Science Has No Sex
Page 6
Only in the aftermath of the revolutionary events of 1848 was he subjected to any harassment, but even here, disturbing and frightening as this experience may have been, it was resolved without any concrete consequences for the family. Zakrzewski was forced to confess and repent, an action that allowed the government to save face and Zakrzewski to keep his job. Whatever political views he may have shared with his daughter within the confines of their own home, there is very little evidence that he ever su√ered professionally because of them.
This is not to say that personal alliances and petty intrigues did not a√ect Zakrzewski’s career. He may very well have enjoyed more protection under certain ministries than others. This is also not to deny his democratic sympa-
ASPIRING BOURGEOISIE
32 ≤
thies. Later in life, Zakrzewska claimed her father had introduced her to the writings of Karl Heinzen, a radical republican and political journalist who would be forced to flee Germany in 1850 as a consequence of the failed uprisings and who would eventually become part of her alternative family in
America.∏∂ Still, whatever Zakrzewski’s political sympathies may have been, for most of his career he showed himself to be anything but radical. Instead, he worked hard to succeed within the Prussian civil service system, and in public and in his o≈cial letters he consistently presented himself as an obedient servant of the state. Not only did he declare himself to be a member of the Protestant Church when he was sworn into his new position in the Privy Chancellery in 1841, and not only did he make sure his daughters were confirmed in the church, but he repeatedly assured his superiors that he was raising his children to be of value to the ‘‘King, the State and the Magistracy [König, Staat und
Obrigkeit].’’∏∑ Even if we consider that Zakrzewski may have done this solely for the purpose of appearances, the point is that he performed according to expectations, aware that movement up through the ranks of the Prussian civil service provided him with perhaps his only chance of improving his own situation and, by extension, that of his family.
Zakrzewska’s misrepresentation of her father in her autobiographical sketch cannot easily be ascribed to the usual tricks of memory, which often lead one to recall events in a distorted fashion. True, she may have been only eight years old when her father lost his military pension, but she was twenty-one when he was interrogated by the police. Moreover, she penned the autobiographical sketch just nine years later. As I argue later in this book, there can be no question that Zakrzewska’s autobiography was a highly constructed text, designed more as a vehicle for creating a certain image of herself at a critical point in her career than as an accurate account of her childhood. In the case of her father, by portraying him as both a radical and a victim of persecution, she accomplished several things: she grounded her own radicalism in her family history; she strengthened her diatribe against the authoritarian Prussian government; and she may very well have given her father the life he wished he could have led had he not had a large family to support. She may also have given herself the father
she wished she had had.∏∏
Unfortunately, the only document Zakrzewska left that describes her experiences during the first twenty years of her life is this autobiographical sketch, and it must be used with great caution. The story surrounding her father’s persecution is just one case in point. In other examples, the problem is less one of
ASPIRING BOURGEOISIE
≤ 33
distortion than of selectivity. Zakrzewska tells us, for example, that she spent the summer of 1840 with her mother at the Charité, which may very well have been the case. But most of what we learn about this prolonged stay is that she was, at one point, accidentally locked up in the dead house, having gone to examine the corpse of a young man who had turned green from the poison that had killed
him.∏π Whether this ever really happened is not clear, but for Zakrzewska the story seemed to matter more for the opportunity it gave her to emphasize her bravery (when she realized she could not get out, she simply lay down on the floor and went to sleep), her interest in dissection (considered improper for girls), and her early attraction to medicine (she was only ten years old). Indeed, as Susan Wells has argued, this story follows a narrative structure that captures symbolically the obstacles faced and overcome by nineteenth-century women who wished to study medicine, a profession that was, for them, as forbidden as the dead house.∏∫ We learn little else about Zakrzewska’s extended stay in the hospital.
Another time, Zakrzewska tells her readers that she quit school in defiance at the age of thirteen, furious at the school o≈cials for refusing to let her miss a morning of lessons in order to visit a close friend, a teacher of history, geography, and arithmetic, who was on his deathbed. When he died that very morning, she
‘‘left the schoolroom, . . . and never entered it again.’’∏Ω What Zakrzewska failed to mention is that it was not unusual for German children, especially girls, to end their schooling at this age. Indeed, with a working mother and five younger siblings, she was probably under considerable pressure to leave school and help out at home. But by portraying this solely as an act of defiance instead of also as an act of necessity, Zakrzewska could cast herself as intolerant of arbitrary and unfair rulings and in control of her life.π≠ The fact that her close friend taught history, geography, and arithmetic rather than religion, reading, and sewing is also not coincidental. As we have already mentioned, Zakrzewska could thus present herself as a proponent of those subjects her brother had studied in the nonclassical secondary schools and that she had come to view as symbols of modernity.
The stories Zakrzewska shared in her autobiographical sketch are thus not entirely reliable sources for gaining insight into the actual events and experiences that marked her youth. Nevertheless, since they are probably less fabrica-tions than embellishments, and since in some cases we find corroboration in the letters her father wrote to his superiors, we may be able to draw some conclusions about her experiences growing up. By all accounts, Zakrzewska did as-
ASPIRING BOURGEOISIE
34 ≤
sume considerable responsibility for running the household, raising her siblings, and even assisting her mother in the practice of midwifery. She once claimed to have ‘‘become a regular appendage to my mother; going with her in the winter nights from place to place, and visiting those whom she could not visit during the day.’’π∞ As the oldest daughter of seven children (in 1849, her parents adopted her mother’s half brother, who was orphaned upon his father’s death), a significant level of responsibility would not have been unusual.π≤ How she felt about it is another matter. In her autobiographical sketch, she described the years she spent caring for her family and assisting her mother as ‘‘among the happiest of my life’’; yet she also expressed resentment that she ‘‘should be forced to do housework when I wanted to read, while my brother, who wished to work, was compelled to study.’’π≥ Chances are that she both enjoyed the power that came with responsibility and felt burdened by the endless household duties that were preventing her from engaging in more satisfying work. We do not know what language Zakrzewska might have used at the age of fourteen to describe her disapproval of the traditional sexual division of labor, but her experiences in her family certainly contributed to her eventual decision to flout gender norms. It must have been di≈cult enough to accept that her brother’s formal education mattered more than her own and that she was expected to limit her activities to the domestic sphere, but watching her mother struggle to reconcile ‘‘production’’ and ‘‘reproduction’’ may very well have had the greatest impact of all.
Zakrzewska seems to have decided relatively early in life that she would not follow in her mother’s footsteps and try to combine work with marriage. She also seems to have been clear about which of the two she would prefer. Several sarcastic comments about marriage in her autobiographical sketch suggest that, at least by the time she had turned thirty, s
he had developed a distaste for the institution. She referred to it, for example, as ‘‘an institution to relieve parents from embarrassment. When troubled about the future of a son,’’ she elaborated, ‘‘parents are ready to give him to the army; when in fears of the destiny of a daughter, they induce her to become the slave of the marriage bond.’’π∂ It is possible, of course, that Zakrzewska was not yet so cynical when she was still in her early twenties and living at home, but she certainly would have had ample opportunity to observe her mother’s di≈culties trying to sustain a midwifery practice while still being in her own childbearing years. Not until Zakrzewska turned sixty did she lament that she had ‘‘no young life, which belongs to me.’’π∑ For most of her life, in contrast, she seemed clear that if
ASPIRING BOURGEOISIE
≤ 35
she had to choose between work and marriage, there was only one choice to be made.
Thus, at the age of eighteen, when many girls were either contemplating marriage or already wed, Zakrzewska applied to the same school of midwifery from which her mother had graduated. Clearly in this regard she was modeling her life on that of her mother, not turning away. Zakrzewska once claimed that the summer she had spent in the Charité marked the point at which she had decided to pursue a medical career.π∏ But whether she made this decision at the age of ten or not, chances are that her more formative experiences occurred during the years she accompanied her mother to the homes of laboring women.
During these visits, Zakrzewska later remarked, she had the opportunity both to observe her mother in the practice of midwifery and to learn firsthand about the
consequences of social inequality.ππ One can easily imagine the young Zakrzewska beginning to draw connections between the political theories she was learning from her father and the people before her who seemed trapped by their illnesses, poverty, and lack of education and political power. Zakrzewska would eventually build on these experiences when she founded her own hospital and became a champion of the poor. She may not have been without her own class prejudices, but her views would nevertheless place her on the far left of the political spectrum in nineteenth-century America.
Midwifery thus marked a site where Zakrzewska’s political upbringing, her interest in medicine, and her desire for economic independence could all come together. Of course, the pursuit of a medical degree might have had more appeal, but German universities, as embodiments of bourgeois culture and the separation of the sexes, excluded women until the end of the century.π∫ Zakr-
zewska’s experience in the school of midwifery would prove, however, to be the next best thing, for midwifery, like medicine, was experiencing as much turmoil around midcentury as was politics, and Joseph Hermann Schmidt, the man who became her mentor, advocate, and friend, was at the center of Prussian medical reform.
Master Midwife
In the fall of 1847 Zakrzewska applied to the city magistrates for admission to the Charité’s school of midwifery. She had just turned eighteen, the minimum age for anyone wishing to attend the school. She did not, however, submit her application without first seeking the support of Joseph Hermann Schmidt, associate professor of obstetrics at the university, director of the obstetrics ward at the Charité, and one of the most important medical personalities in Berlin at the time. At an early age—most likely because of her parents’ experiences—
Zakrzewska seemed only too aware of the need to establish relationships with powerful individuals in order to accomplish her goals. Fortunately for her, this contact soon blossomed into a deep and lasting friendship.∞
Schmidt’s support did not, however, prove su≈cient in 1847, and Zakrzewska repeated her mother’s initial experiences as she, too, received several rejections from the city magistrates. She later blamed this on her youth and unmarried status, but this would not have been consistent with the government’s o≈cial policy, which stated explicitly that anyone between the ages of eighteen and thirty, whether married, widowed, or single, could apply to a school of midwifery.≤ Undaunted, Zakrzewska waited one year and tried again, but again she was turned down. ‘‘During this time,’’ she later explained, ‘‘Dr. Schmidt became more and more interested in me personally.’’ Determined to apply again and encouraged by Schmidt’s support, she spent the following year reading midwifery texts and assisting her mother in her practice. When, in 1849, she received her third rejection, Schmidt intervened more directly. According to Zakrzewska, he took his request straight to the king, arguing ‘‘that he saw no reason why Germany as well as France should not have and be proud of a La Chapelle.’’≥
MASTER MIDWIFE
≤ 37
The reference was to Madame Marie Louise Lachapelle (1768–1821), chief midwife of one of Paris’s lying-in hospitals and the renowned author of an important midwifery text, Pratique des Accouchemens, the first volume of which had been translated into German in 1825.∂ If Schmidt did in fact make this argument to the king, it was because he saw in Zakrzewska a young woman who could assist him in his e√orts to improve the training and thus the status of midwives. By emphasizing the science of midwifery, the importance of training pupils in the use of instruments, and the need to bridge theory and practice, Schmidt was linking his proposed changes not only to the general educational reforms in which the Prussian government had been investing since the beginning of the century but also more specifically to recent reforms in medical education and licensing. Historians of medicine have explored in considerable detail the various curricular and legislative changes instituted by German governments around midcentury that strengthened the elite medical profession; less attention has been paid to the e√ect of these reforms on the training and practices of midwives. Yet Schmidt, who drafted the plan that informed the revamping of Prussia’s medical system in 1852, was committed to making changes in midwifery as well.∑
Whether it was because of Schmidt’s alleged audience with the king or his promotion to director of the Charité’s midwifery institution, Zakrzewska was formally accepted as a pupil in the fall of 1849, ten years after her mother had begun her studies. She would spend the next three and a half years at the hospital, gradually working her way up to the position of head midwife. During these years, she acquired greater knowledge of the natural sciences and excellent skills in delivering babies. She also learned, by observing the continued battles between midwives and physicians, how professional hierarchies were formed around claims to expert knowledge that were then sanctioned by law.
Zakrzewska would take this understanding with her when she left for the United States in 1853, a land where licensing was virtually nonexistent and medical practitioners of all ilks were vying with one another for patients and prestige.
. . .
Certainly no one had a greater impact on Zakrzewska’s early appreciation of the natural sciences than Joseph Hermann Schmidt (1804–52), the central architect of the rules and regulations that helped create a powerful medical pro-
fession in Prussia.∏ Born in Paderborn, Schmidt specialized in obstetrics during his medical studies. An ambitious man, he wrote the prizewinning Lehrbuch der Geburtskunde für die Hebammen in den königlichen Preussischen Staaten (Textbook of
MASTER MIDWIFE
38 ≤
Obstetrics for Midwives in the Royal Prussian States) in 1839, while he was teaching midwifery in his hometown, directing the city hospital, and serving as head physician of the city’s poor commission. According to the government-appointed prize committee, its advantages over the previous textbook included its greater attention to science, its increased focus on understanding rather than memorization, and its more careful delineation of the midwife’s rights and responsibilities.π
Educational reform coupled with greater regulation would mark the twin sides of the government’s increased legislation with respect to medical personnel over the course of the century. Schmidt’s deep appreciation of the intimate relationship between the two attracted the attention of Prussia�
��s minister of culture, Johann Albrecht Friedrich Eichhorn, who was looking for someone to help revamp the state’s medical system. Schmidt came to Berlin in 1843 to assist with the task. Two years later, after being promoted to privy medical councillor in the Ministry of Culture, associate professor of obstetrics at the university, and director of the obstetrics ward in the Charité hospital, he completed his massive work, Die Reform der Medizinalverfassung Preußens (The Reform of the Prussian Medical System), which became law in 1852.∫
Schmidt’s recommendations for restructuring the Prussian medical system echoed those of a large group of academically trained physicians throughout Germany who had been trying since the early 1840s to convince their state governments to institute both curricular and licensing reforms. Their campaign for an extension of the term of study from three to four years, greater time spent in laboratory and clinical courses, and a graded curriculum was coupled with a push to establish a more powerful and elite profession by eliminating several categories of medical practitioners still licensed at that time by the state. Thus, in Prussia, before Schmidt’s reforms were enacted, degree-holding medical practitioners were divided into physicians, surgeons of the first class, and surgeons of the second class.Ω Next in line were obstetricians, eye doctors, and dentists, followed by midwives. As a result of Schmidt’s reforms, the first three groups were collapsed into a single category, ‘‘physician,’’ and aspirants for this title had to pass examinations in internal medicine, surgery, and obstetrics.
Historians have paid most attention to the merging of medicine and surgery, which dissolved the centuries-old division of physicians into those more knowl-edgeable of theory and those who engaged in manual labor. But of equal significance, as Schmidt himself remarked, was that obstetricians, who had ‘‘been cut
MASTER MIDWIFE
≤ 39
o√ from . . . physicians, and placed together with opticians and dentists,’’ were now included among the elite.∞≠