Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By admin

Disclaimer: as a newly-minted historian, I rely heavily on my previous training in anthropology in my discussion of the following quotations.

Quotations from Karin Wulf, “Milcah Martha Moore’s book: Documenting Culture and Connection in the Revolutionary Era”

“That Moore was able to produce such a document reflects her education, her commitment to writing, and the leisure she was afforded by modest wealth, a supportive husband, and her own lack of children.” (2)

I like this quotation because I’m an anthropologist, and the above words basically spell out the fundamental assumption of anthropological theory in a nutshell: culture is a feedback loop made up of the constant interaction of the individual and the society (the individual’s environment and circumstances). Moore was literate because her particular societal position granted her access to education, but Moore’s book does not exist only because she was literate. Moore produced the book, a cultural artefact, because of her personal “commitment to writing.” Circumstances shape a person, but that person also takes actions to shape her world, thus changing the world’s circumstances by having lived.

“What it is instead is a particular view, a vista bounded by the socioeconomic, geographic, religious, political, and educational circumstances of Moore, the authors whose work she copied, and the subjects whose experiences they documented.” (4)

This quotation resonated with me for similar reasons as the first. It’s impossible to comprehend “the system” all at once, because the system doesn’t exist—at least not in the sense that one person or group is architect over all. We can only see systems of culture by delving deeply into individual circumstances and continuously fitting and re-fitting the puzzle pieces of the past.

“…the words she wrote reinforced bonds of intimacy and common knowledge.” (22)

I found this quotation interesting because of the implication that communication is a human bonding exercise. Interestingly, I think the observation skirts the precipice of the pit of functionalist explanations for human behavior, without falling in. The author does not suggest that Moore writes in order to fulfill some deep biological need for social activity, but I think someone bent on reading that theory in to the text could take it in that direction. I think this author does a good job of describing the outcome of Moore’s correspondence without making sweeping claims about the reasons behind human behavior.

“Quakers looked to the circulation of various manuscript materials for spreading inspirational materials among a broad constituency.” (25)

Why would Quakers favor manuscript exchange as a communication technology? This might be a big leap, but I think it would be interesting to explore whether Quakers preferred this highly personal and grassroots transmission style because of their tendency toward egalitarianism. Quaker worship generally has no leader, and all are invited to speak. Manuscript exchange to some extent mirrors the style of Quaker Meetings.

“Milcah Martha Moore no doubt included many of Griffitt’s poems in her commonplace book…because they captured the sentiments of many Quakers.” (43)

I’m sort of surprised that the author feels confident in the above generalization. It makes me feel like I want to look up the “psychology of the choice in transcription of texts” if such a field existed. The question this quotation brings up for me is: how much evidence does a historian have to compile before she can make a claim?