Monthly Archives: September 2013

Disillusionment and Fear Following WWI

Posted on by

Following the First World War, a sense of disillusionment fell over Europe, and Germany especially. In his 1920 film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Robert Wiene depicts the bewilderment of the German people after losing the war, as well as a general apprehension about change in the world. On the surface, Wiene’s film may seem like merely a horror movie, but it is, like all art, influenced by the ideas and events of the time, giving us a glimpse of interwar thinking.

In the early 19th century, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein served as a cautionary tale about the dangers of science and attempting to play God. Bertrand Russell discusses the dangers of science, as well, in Icarus or The Future of Science, in 1924, a century after Shelley. At this point, technological advances are occurring in many fields, such as manufacturing and science. Russell warns, “physiology will in time find ways of controlling emotion, which it is scarcely possible to doubt.” He fears that someday people will be able to control others with hormone injections, and make them do their bidding. This fear is brought to life in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Dr. Caligari is a physiologist who controls one of his patients by keeping him asleep through hypnosis, then waking him and forcing him to murder people. Not only does this show the evil of playing God, in the end, the whole story was just the main character’s hallucination, who is himself an inmate at a mental institution. This represents the disenchantment of the time, especially in Germany. The German people thought that President Wilson’s Fourteen Points would be the basis of the peace treaty, but instead all of the guilt and economic burden of the war are placed on Germany’s shoulders, while at the same time, Germany is being stripped of her economic resources.

The time period after World War One was an awakening. The war had caused destruction and death of an unprecedented amount.  To express disillusionment with the world, many people turned to the arts. Why the arts? Why, especially, film? Why was and is film such a strong medium for conveying ideas? What is it about film that makes it so powerful? Or is film not powerful, and some other form of art is the best form of self and ideological expression? Why?

Science and Fear

Posted on by

While science has brought about much great advancement in human history, it has also had the potential to be destructive.  In his article Icarus, or The Future of Science, Bertrand Russell argues that humanity would use scientific advances for darker purposes, such as to “…facilitate centralization and propaganda,” and as a result, “…groups become more organized, more disciplined, more group-conscious, and more docile to leaders” (Russell).  He argues that through technological developments, governments are able to have more control over all aspects of peoples’ lives.  These ideas almost predict the practices of Soviet Russia under the rule of Stalin, where the government closely monitored the people and punished those whose ideals did not agree with those of the state.  Russell’s fears are echoed in the film The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, in which a mad psychiatrist develops a means for a somnambulist to carry out murders for him.

One of the main themes of both the film and the article was human passion.  When describing his progress with the somnambulist in his journal, Caligari writes that “the irresistible passion of my life is being fulfilled.”  In the conclusion to his essay, Russell discusses the idea that science doesn’t give man passions, but it does give him the means to follow that which is already within him.  What struck me about this focus upon passion however was how both sources described human passion as if it is a terrible thing, focusing only upon evil fixations and how they could be driven out of control.  Usually, a passion is thought of as something good, and advancements in science could be used to turn these passions into realities as well.

Another aspect of Russell’s article that fascinated me was his idealization of a “world government,” a concept  which he glosses over its flaws.  He takes the stance that it would eventually rid the world of all its overarching problems, however I find myself disagreeing with this stance.  Wouldn’t the entire world coming together under one government cause some problems to occur on a larger scale?  His passion about this idea deviates from the cynical tone of the rest of the article.

Discussion Question:  Do you think that the goals of Russell’s hypothetical world government are similar to those of Nazi Germany?

The Fear of Science

Posted on by

As scientific advancement became increasingly prevalent in Europe after World War I, the elation and excitement that accompanied these developments was coupled with the fear and apprehension of certain members of that society.  One prominent voice to that effect was Bertrand Russell, who argued in Icarus, or, the Future of Science that “science will be used to promote the power of dominant groups, rather than to make men happy.” (Russell)  The basis of Russell’s argument lies in his presupposition that people lack the strength of morals necessary to guide them as science allows for a more comfortable and efficient lifestyle.  Because men are “bundles of passions and instincts,” the power and expedience granted by cutting edge science and technology will lead to a tumultuous climate of animalistic power grabbing that will ultimately lead to the demise of European society. (Russell)  These apprehensions towards scientific study are further reflected in Robert Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, a German horror film about a mental asylum director who attempts to master the condition of somnabulism in order to manipulate its victims into carrying out his murderous ambitions.

In order to fairly assess the validity of Russell’s argument, it is necessary to first make his aforementioned controversial presumption: “Men’s collective passions are mainly evil.” (Russell).  Russell was not alone in this position; even Carl Mayer & Hanz Janowitz created the fictional Dr. Caligari to be eventually driven insane by his own desperate pursuit of knowledge for immoral purposes. (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) To this end, it follows logically that because science will allow men to work toward these passions with greater expediency, it will thus accelerate the decline of society.  According to Russell, the most prominent of these evil passions is political self-interest, which could lead to absurd risk-taking in the name of competition and a narcissistic abuse of eugenics for the purpose of creating a society in the image of those in power.

The primary caveat that I find in Icarus is its near total lack of research. Russell even openly acknowledges at several points that his arguments are based upon conjecture (i.e. “I forget where I read this, but if my memory serves me it was in some reliable source”; “I am only suggesting possibilities which it may be instructive to consider”). (Russell)  Despite this, Russell’s piece and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari are both still useful as images of the trepidation with which some Europeans regarded the increasingly rapid advances in the field of science after World War I. 

Discussion Question: Do you think that the surrealist imagery (i.e. costumes, sets, art direction) in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was an entirely aesthetic choice, or was it chosen specifically to support the message of the filmmakers?

Russell – The Future of Science

Posted on by

In this article, Russell likens the progress of science to the inventions of Daedalus and the inherent selfishness of mankind as Icarus. As the myth goes, Icarus flies too close to the sun, has his wings melted and falls to his death. He predicts a similar fate for humankind if they are given the technology to fly towards the sun.

This article has many metaphors and summaries about technological development, but from reading his introduction and conclusion, one gets the impression that he is using science as an example to debate the human psyche. One impression he makes, is to talk about the consistent hope through history that mankind will develop an inherent kindness. However, by the end of the article he seems resigned to the conclusion that man will continue to use science, the most powerful of all historical progresses, to satisfy the prejudices of the masses and those in power. In his mind, only a strong global power can solve this problem, which is a confusing statement considering Russell’s lack of explanation. However, he debases this method as well, stating that the historical stagnation of the last great power, the Roman Republic, shows that the fall of civilization may the best answer to the combination of scientific progress and human flaws.

This theory is partially disproved by Stone, as he talks about one of Russell’s themes, eugenics, and describes its conclusion after the fact. His description of the Head of the Eugenics Society in Britain who changes his stand from pro-race eugenics to ‘parental obligations’ after the Holocaust, is symptomatic of the societal pressures of responsibility that the combination of scientific progress and human flaws can create (Stone, 99). However, it is hard to completely discredit Russell’s ideas as he does not give a time line for his projection of the fall of civilization. The themes, if not the specifics, of his article would be responsive of the dangers of scientific progress today.

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?

Changes in inter war society

Posted on by

In both Koenker’s article on Soviet tourism and Reagin’s article on German housewives we see a similarity in the attempts made by both governments to sway their citizenry to a specific ideology. In Russia the communist party decided to control all forms of tourism. They were determined to change the view of tourism from the “bourgeoise” experience of knowing “only one street in a new city, the street from the train station to the hotel.” To the Soviet of idea of a tourist on a bicycle who “could observe al parts of a city, from its outskirts to its bridges…” This proletarian shift dominated all aspects of Soviet tourism in the interwar period. In Germany we see another cultural shift in regard to the way housewives conducted their household responsibilities. Although the cultural change was no wear near as dramatic as the one happening in Russia their was still an attempt made by middle and upper class German ladies to make the life of the everyday “frau” a little easier. This attempt was focused mainly on home economics, the German government still regarded kitchen as the females “workplace”. The changes attempted by the Germans although less dramatic then in Russia were still steps taken by the government to influence social life.

Koeneker’s article really struck me, mainly cause it was a topic I had never given though to. Although it is obvious through studying the Soviet Union that the communist party were involved in all aspects of life, its very interesting to see the amount of importance they put on such a “minor” issue in the scheme of things. When thinking of the Soviet worker tourism is one of the last things you would think of. The Soviet’s used tourism as another way to indoctrinate their citizenry, and keep the workers happy, and content. This show’s the depth that the Soviet state went to control their citizens.

Several points came to me when reading these two articles. Why did the Soviet’s focus so much on changing a clearly “upper class” pursuit? Why not just eliminate tourism all together. In Germany why was their such a focus on the improvement of house hold economics when the country was clearly lagging behind other western countries in regard to their infrastructure?

Posted on by

Bibliography Interwar.doc 24.0 KB

My research project will focus mainly on the repressive political system run by Stalin in the Soviet Union from 1930 to 1950. During this era, Stalin used an oppressive political machine in order to gain control over the political sphere. Two ways which Stalin executed this tactic was through mass purges and The Gulag. The Gulag was a Soviet Union government agency which spearheaded the labor camp movements. Stalin’s purges of The Party was also a form of political control. Millions of Party members which he deemed as unfit were killed. I will be explaining the political and social strains and affects that this had on the Soviet Union during this time period.

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.

Disappearing Cultures of Northern Siberia

Posted on by

 

I will be researching the disappearing cultures of the native tribes of the Krasnodar Krai region of northern Siberia. Their traditional livelihood of reindeer herding was severely disrupted with the industrialization of the Soviet Union in the 20th Century, and the changes in Soviet government and social structures have also effected them profoundly. Follow the link to below to view my initial bibliography.

Research Bibliography