I really liked this book. It was actually a page-turner toward the end. And it is not a micro history, but rather a biography of a woman who was placed in an incredible position through the accident of time and geography and birth. Townsend's book does an incredible job of telling the story from the perspective of both the Spanish and the "indigenous". The entire book is actually one long "perhaps" because Marina did not leave any written trail of her own. That left the author to fill in the spaces using other sources. Townsend acknowledges the Spanish sources are clearly biased, and native sources were not written until almost 20 years after the events. That leaves a tightrope to be walked when telling the story.
We have talked before about creolization. Marina was clearly an Indian, but hers was the first generation to come to terms with the Spanish, and the last to live before the conquest. What I learned from this book is that except for the first Carib's or Taino's to see Columbus' ships pull up, indigenous people knew there were "others" coming. And before the Conquistadors were successful, their diseases almost cleared the playing field.
Townsend makes it clear that the Spanish prevailed because they had superior technology, nothing more. It was interesting to read that American's were still in the Stone Age, and relatively new to agriculture, because the corn they grew did not offer the protein available in European's wheat. Marina, and others we must presume, were wise enough to see the inevitable. Or, they were simply wise enough to navigate a dangerous situation and survive.
My favorite passage is pure speculation, not based on historical evidence, but tells what Marina must have experienced at the birth of her first child. Townsend juxtaposes the Indian tradition of "helping a woman try to rally toward the end of labor" with the Spanish atmosphere of "praying for help, even mercy." It was a big difference, "All her life, she had thought of a woman giving birth as a warrior, a hero who had the opportunity to win honor, not as someone who begged for mercy in the face of a great punishment being inflicted by the deity." (140) In this book, what happened to the women is not an after thought. It reveals women's vulnerability and exploitation by Indians and Spanish, women's dealing with the sometime cruelty of their own reproductive biology, and women's ability to make decisions for themselves where ever possible within an oppressive system.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Scandal at Bizarre - Malfunctioning Patriarchy
Cynthia Kierner’s study of the families and events of “Jefferson’s Virginia” in Scandal at Bizarre is an example of how a microhistory can take on broader historical aspects, such as the feminist history of the Old South, the decline of the gentry establishment in post-Revolutionary America, and the subtle forms of power that oppressed, and even enslaved, people could possess.
Kierner begins, like many microhistories, with a very macro-looking introduction to provide the contextual foundation of the book. Chapter 1 looks at the overarching social, political, and economic landscape of Virginia, including the hierarchical influences in land ownership, wealth, and public power. Woven into this contextual overview is the story of one extended family – the famous Randolphs – and the tragic events that unfolded at Bizarre and Glentivar. The scandal, largely influenced by the stories shared by slaves who told stories of finding the body of an aborted baby, affected everyone involved for decades to come and, as exposed by Kierner’s research and writing, provided a unique vantage point on the personal dynamics of men and women, privileged and pedestrian, revered and repugnant members of society. Nancy, stuck at the center of the scandal, endures to find love with the acclaimed statesman Gouverneur Morris in New York, a happy marriage but one resented by some who felt that Nancy was beneath Morris’ status. The marriage produced a son, Gouverneur Jr., who became the center of Nancy’s universe and her reason for fighting vigilantly against those who attempted to use the earlier scandal to discredit and tarnish her. The story that emerges is one of strength, determination, and heartbreak, all serving to highlight how wrong things can go when social power is concentrated in one demographic group – the white male elites – and that group “malfunctions.” As Kierner says, it is “a story that illustrated the perils of seduction and malfunctioning patriarchy.”
Kierner begins, like many microhistories, with a very macro-looking introduction to provide the contextual foundation of the book. Chapter 1 looks at the overarching social, political, and economic landscape of Virginia, including the hierarchical influences in land ownership, wealth, and public power. Woven into this contextual overview is the story of one extended family – the famous Randolphs – and the tragic events that unfolded at Bizarre and Glentivar. The scandal, largely influenced by the stories shared by slaves who told stories of finding the body of an aborted baby, affected everyone involved for decades to come and, as exposed by Kierner’s research and writing, provided a unique vantage point on the personal dynamics of men and women, privileged and pedestrian, revered and repugnant members of society. Nancy, stuck at the center of the scandal, endures to find love with the acclaimed statesman Gouverneur Morris in New York, a happy marriage but one resented by some who felt that Nancy was beneath Morris’ status. The marriage produced a son, Gouverneur Jr., who became the center of Nancy’s universe and her reason for fighting vigilantly against those who attempted to use the earlier scandal to discredit and tarnish her. The story that emerges is one of strength, determination, and heartbreak, all serving to highlight how wrong things can go when social power is concentrated in one demographic group – the white male elites – and that group “malfunctions.” As Kierner says, it is “a story that illustrated the perils of seduction and malfunctioning patriarchy.”
Family, Honor, and Sex in Virginia
Cynthis A. Kierner skillfully illuminates the mindset of Virginia's planter gentry through the scandalous legal drama that beset the Randolph family in 1790s Virginia. The accusations against Richard Randolph, that he had possibly impregnated his wife's unwed sister Nancy and then helped her terminate said pregnancy, were an affront to everything upper-class conventions at the time considered respectable. Thus, Richard sought to publicly defend his personal and family honor in the face of rumors that originated among enslaved people but soon spread far and wide enough to concern his kin Thomas Jefferson. Kierner's treatment of the story depicts an aristocratic culture defending its mores as, "the political and economic changes of the revolutionary era weakened Virginians' habitual deference toward their society's traditional elites." (43) In doing so we see concepts of honor and family, as well as sex and gender, brought before the public eye to be dissected.
This idea of an 'honor based society' reflects many of the themes shown in the Cook's treatment of Francisco Noguero. In Franciso's world reputation and wealth are synonymous as it is for the Randolph's. This is important for it demonstrates to us the ways that privilege and status were bound to certain behaviors which included sexual conduct. And interestingly Kierner seems to postulate that these behavioral norms were subject to the scrutiny of public opinion, even when the members of that public included slaves. There is no court higher than the court public opinion and this was certainly true post-revolutionary Virginia.
This idea of an 'honor based society' reflects many of the themes shown in the Cook's treatment of Francisco Noguero. In Franciso's world reputation and wealth are synonymous as it is for the Randolph's. This is important for it demonstrates to us the ways that privilege and status were bound to certain behaviors which included sexual conduct. And interestingly Kierner seems to postulate that these behavioral norms were subject to the scrutiny of public opinion, even when the members of that public included slaves. There is no court higher than the court public opinion and this was certainly true post-revolutionary Virginia.
Comments on Scandal at Bizarre
In my opinion, Kierner does an excellent job of using the scandal at Bizarre to look at a wide variety of themes in Jefferson's America. She seamlessly uses the scandal as a peephole to look at the broader theme of gender roles at the end of the eighteenth and start of the nineteenth century. She also explores the power that slaves' gossip carried, and their agency in wielding this power in order to shame those "who they deemed lacking in paternal benevolence" (172). It seems to me that Kierner is right to assert that the slaves' rumors were what got the ball rolling when it comes to the scandal getting out in the open, and which eventually ended up in court. I wish that she could have devoted more time to exploring the power of slaves' rumors, since it's such an interesting topic. I feel as though I learned a lot about the wider subject of gender roles in this time period by looking through this peephole, but I felt as though I learned only about the power of slaves' rumors as it pertained to this particular case. Nonetheless, I was also impressed by the way she was able to incorporate specific quotations from the letters into her narrative. While I felt that the authors of Good Faith and Truthful Ignorance, for example, at times relied a little too heavily on quoting long passages of the letters that they used, Kierner inserted appropriate pieces with helpful analysis throughout. I think that she gets away with using "Scandal" in her title, since such a large portion is devoted to the aftermath rather than the scandal itself, but overall it's an excellent book.
Kierner's Microhistorical Lens and Gender History
Scandal at
Bizarre is quite the intriguing read.
It is as much of a microhistory as it is a gender history and history of the
social climate of post-revolutionary America. I used this work as one of my
main sources last semester for my historiography on gender history. Last
semester when we approached this work, I wondered how much it truly was a
microhistory. Sure it deals with a singular event; however its focus becomes extraordinarily
broadened to follow the lives of Richard, Nancy, Judith, etc. Even though it
follows the lives of these people spanning several decades, this time
approaching the work I do find it to be a true microhistory. As was mentioned
last class, a good tool for examining what a microhistory is by comparing it to
a more standard historical investigation. In this fashion, I find Kierners work
to be similar to that of Thornton’s and Sparks. They have a central focus,
whether it be an event or series of events, then utilize that to branch
outwards to talk about larger subjects. They take the utilization of our ‘lens
theory’ to heart.
Scandal at Bizarre tells the story of a single event, a single night, and the people of such an event. Then Kierner goes into detail about the importance of what such an event, the actions and repercussions of its subjects, and the ramifications in their entirety. When attempting to summarize the exact form and function of this book, I think some of Kierner’s closing words leave us with the best summation of how she views her own work.
Scandal at Bizarre tells the story of a single event, a single night, and the people of such an event. Then Kierner goes into detail about the importance of what such an event, the actions and repercussions of its subjects, and the ramifications in their entirety. When attempting to summarize the exact form and function of this book, I think some of Kierner’s closing words leave us with the best summation of how she views her own work.
“Some historians have viewed the scandal primarily through the lens of gender, interpreting Nancy’s tribulations in Virginia as evidence of the oppression and suppression of white women in the Old South. Others, focusing on the offensive against Richard and the eventual disintegration of his family, have seen the scandal as emblematic of the plight of decayed gentry in the post-revolutionary Virginia. One recent account, by contrast, emphasizes the adroit efforts of Richard’s defenders to use the newspaper and the courts to influence ‘an ever-widening “public”…to manipulate the public understanding of their behavior and their character.’” (171)
Kierner concludes, in her view of her own work, that:
“My account of the Bizarre scandal highlights all of these themes while using the Randolphs’ story to gain insight into complexity and contradictions of American society and culture in a crucial transitional era.” (172)
Kierner, highlights a
compendium of historical themes that would take another compendium in-order to
fully answer. Ranging from relationships of 18th/19th
century Virginian gender roles, rising democracy/egalitarianism, financial
death of the dried up landed gentry of the old world, relationship between Master/Slave
and the power of gossip, honor, dejure representation of the law/courts
juxtaposed with the defacto power of societal perceptions. I personally
find gender and gossip/honor to be two of the most central themes in this
highly turbulent era full of great events and great changes.
Perhaps the “great
historical question” she is attempting to answer here is simply the effects of
the micro on the macro. One night at Glentivar dictated an entire generation of
Randolphs and illuminated the social standards and norms of the late 18th
century. Nancy, Judith, Richard, and other’s lives were completely ruined by a
small “mistake” in their youth. The books concern is not what happened,
but more so what it meant. It detailed ruin that transcended the lifelong
pursuits of Nancy, Judith, St. George Tucker, the courts, peoples of all walks
of life, etc. Perhaps such a microhistory attempts to find the ramifications
and implications in the small. Kierner ends her work with a picture of the
plaque erected at the site of Bizarre and another in the South Bronx. Both are
very topical and lacking any sort of depth except a summation of the largest of
all events. No mention of the scandal or the lives affected therein. Perhaps
microhistory, in this sense, is a tool to combat the necessary reductionism
present in larger histories. Nonetheless, her work accomplishes a very similar
goal to that of larger histories.
To touch on the subject of gender history, I would
also like to post an excerpt from my paper last semester:
In focusing heavily on the domestic sphere and the personal lives of women, Kierner utilizes the advances in gender history to further her arguments. Scandal at Bizarre is, not in the strict second wave feminist definition of a ‘gender history’, yet Kierner, like the historical discipline, by the early 21st century incorporated gender analysis as a legitimate and valued lens of historical analysis. One can imagine the satisfaction Scott derived from such advances since her 1986 article.
Kierner attempts to illustrate the effects of masculine paternalism on master/slave relationships at this period of time. The master would typically adopt the role of the benevolent paternal figure of their slaves as a means to legitimize their dominance and slavery, itself, as an institution. Kierner demonstrates how slaves would utilize rumors, a “weapon of the weak”[i], that would spread beyond the confines of a single household and into the society. In doing so slaves had some collective power in pushing their masters back into the role of a benevolent paternal figure.[ii] Rumors, as Richard and the rest of the Randolph family discovered, could be catastrophic to ones social status and well being. The slaves could impact the gendered system of slavery, via rumors, in order to reaffirm masculine (master) and feminine (slave) gender roles to their own end.
When the scandal, perpetuated by rumors, of infanticide and adultery became insurmountable for Richard Randolph, he turned to the court system for assistance. Such an act, in late 18th century court proceedings, was highly gendered. In cases of rumor and accusations of immorality, dependent on notions of masculine virtue, the target of such rumor was expected to challenge the accusations. Men were expected to directly challenge those spewing such accusations, but Richard Randolph was denied such a masculine right. William Randolph initiated and propelled the rumors against Richard, yet would not acknowledge Richard’s attempts to rebuke. Such a relational power maneuver feminized Richard’s character and subverted his masculine rights. Turning to the courts as a battleground was, typically, in the 18th century a women’s path since they were unable to directly challenge rumors against their feminine virtue.[iii]
Court cases involving slander typically involved a female defendant, with a male relative testifying in her defense. In the case of the Randolph family, Richard assumed the role of the defendant with Judith, to some extent, testifying in a stoic and masculine manner on behalf of his fidelity.[iv] This inversion of gender roles would plague Richard Randolph and, even though he won the court case, contribute to the spiraling degradation of his social perception. This masculinization on the part of Judith would not end with the hammering of the gavel. She too, with the physical decline of Richard, had to take on the paternal role in the household to care for Nancy and the estate. Her masculine role would last up until Richard’s brother, Jack, took upon the paternal responsibilities at bizarre.[v]
The most damaging targets of rumor were a man’s masculine honor and a woman’s feminine virtue. These themes run the length of Scandal at Bizarre and are evident throughout. Nancy, upon leaving Virginia, found salvation from public scorn in assuming the role of the caring mother whereas before she could not.[vi] Virginia Randolph, in response to the rumors and accusations of the family, published a collection of letters titled Letters on Female Character as an instruction guide for proper masculine and feminine, husband and wife, gender roles.[vii] In the end as hostilities between Jack, who blamed Nancy for his brothers death and social decline, and Nancy spiraled out of control, each one attacked the others gendered characters. Nancy publically cited affronts to Jacks masculine honor as Jack attempted to destroy Nancy’s feminine purity and virtue.[viii]
Cynthia Kierner would not have been able to make such claims and prove, to the extent she did, the ramifications of scandalous rumors without first exploring their gendered functions. In making such an analysis, Scandal at Bizarre proves to be a perfect example of utilizing gender in the greater historical analysis. By the early 21st century, gender became a legitimate tool for the historian to better understand the past.
Scandalous Gossip
I took this course because I am keenly
interested in the power of "small" events and how they can precipitate
larger historical affairs or circumstances, or at a minimum, give us an idea of
what things were like where (and in the time) the small event was happening.
As the old saying goes, "the devil is in the details," and in a study
like Scandal at Bizarre, one can see a relatively small or otherwise
insignificant event and its connection or relation to larger historical
developments / trends of the time in question. It is in the detail of these
microhistories that we can see valuable context and a greater, richer, more
detailed understanding of historical events as a whole. Such is Cynthia
Kierner's examination of this single event as it relates to and reflects the
political, moral, and societal landscape in the fledgling United States in the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The scandal has rightly
been seen as, among other things, "a revealing barometer of the power and
perils of patriarchy" at the outset of our nation. For me, language plays
a starring role. The power of the printed and spoken word (engendered and
gentrified) dominates in multiple forms: the printed newspaper broadside,
letters and personal correspondence, romantic courtroom orations, and seemingly
the most powerful - gossip. The power of gossip in a culture of
honor can be extreme, and involve people at all levels of society (Presidents,
gentry, slaves), as evidenced in Scandal. Rumors, substantiated or
not, can ruin reputations and families (dynasties). Likewise, the
manipulation of public opinion through the press and courts, for example, can
be used by a class (in this case Virginia Gentry) to fight to preserve social
order and standing, and to exercise gentry privilege. Scandal at
Bizarre contrasts the declining influence of the gentry with their persistence
to fight those who would limit the gentry's authority of status. As Dr.
Kierner points out, Richard was taken off to jail, charged, and brought into
court (challenges to his gentry privileged status), yet he mounted a
"stellar" legal defense which demonstrated a persistence of gentry
privilege. It is particularly fascinating to see the role gossip played
and how its use gave agency to an otherwise disenfranchised set of actors (the
bonded, women, and those lower in the social pecking order), and how that
contrasts with how the gossip was manipulated by elite whites to suit their own
needs. Dr. Keirner posits that the initial gossip of Nancy's 1792
experience at Glentivar gave power to slaves' words, but their attempt to shame
Randolph Harrison failed, as the gossip perpetuated by slaves was susceptible
to the elite white agenda. The slaves in this case exercised agency
initially, but that agency was usurped by white gentrified authority,
contrasting the slaves' agency with their ultimately disenfranchised
standing. The study of this type of contract (contradiction?) is a
fascinating way to see the honor culture in the early U.S. and to examine the
decline of Gentry society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)