Reviews for Free love

The average rating for Free love based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-10-07 00:00:00 Regina Nowak History of an attitude, studying its ramifications of through many complications. Sincerity. Hypocrisy. Major issues in the era for Americans. For all sorts of reasons. For one thing, cities exploded in this time, and that meant that people kept on meeting up with people they didn't know. One person wrote in a letter that, shockingly enough, she has only twice met someone she actually knew while walking the streets of Philadelphia. And many people had to work with people they didn't know and couldn't know. Apprenticeships, even, became rare. Worse, the spread of democracy meant that traditional authority was being upended, and people were rising in social status. Many advice books fulminated about how men could subvert the authority of fathers and clergy. The old Puritan habit of self-examination to determine whether one could be saved carried over nicely to the role of examining one's self's for hypocrisy. Especially since being a hypocrite was the great fear of the Puritan conscience. The "confidence man" was a major bogeyman in the cult of sincerity that arose as a consequence. A man who could allure the innocent young man to his doom by his false professions -- and worse, by his ability to read the unfortunate young man's feeling on his sincere and open face. One reason why the cult of domesticity emphasized the woman's role in the cult of sincerity was that it might prove fatal for the man's ability to manage, if he adhered strictly to its code. And it produce interesting ramifications. Fashion, for instance. Godley's Lady Book -- a fashion book -- railed against fashion and the attention women paid to it and how the dress should simply express the wearer's heart. Make-up was frowned on; not only did the "painted woman" hide her true face, she hid the paleness and blushes that expressed her sensibility. Dress abruptly turned from "romantic" fancy and adorned, to "sentimental" which was plain, close to the human form, and simple. Well, close to the human form in theory. Women used corsets and padding to fit it more closely. That was not fatal to the theory that the dress a woman wore merely put forth her sincere heart. What really didn't work was the problem that as soon as you put forth dress as expressing sincerity, any false fashion seeker could put it on. Etiquette was worse. Heavily complicated, demanding strict adherence ot many rule, stern in its demands for self-restraint -- and, in theory, the spontaneous overflow of a sincere heart. Etiquette books demanded a sincere and natural presentation, and scorned those who followed the rules woodenly. Mourning was particularly changed. In the old towns, everyone knew the dead, everyone participated in the funeral rites, and there was no division of the bereaved and the mourners. But in the new cities -- sentiment frequently underlined how alone and isolated the bereaved were, and how hard it was to reach them, and talked of the private expression of grief. At the same time, the rules of wearing mourning were in force, and department stores had mourning departments. Well, it did not last. The problem of hypocrisy and sincerity grew less morally earnest and more light-hearted. Fashion grew more convoluted and dropped its interest in expressing the wearer's soul. Etiquette started to demand only formal appearances. And middle-class America learned to love private theatricals. That's the problem with cults of sincerity. Faking is particularly disastrous to the cult.

Review # 2 was written on 2013-03-09 00:00:00 Nathan Luce In her 1983 work Confidence Men and Painted Women, University of Southern California historian Karen Halttunen examines the social norms of middle class Americans from the years 1830-1870. Confidence Men examines the manners and fashions of the Victorian era not in a critical fashion, but instead inquires, “Why did nineteenth-century conduct manuals represent hypocrisy, personified in the confidence man and the painted woman, as a major threat to American society?” In only two-hundred pages, Halttunen shows that for the better part of the nineteenth century, Americans viewed hypocrisy as a direct threat to the democratic process, and considered each of these figures as a “symbolic expression of moral and political decay in America.” Fluidity among classes in 19th century U.S. society compounded this fear. The possibility of upward or downward social mobility prompted an identity crisis for many middle class Americas. In their desire to appear as proper middle class citizens, urban Americans looked to identify themselves in opposition to confidence men and painted women. Both figures represented amorality and insincerity in, respectively, working and domestic social spheres. Put simply, both figures stood as examples of inauthenticity, or simply “passing for something they were not.” For this reason, middle-class citizens’ ideal appearance was to appear as industrious, modest and most importantly, sincere Americans. Halttunen begins by focusing on the threat of hypocrisy in American society. She attributes this threat to rapid economic expansion. Growing U.S. prosperity led to the possibility of upward economic mobility, which in turn sent many young men and women to urban areas. In their new urban setting, identity formation became confusing. No longer would personal reputation be contingent on one’s family, neighborhood, or church. Now, desperately searching for cultural signifiers, young Americans relied on attire and manners to distinguish themselves as proper middle class citizens. Yet, as Halttunen shows, there was a fine line between proper attire and the insincere looks of fashion. Both men and women strove for sincerity in their appearance. Men aimed to set themselves apart from “confidence men,” insidious characters that represented the antithesis of a hard working, religious individual. Confidence men corrupted the unsuspecting. They typically sprung onto city newcomers as friends. Under their wing young men were led into saloons, brothels and gambling houses, where they might lose their money, morals, or even their life. In short, young men came to be wary of confidence men, but perhaps more wary of appearing to be one. Confidence men had a female counterpart. The “painted woman” stood for hypocrisy in the domestic sphere. They represented a failure to adhere to 19th century virtue of sincerity. Nineteenth century society looked down on makeup, since sincere, clean living females would not need to cover blemishes that could only come from unclean living. In other words, society looked down upon confidence men and painted women because they focused on outside appearances to cover up their true, insincere inner-selves. To avoid the appearance of hypocrisy, middle class citizens tried to mold their appearance and demeanor in opposition to these powerful caricatures. To do so, citizens resolved themselves to the ideal of sincerity. Their dress, manners and rituals— including funerals—became public stages upon which one could establish their sincerity for all to see. In doing so, there arose an inherent contradiction to the ideals of 19th century behavior manuals: namely, that by focusing on the correct attire and etiquette to appear sincere renders the participant insincere. The rest of Halttunen’s book looks at society’s recognition of this contradiction, and ultimately the reconciliation of public appearance (or simply put, fashion) with personal sincerity. In short, by the Gilded Age, Americans had not only made peace with the division between ostensible outward appearance and supposed internal sincerity, but had learned to accept this contradiction as a social norm. Halttunen’s methodology utilizes secondary sources and conduct manuals of the era. Examples include: Seven Lectures to Young Men, The Spring-time of Life; or, Advice to youth, Young Ladies’ Friend. These revealing titles show a desire to guide young men and women on the path of proper conduct. Her most successful examination comes from the series of Godey’s Lady’s books, which never seem to be at a loss to guide young women in their etiquette. Yet, for as much detail as Halttunen puts into these guides, she surprisingly neglects the trend of new social history so prevalent at the time of this book’s research. Published in 1983, one might imagine that Halttunen might have paid more attention to data, if only to suggest the actual impact these guides may have had on readers of such literature. Without such data, scholars may be left wondering if the suggestions of these manuals were taken seriously by the majority of the middle class. In short, she does an excellent job in revealing what guides like Godey’s Lady’s were publishing, but does little to investigate how many people were reading these books, let alone taking their advice. Halttunen covers a lot of ground in Confidence Men and Painted Women, but the book’s organization makes it easy to follow. The fluidity with which chapters flow into each other, however, might actually detract from her historical interpretation, most notably in the book’s clear delineation between spheres of men and women. For example, Halttunen relegates women’s social role to the house, with a special emphasis on the parlor room. This room, which lay between personal, private quarters of the home and public sphere outside, acted as a liminal space in which women might perform their social graces. But Halttunen fails to fully examine the role men were supposed to play in this spatial borderland, a platform on which a hostess performed for her guests. Surely their male counterparts had well-prescribed roles in this social tarantella, yet they remain hidden from the analysis. Fashion also plays a key role in Halttunen’s work, but even though the title of the book is Confidence Men and Painted Women, the former of the pair receive short shrift in her analysis of clothing and apparel. Whether or not women paid more attention to their attire than men is not the point. More precisely, her clear division between male and female social roles fails to recognize the fluidity both men and women might have played in influencing each other’s spheres of existence. One cannot exactly blame Halttunen for this shortcoming—Joan W. Scott’s Gender and the Politics of History was not published until three years after Confidence Men. Nevertheless, historians should recognize the book’s limitation in the way of gendered analysis. Another missed opportunity comes with Halttunen’s scant comparisons to fashions and manners in the years beyond the scope of her work. Of course, historians make choices in the length of their analysis, and to be fair her examination of nineteenth century societal norms and fashions are nothing short of extensive. Yet, for all the detail paid to etiquette and attire, there remains little room for comparisons with the eras both proceeding the 1830s and following the 1870s. Put simply, a little more comparison would add much to the historical significance of her research and analysis. One glaring omission is Mary Ryan’s Cradle of the Middle Class, a social history which precedes and overlaps Halttunen’s examination both temporarily and analytically. A deeper understanding of the role social norms had on political appearance and rhetoric is an analysis that might add much to Halttunen’s work. For example, on page 34 she points out that for “Victorian Americans, hypocrisy was not merely a personal sin; it was a social offense that threatened to dissolve the ties of mutual confidence binding men together.” How did this adherence for sincerity hold especially true for politicians? Halttunen gives us a brief summation, but one based only on secondary literature. Also, what role did the Civil War play in shifting the emphasis away from sincerity and towards acceptable social hypocrisy? Was it too unnerving to hide away behind parlor-room doors when solders returned maimed (or not at all)? If she had addressed such issues, it could reveal about shifting ideas of sincerity in the face of national tragedy. With these queries in mind, it seems that in the end Halttunen’s well-written book might raise more questions than it answers.