The Politics of Childhood in Cold War America

Ann Maire Kordas

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317321361
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

This study examines how childhood and adolescence were shaped by – and contributed to – Cold War politics in America.

1 FATHER NO LONGER KNOWS BEST: PARENTING AND PARENT–CHILD RELATIONSHIPS

Parents in the post-World War II decades found themselves faced with a new and daunting task. Faced with the threat of the rising power of the Soviet Union and its mission to export communism around the globe, mothers and fathers were charged with the responsibility of raising children who embodied the perfect blend of character traits needed to protect America and to withstand both the ideology and military might of the Soviet Union. American children needed to be independent and able to think for themselves and make their own decisions. However, they also had to be able to cooperate with others and respect their opinions. While they should tolerate those who were different, they also needed to accept and internalize the white, middle-class values that formed the basis of American society in the 1950s and 1960s. Children raised in the post-war world also had to be self-disciplined and law abiding. They needed to value freedom, love their country and be healthy, strong and courageous enough to defend it. Because the cultivation of such desirable qualities and the ability to reproduce them in their future children was dependent on their being willing and able to marry early and establish families, they also needed to be heterosexual and to adhere to prescribed gender roles. Complicating matters for American parents was the fact that older styles of child rearing, the methods that their parents had used to raise them in the 1920s and 1930s, had fallen into disfavour among paediatricians, psychoanalysts and the general public.¹ Earlier methods of child rearing, at least those that were widely adopted by middle-class and upwardly-mobile working-class Americans in the early twentieth century, had been designed to prepare children for life in an industrializing society in which (at least in theory) people rose and fell by their own merits, hard work and education were rewarded and cycles of boom and bust alternately raised the country to prosperous heights, then plunged it into poverty. The goal of these older methods of child rearing, according to lawyer-turned-sociologist David Riesman whose book The Lonely Crowd (1950) played a fundamental role in describing and shaping perceptions of post-war American life, was to produce a child with, in Riesman’s words, an ‘inner-directed’ personality.²

The inner-directed personality, one of three personality styles described by Riesman, was a character type geared to meet the needs, opportunities and vicissitudes of a production-oriented society. The inner-directed person strove to succeed, with success being defined in terms of financial reward, academic achievement and social status. The inner-directed personality thus cultivated habits of self-discipline, hard work, ambition, thrift and competitiveness. Only those immigrants and members of the working class who possessed such traits would, Riesman theorized, be able to attain middle-class status, and maintaining (or rising above) middle-class status depended upon the continued development of these traits both in oneself and in one’s offspring.³ Child-rearing methods were accordingly designed to reproduce these qualities in the children of the middle class and striving members of the working class. The inner-directed personality was also the product of a time period that stressed ‘scientific management’ both in the workplace and the home. Following the directions of scientific management experts and motion-studies advocates like Frederick Winslow Taylor and Lillian Gilbreth, workplaces and work methods were altered to promote worker efficiency. The rationalization of labour in the workplace carried over into the home as well as experts in ‘domestic science’ attempted to streamline housework and make women more efficient labourers in their own homes. Domestic science, also known as home economics, strove to make home management scientific and business-like in nature. To that end it stressed record keeping, the setting and meeting of schedules and the careful budgeting of time and money, concerns similar to those of factories and offices.

The scientific management of children, which was similar in many ways to the scientific management of the home and workplace, was designed to meet the goal of producing inner-directed, self-controlled, hardworking, obedient youngsters and was widely advocated by the leading child-rearing experts of the early twentieth century. The need for scheduling and regimentation in particular was stressed in all of the most popular books on child care published in the 1920s and 1930s. Schedules were to be designed for children and carefully adhered to. Babies were to be fed, bathed and taken for walks at set times. Naptimes were scheduled and rigidly adhered to. No deviation was allowed to occur. When put down for his nap, the child was to be left in his bed even if he was not tired and occupied his time by screaming instead of dozing. Mealtimes were rigidly set and meals for children prepared to ensure that youngsters consumed the proper nutrients in the proper amounts at the proper times. Mothers were instructed to keep careful records noting what and how much their child ate and when and how much they slept.⁴ Encouraged by physicians, parents kept careful watch over their children to make sure they met developmental milestones on schedule. Delays in sitting, standing, walking, talking or potty training were dutifully noted in mothers’ records and reported to paediatricians. Strict rules governed children’s conduct both at home and in school, and punishment for breaking them was swift.

While not all children were raised in this fashion to be sure, many were, and those parents who did not treat their children as cogs in the class-reproduction machine realized that their behaviour did not reflect the societal ideal. Those who failed to raise their children in the ‘right’ way were thought to be doomed to see their offspring fall from the ranks of the middle class or remain members of the working class, who, supposedly lacking the ability to control themselves, were controlled by supervisors, factory owners, the police and others in positions of authority.⁵ Such methods of child rearing, however, failed to carry over into middle-class homes in the period following World War II, although they may have continued in practice in the homes of members of the working class who still hoped to climb the social ladder. By the late 1940s and 1950s, such practices had largely fallen into disfavour. Careful observation of others, the keeping of records and reports, strict adherence to schedules and rules and the regulation of private life called to mind for many Americans both Nazi practices and life (as Americans envisioned it) in the Soviet Union.⁶ Earlier advice on child rearing also failed to produce ‘other-directed’ children, the new personality type that, according to Riesman, was necessary for success in post-war America. Inner-directed people, Riesman argued, were ill-equipped to prosper in the post-war world. Instead, they would be supplanted by those who were other-directed. Other-directed people, Riesman explained, were the product of a culture that had reached its peak and was passing into a post-industrial way of life. No longer dependent on the need to produce in order to achieve wealth and power (for this goal had already been met), the new society turned to consumption as a means of self-expression and an external mark of status.⁷

Members of an other-directed society, according to Riesman, were not directed by internalized standards and controls. Instead, the other-directed looked to members of the larger group for standards governing behaviour and taste. For children and adolescents, this meant others of their own age group, their friends and classmates. The other-directed craved ‘approval and direction from … contemporary others’.⁸ Even though, Riesman acknowledged, not all members of an other-directed society like the United States would be naturally inclined to develop such a personality type, they would nevertheless have to learn to model their behaviour so that it conformed to that of the dominant character type. ‘People may be compelled’, Riesman noted, ‘to behave in one way although their character structure presses them to behave in the opposite way’.⁹ Thus, all children would eventually conform to social norms not because they were naturally inclined to do so but because this was required by others. Controls on behaviour were externally imposed not internally cultivated. Not only would a post-war child’s external behaviour be modelled on that of others, but he would also strive to match ‘the quality of his inner experience’ to that of the group.¹⁰ Children would adopt the beliefs and values of their peers. The group, in turn, was directed by pronouncements by the media, manufacturers and the government regarding what ideals, beliefs, values and actions should be embraced or rejected by Americans. Consumption of manufactured goods and popular culture were the means by which Americans both learned what these messages were and how they displayed their conformity to these dictates. Taste was thus not a matter of personal choice but the result of internalization of messages from the mass media informing the American people as a whole (and children in particular) what they should like and dislike, crave or disparage.¹¹ The ideal child in such a society needed to learn how to develop and maintain relationships with others. The ability to read social cues, make friends, settle disputes amicably, compromise and ‘fit in’ in general were necessary skills to master. Patriotism, civic mindedness and obedience to rules and customs were also important qualities to cultivate because such behaviour contributed to unity and the protection of the group. In a diverse society made even more so by migration patterns in the United States during World War II, post-war immigration from Europe and Asia and changing laws regarding racial segregation, curiosity regarding other cultures and tolerance for people of diverse ethnic, religious, regional and socioeconomic backgrounds was also an important trait to be developed, for these ‘new’ people were now to become the peers of white, middle-class American children. In addition, adherence to appropriate gender roles was also important as it helped to maintain conformity and reduced tensions within the group. Conversely, while intelligence, ambition, and the desire to assume positions of leadership were important qualities to be developed in young people who one day would be expected to assist the United States in maintaining supremacy over the Soviet Union, the over-development of these traits was frowned upon in post-World War II America, for standing out from others (even in positive ways) was not something that was looked upon favourably.

Friendliness, concern for others, a willingness to conform to group norms and the ability to settle disputes amicably and to get along with others were valued by both children and adolescents, and it was these skills that parents and teachers strove to develop in them. Those who managed to combine these traits were popular. Those possessing character traits that caused them to stand apart from the group were pitied, scorned and often rejected. Such character types as ‘the outsider’, ‘the show off’, ‘the shy guy’ or the overly effeminate boy or masculine young woman posed challenges to group unity. How to deal with such atypical individuals apparently created dilemmas for many children and adolescents judging by the number of ‘social problem’ films created for viewing by junior high and high school audiences by companies such as Coronet and Centron. These educational films, which were often produced in collaboration with the faculty of American colleges and universities, were intended not only to introduce young people to contemporary problems but also to lead to group discussion of the issues and questions raised by the film.

Of all the character types, the shy or ‘unpopular’ person seemed to evoke the most concern on the part of both children and adults, and many educational films were made to address this problem. Interestingly, many films which purported to teach children how to be popular did not always make it clear to viewers how this could be achieved. In the 1947 film Are You Popular?, the movie makers contrasted two female high school students, one popular and one unpopular.¹² Despite the film’s seeming promise to reveal the characteristics of popular people to bewildered teens, it largely fails to do so. Although it is immediately made clear which girl is popular and which girl isn’t, only vague explanations are offered for why the girls are judged differently. The popular girl, Carolyn Ames, is greeted warmly by her classmates and invited to join them at lunch. When the unpopular girl, Jenny, enters the lunchroom, she is permitted to ‘rest [her] tray [on the table] … for a minute’ but is not asked to sit with the others. Why Jenny is unpopular is quickly made clear. Jenny ‘thinks that she has the key to popularity: parking in cars with the boys at night’. However, the narrator hastens to assure young female viewers, ‘Girls who park in cars are not really popular even with the boys they park with, not when they meet at school or elsewhere’. Indeed, one of the young men at the lunch table who has dated Jenny ignores her and assumes a look of disgust when he learns that she dates many boys rather than just a few special ones. The path to female unpopularity (or at least one of them) is thus revealed, but the secret of popularity still remains shrouded in mystery. Why is Carolyn popular? ‘There’s something about her you like’. One boy says, ‘She always looks nice, to start with’. Additional reasons are hinted at. What is the key to Carolyn’s popularity with the group? ‘Is it’, the narrator asks, ‘because they like the way she looks and dresses? Because she seems as interested in girls as in boys? Because they’ve heard no scandal about her?’ All of these reasons, it is implied, are part of the secret, yet it is does not seem as if the list is all-inclusive. Surely, many young people were well-groomed, friendly with members of both sexes and free from scandal, but they were not all ‘popular’.

‘Popularity’ indicated acceptance by the all-important peer group. However, it was not always easy to determine what the peer group wanted. In general, the group wanted someone who fit in and either did not stand out or stood out in ways that strengthened the group’s reputation. Popular young people were studious but not too studious. They got good grades in school but did not obsess over them or always need to be first in the class. They were helpful and friendly to others and not fixated on themselves. They were happy when participating in group activities and willingly went along with whatever group consensus decided. They did not speak disparagingly about their peers. They were always friendly and polite. They were well-groomed and attractive but only to the extent that was pleasing to others; obsession with one’s looks or too much attention to clothes was not approved of. They followed the rules of the peer group, the school and the larger society in order to maintain unity and harmony. However, when rules were broken, they did not betray the transgressor. Instead, the group worked to encourage the guilty member to take responsibility for his or her actions and not force peers to ‘snitch’. They did not seek to isolate themselves or to seem exceptional in any way. These were qualities, teens were told, that anyone could develop, and failure to meet these standards was thus their own fault.

Educational films made it quite clear to struggling teens that lack of popularity or an inability to persuade other people to do what they wanted stemmed from a problem with their own ‘personality’. Adopting the sociological and psychological pronouncements of the day on the other-directed nature of American society, the term ‘personality’ itself underwent a radical change in definition. Instead of referring to the set of characteristics that made one individual different from another – a definition that allowed for the existence of those who were shy or withdrawn, ‘personality’ was now defined, at least according to one educational film, as ‘the way you get along with other people around you and your changing environment’.¹³ Seemingly, there could be no personality besides an other-directed personality that used innate or cultivated traits solely to interact with others.

According to the film Improve Your Personality (1951), personality consisted of ‘the way you affect other people’, the effect that others have on the individual, and the individual’s ability to adapt to changing situations.¹⁴ Apart from the presence of others, personality apparently did not exist. The lessons the film offered for improving personality were designed to help adolescents get along with others through manipulation. The lesson offered to Bill, who receives a negative response when he pesters his mother to let him borrow the family car on a night when his parents wish to go for a drive, is to placate his mother by reassuring her that normally his access to the family car is unimportant to him; manipulate her by impressing upon her the importance of his attending his first semi-formal dance; curry favour with her by helping her to set the table as they talk; and finally to impress her with his generosity in offering to drive her and his father to the movies where they will be cool on a hot night. Having properly manipulated his mother – or considered the effect his personality had on her, as the film’s narrator described it – Bill is reassured by his mother that she will exert influence over his father so that he will be allowed to drive to the dance. By attending to the needs of others (in this case his mother) and telling her what she wished to hear, Bill gets his way.

According to the same film, a teen should also use such tactics in order to get along with someone with whom she would rather not interact. In the second lesson offered in the film, a teenage girl preparing for a formal dance is annoyed by her younger brother, who enters her room as she is getting ready and begins to twirl across the floor with her dress draped across his arms as he makes kissing and cooing noises. Instead of suggesting that there is something wrong with the younger brother’s personality (for he clearly does not care how his behaviour affects other people), the film lays the young woman’s problem (her frustration with her brother’s behaviour) squarely at her feet, for she has failed to realize that ‘if other people have a bad effect on you, it may be time to do something about your personality.’ The girl’s problem, apparently, is that she is not sufficiently other-oriented; she is thinking of her own feelings and not her brother’s. The solution, the film demonstrates, is for the girl to leave off her preparations for the evening and talk to her brother, commiserating with him because he is not yet old enough to attend dances and promising to tell him all about the event in the morning. The boy is placated and allows his sister to resume her routine. The girl has now learned her lesson – by refusing to let her brother’s actions bother her and concentrating her attention on him ‘instead of ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Father No Longer Knows Best: Parenting and Parent–Child Relationships
• 2 Lessons for Liberty: Schooling
• 3 All-American: The Child Citizen-Soldier
• 4 The Dating Game: Gender Roles
• 5 The Violent Years: Fears of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Works Cited
• Index