{"id":4236,"date":"2007-11-15T10:25:24","date_gmt":"2007-11-15T14:25:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=4236"},"modified":"2007-11-15T18:21:31","modified_gmt":"2007-11-15T22:21:31","slug":"did-laurel-thatcher-ulrich-sell-out","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2007\/11\/did-laurel-thatcher-ulrich-sell-out\/","title":{"rendered":"Did Laurel Thatcher Ulrich sell out?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>How an obscure academic article yielded marketing gold. <!--more--><\/p>\n<p>Today <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fas.harvard.edu\/~amciv\/faculty\/ulrich.shtml\">Laurel Thatcher Ulrich<\/a> was <a href=\"http:\/\/wamu.org\/programs\/dr\/07\/11\/15.php\">interviewed <\/a>on the Diane Rehm Show.  The interview was occasioned by the publication of Ulrich&#8217;s new book, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Well-Behaved-Women-Seldom-Make-History\/dp\/1400041597\">Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History<\/a>.  The title originated as a throw-away line in an article from early in Ulrich&#8217;s career, and its rise to popular celebrity reads like Cinderella-in-the-stacks: the sentence languished for many years in the dark mists of the academic library, until it was picked up as an epigraph for a volume of popular women&#8217;s history; it was then included in a collection of quotations,  and finally recognized for its marketing potential and reproduced, with all the faux-transgressive frisson of feminist samizdat, on t-shirts, bumper-stickers, and probably underwear. <\/p>\n<p>I happened to tune in to the interview this morning on NPR as I was cleaning my bathrooms. (See: well-behaved woman.) (See also: irony.)  Accomplished, unpretentious, gracious, and articulate, Ulrich gamely fielded breathless fan-girl softballs and serious historical inquiries.  I&#8217;m not qualified to comment on the quality of her historiography, but her thoughtful performance on the show leaves me no reason to doubt the <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pulitzer_Prize_for_History\">accolades <\/a>heaped on her scholarship.  (I do take issue with her assertion, repeated several times this morning, that the definition of &#8220;bad behavior&#8221; is entirely contingent on time and place: chastity has always been the defining virtue for women, and probably always will be, for Darwinian reasons. But this was a relatively small quibble.)  Her current book, while not a scholarly offering, sounds like an intelligent popular introduction to women&#8217;s history and to the political, personal and practical challenges in recovering and interpreting the written records of women&#8217;s lives. <\/p>\n<p>But I admit, I&#8217;m bugged that Ulrich has allowed her phrase to become an instrument of marketing, and I&#8217;m even a little disturbed at the apparent sang froid with which she views the particular ideological uses to which it has been put.  The sentence began as a perceptive comment on history, historiography and bibliography.  But it has been denatured into a glib catchphrase selling the cheapest kind of lazy-minded permissiveness as empowering progress. Down with lazy-minded permissiveness masquerading as empowering progress!  I understand that Ulrich may not necessarily endorse all the travels of her phrase in the wide world (but why then would she allow a photograph of the slogan on a t-shirt as the cover art to her new book?), and perhaps she deserves a little easy attention as she nears the end of what has been by all accounts an exemplary career.  But I wish she&#8217;d seemed, you know, just a little bit <em>conflicted <\/em>or <em>ambivalent<\/em> about it all.  Inner conflict and ambivalence, as everyone knows, are the fastest way for women to make history. (See: gentle self-mockery.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>How an obscure academic article yielded marketing gold.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":42,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4236","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-corn"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4236","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/42"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4236"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4236\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}