Over the course of this semester, we explored many layers of “in betweenness.” I enjoyed that aspect of the class; it made every week different, but it was still easy to see the links between people who were marginalized by their race, gender, ethnicity, or other difference.
Throughout our discussions and readings, it became increasingly clear that so many of these differences are manufactured. Mae Ngai discussed different notions of whiteness, showing that this quality was not always observable, evident or definable. Even the Supreme Court and lower U.S. Courts struggled to codify these definitions, but the results, in many senses, were very arbitrary. Courts, employers, politicians, and even neighbors created palatable definitions of “whiteness” according to their own beliefs and needs. These definitions were constructed to limit opportunities for undesirable members of American society, particularly immigrants. It is no accident that the Court heard a spate of cases related to these “definitions” in the late 1910s and 1920s. These cases corresponded with an influx of immigrants, and “native” Americans suddenly felt they needed the law to secure their places against the new, sometimes different-looking arrivals.
Similarly, around this time, we witnessed elite Americans trying to manufacture ideas of propriety and decorum; these constructions specifically related to women and their place in the increasingly industrial society. In order to distinguish themselves from the lower, working classes, elite women tried to set themselves apart based on their clothes, residences and choice of leisure activities. These constructions were largely arbitrary, and, like the attempts to define “whiteness,” were based more on convenience and the desire to set oneself apart.
These were all efforts to define people; to set people apart; to create an easy, visible shorthand which would permit easy recognition of “insiders” and “outsiders.” All these attempts to do so suggest that this era was characterized by change, uncertainty and self-consciousness. The late eighteenth century witnessed a country reeling from the Civil War and Reconstruction, and the 1920s and 1930s witnessed a country struggling to come to terms with the first World War. It was a time of uncertainty and change, exacerbated by the continued arrival of new immigrants, who were perceived as threats to the established order. Perhaps if the country had been a bit more secure in its identity, citizens would not have reacted quite so violently to these newcomers. Instead, I think everyone—elites and workers alike—felt the need to establish themselves in opposition to others in this new, uncertain world. I’m sure the “natives” still would have treated immigrants somewhat hostilely, but I wonder if the circumstances combined with their intrinsic suspicion to exacerbate the tensions and fuel the creation of these often arbitrary social categories and definitions.
Following the completion of this course, “In Between Peoples,” I better understood not only those people who were considered to be in between in nature but also the structural institutions that hindered them. The various books we read this semester highlighted various groups that were systematically excluded from mainstream American society following the Civil War and continuing until the 1940s. These groups included new immigrants, women, middle-class workers and African Americans just to name a few. Furthermore, these books also detailed the structural institutions which prohibited the complete assimilation of these “in between” peoples. Put differently, all of the texts we read highlighted the structural violence that functioned to preserve the dominance of the established Americans and consequently, disenfranchised the “in between peoples.” Such institutions that perpetuated the social strata in America included religious institutions, health care systems, educational institutions, political organizations and employment options. It is important to note, however, that there are several other institutions that are guilty of this structural violence.
This class was a natural extension from American Civilization One and Two. During my first year as an American Studies major, I grappled with the definition of an American citizen. As a class we read various texts that described the formation of America. Many of these texts outlined the qualities many Americans should embody. They described the values of American citizens and the ideals they held as well. In this class however, we discussed those people who challenged these very perceptions as “in between peoples.” We studied how these Americans were studied last year clarified their definitions of who was and was not American in an effort to keep the “others” out. It was interesting to see how these the initial perceptions were challenged and subsequently revised to keep certain people in and certain people out. Astoundingly, this is a theme that continues in today’s society as well.
Erin
December 3rd, 2007
To be honest, it’s hard to pinpoint just what I’ve learned about inbetweenness and inbetween peoples in this class – but I mean that in a good way. For me, the class was less about specific subject matter and more about shaping the way I think about such a complex subject. Of course, that’s not to say that I haven’t learned a thing or two about what comprises some classic inbetween peoples like Joe Christmas and Gail Hightower, Mary Mallon, working-class women in NY at the turn of the 20th century, and many others.
I’ve learned to think about inbetweenness by considering that there are racial, ethnic, religious, gender, class, linguistic, psychological, institutional and other elements that determine a person’s inbetweenness – and I use the term “determine” deliberately; I have learned to think of inbetweenness as a manufactured product, whether it is self-manufactured, manufactured by societal expectations, laws and institutions or otherwise.
This course also served as a nice complement to American Civ I and II because rather than investigate who is American and what is American by reading the likes of Franklin’s autobiography and Crevecouer, we got to study peoples who defy traditions and standards of what it means to be American, and how they challenged and contributed to notions of national identity.
Heidi_Schultheis
December 4th, 2007