A Critical Review of Nancy Cott
-
Upload
matt-cromwell -
Category
Documents
-
view
445 -
download
4
description
Transcript of A Critical Review of Nancy Cott
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 1 of 14
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF NANCY COTT’S “PUBLIC VOWS” By Matt Cromwell November 18, 2010
I. Introduction
Nancy Cott’s Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (Cott 2000) is an
extremely valuable contribution to current discussions on the purpose, place, and legal
aspects of marriage in America. It is well researched, well written, clear, concise, and its
aims and conclusions are strong and valid. It is a beneficial read for anyone interested in
marriage as a political construct or the legal history of marriage in America.
Every book arrives in a time full of controversy for some issue or another. Cott’s
arrives in the middle of a national debate on the nature of marriage in America; and yet,
this work has thus far steered clear from controversy. It is particularly surprising for me as
I went about searching for modern reactions to Cott’s book to discover that after 10 years
in the public domain this work has survived virtually untouched by significant criticism.
The actual criticism among the many reviews read for this critique (which can be found in
the Bibliography) can be summarized in a few sentences. Candice Bredbenner correctly
points out that courts have more often affected marriage rather than legislation and Cott
gives courts scant coverage (Bredbenner 2002). Bredbenner then defends that “[t]his
observation does not necessarily suggest a weakness in Cott's argument, however, because
courts' associations with politically controversial issues have provoked charges of
legislating by a politicized judiciary.”
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 2 of 14
Only the review of Ruth Feldstein provided substantial criticism (while remaining
strongly positive of the overall work). Feldstein contends that (1) though Cott is a feminist
historian, women are largely absent from any agency; (2) Cott does not comment on how
various forms of marriage affected concepts of femininity; and (3) her discussion of current
transformations in marriage is completely absent of consideration for concurrent trends in
women’s sexuality (Feldstein 2002). Each of Feldstein’s criticisms stem from her desire – as
a fellow feminist historian – that Cott be more overtly feminist in this important work. If
Bredbenner and Feldstein provide the only criticism of this work, it is clear there is much
room for a more lively discussion of Cott’s perspective and method.
II. Why The Author Matters: Nancy Cott
Nancy Cott is a legal historian and a feminist; a powerful combination. Her emphasis
on legal history leads her to look at history through the lens of the powerful – the
authorities of the land – while her feminism pushes her to advocate for those without
power. This particular combination makes her uniquely skilled to wrestle with the topic of
the political history of marriage in the United States.
Another important aspect of Cott’s background that should be addressed is how this
book specifically brought her into the national limelight. In 2010, Nancy Cott was brought
to the California Supreme Court to testify in the case seeking to repeal Proposition 8 as a
historical expert on marriage specifically because of this work. Her testimony was used to
advocate against the argument that procreation is part of what defines marriage and would
therefore exclude homosexual relationships from enjoying the right of marriage. She
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 3 of 14
argued persuasively that procreation has never been part of the legal understanding of
marriage in the history of the United States and that marriage as an institution has
continually grown and developed rather than being a fixed idea (Dolan 2010). This echoes
the nature of Cott’s overall message in Public Vows and how it is seen as a bastion of reason
for those who advocate for same-sex marriage.
Within a year after publishing Public Vows Cott was interviewed by a popular
wedding site called IndieBride.com (Yamin). In the interview she explains that part of her
reason for writing this book was because “the history of marriage as a political institution
hadn’t been put together,” and to focus “on how marriage related to the question of the
nation and national identity.” This unique perspective on marriage as a political institution
and its impact on the nation is the book’s greatest strength. Later, in 2004, National Public
Radio (NPR) interviewed Cott about the book. When asked if she is a supporter of same-sex
marriage she answered that she thinks “it is the next phase of evolution of marriage in our
society” (Gross 2004). Her answer confirms a particular perspective that is obvious
throughout the book: marriage has continually evolved in the United States and will
continue to do so. This argument is well documented but it begs the question of how
forcefully her opinion shaped her research.
III. An Overview
Public Vows is especially comfortable reading because of the chronological nature in
which Cott organizes the book. The narrative begins shortly after the American Revolution
with the Founders setting out to create a new political reality. Though monogamy was
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 4 of 14
globally a minority approach to marriage, the Founders saw it as a tool for
institutionalizing stable households with automatic care-givers and child-rearers built into
it. According to Cott, British Protestant Christianity provides the monogamous model that
the Founders needed, one that made the wife economically and politically dependent on
her husband. As states formed and grew the details of marriage began to be fleshed out as
coverture. Derived from the French, but inherited from English common law, coverture
ensured that every woman was “covered” under the protection and safety of her husband.
Under coverture a woman had no property or wealth of her own. Anything she came into
the marriage with was surrendered to her husband as well as anything she may earn while
married.
Marriage was also seen as a privilege of citizenship and therefore reserved for
whites only. Slaves, regardless of their family structure before being “owned” did not have
the right to a legally recognized marriage. Several aspects of slavery had devastating effects
on the negro understanding of monogamy. Forced separation of families through sale often
led to forced procreation regardless of pre-existing relationships. Some males were
encouraged to impregnate multiple women on a slave-holders land in order for the master
to inherit a new generation of slaves. The irony of these forced sexual practices coming
from Christian slave owners was never lost on anti-slavery advocates nor on the slaves
themselves.
One aspect of the freedom that the Civil War brought was the ability for freed slaves
to have legally recognized marriages. But because of the damage done to the slaves concept
of sexuality and marriage the federal government went to great lengths to help educate the
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 5 of 14
freedmen and help them to understand the virtues of monogamy. This was done primarily
through a federal agency called The Freedmen’s Bureau.
Though the freedom to marry was a monumental step towards citizenry for
negroes, it was also limited to their own race. The racial aspect was also coupled with a
gendered double-standard. White men who married Native Americans or blacks were
looked down on but were not withheld their rights as married couples. Conversely, Native
American or black men who wooed white women could be prosecuted (if they were not
first killed by their white neighbors).
In some ways extending marriage rights across the color boundary opened up new
horizons for all citizens. Shortly after the Civil War Mormons fled to Utah to avoid religious
persecution based on their practice of polygamy. Concurrently, the Free Love movement
was spreading its belief that because the basis of marriage is consent, consent alone should
permit adults to be romantic with whomever and however many persons they chose. These
variations of marriage were seen as threatening to the foundations of American citizenry
and therefore opposed actively by the federal government.
At the turn of the twentieth century the justification for monogamy was forced to
change as women’s suffrage came to the fore. According to Cott, one significant way the
federal government transformed was in shifting its concerns away from marriage morality
to marriage economy. Families purchased more, husbands with households tended to avoid
unemployment more, and thus families were seen as a driving force behind the economy.
But such a stimulus could not be demanded by government, instead the federal
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 6 of 14
government “operated more through incentives than through ultimatums” (158). All of the
governments stratagem in response to the Great Depression had an inherently marital
structure to them. Funding provided to citizens was typically categorized by “earner” and
“dependent” language that solidified and encourage the household hierarchy.
The last chapter is spent covering the last 40 years which, though characterized by a
“seismic shift in marriage practices” (201), receive the shortest shrift. Each previous era of
history was given deep and intriguing research and details, but the last chapter feels much
more like a survey of our most recent history with a concluding Op. Ed. essay by Cott.
Cott opens by explaining how only this generation could forgive its President of his
marital indiscretions as freely as was done with President William Jefferson Clinton. From
the sexual revolution of the 60’s to the implementation of the “no-fault” divorce, the ideals
and forms of marriage were being uprooted and tested at every level. Yet, men and women
still marry. It seems an unanswerable dilemma. Part of Cott’s answer is that the modern
freedoms coincide with an increasing privatization of marriage and home life. The last
chapter is a fitting capstone for Cott’s overall argument. Federal government’s role in
regulating and enforcing marriage laws started with strict and total enforcement, and
gradually evolved through loosening of racial codes, to economic and gender freedoms, and
finally to today which deems marriage as a purely private decision with only taxable
recognition. If that is the case then same-sex marriage is an obvious and necessary next
step in the evolution of marriage just as Cott claims.
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 7 of 14
I’ve attempted to illustrate the significance of Cott’s unique skills and perspective as
well as provide a guided overview of the work as the backdrop for the following strengths
and critique.
IV. Strengths: Narrative and Analysis
There are several aspects of Nancy Cott’s work that makes this stand out as an
excellent reference and a work that could help spur other related studies.
The first is her ability to delineate the history of America itself through the legal lens
of marriage in a comfortable, chronological writing style. Several reviewers recognized her
ability to summarize American history so well while remaining focused on marriage
(Eustace and Nugent specifically). One can see the pre- and post-Civil War eras,
reconstruction, the turn of the 20th Century, women’s suffrage, the sexual revolution, and
the impeachment trials of then-President Clinton like signs along the road on a journey
through the various progressions of marriage. It is an impressive narrative.
Secondly, the narrative is encouraged and supported by her thorough detail, notes,
and legal analysis. Whereas a casual student of history might see the “free-love” movement
and Mormon polygamy dilemma as oddities in an otherwise spotless monogamous
American history, Cott illustrates how the political and communal emphasis on consent
provides the justification both for monogamy as well as these opponents. If consent is the
heart of partnership, as common law encourages, then why could not men and women
freely consent to love multiple partners? One could easily assume that Mormon wives who
advocated for their polygamous husbands were simply naïve or too easily persuaded. In
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 8 of 14
contrast, Cott is able to show them as standing on a logical conclusion based on consent
that baffled their contemporary women’s rights advocates.
These strengths help her draw the logical conclusion that marriage is both innately
public and private and has undergone much transformation in our nations’ short history.
This conclusion is easier to arrive at because the religious aspects of the narrative are not
given voice in this work.
V. Critique: Scapegoating and A Serious Omission
One commonality in all the book reviews of Public Vows is the reference to the
source of the current model of marriage: British Protestantism as voiced through English
Common Law. Cott is very articulate about how unique monogamy was at the time of the
American Revolution. Globally, polygamy was much more common; that much is true. What
is odd is what Cott concludes based on that fact. She makes a logical leap that because
monogamy was unique it needed “to be justified and advocated” (10). Though Cott states
that political thinkers understood monogamy with a “kind of utilitarian reasoning” she
nevertheless goes to great lengths to tie this particular form of marriage directly to
Christianity and Christian doctrine. After having tied the new government’s domestic
strategy of marriage with Christian doctrine, she further associates the specific form of
marriage with coverture, making the Christian ideal of marriage the same as the
subjugation of women in their own households. Altogether, though the political authorities
shaping the New Republic had plenty of purely political and societal reasons to emphasize
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 9 of 14
and encourage monogamy, Cott nevertheless scapegoat’s Christianity as the source of the
model and labels it as patriarchal to a fault.
There are two fundamental problems with this logic: (1) Though it is the truth, it is
not the whole truth; and (2) she does not recognize that just as marriage evolved over time
so did Christian doctrine. Let me expand on each briefly.
The whole truth entails two additional aspects, the first being that Christianity did
not have a monopoly on monogamy, nor was it a new idea in need of advocacy. Christian
monogamy had already been firmly in place for centuries before the American Revolution
and was in no threat of ending. Judaism also had a long-standing tradition of monogamy.
Though Judaism tolerated polygamy, it had a strong preference for monogamy since
biblical times. Michael Gold asserts that “all rabbis of the Talmud had but one wife,” and
that polygamy was totally rejected in Judaism by the Middle Ages (Gold 1998). Christianity
also has a strong tradition of life-long celibacy, but that did not gain any reference in the
formation of the New Republic. All of these nuances of monogamy existed and had
influence in society, and yet Cott focuses exclusively on the British Protestant model as
politically relevant.
The second problem is that as Cott describes how politics and marriage itself evolve
over time in America, she does not track how Christian doctrine – the source of the model –
also adapts and evolves. Obviously she is not writing a history of Christian marriage – that
is not her responsibility – but the omission, in this case, allows the uninformed reader to
believe that Christian marriage is equal with coverture even to this day. Her narrative also
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 10 of 14
leaves the impression that individual freedom within marriage coincides with a departure
from the traditional Christian model of marriage.
One can never expect a historian or the work of a historian to be all things to all
people. But it is justified to expect that when a historian endeavors to cover a certain field
that they would acknowledge aspects of the field that are primary even if their focus is on a
secondary aspect of the subject. In this way, Cott would have been much more effective in
discussing the history of marriage in America by recognizing the huge role that religion had
over time in shaping and enforcing a particular understanding of marriage. This is a classic
topic of interest for anyone studying the historical relationship between church and state.
Unfortunately, Cott has covered this issue only from the perspective of the state. Janay
Nugent correctly says that “[m]arriage is a multi-faceted topic, with extensive implications
for the political, economic, religious, and social realities of… society” (Nugent 2002).
Despite that reality, Cott seems to be walking along the edge of religious history and
purposely never crossing over. Unfortunately, this topic is imperatively religious. The only
function religion serves in Public Vows is as the scapegoat of the coverture model, and as an
oddity in promoting polygamy in Mormonism. There is rich documentation of how
churches and pastors preached and taught their congregants about monogamous marriage
and abstinence until marriage1. There is ample and detailed documentation of Christians
1 Several important resources are Eric Fuch’s “Sexual Desire & Love: Origins & History of the Christian Ethic of Sexuality and Marriage” (1979); John Witte Jr.’s “From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western Tradition” (1997); and Helena Wall’s “Fierce Communion: Family and Community in Early America” (1995). There are many more excellent recent works, but these would have been available to Cott during her research of Public Vows.
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 11 of 14
who held political office and used it to further a Christian agenda in the U.S.2 Each of these
aspects have a direct effect and correlation on Cott’s subject but it is as if they do not exist
at all.
This is clearly not a critique of something Cott has done erroneously, but of a
massive omission. If there was a political decision being made about marriage, Christians
were most definitely part of the discussion and most likely driving forces towards
monogamy and abstinence before marriage. If there was a shift away from ideas of
“traditional marriage”, they were most likely related to attitudes towards Christianity in
general.
Overall, Cott’s main weaknesses stem from either making a flawed decision to keep
religion out of this discussion, or from purposefully limiting the discussion of Christianity
in order to make a mostly polemical point about the future of marriage in America. Either
way, the omission reveals Cott’s bias and predetermines her conclusion.
VI. Conclusion
My goal here has been to draw attention to the fact that thus far the discussion
around this book has been largely one-sided there should be more discussion and research
around this subject. Ours is a politically divisive time, and marriage is at the core of the
division. I do not believe that this politically charged atmosphere is productive, and I would
never suggest that there should be controversy for the sake of controversy. But this work
needs balance. There is a tendency to pit the struggle for marriage equality between
2 One excellent example is George M. Thomas’ “Revivalism and Cultural Change: Christianity, Nation Building, and the Market in the Nineteenth-Century United States” (1998).
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 12 of 14
homosexuals and fundamentalist Christians only. The truth is more complex. Within
Christianity there are churches that have ordained homosexuals, or are considered “gay
friendly churches.” Within the LGBT community there are those who would advocate for
full acceptance of all forms of sexual practice, while others legitimately desire a life-long
monogamous relationship and the benefits that society gives to such a relationship. Justice
is not done to this subject without at least acknowledging the wide spectrum of positions
currently held. Cott does an excellent job of representing all the challenges to the
traditional model of marriage in America, but that is only half of the story.
Marriage is not a political institution; it is a religio-political institution, fully political,
fully religious. The two sides cannot be separated. Therefore, in an ideal world there would
be “A Companion to Nancy Cott’s Public Vows” which would endeavor to extrapolate how
Christianity and Christians contributed to the political environment around each of the
landmark transitions that Cott explores. A work of that nature alone would then suffer from
the opposite omission of Cott’s. But together, they would provide a much more
representative picture of the breadth of marriage as a religio-political institution.
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 13 of 14
BIBLIOGRAPHY Bredbenner, Candice. 2002. Book Reviews. American Studies 43, no. 1 (November): 172-173.
https://journals.ku.edu/index.php/amerstud/article/view/3064/3023.
Cott, Nancy. 2000. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Dolan, Maura. 2010. Marriage historian testifies in Prop. 8 trial in San Francisco | L.A. NOW |
Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/marriage-historian-testifies-in-prop-8-trial-
in-san-francisco.html.
Feldstein, Ruth. 2002. The Personal is (Still) Political: Marriage, Citizenship, and Women’s and
Gender History. Reviews in American History 30, no. 1: 106-113.
doi:10.1353/rah.2002.0009.
http://muse.jhu.edu/content/crossref/journals/reviews_in_american_history/v030/30.1feldste
in.html.
Gold, Michael. 1998. Adultery: Revisiting the Seventh Commandment. Moment 23, no. 1: 34.
http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/pqdweb?did=494296351&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD
&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&.
Gross, Terry (Interviewer). 2004. Professor Nancy Cott on Gay Marriage : NPR [Audio
Interview Transcript]. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1838413.
Nugent, Janay. 2002. Public Vows (Book Review). Labour/La Travail 50: 346-348.
Yamin, Pricilla (Interviewer). Indiebride | Interviews | Nancy Cott. www.indiebride.com.
http://www.indiebride.com/interviews/cott/index.html.
OTHER SOURCES CONSULTED
Adams, Carole Elizabeth. 2002. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation - Book
Review. Florida Historical Quarterly 81, no. 1: 199-121.
Batlan, Felice. 2010. Review of Cott, Nancy F., Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the
Nation. H-Law, H-Review, August. http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=6649.
Cichy, Rose. 2001. Public Vows (Book Review). Library Journal 126, no. 1: 129.
Cromwell, Matt Critical Review: Public Vows Page 14 of 14
Ditz, Toby L. 2002. Public Vows : A History of Marriage and the Nation. Journal of the History
of Sexuality 11, no. 3: 498-501. doi:10.1353/sex.2003.0012.
Eustace, Nicole. 2002. Public Vows : A History of Marriage and the Nation - Reviews. Journal
of Social History Fall.
Fullbrook, Kate. 2002. Reviews. Journal of American Studies 36, no. 02 (September): 338-340.
doi:10.1017/S0021875802396877.
http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0021875802216874.
May, Elaine Tyler. 2001. Review : [ untitled ]. The Journal of American History 88, no. 3: 1046-
1047. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2700408.
Mccurry, Stephanie. 2000. Book Reviews. History: 1659-1670.