Reading Response for 8 OCT

Waldsteicher, Halttunen, Chauncey: Reading Response

This week’s readings approached the concept of identity in terms of appearance to the outside world. The biggest issue addressed by the articles was the conflict between true identity and projected identity, which have often been at odds with each other in the lives of Americans.

The Waldsteicher reading shows that runaway slaves recognized the fluidity of their own identities, and used that to their advantage in their escape. Even their masters understood the power of such a malleable identity, and wrote runaway slave advertisements that warned of the slave’s cunning ability to transform who they “really” were. Waldsteicher goes on to illustrate that a slave with light skin or a particularly valuable trade had an easier time in shaping a new identity – many slaves did so with great success. In some ways, these types of transformations are the predecessors to “passing” of the early 20th century.

In terms of the structure of his argument, I liked Waldsteicher’s claims that runaway advertisements are evidence of the “cultural hybridization” that runaway slaves often took advantage of. I was, however, disappointed by the author’s failure to draw more connections between slavery and print until late in the paper. So much of the body was dedicated to explaining the cultural aspect of his argument, that it wasn’t until the last few pages when he explains that slavery and print practically supported each other, and that printed advertisements are unique to American slavery. In general, I found this to be a very instructive piece.

The Halttunen article deals with the hypocrisy of Victorian identity. As he notes, Victorians hated hypocrisy more than any other attitude, ironically. I found this to be a difficult article to grapple with – the argument was clear enough, but the execution was long-winded and wandered aimlessly. I feel as if he writes in the form of a fable, or cautionary tale for the reader, setting up various hypothetical situations with “Confidence Men.” I find them less than engaging, and I hate to be critical, but I don’t want to write a paper much like this one!

Chauncey’s paper on gay New York was, to me, the most impressively put together. The introduction is set up clearly and without embellishment, so that the reader understands Chauncey’s argument immediately after turning the first page. By addressing the myths of isolation, invisibility and internalization so explicitly, the author takes a potential confusing topic and puts it in accessible terms for a new reader. Additionally, I was impressed by how he highlights the fact that the paper’s topic is taboo, but also that writing about such a topic is still taboo in the academic world.

The only problems I found with Chauncey’s paper were the following: 1. I wish he had cited more sources in-text. I often found myself wondering where he got certain facts or ideas. 2. I felt that his argument to discredit “invisibility” was at odds with his argument to discredit “isolation.” With “invisibility,” he argues that there was an extensive gay network where community and solidarity were of utmost importance, and they often leaned only on each other. He follows that with the “isolation” argument, where he says gays didn’t isolate themselves, as they frequently interacted with straight people.
I learned a lot from these articles – I especially liked the Waldsteicher and Chauncey selections!