What does John Kouwenhoven think we can learn from studying “things” instead of “words”? Do you think his argument makes sense? Looking at the portraits and objects from Puritan New England, would you say that Puritan populations were attached to worldly goods or dismissive of them? Why?
3 thoughts on “Everyday Life and Material Culture in New England”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Kouwenhoven argues the relativity of our society when he pulls apart the ways in which we communicate. Words, he says, only convey ideas, meaning, actuality; they can never be anything more than representations. Kouwenhoven insists we must use sensory thinking if we are to fully understand the world around us. The words we use create false identities that keep us from truly communicating with each other. I think he makes a very good point, but I have to wonder if his way of thinking is practical. Humans felt the need, a very long time ago, to develop a way of communicating that was efficient and “universal.” We are not equipped to communicate whole ideas without verbal representations of that which we see, hear, feel, and smell. It is true that when Columbus wrote of that which he “saw” on his voyages, he could not truly tell those back home what he was seeing–for a tree in the New World is not the same as a tree in Europe–but without his words, he would have nothing to share. If we were to abandon words, we only be able to communicate with those who had shared experiences, and then much of the purpose of this communication would be lost. There is value in argument for the destruction of the mask created bywords, but there is value, too, in how the words can help bring us together.
I wouldn’t say the Puritan populations were either attached to or dismissive of worldly goods. What I would say, instead, is that the Puritans valued the craftsmanship that went into each piece of furniture or portrait. The goods are mediums through which hard work and delicate skill can be displayed and practiced for further mastery. The parlor in the Parson Capen House, for example, is devoid of extravagance. It houses the bare minimum that is required to be considered a functioning parlor. The table within the parlor, however, is ornately decorated with fine carvings. The table, functional and necessary, is a moment at which a craft can be displayed, allowing for moments of beauty within a society that functions to be functional.
Kouwenhoven’s point about the sensory experience of viewing objects, I think, is a valid one– textbook histories and descriptions of human experience are often difficult to imagine until something physical (whether object or picture) is placed before us. But it seems that Kouwenhoven’s adaptation of Johnson’s semantic argument–that a single word can have infinite, reader-biased identities–can be easily incorporated into the idea of the object viewing experience. An object can be perceived in a variety of ways based on its physical context, contemporary preconceptions of its origins, and each person’s unique mental associations of shapes and related objects. In addition, despite a word’s “defect,” a historical document can still speak to a historical psyche. Vespucci may have been lying about the particulars of his voyages, but those lies allow us to have a deeper and more dynamic understanding of political complexities of the time. In that sense, writing can be seen as an artifact of intelligence and opinion.
The Puritan objects and portraits, though not reading as necessarily attached, are indicative of care and labor. In keeping with their religious beliefs, I imagine they privileged craft and functionality over excess and high ornamentation. However, there is definitely a sense of leisure and a certain frivolity to their lifestyle, as exemplified by the children’s toys and large four-poster bed.
Although the study of American (or any) culture through things still results in an incomplete picture of what is represented by the artifacts, looking at things provides a different kind of knowledge than that which can be conveyed through words. Physical artifacts (or nearly identical translations thereof) get us closer to actual sensory experience of reality, which would of course tell us the most about the context in which various aspects of American culture have been and are being forged. In addition, ensuring that verbal descriptions are not our only source of knowledge about a topic allows us to sidestep the bias that is introduced due to the necessity of having an intermediary (or multiple intermediaries) translate the experience into words, a process that includes selecting which information to include in the first place. Of course, simply choosing to draw from nonverbal sources of information does not preclude incorporating this other knowledge back into our understanding of verbal sources, and Kouwenhoven implies that words will continue to play an important role in the academic discussion and understanding of American culture.
As for the Puritans’ relationship to material objects, the slides suggest some ambivalence. There certainly seem to be several examples of refinement or ornamentation that serves no practical purpose (The bed in the second slide is positively ostentatious.). However, in the pictures that show a wider view of a room, the floors and walls are bare, without carpets or hangings. Also, the houses are all wooden and have low ceilings and few windows–no one is living in a palace. It seems more reasonable to chalk what examples of intricate carpentry and masonry there are up to the creative expression of the “vital energies” of Puritan society, rather than accusing the Puritans of a hypocritical weakness for material luxury. Based on their portraits, which exhibit a relatively simple, sober style of dress, it seems that a beautifully carved cupboard or an impressive chimney are not too decadent if that’s what it takes to cheer the Puritans up.