On Race and Gender in Material Culture

     This week’s readings had a common theme of identifying issues of race and gender through the study of material culture. All four authors use materials—including quilts, baskets, and architecture—to examine their social and ideological functions in their contemporary culture.
In her book The Age of Homespun, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich examines domestic items from colonial America to investigate gender, social, and racial relations during the time these items were produced. Her book is helpful in describing processes of conserving these particular items, as well as in giving insight to the best way in which to display them. In chapter ten, she studies an Indian woodsplint basket from Rutland, Vermont after 1821. Ulrich explains the development of the art of basketry among Indians as a way to earn a living after suffering through wars and disease.  Ulrich makes an educated guess at both the date and the place that an Indian probably produced the basket. The owner of the specific basket she studied lined it with pages of the Rutland Herald from the end of 1821. In this chapter, she describes the process of creating the basket, the lifestyle that the individual who made it probably would have lived, and social, gender, and racial ideas within the society it was created. From the pages of the Rutland Herald and other primary sources, Ulrich uses numerous examples of both Indians and white colonists living in the area and tells in depth stories about their lives. While the chapter was extremely interesting, the number of examples she uses becomes overwhelming and seem scattered when trying to grasp her main point. 
Jane Przybysz’s article "Quilts, Old Kitchens, and the Social Geography of Gender in Nineteenth-Century Sanitary Fairs" also examined fancywork. She discusses the significance of quilting on gender roles in colonial America, and more modern Americans’ flawed view of this practice. Przybysz discusses how quilting parties could have been a place where women challenged feminine behavior and desire,  which of course led me to consider the corset. Przybysz uses narrative literature and diaries as her primary sources and caused me to consider my corset within these sources. A corset is such an intimate garment that letters and diaries are unlikely to mention details, but there is a possibility they are discussed in literature. 
In both Dell Upton and Robert Weyeneth’s articles, the authors examine the architecture of race. In "White and Black Landscapes in Eighteenth-Century Virginia," Upton focuses on the black and white landscapes on Southern plantations, while Weyeneth discusses the architecture of segregation and analyzes the responses to this. In Upton’s article describing plantation houses, I thought back to Ames’s article about Victorian halls, and how much can be deciphered about a society’s social relations through the study of architecture. Weyeneth’s article "The Architecture of Racial Segregation: The Challenges of Preserving the Problematical Past" was certainly my favorite reading of the week. It caused me to consider the idea of segregation in a new context. I was surprised to find that I had a greater emotional response to his article than I did to Ulrich’s heavily detailed accounts of specific individuals throughout her book. I assume this is because Weyeneth’s article focuses on a much more recent troubling time in our nation’s history.  

On Hairwork

Helen Sheumaker’s work Love Entwined: The Curious History of Hairwork in America examines the once popular craft of hairwork in eighteenth and nineteenth century America. Through her investigation of primary sources, including letters, diaries, poems, fictional literature, oral history, and actual examples of hairwork, she successfully draws numerous conclusions concerning social and cultural trends. Centering her study around the development of the art of hairwork, she traces its function from identifying a personal relationship to its involvement with mourning practices and finally to the fashionable sentimentality hairwork pieces held.
        Beyond the changing functions of hairwork, Scheumaker recognized several cultural developments that the uses of hairwork indicate. Because the craft of hairwork remained a middle-class practice throughout its existence, she notes how it became vital in the development of a middle-class identity. This middle-class identity helped to show the economic differences with the working class, and reflected gender roles in the nineteenth century. Focusing on fancywork in general, including hairwork, Sheumaker identifies the role of women as mothers and wives, proves their knowledge of the market and their financial savvy, and shows how hairwork gave them a way to express themselves. The best and most entertaining example of this is of Nida Bailey, who was nearly successful in her aspiration to weave a hair wreath of President Lincoln and his cabinet and military officers.  While each of these cultural points seem to work with the use of primary sources, Sheumaker found hairwork to provide insight into so many cultural and social ideas, that occasionally she seems to push hairwork within the context of nineteenth century America. Upon completing the book, I thought of two things. First, that I had subconsciously french-braided my own hair at some point while I was lost in the reading. Second, I began comparing her evidence and conclusions to those of Deetz. Who, if either, was more successful, and why?
           Kenneth Ames studied a different aspect of Victorian culture in his article “Meaning in Artifacts: Hall Furnishings in Victorian America,” as he investigated the hall furnishings in upper middle class homes. As I read Love Entwined first, my mind wandered back to those middle-class women Sheumaker wrote about, and I wondered if the groups of people who owned these artifacts overlapped—how many upper middle class women lived in homes with both a hall stand and a hairwork wreath?  Ames’s analysis on the Victorian hall as a reflection of the division of nineteenth-century society struck me, as I have wondered if the corset reflected a similar division: those who wore them on a daily basis, and those who laced others into them on a daily basis.
          Karin Dannehl’s article “Object Biographies: From Production to Consumption” took a closer look at the methodology of object study than performing an actual study, even with her examples of kitchenware. She mentions the shortcomings of current material culture methodologies (including, I assume, Fleming, Prown, and Montgomery), particularly because they fail to place the object within context. I recognize the importance of this, but believe it could be included in Fleming’s cultural analysis step within his methodology. Dannehl highlights the importance of an object biography and a life cycle study and analysis within a method of study. While parts of her article can be included in at least two of the existing models, her points were helpful in thinking about my object within a larger context. She notes challenges within the study of material culture, and provides advice on how to overcome these challenges. I will certainly refer back to Dannehl when working on my future object exercises.

  Helen Sheumaker, Love Entwined: The Curious History of Hairwork in America, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001).

  Kenneth Ames, “Meaning in Artifacts: Hall Furnishings in Victorian American,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 9 (1978): 28. 

  Karin Dannehl, “Object Biographies: From Production to Consumption,” in Karen Harvey, ed., History and Material Culture: A Student’s Guide to Approaching Alternative Sources (London and New York: Routledge, 2009). 

It Begins

        This week’s readings of Fred B. Kiffen and Henry Glassie’s “Building in Wood in the Eastern United States: A Time-Place Perspective” and James Deetz’s In Small Things Forgotten were both helpful in forcing me to consider fashion, and specifically the corset, in different ways. I hadn’t realized that most objects could be analyzed in similar ways until reading Deetz’s work, in which he uses numerous examples of material culture to exhibit the shifting American culture and its values.

Deetz successfully explains the significance of historic archaeology and the study of material culture in our understanding of the past. By using several examples of recently studied pieces of American material culture—including Glassie’s study on Georgian houses and his own on New England tombstone design—he uses the developments of these examples to identify their cultural significance. His explanation of the differences between prehistoric and historic archaeology were helpful, as I had previous knowledge of the methods of prehistoric archaeologists and it is important to recognize the differences between the two. One point that Deetz emphasizes is the importance of the use of historic documents to complement the study of objects. This will be especially important for our class, as it will be necessary in the study of many of our objects to apply historic documents (inventories, letters, diaries) to help understand the cultural significance of our specific objects. I noted some pieces of advice that Deetz gives the reader, such as mentioning the museum exhibit of a seventeenth century house not capturing what it was actually like during that time, but rather being more based on the minds of the modern creators of the exhibit. I took this as a warning to remain as unbiased as possible during my study of the corset.

Kniffen and Glassie’s article examines in extreme detail the various technologies and building techniques used in early America. Through their study on the types of framing and log construction, they identify techniques particular to certain regions in the United States. When reading this article, I recognized balloon framing and horizontal construction with corner posts from specific eighteenth century buildings still visible in the area. I found it interesting that log cabin style houses were considered only temporary until a more permanent structure could be completed. After reading Deetz, throughout this article I was disappointed at the lack of cultural meaning applied to the study. In the summary section at the end, Kniffen and Glassie state their next step is “to shed greater light on the cultural meaning of the several methods of timber construction.”  This article was almost a highly detailed and wide-ranging object description. Although wood construction and costumes seem unrelated, the methods of analyzing them connect, and I continuously thought about fashion while reading the article.

       Similarly, when reading In Small Things Forgotten I couldn’t help but apply historic costumes, particularly corsets, to many of his points. For example, Deetz’s section on the development of New England tombstones being affected by a changing worldview and the Great Awakening caused me to consider fashion. I understood that evolving ideologies changed the intended functions and cultural significance of garments on a regular basis, and am interested to research and apply this to my own project.

[1] Fred B. Kniffen and Henry Glassie, “Building in Wodd in the Eastern United States: A Time-Place Perspective,” in Dell Upton and John Michael Vlach, eds., Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986), 178. 

Describing the Corset

Object Description:
              The corset is made of ivory satin. The interior is lined completely with ivory cotton twill. The corset comes to a slight point at the bottom, both in the front where the navel would be and in the back. The part of the corset that would have been worn on a woman’s hips is slightly higher.
Across the top of the entire corset is a decorative band of cream colored lace, which measures approximately three inches in height. The top of the lace ends about a centimeter past the top of the corset. The pattern of the lace is made up of diamond shapes separated by small circles. On both the top and bottom of the diamonds are four ovals that together resemble a flower. The lace pattern alternates between one diamond surrounded by two sets of ovals and two diamonds separated by a cluster of ovals. At the bottom of the lace adornment is a slightly darker off-white lace with a less complicated pattern, about a half-inch high. Through this smaller section of lace is woven an ivory satin ribbon, approximately one centimeter in height. After about one inch in length, the ribbon is woven under the lace for about a centimeter, before becoming visible again for another inch.
            The corset can be closed in both the front and the back. The front of the corset has four iron slot and tab clasps. The slot is a horseshoe shape about a centimeter both long and high. The tab is also made of iron, small enough to fit into the slot, and spherical. The back of the corset has fifteen holes, reinforced with the same iron as the slots and tabs, on each side of the opening of the corset. A cream colored ribbon is laced through these thirty holes starting at the top. The bottom of the lacing is tied into a neat bow, which would fall at the woman’s tailbone. The two ends of the ribbon are reinforced with iron to prevent fraying.
            The corset measures twelve inches long from the top of the lace to the bottom of the garment. The circumference of the waist measures nineteen inches long when laced tightly. The laces can be loosened to add several inches to the waist.
            The shape of the corset is reinforced with steel boning, which creates seams running the length of the garment every few centimeters. The stitching of these seams appears to be machine-sewn. The boning and seams around the bust are curved away from the center of the corset to meet the seams on either side of the corset. At the bottom of the corset is extra stitching in diagonal lines about an inch and a half long. These stitches are hand-stitched to reinforce the boning.
            On the inside of the corset, there is a seam in the center of the garmet, running around the entire circumference. This is caused because two separate pieces of cotton twill that line the corset. They overlap creating a slightly thicker band around the center of the corset.
The corset has some noticeable wear. The original ivory color has darkened slightly in many places. On the lining, the portion of the fabric that is overlapped with another is the most vibrant white. The bottom of the corset closest to the front opening has several brown stains, probably from perspiration. There are no visible tears, and the corset is overall in very good shape.
            On the inside, on the portion that would cover the left side of a woman's body, there are three distinctive marks. The first is sewn in and is the numbers 848 in black hand-stitching, then sewn over with the same thread so that three diagonal lines cover the number. To the right of this mark are two more, which look to be written in ink. The first reads 331 and below this mark are the letters V.B. It is possible that a subsequent owner added these markings.
The workmanship of this corset is excellent. The details in ornamentation are impressive, as are the quality of materials used. Both the cut and the finish show that a skilled hand made the corset. The corset was most likely designed specifically for the bride, and not mass-produced.
The corset was made in 1885 for the wedding of Miss Emma Hendel to Mr. Isaac Young Spang. The wedding occurred on October 22, 1885 at Trinity Lutheran Church in Reading, Pennsylvania. Judging from the workmanship, it was most likely designed specifically for the occasion at some point in 1885. Though the exact cost of the corset is not yet known, several newspapers in 1885 include advertisements for corsets selling for two dollars. Because it was designed solely for the occasion and has outstanding workmanship, this specific corset would have cost at least several dollars more than those advertised.

Object Analysis Method

          The object I have been assigned is an ivory satin corset with ribbon and lace trim that dates back to 1885. With the corset in mind, I examined each posted reading on the methodology of artifact study. I then extracted pieces of several of these methodologies and created what I believe to be an appropriate method of analysis for this particular artifact. Much of my method draws from E. M. Fleming’s original model, as well as from Joan Severa and Merrill Horswill’s similar but modified method.

            It is important to begin with a description of the corset’s physical characteristics. From the largest, most obvious aspects to the fine and minute details, each characteristic must be noted independently. Observations will include the specific textiles used, details such as the colors, and type of ornament added. The measurements of the bust, waist, hips, and length, as well as its weight, will be recorded. Details of the clasps, the type of stitching, and if any evidence of wear is noticeable, will also be examined. The description will be as detailed as possible without becoming burdensome for the reader.

            Like Severa and Horswill, the construction and design categories within Fleming’s model are combined in the next step of my model. I will also include workmanship in this step of my description, as many of the details examined within the construction, design, and workmanship categories highlight similar features of the corset. During this step, I will first examine the basic elements of design, specifically the shape of the bodice, details of the bust, and each seam. The skill and type of construction of each of these design elements will be noted. This step will include specific details concerning the stitching, whether machine or hand-sewn, the number of pieces of fabric sewn together to form the corset, and the type of boning used to create the form. Depending on these details, I will gauge whether the workmanship seems outstanding, average, or of lower quality.

            Next, I will identify the object’s history. If the information provided is correct, we know the corset was made in 1885. I also hope to learn both whom it was made by and whom it was made for, as well as any subsequent owners the corset may have had. Changes in the corset’s condition through the years will also be included in the object’s history.  Lastly, if the corset did change hands, I hope to learn if its function also changed. From previous knowledge I have about this specific type of garment, I believe the intended functions changed through history, making this piece of the description exceptionally important in the study. If, however, any of these aspects of the corset’s history cannot be determined without using assumptions, I will leave them out of observation and include them in the analysis. I plan to only use factual evidence in the descriptive aspect of my study.

            When I have completed the description, I will begin to apply analytical operations to the descriptive details previously noted. Identification is the first step in Fleming’s model, and I will follow this to an extent. However, while I will include a brief identification as an introduction to the operations, it will not be a key component to my study. This is because the object is most likely genuine, as it belongs to a historic textile museum and has been accepted into an exhibit on historic costumes. Since I plan on beginning with a detailed description, I will not repeat it during the identification as Fleming suggests. One aspect of Fleming’s model that I will include in the identification is the function. Because the intended function of a corset in general evolved over time, through details of the physical characteristics, including construction, design, and workmanship, and the corset’s history, I will identify both the intended and unintended functions in the analysis rather than the description.

            The next step in my analysis is evaluating the physical description in terms of my own culture’s standards. This step will include my personal emotional response to the corset. I will also evaluate the workmanship to determine the quality of the corset. Though the collection includes only one corset, I hope to compare other similar garments to gauge where this specific corset fits into the category as a whole. Because of the 1885 date, I will be able to compare it with both corsets from early time periods and from more modern time periods. The evaluation will include a comparison of workmanship, measurements, cost, and rarity of the corset with other examples throughout history.

            Cultural Analysis will follow the evaluation. This will be a particularly in depth portion of my research. When studying artifacts, it is vital to connect the object to questions of identity, relationships, and belief systems within cultures throughout history. I will analyze the various functions—both intended and unintended—of the corset within its contemporary culture. These will include the ideas of its function from different viewpoints of the time: the (presumably upper-class female) owner’s, the men of her time, the lower-class working woman, and society as a whole. I will focus on both gender and class studies in the cultural analysis, as I believe both ideas of gender and social class affected the function of the corset. Specifically, I will examine the relationship that working-class women had with the corset; from those who wore them to servants performing the daily task of “lacing up” their mistress. With the cultural analysis, I would like to examine how both the earliest introductions and the final decline of the corset affected society.

            Finally, I will finish my analysis with my own interpretation, and those of our present culture in general, of the corset. These interpretations will include biased opinions that our contemporary society may have towards the corset. I will interpret the significance of the decline of the daily use of corsets and whether it affected the liberation of women. I will examine whether the idea of an ideal female figure today relates back to the use of the corset in 1885. I will also include ideas of the corset as lingerie, and examine whether this developed from facts I learn about this specific object within its culture. In this final portion of my method, I will state the significance the corset has within our culture today. By following this method, I believe I will be successful in the study and analysis of the corset.

Outline:

I. Description

     A. Material Details

            1. Textiles (including colors)

            2. Ornament

            3. Measurements

            4. Stitching and Seams

            5. Noticeable wear and tear

     B. Construction, Design, Workmanship

            1. Skill and type of construction

            2. Design

                 a. Shape and form of bodice

                 b. Details of bust

            3. Workmanship

                 a. How details of design and construction prove quality of workmanship

                 b. Rate the quality of workmanship

       C. History (to be included in analysis if no historical evidence proves these points)

            1. Year created

            2. Company/Individual who made the corset

            3. Owners

                 a. Changes in condition between owners (if more than one)

                 b. Changes in function

II. Interpreting the descriptions

     A. Is the object genuine?

     B. Function

            1. Intended

            2. Unintended

III. Personal Evaluation

     A. Emotional Response

     B. Comparisons with corsets from time periods before and after 1885

            1. Quality of workmanship

            2. Measurements

            3. Cost and Rarity

4. Determine how the significance (and possible function) changed from one period to the next

IV. Cultural Analysis

     A. Analysis of Functions

        1. From various viewpoints within culture

        2. Lower-class vs. Upper-class, Genders

     B. Affect of earliest introductions to final decline

V. Interpretation

     A. Biases

     B. Implications

     C. Corset in today’s world

     D. Significance in present