Tag Archives: Reagin

Cultural Organization

Posted on by

In Diane P. Koenker’s The Proletarian Tourist and Nancy Reagin’s Comparing Apples and Oranges, both authors describe how inter-war governments attempted to utilize cultural organizations to help shape and influence public behavior. Koenker’s work addresses the Soviet aim to foster tourism in order to serve the good of the state while at the same time enhancing the individualism of every person who participates in this endeavor. Reagin described the German housewives efforts to shape both the purchasing behavior and technological modernization within the household by doing it in a manner that was socially and economically responsible for Germany’s well being.

In Apples and Oranges, I thought it was interesting how German housewives were significantly influenced by their American counterparts. While the American model was viewed favorably and heavily incorporated by German housewives, certain components of it were considered highly wasteful and lazy. There was an example in the text that stated how most American housewives simply bought a new pair of underwear instead of washing the soiled pair because it is easier to do so. The German housewives tried to distinguish themselves from the Americans by preaching resourcefulness and hard work. A good German housewife would much rather buy a plethora of apples, store them in the cellar, and work hard to preserve their freshness than taking the easy route by buying fruits that are imported and in season. There are certain behavioral traits that German women took a great deal of pride in.

I noticed how the sources from The Proletarian Tourist were nearly all first hand. Koenker did a fantastic job interpreting and incorporating this information. Reagin on the other hand utilized a variety of source types in her piece. I believe that this difference can be attributed to the amount of focus that historical scholars have placed on each topic. I would imagine that tourism in the Soviet Union is not a topic that has received a great deal of attention compared to that of German housewives from the same period.

Was tourism unique to the Soviet Union during this period, or do you believe that similar practices were occurring throughout other parts of Europe for the same reasons?

The Impact of German and Soviet Organizations

Posted on by

In Koenker’s The Proliterian Tourist in the 1930s, and Reagin’s Comparing Apples and Oranges, both authors place emphasis on specific societal institutions.  Tourism in the Soviet Union became very politically focused during the inter-war period.  In Germany, the ideals of consumption were promoted by housewives.  Both articles provide basic insights into each organization and their various contributions to society.  It is clear that in both the Soviet Union and Germany, tourism and housewife organizations were utilized for the promotion of political and social ideologies.

Koenker’s description of tourism was both intriguing and surprising; she argued that a concept as seemingly casual as tourism had intentions of a larger political scheme, which was to promote socialism, and stray away from the bourgeois life.  While there are many obvious ways in which they implemented this change, it is shocking that the Soviets would turn to organizations like tourism to solve these issues.  This essay is substantial, because it depicts the significance of everyday activities with regards to a larger political agenda.

Comparing Apples and Oranges was similarly striking in terms of highlighting Germany’s reliance on everyday institutions to solve social and political issues. What was surprising in this article was the reliance on women to solve such substantial issues.  During the inter-war period, it was clear that the woman’s place was in the home.  While this article supports that ideal, it argues that being a housewife was actually a crucial responsibility. Housewife organizations were responsible for promoting German manufactured goods, rationalization, and natural ingredients.  It is surprising that women, as second-class citizens at that time, would be relied upon for such pressing issues.

Why were everyday organizations like tourism and housewife organizations targeted as catalysts for political change? Why were these specific groups believed to be beneficial to the political agendas of the Soviet Union and Germany?

Influencing Culture

Posted on by

“The Proletarian Tourist in the 1930s: Between Mass Excursion and Mass Escape” by Diane P. Koenker and “Comparing Apples and Oranges: Housewives and the Politics of Consumption in Interwar Germany” by Nancy Reagin both focus on the politicization of different aspects of daily life and leisure. Koenker’s article illustrates the way in which the Soviet government propagated tourism as a means to turn this leisure activity into a political action and elevate the proletariat culturally. Similarly, Reagin’s article highlights how the various housewife organizations in Interwar Germany politicized daily activities, like grocery shopping, and changed how German culture was perceived and remembered.

The way in which culture changed in Germany based on the opinions of these housewives’ organizations is very intriguing. The points made in this article bring up questions about larger implications for culture: how were other aspects of daily life in Interwar Europe determined and influenced by campaigns such as these? The fact that organizations determined national attitudes about daily choices—the types of food people ate (wheat bread vs white bread) and where they shopped—is incredible. That the pre-existing cultural climate allowed for this level of influence points to the chaos and loss present during this period. Europe had drastically changed in the span of four years and the following decades were filled with attempts to find a new equilibrium. These measures, encouraged by these German organizations, were meant to help find a new balance and help restore order and security to Germany.

Koenker writes about how the USSR attempted to influence its culture with tourism. The government wanted this practice to expand beyond the Bourgeoisie to the Proletariat, but this failed. Tourism in the USSR quickly turned from another avenue of collectivization to a new form of individualism and independence; this did not reflect the new governmental policies that encouraged a collective philosophy to truly mirror the ideals and principles of communism. These practices never became part of the essential culture, like food choices quickly became in Germany. Why did these two similar campaigns work so differently? Perhaps because the German organizations targeted daily practices rather travel, a leisure activity that occurs more rarely.