Uncertainty and Ambiguity

In the wake of World War II, a great number of developments occurred that are looked upon through a hyper-modern lens. One, small-scale, example of this is the “Family of Man” exhibit that was produced in the United States. This exhibit was one of “503 photographs of men, women, and children” (Turner, “The Family of Man and the Politics of Attention in Cold War America, p. 55). The other example to explore is the development of the United Nations’ Human Rights Declaration which lauded a great amount of support for individual human rights. The “Family of Man” has tended to be seen through a lens of negative judgment because of its lack of representation of U.S. society. The Declaration is often seen through a lens of positive acclaim of how a new order revolving around humanity was coming into the world stage. A historical analysis of these two events demonstrate that they are closely connected in that they are soaking in a great amount of ambiguity that deserves more focus.

In his essay, “The Family of Man and the Politics of Attention in Cold war America,” historian Fred Turner argues that “[the exhibit curator,] Steichen and his colleagues hoped to find a way to help Americans embrace their differences and to make them the basis of national unity” (p. 58). Turner enters into the argument by making it clear that he is making no attempt at racist apologetics. There is no denying that the set up of the exhibit was rather exclusive. Nonetheless, Turner acknowledges that this exclusivity was likely a product of its time. There were many parts of the exhibit that would prove to discount the reality that there was any intentional racial or otherwise discriminatory motives in the development. Turner effectively explains this reality by surveying the layout of the exhibit and how this encourages people to go on their own journeys through the subject matter presented to them. He argues that the exhibit was not as problematic as more modern sensibilities portray.

While lauding the observance of universal human rights, British historian Mark Mazower poses the question: “[D]id the United Nations usher in ‘the idea of our time’-‘the first international document of ethical value’ as some of its supporters have claimed?” (“The Strange Triumph of Human Rights,” p. 396). He explores the nuance of this question through two different lenses. He proposes that the upholding of human rights could have come out of one of two different motivators. The first motivator was rooted in the work of Eleanor Roosevelt, that human rights were championed by “noble and heroic individuals [who] shamed the Powers into action by their tireless advocacy of the cause” (“The Strange Triumph of Human Rights,” p. 380). His other proposition is that the pursuit of human rights was ultimately a result of “widespread revulsion at Nazi wickedness” (p. 380). He quickly concludes that neither of these explanations are sufficient (p. 381). Both of these are too polarized and do not give enough to cover all of the great nuances of the actual developments.

The United States was a case study used by Mazower to explain the nuances of these issues. He presents that “[t]he administration felt caught between the Scylla of isolationists… and the Charybdis of internationalists” (“The Strange Triumph of Human Rights,” p. 391). This presents the U.S. in the light of making decisions based on public opinion and national interest. This meant that not everyone involved, or many involved, were concerned most with the development of an international standard for human rights. Mazower does not present this as if the resolution for human rights was ultimately wrong, rather he simply points out that everything is not as black and white as it is often presented.

Both Turner and Mazower attempt to put two commonly accepted things on their head. They require the reader, the historian, the critical thinker, to evaluate the true facts and contexts of the matter at hand. They do not settle for a twenty-first century, surface-level interpretation of the facts. They are entering into the ambiguity of history. With the ambiguity, they bring with them shrouds of uncertainty as it becomes more and more challenging to come to satisfactory conclusions about the events that happened in the postwar era.

Bibliography

Mazower, Mark. “The Strange Triumph of Human Rights, 1933-1950.” The Historical Journal 47, no. 2 (2004): 379-398. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X04003723.

Turner, Fred. “The Family Man and the Politics of Attention in Cold War America.” Public Culture 24, no. 1 (2012): 55-84. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-1443556.