For Frederick Douglass, however, personal autonomy was more straightforward. As a slave, he had none, at least none that was recognized socially, politically or culturally. His autobiography, then, functions differently than most autobiographies generated in American literature at this time. A typical American autobiography presented the writer as an exemplum, an example of how a life should be lived in order to achieve moral and social standing. Probably one of the best, and most popular examples of this would be Ben Franklin's autobiography. But Franklin's readers had fundamental ways with which to identify with Franklin--they shared a culture and the values intrinsic to that culture. Douglass had no such advantage. For one thing, most of Douglass's readers were white, and lived in the North--there was no possible way these readers could empathize with Douglass or even begin to understand the circumstances of his life.
This writer-reader problem is further exacerbated by the fact that for many white Americans, race and slavery were separate issues. In our time we would struggle with this notion, but at the time Douglass wrote his Narrative one could be vehemently opposed to slavery, yet believe that Blacks were fundamentally inferior to whites. (Though there were whites who both opposed slavery and disdained the concept of racial inferiority.) Slavery was a human rights issue; racial hierarchies were a social issue rooted in biology. The more contemporary idea that race itself is culturally constructed was an idea not available to Americans in the early 19th century. (Though Melville comes close to articulating that idea in his novella, Benito Cereno.)
Common Illustration in Abolitionist Texts
Douglass also had to contend with readers doubting the authenticity of his text. Douglass's narrative is one of hundreds of slave narratives written from about 1830 - 1865. Slave narratives typically detailed the experiences of that author in slavery. Their primary purpose was not literary; their primary purpose was political: to bring about the end of slavery. Since most of the slaves who published their stories had little or no formal education (and often could not simply read or write), they needed what were called amanuenses--educated whites, typically abolitionists, who would edit or ghost-write the story. As you can probably figure out, slavery apologists would point to this relationship as reason to doubt the credibility of the slave's story. How does one know that the abolitionist didn't simply write the whole thing and slap a slave's name onto the text? That's why you'll commonly see attached to the slave narratives documents certifying the authenticity of the text. If you look at the beginning of Douglass's narrative, you'll see a letter from Wendell Phillips and a preface by William Lloyd Garrison--two culturally powerful whites. The purpose of these documents is to let readers know that they can trust the information Douglass presents. The hard truth is that without these documents, many readers would have seen Douglass's work as a work of fiction.
It also didn't help Douglass that he was a superbly skilled writer. While most narrators simply related facts, Douglass uses stylistic embellishment, metaphor and symbolism, imagery, literary references--stuff that white readers would not have thought Black writers were capable of using. As long as Black writers restricted themselves to facts, they would be fine, but the racial perceptions of the time suggested that Blacks were incapable of higher acts of imagination. Douglass's skill, then, also brought the authenticity of the text into question, since readers could not fathom a relatively uneducated Black man being this skilled with language.
Frederick Douglass
And yet ... this was an extremely popular book, one of the best sellers of its day. (As a whole, the slave narratives were popular.) So in spite of all the obstacles, Douglass managed to establish a connection to his readers. The parts of the narrative I asked you to read hopefully show you how extraordinary this was. The first part, what I'll call Douglass's Creation Story, immediately announces to the reader why and how he is different. Douglass begins by separating himself from his readers, not by making a connection to them. The second part deals with a particularly touchy issue at this time--slave violence. Little terrified whites, both South and North, more than the possibility of a slave uprising. That's why Nat Turner's 1831 rebellion reverberated through the nation, and why Thoreau's defense of John Brown is noteworthy.
So my question is simply how do you think he is able to do this? Or to ask the question in a more complex way, how is Douglass able to exploit revolutionary concepts of individualism, autonomy and natural rights to establish common ground with his readers?
I think you make a very good point when you note that even some abolitionist may have considered themselves racially superior to blacks. I know that from the conception of abolitionism, until its conclusion, there was a constant flux of ideas, and some of the abolitionist who had made certain assertions, and even suggested that blacks be returned to Africa, did exist. I think it’s fair to note-- many later apologized for their previous positions, and eventually took a more liberal stance.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would venture to say-- the vast majority of those men and women who often with great risk to themselves stood up against slavery-- did not in good conscious claim slavery was wrong, without first realizing the reasons why. In other words, if they opposed slavery as a human rights issue-- then to presuppose one human is unequal to another is incongruous. Similarly, I think the masses of people understood this; whether they accepted it or not was another matter.
The mind and heart had not yet united on the issue of slavery. With that said, what Douglass was able to do is appeal to the heart, by painting a vivid image of some of the ramifications of slavery. This is not a new concept as it relates to history. Another example that comes to mind-- would be the television, and its importance to the civil rights era. Although discrimination and segregation had been rampant for a long time, many historians believe that it was the images of brutality and violence against blacks, finally being exposed,that propelled the civil rights movement.It just seems every once in awhile; we need to be given a mirror.
As a literate slave – which was remarkable in itself – Frederick Douglass had an even greater understanding than other slaves about what advantages they had to gain through freedom. His “Narrative” remains compelling and disturbing today, even though it was followed by numerous similar revelations by former slaves, both male and female. How much more revelatory his story must have seemed in the mid-1800s, when the concept of slavery was still accepted by many U.S citizens, when blacks were thought of as savages from the wilds of Africa, even by northerners who may have opposed slavery. Douglass was his own best asset, by virtue of his literacy, skills as an orator, and his persistence in learning to read, escaping slavery and fighting for emancipation, which did not occur until nearly 20 years after his book was published. By describing his own beatings, he was able to put a face and a personality to otherwise anonymous scenes which northerners may have imagined, if they thought of such things at all. Imagination is one thing; knowing that the person speaking before you actually has experienced a situation – any situation -- adds to veracity and emotional impact, further drawing in the listener. Reading would have a similar effect. “If this man is able to stand in front of us and speak like this, and write like he does – might other slaves be capable of doing so as well? Shouldn’t he be given the opportunity?” Douglass put a human face on the concept of slavery that may have been ill-defined in the north, by those who had never seen or experienced it, who may not have wished to face it until it materialized before them, either in the form of Douglass’ book or the man himself. Douglass was not a white person attributing thoughts, words and deeds to slaves; he was the slave, proving to whites by speaking and writing that he was indeed a human being with feelings, emotions, intelligence and the potential to function independently in society. His statement “I often found myself regretting my own existence, and wishing myself dead” (p. 1907) would have put to rest any erroneous belief that slaves were content with their state of living. Douglass brought to light for the general public the reality of slavery as an act and the reality of slaves as human beings.
ReplyDeleteFrederick Douglass gives a summary of how he, has no idea when his birthday is but as far he can guess it must have been around 1818. He was separated from his mother right after he was born (which he imagines was because they did not want the bonds of family to develop naturally between families) but recalls how sometimes she would walk at night from a neighboring plantation to sleep with him. He tells the reader that she died but because of his lack of connection with her the news did not have much of an impact on him. All Frederick Douglass knows about his father is that he is a white man based on his light skin tone and rumors he’s heard to confirm it. Frederick Douglass then gives the reader a brutal short summary of that the rape of female slaves by their white masters actually benefits slavery because by law the products of the rape become slaves themselves. After briefly discussing his childhood, Douglass goes on to discuss his first master, Captain Anthony and the overseer of his plantation, Mr. Plummer. He gives a short summary of the way the drunken cruel Mr. Plummer repeatedly whipped his Aunt Hester until the blood streamed down her back simply because she was beautiful and he may have had an interest in her. The reader is left to figure out the psychology behind such an awful act while Douglass explains that he was afraid of the idea of being whipped that he often hid.
ReplyDeleteTwo things strike me about Douglass's description of his encounter with Covey. One has to do with the metaphorical framework that informs the description. What I notice is that Douglass commonly uses animal imagery to refer to Covey, and notes that Covey could be quasi-supernatural in his ability to just seem to appear out of nowhere. So we have a slavebreaker who can "assume" the shapes of animals (metaphorically) and who seems to be ... unnatural in certain abilities. If you think about that with reference to certain religious imagery, you can perhaps get a sense from where Douglass draws much of the literary power of his text.
ReplyDeleteA second element is the extraordinary calm with which Douglass describes his fight with Covey. What Douglass describes is what I call "rational violence"--that is, violence rooted in necessity and which has a reasonable end. Douglass does not fight back until he is attacked first, and even then he makes it clear that his physical response was more defensive than offensive. Why does this matter? As I mention in the blog post, the perceived threat of slave violence was terrifying to whites, and a "rational" response to violence can help mitigate that fear. Also, Douglass's response is very much in line with an iconic response to another threat--the Declaration of Independence. Here Douglass puts his readers in a problematic situation: to condemn Douglass and his reasoned response to a threat indirectly condemns our response to the threat of England in the 18th century.
Frederick makes simple connections with the readers by refering to people and objects as things that we would be able to understand. he is very lucky because he is literate and is able to write his account. He can easily connect with the readers indirectly.
ReplyDeleteDouglass described moments of cruelty and violence to paint a clear picture of the details of slavery. Like Teri pointed out, this narrative allowed white readers to put a face to the name “slave.” Douglass’ piece gave people the opportunity to understand and possibly relate to a slave (whether they actually did this or not.) Douglass himself exposed many universal characteristics that anyone could relate to like being awkward, and standing up for what he believed in. His bravery was very admirable and majestic in the narrative. I felt so proud and happy for Douglass when reading about how he stood up to Mr. Covey and “became a man.” It was a story of hope that touched the hearts of blacks, whites, and people of all races. Like Teri also stated, Douglass was a very good public speaker and also knew how to write effectively. This clearly helped him take the readers on his tragic, yet uplifting journey. After reading Douglass’ narrative, it would be nearly impossible not to feel some sort of pity or empathy for this man and the countless other slaves enduring the same hardships.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Dr. Bodziock’s second post: I think Douglass reacted to the fight rather than started it to prove that black men were better than that. Though they were treated like lowly animals, the slaves did not need to act like beasts. Instead, the narrative made the slave owners/whites look like the animals. This was very nicely done!
I think Douglass’s may have been so successful with his reader’s because as Prof. said, he started out by separating himself from them. He didn’t try to connect with them. He was honest and simply presented the facts. He didn’t strive to put himself on to a higher level nor did his story beg for sympathy. He clearly told his story, letting white's see into the trials of a slave. Most importantly he didn’t ask for anything more than what any other person would want, value.
ReplyDelete