Thursday, June 1, 2017

Opening Words

The publication of Nation of Faith & Flesh: The Moral War That Shaped America continues to be delayed by matters beyond my (and the publisher’s) control, so I hope you won’t mind if I vamp for a while by running my latest version of the opening pages: 


Chapter One
The Miserable Toys of Despotism


It may not have been the first battle fought over a Frenchwoman’s thighs, nor was it likely to be the last. But it was the first to launch a newspaper.
    She had been brought across the sea to dance the ballet at the grand new theater on the Bowery Road. The most cultured of New Yorkers had been anticipating her coming for weeks—Mayor Hone had been urging the city’s social leaders to turn out for her debut almost as though it were a civic duty. At last, in early February, the newspapers had been able to make the announcement: “Madame Francisque Hutin, of the Opera House, Paris, has arrived.”
    No one in the city had actually heard of Francisque Hutin, not even those who followed events in Paris, but everyone had heard of this latest French vogue, this new school of dance in which ethereal maidens leapt and spun to sentimental music, swept their liquid arms and floated on their toes. Fashionable Parisians could not get enough of it; after decades of revolution, war, and depression, it was a celebration of color, sentiment, gossamer delicacy, sweet harmony, illusive innocence, and sex. Their counterparts in Gotham, in those dark early weeks of 1827, were eager to make it their own—although in their minds it stood for something quite different.
    The house was crowded for a Wednesday night. Philip Hone, erstwhile mayor of the city, alertly poised and irreproachably dressed, surveyed the house from his private box and felt gratified to see all the neighboring boxes in the upper tier overflowing with the wealthy and cultured. But the boxes of the lower tier were full too, with the respectable husbands and wives of the middle class, and so were the cheaper seats in the pit, packed with young clerks and craftsmen. So, for that matter, were the cheapest seats of all, in the third tier above the boxes, where even laborers, black people, and unaccompanied women (along with those less respectable men who went looking for unaccompanied women) had come to see Madame Hutin dance.




    Of course, she would not appear early in the evening. First there had to pass the usual parade of musical acts, farcical sketches, and abbreviated plays that struggled to hold the attentions of a motley city crowd. But at long last, after a chopped-up version of Much Ado about Nothing, the orchestra sent up a sentimental folk melody to fill the vast space of the theater, and onto the stage bounded Francisque Hutin.
    Her dance was called “The Coquettish Shepherdess,” and after a coquettish bat of her eyelashes she bounded again with an athleticism astonishing for a female dancer. Then she hurled herself into a muscular pirouette. As she spun, her light skirt rose. And rose. And rose.
    No worldly member of the audience could have been surprised by the light gown she wore that bared her arms and lifted with her movements to grant a flash of stockinged leg. French dancers had been stirring minor scandals for thirty years with their filmy Grecian gowns, and popular actresses liked to play young Shakespearean males and Greek gods precisely so that they could wear breeches that displayed their calves. But few if any of them were prepared for what had lately become acceptable on the Parisian stage. Before seven thousand widening American eyes, Francisque Hutin kept spinning as centrifugal force, like the hand of an invisible lecher, revealed her calves, her knees, the fullness of her thighs, and, at least for an instant, even more.
    The audience did not remain in spellbound silence for long. A great chorus of male cheers swelled up from the pit. Claps and foot stamps met them from above. And in the middle, in the lower row of boxes, respectable middle-class wives rose indignantly from their seats and, proud and legless in the vast satin cones of their gowns, swept toward the lobby like bellflowers on a stream.
    One area of the house, however, was not so quick to announce its verdict: the upper boxes that held the people who shaped opinions and started vogues, the people whose opinion mattered most to Philip Hone. He knew art and valued civilization, and he understood what this performance meant to his city, how the whirling thighs of Madame Hutin embodied everything he yearned for New York to be.

      Hone’s newly completed tenure as mayor had lasted just a year, but it had been a monumental year. New York was rising on a flood tide. Not of water—although water was the source of it—but of money and humanity. The city had already been growing rapidly for two generations, faster than any other big city in the young republic, muscling ahead of Boston and Philadelphia as a center of commerce, finance, and industry. Then, in the fall of 1825, only fourteen months before, Governor Clinton had officially opened the Great Western Canal, that highway of water slashing nearly four hundred miles through stone and forest from distant Lake Erie to the Hudson River, ferrying the whole, incalculable wealth of the vast American interior past the docks at the tip of Manhattan. In its first year of operation, the canal had been even more profitable than its backers had predicted, nearly paying back its titanic cost. Now the winter had shut it down, but everyone knew that in a month or two, when the ice began to break, the surge of barges and wealth would be greater than any city had ever dreamed of.
  Already the city was outgrowing itself. There had been fewer than a hundred thousand people there ten years before, but at least seventy thousand more had crowded in since. How many more would come now? Every day they poured in by ship and ferry, from every state in the Union and half the nations of Europe, fighting for a piece of New York’s new wealth. The rasping and pounding of construction had become the music of the city, and this new theater was at the center of it. Laborers and immigrants crowded into the tenant houses that proliferated across the boggy neighborhood that stretched out behind the theater’s back, while another immigrant, a friend of Hone’s named John Jacob Astor, was rapidly transforming a respectable fortune into a colossal one by turning the farmland to the north into new neighborhoods.
  Right where Philip Hone sat, where theater patrons now packed themselves into boxes and rows, another sort of crowd had gathered just a few years before—crowds of great, stinking, pissing, moaning brutes, unwittingly brought together to die. This had been the slaughterhouse district until a group of wealthy landowners, Astors among them, had determined to plow it under with the city’s most elegant new neighborhood. The Bowery Road, so recently churned muddy by cattle drives from the pastures of Manhattan, now rolled like an imperial boulevard into the north and the future, to half-built neighborhoods where wandering lanes were giving way to a scientific grid of streets with numbers instead of names.
To anchor that boulevard’s southern end, where Chatham Street curved into it from the old city, the Astors and their allies had decided to build the New York Theatre. They had planned its opening for October, 1826—almost exactly a year after Governor Clinton had officially opened the Canal—as a monument to wealth and modernity. One thing alone made it a bright, hissing testimony to a new age: it was the first American theater built for gas lighting, that invisible power just then beginning to transform the urban night. But it was also the biggest theater in the New World, seating thirty-five hundred people within the body of a Greek temple, a white-pillared assertion of the power of reason and republicanism, with “scenery and machinery equal to anything in London.” It would present, they had promised, only the finest performances. It would never, unlike the other new theaters popping up, pander to baser tastes.


     Mayor Hone had delivered an address upon the laying of its cornerstone. “No act of my public life,” he remembered, “lost me so many friends.” A growing body of influential citizens had been stirred to do battle against the city’s rising tide of vice and crime (especially those Presbyterian merchants who’d been pouring in from New England), and most had come to view theaters as nearly as pernicious as taverns and brothels—as much for the crowds they attracted as for what happened on stage. For the mayor, however, the theater was worth the political risk. 
  Hone was a cosmopolite, one who had made his fortune auctioning European goods, one who followed the artistic fashions of Paris and London, a dashing master of taste and ton who knew paintings and music and threw scintillating dinner parties. He had grown weary of Europeans mocking the United States as a land of farmers and religious cranks, and just as weary of Americans mocking New Yorkers for caring about nothing but money, food, and amusements. An annoying woman named Anne Royall had recently published a book of “sketches” of life in the various regions of the young United States (one of those books that no one would admit to owning but that everyone could complain about in great detail), in which she’d asserted that Boston was “unmistakably a century ahead of New York in intellectual refinement.” Hone wanted his city to use its wealth to make itself the glittering cultural jewel of the new world. 
  There was something, however, even more important than appearances. In culture, Hone knew that he moved at the vanguard of his times, but he knew just as well that in politics he was a vestige of lost era—the era when only men of property were allowed to vote. He had come of age in a city still dominated by the old, landed families that had run it since the days of the Dutch, those intermarried clans of Beekmans and Stuyvesants and Livingstons. When the merchant princes (among whom Hone liked to count himself) had risen to rival them, they had swiftly united their interests with the old gentry through bonds of marriage and real estate. But over just the past few years, bending before the democratic winds that swept the country, the legislature in Albany had been gradually expanding suffrage until soon nearly every white male would have the vote; and now a brushfire of angry egalitarianism was sweeping from the West with the inexorable Andrew Jackson. Hone himself had been installed as mayor only because an ugly feud had briefly split the corrupt and cupiditous democrats who were clearly taking control of the city. 
  He worried about the costs of sudden democracy. He had seen the growing restiveness of laboring men: the recent march of a thousand men along the docks in support of a stevedors’ strike, but also the vandalism of Mr. Stuyvesant’s garden, the riot that had erupted when the city had tried to round up the herds of pigs that ran free in the streets, the ugly demonstration of partisan anger in front of his own mansion on New Year’s night. He knew that if his class of people were to do anything to steer the city away from mob rule, they would have to do it not through their diminishing political power but through whatever cultural power they could wield. They would have to bring civility to the masses, educate and uplift them from mobhood to citizenship. 

Monday, May 1, 2017

In a Nutshell

The publication date of this book remains up in the air, but it's comingand here’s its most recent promotional blurb from Farrar, Straus & Giroux:

In A Nation of Faith and Flesh, Gerard Jones chronicles the first “culture war” in American history, when private morality and religion were politicized as never before—and as they are still being politicized today.
       What began with a protest against a ballerina baring her thighs on a New York stage in 1827 snowballed into a national campaign against alcohol, Catholicism, prostitution, and, finally, slavery. Arthur Tappan, a pious merchant who entered the public sphere only to save his city from naughty dancing, found himself almost accidentally leading a sweeping agenda of Christian moral reform. Another group led by the iconoclastic feminist Fanny Wright worked to further their own Utopian vision, one based in science, workers’ rights, and sexual freedom. As Jones brilliantly shows, these two groups became unlikely allies in support of causes as varied as abolitionism, health food, and anti-masturbation, all the while drawing the ire of the ingrained economic and political elite—not to mention cynical newspapermen, prostitutes, and their clients. Believing they had begun a struggle that would end with the Millennium, these reformers instead saw many of their projects end in failure. But in the process they birthed a singular movement that would redefine the nation.
       Told with the energy and empathy of the best novels, A Nation of Faith and Flesh plunges readers into the moral crucible that forged many of the alliances, divisions, and social movements that have defined American society to this day. 

Saturday, April 1, 2017

Publication Delay

I’m sad to report that the publication of Nation of Faith and Flesh, not so long ago scheduled for this October, has been pushed back into next year. I was right at the verge of finishing it when I found myself unexpectedly thrown into a legal issue, unrelated to the book itself, that turned everything upside down. Because there’s an ongoing investigation, I’ve been advised not to talk about it; but it’s moving toward slowly toward resolution, and I look forward to the day I can write and speak about this strange, harrowing, eye-opening—and ultimately very valuable—experience. In the meantime, as I’m taking extra time to polish up the manuscript, I’m finding spots to strengthen that I probably wouldn’t have gotten to on the original schedule. (As a veteran player of Pollyanna Whittier’s Glad Game, I’m finding much to be grateful for even now.)



Monday, January 2, 2017

All in the Family

A long time ago, about a quarter-century, in fact, I wrote my first solo nonfiction book, Honey Im Home: Sitcoms Selling the American Dream. Its still in print and still used in some college syllabi, which I find gratifying. I found it even more gratifying when Professors Mary M. Dalton of Wake Forest and Laura R. Linder of Marist University asked me to contribute an essay to their anthology, The Sitcom Reader, which came out from SUNY Press a few months ago. Specifically, they asked if they could adapt the chapter in my book on the historical signficance of the Norman Lear-produced sitcoms of the early 1970s: All in the Family, Sanford and Son, Maude, The Jeffersons, and Good Times
       It was interesting for me to read the chapter again after all this time. I had a very different approach to writing about things then than I had by the time I got to Men of Tomorrow, even more different from where I am now: less personal and gestural (to steal a word from visual artists), more analytical than narrative. I used to be unsure if I was better at intellectual analysis or at emotional narrative. These days Im pretty sure its the latter, but I enjoyed looking at this other writer I might have been. And, really, I think itnot a bad piece of work.
       Here's the first part of the essay, if you're curious:

Long considered one of the most influential voices in American television and founder of the progressive, non-profit, advocacy group People for the American Way, Norman Lear has produced some of the most popular and controversial situation comedies in the history of the genre. His legacy, like his landmark series of the 1970s, is a mixed bag of liberal intentions and competing, regressive messages. 
  Prior to the 1970s, American sitcoms showed far less inclination for realism and cynicism than their British counterparts, which often left their protagonists trapped by poverty and social immobility. Till Death Do Us Part (1965-75) and Steptoe and Son (1962-74) were two edgy sitcoms made possible by Britain’s non-commercial television. In the former, an aging cockney and his left-wing son-in-law argue violently about social politics while Steptoe and Son features two generations of junk dealers, bound by blood, futility, and class limitations, storylines Norman Lear would mine for cultural commentary and comic relief in his American sitcoms. 
  By the time Lear bought the American rights for those two British series, he had spent years writing and producing TV variety shows. In the 1960s, he’d teamed up with another TV producer, Bud Yorkin, to make movies under the name Tandem Productions. Their specialty was saucy comedy that took advantage of Hollywood’s loosening censorship restrictions, marked by slick, titillating wit and sage doses of social comment, including Come Blow Your Horn (1963), Divorce American Style (1967), and The Night They Raided Minsky’s (1968). Lear was interested in reentering television if he could shatter the networks’ blandness and fear of controversy, and All in the Family (1971-79) was the hammer he wanted to use.



  Lear turned Till Death Do Us Part’s xenophobic Brit into Archie Bunker, a blue-collar warehouse worker, union man, unreconstructed racist, and social conservative. His leftist son-in-law is Michael “Mike” Stivic, a Polish-American graduate student in sociology and knee-jerk liberal. Mediating the verbal combat is Archie’s cute, dopey daughter, Gloria Stivic, who loves her father but adopts her husband’s worldview, and Archie’s wife, Edith, who is timid, tolerant, and politically naïve—a “dingbat” in Archie’s parlance. When ABC ordered a pilot, Lear assembled a superb cast. He turned to Carroll O’Connor, a lesser-known Broadway and film actor, who brought Archie to life in all his anger and vulnerability. Another stage veteran, Jean Stapleton, brought the same combination to the character of Edith. Lear cast Carl Reiner’s son, Rob, as the mooching, self-important Mike, and young stage actress Sally Struthers as the naïve, emotionally charge Gloria. The chemistry among them was explosive.



  Based on poor test audience reactions in early 1970, ABC rejected the pilot, but it caught the eye of CBS President Bob Wood. His test audiences were no more encouraging, but Wood fought to get the show on the air. During the previous year, he had been overhauling his network’s image, eliminating shows like The Beverly Hillbillies that appealed to older, poorer, and more rustic audiences and replacing them with shows that would appeal to the younger, hipper viewers whom advertisers preferred. Wood was also aware that as the Vietnam War wore on, ethnic movements grew more militant, and feminism hit mainstream America, the national debate was growing broader and louder; sociopolitical arguments were no longer restricted to college students and radicals. 
  The show was slated for a January 1971 premiere, but Wood and his fellow executives were nervous. Fearing a backlash, they did what they could to soften the blow. They pressured Lear into withdrawing a sly sexual reference and the word “goddamn” from the first script. A disclaimer was scrolled across the screen before the first episode, assuring viewers that its intention was to “throw a humorous spotlight on our frailties, prejudices and concerns.”
The first episode opens with generational and religious conflicts on full display: Archie and Edith go to church, but Mike and Gloria stay home (with an implication that they do so in order to have sex). A scatological TV taboo is defied when living-room arguments are disrupted by the loudly flushing upstairs toilet. Race enters the picture, as Archie taunts Mike.

Archie: You’re the laziest white boy I ever met. 
Mike: Meaning that the blacks are even lazier. 
Archie: Wait a second, wise guy . . . I never said that at all. Of course, their systems are geared a little slower that ours, that’s all.

Later episodes continue to air racial, sexual, and religious laundry. Archie parades his archaic, provincial attitudes, filling the airwaves with words formerly taboo: hebe, mick, spic, fag, Polack, jungle bunny. He defends himself in transparent stupidity: “Look, Archie Bunker ain’t no bigot. I’m the first to say that it ain’t your fault that you’re colored.” Inevitably, he gets his comeuppance from the world or from his smug son-in-law.
  The network, producers, and advertisers braced themselves for protests from offended conservatives, but the most serious protests came from liberals. Laura Z. Hobson, author of the anti-anti-Semitic Gentleman’s Agreement, took the show to task in the New York Times for making racism acceptable by placing it within an affectionately humorous context. She thought the scripts were particularly dishonest in playing at racial epithets without going all the way: Hebe and jungle bunny are quaint, almost funny, but kike and nigger never pass Archie’s lips.



  A snowstorm of letters agreed with Hobson. It became the biggest debate ever engendered by a piece of TV entertainment: Did All in the Family ridicule racist behavior or make it seem permissible? Lear presented himself as a misunderstood liberal, maintaining that Archie was a purely negative example, and the plots generally bore him out. Ultimately, most liberal critics praised the show as anti-racist, and schoolteachers across the country requested All in the Family study guides from CBS. The TV professionals who voted for the Emmy awards—generally supportive of liberal-centrist messages—endorsed it enthusiastically.
  There was one problem with this liberal scenario: Archie is too damned lovable. He’s ignorant but never mean-spirited. All he wants is to sit in his easy chair, take care of his family, and enjoy his cigars and coffee. Second to Archie in emotional appeal is Edith, well-intentioned but befuddled. She loves Archie, and he loves her. He might not respect her mind, he might tell her to “stifle” herself, he might demand to be served, but he works every day to support her, and he passes up a flirtatious divorcée to remain faithful to her. Gloria isn’t as likable as Edith, but she’s sympathetic enough, and she, too, loves Archie. The show’s most touching moments come when she bridges the gap of generations and hugs her daddy.
  Archie’s only constant opponent is Mike, the least likable of the four. He has many good lines and fine ideals, but he takes himself too seriously. He can’t drop his political position to establish a personal link with Archie, and he’s a parasite. He and Gloria live rent-free with the Bunkers while he’s in graduate school, a situation that Archie grudgingly endures out of paternal love but that Mike seems to take as his due. As Archie becomes a better-rounded, more sympathetic character, Mike’s immutable hostility makes him an insensitive ingrate. When he complains to Edith that Archie won’t stop riding him, Edith flashes uncharacteristic indignation. “Do you wanna know why Archie yells are you? Archie yells at you because Archie is jealous of you. You’re going to college. Archie had to quit school to support his family. He ain’t never going to be any more than he is right now. Now you think that over.” Despite all the conscious plot strategies to create a liberal impression, Archie Bunker is the hero.



  Lear once said that he “had a strong conviction for some time that you can discuss national issues and deliver a large audience if it’s done just right . . . people will watch. And they will learn.” Lear did indeed parade a lot of “national issues” through the Bunker living room: street crime, anti-Semitism, mixed marriage, Watergate. He even put sexual issues on parade, an easy way of breaking TV taboos, getting press coverage, and drawing a curious audience: Archie is impotent, Mike gets a vasectomy, Edith goes through menopause, Gloria has a miscarriage, someone they know is a lesbian, Edith befriends a drag queen, Archie nearly cheats on Edith, and so on. But, for all this parading, political substance was trumped by personal interactions. 
  In “The Elevator Story,” Archie is trapped in an elevator with a bunch of “ethnic types.” Most vocal among them is an articulate and confident black man. The subject of military service comes up, and Archie assumes that the man must have been on “latrine duty” during the war. When the man reveals that he was an intelligence officer, Archie looks chagrined, and the studio audience laughs at Archie’s embarrassment. Archie is effectively humbled, and by episode’s end the man lets him off the social hook with a noble courtesy. This interchange is ostensibly about racism, but what does it say? Only that Archie is so naïve in his stereotyping that he can’t conceive of intelligent, responsible black people. Institutional racism is not addressed. Archie’s folly is harmful only to Archie himself.
  Like so many mass audience successes, All in the Family could be viewed on different levels. Liberals and intellectuals could see their beliefs vindicated, while white conservatives found a new hero and felt the world had acknowledged them. Perhaps more important, Archie spoke to the anxieties of those confused masses in between. When he spoke of “jungle bunnies,” he released a little internal pressure for millions of Americans who felt socially unacceptable hostilities within themselves. Archie was a sacrificial lamb for an angry, frightened, would-be progressive America. There was such an electric tension to the first couple of years of All in the Family that it’s difficult to believe this duality was calculated. It seems to spring from the duality within Norman Lear himself, a common split within sensitive middle-aged progressives. He was an intellectual liberal but an emotional conservative. Whatever he may have thought about social revolution, he yearned for continuity and family. 



  In the end, it is the emotional, not intellectual, content that bonds an audience with a TV show. Liberals welcomed the overt messages of All in the Family, but it was the Archie Bunkers of America who stayed with the character once the novelty wore off. CBS’s new programing chief, Fred Silverman, must have intuited this. The network had originally dropped it into a dead time slot—Tuesday night at 9:30, opposite ABC’s top-rated Movie of the Week—perhaps to minimize the trouble it could cause. It came in at 58 in the ratings and was considered for cancellation, but the media attention encouraged Bob Wood to give it a push with the start of its first full season. Silverman moved it to 8:00 on Saturday night. That put Archie squarely in the face of the mass TV audience, and that audience made him a tremendous hit. All in the Family topped the Nielsens that season with a 34 rating and remained on top for five straight years.
  The success of All in the Family guaranteed a flood of shows breaking taboos, playing with topical issues, pitting family member against family member, featuring political misfits and working-class louts. Along with The Mary Tyler Moore Show, it taught TV entertainment how to grapple humorously with the anxieties of the time and, in so doing, laid the foundation for nearly every sitcom since. For all the success of All in the Family, however, 1970s sitcoms had an increasingly hard time reaching the prime advertising market. The sitcoms that followed it put less emphasis on political dialogue and generational dynamics and steadily more on sex, shock value, sentimentality, and lovable buffoons. 
  After a few years, All in the Family itself fell prey to its own sentimentality and repetition. But, in its moment of gutsy, self-contradictory glory, it had changed American mass culture. It dared to state that the culture of assimilation and consensus wasn’t working; that communication did not necessarily dissolve our differences—in the Bunker household, communication just leads to a lot of yelling. Yet, as pessimistic as it was about the modern world, it was optimistic about the basic nature of people and families. Without offering any solutions to social ills, it showed the Bunkers holding together, episode after episode, by foolish love alone.