The Shared Experience of A Raisin in the Sun

Loraine Hansberry,
author of A Raisin in the Sun

“Where lectures and slide shows do not work, drama does” (Pitman 171).  Theater has been a powerful form of art and literature in the western world for centuries.  Greeks turned to it for religious expression; Shakespeare turned to it for political expression and comedy.  For many years, dramatic production in America was reserved for white men.  In the late 1950s, Lorraine Hansberry, an African-American woman who grew up on the south side of Chicago, wrote a play called A Raisin in the Sun, which forever changed the landscape of American theater.  Raisin portrays the difficulties associated with deferred dreams and racial issues.  Hansberry’s choice of medium translates and expresses the main themes of the play to the audience more powerfully than would a classical literary text for three main reasons: first, the actors and audience participate in the experience together; second, theater induces emotion in the actors and the audience; and third, theater attempts to influence all to look inward, which facilitates change in the individual.

            Theater is a unique medium that allows both the actors and the audience to participate simultaneously in a shared experience.  Belarie Zatzman, a professor of drama and education at York University in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, focuses much of her work on the concept of shared experience.  In an article entitled “The Monologue Project: Drama as a Form of Witnessing,” Zatzman states that the nature of what she calls the “memory-work” that is created through drama is “designed to locate our own narrative and memory—personal, political, and historical,” that relate to the themes of the work (Zatzman 35).  As the actors and the audience locate these memories, they are able to fill in the spaces left by the narrative with their own experience.  This interaction creates a new landscape, where remembered, forgotten, unknown, and even “invented histories” intersect and cohabitate (Zatzman 35-36).

            The reality of and struggle with deferred dreams expressed throughout Raisin is an excellent example of Zatzman’s concept of shared experience.  Beneatha Younger is a young African-American woman with an insatiable need to do and become something great.  In her pursuit, she dabbles in many different forms of education and expression, but never sticks to one thing.  She gains basic skills and understanding in a number of different areas, but masters none of them.  She feels as though her family, who is supposed to love and support her and her dreams, is tearing them down.  In a moment of frustration, Beneatha’s older brother Walter reprimands her for what he perceives as listlessness.  “I don’t want nothing but for you to stop acting holy ‘round here,” he says.  Why can’t you do something for the family?  It ain’t that nobody expects you to get on your knees and say thank you.”  Beneatha defiantly drops to her knees and retorts, “Well—I do—all right?—thank everybody!  And forgive me for ever wanting to be anything at all!” (Hansberry 21)

            Individuals who have felt denied or belittled by a family member can relate to this powerful scene.  There is a touch of humor expressed by Beneatha, but she uses it to show the hurt that she feels.  Every experience that the audience members can relate to this moment is connected with their personal history.  As the audience watches Beneatha’s pathetic performance for her brother, their experiences fill in the information that is missing about their relationship.  In other words, the information from the play and the experience of the audience intersect.  This is the place where the remembered, forgotten, unknown, and “invented histories” can live (Zatzman 36).

            The unique shared experience provided by theater evokes emotional responses between the actors and audience.  “The aim of theater, like art, [is] to stir or provoke emotion rather than describe emotion,” says Kenneth Macgowan, a prominent theater critic of the early twentieth century (Bloom 96).  Because the provocation of emotion is theater’s aim, emotion contributes to both the creation of each work and its appreciation.  The dynamic between the creator and the observer is called “aesthetic emotion,” which means that there is a quality in the work that provokes emotions of the same kind (Bloom 80).  Referring back to Beneatha’s experience with her brother, the emotion that is evoked in the audience is that of sadness, helplessness, or pain.  As she screams an apology for “ever wanting to be anything at all,” the audience’s shared experience carries her emotion into their own hearts.  The emotion with which the lines were written, and especially performed, is translated to the observer. 

            In the example afore noted, the actor’s performance plays a vital role in transferring emotion to the audience. According to Zatzman, when actors compile and reconstruct their own portrayal, “the obligation to witnessing and the performing of the identity is made vivid” (Zatzman 36).  Vivid is a powerful descriptor in this context.  Vivid can mean multiple things: producing a strong and distinct mental image, active or inventive, strikingly clear, or, most powerfully, truth to life when perceived either by the eye or the mind.  One example from Raisin may help illustrate how vividly a character can be portrayed.

            Lena Younger, the mother of Beneatha and Walter, receives an insurance check following her husband’s death.  Walter went out to invest the check, worth $10,000, in a business venture and gets swindled out of all the money.  A large portion of the check was going toward a down payment on a house in a nice neighborhood across town.  Without that money the family has few options.  A representative of the nice neighborhood visits the family to buy the house from them, because the white neighbors do not want any blacks around them.  Walter, a broken man, considers taking the offer despite the complete lack of dignity it would show.  He frantically performs his plan in front of his awe-struck family:

I’m going to look that son-of-a-bitch in the eyes and say—(He falters)—and say, ‘All right, Mr. Linder—(He falters even more)—that’s your neighborhood out there!  . . .  And you people just put the money in my hand and you won’t have to live next to this bunch of stinking niggers!’. . . And maybe—maybe I’ll just get down on my black knees [which he does to the sheer horror of the women in the room]. . . .  ‘Captain, Mistuh, Bossman’—(groveling and grinning and wringing his hands in profoundly anguished imitation of the slow-witted movie stereotype) ‘A-hee-hee-hee!  Oh, Yassuh boss!  Yasssssuh!  Great white. . . Father, just

gi’ ussen de money fo’ God’s sake, and we’s—we’s ain’t gwine come out deh and dirty up yo’ white folks neighborhood. . .’  (He breaks down completely) And I’ll feel fine!  FINE! (He gets up and goes to the bedroom) (128).

            Walter’s performance is strikingly vivid.  His actions provoke powerful mental images of slaves, broken individuals, who rely on the “benevolent hand of the white man” for their lives.  His family’s reaction is “sheer horror.”  Reactions from the audience are not likely to be much more positive.  The vividness of his actions, in the eyes of his family, is expressed in a truth which once was; a truth that has been fought against, by their ancestors, for generations.  As he breaks down, the emotion he exhibits is transferred to the observer.

            Raisin’s shared experience and translated emotion combine to influence all parties involved to look inward.  Professor Emeritus Walter A. Davis of Ohio State University says that “the purpose of serious theater can be stated simply—to challenge the audience to examine everything that they don’t want to face about themselves and their world” (Davis 3).  There is no other public institution, according to Davis, that can publicly air secrets like theater can.  Every other institution is established to celebrate and perpetuate ideology.  “Freedom,” says Davis, “depends on overcoming the vast weight of ideological beliefs that have colonized one’s heart and mind” (Davis 3-4).  The purpose is not to convince the audience to change their ideas.  “Serious drama strikes much deeper.  It is an attempt to assault and astonish the heart, to get at the deepest disorders and springs of our psychological being, in order to effect a change in the very way we feel about ourselves—and consequently about everything else” (Davis 4).

            Robert Nemiroff, the late Lorraine Hansberry’s husband, wrote an introduction to the script of Raisin.  He quotes James Baldwin, who says that Americans suffer from an “ignorance that is not only colossal, but sacred.”  He refers to our seemingly infinite capacity to lie to ourselves about race issues (qtd. in Hansberry xviii).  These farcical ideas become entrenched in the mind and heart.  It takes a major event to shake these ideas loose.  The powerful emotional experience available from Raisin is closely tied to the race issues that are portrayed therein.  It is difficult to feel Walter’s pain with him and not see the degrading nature of his portrayed relationship with the housing representative.  Experiencing this with him can indeed be a traumatic event.  It is through a traumatic event such as this, argues Davis, that we learn something about our character that reveals the lies within us.  More importantly, he claims, we learn that we are the “author of the events that brought us to this situation” (Davis 122-23).  It is then up to each individual to choose to do with that new knowledge.

            Together, shared experience, emotional inducement, and the influence to look inward make Hansberry’s choice of medium powerful in facilitating the expression of her main themes.  Now, over a half-century later, A Raisin in the Sun is still as widely acclaimed as ever.  Not only do the themes penetrate through generations, but the theater instills their perpetuation in all who participate. 

(There is an interesting post by one of my graduate instructors, Brett Sigurdson, that includes some interesting videos of A Raisin in the Sun, both during the 60s and today. It's worth taking a look at. http://english3300.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/a-raisin-in-the-sun-then-and-now/)

Works Cited

Bloom, Thomas Alan. Kenneth Macgowan and the Aesthetic Paradigm for the New Stagecraft in America. New York: Peter Lang, 1996. Print.

Davis, Walter A. Art and Politics: Psychoanalysis, Ideology, Theatre. London: Pluto, 2007. Print.

Hansberry, Lorraine. A Raisin in the Sun: 1995 Modern Library Edition. New York: Random House, 1995. Print.

Pitman, Walter. “Drama through the Eyes of Faith.” How Theatre Educates: Convergences & Counterpoints. Ed. Kathleen Gallagher and David Booth. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2003. 162-172. Print.

Zatzman, Belarie. “The Monologue Project: Drama as a Form of Witnessing.” How Theatre Educates: Convergences & Counterpoints. Ed. Kathleen Gallagher and David Booth. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2003. 35-55. Print. 

Contested Ideas within The Federalist

The United States’ first national government during the post-Revolutionary period was short lived. Founders who established the Articles of Confederation did so in response to the sentiment of the people at large: a fear of executive power led to the absence of an executive; distrust for national politicians led to a weak, nearly powerless Congress and strong state governments. These provisions did not provide the structure necessary for a united central government. The states sent delegates to Philadelphia for a convention that would reshape the government as it was then constituted. The convention resulted in a new Constitution that was to be ratified by each state in ratifying conventions.

            Writing a new Constitution was not an easy task for the framers. Forrest McDonald, professor of history at the University of Alabama, studied the wide range of ideological influence that influenced the document created at the convention. Ideological schools which McDonald covered include, among others, the Nationalists (specifically the “Court Party” Nationalists), Republican Ideologues, Puritanical Republicans, and Agrarian Republicans. As the Constitution was sent out for ratification, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay wrote a number of essays arguing in behalf of the new Constitution. The Federalist, as the compilation of these essays was called, was as ideologically diverse in its origins as was the Constitution. Federalist No. 10 and 51, both written by Madison, were good examples of the internal conflict of ideas. No. 70, written by Hamilton, is an example of consistency within.

            The intellectual origins of The Federalist #10 were, to some extent, internally contested. James Madison wrote this essay under the pseudonym of “Publius.” He began the essay with an observation of the history of popular governments. Confusion, violence, and instability were constant throughout many of them, including the State governments during the early years of the Union. Faction, according to Madison, was the “mortal disease” of popular government.[1] Madison derived much of this idea from the Republican Ideologues. Republican Ideologues were horrified by the idea that passions ruled men, groups, and governments.  One of their main concerns was corruption, which made it hard to trust any man with a significant amount of power.[2] Madison defined a faction as a group, whether majority or minority, that is brought together by a common inclination of passion or interest, adverse to individual rights or to the public good.[3] Factions were adverse to the public good, because one of the key principles of puritanical or classical republicanism was public virtue. According to this sentiment, men should be independent and individualistic toward the end of communal good.[4]

            The Federalist #10 was also mildly influenced by Agricultural Republicanism and the “Court Party” Nationalists. Madison saw two options for dealing with factions: remove their causes or control their effects. Removing their causes would require establishing a will that is independent of society.  Diversity of opinions and unequal faculties for obtaining property, according to Madison, were “sown into the nature of man.”[5] Puritanical Republicanism, which sought moral solutions to moral problems, would oppose any such imposition of an independent will in society.[6]  Society must, therefore, control the effects of factions. Agrarian Republicans would say that in order to do so, adequate social, political, and economic institutions needed to be put in place.[7] David Hume, a Scottish philosopher and major influence on Nationalist ideology, also said that these institutions are what set up a nation for success, not morals alone.[8] There seemed to be some disagreement between the Agrarian Republican-Nationalist ideas and the Republican Ideologue-Puritanical Republican ideas found within the text. The disagreement centered around one major point: what was the right way to deal with moral issues within society. The former held to socio-political-economic solutions; the latter held to moral solutions to moral problems.

James Madison, author of Federalist 10 and 51

            Federalist No. 51 was even more ideologically contested than No. 10. James Madison, again using the name Publius, made the argument for a separation of powers within the national government. It was the government’s structure, Madison claimed, that made liberty possible.[9] This claim was strongly backed by the ideas of both Agrarian Republicans and the “Court Party” Nationalists. As was mentioned above, Agrarian Republicans thought that making better arrangements provided the solutions and the “Court Party” Nationalists clung to Hume’s idea of institutions as the pathway to success.  Madison then made the point that the people should elect every position within the national government, but they did not always understand the qualifications for those positions. He cited the example of judges. Everyday voters had no conception of the training and qualifications necessary for such a position.[10] The Republican Ideologues were strong proponents of similar sentiments in regards to direct democracy, though they were more outspoken on the subject. To the Ideologues, excess of democracy needed to be checked by strengthening the central authority. As the central authority was strengthened, more controls would be needed. Separating the three main responsibilities of government would be vital to the controls on the ambitions of individuals therein, according to both Madison and the Republican Ideologues.[11] Ideologues’ fear of corruption gave Madison’s Nationalist-based argument its foundation.

Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist 70

            Unlike No. 10 and 51, Federalist No. 70 was in generally consistent. Nationalist sentiment was central to each theme of the essay. Alexander Hamilton, who penned this essay, was closely tied to the “Court Party” Nationalists.[12] His affiliation therein was apparent in his argument for an energetic and forceful Executive. He claimed that energy was essential to good government. Administration and execution of the law, especially regarding national security and protection of property rights, required an Executive with adequate power to do so. An Executive with this power would protect liberty when factions, anarchy, or the ambitions of others infringe upon it.[13] Nationalists focused their ideology around the need to reorganize and strengthen the central authority, and this need is what fueled Hamilton’s argument.[14] It was impossible, according to the “Court Party” Nationalists, for public virtue to exist at the levels that puritanical republicanism required. Ambition and avarice were considered “the ruling passions.”[15] Hamilton argued that allowing the Executive to pursue his ambition would give him reason to work hard. Hamilton also argued for a single Executive, in order to protect the public good from infringement by the Executive’s ambition. When there is one Executive, he argued, there would always be someone to blame.[16] This argument tied back to Hume’s notion of institutions as the recipe for success. The very structure of the office of Executive would compel the Executive to work hard and to avoid any usurpation.

            The examples of contested ideas within The Federalist showed the struggle that the founders of the Constitution faced.  Not only were there contesting ideas between individuals and groups, but there were contested ideas within individuals and groups. Forrest McDonald showed that coming to the knowledge of what the founders meant would be exceptionally complex. He argued that there was not a single idea that formed the words of the Constitution. There were multiple interpretations of the political and social ideologies that were present at the time. By studying this contest of ideas, McDonald showed that the desires of the founders, as varied as they were, drove them to compromise.  The fact that a Constitution so short in length, and yet so broad in influence and interpretation even came out of the convention was astonishing. The founders’ desire to protect their liberty and property, however they interpreted them, caused them to work together to create what would become the new foundation for the political structures of the Western World.

---

[1] James Madison, “No. 10: The Same Subject Continued: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” in The Federalist, 1787.

[2] Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1985) 199.

[3] James Madison, “No. 10.”

[4] Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum, 70.

[5] James Madison, “No. 10.”

[6] Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum, 71.

[7] Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum, 71.

[8] Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum, 210-11.

[9] James Madison, “No. 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments,” in The Federalist, 1787.

[10] James Madison, “No. 51.”

[11] Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum, 202; James Madison, “No. 51.”

[12] Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum,186-87.

[13] Alexander Hamilton, “No. 70: The Executive Department Further Considered,” in The Federalist, 1787.

[14] Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum, 185.

[15] Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum, 191.

[16] Alexander Hamilton, “No. 70.”

Slave Cabin Narratives: Stowe and Tom vs. Eastman and Phillis

Political and social discourse in the mid-eighteenth century was charged with the issue of slavery.  The nation was divided between pro-slavery sentiment and anti-slavery sentiment, with some staking out the middle ground.  Harriet Beecher Stowe stakes her claim among the anti-slavery sentiment in her novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  With literary proficiency, Stowe claims the diabolical inception of slavery as an institution, describes the horrors of the slave trade, and pleads for freedom to all individuals.  Many Southern authors write in direct response to the negative claims made in Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  One significant example is Aunt Phillis’s Cabin, by Mary Eastman.  Eastman claims the divine origin of slavery, portrays the improved and happy state of black slaves, and points out the unethical, indeed hypocritical, nature of abolitionists.  Stowe and Eastman exhibit many opposing, and some similar views.  This analysis will consider some of the main differences between the two opinions, followed by a consideration of some of their similarities.  A few significant topics will then be reviewed from each author’s point of view: slaveholders, opponents to slavery, the societies of the North and the South, and the idea of freedom.

            There are a few key differences in the way Eastman and Stowe analyze the institution of slavery.  Mary Eastman’s argument is based partially on a certain interpretation of the Bible.  Ham, the son of Noah, brought the wrath of God upon himself because of sin.  God cursed Ham and his posterity to forever be a subservient race to God’s chosen people (E, 13-15).  According to Eastman’s interpretation, this curse has existed since that time.  Southerners enslave Africans, because they are direct descendents of Ham.  Eastman says there is no reference in the Bible condemning those who enslave the “heathens” (E, 15-16).  On the contrary, God’s Biblical Prophets held slaves.  When Jesus came he did not free the slaves, though he encountered many, nor did his Apostles after he died (E, 18-20). 

            Along with her argument that slavery is sanctioned by the Bible, Eastman claims that Southern slaves are much better off as slaves than they would be otherwise.  Once they finish their daily chores, the slaves can enjoy their evening pleasantly.  In Eastman’s words, they are “all at ease, and without care.”  Their cabins are neat and clean, where they can relax in their scene of real enjoyment (E, 30).  When they are freed, slaves are never as happy or comfortable as they were with their master.  Susan is Eastman’s runaway example.  “Poor Susan!” Eastman laments.  She has absolutely no means, no money.  Her guilt for leaving her mistress is piling on her and her feelings are constantly agitated.  Truly, according to Eastman, Susan feels she is “out of the frying pan and into the fire” (E, 58-61).  At least with her mistress, Susan was well provided for and she was at peace.

              Stowe argues that slavery has a much more sinister birth than that claimed by Eastman.  According to Stowe, slavery comes from the devil himself.  The devil provides slavery as a tool for men to use in worldly pursuits.  Planters use it to make money—the love of which, according to the Bible, is the root of all evil.  Clergymen use it to please the planters, who in turn do favors for the clergymen.  Politicians use it to rule by, and are sustained by the planters and clergymen (S, 331). 

Because the devil himself is at the root of the peculiar institution, Stowe claims that “it is impossible to make anything beautiful or desirable in the best regulated administration of slavery.” Kentucky is seen as one of the most virtuous regions for slavery, yet slaves in that region must always fears the possibility that they will end up down South with a vicious planter (S, 51). 

Eastman and Stowe do have a few areas in which their analyses of slavery overlap.  One major similarity between the two is their view of the slave trade, primarily the splitting up of families.  In Aunt Phillis, the main planter, Mr. Weston, tells a story about Lucy, a slave woman whose children have all been sold away.  She is immensely distraught and heartbroken, and her story has a powerful impact on Mr. Weston.  He says that he looks upon this act, namely the splitting up of families, with “horror.”  In his opinion, “it is the worst feature in slavery.”  According to Weston, this act is quite uncommon, because most men have more virtue than that, and those who don’t would lose their reputation in the neighborhood (E, 44-45).  Stowe likewise cites the sale of a child away from its mother.  After Tom, an exceptionally pious slave, loses his kind master he is put up for sale to the highest bidder.  The night before the auction, all the slaves are locked in a large warehouse.  All through the night and into the morning, slave owners and traders come in to check the selection.  They do so as they would a piece of livestock: checking the hands and feet, inspecting the teeth, having them perform small tasks to prove their soundness.  Tom is sold to a gruff man, who also buys a young woman and her new child.  They board a ship to head for their new home, and as the woman sleeps the man sells the child to a man as he disembarks.  The woman is absolutely distraught (S, 467-479).  Stowe uses this example to show the barbarity and selfishness that is involved in such an act.

Another similarity between Stowe and Eastman’s analyses is the effect of slavery on slaveholders.  Often, according to Eastman, slavery is just as hard on the master as it is on the slaves.  Mr. Weston looks at the “grieving, throbbing souls” and wonders that God has not provided a solution.  It is true, he acknowledges, they did sin, but what a terrible punishment.  If there was an easy way, and a just way, for emancipation and colonization he would do it; unfortunately there is no easy way (E, 234-235).  Stowe uses St. Clare as an example of how slavery impales slaveholders.  After his cousin, Miss Ophelia, accuses him of defending the institution, he says to her that if the whole country would sink as a result of this horrible sin of slavery, “I would willingly sink with it” (S, 332).  He was born into the chattel system as the son of a planter.  When his father died, he inherited half of his slaves, and seeing no rational or worthy way to rid himself of the horrible system, he has stayed.  It hurts him every day to think that these people he holds as servants are not, and most likely never will be, free (S, 329-344).

As can be seen in the previous analyses, Eastman and Stowe portray slaveholders in some interesting ways.  Eastman argues that discipline and redirection are handled much more humanely than many Northerners think.  It is common for a slaveholder to talk issues through with their servants, rather than always resorting to violent measures.  Mr. Weston explains issues to his servants and lets them know exactly what he expects of them.  When his servant Phillis admits to him that she let a local runaway sleep in her cabin, he tells her that he understands why she did it, but makes it clear that she is not to do it again.  He explains that the runaway is nothing but a trouble maker, and that the laws of the land must be respected.  With that, he sends her back to her work (E, 116-119).  This interaction portrays slaveholders as fathers to their servants, trying to show them the way.  Thus it is in the slaveholder’s best interest to make keep his slaves happy (E, 45).

Stowe’s view of slaveholders is less idealistic than Eastman’s.  Stowe admits that there are likely many slaveholders who are good men.  They are a part of the slave system simply because they were born into it.  The example of St. Clare has previously been mentioned.  He is good at heart, and wishes there was more he could do to effectively improve the slaves’ position (S, 329).  According to Stowe these are not, however, the majority.  A system which was founded by the devil, as Stowe claimed, has a greater tendency to corrupt men, and lead them to as much temptation as possible.  These men are more likely to run things by force and fear.  Any slave who chooses to defy the master’s decision or direction is beaten into submission.  The master enjoys it, and is proud of his accomplishment (S, 483-484).  It is a slippery slope, according to Stowe’s narration.  If slaveholders feed the passion for and enjoyment of beating slaves into submission, that passion can lead a man to kill out of sheer passion (S, 539-540, 557-558, 578, 582-585).  Thus, slavery has an astonishing ability to corrupt men.  Corruption can, however, also come from the opposition: the abolitionists.

Abolitionists are treated differently between Eastman and Stowe.  Eastman portrays abolitionists as hypocritical, telling southern slaveholders to give up what is rightfully theirs, but “does he offer to share in the loss? No.”  According to Eastman, these “fanatics” will never bring about the emancipation of the slaves.  Indeed, it will never happen by force, but by God’s will only (E, 51).  Abolitionists “seduce” slaves to run away, but that is as far as their Christian virtue goes.  They are otherwise concerned about their own time and money (E, 58, 60).  Eastman says that the abolitionist cause would be much more respectable with “a few flashes of truth” (E, 119).  This view of the opponents of slavery comes off quite harsh, and that is Eastman’s point.  Abolitionists are seen by Southerners at the time as sinister little devils, trying to concoct a way to ruin the entire Southern way of life. 

Stowe’s portrayal of abolitionists is much less harsh overall.  Early in the book, Stowe introduces a kind hearted woman in Kentucky that believes that slavery is wrong.  All she wants to do is help the “poor creatures” by giving them a place to sleep, some food to eat, and some clothes to wear.  She does not intend to hide them there at her home, but simply to be a good Christian, indeed a Good Samaritan (S, 142).  Her husband, a Senator, had voted to pass and uphold the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  However, upon personal experience with a ragged runaway slave, the Senator’s heart is touched and he himself helps the runaway (S, 147-161).  In an attempt to avoid oversimplification, Stowe points out that many abolitionists are just as racists as any slaveholder.  They want freedom for the slaves, but beyond that they want nothing to do with them.  Miss Ophelia is astonished that St. Clare lets his children kiss the servants.  She is thoroughly disgusted with the sight (S, 255-256).  This portrayal is similar to Eastman’s, but employs a slightly softer tone, suggesting Stowe’s concern for offending good-hearted abolitionists. 

Eastman and Stowe agree that Northern society is not as virtuous as its citizens claim it is.   Eastman revealed the secret of Northern emancipation: they were “relieved from the necessity of slavery” (E, 23).  If the Northern economy was still based on large-scale agriculture, they would likely still have slaves to do the work.  Because of the shift toward manufacturing and commercialism in the North, there is very little need for a workforce of slaves.  Yet the Northerners feel they have a right to judge the actions of the South, which judgments, Eastman claims, are based on false information (E, 71).  These hypocritical Northerners turn around and treat those of Irish descent worse than Southerners treat their black slaves (E, 73-74).  Stowe gives an example of Northern hypocrisy.  Miss Ophelia, St. Clare’s cousin, is from New England.  She has come down South to stay with her cousin, because his wife is sick and cannot run the estate.  Miss Ophelia constantly talks about what she would do if she were a slaveholder.  She would be kind, and try to teach them right.  As a playful test, St. Clare buys Miss Ophelia a slave girl named Topsy, and tells her it is her opportunity to teach her.  Miss Ophelia is horrified, and says that she does not want anything to do with “that thing,” which is so “heathenish” (S, 351-353).  If emancipation were to take place, Northerners would need to change the intense racism they exhibit, and that is as hard a task as emancipation.

Southern society is exemplified by both Eastman and Stowe largely through women.  Eastman describes Southern society as virtuous and decent.  Southern women, according to Eastman, have a lot of class and are very understanding of others.  They are very kind to their servants.  At the periods of the day designated for rest, white slave owners do not call on their slaves for help, because they respect the fact that the slaves have very little that brings them pure joy (E, 163).  Indeed, Eastman argues, the South is much more virtuous and humane than many Northerners think.  If they would but come to the South, they would see it (E, 206).

Stowe’s view of the South is very different from Eastman’s.  When people are surrounded by servants their entire life, they become selfish, cynical and harsh.  Marie St. Clare, the slaveholder’s wife, is the woman onto whom Stowe packs all of these unfortunate traits.  Because she grew up wooing all the men within her society, Marie thought St. Clare was very lucky to have her.  She takes and takes and does not give anything back, especially when it comes to love (S, 242).  Marie is very cynical about other people and their motives, especially slaves, due to her extensive experience with the chattel system (S, 257).  Marie, and through interpretation Southerners as a majority, have become rather harsh.  Marie believes that the only way to keep a good slave is to break them: put them down and keep them down (S, 265).  This portrayal shows some major defects within Southern society, and suggests a possible flaw in Southern ideology.

The idea of freedom, and the way in which that idea is portrayed, is very different in each of the two works.  Eastman portrays freedom as an ambiguous thing.  Abolitionists, Eastman argues, want to give slaves their freedom, namely the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  When they remove these slaves from the plantation, they provide them with no means to accomplish those pursuits.  How could emancipating the slaves provide them with these liberties if they have absolutely no means of accomplishing the ends described (E, 66-68)? On a religious note, Eastman returns to her point that slavery was instituted by God.  Because it was a commandment of God, only he can emancipate the slaves.  Freedom is something that no man should take, even for himself.  Eastman uses her character Phillis as an example.  Phillis’s master takes her North with him on business, where she is encountered by abolitionists.  They ask her why she does not just leave, and take her own freedom.  She replied that if her master were to give it to her, she would be more than happy, but she would never take anything, including her freedom (E, 103-104). 

Stowe’s view of freedom is very different from Eastman’s.  To Stowe, freedom is not ambiguous.  Freedom is what every man yearns for.  After St. Clare tells Tom he will set him free and let him return to his family Tom is ecstatic.  St. Clare asks him if he has not been well provided for, because in fact Tom clothing and home would not be nearly as nice as they are now if he were a free man.  Tom said that he had been very well provided for, but he would rather have poor man’s clothing, home and everything, “and have ‘em mine” than have nice things (S, 441).  For Tom, freedom is the most desirable thing in the world.  Stowe asks, “What is freedom to a nation, but freedom to the individuals in it?”  Freedom to Stowe is not identified by a nation.  If a nation claims to be free, it means nothing unless the individuals therein are free: individuals with “the right to be a man, and not a brute;” men free to protect their wives and educate their children (S, 544-545).  Freedom is for individuals.

Overall, Stowe portrays the institution of slavery as fundamentally flawed and immoral.  As a result of its wicked inception, individuals and societies that allow and revere the institution are negatively affected.  There is no easy solution to the problem; nevertheless, the problem needs to be dealt with.  Eastman suggests that the peculiar institution is established by God, and though there are some vices connected with this way of life, the virtues and humanitarianism found therein greatly outweigh them.  Both works conclude with an appeal to a higher power, calling on the North and the South to remember that they will be held responsible before God for their actions (S, 629, E, 281).  Ultimately, Stowe seeks action to eventually end the slave system; Eastman seeks action, from the North and the South, to take care of their own poor.  These opposing views translate into a larger, socio-political sphere where discourse of this nature continues throughout the eminent war between the two regions.

Strength and Independence: Black and Female Beat Writers

“The Sermon” and “A Few Blue Words to the Wise” by Ted Joans are lessons on how to be hip.  Much of the language in these two poems is directed toward women who want to be a part of the hipster, beatnik scene.  These are perfect pieces to compare to “Minor Characters” by Joyce Johnson.  This piece from Johnson illustrates a woman who, on the exterior may seem to fall short of the beatnik ideal explained by Joans.  She seems to be faking it, and doing so for someone else.  On closer analysis, however, the character in Johnson’s piece is a beat, according to Joans’ example, in every way that really matters.

            Joans talks about the importance of breaking away from ones parents, not only physically, but emotionally.  He says to “Get rid of the umbilical cord that your/ Dragass prejudiced parents have around your neck.”  One does not need their parents throwing “Antique Anglo-Saxon philosophy on you now.”  That is exactly what Johnson’s character is trying to do.  In the very first scene of the story, the character is moving out of her parents’ house, on Independence Day no less.  She got her own furniture and a Picasso Painting to try to separate herself from the previous generation. 

As Joans says, “If your neighborhood ain’t hip—split/ Leave it for swinging surroundings."  This is where Johnson’s character seems to be faking it.  Her decision to move out was not completely for herself, if it was at all.  She says herself, that “it was for Alex’s sake [her boyfriend], not mine, that I was going to be independent.”  The Bohemian scene described by Joans is not meant to be superficial.  Devotion to oneself and finding purpose in everything is at the heart of the Beats.  It is hard to find a deeper purpose for oneself if what you are doing is always for someone else.

Johnson’s character is not, however, always doing it for someone else.  Alex was “the concrete embodiment of [her] more abstract desire to be ‘free’.”  That desire was based around sexuality.  She is what Joans calls “a beautiful non-square angel.”  Why?  Because she “sleep[s] with everybody that’s necessary.”  As Johnson’s character says, “sometimes you went to bed with people almost by mistake,” when you’ve stayed up so long that “it almost didn’t matter.”  Unfortunately for her, all that was “necessary” was one random guy to get her pregnant.  This is one major point that makes this character so real and connected to the Beat ideal.  She has lived it and felt the consequences that many times go unheeded. 

Independence is the character’s main focus.  The story begins on Independence Day, and ends on an independence day of her own.  She decides to get an abortion.  The father was a one night stand and her boyfriend ran off with another woman.  If she has the baby, all the independence and freedom will be lost.  She searches for someone who will perform the procedure for her, and eventually finds one who does them under-the-table.  She is escorted to and from the doctor by a man who is trying to hit on her.  The final scene ends with the main character strongly denying the flirty escort and deciding to go home by herself. 

The Johnson piece is powerful and important, because the main character demonstrates the main Beat ideals described by Joans, while at the same time showing strength and independence.  She feels that she can now, in the words of Ted Joans, “Love [her] life and live loving every minute in it.”

The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence

Reviewed by Stephen Horrocks

The American Revolution burned with ideological fervor.  Political rhetoric was filled with cries for freedom, liberty and equality.  Why did these ideas stick?  What turned these ideas into action?  In The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence, T.H. Breen attempts to assess popular mobilization, and what was so radical about the politics of the American Revolution, from a new perspective.  This perspective, he admits, may not fit very well with some of the analyses previously presented of the period. 

Marketplace attempts to answer two main questions.  First, how did such a diverse group of colonists build the trust necessary for a sustained rebellion?  Second, how did such a massive number of ordinary Americans decide it was better to risk their lives and well-being against British forces than continue to be politically oppressed?[1]  Breen concludes that the colonists’ “shared experience as consumers provided them with the cultural resources needed to develop a bold new form of political protest.”[2]  Their common role as consumers in a commercial empire would provide the link for an otherwise heterogeneous group of colonies. 

            Breen begins by presenting the context in which the consumer revolution will take place.  In what he refers to as the “Tale of the Hospitable Consumer,” Breen paints a picture of unprecedented colonial consumption.[3]  When the British military officers were stationed in the colonies during the Seven Years War, they saw evidence of high consumption and “that the colonies [were] wallowing in wealth and luxury,” which they equated to a thriving economy.[4] In fact, the colonial economy was artificially inflated by the heavy British military presence.  As a result of these erroneous observations, Parliament decided to raise taxes in the American colonies in an effort to pay off war debt.  Colonists were outraged and began to respond ideologically and politically.[5]

To establish the foundation of his argument, Breen lays out the various forms of primary sources important to understanding patterns of consumer behavior.  First, Breen looks at written descriptions by travelers and government officials.  These are very helpful, because they are very widespread.  The downside is that they are very impressionistic.[6]  Second, he turns to artifacts, primarily those found in museums.  These show the importance of British manufactures, though museums tend to have items owned by the upper-classmen of society.[7]  Third, Breen archaeologically studied the family trash pits of the common people.  These pits, while showing the consumption of hard goods by those in the lower end of society, tend to show an imbalance.  Items such as cloth and pewter would be long gone by now.[8]  Fourth, probate records of deceased individuals show an increase in ownership.  They do, however, tend to skew toward the upper-classmen.[9]  Fifth, and most important, are the customs records.  These official documents measure the quantity and monetary value of articles imported from Britain.[10]  Last, Breen studied the increased number of newspapers during the decades preceding the revolution.  An increase in ad space and a diversity of goods are widely displayed therein.[11]

These sources collaborate in Breen’s attempt to recreate the world in which the colonists lived.  In an address to Parliament in March 1775, Edmund Burke described British policies in the American colonies as “salutary neglect.”  He felt that commerce brought Americans closer to the mother country.  It placed the colonies in a state of political and economic laissez-faire.[12]  Commerce is definitely what connected the empire, but the “mutual benefit [and] mutual dependence” that Americans had relied on became nothing more than myth.[13]  An articulate and powerful middle class emerged, which saw consumption as a seal of imperial patriotism.  Colonists thought they were indispensible to the empire, and that disruption of consumption would discomfort the mother country.[14] 

Consumption of British goods could only be used as a tool for political mobilization if consumer products were widely available at all levels of society.  Breen answers this concern by thoroughly outlining the means by which consumer products reached the colonies.  He discussed the large merchant ships that sold to shop owners in port cities.  Local shop owners sold to small rural country stores, which were of particular importance because of the agrarian nature of the colonies.[15]  This shows that ordinary people were involved in the marketplace.  Consumer choice became synonymous with human rights; individuals felt entitled.  Fashion played a large role in driving consumption and blurred the lines between classes.  Tea was an especially fashionable and powerful example of the link between identity and market experience.  Breen quotes one New Yorker as saying that tea costs the province 10,000 pounds sterling, and that he knows some people who would forgo their bread to partake of this superfluity.[16]  Such imported goods became a source of political tension.

Next, Breen describes how economic dependence could become a source of political strength.  Ideology is not enough to build the widespread trust necessary for a sustained political resistance or produce the feelings of a common purpose.  According to Breen, “colonists could not have imagined national independence until they had first experienced the psychological burden of dependence.”[17]  In the minds of colonist, consumer excess led not only to dependence, but also to slavery.  Colonists did not want to be Britain’s “negroes,” as a young John Adams stated.[18]  Individual luxury must be sacrificed for the good of the whole.  New regulatory acts by Parliament incited anger, confusion, and disappointment.  Up to this point colonists had not built many bonds of mutual trust, so regulatory acts by Parliament led to many individual acts of non-importation throughout the colonies.  Newspapers connected the colonies and attempted to build trust while putting political pressure on Parliament.  Though these non-importation acts did not force any policy changes, they did help the colonists find means of popular mobilization that were more broad and inclusive.[19]

Colonists, as consumers, became more and more tense as the Townshend Act was passed in Parliament, tightening up commercial regulation in the colonies.  Non-importation became non-consumption, and communities began to make lists of items that were prohibited.  Anyone who betrayed these agreements were publicly shamed and added to lists of offenders published in the newspapers.  This revealed a lot about political solidarity on the eve of the Revolution.  Colonists communicated with each other through newspapers to see how others were responding to the common threat.  They assumed that these distant strangers depended on British goods as much as they did.  They could also see the link between consumption and liberty.[20]  The Townshend Act reminded Colonists of the yoke of dependence.  They were faced with the major difficulties of coordinating local protests and persuading all sorts of people to participate in the boycott.  Colonists were required to look at themselves in much broader terms than they had before: as Americans.[21] 

Ordinary people signed petition rolls and subscription lists, both highly innovative political instruments, in support of the boycott, which gave them the feeling that they had the power to make a difference in society.  When the Townshend Act was repealed, excepting the regulation on tea, much of the political trust between colonies dissolved.  It is, however, very important to note the way in which Americans used a language of unity to refer to a country that was not yet a country.[22]

According to Breen, Americans drew upon their experience as consumers to use their dependence upon British products as a political weapon to fight the Tea Act of 1773.[23]  Following the protests against tea (which included the Boston Tea Party and burning of the tea colonists possessed) Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts, which effectively shut down the Massachusetts Bay colony.  Other colonies stood behind Boston and implemented bans on all British imports.  This took place because the colonies began to think continentally.  They had experienced effective consumer protests and began to define themselves not as British, but as American. [24]

Breen analyzes the evidence very thoroughly.  He uses a broad view of colonial consumerism to conceptualize the major workings of the system, while acknowledging the smaller, individual pieces that fill in the blanks.  His analysis of how colonists built trust one with another is very logical and historically sound.  Breen uses a variety of sources, so that they fill the voids that are left by each other.  He utilizes the evidence well to support his claim that colonists were all separately, as well as collectively, invested in consumerism.

The Marketplace of Revolution takes an original perspective at the events leading up to the American Revolution.  It does not downplay the importance of ideology to the revolution, but it puts ideology into a socio-economic context.  Bernard Bailyn, a two-time Pulitzer winning historian, touches upon this context to a smaller degree.  He claims that ideology was reinforced once the invisible authority across the Atlantic began tightening the reins on the Colonial economy.[25]  Bailyn claims that ideas were the central force for revolution, and the economy was but a secondary influence.  Gary Nash, distinguished professor at UCLA, agrees with Breen’s economic-centered argument.  Nash noted that Per capita spending among the poor more than doubled in the 1740s and 1750s.[26]  He saw that economic frustrations of lower- and middle-classmen developed a political consciousness and political sophistication that led to public protests, and eventually played an important role in the beginnings of the American Revolution.[27]  Nash focused on consumption only as much as it led to economic distress, not as a driving force of revolution.  Breen pulls in parts of both Nash’s and Bailyn’s arguments to strengthen the notion that consumerism played a major role in American Independence.

---

[1] T. H. Breen, The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence (New York: Oxford, 2004) xiii.

[2] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, xv.

[3] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 10-11.

[4] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 11.

[5] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 1-29.

[6] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 36-44.

[7] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 44-48.

[8] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 48-51.

[9] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 51-53.

[10]T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 59-64.

[11] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 53-59.

[12] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 75.

[13] T. H Breen, Marketplace, 89.

[14] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 72-101.

[15] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 102-147.

[16] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 171.

[17] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 201.

[18] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 202.

[19] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 203-234.

[20] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 237-38.

[21] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 243.

[22] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 290-91.

[23] T. H. Breen, Marketplace, 298.

[24] T.H. Breen, Marketplace, 303.

[25] Bernard Bailyn, “The Central Themes of the American Revolution,” in Faces of Revolution (New York: Knopf, 1990) 204-05.

[26] Gary Nash, “Social Change and the Growth of Prerevolutionary Urban Radicalism,” in The American Revolution, ed. Alfred Young (Northern Illinois University, 1976) 8-10.

[27] Nash, “Social Change,” 10-11, 18.