礼貌的要求

IF 0.1 0 LITERATURE, AMERICAN
Koritha Mitchell
{"title":"礼貌的要求","authors":"Koritha Mitchell","doi":"10.1353/jnc.2023.a909293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Decency's Requirements Koritha Mitchell (bio) Reading Frederick Douglass's \"Slavery\" took me back to my earliest archival experiences. I was the first in my family to graduate from college, so my being in and successfully navigating a doctoral program was already a feat. I was excited to have access to yet another new frontier: I had secured opportunities to enter Howard University's Moorland-Spingarn Research Center and the Schomburg reading rooms at the New York Public Library. These experiences made me grateful that I had landed in English rather than history. When reading archival documents, I could not rid myself of the feeling that I was violating people's privacy, and I didn't like that feeling. However, I could see that the work I cherished emerged from such \"violations.\" I have always preferred historically grounded literary and cultural criticism; I don't see much value in research that disregards material realities. So, I understood that if historians let feeling like they were violating a respected person's privacy stop them, they would not have sifted through the information that positioned them to produce the books and articles on which I relied to do historically informed work. \"Slavery\" was not included in the compilations of Douglass's writing edited by Philip Foner and by John Blassingame, so it remained available for Leslie Leonard's \"rediscovery and publication\" (357). Leonard's meticulous editing involves preservation of manuscript features, including Douglass's revisions, so having it in the world will allow scholars to offer analysis of various kinds. For example, some will place \"Slavery\" in conversation with other works, and some will draw [End Page 29] meaning from the editing decisions Douglass had made. Having the piece published will no doubt prove generative. Still, I cannot help but think about the substantial amount of Douglass's writing that circulates in the \"finished\" state that he signed off on before it entered the world. To have work that was not in that state circulate nevertheless??? That's not something I would be thrilled about, speaking as someone with both published writing and writing that isn't yet ready for publication. Should such considerations even enter scholars' minds when there's an opportunity to create their own finished product??? I can imagine arguments for why we should consider these issues, and I recognize countless incentives for not asking such questions. Leonard's introduction highlights how relevant \"Slavery\" is to our current historical moment, and I could not agree more. It resonates powerfully, given the ongoing attacks on Nikole Hannah-Jones's 1619 Project and the hysteria around what is disingenuously being called \"critical race theory\" in K–12 education. And that's to say nothing of the ever-present hostility in the higher education sector. This semester, when I started one of my classes with a land acknowledgement, a student walked out decisively and dropped the course. I appreciated that student's clarity. People who have no patience for the contributions of BIPOC scholars and artists have long understood what I wish more \"good\" and \"decent\" folk would realize—namely, there are far more proactive stances that must be taken than there is \"middle ground.\" Editing Frances Harper's Iola Leroy a few years ago made me face how secular this church girl became during graduate school, so I now notice my temptation to overlook religion in Black-authored texts. That may be why I found Douglass's discussion of Christianity striking, especially in a piece that resonates with our current moment. He is unequivocal: \"When the Church was asked to preach and pray for the abolition of slavery, it told us with an air of extreme piety that God would abolish slavery in His own good time.\" He continues, \"However earnest these people were to cooperate with God in putting down other sins and violations …, they were not prepared to be his agents and coworkers for the liberation of the [enslaved]\" (391). As a member of a marginalized group who studies violence, I am convinced that many Americans want me to experience—not simply study—the levels of hostility that characterized the lynching era, the 1890s through the 1930s. Given Douglass...","PeriodicalId":41876,"journal":{"name":"J19-The Journal of Nineteenth-Century Americanists","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decency's Requirements\",\"authors\":\"Koritha Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/jnc.2023.a909293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Decency's Requirements Koritha Mitchell (bio) Reading Frederick Douglass's \\\"Slavery\\\" took me back to my earliest archival experiences. I was the first in my family to graduate from college, so my being in and successfully navigating a doctoral program was already a feat. I was excited to have access to yet another new frontier: I had secured opportunities to enter Howard University's Moorland-Spingarn Research Center and the Schomburg reading rooms at the New York Public Library. These experiences made me grateful that I had landed in English rather than history. When reading archival documents, I could not rid myself of the feeling that I was violating people's privacy, and I didn't like that feeling. However, I could see that the work I cherished emerged from such \\\"violations.\\\" I have always preferred historically grounded literary and cultural criticism; I don't see much value in research that disregards material realities. So, I understood that if historians let feeling like they were violating a respected person's privacy stop them, they would not have sifted through the information that positioned them to produce the books and articles on which I relied to do historically informed work. \\\"Slavery\\\" was not included in the compilations of Douglass's writing edited by Philip Foner and by John Blassingame, so it remained available for Leslie Leonard's \\\"rediscovery and publication\\\" (357). Leonard's meticulous editing involves preservation of manuscript features, including Douglass's revisions, so having it in the world will allow scholars to offer analysis of various kinds. For example, some will place \\\"Slavery\\\" in conversation with other works, and some will draw [End Page 29] meaning from the editing decisions Douglass had made. Having the piece published will no doubt prove generative. Still, I cannot help but think about the substantial amount of Douglass's writing that circulates in the \\\"finished\\\" state that he signed off on before it entered the world. To have work that was not in that state circulate nevertheless??? That's not something I would be thrilled about, speaking as someone with both published writing and writing that isn't yet ready for publication. Should such considerations even enter scholars' minds when there's an opportunity to create their own finished product??? I can imagine arguments for why we should consider these issues, and I recognize countless incentives for not asking such questions. Leonard's introduction highlights how relevant \\\"Slavery\\\" is to our current historical moment, and I could not agree more. It resonates powerfully, given the ongoing attacks on Nikole Hannah-Jones's 1619 Project and the hysteria around what is disingenuously being called \\\"critical race theory\\\" in K–12 education. And that's to say nothing of the ever-present hostility in the higher education sector. This semester, when I started one of my classes with a land acknowledgement, a student walked out decisively and dropped the course. I appreciated that student's clarity. People who have no patience for the contributions of BIPOC scholars and artists have long understood what I wish more \\\"good\\\" and \\\"decent\\\" folk would realize—namely, there are far more proactive stances that must be taken than there is \\\"middle ground.\\\" Editing Frances Harper's Iola Leroy a few years ago made me face how secular this church girl became during graduate school, so I now notice my temptation to overlook religion in Black-authored texts. That may be why I found Douglass's discussion of Christianity striking, especially in a piece that resonates with our current moment. He is unequivocal: \\\"When the Church was asked to preach and pray for the abolition of slavery, it told us with an air of extreme piety that God would abolish slavery in His own good time.\\\" He continues, \\\"However earnest these people were to cooperate with God in putting down other sins and violations …, they were not prepared to be his agents and coworkers for the liberation of the [enslaved]\\\" (391). As a member of a marginalized group who studies violence, I am convinced that many Americans want me to experience—not simply study—the levels of hostility that characterized the lynching era, the 1890s through the 1930s. Given Douglass...\",\"PeriodicalId\":41876,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"J19-The Journal of Nineteenth-Century Americanists\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"J19-The Journal of Nineteenth-Century Americanists\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/jnc.2023.a909293\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE, AMERICAN\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"J19-The Journal of Nineteenth-Century Americanists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/jnc.2023.a909293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, AMERICAN","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

阅读弗雷德里克·道格拉斯(Frederick Douglass)的《奴隶制》(Slavery)让我回想起自己最早的档案经历。我是家里第一个从大学毕业的人,所以我能进入并成功进入博士课程已经是一项壮举。我很兴奋能进入另一个新的领域:我有机会进入霍华德大学的摩尔兰-斯宾加恩研究中心和纽约公共图书馆的绍姆伯格阅览室。这些经历让我庆幸自己选择了英语专业而不是历史专业。在阅读档案文件的时候,我总是有一种侵犯别人隐私的感觉,我不喜欢这种感觉。然而,我可以看到,我所珍惜的作品是从这样的“违反”中产生的。我一直更喜欢基于历史的文学和文化批评;我看不出无视物质现实的研究有多大价值。所以,我明白,如果历史学家让他们侵犯了一位受人尊敬的人的隐私的感觉阻止了他们,他们就不会筛选信息,这些信息使他们能够写出我赖以进行历史信息研究的书籍和文章。《奴隶制》没有被包括在菲利普·福纳(Philip Foner)和约翰·布拉辛甘(John Blassingame)编辑的道格拉斯作品汇编中,所以莱斯利·伦纳德(Leslie Leonard)仍然可以“重新发现和出版”(357)。伦纳德一丝不苟的编辑涉及到手稿特征的保存,包括道格拉斯的修订,因此将其公之于众将使学者们能够提供各种各样的分析。例如,有些人会将《奴隶制》与其他作品进行对话,有些人会从道格拉斯所做的编辑决定中得出意义。发表这篇文章无疑会产生巨大的影响。尽管如此,我还是忍不住想到道格拉斯的大量作品在“完成”状态下流传,这些作品是他在进入世界之前签署的。让没有处于那种状态的作品流通??作为一个既有已发表作品,又有尚未准备出版的作品的人,我不会为此感到兴奋。当有机会创造自己的成品时,这些考虑是否会进入学者的脑海?我可以想象为什么我们应该考虑这些问题的争论,我也认识到有无数的动机不去问这些问题。伦纳德的引言强调了《奴隶制》与我们当前的历史时刻是多么相关,我完全同意。考虑到对尼科尔·汉纳-琼斯(Nikole hanna - jones) 1619计划的持续攻击,以及对K-12教育中虚伪的“批判种族理论”的歇斯底里,这本书引起了强烈的共鸣。这还不包括高等教育领域一直存在的敌意。这个学期,当我开始一门课时,有一名学生果断地退出了这门课。我欣赏那个学生的清晰。那些对BIPOC学者和艺术家的贡献没有耐心的人早就明白我希望更多的“好”和“体面”的人能意识到什么——也就是说,必须采取比“中间立场”更积极的立场。几年前,我在编辑弗朗西丝·哈珀(Frances Harper)的《艾奥拉·勒罗伊》(Iola Leroy)时,看到了这个教会女孩在研究生院时变得多么世俗,所以我现在注意到,我很容易忽视布莱克撰写的文本中的宗教信仰。这可能就是为什么我觉得道格拉斯对基督教的讨论很引人注目,尤其是在一篇与我们当前时刻产生共鸣的文章中。他毫不含糊地说:“当教会被要求为废除奴隶制布道和祈祷时,它带着一种极端虔诚的神情告诉我们,上帝会在自己合适的时候废除奴隶制。”他继续说,“无论这些人多么认真地与上帝合作,以消除其他罪恶和侵犯……,他们没有准备好成为他的代理人和同事,以解放[被奴役的]”(391)。作为一个研究暴力的边缘群体的一员,我相信许多美国人希望我体验——而不仅仅是研究——私刑时代(19世纪90年代到30年代)所特有的敌意程度。鉴于道格拉斯……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Decency's Requirements
Decency's Requirements Koritha Mitchell (bio) Reading Frederick Douglass's "Slavery" took me back to my earliest archival experiences. I was the first in my family to graduate from college, so my being in and successfully navigating a doctoral program was already a feat. I was excited to have access to yet another new frontier: I had secured opportunities to enter Howard University's Moorland-Spingarn Research Center and the Schomburg reading rooms at the New York Public Library. These experiences made me grateful that I had landed in English rather than history. When reading archival documents, I could not rid myself of the feeling that I was violating people's privacy, and I didn't like that feeling. However, I could see that the work I cherished emerged from such "violations." I have always preferred historically grounded literary and cultural criticism; I don't see much value in research that disregards material realities. So, I understood that if historians let feeling like they were violating a respected person's privacy stop them, they would not have sifted through the information that positioned them to produce the books and articles on which I relied to do historically informed work. "Slavery" was not included in the compilations of Douglass's writing edited by Philip Foner and by John Blassingame, so it remained available for Leslie Leonard's "rediscovery and publication" (357). Leonard's meticulous editing involves preservation of manuscript features, including Douglass's revisions, so having it in the world will allow scholars to offer analysis of various kinds. For example, some will place "Slavery" in conversation with other works, and some will draw [End Page 29] meaning from the editing decisions Douglass had made. Having the piece published will no doubt prove generative. Still, I cannot help but think about the substantial amount of Douglass's writing that circulates in the "finished" state that he signed off on before it entered the world. To have work that was not in that state circulate nevertheless??? That's not something I would be thrilled about, speaking as someone with both published writing and writing that isn't yet ready for publication. Should such considerations even enter scholars' minds when there's an opportunity to create their own finished product??? I can imagine arguments for why we should consider these issues, and I recognize countless incentives for not asking such questions. Leonard's introduction highlights how relevant "Slavery" is to our current historical moment, and I could not agree more. It resonates powerfully, given the ongoing attacks on Nikole Hannah-Jones's 1619 Project and the hysteria around what is disingenuously being called "critical race theory" in K–12 education. And that's to say nothing of the ever-present hostility in the higher education sector. This semester, when I started one of my classes with a land acknowledgement, a student walked out decisively and dropped the course. I appreciated that student's clarity. People who have no patience for the contributions of BIPOC scholars and artists have long understood what I wish more "good" and "decent" folk would realize—namely, there are far more proactive stances that must be taken than there is "middle ground." Editing Frances Harper's Iola Leroy a few years ago made me face how secular this church girl became during graduate school, so I now notice my temptation to overlook religion in Black-authored texts. That may be why I found Douglass's discussion of Christianity striking, especially in a piece that resonates with our current moment. He is unequivocal: "When the Church was asked to preach and pray for the abolition of slavery, it told us with an air of extreme piety that God would abolish slavery in His own good time." He continues, "However earnest these people were to cooperate with God in putting down other sins and violations …, they were not prepared to be his agents and coworkers for the liberation of the [enslaved]" (391). As a member of a marginalized group who studies violence, I am convinced that many Americans want me to experience—not simply study—the levels of hostility that characterized the lynching era, the 1890s through the 1930s. Given Douglass...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信