Pargas Damian Alan
Institute for History, University of Leiden, Netherlands.
J Fam Hist. 2008 Jul;33(3):316-45. doi: 10.1177/0363199008318919.
Our understanding of the marriage strategies and family formation of enslaved people remains clouded by disagreement among contemporary scholars. A perusal of the historical literature suggests that two issues lay at the root of this disagreement: First, scholars disagree over the extent to which slave family life was shaped by the external factors of slavery, or rather slave agency; and second, scholars appear reluctant to abandon their singular views of the slave family. This article addresses both of these gaps by formulating a middle ground in the slave agency debate and by redefining the slave family in plural form. An analysis of the boundaries and opportunities for family formation in northern Virginia and lowcountry South Carolina, this study shows that while the establishment of co-residential two-parent households was the ideal for slaves, not all were able to realize that ideal, and those that could not adapted their marriage strategies and family lives accordingly.
当代学者之间的分歧使我们对被奴役者的婚姻策略和家庭构成的理解仍不明朗。研读历史文献可知,这种分歧的根源有两个问题:其一,学者们对于奴隶家庭生活在多大程度上受奴隶制外部因素影响,或者说受奴隶自身能动性影响存在分歧;其二,学者们似乎不愿放弃他们对奴隶家庭的单一观点。本文通过在奴隶能动性辩论中找到一个中间立场,并以复数形式重新定义奴隶家庭,来解决这两个问题。通过对弗吉尼亚北部和南卡罗来纳低地地区家庭构成的界限和机会进行分析,本研究表明,虽然建立共同居住的双亲家庭是奴隶们的理想,但并非所有人都能实现这一理想,那些无法实现的人相应地调整了他们的婚姻策略和家庭生活。