Lecture/Discussion

Lecture:

In 1959, Richard Nixon, the vice-president of the United States (quiz what is the vice president? Who is
it currently) visits Moscow. At a time of reduced Cold War tensions, Nixon would meet with the Soviet
premier Nikita Khrushchev and engage in a peaceful competition over which society was superior. What
was the great strength of the United States Nixon tried to emphasize? Instead of speaking mainly about
the greatness of democracy, political freedom, or the constitution, Nixon bragged about – household
appliances.

[Powepoint of Kitchen Debate].

This would be called the great “Kitchen Debate” between the two leaders. Here, we see Nixon
presenting the interior of what he claims is a standard middle class suburban home. Throughout the
tour, Nixon continues to emphasize correctly, that this way of life was not only to the top of society [see
quotes]. Khrushchev at first dismisses these American achievements. “Don’t you have a machine that
puts food into the mouth and pushes it down? Many of things you’ve shown are interesting but they are
not needed in life . . . they are merely gadgets”. But it’s not clear Khrushchev really believed this
commercial, middle class way of life was meaningless. For one, he promised to the Soviet people that
they would soon catch up, which they never really did. In his own visit to California, Khrushchev was
very excited to have lunch with Frank Sinatra and had a temper tantrum when he did not receive
security clearance to visit Disneyland. But we really should not underestimate why this suburban home
was so crucial to how America presented itself to the world. So consider the next quote by Nixon.

Now obviously America does panic when the Soviets make it to outer space [with Sputnik]. But how
funny is this? You can beat us with technology, you can go faster than us in reaching beyond the earth.
But we have more color televisions!!

So let’s think through first why this image of a strong, comfortable middle class was so important.

For one, let’s ask: how would this discredit communist ideas?

[Communism says capitalism holds the seeds of its own destruction. You inevitably create a very poor,
suffering underclass and a top elite. There is no strong middle. Very few an expect to rise or see their
lives improve. The American way says “no – we can have a capitalism that works for everyone. We can
have living standards that improve. We can have a society where most people are in the middle class or
expect to be (or for their children to be) there soon. You’ll have inequalities, but everyone will be a
winner in some way”.]

So this middle class way of life is the best message against communism. But there’s more to it. For
Americans, these goods also make you free. How?

Discussion on middle class life and freedom? [Return to this]. We’ll have to consider whether later how
this material prosperity had a darker, more controlling side.
Now we saw in our reading that people like Spielman really did believe that America was changing in
this way. Not only were more Americans moving into the middle class but there were also a certain
“American way of life” flowing from that. So was this real?

These statistics do demonstrate that Nixon and other optimists were not fabricating the story. Every
myth, after all, has to have some basis in reality to be credible. So let’s look at the following.

After twenty years of sacrifice and struggle, with the Great Depression and The World War II, and earlier
times where ordinary workers were far more vulnerable, a time of comfort and security had arrived.

Even critics of this period – those who recognized a high degree of superficiality, conformity, and
conservatism recognized something extraordinary was at work.

Simone de Beauvoir - “Class barriers disappear or become porous; the factory worker is an economic
aristocrat in comparison with the middle class clerk; even segregation is diminishing; consumption
replaces acquisition as an incentive. America . . . as a country of vast inequalities and dramatic contrasts
is ceasing to exist.”

“The jobless, distracted and bewildered men of 1933 have in the course of the years found substantial
places in society for themselves, have become homeowners, suburbanites, and solid citizens.” – Richard
Hofstadter.

This was ultimately underwritten by America’s extraordinary position as an economic superpower.

What are the reasons behind this? Let’s think about this for a moment. Beyond America’s historic
strengths in natural resources, geography, etc.

a. Last Man Standing. America was not firebombed during WWII. It did not lose civilians. Its
factories and industry was not destroyed. Its casualties were in the hundreds of thousands, not
the millions. The most ordinary Americans saw of Germans was my grandmother in Maryland.
Throughout the 1950’s, Europe and Japan are still in deep recovery. You will be waiting for a few
decades for Germany/Japan to finally compete with/overtake American in things like car
manufacturing. And China and India aren’t even in the picture yet.
b. Government Spending. Eisenhower was a Republican, but he accepted that government was
here to stay as a major factor. [We saw in the reading that American politics is becoming
middle of the road, that there’s this mainstream consensus.] This is definitely true to an
extent. People but might be disagreeing over the details, but there is a broad agreement that
government spending should be used to stimulate growth. Government should also be a referee
between corporations and unions to ensure cooperation. The enormous military spending is
obviously creating many jobs. Government is investing in research, science, and technology.
Eisenhower and the Congress pass a federal law to create a national highway system. The GI Bill
helps white veterans from the war get their college degrees and receive very good loans to buy
their own houses.
c. Babies! These new families are opting for a very traditional image of themselves, even more so
than earlier generations. The average age of marriage is 20-22. The average number of children
is 3.2. Divorce rate is very low. These large, stable families have a lot of needs and their
spending habits will prop up the whole economy.
Nowhere was this new middle class lifestyle, in both the goods and values, most lived out was in the
suburbs. Nowhere too was its darker, unsettling better revealed as well.

The case study of this is Levittown, a community built entirely from scratch after World War II. The
family firm Levitt and Sons originally specialized in more “high-class” upper middle class homes on Long
Island. But after World War II, they speculated on how to create affordable homes in huge, quick
numbers for all the veterans and their new families?

They called themselves not “builders” but “manufacturers”, the GM of houses. The building materials
and design of the houses was nearly identical, except for modest changes in things like color (as you can
see here). At peak productions, houses could be built in 16 minutes. The idea was to make house
building into an assembly line, with workers performing 26 separate tasks individually. The gamble paid
off; Levittown would hold around 18,000 homes for 82,000 residents. These houses were cheap. Both
blue-collar and white-collar families could afford these homes. If you were veteran, you could pay
almost zero down payment and receive from the govt. a loan with very low interest.

What was life like in Levittown? Let’s take a look at a typical home. What do you observe?

a. Nature (ordered, controlled, exact)

b. What’s relationship between greenery and the house?
c. Distance from front door to public space (substantial)
d. How much could you really see or hear walking back?
e. When you walk down the path to their house, what would you feel like? (You’re really entering
someone’s else space, privacy, castle, fortress)

The center of life would be your home, your family, and other families nearby enjoying the same
lifestyle.

Residents found liberation from the hustle and business of the city. They had access to the latest
appliances unimaginable. They could comfortably watch shows like I Love Lucy, listen to Frank Sinatra,
and let their children play safely outside. But there was a clear role about family behind this.

The roles were clear: man was the “breadwinner” and the wife was the “homemaker”. This was not the
old patriarchy exactly. Men, at least in the new images, were expected to be “family man” who had to
focus not on money for its own sake but providing the best life for his kids. Men were called to
contribute more at home than in the past. And many women were not pure housewives as many
pursued part time jobs outside the home. But the roles were delineated. Nixon housewife=woman
language at Kitchen Debate. We have to remember too that this was actually a break, not a continuity.
In the Great Depression and World War II, many women started acting as “breadwinners” too, having
identities outside of homemaking and childrearing. But the majorities of men and women, according to
the polls, at least said they wanted this more traditional pattern.

Let’s imagine you’re living in Levittown. How could “homemaker” and “breadwinner” identities affected
negatively? How could disappointments in life make those identities difficult?

a. “Homemaker”  Opportunities to pursue job, career; having community outside the family,
neighborhood; can you always compete with your girlfriends for the best goods in your home; in
the past, essential tasks like cooking, cleaning, etc. took a huge amount of time; now, household
 appliances make it much easier, so you’re actually left with nothing to do often; social isolation;
physical trapped, spending most of time in one space
b. “Breadwinner”  What if economic hardships comes and you cannot live up to bring your
family the latest, newest gadgets? What if your desire to be an entrepreneur or a career with
greater freedom and creativity makes your family’s quality of life a bit less comfortable? What is
the most important of being a “family man”: spending time at home or ensuring the best
material life possible?
c. Nuclear family so central. What happens to other forms of community, belonging?

We do not need to deny that these identities probably satisfied many people. Or that people creatively
recreated those roles according to their own needs/circumstances? The point is that these strict roles
could put a heavy role on women (and men to a degree). We’ll explore this later when we talk more
about feminism.

So we’ve obviously seen the great gains of the middle class in their material prosperity and comfort.
More and more Americans are experiencing a quality of life previous generations could never envision.
Economic growth looks here to stay. What could possibly be the darker side of all this?

a. Are people really “free” when they have all these advertisements surrounding them? Are their
desires being constructed by others? Are they free if they have constantly need to keep up with
their neighbors?
b. Is this sign of capitalism being humane? Or is this just a still unfair, immoral system bribing
people with stuff?
c. Is the pursuit of the “American Dream” undermining other goals? Spiritual, moral ones?
d. Speilman speaks of the disappearance of many strong identities, whether to a religion, an
ethnic/cultural identity, or strong political convictions. This obviously eliminates conflicts, but is
there a loss of humanity too?
e. People’s identities depend to a huge extent on overall prosperity and growth. But all good
things come to an end. Where will people turn when “the band stops playing”.
f. Can people live without larger commitments than the “American Way”? What becomes of more
traditional communities in say, the church or trade union?