Please note that there has been a slight schedule change related to the due date for your next benchmark assignment, the outline of your paper.
There is no change in the assigned reading for this Wednesday, however. You should read the assigned primary sources about Oneida, and then leave a comment on this post. I’d like for you either to reflect on how these sources might be used as evidence for or against one of the arguments we’ve considered about utopias this semester, or to discuss some new question that the sources generated for you.
The conflict of commitment between individuals and between an individual and the community was highlighted through these readings on free love in Oneida. In the past, we have discussed the necessity of releasing individual exclusivity in order to achieve community (based largely around Kanter’s argument on commitment), but these readings added realism to the idea through concrete application indicated in primary sources. Tirzah Miller’s memories in her journal were particularly striking to me. Her relationship to John Humphrey Noyes disturbed me, given that I questioned his sincerity. Instances when he “[swore] in his heart that he would have the use of [her], and he was not going to have his plans about [her] frustrated any longer by stirpiculture” seem to be motivated by selfish emotions (Miller 70). His refusal to be “frustrated any longer by stirpiculture” indicates a move to go against the ideas of the society he founded, as well as to change his initial decision for her procreating partner. John Humphgrey Noyes’s control over the community meant that he could satisfy his own desires under the name of improving the community. In addition, the commitment shown by Tirzah seemed to be directed toward Noyes and his wishes. Although these wishes could potentially lead to the benefit of the community, the commitment remains directed toward an individual, which was opposed to the ideals presented in Kanter.
On a different note, reading primary sources (as opposed to secondary sources) brought up questions about the use of sources. Several times in class, we have discussed the availability of sources and the importance of member perspective. Most of the sources we have read were secondary, including only select quotes from the individuals involved. Although the primary sources we read for class today were selections in that they were chosen by Dr. McDaniel, a large portion of each document was available and without secondary source commentary or bias. Writing this blog post highlighted the difference between writing based on a primary source and on a secondary source (although as of now, I am not sure how to define that difference). Reading these primary sources also raises the question of how we will use primary sources in our research papers (in contrast to how we will use secondary sources). As of now, I am not completely clear on the answer to that, but this assignment has made me realize the importance of distinguishing between the two and of treating them in different manners.
This semester, we have determined the success of utopias primarily through the lens of Kanter’s sociological perspective; particularly, a community should be considered “ successfully utopian” if it pursued a shared vision, usually concerning cooperative decision making and labor, as an alternative to some aspects of the more traditional society at large. I have also previously looked at Oneida and its treatment of women in terms of labor, and determined that while Oneida did allow women to participate freely and significantly in several aspects of society in roles that held great social importance, their overall stance on feminine labor was not “utopian” because it could not entirely overcome traditional gender roles to create a truly more equal lifestyle. This week, however, this week’s readings bring to light another issue regarding women (but not exclusively) in Oneida that could also be used to judge the “utopian success” of the colony: love and relationships.
The three readings on love in Oneida brought to light several accounts from both men and women in the colony. One voice was that of Tirza Miller, the niece of John Noyes, who thought that it was “truly the glory of a woman to love and be receptive to good men,” (55) and felt no restriction to whom she was allowed to love: transitioning among lovers without caution, and even sleeping with her own uncle, who “always [expected] something sublime” (59) when sleeping with her. In the letters from Oneida compiled by Noyes, it was made clearer that this concept of having interest in multiple lovers was not exclusive to Miller. In fact, the letters seemed to indicate that while marriage did exist in Oneida, it was not encouraged, evidenced by the statement that even though he infuses love, “God will find a way to break-up marriage.” (216) In addition, the third reading, which provided multiple first person testimonies from Oneida to illustrate the guiding principles and institutions of the colony, showed further evidence that the residents of the colony were significantly impacted by the idea of “free love,” as it promoted freedom of communication among fellow citizens, lowered personal sensitivity, strengthened respect for others and generated a greater desire for self-improvement. In fact, one resident went so far as to say that they had “learned that love [was] the gift of God,” (50) indicating that the idea of “free love” was so life-changing that it was as if it could only have been manifest from divine intervention.
In society at large, the promiscuity written about by Miller would certainly be interpreted as scandalous, and the interfamilial relationship displayed by Miller and Noyes would be looked upon even more disparagingly. Additionally, the second reading shows that in Oneida, marriage was viewed in a completely opposite light than it would be seen in society at large. Thus, in a way, Oneida was exhibiting a trait that was alternative to tradition outside the colony. In addition, the idea of “free love” certainly offered women more freedom than could be had outside Oneida. It is also worth noting that these interviews were conducted with both men and women, who certainly a shared vision. However, this vision was not one regarding how the society was to be run, but rather how people in the society interacted with each other, so it could be interpreted as a faulty way to judge the success of the society. Yet, in my opinion, despite the fact that its “free love” ways could be considered unchaste, as evidenced by the strong allegiance expressed in the readings based on reasons related to the “free love” lifestyle, Oneida does exhibit attributes that would qualify it as a “successful utopia” due to its ability to be a welcoming environment for an alternative existence to traditional social order.
While reading through Free Love in Utopia, I generated a question that surrounded the issue of married couples entering into the Oneida Community; why are the new residents of the community allowed to retain their marriage during their entrance into their new home and family? On page 217, Noyes states “let us all come into the market with no rights or claims.” There is an application process involved in allowing new residents into the Oneida Community, in which numerous criteria based on Oneida doctrine is used to evaluate the applicants. Why would Oneida allow married couples into the community, when it has clearly stated it’s doctrine of ‘complex marriage’ in numerous documents, such as the Circular, Noyes’ writings, and interactions with visitors?
Kanter had a lot to say about scenarios related to incidents such as these in her book, Community and Commitment. She explains numerous commitment mechanisms that successful communities must promote among all of its members. A key concept of Kanter’s is renunciation; the relinquishing of relationships that disrupt the cohesion of the group. (82) If a married couple enters the Oneida Community, how are they to able to fully contribute to the sharing of love amongst their brothers and sisters? Noyes calls his members to perform the act of renunciation and break all relationship ties with individuals, so that the community may grow closer through its exploration of ‘amative’ spiritual interchange. Noyes was convinced that God does not favor marriage and that love cannot be sent through that channel. (Free Love in Utopia, 216)
In Communal Love at Oneida, Richard DeMaria brings up the peculiar fact that the community did not wish to deny the special relation between a man and his wife before they entered the community. (136) I find this to be ironic because I am supportive of Kanter’s position on sacrifice and her belief that it is necessary for members to give up something important to themselves, in order to contribute to the community. Noyes admits that marriage is dangerous to the structure of his community, “If a man brings a wife into the Community and reserves her from others, he has brought a cask of powder into a blacksmith’s shop.” (Free Love in Utopia, 215) This statement takes me back to my initial question; as a leader of what Kanter deems a successful community, why would Noyes allow marriage, a powerful and dangerous adversary, into his community?
The readings also highlighted numerous discrepancies between the actions of Noyes and his own doctrine. One crucial episode was on page 71 of Desire and Duty, where a feud between Noyes and Edward broke out over the Tirzah and her relationship to them. This is evidence of Noyes’ constant displays acts of selfishness and power over Tirzah and the men she had shared sexual relations with. Selfishness and equality are two concepts are key focuses of Oneida doctrine and Noyes disregards both of them on several occasions in his interactions with Tirzah. Throughout her diary entrees, I could identify Noyes’ growing affection towards her through their conversations about sex and children, and immediately saw her social position and independence drop in his presence.
This week’s readings on Oneida provide some primary source evidence for many of our discussion questions this semester. However, in particularly I believe it furthers the argument that Oneida was not as gender-equal as was claimed. Particularly, the sources talk at lengths about the ‘free-love’ and sexual relationships between various members. From what these sources indicate, it is possible to argue that these relationships were initiated and controlled by men; the women were passive participants.
In a letter between Mary Cragin to her husband (Noyes, p.213) we see that a Mr. Bradley is to “have liberty with Ellen and Philena if he wishes it.” There is no suggestion that the women in this situation have the freedom to reject this. What is more apparent from this letter, and other sources, is that John Humphrey Noyes himself had control over sexual and romantic relationships within the community.
In the intimate memoirs of Tirzah Miller, she describes how Noyes created “one large family with himself at the head”. (p.53) We also see that he arranged the marriages of his sisters at the very start of the community (p.53), rather than allow them to chose their own partners. Tirzah recounts how Noyes took control of her own reproductive future: “[Noyes] told me this evening that he send Mrs. Ackley to [Edward] to propose to him to a have a baby by me”. (p.66) However, after Noyes separated the two parents: “he told Edward that he must not come to my room or see me any more”. (p.72)
We do see that Tirzah Miller had some power within the paper – at points she was put in charge of the paper.(p.57) One might argue that this shows women in positions of power within the community. However, I feel the control that Noyes had over the sexual relationships the community had makes it difficult to argue for the empowerment of women. It is true that Noyes controlled the relationships of both men and women; however, women being the bearers of children were perhaps more affected by his control than the men.
As I’m writing my research paper on manhood at Oneida, these readings were particularly exciting and relevant to me. They were actually taken from sources I had already begun to examine and, as well as raising new questions, started answering questions I was thinking of. For example, one article I recently read is Ellen Wayland-Smith’s “The Status and Self-Perception of Women in the Oneida Community,” which suggests that gender dynamics and questions are all overshadowed by the fact that every person in Oneida was simply subservient to Noyes’ will. Since then, I have been looking for evidence of what kind of decisions men were supposed to and able to make, and when Noyes stepped in. This is a key background question which Tirzah’s memoir was particularly helpful with. I found Noyes’ suggestion that Edward be the father of Tirzah’s baby, as well as his way of controlling their relationship when he suspected special love, particularly interesting and relevant (Fogarty, ed. 66). His own account revealed similar involvement. For example, we could see Noyes being involved in suggesting and who Mr. Bradley pursued and had sexual encounters with (Noyes, 213).
While that was a critical background question to understand how my project will fit in with existing literature, the readings also raised new questions. One such foreground question is how the values and roles of men in Oneida compare to what might be expected of them on the outside. The testimony of the members as documented in the First Annual Report goes to answering it and understanding masculine roles in Oneida. The first question asked of members was concerned with how the community changed their character. Their answers were especially illuminating; many, both men and women, said they became more gentle, milder, and more susceptible to improvement (Testimony of Members, question 1). These qualities are very different from traditional notions of masculinity, and are something I want to investigate further. One area that I believe will be especially revealing is looking at the comments made during the open criticism sessions, and what the subjects’ responses were.
In the end, while these texts were particularly relevant to my own research project, what they really brought to mind is how different it is to engage with primary texts. As Clare mentioned, working with primary texts is totally different, and I am not yet fully comfortable with how to interact and engage with primary texts for this project. My biggest challenges will be orienting myself to what was going on in the community at the time of the narrative and not imposing my personal judgments on diary entries and accounts. I continually found myself getting distracted by my own frustrations or criticisms of Oneida while reading what the members were saying of their own experiences. Tempering that tendency will be a critical skill to develop through this process of reading.
While reading for this week, particularly in the letters and autobiography, I was struck by how this community that claimed to be very open towards women instead seemed very biased towards males, and I felt slightly uncomfortable about it. I wondered about how much choice these women seemed to have in the relationships that occurred at Oneida. The line that Tirzah was told her from Uncle George that “it is truly the glory of a woman to love and be receptive to good men” (55). However, that seems to only give men the opportunity to have relationships with different women and the women seem almost obligated to agree with this. Why must the women be receptive to the men? If they don’t want to and either want a monogamous relationship or even no relationship at all, they should be within their rights to do this. It seems that Oneida existed moreso for men to have multiple lovers. Additionally, later she mentions that another man, Edward, sent a woman to Noyes to ask if Tirzah would have a baby with him (66). In this case, it seems that rather than the woman, Noyes was in charge, which follows with everything else that I know about Oneida. Tirzah seems to feel love towards another man, Homer, but believes that “he must give [her] up to God” (70). If she has feelings for this man, then why can she not assert her feelings and be with him? Although in Noyes’s letter he claims that there is no marriage in heaven and that the best love is free love, but in this case, the love does not seem free. It seems solely dictated by Noyes, or at least by the males. Why must the women of this community be subservient to men in matters of the heart and in relationships? The men of Oneida are allowed their free love, while women like Tirzah are at the whim of Noyes and the other men. After several times of sleeping with Noyes, only then does Tirzah learn that she did not have to sleep with him or any of men that she didn’t have attraction towards (60). It does not seem like these women were aware of their personal autonomy and instead were directed by the men and their desires.
In examining the readings for this week, it is clear that these sources would be ideally used in examining the idea of an individuals’ wishes versus the community’s goals. By employing these sources it seems clear that in Oneida, people were intent on ensuring that the goals and visions of Oneida were more important than any of the desires that members may have had.
This is easily seen in the “Free Love in Oneida” source under the marriage spirit section in which the author speak of the fact that there has only been a “half-way surrender to the truth” that Oneida teaches when it comes to new members. The following example of a blacksmith’s store and a powder cask are meant to show that if an individual attempts to come into the Association with a wife then he will quite literally be “miserable” in Oneida (Noyes 215). The source makes it abundantly clear that the community’s beliefs override those of an individual when it explains that the community’s ideas on marriage are an anchor and that anyone who disagrees with that notion is being irrational. By placing the ideology of Oneida on a higher plane than the wishes and desires of the individuals who come to Oneida, the Association believes that their principles are more important than any of the individuals who may join.
Tizrah’s memoirs also point to this idea of placing the community above the individuals but it describes a way that the community can silence the voices that do not agree with the policies in place. In her March 26th entry, Tizrah describes how Noyes claimed that community was being negatively impacted by the “old grannies” and that in order to achieve God’s work there needed to be an insurrection of the youth against their elders. From here Noyes makes it clear that they would not remove such people from Oneida (even though it seems that is precisely what he wishes) but will instead “keep them on the circumference, and in a small corner where they have little or no influence (56).” This source can easily be used as evidence of the fact that if Noyes felt an individual or a group of individuals were having ideas contrary to what he felt Oneida stood for, he would engage in actions that would remove such individuals from their positions and push them into the outskirts of the society where their voices would not be heard.
In discussing and examining the notion of individual’s wants and desires compared to the community’s it is easy to use the sources given to argue that Oneida did not care about any individual’s wishes if those said wishes went against the community’s ideals and goals. They community would either refuse to negotiate on what it believed the principles were (as the Noyes source indicates) or would go farther and actively take efforts to silence those voices which the leadership felt were negatively impacting life at Oneida (as Tizrah’s memoirs show).
Oneida is one of the communities we’ve read and discussed in depth. Naturally, freedom and women’s rights comes to the foreground. This week’s readings not only provided evidence in support of class-made conclusions, but also helps paint a more vivid picture and puts it into perspective. The justification behind free love is that marriage creates a dependence (Free Love in Utopia, 216), be it emotional or economic. Without this institution, women are not dependent on one man for support, therefore, free love can be seen as a vessel of feminism. However, this brings up a question: What is the definition of Oneida’s free love? To us, it just means the elimination of marriage as an honored social institution, no mutual exclusivity, and the freedom of people to sleep with however many and whomever they want, with approval of Noyes. Looking at the readings, however, free love seems more complex than how we make of it. In John Miller’s letter to his wife, he muses that perhaps she didn’t like his previous love letter because he was “too free” in expressing feelings towards her (Free Love in Utopia, 214), but doesn’t go into detail. It almost seems as if “free love” applies more towards the physical than the emotional- not free to express or feel too many emotional attachments.
Within Free Love in Utopia, marriages are also distasteful because it gives men the “right to make his companion whether she will or on, the right of a master over a slave,” (217), yet in Tirzah’s memoir, she could be seen as a slave of Noyes, getting his breakfast, waiting on him at night (58), always seeking and growing on his praise, and being sexually readily available whenever he wants. I’ve recently been discussing IPV (intimate partner violence) in a another course and learned about different types of abuse that I hadn’t considered abuse before. Tying into Noyes and Oneida, it seems that Noyes engaged with what seemed very close to control abuse. Although not physical nor verbal nor sexual because consent is given, he dictates who people can sleep with, the jobs people have, and what sort of publications in the Circular are good. Control abuse is when a partner tries to control everything the other does. Tirzah explicitly states that she sometimes wish she “could be obscure. . . and less under the scrutiny of Mr. Noyes’s almost omniscient eye; but when, after trying to hide myself, he reaches out for me, and hunts me up. . .” (Desire and Duty at Oneida, 63). This statement implies the controlling nature of Noyes, and the usage of “hunt” implies it was unwelcome from Tirzah’s perspective. At one point, Noyes makes a clear decision about Tirzah’s body, saying he “can’t let you [Tirzah] have a baby for some time yet” (60). He made a decision about her body without consulting her, and she meekly accepts. Therefore, could it be argued that not only was Oneida and Noyes not necessarily feminist, as we’ve discussed in class, but also abusive? During class, some of us have conceded that Oneida may have been progressive and feminist for its time relative to the rest of America, but the control abuse clearly present for females perhaps depicts Oneida as even more restrictive than in the outside society, but done in a way that even the females don’t realize they’re being abused, which makes it more dangerous.
These three different first hand accounts all highlights the difference between what is the theoretical practice and what physically happens at Oneida. The concept of “Free Love” at Oneida at face value sounds very progressive and open. The ability to have more then one lover and the freedom of having sexual relations without the constrictions of a monogamous marriage was unheard of in its time. In the “The Marriage Spirit” letter, it describes how marriage is a faulty system that leads people into sin and that Oneidas way was going to free the spirituality of the communities members. The “Testimony of Members” also gives a clearly positive notion of how the Association makes all members have better character. These practices though were not as easy as they seemed in the more public first hand accounts. In Tirzah Millers private journals detailing her time at Oneida, most of it is spent obsessing over her status with the men. She both wants to have relations with some men and then doesn’t want to with others. She also struggles with feeling jealous over other women sleeping with a man she has a history with. (75) The fact that she struggles with these feelings show that perhaps the free love wasn’t the best system and it did create some tensions in the community. This also shows how the public view of something is different form the more private, individual notions on the practices at Oneida.
Another issue that these things show is the lack of individual freedom the members hold in the community. Both “The Administration to Complex Marriage” chapter and Miller’s account demonstrate how Noyes is in control of everyone’s actions. While individuals have the ability to do more things then the rest of society, they did not have the ability to make personal choices about what they do or do not do. Noyes had the final decision on most marriages and children. These first hand accounts detail how difficult it was to find the balance in the free love society.
I would like to disagree with Becca’s assertion that the primary sources in today’s reading assignment disprove the typical idea that women had a progressive amount of free choice in Oneida. Rather, the sources show that women and men both experienced a lack of choice at points during their times at Oneida and, if women had less choice, that difference is small.
Take, for instance, the personal journal of Tirzah Miller. In her journal, Tirzah recounts her numerous sexual encounters with men, most frequently describing her intimate encounters with Noyes. In one of her discussions with Noyes, Miller mentions that, though she has been generally disinterested, has not been refusing men who want to have sex with her. Noyes criticizes her for “entering into sexual intercourse without appetite” (Miller 60). The tone of Noyes’s criticism isn’t that Miller should not be allowed to choose this style of sexual interaction, but rather it is not good for her sexual health. So, Noyes’s criticism encourages her to act on her sexual desires.
However, later in Miller’s journal, Noyes’s motives become clearer, in an event in which Noyes’s not only limits the choice of Miller, but also men in the community. Upon getting jealous of Miller’s relationship with Edward, Noyes forbids them from seeing each other and forces her to sleep with Frank. Though she is not clear, Miller paints the situation as mandatory for both her an Frank, and describes it as “an intensely embarrassing one” (Miller 73). Furthermore, Noyes makes public the new relationship between Miller and Frank to purposefully “plague” her former lovers Edward and Theodore (Miller 74). These events make it clear that lack of choice in the Oneida community was not particularly split between gender lines, but rather a result of Noyes’s indiscriminate wishes.
Another reading today may indicate the opposite is true; that women lacked choice. In Free Love in Utopia, the first letter is written from Mary Cragin to her husband George. The letter begins by commenting on another man, Mr. Bradley, who should “have liberty with Ellen and Philena if he wishes it” and that his wife should be happy for him (Foster 213). Becca notes that the passage does not indicate the will of the two women, Ellen and Philena. However, I will also point out that it does not make clear a lack of interest from the women either. Given that this is a personal letter in which knowledge of backstory is assumed, I would not use a lack of evidence for one thing as proof of another thing.