The Significance of Mad Men (and Reading Commentary #2)

Some people would call me a television junkie. I prefer to think of myself as a connoisseur of fine viewing. That being said, tonight was a big night for junkies and connoisseurs alike as we all celebrated another fine year of programming with the 61st Annual Primetime Emmys.

While I would love to diverge into a discussion about the best and worst dressed (Mariska Hargitay and Sarah Silverman, respectively) and my misgivings about certain winners (Breaking Bad winning over House? Seriously?), my thoughts are turning more toward a certain "Outstanding Drama" winner: Mad Men.

Mad Men, a program about the personal and professional lives of ad agents in the early 1960s, has captured the interest of America in a unique way. This colorful depiction has led to New York Times articles analyzing character's drinks, fashion designers creating '60s throwback clothing named after the characters, and a number of nostalgic written works by people who remember the Madison Avenue scene in the '60s.

In light of this week's Public History readings, I have been thinking about the public's particular fascination with a program so steeped in history. Rosenzweig and Thelen argue in The Presence of the Past that the public has an extremely intimate connection with history. In an extensive survey conducted, most respondents stated that they believed that history presented alternatives to the present. In their own narratives, participants reflected mainly on change that has occurred and how changes impacted the present. It seems reasonable, then, to assume that the interest in a historical (albeit fictional and dramatized) program derives from an interest in the vast cultural differences between "then" and "now."

Interestingly, Rosenzweig and Thelen also discovered that most of the surveyed people ranked television as one of the least reliable means of obtaining historical information. The commercialization of the programs has embedded a (not entirely unjustified) cynicism in the public that overrides some of the potential to glean facts from fiction. However, when surveyed about the frequency of interaction with history, watching a historical movie or television program was second only to looking at and taking photographs.

Further research conducted by Kim Hyounggon and Jamal Tazim illustrates a deeper connection between people and their history. They followed the experiences of frequent attendees at Renaissance Fairs and their quest for existential authenticity. They form an entirely new self-identity in an accepting environment as a means of interacting with history. In a way, they are doing to a much more complicated extent, what historical television does for millions: enabling them to connect to (and perhaps escape to) a time and a place with which they have a personal or emotional connection.

In fact, I think Mad Men's leading man, Don Draper, explains it best:

"There is the rare occasion when the public can be engaged in a level beyond flash- if they have a sentimental bond with the product...It takes us to a place where we ache to go again."

(I'm sorry I can't embed the video. Apparently that would violate copyright laws. But definitely click on the link. It's well worth it.)

It is this cultural bond along with a desire to communicate history that led Michael Frisch to propose the idea of a Philadelphia "Historymobile" which would collect personal memories and turn them into historical Philadelphia exhibits that would travel the city, allowing its members to contribute and experience history in a festival-like atmosphere. The idea never came to fruition, due to lack of funding, but the idea is based on the theory proven by Rosenzweig and Thelen, that people want to be connected to their history.

Drumming up an avid following of Mad Men probably isn't the best way to bridge the gap between scholars and the public with regard to history. Let's face it-- the sex appeal probably shares equal responsibility with the history for the show's popularity. But the variety of reactions to the program shed light on the fact that the public is interested in the past, especially when the past holds a personal connection to their present. And I think it is a valuable use of time to discern where public history and popular history can converge to best communicate with their audiences.

Maybe make Don Draper the new face of the AHA? Seriously, that man can sell anything.

[Image courtesy of Subthemag.com. Stable URL: http://subthemag.com/tss/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/men_wideweb__470x2880.jpg]

Reading Commentary #1

[Warning: This post might be more informative than entertaining. I promise to do better next time.] 

This week’s reading assignments for my "Managing History" course are:

> Historians in Public: the practice of American history, 1890-1970 by Ian Tyrrell

> An excerpt from The Lowell Experiment by Cathy Stanton

> An American Historical Association Presidential Address by Carl Becker entitled, “Everyman His Own Historian”

All three sources presented a slightly different perspective on the role of how scholarly history functions in the public. Tyrrell’s account demonstrates the ways in which historians have attempted to bring their work to the public over several decades. He refers to the process of “doing history” (a phrase new to me until this class) as the conscious attempt of historians to present history in an accessible fashion. To this end, historians have worked to present their craft through a myriad of mediums including radio, film, text, and schools. Unfortunately, as Tyrrell notes, these attempts have yielded few results. These roadblocks have not, however, prevented historians from progressively broadening the field of history to include previously ignored peoples or events. While historians have a difficult time finding a market for their scholarly work, over time, their efforts quietly end up embedded in popular culture, politics, and daily life.

Cathy Stanton's approach toward history is accessible to the public because it derives through the public. Her approach of analyzing the information provided in the tours of Lowell National History park and offering her own research in conjunction to the park's provides a unique interpretation of the city. Stanton attempts to, "underscore the performative, contingent nature of all historical interpretation" (xiv). Like Tyrrell, she sees the role of the historian in as an inherently public position with a responsibility to a particular audience.

Carl Becker takes this approach one step further, outlining the importance of "Mr. Everyman" and his experience in living history. He weaves a story of a man whose experience of life is, essentially, different from the history of his life. In this way, Becker draws the conclusion that there are two types of history: the actual and the reported. He tries to find a point where the two converge and, though it appears futile, he urges historians to not disregard the importance of actual history. He views this as the obligation of historians to be as accurate to the experiences of the past as possible given what he feels are extremely limited resources.

And because you, dear reader, have made it to the end of this somewhat dull post, I would like to leave you with a hint of an amusing image direct from my own living history:

Faculty vs. Student softball match.

Women Can't Fight: Redux

For my research seminar, I read the partial transcripts of a 1979 House subcommittee meeting about women in the military. The purpose of this meeting was to collect enough information to make an informed decision about whether Congress should repeal the federal regulations prohibiting women in the Air Force or the Navy from serving in combat zones. This would leave the role of women in these branches to the discretion of their respective secretaries.

It's odd to think that as recently as 1979 (only a few years before my birth and well within my parents' lifetime), the language used to speak of women in the military was overwhelmingly protectionist and, at times, downright condescending. The most clear instances of this attitude were provided by Congressman G.V. "Sonny" Montgomery, a Democrat from Mississippi.  One of his first contentions was the likelihood of men to neglect their duty because they would be "overly protective" of women. Later in the hearings, he pokes fun at a M. Kathleen Carpenter, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal Employment Opportunity. While Ms. Carpenter testified about the problem of harassment in the military, the congressman interjected, "I was just going to tease the gentlelady. I was going to ask who was harassing who in the military? It has been my experience with women, I usually get harassed" (24).

Jim Webb, a journalist and former Marine, authored a controversial article in the Washingtonian entitled, "Women Can't Fight." He asserts that the entrance of women into military academies had weakened the morale of the army and that introducing women into combat zones would all but destroy the ability of the American military to win a war. His most memorable statement is:

"The Hall, which houses 4,000 males and 300 females, is a horny woman's dream... While this is a natural human phenomenon, it gets in the way of military indoctrination, and creates a very real resentment among males due to the evolution of a double standard of discipline."

This article was referenced heavily in the subcommittee hearings on women in the military. Retired Colonel Phelps Jones calls the article "memorable" and "honest," stating that, "[Webb's] judgment of the deterioration of the plebe system and the whole sense of élan and internal morale at Annapolis is painful" (272-274). Colonel Jones continues to advise the committee to make the following statement to women entering into the Academy:

"Look, for most of you, you cannot aspire to be a general of the Army, or an admiral of the fleet, or something like this; there is a point beyond which, in total candor, we must tell you most of you can't go." (274).

The extent of the influence of Webb's article has been publicly debated since he published it. Webb (now an incumbent senator from Virginia) has been, time and time again, called to task for his condescending view of women and his controversial article may have cost him the opportunity to be Obama's vice presidential candidate in the 2008 election. Here is a clip from 2006, in which Jim Webb is asked about how his opinions have changed since he published his now infamous article:

The and general attitude and comments from 1979 could, perhaps, be attributed to our slightly less evolved social structure. It is easy to read these transcripts and feel superior to our collective former selves. In fact, I'd like to take a moment and and raise a glass to the opportunity of being a 21st century woman, living in a society which respects my dignity and abilities as both a woman and a human; a society when people like Senator Jim Webb are compelled to take back their out-dated comments in order to continue on a path of public service. It's true that we still live in an imperfect world, but the sure signs of progress can't help but leave me feeling optimistic.

What do you think? Do the unique issues that surround women in the military impact our national security or the ability of our military to function in the most effective or efficient way? How has your experience (personal or otherwise) with the military shaped your view of women's contributions? How far have we really come since 1979?

[The parenthetical citations come from: "Women in the Military Hearings before the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives Ninety-Sixth Congress First and Second Sessions," November 13, 14, 15,  16, 1979 and February 11, 1980. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington: 1981.] 

Buon giorno!

Welcome to my blog.

I am a first year graduate student at Temple University and my first assignment is to create a blog for my Public History course. I think it's a cool assignment for three reasons:

1) I love the internet. Seriously, any excuse for me to be happily perched by the bell tower with my MacBook Air is a wonderful thing. 

2) It is a relatively informal way for me to express my thoughts about history, which is good because I have many of these thoughts and they are not always well-crafted enough to become part of a paper or class discussion.

3) Everyone in the class has to do this so I'll be able to read about their ideas and experiences and learn from them! Plus, I might be able to get some feedback from my classmates, professor, and any interested friends and family who might read this (Mom? Dad?). 

My historical interests are, generally, in 20th century U.S. and, specifically, conservative movements in the '60s. I am particularly intrigued by conservatives' use of the courts as a means to advance their political agenda.

My only real piece of historical writing at this point is my senior thesis, which I completed in 2008 at the College of Wooster. It is called "The '60s in a Neon Oven: The Chicago 8 and Middle America." It explores the attempts of the prosecution and the defense to sway popular opinion regarding the trial (and all that it represented) in 1969.

In addition to being a student of history, I am also a real person:

• I have been to Italy, France, China, the Netherlands, Malta and, most importantly, Canada.
• I watch too much TV. I especially enjoy Mad Men, House, and 30 Rock.
• I am an enthusiastic spectator of musical theater.
• I bought my first car last year. Well, technically, I think the bank still owns most of the car, but I drive it. Its name is Abbie.
• I am a long-distance member of the world's best book club, called the "Uppity Women." Hence the title of this blog.

Now it's time to get started on my first assignment for my research seminar. I am a little nervous about doing it well and I have a feeling it will not be as much fun as writing in this blog.

Thanks for dropping by!