Mae Maginnis
History 610, Dr. Bristol
Final Paper
December 11, 2013
A Historiography of Gender
In his book, That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historian
Profession, Peter Novick argues that the explicit use of gender in historiography was scarce until
the mid-twentieth century. Also, as Joan Scott argued in her article “Gender: A Useful Category
of Historical Analysis,” “concern with gender as an analytic category has emerged only in the
late twentieth century.”1 Until this point in the mid to late twentieth century, gendered language
was included in historiography, whether the author realized it or not, but official use of gender as
a lens to view history was absent from the profession. To borrow from Scott’s definition of
gender, it is defined as a socially constructed concept based on the relationships between the
sexes (biological sex of male or female). Both men and women are included in gender, and it
seems as though we as a society have a tendency to say gender and really mean “women.” This
is not correct. Therefore, this historiography begins with a basis understanding of gender in the
historian profession with Novick’s book and Scott’s article. It then moves into specific historical
works like Prescott’s History of the Conquest of Mexico (1843) up through Eustace’s Passion is
the Gale (2008). We will take a close look at how different authors used gender in their work,
whether it was intentional or not.
Novick’s That Noble Dream is a useful basis for analysis of gender in historiography.
According to Novick, women were not prominent in the historian profession until Affirmative
Action in the 1970’s, which helped to unveil a legacy of “gender discrimination that was
Scott, Joan, “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” The American Historical Review, vol. 91, no. 5,
December 1986, 1066.
1
undeniable.”2 Until that point, it seems as though women were absent from the historian
profession, and historical analysis as well. A decade prior to Affirmative Action there were no
women professors in the history departments of the ten highest ranking graduate schools.3
However, after Affirmative Action revealed its presence in the political and academic spheres,
more women were then included in the historian profession. By 1985 there was a stronger
woman’s presence, even on the board of the Organization of American Historians.4
It seems that the general response of the men historians was the “why can’t a women
think more like a man” mentality.5 It was “understood” that men thought more analytically
whereas women were influenced by the opinions of others.6 To combat this “understood”
mentality, women found a new willingness to “stress their gender in describing their modes of
inquiry.”7 This led to a new lens of historical research: gender. The academic feminists insisted
that “gender was as central a category of analysis as race or class, and that scholarly work which
failed to give its due weight was fatally flawed.”8 The new addition of women to the profession
did not include only feminists, or historians of only women.9 Women historians studies a myriad
of topics, not just women’s history. They also rejected the “add women and stir” idea of
approaching history.10 Rather, these women historians called for a new approach to history as
inclusive of women and men in order to move away from a heavy male or female narrative. The
historian profession was changed forever, and historical works published before the 1970’s
Novick, Peter, That Noble Dream:The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1988), 492.
3
Novick, 492.
4
Novick, 492, 493.
5
Novick, 494.
6
Ibid.
7
Novick, 495.
8
Novick, 494.
9
Novick, 493.
10
Novick, 496, 497.
2
certainly prove Novick’s point. However, Novick himself did not include gender as a category
of analysis while describing the history of the historian profession. Instead, he spoke of
women’s history as a separate entity.
Novick tended to focus on “women” whenever he mentioned gender. The reason for a
focus on women is because Novick did not include a section on “gender history” in his book.
Rather, Novick explained the introduction of women’s history into the historian profession, and
then used that introduction to also expand on gender. Though not explicitly speaking of gender,
Novick’s point on women’s history’s introduction into the historian profession reflects a
sensitivity to gender awareness, and the inclusion of gender when analyzing and writing about
history. Novick explained that “women had been members of the organized historical profession
from the beginning.”11 Though women’s involvement was kept at arm’s length the “imperative
of chivalry demanded that they be given recognition.”12 Recognition really meant that women
were given insignificant positions, so as to not leave them out.13 This changed after Affirmative
Action was put into place, and women began to emerge in the historian profession. Once again,
Novick has explained the development of the inclusion of women in the historian profession, and
also in historical analysis. Novick seemed to see the history of women’s involvement of the
historical profession as the “add women and stir” mentality. Joan Scott’s analysis of gender in
historiography would prove to be a more complete picture of what including gender in history
truly entailed.
In order to further understand what using gender as a category of historical analysis
entails, we must look at its use in the historian profession. In her article “Gender: A Useful
11
Novick, 491.
Novick, 492.
13
Ibid.
12
Category of Historical Analysis,” Joan Scott argues that historians should reconsider the
previous historical narratives, and reanalyze the history by using gender as the lens of analysis in
order to gain a greater understanding of history as a whole. Scott defined gender as “a
constructive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes,
and gender is a primary way of signifying relationships and power.”14 When breaking down this
definition we can see some distinct characteristics of gender in historiography. First, gender is a
socially constructed element. The word gender “denoted a rejection of the biological
determinism implicit in the use of such terms as ‘sex’ or ‘sexual indifference.’”15 Gender was
meant to be free on biological boundaries, thereby showing the social construction aspect. Since
society does not remain stagnant throughout history, neither can ways of defining gender or
gender roles. This ultimately means that projecting modern day gender ideas or gender roles on
past gender situations is not accurate. Therefore, when looking at gender in the past, we must
put each circumstance in its historical context.
Secondly, gender requires social relationships. Gender does not mean only women or
only men (or a singular woman or man). Rather, it is the relationship between the sexes. We
also see that gender “stressed the relational aspect of normative definitions of femininity” and
was a means of introducing a relational view of history; not just men or women, but both.16
Lastly, gender creates power relationships, and power relationships reflect gender. Therefore,
we can better analyze power relationships through the lens of gender, as Scott is suggesting, and
better understand gender through power relationships. Scott’s definition of gender is useful
when looking at how historians have used or ignored gender, and why.
14
Scott, 1067.
Scott, 1054.
16
Ibid.
15
Like Novick, Scott also traced the origins of gender in the historian profession. During
the process of placing gender in historiography, Scott used gender as the subject of her argument.
Scott showed the emergence of gender and how it was described through the context of the
feminist movement. She also shows that gender as an analytical category established itself in the
historian profession in the late twentieth century, and is “absent for the major bodies of social
theory articulated from the eighteenth to the early twentieth centuries.”17 Then, writing in her
modern day of 1986, Scott claims that “gender is a new topic, a new department of historical
investigation,” also showing the innovation of this form of analysis.18 Only eleven years earlier
Natalie Davis suggested that we look at both men and women in analysis, just as a historian
studying class does not just look at peasants.19 The goal of gender in history is to “discover the
range in sex roles and in sexual symbolism in different societies and periods, to find out what
meaning they had and how they functioned to maintain the social order or to promote its
change.”20 Once again, gender must be placed in its historical context so an accurate picture of
history can be portrayed.
Scott, using her own advice, placed the concept of gender in its historical context. When
gender first appeared as a category of analysis, the second wave of feminism was well under
way. Scott explains the feminist view of gender as a “more literal and serious vein” and using
“gender as a way of referring to the social organization of a relationship between the sexes.”21
Placing the feminist view in terms of the historian profession, Scott also explains the feminist
historians’ approaches to the analysis of gender in three main ways. First, attempting to explain
17
Scott, 1066.
Scott, 1057.
19
Scott, 1054.
20
Ibid.
21
Scott, 1053.
18
the origins of patriarchy.22 Second, gender locates itself within a Marxian tradition and seeks
there an accommodation with feminist critiques.23 Third, gender draws on these different
schools of psychoanalysis to explain the production and reproduction of the subject’s gendered
identity.24 By placing the origins of gender in its context of the feminist movement, Scott has
shown the readers how the beginnings of gender itself is a product of its time, and can be
analyzed through the use of gender as its own category. Now, having looked at the origins of
gender in history, we must take Scott’s advice and look at how historians in the past and present
have used gender in their historical analysis.
First, we will look at the nineteenth century with Prescott’s History of the Conquest of
Mexico, first published in Boston, 1843. Immediately, the reader can make assumptions of the
work based on the time and place; three years before the Mexican American war and seven years
after the Texas Revolution. We, the readers, can also make assumptions based on general
knowledge of the time, such as patriarchy, and according to Scott and Novick, no women in
prominent positions in the historian profession, and no discussion of gender. Therefore, it is not
surprising to see that Prescott wrote a “great man” history about the Spanish conquest of Mexico,
with Hernando Cortés at the center of the story. Throughout the narrative Prescott refers to
Cortés as a “remarkable man” who completed his duty at all cost.25 Prescott also excused
Cortés’s behavior with an explanation of how the Spanish were accustomed to a typical but
chivalric form of assertion.26 Due to this supposed characteristic of the conquistadors, Cortés
should be given “vindication of his conduct,” because though he gave brutal punishments he was
22
Scott, 1057, 1058.
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Prescott, William, History of the Conquest of Mexico, (New York: Random House Inc., 1998), 186, 267.
26
Prescott, 203.
23
following orders.27 It is clear that Prescott strove to give a positive depiction of the “great man”
Cortés.
In the process, Prescott gave little to no information of women in his narrative. Gender is
a relationship in society between the two sexes, therefore it is important to include both. There is
one area in which Prescott did explain the role of women in the conquest of Mexico; specifically
the role of one woman, Marina, and her relationship with the hero of the story, Cortés. Marina
was the interpreter for Cortés so he could communicate with the indigenous population of
Mexico. Prescott gave brief background information on the woman including her birth place,
family upbringing, her journey to becoming a slave, and her ability to understand Spanish.28
During her enslavement, Marina (her Spanish given name) was given to the Spanish as a gift.29
Cortés was informed that Marina knew Spanish and the indigenous language(s) and therefore
made her his interpreter.30 Prescott explained the progression of services that Marina performed
for Cortés, “who appreciated the value of her services from the first,” beginning as interpreter.31
Then, Marina became his secretary, and won by her charms, Cortés made Marina his mistress.32
Throughout this mention of Marina, Prescott does give a relationship analysis of Cortés and
Marina. Cortés was very much the hero of the story, yet he was in need of Marina’s services as
an interpreter and a mistress, or so it would appear. Here, we see the power relationship aspect
of gender analysis take place. Cortés was in charge of Marina, certainly, and was also the
conqueror of the Mexican people. For Prescott, Cortés had the agency in the situation.
27
Prescott, 186, 330.
Prescott, 214.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
28
However, Prescott still noted that Marina was important to the operation of conquest. She was
an “aid” in the process, and mentioned in the “great man” narrative, yet did not have agency. 33
Perhaps unintentionally, Prescott did include a relationship of gender in his narrative.
Cortés seemed to embody the ultimate idea of masculinity of the time (both Cortés’s time of the
sixteenth century, and Prescott’s time of the nineteenth century) with his power and strength, and
of course his ability to seemingly single handedly conquer the Mexican people. Marina, on the
other hand, portrayed the femininity of Prescott’s time with her submissiveness to her patriarchal
master, her “uncommon personal attractions,” and her ability to bear a child of the hero, Cortés.34
Despite gender not yet existing as a means of historical analysis in Prescott’s time, he did include
some aspect of analysis by portraying the characters within the gender ideals of his modern day.
He also showed the relationship between Cortés and Marina in terms of power. Therefore, we
can observe that Prescott did not totally use gender in the terms that Scott suggested, however he
projected his time’s view of gender on his characters, and therefore gave the modern readers
insight as to what was considered masculine and feminine in 1843.
Secondly, we can look at Marc Bloch’s Feudal Society: Volume 1-The Growth and Ties
of Dependence, first published in 1939, France. Based on the publication date, we can see that
gender as a form of analysis was not yet part of the historian profession; so, Bloch too had the
tendency to focus on the male characters of the history of feudalism. In Part I, there was one
mention of female characters and it simply referred to “wives.”35 The rest of Part I focused on
men: Vikings, Hungarians, Moslems, Northmen, Mongols, and so on.36 We know that there
33
Prescott, 216.
Prescott, 214, 215.
35
Bloch, Marc, Feudal Society: Volume 1-The Growth and Ties of Dependence, (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1961), 39.
36
Bloch, 3, 15, 39.
34
were female Vikings, Hungarians, Mongols, and so on; however, Bloch chose to focus on the
male conquerors. There really was not a relational aspect throughout Part I. However, at the
beginning of Part II Bloch used more “gender neutral” terms such as “population,” “human
groups,” and “inhabitants.”37 Here, we can perhaps see an intentional inclusion of both men and
women in the areas, though not completely.
Later on throughout Part II Bloch referred back to masculine terms, pronouns, and
characters. For example, a reference to population density and agricultural regions, “whoever
dwelt there [desolate areas] as charcoal-burner, shepherd, hermit, or outlaw did so only at the
cost of a long separation form his fellow men.”38 Or in regards to pilgrims, “believed that he [the
pilgrims] could purchase salvation of the body….”39 And again in regards to economic class,
“As for knowledge of distant events, everyone, whatever his rank, was obliged to rely on change
encounters.”40 Bloch went on to reference specific men in history like Charles the Bald of
Rome, and other male historic figures.41 So, even though Part II began with seemingly gender
neutral terms, it was later made apparent that for Bloch human relationships meant between men,
and men only. One of the only feminine pronouns used was in reference to the personification of
nation states such as France, Germany, and Italy. Bloch used the pronouns “her” and “she” in
reference to these nation states.42 This is a weak example, and is seemingly the only time Bloch
gendered a general noun and made it feminine. It is not surprising that men should be the focus.
Bloch claimed, “This world, which, as we shall see, considered itself very old, was in fact
37
Bloch, 15-38, 61.
Bloch, 61. *Italics added for emphasis
39
Bloch, 63. *Italics added for emphasis
40
Bloch, 65. *Italics added for emphasis
41
Bloch, 61-63.
42
Bloch, 101.
38
governed by young men.”43 Since this is a book about Feudal society, which was governed by
men, it is to be expected that men should be the center of the narrative.
The man to man kinship continued in Part III. Bloch quoted a legal document that spoke
of a general law in terms of men as the center, “His friends, that is to say his mother, his
brothers, his sisters, and other relatives by blood or by marriage.”44 So, perhaps Bloch was
writing in the gender as per appropriate for the time he spoke of, as well as his own. Since this
legal document was from the eleventh century, and made references in the voice of a man, we
can conclude that at the very least legal aspects of the era focused on male participation and
rights. Even the institution of marriage was seen as the male had power, and women was the
benefactor. Bloch gave an instance in which women expressed their gratitude to prospective
husbands, whom they had never seen, with, “When you [prospective husband] married us, we
shall be rich ladies.”45 Through the relationship of marriage, men were the protectors and
women were grateful. This power relationship is dependent on gender ideals, and also reflects
the gender ideas of the feudalism era. We get a glimpse of the power relationship concept
connected with gender in regards to marriage, and also to rape.
Bloch gave a very brief overview of women as the victim of rape.46 Men were in charge
and women were literally forced to submit because they were weaker, both physically and
politically. However, there was an instance or two when a women did have power because of
her position in society as a women. For example, there was a story of a noble lady (a widow)
that lifted the drawbridge to her castle so she would not have to speak with the bishop.47
43
Bloch, 73.
Bloch, 123-124. *Italics added for emphasis
45
Bloch, 135.
46
Bloch, 124-125.
47
Bloch, 126.
44
Another example, a group on nuns made a petition on behalf of the men in their village (the
peasant men).48 Both of these instances showed a woman/women using what little power they
had to influence the men in charge. These examples are few and far between, but do exist.
Bloch chose to include them, but his overwhelming use of male pronouns and male figures
showed the power relationships between men and women; in that men were in charge, and
women were not. We see that men were central to this story and in charge because of gendering
the general nouns like “population,” “kinship,” “homage,” and “inhabitants.” For Bloch, gender
was not a lens of analysis, and if it was a subject, it was done inadvertently.
Thirdly, we will analyze E.P Thompson’s Making of the English Working Class, written
in the 1950’s, and published in 1963 in Yorkshire, England. Though we are getting closer to the
time of gender analysis included in historiography, this book was written in the time prior to the
emergence of gender in historiography. Throughout his book, Thompson focused on the
development of the working class in England from 1790-1850. His definition of class was,
“class happens when some men, as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), fell and
articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose
interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs.”49 The definition that Thompson
developed began with the idea of a relationship, but a relationship between men. It is important
to note that the definition for class was meant as a modern (Thompson’s modern, 1950’s)
definition of class, not a definition for the time period Thompson wrote about. This tells the
reader that first, the definition of class is consistent through time for Thompson. Second, class
was defined by relationships between men. Thompson said, “class is defined by men as they live
48
49
Bloch, 145.
Thompson, E.P., The Making of the English Working Class, (United States: Vintage Books, 1966), 9.
their own history, and in the end, this is its only definition.”50 According to Thompson’s
definition of class, and the “only definition,” gender analysis was not part of Thompson’s
narrative. Scott defined gender as a relationship between the sexes, and though Thompson did
include a relational aspect to his definition, it was not a relationship between the sexes, but rather
a relationship between men alone. Thompson referred to “human relationships” and “the
individual,” however, used masculine gendered pronouns in reference to those same groups.51 It
is possible that when saying “he” or “men” that Thompson intended to be inclusive of all of
society, as would have been common for the mid-twentieth century; though this still does not
include a true gender analysis. As Thompson continued throughout his narrative almost all of his
examples involved prominent male figures within the development of the English working class.
Thompson referred to several specific men and their work. For example, Thompson
pointed to Thomas Paine more than two dozen times throughout the book. Thompson especially
focused on Paine’s work The Rights of Man, written in 1791, and gave the work great praise and
influence over the process of the development of the English working class.52 Paine’s The Rights
of Man was one of the two foundation texts for the English working class movement (Pilgrim’s
Progress being the other).53 Throughout the narrative, there were more men of prominence that
graced the pages, such as Mr. Pitt (Prime Minister), the ministers of the Anglican and Methodist
churches, as well as several individual men mentioned once or twice.54 These men were most
likely mentioned because they were encouraged to be vocal and noticeable in their society of
50
Thompson, 11.
Thompson, 9, 11.
52
Thompson, 31.
53
Ibid.
54
Thompson, all.
51
1790-1850, whereas women were not. However, that does not mean that women were absent
from the movement, simply the history.
Thompson rarely included women into the narrative. First, he referenced Wesley’s ideas
on “brotherhood” and “sisterhood,” and distinguished that there were seemingly separate groups
within the movement.55 This does not appear to be an attempt to explain the relationship
between the sexes as Scott suggested was necessary for true gender analysis in history.
Furthermore, if Thompson did mention a woman, it was done so only when necessary to the
narrative. For example, Hannah More was mentioned in conjunction with her famous husband,
William Wilberforce, because Thompson referenced the sensibility of the Victorian middle class
being modeled after the married couple.56 Therefore, it was necessary to include both man and
wife in the statement. However, the inclusion of women, or any sort of discussion of
relationships between the sexes remained scarce.
As quickly as the narrative included women, it ignored them once again. Chapter four is
entitled “The Free-born Englishman.”57 This leaves little wiggle room in forgiving Thompson
for having not included women. This title explicitly referred to the “man.” The word
“Englishmen” may be left to some interpretation. Perhaps Thompson was including women in
that statement with the ever so common “men” statement. However, this title said “man,” a
singular use that signifies the inclusion of such a “man,” and certainly not a woman. Likewise,
Part II of the book was titled “The Curse of Adam.”58 Here, Thompson referred to the labor
aspect of life because of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. This title
can be interpreted as inclusive of both sexes in the labor force, however Thompson mentioned
55
Thompson, 47.
Thompson, 57.
57
Thompson, 77.
58
Thompson, 189.
56
female domestic labor once, and then focused on the labor of men.59 Thompson, once again,
used general terms such as “field laborer,” “artisan,” and “weaver,” but used masculine pronouns
in reference to those groups. The majority of the time spent in this narrative in reference to
people of the working class movement were in masculine terms. Thompson did not include a
gender history in his narrative of the making of the English working class. Rather, he focused on
the role of men in the movement, and mentioned women or a woman only when absolutely
necessary.
Fourthly, we will look at William Cronon’s Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and
the Ecology of New England, first published in 1983 in the United States. This book falls within
the timeframe of gender history’s emergence into the historian profession. Therefore, Cronon
wrote in a time where he would have been aware of the inclusion of women in history so that a
relationship between the sexes could be examined for the benefit of understanding history more
effectively. Cronon’s book certainly reflects this awareness as seen with his gender neutrality
when speaking of general people groups, and explanation of relationships between men and
women of both the Colonists and the Native Americans. For example, virtually all of Part I is
devoid of gender specifics. Cronon used the phrase “human beings,” “Europeans,” “peoples,”
and “European visitors” and the pronoun “they” throughout the section.60 It is not that Cronon
ignored gender, but seemed to be mindful of gender in his analysis. He used gender to explain
the human relationships to the environment, just as Scott suggested. Gender was one of the
lenses that Cronon used in his analysis of changes in the land.
59
Thompson, 234.
Cronon, William, Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England, (New York: Hill
and Wang, 2003), 11, 19, 33.
60
Cronon is careful to include both male and female jobs within the Native American tribes
of New England, so as to explain a fuller scope of the changes in the land. The women had
specific jobs, such as the collection of tidal sea animals and bird eggs, so the tribe had a steady
diet.61 In relation to the women’s jobs, the men were in charge of hunting and fishing.62 The
men “were responsible for killing these animals, while women maintained the campsite and did
all hauling and processing of the slaughtered meat.”63 The sexual division of labor was very well
defined, not unlike other civilizations that previous authors have written about.64 However, what
is distinctly different with Cronon’s work is his willingness to discuss the division of labor and
explore the relationships between the sexes so as to understand the history better. For example,
women’s work involved gathering and working the fields because it was easier to take care of
children, while the men hunted.65 Since women were not farming in the winter, they would
spend the winter season making clothing, while the men used times back at the camp to relax and
recuperate from the long hunting excursions.66 Cronon shows that there was a relationship
between the men and women, and how their roles were gendered. Instead of just focusing on the
men’s work or the women’s work, he included both in relation to one another so that the reader
could see that each had their role in their society.
Cronon continues on to discuss the differences in regions. In northern New England, the
men provided for more than half the village’s food, and in the south women were more
significant in providing the food.67 Cronon also used gender as a lens in terms of ownership.
The Native American women owned the wigwams and most household goods and men owned
61
Cronon, 39, 40.
Cronon, 40.
63
Ibid.
64
Cronon, 44.
65
Ibid.
66
Cronon, 46, 47.
67
Cronon, 44.
62
their hunting equipment.68 Native American sexes owned the goods that were associated with
their tasks, as determined by their gender.69 The use of gender is synonymous to what Scott
suggested. Cronon used gender as a lens to view the labor of the Native Americans in order to
understand the history of the changed land in New England.
Finally, Cronon used gender to show the differences between the European and Native
American schools of thought. The Europeans thought that “only Indian women appeared to do
legitimate work; the men idled away their time in hunting, fishing, and wantonly burning the
woods, none of which seemed like genuinely productive activities to Europeans.”70 For
Europeans of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries found activities like fishing and hunting
as leisure activities, not a necessity to survival. 71 Also, the European men thought Native
American women were like slaves with their hard labor in the fields. In contrast, the Native
Americans mocked the Europeans for not working their women harder.72 The Native Americans
wondered why men worked the fields, a feminine task, and what contribution women made to
society and survival.73 There was a clear misconception on both party’s account of the other’s
sexual division of labor. Cronon explains this misconception through the lens of gender.
Camilla Townsend also used gender as a lens in her book Malintzin’s Choices: An Indian
Woman in the Conquest of Mexico, first published in 2006 in the United States. Townsend
focuses on the life of the young woman who translated for Cortés during the conquest of Mexico.
However, “despite the focus on Malintzin, it is more than the story of one woman’s life; it is an
68
Cronon, 45, 61.
Cronon, 61.
70
Cronon, 52.
71
Ibid.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
69
exploration of indigenous experience in her era.”74 One of the ways that Townsend explores the
indigenous experience in the sixteenth century is through the lens of gender. This book is not the
“great woman” historical response to Prescott’s “great man” history. Rather, this book uses the
experience of a woman to shed light on a society.
Townsend certainly focused on the life of Malintzin, but also included some examples of
relations between the sexes in the indigenous society, as well as within the interactions with the
conquistadors. For example, Townsend began chapter one with a juxtaposition between the birth
of a Spanish prince (Prince Charles) and an Indian girl (Malintzin).75 Both of the newborns will
play significant roles in the narrative, however, the juxtaposition showed that there were
differences between the two cultures, and between the two genders. Townsend continued in her
focus on Malintzin and applies it to the indigenous population as a whole in terms of
womanhood and manhood. “Like all girls, she [Malintzin] knew that women had their
importance, that the men needed them as much as they needed the men.”76 There was a
foundational relationship between the Aztec men and women based on a mutual need for each
other.
Gender was also used as a lens for emphasis of a woman’s position, and Townsend does
this by comparing the gendered roles of the indigenous peoples. Women knew that “in
protecting the hearth, the home,” they “protected life itself,” and “tended their homes just as
devotedly as priests and priestesses tended the temples.”77 Also, “just as a man became a hero in
battle, a woman became a hero in giving birth.”78 Likewise, just as men who died in battle were
Townsend, Camilla, Malintzin’s Choices: An Indian Woman in the Conquest of Mexico, (United States:
University of New Mexico Press, 2006), 8.
75
Townsend, 11.
76
Townsend, 17.
77
Ibid.
78
Townsend, 17, 18.
74
believed to have special honor in the afterlife, so were women who died in childbirth.79 Their
femininity, and gendered role of being the home builder and child bearer was their “battle
ground,” their ultimate sacrifice. Gendered roles were used to explain the experience of, in this
case, the indigenous women. Men were the literal warriors in battles, and women were the
“warriors” of the home. Townsend used the relationship between men and women’s jobs to
show the social context of Malintzin’s world. The relationship went deeper with the “simple fact
that men and their households could not eat without the labor of women—as became painfully
obvious every time an angry wife delayed a meal.”80 Townsend uses the relationship between
the gendered tasks and the genders themselves to express the experience of the indigenous
people.
Townsend uses the interactions between men and women showed the power relationship
as well. Men did the physical fighting for the protection of the village, thereby giving them
power to keep their people alive.81 Women provided the labor for the food, and also were given
power to keep their families alive, as was seen with the example of the angry wife delaying the
meal.82 However, the relationship between the indigenous people and the Spanish was not
mutual, as expressed through the gendered roles of the female slaves. The indigenous people
gave the Spanish slave women as gifts, and the women were treated as slaves for sexual
pleasure.83 This gendered interaction, with women as the sexual objects and men as the owners,
shows the power of the Spanish. After the Spanish conquered Mexico, “women were no longer
the complementary equals of men but rather were deemed to be inferior and allowed fewer legal
79
Townsend, 18.
Ibid.
81
Townsend, 33.
82
Townsend, 18.
83
Townsend, 36.
80
rights….”84 Again, gender was used as a lens to show the context of Malintzin’s situation, as
well as the situation of her people. Townsend is consistent in her ability to show the experience
of the indigenous people through the life of a young woman, and from time to time using gender
as a lens to further understand that experience.
Finally, we will look at Nicole Eustace’s book, Passion is the Gale: Emotion, Power, and
the Coming of the American Revolution, published in 2008 in the United States. Eustace’s book
is an emotion history that aids in explaining the lead up to the American Revolution. Eustace
claims that “human nature” includes the ability for all humans to feel emotions, thereby showing
the equality in emotion.85 Though there is equality in emotion, there is also gendering in
emotion. Eustace used gender as a lens to observe the rationale behind emotions as they were
assigned to different groups of people.
Emotions were gendered by determination of what sex should feel certain emotions. The
gendering gave power to the emotions. “While is it easy to assume that emotion is always
automatically emasculating…the opposite was actually the case.”86 The ability to express love
was “integral to the refined eighteenth century masculine ideal.”87 Eustace combined these
eighteenth century ideals with Thomas Paine’s metaphoric relationship of husband and wife
between America and Great Britain.88 Paine compared the newly founded United States of
America as divorcing Great Britain, not because they didn’t love Britain, but because they were
no longer being treated with the respect a spouse deserved. “Paine transformed Britain’s
masculine paternal position into a stance of sinful feminine submission.”89 This, in the end,
84
Townsend, 177.
Eustace, Nicole, Passion is the Gale: Emotion, Power, and the Coming of the American Revolution, (United
States: University of North Carolina Press, 2008), 5.
86
Eustace, 468.
87
Ibid.
88
Ibid.
89
Ibid.
85
made “Britain more—not less—feminine as the result of ‘her’ failures of feeling.”90 In contrast,
America was the “man” trying to put his house in order.91 Here, Eustace explains the gendering
that occurred in the eighteenth century in Paine’s metaphor, but also uses gender as a lens to
better understand the situation. Great Britain was made to be the woman, submissive and not in
charge, whereas America was the man, in charge and also establishing his new “home.” Because
Eustace uses the gendered emotions of colonial America, we the reader now have a fuller
understanding of how America viewed itself and its once unloving and submissive “wife.”
Eustace also shows that before the revolution there were gendered determinations on not just
America and Britain, but on groups of people as well.
Eustace used gender as a lens of understanding how certain people groups interacted with
others and how they were observed. One example of such determinism was the Quakers. The
masculinity of the Quaker men was often questioned due to the common characteristic of
pacifism among Quakers.92 Since the Quaker men were unwilling to fight, they were seen as
unwilling to protect their women and children.93 This made people dismiss the Quakers as “an
insensible and effeminate people.”94 Here, we see that there were certain gender roles that if not
performed caused emasculation. In colonial America, men were seen as the protectors and
women as the benefactors of said protection. These were the “basic” gender roles of the time.
Since Quaker men did not physically fight to protect their women and children and were
therefore deemed as feminine.
90
Ibid.
Ibid.
92
Eustace, 363.
93
Eustace, 224.
94
Ibid.
91
Another example of gender projection onto people groups were the British and the
French. The Native Americans gave a negative assessment of the British manhood, which was
not unusual.95 Mohawk Indians called the French manly, but the English were “all like women,
bare and open without any fornications.”96 There was a comparison made between men and
women, showing somewhat of the relational aspect that Scott suggests in historical analysis.
Again, we see that gender was used to show the masculinity, or lack thereof, of people groups.
Such distinctions were made through relations with the people groups, and observations of their
practices. Eustace uses gender as a lens to show the emotions, or feelings, certain peoples felt
about others.
Gender emerged in the historian profession in the late twentieth century. The historians
previous discussed reflect the time before and after the emergence. Using Novick and Scott’s
background analysis on the beginnings of gender in the historian profession, and using Scott’s
definition for gender analysis, we can effectively trace the works of different authors in
accordance with their context of writing. Prescott, Bloch, and Thompson all wrote before gender
analysis was included in historiography. All three authors reflect their period of writing as prior
to gender analysis with their heavy focus on the male participation in and reflection of history.
Cronon, Scott, Novick, Townsend, and Eustace all wrote after gender had appeared in the
historian profession. They used gender as either a subject or a lens in their analysis of different
areas of history. All of these authors reflect the period in which they wrote. The authors that
ignored gender left a large piece of the story behind, and left the reader with a less than
satisfying story. However, those that include gender gave a more complete analysis, and
ultimately show that gender truly is a useful category for historical analysis.
95
96
Eustace, 362.
Ibid.