6 thoughts on “Session 7- Culture Consumption and Mass Society”
i found both readings extremely interesting. Regarding the second one, ‘Going out’, it was a particularly difficult one. It gave me the impression that the author jumped between broad topics in a very fast pace, wich made it difficult to follow. However, it was interesting to see such a direct link to past session’s topics. the political enviroment so directly involved in women’s leisure and lives reminded me of the topic on gender. Especifically, the part where the author presents three models of women for the fascist regime, which had a similar structure and message as one of the primary sources on week five, witht he types of women in germany.
The first reading was a much easier to follow and understand one. The author gives a broader sense of historical context. by focusing mainly on the topic of cinema, he is therefore able to go at it with much more extense than the author on the other reading.
regarding both readings, i found it interesting to see the topic of leisure during the interwar years both from the point of view of gender, in which the ‘Going Out’ reading focuses more, and point of class, in which i feel the first reading goes in depth, specifically when talking about the audiences in cinemas during the time.
I thought the Ross chapter was treading along some fairly obvious ground (at least I thought so) in terms of rural vs urban cinema attendance and class divide between audiences… However, the way the argument developed was very interesting and made me rethink.
I would never have considered the difference the introduction of sound could have in terms of levelling both the production and the consumption of films. Based on small existing knowledge from this module I would have thought the orthodox view of 1920s Weimar being the catalyst for mass culture would be right, but this is a really surprising argument for the economic and political upheaval of the 1930s being the trigger.
I agree with Adriana on the De Grazia reading, I found some of it quite complex. There were some recognisable themes though, male/female public versus private spheres for example and the fear over American cultural hegemony.
The chapter also touches upon a lot of the same themes as session 5 such as the androgynous ‘new woman’. It seems as though Fascist Italy was a strange mix of machismo and virility mixed with old Catholic notions of female modesty culminating in the state seeking control of women’s bodies and clothes.
Neil
The first source, , ‘Mass culture and divided audiences: cinema and social change in inter-war Germany’, Past & Present’ gives a detailed insight into the changing nature of cinema as a form of entertainment in interwar Germany, and the varied experiences of cinema across the country. Ross attributes the expansion of cinema in the 1920s to the gruelling experience of war, however emphasises that cinema was not universally or similarly experienced by the people of Germany as cinemas were in predominantly urban locations meaning people in rural locations were almost ‘excluded’ from the ‘cinema experience’. Ross also highlights that cinemas, and the experience of cinemas, varied even in urban areas, in terms of the structural size of cinemas, but also and crucially a range of social, cultural and economic factors which determined people’s ability to experience the cinema. White collar households are noted to have spent more on cinemas than working class households for one example. Time constraints, as well as economic, also deterred many younger people from making frequent trips to the cinema, and therefore the ‘regular crowd’ often consisted of older people. Ross also highlights that films shown across different cinemas varied accordingly with different audiences – mainly differentiated by class. Ross also identifies the variation in quality of actual films shown, and the environments of the cinema, depending on audience and location – with higher class audiences typically having a higher overall quality experience than working class. The introduction of sound is also identified as significant in that it made cinemas more uniform of an experience, to an extent, however the writer then notes that quality still generally differed between locations and different prices and audiences. Cinema attendance decreased generally in the early 30s as a result of unemployment and falling wages, however the effect on individual cinemas varied, with silent cinemas, due to their cheaper price, actually attracting more customers. The working class were arguably the worst-hit by the crisis and therefore the most effected cinema audience. Ross also highlights the decrease in variety of available films due to censorship and the growth of blind and block-booking in the 1930s as reducing the ability of cinema owners to customize their programmes accordingly to audience, and overall contributed to a decrease in the differences between individual cinemas.
I agree with above comments that the second source, ‘Going out’ was quite a complex read. I also agree it is reminiscent of previous readings on the gender topic, particularly regarding the significance of women’s appearance which the writer describes “signalled not just their own status but also that of their families and their consorts”. I found it interesting how the source focused on different emerging standards of beauty on an international scale and how Italy, and Mussolini even, effectively incorporated and reinforced women’s ultimate ‘purpose’ of a reproductive system into an image and portrayal of beauty and contrasted this to an almost ‘demonized’ slimmer woman who was more independent and not necessarily so maternal. The same emphasis on importance of female reproduction is also evident, particularly as the author looks at women’s ability to participate in sports and some of the irrational fears that particular sports may affect reproduction, which was seen as a woman’s sole purpose, even noting that childbirth itself was actually the best sport for women.
Bethany
Thanks, Caitlin, for the summary and to Adriana, Neil and Bethany for some very thoughtful comments so far. I think one of the difficulties with the chapter by de Grazia is the fact that it is a chapter; she is not introducing her topic in the same way as she would in an article and hence she ploughs straight into the material and, I agree, a variety of themes.
One of the things I’d like us to move towards, and which I’ll raise in the seminar, is the idea of a ‘mass society’. Ross (Corey, not Neil!) seems to pour cold water on the idea that there was a mass society before the Nazis came to power. I’m particularly interested in the nature of sound – and its the focus of my next research project – so I’d also like to think more in depth about the importance of sound as a ‘leveller’ at this moment in time. Did it actually help to shape a mass society? It seems that the economy was perhaps a bigger factor, as Ross himself suggests, particularly when we look at the Great Depression.
De Grazia certainly picks up threads from previous weeks and I think some of the complexity derives from the fine line she is trying to tread in terms of stressing women’s independence and their nascent identity as consumers, while also recognising that a context of a dictatorship severely limited women’s freedoms. Can we broaden this, however – does the text tell us something about the nature of consumerism and mass society under the Fascist dictatorship?
I would agree that the readings this week were very interesting, although the second article was difficult to grasp at points. The first reading, by Ross, delved deeply into the ‘new forms’ of entertainments within interwar German society. The popularity of the cinema in urban/rural areas was discussed and highlights that due to the cinemas being situated in urban areas, those in rural areas were in a sense excluded from the experience, although there were travelling cinemas which allowed for the cinematic experience to reach those in rural lands. The issues of wages and travel are highlighted and these contributed to the decrease in cinema attendance during the early 30s.
The De Grazia reading was rather a rather complexing read, although areas were easier to understand due to correlations to readings from previous weeks, specifically the topic of gender. The chapter highlights the way in which women were seen within fascist Italy, with the different models of a woman being portrayed. Women were unable to enjoy leisure activities in the same ways as men as they had to incorporate leisure time into their household jobs, limiting their experience.
Rhys
I’m glad you’ve picked up on the idea of limits, Rhys. I think it is very easy to be carried away (myself included!) with the alleged ‘newness’ of the 1920s and to lose sight of the resilience of existing social structures, societal norms, etc., including patriarchal restrictions on women’s freedom.
i found both readings extremely interesting. Regarding the second one, ‘Going out’, it was a particularly difficult one. It gave me the impression that the author jumped between broad topics in a very fast pace, wich made it difficult to follow. However, it was interesting to see such a direct link to past session’s topics. the political enviroment so directly involved in women’s leisure and lives reminded me of the topic on gender. Especifically, the part where the author presents three models of women for the fascist regime, which had a similar structure and message as one of the primary sources on week five, witht he types of women in germany.
The first reading was a much easier to follow and understand one. The author gives a broader sense of historical context. by focusing mainly on the topic of cinema, he is therefore able to go at it with much more extense than the author on the other reading.
regarding both readings, i found it interesting to see the topic of leisure during the interwar years both from the point of view of gender, in which the ‘Going Out’ reading focuses more, and point of class, in which i feel the first reading goes in depth, specifically when talking about the audiences in cinemas during the time.
I thought the Ross chapter was treading along some fairly obvious ground (at least I thought so) in terms of rural vs urban cinema attendance and class divide between audiences… However, the way the argument developed was very interesting and made me rethink.
I would never have considered the difference the introduction of sound could have in terms of levelling both the production and the consumption of films. Based on small existing knowledge from this module I would have thought the orthodox view of 1920s Weimar being the catalyst for mass culture would be right, but this is a really surprising argument for the economic and political upheaval of the 1930s being the trigger.
I agree with Adriana on the De Grazia reading, I found some of it quite complex. There were some recognisable themes though, male/female public versus private spheres for example and the fear over American cultural hegemony.
The chapter also touches upon a lot of the same themes as session 5 such as the androgynous ‘new woman’. It seems as though Fascist Italy was a strange mix of machismo and virility mixed with old Catholic notions of female modesty culminating in the state seeking control of women’s bodies and clothes.
Neil
The first source, , ‘Mass culture and divided audiences: cinema and social change in inter-war Germany’, Past & Present’ gives a detailed insight into the changing nature of cinema as a form of entertainment in interwar Germany, and the varied experiences of cinema across the country. Ross attributes the expansion of cinema in the 1920s to the gruelling experience of war, however emphasises that cinema was not universally or similarly experienced by the people of Germany as cinemas were in predominantly urban locations meaning people in rural locations were almost ‘excluded’ from the ‘cinema experience’. Ross also highlights that cinemas, and the experience of cinemas, varied even in urban areas, in terms of the structural size of cinemas, but also and crucially a range of social, cultural and economic factors which determined people’s ability to experience the cinema. White collar households are noted to have spent more on cinemas than working class households for one example. Time constraints, as well as economic, also deterred many younger people from making frequent trips to the cinema, and therefore the ‘regular crowd’ often consisted of older people. Ross also highlights that films shown across different cinemas varied accordingly with different audiences – mainly differentiated by class. Ross also identifies the variation in quality of actual films shown, and the environments of the cinema, depending on audience and location – with higher class audiences typically having a higher overall quality experience than working class. The introduction of sound is also identified as significant in that it made cinemas more uniform of an experience, to an extent, however the writer then notes that quality still generally differed between locations and different prices and audiences. Cinema attendance decreased generally in the early 30s as a result of unemployment and falling wages, however the effect on individual cinemas varied, with silent cinemas, due to their cheaper price, actually attracting more customers. The working class were arguably the worst-hit by the crisis and therefore the most effected cinema audience. Ross also highlights the decrease in variety of available films due to censorship and the growth of blind and block-booking in the 1930s as reducing the ability of cinema owners to customize their programmes accordingly to audience, and overall contributed to a decrease in the differences between individual cinemas.
I agree with above comments that the second source, ‘Going out’ was quite a complex read. I also agree it is reminiscent of previous readings on the gender topic, particularly regarding the significance of women’s appearance which the writer describes “signalled not just their own status but also that of their families and their consorts”. I found it interesting how the source focused on different emerging standards of beauty on an international scale and how Italy, and Mussolini even, effectively incorporated and reinforced women’s ultimate ‘purpose’ of a reproductive system into an image and portrayal of beauty and contrasted this to an almost ‘demonized’ slimmer woman who was more independent and not necessarily so maternal. The same emphasis on importance of female reproduction is also evident, particularly as the author looks at women’s ability to participate in sports and some of the irrational fears that particular sports may affect reproduction, which was seen as a woman’s sole purpose, even noting that childbirth itself was actually the best sport for women.
Bethany
Thanks, Caitlin, for the summary and to Adriana, Neil and Bethany for some very thoughtful comments so far. I think one of the difficulties with the chapter by de Grazia is the fact that it is a chapter; she is not introducing her topic in the same way as she would in an article and hence she ploughs straight into the material and, I agree, a variety of themes.
One of the things I’d like us to move towards, and which I’ll raise in the seminar, is the idea of a ‘mass society’. Ross (Corey, not Neil!) seems to pour cold water on the idea that there was a mass society before the Nazis came to power. I’m particularly interested in the nature of sound – and its the focus of my next research project – so I’d also like to think more in depth about the importance of sound as a ‘leveller’ at this moment in time. Did it actually help to shape a mass society? It seems that the economy was perhaps a bigger factor, as Ross himself suggests, particularly when we look at the Great Depression.
De Grazia certainly picks up threads from previous weeks and I think some of the complexity derives from the fine line she is trying to tread in terms of stressing women’s independence and their nascent identity as consumers, while also recognising that a context of a dictatorship severely limited women’s freedoms. Can we broaden this, however – does the text tell us something about the nature of consumerism and mass society under the Fascist dictatorship?
I would agree that the readings this week were very interesting, although the second article was difficult to grasp at points. The first reading, by Ross, delved deeply into the ‘new forms’ of entertainments within interwar German society. The popularity of the cinema in urban/rural areas was discussed and highlights that due to the cinemas being situated in urban areas, those in rural areas were in a sense excluded from the experience, although there were travelling cinemas which allowed for the cinematic experience to reach those in rural lands. The issues of wages and travel are highlighted and these contributed to the decrease in cinema attendance during the early 30s.
The De Grazia reading was rather a rather complexing read, although areas were easier to understand due to correlations to readings from previous weeks, specifically the topic of gender. The chapter highlights the way in which women were seen within fascist Italy, with the different models of a woman being portrayed. Women were unable to enjoy leisure activities in the same ways as men as they had to incorporate leisure time into their household jobs, limiting their experience.
Rhys
I’m glad you’ve picked up on the idea of limits, Rhys. I think it is very easy to be carried away (myself included!) with the alleged ‘newness’ of the 1920s and to lose sight of the resilience of existing social structures, societal norms, etc., including patriarchal restrictions on women’s freedom.