Revolution and the Word: Introduction

To say that Cathy Davidson's view of American history differs from that of Paul Starr is a bit of an understatement. There were times while reading this introduction when I felt Mrs. Davidson was directly addressing Mr. Starr. My reading experience went a little something like this: "Huh, that sounds a little bit like some anti-exceptionalism," only to find that 3 pages later Davidson directly addresses the issue of American exceptionalism. Or, "Hmm, Davidson seems to have a bit of a liberal perspective,"….5 pages later…"Oh look, Davidson recognizes that some people may categorize her as a liberal."

This is not, by an means, an indictment of Davidson. I found it quite refreshing to read something that almost directly addressed my questions as a reader. It seemed that almost every time I questioned Davidson'e accuracy, political slant, or historical perspective, she addressed those some questions and recognized that her perspective on American history raises a lot of questions. It was almost as if she predicted how I was going to read her book…like a witch!

In class I voiced  my approval of Starr as a historian with an interesting story to tell, but reading Davidson has led me to see a few more problems with Starr's writing. I won't list them here, but I will instead point to why I think Davidson provides a more fair and balanced view of American history.

Overall, Davidson doesn't make broad generalizations about the effects of reading on the American people. Where Starr points to the unifying effects of literacy and rise of the printing press, Davidson recognizes that the new American print culture may have led to significant class struggles and dissension amongst individuals. One passage in particular stands out as almost a direct rebutal to Starr. Starr writes about how America had no cultural centers, and this led to diversity of opinions and a rich cornucopia of ideas that didn't stream from one centralized location. Almost as if to say, "ya, but.." Davidson writes, "Rural, scattered, a nation of immigrants with different cultural and religious traditions, with poverty and homelessness, pestilence and slavery, with vitriolic party politics as well as political corruption, with mobocracy and would-be aristocracy, and very little in way of high culture, America had no urban center of population, power and culture equivalent to London or Paris" (23). 

This is definitely a severe over-simplification, but here's how I understand the difference between Starr and Davidson…

Starr: 'Merica is special. People could say what they wanted, read what they wanted, and form their own opinions. This is all good.

Davidson: This all may not be so good. And it probably didn't happen that way.

…but I'll turn my attention away from the comparisons between Starr and Davidson, and focus on a topic Davidson develops in this introduction: the idea that the energies and ideologies that go into sparking a revolution have to be suppressed and controlled once the new governing democracy is in power. It is one of the great ironies of the American Revolution. 

The specific line that comes to mind is where Davidson quotes Antonio Negri and writes, "if revolutions are based on utopian dreams, constitutions are designed to prevent the anarchic imaginings that lead to revolution" (12). This is an interesting concept that I have never given much thought to, and it makes me think of America's recent conflicts in the Middle East. In America's attempt to promote democracy in countries like Iraq, it is important to recognize that introducing new political ideals into a foreign place may require the suppression of those very ideals in order to maintain civility and compliance. For example, the American military has found it necessary to "police" and oversee the implementation of democracy in Iraq--a concept that in and of itself  is rather un-democratic. 

Davidson writes that "America is freedom definitionally--so much so that it does not have to be always free and equal in order to support freedom." After reading this, my initial thought was that is was a little harsh. But the more I think about it, Davidson is simply demonstrating the utilitarian nature of the American way. There is a tendency to ignore America's ugly past so that the rosy picture of American freedom and democracy can be painted. 

To my mind, this is fascinating stuff, and it's even more interesting to see how Davidson uses the novel to illustrate the "divisiveness" that is so often ignored in the origin stories of this country. As Davidson writes, history tends to "celebrate" and glorify these origin stories, but I'm very intrigued by the idea that the early American novel tells an origin story that you wouldn't see depicted at "historical theme parks" or "Fourth of July parades."