I thoroughly enjoyed this book (even more than Cronon and
the trees)! Kierner told a spellbinding
tale of human drama but she was also able to weave in analysis concerning
power, patriarchy, gender, honor, public opinion, and changes in post-revolutionary
social and political structures.
I was struck by how often I was reminded of Foucault and at
times even Bloch, particularly during Kierner’s discussion of the motives
behind the use of gossip by different societal classes. Bloch discussed the ideal patriarchal hierarchy
of the Lord who wisely and justly dispersed patronage and protection to those
who had sworn fealty to him. Kierner
shows how a similar social structure of the elite white landed (male) gentry functioned
as a kind of benevolent patron and patriarch before the revolution, but then
with changing political and social ideologies and the Revolutionary War, the
roles between slaves, white plebeians, and elite white landed gentry began to
change and become more democratic. In particular,
the role of the white male gentry began to change and this caused great stress
and anxiety for them regarding their personal and public personas, and their
public and private status and role in society.
While Bloch presented an ideal societal scenario of an honest and just patriarch
overseeing his subjects and subordinates, Kierner shows how the slaves of
Glentivar spread rumors and gossip with the specific motive of punishing and
damaging their master by demonstrating how he was not an ideal, fair, or
effective patriarch. By attacking their master’s effectiveness as a patriarch,
they hoped to undermine his authority and diminish his power in both public and
private spheres, and they hoped to influence his future actions by “goading him
into taking more seriously his responsibility to act benevolently and protectively
toward both his black and white dependents” (p.68).
Additionally, during Kierner’s discussion of the slaves’ use
of gossip to undermine and influence their deficient, inadequate, and unjust master,
I was reminded of Foucault’s account of public executions. Foucault describes how the public execution
took on the air of a spectacle and had elements of the carnivalesque. He goes on to suggest that during this public
spectacle, the condemned was able to overturn and invert the power of the king
(Foucault p. 61); I see a parallel attempt not only by the slaves but also the
poor working white class who all used gossip to invert the social and power
structures which were currently in place.
While the slaves and white working plebeians may not have been able to
permanently overturn the social structures, nor were they able to wrest all
power away from the elite gentry, they were certainly able to wield
considerable power in the form of public opinion, which had a considerable
impact on the lives of many of the elite gentry in the community.
I was amazed at the power of the spoken and written word in
this narrative, not only in temporal longevity but also over wide geographical range. Prior to reading this book, I understood that
public opinion and the spoken word could have significant influence in small
communities, particularly before the advent of modern communication and
technology. However, I never realized
how powerful, damaging, and far-reaching gossip could be in the life of a
person; rumors could initiate legal actions, influence and impact a person’s
future employment and marital options, and effect their general ability to lead
a normal life publically and privately. Gossip in post-revolutionary Virginia
definitely gives Twitter a run for its money!
No comments:
Post a Comment