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
Within the study of an American print culture historically dominated by a White elite, some scholars have looked for answers to the question of how 19th century African Americans interacted with print media. Historians Morgan and Rushton, Richard Newman, and David Waldstreicher investigate this question through different lenses, together creating a dual-sided argument about the impact of this media: that it was used to oppress Blacks, but that it also was integral to Blacks’ subversion of the power structure and their efforts to fight back against their oppressors.
In “Visible Bodies: Power, Subordination and Identity in the Eighteenth-Century Atlantic World,” Historians Gwenda Morgan and Peter Rushton examine advertisements for runaway slaves and conclude that this form of print media furthered Black oppression. They base their investigation on Foucault’s theory that the systematic observation of one class of person by another is created by (and perpetuates) a power structure in which the observer has power over the observed. “Visibility is a trap,” wrote Foucault, and he who is seen but does not see “is the object of information, never a subject in communication.” Anchored by this theory, Morgan and Rushton approach advertisements for runaway slaves, servants, and criminals with the goal of demonstrating how the ads allowed the white, newspaper-reading elite to “see” slaves as human objects of information, and therefore withheld the power of being autonomous “subjects in communication” from Black Americans.[1]
In the course of arguing that the newspaper advertisements withheld Black autonomy, Morgan and Rushton consequently ignore Black autonomy. They describe how newspaper advertisements acted on Black Americans, instead of how Black Americans interacted with the print media. Casting the slaves as victims of surveillance, they simultaneously show how advertising reflected white society’s view of race. In newspaper advertisements, they write, “there were variations in the extent to which languages of ‘race’ and colour were used” and “these distinctions were generally lost on the British press.” For example, “Standard phrases such as ‘of a black complexion’ were used in British newspapers without the overtones of the racialized hierarchical language of the American colonies.” [2]
Morgan and Rushton’s focus on how the advertisements reflect White Society is also highlighted in their grouping of Black slaves and servants with convicts and criminals. That is, they repeatedly describe how bodily descriptions in advertisements spoke of runaway slaves in the same way as criminals and other plagues on society. “The poor, the criminal, the deserter from army or navy, the runaway slave or servant, were viewed and described precisely because they were not tame or obedient.” They conclude their essay by describing the further use of systematic classification in police systems and prisons, reminding readers that classification is used to control lower elements of society.[3]
Where Morgan and Rushton saw runaway slave advertisements as evidence of and a tool for the perpetuation of White dominance, historian David Waldstreicher sees another side. He explores Black autonomy in his article “Reading the Runaways: Self-Fashioning, Print Culture, and Confidence in Slavery in the Eighteenth Century Mid-Atlantic,” where he uses runaway advertisements “to analyze the acts of cultural hybridization black and racially mixed people committed for their own purposes,” and then, like Morgan and Rushton, evaluates “the owners’ use of print to counter the mobility of the unfree.”[4]
Waldstreicher add another level to Morgan and Rushton’s conclusions from their studies of runaway ads. For example, Morgan and Rushton answered the question, “to what extent did ordinary workers wear [wigs]?” with the evidence that “[Wigs] are frequently mentioned as an aspect of people’s appearance” in runaway advertisements and furthermore, wearing wigs “was one aspect of servants apeing their betters–an accusation often raised against them in popular representations of the time.”[5] We see here Morgan and Rushton observing servant behavior in the context of how White society defined and reacted to it. In contrast, Waldstreicher brings historians Shane White and Graham White into the argument, using their point that “runaway advertisements depict a great variety of hairstyles among slaves, ‘an expressive space that blacks were able to exploit.’” Waldstreicher continues, “Distinctive hair could be shaven or grown, and frustrated masters struggled to represent verbally the texture of the hair on the heads of mulattoes and mustees.” From this example, we see Waldstreicher using the same evidence as Morgan and Rushton, yet he argues that it demonstrates Blacks’ capitalizing on the expectations of masters by contravening how others defined them.[6]
Instead of focusing exclusively on runaway advertisements, historian Richard Newman looks to other forms of literature and concludes that print media is not only evidence for Black autonomy, as Waldstreicher argued, but that it facilitated it. In his essay “Protest in Black and White: The Formation and Transformation of an African American Political Community during the Early Republic,” Newman guides his investigation with the argument that “If [Blacks] were denied the vote and routinely fell under public scrutiny, [they] attempted nevertheless to infiltrate public life in any manner possible–to claim city streets as their own, to protest disfranchisement in speeches and newspapers, to assume a public role in debates over race.” This argument serves as the second half to Morgan and Rushton’s thesis. Though Blacks were systematically oppressed in part via the publication of runaway ads, they used other forms of print media to fight back.[7]
Newman brings theorist Jürgen Habermas into the conversation by drawing on his concept of the public sphere, and he claims that African Americans were instrumental in defining the public sphere as a political realm. Like Waldstreicher, he investigates not just the White element of the interaction between print media and African American, but researches the actions of the African American community. He argues that although “the rules of party politics and the very sites of political venues blocked black expression,” Black Americans were not simply passive victims but proactively inserted themselves in the public sphere through the creation of pamphlets. He writes that the creation of political pamphlets was in and of itself a political statement to white audiences; it announced that blacks were determined to enter the public sphere.[8]
We see from the combined works of Morgan and Rushton, Waldstreicher, and Newman that depending on the angle of approach and the theory undergirding the investigation, one can argue that print media was used to oppress 19th century African Americans, or that it was a tool that Blacks used to subvert the roles assigned to them and gain political autonomy.
[1] Foucault, Michel. “Panopticism.” In Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, 214. New York: Pantheon Books, 1977.
[2] Morgan, Gwenda, and Peter Rushton. “Visible Bodies: Power, Subordination and Identity in the Eighteenth-Century Atlantic World.” Journal of Social History 39, no. 1 (2005): 42.
[3] Ibid, 41.
[4] Waldstreicher, David. “Reading the Runaways: Self-Fashioning, Print Culture, and Confidence in Slavery in the Eighteenth-Century Mid-Atlantic.” The William and Mary Quarterly 56, no. 2 (1999): 247.
[5] Morgan and Rushton, 45.
[6] Waldstreicher, 254.
[7] Newman, Richard. “Protest in Black and White The Formation and Transformation of an African American Political Community during the Early Republic.” In Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic, 181. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.
[8] Ibid., 184.





