. Wharton, The Age of Innocence (pp. 306–316). Signet Classics. (Original work published 1920).

Waid, C. (2003). Preface. In C. Waid (Ed.), The Age of Innocence (pp. xiii–xx). W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1920).

Wharton, E. (2008). The Age of Innocence. Signet Classics. (Original work published 1920).

Witherow, J. (2003). A Dialectic of Deception: Edith Wharton’s “The Age of Innocence.” Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, 36(3), pp. 165–180.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-08

How to Cite

Boonchuay, P. (2025). Denying Responsibility: Newland Archer’s Convenient Compliance and Blame Attribution in The Age of Innocence. Academic Journal for the Humanities and Social Sciences Dhonburi Rajabhat University, 8(3), ฺB1-B14. retrieved from https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/human_dru/article/view/282243

Issue

Section

Academic Articles