1

Hong Jung 11/17/2011 Session 2 Paper The American Lawn: Beyond the Spontaneity There arent many things that seem as natural and self-explanatory as the American lawn. This spontaneity of lawn keeping creates the impression that it is done through a cultural choice. In a historical sense, this is true; maintaining a lawn has come to symbolize the responsible and civilized American citizen. But Paul Robbins, in his book, Lawn People, argues that such a short explanation may not include the whole story. Complexity is added when the historical, moral, and economic contexts surrounding the American lawn are analyzed. Through such analysis, Robbins makes it clear that the relationship between the lawn and the American culture isnt simply that the lawn is a volitional product of American culture, but more specifically they are part a web of influences that mutually affect and construct each other. Robbins argues that, historically, the modern American lawn has been a representation of particular ideologies and hence cultures, but it also played a role in constructing them. In Lawn People, Robbins refers to the 19th century era when Andrew Jackson Downing first began to advocate the cleanly cut turf grass yards for the urban agrarian gentry, or the emerging middle class (32). In his vision, the uniformity of the lawn would not only beautify the landscape, but also unite this class of people under a sense of community. A similar mission was taken on by Fredrick Law Olmsted, who was another celebrated landscape designer. Although their intentions were to create a form of expression for a particular class of citizens though the turf lawns, they also served to produce such citizens in the process. Olmsted also sought to popularize the vast and

uniform image of the lawn, frozen in its peak green condition. By naturalizing these landscapes in such a way, Olmsted made them appear inevitable, timeless, and appropriate (28). Thus the lawn presents its pristine, intensively maintained image as its original and natural state that it has always possessed. From these examples, it is clear that from a historical perspective, the lawn appears to be a cultural expression precisely because it was designed from the beginning to create the cultural values it expresses while having its unnatural origin veiled. As a result, the present lawn continues to express the moral character outlined above, where residents must think about the community before the individual. In Lawn People, Robbins interviews a group of upper middle class residents living in Kingberry Court, a Midwestern suburb. He argues that in such typical neighborhoods, well maintained lawns give a sense of dignified status. Aware of this appearance, individual members of the community are hesitant to keep their lawns less than perfect. One of them, a man named Patrick, explains his lawn chemical use as something he did to meet the expectations of his neighbors: I know that this neighborhood has a certain status. A certain look. I surely wouldnt want to ruin it for anybodyI want to do just enough work to fit in (111). It is apparent that Patrick is personally ambivalent about having a perfect lawn, but he worries about how that would look on the community as a whole and how his neighbors would take it. In addition to stature, another collective value in their community was property value. In Robbinss case study, the residents showed extensive awareness of their neighbors and of unkempt lawns for it decreased the communitys overall economic value. Walter, a resident of the Court, described his experience when his yard was damaged from over-treatment: If something happens to your yard, the neighbors are on you. Thats the reason I changed

from [this lawn care company]. When they killed my yard and it went absolutely dead, I was ostracized around here. People wanted to know, what the hell are you doing? You are decreasing our property values! (112). Thus, Robbins concludes that the decision to upkeep a lawn for moral expression is heavily affected by living in a community. Though it can be solely be an expression of the American moral character, that can hardly be said when the acute cognizance of the community plays such an influential role. A similar mutual influence can be seen in terms of economics in the modern turf lawn. The maintenance of a lawn can seem like an individual choice free of influence because the lawn unanimously represents a moral American citizen. Thus investing in a lawn is investing to express oneself as a model member of the community. But Robbins argues that there are underlying economic incentives that influence the lawn people. For one thing, the agricultural chemical industry is in a crisis. To increase sales, the industry has changed their push tactic to a pull tactic. While the push tactic focused on pushing their products on to the customers, the essence of pull strategy concentrates on creating demand at the customer level. Rather than relying on a retailer to sell a specific brand, the formulator presents its products directly to the consumer using carefully crafted imagery(91). Pull tactic would heavily invest in direct advertising and marketing by representing the luscious lawn as a space for innocent family engagement (93). Thus the chemical companies draw customers to them by advertising the ideal family culture made possible with the ideal lawn. This method creates desire for their products under the guise of choice, which is why it can seem so cultural and innate. According to Robbins, the incentive to create the ideal lawn is not a choice formed from culture, for the ideal is conjured by outside forces, which in this case is the chemical industry. With a broader

understanding of the economic context, the creation of lawns is inexplicable of the far reaching economic incentives and is never just an expression of American culture. From these analyses made by Robbins, it is clear that the act of maintaining the grassy lawns was never done just for cultural expression; many outside influences have affected it. The inverse is also true; the act of maintaining them supported those outside influences. Historically, the lawn was manipulated to express a certain class of citizenship, while creating it. In communities, the lawn imposes groupthink moral pressures upon the residents to maintain it. And in economic contexts, the lawn industry creates the desire in consumers to upkeep a perfect lawn. In addition, the historical, social, and economic influences are mutually inclusive of each other, not just the lawn. The resultant picture is no longer that a certain culture produces lawns; rather, the lawn is at the center of a web of circular influences that direct the lawn people toward the perfect grassy yard. As Robbins puts: ...the lawn was as much a vehicle for the creation and maintenance of social systems as it was a product of those systems (32). In my opinion, the very appearance of the lawns as a spontaneous cultural phenomenon owes itself to this network of influences. Because so many components influence each other, one can liken it to Indras net; there cannot be made a clear distinction between what strictly causes what since everything is partially causing everything else, including itself. This twister of logic creates the illusion of self-justification, as if the upkeep of lawn had been always natural, always moral, and always desirable.

Works Cited Robbins, Paul. Lawn People: How Grasses, Weeds, and Chemicals Make Us Who We Are. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2007. Print.