Literacies of Membership: the Nineteenth-Century Politics of Access
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Literacies of Membership: The Nineteenth-Century Politics of Access by Holly Suzanne Middleton B.A., Sam Houston State University, 1996 M.A., University of Tennessee at Knoxville, 1999 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2007 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH Faculty of Arts and Sciences This dissertation was presented by Holly Suzanne Middleton It was defended on September 27, 2007 and approved by Mariolina Salvatori, Associate Professor of English James Seitz, Associate Professor of English Carol Stabile, Associate Professor of Communication, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee Dissertation director: Stephen Leo Carr, Associate Professor of English ii Copyright © by Holly Middleton 2007 iii Literacies of Membership: The Nineteenth-Century Politics of Access Holly Middleton, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2007 This project responds to the discourse of crisis in literacy and large-scale literacy assessment by demonstrating how unexamined deployments of literacy erase the complexity of literate acts. Utilizing archives of nineteenth-century student writing as well as disciplinary and institutional histories, this study recovers student writing as material social practice, foregrounding, rather than effacing, cultural contradictions at three institutional sites. Drawing on scholarship in literary, cultural, and New Literacy Studies, this project returns to the literacy crisis at nineteenth-century Harvard and asks the critical question: what were Harvard examiners reading when they were reading illiteracy? Harvard scholars A. S. Hill, Barrett Wendell, and LeBaron Russell Briggs evaluated student writing according to its literary value, identifying two key elements of style—commonplaceness and sentimentality—as indicators of subliteracy that signified dependence. The exclusionary effects of these unexamined assumptions are brought into relief by then examining, as primary texts, student compositions at Illinois Industrial University and Radcliffe College. My reading of the coursework done by two populations previously excluded from higher education, farmers and women, indicates that they appropriated local discourses and negotiated the contradictions of their own institutional sites in order to enact independent subjectivities. iv While literary appreciation does not currently carry the same kind of weight in assessing literacy, I find that the conflation of literacy and republican independence functions to efface the complexity of literacy and disguises what Brian Street calls ideological models of literacy as autonomous. As deeply political decisions regarding access and placement constitute so much of our work, this project suggests that all of us in English studies reevaluate how our own construction of value and our large-scale assessment practices may function to reinforce, rather than complicate, autonomous models of literacy. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ...........................................................................................................................VIII 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1 1.1 A REVISIONIST HISTORY OF HARVARD ........................................................6 1.2 CONSTRUCTING THE ILLITERATE SUBJECT .............................................14 2.0 “A RATHER VULGAR YOUTH WITH HIS LIGHT GONE OUT” ......................24 2.1 COMPOSITION AS CULTURE ...........................................................................26 2.2 CULTURE AND CLASS CONSOLIDATION AT HARVARD...........................29 2.3 CULTURE AND LIBERTY...................................................................................34 2.4 THE PEDAGOGY OF CULTURE........................................................................39 2.5 ELIZABETH ABORN WITHEY ..........................................................................48 2.6 RECONSIDERING “THE ILLITERACY OF AMERICAN BOYS”..................54 3.0 “A MOST DIGNIFIED AND INDEPENDENT LIFE”.............................................62 3.1 FROM EDUCATION TO REGULATION ...........................................................64 3.2 THE ASSIGNMENT: RECOGNIZING THE FARMER....................................70 3.3 NEGOTIATING INDEPENDENCE .....................................................................77 3.4 DEMOCRATIC LITERACIES .............................................................................87 4.0 “VICIOUS MORALITY AND FATAL FACILITY”................................................89 4.1 SENTIMENTAL TERRAIN AND THE DISCOURSE OF CIVILIZATION .....93 vi 4.2 MORAL AND ORATORICAL GUSH..................................................................98 4.3 WHITE WOMEN, BLACK AMERICANS, AND UNCLE TOM’S CABIN ......110 4.4 ELIZABETH ABORN WITHEY AND THE LITERACY CRISIS...................119 4.5 LITERACY AS COGNITION .............................................................................123 5.0 “THOU SHALT NOT BE ILL-BRED”....................................................................126 5.1 A POLICY OF LADYLIKE, AND INCREMENTAL, CHANGE .....................129 5.2 AMASSING THE EVIDENCE............................................................................133 5.3 A STUDENT’S ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................136 5.4 THE FOUNDING OF RADCLIFFE ...................................................................148 5.5 THE RADCLIFFE REPORTS ............................................................................151 5.6 “THOU SHALT NOT BE BOURGEOIS” ...........................................................161 6.0 CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................165 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................171 vii PREFACE I wish to first acknowledge the students in my “Literature and the Contemporary” course at the University of Pittsburgh during fall of 2001. Their critical engagement highlighted for me the conflict between what students do in classrooms and how that learning is reduced by the discourse of crisis in literacy. Their work helped me formulate the initial research questions for this project. My committee was fabulous, and across state lines, no less. Mariolina Salvatori supported this project from the beginning. Her rigor, generosity, and respect for students fulfills the promise of her scholarship on pedagogy. Carol Stabile has been extraordinarily generous with her time and expertise. Thanks to James Seitz, a lovely person and writer, especially for talking me back when I tried to quit before my second year. Steve Carr, my dissertation chair, has anchored and steered me, always seeming to know exactly what kind of guidance I needed, and when. David Leone, Allen Larsen, Craig Worl, and Greg Spicer have been steadfastly supportive, delightful, and dear to me. Marcia Buell and Jason Stegemoller invited me into their reading group in Champaign, Illinois, and I’ve been privileged to enjoy their friendship ever since. The staff and archivists at the Schlesinger Library, Harvard University Archives, and the University of Illinois Archives were integral to the process of research and writing. Special thanks to Jane Knowles at the Schlesinger Library for greeting me in Boston with the Radcliffe Magazine in hand. viii Research of course requires immense material support, and for this I must thank my parents, Shirley Ann Garrett and Don and Susan Middleton, who helped me get through my undergraduate education debt-free when the parents of first-generation college students could still do such a thing. And finally, I’m grateful every day that I met Dawn Schmitz under that streetlight seven years ago. She spirited me away to Illinois and supported me financially while I wrote these pages, making this dissertation, and all good things, possible. ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION In February 1869, one week before the passage of the fifteenth amendment, Charles Francis Adams, Jr. warned a convention of social scientists that “Universal Suffrage can only mean in plain English the government of ignorance and vice:--it means a European, and especially Celtic, proletariat on the Atlantic coast; an African proletariat on the shores of the Gulf, and a Chinese proletariat on the Pacific.” The descendant of two US presidents, Adams warned that the Anglo- Saxon race’s proven disposition to “strengthen free institutions” was no longer sufficient in the face of increased immigration and the shift in former slaves’ legal status from property to citizen. As the debate raged that week in congress, proponents of universal suffrage gained support for a bill making suffrage a constitutional right, but that version of the bill did not become law. Congress ultimately capitulated to opponents of universal suffrage, passing an amendment so narrowly construed that it only prohibited the abridgment of voting rights based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”1 As one opponent of universal suffrage put it, at stake was the authority to “create the voter” and the concomitant freedom to disenfranchise local manifestations of the proletariat that Adams alludes to above. As a historian of voting rights observes, “What opponents of a broad amendment rejected in the end was the abolition of discrimination based on nativity, religion, 1 “The