Dilettantes at the Gate: Fortune Magazine and the Cultural Politics of Businessjournalism in the 1930S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Dilettantes at the Gate: Fortune Magazine and the Cultural Politics of BusinessJournalism in the 1930s Kevin S. Reilly• Departmentof History Universityof Massachusetts-,'lmherst During an interviewwith a Fortuneresearcher in the late 1940s,the impos- ing BethlehemSteel chairman EugeneGrace inquired about the Davenport boys, the children of his former company colleague,Russell Davenport, Sr. One of Davenport'ssons had servedas Fortune's managing editor and the other was an important staff editor throughout the 1940s."Well," the researcher offered,"Russell is writing poetry and John of courseis writing for Fortune." After a thoughtful moment Grace replied, "I knew their father well. A fine man. I alwayswondered why those boys neverwent to work" [Donoran, 1989, pp. 112-13]. This corporateexecutive's reaction was one in a long Anglo-Americantra- dition of characterizingthe writer as dilettante,but writers,of course,do work. They areusually subject to the sameeconomic pressures as other skilledwork- ers and they inhabit a literary labor market. Like everyoneelse in the years before World War II, writers were enmeshed in the social transformation sparkedby industrializationand corporateexpansion [West, 1988, pp. 9-14; Biel, 1992, pp. 11-53;Weber, 1997].The rise of advertisingfor massproduced retail goodsin the late 19th centuryled to a publicationboom in masscircu- lation magazines.Even the most talentednovelists earned much, if not most, of their livelihood from serializedfiction. By the 1920s,literary modernism owed someof its emergenceto the consumermagazines which helpedsustain famousfigures like F. Scott Fitzgerald,Ernest Hemingway, and John Dos Passos [Ohmann, 1996, p. 91; Strasser1989, Chap. 4; Wilson, 1985, pp. 40-62; West, 1988, pp. 43-44, 103-13]. The establishmentof large culture industriesin years after World War I brought the estrangedworlds of artist and businessexecutive together in new ways.Fortune magazine was part of a corporateexpansion in publishing,a lit- erarymarket that openedopportunities for youngwriters of all stripes.Fortune ' Thiswork is drawnfrom a dissertationin progressentitled "Corporate Stories: Fortune Magazine and the Makingof a ModernManagerial Culture," under the directionof KathyPeiss. The authorwould like to thankPhilip Scranton for hishelpful comments. ! also thank the Department of Historyand the Graduate Schoolof the Universityof Massachusetts-Amherst,andthe Centerfor the Studyof the AmericanSouth at the Universityof North Carolina4EhapelHill for financialsupport. BUSINESS,'INDECONOMIC HISTORY, Volume Twenty-eight, no. 2, Winter 1999. Copyright¸ 1999by the BusinessHistory Conference. ISSN 0894-6825 214 / KEVIN S. REILLY magazinewas a cross-roadswhere two emergingworlds met: that of urbanintel- lectualsand that of corporatemanagers. The former was cosmopolitanand heterosocial,the latter...wasusually just skepticalof the former. The writers Fortunecollected on staff were what historian Michael Denning calls "mod- erns,"those who would slideinto the PopularFront during the depressionbut in the late 20s and early 30s they were Ivy Leagueeducated and rather apoliti- cal [Denning, 1996, pp. 58-59, 83-85].All were magazinewriters by avocation only; they werepoets who had to make a living. But duringthe 1930s,Fortune engagedin a cultural,as well as a political, dialoguewith elite executives.In this exchange,each world contributedelements that would makeFortune sym- bolic of a new modern businesssophistication. This studyargues that Fortunemagazine had a prominentrole in shaping the way professionalbusiness managers imagined themselves-and were imag- ined by others-aspolitical and socialbeings. This particularpaper leaves aside many key elementsof that formation,to focuson the productionof represen- tationsof business.It offersa narrativeof businessengagement with modernism that assumesthe centralityof culturein corporatecapitalism. In 1975Louis Galambos concluded his studyof businessand publicopin- ion with the unhappyrealization that he and other businesshistorians had too often focusedon powerand organizationwhile leavingbelief systemsto other fields.They neededto view cultureas a causeof businessbehavior, not just an effect [Galambos, 1975, p. 264]. There have been recent businesshistories which addressculture, analyzing advertising themes, the effectsof youth cul- ture on business,and the genderedelements of corporatedevelopment [Marchand,1998; Lears, 1994; Frank, 1997;Strom, 1992;Kwolek-Folland, 1994]. Kenneth Lipartito's1995 essay"Culture and the Practiceof BusinessHistory" perhapsmarks the next step in Galambos'scall, by demonstratinghow con- temporarycultural theory forcesus to rethink notions of "rational" decision- makingand organizationalevolution as themselvesculturally contingent con- cepts.For the most part, however,cultural historians have seldomaddressed corporationsas subjects. James Livingston has rightly criticized academic intel- lectualsfor remainingaloof from the taintedfor-profit world, ratherthan treat- ing corporationsas sights of socialand culturalconflicts. "Maybe it's time," he writes,"we lookedin the mirror of corporateculture and recognizedourselves" [Livingston,1995]. Fortunemagazine was the product of a time and place dizzy with binge- ing. New York City in the 1920sattracted minds and money.As a publishing centerit drew intellectuals,artists, and writers,many of whom earnedmoney from both bohemian"little magazines"and the commercial"slicks." The city was the new global banking capital, and it encouragedin Manhattan the developmentof dazzlingoffice towers.At the sametime, urbanleisure activ- ities like film houses,amusement parks, and speakeasiesseemed to be chisel- ing awayat someof Victorian culture'smore oppressivedimensions. The jobs and jazzy atmosphereappealed to a new crop of collegegraduates and inde- DILETTANTESAT THE GATE / 215 pendent writers; and the lush economic times appealedto young entrepre- neurs and speculators. Where intellectual adventure met businessacumen, you had Henry tL Luce. Henry Luce spent his childhood in China with his missionaryparents but returned to the United States to be educated at Hotchkiss and Yale. He puzzledover his futurewhile at Yale,unsure whether to pursuehis literarygifts or settlefor the more comfortablelife he was assuredin business.After a year in Oxford and a little more in newspapers,Luce rejoinedhis Yale Daily Ne'•s colleagueBriton Hadden. They fulfilled an old plan to publish a newsmaga- zine. In 1923they cameout with Time.The weeklymagazine basically repack- agednews printed in TheNew •brk Timesto makereading more "efficient."Time found an upper-middleclass audience, and by 1930 its circulationclimbed to three hundred thousand. When Luce took full control of the successful com- pany after Hadden'sdeath in 1929,he followedthrough on plansto publisha businessmagazine-Fortune-one he describedas the "absolutemost beautiful" [Baughman,1987, pp. 8-61;Elson, 1968, pp. 3-122;Herzstein, 1994, pp. 24-55; Swanberg,1972, pp. 1-80]. Henry Lucewas undaunted by the risk of publishinga magazinethat was marketedto a "horizontal" businessaudience. • Luce alwayshad a granderaudi- ence in mind than any trade journal would allow. His thinking, in fact, was lofty, as would becomeevident to everyonein his famousL/fi editorial"The American Century." In the late 1920s,he was focusedon the fundamental effectsthat large scalecorporations were having on classdevelopment as he understoodit. Luce heraldedthe managerialrevolution before it gainedthat popular name, but he worried that professionalmanagers did not understand the implications.He prophesiedto his businesspeers that they would eventu- ally havenetworks of colleagueswho all spokethe samelanguage, and wereless and lessdissimilar "as to background,taste, and generalcomportment." By 1950 when executivesfrom different industries met, Luce was sure they all would recognizeone another [Jessup,1969, pp. 219-24].This group, he imag- ined, was Fortune'sfertile market of readers. Luce saw himself as a businessprogressive, who wished to elevatemale executivesabove their persistentcrassness so that they might betterfulfill their role as society'snew aristocracy.He wished them to "take in a few less leg showsand a little more literature."These progressivethemes had been suc- cessfulin sellinghis magazineTime throughout the 1920sso he naturallyused them to hype Fortune.As Luce told it, Fortunewould contributeto the sym- bolic universebusinessmen could draw upon to become a professionalmana- gerialclass worthy of its power. Luce discoveredthat to achievehis goal, Fortunewould work best as a devil's advocate.The prevailingbusiness magazines were uncritical and often 2 McGraw-Hillhad made its successpublishing trade journals, but beforeit cameout with Business V•ek(itself inspired by Time)a fewmonths prior to Fortune'sappearance, there was not a competitivemar- ket for generalbusiness magazines [Burlingame, 1959, p. 257]. 216 / KEVIN S. REILLY reliedon ghost-writtenarticles signed by famousnames. The earlyFortune plans went in the same direction,but the tone and method of the magazinewere redefinedduring an experimentalarticle. In Septemberof 1928, Time'sbusiness writer ParkerLloyd-Smith and researcherFlorence Horn attemptedan experi- mental story on InternationalTelephone and Telegraph.ITT's secretiveman- agerscompletely stone-walled them. Nonetheless,the teamwas able to produce a thorough and detailedarticle using public materials.Hoyd-Smith noted their discoveryto Luceand a few monthslater