“ ‘I forgot that all English people rather turn up their noses at governesses, and don’t treat them as we do,’ said Meg, looking after the retreating figure with an annoyed expression” (Alcott 131).
I found the above passage to be interesting in that the profession of “governess” was interpreted differently by American and English cultures. In the chapter, Miss Kate is surprised to learn that Meg, who is about her age, serves as a governess to the less fortunate. Miss Kate, as the explanatory notes add, was surprised to hear this not only because Meg less than proficient in the arts (drawing), but also because Meg therefore wasn’t a member of her social class. While the reader does not know specifically what Laurie told his English friends regarding his American neighbors, one can assume that Miss Kate thought the March’s were of the same social status as Laurie.
Regardless of Miss Kate’s shock over the March’s “poverty,” I was more drawn to her apparent condescension toward Meg’s competency as a governess. To Meg, governesses most likely were all alike in their desire to better the lives and educations of less fortunate children –perhaps the way we might characterize mentors today. Miss Kate, by contrast, was perhaps accustomed to governesses that were handpicked by her parents and were well versed in all basic subjects of study and knew how to train children to become cultural elitists. Most likely, Meg’s goal as a governess wasn’t to educate her pupils on forms of higher knowledge, but instead was to make sure that they had a good enough education to succeed or at least get by in society.
In a sense, such disparity over the term “governess” is permissible in that the United States and England were very different countries in the 1800’s. America, as a nation, was barely one hundred years old by 1861 and arguably was still trying to shed Great Britain’s patriarchal influence. I almost wonder if such social and cultural hierarchies are in the process of being rebuilt today, after the fact that the United States has arguably replaced Great Britain as the most powerful country in the world. While there are discrepancies on national basis, I suppose that I am interested more in how a modern day American family, reminiscent of the March’s, might experience shifts in cultural opinion. One example that quickly comes to mind is education, as families across ethnic, religious, and economic spectrums decide where is the best place to send their children to school. One of the deciding factors that I noticed when I was applying to high schools and colleges was each school’s prideful sense of its own history. Each admissions officer seemed to ask “Why go to a dingy public school/university where you will be a number, when you could be a part of a unique collective of young minds and yet treated as an individual?” Then followed by “Did you know that the school’s first classes, back in 1887, were interspersed with farm activities because all of the students came from agricultural backgrounds? That core value of man’s relationship with nature is what makes our school different from the rest.” While I believed a more personal, intellectually stylized form of teaching would benefit me the most, I disliked the sense of tradition and entitlement that private schools and liberal arts colleges gave themselves. Schools should, in my opinion, ultimately help cultivate intellectually curious and culturally sensitive minds; they have no place branding themselves according to the likely irrelevant mottos and ancient traditions of deceased founders and benefactors. Thus, in regard to the novel, while I acknowledge the merits and faults of both Meg and Miss Kate’s views on the “governess,” I would contend that the focus should be on the student and not the teacher.
No comments:
Post a Comment