During week 10 of our studies, the focus was on everyday politics. The charivari practices were very interesting to learn about and I was not aware of them previously. For a more detailed version of my discoveries of the charivaris please see Reading Log #7 in the Reading Logs section or click here. Below are the questions received during class seminar followed by my answers with contributions from class discussion. All of the texts used to answer the following questions can be found (here) in the Sources section.
Allan Greer “From Folklore to Revolution” Questions:
What were the charivaris? Who took part in them?
Charivaris were demonstrations at an individual’s home, followed a “mismatch” wedding for marital charivaris, and targeted people that held office for political charivaris. “Mismatch” weddings could include weddings between two people of different status, wealth, class, age, and/or those who have been married previously. At these demonstrations people wore masks and dressed up banging pots and pans at night either demanding money or resignation. Anyone could take part in a charivari.
According to Greer, what was the purpose of a charivari? Were charivaris effective in achieving their purpose?
The purpose of a political charivari was to force resignation of an individual who originally held office that did not allow for Canada to have autonomy. The purpose of a marital charivari was to enforce the view that marrying for certain reasons such as money is a sin. In Renaissance France, the charivari was designed to help regulate the local supply of brides. Political charivaris were effective in achieving their purpose, and martial charivaris could be considered effective for some, however they did not discourage people who really wanted to get married from getting married.
How and why did the charivari change over time?
The charivari changed over time with the Lower Canadian Rebellion of 1837, which the ‘Patriot Party’ wanted Canada to have autonomy. This changed the charivaris focus from marital sins to the resignation of certain political leaders.
Susanna Moodie Roughing it in the Bush Questions:
What was Moodie’s view of the charivari?
She viewed the charivari as a scary, unorganized, and took the threats as real. In a sense she viewed the charivari as an angry mob that should be feared. She was also confused about it and asked lots of questions regarding it.
Why did she see the charivari in this way? Can you detect any biases in this primary document?
She has never witnessed the charivari before because she was from upper class Britain. Since the charivari was traditionally a French custom and Moodie was of British background, her British bias towards the French can be seen in this document. She also believes that the charivari demonstrators should mind their own business, leading to another bias seen throughout.
What role did gender play in targets of a charivari, and in the motivations of those initiating one?
The targeted ones of the couples were mainly the male partners. The men were the ones who would pay the charivari for the peace of their relationship. The charivari were also made up of mostly men, however women were allowed to take part, the event was heavily male influenced.
General Question:
Can you think of any practices today that are (in any way) similar to the charivari?
Protests and strikes are similar to a charivari because it is a group of people who are coming together to try and achieve change by sharing their dislike for something. Both of these allow anyone to participate and they are also political in nature. These examples would be more similar to a political charivari than to a marital charivari.