Private, Public, and Some
After reading all the historical documents and essays, what struck me the most was that I never learned about or heard of the Postal Act/Comstock Act or Anthony Comstock in any American history class let alone anything about the Free Lovers and other prominent figures and ideologies in this particular historical moment. A quick skim of a review book for the U.S. History regents from way back (high school) yielded no dice or any references to this topic. If I make parallels, I have learned about laws that directly regulated citizens’ actions on the basis of morality (ex. Temperance movement/ amendment) or times when the ideologies of citizens are bought on trial (ex. Red Scare and McCarthyism) or political issues relating to sexual health (ex. Roe v. Wade) or violations of Bill of Rights (ex. Jim Crow laws). So, it is puzzling I learned nothing about the Postal Act in the past.
With that statement, this post can easily get into a discussion about education, learning for tests, over generalizing (and even over glorifying) American history, and the possibility of the Repressive Hypothesis deeply embedded in education. But, it won’t (sorry!). What fascinated me the most about this historical moment was the tension between the public sphere and private sphere in terms of sex and sexuality discourses. Chapter six, “Love and Intimacy in Nineteenth-Century America” pretty much blew any notions of passionlessness and frigid Victorian bedrooms out the window. Men and women were passionate and to a certain extent, it was acceptable for them to be passionate to individuals of the same sex (as long as the friendship/relationship did not hinder a heterosexual marriage). Married couples enjoyed sex regularly and engaged in what I will term, “snail-mail version of sexting.” However, the crux of this was that these expressions of passion and sex were in the private sphere. The bulk of primary sources and sources cited in the essays were private correspondences or journals never meant for a large audience. In public, as evident in last week’s documents and essays discussed, regulations and a distance to sex were upheld.
Then, in the late nineteenth century, debate of sexually explicit language and obscenity blurred the boundaries between the private and public spheres, bringing each into the other. It was interesting that sex conservatives like Anthony Comstock, sex radicals like Ezra and Angela Heywood, and others along this spectrum both acknowledged the power of words and both were working towards a regulation of sexual desires (Battan, 254 and Burton, 265). The main difference was how to utilize (or not utilize at all) words and discourse in the public and private spheres for this goal of a “better” society. For folks like Anthony Comstock, suppression of sexually explicit materials/ topics was needed in public and private spheres (cue the infamous Postal Act for fining people for “obscene” private letters) to prevent moral decay (Burton, 265, 268-269). Others like the radical Heywoods and more moderate Ida Craddock believed that sex would be better regulated through education, open public discussions, and even bringing in private/ low-brow words into the public (Battan, 256, 258-259 and Burton, 265).
Another fascinating aspect was how other issues were tacked onto or part of this debate about obscenity as well. Issues of women’s rights/ equality, sex rights, class equality, race, and much more were being raised, constructed and reconstructed. Certainly, Foucault’s multiplicity of forces is at work and I look forward to hearing people’s thoughts on this during class…
Tags: Censorship, Discourse, Law, Postal Act, Private, Public, Sexuality, Victorian Era
March 12th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Hi Vita,
Sue the bums! Your education should surely include such influential legal battles and controversies—especially since they continue to be enforced in certain respects.
Your “snail mail version of sexting” is pretty amusing and also an astute reminder that some things seem similar even though much about their transmission is different. The point you make about the presumed private correspondent of the 19th century letters in contrast to the public circulation of electronic sex messages and images is a key one. I’m not convinced yet that the readings from this week dispel the ideal of passionlessness altogether as you suggest, so let’s discuss the distinctions and similarities between romanticized love that Lystra describes and passionlessness that Cott argues was the dominant ideology of the era.
March 12th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
I love the “snail mail version of sexting”! Vita, I never learned about the Free Lovers in history class, either, but we did learn about the Postal Act. However, it was taught to us that pornographic material was being prohibited; it was never mentioned that ads or even private letters were censored.
In terms of passionlessness, I think that Smith-Rosenberg’s essay illustrates how female friendships were vitally important in part because women were not being fulfilled by their marriages.