Taming Disaster: Fatalism and Mastery in American Disaster Management, 1800-2013

Yesterday, 29^th January 2014, the Centre was pleased to welcome Dr. Gareth Davies (St. Annes College, Oxford University) to the seventh of the Centre’s 2013-2014 seminar series. In what was a truly thought-provoking lecture, Dr. Davies discussed ‘Taming Disaster: Fatalism and Mastery in American Disaster Management, 1800-2013.’ Below is this listener’s brief summary of the lecture.

              

Marine One above the decimated city of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, 2005

When President George W. Bush flew over flood-ravaged New Orleans immediately after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, opting not to land for a closer look, it fuelled public sentiment that his administration was not being proactive in the disaster that had taken lives and destroyed so much property. Bush acknowledged as much in his memoirs. Indeed, as Hurricane Sandy in 2012 illuminated, when both presidential candidates effectively had to cancel planned campaign stops and all eyes pivoted to how President Barack Obama would respond, Presidential visits matter in times of disasters. But has this always been the case? Has it always been the federal government’s responsibility to react with all the resources at its disposal when natural disasters strike?

According to Dr. Gareth Davies in his ‘Taming Disaster’ talk, the answer is no. In the Early American Republic there were very few tools to draw from to combat catastrophe and the lack of communications and governmental structures meant that response was limited. For example, in the 1811-12 Missouri Earthquakes, which remain the most powerful earthquakes to hit the eastern United States in recorded history, territories were decimated and the extreme ruralness of these rugged frontier lands meant that word of it got out slowly. There was no expectation of governmental assistance at the time but rather it was religious groups, believing these disasters to be the work of God, who would raise money and assist when they could.

After the Civil War, the federal government began to take a larger role in disaster prevention and assistance, but the expectation was still on local organisations and philanthropic efforts. Thus, the government played a role as part of a massive national collective, with the growth in newspapers raising awareness and the strides in technology improving prevention tools. By the Progressive Era, people began to turn to local governments to respond. For example, following the 1900 Galveston, Texas hurricane that destroyed one third of the property in the area, many people were dissatisfied with the way local governments responded, but people did not turn to the federal government or the president. Instead, the hurricane triggered the mobilization of an important movement to reform local government since it was viewed as the locus of response. The Red Cross too increased its role, playing a massive part in assisting those affected by the 1927 Mississippi floods. So then, when did the people start looking to the President to provide leadership in response to disasters? Although President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal initiatives begin to bureaucratise the nature of disaster prevention and response, even President Dwight Eisenhower did not visit the Louisiana coast in 1957 when Hurricane Audrey wreaked havoc, killing some 500 people, nor did he feel compelled to do so. As Dr. Davies argued, it was during the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon presidencies that the decisive change took place.

Accordingly, one of the key turning points in expectations that the President respond to disaster was following Hurricane Betsy in September 1965. Although initially disinclined to visit the site, but eventually persuaded to do so based on political considerations by Louisiana Senator Russell Long, who had recently become the Senate Majority Whip, President Johnson’s response was unprecedented. Betsy was a Category 4 storm with wind gusts near 160 mph that came ashore on September 9, 1965. New Orleans was hit with 110 mph winds, a storm surge around 10 feet, and heavy rain. After the storm passed, Senator Long called Johnson and urged him to tour the devastated areas. Long told Johnson of the severe damaged done to his own home that had nearly killed his family. Johnson, along with the heads of the Office of Emergency Planning, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and the Surgeon General, arrived in New Orleans five hours after talking to Long. After seeing the dreadful suffering and damage from his plane, Johnson said upon arrival, ‘I am here because I want to see with my own eyes what the unhappy alliance of wind and water have done to this land and its good people.’

Indeed, within hours of Betsy, Johnson was in the city, making surprise visits to shelters, offering encouragements to the city’s newly homeless residents, saying:

Today at 3 o’clock when Senator Long and Congressman Boggs and Congressman Willis called me on behalf of the entire Louisiana delegation, I put aside all the problems on my desk to come to Louisiana as soon as I could. I have observed from flying over your city how great the catastrophe is that you have experienced. Human suffering and physical damage are measureless. I’m here this evening to pledge to you the full resources of the federal government to Louisiana to help repair as best we can the injury that has been done by nature.

As Dr. Davies highlighted (with a rather spot on attempt at LBJ’s voice), when making one particular visit, and by illuminating his face with a flashlight, Johnson told the audience, ‘I’m your president and I’m here to help.’

Dr. Davies argued that although Johnson’s response to Betsy probably did not significantly affect the expectations that Americans in general had of presidential disaster leadership, it did set significant precedents including the allocation of federal funds to relieve individual disaster victims and a massive, federally funded hurricane defence system for New Orleans. Both measures were included in the ‘Betsy Bill’ drafted by the Louisiana delegation following the disaster, which likely would not have passed without Johnson’s backing. Dr. Davies then drew an interesting parallel between Johnson’s response to Betsy and George W. Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina – which Bush admits in his autobiography was severely lacking in comparison. Here is an insightful op-ed about ‘LBJ’s political hurricane’ from the NY Times.[1]

Moreover, Dr. Davies demonstrated that amidst the height of the presidential campaign in 1972, Richard Nixon was sharply criticised for his response to Hurricane Agnes that affected numerous eastern states, particularly Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Democratic Governor Milton Shapp, Democratic Presidential Candidate George McGovern and others seized on the opportunity to criticise Nixon for what they called the government’s incompetent response. Nixon moved quickly to mitigate the damage, but was only able to do so when he took the reins and choreographed the government’s response from the White House. With this politicisation of the government’s response, the President had now effectively become the ‘Responder-in-Chief.’

This expectation of presidential response has only increased with time, and ultimately can have an adverse effect on a president’s image depending on how he reacts. For example, in 1992, when Hurricane Andrew devastated parts of Florida, Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton toured the most devastated portions of Florida, getting media coverage as he hugged and shared tears with people made homeless by the storm. President George H.W. Bush visited, as well, though media reports said Bush didn't come close to displaying the 'feel your pain' empathy Clinton did. Here then, one is able to see an example of the importance and development in the politics of disaster response over time.

Throughout his talk, Dr. Davies used the changing responses to natural disasters over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to explore how, why, and when American expectations of government have grown, ending by highlighting that the President’s role as ‘Responder-in-Chief’ has only really assumed grand proportions in the modern presidency. By interweaving both politics and natural disasters, Dr. Davies’ work represents the best form of historical enquiry, and the ability to use natural disasters as a way to unveil a narrative on the changing nature of the federal government is both illuminating and intriguing. With Dr. Davies currently turning this research into a book, the finished product is bound to be nothing but fascinating.

By Joe Ryan-Hume

PGR at the University of Glasgow

The Centre’s seminar series continues with Dr. Eithne Quinn (University of Manchester) ‘In the Heat of the Night (Norman Jewison, 1967) and Racial Politics in Post-Civil Rights Act Hollywood.’ This will be held on Wednesday 12^th February 2014 in Room 208, 2 University Gardens, at 5:15pm. All very welcome!

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/24/opinion/24williams.html?_r=0

The Rise of Horse Racing and the Endorsement of Slavery in Kentucky, 1780-1830

Yesterday, 15^th January 2014, the Centre was pleased to welcome Dr. Catriona Paul (Dundee University) to the sixth of the Centre’s 2013-2014 seminar series. In what was a thoroughly enjoyable and highly informative talk, Dr. Paul discussed ‘The rise of horse racing and the endorsement of slavery in Kentucky, 1780-1830.’ Below is this listener’s brief summary of the lecture.

Kentucky, known for its two best exports – the Kentucky Derby and bourbon – has a rich history of horse racing and rearing. With this, Dr. Paul argued that by focusing on horses and what they meant to society, we can learn a lot about the development of Kentucky. Indeed, horses were vital to Kentucky becoming established as a viable economic entity. Settlers relied on horses for transportation to travel the vast openness of the state and to get their goods to markets in the east, and by the year 1800 taxpayers owned 90,000 horses in the state, with 87% of all householders owning at least one horse. Moreover, horses were used by settlers to defend their homeland against Native Indian raids as the state began to take shape in the rough frontier of early America.

As Dr. Paul highlighted, from the beginning of the 19th century, Kentucky was acquiring a reputation for producing good quality riding and racing horses, and from this history grew a sense of pride in Kentucky-bred horses and a sense of identity which Kentucky still revels in today. Indeed, Dr. Paul opened her talk by showing the audience the above image of Kentucky’s state slogan ‘Unbridled Spirit’ – incorporated into marketing materials, government stationary and license plates since 2004 – to show the importance of the animal to the state’s history and development.

However, although Dr. Paul acknowledged the importance of these positive associations, it was the deeply negative aspects of slavery and its relation to horse racing that formed the focus of her talk. Breaking it down into three main arguments, Dr. Paul sought to show (i) how horse ownership helped Kentucky elites (many of whom were coming from Virginia) to promote themselves and their views of slavery, (ii) how horse ownership was used to claim that other forms of ownership were acceptable (thus, legitimising the pro-slavery argument), and (iii) how theories of horse breeding were applied by these elites to propagate a vision of purity among white human beings.

As Kentucky was entering statehood, there was a crucial battle being waged among its settlers over whether it would become a slave holding or Free State. Dr. Paul’s argument was that horses played a pivotal role in this. For the reasons highlighted above, elites used horses in various ways to convince the state’s population that slavery was a positive thing. According to Dr. Paul, the elites went on a ‘…charm offensive’ in order to do this. At this crucial juncture in the state’s history, elites brought thoroughbred horses to the outskirts of the frontier to announce their status and sponsored race events that brought the whole community together, with numerous race courses opening up quickly and jockey clubs forming all over the state. Kentuckians from across the social spectrum took an interest in racing even though the majority could not afford to run a horse personally, and by the 1820s, gate tolls were even introduced due to the popularity of these events.

And many who owned, breed, and raced horses also held political office as the state developed and thus played a key role in wielding public opinion. For example, Henry Clay was an early patron of the sport of horse racing, as were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Attached here is a detailed article about ‘Henry Clay’s Legacy to Horse Breeding and Racing.’[1] These elites then made the argument that horse ownership was the same as slave ownership, with John Breckinridge saying that: ‘…Where is the difference whether I am robbed of my horse by a highwayman, or of my slave by a set of people called a Convention?’ Slaves were bought and sold much the same way as horses at the time – key determinants being age, fitness, ability etc., – and one should see both these as related in how they became deeply entrenched in Kentucky culture.

In highlighting the last thread of her argument, Dr. Paul used a quote by Thomas Jefferson to show how ideas of ‘purity’ were used in similar ways to think about horses and humans:

The circumstance of superior beauty is thought worthy of attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man?

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, (1787)

So in what was an insightful and fascinating lecture, Dr. Paul unravelled the histories of both slavery and horse racing in Kentucky to show how they are interconnected in important and often unacknowledged ways. Shedding light on the origins of Kentucky’s ‘unbridled spirit’ slogan helps us appreciate better a crucial historical time period and Dr. Paul’s focus on horses brings an interesting and welcomed dynamic to the history of the early American republic.

By Joe Ryan-Hume

PGR at the University of Glasgow

The Centre’s seminar series continues with Dr. Gareth Davies (St. Annes, Oxford University) ‘Taming Disaster: Fatalism and Mastery in American Disaster Management, 1800-2013.’ This will be held on Wednesday 29^th January in Room 208, 2 University Gardens, at 5:15pm. All very welcome!

---

[1] http://www.jstor.org/stable/23384634

New Masses Magazine: Modernist Communism?

Yesterday, 6th December 2013, the Centre was pleased to welcome Dr. Sue Currell (Reader in American Literature, University of Sussex; Chair of the British Association for American Studies) to the fifth seminar of the American Studies Seminar Series of 2013-2014. In collaboration with the School of Critical Studies at the University of Glasgow, and as part of their 'English and American Literature Lecture Series,' Dr. Currell discussed ‘New Masses Magazine: Modernist Communism?’ Below is this listener’s brief summary of the lecture.

As Britain was battered by a winter storm with winds of over 100mph - in what was effectively described as ‘the largest north sea surge for over 60 years’ - Dr. Currell braved the length of the country to give an engaging and insightful lecture based on her current research – which examines the relationship of the arts with political discourse during interwar America, in particular as it relates to the journal New Masses. This formed the focus of her talk – in which she re-examined the political and aesthetic framework within which the Marxist arts and culture magazine New Masses has been understood and assessed by modernist literary studies.

New Masses magazine, published out of New York from 1926-1948, was an American Marxist magazine closely associated with, although not proven to be connected with, the Communist Party in the US. By publishing a large number of visual images along with muckraking political analysis, essays on historical and current events, contemporary fiction, and reviews of art exhibitions, theater, and films, this experimental journal proved to be unique among left and liberal magazines at the time. Originally founded as a monthly magazine of leftist writing and art in 1926, following the model of two earlier American socialist journals, The Masses and The Liberator, it began publishing as a weekly at the height of the Great Depression. It became highly influential in intellectual circles, even being called ‘the principal organ of the American cultural left’ from 1926 onwards, until its final issue appeared in 1948. According to Dr. Currell however, this resource has been left on the shelf of history, inevitably being glossed over when examining this important time period. Thus, Dr. Currell has set out to right this wrong.

According to Dr. Currell, in what little has been published, New Masses has been variously read and interpreted as ‘not-modernist’ and increasingly ‘not-or-anti-modernist’ in its latter period. However, throughout her talk, Dr. Currell challenged this ‘accepted’ paradigm that the magazine took a Stalinist-influenced aesthetic line from the mid-1930s. To do this, Dr. Currell examined the magazine's wider engagement with ideas for a communist modernism more broadly. Unlike contemporary liberal/left magazines such as the Nation, the New Yorker, or Vanity Fair, or radical newspapers such as Art Front and the Daily Worker, New Masses not only promoted explicitly leftist viewpoints but also, in looking beyond the public debates between the literary formalists and the ‘content boys’ that scholars have largely focused on, Dr. Currell was able to show how this incredibly experimental magazine was at the forefront of a nascent Marxism in the US. Accordingly, the early trajectory of New Masses' development was shaped by its founders' fascination with both literary and artistic modernism and Soviet Communist ideals; the tensions posed by these potentially divergent interests revealed themselves in editorial precepts that shifted from the late 1920s into the early and mid-1930s.

Publishing experimental and non-conformist writings of relatively unknown writers, New Masses had both the guise of a ‘little magazine’ and the content of a manifesto – combing them both lyrically to produce a ‘new’ type of magazine. Its editors saw their audience as extremely broad – demonstrated by the magazine’s engagement with both high art and popular culture. Moreover, according to Dr. Currell, the association with leftist political views was at first unofficial, but after Mike Gold took over as chief editor in 1928, a militant proletarianism took precedence over less explicitly anti-capitalist political positions. Gold was influential in making this style of fiction popular during the depression years of 1930s, and was an important presence on the American cultural scene for more than three decades.

With contributions from Ezra Pound, Arthur Miller, and many others, New Masses is an extremely important magazine that must be considered and assessed with a modernist hat on according to Dr. Currell. Moreover, Dr. Currell passed round copies of two New Masses magazines as she spoke – which both brought her talk to life and allowed the audience to identify the various modernist editorial motions and aesthetic qualities she was highlighting. In closing, Dr. Currell argued that as one of the foremost periodicals of a renaissance that transformed American modernism and mass culture, New Masses ultimately deserves a reassessment. And that is just what she has set out to do.

By Joe Ryan-Hume

PGR at the University of Glasgow

The Centre’s seminar series continues in the New Year with Dr. Catriona Paul (Dundee University) ‘The rise of horse racing and the endorsement of slavery in Kentucky, 1780-1830.’ This will be held on Wednesday 15th January in Room 208, 2 University Gardens, at 5.15pm. All very welcome!

A Movement of Movements or a Conjuncture of Forces? Interpreting the 1960s, Half a Century On

Yesterday, 21^st November 2013, the Centre was pleased to welcome Prof. Doug Rossinow (Professor at Metropolitan State University – who is currently a Fulbright scholar at the University of Oslo) to the forth of the Centre’s 2013-2014 seminar series. In what was an engaging and highly informative talk, Prof. Rossinow discussed ‘A Movement of Movements or a Conjuncture of Forces? Interpreting the 1960s, Half a Century On.’ Below is this listener’s brief summary of the lecture.

From civil rights to black power, and from student radicalism to the Vietnam War, the 1960s immediately connotes a period of protest and social transformation with a resonance issuing, at least in part, from the living memories of so many who experienced the decade and participated in its characterising events. The movement away from the perceived traditionalism of the 1950s enabled revolutionary ways of thinking and a real change in the cultural fabric of American life to take place. Gaining political traction in the 1960s, these movements fundamentally changed the nation’s trajectory, and as such have helped contribute to the mythical remembering of the decade. The decade has been a constant source of historical scrutiny, with many arguing that the 1960s has reverberations that can still be felt today. In terms of historiography, this period is awash with interpretations, and into this historiographical minefield stepped Prof. Rossinow yesterday. Through his talk, Prof. Rossinow was able to guide the audience through the complex terrain of 1960s history before describing his own suggestions of how best to understand the decade – one that he sees importantly as a conjuncture of forces.

In his presentation, Prof. Rossinow began by outlining the various ways scholars have interpreted the 1960s over time, describing the three main ideas as ‘The Long Sixties’, ‘The Global Sixties’, and ‘A Movement of Movements.’ With a brief summary of the first two interpretations, including an analysis of their respective interpretive problems, Prof. Rossinow moved on to an extended discussion of the ‘Movement of Movements’ idea. This idea is most often associated with Van Gosse, whose work ‘Rethinking the New Left: An Interpretative History’ stands testament to this.

Here Van Gosse argues that from the 1950s to the 1970s, a host of movements struggled to make democracy and equality realities in America. With the 1960s as his clear focus, Van Gosse unites the movements for civil rights and black power, for peace and solidarity with the Third World, and for gender and sexual equality together in his conception of the New Left. In its summary, Van Goose argues that: ‘From Vietnam to the war at home against African and Native Americans, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and Asian Americans, from Women's to Gay Liberation, the New Left was the broadest-based movement for fundamental change in American history.’ As Prof. Rossinow highlighted, Van Gosse synthesizes and chronicles the protests, confrontations, victories, and defeats of the 1960s into one umbrella story. However, according to Prof. Rossinow, the complex nature of these movements leaves this interpretation wanting.

Therefore, as Prof. Rossinow suggested, instead of using the ‘New Left’ as a master category, bringing together an array of movements, it is important to think of these movements as distinctive, and as each with their own origins and causes. First there are the movements of the excluded people, who through demanding rights and recognition are quite different from the revolts of the white middle-class youth, who were rebelling against their political and social surroundings within the dominant culture. Thus, with the counterculture as a symbol of the youth’s rebellion against traditional values, to lump them together with movements fighting oppression, persecution, or prejudice is to distort their unique importance within the 1960s.

Instead, Prof. Rossinow encouraged us to think of these movements as a conjuncture of forces. Essentially, these movements had a lot of sympathy for one another, but that does not equate to an automatic alliance/relationship, and scholars should be wary of projecting one identity onto a range of unique movements. By thinking of the 1960s as a conjuncture of forces too, it enables us to identify when the decade ended – which as Prof. Rossinow highlighted, elicits a lot of controversy from those in the field who argue that the 1960s battles are still on-going. For example, if we think of movements of oppression, one could argue that we are still fighting the battle for rights and recognition of many today.  But if we think of the movements of rebellion as a particularly white-middle class revolt, one is able to argue that these movements were unique to their contemporary environment.

In what was an insightful and well-attended lecture, Prof. Rossinow unravelled the various historiographical interpretations of an important era, and offered some of his own conclusions regarding how we should peer through the historical lens to analyse what was a significant decade of transformation. It is true that the 1960s remains the most consequential and controversial decade of the twentieth century. In what dawned as a decade bright with hope and idealism, with many believing that the American state would attain its mightiest reforms and reach, ended in discord and disillusionment. Perhaps no period in American history has been filled with such an expansive and ambitious sense of possibilities—such a grand, inspiring sense of what Americans could achieve. But with the assassinations of John F. Kennedy (which happened 50 years ago tomorrow), Martin Luther King, and Bobby Kennedy, the crushing of the Great Society’s massive social reform plans by the ravages of Vietnam, and the intense backlash to many of the movements discussed above, this hope was shattered. Prof. Rossinow’s talk was deeply informative, and allowed us all to contextualise this crucial decade in American history. From the counterculture to the rise of conservatism, and from the peaceful marches of those oppressed in society to the violent rioting of those demoralised, the upheavals of the 1960s opened fissures within American society that have continued to affect the nation’s politics and to intensify its so-called culture wars. As Prof. Rossinow superbly highlighted, 50 years on, the 1960s is still very much with us.

By Joe Ryan-Hume

PGR at the University of Glasgow

The Centre’s seminar series continues with Dr. Sue Currell (Sussex University) ‘New Masses Magazine: Modernist Communism?’ This is part of the 'English and American Literature Lecture Series', co-sponsored by the Centre, and will be held on Thursday 5th December in Room 202, 4 University Gardens, at 5:15pm. All very welcome!

More Pleasurable Reading We’re Not Doing: Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women

Yesterday, 7th November 2013, the Centre was pleased to welcome Prof. Ivy Schweitzer (Professor of English and Women’s and Gender Studies at Dartmouth College) to the third of the American Studies Seminar Series of 2013-2014. In collaboration with the School of Critical Studies at the University of Glasgow, and as part of their 'English and American Literature Lecture Series,' Prof. Schweitzer discussed ‘More Pleasurable Reading We’re Not Doing: Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women.’ Below is this listener’s brief summary of the lecture.

Louisa May Alcott's Little Women, first published in 1868, has gone on to become one of America's classic works of fiction. The novel brings vividly to life New England during the nineteenth century, which as Prof. Schweitzer demonstrated, Alcott was able to draw on from her own family experiences. Indeed, as a child, Alcott struggled with the ladylike behaviour that was expected of girls in the nineteenth century. Drawing on allusions to the character of Jo March in Little Women, Prof. Schweitzer revealed that Alcott too was a tomboy whose favourite childhood activity was running through the fields of Concord, where she would literally lift up her dress and run for miles. Like Jo, Alcott had an unladylike temper that she struggled to control and could not get over her disappointment in not being a boy, since opportunities for women were limited at the time.

In beautifully telling the story of how both she and her daughter came to read Little Women recently, Prof. Schweitzer discussed the various surprises she stumbled across as she digested it. For instance, in the character of Marmee March (the mother), we can find an incandescent rage that ripples through the pages, with Prof. Schweitzer highlighting a key except in which Marmee states:

I am angry nearly every day of my life, Jo; but I have learned not to show it; and I still hope to learn not to feel it, though it may take me another forty years to do so.

Marmee makes this statement when she tells Jo that she too struggles with a bad temper. Throughout the novel, however, Marmee seems serene and composed, which suggests that the appearance of a docile woman may hide turmoil underneath. Confiding in impetuous Jo about her own flares of temper that she had learned to control through discipline, help from her husband, and prayer makes Jo feel better, as she realises that she is not the only one with a temper. At the same time though, Marmee’s words suggest that there is no hope for Jo—Marmee is still angry after forty years, and perhaps Jo will be too. As Prof. Schweitzer highlighted, this is likely an expression of anger by Alcott about nineteenth-century society’s demand that women be domestic, and is a compellingly honest narrative in comparison to Victorian literature of the time. As she read Little Women then, this form of anger helped Prof. Schweitzer transform the novel into a feminine quest story, with Jo as its central protagonist. For Prof. Schweitzer, her own pleasure in reading Little Women came through a rejection of the marriage plots and romance entanglements, and instead by basking in the story of Jo – or as she termed it, ‘…an interpretive rebellion of the novel.’

As Prof. Schweitzer highlighted then, Little Women was a fiction novel written for girls that veered from the normal writings for children, especially girls, at the time. And since, it has been championed by feminists for more than a century because an untamed Jo is so compellingly portrayed throughout most of the novel. Also, in the novel’s characterisation of the March sisters, rebellion is often valued over conformity. Likewise, whilst most of the novel confirms Victorian womanhood stereotypes, it also gives voice to transgender identity, amongst a host of other things. So while Little Women can be called a didactic novel, the question of what it teaches remains open.

Prof. Schweitzer then linked this to a discussion of contemporary heroines in relation to Jo. Whilst Bella is somewhat presented as an independent woman in the Twilight novels, Prof. Schweitzer found more in common between Jo and Katniss from the Hunger Games trilogy (A somewhat interesting Washington Post article on Katniss and her relation to heroines can be found here - http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-22/lifestyle/35448255_1_katniss-everdeen-heroines-young-adult).

In closing, Prof. Schweitzer highlighted how her talk was part of a wider project for J19: The Journal of Nineteenth-Century Americanists, titled ‘Jo––She’s the Man! Recovering Little Women.’ In her lecture, Prof. Schweitzer mixed history, biography, literary criticism and a personal narrative to provide a detailed picture of Little Women, Louisa May Alcott, and the various ways we can interpret her famous work of art. In what was an informative and highly popular lecture (the seminar room was filled to the rafters), Prof. Schweitzer captured the importance of reinterpreting classic novels, often considered ‘children’s novels’, to reveal some of their subtle but significant themes. I am sure I was not the only one in the audience who, on returning home, felt a necessity to re-read Alcott’s novel with this talk in mind.

By Joe Ryan-Hume

PGR at the University of Glasgow

The Centre’s seminar series continues with Prof. Doug Rossinow (Metropolitan State University) ‘A Movement of Movements or a Conjuncture of Forces? Interpreting the 1960s, Half a Century On.’ This will be held on Wednesday 20th November in Room 208, 2 University Gardens, at 5:15pm. All very welcome!

The Devil’s Music: Religion and Rock in the 1950s South

Yesterday, 23^rd October 2013, the Centre was pleased to welcome Dr. Randall Stephens (Reader in History at the University of Northumbria) to the second of the Centre’s 2013-2014 seminar series. In what was an engaging and highly insightful talk, Dr. Stephens discussed ‘The Devil’s Music: Religion and Rock in the 1950s South.’ Below is this listener’s brief summary of the lecture.

Monday, October 28^th, 1957, and Elvis Presley is about to perform to a packed crowd at the Pan-American Auditorium in Los Angeles. Before going on stage, a member of DIG magazine, marketed as ‘For Teens Only,’ was eager to gain a rise out of Presley during an interview backstage with the question: ‘As the reputed King of Rock 'n Roll, how do you feel about the comments Frank Sinatra made railing Rock 'n Roll enthusiasts as being nothing but a bunch of 'cretinous goons' and the music itself as 'the martial music of every side-burned delinquent on the face of the earth.' Although Presley responded calmly, as Dr. Stephens highlighted, this type of question itself illustrated the perception held by many that rock music was abhorrent. Yet of more interest to Dr. Stephens was Presley’s answer to a follow-up question about why he gyrated on stage as he sang – Presley said, ‘I just sing like they do back home. When I was younger, I always liked spiritual quartets and they sing like that.’ Here was Presley articulating what Dr. Stephens had set out to discover – namely, to understand the important connections between religion and the evolution of rock music in America.

To do so, Dr. Stephens discussed the rise of Pentecostalism in the American South, where believers spoke in unknown tongues, worshipped in free-form churches, and broke down social barriers that had divided traditional Protestants by gathering white and black converts long before desegregation. Gender equality was also a mark of the Pentecostal movement, which according to Dr. Stephens went the way of the ‘horse and cart’ by the 1930s. Nevertheless, the rise of Pentecostalism, with its unique blend of highly energetic and emotive services to spread the word of God – gospel was often combined with various musical instruments during services – had an indelible impact on the character of the South and the childhood of many future rock and roll stars of the 1950s and 60s. Dr. Stephens revisited Presley here, describing how in interview after interview he always mentioned to reporters that he and his family belonged to Memphis’s First Assembly of God church. For example, when speaking to an Associated Press reporter about Pentecostalism, Presley said:

We used to go to these religious singins all the time. There were these singers, perfectly fine singers, but nobody responded to ‘em. Then there were these other singers – the leader wuz a preacher – and they cut up all over the place, jumpin’ on the piano, movin’ every which way. The audience liked ‘em. I guess I learned from them singers.

According to Dr. Stephens, uninhibited Pentecostalism gave Presley ideas about music and performance. Indeed, he was often called the ‘evangelist’ by his inner circle of friends. Nevertheless, many in the American South did not appreciate his borrowing of sacred music for secular ends.

As Dr. Stephens highlighted, many of Presley's records were condemned as wicked by Pentecostal preachers, warning congregations to keep ‘heathen’ rock and roll music out of their homes and away from their children's ears. Likewise, White Supremacist groups, such as the White Citizen’s Council called rock and roll ‘jungle music’, ‘Congo rhythms’, and ‘animalistic.’ Thus, with these perceptions fuelling the rock and roll backlash, programmers announced they would not play Presley's music on their radio stations due to religious convictions that his music was ‘devil music’ and to racist beliefs that it was ‘negro music.’

Dr. Stephens then discussed the Pentecostal roots of various other singers at the time – James Brown, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Johnny Cash to name a few – to further reinforce his argument that religion had a massive influence on the rise of rock and roll in the South. Indeed, in the career of many of these stars, a duality between religion and the sins associated with rock and roll plagued them. Dr. Stephens played an excerpt of an intriguing conversation between Jerry Lee Lewis and Sam Phillips at Sun Records to illustrate this. This is attached here.

In closing, Dr. Stephens highlighted how his talk was part of a wider project in which he examines the relationship of rock music to American Christianity, beginning with Pentecostals who took to the new genre — Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash, and others — and ending with the advent of Christian rock in the 1970s. In his lecture, he mixed history, politics, religion, and music to provide a detailed picture of the South in the 1950s. Moreover, by highlighting the role of religion in rock and roll, Dr. Stephen helps us to understand the dynamic ways in which religion influenced the South in a number of ways outside of the church walls. In what was an informative and well attended lecture, Dr. Stephens unravelled the interesting roots of religion in the lives of many famous rock and roll stars – many of whom are more often associated with debauchery.

By Joe Ryan-Hume

PGR at the University of Glasgow

The Centre’s seminar series continues with Prof. Ivy Schweitzer (Dartmouth College) ‘More Pleasurable Reading We’re Not Doing: Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women.’ This is part of the 'English and American Literature Lecture Series', co-sponsored by the Centre, and will be held on Thursday 7^th November in Room 202, 4 University Gardens, at 5:15pm. All very welcome!