Times, They are A-Changin'

As we’ve been discussing in class, our recent readings from the post-Revolution years reflect significant changes from the accounts of witchcraft and early infanticide narratives authored in the late 1600s. Cotton Mather’s The Wonders of the Invisible World was seeped in religious terms, and he effectively used this dramatic language to defend the witchcraft trials. Religious themes carry over into Pillars of Salt and the pre-Revolution infanticide narratives, where consistent warnings to the young people reflect the authors’ instructional tone and desire to maintain strict obedience to community rules. The account of Esther Rodgers emphasized her religious conversion over her actual execution; however, even in this 1701 text, the “tragick scene” is introduced in such theatrical terms that the entertainment value of such a text was becoming apparent. We saw this develop in later infanticide narratives, leading up to the account of unfortunate Harriot Wilson in The Victim of Seduction! and the broadside recounting the sensational story of Rachel Wall. The religious language is minimal in this last text in particular, and Rachel’s adventures make for very little moral instruction. Rather, such accounts of naughty women became "textual commodities." So to me, the Panther Narrative almost seems the next logical step, since writing a “fictional epistle” would allow an author to create as sensational a tale as he wished—with the assurance that the post-Revolution public would buy it up. And because the introduction tells us that “captivity narratives were the most enduring popular narrative form in early America,” the author who wrote under the pseudonym "Abraham Panther" probably knew what type of tale would generate the most success.

Clearly, the concerns of the American audience were changing. The Puritan society of Cotton Mather was geographically close-knit, and the witchcraft texts focus on what occurred within the boundaries of that strictly patriarchal community. Even the infanticide narratives focus on local scandals. But after the Revolution, people began to really look outwards, fascinated by the “mysterious West.” So readers were drawn to a text like the Panther narrative because it fed this broader curiosity. I think that with the drop-off of religious language and conversion themes, you also see a shift from an audience concerned solely with religious matters to an audience that also embraced the more secular aspects of American life (for example, class discussion brought up the interest in politics that accompanied the Revolution).

I thought it was interesting how the portrayal of women in print culture evolved. In infanticide narratives, in particular, we see an inherently weak woman who inevitably falls into temptation when she ventures out from under male authority. So the depiction of the “young woman who was discovered in a rocky cave” is surprising. Capable of surviving nine years in the wilderness on food she grew herself, this woman was not reliant on male guidance or authority; in fact, she’s a good example of a woman who took agency in her situation. In disobeying her father’s wishes, she comes across as strong-willed. The introduction to the narrative explains that the language of change used in post-Revolution texts encouraged citizens to challenge authority. This defiance of authority was something that, for women especially, would have been condemned by Mather and the Puritans—if it didn’t invite an accusation of witchcraft (and a subsequent death warrant)! But what is even more impressive is that the Panther portrayal of the young woman invites such sympathy and admiration; it is her domineering, cruel father who is painted in negative terms. I wouldn’t guess that this narrative reflected a dramatic social flip-flop (bearing in mind that its purpose was to entertain and make a profit rather than make a social statement or describe desirable female attributes), but its popularity shows that society was beginning to accept the textual portrayal of a more “liberated” female.

Young People, Take Heed

Times have changed since Rebekah Chamblit and Patience Boston were executed for infanticide in the 1730s. In a patriarchal, Puritan society, there was only one “right” way for a woman to live—as a meek, submissive, Bible-reading, modest-dressing servant to God and her husband. And the rules imposed on women were defended by the religious beliefs that touched every aspect of Puritan life. Today, however, we live in a very diverse society that is not dictated by the same religious undertones, and this allows people to explore their own interpretations of morality. So there’s no longer one, universally accepted “right” way for a woman to behave. Think about the Puritan view on sex—it was only, only within marriage. But contemporary society has varying views about it. Being a “slut” probably won’t gain you much social approval (and it may earn you censure), but what if you are in a “committed relationship” practicing premarital sex? If we were to go by primetime television and even a few birth control commercials, not only does premarital sex appear acceptable—it almost seems to be the norm. And while women who had extramarital affairs in the 1730s were labeled “adulterers,” today’s television programs often treat these situations with humor or sympathy, as they paint a picture of frustrated women trapped in passionless marriages; they just can’t help themselves, and who are we to judge them for that? Obviously, television isn’t the best reflection of real life, but it does reveal how much public opinion and perceptions have changed. I don’t know that women today are so dissimilar from women in Puritan society, but the societal standards that affect them are shifting. There seems to be much more gray area!

At TCU, I’ve seen these varying standards play out from time to time. I knew a girl who earned a definite reputation for being “slutty” by drinking too much, running out at night with lewd guys, and waking up in someone else’s bed. And she was stigmatized; many other girls looked down on her and talked (or gossiped) negatively about her wild nights on the town. But no one really cared or verbalized judgment about the girl whose boyfriend stayed the night at her house every now and then. There was a different reaction when someone was publicly parading her behavior and when something was done behind closed doors. I have a feeling that if the latter girl wound up pregnant, the tables would turn as her private deeds suddenly became very public. Nowadays, however, I'm not sure that negative opinions, gossip, stares, or even getting the cold shoulder are extremely strong deterrents for all young women engaging in promiscuous behavior. There is enough tolerance in our society that if you aren’t getting it from one group of people, you can often find it elsewhere if you're willing to change company. So in some cases, the emotional punishments lose a little of their effect.

After our class conversations, I do think it’s important to make some mention of how men fit into this big picture. Obviously, they were absent from the Puritan narratives and did not share in the punishment applied to the women they impregnated. I think we still see some of this today, as women who get pregnant out of wedlock are usually saddled with the responsibility of deciding how to deal with it, physically, financially, etc. Men have more choice of whether to walk away or stick around to shoulder the responsibility. It sometimes seems to me that in the latter case, we almost view these men with admiration, as if they’ve made a "noble" choice—not just owned up to their actions like they should. So as much as society has changed over time, the gender issue still seems to lag behind a bit.

The New Witch of the West

Having just finished Rountree’s “The New Witch of the West,” I realized how much my perception of witches and witchcraft has changed over the last couple weeks. Like Rountree, I was a typical Disney-watching child who became well acquainted with the “warty, black-clad old hag who…snared and dined on juicy children.” In the years since then, I don’t know that I’ve ever looked at witches seriously or critically; like the majority of adults mentioned by Rountree in her opening paragraph, I’m more apt to dismiss the idea of witches. However, I started thinking beyond the humorous stereotypes as our class explored the very human, very tragic experiences of the women accused of witchcraft in Salem. Now, after reading about feminist witchcraft, my understanding of witches and how self-proclaimed witches wish to be perceived is much expanded.

We’ve talked a few times about how women who overstepped social boundaries in the rigid, patriarchal society of Salem were “easy targets” in the witch-hunts. I’m glad that this article discussed the clash of women and the male-dominated society at length, examining this unfortunate trend across the centuries. I did not know, for example, that wise women who practiced medicine in Europe posed such a threat to patriarchal control. As present-day readers, we can scoff at how ridiculous it is that a woman practicing healing without a university degree (when she was denied admittance to universities) was labeled a witch. In truth, she probably did not have anything to do with witchcraft. Thus, it makes some sense that feminist scholars have redefined the word “witch” as a woman “who challenges patriarchal control and claims independent knowledge and power.”

As for the feminist witches today, it seems to me that they are more concerned with affirming their “woman-centered spirituality” than they are with the spiritual practices themselves. If these women are primarily focused on establishing a symbol and empowering themselves (reclaiming the agency), I don’t know that labeling themselves “witches” and creating an alternative spirituality, or “designer religion,” are the necessary ways of doing it. Toward the end of the article, Rountree points outs that reinventing the witch in today’s world is a risky undertaking. Society is steeped in stereotypical images, and the word “witch” has a negative connotation. Moreover, any serious practice of witchcraft is still fairly taboo, if it doesn’t incite condemnation. So I seriously doubt that feminist witches will have much success in their mission of change, aside from the personal fulfillment it brings them. Personally, if I were a woman trying to rise above male oppression and embrace my female power, I think I’d do it in such a way that I had some public support or approval. Perhaps…running for vice president? :)

One of the issues discussed in the article that surprised me was the discussion of women who self-identify as Christian and as witch. My reading of the deeply religious Cotton Mather, who passionately discussed the conflict between Christianity and witchcraft, suggested that these belief systems were completely incompatible. Perhaps times have changed, but it’s hard for me to imagine how even a feminist witch (who, as Rountree points out, doesn’t engage in Satantism) could entirely reconcile the two beliefs in the face of continued Christian opposition to witchcraft. The Christian religion may have the equivalents of two aspects of the Goddess trinity—Mary and the virgin mother—but I think it still shuns the “diabolized Crone.”

Wonders of the Invisible World

I grew up in a very conservative home and school, so even the discussion of witches and witchcraft isn’t something I encountered much. In a religious sense, I do believe in a supernatural realm, but while church and private school occasionally raised the subject of angels and even demons, witchcraft was never openly or explicitly discussed. I think that’s interesting given the fact that our culture—as evidenced by the television shows mentioned in the blog prompt—contains so many references to witchcraft and the supernatural.

Granted, I don’t believe that the majority of these references provide an accurate depiction of witchcraft as a seriously practiced religion. It’s treated a bit more dramatically or lightly, sometimes with humor, and although many of the supernaturally charged television shows diverge from the broomstick and pointy black hat, you still see a lot of stereotypical images. Upon reflection, many of the cartoons and movies that I watched as a child lightly portrayed the ugly old witch with a warty nose. Even now, some of my favorite books, like the Harry Potter series or the Lord of the Rings trilogy, include witches and wizards. But I didn’t immediately think of them when sitting down to write this entry; that leads me to think that we’re probably so accustomed to such references that they don’t stand out that prominently in our minds.

However, I do agree with the prompt’s suggestion that we don’t fully understand witchcraft and the supernatural. Obviously, that prompts natural curiosity, and our curiosity is undoubtedly heightened even further when something is considered “taboo.” I need only think of the uproar surrounding Harry Potter. I wonder how many people picked up a copy of The Sorcerer’s Stone just to see what the big to-do was all about.

With regard to the term “witch-hunt,” McCarthy and the communist scare of the 1950s that was mentioned in class stands out as a prime example. Drawing on our class discussion of seventeenth-century Salem and that modern-day example, I began thinking about all the characteristics of a witch-hunt. It’s easily fueled by paranoia, anyone and everyone can become suspect, and sometimes all it takes is one person’s word or suggestion to incite fear in people. That made me think of a conversation I recently had with my dad about how some people unfortunately regarded Muslims in America after 9-11. Although not necessarily the best example of a witch-hunt, those same characteristics were evident. There was heightened paranoia and suspicion, as some people began wondering whether their Muslim neighbors entertained any terrorist sympathies. I remember some relatives telling my family that we should keep an eye on anyone who looked like they were from the Middle East the next time we were at the airport. And with comments like that, wasn’t it hard not to take notice or be a little distrustful? I imagine that the people of Salem felt the same suspicion and alarm during the witch-hunt, as they wondered which of their neighbors was a God-fearing woman and which was a witch.

Finally, in our contemporary society, I think you’d hear numerous perspectives on the existence of evil. For many people, religion provides that framework; according to the Christian religion, evil is driven by Satan and is clearly offset by God’s righteousness. But the diversity of belief systems in America means that not everyone would define evil that way. It’s something that many people may be uncertain about, and again, that may contribute to our curiosity and attraction to the evil side of the supernatural.