FinalMaster'sEssay

A Feminist Perspective of Historical Reproduction: The Civilian Civil War Reenacting Community

By

Kristen Mrozek

AN ESSAY

Submitted to the College of Liberal Arts and SciencesWayne State University

Detroit, Michiganin partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

August 2014

MAJOR: Composition and Rhetoric

APPROVED BY:

______________________________

Advisor Date

______________________________

Co-Advisor Date

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Background 6

The Sewing Academy Site 12

Reconstruction and Construction 15

The Octolog Series in Rhetorical History 20

Feminist Histories of Rhetoric 26

Arguments of Historical Construction:

Mainstream vs. Progressive Perspective 33

Conclusion 40

2

Introduction

As thousands of people each year attend Civil War reenactments across the

United States, reenactors play a considerable role in creating a history that is often left

out of traditional studies of the 19th century. These recreations were at one time only a

display of military involvement, lacking any civilian participation or context that is so

common at reenactments today. During and immediately after the Civil War, the men

who had participated in its battles would commemorate them through performance of

their own personal understanding of the war. Soldiers gave demonstrations of their

military lives to family and friends, often using the clothing and weapons they had used

during the war as props. Many soldiers wished to recreate the sense of camaraderie that

they experienced with one another during the war (Hadden 4). The original cast of

reenactors was actually the same men who had fought the battles.

In the 1950s, Civil War reenacting began to gain traction in the United States. The

southern states attempted to keep the memory of the war alive with confederate flags and

social groups. The artifacts of the confederacy represented a cultural heritage that many

reenactors could trace through family lineage, with articles such as guns or uniforms.

(Mittelstaedt 5). Many years after the last of the veterans of the Civil War had died, these

artifacts and reproductions became the most visual representations of the war. Reenactors

made costumes and planned parades and rallies, though such gatherings were not as

popular in the northern states. Soldiers visually commemorated the major skirmishes on

the original battlefields such as Gettysburg, and nearly all of the participants were men,

with few appropriate roles allotted for females or other non-military representation.

3

Recently movements within the reenacting community have created an

environment that promotes other social histories, rather than the traditional, male-oriented

approach to representing the past. In this study, I will focus on how these civilian

reenactors construct a reenactor’s history through The Sewing Academy website, and

how the reconstruction of the social history of women comes from non-traditional texts,

such as clothing.

In order to present to the public, military and civilian reenactors must interpret

original historical documents, both textual and photographic. The texts selected reflect

the understanding of history that the reenactor values. As Kevin Brooks notes, the

selection of certain texts and genres while constructing history is a representation of the

researcher’s own “political expression” (Brooks 13). Today’s civilian reenactor

represents the political shift of mostly military reenactment to civilian reproduction

through the use of alternative texts and sources that pertain to 19th century civilian life.

The Internet created a global network that has allowed female reenactors to share

their research of marginalized groups of the 19th century with other reenactors looking for

ways to participate at reenactments. Websites connect reenactors from all over the United

States, creating a larger audience that can research history as a group. At the beginning of

the Internet age, reenactor websites traditionally represented groups with only military

members and their conversations. Recently female reenactors have contributed research,

though only in the past ten years has there been an emphasis on period accuracy and

representing civilian life of the 19th century.

The purpose of this study is to better understand reconstructions and

transmissions of history between female reenactors from a feminist rhetorical

4

perspective. The sources used to construct an account of previously marginalized groups

of the 19th century represent a shift in the gendered politics of Civil War reenacting,

especially through its Progressive and Mainstream movements. Similarly, current

academic research within rhetorical studies reveals dissent regarding the representation of

non-traditional histories. This paper will use those academic discussions to examine the

Sewing Academy website, as well as two historical demonstration factions that are

prominent in research movements found in the Civil War reenacting community today, in

order to show trends in its approaches to historical reproduction.

5

Background

Large-scale reenactments of the Civil War became visible on the American

landscape in the 1950s in anticipation of the centennial commemoration of the Civil War.

By that time the last of the veterans of the war had died, creating a lack of primary

observers of the conflict. The North-South Skirmish Association (NSSA) formed in 1950,

mostly in order to demonstrate weapons of the Civil War (Turner 123). In May 1950, ten

men in Maryland completed such a display in front of a small crowd. These reenactments

consisted of military exhibition, though participants did don the blue and gray uniforms

to create an atmosphere of authenticity. Information about women or other aspects of

daily life during the 19th century was not available to the public at that time.

The popularity of Civil War reenacting continued after the centennial

celebrations, though the emphasis remained on the actual battles and military

performance. By 1961 some 2,000 members of the NSSA clashed for the first large-scale

reenactment of the Battle of Manassas (Davis 19). By 1988, the Gettysburg reenactment

in honor of the 125th anniversary of that battle boasted at least 12,000 men on the field.

The sesquicentennial battle in 2013 included between 30,000 and 40,000 reenactors.

Obviously reenacting has expanded since the first ten-man team, although official

statistics do not include the non-military participants of later events.

The NSSA no longer exists; in its place other reenacting groups formed across the

continental U.S. Nearly every state that was involved in the conflict has a unit, and a few

units have mustered in states that never saw action during the Civil War. For example,

events have sprung up in Southern California, including Northern and Southern camp life

6

representation. The state of Michigan boasts a group of reenactors representing the 5th

Texas and other southern units that would not have been present in Michigan.

Up until recently, both reenactments and the corresponding reenacting groups did

not include history outside of military interaction. Research about women and other

aspects of civilian life were not mentioned often, as noticed by reenactor Rory Turner in

his personal examination of their role: “What is reenacting like for women?” he asks. “As

a man it is difficult for me to say: Women generally participate by playing marginal

roles-camp followers or visitors to their men folk” (Turner 131). Occasionally a woman

at a reenactment will dress up as a man, but it is uncommon within the ranks. Turner

notes that the modern female reenactor did not normally play a significant role at most

reenactments; the bulk of the performance belonged to the husbands and sons they

supported marching in the field. Women were still relegated to the sidelines.

The emergence of the Internet created an environment open to research-

supportive sites for reenactors interested in more than just the traditional male-oriented

reenacting roles; women’s social history became more prominent. Publications such as

The Camp Chase Gazette and The Civil War Campaigner showed a deeper public interest

in the civilian perspective on history (Clark, Interview). These reenactor-centered

magazines were not just focused on the military aspects of the war. Most recently The

Citizen’s Companion, founded in April 1994, marked the shift from simply a military

performance to an all-encompassing representation of the Civil War within the context of

the 19th century, including a prominent female perspective.

I am personally interested in the issue of female reenactors because I participated

with my stepmother in many Civil War reenacting events as a “camp follower.” Those

7

events motivated my eventual involvement as a reenactor later in life, and became the

inspiration for this study. Upon the recommendations of her unit, the 5th Texas, my

stepmother purchased cooking and camping supplies. She completed limited amounts of

research about her representation of history to the public, though she did make an effort

to purchase items that “looked old.” My sister and I took part in a few of the events as a

family bonding activity.

I wore a dress and played along, bringing a wooden writing desk to pretend that I

was writing a letter. Visitors asked about my activities, and I needed to reference other

texts I had read from the same time period, including poetry. I was fascinated by a

schoolteacher impression that I witnessed, and memorized an Emily Dickinson poem to

contribute to a candlelight tour of the schoolhouse.

Through my teenage and college years I could not participate, as reenacting

required money, time, and dedication. The year after my graduation from the University

of Michigan, I found the 21st Michigan website and filled out the group application. I

wanted a welcoming community in which I could interact and bond with its members.

I joined a group that was already close-knit. Ken Giorlando, the civilian

coordinator, helped me examine my reenacting gear to determine what was “correct.” I

was captivated by his fascination with “accuracy,” the idea that history could be found in

perfect condition with proper research. Giorlando specialized in marginalized histories of

the 19th century; his own impression as a postmaster strayed from the traditional male

interpretations of history found at reenactments. The group welcomed my own research

for a female perspective, although finding primary texts for female social history was

difficult. I found that artifacts concerning men, such as guns, letters, and other articles of

8

daily life, were easier to find. Texts associated with females were not as carefully

preserved. However, I continued my research to create my own interpretation of a woman

from the 19th century, a task more difficult than the re-creation of a man.

My reenactment at Greenfield Village in May 2011 marked my first official

reconstruction of a persona through performance art. Interpreting sources, I portrayed a

schoolteacher, though my setting was not completely accurate. I became engrossed in the

character. I was not aware of precisely when I began to construct my persona, only that it

felt more accurate to find one character and research her thoroughly. I also had a modern

perspective of the field of education; at the time I had also began my teaching career at

Anchor Bay High School, in Chesterfield, Michigan.

While pursuing my research, I wondered at the many reenactors’ lack of

education. I wanted to be as accurate as possible with my persona, and used my

background in academic English to help me conduct research. I began with recommended

texts from Giorlando’s library, ones that strayed from the traditional, male-centered

perspective on history. My first purchase within the reenactor-writing genre was Who

Wore What, by Juanita Leisch. Photographic evidence mixed with primary sources lent

an almost scientific approach to the construction of physical appearance. It also

encouraged more academic research into previously marginalized works, such as Godey’s

Ladies’ Book or Peterson’s Magazine, important magazines written for and by females of

the 19th century.

As my participation continued, I chose other personas to reenact based on my

research. Other reenactors directed me to The Sewing Academy, an online archive of

questions and answers from civilians within the Civil War reenacting community (most

9

participants on the site are female). Elizabeth Stewart Clark began the site in 2006 with

the intention of including the non-traditional participants of the Civil War. Marginalized

roles that were not quite as popular to portray during previous reenacting years have

grown to be common on the site. The topics range from clothing to cooking, and even

include an educational section where readers learn about upcoming classes or seminars.

Reenactors also discuss their constructions of history through texts that are typically

forgotten when reenacting groups participate in most modern reenactments.

Throughout my research, I found Clark’s website and posts to be helpful and

honest; she wanted to create a collective social history for women. From Clark’s

researched articles I discovered that different women constructed social history in

different ways, and that I could not find a complete “correct” guide to unify the group.

Yet all of these women inhabit the same online space, attempting to recreate a history that

is unique in the male-centric reenacting community.

My time with the reenactors made me wonder the how of their reconstructions, as

their reproductions have implications for the academic community. Is it important to be

able to tell the public that zippers were not yet used on clothing? How is this research

shared and represented in this performance art? What texts are necessary for

understanding how reenactors communicate their research with one another?

Through The Sewing Academy website, I found several distinct historical

movements that have become popular. “Progressives” attempt to recreate history as

closely as possible in dress and manner, while “Mainstream” reenactors tend to slip out

of character when the public leaves a reenactment. I began to realize the importance of

10

non-traditional texts like clothing, and how understanding these texts was essential to

comprehending social histories of marginalized groups, such as women.

As a graduate student in rhetoric at Wayne State University, I have studied

different forms of historical construction, and how feminist theories of historical

construction question the creation of marginalized histories. Thus I chose The Sewing

Academy as the focus of my research for the reconstruction of history, and a body of

scholarship from feminist rhetorical history as my theoretical basis.

11

The Sewing Academy Site

Elizabeth Clark first began the forum site as an outlet for her custom work with

children’s clothing. Clark noted the original purpose of the site, adding that “The whole

website was made because I need places to put things. It’s a great outlet for me” (Clark,

Interview with Elizabeth Clark). She formed the first website in 2003 with at least one

other forum, both lost to hard drive and database crashes. The current site, with minor

adjustments for technological upgrades, has remained the same since 2006.

Clark did not intend for the site to become such a force within the reenacting

community; its evolution surprises her: “I have watched it change,” she says. “It has a

much bigger emphasis on context for society of the time. There is a sense of how deeply

complex the society truly was, especially concerning women” (Clark, Interview).

The site’s statistics lend credence to Clark’s statement and demonstrate its

popularity. Since 2006, the site boasts 133,343 posts under seven main categories alone.

Members are deleted after a year of inactivity on the site, with 500-600 stable members in

any given year. Participants cover various topics, with an average of 50 posts per day.

Statistically, the ratio of men to women registered on the site is one man for every 9.2

women (Clark, Interview). This trend is indicative of a growing interest by female

reenactors representing social histories of 19th century women and their contributions to

the Civil War.

The forums are just one aspect of the site. On “The Compendium” page, Clark

lists articles she authored on a range of topics pertaining to civilian reenacting life.

12

Topics range from hygiene to ethical dressmaking, both important aspects of the civilian

performance, and uncharacteristic of early reenactor texts.

Clark utilized her academic training in order to create the site; she studied at

Portland State University, with a focus on history. Clark added that, ”When I first got into

this, the Citizens Companion was the place to get published. There were no publications

that were geared toward civilian life, especially for women” (Clark, Interview). The

Sewing Academy filled a growing need within the reenacting community, one that would

support the representation of previously untold social histories.

With increasing popularity, Clark has seen the need for more resources, as even

The Sewing Academy site has its topic limitations. She remarked “We’re starting a

secondary site this January [2015]. It will be a spot to go to find resources, a good place

for educators, reenactors, women, everyone in one spot. We will make it accessible, non-

subscription, as visible as possible…just a great place to bring small passions, a view of

the whole world.” (Clark, Interview). Perhaps the most important aspect of this newer site

will be its visibility. Clark’s intent is to make all reenactors aware of the current research,

with an open forum on which to share that information with one another.

Clark also notes that reenactors tend to fall into several categories of approaches

to the nature of history and their role in presenting it through their performances. The

largest category of reenactors is generally referred to as “Mainstream,” and includes

those who rarely stray from the primary sources or mainstream ideas about history

without research to support all aspects of their presentation. A growing number of

reenactors are often called “Progressive,” differing from the Mainstream reenactors in

that they will often search for texts outside of the accepted canon. Both Mainstream and

13

Progressive reenactors will refer to other reenactors as “Farby,” a derogatory term that

describes reenactors who use no historical sources in their performance. In the discussion

that follows, I link the Mainstream and Progressive approaches to reenactment to

academic perspectives on history-the “reconstructionist and “constructionist”

perspectives respectively.

14

Reconstruction and Construction

Historical reconstruction and construction are present within the reenactor

community; both approaches to history are characterized by historian Alun Munslow in

his book The Nature of History. In this section I state the defining beliefs of each

movement and compare and contrast their methods of reproducing history, which will

later connect to research movements within the Civil War reenacting community.

Empiricism is a guide for reconstructionist historians, who, as Munslow explains,

believe that “the past can be ‘known’ truthfully under the careful and responsible tutelage

of the knowledgeable and scrupulous historian that stands outside his/her own existence

or situation” (Munslow 7). Reconstructionists consider the possibility of a historical truth,

that the past can be honestly represented without the influence of the person constructing

it. Empiricism is the vehicle through which reconstructionists find truth.

Munslow notes that research for the reconstructionist movement relies on

empiricism to guide its selection of historical reproduction. He further describes that

history for reconstructionists “is about empiricism first, last, and always” (Munslow 9).

Accurate historical accounts can exist without the influences of their creator; more

importantly, without empiricism, the act of reproducing history is at stake: “Empiricism

is further vindicated as being the only defense against the worst mistake that historians

can make-the fall from objectivity into relativism” (Munslow 8). Just as history may be

accurately portrayed, it can also be falsely represented; empiricism is a safeguard against

such falsehoods.

15

Yet there are limitations to empiricism according to Munslow. Not only does the

text link the narrative to the historical moment, but also the human influence in which the

historian writes, as Munslow believes: “we enter the universe of judgments, encodations,

descriptions, depictions, ethics values, images, metaphors, decisions, verdicts, and

interpretations of texts” (Munslow 9). Such is the greatest weakness, Munslow maintains,

of reconstructionist theory; a ‘reality’ created without mention of the outside influences

does not fully comprehend the scope of the historical moment. Most often,

reconstructionist historians use the text as the primary source of their research, a tricky

feat given the influence of the author in any given text.

Using the text as a guide can also be problematic for the reconstructionist

movement. Munslow notes the challenging feature of that resource: “While still

defending the strong possibility of knowing the truth back there through the facts, there is

at least some acknowledgement that it is a flawed exercise, albeit because of problems

with the sources rather than with any more significant problem of knowing.” (Munslow

9). The ‘temperate’ reconstructionist finds problems with the text, rather than the act of

interpreting the text as true knowledge of the past. In other words, the text did not

accurately depict history, thus the historian cannot be faulted for using an inaccurate text

to reconstruct events.

Similarly, constructionist historians believe they can explain the past with

empirical examination that the truth of history can be found with the correct research.

Munslow breaks down constructionism using empiricism as an anchor for his argument:

“Constructionism is thus, as suggested, empiricism married to varying levels of social

theory and to more or less complex forms of explanatory conceptualism” (Munslow 11).

16

A truth-seeking attitude is common between both construction and reconstruction, with

“explanatory conceptualism” showing that at least constructionism can see the process as

flawed. For constructionist historians, the narrative itself cannot accurately represent

history, unlike the possibility of the “objective” history by reconstructionists.

The constructionist application of source material is also different, using

positivism as the primary research method. Munslow cites French sociologist Auguste

Comte’s theory of understanding: “Based on objective, distanced empirical observation,

positivism suggested that it was possible to explain human society in a fashion similar to

that of science through the discovery of society’s mechanics and the laws of human

behavior” (Munslow 9). By studying the civilization and the way it works, positivist

historians believe they can reproduce a portrait of the time. Research of the social

“mechanics” is a part of the “bigger picture,” one that can actually predict what would

have happened in history based on models of human behavior.

The study of “regular patterns of human behavior” allows for a factual basis that

could represent the past, an empirical approach. By seeking social, political, and

economic structures, constructivist historians believe they can see beneath the surface of

the text. “Truth,” for both reconstruction and construction, occupies a definite space, with

fact differing from fiction. However, the interpretations of “truth” can differ, according to

constructionists; history can be made ‘objective’ through the lens of those social,

political, and economic perspectives. Reconstructionists emphasize the historical

narrative, while constructionists realize that such a genre cannot fully realize the scope of

the past, and social construction is necessary to grasp the full scope of historical events.

17

Here Munslow employs Gardiner to explain social construction: “The fact that the

historian’s interest is directed upon particular events rather than upon universal laws is a

fact about the purpose of history and not a fact about the type of event with which history

deals” (Munslow 9). The purpose of history depends on the historian creating it, with

social construction used as a wider lens by the constructivist historians. This is one of the

key differences between the two movements, and yet even constructionists use empirical

methods to explain their research.

The greatest point of distinction for the two movements is the idolizing of the

narrative as a vehicle to describe history. Munslow recalls reconstructionist historian

John Tosh, who believes that the narrative of the text is employed as a mechanism for

historical reproduction, with an emerging story still possible (Munslow 11). Munslow

adds to this theory: “Unlike reconstructionists, constructionists accept that getting at the

story is not simply assured by a detailed knowledge of the sources” (Munslow 11). Yet

by believing in the text as a primary source and that an accurate reproduction based on

the text is a possibility, reconstructionism and constructionism remain somewhat static.

Both movements attempt to mitigate this flaw by creating a distinction between

the historian and the past, as if such a distance can create a more objective history. The

historian can use the text, but does not necessarily have to be influenced by it. However,

the method in which the text is used as a tool of analysis creates another point of

divergence between the two movements, as Munslow notes how constructionists create

history, adding that: “…unlike reconstructionists [constructionists] do this by viewing the

concepts and tools of analysis as serving the evidence, rather than as impositions upon it”

(Munslow 11). The investigation for historical accuracy is used as an addition to the

18

evidence already present, not conflicting with the original source. The evidence of history

is served by the constructionists’ approach to finding it.

Reconstructionism and constructionism are common historical perspectives

within the academic community, with both groups proposing various methods of finding

truth in history. In the field of rhetoric, scholars have long debated how best to represent

the field’s history, including not only its established canon of texts but also those

produced by so-called “marginal” figures such as women and African Americans. The

“Octolog” series, consisting of eight articles published in the Rhetoric Review from 1988-

2011 presents varied perspectives on the field’s history from a range of rhetorical

scholars. The Octolog series began as a panel of eight professors within the field of

rhetoric, and continues as a forward thinking guide for historians and rhetoricians alike.

In the next section I will discuss the perspective of several scholars published in

the Octolog series, noting two different examples voiced by Vicki Burton and Ronald

Jackson that provide varying levels of the reconstructionist perspective of history. Also, I

will examine Edward Schiappa and Jay Dolmage and their constructionist approach to

creating history.

19

Reconstruction and Construction in the Octolog Series on Rhetorical History

A brief view of the Octolog series reveals that reconstructionism and

constructionism are both alive and well in approaches to writing histories of rhetoric.

While most scholars participating in the series believed that marginalized groups

deserved greater representation in the canon of rhetorical texts, not all took a radically

innovative approach to accomplishing that task. In this section I will show the discussion

between historians of both historical movements, and the implications of the Octolog

series on future research.

Vicki Burton’s study, “Ethos in the Archives,” indicates she believes that settling

into documentation allows for a deeper analysis of history, as she states that “We enact a

deeper ethos of knowledge and character by a willingness to dwell with the documents, to

practice slow reading as we lift rhetors from their musty folders, seeking clues to their

rhetorical situations and literacy practices.” (Burton, Octolog 1 112) This “slow reading”

allows for the reader to rely on the text, and “seeking clues” will allow for greater

knowledge. Burton portrays the text as a guide, a way to find the truth from “musty

folders.” She emulates the reconstructionist belief that the truth of history can be found in

the text, that the longer the historian “dwells” in the documents, the more the text will

reveal. Yet such an emphasis on the document itself can be detrimental, as Munslow

notes, especially if it disregards other situational factors, such as socially constructed

norms.

In keeping with modern reconstructionists, Burton goes a step further to admit her

faults when relaying history, as she states “We admit the partialness and situated nature

of our knowledge” (Burton, Octolog 1 112). Burton makes allowances for her own

20

personal outside influences, making the text a neutral ground. A reconstructionist

historian’s knowledge of history becomes a legitimate truth, one with its origins in the

text itself. A major basis in the text can be problematic; as Munslow believes, the text

itself can be biased.

While Burton’s assessment of the text makes it the primary resource for research,

she does take a constructionist approach to examining the text, arguing for a deeper look

at the “city, buildings, artifacts,” the systems that house the text. While she does seek to

look beyond the text, her main assessment of history is based on sources found in the

archives, more often texts selected by traditional research methods. Often, even those are

edited; the inclusion of women’s writing into selected readings or the canon shows the

lack of an all-embracing view of feminist rhetoric. By situating the archives as the

“place” to settle in the text, she ignores alternative resources that could represent history,

such as clothing or oral histories. Burton leaves the truth of history within the text by

dwelling there, a reconstructionist perspective that panelists discussed in the Octolog

series.

Another rhetorician, Ronald Jackson, notes the need to step outside of the

traditional text, explaining that the study of African American identity within the

academic community needs to be more available to students today. Standing between

reconstructionism and constructionism, Jackson notes his study of a progressive

pedagogy, wondering whose “legacies and traditions” should be taught to students today.

He argues that school curricula have canonized the texts of ancient philosophers, putting

them on a pedestal of culture and rhetorical persuasion, regarding them as the beginning

of true reason. Yet Jackson believes that Greece and Rome were not the “origins of

21

mankind,” or the first groups to utilize rhetoric; by studying the rhetors of other

civilizations, Jackson strays from traditional research while still selecting a “text” that is

most valued by another society. He makes no mention of overlooked people within the

African American history he studies, a sort of reconstructionist approach to an already

marginalized group.

Jackson does not deny that a narrative representation of history can be flawed, a

position that moves away from reconstructionism. The perspective of the author

influences which sources he or she uses to represent history in the narrative, as noted by

Jackson: “However, we all know that the writer who with every stroke of the pen moves

our imagination controls the principal messages in a narrative” (Jackson 117). Jackson

implies that the narrative as a vehicle for historical writing contains messages that are

conveyed by one specific author in time, showing a constructionist approach to the use of

the narrative writing to describe history.

Historical writing thus consists of a variety of communication depending on the

author; the sources selected to convey history depend on the perspective and experiences

of the writer, according to Jackson. While Jackson does acknowledge the role of the text

in representing history, he understands the need to look at other sources when writing

about marginalized groups. His perspective can be viewed as leaning towards

constructionism, as it allows for nontraditional sources to fill in the gaps that the text

leaves behind.

This receptiveness towards constructionism shows that the two movements are

more flexible than Munslow suggests. The Octolog series shows both movements within

the same speaker, as Jackson questions traditional research methods. Lois Agnew’s

22

introduction for the panelists also reveals the need for the academic community to step

outside of traditional methods of research, saying, “They have suggested that our field’s

notion of “truth” is multiplicitous and incomplete” (Agnew 110). The idea that a

representation of history could be incomplete lends itself more towards a constructionist

point of view.

A constructionist perspective of history is prevalent in the Octolog series,

especially in Jay Dolmage’s work “The Circulation of Discourse in the Body.” He

explains that “I see rhetorical history as the study not of just a selected archive of static

documents or artifacts, but a study of also, always of the negotiations, valences, shifting

claims and refutations, canons, and revisions that orbit any history” (Dolmage 113). This

“shifting” is similar to the constructionist utilization of the lens of social histories to

explain “beneath” the text. Rhetorical history is not completely static, as Dolmage notes,

but is more fluid with the inclusion of social constructions. This lens allows historians to

focus on larger movements in history, such as the representation of clothing in a culture;

alternative sources help to further understand the social history of any marginalized

group. This inclusion is found deep within the history, and is in opposition to

reconstructionist beliefs.

Dolmage continues to discuss the “layers of meaning” that historical writing

unearths, though he believes that current rhetoricians should celebrate, rather than set

aside these opposing viewpoints (Dolmage 114). While heading more towards a post-

constructionist mindset, the separation from the text shows an emphasis on perspective, a

constructionist characteristic of viewing history. It is the work of the constructionist

historian to peel back the layers of history to discover the most accurate perspective.

23

Edward Schiappa, in his study “The Historian as Arguer,” illustrates that

historians researching the levels of history create a personae that constructs historical

events differently, claiming that “…the writing of history is a thoroughly rhetorical

enterprise and can be evaluated with the traditional tools of rhetorical criticism, including

the analysis and evaluation of the first, second, and third personae enacted through the

text of the historian” (Schiappa Octo 1 36-37). A successful historical account will

include these three personae respectively: the author, implied audience, and those people

marginalized by the text. By examining the tools and perspectives of research, analysis

can be used to “evaluate” history, a more constructionist approach.

However Schiappa also builds on constructionist theory, adding that “Once we

move to seeing the writing of rhetoric as an intersubjective act of persuasion, as is

encouraged by the perspective of rhetorical criticism, then we can begin to explain why

one account succeeds over another in a way that avoids the extremes of there being only

"one true account" of history on one side, and "all accounts are equally valid" on the

other” (Schiappa Octo 1 37). The subjectivity of the constructionist is brought to light, as

well as differing accounts of history to describe the same event. Schiappa adds that such

histories need to persuade the reader, that the account succeeds because of its use of

personae. By labeling the purpose of a history and the attitude in which it will be read,

writers of history can be aware of who the text wants the reader to become (Schiappa 38).

The history is in itself a reflection of the time writing it, as well as the time it describes. A

history that persuades its readers will accomplish more, and this requires the hand of the

historian, one that knows how to persuade its modern audience.

24

The Octolog series provides an informative dialogue about historical movements

that shape the field of rhetoric, as well as the historians and readers involved in the

process. A common thread found amongst the panels of the Octolog series is an emphasis

on feminist writing and its role in a rhetorical history. The following section will link the

Octolog series to feminist rhetoric, bringing to light conversations that help to

characterize the field.

25

Feminist Histories of Rhetoric

The Octolog series provides many examples of discussion in the field of rhetoric

about how to write its history. Feminist scholars interested in revisionist histories that

include the rhetorical production of women have also engaged in discussion about how

best to write histories of the field. In particular, Xiu Lin Gale’s critique of three articles

giving an account of Aspasia of Miletus--long known only as a courtesan, but presented

in these feminist accounts as an orator and intellectual--provides, along with the

responses of two of the authors she criticizes, a closer look at arguments in the field about

the relative values of reconstruction and construction in historical work.

Little is known about Aspasia, and historians disagree about her role within

ancient Greek culture. She is known both for her intellectual contributions, as well as the

possibility that she could have been a courtesan. Most of what is known about Aspasia

comes from the works of ancient authors, such as Plato and Plutarch. As Gale notes, she

is a challenge to modern historical writers, as the lack of a written text by Aspasia herself

defies traditional methods of writing history (Gale 362). The discussion of Aspasia’s life

reveals much about the academic community today, and the process of constructing and

reconstructing history. Gale’s criticism of three articles that attempt to shed light on

Aspasia’s life shows an ongoing discussion about just how rhetoricians represent a

feminist history.

Gale begins with her criticism of Cheryl Glenn’s assessment of Aspasia across

three texts: “Sex, Lies, Manuscript: Refiguring Aspasia in the History of Rhetoric,”

(1994) “Rereading Aspasia: The Palimpsest of Her Thoughts” (1995) and Rhetoric

26

Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity through the Renaissance (1997). Gale

notes that the accounts “are passionate and effective, and they have no doubt helped

create a place for Aspasia in composition and rhetoric and contributed to the feminist

historical reconstruction project in our field” (Gale 365). Gale characterizes Glenn’s

account of Aspasia according to Richard Rorty’s philosophical term Geistesgeschichte,

defined as the recreated life of an “important” person in history from the social

construction of a similar person in the same time and situation.

According to Gale, Glenn’s account attempts to find authenticity in Aspasia’s life,

one that had been unfairly portrayed by men. Yet Gale comments on the problems with

Glenn’s citation of “historical and contemporary sources to ‘prove’ that her configuring

of Aspasia’s life is a better history…” (366). The act of positioning a specific history as

more “correct” is closer to the traditional reconstructionist approach to historical studies,

a contradiction noted by Gale. By allowing for “angle” and imagination in her account,

Gale believes that Glenn defines historiography and the feminist rhetorical presence as

more complex (Gale 365). Glenn notes the constructionist leanings of her description of

Aspasia.

Gale distrusts the evidence of Glenn’s account, which she thinks lacks sufficient

awareness of “the contingency of the historical sources on their purpose, context,

cultural, and social milieu, and their relationships to other historical documents or

artifacts” (Gale 367). Gale notes that Glenn refutes well-known documentation about

Aspasia’s life without providing historical evidence to support her claims. This lack of

facts contributes to the confusion of the purpose of the account, as Gale says, which relies

on the truth-claims that usually accompany the label of historical reading, rather than

27

feminist fiction. The absence of primary documentation makes Gale uncomfortable with

Glenn’s account, noting that its genre classification should reflect its lack of historical,

textual evidence. The constructionist approach that Gale notes as attempted through

Glenn’s writing does not accurately represent history, according to Gale, as it is

insufficiently based on confirmed facts.

Gale continues her criticism with a discussion of Susan Jarratt and Rory Ong’s

“Aspasia: Rhetoric, Gender, and Colonial Ideology.” She notes the “rational

reconstruction” of their work, based on “multiple” histories, while acknowledging the

problematic nature of reconstructing Aspasia’s past without much documentation. Gale

believes that they attempt to answer three questions in their work: “Did Aspasia exist?

Can she be known? and Is that knowledge communicable?” (373). By allowing for

disagreement of histories in regards to Aspasia, Gale feels that Jarratt and Ong show

respect to the work of their colleagues while still confronting traditional male-centered

histories with feminist rhetoric. Jarratt and Ong also value Aspasia’s contemporaries and

their discussions pertaining to her influence on the Socratic method, rather than

promoting a singular feminist truth in their overall account.

However, Gale sees problems with the contradictions found in their

interpretations of history, which Gale believes are based on interpretation and

speculation. She explains the issues with using the narrative as a form of reconstruction,

which in Jarratt’s historiography of Aspasia, results in an interpreting activity (374). The

purpose of Jarratt’s reconstruction of Aspasia’s history, according to Gale, is the “intent

on writing women into the history of rhetoric for the purpose of exposing male

oppression and exclusion in order to liberate and empower women” (375). Yet the act of

28

simply adding women into historical accounts as the result of previous exclusion holds

the danger of “essentializing women,” a practice that would create new excluded groups.

It is noted by Gale as a “rather exciting way of doing history, through reinterpretation and

speculation” (376). Gale challenges the reconstruction by Jarrett and Ong, which believes

that truth becomes a possibility once women and other marginalized people are included

in our accounts of history.

Gale further claims that “In answering the question ‘Can Aspasia be known?’

Jarratt and Ong suggest that Aspasia can be known only if we locate her in the sophistic

rhetorical tradition” (377). Gale sees danger in using the First Sophists as a guide for

adding women into history, as the exclusion of others runs the risk of essentializing

women. This inclusion brings up the question of feminist traits, syntactic structures,

characteristics, and ideologies; what is their role in the creation of a feminist

historiography? Gale is forced to confront the speculation that is involved in the writing

of history, though the attempted reconstruction by Jarratt and Ong leaves more questions

than answers in her criticism.

Finally Gale discusses Madeleine Henry’s Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus

and Her Biographical Tradition, which weighs in on the questions of representing

women in the tradition of history. Gale notes Henry’s perspective of history to be

feminist, tracing renditions of Aspasia’s life to show “how the sexualization of her

intellect has influenced (negatively) current constructions of gender roles…” (379). Gale

finds Henry’s work to be “brilliant” with its emphasis on understanding the layers of

history in order to understand how Aspasia’s history was constructed.

29

In order to make sense of Henry’s method, Gale positions it against both Jarratt

and Glenn’s writing, adding that its blend of traditional research with feminist

scholarship creates a “valuable source for future historical study” (378). Henry’s

dedication to the text is successful, according to Gale: “…Henry has confronted, rather

than evaded, the formidable task of collecting, sifting, ordering, and evaluating evidence

of a bewildering quantity, quality, kind, and date (not to mention datablity) from antiquity

to modern times” (379). Gale gives credibility to this historical account based on

documentation; Henry’s research also includes the evolving historical traditions that

helped to create the modern view of Aspasia. Instead of searching for a “real” identity,

Gale admits that Henry’s research of the biographical tradition creates a wider

conversation of discourse that the “truth” of history depends on many variables. In all, a

larger truth is unattainable, but we can learn the various constructed truths and their

implications of the time in which they were made. Gale notes this success as

“situatedness” (381). History has more to offer, as long as the historian is willing to take

all truths into account.

According to Gale, Henry’s combination of feminist scholarship, postmodern

concerns and philological methods has created a historiography of Aspasia that has been

quite successful. Most importantly, Gale admires the emphasis on the text in Henry’s

writing, claiming, “…A radical vision does not necessarily entail antitraditional

methods.” (379). It is this traditional method that Gale did not find in Glenn or Jarratt and

Ong’s representations of Aspasia in history.

Gale’s assessment of Jarratt’s work warranted a response, one found in Jarratt’s

“Comment: Rhetoric and Feminism: Together Again.” Jarratt critiques Gale’s reading of

30

her work, noting that Gale’s version of her texts was “unrecognizable” and taken out of

context. She instead offers her interpretation of Aspasia’s history as a “site of discourse”

(Jarratt 390). Rather than writing history as a way to further feminist goals, Jarratt

explains that she chose an intertextual interpretive method. According to Jarratt, Gale’s

attack on her reconstructive methods is the result of Gale’s “unrecognizable

representations” of Jarratt’s work (390).

According to Jarratt, these representations lead to misquoting. Jarratt continues,

explaining, “discussion and meaningful disagreement are hard to achieve when

discussants use dramatically different reading practices” (390). The question of

representation of postmodern feminist histories is a more important issue in Jarratt’s

opinion, claiming that Gale is averse to both feminism and rhetoric in general (391).

While defending her own work, Jarratt also lends credibility to Glenn’s account, calling it

“a strong argument for the factual existence and intellectual importance of Aspasia”

(391). Jarratt believes that Gale’s problems with both of their historiographies are based

on her mistrust of feminist historians making speculative remarks and factual claims in

the same work.

Glenn’s response to Gale’s critique can be found in her article “Comment: Truth,

Lies, and Method: Revisiting Feminist Historiography.” Gale had found Glenn’s history

of Aspasia to be biased, a construction that does not completely rely on historical

documentation. Yet Glenn never claims to be completely neutral in her writing, as she

responds: “Well, historiographic practices are so firmly situated in the postmodern

critique of rhetoric that many of us already take for granted that histories do (or should

do) something, that they fulfill our needs at a particular time and place, and that they

31

never and have never reflected a neutral reality” (Glenn 388). Glenn believes that her

own research of the contextualized narratives provides a wider examination of Aspasia,

and of history as a whole.

As Glenn continues, she finds that historical evidence is the focal point of creating

a history, questioning the role of the text: “What counts? What is available? Who

provided and preserved it-and why? How and to what end has it been used? and by

whom?” (Glenn 391). Glenn questions the firm ground on which Gale bases textual

evidence, citing their differing perspectives on the purpose of historiography in general.

This discussion involving Gale, Glenn, and Jarratt demonstrates feminist

rhetorical arguments concerning reconstruction and construction in historical work in the

field of rhetoric. Gale has become uncomfortable with the constructionist assumption that

historians can fill the gaps the text leaves behind with social construction. Reconstruction

relies heavily on textual evidence, a process that Gale found successful in Henry’s

interpretation of Aspasia’s history. In the following section I will connect the feminist

histories of rhetoric with the Octolog series in a study of The Sewing Academy website

and Civil War reenactors’ creation of history.

32

Arguments of Historical Construction: Mainstream vs. Progressive Perspective

The Sewing Academy website offers a unique look into the research techniques of

the Civil War reenacting community. Both Mainstream and Progressive reenactors

contribute to the site’s forums, displaying various attitudes toward reproducing history.

The Mainstream movement is similar to the reconstructionist movement and its heavy

emphasis on the text, while Progressives attempt to use the text to make social

constructions of the time period. In this section I will define each movement, while

providing examples from The Sewing Academy website that show characteristics of that

movement in its members.

Mainstream reenactors can be defined in the reenacting community as the

“average” reenactor. Their research techniques include some research of textual evidence,

but somehow they fall short of the elusive “truth” and “accuracy” that is so desired by the

Progressive movement (Clark, Back to Basics: Research Tips and Tricks). The

mainstream movement is not a self-identifier by reenactors; rather it is a description

assigned by the reenacting community, since its implication is somewhat negative as it

implies mediocrity. A working definition can be found from Cal Kinzer, a respected Civil

War reenactor and writer, as he explains in the online forum The Authentic Campaigner

that Mainstreams are the product of the “authenticity” movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

Mainstream reenactors make an effort to show the public an accurate persona, though

once the public leaves, non-authentic items such as cooking ware or cell phones may be

used (Kinzer, Definitions). The illusion of accuracy is perhaps the most telling

33

characteristic of the Mainstream movement, one that does not attempt to describe history

further than required by a performance for the public.

In contrast, Clark notes the purpose of research within the Progressive

community, explaining the process: “Simply put, research is a systematic (or just

determined and directed) process of asking questions and finding information to help you

form your own opinions and ideas about the past” (Clark, 20). Progressives emphasize

the process of research, anticipating the pursuit of various sources and the development

of the researcher. Kinzer also comments that Progressives completely ban modern

anachronisms, emphasizing other areas of the 19th century, such as daily soldier life or

games (Kinzer). The Progressive movement tries to step out of a “simple” reproduction

of history, allowing for the reenactor to create an imitation based on personal research

and information involving everyday 19th century life.

Perhaps the most prevalent characteristic of Mainstream reenactors is the use of

sources that do not attempt to offer differing opinions of history. At times, this devotion

to one particular narrative can lead Mainstream reenactors to read a biased source without

considering its perspective of history or its implications. Both Mainstream and

Progressive movements use textual evidence as the basis of research, a characteristic

similar to both the reconstructionist and constructionist movements. It is the attitude

towards the text as a primary source that is a point of difference between the two

movements, as Progressives will include differing accounts of history within their

performance. However, both movements are firmly rooted in the text.

One particular thread on The Sewing Academy website, titled Beyond the

Wardrobe: 19th Century Life, describes just how many reenactors view textual evidence

34

and its role in reproducing history. Generated in January of 2008, it continued until

March, with seventeen different contributors, including Elizabeth Clark herself as an

administrator. The thread has garnered nearly 3,000 views since its creation. User

LissaWilson created the thread by addressing the entire reenacting community about their

research techniques, asking: “1.) Where do you start when wanting to research a topic?

What techniques or tricks do you use? 2.) How do you determine if the source you are

using is a quality source of information? (LissaWilson, Back to Basics). Within twenty

minutes, several responses had been posted, with both reconstructionist and

constructionist viewpoints on display.

First, user BarbaraSmith gave personal examples of locations to start research,

such as Internet forums and library archives. She discussed the importance of the text as a

source, claiming that Progressive reenactors prefer the Primary source, though it is

difficult to obtain and understand (BarbaraSmith, Back to Basics). In this response,

BarbaraSmith shows a definite leaning towards the reconstructionist movement, as

secondary and tertiary sources are deemed less authentic. She also defines the source as

“Primary,” using a capital letter to emphasize the importance of such a source.

Other members respond, with Clark noting the importance of using critical

thinking skills when evaluating a source. Such a comment would be viewed as

Progressive, as it asks the researcher to expand his or her view beyond simply the source

itself, linking to other texts or sources. She mentioned the importance of reading biased

accounts of history, as long as the bias is identified in the text (Clark, Back to Basics). In

contrast to simply reading one primary source as mentioned by BarabaraSmith, Clark

allows for differing accounts of history to be beneficial to the reenactor. Such a leaning

35

would be constructionist in nature, as it asks the reader to look beyond one type of source

and into alternative accounts of history.

Clark continued, adding that “Balancing out sources with different agendas gives

a more rounded picture, and in my opinion, increase the options for interpretation and

impression work” (Clark, Back to Basics). It is this increase of sources that allows the

reenactor a broader sense of the 19th century as a whole, knowing that addressing only

one side of an historic event is “limited.” Clark’s view that the source can have an agenda

also leans toward the constructionist movement; by placing the source in its historical

context, the reenactor can learn more about the social constructions of the 19th century,

possibly creating a more accurate impression.

The simple act of searching for history with the end result of truth propels both

movements. It is the constant search for an accurate history with the intention of truth as

an end result for the reenactor that ties the reconstructionist and constructionist together.

In the same thread, contributor and respected reenactor Virginia Mescher described her

research process: “I treat research like a puzzle or scavenger hunt,” she says. “One clue

leads to another and after awhile I’ve collected a great deal of information. It only takes

one question and I’m off on a quest. Even if it doesn’t turn into a research project, I save

it in my files so I’m prepared if someone has a question about the subject” (Mescher,

Back to Basics). Here, Mescher describes an attitude typical for both Mainstream and

Progressive reenactors; the documentation of the past holds “clues,” and the “quest”

implies that a final destination of truth is a possibility with the proper research. Both the

reconstructionist and constructionist movements believe that textual evidence is essential

36

to creating an accurate account of history, that such an account is even possible with

enough research by a historian.

The text itself is placed on a higher level than alternative sources by the

reconstructionist movement; here too the Mainstream movement searches for a correct

history, one that can be pieced together by the text. In the same thread, Clark offers her

opinion of documentation as the framework of research, explaining that: “As far as

putting stock in documentation, documentation is the foundation of truthful

interpretation. For example, there is a lot of unmitigated junk sold to the reenacting

community that didn’t even exist during the respective time period. Wanting

documentation before purchasing (and then the buyer could form their own opinion)

could eliminate that junk and the mistaken impression provided to spectators” (Clark,

Back to Basics). Clark notes that reenactors who are new to the community are more

susceptible to a “farby” purchase as they have less experience purchasing period accurate

items. She implies that documentation by sellers should be provided for items such as

clothing or accessories so that these new reenactors do not recreate an inaccurate account

of history. It is especially interesting that she added in parenthesis the phrase, “the buyer

could form their own opinion” to her comment; a seller may provide documentation and

the buyer may still disagree with that interpretation of history. By proposing such a

discussion, Clark reveals her affiliation with the Progressive movement, as well as a

constructionist perspective.

The opportunity for reenactors to propose conflicting sources is similar to the

attitude of modern constructionists, as The Sewing Academy will sometimes confirm that

its contributors disagree about accurate historical reproduction. Clark addresses this issue

37

in the thread, offering this advice to the other users: “And, don’t forget that two sets of

information may be providing lots of background on very valid *variations* of something

for the era…unless the two opinions are diametrically opposed (such as ‘Yes, they used

Polyester’ and ‘No, they didn’t’), there may be valid applications in both opinions though

one, both, or neither may be right for a particular scenario or use!” (Clark, Back to

Basics). Clark vocalizes the possibility of different accounts of history, framing them as

correct or incorrect based on the “scenario” that calls for them. Whether or not such

histories are accurate depends on the focus that the reenactor chooses to amplify such

research.

The Progressive movement tries to present itself as the most accurate depiction of

historical reproduction, using a wider scope of history rather than simply focusing just on

clothing or hairstyles. The text is still considered the main focus for Progressives, but it

includes artifacts of social construction of the time. Marta Vincent, another well-known

reenactor within the community added a less traditional source to the conversation: “So

my initial addition…will be to keep educating your eyes, so that you’ll begin to

automatically put things (be it clothing, china, & glassware, furniture, clothing, and etc.

into their proper era. A Look at something, be it a photo or a garment or whatever, and

visually pick it apart. A Look not only at the object, but what’s around it, how it’s made,

etc.” (Marta Vincent, Back to Basics). For Vincent, in order to understand daily life of the

19th century woman, she must expand her text to include a wider range of sources, such as

artifacts and clothing. Marta Vincent desires that such a “Look” include the larger social

forces at work beyond simply the text, a common constructionist characteristic, and

indicative of a Progressive mindset.

38

However, the Progressive movement realizes that gaps in accounts of history are

inevitable, and it is possible to never know the answers. Clark cited common reenactor

advice, claiming that “ THE MOST IMPORTANT RESEARCH SKILL:

The ability to say these two things… “I don’t know” and “With further information, my

opinion on the topic may evolve or change altogether” (Clark, Back to Basics). While the

Progressive reenactor may keep a firm foot in the text, Clark notes the inability of the

reenacting community to fully find the truth as the result of a lack of text, and that

reenactors must continue searching for “further information.” The reenactor can change

opinions based on research, considering such an action close to evolution. The ability to

adjust perspective and yet continue research is a key point of the constructionist

movement, and the fault of the text to fully comprehend history is a constructionist

characteristic.

It is clear on this particular research thread of The Sewing Academy site that

reenactors want to define the history of marginalized groups using traditional methods

involving textual evidence; however, a growing number of reenactors have found the use

in using nontraditional forms of evidence. A defining moment of the feminist movement

is to bring forward history that was once considered “unimportant” to those historians

creating what they believed to be an accurate portrayal of history. In their interest in

bringing forward forgotten moments of history, both the Mainstream and Progressive

movements within the Civil War reenacting community mimic historical movements

within the field of rhetoric.

39

Conclusion

The Sewing Academy website offers a detailed example of historical

reproductions of the Civil War reenacting community; the Mainstream and Progressive

movements on the site mimic historical reconstruction and construction found within

feminist writing in the field of rhetoric. In both spaces, the contributors disagree on just

how to represent women in history, especially concerning the use of nontraditional texts.

Such a discussion has led to more research considering the role of clothing in 19th century

society. Carol Mattingly discusses the issue of the female body and dress in history in her

book, Appropriating Women, drawing conclusions from modern feminist discussion in

the field of rhetoric.

Mattingly cites the purpose of her study as a way to understanding women and

clothing and as she states, “how bodies and dress helped to define the struggle for

representation and power that is rhetoric” (Mattingly 4). The influence of clothing in

women’s history is one that has been largely ignored in historical writing, although it has

played an essential role in defining women’s rhetorical power. Mattingly continues, she

finds that the clothing itself positions women in society, and she claims, “Obviously, a

rhetoric of dress was in place” (7). The cut, color, and design of an ensemble related the

power the women could extend outside of her traditional role. Clothing could be used as a

point of confinement for women, but also rebellion.

Mattingly cites as an example Dr. Mary Walker, a U.S. surgeon during the Civil

War that defied gender roles and appropriate clothing for a woman. Walker’s resistance

40

to femininity through dress represented undermined “space and clothing traditionally

relegated to men” (96). By navigating gender roles through clothing, Walker exposed the

values of a society she so desperately wished to change. Studying Walker and other

female rhetors of the time such as Amelia Bloomer or Susan B. Anthony relates the

importance of dress regarding their power as public speakers. Mattingly argues that

understanding the radical fashion ultimately helps modern rhetoricians grasp 19th century

women’s lives, giving a more comprehensive view of history as a whole. Just as the

gender defying clothing was controversial in its time, today the academic community

cannot agree on the best method to represent women of the past.

Mattingly addresses the dissent between various rhetoricians about the inclusion

of women in history, including Gale, Glenn, Jarratt and Ong’s discussion of Aspasia.

Mattingly notes that such a difference of opinion lies in the idea of evidence, saying:

“Redefining what counts as evidence reshapes the way we understand history. But if

recovery efforts have created controversy, changes in what we count as meaningful may

create even more” (3). By validating the non-traditional sources of research such as

clothing, rhetoricians challenge the traditional historical text while giving a “meaningful”

significance to clothing evidence once found only in the feminine sphere.

Just as modern historical writers attempt to situate a feminist history, the Civil

War reenacting community endeavors to create an accurate social history to present to he

public during reenactments. The Sewing Academy website serves as a forum that

reenactors utilize to discuss the nontraditional resources, including representations of

clothing. The Progressive and Mainstream movements illustrate that modern reenactors

do not always agree about nontraditional evidence and how it should be recreated for

41

educational purposes. These disagreements drive members of the group to include more

nontraditional sources in their research, mimicking the academic community in an act

that Mattingly refers to as “rewriting/regendering the tradition” (2). As more female and

civilian reenactors join the reenacting community, such discussions will be more

prominent on The Sewing Academy site and other forums of communication.

My involvement as both an academic and reenactor has allowed me to navigate

the text of each community, as well as interact with its members. This study is by no

means comprehensive in its examination of the Progressive and Mainstream movements

as more academic perspectives of Civil War reenacting could only serve to benefit

writers and reenactors of history. Connecting academics that study rhetoric to reenactors

who visually reproduce its sources shows the importance of nontraditional evidence; in

order to study history we must include women and other marginalized groups.

42

References

Agnew, Lois. "Octalog III: The Politics of Historiography in 2010." Rhetoric Review: 109-134. Print.

Biesecker, Barbara. "Coming to Terms with Recent Attempts to Write Women into the History of Rhetoric." Philosophy & Rhetoric 25: 140-161. Print.

Brooks, Kevin. " Reviewing and Redescribing "The Politics of Historiography": Octalog I, 1988." Rhetoric Review 16: 6-21. Print.

Burton, Vicki. "Ethos in the Archives." Rhetoric Review 30: 109-134. Print.

Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. "Biesecker Cannot Speak for Her Either." Source: Philosophy & Rhetoric 26: 153-159. Print.

Clark, Elizabeth Stewart. The Dressmaker's Guide to Fit & Fashion 1840-1865. 1st Edition. Gettysburg: ESCPublishing.com, 2009. Print.

Clark, Elizabeth Stewart. "Beyond the Wardrobe: Virtual Library." The Sewing Academy. Elizabeth Stewart Clark and Company, 02 12 2009. Web. 13 Dec 2013.

Clark, Elizabeth Stewart. Telephone Interview. 01 Mar 2014.

Clark, Elizabeth, Marta Vincent, Virginia Mescher, Barbara Smith, and Lissa Wilson. "Back to Basics: Research Tips and Tricks." . The Sewing Academy, 8 Jan. 2009. Web. 1 Mar. 2014. <http://thesewingacademy.org/index.php?topic=2069.0>.

Decker, Stephanie K. "Being Period: An Examination of Bridging Discourse in a Historical Reenactment Group." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 39.3 (2010): 273-296. Print.

Dolmage, Jay. "The Circulation of Discourse in the body." Rhetoric Review 30: 109-134. Print.

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse of Language. New York: Pantheon Books, 1972. Print.

Gale, Xin Liu. "Historical Studies and Postmodernism: Rereading Aspasia of Miletus." National Council of Teachers of English 62: 361-386. Print.

Gapps, Stephen. "Mobile monuments: A view of historical reenactment and authenticity from inside the costume cupboard of history."Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice. 13.3 (2009): 395-409. Print.

43

Gere, Anne. Writing Groups: History, Theory, and Implications. 1st Edition. United States: Conference on College Composition and Communication, 1987. Print.

Glenn, Cheryl. "Truth, Lies, and Method: Revisiting Feminist Historiography." National Council of Teachers of English 62: 387-389. Print.

Hadden, Robert Lee. Reliving the Civil War a reenactor's handbook. 2nd ed. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1999. Print.

Handler, Richard, and William Saxton. "Dyssimulation: Reflexivity, Narrative, and the Quest for Authenticity in "Living History"." Cultural Anthropology. 3.3 (1988): 242-260. Print.

Jackson, Ronald. "When Will We All Matter: A Frank Discussion of Progressive Pedagogy." Rhetoric Review 30: 109-134. Print.

Jarratt, Susan. "Rhetoric and Feminism: Together Again." National Council of Teachers of English 62: 390-393. Print.

Kinzer, Cal. "Cal Kinzer on Definitions." . The Authentic Campaigner, 1 Jan. 2000. Web. 1 Jan. 2014. <http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/>.

Leisch, Juanita. Who wore what? Women's Wear 1861-1865. 1st Edition. Gettysburg: Thomas Publications, 1995. Print.

Mattingly, Carol. Appropriate[ing] dress women's rhetorical style in nineteenth-century America. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2002. Print.

Mittelstaedt, Robin D."Reenacting the American Civil War: A Unique Form of Serious Leisure for Adults." World Leisure & Recreation. 37.1 (1995): 23-27. Print.

Munslow, Alun. The Nature of History Reader. London: Routledge, 2004. Print.

Oravec, Christine. "Man Cannot Speak for Her." Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 9: 275-278. Print.

Pendergast, Sara, and Tom Pendergast. "Civil War Reenactors." St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. 1. (2000): 521-523. Print.

Schiappa, Edward. "The Historian as Arguer." Rhetoric Review 16: 22-44. Print.

Schneider, Rebecca. Performing remains: art and war in times of theatrical reenactment . 1st Edition. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2011. Print.

44

Strauss, Mitchell D. "Identity Construction Among Confederate Civil War Reenactors: A Study of Dress, Stage Props, and Discourse."Clothing & Textiles Research Journal. 21.4 (2003): 149. Print.

Turner, Rory. "Bloodless battles: the Civil War reenacted." TDR. 34.4 (1990): 123. Print.

45