 |
LITR 4328 American Renaissance Research Posts 2015 (research post assignment) Research Post 2 |
 |
Sarah
Hurt
May
2, 2015
Women Shakers, Reality vs. Fiction
The Shaker religion was a Quaker “splinter group” (Davies), which was
brought to America by Ann Lee in the late 1700s. The Shakers followed many of
the ideas and principles of the Quakers, including pacifism and equality for
all. Unlike the Quakers who lived within the world, the Shakers chose to
segregate themselves into communities where they were able to live in what some
consider a socialism experiment (Moss) due to the community property ideas that
the Shakers practiced. The fact that Shakers were living a socialistic lifestyle
was not one of the ideas that outsiders most questioned or condemned, instead,
the freedom women had within the community seems to be something that caused
quite a stir with outsiders and even became a topic to criticize in literature.
While reading about the equality and power women held within the Shaker
communities (an equal number of men and women were in charge of each community,
usually 2 of each), I was always surprised that during such a suppressive time
for women, that women really would be allowed such power. I knew from previous
research regarding the Shakers, that Ann Lee had been attacked by a mob for
“stealing” a man’s wife, and that the Quaker women in England (women were
allowed to speak at religious meetings) were not thought of highly by some men
(including writer Samuel Johnson). So the question I decided to research came
from my desire to learn more about the reception Shaker women received in the
public during the American Renaissance. How were women within the Shaker
community viewed by outsiders, specifically those who chose to write about them
during the American Renaissance?
When researching about women within the Shaker community, you have to
look at why women in particular were drawn to these communities. Ann Lee, when
founding the Shakers, was heavily influenced by her life previous to her visions
of a better life. Ann Lee, like many women during the time period, had little
choice when it came to marriage and producing children. After suffering the
deaths of all four of her children at an early age, Lee’s previous ideas
regarding the desire to live a celibate and holy lifestyle became even stronger.
Due to Lee’s previous troubles with her family’s lack of support to live
celibate and the loss of her four children, many of the rules that she instilled
into her community were put into place to keep men and women separate and
celibate. Irwin Altman and James Issac in their article
Interpersonal processes in nineteenth
century utopian communities: Shakers and Oneida Perfectionists examined in
depth the rules and regulations the Shakers placed on the separation of men and
women within the community. They suggest that Ann Lee was “perhaps influenced by
the loss of four children in birth or early infancy, she viewed sexual
relationships as the source and foundation of human corruption” (Altman).
The article, while focusing mainly on
how rules regulated interactions, brings up how the Shaker lifestyle and even
building structures made private interactions between men and women nearly
impossible.
While not all women were drawn to the Shaker community due to a strong
religious draw the way that Ann Lee was, as Richard Marshall in his article
explained, women were drawn to the community for the protection that the Shaker
lifestyle provided for women. During a time when a divorce was near impossible
to obtain, birth control was illegal and no battered women’s shelters existed,
by becoming a Shaker, a women could be protected from a world of men that did
not protect her. “Historical records reveal independent and fulfilled women who
became Shakers for religious reasons but also for secular opportunities unknown
in the outside world, including companionship, refuge from sexual predation, and
a chance for professional or governmental fulfillment” (Marshall). While I was
aware that Shakers were criticized for their musical chanting and marching style
of worship, I was not aware until I began to research how much fiction used the
Shakers as an example of suppressing women. Anyone who has read about the power
women held within the Shaker religious community would be surprised to read how
popular authors during the American Renaissance, such as Nathanial Hawthorne
wrote about the Shakers as something harmful to women. “In these stories, the
Shaker community threatens the very existence of women” (Marshall). Marshall
quotes stories about Shakers from the time period which often feature gothic
elements such as in Hawthorne’s The
Shaker Bride, where a female Shaker is described as “not entirely free from
that corpse-like appearance, which the garb of the sisterhood is so well
calculated to impart." Other women are described as unable to live without the
love of a man, women are also seen as victims in some of the Shaker fiction
stories of the time, depicted as objects of lust by creepy elders within the
church. The sad fact is that many of the authors writing about Shaker women
during the time period, and even modern fiction writers that have chosen to
write fictional stories about the Shakers have chosen to ignore the historical
evidence so that they can write sensational stories that depict the Shakers in a
false and disturbing light. “The historical records--private diaries, official
journals, letters--describe women who wielded considerable social influence, but
the fiction portrays lifeless and powerless Shaker women” (Marshall). Many
Shaker women had fascinating lives and were able to travel and were given the
opportunity to hold jobs that few women held before. Shaker women were
celebrated within their community as inventers the same way that men were, for
example, a female Shaker invented the circular saw. Despite the powerful and
interesting women that lived as Shakers during the time period, fictional
writers chose to instead write sensational gothic tales of weak women needing to
be protected or rescued in the romantic narrative style.
While I was aware at the beginning of my research that not everyone
understood or even liked the Shakers during the American Renaissance, I was
completely unaware of how they were depicted in literature during the time. Many
of the descriptions of women Shakers reminded me of the way that pro-slavery
anti-Uncle Tom’s Cabin books were
written that we discussed in class. While the research is disheartening in
regards to the way that the reading public during the time may have been led to
believe that the Shakers were bad for women, not all of the research was so
disturbing. Marshall discusses in his article how women seeking to escape
abusive marriages sometimes heard about the Shakers and asked to be brought to
the Shakers, and that some historical record shows that there were men who saw
the Shakers celibacy as a way of protecting women, at least makes me believe
that some people were not fooled by some of the more sensational stories of
women Shakers. And regardless of how they were viewed by outsiders, the Shaker
women truly experienced a better way of living compared to many women during the
time period, and proved the common idea of the American Renaissance true, that
life can be made better for all.
Altman, Irwin, and James Isaac. "Interpersonal processes in nineteenth century
utopian communities: Shakers and Oneida Perfectionists." Utopian Studies
9.1 (1998): 26+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 2 May 2015.
Davies, Philip. "THE SHAKERS AT THE MILLENNIUM." Contemporary Review
277.1615 (2000): 72. Literature Resource Center. Web. 2 May 2015.
Marshall, Richard M. "Sinking 'like a corpse' or living the 'soul's full
desire': shaker women in fiction and
history." Utopian Studies 21.1
(2010): 57+. Literature Resource Center.
Web. 2 May 2015.
Moss, Joyce and Wilson, George. "Overview: A Day No Pigs Would Die." Literature and Its Times: Profiles of 300 Notable Literary Works and the Historical Events that Influenced Them. Vol. 3: Growth of Empires to the Great Depression (1890-1930s). Detroit: Gale, 1997. Literature Resource Center. Web. 2 May 2015.
 |
 |
|