Rough Draft of Paper 3- Gosh I think the blogosphere is out to get me!

Cultural Context of Liberalism of the 1930s

When Herbert Hoover took the Oath of Office as the 31^st President of the United States, hew was unaware of the economic tribulations and the repercussions of his response that would come to define his presidency an in turn, his legacy. The culture of the 1930s and the mood that defined the nation was captured in a popular media of the time, that of photography and paintings. While the 1930s was captured as the decade that defined the application of liberalism in America, the two presidents of the decade had drastically different beliefs for the application of liberalism. While Franklin Delano Roosevelt believed in improving the economy through the creation of government programs, Herbert Hoover believed in the sanctity of individual liberty. President Hoover defined individual liberty as protected by the United States Constitution, and believed that government intervention was a detriment to individual liberty. While the sentiments of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were captured through their written word and in transcripts of their speeches, the spirit of the American identity was captured in photographs and pictures. The effects of the New Deal produced particular images of American history and joined them to the idea of the government working behalf of everyday people. The pictures exhibited are representative of the effects of the laissez-faire interpretation of liberty as introduced by Herbert Hoover.

Author and historical critic Walter Sussman believed that the 1930s were the decade of participation and belonging, despite the economic turmoil. While the stressors of the economy affected individuals, the programs that resulted from the New Deal gave individuals an identity.  Yet Herbert Hoover differed in his belief of the implementation of New Deal programs. Hoover believed that the implementation of government funded programs infringed upon the liberty of the individual man because citizens were forced to take part in programs that were dictated by the government. While Franklin D. Roosevelt believed it was the responsibility of the government to provide for the well being of the citizenry, Hoover believed that freedom would not be constrained. While Roosevelt poured funds into programs that provide jobs to those that were not previously employed or skilled laborers, Hoover believed that the government should reserve the right for intervention to programs that provided national security. The New Deal was considered a government intervention into the lives of private citizens, on which Herbert Hoover stated “ The Spirit of liberalism is to create free men; it is not the regimentation of men.” (Hoover, Part. 1) The government intervention on behalf of private citizens did not just extend to the white man, instead it announced that it would provide benefit to both women and the African American men, This was exhibited by the New Deal through the payment of women and African Americans at the same rate of men. However, as Hoover stated “it is through taking vast sums of the people’s money and then manipulating it’s spending to build up personal power”. White men were therefore paying taxes to support programs that benefited the minority much more than themselves. Photos of workers in the Civilian Conservation Corps, hired through the WPA (Works Progress Administration) illustrated the duties of nearly 3 million young men. These were men that were not previously employed; yet through New Deal programs became eligible for federal-state unemployment benefits, ect.  While jobs were being offered at a rate not supported by the economic conditions and demand of the unregulated market, Warren Sussman asserts that while poverty was being combated, Herbert Hoover underestimated the national poverty average. This was due to the fact that Herbert Hoover did not count those that lived on farms as being in poverty.  Hoover believed that the spirit of the famer, that of self-made fulfillment and contribution to the economy, was the essence of personal liberty and a sense of the liberalist government.

            While the programs established by Franklin D. Roosevelt were government supported and economically inefficient due to the manipulation of the job market, Herbert Hoover believed in the ideas of volunteerism. As opposed to pouring government funds into programs that would encroach upon the liberty of the citizenry, he encouraged citizens and private enterprises to make contributions that would benefit the less fortunate and harder hit.  Hoover calls for liberalism in terms of an American plan that contrasts with that of the New Deal. Hoover believes that the extension of the 19^th century sense of freedom of the individual requires not extending “the mastery of government over the daily life of a people”. (Hoover, pg.2) Hoover sees America as a classless country, and therefore invokes the images of minorities as an equally optimistic culture.

            Seymour Fogel, an artist who made significant contributions to the realm of 20^th century art, created works that were representative of unprecedented social and cultural change. Fogel produced works of social realist art that echoed the sentiments and effects of the New Deal.  From 1934 to 1941 Fogel was awarded several mural commissions through the Fine Arts project of the WPA and the Treasury Department. Fogel’s murals were executed on the Treasury Building in Washington D.C., with several other works hanging at the Corcoran Gallery.  Fogel’s work “Security of the Family” is representative of a family engaged in urban industrial society. The painting depicts a family tied to the common sense of economic labor that Hoover believed all Americans should be engaged in. In Hoover’s address “This Challenge to Liberty” on October 30, 1936 he states that economic labor will lay ground for the first social American objective, which should be the “protection of the health, the assurance of the education and the training of every child in our land.” (Hoover, part IV) Hoover then goes on to advocate fro the freedom and virtue of a county where children are afforded the best of every opportunity, as “freedom can march only upon the feet of educated, healthy and happy children”. (Hoover, part IV) In the Fogel Painting ‘Security of the Family” the notion of health, well educated children is presented by the girl practicing mathematical equations at the chalkboard”. The depiction of a young female, practicing mathmatics is representative of the equality that was attempted during the 1930s. Hoover believed that any child could grow up to be President, and this idea of equality for all was represented through the exchange of gender stereotypes in Fogel’s work.  The painting has an idealized nature, representing what the programs of the New Deal could have given to the people if implemented properly, and with a shared understanding of the purpose of the program.

            The people represented in Fogel’s paintings are very important to the overall mood and sentiment created by the effects of the New Deal programs. The people depicted in both “Security of the Family” and ‘Industrial Life” do not have very exact features. For example the faces have shapes but the features are not chiseled. This relates to Hoover’s belief that too much government involvement in the lives of private citizens will lead to a loss in identity. This can also mean that the government has the ability to shape the citizenry into what it desires. In “Security of the Family” gender roles are reversed, where a man is holding the baby and the women is reading the newspaper. This is a contrast to the actual division of gender roles in New Deal programs as prescribed by Hoover and Roosevelt, where gender appropriate roles were assigned to women and men based on gender stereotypes. This could be due to strains of economic depression reinforcing the containment of feminism that had developed following the success of the women’s’ suffrage movement.

            Through his construct of the American idea of “liberalism”, Herbert Hoover believed that in order to address the real problems of society, the government must address the root cause of the problems as opposed to just throwing money into undeveloped solutions. Hoover believed that the  “American system” was one in which the government could not intervene in the lives of the people without becoming the ‘master of people’s souls and thoughts”. (Hoover, part II) Hoover differs from Roosevelt in that he was not the eternal optimist nor did he think all problems of society could be fixed by government intervention. Hoover believed that overarching government would destroy the identities of the citizenry, as exhibited by the depictions of faceless people in the paintings of Seymour Fogel. Fogel’s abstract paintings, representative of the 1930s citizenry, were representative of the gender constructs of the period that were defined by New Deal policies. 

Rough Draft of Paper 3

Rough Draft (aka Really Rough Draft)

Ashley L. Olt

AMST 72W

9 February 2009

Assimilation through Material Culture: The transformation of Immigrant Society

 

            The industrial cities of the late 19^th century were meccas for expanding immigrant populations. With the arrival of hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year, domestic clashes arose between the native-born white American and the immigrant. Immigrants, who had arrived in the United States under the impression that the streets would be paved with gold, were no longer welcomed into the job market.  Anti-immigration policies and the lack of jobs for native-born Americans created a dominant culture that editorialized immigrant communities as an inferior culture. Yet there were some immigrants, determined to fulfill the dreams that had sustained them on their arduous journeys to America that succeeded in their quest for the American dream.  Those immigrants that managed to subvert the popular ideas and stereotypes of the dominant anti-immigrant culture did so through entrepreneurship and the acquisition of material goods.

            The nature of immigrant culture, that of which revolves around the importance of family and upholding the ideals of the “Old World” from which the immigrants came, made it difficult for many to break into the traditional capitalistic market economy of the United States. Immigrants were prevented from entering the traditional capitalist society because of the barriers of entry to the marketplace. The barriers of entry included the explicit costs of business and name recognition, as well as the less explicit costs of the inherent bias of the market in favor of the Caucasian native-born American male. The ease of entry into the marketplace was a deterring factor for immigrants who came from backgrounds in the Old World that could have translated into opportunities in the New World. In the case of Eastern European immigrants of Jewish ancestry like those portrayed in Anzia Yezierka’s novel “Bread Givers”, the traditional role of the male head of household was a stigma to success in the New World. While men were the dominant bread winners in the society of native-born Americans, the role was reversed in some immigrant households. Women, in addition to their traditional household and child-rearing responsibilities, were expected to bring in an income to support their family.  The role of immigrant women in the marketplace gave them purchasing power that was not as prevalent in the societies of white native-born Americans.  For the majority of white native-born American women, the money that entered the household was not extended to them as a matter of a shared partnership. Therefore, the sight of women in the marketplace was an attack on the traditional gender roles of the white native-born culture.

            Anzia Yezierska’s immigrant novel, “Bread Givers” portrays a Jewish immigrant family residing in a heavily Eastern European immigrant neighborhood of New York City. The Smolinsky family, headed only in title by Reb Smolinsky, personifies the characteristics of entrepreneurship and the quest for material wealth that became the equalizer between Immigrant and native-born society. Yezierska’s novel opens with the portrayal of the starving Smolinsky family, anchored by a religious father figure, his frustrated wife, and four daughters. In the mind of Reba Smolensk, his duty was to study the holy messages within the Torah while his wife and daughters went out to haggle for an income in the marketplace.   In comparison the typical native-born American family structure would have featured the father figure in the workplace while the mother and daughters tended to the domestic needs of the family.   The youngest of the Smolinsky daughters, Sara, is observant of the actions of her sisters in terms of their efforts to escape their impoverished situation. Yet Sara differs from her three sisters; Bessie, Mashah, and Fania in that she devises a strategy of entrepreneurship and self-betterment to elevate herself to an improved social status.

             Sara Smolinsky takes it upon herself to strive towards self-betterment by means of entrepreneurship and education. Reb Smolinsky also looks at entrepreneurship as a means of self-betterment, however he goes about it in a manner that cold be considered the “get rich quick scheme “ that tends to back fire in a normal marketplace. As a young girl, Sara is given 25 cents by a charitable neighbor. Determined to show her older sisters her aptitude with entrepreneurship, Sara purchases 25 herring at 25 cents a piece. She then goes to the marketplace and sells each herring at two cents a piece, turning a twenty-five cent profit. When she returns home, Reb Smolinsky insists that she turn the profit over to him. Ever the obliging daughter, Sara endures years of Reb’s totalitarian dominance. It is not until Reb ventures into the realm of entrepreneurship that Sara finds the strength to confront the cultural dominance and bias of her father. Reb Smolinsky, in an attempt to secure financial stability for his family, purchases a grocery store at a less than market value price. Yet Reb does not inspect the store or require certification of the goods within, and comes out of the transaction at a severe monetary loss. For Sara, whose ideas are steeped in the value of the rewards of hard work, this is the beginning of the separation of her independence and her obligation to her family.

Sara Smolinsky, repelled by her father's ineptitude at adapting to American culture, took it upon herself to discover the process of assimilation. While her sisters had been married off in the traditional sense, with the hopes that they were gaining wealth, Sara looks to education as her entryway into the dominant culture.  Many immigrants arrived in the United States with little to no know knowledge of language and customs, and were not able to attend school due to the necessity of factory life. Education was the vital transition factor for Sara Smolinsky in that she was able to expand upon her primitive education and adapt to that of what is expected in the United States. Yet Sara's struggle within the educational system is representative of the clash against dominant culture faced by many immigrants. Sara is looked down upon by her schoolmates, as her background is clearly evident from her accent and her manner of dress. The material belongings that Sara accumulates become every bit as important as the education she gains. Material worth, sometimes achieved through entrepreneurship or earned through education is an outward symbol of the rejection of immigrant culture and the acceptance of American culture. Material culture was spread through the immigrant culture by means of radio, advertisements, and the cinema. In the case of the Smolinsky family, the beautiful Mashah is perceived as vain because she spends her meager earnings on efforts to beautify herself.  Yet through the course of the novel the reader discovers that Mashah's efforts are not as much about vanity as they are self betterment and self-control.

            While Sara Smolinsky's quest for education could be interpreted as a quest for assimilation attained by education, her thirst for knowledge can also be seen as an internal desire to capture the same desire her father holds for his holy books. While Sara is motivated by the rewards of self betterment, including the upgrade of apartments and clothes, she is more motivated by her teenage desire to become a teacher sot that all eyes will be on her the way they were on her father when he would preach inside the home. Sara devotes the same time and energy to obtaining a teaching degree as her father did to the study of his Holy Books. While Sara does in fact achieve her goal of attaining a teaching certificate, she does not allow her desire to achieve knowledge detract from the new found freedom and acceptance she has come to enjoy. As a college graduate and new teacher in the New York Public Schools system, Sara comes to exemplify the modern women. Yet the classification of Sara as modern women is not one limited to that of classifying a "modern immigrant women". Sara has removed herself from the immigrant culture enough so that she can be reclassified by the dominant cultural hierarchy.

            Like Sara Smolinsky, other women of the late 19^th century found themselves trapped in financial and domestic situations that left them as secondary citizens. These women, often classified as urban middle-classes found themselves a new outlet of self-betterment, that of cosmetics. According to author Kathy Peiss, women linked cosmetic use to an "emergent notion of their own modernity, which included wage-work, athleticism, leisure, freer sexual expressiveness, and greater individual consumption". (Peiss, 372) While the market for cosmetics continued to echo the class system, cosmetics were a shared achievement and digression from traditional female roles. Cosmetics encouraged women, like Sara, who had often sacrificed much of themselves for the betterment of their families, to "Not be ashamed of their desire for beauty". Like Sara Smolinsky's quest for enlightenment for education, other women sought their quest for enlightenment and self-betterment through the use of cosmetics.

Cosmetics were not just marketed towards the upwardly mobile middle class white women. The branding and price variety of cosmetics marketed made it possible for immigrants and minorities to have access to cosmetics, albeit at a different quality. This proffered the belief that all women could be brought to an even level through their consumption of a common good unrelated to their household.