Rigal, Laura (1998). Introduction: The Extended Republic in the Age of manufactures, Chapter 2: The Mechanic as Author of His Life. The American Manufactory: Art, Labor, and the World of Things in the Early Republic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press: 3-20, 55-88.
Laura Rigal’s “culture of production” is a different perception Marx culture of labor. Whereas Marx presents the meaning of objects arises from the culture of labor and its divisions, Rigal believes it is within the production of objects which creates labor division – a kind of “chicken or the egg” discussion. To lay the foundation of her claim, she turns to St. John de Crevecoeur’s story of the botanist Mr. Bertram. Once a farmer, Mr. Bertram entered into the field of botany through the random observation of a daisy which prompted him to explore the lives of plants over his own rural livelihood. By hiring a farm worker to replace him in the field, Mr. Bertram was able to explore the intellectuals and the arts. Therefore, it was the intellectual production of work which led to the division of labor, from farmer to botanist, and the development of American culture in art and literature. This is all outlined in Laura Rigal’s introduction and exhibited throughout the following chapters to various successful degrees.
This approach is exhibited rather uniquely in Rigal’s second chapter with the consideration of cultural failure rather than success. This chapter tells the story of a steamboat inventor, John Fitch, and the various disappointments throughout his life. These successive failures are caused by a variety of cultural influences, such as: familial hierarchy, social class, politics, immigration, economics, geography, etc… When Fitch writes his life story, he incorporates a conglomeration of cultural influences into an asymmetrical assembly of “genres, styles, and discourses” which “testify to the innumerable representational structures that functioned in early industrial America…” (59). Interestingly, Rigal states that since Fitch is not able to “see culturally” he fails in his ventures. Though he may not “see culturally,” he is still able to record it. I would further argue that this largely uncontrived writing might offer a more objective view his of culture (despite his emotional rants).
How does this apply to literature?
In some ways Fitch’s writing exemplifies Latour’s ideas of developing a quasi-object focused writing since it lacks purification and translation. However, the writing style is difficult to read and understand which hinders its potential use for historical study or historical writing. I can’t quite wrap my head around it.
Word Count: 373
Total Edits: 0
No comments:
Post a Comment