The Anxious Author - University of Washington



The Anxious Author

An Investigation of High School Civics Textbooks in the 1930’s

INTRODUCTION

There has been much analysis of history textbooks over the last half century, much of which relates to what it means to be a citizen of the United States. However there is a phenomenon that is often overlooked in these studies. While issues of citizenship can be read into many textbooks, there are also a significant number of textbooks about citizenship. There have been many textbooks on this subject published over the years, but I found that there was a large density of them published in the 1930’s.

As I read through several textbooks I realized that any analysis would be partial without some sort of historical context. At the same time, to give a comprehensive overview of the years affecting my research would take the length of my paper. Thus, while I have researched the relevant time period, I have only inserted historical context where it is directly applicable. To prepare my historical overview I looked at Howard Zinn’s Twentieth Century People’s History and Arthur Schlesinger’s The Rise of Modern America 1865-1951. The two authors disagree on their portrayal of historical events and I have done my best to use these two works to balance each other out when possible.[1] Interesting choices of background material

In reading citizenship textbooks from the 1930’s it became apparent that each author[2] felt that the changing social conditions posed an imminent threat to our society and that the promotion of good citizenship through schooling was one of the (if not the only) solution. If society is in danger and education is the solution, the means to that solution must be the creation of instructional material that will teach good habits[3] to young citizens. Good use of footnotes However each author had a specific idea of what the problems facing society were. These ideas might overlap, but they certainly did not agree. (very much like Zinn and Schlesinger) In exploring these ideas I found that the anxieties held by the authors were deeply tied to how each author portrayed the ideal of “good citizenship.” To decipher these varying conceptions of citizenship I delved into the texts, selecting passages where the author displayed some sort of anxiety about the state of society. I then did a deep textual analysis of each passage to discern what explicit and implicit messages it sent about the nature of the problems in society and the ideals of good citizenship.

DELVING INTO TEXTBOOKS

I was very selective in my choice of textbooks and worked to find samples that I suspected were widely used. Because there was not a comprehensive list of used textbooks available to me, I looked at popular publisher names and number of editions. I tried to pull books that were either published several times or published by a well-known publishing house. Good; it is important to explain why you chose the textbooks you did I only looked at textbooks between the years of 1935 and 1940 and I selected texts that were used at the high school level. A complete list of the textbooks may be found on the works cited page at the end of this paper.

In gathering information from the texts I looked for direct authorial address, such as a note to the student or the teacher, the chapters discussing the purpose of present day education, and text directly stating the freedoms and responsibilities of the citizen. My analysis yielded a universal view that schools had some important role in the formation of citizens, even if the size and nature of that role might vary. Thus I begin my discussion with a description of the various conceptions of schooling found in the textbooks. I will then spend the body of my paper discussing what I will call “authorial anxiety,” by which I mean the authors’ anxieties about society and the views about citizenship that these anxieties reveal.

Here is where you need some historical context. It’s important to think about why these textbooks were written in a certain way at this particular time in history

The School as a Training Ground for Good Citizens

To varying degrees, the textbooks I analyzed put the burden of creating “good citizens” on the shoulders of the school. In Our American Citizenship, Clyde B. Moore argues that the very fabric of our country is falling apart and that “...We recognize only one sure agency by which these [social and political] institutions can be preserved and that agency is education” (1936, v).

But how is education to preserve our social and political institutions? The other textbooks I read filled in the gaps. James B. Edmonson and Arthur Dondineau present the most explicit plan for the training of citizens in their book Civics Through Problems. They write, “The one great object of the school system of any country is to prepare all the people while they are young to be well-informed, loyal, respectful, and active citizens. Such training is not given in a month or even a year. It is the result of years of training in right habits of action and high ideals of conduct” (1935, 35). In the chapter on schooling, the authors set up an elaborate conceit between the society created in a school and society at large. The authors compare a student playing games to an adult participating in an organization in that both groups must follow rules (Edmonson and Dondineau, 1935, 20). Furthermore, they state that disobeying rules in a school setting, “Causes loss of time, makes unnecessary work for others, and reduces the pleasure and accomplishment of both pupils and teachers” (Edmonson and Dondineau, 1935, 21). The implication here is that society works in the same way and that lawbreakers cause unnecessary hassles for their fellow citizens. The metaphor continues when the authors explain, “Like a city, our school must have government in order that we may carry on our work comfortably and efficiently” (Edmonson and Dondineau, 1935, 22). The authors suggest that the similarity between schools and society (or the workplace) can be used as a tool to train students to be good citizens.

Some authors have a less explicit description of the role that schooling has in the development of citizenship in young pupils. R.O. Hughs notes in his book Building Citizenship that students get, “Something more than ‘book learning,’” namely friendships and lessons in cooperation and teamwork through athletic activities (1936, 158). While the author does not use a framework of citizenship in his description of schools, the elements described by Edmonson and Dondineau are definitely present. Hughs also recognizes that, “The public school is itself a course in democracy, training the citizens of a free country so that they may know how to protect their liberties” (1937, 147). If we understand the purpose of schooling to be deeply tied to the production of good citizens, these textbooks take on a new level of urgency because they define what a citizen ought to be in a forum that is fundamental to our very conception of citizenship: the public high school.

Authorial Anxiety and Social Problems

Throughout the texts I found authors concerned with teaching students to, “Develop the proper attitudes toward an improved social order” (Edmonson and Dondineau, 1935, v). Even the textbook which claimed to be the most objective declared that, “Allegiance to the...American ideals of good citizenship [have] not been considered a matter of controversy” (Young and Barton, 1939, viii). The envisioned “improved social order” or “American ideals of good citizenship” are deeply shaped by the anxieties of the authors and their times. In the interest of depth rather than breadth, I chose to concentrate on only a few of these issues: industrialization and urbanization, disobedience and dissent, and immigration. For each issue I have begun by outlining the relevant historical context. I then analyze the textbooks.

Industrialization and Urbanization

A Historical Context

At the turn of the century the United States was undergoing significant changes. One of the main shifts that occurred in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was the shift from agricultural to industrial labor. In 1911 Frederick W. Taylor,

Published a book on ‘scientific management’ that became powerfully influential in the business world...The purpose of Taylorism was to make workers interchangeable, able to do the simple tasks that the new division of labor required -- like standard parts divested of individuality and humanity, bought and sold as commodities” (Zinn, 1984, 27-28).

This shift from individualized labor to mechanized labor signifies an important change in the labor structure of the United States. However, even before Taylor published his book, labor disputes were on the rise. (Taylorism also seeped into school structures not just the curriculum) According to Schlesinger there were, “More work stoppages in the years 1901-1905 than in the entire preceding decade” (1951, 227). On top of that, “Unionization was growing. Shortly after the turn of the century there were 2 million members of labor union (one in fourteen workers), 80 percent of them in the American Federation of Labor” (Zinn, 1984, 31). In the mid-thirties there was a new kind of strike, the sit-down strike, where, “The workers stayed in the plant instead of walking out...They did not have to act through union officials but were in direct control of the situation themselves...They were thousands under one roof, free to talk to one another, to form a community of struggle” (Zinn, 1984, 101).

Linked to industrialization was the movement from the country to the city. Schlesinger notes that, “With only one out of every six people in localities of 8000 or over in 1860 the proportion rose to one out of three in 1900” (1951, 45). As the twentieth century progressed, the movement toward the cities continued and developed[4]. In the late 1800’s, “The concentration of taxable property [in the city] made it possible to spend more for educational facilities, libraries and the like...While many of the rich used their private means to supplement the municipal undertakings” (Schlesinger, 1951, 127). This cultivation of the cities continued through the twenties, “Due in part to welfare enterprises which state and local governments undertook on an ever increasing scale” (Schlesinger, 1951, 240). Schlesinger paints a very bright picture of life in the cities, isolating dirt and grime to the immigrant quarters. The authors of the textbooks have a very different conception of how the shift from rural to urban affects daily life. Wouldn’t the memories of WWI and the Depression be important here as well?

Textbooks (no need to make this a different section; you already have your transition above)

In his book Citizenship and Civic Affairs, Harold Rugg notes that, “Cities are growing out of all proportion to earlier rates of development and are becoming impersonal places in which to live...people are becoming more restless. Their wants are multiplying. Life is speeding up as all the agencies of transportation, communication, and production move faster and faster” (1940, 17). In this passage Rugg portrays a world which is spinning out of control as the iterative “faster and faster” leads his reader to experience the rush of change. The movement toward the cities altered the way in which people related to one another. Rugg writes,

The intimate, personal life of the little village was replaced by the impersonal ways of living of the huge metropolis. The town meeting gave way to the mayor-council plan or to the city-manager plan of government. As cities grew bigger it became impossible for the people to govern each other directly. They understood less and less about their own public problems. Professional politician, having an interest at stake in the affairs of the community, stepped in to run government, and more and more the people let them do it (1940, 555).

According to Rugg, the movement toward the city had impacted every level of civic life. The picture he paints is one of people alienated from their own system of government. As cities grew the locus of governmental control left individual citizens and became concentrated in “professional politicians” with “interests at stake.” Rugg’s anxiety over the lack of control of the individual citizen implies something about his conception of citizenship. A good citizen is an active citizen. And thus he preaches in his textbook that people ought to “govern each other directly” and understand “their own public problems.” Rugg places part of the blame for citizens’ apathy on the conditions of the city, but part of the blame falls also to the citizens who allow their civic lives to be taken over by politicians.

It is important to notice what Rugg says in this passage, but it is also important to note how he says it. First I want to locate the agency in this passage. The two active verbs here are “grew” and “stepped,” the first refers to cities, the second refers to politicians. The citizen is mired in negated verbs such as “impossible...to govern each other” and “understood less and less.” Notice also that the entire passage is in the past tense. Someone might argue, that this is how it should be, given that Rugg is describing historical events. I would respond by saying that the conditions Rugg describes are were not done changing when he wrote the textbook. By writing in the past tense, the author implies that the events are over and this removes any agency from the reader. If cities are truly places of political and social alienation, what can a citizen do? , Particularly when past citizens were agency-less?. Couldn’t this have been a call to arms which is why his textbook was so reviled?

Edmonson and Dondineau are also concerned about the shift from rural to urban, but for very different reasons. They argue that

In a democracy anything that undermines the home life of a nation is a menace to the welfare of the whole country. This is the reason that we are so much concerned about problems of good housing, health protection, proper wages, reasonable hours of work, child labor, and business conditions which tend to take mothers into industry and away from the home (1935, 51).

One of the major factors compromising the home is was the urban environment. “The home today, especially in the city, is not the center for so much of the life of the children...city children now commonly spend but little time to play or work in their own homes” (ibid). The problems listed in the first quote are not necessarily unique to the city. After all, child labor happened on farms too, but the change in these problems occurs with the rise of the urban world. Right; this is particularly about kids working in factories (industrialization) Edmonson and Dondineau paint a picture where mothers are “taken” into industry and away from their families. This leaves children alone and dissociated from their own homes.

According to these authors the breaking apart of the home due to urbanization threatens the very structure of our democracy. Implicit in this assumption is the idea that the home is a model for a society. Children learn to respect authority through interacting with their parents. At several points in the textbook Edmonson and Dondineau describe the family as a cooperative unit with the parents as leaders and children as active, but subordinate participants. In understanding this conception of the family’s relationship to society, it is easier to understand why these authors fear that changes to the family structure will irrevocably damage our democracy. (and why working moms found themselves under siege) If families provide a training ground for citizenship, what will happen when no authority figure is present to lay out rules and lead the cooperative unit? And, more importantly, what happens when subordinates don’t follow those rules? What does that say about proper citizenship? Reading into this fear, one can see an anxiety about the rise of anarchy lurking.

The fear of societal collapse pervades these textbooks. (again, the Depression factors heavily here) One author writes, “Without [good citizenship] our social order is doomed to collapse. Each onward sweep of the waves on industrial and commercial progress adds to the structural strain on our social and political organizations” (Moore, 1936, v). According to Moore, industrialization threatens the very fabric of our democracy and it is only through the power of citizenship that our society may be maintained. Given Moore’s writing on industry later in the book I believe that it is unlikely that he is referring to the kind of dehumanization Zinn references with regard to Taylorism. Moore envisions a much different problem with industrialization. In his chapter on industrial centers Moore argues that the industrial worker,

Is a citizen with voting power which determines the kind of legislation to be enacted with respect to his needs. If unnecessary dangers and hazards are permitted to exist in an industry, it is his responsibility and opportunity to vote, and urge others to vote, for men who will bring about desirable change (1936 190-191).

Implicit in this description is the assumption that the only valid means of change is through voting. Later in the chapter, in fact, Moore says, “The organization of workers as voting citizens has resulted in civic progress” (1936, 194, italics mine). While he does not say so outright, Moore is criticizing the labor movement and the rise of worker strikes. Right This is particularly relevant because the sit-down strike came into popularity around the time that Moore was writing. This type of action, as well as the numerous other strikes that occurred over the nation is in direct opposition to what Moore proposes: action through the established political system. From Moore’s argument we can understand something about his conception of citizenship. The only appropriate action is action that occurs within the system. Because our society allegedly has a method in place for effecting change, we must use this method rather than breaking down the system and putting, “Structural strain on our social and political organizations.”

Rugg also demonstrates and anxiety about the industrialization of the United States. He writes,

Current conditions in America throw into sharp relief the critical need of teaching our youth to understand American life and its relation to the modern world...During the past 150 years the rapid development of industrial civilization has produced problems of living together that baffle even the keenest adult minds (Rugg, 1940, v).

Unlike Moore, Rugg is more concerned with the dehumanizing potential of the industrial revolution than the labor movement. In his description of changes caused by industrialization Rugg creates a character called “Big Business” which is responsible for establishing, “Laboratories and shops, and paying students and clever workmen to spend their time in efforts to improve both machines and ways of working. Machines are therefore displacing men from their jobs with terrifying speed” (1940, 17). Rugg does not fear that men are being turned into replaceable cogs; he fears that men are being replaced altogether. I want to note briefly the location of the pupil in all this. (research papers have very few “I” statements in them) Rugg imbeds a warning to his readers that Big Business might wish to use them as, “Students and clever workmen” in the project to replace workers. Rugg seems to be warning good students of civics away from such employment. Thus he presents an alternative to Moore’s simplistic formula for change. One can vote and one can simply refuse to work for those who are causing negative change. I also want to note how Rugg manages to avoid indicting any one person with the charge of disrupting the mode of American life. Rather than mention names, Rugg creates an entity to take responsibility for the mechanization of the workforce. This has practical applications in that is avoids pointing fingers at any real people, but it also places the locus of negative actions far away from the pupil. There is no possibility for the student to encounter a manifestation of Big Business in her daily life. She can only see the effects (and the potential for a future job offer) of this amorphous and impersonal entity.

Disobedience and Dissent

A Historical Context

As mentioned earlier in the previous chapter, the fear of anarchy can be seen implicit in many of the textbooks and often appears as a criticism of disobedience and dissent. Much of this criticism stems from the First World War. This is why some sketch of historical context is useful early; all of the context is necessary to understand each of your sections so parsing it out means you aren’t mentioning important historical points until later in the paper My two historical sources disagree on the issue of public support for this war. Howard Zinn argues, “There is no way of measuring public opinion at that time, and there is no persuasive evidence that the public wanted war. The government had to work hard to create its consensus” (1984, 66). While Schlesinger claims “The American public supported the national effort with tremendous enthusiasm. The war once joined became a holy crusade...civilians everywhere gladly endured the wartime regimentation, rejoicing that a democracy could fight efficiently even if it involved a temporary sacrifice of traditional freedoms” (1951, 289).

In 1917 Congress passed the Espionage Act which contained a clause “...that provided penalties up to twenty years in prison for ‘Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty...’” to any branch of the military or anyone who interfered with enlistment (Zinn, 1984, 67). Zinn notes, “About nine hundred people went to prison under the Espionage Act (see below)???. This substantial opposition was put out of sight, while the visible national mood was represented by military bands, flag waving, the mass buying of war bonds, the majority’s acquiescence to the draft and the war” (1984, 70).

After the war there was “...widespread spirit of postwar intolerance and political bigotry. National sentiment, having been effectively mobilized, proved hard to de-mobilize” (Schlesinger, 1951, 305). One English observer noted, “Property was in an agony of fear...and the horrid name ‘Radical’ covered the most innocent departure from conventional thought” (ibid). It was in this context that four thousand aliens were deported and Sacco and Vanzetti were executed, despite flimsy evidence, because they wee Italian, atheist, draft dodging, anarchists (ibid).

From this historical analysis one can understand that, while dissent existed (and even thrived), it was not looked highly upon. Schlessinger’s portrayal of a country united against a common enemy likely closely reflects the opinion of many of the textbook writers I examined. I agree

Textbooks

One of the most vociferous advocates of loyalty and obedience is R.O. Hughs. In his conception of the workings of society, the citizen owes his government loyalty in return for the protection and privileges he enjoys (1937, 9). How nice for us as citizens! This idea closely aligns with the Lockean conception of the social contract were we as citizens enter into a contract with our government and each other in order to secure certain rights for all and to fend off anarchy. Hughs states this more explicitly, saying,

Two of our most fundamental duties are obedience to lawful authority and service to our government and fellow citizens. If some citizens refuse to respect the laws which they dislike, why couldn’t other citizens do the same? If we make such allowances for our likes and dislikes, you can be assured that very few laws will be generally respected (1937, 351).

Here Hughs presents what seems like a logical progression of events: I don’t follow a law I disagree with; next you decided that if I have chosen to break the social contract you may do the same thing; this creates a domino effect in which no one follows the laws put forth by the government and the result is anarchy. Hughs states this even more directly, saying, “...Is one not free unless he does as he pleases under all conditions? Far from it -- that would be anarchy, when no good citizen would be free from interference on the part of evil and dishonest men” (1937, 342). However, Hughs’ logic falls short in the face of history. The United States was founded on disobedience and dissent. Mustn't you have these two things in order to have a revolution? (and Jefferson wanted people to be educated to recognize tyranny so that they could overthrow it) Hughs’ condemnation of civil disobedience is overly simplistic and denies the possibility of a better system arising from the denial of unfair laws. However Hughs’ analysis is useful in that it describes a certain idea about citizenship. According to Hughs a good citizen follows the laws put down by the government regardless of her personal feelings toward such laws. To Hughs, the threat of anarchy is significant enough to obscure the value of dissent.

Where then is the room for dissent? In a list of qualities of a good citizen, one textbook listed, “I shall be critical of my government only so far as I can be constructive. It is folly to say one should never criticize his government, but unless he can show how things might be made better no one will be much interested in his criticisms” (Moore, 1936, 250). !!! This passage is particularly interesting because of the use of first person. In the context of the book it is unclear is this is the authorial “I” or the “I” of the reader; however, it is certain that the views expressed in this passage are meant to be adopted by the reader. I would think it would be for the reader to adopt since it was probably a recitation While the content of the quote says a quite a bit about Moore’s attitude toward dissent (it should be constructive, if it is to be at all), the switch between first and third person in the second sentence is even more telling of the underlying authorial anxiety. Notice that the positive value, found in the first sentence, is in the first person, while the negative value, found in the second sentence is in the third person. This identifies the author and the reader as “good citizens” and places the burden of bad citizenship on some amorphous “other” who criticizes his government without making any suggestions for improvement. By placing the bad citizen far away from the student and the author, Moore makes room for critique of the qualities of bad citizenship. More importantly he divides society into two: “us” and “them,” or “good citizen” and “bad citizen.”

Immigration

A Historical Background

At the turn of the century the government put significant quotas on immigration. Schlesinger claims that a “heightened sense of nationality” led to new attitudes toward immigration (1984, 166-167). He also acknowledges that, “the turning point came in 1882, the year when the influx from Western and Northern Europe reached its crest, noticeable numbers began to arrive from Eastern and Southern Europe” (1984, 166-167). (that’s also when the Chinese were excluded completely) Obviously the ethnicity of the immigrants mattered a great deal. Part of the issue, according to Schlesinger, was assimilation. He claims that the immigrants from Western Europe integrated into society relatively easily, but the new immigrants [from Southern and Eastern Europe] did not fade so quickly into the American population as had the old” (ibid).[5] plus they weren’t necessarily invited to “fade” Schlesinger’s portrayal of these immigrants reflects common perception. He claims, “poverty-stricken and hiving in the industrial centers, they established self-contained communities that clung tenaciously to Old World customs and languages and vastly complicated the problems of sanitation, health and housing for the city authorities” (Schlesinger, 1984, 167). It is unclear, however, how many of the “Old World” immigrant fit Schlesinger’s description. “32 percent of Italians and Jews rose out of the manual class to higher levels...But...many Italian immigrants did not find the opportunities inviting enough for them to stay. In one four year period, seventy-three Italians left New York for every one hundred that arrived” (Zinn, 1984, 52).

Howard Zinn satirizes the popular view of immigrants with his description of the quotas put in place in the 1920’s. He writes,

Congress, in the twenties, put and end to the dangerous, turbulent flood of immigrants (14 million between 1900 and 1920) by passing laws setting immigration quotas: the quotas favored Anglo-Saxons, kept out black and yellow people, limited severely the coming of Latins, Slavs, Jews (1984, 84)

Schlesinger places the responsibility for quotas on the shoulders of labor, claiming, “Organized labor found it easier to marshal support for tightening the clamps on immigration” (1951, 330). According to Schlesinger, other factors, “The intense nationalism bred by the war, the dread of a deluge of low-grade and perhaps radical newcomers from devastated Europe...impelled Congress to give ready ear to labor’s fears of competition from hordes of destitute foreigners” (1951, 330).

Textbooks

The textbooks I examined provided a variety of different reasons for instituting quotas on immigration. Some textbooks focus on the non-admission of certain groups. For example, “The admission of anarchists, convicts, lunatics, and others of a low mentality who might become a public burden was forbidden” (Edmonson and Dondineau, 1935, 47). (I guess that was the Chinese!) Edmonson and Dondineau continue by outlining five classes of immigrants that Congress has forbidden from entry into the United States. These are aliens who are opposed to organized government, contract laborers, illiterate persons over sixteen, “paupers,” and “people of oriental races” (1935, 47-48). The inclusion of “contract laborers” being excluded from the immigrant pool supports Schlesinger’s analysis that labor organizations had an impact on immigration policy, but the other four groups suggest that there is something else going on. By so listing the specific excluded groups the authors are able to imply reasons for their non-admittance to the United States. Anarchists and people opposed to organized government should not be allowed because popular sentiment was that an element of citizenship is loyalty to such a government. Pressure from the labor movement could explain the exclusion of contract laborers[6]. It is implied that paupers and illiterates would have little to offer in the economic sphere. In constructing non-admitted groups in the this manner the authors are negatively defining what it means to be a citizen, that is, to be a citizen you ought not have the qualities of these groups.

Several of the textbooks I examined had histories of how the present immigration law came into being. One book states, “...Around the year 1848, there were a number of revolutions in European countries. When the fighting of the war was over, some of the revolutionists had to flee from their countries to escape punishment. Many of them came to America” (Young and Barton, 1939, 5). After this the authors discuss other reasons for immigration, including war and poor living conditions, however the first mention of why immigrants traveled to the United States in the late nineteenth century describes “revolutionists.” By putting this description first, Young and Barton imply the undesirability of these new immigrants. In doing so they take the emphasis off race and put it on political or economic factors.

To further this movement away from race Young and Barton explain the changing attitudes toward immigrants by noting that at first immigrants were needed to fill the job openings in the new industrial working world, however too many people came and many people began to feel negatively against these immigrants, blaming them for “crime and labor troubles” (Young and Barton, 1939, 365). The authors recognize that this manner of thinking was prejudiced because it was not based on facts. However they do not label the actual content of the judgments made as good or bad. Rather they explain, “Unprejudiced people do not think of government regulation of immigration as an act against aliens. They know that, when we no longer need so many new workers, government regulation is merely a way of protecting the interest of the people who are already here” (ibid). By phrasing the interpretation of immigration as a conflict between the prejudices and the unprejudiced, the authors effectively place all accusations of racism on the prejudiced others, much like Moore does in the previous section[7]. Note, however, that while there’s an implicit criticism of those who might make judgments without knowing the facts, there is no criticism of the judgment reached. Young and Barton locate racism in an ill-informed portion of the population and manage to criticize the presence of racism without criticizing its content. I would also like to note that the interpretation of unprejudiced person’s view an almost blind faith in the judgment of the government to care and protect its citizens.

While Young and Barton are careful not to blame immigrants for the institutions of quotas (with the exception of the excluded categories of immigrants), Edmonsons and Dondineau located the changing attitudes toward immigrants in the behavior of the newcomers.

The laws, customs, and institutions of the countries from which the [pre-1890’s] immigrants came were so much like those of the early Americans that the newcomers easily became part of it and fitted into the population of the country...the conditions of city life and the demands for labor in factories attracted immigrants from southern Europe...The increase in immigration from the laboring classes, accustomed to lower wages and to fewer comforts and luxuries of life, tended to lower the standard of living of the American laborer (1935, 45-46).

This passage focus mostly on the impact immigrants had on the status of laborers in the United States. (another reason the Depression should be mentioned; it wasn’t so far in the past when these books were published) In this way it aligns the critique of immigrants with the attitude of labor organizations, much as Schlessinger does. I want to note, however, that even here the authors shy away from placing direct blame on the immigrants themselves. Notice it is not the immigrants who lower the standard of living, but what those immigrants are “accustomed to.” The blame, while located in the behavior of the immigrant, is actually placed on the immigrant’s country of origin. The textbook writers seem to be saying it is Eastern Europe that is responsible for acculturating these newcomers to expect so little and therefore it is Eastern Europe that has so lowered the standard of living of our laborers.

Evidenced in the quote from Edmonson and Dondineau is the concern over the extent to which immigrants can assimilate into the culture of the United States. It is not a question that assimilation ought happen.

If an alien, however, plans to make this country his home, it would seem only fair that he take out his citizenship papers. In this way he assumes the full obligations of the native-born citizen and places himself in a position to make a full return to the country for the many benefits accorded him (Edmonson and Dondineau, 1935, 48).

This returns to the idea presented by Hughs[8] that citizenship entails certain responsibilities in exchange for certain benefits. In this passage Edmonson and Dondineau make an implicit critique of the alien who does not attempt to become naturalized. If the alien working toward citizenship is assuming “the full obligations” of citizenship and placing “himself in a position to make a full return to the country for the many benefits accorded him” then the alien who makes no attempt to become naturalized is something of a free loader. It’s important to note that such criticism is indirect, but carries with it very clear values that it is intending to "teach" the young citizen readers about the role of aliens in society. good paragraph

Naturalization is one form of Americanization, and assimilation is another. Good point Young and Barton give an idealized portrayal of what such assimilation might look like.

When people from foreign countries come to America, they bring with them the customs of the countries from which they come. Often these customs are very different from those they find in America. But the longer these people stay in America the more they become like Americans and the more Americans become like them” (1939, 9).

The authors then describe a pattern of mutual adoption of each other’s cultures and claim “Through adaptation and assimilation, our country is gradually developing something that can be called an American culture” (ibid). Later in the book, however, Young and Barton answer the question “Should we make any attempt to regulate immigration?” with an emphatic “Yes!” (1939, 368). “People whose customs and beliefs are very different from those of our own people should not be admitted in large numbers nor left to live in groups by themselves where they cannot become easily assimilated” (ibid). Assimilation facilitates cooperation, explain the authors. This is despite the claims that citizenship “should be permeated with a genuine tolerance and respect for all nationalities, all races, all creeds, all occupations, all economic groups” (Young and Barton, 1939, viii).

Given these seemingly conflicting statements it behooves us to analyze what Young and Barton might mean in these instances. The combination of the idealized version of assimilation and the description of the risk of immigrants coming in too great quantities implies that immigration is only acceptable so long as assimilation and adaptation can occur. If we imagine that the creation of this “American culture” is the ultimate product of immigration, we can understand why large groups of immigrants would be threatening. Immigrants living in large groups of people like themselves can replicate their own culture within the borders of the United States. This is problematic because their culture is, “very different from [that] of our own people.”[9] Because assimilation facilitates cooperation, we can then understand that non-assimilation is a fracturing force in the nation.

It is interesting to note that in the text assimilation becomes a force in and of itself. I think we would find similarly in today’s textbooks Young and Barton describe assimilation and adaptation as nouns rather than verbs: “become easily assimilated.” This emphasizes the state of being assimilated or adapted rather than the process through which assimilation or adaptation is attained. Even in describing the process of the making of “American culture” the authors use nouns “adaptation and assimilation” instead of “adapting and assimilating.” In doing this the authors avoid getting into a grammatical situation in which they must use a subject or object. Thus they avoid giving agency to any single assimilating or adapting force. Reaching the desired end state is simply a natural progression that happens with time. In this way the good citizen can have respect for the unique culture of the immigrant without having that culture act as a divisive force. If the natural process of adaptation and assimilation take their course, the immigrant’s culture will join the melting pot of “American culture.” The admittance of large numbers of “others” threatens this natural process.

Sometimes authors simply dismiss immigrants as unable to be assimilated. “The immigrants, especially those in the ‘new immigration,’ had customs, habits, and ideals differing widely from those of Native Americans.[10] Very often they lived by themselves in poor thickly settled tenement districts” (Hughs, 1937, 35).—this implies it was their choice to do so This is a particularly dangerous problem in Hughs’ textbook because “Formerly citizenship was not a necessary qualification for voting, and immigrants were used by evil politicians[11] to enlarge the vote they could control” (ibid). Hughs sees the same problem as Young and Barton, but he interprets it in a very different way. Where Young and Barton see the number and location of immigrants to be the problem with assimilation, Hughs locates the problem in the culture of the immigrants themselves. Rather than viewing America as a melting pot that can accommodate all cultures, Hughs dismisses the culture of immigrants as too different. Their living conditions are a symptom of their differences from “native Americans” not the cause. Note that, like Edmonson and Dondineau[12], Hughs shies away from blaming the immigrants and instead blames their “customs, habits, and ideals.” The blame is placed on abstract concepts rather than people.

Immigrants aren’t always portrayed in a negative light, however. In an interesting twist, one textbook used an immigrant’s eyes to describe the liberties and duties of a citizen of the United States. a useful foil; I’m glad you brought up this fact; it complicates the paper nicely In his textbook Rugg contrasts the liberties of US citizens to the citizens of oppressive countries such as Germany and Italy. The duties of a citizen are described in terms of the process an immigrant must go through in order to gain citizenship (Rugg, 1940, 49-50). The message in this passage is that immigrants want to come to the United States because our liberties are greater and our living conditions better than those from which they come. The criticism of the immigrant’s country of origin is much more explicit here than in the other texts. Thus, while the immigrant comes across as much more sympathetic, it is at the expense of their native country.

CONCLUSION

In this paper I have applied an historical context and a deep textual analysis to excerpts from five civics textbooks from the 1930’s. In doing so I found that authorial anxiety was tied to the portrayal of the good citizen. Anxieties ranged from issues about labor organizations, concerns about the dehumanization caused by city life. Problems with disobedience, and fear of the “other.” In each case, the author’s anxiety can be located in an historical context and discerned through reading the texts with an eye for grammar and rhetoric.

Perhaps in seventy years a college student will look back on our textbooks with the same shock that I experienced. I hope she recognizes, as I did, that these problems are not isolated to textbooks. Textbooks merely reflect the fabric of our society.

Perhaps this is the more disturbing part of my research. Overall the views I encountered were conservative, meaning they were interested in holding on to the status quo of the past. A similarity to today’s textbooks The rapid rate of change at the beginning of the twentieth century was threatening to many and, as evidenced by these textbooks, the response was to fear the problems of the present and holding onto the past for stability: risking the very values that brought our nation into being. Even Rugg, who is thought to be one of the more progressive textbook writers, clings to the days of the pastoral when government was local.[13]

To place these problems only in the 1930’s, however, would be a mistake. This is a tradition that is very much alive today. When talking about politics my friends will often comment, “I wish Bill Clinton were still president,” or “Remember before 9/11?” as if referring to a period of innocence and idyll. More insidious than this reflection, however is the polarizing of our country into “us” and “them.” Who are the better citizens: Republicans or Democrats? Is protest patriotic? In this period of instability and fear, when even the value of habeas corpus is questioned, we must wonder if the 1930’s are really so far away. And if they are not, what does that mean for our future?

A

WORKS CITED

Edmonson, J. B., & Dondineau, A. (1935). Civics through problems. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Hughs, R. O. (1937). Building citizenship (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Moore, C. B. (1936). Our american citizenship. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Rugg, H. (1940). Citizenship and civic affair. Boston: Ginn and Company.

Schlesinger, A. M. (1951). The rise of modern america 1865-1951. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Young, J. S., PH.D., & Barton, E. M. M.A. (1939). In Patterson S. H. (Ed.), Growing in citizenship. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

Zinn, H. (1984). The twentieth century: A people's history. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

-----------------------

[1] Of course there are places where my use of Zinn is heavier than my use of Schlesinger and vis versa. This is necessarily so in that Zinn gives a comprehensive coverage of labor movements and very little about day-to-day life whereas Schlesinger often does a better job of making generalizations that (may or may not) cover the scope of society.

[2] By author I refer to any and all persons who had a role in the formation of the textbook, be it author, editor, or publisher.

[3] I use the word habit to mean everything from voting to cleaning up one’s room to good manners.

[4] According to Schlesinger, the exception to the rule was the “temporary back-to-the-country movement when the depression was at its worst” (1951, 377). Also notable here, also, is the rise of the suburbs in the 1930’s and 1940’s (Schlesinger, 1951, 377).

[5] Schlesinger’s portrayal is not necessarily accurate as it denies the conflicts between the Irish and the English and the related conflict between Catholics and Protestants.

[6] From the sections I read I could not tell why “people of oriental races” were denied admittance.

[7] See page 13

[8] See pages 11-12

[9] Notice again the positioning of “us” versus “them”

[10] I should note that the author does not mean “Native American” as we commonly understand it today to mean American Indians. He is referencing the Anglo-Saxon immigrants that had been in the United States since the revolution.

[11] “Evil” or “corrupt” politicians surfaced more often in Hughs’ book than in any other book. I chose not to concentrate on this aspect because it was only a significant influence in Hughs’ work.

[12] See page 22

[13] Note that I did not spend time talking about the philosophies of education presented in these textbooks. Often the methods of instruction were much more progressive than the content.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download