Free In Her Own Right : The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton by Elisabeth Griffith

tactics, and risk taking she adapted from reformers and revivalists; her ideology derived from her wide reading and tolerance for new ideas. None of these models accounts, however, for her humor, curiosity, energy, habitual cheerfulness, sexual attitudes, childbearing practices, or her appetite for food and controversy.
    All of Stanton’s primary mentors were models of independence of one kind or another. Daniel Cady was a self-made man, a Whig in the Jacksonian era, an agricultural innovator, a wealthy republican. Margaret Cady was a woman who tactfully but effectively imposed her will on her household and community. As one contemporary observed, Stanton had “imbibed . . . from her mother that dauntless independence of thought and speech which, for want of a better name, is called the courage of one’s convictions.” 7 Similarly Lucretia Mott had been in the forefront of abolition, women’s rights, and Quaker reform; she had survived the attacks of established religious and political authorities and yet was widely admired. Significantly, both Stanton’s mother and Mott provided examples of active, independent old age and widowhood. Such examples prompted Stanton’s admiration and emulation.
    Both Stanton’s principal and secondary models duplicated and reinforced many of the same behaviors. For example, Edward Bayard, Charles G. Finney, Gerrit Smith, and Theodore Parker all encouraged her religious inquiry. Bayard, Henry Stanton, and the Welds approved of her skepticism of medical authorities. Her mother and Mrs. Mott applauded her habits of self-indulgence, in terms of taking care of herself, although Mott disapproved of unnecessary extravagance.
    From the behaviors Stanton exhibited that seem modeled on other people, it isclear that her parents and Mrs. Mott played the most prominent roles. Social learning theory does not explain why those three were more influential than others—Henry Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, or such secondary figures as her sisters, deceased brother, Bayard, Hosack, Emma Willard, Finney, Gerrit Smith, or Libby Miller. It does suggest that Stanton perceived her parents and Mrs. Mott as being more powerful and nurturing than any others.
    That Stanton did not model her behavior on that of her husband or her closest ally is apparent from her actions. Henry Stanton and Susan B. Anthony played similar roles in her life: each was at one time a source of approval and affection for her; each provided emotional sustenance, was imposed upon, and resented. With each of them Stanton was publicly paired. With each of them Stanton tried to maintain a public facade of agreement, but with each of them the appearance of a bond outlasted the reality of their relationship. Henry Stanton had encouraged her initial reform interest, and Anthony had provided ongoing incentive. Stanton’s husband became less enthusiastic, but her colleague continued to approve of her public behavior. Eventually Anthony supplanted Henry in Elizabeth’s affections. Both Henry and Susan moved in and out of her life and her household, but overall, Stanton probably spent more hours and days with Anthony than any other adult. While Stanton admired certain qualities in each of them—Henry’s oratory, Anthony’s organizational skills—she also disapproved of some of their traits. Her husband’s political opportunism and Anthony’s cold self-righteousness made them less appealing than the models Stanton did select.
    Social learning theory can reveal much about a subject, but its application requires knowing a substantial amount to begin with, both about the subject and its models. Because of the roles played by the Cadys and Mrs. Mott, it would be helpful to know more about them and their habits. The lack of information about Margaret Cady is especially frustrating. Genealogical records, the recollections of relatives, and two photographs hardly provide the kind of information that would be useful to social scientists or