Chores: It's a Girl Thing
This page has paths:
- Primary Source Gallery Vince Sandri
This page is referenced by:
-
Constructing a Culture
Post-World War II: The Rise of the Teenager
As men and women returned home from war, how did post-World War II American life change?
What ideals emerged?
How were teenager's identities shaped as the new ideology emerged?As a result of postwar fever, adults created a network of resources and tools to coerce and disseminate their concocted standard of upstanding American youth to teenagers across America.
Post-World War II life had changed as GI’s returned home to begin families, and the rise of the middle-class began with the creation of suburbanization in the early 1950s.[1] In response to movement to the suburbs, the social-emotional American landscape promoted homogenization, blandness and conformity.[2] During this same moment, the American post-war life gave rise to a new class of people: teenagers.
Despite the growing terror spreading across the American landscape, teenagers were viewed as a "threat" that could be controlled. Film and print media attempted to constrain teenagers by using different modes of educational material. Informational sources such as The Journal on Audio-Visual Learning and Educational Screen: The Audio-Visual Magazine aimed at disseminating information and promoting conformist ideology to educators, who in turn, cultivated and circulated "idealist" dogma upon their students, American teenagers. Across America, teens were "tuning in" to films created by production agencies such as Cornet. During this same moment, magazines such as LIFE circulated photo-essays concerning the new group and acted as an agent of culture to the public using multidimensional images. The hope was that the image would "speak louder than words" and further impress white, bourgeois ideals upon the impressionable youth.How to Use "Constructing a Culture"
Our project allows for users to navigate and access information through several methods. Although the site was designed to be linear in fashion, users are invited to move throughout the site in whichever manner you choose. First, you may choose to follow the prescribed path by clicking on the "Begin with..." button at the bottom of this page, which will take you to the first page of the chapter. By continuing to click on the "Begin with..." and/or "Continue to..." button at the bottom of each page, you will be taken through the content in a linear fashion.Feel free to move back and forth between the pages. You can navigate through the entire content of the book by hovering over the small menu icon
in the upper left corner of any page. Within this menu, all of the chapters for "Constructing a Culture" are outlined for simple maneuvering amongst chapters. You are invited to search the collection using your own key words, simply click the magnifying glass 
above to open the search dialog box.
Most importantly, we welcome you into "Constructing a Culture."
We hope that you enjoy the site, and welcome any feedback.[1] Donald Miller, “Program 23: The Fifties/From War to Normalcy,” Video, Fred Barzyk (2000; WGBH Education Foundation.), Online Video.https://www.learner.org/series/biographyofamerica/prog23/transcript/index.html.
[2] S. Mintz & S. McNeil, “The Cold War,” Digital History, Retrieved (January 7,2016)
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3401.
-
Visualizing Social Norms
Introduction
As the United States recovered from World War II, America sought to reinstate safety, calm and normalcy on the home front. Alongside America’s movement toward peace, for the first time teenagers were recognized as a new group who had different values than both children and adults.[1] The newness of this group created suspicion, and with the threat of the Cold War on the horizon, fear of the unknown and ‘otherness’ emerged. [2] Amidst the hysteria, the life of a teenager was under inspection. As teens developed an identity, in angst adults marginalized them and pressured for social norms to guide this new group.[3] In order to retain peace and compose society, whiteness standards emerged as a tool to control American teenagers. Photojournalist for LIFE magazine, Nina Leen documented the emergence of the teenager,[4] and through presentation and reflection on their ‘secret lives,’ social norms emerged that visually shaped and drove public opinion.[5] As a follow-up to the 1944 original story that identified teen girls,[6] Nina Leen’s 1947 photo-essay “Tulsa Twins,” visually presented and encouraged social norms emphasizing conventional gender roles and promoting conformity through uniformity in fashion.[7]Gender Identity
After World War II, women were left questioning their social role.[8] During wartime, as men enlisted to fight for freedom, a majority of American females took work outside the home, oftentimes in factories supplying troops with needed materials.[9] Postwar America was different: women were expected to resume traditional social roles and embrace domestic ideology. Images in LIFE magazine were meant to “enlighten and instruct;” therefore, Leen’s gaze groomed audiences to support traditional gender roles. [10] Through Leen’s images, women were encouraged to embrace domestic responsibilities (such as child rearing, home life, and spirituality) while men focused on areas outside of the home in the political and economic arenas. For example, in a large, multi-column vertical photograph, Betty is framed doing the laundry. Since “Chores are receiving new respect,” Betty’s serious expression and deep concentration is focused solely on the act of pinning clothes to the dry line.[11] The snapshot, tightly cropped on Betty’s duty, captures the audience’s attention and lures them into embracing domesticity for females; yet, at the same moment the photograph and accompanying narrative move deeper into promotion of social norms: “…for 1947 teens think of marriage much more seriously than their wartime equivalents.”[12] LIFE audiences understood the photograph’s implications as such: during formative years, Betty focuses on completion of her domestic responsibilities so that one day in the future she will make a good wife by providing a clean, ordered home for her husband.[13] Acclaimed historian of twentieth century American studies, Elaine Tyler May asserts that postwar there was “a rush of young Americans into marriage, parenthood, and traditional gender roles.”[14] Photographs, such as the esteemed Leen’s, acted as an agent during the late-1940-era when “flourishing postwar mass media produced…serial, unified images … [that] reflected a shared belief in the qualities of ideal American womanhood.”[15] As women struggled postwar to gain an identity, LIFE magazine took charge and provided their version of the “ideal American woman.” Leen, in promotion of the “rush” young Americans were experiencing, carefully framed the shot of Betty, who seemed to pleasantly accept domestic responsibility. Upon first glance, the photo is an opportunity to view a female teen in action; however, the underlying values associated with the image groomed LIFE’s audience to embrace gender divisions. Acting as signposts, Leen’s photographs visually prepare LIFE’s audience for mature gender-specific responsibilities that are also present in everyday American society.Averting Eye Contact
Compounding Leen’s presentation of circa 1950s appropriate social norms, none of the teen girls photographed made eye contact with Leen’s camera lens. Methodically positioned, the teen girls in “Tulsa Twins” were never square with the camera. The Bounds girls were posed on an angle to suggest compliance with social norms and acceptance of being a submissive member (woman) of society. The wayward positioning of the face and lack of eye contact add further to the theme of gender specific, non-threatening posturing. Adhering to traditional gender roles, 1950s philosophy proclaimed: “as long as [women] were subordinate to their husbands, they would be contented and fulfilled.”[16] Thus, Leen, savvy of gender division code intelligently framed the photographs in “Tulsa Twins” to establish appropriate male-dominant/female-subordinate ideology. [17] By positioning the female subjects in non-threatening positions, oftentimes with their heads tilted and eyes set to look into the distance so as not to lock eyes with readers of LIFE, Leen’s photo-story is not just a visual presentation, but it supports era-specific ideology promoting gender divisions and women being subordinate to males.Masculinity
Juxtaposed against teen girls, upholding male-centered ideology, the boys look at the audience and make direct eye contact with readers, since “popular and official ideology insisted that male power was as necessary in the home as in the political realm.”[18] In a double page spread, Leen photographed eight teen boys who epitomized masculine ideals: holding rank in the Armed Forces, being involved on sport teams, and attending college. Masculinity radiated in their straightforward gaze, and their perfectly groomed visage displayed confidence and courage, qualities male readers of LIFE magazine could identify with, admire and then duplicate. Esteemed historian and author, Peter Bacon Hales reminds scholars that LIFE magazine and the photojournalist’s camera “directed and modified the beliefs of its audience.”[19] Thus, Leen encouraged ideals aimed at bourgeois audiences by expertly framing ascribed masculine characteristics, such as boldness and strength to support male-dominant ideals promoted in postwar America.[20] Leen’s arrangement of photographs captured the audience’s gaze, and propagated ideas that reinforced white, middle-class gender roles.Conclusion
As anxiety increased in America with the spread of Cold War hysteria, social grooming of teenagers guided them to conform and adhere to prescribed gender norms. For the teen girl, importance was placed on domestic duties such as party planning and chores; altogether, making her ready for marriage. The hyper focus on fashion further constructed an “ideal” woman by placing importance on maintaining appearances. On the contrary, teen boys focused on masculine pursuits, such as leadership, sports and collegiate life.
Whether in print of film, teenagers circa 1950s were subjected to “teen tuning,” a direct product of the social anxieties of the time.[1] Kelly Schrum, Some Wore Bobby Sox: The Emergence of Teenage Girls’ Culture 1920-1945 (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004), 2. Schrum noted: “teenagers first appeared in the 1950s, complete with distinct dress, habits, music, and culture.”
[2] Tom Engelhardt, “Triumphalist Despair,” in The End of Victory Culture: Cold War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995), 1-15. Engelhardt, 5, contends that whiteness standards appeared post-World War II, specifically after Japan (tan-skinned ‘Others’) known as the “savage, nonwhite enemy” bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
[3] Tom Engelhardt, “The Haunting of Childhood,” in The End of Victory Culture: Cold War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995), 133 – 154. Engelhardt, 133, explains, “In the post-World War II years, adult unease about the young…for adolescents (now labeled ‘teenagers’) were organizing themselves in new and unsettling ways, distinct from mocking of the frameworks and values of the adult world.”
[4] James Pomerantz, “The Surreal World of Nina Leen,” The New Yorker, April 11, 2013, accessed January 11, 2016, http://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/the-surreal-world-of-nina-leen. One of the first female photographers contracted for LIFE magazine, Pomerantz states: “[Leen’s] most well-known subjects were animals (including her dog Lucky), American women and adolescents, and the Irascibles, a group of abstract artists…”
[5] Wendy Kozol, “Documenting the Ordinary: Photographic Realism and LIFE’s families,” in LIFE’s America: Family and Nation in Postwar Photojournalism (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994), 12. Kozol asserts: “LIFE increasingly depicted middle-class families to promote patriotic sentiments.” She continues, ”LIFE’s contribution was to focus on the representative middle-class family in news stories to signify a national cultural identity.”
[6] Nina Leen, “Teen-Age Girls: They Live in a Wonderful World of Their Own,” LIFE Magazine, December 11, 1944: 91-98. Google Books, accessed January 7, 2016,
https://books.google.com/books?id=10EEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA91#v=twopage&q&f=true.
Nina Leen photographed the 1944, article that appeared in LIFE magazine investigating the life of teenage girls. The 1947 photo-essay, “Tulsa Twins” is a follow-up to the first article. Readers familiar with style and social life in 1944 will recognize the transitions that occurred in the 1947 teenage girl, such as fashion and proper socialization. Introduction and promotion of uniformity in dress and actions led to conformity in appearance (including style and hair) and adherence to traditional gender roles. First introduced in 1944, the traditional, status quo mindset spilled into the 1947 installment. Post-World War II America experienced a heightened promotion of whiteness ideals and gender roles. Since America was involved in the Cold War, wished for peace on the home front, and safety within home life. Conformity to traditional standards tamed and controlled the new group of adolescents.
[7] Nina Leen, “Tulsa Twins: They Show How Much the Teen-Age World has Changed,” LIFE Magazine, August 4,1947: 77 – 82. Google Books, accessed January 7, 2016, https://books.google.com/books?id=1U0EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA77#v=twopage&q&f=false.
[8] Rickie Solinger, “The Smutty Side of LIFE: Picturing Babes as Icons of Gender Difference in the Early 1950s,” in Looking at LIFE Magazine, ed. Erika Doss (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001), 201-219. Solinger’s essay speaks about the emergence of female images in LIFE magazine. Solinger, 202, poses the question, “Who is the American woman?” and continues by tracing female identity: “During the
Depression and the war, cultural arbiters like LIFE promulgated unified, iconic images of female identity.” Solinger’s essay explores the relationship between “babes” and recognizing the “American woman.” During the war era women were told to wear overalls and work outside of the home, in the next era they were told to rear children and obey their husbands. Despite these vast differences in woman’s identity, LIFE believed that they “produced a shared belief in the qualities of ideal American womanhood.”
[9] S. Mintz & S. McNeil, “Social Changes During the War,” Digital History, accessed February 13, 2016, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3493.
Digital History explains: “married working women outnumbered single working women as 6.3 million women entered the work force during the war. The war challenged the conventional image of female behavior, as ‘Rosie the Riveter’ became the popular symbol of women who abandoned traditional female occupations to work in defense industries. Social critics had a field day attacking women.” In postwar America, women were expected to resume traditional social roles by returning to the home with a focus on the family. Domesticity was the woman’s sphere.
[10] Erika Doss, introduction to Looking at LIFE Magazine, ed. Erika Doss (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001), 11. Doss explained that LIFE’s emphasis on presentation of powerful images “enlighten and instruct” audiences.
[11] Nina Leen, “Tulsa Twins: They Show How Much the Teen-Age World has Changed,” LIFE Magazine, August 4,1947: 77 – 82. Google Books, accessed February 13, 2016, https://books.google.com/books?id=1U0EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA77#v=twopage&q&f=false.
[12] Nina Leen, “Tulsa Twins: They Show How Much the Teen-Age World has Changed,” LIFE Magazine, August 4,1947: 77 – 82. Google Books, accessed February 13, 2016,
https://books.google.com/books?id=1U0EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA77#v=twopage&q&f=false.
[13] Rickie Solinger, “The Smutty Side of LIFE: Picturing Babes as Icons of Gender Difference in the Early 1950s,” in Looking at LIFE Magazine, ed. Erika Doss (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001), 201-219. Solinger, 201, provides female readership data asserting: “…more than 17 million women between the ages of 20 and 24 read LIFE in the early fifties…”
James L. Baughman, “Who Read LIFE? The Circulation of America’s Favorite Magazine,” Looking at LIFE Magazine, ed. Erika Doss (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001), 41-51. Baughman, 42, states: “In a 1946 review of research on magazine readership…the model readers for LIFE were 30 to 34 years of age, from the professional and skilled labor classes, married and college-educated.”
[14] Elaine Tyler May, introduction to Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 5.
[15] Rickie Solinger, “The Smutty Side of LIFE: Picturing Babes as Icons of Gender Difference in the Early 1950s,” in Looking at LIFE Magazine, ed. Erika Doss (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001), 201-219. Solinger, 202, contends: “Despite the potentially disorienting injunctions that mandated that American women wear an apron in one era and overalls in the next, the flourishing postwar mass media produced these serial, unified images indefensibly and with confidence that they reflected a shared belief in the qualities of ideal American womanhood.”
[16] Elaine Tyler May, “Explosive Issues: Sex, Woman, and the Bomb,” in Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 94.
[17] Wendy Kozol, “Looking at LIFE: A Historical Profile of Photojournalism,” in LIFE’s America: Family and Nation in Postwar Photojournalism (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994), 39.
[18] Elaine Tyler May, “Explosive Issues: Sex, Woman, and the Bomb,” in Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 94.
[19] Peter Bacon Hales, “Imaging the Atomic Age,” in Looking at LIFE Magazine, ed. Erika Doss (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001), 105. Hales accounts that one-dimensional photo- stories in LIFE magazine communicated values associated with white, middle-class Americans, and it “also directed and modified the beliefs of its audience.”
[20] Andrew Hartman, “From Hot War to Cold War for Schools and Teenagers: The Life Adjustment Movement as Therapy for the Immature,” in Education and the Cold War: The Battle for the American School (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 61. As Hartman suggests that: “’Social guidance’ was another way of describing the process of adjusting American teenagers to white, bourgeois, gendered, Protestant norms.”
Life through the Camera Lens:
Analyzing Post-World War II Teenage Social Norms in LIFE Magazine
by Maureen Kudlik
is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.png){kind=link}