Hag me no Hagiography
Hagiography raises a lot of interesting issues.
Waldstreicher falls into a long line of historians who see the other side of Franklin. The wiry, sardonic 39-year-old author is not a fan of rah-rah Franklin books, especially given his view that “Franklin’s anti-slavery credentials have been greatly exaggerated.” He regards Isaacson’s Benjamin Franklin: An American Life as “a good read” with “insightful moments,” but sees Isaacson as “already on the stump, talking about why we should find Franklin inspiring, why he’s better, why he’s neither too far left nor too far right, why he’s so reasonable. It’s been disturbing to see it called the standard biography now,” Waldstreicher says, because “it doesn’t build on any of the scholarship in early American history.”
Rah-rah books about almost anything (except food, perhaps) are suspect enterprises. Perhaps because they start from the desire to say ‘rah-rah’ and then collect the appropriate evidence, rather than starting from the desire to tell the truth and then collecting whatever evidence there is.
The Constitution Center’s exhibition reflects a wave of hagiography in Franklin biography that pooh-poohs criticism of the so-called First American…It marginalizes such longtime lightning rods for Franklin critics as his slave-trade activities, womanizing, hardball politics, and spinmeister shaping of his own image. Waldstreicher’s critique thus comes at a welcome time. It steers attention from the mind-numbing “Benergy” campaign, and lopsided biographies of Franklin that make him a safe adoptable symbol and hero, to a countertradition.
‘Benergy’? Oh, yuk. Oh gawdelpus. And save us all from safe adoptable symbols and heroes. Heroes are okay up to a point, but they can’t be canonized or sanitized – ‘enskied and sainted,’ as Lucio puts it in ‘Measure for Measure’. None of that. That can’t be done without lying; away with it.
Indeed, a voyage through Franklin biographies suggests a near-natural law: The more commercial the project, the more celebratory the tone. The more academic the project, the more evenhanded the view. In Recovering Benjamin Franklin (1999), for instance. philosopher James Campbell flatly finds “much in Franklin’s mindset that is unattractive.”
There’s the real issue. The more commercial, the more celebratory; the more academic, the more analytic or skeptical. So – be skeptical of best-selling biographies.
Generally speaking, any project that tries to make money out of telling stories about a historical figure is crap. I live in Philly, and I’ll tell you the place is chock full of the stuff. (I make my money, what little of it there is, in an entirely different way.)
Idolising Franklin is no more than a banal chapter in the continuous recirculation of the myth of American nationalism — taking it for granted as I’m sure we all do that all claims of national superiority are mythical.
The claims made by American exceptionalists are particularly interesting, nonetheless, because they display such a creative ambiguity towards ethnicity, absence of such ambiguity being the hallmark of most other nationalisms. “America” as a culture is constantly in two minds about what makes someone a “real” American — can one just opt in to belief in a colourblind narrative of dreams of freedom, or are “Americans” a certain kind of person beyond abstract moral qualities: i.e. all too often a white, Xian type of person…?
Britain suffers from/enjoys a similar kind of ambiguity, but at a lower level of intensity, largely I suspect because our national narrative of greatness reached its peak between the Battle of Britain and the Partition of India, with a moment of perceived collective self-sacrifice from which there could be no recovery…
Which I guess makes the UK the Frodo Baggins of this epic… Meanwhile George W[ashington] Aragorn gets the crown, and the girl…;-)