Dissertation CLEVINGER

“THE SWEETEST OF ALL WORDS”: HOME AND RHETORICS OF ISOLATIONISM IN ANTEBELLUM DOMESTIC LITERATURE A Dissertation Submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by Kara B. Clevinger May 2015 Examining Committee Members: Katherine Henry, Advisory Chair, English Department James Salazar, English Department Jayne K. Drake, English Department Hilary Iris Lowe, External Member, History Department © Copyright 2015 by Kara B. Clevinger All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT This dissertation is a study of antebellum literature about the home and the post- Revolutionary conceptualization of domesticity as political participation. Analyzing texts that take the construction, management, and pursuit of a home as central concerns, I trace a cultural preoccupation with isolation in the idealization of the home. The cult of domesticity that emerged and was reflected in these texts was a troubled, conflicting response to the ideology of Republican Motherhood, which defined a woman’s political contribution as raising good citizen sons and patriotic daughters. By taking a previously private role and turning it into a public duty, the mother became a highly visible and symbolically loaded figure. It also made her sphere of action, the home, a highly charged political space, subject to government intervention and social control. In conduct manuals, maga- zines, memoirs, and fiction, women writing about the home represent it as vulnerable to unwelcome intrusion, invasion, and influences, giving both power and critique to the ideal of home as isolated and pure, and, ultimately, attempting to reveal a domestic ideology that was at odds with Republican Motherhood and notions of liberal privacy that held the home to be a completely private, independent space. Tracing this tension in canonical and popular literature, I construct comparisons of texts not frequently put into conversation with each other, drawing provocative paral- lels and important distinctions between them and opening up scholarly understandings of domesticity with discussions of isolation and purity. Beginning with an analysis of domestic manuals by Catharine Beecher and Lydia Maria Child, I read these texts side by side with manuals on the construction of the asylum and penitentiary, which along with the home were built on models of isolation. These prescriptive texts attend obsessively to air purity and proper ventilation, and the figure of the nation’s “inmate” emerges: a version of subjecthood in which self-development and redemption rely on an environment protected from all external influences (physical, political, economic, and social). Follow- ing this version of the ideal home as it plays out in the most popular women’s magazine of the period, Godey’s Lady’s Book, I next examine how the figure of the child becomes a powerful symbol for vulnerability and freedom, unpacking the ways that sentimental rhetoric both served and failed the American homebuilding project. In the last two chap- ters, I analyze the female authors Caroline Kirkland and Fanny Fern and their attempts to transplant the American home to the West and the urban center, respectively. In A New Home, Who’ll Follow?, Kirkland’s “hut in the wilderness” becomes the best embodiment of the American Myth. Finally, in the autobiographical novel Ruth Hall and in her news- paper writings, Fanny Fern places her heroines “beyond the pale of female jurisdiction,” rejecting the bonds of womanhood, but also revealing fears for the isolated woman and her potential for desolation and madness. Contextualizing Fern within the written output of maternal associations, I conclude with a consideration of the home as complex and multivalent: it is imagined as a space to work and a space free from work, a woman’s empire and her prison, a place one desperately hopes to find and a place one wants to es- cape; the home is where one is free to be herself and where one is cut off and confined. !iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As I have reflected upon the dissertation process, metaphors of a battle fought have come to mind, as have long, cold winters, rocky marriages, desolation in the wilderness, and, well, you get the picture. The comparison that seems apt to me now is tennis. At match time, the player is the only one who steps on the court, smiling and waving with easy confidence. Leading up to that moment, though, have been countless grueling prac- tice hours, rackets thrown in frustration, tears shed in despair of ever reaching the next level, and, in the darkest hours, resignation that perhaps she should give up on her dream. How does she persist? A tennis player employs a cadre of people to help her reach her goal: coach, hitting partner, trainer, nutritionist, sports psychologist, and manager. Tennis is an individual sport, but it takes a team to succeed. We assume that perseverance is a lonely struggle of one’s willpower against antagonistic forces, but we only persevere when we combine our strength with the strength of others who also believe in us. These pages were produced by the intellectual and emotional strength of many bright, beautiful people who I would like to acknowledge. I would like to thank my advisor, Katherine Henry, who has been a mentor, guide, critic, and friend. Much of my inter- est in protection and privacy has been the result of exuberant conversations with Kate, and I am indebted to her work on this subject. I would also like to thank my committee, James Salazar and Hilary Lowe, as well as Miles Orvell, who graciously served on my exam committee and helped me with the dissertation prospectus. A warm and gigantic thank you goes to Jayne Drake. It has been truly special to have her on my committee. !v She was my first professor of nineteenth-century American literature when I was an un- dergraduate at Temple and she was my favorite professor—but, then, she is everyone’s favorite professor—and her mentorship, encouragement, and feedback have made this process manageable and memorable. I recall many excited confabs in her office (first, when I was trying to figure out what to do with my life before graduate school and then when I was proposing a new dissertation topic every week), and I am not sure what I would have done with my bottled-up passion if I had not had Dr. Drake’s brain to pick and her patience to indulge me while I talked through ideas. The end of each of these conversations ended with a eureka moment and me finally asking, “So, how are you do- ing?” Jayne has been a model for me of the outstanding teacher, advisor, and woman. Additionally, my research was generously funded by a Graduate Teaching Fellow- ship through the Center for the Humanities at Temple, and I would like to express my gratitude to the professors and fellow graduate students with whom I had enriching forum chats in the 2008-09 school year: Peter Logan, Elizabeth Varon, Joan Jasak, Sueyeun Juliette Lee, and Bridie Chapman. To the undergraduates in my Spring 2009 CHAT Hon- ors course on self-reliance, thank you for breathing life into my research through stimu- lating class discussions. Without the classroom and without the intellectual curiosity of my students, my writing would lack spirit and purpose. My research was also funded by a Research Fellowship with the Philadelphia Area Center for History of Science in 2009- 10, and I would like to thank the Director, Babak Ashrafi, for the opportunity to research in Philadelphia archives and participate in interdisciplinary forums with diverse scholars. !vi Ultimately, I see my project as interdisciplinary, and it has been positively shaped and energized by the perspectives of scholars from a variety of disciplines. A researcher’s best friends are librarians, and I have been lucky to work with some of the most knowledgeable and generous archivists, who have not only connected me with what I was seeking; they have also helped me find what I didn’t even know I was looking for: Stacey Peeples, Curator of the Pennsylvania Hospital Historic Collec- tions; Cornelia King, reference librarian and Curator of the Women’s History collections at the Library Company of Philadelphia; and Krystal Lewis, reference librarian at Temple University’s Paley Library. Research is meant to be shared and I am grateful for the welcoming support and constructive input from the scholars I have met through organizations like the Research Society of American Periodicals: Susan Belasco, Patricia Okker, Cynthia Patterson, Karen Roggenkamp, and Debby Rosenthal. A version of Chapter Two appeared in the anthology Sentimentalism in Nineteenth-Century American Literature, and my deepest gratitude goes to Mary de Jong and Paula Bernat Bennett for their helpful suggestions for revision and for navigating a young scholar through the publishing process. The encouragement from these scholars to continue my work has meant so much to me. My inner game—the intangibles of the dissertation process—was raised by the love, belief, and emotional support of my family and friends: my parents, Joe and Lois, and my brother, Jack, who never doubted my ability to accomplish my goals; Lorrie Jones, who always offered a shoulder to cry on and baked treats to keep me going; my !vii lifelong colleague and friend, the one who will always get what you’re going through, Kellen Graham; my new West Coast family, who adopted me, fed me, and gave me a place to write, the Van Wyks; Jessie Clark, a brilliant scholar, who inspired me to analyze my subject through a geographer’s lens, and a brilliant friend, who inspired me, period; Sarah McCoy, my dissertation coach, who helped me work through my work problems; Ruth Wood, who helped me work through my life problems; and Jon Meyers, my rock and my light.

Load more