2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
A bit underdeveloped, April 30, 2007
This review is from: Home Fronts: Domesticity and Its Critics in the Antebellum United States (New Americanists) (Paperback)
In her introduction to Home Fronts, Romero explains that her book is not trying to rewrite the traditional American literary canon; instead, her goal "is to inquire into the theoretical assumptions about power and resistance underlying contemporary debates about dominant and oppositional cultures" (4). Specifically, Romero questions the manner in which domesticity subverted or supported the power structures which existed during the period known as the American Renaissance. By examining writers such as James Fenimore Cooper, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Maria W. Stewart, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Catharine Beecher, she addresses the way that the domestic realm and the ideology of domesticity influenced American literature during this era.
She begins by challenging the commonly held notion that American fiction during this time was dominated by female writers, and she does not shy away from taking on noted scholars such as Herbert Ross Brown and William Charvat. Romero attempts to prove that male writers were just as prolific as female writers and scoffs at the lack of hard evidence that would back up this long-held assumption, maintaining that most previous scholars in this period looked primarily at the best-selling authors and not at the total number of works published. However, her study likewise provides no factual information or historical evidence which might discount these notions, nor does she fully take into account the role that the most popular fiction (which was penned by women) had on the marketplace as a whole; Romero's most effective point in this argument lies in her observation that, regardless of the success of female authors, the book publishing industry was still dominated by male publishers. Unfortunately, this does little to convince the reader of the correctness of her stance--the end result being that her argument, even from the first chapter, seems tainted by unsubstantiated information.
Despite this questionable opening, Romero's analysis of Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans as a text which criticizes the feminization of American society is more developed. By contrasting the strength of Hawkeye and Uncas (two men who have had very little contact with women) with that of David Gamut (one whom Hawkeye continually refers to as unmanly), she argues that Cooper places a higher regard on the masculine virtues of the adventurers than on the feminized psalmody of the civilized Gamut. This civilization that Gamut represents is one dominated by female influence and the domestic ideology; in this novel, the feminine is shown as having little value or use outside of civilization and the home.
Later chapters within Home Front note the way other writers such as Stewart attempt to alter conceived notions of the domestic woman by combining a nurturing maternity with a masculine violence. Though Stewart is a largely forgotten activist for African-American women's rights, Romero argues that her plight against the oppression of her sex by both white and black men is remarkable in that it utilized the traditional tropes of feminine virtue in conjunction with outspoken political activism. By appropriating the political nature commonly used by her white female counterparts, Stewart helps align "the political interests, goals, and circumstances of African-American and Anglo-American women writers" (112).
When addressing Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, Romero argues that the novel is a bio-political text which calls for "bodily economy to preserve the bodies of upper-class women and children" and a "social economy to preserve the bodies of the working classes" (78). Apparently, this conclusion is reached due to real-life hysterical breakdowns by Stowe from the daunting task of performing domestic chores. This hysteria was later developed into Stowe's "fictional representation of Southern slavery" (78), according to Romero. In this chapter, the patriarchal system is most clearly analyzed, but it would seem more relevant to spread the patriarchal theme throughout the book, since it was this system that dictated so much of the cultural standards of the day. However, in most of the other chapters it is not even mentioned or, if it is, only in passing.
The most impressive chapter in Romero's work involves the study of Nathaniel Hawthorne, the romance, and how it relates to domesticity. Romero asserts that Hawthorne's romance springs from his disillusionment with the female domestic novel; therefore, he takes what is familiar in domestic fiction and then defamiliarizes it with moonlight, shadows, and other forms of ambiguity that distance the story from the real and probable. Therefore, Hawthorne resists the domestic by consciously writing in opposition to its expectations.
Theoretically, Home Fronts provides a heavy dose of Foucault's The History of Sexuality and dabbles a bit in New Historicism while remaining firmly rooted in a Feminist ideology. Yet as she did with earlier literary scholars, she also questions many of the theories which have influenced the modern perception of the domestic novel. Instead, Romero believes that current theoretical frameworks fail to address the issues of power and politics within her text, and she calls for a "theory of oppositionality that . . . can acknowledge both the value and limitations of political interventions performed by texts constitutionally compromised by decentralized social authority" (9). Unfortunately, Romero takes no action in attempting to develop any such theory.
While Home Fronts is certainly an ambitious project, it appears that Romero was simply trying to do too much in too few pages. A more thorough examination of each of the authors and their relevant texts would have helped develop what could be an interesting piece of scholarship currently missing from literary studies of the early nineteenth century. Romero's overall thesis is insightful, but even the most cursory reading will show that Home Fronts falls well below the mark of such works as Cathy N. Davidson's Revolution and the Word and Herbert Ross Brown's The Sentimental Novel in America, 1789-1860. Too frequently, Romero seems to shoehorn her ideas into the thesis instead of merely concentrating on developing it--the result is a text which, at times, is disjointed, lacking focus and relevance to the overall stated goal of the text.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
