Re: Kenneth Burke Quote--An Aside

[Beth Boquet <eboquet@FAIR1.FAIRFIELD.EDU>]

Pete--

I'm tempted to say--as Thanksgiving comes upon us--that the real work 
of the house goes on in the kitchen, wouldn't you agree?  And, as 
discussions of space allocation heat up here, I'm left to wonder what 
all is being cooked up.  (Oooh, I know that's bad. . .)

Anyway, the parlor's existence presumes a couple of things:  first, 
the need for some kind of transition between the very public space of 
the street and the very private space of the home; second, the 
creation of a carefully crafted "authentic" presentation of self.  

Geoff just gave me a copy of Karen Halttunen's book _Confidence Men 
and Painted Women:  A Study of Middle-class Culture in America, 
1830-1870_.  Halttunen writes, "The central function of the laws of 
polite social geography was to establish the parlor as the stage upon 
which the genteel performance was enacted.  Rules governed every 
aspect of conduct from the visitor's entrance upon that stage until 
his or her exit" (102).  After a detailed explanation of appropriate 
social behavior, Halttunen comments, "The many ceremonial rules 
governing parlor entrances and exits were designed to reinforce the 
crucial social distinction between that region of the house. . .where 
the laws of gentility were in force, and those regions. . .where 
those laws were relaxed" (104).

I grew up in a big old Southern home--complete with parlor.  It was 
full of things on display, small porcelain figures and cut crystal 
vases and all the things we had nowhere else in the house.  And when 
people came for coffee, my mother stood in the kitchen orchestrating 
everything, depending on who was going to be in the parlor--which 
tray to use, which coffee cups to use, how to arrange everything for 
ease of service, etc.

The distinction for who gets invited to the back of the house seems 
to me to have to do with the issue of work.  If you were being put to 
work, then obviously you were in the back, behind the scenes.  And, 
of the people who moved with ease from the back of the house to the 
front, I would say that person was only my mother.  I certainly 
didn't have coffee with the "adults."  And the woman who worked for 
us certainly never did either.

Dare I add that no men ever did any of the work, as I recall?

And, when there was no company, the parlor was closed up.  You didn't 
"live" there.

So the idea of a Burkean parlor--where people get together and engage 
in some kind of egalitarian dialogue--is nice, and it may even be 
possible.  But to echo social constructionist critiques of much 
composition theory (particularly collaborative and process theory), 
it effaces many of the issues which give rise to the _need_ for a 
parlor in the first place.

Hope I didn't ruin your day, Pete ;)

--Beth
Elizabeth Boquet
Director, The Writing Center
DM 130
Fairfield University
Fairfield, CT  06430
Tel: 203/254-4000, ext. 2529
E-Mail:  eboquet@fair1.fairfield.edu