Following the second world war there was an upheaval of what was known. The war shook up the world and people were trying to rebuild. This left the question of whether things should be rebuilt as they were or in a new way. The role of masculinity in American society following the war was influential in determining our course of political action. America was grappling with issues of how to deal with humanitarianism and otherness.
Fred Turner, author of The Family of Man and the Politics of Attention
in Cold War America and Cold war historian, argues that the 1955 photograph exhibit of The Family of Man, which is often perceived as propaganda, is actually a revolutionary exhibit which sought to create a new more diverse and tolerant America (81). The artist, Edward Steichen, attempted to create an exhibit which encompassed the democratic personality and with it demonized the authoritarian personality (74). Which meant that if authoritarianism championed sameness and ethnocentrism then the democratic personality would demonstrate openness and tolerance. The exhibit offers evidence to whatever argument one is trying to make. If you are trying to argue that Steichen was creating propaganda for the American cause it can be made or if you’re trying to say that he was promoting typical gender and racial stereotypes there’s evidence of that, or if you’re trying to argue that this was a revolutionary new America there’s evidence of that too. This exhibit is a little bit of everything.
Mark Mazower, author of The Strange Triumph of Human Rights and international historian, argues that the weakening of international humanitarian laws was a downgrade for humanitarian enforcement; it was essential to the inclusion of the United States and Soviet Union. Americans were really into the idea of humanitarianism following the war. Eleanor Roosevelt championed many issues surrounding humanitarianism. This is without looking at issues in our own backyard of course. The British were happy to promote humanitarianism to keep the United States involved in the war and reconstruction, as long as humanitarianism did not look too closely at their colonies. The Soviet Union wanted to maintain their agency. These as well as deep rooted white supremacy values allowed for a weak humanitarian aid response. But it was a start and built the foundation for collective action against nations states violating human rights.
Both of these articles explore themes of how to rebuild the world following the war and how our morals should be rebuilt. The Turner article focuses on the America we want to exist after the war and its impact on the cold war. Whereas the Mazower article focuses on the importance of humanitarianism and this also leads into the cold war. There was a turning point in moral standards and a reconstruction of what role America would play in developing and enforcing these new morals.
It is an incredibly important distinction to make that the US and the UK were eager to push humanitarian efforts so long as they did not require them to do any introspection. It is a wonder how they were able to last the time that they did, pushing these things without dealing with their own problems. It would be incredibly interesting to explore whether or not the other countries that were being more directly judged on humanitarian grounds were attempting to draw attention to this hypocrisy.
I believe that Steichen’s goal was to promote diversity and tolerance, and his photos were certainly revolutionary for the time. In addition to promoting tolerance, do you think he was also trying to direct attention to America’s hypocrisy involving human rights?
It is important to recognize all of the points of view on Steichen’s work and the possible intentions behind why he created it. I believe that he wanted to promote diversity and explain the emphasis on tolerance in America. This exhibit provides an interesting look at family life after WWII in a way that no one had done before, which could be why it seemed to have ill intent.
I think your point about the US and USSR’s involvement in humanitarian initiatives is important to note, given that they had emerged as international super powers as a result of WWII. I do wonder if there could have been different directions that both could have taken to ensure greater humanitarian projects in the modern era.
I thought that your image that you used as your artifact was particularly important. By using an image that was directly associated with the topic I think you were able to entertain your reader and draw them into your blog post. Overall, a great job using your artifact to promote discussion on the subject of your post, good job.