by Katrina Newman (kanewman@vassar.edu)
“Mental hygiene” films were shown to kids in schools all across America in the ’40s and ’50s with the intention of instructing them in sanctioned behavior and the proper roles of the nuclear family. I’ve always found these kinds of videos to be quite entertaining and kind of funny, and was reminded of the one about eating with your family when I read about feasting in Signs of Recognition.
Among the Anakalangese nobility generosity (boraku) as well as wealth is required of them, and feasting is one of the ways that males use to display their rank, power and wealth (5-7, 58). A failure to live up to traditional standards is something causes Anakalangese to lament about the good old days (58). In ’50s America, formality of eating was reintroduced to thousands, maybe millions of people, modeled by a “typical” nuclear white middle class family, by this video:
Formality, defined as the representation of roles and/or hierarchy, is embodied in speech events and rites/rituals (8) and social exchanges are facilitated by working within this “ritual frame” (Keane 5).
“You can be yourself. Just be sure it’s your best self.” And what constitutes their best selves? Pleasantness and relaxation are the key qualities emphasized in this propaganda video. Ritualized, traditional order is also facilitated through ritual speech, and what the family can talk about is restricted to “pleasant, unemotional conversation.” One is not to monopolize the conversation or discuss unpleasant topics! No arguing, don’t insult your brothers and remember to compliment mom on the cooking. The people don’t have personal names but are addressed as mother, father, sister, brother and junior, emphasising the “stereotypical performance roles” in the formality. By engaging in formality, participants are able to interactively define themselves and each other (7) thus creating self-awareness of their roles and their family hierarchy. The seating arrangements, who serves and the order of serving and saying grace are all embodied parts of the representation. Whether they are really happy or not is irrelevant; all that matters is acting as though they are happy by performing pleasantness. “Even the simple norms of everyday propriety, among the least dramatic elements of any cultural account, may serve” the interests of domination, (6) and in ’50’s America that certainly included dinner time.
I couldn’t find any equivalent modern videos; any videos on family eating were on how to eat healthy and make meals more quickly. I would conjecture that it means the importance of enforcing family hierarchies through eating rituals has largely disappeared in popular culture. To bring authority, sources of power and legitimate agency together requires persistent effort (9) and most people seem to have difficulty “finding the time” to eat together as a family. Do you think that more people would manage to find time for formalized family dinners if they thought their family dynamic and personal happiness were dependent on it? Why do you think the importance of performativity of roles has decreased since the post-War era? Even though it is less visible now in media, what kinds of formalities in the video do you think are still performed in American households?
I noticed the narrator’s self-reflexivity as well. It was a little distracting to hear him say things like “the women of this family seem to feel that they owe it to the men of the family to look rested, relaxed, and attractive”, although phrases like this are great semiotically. Though phrased hypothetically, the narrator is really making an imperative statement: the women of this family SHOULD feel that they owe the men. On the other hand, to my ears, the whole passage reeked of irony — but it wasn’t, of course. I think it’s great how different this video sounds to modern viewers compared to when it debuted.
I did also appreciate that some things have not changed over time, for example taboo topics of conversation: business, highly emotional topics, “gruesome sights”, or insults; these are things which are still discouraged as dinner-table conversation. While I think it’s true that standards have changed drastically since this movie’s creation, and that the emphasis is now on efficient meals, I think a lot of the things shown in the video are still retained in formal occasions. At home I may read books at the table and have only my sister as a dinner companion, but at family events like Christmas or birthdays I am expected to abide by many of the same standards discussed in the film, tho certainly not all. When you think about it, a lot of “formal” activities and ritualized behaviors are holdovers of an earlier time, preserved in “right” speech and action despite losing their original context.
I agree with Gretchen’s statement about cultural values and systems of meaning; in this case, I think that Katrina’s findings in her search for a modern equivalent is telling of the major cultural shift between the 1950s and today. She says, “…any videos on family eating were on how to eat healthy and make meals more quickly.” These results reflect the cultural significance of nutritionism and efficiency. According to Michael Pollan’s book, In Defense of Food, the focus traditionally afforded on food and on the meal have been redirected to nutrients–are we getting enough protein, will this lower my cholesterol, is there calcium in this, ect. Health has moved to the forefront of American discourse, dictating cultural norms and affecting conventional eating habits in a profound way. Likewise, the culturally-valued enterprise to attain maximum efficiency influences eating practices. As mentioned, families these days do not have enough time to sit down and share an extended meal every night. Time is a valuable resource, at least according to the linguistic metaphor that permeates our day-to-day language.
How do these cultural norms emerge? What causes the shift from performing gendered familial roles to focusing on nutrition and efficiency at dinner time?
This video made me think a lot about how we perform our family roles, and what is “acceptable” for such a performance. I believe that family dinner is a type of ancestral ritual; whatever is passed down may survive for another generation.
There is a big move right now to “bring back family dinner.” Here is a link to “The Family Dinner Project,” which aims to educate households about the importance of the family dinner. In a way, it parallels the video, but is not as strictly instructive. http://thefamilydinnerproject.org/
It’s common knowledge that our generation eats less meals together with their family. Many believe that it is beneficial to all members of a household to eat at least one meal together a week. “Sharing a fun family meal is good for the spirit, brain and health of all family members. Recent studies link regular family meals with the kinds of behaviors that parents want for their children: higher grade-point averages, resilience and self-esteem” the site claims.
It’s interesting how the motives behind the ritual of sharing a dinner with family has shifted since the time the above video was made. In the 50s, as the video suggests, the family dinner was a time for the family to relax and share a formal experience (aside from the awful gender stereotypes). It seems that the reasoning behind family dinners is less reinforcing family/hierarchical roles and more supporting each other.
The disturbing thing about the video is the way the narrator implicitly acknowledges the performitivity of the family. The “boys greet their dad as though they are generally glad to meet him,” — not simply, “the boys are generally glad to meet their dad.” This Keane’s study he notes that the ritual performers “act like anscenters,” but “have not entirely become them (18).” Similarly, the boys are acting, not becoming a part… the question is, what are they when they are not acting?
This post’s comment about the “performance of pleasantness” is really interesting. In Keane’s work and other ethnographies, it is emphasized that ritual is never empty, but a performance that displays a culture’s values and systems of meaning. In that regard, the formality in Anakalangese and American ritual meals provides valuable insight to their meanings.
Chandler writes that “in relation to language, formality is quite closely tied to explicitness, so that intimate language tends to be minimally explicit and maximally dependent on non-verbal cues” (193); every aspect of formalized behavior in these rituals is explicitly stated. In the American dinner, Junior is referred to as “Junior,” Father as “Father,” etc.; in Anakalangese feasting, wealth is overtly displayed by the bounty of food provided for the villagers. The points of absolute necessity are expressed the most fully so that the conversation isn’t tainted with impudent behavior (hence the “pleasant, unemotional conversation”). Note that these explicit displays include an acknowledgment of power structures, establishing power relations as one of the more important aspects of the dinner ritual. Implicit power structures emerge from these examples, as the use of highly formal, cautious presentation in both the American and Anakalangese rituals reveal and uphold hierarchical dynamics among participants.
I will agree with Jessica that the roles have significantly shifted, though not fully resolved. Class, family size and occupation now are stronger constraints on the dinner-time ritual. Casual dining is found in breakfast and lunch in many American households. For holidays, however, I feel like much of this stereotyped “correct performance” is re-activated. Whether it is an attempt at traditionally or the result of a united nuclear family, the mother makes the food, they family sits down, “family-style”, and break bread together.
My father is the better cook, so he normally cooks dinner when we are together casually, but my mother nearly insists on cooking for large groups. It may be residual from these videos and typified dinner behavior.
I don’t think the importance of performativity of roles has decreased since the post-war era; I just think that the performativity of roles has changed and we perform different roles. The gender roles have shifted quite a bit since the 1950s. The video was very specific about which tasks were for women and which were for men (and it was very stereotyping as well–of course the daughter was the talkative one and what she had to say was boring). I think that we do not perform gender the same way it was performed in the 1950s, but we do still perform gender and we perform other aspects of ourselves as well, for example, performing the role of a student and not talking over a professor. I was also appalled by the statement about the women of the family dressing to be more charming and pleasing to the men (although I understand that this is from the 1950s and it is an accurate description of the time period).
I wasn’t able to access the video from the link above, but I found it here, in case others have the same problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtVKo1mdrjE
I was struck by the use of the term “relaxed” when the video discussed dressing up for dinner. Changes of clothing are one way we have of marking different spheres of life, both in the formality of clothing and the practicality.
In my family, men and women tend to dress down for dinner; even if we are already formally dressed, ties, jackets, and shoes are removed before sitting at the table. I know the tradition of dressing for dinner survives in some families, but even so the change into “fancy” clothing marks a time when they become less relaxed. For example, one is more careful not to stain fancy clothing by spilling food or rip it by making sudden movements. The clothes themselves force self-control upon us in formal situations, which themselves require self-control in speech and body language.