I've read a few romances recently which reminded me of Ros Ballaster's distinction between "didactic love fiction" and "erotic fiction." These books were most definitely "didactic love fiction. According to Ros Ballaster
The early eighteenth century [...] saw a split between female-authored pious and didactic love fiction, stressing the virtues of chastity or sentimental marriage, and erotic fiction by women, with its voyeuristic attention to the combined pleasures and ravages of seduction. (33)For Deborah Lutz
contemporary romance falls under Ballaster’s category of didactic love fiction—romance that has a didactic project, is future-directed, and attempts to represent a moral way of living, a “just” kind of love (depending on what constitutes the “morals” of the particular time period in question). On the opposite extreme, the dangerous lover type falls under the rubric of amatory fiction. (2)However, given that Lutz also writes of modern romance that, "Contrary to all expectation, the dangerous subject appears in this form of didactic fiction" (3) it's probably best to think of the genre as one which exists along a spectrum, from the most didactic, which endeavour to teach the reader what to look for in a potential spouse, and how to achieve a happy marriage, to those in which the focus is really on the "combined pleasures and ravages of seduction" and in which the genre's promised "happy ever after," if it takes the form of marriage between the protagonists, may be less than convincing.
Some of the books I've been reading lately are vintage Harlequin/Mills & Boons and it's interesting to see the advice handed out by the ones which are at the "didactic love fiction" end of the spectrum.
In Jill Christian's The Tender Bond the heroine, Pamela Jane, has realised that she has feelings for both Dominic and his half-brother, Martin. She's engaged to the latter, but
He did not stir her to tingling excitement as Dominic did. Dominic roused in her the instinct to surrender, to give herself body and soul into the hands of a lord and master. He would dominate her, and there would always be a certain awe in her love, a desire for meek obedience. She would never, never win the upper hand with him.Christian's novel was first published in 1961, and the edition I read was published in 1981. Between these years Dobash and Dobash wrote that:
Martin would never seek to dominate her. She would be the tender wife-mother to him; she would guide and shape both their lives, and he would let her mold him into the pattern she wanted. He would come to her for comfort and courage, and she would kiss him gently and send him out into the world strong again.
Which was it to be? Wife-mother, queen of her home, the comforter, the lady; in the old meaning, the loaf maker? [scroll down this page a little to see the derivation of the term "loaf maker"] Or the wife by capture, the weaker vessel, her husband always in the ascendant; a man to love, honor and obey?
One could not obey if one did not honor. Was the reverse true also, that one could not honor if one did not obey? (157)
"Love, honour and obey", the phrase is now often deleted from the marriage vows, but still stands as confirmation of the fact that the woman enters into the state of marriage in a secondary, subservient position. This omission may reflect the current concern about the position of women in marriage and society, but it does not reflect a change in the reality of married life. The omission is a bow to the trendy new cause called 'women', but it is a superficial, cosmetic patch which has been placed upon the institution of marriage. An institution which has been blemished for centuries by a patriarchal structure and a hierarchal ideology which has institutionalized the subservience of one half of the population and deified and enshrined that relationship to such an extent that it is almost beyond question or scrutiny.As Lutz observed, didactic romance "attempts to represent a moral way of living [...] (depending on what constitutes the 'morals' of the particular time period in question)" (2), but even in any "particular time period" there are likely to be starkly contrasting moral opinions.
"Love, honour and obey" is the lot of women in marriage. Care for him, look up to him and do as he wishes - or else. Implied in that vow is the threat of rightful control over those who fail to obey; control may take the form of coercion. Thus, foundations of wife battering are written into the marriage contract. (403)
The passage I quoted from Christian's novel is one I found interesting because of the evidence it offers about attitudes towards femininity and masculinity. It is pretty clear from this and other parts of the novel that Christian believes women should both "love, honour and obey" their husbands and have maternal instincts. Pamela Jane's initial preference for Martin is explained by reference to these maternal instincts:
Up to this hour, the strongly marked maternal side of her nature had ruled her life. The instinct to serve, tend and heal had led her into nursing [...] Martin's dependence made an irresistible appeal to an instinct highly developed and active. To progress from nurse-mother to wife-mother was but a natural step, and one she could have taken with happiness if tonight had not happened.Dominic hopes and prays that "she would see for herself that a complete, truly feminine woman, with all the complex needs of her perfect body and lovely mind, cannot be satisfied forever by a perpetual child" (159).
She had not even suspected the existence of another woman within the kernel of her personality. A woman whose instinct was for a man of power, stronger in mind, body and character, a ruler, a king to whom she could submit joyfully.
Dominic had held out a hand to that other woman, wakened her and led her forth, like a king plucking a beggar-maid from the crowd. [...]
The words of the stately old prayer book came to her mind. "To love and to cherish." That was the man's promise. "Wilt thou obey and serve him, love, honor and keep him?" That was the woman.
Those old churchmen knew human nature through and through. They understood it long before psychology was thought of. They knew a man in love would want to cherish, that a woman in love needed to obey.
But they'd overlooked one thing, those men of old time. That not all human creatures have the same needs, the same nature. Sometimes it is the woman whose love is fulfilled by the promise to love and to cherish. There were men who needed to lose themselves in the strength a woman possesses, to love and to honor, serve and obey as a man obeys his queen. (157-8)
The impasse is broken due to the scheming of Isabel, who wants Martin for herself. Isabel explains that
" [...] Martin will never be more than a big handsome schoolboy. His wife will have to be the man about the house, make all the big decisions, carry all the final responsibility. [...] You're an ordinary girl; you've got ordinary desires, ordinary needs and feelings. Martin's type wouldn't satisfy you six months. [...] I'm not an ordinary woman. I'll never be a little, adoring wife. [...] At my wedding there'll be no such words as 'obey.' In the old days, I could have been a queen." She smiled as if seeing a picture of herself, a cruelly satisfied expression that reminded Pamela of a fed tiger in a zoo. "I should glory in possessing and ruling Martin, and he'd glory in obeying."and
Pamela shuddered. "It's horrible, like the spider and the fly."
"A lot of insects eat their husbands. I don't find that disgusting. I find it interesting. [...]" (176-77)
[Isabel] " [...] Can't you see - I'm concerned for him! I love him."Pamela recognises that
[Pamela] "Love? It sounds more like hatred."
[Isabel] "You wouldn't understand. What do you know of a love that will compel, use force to get what it wants? [...] I can make him eat and like the food that's best for him. He'll thank me in the end."
[Pamela] "You can't force a man to love you."
[Isabel] "Martin will love me because I do force him. He'll love me because I'm strong and completely ruthless [...]" (177-8)
It is true, what Isabel says. He is a handsome boy and I love him as a boy, but that isn't enough to last us through the long years. [...] She is cleverer than I thought, that Isabel. It's she who has the eternal fountain to offer him, with her strange, possessive - and to me, terrible - love. She was right to be concerned about his future with me. (180-81)In her acknowledgement that Isabel is right, and that "not all human creatures have the same needs, the same nature," Jill Christian may be showing some tolerance for individuals like Isabel and Martin but it's nonetheless the case that female dominance and male submission are depicted as reversing gender roles in an unnatural (not "ordinary") manner that seems repellent and "terrible" to "ordinary" people. The submissive man is described as less than a real man: he is a "boy". The submissive woman and dominant male, on the other hand, are considered to be the norm.
In addition, the dichotomy between dominance and submission within marriage leaves no space for equality. Christian does allow for the possibility of very temporary shifts in roles. Pamela Jane, who feels she has "two women" inside her, "the one desiring to uplift and comfort, the other needing to surrender and accept sweet defeat with joy" (170) is going to be given the opportunity to "uplift and comfort": "It came to her that Dominic needed the mother-woman in her perhaps even more than Martin. He, too, was lonely, frustrated and vulnerable; he had his wounds of the spirit" (171). This temporary granting of power to the "feminine" woman is, however, couched not in the language of dominance and submission, but that of service, which is hardly threatening to traditional gender roles.
The authorial commentary on the action and the particular lessons the novel seeks to convey to the reader, may make the didacticism of this particular romance difficult for a 21st century reader to miss, but contemporary romances can also be highly didactic. I'm planning to put up a post about one of them next week. [Edited to add: A few other things have come up, but I promise I will get back to this topic.]
- Ballaster, Ros. Seductive Forms: Women’s Amatory Fiction from 1684 to 1740. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
- Christian, Jill. The Tender Bond. 1961. Don Mills, Ontario: Harlequin, 1981. [First published by Mills & Boon under the title Nurse to Captain Andy.
- Dobash, R. Emerson & Russell P. Dobash. "Love, honour and obey: Institutional ideologies and the struggle for battered women." Crime, Law and Social Change 4.1 (1977): 403-15.
- Lutz, Deborah. The Dangerous Lover: Gothic Villains, Byronism, and the Nineteenth-Century Seduction Narrative. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 2006.
Here is the current version given in the most recent revision (AFAIK) of the US Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer:
ReplyDeleteThe Declaration of Consent
The Celebrant says to the woman
N., will you have this man to be your husband; to live
together in the covenant of marriage? Will you love him,
comfort him, honor and keep him, in sickness and in health;
and, forsaking all others, be faithful to him as long as you
both shall live?
The Woman answers
I will.
The Celebrant says to the man
N., will you have this woman to be your wife; to live
together in the covenant of marriage? Will you love her,
comfort her, honor and keep her, in sickness and in health;
and, forsaking all others, be faithful to her as long as you
both shall live?
The Man answers
I will.
http://www.bcponline.org/
Incidentally, the relationship between Isabel and Martin sounds like the real-life one between the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, according to The Windsor Story.
I agree with you entirely about the equality in marriage often being a matter of shifting balance. The notion that the husband should be in control is the chief excuse for domestic abuse ever since the first Neanderthal guy clocked the first Neanderthal gal over the head with his club. I like the way it's done in the J.D. Robb IN DEATH series, where sometimes it comes down to actual physical combat--but it's a form of foreplay, and they pull their punches.
I agree with you entirely about the equality in marriage often being a matter of shifting balance.
ReplyDeleteYes, I don't think it would be possible to maintain absolute equality at all times, although there can almost always be consultation, discussion and joint decision-making about important issues. But at some times one person may be tired, upset etc and need a bit more support than the other.
Re the Book of Common Prayer, one of the things about the new FOCA group is that they plan to return to the old version:
Conservative evangelicals representing half of the world's Anglicans launched a new global network today, challenging the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.
The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (Foca) will sever ties with the main churches in the US and Canada, whose liberal leaders are accused of betraying biblical teaching.
The group vowed to rescue people from the forces of "militant secularism and pluralism" created by the "spiritual decline" in developing economies.
Great swaths of the Global South Communion - a collection of provinces including Africa, South America and Asia - are furious with their counterparts in the northern hemisphere, rebuking them for being in thrall to contemporary culture, with the ordination of Gene Robinson, the gay bishop of New Hampshire, acting as a tipping point. The creation of the new group is a schism in all but name.
Outraged over the "false gospel" being promoted in the west, the group will return to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, ignoring 21st century additions and interpretations.
So what have they got against the 1549 and 1552 versions?
ReplyDeleteI have not read the sources, so perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree here, but I am most uncomfortable about a classification that distinguishes at a primary level between 'didactic love fiction' and 'erotic (love fiction)'. The first level of any typology has to employ definitions that cannot overlap, otherwise the whole framework totters. 'Red' and 'Black' form a valid first-level pair; the possibility of something that is both red and black creates a third primary class, as do examples with neither colour, perhaps Green, Blue and Yellow. 'Large' and 'small' can work as a basic classification, provided the average size has been formally defined, so that all examples to one side of the line are 'large' and those on the other, 'small'. Sub-types will inevitably be needed with both, and typologies can be combined, so that small red objects can have a specific number, as opposed to large green ones, but this happens at a sub-type level, not at the top.
ReplyDelete'Red' and 'small' cannot work as a basic, first-level distinction, because they measure completely different qualities. They work only as a second-level refinement of the framework, or further down the scale.
'Erotic' and 'didactic' seem equally dubious: clearly a novel about love or a human relationship may be both erotic (= dealing with the topic of sexual love) and didactic ( = aiming to teach some lesson or principle) - or it may be neither. The first level must deal with either the intention of teaching or its absence, or with the presence of sexuality or its avoidance, and more complicated combinations appear in the sub-types and sub-sub-types. If I have understood what you quote correctly, Laura, Ballaster's classification is fundamentally invalid.
I can understand that the distinction may appear to work in the case of 18thC fiction, because at any time certain types of story will be in fashion, and others will not. (Actually, it doesn't, because I defy anyone to claim that Cleland's Fanny Hill is not both erotic and didactic). If the classification is extended to other periods, it surely breaks down completely, with far too many overlaps and internal contradictions. By definition, I should have thought that classic HEA romance stories are 'didactic': they express an ideal to which many strive. But they can do this in the absence or the presence of eroticism.
I haven't read literary criticism in any formal sense since I was an undergraduate, but I work with typological classification every day of my life.
So what have they got against the 1549 and 1552 versions?
ReplyDeleteTal, I have no idea.
By definition, I should have thought that classic HEA romance stories are 'didactic': they express an ideal to which many strive. But they can do this in the absence or the presence of eroticism.
You're absolutely right that erotic works can be didactic. The one that springs to my mind immediately is Ovid's Ars amatoria (though I'll admit that I haven't actually read it).
I wonder if, when using the term "didactic," Ballaster was meaning "didactic in the sense of teaching the reader how to achieve a morally and socially acceptable marriage." Because of course, it would be quite possible to write a work that was erotic and didactic in the sense of teaching about sexual pleasure.
I also wondered if Ballaster was perhaps using the distinction in a way which parallels that between erotica (about sexual relationships and focussed on sexual pleasure, and in which there's an intention to give the reader sexual pleasure) and romance (in which generally there is a socially acceptable marriage/partnership at the end - I'm generalising, of course). Of course, as you say, you can't draw a clear line between the two, and nowadays a lot of people would think that achieving a satisfying sex life with one's spouse was vital to ensuring a good marriage.
I still found Ballaster's distinction helpful, though, because it made me think about the extent to which romances could be considered didactic, and what they might be intended to teach. And I do think some romances tend more towards teaching (whether about sex, marriage or some other topic) and some incline more towards describing sexual activity in a way which arouses the reader. Probably most romances combine the two, but they certainly do so in a range of different proportions.
'...describing sexual activity in a way which arouses the reader.'
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is part (though not all) of the basic definition of pornography. ;-) :-D
Of course, this is part (though not all) of the basic definition of pornography. ;-) :-D
ReplyDeleteYes, that's true. I think it's undeniable that many people read romances because they find parts of them arousing, and some scenes in romances are written in a way that's intended to be arousing.
I wrote a long post about the differences between pornography and romance here and Sarah wrote one about the differences between erotica and pornography here.
One point I feel I should mention, but which I haven't so far, is that the passages I quoted here are very overtly didactic, and didactic in a way that makes the reader feel that they're being told what to think. Some romances are much more exploratory/challenging in their engagement with the intellect. Perhaps one could think of that as a more socratic form of didacticism? ;-)
I worked out my own classification of erotica as opposed to pornography long ago, and I find it works well in practice, but there is essential background material, relating to the changes in law and society over the last 40-odd years. It is that ever-changing background that has led to confusion. Basically, all written fiction which included sexual activity described in a plain, non-euphemistic fashion was classified as obscene and pornographic up to 1960 (in the UK), so a more refined and nuanced classification was impossible to devise. Now straightforward sexual description is so common and acceptable that some people imagine that pornography - or even erotica! - must be only that which deals with the more inventive and adventurous types of sex.
ReplyDeleteIn my classification, an erotic novel, though not a pornographic one, may or may not be a romance; that depends on character, plot and outcome, not on the amount or kind of sexual activity included in the story.
If anyone is interested, I can set out my typology, but perhaps it would be going off the point a little here. I may say that classifying written material on this subject is very much easier than dealing with the visual arts, which are my main area of study.
Of course, not everyone was English :) In the 16th and 17th century, Lutherans and Calvinists on the continent basically (out on the church porch, since marriage was not a sacrament and should not take place before the altar, in their view) got:
ReplyDelete1) a brisk overview of the three purposes of marriage, namely the procreation of children, mutual support and companionship, and a remedy for lust; and
2) a firm reminder that there were two biblical grounds for divorce, namely adultery and desertion, and what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander (in somewhat more theological terminology).
Which was followed, of course, by the question: Knowing this, do you, X, freely consent to enter into the estate of matrimony with Y. Without consent, there was no marriage.
ReplyDeleteUpon doing some further research, I find that American Methodists, in 1792, voted to drop the homily on the three purposes of marriage from their marriage rite on the grounds that it was "too indelicate." That says something about changing sensibilities as part of the cultural change from the early modern period into the 19th century.
ReplyDeleteThat's fascinating, Virginia. I'd assume it was the second of the purposes which was deemed lacking in delicacy, but did they have problems with the first and third purposes too? I'll quote all three in full for the benefit of anyone who hasn't already read them:
ReplyDeleteFirst, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
I rather like the wording of the third reason.
I don't know, although I would guess that it was #2 that bothered them. I've asked interlibrary loan to order a couple of books on the history of Christian marriage rites. When they come in, if there's anything relevant, I'll post it.
ReplyDeleteLaura, didactic/erotic is a very interesting framing for looking at romance. I think AgTigress has a point that the terms are of limited utility if they're held in strict opposition, but I don't see why they should have to be defined that way. They strike me as more a perpendicular or mixed classification, different vectors that touch in some places but not all; more like AgTigress' overlapping definitions of erotic/pornographic/romance:
ReplyDeleteIn my classification, an erotic novel, though not a pornographic one, may or may not be a romance; that depends on character, plot and outcome, not on the amount or kind of sexual activity included in the story.
I've asked interlibrary loan to order a couple of books on the history of Christian marriage rites. When they come in, if there's anything relevant, I'll post it.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem a shame for you to write a huge comment down in a thread which not so many people will see, so I was thinking that if there's quite a lot of stuff that's relevant in the books you get from the library, maybe you could email me first (via my website) and if we can find an angle on it which relates it to the romance genre, I could put it up as a blog post. I'm wondering, for example, how you, as a historian, feel about the depiction of marriage in a lot of historical romances? Do you get the impression that modern ideas/models of marriage are being inserted into the novels about these earlier periods?
And have you read anything by Stephanie Coontz on the history of marriage? I keep meaning to, but my list of books to read just keeps on growing.
didactic/erotic is a very interesting framing for looking at romance. I think AgTigress has a point that the terms are of limited utility if they're held in strict opposition, but I don't see why they should have to be defined that way. They strike me as more a perpendicular or mixed classification, different vectors that touch in some places but not all
Oh yes, and I think there are a lot of other mixed classifications emerging in romance as sub-genres blend/cross-over/inspire each other. One could get some really interesting combinations, such as erotic inspirational science fiction romance.
Sure, I'll let you know via your web site if there's anything useful.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read Stephanie Coontz. I've read a lot by Lawrence Stone, Peter Laslett, and others of the Cambridge Group; Steven Ozment on the impact of the ideas of the reformers (When Fathers Ruled; The Buergermeister's Daughter, Magdalena & Balthasar); Duby and others of the Annales school on the medieval era (where almost all the data involves the aristocracy), etc. Harrington's "Reordering Marriage and Society in Reformation Germany" is useful, though best used along with Heidi Wunder's "He is the Sun; she is the Moon," as are several works by Natalie Zemon Davis. Merry Wiesner, Gender, Church, and State in Early Modern Germany, also provides a non-English perspective in the English language, as does Woolf's Domestic Strategies for France and Italy.
Oddly, my main feeling is that if anything, most authors stereotype marriages in the past as far more authoritarian/patriarchial than they actually were. Just to give an example, for an entirely unrelated bit of research, I was reading through the minutes of a Baptist church in Fauquier County, Virginia, in the 1790s. The pastor, deacons, and voters (all male) expelled a member for abusing his wife -- adding the comment that while wife-beating might be legal under the secular law, it was clear from the New Testament that no decent Christian man should do such a thing.
There's a tendency for authors who are looking for what I call "rapid background material" to pick up some readily accessible prescriptive work and use it as "the" model of the past, rather than expending the time to go into extensive reading of descriptive material contemporary to the time period and get a comparative sense of what different groups and individuals though. It's not as if all people who lived in the past were cardboard cutouts duplicating one another.
My oldest son is an associate circuit judge. He says that the most miserable aspect of his professional life is domestic relations court, where he encounters human behavior at his worst. However, as he also points out, there's a lot of the population that never has reason to end up there. Court records, one of our main sources for marital relations in the past (e.g. Ursula Rublack, The Crimes of Women in Early Modern Germany), by their very nature, tend to deal with people who have violated the norms of behavior as well as the prescriptions of the law.
Upon looking at amazon.com, I find that several years ago, I did read a book by Coontz, checked out of the library:
ReplyDeleteThe Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz (Paperback - Aug 2000)
At the time (having been awake and aware during the 1940s and 1950s), my reaction was dual: first that she was more than a little overwrought, since at the time everyone knew that life wasn't like the television sitcoms portrayed it; and second that she was interested in using her views of history as an ideological bludgeon more than in detailed research.
I really have a lot of trouble viewing an era during which I was in high school (graduated 1957) as "the past" in any meaningful way.
at the time everyone knew that life wasn't like the television sitcoms portrayed it; [...] I really have a lot of trouble viewing an era during which I was in high school (graduated 1957) as "the past" in any meaningful way.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting you should say that, because for me that period is in the past, and my view of it is formed mainly by pictures of the fashions, and, no doubt, the stereotypes which emerged from those sitcoms you mention. My mother was still only a baby/small child in the late 1940s. I'm aware of my ignorance, though, so I would try to do some research before making any statements about social reality, whether in the present or the past.
LAURA said: One could get some really interesting combinations, such as erotic inspirational science fiction romance.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: "science fiction MEDICAL romance."
Laura, just always remind yourself -- "Leave It to Beaver" never showed the kids going through nuclear attack drills in their elementary schools. Real American kids did -- regularly.
ReplyDeleteNot only did Tom Lehrer precede the so-called cultural revolution of the 1960s, even the Merry Minuet did. It accompanied us all through high school.
Merry Minuet
by the Kingston Trio in a live performance recorded for their first in-concert album From the Hungry i LP 1959
originally written by Broadway lyricist Sheldon Harnick, who also wrote Fiddler on the Roof and Fiorello!, She Loves Me with composer Jerry Bock. This satire was introduced by Orson Bean in the 1953 revue John Murray Anderson 's Almanac.
They're rioting in Africa (whistling)
They're starving in Spain (whistling)
There's hurricanes in Flo-ri-da (whistling)
And Texas needs rain the whole world is festering with unhappy souls
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch
AND I DON'T LIKE ANYBODY VERY MUCH!!
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud
For man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lovely day Someone will set the spark off
AND WE WILL ALL BE BLOWN AWAY!!
They're rioting in Africa (whistling)
There's strife in Iran
What nature doesn't so to us
Will be done by our fellow "man"
---
I suspect that prominent among the underlying reasons that talpianna and I greet our mornings with such cheerful irreverence is that we both are, at some underlying level, happily surprised to be alive, given the expectations that surrounded us when we were growing up.
"Leave It to Beaver" never showed the kids going through nuclear attack drills in their elementary schools. Real American kids did -- regularly.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming that "Leave It to Beaver" is a sitcom, but I've never heard of it before. My knowledge of the US in that period is third or fourth hand, probably, as I haven't even seen the sitcoms. I've only seen pictures in books, and read comments which might be based on what people like Coontz saw when they watched the sitcoms. I have seen a few episodes of the sitcom about a witch with a twitchy nose who's a housewife, but I think that might have been made a few decades later?
I suspect that prominent among the underlying reasons that talpianna and I greet our mornings with such cheerful irreverence is that we both are, at some underlying level, happily surprised to be alive, given the expectations that surrounded us when we were growing up.
I think it's not just to do with the historical events one's lived through, but also to do with how each individual assesses them, as with the glass half full/glass half empty thing. Should I be pessimistic and cynical, or happy and full of national pride, because I grew up when Thatcher ordered the sinking of the Belgrano and the unions were fighting what was pretty much the elimination of the mining industry? A bit later there was the massacre in Tiananmen Square, there huge protests over the Poll Tax, and throughout my childhood and adolescence every so often the IRA would carry out another bombing. I'd imagine that one's opinion about each of these instances of protest against a government would differ greatly depending on one's political opinions. Should I be happy and optimistic about possibilities for global peace and reconciliation because of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of apartheid? Should having grown up during the Cold War (and now living during the "War on Terror") and worries about AIDS (and now living during a period where there are dire warnings about bird flu and global warning) make me feel that life is always precarious, or should the fact that the human race is still in existence be reassuring?
Laura wrote: I have seen a few episodes of the sitcom about a witch with a twitchy nose who's a housewife, but I think that might have been made a few decades later?"
ReplyDeleteThat might be I Dream of Jeannie (1965-1970) but is more likely to be Bewitched (1964-1972). If it has Samantha and Tabatha, it's Bewitched.
I'm not really familiar with either of them because I was too busy to watch much TV during that time period (finished my Ph.D. in 1967; had children in 1968 and 1971 while teaching full time).
You can find out far more than any rational person would ever want to know about Leave it to Beaver here:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leave_It_To_Beaver
You can find out far more than any rational person would ever want to know about Leave it to Beaver here
ReplyDeleteAh, it turns out I did know something about this after all, but secondhand. I'd seen people make comments about June Cleaver, and I got the impression she was a stereotypical housewife, but I wasn't sure if she was fictional or real.
is more likely to be Bewitched (1964-1972). If it has Samantha and Tabatha, it's Bewitched.
It was indeed Bewitched. I only saw a few episodes, but my impression was that the witch wanted to be "normal," so she tried to be a good housewife, but of course, she's a witch and her family aren't at all "normal" so things get a bit complicated for her.
Leave it to Beaver is before my time too, but what a fascinating period. A few months ago I watched The Atomic Cafe. The Washington Post called it "the blackest apocalyptic humor since Dr. Strangelove"; the extra blackness is because it's not fiction. The film is made up of stock footage from the 1940s-50s, without even a modern voice-over. It's hard to believe how the atomic bomb was portrayed in government films and on the news clips--the insouciance and the imminent fear are jarring together. This site describes the film as evoking "the what-me-worry social madness of the Cold War". The more I learn about that period, the more certain I am that not having lived through it, I'll never understand it.
ReplyDeleteAlso from my high school era -- Tom Lehrer's "I Got It from Agnes" (1952).
ReplyDeletehttp://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/agnes.htm
I did not attend a trendy prep school. I grew up in the middle of Missouri, but believe me, we sang Tom Lehrer. Yes, we also did the bunny hop. It was just one of those things.
A lot more Tom Lehrer (mostly available in the first half of the 1950s).
ReplyDeletehttp://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/
I particularly recommend "The Old Dope Peddler" and "We'll All Go Together When We Go."
I've never been able to figure out why people thought things changed so much in the 1960s. At a minimum, they should persuade anyone who encounters them that the Mills & Boon novels were scarcely an accurate reflection of the era.
Virginia, those are wonderful. And provocative; you're right about the contrast with the worlds of the Beave and M&B.
ReplyDeleteOh we will all char together when we char.
And let there be no moaning of the bar.
Just sing out a Te Deum
When you see that I.C.B.M.,
And the party will be come-as-you-are.
June Cleaver was not really a stereotypical housewife; she was considered absurd because she used to do her housework wearing pearls and high heels. I don't know about the pearls, but the actress explained the high heels as required by the fact that the young actor playing her older son had a growth spurt and was taller than she was without them.
ReplyDeleteBut Tal, if you look at adverts and magazine covers from the period you would get the impression that that's how women dressed. Obviously this sort of thing isn't the best evidence for how people actually dressed, but fashion photos/drawings are perhaps the evidence that's most available, so they shape the impressions that people who weren't alive then have of that period.
ReplyDeleteAlmost all the housewives in those pictures I linked to are wearing high heels while in the kitchen, so did everyone consider the adverts to be absurd too? Why were housewives so routinely portrayed wearing high heels if this wasn't either the norm or the ideal?
Well, we lived on a farm. My mother (born in 1909) wore flat sandals around the house in summer and canvas loafers (indoors) and gum boots (known in the UK, I think, as Wellies) outdoors in the winter, unless she was going to town or someplace she wanted to look sort of authoritative (she served as precinct election clerk, was treasurer of the school lunch program, etc.).
ReplyDeleteI think the advertisements were mainly trying to give women the impression that if they bought the gimcrack or thingamabob the company was peddling, they would have more leisure time to wear high heels. Yes, people thought they were silly.
I think the advertisements were mainly trying to give women the impression that if they bought the gimcrack or thingamabob the company was peddling, they would have more leisure time to wear high heels.
ReplyDeleteAdvertising is fascinating--all those intentional messages tapping into our aspirations and anxieties! Speaking of mid-century aspirational messages to women, there's a good short film on how Tupperware (plastic containers) sales moved women into the direct-sales workforce:
Wise transformed the stereotype of the suede-shoed door-to-door salesman into a woman -- in heels, no less. Women who had worked in factories, or five-and-tens, or on farms, were now dressed in white gloves and hats, self-assured, able to speak publicly with confidence. "It was a very privileged job...Tupperware moved us up to being a lady," says dealer Clairie Brooks. Perhaps most importantly, Wise encouraged these women to believe in themselves and dream big. "Brownie had the ability to talk to your dreams. You could suddenly see yourself being something you hadn't thought about before," recalls salesperson Sylvia Boyd.
PBS has an excellent website for Tupperware, including a full transcript, a reading list, a historian's overview of women and work (postwar), and a timeline of "Women, Work, and Plastics History, 1850-2003":
1850s
States begin passing married women's property laws ...
1886
Twenty-eight-year-old door-to-door book salesman David McConnell starts the California Perfume Company when he discovers that the free perfume samples he gives out are the real reason people buy from him. In 1939 his company will be renamed Avon. ...
1945
Earl Tupper obtains some polyethylene from DuPont and begins to develop his wonder bowl with its soon-to-be-famous "burping" seal.
...
"Queen for a Day," a radio game show, first airs. The female contestant whose life story is the saddest, as judged by audience applause, wins a household appliance of her choice. ...
1953
Li Walker, a Filipino war bride who is unable to get a teaching job because of her accent, starts selling Tupperware. ...
One thing that's a real cultural difference between the 1950s and today is that except for actual participation in sports (tennis whites, swimsuits, etc.), then when people had leisure time, they usually dressed up (dress shirts, often tie and jacket, for the men; dresses, heels, and some jewelry for the women). My parents, aunts, and uncles did this even for visiting one another on Sunday afternoons.
ReplyDeleteNow, though, people dress down for leisure time wear.
I have often wondered if it's a result in the change in balance between occupations that required manual work and white-collar occupations. People who wear dress clothing at work for most of the week make up a considerably larger proportion of the work force now than then; they don't get the same sense of "change" if they wear office-style clothing during their leisure time. The only sense of "change" available to them is either evening wear or very casual clothing.
I just posted several clips of the Tupperware film. The PBS website for the film is really excellent.
ReplyDeletePeople who wear dress clothing at work for most of the week make up a considerably larger proportion of the work force now than then; they don't get the same sense of "change" if they wear office-style clothing during their leisure time.
I think that's very plausible, along with the more casual lifestyle and furniture these days. If you sit bolt upright on a firm chair then wearing a skirt, blouse, and even hose is fine. If you sit cross-legged on a large sloppy chair, you want less structured clothing.