Cities 07

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