Topic 158: The Penalty of Violating Convention

Carol:

The Penalty of Violating Convention

  

My family history research has provided an interesting window into some of our country’s most significant—and controversial—periods in history. Take the War of Independence. We call the families who fought for separation from England “Patriots,” so we may oversimplify the political positions and issues that split communities and families in Colonial America. In fact, only about 40-45% of the Colonists were Patriots, and a full 40% were neutral. Not only did about 20% of the population remain loyal to England, but others choose not to take sides, and still others were religious pacifists who paid severe penalties for choosing NOT to fight.
 

One such group, of course, was the Society of Friends (Quakers), which at the time was about 10% of the population. Fundamental to Quaker philosophy was not only pacificism but equality regardless of race or gender. Early American Quaker women enjoyed incredible freedoms, and the Society itself condemned slavery far ahead of the Abolitionist Movement.
 

At their 1774 General Yearly Meeting in Philadelphia, the leadership ordered a letter to be sent to all members of the Society to maintain their principles of pacifism and peace. The letter reminded Quakers that “under the King's government they had been favored with a peaceful and prosperous enjoyment of their rights” (Wetherell), and it suggested that members who disobeyed the orders be “disowned.”  Expulsion from the Society of Friends meant not only separation from the religious community but family members as well, and a common reason for excommunication was marriage outside of the denomination. 
 

Betsy Ross (1752-1836) is a name we all recognize from our earliest lessons in American history, credited with making the first American flag. But she was born a Griscom, one of 17 children of a Quaker family who upheld both the philosophy of their denomination and its simple lifestyle.  Her own great-grandfather Andrew Griscom, a Quaker carpenter, had arrived in  the Pennsylvania colony a year before a much more famous Quaker, William Penn, founded Philadelphia. When Betsy Griscom eloped in 1773 with John Ross, an Episcopalian, she was “read out” of the Society of Friends. Although she was reinstated after she was widowed, and later joined a group of disaffected Quakers who supported the Revolution, now called “Free” or “Fighting Quakers.”  By the end of her life, the last Free Quaker meeting house was closed. (source: Betsy Ross)
 

Those Quakers who remained non-combatant during the Revolutionary War often received vicious treatment from their neighbors. The Bull family of Dutchess County, New York, may be a typical example. Quaker John Bull had immigrated to this area near the Hudson River in the mid-1700’s along with 9 children, including 6 sons. According to family genealogy, two of the sons were taken prisoner during the War of Independence and sent to New York.
 

The treatment of Quaker non-combatants in New England was not less severe than that meted out to their co-religionists in Pennsylvania, as one of the Bull brothers died from violence and privation, while the other survived only long enough to be rescued by his relations, and died soon after. (Bowerman)

Quakers George & Phoebe Bull

Generations of the Bull family would suffer temporary excommunication for marrying outside the denomination or by joining a liberal branch known as the Hicksites. Many of the Bull family immigrated to Canada, where many of the Quaker pacifists and Loyalists from the Revolutionary War had moved decades early (The United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada estimates that 1 in 10 Canadians has a Loyalist ancestor.)
 

Despite its long history of peace and equality, the Society of Friends had its own penalties for members who violated its religious and social conventions. And that’s no Bull.
 

Sources:
Betsy Ross: Her Life. 
Bowerman, Dr. A.C. “Genealogical List of the Bull Family of the County of Prince Edward, Ontario.”
United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada.

Megan:

The Convention of Violation without Penalty:

a brief survey and critique of reality television

Nowadays, it seems that if you violate conventions, you are rewarded with a reality TV show. Shows like 16 & Pregnant, Sister Wives, 19 Kids and Counting, Hoarders and the obviously named, Taboo – draw upon the novelty of people who live or act contrary to what is common and acceptable in our society. The arguments against reality television are fairly well-known, as its detractors tend to be loud and smug in their derision.

These shows reflect a dangerous sociological evolution, wherein people behave badly in order to get their own show. Jennifer Del Rio, a 16 year old mother of twins, is being sued by the father of her children who claims she got pregnant to get onto the popular MTV show. Whether or not this is true almost doesn’t matter. Supporters of this show claim that it portrays the harsh reality of teenage parenthood and relationships. It is true that these girls are rarely able to finish high school or maintain a good relationship with the fathers of their children, but they are paid for being on this show. Perhaps they are unhappy, but surely they must be financially secure. I have no idea what they are paid, but generally viewers assume that if you are on a TV show, you get money for it. Reality TV is not actual reality – people act differently when they know they are being observed. Not only that, people act differently in order to ensure they are observed.

These shows also uphold the  unhealthy standards of beauty so often represented in films and advertising. Even music competitions like American Idol, The X Factor and The Voice which claim to be talent-based, constantly refer to cultivating brands, having “the whole package,” and in the case of The X Factor, that certain je ne se quoi, the unknown quality that makes one unique. These shows pretend to promote individuality, but instead conventional beauty is valued over talent, The exception is when  the person is unattractive but super-talented, in which case their strangeness and ugliness is part of the spectacle. Look what happened to Susan Boyle – the shock expressed by the judges and audience during her audition indicated that it is hard to believe talent can come in a misshapen, ugly package. After her makeover (and her breakdown), when the novelty wore off, Ms. Boyle was marketed to a demographic closer to her age who still appreciate music for the sound and not the image in the video.

 The Voice, with its blind auditions gives the impression that the acts are chosen with no regard to the contestant’s appearance, but you can see the delight on the judge’s faces when they turn around and see an attractive face and body. It’s the first thing they comment on. From that point in the show, the judges compete with each other to shape the real people into marketable, Hollywood cookie-cutter pop-stars.

My mother likes to watch the cooking competition shows, but occasionally I discover that she has clogged the TIVO with Reality Housewives of Atlanta, (or Houston, or Beverley Hills.) I have only seen the previews for these shows, but as far as I can tell, the allure to the public is rich people behaving badly. Despite the dramatic and ridiculous way these women are portrayed, they cater to an envious audience who aspire to their wealth and circumstance. These shows portray extreme moments edited together to seem like a coherent, and achievable lifestyle.

Despite the fact that I obviously fall into the loud and smug detractor category, I do watch some of these shows. After 4 years without a television, I find myself oddly transfixed at times by the bizarre scenarios playing out on screen. But I think these shows are dangerous because they manipulate people’s emotions and insecurities, their dreams and narcisstic tendencies, present illusion as reality without acknowledging the fiction.