With very few exceptions, conceptual definitions are rarely concrete. In most cases, they are rather nebulous. Consider, for example, the idea of womanhood. What exactly does it mean? Clearly, it would have distinct connotations to different people, geographies, genders, and perhaps most importantly, to historical contexts. A person of the "nineties" would certainly have a different image of femininity than a person of the "seventies"; a person of the "twenties" different than that of a Victorian English wife. More simply stated, social views and values are relative to their times. This concept may seem trite, but it is ultimately important when studying, or writing on any topic of cultural history.

Therefore, the first intent of this essay is to create a working definition of womanhood in context to Victorian England. It will then attempt the same for imperialism. Finally, while mindful that pigeonholing a historic figure is, at best, subjective, this essay will confirm that Mary Seacole Victorian "doctress," colonialist, and writer was an imperialist of a special sort. Furthermore, she was able to maintain her imperialistic "role" because she did not conform to the standard ideals of Victorian womanhood.

In the previous paragraph, the intents of this essay were stated. However, it is important to clarify one more thing: it is not the intent of this essay to give a detailed history of the Women’s Movement, nor of Feminism. Suffice it to say the following:

The  momentum toward equal rights for women, at least in England, roughly coincided with the Industrial Revolution, a time which offered some women the chance to become independent wage-earners in factories. Shifting demographics was also a factor influencing changing female roles in Victorian England more precisely, a disproportionate number of women to men. With a surplus of unmarried, middle-class women, there was a growing number who either needed to support themselves, or "were sometimes driven by a sense of frustration and futility to demand some constructive outlet for their energy and talents."1

To be sure, there were work options for a "respectable" Victorian woman: governess, clerk, shop assistant, or servant. For the most part, however, middle- and upper- class women were expected to remain at home as mothers, and decorative icons of their husbands’ economic and social success. Additionally, women were responsible for the moral and cultural upbringing of their children. Any education a Victorian female might have had was intended as training for this capacity (see illustration, next page). Most women of the time were either out of resignation or passivity—content to maintain the traditional roles of the Victorian female. . . mother, servant, and male status symbol.

A Victorian "lady" did not travel. She did not socialize outside her immediate domestic environment. She most certainly did not associate with men other than her husband (or familial males). She was not the family "bread-winner." She was expected to remain humble, and always loyal to her husband’s ideals. Her opinions on such matters as politics, war, and business, were of no importance. In short, she was not permitted to engage in those "activities that had become virtually a masculine monopoly."2 Victorian woman’s social position could be described as passive-aggressive treatment bestowed by a male-dominated society: husbands were to adore and value their wives so long as wives acknowledged their own subservient positions, and remained there.3

Enter Mary Seacole, Jamaican colonial citizen, self-proclaimed "doctress," and battlefield heroine. Though Seacole evidently considered herself an English "lady" (more or less due to the "good Scotch blood running in [her] veins"4), by no means did she conform to the standards of such. On the contrary, she was a female British subject, in the heart of the Victorian era, who was bold, and totally unabashed in her professional and personal abilities.

The overwhelming sense of self-confidence and audacity exuded by Seacole’s writing style was, by itself, enough to differentiate her from contemporary female authors, who for the most part were concerned with children’s stories, or "angel in the house"5 imagery, consistently upholding the standard notions of Victorian womanhood. Clearly, Mary Seacole didn’t buy into these notions. After a brief marriage, she apparently remained a widow and childless for the rest of her days. She was a professional, and most proud of her exceptional abilities in the male-dominated field of medicine.6 She traveled extensively, and usually alone. In the arena of finances, Seacole was nothing less than an entrepreneur, manufacturing and selling her culinary wares as well as her skills wherever she could. She clearly preferred the company of men, and had no qualms about "mixing it up" with "the boys," placing herself in grave danger on Crimean battlegrounds. At the same time, Seacole appeared to have nothing but disdain for other women.

Mrs. Seacole was probably somewhat educated,7 intelligent, extroverted, competitive, and of course, independent. She was willing to be feminine, but on her own terms. These traits represented a radical departure from those of her female contemporaries. By no means did she fulfill the standard image of Victorian womanhood. Judged by the standards of the late Twentieth Century, Seacole would surely be labeled a "feminist."

Imperialism: the policy and practice of forming and maintaining an empire. The images commonly brought to mind by the word are those of military conquest and occupation of foreign lands; direct political control, by the occupier, over the occupied (usually against their collective will). Colonization, and exploitation of economic and natural resources, would typically be the final phase of occupation. Historically, quite often, this scenario was indeed the case.

However, as stated earlier, in the historical arena, it is unfair to assume one definition to be inherently superior to another. There are, in fact, many manifestations of imperialism. This essay depends upon the following view: imperialism can and does occur when people of one geographic region impose their cultural values, ideals, mores or behaviors upon the people of another, in an attempt to change or alter them (or to show them "a better way"). Those who uphold or in any way reinforce foreign values already in place, may also qualify as imperialists.

Thus, if an American were to travel to the Australian Outback, and motor through aborigine villages in a Chevy four-wheeler, while donning Armani sunglasses and Levi 501’s, with Van Halen blaring from the in-dash CD player, he/she is practicing imperialism. Why? Because he/she is imposing the American values of consumerism and capitalism on a foreign people.8 If the same traveler did likewise in Tokyo, he/she would still be an imperialist, as the values of consumerism and capitalism—well-instilled in Japanese society since the 1950s are being reinforced by his/her actions. A more historic example: 19th century settlers of the American West imposed their values of ownership upon Native Americans, through their practice of selling and purchasing land and goods (and forcing the natives to do likewise, a concept totally foreign and abhorrent to them).

Granted, cultural imperialism is more indirect than war-ships, soldiers, and puppet governments. It is all the more insidious because of its subtlety. Those having foreign values imposed upon them (the "natives") may be completely unaware of the process. They may be convinced that these values are naturally superior to their own. Furthermore, those who impose the values (the "colonists") may well believe themselves to be philanthropists, interested only in extending to others what they hold to be the benefits of their society (as in the case of 19th century English Christian missionaries attempting to convert the "barbaric heathens" of "darkest Africa"9).

Thus far, this essay has painted Mary Seacole as a Victorian iconoclast, and classified her (conveniently) as a feminist. Yet, our heroine easily fell into the role of nurturing mother and Victorian hostess-extraordinaire. On a purely biological level, one might be tempted to explain this apparent contradiction simply as "maternal instinct" (if such a thing truly exists). A psychologist might attribute it to the "need to be needed." A cynic might accuse Seacole of exploiting and financially capitalizing on the suffering of others.

It is the contention of this essay that the underlying (but benign) motive behind Mrs. Seacole’s actions abroad could best be described in the context of cultural imperialism. She was a proud nationalist, as noted by her consistent references to England and things English. Like a missionary, she was driven by the instinctive urge to spread the ideals and values of her (adopted) culture, from recreating English culinary customs (mutton, sausage, tea, biscuits and jam, just to name a few), to constructing an English-style hostel in a foreign battle-zone. Just as Seacole represented the traditional, maternal English woman and nurse, always there when "her boys" needed her most, she also represented the ever-so-slightly-racist, patronizing, upper-class Victorian "lady."10 In addition, Seacole’s talents as entrepreneur could do nothing but reinforce, if only in a small way, imperialist economic policy (plus allow her to make a living). Plainly, her desire to be truly English, and to create a little piece of England—for Brits and natives alike, from Panama to Turkey was the driving force behind Seacole’s imperialism.

Yet, it was her atypical social attitudes and behaviors—her lack of compliance with the standards of Victorian female demeanor that permitted her to act upon her desires. Though apolitical and benevolent in her methodology, Seacole was as effective an imperialist perhaps more so as any colonial governor, missionary, or occupying army.

Chanduri, Napur & Strobel, Margaret (eds.) Western Women and Imperialism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992.

Cooper, Frederick & Stoler, Ann Laura. Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Henretta, James A. & Brownlee, W.E. & Brody, David & Ware, Susan. America’s History, Vol. 1, New York: Worth Publishing, 1993.

Rosaldo, Renato. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis, Boston: Beacon Press, 1989.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism, New York: Random House, 1978.

Seacole, Mary. Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands, New York: Oxford Press, 1988.

Vicinus, Martha (ed.) A Widening Sphere: Changing Roles of Victorian Women, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977.