"...They attend church as much--nay more than could be expected, under all the circumstances. If they should not go to church at all, they would be quite excusable, and if at the day of retribution the operatives of our country should be found guilty of a want of religious devotion, how much more will the teachers of religion have need of repentance and forgiveness for their sanction of the system which disqualifies them to attend church and cultivate the spirit of the gospel.Something interesting is going on here. Many reform movements founded and organized by 19th century women have found their rallying call in/through religion, yet in the quote above Bagley insists that religion is in some way anathema (too strong a word?) to the interests of the laboring classes. In fact, instead of using religion to call for labor reform, she appears to be using the condition of labor to call for religious reform.
"It will be said, that we are infidel to offer an apology for a neglect to attend church? We are aware that the operatives are rapidly verging to infidelity to the religion that lays heavy burdens upon their shoulders, that it will not remove with one of its fingers. Is it strange that the operatives should stay away from the churches where they see the men filling the 'chief seats,' who are taking every means to grind them into the very dust, and have no sympathy with them, and look upon them only as inanimate machines, made to subserve their interests?"
Voice of Industry, May 6, 1846
Any thoughts?
I think this is WAY interesting!
ReplyDeleteThe first thing that came to mind was Karl Marx--of course.
It would be interesting to know if there are any connections/roots/influence between this text (or Sarah Bagley) and the rising German philosophy of the time. The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, but Marx was already writing about these subjects for some time before.
I always think it is fascinating when scholars are able to relate the ideas of two intellectuals that no one thinks have anything in common. In my opinion, a paper that discusses Bagley to Marx, in relation to religion, false consciousness, feminism, and labor reform(s) would be DYNAMITE.
Everyone reads Marx, everyone talks about Marx, everyone LOVES Marx. Having said that, I think other scholars before his time and during his time were saying similar things (some times even more interesting) but their theories had a different fate (sad). J.J. Bachofen, a peer of Marx at the University of Berlin is an example. Before Marx was writing about "the community of women," Bachofen was postulating the idea that matriarchies preceded patriarchies, and Mother-Right (extremely revolutionary)... but no one talks about Bachofen, a lot of people don't even know his name.
Kay, clearly that was more that needed to be said, it was just what came to mind :)
Historically, this is extremely interesting considering what is happening in woman's rhetoric in the US at the time...and more importantly how we talk about that rhetoric during the time. I will talk to you about this at our meeting tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm completely misreading this, but I don't take this as "religion is evil," but rather, "the religious institution has been corrupted by capitalist exploitation. I'm drawing this from phrases like "day of retribution," which *might* refer to some sort of Marxist uprising, but which I'm taking as a straight-up reference to Revelations. Similarly, she refers to the "spirit of the gospel" in a way that seems positive.
ReplyDeleteI would liken this more to Christians in the contemporary era who see conservative Christianity as becoming corrupt - Jimmy Carter leaving the Southern Baptist Convention but still considering himself a Baptist, for instance.