I’ve narrowed down my time and location (1834-1845, Lowell, MA), however I’m still having trouble coming up with an artifact to analyze. The difficulty with analyzing the strikes of 1834 and 1836 is the lack of a clearly identifiable artifact, at least that I’ve been able to locate. And at this point doing archival research isn’t really an option (anyone want to fly me to Massachusetts?) What I have been able to find is the petition the women circulated, a document about unions that they attached to the petition, and a newspaper article referencing the second strike. Part of me wonders if I’m looking in the right place. And if I am, have I found enough to analyze?
I’m still interested in The Lowell Offering generally, but I think it is another project. On the one hand, it offers an excellent look into the creative output of mid-18th century, working women. In a way, it reminds me of Jacques Ranciere’s work in The Nights of Labor. And in fact, his historical analysis provides a useful (and perhaps novel) way of looking at the Offering. However, it lacks an apparently obvious connection to the labor agitation that was occurring in the Lowell Mills, and for this project I’m largely interested in engaging labor movement history.
Having said that, I think I have found an artifact that allows me to touch on the Offering and the labor movement—but I’m just now considering it. The potential object of study is an exchange between Sarah Bagley, editor of the woman’s section of the Voice of Industry and founding member of the Lowell Female Labor Reform Association (who one researcher claims is the first female labor organizer in the U.S.—though I’m going to need to do some more digging to verify it) and the former editor of the Offering, Harriet Farley (or Harriot F. Curtis—I don’t have the name in front of me). The exchange takes place in the letter-to-the-editor section of Industry (I believe), in which Bagley accuses Farley of establishing an editorial policy that favored views held by the mill industrialists, while neglecting a pro-worker stance. The exchange is insightful as it can be read as a theoretical-political dispute. However, unlike the usual theoretical-political disputes that were taking place between intellectual-elites in the labor movement, this dispute features members of the working class. I need to examine it further before I can legitimately make that claim, but I think something interesting might be going on.
I’m still working through this, but I just wanted to get my thoughts out there.
Social movements are always a fascinating topic. One area of scholarship I might suggest considering is the work from Leland M. Griffin. He provides several articles on rhetoric and historical movements. One article in particular is "The rhetoric of historical movements." It was published in QJS in April 1952 (volume 38, issue 2).
ReplyDeleteI'd suggest checking out the article, it might help spark ideas for your paper.
Hey D: Thanks for the article suggestion. I'm going to definitely check it out.
ReplyDeleteI like these ideas Isaac. I think there are some potentially interesting features of the Offering as a unique compilation of texts that seem to link mill workers with "high culture." I have not read the exchange with Bagely (and I do believe your source is correct...at least I was taught that same fact at one point) and the former editor, but I wonder how much, if any, of it hinges on making a distinction between the desires and capacities of capitalists vs. workers...does Bagely argue that Offerings becomes a text that amplifies false conscioussness? (just curious).
ReplyDeleteOh and the Griffin piece is in your readers, as is Simons. Both are important.