An Academic Difference of Opinion:
Upon examination of the following article, I discovered the scholarly does not completely agree that Sampson the victim of an inaccurate biographer. Is Mann’s censorship and "editing" of Sampson’s war career forgivable? Yes, only if Sampson was in on the plan.
Weyler, Karen A. “An Actor in the Drama of Revolution: Deborah Sampson, Print,and Performance in the Creation of Celebrity.” Feminist Interventions in Early American Studies. (2006): 183-193. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 19 Sept. 2010.
Weyler challenges scholars in search of Deborah Sampson to look beyond her biography and public speech and examine her actions. She presents Sampson as the intelligent, successful architect of her public image, instead of the pawn of a masculine author. She claims that Sampson initially returned to an anonymous, feminine lifestyle after her military service because she knew her masculine actions would seem threatening to men (184,186). Weyler points out that Sampson most likely realized that positive, published accounts of her service and character lead to her successful petition for military back pay (186). After this realization, Weyler says Sampson consciously built a public image, central to her reception as a patriotic figure, equated with Liberty and Lady Columbia (184, 186). She argues Sampson’s presentation of her chastity, use of male endorsement, skillful performance of gender, and recognition of the power of print shaped her palatable public image (184).
Weyler suggests that without this careful public relations campaign and the written endorsements of Philip Freneau, Herman Mann, Paul Revere and fellow revolutionary veterans, Sampson might have been jailed or publically rejected as a “whore,” like the two other women who enlisted as men (183-184). Weyler also theorizes that Sampson allowed and possibly collaborated with Mann to take liberties with her biography in order to present her as a patriotic actor in a war (189-190). Weyler implies that the real Sampson is found, not in the words written about her, but in her actions. She concludes that because Sampson convinced many “men of distinction” to vouch for her in writing proves she was assertive, persuasive, compelling, a skillful performer and aware of the importance of the written word in shaping public opinion (193).
To support her argument, Weyler mainly relies on primary sources such as letters, poems, newspaper articles, speeches, novels and government documents. Occasionally, she refers to other scholars to contextualize her points in the larger scholarly conversation. Weyler connects John Higham’s research, which illustrates that Americans tried to make Liberty more concrete through images, to solidify her description of the engraving of Sampson as patriotic (189). She acknowledges Judith Hiltner’s essay, “Like a Bewildered Star,” which aims to prove Mann wrote Sampson’s speech to promote his political agenda; however, unlike Hiltner, Weyler is interested in proving that Mann and Sampson collaborated in developing her image (191). Weyler agrees with Sandra M. Gustafson’s analysis of Sampson’s speech as an attempt to “‘authenticate and justify her military experience’” and prove her “‘feminine virtue’” (192).
This essay made me consider that Sampson may have knowingly let Mann take liberties with her biography in order to create a feminine patriotic image to secure her pension and prevent her from being received as a criminal or a whore. If I approach the text from this point of view, then it is a testament to her knowledgeable manipulation of eighteenth-century gender identities and public opinion. I question my previous conclusion that Sampson was a victim of Mann’s misrepresentation of her for his political agenda .
Weyler’s most compelling points are that Sampson consciously constructed her image through print and that she convinced many powerful men to publicly endorse her. I felt that her argument was successful in illustrating possible alternative circumstances to those in Hiltner’s essays. Unfortunately, Weyler only addresses Hiltner’s opposing view in a brief comment and does not seek to directly disprove that Mann used Sampson. Both points of view have merit and I suppose they could both represent the truth. Perhaps Mann used Sampson’s biography to illustrate his ideal Republican Woman and Sampson allowed this manipulation because she knew a positive public image would help her secure financial benefits.
I could use this article as a basis to claim that, similar to her life, Sampson’s actions in her biography are indications of the real Sampson . When trying to prove that Sampson is a captive in Mann’s text, I would also acknowledge Weyler’s argument but suggest that willing or not my point is still valid.
In class, this article could spark a discussion comparing Deborah Sampson’s, Hannah Dustin’s and Mary Rowlandson’s relationships with their public, male endorsers and their roles in ensuring public acceptance.
Soldier on,
~Blake
No comments:
Post a Comment