Sunday, June 23, 2013
Genovese's "balanced thoroughness"
One of the strengths of Genovese’s book is his “balanced thoroughness” in which he analyzes some fairly hefty themes as contexts. I find that some of his sections (chapters?) are used to “step back” in order to give a broader sense of context to his overall argument which he then follows with historical examples in the sections following. For example, his section on “The Christian Tradition” in Book Two, Part 1, incorporates no less than at least five 18th, 19th , and 20th century philosophers and theologians into the text, and he utilizes them by critiquing their thinking – e.g., Nietzsche – when it conflicts with his thesis, and by showing how their thinking confirms his thesis – e.g., Gramsci and Troeltsch. I re-read that section carefully to see if I would disagree with how he presented Christianity, and I was surprised by his balanced but mature treatment of how he saw Christianity as operative in giving affirmation to both the slaveholders and the slaves – without comprising Christianity’s significant meanings. Do you agree? Do you find instances where you would disagree?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you Bryan. I thought the same thing for Part 2 of the book. Genovese brings in such a rich variety of sources.
ReplyDeleteI found Nietzsche's view, explained by Genovese, particularly memorable:
"This cruel religion of painful subjection, he continues, softened the slaves by drawing the hatred from their souls, and without hatred there could be no revolt." (p. 163)
Even though Nietzsche's views are often one-sided, I liked that Genovese included him (and others such as Donini, Troeltsch, etc.) to add another viewpoint to think about.
I found the subject of religion in the book a little difficult to comprehend. On one hand I felt Genovese was describing the ultimate hegemonic relationship was between God and everyone on earth, with the exception for a slave who's first lord was his master? Slaves could be whipped for turning to God before they turned first to their master? I feel that the use of religion in regards to teaching slaves the gospel was to use religion and ultimately salvation as a tool to control slaves. If a slave would not obey is master then perhaps he would obey the teachings of "de Big Massa." Can we assume that the reason only white preachers were supposed to preach the gospel was to ensure that the slave was taught only to fear God? A slave may never have been free on earth, but if he or she were a good Christian then in death they could achieve salvation.
ReplyDeleteBryan,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. I think that one of the most impressive parts of Genovese's work was his ability to present a balanced and thorough argument on a vast array of sujbects. In addition, I think that this ability was vital to the success of his work. Genovese is attempting to challenge traditional beliefs / assumptions about slavery and Southern society. He is attempting to challenge the notion that Southern society was a specific way. Rather, Genovese presents Southern society as full of inconsistancies and contradictions. In order for Genovese to present this argument, he must present thorough and balanced coverage throughout his book. If he did not present this thorough and "balanced thoroughness," I do not believe he would have been able to successfully prove or demonstrate his argument.
Mark
Bryan - I also agree with you about a hugely rich and nuanced understanding of source work. However, I find myself frustrated when he references a literary references or some such that has no bearing on the topic/theme and seems to just act as a way for Genovese to show off. The one that jumps to mind immediately is his referencing T.S Eliot's J. Alfred Prufrock. Did anyone else feel like this?
ReplyDeleteRichard,
ReplyDeleteI think that you bring up a great point. As impressive as Roll, Jordan, Roll is; I think Genovese gets carried away with the number of references that he provides. There is certainly merit in a thorough investigation of the topic; however, I feel as though this causes his argument to get lost at times amongst some of his examples. In Genovesian fashion, I will reference another literary work and compare this to Clausewitz. By providing so many references, Genovese is guilty of producing his own fog and friction that obscures his overall message. This may also reduce his overall readership in the general public, and therefore, decrease his influence beyond the world of academia.
Mark