Extended Essay in History the Resettlement Administration/Farm Security Administration Photography Project During the Great Depression
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Extended Essay in History The Resettlement Administration/Farm Security Administration photography project during the Great Depression Research Question: To what extent was the Resettlement Administration/Farm Security Administration’s photography project during the Great Depression, from the year 1935 to 1942, propagandistic? Candidate Name: Gabriel Civita Ramirez Candidate Number: 0353_ _ _ May 2016 Session Escola Graduada de São Paulo EE Subject: History EE Advisor: Charlie Potter/Ocki Fernandes Word Count: 3953 Civita Ramirez 1 Abstract During the Great Depression, the Resettlement Administration (RA) sent out a dozen photographers to document the United States on film. Nowadays, the photographs’ artistic qualities are indisputable, but what often seems to stir up debate is whether the program had propagandistic intentions. Some scholars, like James Curtis, argue that the RA/FSA photographs aren’t representative of the truth and were propaganda. Others argue that the photographs have accurately depicted reality during the Depression. My Extended Essay sets to answer “To what extent was the Resettlement Administration/Farm Security Administration’s photography project during the Great Depression, from the year 1935 to 1942, propagandistic?” To answer this question, I examined the political and visual context that influenced and led to the project’s creation. Additionally, I examined how the photographers were instructed on what to photograph, how they photographed, and how the images were later edited and distributed. I looked into these factors from the year 1935 to 1942. The political context suggests that the photography program was created to convince politicians, the press, and the public that the RA’s farming programs were effective. Additionally, the project’s interests were clearly aligned with the documentary photography movement’s main goal: to promote social change. Not only is there is evidence that the photographs were edited to bring about a political and social response, the very methods the photographers practiced, among other factors, led to significant bias. Not only so, but from 1936 onwards the photographers were ordered to emphasize growth in their images. Moreover, many of these images found themselves in social welfare journals and government publications. In Civita Ramirez 2 sum, since the project fails to prove it’s impartiality on the many levels investigated, it is evident that it was propagandistic, even if it wasn’t entirely deceitful. Word Count: 290 Civita Ramirez 3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4 2. Method................................................................................................................................ 5 3. Context 3.1. Political context...................................................................................................... 6 3.2. Visual context..........................................................................................................8 4. Content...............................................................................................................................10 5. Conclusion.........................................................................................................................14 6. Appendix A........................................................................................................................19 7. Appendix B........................................................................................................................20 8. Appendix C........................................................................................................................20 9. Appendix D........................................................................................................................21 10. Works Cited.......................................................................................................................22 Civita Ramirez 4 1. Introduction: In the midst of the Great Depression, President Roosevelt began creating agencies as part of the New Deal in an effort to assist the poorest communities in the United States. Among the many organizations established was the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA). In 1935, a branch of FERA with a similar goal was created: the Resettlement Administration (RA). It’s goal was to help those affected by the recent farm mechanization and the Dust Bowl. Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the members of Roosevelt’s Brain Trust, a team of trusted advisors, was put in charge of the agency. That same year, Tugwell established the Informational Division in the RA and hired Roy Stryker, whom he had worked with at Columbia University, to compile a photographic record of the RA’s activities. In turn, Stryker hired more than half a dozen photographers and deployed them across the country. “We set out to record on film as much of America as we could,” Stryker explained (qtd. in Carlebach 19) and he met his goal. In the project’s eightyear lifetime, more than 270,000 images were captured (qtd. in Finnegan 37), captioned, and sent to the RA/FSA headquarters in Washington for distribution. Around 20 years after the program’s closure, many images were rediscovered by art critics and scholars, leading to an increase in academic discourse (Finnegan 39). This new discussion, in turn, brought up a research question worthy of investigation that this Extended Essay attempts to answer: “To what extent was the Resettlement Administration/Farm Security Administration’s photography project during the Great Depression, from the year 1935 to 1942, propagandistic?” Some historians argue that the project was “painstaking, objective inquiry that disclosed the actuality of rural suffering during the Great Depression” given the “inherent Civita Ramirez 5 honesty and authenticity of all documentary photographs” (Curtis vii). Alternatively, some scholars argue that the RA/FSA photographs aren’t representative of the truth and are, in fact, propaganda. 2. Method In order to determine whether the photography project was propagandistic, I followed a set method. “Propaganda” is defined as “the systematic dissemination of information, esp. in a biased or misleading way, in order to promote a political cause or point of view” (qtd. in Meyer 23). With this definition in mind, propaganda can be visualized as a spectrum. On the far right lies propaganda that is blatantly deceitful and misleading. Quite often, this type of propaganda is the only type of information permitted in a society. On the other side of the spectrum exists subtle propaganda: information that delicately promotes a cause or a point of view. This type of propaganda is more frequent in functioning democracies. To determine whether the RA/FSA photography project was propagandistic, I examined the content the program produced from years 1935 to 1942. I looked into the following three factors, which aren’t mutually exclusive: If and how the photographers were instructed on what to photograph. How the photographers captured their images. How the images were edited and distributed. If the content proves to be completely impartial in these three areas, it can’t be propaganda. Alternatively, if the content is found to be biased, misleading, or promoting a point of view in Civita Ramirez 6 any of these three categories, it qualifies as propaganda. Consequently, it can be located somewhere in the propaganda spectrum. It’s position in the spectrum would vary relative to the level of bias and deceit. Regardless of it’s location in the spectrum, the project itself would, consequently, qualify as propagandistic (since it knowingly distributed the content). This Extended Essay also examines the context behind the photography project. It is important to note that while context, in and of itself, can’t deem the project propagandistic, it can provide us with a very accurate sense of the agency’s original intentions. By looking at content together with it’s sociohistorical context, it is easier to identify propaganda. 3. Context: 3.1 Political Context: It should come as no surprise that Roosevelt’s government was met with disapproval from the press and the public throughout the Great Depression. As of March 1933, for example, “at least one out of every four American workers were jobless and only about onequarter of those were receiving any relief, most of it grossly inadequate” (qtd. in Stevens and Fogel 12). From the people’s perspective, the government was to blame for the misery that had descended upon them. The countless Alphabet Agencies, created by Roosevelt as part of the New Deal, attempted to suppress the crisis. Some were successful in their respective areas, but that didn’t mean they were immune to criticism. The Resettlement Administration (RA), for instance, was constantly attacked by the media due to it’s controversial projects. These projects reflected the views of the RA’s first director: Rexford Guy Tugwell. Civita Ramirez 7 Tugwell wasn’t a small political figure in the 1930s. During part of the Great Depression, he served as undersecretary of the United States Department of Agriculture. More importantly, he was a member of the President's Brain Trust, a team of close, trusted advisors whose opinions had Roosevelt’s ear. Tugwell, however, was a radical individual, whose collectivist, political convictions were deeply troubling for many Americans. His views