Conclusion
The fields of production and the interactions within and between these fields evolve across time, and with that so do the boundaries of power endowed to different actors. Alcott was the heretical newcomer, and while her work was not particularly revolutionary, it was disruptive in that it offered a new way to tell stories about women. The autonomy of art and literature is not a transcendent and universal condition, and as Bourdieu writes, mass production is subject to heteronomy, but it is never entirely robbed of its autonomy either (Hesmondhalgh, 2006, p. 214). The more ‘radical’ views expressed in the subtext of Little Women are the product of the little autonomy that was left to the creator. Every adaptation of Little Women is a result of the evolving nature of artistic production, and the shifting levels of power and independence that creators are endowed with. Gerwig’s power as a creator was far beyond what Alcott ever had, and it is a product not just of a change within the artistic field, but within political and economic fields as well, a key one being the relatively higher degree of freedom and independence that women like Gerwig have in the 21st century. The process of cultural production evolved such that the author herself contributed to and helped set in motion the changes that allowed Gerwig to bring to life what I consider to be Alcott’s true vision for Little Women.