Entering the Cold War was a tremendous undertaking in American history, just as much as it was in the modern political history of human society. The Allies of World War II began fighting over the political philosophy which would shape the future global order, and they all still feared the reemergence of fascist ideologies within post war populations. America had to decide how to maintain democratic ideals, focusing on how media could help create personalities that would be more prone to favor democratic, free thought, instead of controlled/conditioned lives. Edward Steichen’s “The Family of Man” photographical exhibition is an interesting form of media that was developed out of a desire by American intellectuals to create a “democratic personality” in order to incite anti-totalitarian thought and psychology amongst its viewers. (Turner p.59) During a time when Human Rights were of a specific interest of governments to prevent future atrocities from occurring, Edward Steichen created an exhibition that showed a world of everyday activities shared by humans from many different cultures and nations. Fred Turner argues that “The Family of Man” refers to the images of humans as “an effort to model a mode of governance that might sustain them.” (Turner p.62) However, the images are not showing forms of governance, but instead of social interactions, familial bonding, and multiculturalism. Unless Turner believes these to be a metaphor for democratic ideals of a diverse population, then the exhibition may be presented as more of a celebration of human life instead of an examination of it.
What particularly interests me in “The Family of Man” is the picture of the hydrogen bomb, which is strategically placed in order to draw attention (if not outright condemnation) by all of its viewers. As Turner and other critics pointed out, the piece is difficult to be described as a modem for political change, as it does little to confront the social dilemmas of the Post War era. I do indeed believe that the piece is political, and although it may present itself in a way that would have been less controversial to American audiences, it reaches its goal of placing focus on humankind’s greatest fear: complete annihilation. After viewing the exhibition, I can tell how it must have been overwhelming for a viewer during this time period to be introduced to so many new images of foreign lands and people, just for the image of a hydrogen bomb to burn the strongest memory out of the many differing photographs. Turner was correct when believing the multiculturalism of the exhibition helped to emphasize with other humans, no matter their origin, but I find it difficult to agree with his premise of a democratically motivated direction. (Turner p. 79) Instead, I would assert that Steichen created the images as passing familiarities, so that the image of destruction could promote a sense of urgency towards building a peaceful, human world.
References:
O’Brian, J. (2008). The Nuclear Family of Man. The Asia-Pacific Journal, 6(7).
F. Turner, The Family of Man and the Politics of Attention in Cold War America, Public Culture, 24.1 (2012), 55-84.
The multiculturalism in the exhibit is something that is incredibly profound for the time. Many later analyzers critiqued the exhibit, but it was astounding for its time. The exhibit shows us something incredibly important about studying history. This is the fact that we have to place events within their contexts. We cannot judge past events based on what we know now and expect to come to a reasonable conclusion. For the time, the exhibit was wonderfully progressive, whether or not we know now that it could have been created differently.
I agree that Steichen’s motivation was aimed towards creating a peaceful world. To me these images say that there are problems that need to be solved, and working together is the only way it can be stopped.
I agree with what you said about the exhibit promoting a celebration of life, but I do think that it is also an examination of human life and the democratic properties of America. The exhibit subtly implements aspects of multiculturalism while appearing to be attractive to the eyes of the average citizen.