One particular part of Dobson and Zagarell's chapter that struck me is when they note that women were discouraged from participating in "almost every manner of pubic discussion." The key word here, in my mind, is "discussion." Discussion, in those times, literally meant public, verbal discourse, and as Dobson and Zagarell not, women were simply unable to participate. When I think of that term "discussion" today, I typically associate it with writing. For example, the texts we've read in this class take part in an ongoing "discussion" on the role of print in the early American republic.
Women couldn't participate in those literal discussions, but through writing they were able to find a contributing voice. Dobson and Zagarell write that because women were beginning to appear in print, they acquired a "public presence" and "gave them a voice in public life."
This is exactly what Davidson is referring to in her book. Again, we're seeing how print culture was an empowering tool that had immense social implications. Through the power of the written word, women were finally able to contribute on a political and social level.
But aside from all this talk about the power of the written word, I'm fascinated by this idea that writing was a means by which women participated in public life. Writing, by its very nature, is often a private process where the writer spends time wrapped up in his or her own thoughts and ideas. In no way is the writing process a public activity. Ironically though, it is through the private activity of writing that many, not just women, have found a voice in public life.
This irony is especially illuminated in our current society. I think that we live a culture where writing doesn't necessarily carry the same weight that it did during the early American republic. Sure, anyone has the ability to write and put there writing in the public, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is going to pay attention. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that you, my classmates, are the only ones that will ever come across this blog.
For women during this time period, getting read meant you had a presence in public life. Maybe it means the same thing today. If you aren't blogging, chatting, or giving your two cents on various social networks, you may not be contributing in public discussions.
I don't really know where I'm going with any of this, but my reactions to this week's reading was all over the place, and I'm pretty sure this blog reflects that.
Hi Klay, good blog post, thanks. I think you're right about Davidson's basic point that writing is empowering. The irony here is that women writers were more empowered than ever before, at least in some ways, yet they were restricted to domestic subjects areas and a narrow view of what was "feminine." I also think that in a world of blogs and Twitter that public exposure does not mean too much. But who knows who will read these blogs. dw
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up several interesting ideas-- like how we could see writing as not public. The idea that published women's writing could be considered "domestic" later in the 1800's or anything other than very, very public seems quite different than the way we look at it now-- especially with how easy it is for writing to become public, or more public than we want! It seems the idea of domestic writing was an attempt to control women's writing, but it ignores the significance of even this type of writing. Pattern sharing and doemstic writing could have been more subversive than we think-- at least more powerful.
ReplyDelete