Edith Wharton’s Ordinary Vices

This essay develops a framework for exploring interpersonal ethics in Edith Wharton’s writing. Using political philosopher Judith Shklar’s analysis of “ordinary vices”—the commonplace harms we inflict on one another—it identifies four central vices in Wharton’s moral imagination: hypocrisy, cruelty, intellectual incuriosity, and moral inattentiveness. After exploring the status of these vices in Wharton’s fiction and nonfiction, the essay proceeds to rank them, suggesting that moral inattentiveness—the thoughtless pain caused by self-absorption rather than malice—stands at the top of Wharton’s hierarchy of vices. Unlike Shklar’s “liberalism of fear,” which worries about the cruelty caused by social institutions and state violence, Wharton’s ranking of the vices flows from her “conservatism of fear”—a position organized around a concern with cultural disintegration. Her prioritizing of moral inattentiveness, the essay concludes by arguing, amounts to a privatization and depoliticization of morality, reflecting an ethic of personal responsibility rather than social change.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
New American Studies Journal
Published
2025-10-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18422/77-2550
Primary Topic
American and British Literature Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Edith Wharton’s Ordinary Vices

Nir Evron
New American Studies Journal
American and British Literature Analysis
article

Edith Wharton’s Ordinary Vices

Nir Evron
article en

Abstract

This essay develops a framework for exploring interpersonal ethics in Edith Wharton’s writing. Using political philosopher Judith Shklar’s analysis of “ordinary vices”—the commonplace harms we inflict on one another—it identifies four central vices in Wharton’s moral imagination: hypocrisy, cruelty, intellectual incuriosity, and moral inattentiveness. After exploring the status of these vices in Wharton’s fiction and nonfiction, the essay proceeds to rank them, suggesting that moral inattentiveness—the thoughtless pain caused by self-absorption rather than malice—stands at the top of Wharton’s hierarchy of vices. Unlike Shklar’s “liberalism of fear,” which worries about the cruelty caused by social institutions and state violence, Wharton’s ranking of the vices flows from her “conservatism of fear”—a position organized around a concern with cultural disintegration. Her prioritizing of moral inattentiveness, the essay concludes by arguing, amounts to a privatization and depoliticization of morality, reflecting an ethic of personal responsibility rather than social change.

New American Studies JournalVol. 77
Tel Aviv University (IL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
American and British Literature Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.