Rebecca Edwards – American Disasters

February 17, 2014December 16, 2020

Morality and Consumerism

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

An interesting point that Edwards discussed in chapter 4 of New Spirits is the relationship between women, morality and consumerism during the Gilded Age. As this age progressed and industrialization as well as urbanization continued to swell, material objects began to take on weight that they had never held before. Certain methods of travel, parties, and fashion all became status symbols that proved an individual was superior to the majority of the population (95).

Women’s fashion became a popular avenue for the display of such Social Darwinist attitudes. As shopping typically fell into the female societal role, women in particular fell prey to rising consumerism and increasing advertisements.

An interesting paradox in the relationship between woman and consumerism lies in this era’s understanding of the female character. Women were typically regarded as fragile and easily corruptible; their delicate sensibilities required them to be isolated from business and industry because of these circles corrupting influences. Yet, as consumerism grew and women’s independence slowly increased, women were thrust into the middle of American consumer culture and all of its corrupting influence. Edwards suggests that during this time period “material standards posed many moral problems” as consumerism grew and became central to American culture(96). This situation is intriguing in that women, who represented morality in humanity, could no longer be kept apart from societal corruption. Edwards mentions William Dean Howells’s book, The Rise of Silas Lepham, as an example of this loss in innocence (95).

Society and its social boundaries could not stay the same through the rise of consumerism. As Emily mentioned, women’s roles adapted in many ways beyond consumerism through the Gilded Age’s progression.

It is important to keep in mind the characterization of women during this time period in order to understand the “moral problems” associated with consumerism. People believed that women were particularly vulnerable to this rising corrupt consumer culture.

January 22, 2014December 16, 2020

Its More Distinctive Than Some Think

Like Elcaldwell mentioned, all three articles read examine the ways in which we analysis/categorize history and the lenses through which we examine it. Rebecca Edwards, of Vassar College, passionately contributes to the thoughtful discussion that we have been having as a class about whether the label of “Gilded Age” is appropriate and just for what actually happened during the time period we are discussing. In the editor’s note of the “Forum: Should we abolish the ‘Gilded Age’”, she argues, as many in our class stated, that the most prominent Gilded Age stereotypes and historical assumptions do not rightly characterize the era. To wit, she “draws on the political trends and movements and policy innovations of those decades” and uproots the influences of other popular events like the Populist Party, the American Farmer’s Alliance, the Interstate Commerce Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and muckraking journalism.

Edwards’ argument regarding historicization of the Gilded Age is one of strength and valid historical backing, and I don’t seek to reject her interpretation out of hand; but, I disagree with her determination to abolish the Gilded Age as a separate period. As the editor’s note explains, her stance is part of a wider, more recent trend toward examining 1870-1920 as a single, unique period and possibly coining it the “long progressive era.” I completely agree with ElCaldwell’s assumption that that her frustration with existing perspectives on the Gilded Age comes from teachers and students, not from historians. The common high school textbook or lesson plan from high school teachers usually wants to hit the huge history events before and after the Gilded Age and skims the time period by unfortunately, using terms that now drive the popular perception of the Gilded Age as one of pure corruption, crony capitalism and Jim Crow. Yet, even with these possibly misinformed high school textbooks, Edward’s argument for a prolonged progressive era I believe falls short in comparison to Richard Schneirov’s argument in “Thoughts on Periodizing the Gilded Age: Capital Accumulation, Society, and Politics, 1873-1898.” Detailing a case for the distinct period of the Gilded Age, Schneirov, in my opinion, provides us with a more convincing argument to label the Gilded Age as a distinct period of its own that has very distinctive characteristics. I felt that Scheirnov’s essay was more valid than Edward’s as it used numerous historiographical evidence to support his claim for the periodization of the Gilded Age. Because this blog post does not allow me to go into further detail, our next assignment regarding a historiography, I will expand upon the great historiographical example by Scheirnov. Along with his examination of recent work and supporting evidence of periodization, Scheirnov briefly explains his opinion on the beginning date of this period and the differing views surrounding this seemingly unimportant but extremely interesting periodization factor. This possible small scale difference opens up the flood gates for a bigger question and a historiographical analysis of the start and finish of the Gilded Age.

January 22, 2014December 16, 2020

Bringing Space and Place to the Gilded Age

This past summer I went to Santiago, Chile with my family before the start of my semester abroad. My parents desired to leave the city because they felt Chile had more to offer than a large Western-feeling space. To my parents, cities could feel repetitive (having lived in New York for about 50 years). Parisians and Romans may disagree but I found this to be true of Dublin, Ireland as well. Upon arriving, my family immediately wanted to depart for the countryside because we felt like the city was not offering us anything we had not experienced before. “Bringing the City Back in: Space and Place in the Urban History of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era” by James Connolly challenged my views of cities by bringing to light variations in spacial arrangements and “the specific history of social, economic, political, and cultural interaction that creates identities” (271). Many of these variations are associated with the Gilded Age and are distinctions that you might not pick up on if you are a tourist visiting a city for only three days.

These problems arise when people are quick to lump things together. Sherwood’s post questions, “Is the generalized overview more illuminating than the examination of a specific instance, or vice versa?” Rebecca Edwards in “Politics, Social Movements, and the Periodization of U.S. History” jokes about herself being a “lumper extraordinaire,” and although I admire her fight to rename history, I don’t agree with her oversimplification of history. History does not always fit neatly into years, in the same way spaces are created by cities. There is a benefit to classifying eras by the main components that make them unique, or their identities, which is reaffirmed in Sherwood’s post: “for the average students of history, there is little wisdom to be gained from the study of broad, general trends.” Place and space are typically geographical terms, but their concepts can be applied to history as well.

January 22, 2014December 16, 2020

Historicization in historical study versus popular imagination

All three articles for Thursday’s reading examine the ways in which we think about history and the lenses through which we examine it. Rebecca Edwards, of New Spirits fame, continues the thoughtful discussion that we have been having as a class about whether the moniker of “Gilded Age” is appropriate for the time period we are discussing. Rightly, she argues, as we have discussed, that the most prominent Gilded Age stereotypes do not fully characterize the era. To wit, she raises the Grange movement, the Populist party, the American Farmer’s Alliance, the Interstate Commerce Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and muckraking journalism, among other items.

Edwards’ ardent argument regarding historicization of the Gilded Age clearly emerges from a depth of knowledge, and I don’t seek to reject her interpretation out of hand; yet, I think that her frustration with existing perspectives on the Gilded Age comes from teachers and students, not from historians. The dominant narrative of the Gilded Age, which Edwards’ glosses in her opening paragraphs, does not, I believe, dominate the historical literature inappropriately. Rather, the nuance with which Edwards would like students of history to examine the Gilded Age is lost in the shuffle of high school classes which cover American history from colonialism to the eve of World War 2. Unfortunately, that lost nuance drives popular perception of the Gilded Age as one of pure corruption, crony capitalism and Jim Crow. Yet, serious students of history still examine these issues with the perceptiveness and depth which Edwards desires. It is simply not reasonable to expect that the nation as a whole will embrace a complex vision of each era of history when eras themselves tend to get reduced down to their very essence by teachers who must move through them in a week.

I fully agree with Price’s perspective that the Supreme Court’s conservative decisions during this period eviscerated the ability of reformers to make serious legislative progress. His analysis is also apt in that he acknowledges the inadequacies of Edwards’ argument regarding the significance of reform in this period. I would like to reiterate my own perspective: the dominant narrative of this period does not eliminate the possibility of the existence of counter-narrative occurrences; rather, the dominant narrative exists because is most accurately summarizes the dominant trends in Gilded Age society.