"AMONG OURSELVES:" THE COLLABORATIVE RHETORICS OF NINETEENTH CENTURY LADIES' LITERARY SOCIETIES Katherine Helene Fredlund A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2012 Committee: Sue Carter Wood, Advisor Carolyn J Tompsett Graduate Faculty Representative Kristine Blair Lee Nickoson © 2012 Katherine Fredlund All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Sue Carter Wood, Advisor As traditional conceptions of authorship have been problematized (Barthe; Foucault; Moi), collaborative composition has gained the interest of scholars, particularly those within the field of rhetoric and writing. Much of the resultant research has focused on student learning and academic or job-related productions of texts. Yet a large area of the field, historical rhetoric, has not yet reevaluated the assumptions concerning authors and production. For these reasons, this dissertation seeks to further understand historical, collaborative rhetorics, specifically those of large groups such as Ladies Literary Societies. Utilizing heuristics, I approach the discovery and understanding of historical collaborations by conducting research in the archives of three carefully selected and purposefully diverse Women’s Clubs from the nineteenth century: Boston’s Gleaning Circle (1805), Oberlin’s Young Ladies’ Literary Society (1835), and Boston’s Woman’s Era Club (1894). These societies focused on the improvement of their members’ intellects with regard to rhetoric, literature, and religion. Yet while these groups have been researched in detail by other scholars (Anne Ruggles Gere, Mary Kelley, Elizabeth McHenry, Shirley Wilson Logan), the dynamism of their collaborations has not been the focus of scholarly inquiry. Consequently, this dissertation investigates the ways these societies collaborated by looking at both their products and practices. This dissertation concludes with a multimodal theory of collaboration that recognizes a number of key factors as the determinants of the characteristics (and success) of any given collaboration. While Ede and Lunsford and Lindal Buchanan outline the modes of collaboration that iv were utilized in my heuristics, the case studies revealed that nineteenth century women were utilizing a variety of these modes simultaneously dependent upon a variety of determining features. Recognizing context and stakeholders as the two primary determining features, this theory outlines six other factors that impact the characteristics of collaboration: need, purpose, process, time, size, and power. These factors all influence, then, the ways people collaborate with a variety of purposes (in contrast to most theories of collaboration which focus on collaborative writing). Consequently, when scholars look to study a collaboration or teachers look to develop collaborations in their classroom, they should consider all of these factors. v To the women of Boston’s Gleaning Circle, Oberlin’s Ladies’ Literary Society, and Boston’s Woman’s Era Club. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS While it seems an enormous contradiction to write a dissertation about collaboration “alone,” and while this document will be filed under my name only, this dissertation is truly the result of many collaborations. Thus despite the institutional reasons for my name holding the lone-author space on the front page, this dissertation was not (and could not have been) written alone. A sincere thanks to Stacy Kastner, Kellie Jean Sharp, Suzan Aiken, and Kerri Hauman for their friendship and support; to Shawn Ramsey, Bret Bowers, Kent Lenz, and Krista Petrosino for being a wonderful cohort as well as great friends; to Alex Monea, Chris Barnes, Scott Obernesser, Nicole Sickinger, Matt Bridgewater, Nick Baca, Estee Beck, and Angie Fitzpatrick for their friendship and support; to Mary, Randy, and David Fredlund for being the best family I could ask for; to Scott Sundvall for his endless support and love; to Rick Gebhardt and Lance Massey for their instruction and guidance; to Liz Rohan for helping me first find the courage to dive into the archives. Without the comments, feedback, and suggestions from my dissertation committee, this document would be an entirely different text. Thus I am most indebted to you all. Thank you Dr. Carolyn J. Tompsett, my outside committee member, for your questions. Without the emotional and professional support of Lee Nickoson, I truly have no idea how I would have gotten through this past year. Thank you for your comments, support, and friendship. Thank you Kris Blair for modeling hard work and mentorship; you have given me so many opportunities to grow these past four years, and for that, I cannot thank you enough. And finally, to Sue Carter Wood, my chair, who has provided endless support of many kinds. Without your hard work and mentorship, this document would not have been possible. Your critical feedback has helped me grow as a writer, a researcher, and a feminist; and for that—there are no words. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. (RE)ENVISIONING FROM ANTIQUITY TO PRESENT: OVERLOOKED COLLABORATIONS ........................................................................................................... 1 Historical Collaborations: From Antiquity to the 19th Century ................................. 6 Methods and Methodology ........................................................................................ 18 CHAPTER II. “BE THEREFORE PERSAUDED LADIES:” BOSTON’S GLEANING CIRCLE (1805) ……………….................................................................................... 30 The Women of Boston’s Gleaning Circle.................................................................. 32 Education and Religion: New England and Female Education in the Post-Revoluntionary War Era ............................................................................................................ 36 Learning Together: Boston’s Gleaning Circle........................................................... 44 Collaborative Rhetorics: The Collaborations of Boston’s Gleaning Circle............... 46 The Regulations of Boston’s Gleaning Circle ............................................... 47 Hierarchical, Dialogic, and Asymmetrical Collaborations................ 50 Productive, Supportive, and Productive/Supportive Collaborations . 50 Canons of Rhetoric ............................................................................ 51 Question and Answer..................................................................................... 52 Hierarchical, Dialogic, and Asymmetrical Collaborations................ 55 Productive, Supportive, and Productive/Supportive Collaborations . 55 Canons of Rhetoric ............................................................................ 57 Argument for Female Education.................................................................... 58 Hierarchical, Dialogic, and Asymmetrical Collaborations................ 61 vii Productive, Supportive, and Productive/Supportive Collaborations . 61 Canons of Rhetoric ............................................................................ 62 Conclusions on Boston’s Gleaning Circle and Their Collaborations ........................ 63 CHAPTER III. “[WE] MUST SPEAK FOR THE WOMEN:” OBERLIN COLLEGE’S YOUNG LADIES LITERARY SOCIETY (1835)................................................................ 67 The Women of Oberlin .............................................................................................. 68 Education and Religion: Female Life at the United State’s First Coeducational College……………….. ............................................................................................. 70 Learning Together: Oberlin’s Young Ladies’ Literary Society................................. 77 Collaborative Rhetorics: The Collaborations of Oberlin’s Ladies’ Literary Society 81 The Minutes of the Ladies Literary Society .................................................. 82 Hierarchical, Dialogic, and Asymmetrical Collaborations................ 84 Productive, Supportive, and Productive/Supportive Collaborations . 87 Canons of Rhetoric ............................................................................ 89 Oberlin’s L.L.S. Annual Meeting .................................................................. 91 Hierarchical, Dialogic, and Asymmetrical Collaborations................ 92 Productive, Supportive, and Productive/Supportive Collaborations . 93 Canons of Rhetoric ............................................................................ 93 The L.L.S. Meetings ...................................................................................... 94 Hierarchical, Dialogic, and Asymmetrical Collaborations................ 95 Productive, Supportive, and Productive/Supportive Collaborations . 96 Canons of Rhetoric ............................................................................ 97 Conclusions on Oberlin’s Ladies’ Literary Society and Their Collaborations.......... 97 viii CHAPTER IV. “LET US CONFER TOGETHER:” BOSTON’S WOMAN’S ERA CLUB AND PERIODICAL ………..……………………………………………………………………… 102 The Women of Boston’s Woman’s Era Club ............................................................ 103 Education and Religion: African American Education in Nineteenth Century Boston 109 Learning Together: The Woman’s Era Club and Newspaper.................................... 116 Collaborative Rhetorics: The Collaborations of the Woman’s Era Club .................. 118 Club