|
Key insights from
The Free World: Art and Thought in the
Cold War
By
Louis Menand
|
|
|
What you’ll learn
Louis Menand, author of Pulitzer-Prize-winning The
Metaphysical Club, is also a professor of English at Harvard and an
esteemed essayist and critic. President Barack Obama awarded him the
National Humanities Medal. In this book, he highlights how Cold War culture
was shaped as he gives glimpses into the lives of cultural icons, bringing
to light many of the ironies within the Cold War and dismantling the
perceived identities of the artists and thinkers who became big names in
the mid-to-late 20th century. Culture in the free world was formed through
collaboration and resistance and by people with many different and opposing
ideas, but with a shared cause: freedom of expression. Menand artfully
portrays how thinkers and artists became the most effective advocates and
voices for freedom, despite creating during a time of creative and
intellectual repression.
Read on for key insights from The Free World.
|
|
1. There was a
Cold War within the free world, too.
The Cold War was not only a cultural conflict between the
United States and the Soviet Union, but a cultural conflict within the
United States itself. Anyone could fall under scrutiny, but the way out was
simple: Be an anti-Communist. Intellectuals and politicians who were once
admired became the subject of skepticism and criticism as a result of Cold
War paranoia. In the United States—which experienced a surge in patriotic
sentiments after the victory of the Allied Powers—a new dichotomy emerged
through which people analyzed art, politics, and thought: Communist or
anti-Communist. You were either for freedom or against freedom. Freedom,
here, essentially meaning American democracy. Those who had nuanced
perspectives, or simply different perspectives on freedom, were often
criticized for being Communist sympathizers.
George Kennan, perhaps the most influential figure in
American foreign policy during the Cold War, had complex political
opinions—opinions that seem contradictory when placed within the Communist
or anti-Communist dichotomy. Kennan is credited with developing the policy
of containment, spearheading the American initiative to prevent the
expansion of the Soviet Union and Communism. For Kennan, who identified as
a “realist,” the issue of containment was not important because it was an
issue of good versus evil; it was important because it promoted American
self-interest.
Though Kennan was firmly anti-Communist, he was not
pro-democracy. He loathed American democracy and American culture but loved
that America encouraged freedom of thought. He deeply admired Russian
culture and the resilience of the Russian people, yet he despised
Stalinism. He opposed going to war with the Soviet Union while being one of
the most prominent voices advocating for Americans to take a clear, strong
stance against Communism. He and the foreign policy officers he worked with
are responsible for what the Cold War became, and for what it did not
become, because of these contradictory, moderate perspectives.
While Kennan’s political perspectives were characterized by
complexity, he was known and is remembered for being anti-Communist. The
black-and-white thinking that arose from Cold War paranoia worked in favor
of Kennan’s reputation. He is remembered as the “Cold Warrior,” an advocate
for freedom, despite his disdain for democracy—the very system that
American anti-Communists longed to protect and promote. To America, what
mattered was that he was anti-Communist. Kennan’s intentions for the Cold
War were misunderstood, as Cold War America began looking inward and
creating internal division. The House Committee on Un-American Activities
became increasingly aggressive in repressing the expression of Communist
and leftist sentiments. Intellectual freedom in America—as policy—suffered.
Underground, it continued to inspire new elements of culture.
|
|
|
Sponsored
by Noom
You Can Take Back
Control Of Your Health
Summer’s around
the corner, and that means it’s time to get moving on your health goals.
Noom is designed to help you hit your goals at a pace that works for you.
Learn to forgive, practice, and (finally) find a routine that works for
your lifestyle.
Try Noom Today
|
|
2. The concept of
freedom became a global fascination after World War II.
After 1945, freedom was considered more important than ever
before. Apolitical people became politically involved. After witnessing the
effects of totalitarianism in Italy, Germany, Russia, and Japan, people who
had never contemplated the meaning of freedom became increasingly
interested in the subject, leading to the rise of new philosophies and
creating an audience especially receptive to literature about freedom. As
everyone was thinking about freedom in the 20th century, they were fixated,
too, on the looming threat of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism became especially
fascinating and frightening to freedom-fixated thinkers because it was
unique to the 20th century, and because it appeared that it could take root
anywhere. It wasn’t the result of specific cultural conditions but seemed
to be a result of modernization. Arendt argues that because those living in
modern societies often took freedom for granted and because collective
feelings of loneliness were on the rise in modernized nations, the people
in these nations were particularly susceptible to the allure of
totalitarian rulers. The idea that modern nations were all potentially at
risk of falling prey to totalitarianism put a large number of nations on
edge, fearing they could be next.
The consequence of believing totalitarianism could become a
reality in any country was widespread fear and paranoia. 1984 by
George Orwell—one of the most widely read books of the century—suggests
that totalitarianism is a threat everywhere if people living in modern
nations are not vigilant in resisting it. The novel succeeded in
encouraging readers to be vigilant through its portrayal of what life could
look like under a totalitarian regime. Literature on totalitarianism was
exceptionally popular during the Cold War, and the masses used books like
1984 to gauge the security of their democratic nations.
Much like the political literature of the time, the newly
popularized philosophy of Existentialism encouraged people to look inward
and to take action—and most importantly, to act freely. Thinkers like
Sartre and Beauvoir embraced the already-developed philosophy and furthered
it through their works in which they connected the philosophy with their
present reality in Nazi-occupied France. Existentialism was appealing
because it contradicted nihilism during a time when people longed to have a
sense of control and responsibility. To those in the 20th century,
existentialism was a philosophy of resistance, stating that so long as a
person acts freely—meaning that a person is truly considering what he or
she wants to do—that person is resisting being controlled by his or her
circumstances.
This was encouraging to both the person living in a free
nation and the person living in a totalitarian nation. For the person
living in the free nation, like those that Orwell targeted as he wrote 1984,
to act thoughtfully and freely was a step toward resisting totalitarianism
because it was a small act of embracing freedom rather than mindlessly and
willingly surrendering it. For the person living under totalitarian rule,
to act freely was an act of resistance because acting—and thinking—freely
were the very things their dictators sought to take away.
In On the Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt
suggests that totalitarian governments differed from the dictatorships of
the past in that power was the ultimate goal rather than a method through
which to reach certain goals. The goal of totalitarianism was to dehumanize
and to control. Existentialism presented a way to retake control, to
reclaim a person’s humanity.
|
|
3. American art
finally earned international acclaim.
While American art was admired within the United States,
European art remained the standard of excellence and the heart of the
avant-garde. American art was finally regarded as serious art when American
artists stopped imitating European styles and started inventing their own.
They were no longer influenced but influential, simply because they began
experimenting. American literature exploded in Europe when it was first
translated into French, and the French developed their own interpretations
of American works, thus adding new depth. Authors like Ernest Hemingway,
William Carlos Williams, and William Faulkner made American literature
modern through their experimentations with style, voice, and perception of
time. They distanced their characters and their writing from any specific
morality; they did not explain or give clarity. Critics were not focused on
content and plot, but on form and style.
Visual art followed a similar path. It no longer mattered
that art was beautiful but rather that it pushed boundaries. Much like 20th
century literature, modernist art wished to separate itself from ideology,
as many identified a dangerous link between ideology and politics after the
Second World War. Despite trying to avoid over-interpretation and
association with a specific set of ideas, Modern American art, specifically
Abstract Expressionism, was quickly understood by the masses as an
expression of freedom and individuality. Its meaning was derived from and
understood through the process of its creation. Art became centered on the
action that brought it into being, because action was associated with
freedom. The artist was equally as important as his or her piece of art
because they were the instrument that created it—they were the action. Abstract
Expressionist artists, like Jackson Pollock—who was, ironically, involved
with Communist organizations—unknowingly promoted American ideals, as the
process through which they created their art was novel. The novelty of his
method symbolized to Americans an expression of freedom—artistic freedom.
Because they resisted convention, modern art and literature became tools
for the anti-Communists to promote their personal political ideologies, as
the artists understood and explained their works as products of freedom.
|
|
|
|
4. In seeking to
obliterate Communist threats, the American government embraced and utilized
the restriction of freedom.
The American crusade against Communism, for which Senator
McCarthy became infamous, was waged not only against Communist nations but
against perceived threats to liberty within the United States itself.
Government officials in the United States restricted and condemned
expressions of Communist and leftist thought for reasons similar in some
ways to those given by Communist governments to justify their own
restrictions of freedom of expression: Because such expression was a threat
to their political agendas. While the United States had long been a haven
for freedom of thought, during this period, many were stripped of their
platforms because of their perceived political opinions.
Government officials were not the only citizens who suffered
the consequences of McCarthyist paranoia, and one certainly did not have to
be a Communist to become subject to suspicion. Hundreds of professors lost
their jobs because of their ideas. What was intended to be a crusade for
freedom was instead characterized by government overreach in personal
affairs. The Cold War within the United States decreased many citizens’
trust in the government as politicians violated their own values. Others
praised the government for its aggressive efforts to quash Communist
sympathies. It was a period saturated with irony. While the American government
was terrified of threats to freedom, they simultaneously restricted the
freedoms of people they disagreed with.
|
|
5. People in free
countries felt a deep sense of responsibility to liberate those under
Communism.
Despite most nations finally rejecting imperialism and
colonization, western nations maintained involvement in other nations’
political affairs. It became an American mission to create democracies, and
most Americans believed that all cultures would benefit under democracies.
As the new world superpower and a victor of World War II, the United States
soon saw itself as a savior and liberator for those under Communism. This
was simultaneously a well-intentioned and self-serving mission.
American politicians genuinely believed that promoting democracy
across the world had everyone’s best interest in mind. They also believed
this would boost their reputation among Americans and prevent future
threats to their own democracy. Moral language was used to describe the
mission of spreading democracy, framing US intervention as a matter of
right and wrong. But those who shaped Cold War foreign policy believed that
this mission was motivated by self-interest and self-preservation more than
by a sense of moral obligation. The Vietnam War is the most memorable
example of American intervention in Communist expansion, and it created a
massive divide among Americans, leading many to reconsider their thoughts
on the extent to which America should battle Communism. It was a turning
point for politics and popular culture.
|
|
6. The 20th
century fostered cultural transformation.
After World War II, it seemed as if every aspect of culture
was on its way to becoming new. Art, literature, music, race relations,
foreign affairs, and the role of religion in society were all quickly on
their way toward dramatic change. Youth culture, especially, took a leading
role in shifting the 20th century.
It was a time of collaboration among those who were involved
in cultural activities. Writers and artists who have become household names
and historical figures fed off each others’ works. Most of the thinkers and
artists whom we consider original, or avant-garde–Allen Ginsberg and the
Beats, Pollock and the Abstract Expressions, Faulkner, Williams–were all
inspired by others, adding small adjustments to make their crafts their
own. This added depth to the culture, as ideas were reshaped, refined, and
sometimes resisted. Higher education enrollment skyrocketed, and
universities were often the launching pads for successful writers and
artists, as professors played a significant role in shaping student
thought.
Racial dynamics in America, too, began changing as Nazi
Germany carried out its own appalling and brazen campaign of racism, on a
scale never witnessed before. In America, black culture thrived despite
segregation, influencing mainstream culture and inventing genres of music
that would later become commercialized and appropriated by white musicians
in the 1950s and 1960s. Rhythm and blues became rock and roll, and rock and
roll eventually evolved from being seen as youth entertainment to being
considered a serious form of art, worthy of criticism. Because rock music
was art, it lasted longer than the usual musical fad. The progression of
rock and roll as a genre can be interpreted as a collaborative effort
between Europe and the United States. While the United States saw the birth
of rock and roll, the music industry marketed the music to European
audiences as well as domestic ones, inspiring the creation of bands like
the Beatles and the Rolling Stones—two of the bands credited with turning
rock music into an art form. Though the United States takes credit for the
invention and explosion of rock music, the genre owes its success and
longevity to European artists.
Young people in the Cold War were especially fascinated with
music, which they felt was their own. It was created by others their same
age, during the same period of their youth. Experimentation in music was
another way of embracing freedom, as was using music to advocate for the
social change they wished to see. A counterculture began during the Cold
War as the youth were unhappy with the cultural norms and standards of the
time, and the movement was certainly met with resistance from older
generations. Many of the counterculture icons who are remembered today are
misunderstood as they are interpreted through the lens of our present, and
as they were misrepresented even in the height of their fame.
Misinterpreting cultural works was one of the most notable themes of the
Cold War era. Because thought was so drastically skewed by the Communist or
anti-Communist dichotomy, people struggled to interpret art outside of the
context of the Cold War. This trend of misunderstanding, however, played a
crucial role in defining Cold War culture; by over-simplifying ideas, the
meaning of those misunderstood works became more potent, and those artists
and thinkers became icons.
Despite being “countercultural,” much like most Americans
and westerners, these young people, too, held freedom as their highest
value. Their resistance against mainstream culture further supported the
idea that freedom was important–regardless of whether they were leftists or
passionate anti-Communists–because their resistance was to embrace their
freedom of expression. Culture changed so drastically during the Cold War
because so many people had freedom on their minds in differing and conflicting
ways. While striving to promote freedom abroad, activists and politicians
repressed freedom within the States. Even in these stifling conditions, art
and thought flourished as they became instruments in the hands of both
critics and supporters—the instruments to which advocates for freedom owed
their ideological victories as the Cold War came to a close.
|
|
|
This newsletter is powered by Thinkr, a smart reading app for the
busy-but-curious. For full access to hundreds of titles — including audio —
go premium and download the app today.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment