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?