8.3–Analyzing Nonfiction in Terms of Culture

In order to effectively analyze a nonfiction work of literature, an essential first step is establishing an appropriate contextual framework. In most cases, the most external layer of that framework will be the cultures that the text, its author, and audience(s) are situated in. Meanings within a text are derived entirely from interactions with it, and culture inherently informs most of those interactions. Culture can be defined in terms of many forms of identity: race, ethnicity, nationality, education, religion, sex, gender, orientation, historical legacy, etc.

Cultural contexts can be broken down into a number of helpful components. These include:

• The time period in which the text was first published;
• The current time period, or another relevant temporal period.
• The cultural backgrounds of the author;
• The cultural backgrounds of readers or listeners.

Pursuing or synthesizing any of these factors can yield greater insight into a text’s impact and legacy, as well contextualize the author’s choices in crafting it. For example, focusing on the backgrounds of the author and the audience for Common Sense reveal an important contrast. Specifically, while most American colonists had been born in the colonies and spent their entire lives there, Thomas Paine had spent the vast majority of his life in England; he had only relocated to Pennsylvania at the end of 1774, just months before Lexington and Concord and nearly a year after the Boston Tea Party. While a difference in background might have raised some differences in perspective, Paine was able to use his own English background to his advantage in making his point. Notably, he used the pseudonym, “An Englishman,” in the initial editions of the pamphlet. Since his arguments were against the British monarchy and on behalf of colonists who wanted to separate from Britain, this cultural ethos only lent credence to his claims.

In terms of “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July,” Frederick Douglass also had a cultural identity distinct from that of his audience. As a formerly enslaved Black American, Douglass had a very different relationship with the Fourth of July as a holiday and the concept of American freedom in general, when compared to his majority white audience (including the white abolitionists in the room when he first gave the speech). This difference, in large part, influenced his decision to frontload the beginning of the speech with an acknowledgment of what the holiday symbolized for white Americans, as well as its undeniable historical impact. By starting the speech with this focus, he no doubt intended to make his audience more receptive to the contrasting viewpoint he then introduces about the holiday being exclusionary and hypocritical from the perspective of enslaved Blacks.

Just as examining the backgrounds of the authors and audiences of both texts complicates our understanding of them and the author’s choices, examining each text within different temporal contexts also yields important insights. As an argument, Common Sense derives from Enlightenment philosophy, which challenged the divine right of kings and promoted the scientific method and reform in economics. None of these ideas are controversial in modern times, and as a result Common Sense feels far less radical now than when it was first published in January 1776. Furthermore, in January 1776 it was obviously not yet clear that the Continental Congress would vote to declare independence, let alone that the colonists could defeat the British in war and secure recognition as a sovereign nation. Centuries after these developments unfolded, Common Sense has secured its place as a foundational component of American national identity, and retroactively confirms the legitimacy of our country’s existence.

Unlike Common Sense, however, some modern readers may still find Frederick Douglass’s “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July” speech radical in its reframing of the holiday’s legacy. Compared to Common Sense, students in American K-12 schools are less likely to be exposed to Douglass’s speech and the perspective that Fourth of July celebrations highlight racial and social inequalities in the country. Paradoxically, the social progress that has been achieved since Douglass initially gave the speech may convince some that the speech is no longer relevant. Ultimately, however, the speech’s relative obscurity and controversy compared to texts like Paine’s reinforces the fact that Douglass’s criticisms have still not been fully addressed, and that the speech retains its relevance.