Analele Universităţii Bucureşti
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANALELE UNIVERSITĂŢII BUCUREŞTI LIMBI ŞI LITERATURI STRĂINE 2014 – Nr. 1 SUMAR • SOMMAIRE • CONTENTS LITERATURĂ ŞI STUDII CULTURALE / LITTÉRATURE ET ÉTUDES CULTURELLES / LITERATURE AND CULTURAL STUDIES A SELECTION OF PAPERS: EDITH WHARTON’ S NEW YORK DANIEL WALKOWITZ, Elites in Crisis: Edith Wharton’s Old New York Confronts Modernity .............................................................. 5 DANIELA DANIELE, “Refugee Raiders”: Edith Wharton’s Neglected Stories of Urban Philanthropy .......................................................... 19 VERENA LASCHINGER, The Function of Photography in Edith Wharton’s The House of Mirth ........................................................ 31 BRIGITTE ZAUGG, From Fifth Avenue to Boarding House: Setting in The House of Mirth .......................................................................... 47 HRISTO BOEV, Pale Spaces in The House of Mirth – Images of a Disembodied New York ................................................................... 57 2 DANIEL J. WALKOWITZ OANA ALEXANDRA ALEXA, Social Conflicts and Change in Edith Wharton’s New York ....................................................................... 67 NICOLETA PETUHOV, Dinner and Society in Edith Wharton’s Age of Innocence ......................................................................................... 77 RALUCA ANDREESCU, “Traditions That Have Lost Their Meaning Are the Hardest of All to Destroy”: Divorce in Edith Wharton’s New York ......................................................................................... 87 RALPH POOLE, Having Sex Like a Man: The Postfeminist Single Girl in the Age of Un-innocence ............................................................. 95 * Recenzii • Comptes rendus • Reviews ......................................................... 105 Contributors ............................................................................................... 109 A Selection of Papers: Edith Wharton’s New York The following papers were presented at the international conference Edith Wharton's New York, held on September 19-20, 2013 at the Romanian Academy. A report of this event can be read at: The European Study Group of 19th Century American Literature (http://www.eaas.eu/eaas-networks/ european-study-group-of-19th-century-american-literature) ( EAAS European Association of American Studies - Official Website) ELITES IN CRISIS: EDITH WHARTON’S OLD NEW YORK CONFRONTS MODERNITY DANIEL J. WALKOWITZ Abstract Edith Wharton writes in the midst of a social crucible -- the profound transformation of work and capitalism in the era between 1890 and World War in which class and race relations were being forged and contested. Her life and corpus raise three questions that complicate and elaborate the differences within the bourgeoisie that emerges in mid-nineteenth century New York. First, how Old New York fits into this putatively “cohesive” bourgeoisie. Second, how the story of elite class formation changes after 1896 during the years Wharton is both struggling with social dictates and is writing her major works. Third, how gendered and familial imperatives of modernity shape bourgeois culture in the early twentieth century as old and new elites confront modernity. Keywords: elites, modernity, gender, bourgeoisie, class. Two salient features of modern New York help contextualize thinking about Wharton and her corpus: first, in Wall Street and Greenwich Village, New York paradigmatically represents both America and NOT America; New York is both a symbol of American materialist culture and of the anti- materialist counterculture. Second, the symbolic centers of the materialist culture, Wall Street, and the counterculture, Greenwich Village, are only about three miles apart. Political and cultural radicals have made Greenwich Village an American beacon for a bohemian alternative culture since the mid-nineteenth century. And the division between these two cultures reflects the centrality of Manhattan – the county with the greatest inequality in the country – in the national, world and Wharton imagination. Indeed, the radical political and counter-cultural opposition, claiming the mantle of “the 99%” led the march downtown to Occupy Wall Street against the privileged 1%. For social class relations, as E.P Thompson emphasized in his class study of the English working class, are relational and elites define themselves as much against one another as against the working class and poor. Thus, demands by the 99% for a (large) piece of New York University, [email protected] 6 DANIEL J. WALKOWITZ the elite’s privilege have animated substantive struggles among elites for both cultural and political capital and over how to deal with the uppity 99%. This story begins in the first half of the nineteenth century, when Edith Wharton’s parents were themselves children. Her parents, Lucretia Rhinelander and George Frederick Jones were an archetypical Old New York family. This Old New York was, of course, the culture of the Dutch and English who followed – the old landholders to whom the Dutch West Indies Company granted much of New York and the Hudson Valley as an inducement to settle and the English merchants who made money on slave trade, rum and sugar. The Rhinelanders were related to the Rensselaers, the wealthy Dutch patrons who settled seventeenth-century New Amsterdam, and with vast inherited wealth, the Jones luxuriated; indeed, some argue the expression “keeping up with the Jones” was based on them. Edith was baptized in the historic Episcopalian Grace Church in the heart of Greenwich Village and spent four early years with her family traveling and living in Europe. When her family returned from Europe in 1872, they settled back into the grand family home at14 W. 23th St., in the area that was fast becoming the fashionable cultural center of the city. In 1879, Edith was appropriately introduced to New York Society. Edith’s birth in 1862, in the midst of the Civil War and a year before the bloody draft riot scarred the city, occurred at a transformative moment for New York elites. The historian Sven Beckert in his classic text, The Monied Metropolis, notes how the City’s economic elite “remade” themselves between 1850 and 1896 as a “self-conscious and inordinately powerful New York upper class.” Indeed, a front-page New York Times story on April 6, 2013 headlined, “In History Departments, Its Up With Capitalism,” highlighted Beckert’s book as the centerpiece of a new history of capitalism that was taking American universities by storm. The New Social History of 1960s and “history from below” had recovered the history of subalterns – notably that of African Americans, the working class women – but had considered elites, if at all, largely as dead white men – and only as a part of political and economic history. In the wake of the Great Recession of 2008, historians like Beckert gave new attention to the 1 percent. The Old New York elite, according to Beckert, prided itself on not having to ‘dirty itself’ with work. It looked with disdain upon ostentatious displays of wealth increasingly associated with the new industrialists and nascent consumer culture. In their studies of Rochester shopkeepers and Utica “middle-class” families respectively, historians Paul Johnson and Mary Ryan have shown how a new market capitalism of the ante-bellum “burnt-over district” challenged older values. However, notes Beckert, older merchant/land holder elites and newer industrial capitalists remain divided as a social class until the Civil War. The end of slavery (though of course not racism and racial inequities) allowed ELITES IN CRISIS: EDITH WHARTON’S OLD NEW YORK 7 CONFRONTS MODERNITY elites to come together in the postwar era as a “bourgeoisie,” in Becket’s words, as a “cohesive group with a shared identity. “This bourgeoisie consolidated as a social class against the backdrop of the organization of the working class in the first half of the century, that is, against the formation of the American industrial proletariat. But Beckert’s story locates bourgeoisie’s class formation in the period after the Civil War and the end of Reconstruction, when as the historian Eric Foner has noted, the federal government brought its troops north where they would be mobilized in 1877 on behalf of capital to defeat the national railroad strike. Beckert focuses on how the class coheres, but he emphasizes as well the diversity of this “entrepreneurial bourgeoisie.” Merchants and new finance capitalists came together in support of possessive individualism and in opposition to the “dangerous classes,” but economic elites, he notes, are “deeply divided and notorious unstable,” divided according to different sources of capital and “sharply diverging… cultural and political imperatives” on the one hand, and by religion and political party affiliations, on the other hand. Unlike the old elites who had made their fortunes from land and trade tied to the slave, sugar and plantation economy (remember, New York merchant ships transported slaves and sugar and plantations were in debt to is banks), the new elites increasingly consisted of manufacturers, retailers and finance capitalists – and the legions of lawyers and politicians who gave the class political leverage. Absentee owners of the new monopolies and oligopolies – such as Armour (meat packing, 1864), Rockefeller (oil, 1884), Carnegie (steel, 1867) and Guggenheim (Colorado mining, 1889) – integrated their operations and relocated their families and fortunes to New