Dualisms Shmooelisms

I really enjoyed reading the Thomas article, particularly for its engagement with the false dualisms of “law/sentiment, market relations/domestic relations, public/private, duty/feeling, magistrate/man and male/female” (Thomas 122). What is most interesting to me is the way in which slavery is simultaneously consistent and inconsistent with the notions of liberal individuality and autonomy the U.S. is founded on.  The ideal liberal subject is manifested in the idea of man (and I mean, man) meandering unencumbered through the public sphere, overseeing his business and debating political matters; the man for whom and by whom laws were/are written. By abstracting away from the physicality and encumbrance of the body and family life, man can attain the ultimate state of being: the rational, disembodied subject.

 Slavery is frankly about as antithetical to autonomy and unencumbrance as one can get. Unless you read between the lines.  For every man who can throw himself into the public sphere, there must be someone (usually, a woman) to maintain his domestic sphere, attending to the children, fixing meals, seeing to the ‘vulgarities’ of bodily function.  Unencumbrance and autonomy must rely upon their counterparts to exist. In this sense, slavery is a mechanism through which the ideal liberal subject is enabled, through which social hierarchy is constructed and maintained.  Slaveholders were, in most cases, “freed” from the imperative of bodily labor because it was preformed instead by black bodies.  I’m reminded of State v. Mann, the overview of which states, “The court found that for the sake of their happiness, slaves needed to surrender their will in implicit obedience to that of another.  Such obedience was the consequence only of uncontrolled authority over the body.” 

It is Stowe’s belief in the preservation of the dualisms I mentioned at the beginning of the post that makes her so morally indignant at the idea of slavery.  Uncle Tom’s Cabin depicts what, “for [Stowe], most poignantly dramatizes the evils of slavery—the breakup of black families” (Thomas 121).  Indeed, slavery represents the horror of the dissolution between public and private spheres; when the public enters the private, the market breaks up families.  However, it is Stowe’s reliance upon problematic and essentialist dichotomies that makes her argument so persuasive and effective.  I often wonder how “practical” radical arguments are in terms of shifting dynamics of power.  It seems that if your aim is to change policy, you have to work within the nomos of which you are a part, appealing to some popular albeit problematic notions while challenging others.  This pretty much sums up everything I despise about politics.  But you have to hand it to Stowe, while many of her arguments and assumptions are problematic, her book was effective.   

Sexy, Sinful Powerpoint Presentations

Regarding this week’s presentations I have to admit that they were not exactly what I expected. I anticipated a lot of references to Facebook and texting and such… but I didn’t prepare for the sheer power blast of information that each show tried to cram into their 20 twenty-second slides. It was truly like compressing an entire semester into a seven minute, detailed, semi-nuanced presentation. And I’m pretty sure that’s what mine will be today as well.

When I was looking over the links about Pecha Kucha, I got the impression that they served as more of a display to be independently running while someone talked about their creative endeavor, like photography or some building structure an architect wanted to show off. In this sense, I don’t really feel like our powerpoints are executed in the true Pecha Kucha style, but for the presentation prompt, I don’t see how we could have fit in all the theory and concepts we have covered in this class into the format. I think it is interesting, and I will probably enjoy all the projects today as well as presenting my own, but trying to fit so much content in is more stressful than I thought it would be. I think I would rather a 10 minute limit, unlimited slides with a minimal type requirement. But overall it has definitely been interesting and entertaining.

Presentations

I have really enjoyed the presentations so far. What I like the most about viewing these presentations is the varied perspectives on technology that are being expressed. Further, I feel like individuals have connected technology and the texts in unique ways. It is also intriguing how we chose to present our information.

For example, as I created my presentation, I was a bit unsure how I was supposed to present my information. Ultimately, I decided to be more of a story teller in my presentation because I felt like it would be better than just reciting my information. In my presentation, I noted how important it is for us to hear the stories behind photographs. I wanted to put that in to practice by telling stories about the  images in my facebook.

In sum, I really liked how different the presentations were. Though some of the teams were recurring, I think everyone presented those themes in a unique manner. I am looking forward to seeing the rest of the presentations!

Skewed History

Throughout Clotel there are references in the footnotes to possible skewed chronology (pg  196 footnote 4) . This particular example points out how Morton could not have died in 1831 if he was to help Salome in the 1840s. I think there is more to do with this skewing of time than just accounting for Brown wanting to tell stories that didn’t necessarily coincide. I think he’s doing several important things through this shifting and restructuring of time.

First, I think Brown is pointing out the fluid nature of history – how it is written by the dominant force of the time, and how its content and characterizations are subject to the dominant force’s opinion. Considering that African American history is largely passed through oral tradition as there is no means to preserve it otherwise, it exists in counterculture to the dominant white history.

Brown must delegitimize history in order for his argument to work. Brown is setting up skepticism of accepted “history” which he uses to further question great documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Without the audience feeling some sense of apprehension towards the “great” documents, Brown’s argument and positioning of them as always being slave-holding documents doesn’t work. He needs the reader to doubt the for-granted nature with which the documents are seen as great. He needs them to question whether these are appropriate guidelines for our country.

Second, I think Brown is skewing chronology so that we are not allowed to think of ourselves as innocent of the sins of the past. By making time indefinite he passes the sin of slavery on to every American whether directly involved or not. If time is not set and stone-like, but rather fluid and mutable then it is easy for his argument to apply to all those who consider themselves citizens of the United States.  His novel becomes an indictment of our tragic past as Americans – one that does not allow its horrors to be forgotten.  A refusal to relegate the problem of slavery as one solved in the past both keeps us aware of our treatment of others and continues to maintain a dialogue about racial difference open.

Doing it for #1

Clotel comes as the American Industrial Revolution is getting started, and it shows. The optimistic tones about what could be are gone. All we get are the sour notes of a changing world. Coupling is a business transaction that is found to fail, People are only out to help themselves, etc. I think that this is a fitting end to a semester where we have focused on authors who are battles with the questions of relationship to their fellow human being. Clotel gives us the answer: Your relations with other people are around chiefly to help you get what you want. Anything more is bound to fall away. Green is the example of this when he buys Clotel and does everything he can to make her happy. Once he no longer finds enjoyment in the relationship, though, he moves on to another girl. The statement is clear: Green is doing all of these things for Clotel because it makes him happy, and once that happiness runs out, he has no interest in it.

Brown is likely overstating the fraying of human ties here. Not everyone is concerned only for themselves. e shows hints of that with the mother-child bond, but looser ties still have something between them. I would imagine that the feeling of capitalism and competition was pretty crushing to those who wanted to live in an egalitarian(ish) society. Melville, Whitman and the like were really hoping that some sort of brotherhood would develop where people would treat each other as an extension of themselves, but the humanity that emerged cared more about their own happiness, derived from power and self-interest.

It is not that these authors did not see the writing on the wall. Hawthorne told us that a system of equality would never work; people were too interested in coupling and having power. The debate between forces of equality and hierarchy is addressed in Temple House, but it is by no means settled for equality. The difference is that the authors of these earlier works had some hope. while the portrait in Clotel is a hopeless one. The idyllic world that sees everyone working to better humanity loses out to one where people are working to help themselves.

“If you’re not first, you’re last.”

Resistance

The thing I found most interesting in the latter half of Clotel were the mechanisms by which the abolitionist whites in the novel attempt to resist slavery. Dr. Stockton mentioned in class that we should think of this time period as a point when it was a possibility that poetry could defeat slavery. I think that this idea has even more weight when you consider the other forms of resistance.

One of these forms is seen through Althesa & Henry, who rather than have slaves “hire servants,” which a footnote explains as “the practice of paying slave masters for the use of their slaves” (Pg 146). One has to ask whether this is really a subversive and revolutionary act or merely one that allows Althesa & Henry to defer or displace their moral apprehension onto someone else. In effect a situation that makes them complicit with the slave trade without having to “dirty” their hands in the business. I think this is an important distinction because it highlights the impossibility of living in the southern states at the time without slaves. Despite their abolitionist leanings they are still involved in slavery.

A similar situation is found when Mr. and Mrs. Carlton decide to set up a “system of gradual emancipation…that [the negros] would be allowed a certain sum for every bale of cotton produced… [and] placed to their credit; and when it amounted to a certain sum, they should all be free.” (Pg 162). One must question why the slaves are not given their entire earned wage – to which there is an obvious answer. A large portion of the country at the time, especially the south, depended on slaves for their livelihood – the Carltons eventually go broke because of their plan.

There are of course also examples in the text about the Fugitive Slave laws, and laws against whites helping slaves prove their freedom. I think when taking into account the immense control that slavery had over the entire country’s economic and legal system – it is quite possible that the only means of true resistance lied within writing – that the only way to combat this evil without being complicit within it was to attempt to change minds. That, as silly and romanticized as it sounds,  poetry really was capable of defeating slavery.

First Impression of Clotel

Before opening up my book to begin Clotel, I knew nothing of the text I must admit, I’ve been a bit surprised of what I’ve read. I feel as if we’ve all read so much literature about slavery. I know my Sophomore year of high school we spent an entire quarter (and some of the other quarters) reading books on the subject, and it’s a main focus in almost all of my American lit classes. Not saying we should not read books about slavery, but occasionally some of the texts seem exactly the same.

I’m a bit reluctant to completely judge my opinion of the text so far, since we’ve only read the narrative of William Wells Brown so far. But, from what we have read, it’s much drier than I would have expected. Maybe it’s because we have not been introduced to any characters so far, but it did not seem to have any flourish to it. Once again… at least not so far.

I really enjoyed some of the little stories within the text. I definitely think they were the most powerful. Such as the blind mother whom was ripped away (literally) from her child who was sold for a measly $1. Or about the woman who was also taken from her husband and her children and decided to drown herself in the ocean. These were very powerful stories which were unlike any I had ever heard of before. It’s horrible to think of what it must be like to be torn apart from the people who love you most.

I hope to really benefit from hearing the personal narrative of the author. He truly had an amazing journey himself from slavery to author. It’s inspiring that he went from a simple spelling book to writing the first African-American novel. I also really loved at the end his response to his former slave-owner. That no matter how much money was offered in exchange for his papers, he would never give it to him. With his background and spirit, I look forward to seeing how that may translate into the novel.

Bits and Pieces of Clotel

As the beginning of this novel is slightly jumpy so shall this post be.

First of all I was thinking about the footnote that explains that Brown wrote the 3rd person narrative of his life and so went against the convention that a white abolitionist write the intro in order to legitimize the work. This makes me think about other introductions and about why a novel with a forward from a big name author would sell more than the same novel without that forward. What is it about tying a so-called “great” author with a lesser known one that makes the latter more legitimate? I suppose if you enjoy the work of an author you may like writings that the author likes, but not necessarily. Also there are quotes from other authors on about every other page in Clotel. Why use so many words from other authors if you are trying to legitimize yourself as an author in and of yourself? I dont know the answers to these questions I just thought they were interesting points to consider.

Second I have to say that some parts of this book were fairly difficult for me to get through and I had to take a couple of breaks and collect myself before I could go on. I think that the worst part was in the chapter titled “the religious teacher.” Although I had known that religion was used to support slavery it was horrifying to see an example of it played out. The way that religion works for both slaves and slave owners is fascinating as well. We see the owners twist the verses to meet their needs but we also see that the slaves, not only deny that God could have created them to be slaves to the white people but they also embrace the God given to them and use him to strengthen them against their owners.

The relationship between Mr. Peck and Georgiana was also interesting in that she went away to the north for school and came back much more “radical” than her parent. It seems that this model is often seen still today with the next generation moving away from the ideals of their parents, in either direction.

Last thing: It seems to me that the word servant is used in place of the word slave quite often in the text. Was this a common word-choice at the time or something that Brown does deliberately?

Presentation

As you begin writing this paper, I want you to think about these same issues in relation to our contemporary moment.  How do we, as twenty-first century Americans, think of the connection between sex, sin, and citizenship?  Since we live in an even more alienated time, how do we mitigate (or fail to mitigate) that alienation in order to maintain “union,” personally and politically?

More pointedly, do you believe that technology further alienates us and further thwarts the practice of good citizenship?   After all, it disembodies us, in ways that Whitman might arguably find objectionable.  Or, does it free us from physical and social associations, like race, class, and gender, that might enable a loose but meaningful connection along the lines of Temple House?  In other words, does technology turn us even further into suggestible crackpots like in Wieland or further into ogling voyeurs like in The Blithedale Romance? Or does technology, despite (or maybe because of) its non-physicality, bring us somehow closer together? In other words, can technology “queer” citizenship?

You will do your presentation using the Pecha Kucha presentation style.  In short, that style dictates that you can use 20 slides and that each slide stays on the screen for exactly 20 seconds, making all presentations a total of 6 minutes and 40 seconds.  Traditional text used in PowerPoint presentations (such as bullet points) should not be used.  Instead, each slide should focus on an image or collection of images and should use only a bare minimum of text.  Instead, the focus should be on you and how you narrate your presentation.

About Pecha Kucha: Pecha Kucha is a presentation style developed by architects in Japan who were frustrated by sitting through boring PowerPoint presentations.  It is designed to be fast-paced and interactive, rather than drawn out and passive.  You can learn more about it and see examples at the following sites:
FAQ on Pecha Kucha style
Wired magazine article with example
Wikipedia page on Pecha Kucha
Examples of Pecha Kucha presentations
A guide to better Pecha Kucha presentations

I’ll hand out the rubric on Monday.

Final Paper Prompt

All of the texts we have read for this course posit a connection between sex, sin, and citizenship.  Over the course of the semester, I hope you’ve gained a sense that during the early national through antebellum periods Americans were concerned about the bonds of citizenship.  These issues were particularly important in the early decades of the nation, as the nation grew in terms of geography and population and as industrialization moved people from the country into the city.  People seem to become more alienated, even as they move closer together, opening up a set of questions about political life: were men supposed to be in a kind of brotherhood of the nation? Is that what a democracy or a republic requires?  What about people who don’t qualify for citizenship, or at least full citizenship?  How do they get tied into civic life?

In short, what holds us together personally, politically?  What is the relationship between the feelings that hold us together personally and the feelings that hold us together politically?

The texts we have read investigate these questions by looking at the bonds that connect us—bonds of kinship, bonds of sexual desire, bonds of same-sex affiliation. Many posit that there is something unhealthy or damaging about the heterosexual coupling (or the nuclear family more broadly) because coupling further isolates people and because it thwarts a larger sense of community (and often is devoid of physicality, sensuality, and intimacy, which are arguably also essential to a democracy).

For your final short paper of the term, you will investigate how one text we have read articulates the bonds that hold us together and/or the ways that heterosexual coupling and the nuclear family undermine civic bonds.  You should address this topic in 5-7 pages, so be sure to stay focused.

I will evaluate papers using the following hierarchy:

• Argument: The argument is nuanced (rather than just plausible), clearly presented, and thoroughly supported throughout the paper.  (40% of grade)
• Evidence: The paper uses evidence from the primary texts and analyzes the cited passages thoroughly, clearly connecting evidence to the author’s argument.  Critical sources should be consulted sparingly, if at all. (25% of grade)
• Organization: The paper has a fluid structure, with a clear progression and a sense of forward trajectory. (20% of grade)
• Style: The paper should be thoroughly proofread and should contain few surface errors.  It should use MLA citation.  (15% of grade)