51 pages • 1 hour read
Stephanie CampA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Chapter 3 examines illegal parties held by enslaved people and the complex preparation and truancy that these parties required.
Camp provides a brief history of the corporeal rhetoric and politics surrounding enslaved women. In contrast to “proper” European women, who were assumed to be incapable of manual labor, Europeans viewed African women as “natural” candidates for enslavement, with their bodies represented as primarily laboring by the English since the middle of the 17th century. Reproduction and the labor of giving birth, too, came “naturally” to African women. In addition, African women traditionally were agricultural workers, so they were presented as “fit” for enslavement.
As early as 1643, a Virginia law declared free African women’s labor taxable, alongside the labor of European men. This distinguished African women from European women, who performed domestic work and whose labor was untaxed. Two years later, African men’s labor became taxable. By the late 1600s, African servants who had arrived “by shipping” could be forced into lifelong servitude. This law, in concert with a 1667 law banning the former manumission of servants converting to Christianity, codified the racialization of American slavery. By the 19th century, enslaved people were often referred to only by their laboring body parts or tools integral to their labor; thus, they were reduced to “hands” or, for women who worked agriculturally with hoes, referred to only as “hoes.”
Not only did enslavers desire to restrict the geographical movements of enslaved people and exploit the body’s capacity for labor, they also desired to control the pleasures of the body. Many enslavers therefore provided parties for the enslaved people on their plantations as a “paternalistic mechanism of social control” (65). Enslavers surveilled these parties, serving “the dual purpose of simultaneously giving limited expression to and containing their bodily pleasure” (65).
Camp argues that enslaved people “possessed at least three bodies” (66). One body was a “site of domination” (66). This is the body that is read as “naturally” laboring and inherently resistant to pain, the “bio-text” on which enslavers “inscribed their authority” (67). The second body was the site of the experience of this domination. This second body subjectively experienced fear, terror, and pain. The third body was the one that resisted enslavement in its insistence on claiming and enjoying the very body that enslavers desired to dominate. The third body is both pleasurable and political.
Parties planned by enslaved people were not spontaneous events. They required intensive planning, monitoring, and preparation. Enslaved women would take ingredients from their enslavers’ kitchens and spend many nights cooking in secret in preparation for the event. The most important part of party planning— before, during, and after the party—was the avoidance of slave patrols. Because enslavement generally insisted on women’s immobility, women were more conspicuous when seen off the plantation, and it was generally riskier for them to attend illegal parties than men.
Camp emphasizes the specifically gendered nature of pleasure at illegal parties: For men, pleasure revolved around alcohol, and for women it revolved around clothing. Enslaved people’s clothing was usually made of a material called tow, which was either unprocessed flax or uncolored cotton. Women’s dresses were often cut directly on the body to avoid “wasting” fabric. Shoes were wooden-bottomed and often did not fit correctly. Some enslavers issued clothing once a year as a ritualistic event, while others were less paternalist and would go many years without issuing any clothing at all. Some enslaved women, however, were able to create one set of “fancy” clothes that could be worn for special occasions. Camp sets out not only to analyze the clothing itself but “clothing behavior,” underscoring that wearing fancy dress to an illegal party made women conspicuous and heightened the danger of attending these parties.
Occasionally exceptional labor was rewarded by enslavers with the “prize” of fancy cloth or a dress for women and alcohol for men. These supplies were also sometimes obtained through trading with white traders, shopkeepers, and sex workers, or with free Black traders. However, most women labored at night to create their clothing. This creation began from the ground up: with growing, picking, and processing cotton; growing and harvesting roots and berries to be used for dye; weaving the cloth; and designing and sewing their garments. Women both wove and dyed color and patterns into their clothing. Dyes of yellow, brown, red, and black could be created from tree bark, pokeberry, and poison ivy. In the coastal South of Georgia and South Carolina, women grew and used indigo. Dye was set with vinegar and water or urine. This was a complicated and time-consuming process, and all this was generally done in the context of the evening work of cooking, cleaning, making household goods like soap and candles, mending existing clothing, and taking care of families after being forced to labor all day. In addition, enslaved women often were required to create all the clothing for enslaved people on the plantation, and sometimes for white people.
Since their clothing was usually cut close to the body, women often created full skirts for themselves. Some enslaved women starched their skirts with hominy water to further accentuate their skirts’ sweeps. Others used vines or tree limbs to create hoops for their skirts, which were fashionable in the mid-1800s but generally disallowed by enslavers. Unique among enslaved women were headwraps, which could be either used as an accessory or removed to display intricate hairstyling. Buttons were made from horns or gourds covered with cloth. Earrings were made of straw or cranberries, and different flowers were used for perfume. Enslaved women reveled in the visual, aural, and olfactory experiences of fashion that they created for themselves and others.
While Chapter 2 presents truancy as an individual decision to hide oneself and endure a more extreme deprivation than that of enslavement, Chapter 3 explores truancy for the purpose of congregating for illegal parties. Camp draws attention to the profundity of these parties in the context of enslavement: These parties have significance beyond individual pleasure, since enslaved people were “made to suffer domination largely through the body in the form of captivity, commodification, exploitation, and physical punishment” (62). This form of truancy was undertaken individually and collectively for the experience of “pleasurable amusement,” a very different truancy than that of deprivation.
Camp approaches party-going through both geographical studies and the politics of the body, which requires that the body be understood as both personal and political. Camp openly questions this framework, acknowledging that the “somatic approach” she takes “risks objectifying people” (62), but she wants to pay attention to the ways people claimed and enjoyed their bodies, bodies that slavery insisted were commodities. Additionally, Camp argues that attention to the body is particularly crucial to the study of enslaved women since their real and imagined reproductive potential, as well as sexual vulnerability, marked their experience of enslavement as different than men’s in its bodily determinations.
This focus on a gendered politics of pleasure grounded in the body extends to the efforts women made to produce special clothing for parties. The elaborate, “fancy” clothing that women created for themselves to wear at these parties was designed to defiantly display their bodies as their own—as opposed to their enslavers’—to dress, accessorize, display for others, and enjoy for themselves. Camp pairs this attention to the bodily politics of women’s pleasure with the contextualization of the aesthetics of their “fancy” dress, explaining that Black women delighted in the “dynamic interplay of color and texture over the harmonies of similar elements, and surprise, movement, and argument over predictable patterns and order” (84). What appeared mismatched or even ridiculous to white people—such as decorative ribbons paired with crude aprons—was aesthetically pleasurable for enslaved women. The politics of the body and the politics of the aesthetics of Black fashion mutually support one another to create conditions not just of pleasure but of revitalization, for which enslaved people took huge risks. The dynamic interplay so valued in enslaved aesthetics, too, is similar to the Attenuation of Dichotomies in Slavery Studies that Camp calls for. Though Camp does not draw this connection herself, this specifically Black, enslaved aesthetic is potentially a guide to the more “innovative” reading of sources that Camp is calling for.
Enslaved people reveled in the bodily and aesthetic pleasures of the party and all that accompanied it. The resources required for the respective pleasures of fashion for women and alcohol for men cracked open, ever so slightly, the rival geography to white traders, who could provide beads, buttons, fancy cloth, and alcohol. White people involved in this “party trade” were often the only white people included in the rival geography, a crack that is not opened any wider until the Civil War.
Camp’s analysis challenges the assumption that the rival geography would remain closed to white people except under the most extreme conditions in which their inclusion was essential for survival or liberation. Still, the aesthetic and bodily pleasures Camp illuminates were extreme in their vitalizing pleasure. Enslaved people thus took risks that, outside the context of Camp’s historical work, might appear incongruous, just as the fanciness of ribbons when paired with aprons appeared mismatched to those who were not a part of the world of enslaved people.