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 Cordelia

Communication in the colonial era of what would become the United States of America primarily consisted of written documents and oral exchanges. Mapping these communications requires an analysis of both types, however the face-to-face exchanges conducted by individuals cannot necessarily be mapped with one hundred percent accuracy. However, metadata use, as showcased by Kieran Healy in his article entitled, “Using Metadata to Find Paul Revere,” can predict the interactions of historical figures to a certain degree by outlining the recorded social commitments of their lives. Yet, analysis of printed materials such as commonplace books and maps could predict these communications to a greater degree, generally. However, all authors on the topic, Bruckner, Wulf, and Healy, explore the question relating to the extent to which the information collected from these communication documents is accurate and conclude that the communication methods of the time leading to the revolution were unifying in a way that mirrored the colonies’ impending unification against the British.

The geographical revolution of the Americas had to happen early in the process of colonization, as the new residents relied upon maps for their own survival. Yet, as Martin Bruckner points out in his work entitled, “The Geographic Revolution in Early America: Maps, Literacy, and National Identity,” “the early American land survey is part of a much-overlooked literary movement.” Maps did not simply communicate land distinctions but served as further communication for many reasons. The land survey provided information to the mother country of England to communicate their political stance in the new world as defined by distinctive land boundaries. This was, after all, the overarching purpose of government funding for the mapping of land as the monarchy could only enforce power over a colony if there was official documentation of the extent to which their rule was valid. However, as Bruckner argues, mapping the land resulted in much more than a reiteration of political prowess. Plotting land required a numeracy of citizens that might otherwise have not been quite as prevalent. The colonists had to become geographically literate and this united them as they learned about their new surroundings. It was a unification that was necessary for continued survival in a foreign land. Therefore, the simple communication tool of a map effectively created a standard by which all colonists would align their lives. In further context, this sort of colonial standard made by the colonists for the colonists is the exact ideal promoted by the American Revolution less than a century later – something not addressed by Bruckner’s article.[1]

Karin Wulf further explores the principle of unification through communication in her discussion of commonplace books and specifically that of Milcah Martha Moore. Commonplace books served as informal scrapbooks that women would use to document pieces of communication in their lives, including literature, quotes, and news pieces, and then proceed to share with others, forming a network of sorts. From a historical standpoint, these are extremely valuable pieces to deconstruct as they clearly form a trail of communication from person to person and can track the priorities of the time period. More importantly, however, Wulf discusses how commonplace books led to friendships and connections between women in a way that mirrored those of the men in their lives who were busy making political decisions in regards to the impending revolution. Women were not expected nor encouraged to participate in intellectual pursuits of any sort but commonplace books allowed for them to still have an understanding of the political and social events that were transpiring in front of them. Just as the men began to organize in preparation to establish change, so did the women, just in a quieter, more discrete way through commonplace books. Wulf mentions this parallelism but fails to establish a broader image of the meaning of the books. For instance, in order to understand the political drama that was transpiring, men were almost certainly required to be literate. Though there were other ways to hear about events without the ability to read, the participatory aspect of the revolution with the societies that were formed for discussion purposes required certain skills. Women were not allowed in these societies but the commonplace books proved they had the skills required to be. As Milcah Moore shared the contents of her commonplace book, so were pamphlets and newspaper clippings and quotations that all told of the impending revolution, and therefore united women in a way that the societies of the time would not allow them to be. This communication, like the maps on which Bruckner focuses, united colonists through a common need for information.[2]

Comparable to the research done on commonplace books, Kieran Healy’s discussion of the use of metadata tracks the main players of the revolution through information on the organizations to which they belonged. What goes unmentioned, however, is the blatant fact that a name listed on a membership list for a society of sorts does not guarantee the person’s active participation or contribution to said society, nor could it successfully predict the conversations that were held. Though there are other methods of verifying such relationships such as letters, testimonies, or other forms of documentation, Healy does not mention these and relies strictly upon the metadata approach. He proceeds to prove that Paul Revere lay at the center of the revolution due to the connections he had and those he helped to facilitate. Though he does not mention it explicitly, Healy’s work visualizes the unification of the colonies through the smaller-scale interactions between men. This is something that is difficult to capture with Bruckner’s article, but is present nonetheless. It also exists within Wulf’s piece but, once again, goes unmentioned. This reveals much on the state of the field of communication research in the colonial era.[3]

Overall, all three authors understand that their respective communication methods unified the colonists, but they fail to see the parallelism with the impending revolution and the importance that this small-scale unification dictates. Metadata analysis, commonplace books, and plotting the surrounding land are all symbolic of the overall ideal that the revolution lies within the people, themselves, in their day-to-day lives. Paul Revere and Milcah Martha Moore never fought on the front-lines and would not be normally considered to be key aspects to the revolution, but their communications within their respective communities allowed them to each play a role, nonetheless, and an important one, as pointed out by Healy. Even maps, as Brucker states, played a substantial literary role during the age of colonization and united colonists in a way that is paralleled and potentially solely rivaled by the unification of the colonies for their fight against Great Britain.

[1] See Bruckner, 16-50

[2] See Wulf, 1-55

[3] See Healy

Bibliography

Bruckner, Martin. “The Surveyed Self.” Chap. 1 in The Geographic Revolution in Early America: Maps, Literacy, and National Identity. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

Healy, Kieran. “Using Metadata to Find Paul Revere.” Kieran Healy. June 9, 2013. Accessed February 17, 2015. http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/.

Wulf, Karin. “Introduction.” In Milcah Martha Moore’s Book: Documenting Culture and Connection in the Revolutionary Era. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.