I’ll be honest in beginning this o.b.e. by stating that I am not entirely confident in my interpretation of Stansell. Upon reading, I was reminded very strongly of the movie/musical extravaganza Moulin Rouge, which specifically addresses the ‘Bohemian Revolution’ in Paris. For anyone who has not seen the film, there are some great social insights into the European roots of the bohemian movement that Stansell discusses behind all the musical numbers and the dramatic love story. The ideas that are addressed in this particular reading are in stark contrast to those ideas presented by Engels in his discussion of early Manchester because they actually shed light on the learning and livelihood that existed in the city as opposed to the dilapidation and despair. The young intellectuals within the city, often bright college students who desired to avoid the mundane and predictable paths of typical businesspeople or escape the sheltered environment of their upbringings, found themselves immersed in new cultures, ideologies and lifestyles that captured their interest and made the city an exciting and desirable place to be. The opportunity to explore and embrace diversity was new and intriguing for all involved, and the forum for discovery that developed created a unique combination of cultures and appreciation and interest within the city that could not be replicated elsewhere. This description is strikingly different from that of Engels, who felt so strongly that the disdainful living conditions for the poor within the city were the fault of the types of families that many of these intellectual children may have come from and their disregard and ignorance of the poverty just around the corner from their homes. What is similar, and perhaps a bit ironic, about these two articles is that in both cases the privileged are the ones who are benefiting. Despite the fact that Stansell’s discussion portrays the city as vibrant and hopeful and a harbor for cultural appreciation, the ‘bohemian intellectuals’ that came into the city came to “revel and discover, not to aid and uplift (Stansell, 12).” Although their efforts were to abandon the excess that permeated much of their upbringing, their commitment to the actual ‘city lifestyle’ of the poor and immigrants seems minimal at best aside from absorbing information and drawing on the experiences of others. Engels’ argument that the wealthy can choose to bypass parts of the city that are too upsetting or impoverished but still employ the inhabitants has some warrant here, as those ‘bohemians’ in Stansell’s work also chose to avoid certain aspects of the city life while benefiting from others. While I do feel that this reading sheds a much more interesting light on the positive happenings within the city, it is easy to overlook the fact that many of the poor in the city were still being exploited for something that they could offer for a relatively low cost. In Engels’ instance, the poor were exploited for labor while in Stansell’s, they were ‘exploited’ for knowledge and culture that could not be gained elsewhere.
I find that many times when I read these readings I have so many different thoughts and moments of agreement and disagreement that I do not know what to write about because I cannot present it all as one single thought. So my goal with this entry is to comment on the parts of the reading that stuck out to me – what I liked, why I didn’t, and what I thought was truly revolutionary. (Please consider that I am not a sociology major, so I find a lot of it revolutionary).
First of all, let me say, I think the idea of bohemia is exciting and incredibly progressive, even today. This is clearly seen in the respect amongst fellow “bohemians” that seems to transcend race, gender, and class. As Stansell describes it “not slummers…not philanthropists…they came to revel and discover, not to aid and uplift.” The idea of embracing and celebrating our differences instead of trying to make everyone else the same as us or keeping our distance from those who are not the same is something that we, as a society, still have not figured out to this day. I realize that there are psychological reasons this does not often happen in addition to other reasons (e.g., sociological, political, religious). However, the idea that a society or a group of people could function in this way is encouraging.
I also like that, although bohemia seems like a truly accepting environment for most (although it appears maybe that was not so for African Americans), it was not an environment where discussions were about on-the-surface, universal topics (i.e., the weather, the game last night). There was celebration of differences, but there was also debate over them. As Stansell quotes “Ideas circulate. Brains tilt with brains. Eccentricity must show cause or be jostled.” It was great if you knew what you knew, believed what you believed, but you better be able to defend it. It seems strange to say that bohemia was an intellectual environment, but from how Stansell describes it, that is the impression I get. Eleanor Roosevelt may have argued that these people discussing ideas have great minds. She said “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”
It was surprising to read that bohemia existed in a “symbiotic relation to bourgeois culture rather than in opposition to it”. Although, I’m still a bit confused as to how that all worked, I think it is very telling. The enhancement of identity was desirable within the bohemian lifestyle and the bourgeois lifestyle, so what made them such different “cultures?” In my opinion, it was the “every man for himself” focus of the bourgeois compared to the very idealic “let’s celebrate our differences and learn from each other” attitude of bohemia. Bohemians recognized that “mixing of classes and sexes was not a threat or problem but (an) opportunity—psychological, artistic, and commercial.”
I appreciated that Stansell pointed out that some of the ideas behind bohemia and the way in which Bohemian writers wrote never quite made it out of the ideal phase (“never altogether transcended the genre of the picturesque”), because it all sounds so good, but the reality is that it obviously had its problems. It may not have been the ideas themselves that were the problem as much as it was the people and the society in which it was being played out. Prejudice against African Americans and the “characterization” of immigrants (instead of them being an integral part of mainstream society) were obviously big issues that appeared to go against the original ideals of bohemia.
Overall, I really liked this piece. It was a much more optimistic view on city life than earlier readings. However, I would love to read something a little more balanced – discussing the good (e.g., bohemian ideals) and the bad (e.g., poverty, homelessness, etc) of city life.
OBE #1 A comparison of urbanism, bohemia, and the changing role of women according to Wirth and Stansell
Stansell argued that the Bohemian lifestyle encouraged a society focused on the individual classified by the changing of social norms, and values. Stansell used the word anomie to describe the evolving condition of society. To support his argument he talked about how women could go to the grungy restaurants and saloons without a man, and men of the working class could intermix with the elites to talk about business, politics, or entertainment. The general feeling that I get from reading Stansell is that he is happy about the “anomie” that bohemia creates. While Stansell is supportive of the social effects the city has on a population Wirth is a little less welcoming of the idea of the decay of social norms and values. In this OBE I will compare and contrast Stansell and Wirth on their opinions of: urbanism, family, and reasons for the gathering revulsion.
It is reasonable to claim that Stansell believed that bohemia distinguished urbanism from ruralism in Wirth’s terms. Wirth said that the urban lifestyle can be defined by its physical structure, relations revolving around institution and social hierarchies, ideology, and an array of personalities uniting that is controlled by system of society (Wirth, 102). Stansell talks a lot about the people who were spotted in these “shabby” restaurants and saloons. Making up the majority of the people were poor immigrants. Interesting enough the bohemian lifestyle was intriguing to some middle class gentlemen and ladies. After everyone had a couple rounds of drinks from the bar the alcohol blurred the social class lines of the structure. Consequently in New York workers explained politics to the “sophisticates” and they welcomed them at their table in the saloon. Therefore, I believe that Stansell would not agree with Wirth on the subject of urbanism when he defined an aspect of it, “as a system of social organization involving a characteristic social structure, a series of social institutions, and a typical pattern of social relationships (Wirth, 102).” In fact he would say that combining e workers (poor immigrants) and sophisticates (elites) in a social setting would harvest competition and reciprocated exploitation (Wirth, 100).”
Another interesting comparison I saw were Stansell’s and Wirth’s feeling about the blurring of the social norms. In particular Stansell focused on the social norms of women. In his article it seemed as if he was applauding women, identifying with bohemia, who ventured out to the saloons without a male guardian. However, Wirth would attribute falling reproduction rates in the city to this change in the roles of women. He would be upset to see that maintaining home and producing babies was not a priority anymore.
Comparison of Wirth and Stansell on the subject of urbanism, bohemia, and changing social roles of women
Stansell argued that the Bohemian lifestyle encouraged a society focused on the individual classified by the changing of social norms, and values. Stansell used the word anomie to describe the evolving condition of society. To support his argument he talked about how women could go to the grungy restaurants and saloons without a man, and men of the working class could intermix with the elites to talk about business, politics, or entertainment. The general feeling that I get from reading Stansell is that he is happy about the “anomie” that bohemia creates. While Stansell is supportive of the social effects the city has on a population Wirth is a little less welcoming of the idea of the decay of social norms and values. In this OBE I will compare and contrast Stansell and Wirth on their opinions of: urbanism, family, and reasons for the gathering revulsion.
It is reasonable to claim that Stansell believed that bohemia distinguished urbanism from ruralism in Wirth’s terms. Wirth said that the urban lifestyle can be defined by its physical structure, relations revolving around institution and social hierarchies, ideology, and an array of personalities uniting that is controlled by system of society (Wirth, 102). Stansell talks a lot about the people who were spotted in these “shabby” restaurants and saloons. Making up the majority of the people were poor immigrants. Interesting enough the bohemian lifestyle was intriguing to some middle class gentlemen and ladies. After everyone had a couple rounds of drinks from the bar the alcohol blurred the social class lines of the structure. Consequently in New York workers explained politics to the “sophisticates” and they welcomed them at their table in the saloon. Therefore, I believe that Stansell would not agree with Wirth on the subject of urbanism when he defined an aspect of it, “as a system of social organization involving a characteristic social structure, a series of social institutions, and a typical pattern of social relationships (Wirth, 102).” In fact he would say that combining e workers (poor immigrants) and sophisticates (elites) in a social setting would harvest competition and reciprocated exploitation (Wirth, 100).”
Another interesting comparison I saw were Stansell’s and Wirth’s feeling about the blurring of the social norms. In particular Stansell focused on the social norms of women. In his article it seemed as if he was applauding women, identifying with bohemia, who ventured out to the saloons without a male guardian. However, Wirth would attribute falling reproduction rates in the city to this change in the roles of women. He would be upset to see that maintaining home and producing babies was not a priority anymore.
I completely agree with you. I especially noticed how both Stansell and Wirth noted the changing of social values in society-because is was one of the more silent (though very significant!) revolutions compared to the others of the time. I dont know if i totally got the feeling that STansell was applauding women, but definately was more positive about it than Wirth.
Stansell's piece talked about the birth of a form of journalism that is still alive and well today, especially in arts weeklies in major metropolitan cities. The humanistic slice of life piece that is not only voyeuristic but slightly vicarious is alive and well today. On pdf pages 8-9 of Stansell's work he points out how this type of reimaging is very different from the purely voyeuristic, clandestine and carnal impulses that were sought out in brothels and nightclubs of the black community and other immigrant communities. The allure of the Lower East Side to the recent Ivy league graduate of the 1890s was of more completely filling out and reimaging their own life, as opposed to the escapism sought in other immigrant neighborhoods.
Stansell's work was painted mainly from the point of view of the outsider making their cautious entry into the world of bohemia. I am curious how involved in the community of the Lower East Side these cafe dwellers ventured. Were the cafe goers apt to find intimate friends, lovers and roommates amongst the people of the neighborhood? The amount of integration and assimilation that took place for the new bohemians would help me to grasp on how earnest this embrace of bohemia was.
I was also taken aback by the class of work available to the bohemians who opted out of a more pedestrian lifestyle. On pdf page 5 Stansell writes that bohemians sought to place themselves beyond the "mundane lot of the illustrators, journalists, actors and actresses. . .". These are highly regarded positions in our modern society and to see them painted as sort of the upper-class craftsmen of our day does not seem like a judgment we may make today.
The marriage of bohemian ideals and the city seems like such a long relationship that it is hard for to imagine the city without the ideals espoused by bohemia. The embrace of the other and the embodiment of the other and the collaboration between new communities and more established ones seems at the core of the modern urban experience.
To understand the economics of this movement would be another step in understanding the core of how this new movement impacted the people who were involved with it. I wonder whether the owners of the restaurants and bars that were at the apex of these conversations supported their new clientele and who they themselves were. --Sean McPherson
After reading all of my peer’s equally accurate descriptions of the Stansell piece, I can’t help but think there might be something else that she was trying to get at with this colorful description of bohemia. Every time I have read Stansell, I am always amazed at the imagery she creates for the reader, but in this particular account, I detect a bit of criticism along with the glorification and appreciation of the bohemian lifestyle.
Rachel pointed out one of the most striking Stansell explanations of bohemia, quoting that it existed in “symbiotic relation to bourgeois culture rather than in opposition to it.” On the surface, that may seem obvious or unimportant, but when thinking about the representation of bohemia and its significance in “fashioning a new America,” (15) I believe that it certainly couldn’t exist without the stigmas and disgust associated with the Lower East Side by the bourgeois class. Similarly, the bourgeoisie aimed to further demoralize the relationships between the immigrants and those who sought to interact with them. In a sense, it gave the bourgeoisie something else to critique about the decay of culture and the growing infestation that immigrants and their lifestyles brought to the urban community.
Of course, I do agree with everyone that bohemia presented and fostered opportunities for a mélange of culture, ideas, and relationships, which welcomed the elimination of prejudices and restrictive norms. These places that sprouted up along urban corners definitely invited a variety of people to seek conversation outside their normative settings. Furthermore though, Stansell describes these places best as “layers of fantasy” (14) that almost seduced sophisticates into self-discovery and modernity. In a way, elite-bohemia fed off of the sufferings and inequalities of their new immigrant friends.
Once again, don’t get me wrong. I appreciate bohemia and it’s contributions to current culture, art, etc., but it definitely created more success for the “sophisticates” that already had it. As Sean talked about, the journalism that came from this era, proved over dramatized and mainly for the entertainment of those elite-bohemians, those men and women who wished to commercialize the lives of lower class citizens. The “freely associative feuilleton” (25) was such a perfect way to describe the journalists and their understanding of immigrant encounters as a mere soap opera on continual play.
Furthermore, as pointed out by one of my peers, they rarely focused on “the Tenderloin” which housed much of Manhattan’s black community. I know that the fascination with slumming didn’t arise until the 20th century, but it still goes to show the almost total separation of an entire race of people. That doesn’t seem to lend much to self-discovery and the expansion of knowledge and understanding.
Still, I can’t help but applaud the efforts of the bohemian culture to surpass many boundaries and lines that separated the city.
I know I didn’t get into Whitman or Wirth or Engels, but I felt like there was a lot to talk about in this Stansell piece. What do you think? Am I reading too much into bohemia?
Mrs Grundy is the personification of the tyranny of conventional propriety (from Thomas Morton's play Speed the Plough, which appeared in 1798).
(By contemporary rules of punctuation of 1798, still prevailing in North America today, she is Mrs. Grundy.)
Peter Fryer's book Mrs. Grundy: Studies in English Prudery concerns prudish behaviour, such as the use of euphemisms for underwear.
By the mid-nineteenth century, Mrs. Grundy was so well established in the public imagination as a canonical character that Samuel Butler, in his popular novel Erewhon, could refer to her in anagram (as the goddess Ydgrun).
Robert A. Heinlein also mentions her, for example, in his novels The Number of the Beast and To Sail Beyond The Sunset.
Charles Dickens also mention her in his novel "Hard Times".
So, basically you call someone a "Mrs. Grundy" if they are prudish and super conventional i guess...hmm...kind of opposite of what the Bohemians were going for.
I don't know if this aspect was covered by a group we didn't get to on Tuesday, but the marginalization of the Black community within bohemian culture by Stansell seems to definitely be worth noting in a critique of bohemian culture. What I mean by Stansell's marginalization of the Black community in Manhattan is that this essay has little to say about the issue and what it does say is short and at the end of the essay, which can be interpreted as being tacked on or as one of her conclusions that she wanted to close with. Nevertheless, it’s inclusion is relevant given the recent Du Bois reading of Black neighborhoods.
While the Irish and Italians have for the most part been assimilated into the contemporary American conception of whiteness, Black Americans are still a marked category. This can be seen in the rise of bohemian culture as well. Stansell notes this when she states
“Bohemian sensibility did not prove so elastic when it came to African Americans. This was a matter partly of demographics, partly of the place Manhattan’s blacks occupied in the city’s cultural geography, and partly of assumptions and prejudices against African
Americans that ran strong among even the most open-minded white New-Yorkers” (25).
This passage does a good job of summarizing what she says in the rest of the paragraph as well as the subsequent paragraphs. Not only were the structural boundaries in tact in terms of geography, but Black Americans were excluded from the intelligentsia, their cultural expressions were perceived by bourgeois and lower east side Jewish bohemians alike as un-assimilatable into their immediate cultural and intellectual langue. The neighborhood of the Tenderloin is also where the slumming aspect that has been contested as occurring in the lower east side is more explicit, since it was predominately seen as where adventurous white bohemians could go to soak up some more diversity that they could use to potentially fuel their high-minded discussions when they scuttled back to their side of town.
This is obviously not the most positive portrayal of how bohemian culture operated, but it does show a certain ugly underbelly to this somewhat idealized culture.
Stansell and Dubois had similar viewpoints to where Blacks were placed in the social hierarchy, but instead of clumping Jews in with Whites as Dubois did, Stansell did just the opposite and clumped them in with Blacks. I'm not saying Stansell did it intentionally (though it's hard to know for sure), Jews were probably seen and discriminated upon equal to that of Blacks during the time Stansell wrote this.
ok, so essentially the point is that "bohemia" really only arises out of the cyclical, symbiotic exchange between the lower east siders (i would argue the true, or at least original and unadulterated, bohemians) and the elite bohemians (the slummers, day-trippers, hangers-on, and the ilk). Also, each individual component of the two categories isn't encircled by bohemia because alone they aren't anything notable.
also, the quasi-connection that jewish immigrants have with the two bohemian categories is indicative of their somewhat bridging function in this whole mess.
Nourished by an alcoholic rain and yummy spaghetti and bratwurst soil, the Bohemian Flower grew up from a tiny plant with only a couple of small poet and artist leaves. As it grew, the Jew stem supported the numerous other leaves and eventually a flower full of ideas. The WASP stamen and pistil (remember your biology?) structure tied the whole flower together and attracted the money/idea bee (bee, wasp, fuggedaboutit!) which went on to pollinate many other idea flowers, exchanging pollen and nectar. Then the bee took all the pollen back to the oil tycoons and refined it into honey for them. After that the anti-trust bee-keeper broke up the oil tycoon honey cartel and fed it to the bee-keeper's family including their daughter Federal and son Government. Hmmm, just a tad off track there.
Walt Whitman's view of the Brooklyn Ferry employs the idea that the entire community assigns the same meaning to the things that he sees. I would actually think that while there may be certain things that trigger similar thoughts, people are quite capable of thinking individually, and they do. He soon leads into the idea of the individual, but returns to the thought that individuals are still part of a common identity over time.
The “Elite” Bohemians and the “Genuine” Bohemians OBE 2
On the Lower East Side it was not just the disparities between the participants in the Bohemian atmosphere that made it a unique setting, but the dialogue. In class we had a bit of discussion about the “Elite” Bohemians and those that I’ve deemed the “Genuine” Bohemians. (By “Genuine” I mean the ones who didn’t need to travel very far to go home. I don’t know if “Genuine” is quite the right word but it seems to fit the way we were comparing the two.) It seemed as though some people saw the relationship between those two groups as one of exploitation on the part of the “Elite” Bohemians. Perhaps we have been reading too much Marx or Engels and the notion that any time the bourgeoisie interact with the proletariats it’s because they want something, and by getting what they want they will undoubtedly leave those proletariats worse off. As Teresa pointed out to our group while we were making our lovely diagram and mulling over this relationship between the “Elites” and the “Genuines” there was an advantage to the exchanges and conversations taking place in the new Bohemia for both groups of people, not just the “Elites.”
Here we were thinking that the “Elites” were that same old brand of icky Bourgeoisie who by seizing more than their share of various types of wealth were leaving the “Genuines” in a state of proletariat poverty, when in fact the cool thing about this new Bohemia was that it was a city space in which such lines were beginning to grow a little blurry. It’s true that many of the “Elites” who were from Bourgeoisie origins, profited from sharing their experiences in Bohemia with a larger audience and in that way stayed a part of the Bourgeoisie. However, Stansell makes it sound on pg. 18 as though any participant in Bohemia was better off for being a part of this new conversation. He says that Bohemia “supplied young men and women materials to turn that alienation into professionally appealing innovation.”
There are many examples in the Stansell reading of the importance of the Bohemian dialogue and how it stood as an alternative to the mainstream culture. The mention of prudish (Thanks Angela!) Mrs. Grundy stands in high contrast to the attitudes and freedoms described about Bohemia, and the Commercial’s portrayal of Jewish Americans, although still not exactly accurate was much different from that of the popular media.
In the poem by Whitman, there is a sense of energy and excitement that is similar to the tone of Stansell’s piece. The active voice and the undercurrent of interconnections impart an idea of what it was that drew both the “Elites” and the “Genuines” to come together and have their impassioned (and inebriated) discussions. Whitman’s expression of love for the city and every person in it along with his empathy for it and them is revolutionary in a similar way to the Communist Manifesto. (Seeing how people are the same and feeling connected on the basic level of sharing experiences. Marx saw people as basically equal but made unequal by their socially constructed relationships and power dynamics. The underclass can only band together and have class consciousness leading to revolution because they share the same experiences, which, of course they’d like to change.) He is bringing phenomena to light like Du Bois did. (Although a more positive phenomena.) Whitman is giving us an inside view of the benefits of this unique dialogue that existed on the Lower East Side.
Haha. I love the qualifier “the ones who didn’t need to travel very far to go home.” i have the same feelings about this dichotomy between the "real" and the "poseurs." after thinking about it, i realized that without the bourgie bohemians taking interest, the culture wouldn't have been exploited/patronized (ie, while there is a bit of exploitation and appropriation on the elite's part, they are also bringing their money to the cafes and saloons, allowing this culture to thrive) and it would probably look a lot more like Engel's Manchester.
One of the starkest differences between the writings of these four authors is their views concerning the role of the city in facilitating or hindering the union of communities. Whitman and Stansell both see the city as a milieu in which different communities and classes, with sometimes opposing ideologies, are able to come together creating new social frameworks, whereas Wirth and Engels view the effects of urbanity as further separating individuals from one another. It is difficult to say which of these authors are correct in their assumptions, for (apart from Whitman and Stansell) they are writing about different cities in different times. However, I will argue generally that cities serve to bind rather than detach differing communities.
In his prose Crossing Brooklyn Ferry, Whitman describes the city as a place in which many people of divergent classes and characters come together and share a common experience. In addition, his writing suggests that people come to the city in order to find an identity, which infers urban areas to be accepting and tolerant places where individuals are able to experiment with varying lifestyles. The following passages might help to articulate these points.
I am with you, you men and women of a generation, or ever so many generations hence,
Just as you feel when you look on the river and sky, so I felt,
Just as any of you is one of a living crowd, I was one of a crowd,
Just as you are refresh'd by the gladness of the river and the bright flow, I was refresh'd,
Saw many I loved in the street or ferry-boat or public assembly, yet never told them a word,
Lived the same life with the rest, the same old laughing, gnawing, sleeping,
As is clear from these words, Whitman creates an image of the city wherein individuals are bonded together through the shared experience of urbanity. There is not a feeling of separation and fear of the stranger, which is often associated with the city, but rather the description often associated with a small town where neighbors are considered to be a sort of family. Such a description is not so strange if the city is viewed as an agglomeration of towns in the form of neighborhoods, clubs, communities etc, which form yet a larger unified community taking the form of the city. Similarly, Stansell describes the bars and cafés of New York as places where strangers of all kinds come together and traverse previously existing social and economic barriers. All the members of the community, rich or down and out, intellectual or blue collar, are able to come together in a common place and share the common experience of cosmopolitan life. Stansell points out that the experience of bohemia is something that is not only desired by all kinds of people but also accessible to them.
Contrary to the views of Whitman and Stansell, Wirth speaks of the substitution of “primary for secondary contacts.” He argues that although a city dweller may have more acquaintances, they are not of the profound nature as those found in rural areas. One could argue against this point by noting that while there are certainly more secondary contacts in urban areas, this is not indicative of there being fewer primary contacts; that urbanites still have close friends and relatives in the city but also have as contacts those whom they pass by on a daily basis while running errands, going to work, or visiting any number of small businesses in their neighborhood. Wirth also argues that the city causes for the breaking down of the neighborhood. I see this in the exact opposite way especially when considering the social workings of suburbs (which might not be entirely fair to Wirth as they were ahead of his time). It seems as though being separated from one’s neighbor and communicating only by the occasional wave across a large yard and chain link fence is far more impersonal than the secondary contacts of urban areas. Instead of walking to the corner store, residents hop in protective pods and drive to a large grocery store where they get a different cashier with every visit. Having space allows people to separate themselves from one another instead of meeting face to face. With density, on the other hand, individuals are obliged to acknowledge the existence of others.
I thought that it was incredibly interesting to read that although the Bohemians were so accepting of everyone, the inclusion of African Americans in thier society was almost nonexistant.
While the city has become to be known as a harsh and unfriendly environment, Whitman takes common objects and actions, and points out how intricate and beautiful these things are. There seems to be importance placed on time and how the city represents this passage. While human life is short, Whitman points out that the city remains for the people of the past, present, and future. At one point he states about the city “Keep your places, objects than which none else is more lasting,” which seems to push the idea that the city is created and a build up of generations and is this evolving being. Another aspect of the city in which Whitman describes, is the role of the people within each city. He does mention of roles that each person plays, but I do not feel this is a constricting or condemning statement. He gives the person a chance to create their role and then play it “The same old role, the role that is what we make it, as great as we like or as small as we like, or both great and small.” This idea that people playing roles has a negative attitude, but I feel Whitman is trying to push the idea that there really is no point to life so one must create their own role and then become that idea. There also seems to be an underlying existentialism theme that is reoccurring throughout the piece. Whitman tries to show that while he might not know the person he crosses in the street this does not mean that he is not connected or share the same amount of experiences with this person. This idea transcends time and he relates that he is able to connect with people of the past and the future because they are experiencing the same beauty and life within the city. The idea of appearances and identity seemed to be addressed as well. Whitman has this idea that his identity is given to him by his body and that appearances are only things that envelop the soul. There are many things packed into this piece and I a not sure if I understood them correctly, but I guess these are the things that spoke to me when I was reading.
I agree with you in saying that the piece was not altogether constricting the view of cities to roles. He seems to lay down a more optimisstic outline for what impact the existance of a city has on people's individuality. He says that everyong is responsible for creating their own role, but as you said, he doesn't go into what those roles are. I think he is saying, in a very subtle way (or not at all), that people of any class are only as important as the ideas they hold, and that they should not be completely defined by "their body."
I could get exact what vhe was talking about , first i though it was about slave and he given this personal account of what was going with people , that is in first person account and so on.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.
February 12, 2007
o.b.e. 2: stansell & the bohemians
I’ll be honest in beginning this o.b.e. by stating that I am not entirely confident in my interpretation of Stansell. Upon reading, I was reminded very strongly of the movie/musical extravaganza Moulin Rouge, which specifically addresses the ‘Bohemian Revolution’ in Paris. For anyone who has not seen the film, there are some great social insights into the European roots of the bohemian movement that Stansell discusses behind all the musical numbers and the dramatic love story. The ideas that are addressed in this particular reading are in stark contrast to those ideas presented by Engels in his discussion of early Manchester because they actually shed light on the learning and livelihood that existed in the city as opposed to the dilapidation and despair. The young intellectuals within the city, often bright college students who desired to avoid the mundane and predictable paths of typical businesspeople or escape the sheltered environment of their upbringings, found themselves immersed in new cultures, ideologies and lifestyles that captured their interest and made the city an exciting and desirable place to be. The opportunity to explore and embrace diversity was new and intriguing for all involved, and the forum for discovery that developed created a unique combination of cultures and appreciation and interest within the city that could not be replicated elsewhere. This description is strikingly different from that of Engels, who felt so strongly that the disdainful living conditions for the poor within the city were the fault of the types of families that many of these intellectual children may have come from and their disregard and ignorance of the poverty just around the corner from their homes. What is similar, and perhaps a bit ironic, about these two articles is that in both cases the privileged are the ones who are benefiting. Despite the fact that Stansell’s discussion portrays the city as vibrant and hopeful and a harbor for cultural appreciation, the ‘bohemian intellectuals’ that came into the city came to “revel and discover, not to aid and uplift (Stansell, 12).” Although their efforts were to abandon the excess that permeated much of their upbringing, their commitment to the actual ‘city lifestyle’ of the poor and immigrants seems minimal at best aside from absorbing information and drawing on the experiences of others. Engels’ argument that the wealthy can choose to bypass parts of the city that are too upsetting or impoverished but still employ the inhabitants has some warrant here, as those ‘bohemians’ in Stansell’s work also chose to avoid certain aspects of the city life while benefiting from others. While I do feel that this reading sheds a much more interesting light on the positive happenings within the city, it is easy to overlook the fact that many of the poor in the city were still being exploited for something that they could offer for a relatively low cost. In Engels’ instance, the poor were exploited for labor while in Stansell’s, they were ‘exploited’ for knowledge and culture that could not be gained elsewhere.
Posted by Amber Melaney at 04:15 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE1: Stansell: Thoughts on Bohemia
I find that many times when I read these readings I have so many different thoughts and moments of agreement and disagreement that I do not know what to write about because I cannot present it all as one single thought. So my goal with this entry is to comment on the parts of the reading that stuck out to me – what I liked, why I didn’t, and what I thought was truly revolutionary. (Please consider that I am not a sociology major, so I find a lot of it revolutionary).
First of all, let me say, I think the idea of bohemia is exciting and incredibly progressive, even today. This is clearly seen in the respect amongst fellow “bohemians” that seems to transcend race, gender, and class. As Stansell describes it “not slummers…not philanthropists…they came to revel and discover, not to aid and uplift.” The idea of embracing and celebrating our differences instead of trying to make everyone else the same as us or keeping our distance from those who are not the same is something that we, as a society, still have not figured out to this day. I realize that there are psychological reasons this does not often happen in addition to other reasons (e.g., sociological, political, religious). However, the idea that a society or a group of people could function in this way is encouraging.
I also like that, although bohemia seems like a truly accepting environment for most (although it appears maybe that was not so for African Americans), it was not an environment where discussions were about on-the-surface, universal topics (i.e., the weather, the game last night). There was celebration of differences, but there was also debate over them. As Stansell quotes “Ideas circulate. Brains tilt with brains. Eccentricity must show cause or be jostled.” It was great if you knew what you knew, believed what you believed, but you better be able to defend it. It seems strange to say that bohemia was an intellectual environment, but from how Stansell describes it, that is the impression I get. Eleanor Roosevelt may have argued that these people discussing ideas have great minds. She said “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”
It was surprising to read that bohemia existed in a “symbiotic relation to bourgeois culture rather than in opposition to it”. Although, I’m still a bit confused as to how that all worked, I think it is very telling. The enhancement of identity was desirable within the bohemian lifestyle and the bourgeois lifestyle, so what made them such different “cultures?” In my opinion, it was the “every man for himself” focus of the bourgeois compared to the very idealic “let’s celebrate our differences and learn from each other” attitude of bohemia. Bohemians recognized that “mixing of classes and sexes was not a threat or problem but (an) opportunity—psychological, artistic, and commercial.”
I appreciated that Stansell pointed out that some of the ideas behind bohemia and the way in which Bohemian writers wrote never quite made it out of the ideal phase (“never altogether transcended the genre of the picturesque”), because it all sounds so good, but the reality is that it obviously had its problems. It may not have been the ideas themselves that were the problem as much as it was the people and the society in which it was being played out. Prejudice against African Americans and the “characterization” of immigrants (instead of them being an integral part of mainstream society) were obviously big issues that appeared to go against the original ideals of bohemia.
Overall, I really liked this piece. It was a much more optimistic view on city life than earlier readings. However, I would love to read something a little more balanced – discussing the good (e.g., bohemian ideals) and the bad (e.g., poverty, homelessness, etc) of city life.
Rachel Bickel
Posted by rachel at 05:57 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE #1 A comparison of urbanism, bohemia, and the changing role of women according to Wirth and Stansell
Stansell argued that the Bohemian lifestyle encouraged a society focused on the individual classified by the changing of social norms, and values. Stansell used the word anomie to describe the evolving condition of society. To support his argument he talked about how women could go to the grungy restaurants and saloons without a man, and men of the working class could intermix with the elites to talk about business, politics, or entertainment. The general feeling that I get from reading Stansell is that he is happy about the “anomie” that bohemia creates. While Stansell is supportive of the social effects the city has on a population Wirth is a little less welcoming of the idea of the decay of social norms and values. In this OBE I will compare and contrast Stansell and Wirth on their opinions of: urbanism, family, and reasons for the gathering revulsion.
It is reasonable to claim that Stansell believed that bohemia distinguished urbanism from ruralism in Wirth’s terms. Wirth said that the urban lifestyle can be defined by its physical structure, relations revolving around institution and social hierarchies, ideology, and an array of personalities uniting that is controlled by system of society (Wirth, 102). Stansell talks a lot about the people who were spotted in these “shabby” restaurants and saloons. Making up the majority of the people were poor immigrants. Interesting enough the bohemian lifestyle was intriguing to some middle class gentlemen and ladies. After everyone had a couple rounds of drinks from the bar the alcohol blurred the social class lines of the structure. Consequently in New York workers explained politics to the “sophisticates” and they welcomed them at their table in the saloon. Therefore, I believe that Stansell would not agree with Wirth on the subject of urbanism when he defined an aspect of it, “as a system of social organization involving a characteristic social structure, a series of social institutions, and a typical pattern of social relationships (Wirth, 102).” In fact he would say that combining e workers (poor immigrants) and sophisticates (elites) in a social setting would harvest competition and reciprocated exploitation (Wirth, 100).”
Another interesting comparison I saw were Stansell’s and Wirth’s feeling about the blurring of the social norms. In particular Stansell focused on the social norms of women. In his article it seemed as if he was applauding women, identifying with bohemia, who ventured out to the saloons without a male guardian. However, Wirth would attribute falling reproduction rates in the city to this change in the roles of women. He would be upset to see that maintaining home and producing babies was not a priority anymore.
Karah
Posted by Karah Barr at 11:54 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Comparison of Wirth and Stansell on the subject of urbanism, bohemia, and changing social roles of women
Stansell argued that the Bohemian lifestyle encouraged a society focused on the individual classified by the changing of social norms, and values. Stansell used the word anomie to describe the evolving condition of society. To support his argument he talked about how women could go to the grungy restaurants and saloons without a man, and men of the working class could intermix with the elites to talk about business, politics, or entertainment. The general feeling that I get from reading Stansell is that he is happy about the “anomie” that bohemia creates. While Stansell is supportive of the social effects the city has on a population Wirth is a little less welcoming of the idea of the decay of social norms and values. In this OBE I will compare and contrast Stansell and Wirth on their opinions of: urbanism, family, and reasons for the gathering revulsion.
It is reasonable to claim that Stansell believed that bohemia distinguished urbanism from ruralism in Wirth’s terms. Wirth said that the urban lifestyle can be defined by its physical structure, relations revolving around institution and social hierarchies, ideology, and an array of personalities uniting that is controlled by system of society (Wirth, 102). Stansell talks a lot about the people who were spotted in these “shabby” restaurants and saloons. Making up the majority of the people were poor immigrants. Interesting enough the bohemian lifestyle was intriguing to some middle class gentlemen and ladies. After everyone had a couple rounds of drinks from the bar the alcohol blurred the social class lines of the structure. Consequently in New York workers explained politics to the “sophisticates” and they welcomed them at their table in the saloon. Therefore, I believe that Stansell would not agree with Wirth on the subject of urbanism when he defined an aspect of it, “as a system of social organization involving a characteristic social structure, a series of social institutions, and a typical pattern of social relationships (Wirth, 102).” In fact he would say that combining e workers (poor immigrants) and sophisticates (elites) in a social setting would harvest competition and reciprocated exploitation (Wirth, 100).”
Another interesting comparison I saw were Stansell’s and Wirth’s feeling about the blurring of the social norms. In particular Stansell focused on the social norms of women. In his article it seemed as if he was applauding women, identifying with bohemia, who ventured out to the saloons without a male guardian. However, Wirth would attribute falling reproduction rates in the city to this change in the roles of women. He would be upset to see that maintaining home and producing babies was not a priority anymore.
Posted by Karah Barr at 11:58 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
I completely agree with you. I especially noticed how both Stansell and Wirth noted the changing of social values in society-because is was one of the more silent (though very significant!) revolutions compared to the others of the time. I dont know if i totally got the feeling that STansell was applauding women, but definately was more positive about it than Wirth.
Posted by: Angie | February 13, 2007 12:30 PM
February 13, 2007
OBE - Stansell - Sean McPherson
Stansell's piece talked about the birth of a form of journalism that is still alive and well today, especially in arts weeklies in major metropolitan cities. The humanistic slice of life piece that is not only voyeuristic but slightly vicarious is alive and well today. On pdf pages 8-9 of Stansell's work he points out how this type of reimaging is very different from the purely voyeuristic, clandestine and carnal impulses that were sought out in brothels and nightclubs of the black community and other immigrant communities. The allure of the Lower East Side to the recent Ivy league graduate of the 1890s was of more completely filling out and reimaging their own life, as opposed to the escapism sought in other immigrant neighborhoods.
Stansell's work was painted mainly from the point of view of the outsider making their cautious entry into the world of bohemia. I am curious how involved in the community of the Lower East Side these cafe dwellers ventured. Were the cafe goers apt to find intimate friends, lovers and roommates amongst the people of the neighborhood? The amount of integration and assimilation that took place for the new bohemians would help me to grasp on how earnest this embrace of bohemia was.
I was also taken aback by the class of work available to the bohemians who opted out of a more pedestrian lifestyle. On pdf page 5 Stansell writes that bohemians sought to place themselves beyond the "mundane lot of the illustrators, journalists, actors and actresses. . .". These are highly regarded positions in our modern society and to see them painted as sort of the upper-class craftsmen of our day does not seem like a judgment we may make today.
The marriage of bohemian ideals and the city seems like such a long relationship that it is hard for to imagine the city without the ideals espoused by bohemia. The embrace of the other and the embodiment of the other and the collaboration between new communities and more established ones seems at the core of the modern urban experience.
To understand the economics of this movement would be another step in understanding the core of how this new movement impacted the people who were involved with it. I wonder whether the owners of the restaurants and bars that were at the apex of these conversations supported their new clientele and who they themselves were. --Sean McPherson
Posted by Sean McPherson at 09:45 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE 1: Stansell
After reading all of my peer’s equally accurate descriptions of the Stansell piece, I can’t help but think there might be something else that she was trying to get at with this colorful description of bohemia. Every time I have read Stansell, I am always amazed at the imagery she creates for the reader, but in this particular account, I detect a bit of criticism along with the glorification and appreciation of the bohemian lifestyle.
Rachel pointed out one of the most striking Stansell explanations of bohemia, quoting that it existed in “symbiotic relation to bourgeois culture rather than in opposition to it.” On the surface, that may seem obvious or unimportant, but when thinking about the representation of bohemia and its significance in “fashioning a new America,” (15) I believe that it certainly couldn’t exist without the stigmas and disgust associated with the Lower East Side by the bourgeois class. Similarly, the bourgeoisie aimed to further demoralize the relationships between the immigrants and those who sought to interact with them. In a sense, it gave the bourgeoisie something else to critique about the decay of culture and the growing infestation that immigrants and their lifestyles brought to the urban community.
Of course, I do agree with everyone that bohemia presented and fostered opportunities for a mélange of culture, ideas, and relationships, which welcomed the elimination of prejudices and restrictive norms. These places that sprouted up along urban corners definitely invited a variety of people to seek conversation outside their normative settings. Furthermore though, Stansell describes these places best as “layers of fantasy” (14) that almost seduced sophisticates into self-discovery and modernity. In a way, elite-bohemia fed off of the sufferings and inequalities of their new immigrant friends.
Once again, don’t get me wrong. I appreciate bohemia and it’s contributions to current culture, art, etc., but it definitely created more success for the “sophisticates” that already had it. As Sean talked about, the journalism that came from this era, proved over dramatized and mainly for the entertainment of those elite-bohemians, those men and women who wished to commercialize the lives of lower class citizens. The “freely associative feuilleton” (25) was such a perfect way to describe the journalists and their understanding of immigrant encounters as a mere soap opera on continual play.
Furthermore, as pointed out by one of my peers, they rarely focused on “the Tenderloin” which housed much of Manhattan’s black community. I know that the fascination with slumming didn’t arise until the 20th century, but it still goes to show the almost total separation of an entire race of people. That doesn’t seem to lend much to self-discovery and the expansion of knowledge and understanding.
Still, I can’t help but applaud the efforts of the bohemian culture to surpass many boundaries and lines that separated the city.
I know I didn’t get into Whitman or Wirth or Engels, but I felt like there was a lot to talk about in this Stansell piece. What do you think? Am I reading too much into bohemia?
Posted by Corrie Halladay at 02:02 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Stansell Web
Posted by Dave N at 11:28 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
sweet diagram.
Posted by: Kathy | February 14, 2007 06:21 PM
February 14, 2007
Mrs. Grundy according to Wikipedia
Mrs Grundy
WIkipedia.com
Mrs Grundy is the personification of the tyranny of conventional propriety (from Thomas Morton's play Speed the Plough, which appeared in 1798).
(By contemporary rules of punctuation of 1798, still prevailing in North America today, she is Mrs. Grundy.)
Peter Fryer's book Mrs. Grundy: Studies in English Prudery concerns prudish behaviour, such as the use of euphemisms for underwear.
By the mid-nineteenth century, Mrs. Grundy was so well established in the public imagination as a canonical character that Samuel Butler, in his popular novel Erewhon, could refer to her in anagram (as the goddess Ydgrun).
Robert A. Heinlein also mentions her, for example, in his novels The Number of the Beast and To Sail Beyond The Sunset.
Charles Dickens also mention her in his novel "Hard Times".
So, basically you call someone a "Mrs. Grundy" if they are prudish and super conventional i guess...hmm...kind of opposite of what the Bohemians were going for.
Posted by Angela Mulcahy at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Comparing Stansell & Whitman to Wirth, contrasting to Engels
Posted by Nich at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
The Bohemian Nexus
Posted by Tyler Hallett at 01:10 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
http://index1.greathal.com >pre teen pageant gown
Posted by: counterstr | February 2, 2008 01:07 AM
The tenderloin: party there, but don't live there
I don't know if this aspect was covered by a group we didn't get to on Tuesday, but the marginalization of the Black community within bohemian culture by Stansell seems to definitely be worth noting in a critique of bohemian culture. What I mean by Stansell's marginalization of the Black community in Manhattan is that this essay has little to say about the issue and what it does say is short and at the end of the essay, which can be interpreted as being tacked on or as one of her conclusions that she wanted to close with. Nevertheless, it’s inclusion is relevant given the recent Du Bois reading of Black neighborhoods.
While the Irish and Italians have for the most part been assimilated into the contemporary American conception of whiteness, Black Americans are still a marked category. This can be seen in the rise of bohemian culture as well. Stansell notes this when she states
“Bohemian sensibility did not prove so elastic when it came to African Americans. This was a matter partly of demographics, partly of the place Manhattan’s blacks occupied in the city’s cultural geography, and partly of assumptions and prejudices against African
Americans that ran strong among even the most open-minded white New-Yorkers” (25).
This passage does a good job of summarizing what she says in the rest of the paragraph as well as the subsequent paragraphs. Not only were the structural boundaries in tact in terms of geography, but Black Americans were excluded from the intelligentsia, their cultural expressions were perceived by bourgeois and lower east side Jewish bohemians alike as un-assimilatable into their immediate cultural and intellectual langue. The neighborhood of the Tenderloin is also where the slumming aspect that has been contested as occurring in the lower east side is more explicit, since it was predominately seen as where adventurous white bohemians could go to soak up some more diversity that they could use to potentially fuel their high-minded discussions when they scuttled back to their side of town.
This is obviously not the most positive portrayal of how bohemian culture operated, but it does show a certain ugly underbelly to this somewhat idealized culture.
Posted by Justin S. at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
Stansell and Dubois had similar viewpoints to where Blacks were placed in the social hierarchy, but instead of clumping Jews in with Whites as Dubois did, Stansell did just the opposite and clumped them in with Blacks. I'm not saying Stansell did it intentionally (though it's hard to know for sure), Jews were probably seen and discriminated upon equal to that of Blacks during the time Stansell wrote this.
Posted by: Kathy | February 14, 2007 11:57 PM
bohemia graphique
ok, so essentially the point is that "bohemia" really only arises out of the cyclical, symbiotic exchange between the lower east siders (i would argue the true, or at least original and unadulterated, bohemians) and the elite bohemians (the slummers, day-trippers, hangers-on, and the ilk). Also, each individual component of the two categories isn't encircled by bohemia because alone they aren't anything notable.
also, the quasi-connection that jewish immigrants have with the two bohemian categories is indicative of their somewhat bridging function in this whole mess.
Posted by Sean Doe-Simkins at 04:00 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
A Bohemian Masterpiece
not really...
Created by SOC 3451W women.
Posted by Kathy Xiong at 06:23 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Bohemian Flower Power
Nourished by an alcoholic rain and yummy spaghetti and bratwurst soil, the Bohemian Flower grew up from a tiny plant with only a couple of small poet and artist leaves. As it grew, the Jew stem supported the numerous other leaves and eventually a flower full of ideas. The WASP stamen and pistil (remember your biology?) structure tied the whole flower together and attracted the money/idea bee (bee, wasp, fuggedaboutit!) which went on to pollinate many other idea flowers, exchanging pollen and nectar. Then the bee took all the pollen back to the oil tycoons and refined it into honey for them. After that the anti-trust bee-keeper broke up the oil tycoon honey cartel and fed it to the bee-keeper's family including their daughter Federal and son Government. Hmmm, just a tad off track there.
Dave Hauser
Posted by David Hauser at 08:45 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Whitman's collective
Walt Whitman's view of the Brooklyn Ferry employs the idea that the entire community assigns the same meaning to the things that he sees. I would actually think that while there may be certain things that trigger similar thoughts, people are quite capable of thinking individually, and they do. He soon leads into the idea of the individual, but returns to the thought that individuals are still part of a common identity over time.
Allison
Posted by Allison Tierney at 09:49 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
I had some difficulty reading Whitman, and thought that some of you may have also had the same difficulty.
Here are some resources to better understand Whitman:
Whitman Resources on Google (probably a bad source, but worth seeing)
Posted by: Kathy | February 15, 2007 01:49 AM
The “Elite” Bohemians and the “Genuine” Bohemians OBE 2
On the Lower East Side it was not just the disparities between the participants in the Bohemian atmosphere that made it a unique setting, but the dialogue. In class we had a bit of discussion about the “Elite” Bohemians and those that I’ve deemed the “Genuine” Bohemians. (By “Genuine” I mean the ones who didn’t need to travel very far to go home. I don’t know if “Genuine” is quite the right word but it seems to fit the way we were comparing the two.) It seemed as though some people saw the relationship between those two groups as one of exploitation on the part of the “Elite” Bohemians. Perhaps we have been reading too much Marx or Engels and the notion that any time the bourgeoisie interact with the proletariats it’s because they want something, and by getting what they want they will undoubtedly leave those proletariats worse off. As Teresa pointed out to our group while we were making our lovely diagram and mulling over this relationship between the “Elites” and the “Genuines” there was an advantage to the exchanges and conversations taking place in the new Bohemia for both groups of people, not just the “Elites.”
Here we were thinking that the “Elites” were that same old brand of icky Bourgeoisie who by seizing more than their share of various types of wealth were leaving the “Genuines” in a state of proletariat poverty, when in fact the cool thing about this new Bohemia was that it was a city space in which such lines were beginning to grow a little blurry. It’s true that many of the “Elites” who were from Bourgeoisie origins, profited from sharing their experiences in Bohemia with a larger audience and in that way stayed a part of the Bourgeoisie. However, Stansell makes it sound on pg. 18 as though any participant in Bohemia was better off for being a part of this new conversation. He says that Bohemia “supplied young men and women materials to turn that alienation into professionally appealing innovation.”
There are many examples in the Stansell reading of the importance of the Bohemian dialogue and how it stood as an alternative to the mainstream culture. The mention of prudish (Thanks Angela!) Mrs. Grundy stands in high contrast to the attitudes and freedoms described about Bohemia, and the Commercial’s portrayal of Jewish Americans, although still not exactly accurate was much different from that of the popular media.
In the poem by Whitman, there is a sense of energy and excitement that is similar to the tone of Stansell’s piece. The active voice and the undercurrent of interconnections impart an idea of what it was that drew both the “Elites” and the “Genuines” to come together and have their impassioned (and inebriated) discussions. Whitman’s expression of love for the city and every person in it along with his empathy for it and them is revolutionary in a similar way to the Communist Manifesto. (Seeing how people are the same and feeling connected on the basic level of sharing experiences. Marx saw people as basically equal but made unequal by their socially constructed relationships and power dynamics. The underclass can only band together and have class consciousness leading to revolution because they share the same experiences, which, of course they’d like to change.) He is bringing phenomena to light like Du Bois did. (Although a more positive phenomena.) Whitman is giving us an inside view of the benefits of this unique dialogue that existed on the Lower East Side.
Tavia Parker
Posted by Tav at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
Haha. I love the qualifier “the ones who didn’t need to travel very far to go home.” i have the same feelings about this dichotomy between the "real" and the "poseurs." after thinking about it, i realized that without the bourgie bohemians taking interest, the culture wouldn't have been exploited/patronized (ie, while there is a bit of exploitation and appropriation on the elite's part, they are also bringing their money to the cafes and saloons, allowing this culture to thrive) and it would probably look a lot more like Engel's Manchester.
Posted by: sean d.s. | February 15, 2007 12:44 PM
February 15, 2007
O.B.E#2 Whitman, Stansell, Wirth, Engels
One of the starkest differences between the writings of these four authors is their views concerning the role of the city in facilitating or hindering the union of communities. Whitman and Stansell both see the city as a milieu in which different communities and classes, with sometimes opposing ideologies, are able to come together creating new social frameworks, whereas Wirth and Engels view the effects of urbanity as further separating individuals from one another. It is difficult to say which of these authors are correct in their assumptions, for (apart from Whitman and Stansell) they are writing about different cities in different times. However, I will argue generally that cities serve to bind rather than detach differing communities.
In his prose Crossing Brooklyn Ferry, Whitman describes the city as a place in which many people of divergent classes and characters come together and share a common experience. In addition, his writing suggests that people come to the city in order to find an identity, which infers urban areas to be accepting and tolerant places where individuals are able to experiment with varying lifestyles. The following passages might help to articulate these points.
I am with you, you men and women of a generation, or ever so many generations hence,
Just as you feel when you look on the river and sky, so I felt,
Just as any of you is one of a living crowd, I was one of a crowd,
Just as you are refresh'd by the gladness of the river and the bright flow, I was refresh'd,
Saw many I loved in the street or ferry-boat or public assembly, yet never told them a word,
Lived the same life with the rest, the same old laughing, gnawing, sleeping,
As is clear from these words, Whitman creates an image of the city wherein individuals are bonded together through the shared experience of urbanity. There is not a feeling of separation and fear of the stranger, which is often associated with the city, but rather the description often associated with a small town where neighbors are considered to be a sort of family. Such a description is not so strange if the city is viewed as an agglomeration of towns in the form of neighborhoods, clubs, communities etc, which form yet a larger unified community taking the form of the city. Similarly, Stansell describes the bars and cafés of New York as places where strangers of all kinds come together and traverse previously existing social and economic barriers. All the members of the community, rich or down and out, intellectual or blue collar, are able to come together in a common place and share the common experience of cosmopolitan life. Stansell points out that the experience of bohemia is something that is not only desired by all kinds of people but also accessible to them.
Contrary to the views of Whitman and Stansell, Wirth speaks of the substitution of “primary for secondary contacts.” He argues that although a city dweller may have more acquaintances, they are not of the profound nature as those found in rural areas. One could argue against this point by noting that while there are certainly more secondary contacts in urban areas, this is not indicative of there being fewer primary contacts; that urbanites still have close friends and relatives in the city but also have as contacts those whom they pass by on a daily basis while running errands, going to work, or visiting any number of small businesses in their neighborhood. Wirth also argues that the city causes for the breaking down of the neighborhood. I see this in the exact opposite way especially when considering the social workings of suburbs (which might not be entirely fair to Wirth as they were ahead of his time). It seems as though being separated from one’s neighbor and communicating only by the occasional wave across a large yard and chain link fence is far more impersonal than the secondary contacts of urban areas. Instead of walking to the corner store, residents hop in protective pods and drive to a large grocery store where they get a different cashier with every visit. Having space allows people to separate themselves from one another instead of meeting face to face. With density, on the other hand, individuals are obliged to acknowledge the existence of others.
Posted by Jonathan Little at 03:26 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Racial Elasticity
I thought that it was incredibly interesting to read that although the Bohemians were so accepting of everyone, the inclusion of African Americans in thier society was almost nonexistant.
Posted by Jesse Kortuem at 01:26 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Ideas on Whitman
While the city has become to be known as a harsh and unfriendly environment, Whitman takes common objects and actions, and points out how intricate and beautiful these things are. There seems to be importance placed on time and how the city represents this passage. While human life is short, Whitman points out that the city remains for the people of the past, present, and future. At one point he states about the city “Keep your places, objects than which none else is more lasting,” which seems to push the idea that the city is created and a build up of generations and is this evolving being. Another aspect of the city in which Whitman describes, is the role of the people within each city. He does mention of roles that each person plays, but I do not feel this is a constricting or condemning statement. He gives the person a chance to create their role and then play it “The same old role, the role that is what we make it, as great as we like or as small as we like, or both great and small.” This idea that people playing roles has a negative attitude, but I feel Whitman is trying to push the idea that there really is no point to life so one must create their own role and then become that idea. There also seems to be an underlying existentialism theme that is reoccurring throughout the piece. Whitman tries to show that while he might not know the person he crosses in the street this does not mean that he is not connected or share the same amount of experiences with this person. This idea transcends time and he relates that he is able to connect with people of the past and the future because they are experiencing the same beauty and life within the city. The idea of appearances and identity seemed to be addressed as well. Whitman has this idea that his identity is given to him by his body and that appearances are only things that envelop the soul. There are many things packed into this piece and I a not sure if I understood them correctly, but I guess these are the things that spoke to me when I was reading.
tyler
Posted by Tyler Hallett at 01:48 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
I agree with you in saying that the piece was not altogether constricting the view of cities to roles. He seems to lay down a more optimisstic outline for what impact the existance of a city has on people's individuality. He says that everyong is responsible for creating their own role, but as you said, he doesn't go into what those roles are. I think he is saying, in a very subtle way (or not at all), that people of any class are only as important as the ideas they hold, and that they should not be completely defined by "their body."
Tim
Posted by: Tim | February 15, 2007 04:38 PM
i dont understand this whitman reading
I could get exact what vhe was talking about , first i though it was about slave and he given this personal account of what was going with people , that is in first person account and so on.
Posted by D.philips at 02:39 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
Hey D. Read my post above about some resources you can tap into in order to understand Whitman. I hope it helps.
Posted by: Kathy | February 16, 2007 04:36 PM
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.