Penny M. Von Eschen Satchmo Blows Up The World: Jazz Ambassadors Play the Cold War
Christian Appy (ed.) Cold War Constructions: The Political Culture of United States Imperialism 1945-1966 articles by Gosse and Gaines
K.A Courdileone Manhood and American Political Culture in the Cold War Chapter 4 “Reinventing the Liberal as Superman”
1. Is imperialism complicated by the ideological binary of the Cold War? How much agency did postcolonial or decolonizing states have in their relationship with the United States or the Soviet Union; was the alignment of these new states with one side or the other just another, equally sinister brand of foreign domination?
ReplyDelete2. What do we make of the two main paradoxes highlighted by von Eschen’s study? First, that the state department stressed “the universal, race-transcending quality of jazz while depending on the blackness of musicians to legitimize America's global agendas" (p. 4). Second, that the state department wanted the musicians to spread democracy to the elites, while they themselves wanted to play for the common people and “ragamuffins.” I’m inclined to think that the inherent dichotomies in American society in the period (particularly where official racial policy vs. daily reality on the ground were concerned) made these paradoxes almost inevitable. Thoughts?
3. Broadly, how does the U.S. government’s use of jazz as a covert means of winning hearts and minds compare with other, more outwardly imperialist forms of a similar process/goal? Can we read the “jazz propaganda” (for lack of a better term) as an intimate sort of influence exerted on foreign populations, equally subversive as other intimate forms that we have encountered?
1. Both Courdileone and Gosse portray the emergence of 'new man' of the late 1950s. In the US, this new man was symbolized domestically by Kennedy and internationally by Castro. I was intrigued by the connection between these figures and the similar gendered language used to describe and politically promote them. Both figures promoted a sexually charged, youthful, rebellious and aggressive masculinity that combatted complacency. Despite these similarities, what are the differences between how these two men were characterized? How does colonial relationship alter the way in which Castro was identified in comparison to Kennedy? What does this reveal abou the alternative uses of 'rebelliousness' in the Cold War era?
ReplyDelete2. Building on the last question, Kennedy and Castro were somewhat separated in their identities due to their racial status. Gosse argues that Castro was racially ambiguous (but close enough to 'white') during the period in which he was lionized by the US media. Based on the other readings we have done on Cuba and other colonial revolutions, how is Castro's racial status employed to reinforce or diminish his status? What are the connections between his shifting racial status and other international/domestic events? What ideas/interests does his status as 'white' (and later as a more racialized figure) serve in the US in particular?
3. Courdileone links the rise of male sexuality with increased commercialism, all of which is embedded within the release of Playboy. But Playboy was also a byproduct of the anti conformist movement. How do these new connections between social change and commercialism affect later movements? What are the benefits and drawbacks in employing such strategies for the promotion of social/political ideas? Do contemporary movements employ similar techniques, or has there been another shift?
1. Courdileone said that Kennedy's "big accomplishment" was his ability to reconcile "intellect, education, cultural refinement and liberalism, with masculinity". Is liberalism inherently masculine?
ReplyDelete2. Also interesting in the Courdileone article was the insistence on characterizing Kennedy's policies as new in "style" and "disposition" rather than ideology. Do we buy this definition of the Kennedy administration? Is it important? Is it possible to separate style from Ideology? Was the difference between Eisenhower and Kennedy just in their rhetoric?
3. Von Eschen argued that the jazz tours allowed the musicians an opportunity to develop "oppositional, transnational and Afro-diasporic sensibilities" (255), while Gaines argued that cold war ideology stifled the proliferation of those ideas. Is this contradictory? How much does the medium matter when discussing transnational ideas?
1. Within Courdileone, we see American officials gladhanding one another over the apparent success of free-market capitalism over socialism. Yet in Von Eschen's writings, we note this was only possible through a massive and clandestine network of agencies that were heavily influencing many of the decolonizing nations of the world through extreme economic intimidation, power-brokering and violence. Why has the US, at various points throughout its history, had such an obsession with attacking and undermining attempts of peoples and nations to try things differently?
ReplyDelete2. Couched within the rhetoric of Cold War binaries, was is possible for a decolonizing state to adopt an independent third tier, such as nationalism, or would the previously etched dichotomies imposed themselves with the logic of "chose a side of we'll do it for you."?
3. Is there an unsubtle irony within Courdileone's text, when he reveals that ultimately, little distinguished Nixon from Kennedy, as both were "cut from the same PR mold...both "processed" politicians devoid of authentic values and beliefs"? Especially when considered against the 1950s as a decade when Eisenhower boasted that the high-water mark of American society was merely "producing goods"? In such a light, could Kennedy and Nixon not merely been the political outgrowth of consumer culture into politics?
4. Reflecting upon the Courdileone article, I would like to point out that at no point in my personal history have I ever grabbed my own genitals to emphasize a point, or signal that I have made a momentous decision. I have absolutely no idea why Kennedy would do this, nor who informed him that it was either impressive or warranted, nor how this mode of thought ever caught on.
1. Dave Brubeck and his wife, the only jazz musicians interviewed by von Eschen (as far as I can tell) are white. Discuss. What does this tell us both about using oral histories and the way their experience may have differed?
ReplyDelete2. Both Courdileone and von Eschen look at how high culture and low culture were interpreted by American elites. Where does jazz really fit in here, especially in terms of it being used as a symbol of American culture (even being paired with stereotypical high art like ballet) overseas? The 1950s were an age of American scholars and elites being frightened of low culture catching on and usurping highbrow culture. What does it mean that jazz, an ostensibly lowbrow form of entertainment especially due to its African-American origins, became a symbol of the United States?
1. Reflecting on the state of American cultural exports and political concerns, von Eschen concludes that the American government has to once again engage in jazz diplomacy. But besides dismissing Bay Watch as a low form of American culture, she doesn’t suggest what distinctly American cultural form would be promoted. Have technology and the diversity of American culture detract from the value of pursing cultural diplomacy in the twenty-first century?
ReplyDelete2. I share Becky’s interest about the broader implications of Courdileone thesis. I was struck how the gender focused analysis seemed to reduce the complexity Kennedy’s administration. Works like David Halberstam’s "The Best and the Brightest", captured the technocratic impulses of Kennedy’s “whiz kids.” Seemingly brash actions were not thought as “ballsy” by men like Robert McNamara, but as statistically proven and thus not up for discussion. Do we have to lose such details in pursuit of masculinities and should we be more careful of historical contingencies?
I'd just like to say that I laughed for quite a while at Lorne's 4th point. On to more serious matters:
ReplyDelete1. In her epilogue, Van Eschen laments the market-driven cultural exchange that is most common today i.e. Baywatch being the most internationally viewed American TV show because it's the cheapest to get. She says it "reminds us of what is lost when a potentially democratically accountable government does not assume an active role in supporting the arts and promoting its culture abroad." (258) What do we make of this statement? Do we agree that cultural exchange was better off during the Cold War? Is it better to blatantly exploit cultural achievement for political purpose (especially when that achievement comes out of a marginalized population) or to have culture depoliticized all together?
2. Gosse suggests a number of reasons why Fidel Castro was so unbelievably popular in America during the Cuban Revolution, but nearly all of them have to do with Castro himself and not so much with the people who were flying down to Cuba to trudge through the jungle for a cause that has nothing to do with them. She mentions that they were general lefties, journalists, young people, but that's about it. What does the fetishization of Castro tell us about the nature of American political activism during this period? What was it that primed these people for falling in love with Castro in the first place? Were they bored with American politics? Did they feel helpless? Were they generally satisfied and had to look elsewhere for their activist fix?
Is the State Department's use of jazz musicians really particularly ironic or paradoxical? Or is it just one marker of the contradictions inherent in labeling (white-dominated) Western countries champions of freedom and equality?
ReplyDeleteWhat do we make of uses of art in the Cold War more broadly? Is it really such an effective propaganda tool? What underlies the State Department's logic here, and do we believe that jazz helped 'win' the Cold War?
Relatedly, did you all see this?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
This week’s readings bring to light some similar issues from last week’s discussion of Quebec’s anti-colonial movements and their association with the civil rights movement in the U.S. Specifically, the issue of creating broad global fronts and the potential for a sense of dilution or homogenization appears to be a consistent problem for revolutionary thinkers. In particular, Kevin Gaines suggestion that the Black Power and its affiliation with Ghana’s independence proved to have some significant and not always favourable effects seems to point to the lack of stability in global movements. Can a global movement be sustained when individual interests and issues of people’s everyday realities in their individual contexts have such a powerful influence on their allegiances? Does this discussion of global solidarity seem to, oddly enough, place a renewed emphasis on distinctions of nationhood?
ReplyDeleteAll of these readings highlight the role of popular culture ,whether it be journalism, novels, music, or film in the transnational dissemination of representations of revolutionary movements and figures. How does the ever-changing and somewhat fickle nature of pop culture help to explain the highly volatile nature of global solidarities and associations in these revolutionary movements? Or does this reflect the ambiguities and instability of these associations among the people themselves?