Customer Reviews

Founding Mothers & Fathers: Gendered Power and the Forming of American Society

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Cornell University professor Mary Beth Norton has once again turned the world of colonial American history scholarship on its head with her incisive review of gendered power structures in the 17th century mainland English colonies. For the first time she exposes the world to Filmerian thought and its implications for women (and men!) in society, both in New England and the Chesapeake. The book is dense, and at times boring and repetitive, but freshly informative too. Multiple stories about sex, sexual deviancy and scandal lighten up otherwise dry scholarly analysis. This is a valuable addition to the literature of colonial American history which has ignored feminist analysis for so long. She's a tough grader, but also a great scholar and a fabulous teacher. Even a dead white male worshipper like me can enjoy and learn from her brilliance! Good luck on your next project Mary Beth, I eagerly await it.

Norton argues that during the mid to late 17th century, colonial American political authority was based on biblical interpretations which encouraged a unified, gender-power based authoritarian system centered on the role of the father as undisputed ruler of his household. The founders were operating in a "Filmerian system" in which the sources of authority in the state and family were identical.

However, this Filmerian system did create opportunities for women to wield some power. High-ranking widows were the rulers of their households and were deferred to by both males and females of lower ranks. Problems arose when these high-ranking widows failed to fall in with the male consensus, such as Anne Hutchinson.

In the Chesapeake region, the Filmerian system was much less successful than in New England because the Chesapeake settlers were predominantly single men. The family-based power system failed in this region because it had very few traditional family households. Although power remained gender-based in the Chesapeake region, it became more like a "Lockian system" in which power in the family was differentiated from political power.

By Mary Beth Norton. Founding Mothers and Fathers: Gendered Power and the Forming of American Society. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996, hardcover 1996. Pp. ix, 496, appendix, abbreviations, notes, index....hardcover.)

From the time of the Pilgrims to present day, women have played more of a substantial role than they are commonly accredited for. In Founding Mothers and Fathers: Gendered Power and the forming of American Society, Mary Beth Norton parlays her idea that although woman did not have an independent role in the political arena of early American society there were many woman and groups of woman who knew the undisclosed sins of the community. This they used in the assumption of leadership roles among the communities.
Norton goes on to explain power inside the household as well as in the community. She connected Sir Robert Filmers' (The Filmerian view) and John Lockes' philosophies (the Lockean view) to both domestic life and the political structure and formation of early American society.
As you probably know, the practice of bearing children was most likely the primary focus of 17th century colonial woman. Lacking in birth control, a woman would go through a constant cycle of becoming pregnant and giving birth. Norton points out that these regular childbearing sessions excluded men from attending. It is very important to understand the role of the midwife. She could be the necessary one in keeping the woman and child alive during birth. She could, as well, expose any form of bastardization, premarital sex, adultery, and infanticide. The power of the midwives and the ignorance of men on the subject of childbearing gave way to many cases in which women could bend around the "man-made" laws.
It is probably demeaning these days to say that woman "gossip." Well, according to Norton, this did indeed go on during colonial times. The reader will discover the "gossip networks." Due to the fact that woman were separated from men in many social aspects led to these networks. Rumors of criminal activities would travel this way to the Colonial Magistrate and would very often result in punishment for the crime.
I found the two different philosophies on gender power to be very interesting. Should the most power come from the parent most represented, whichever that may be? This idea would bring more power to widows and present them with a greater role in the community. However, the people of this enlightened area would demand that the power of a woman's authority was inexistent outside the home.
Mary Beth Norton is a very accredited historian. This book gives remarkable incite to the power of woman in colonial times. Anyone interested in the social history of our country would enjoy this book and feel enriched after reading it. Many of the woman's roles discussed were unknown to me. Norton puts them across in a very intelligent and unquestionable way using many actual cases of the times to back up her theories.
This book, although written by a scholarly author, is not a difficult reading. Since it deals with many aspects of colonial life unknown to many people the readers interest should withstand through its entirety. Indeed, woman played an immense, although not formal or independent, role in the formation of our country as it is today.
-Charles Michael Farley-

This book is utterly AWFUL when it comes to comparing it with other academic histories. I would not recommend it to anyone, except as one of the worst histories written, EVER.