You are on page 1of 2

American Political Science Review Vol. 91, No.

In contrast to later chapters, the opening chapters of the American culture. As a result, artifice, pretense, and personal
book are not particularly helpful, at least to scholars of the invention are central components of U.S. political culture.
Christian Right. The first chapter covers familiar ground on Obviously, culture as entertainment and self-invention is
the theological divisions between neoevangelicals, fundamen- quite different from traditional European political cultures,
talists, and pentecostals/charismatics. It also cites the growth which root citizens in value, class, ethnic, or territorial
of religiously conservative churches in recent decades and the configurations.
corresponding decline of the mainline Protestant churches. Yet, all this is based on at least one bedrock American
Chapter 2 discusses the inapplicability of the status politics historical reality: racial subordination, which for Rogin is the
paradigm for explaining activism by religious conservatives, American equivalent of Original Sin. Blackface mime helped
the religiosity of the American people, and the mobilization whites remove the threat that real black voices might have
of religious conservatives following government intrusion presented to white domination. Thus, U.S. political culture
into their institutions. These chapters could have been ab- crystallized racial domination within the center of U.S.
breviated. politics.
Yet, Oldfield has produced a useful addition to the litera- These larger implications—which I have drawn out from
ture. He contributes to our understanding of the Christian Rogin—depend partly for their truth on the strength of
Right's "up-and-down" relationship with the GOP. He de- Rogin's analysis of blackface film. On this subject I have
scribes the movement's evolving character, reinforcing many reservations. Rogin plunges into his analysis without
themes prevalent in the literature, such as greater sophisti- offering a clear or coherent statement of how culture works in
cation and more mainstream approaches to politics. The politics and society. Therefore, the reader must reconstruct
book provides a benchmark for interpreting events in the Rogin's theoretical assumptions, as I have attempted to do.
GOP in future election cycles. It is recommended reading for Moreover, as Rogin admits, as early as the 1930s Hollywood
scholars of the Christian Right, the Republican Party, or the was turning out westerns, gangster films, high society musi-
conservative movement in general. cals (Astaire and Rogers), melodramas, and comedies galore.
In the postwar period,filmnoir and anticommunist visions of
America entered the Hollywood tradition. The large and
Hollywood's America: Social and Political Themes in Motion growing range of genres problematizes the singular influence
Pictures. By Stephen Powers, David J. Rothman, and of blackface.
Stanley Rothman. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996. While Rogin's own interpretations of blackface are consis-
298p. $75.00 cloth. $22.95 paper. tently stimulating, they cannot substitute for evidence about
Blackface, White Noise: Jewish Immigrants in the Hollywood how Americans responded to the films. Certainly, most
Melting Pot. By Michael Rogin. Berkeley: University of audiences could not have seen blackface in Rogin's complex,
California Press, 1996. 339p. $24.95. poststructuralist terms. Ultimately, we must rely on Rogin's
own logic of argument to gauge the strength of his analysis.
Richard M. Merelman, University of Wisconsin, Madison Unfortunately, this logic is often obscure, buried under layers
These two books are important chapters in their authors' of mystifying jargon, unconvincing assumptions, and specu-
long-term investigations into U.S. political culture. As an lative assertions.
oddly matched pair, they demonstrate there is far more to the Moreover, Rogin never effectively explains why the racial
recent "renaissance" in the study of political culture than the "other" in blackface should have been the ticket to Ameri-
controversies over postmaterialism and social capital. One canization for Jewish immigrants. Why should playing the
can only hope these two books receive their fair share of "lowest" ingratiate Jews with the "best" white Americans?
attention. Rogin appreciates and illuminates the tragic interplay of Jew
Rogin offers a multilayered consideration of blackface and and black in U.S. culture, but he does not quite explain it.
the minstrelsy tradition in U.S. films, with particular empha- In contrast to Rogin, Powers, Rothman, and Rothman
sis on Al Jolson and his seminal The Jazz Singer. Heavily offer an explicit theory of Hollywood's political role—an elite
indebted to recent cultural theory, Rogin presents a complex theory, which foregrounds the power of institutional leader-
interpretation that interweaves historical, psychoanalytic, ship in U.S. politics. Their analysis of the filmmaking elite
economic, technological, sociological, and political argu- relies on interviews in 1982 with 96 writers, producers, and
ments. Given the range of his analysis, it is not surprising that directors of the 50 top-grossing films of the preceding 17
the reader has to leap deftly to keep up. The effort, however, years, coupled with an unprecedentedly comprehensive con-
is worthwhile; indeed, even when Rogin is at his most tent analysis of 159 popular films from 1946 to 1990 and
problematic, he offers more insight than most writers on U.S. another 25 from 1990 to 1994.
politics and culture. The authors provide evidence that in 1982filmmakerswere
Rogin's basic thesis is that blackface roles in film helped far more politically liberal, alienated, and supportive of
transform immigrant Jews into assimilated Americans. But "expressive individualism" (the "free expression and satisfac-
Jewish success in appropriating blackface roles reinforced tion of individual desires in the pursuit of the good life") than
black subordination, for it prevented blacks from speaking were most ordinary Americans and virtually all other social
for themselves. Because whites could play at being black, and political elites. In addition, the content analysis reveals
blacks could not define their own public reality. Even after increasing proportions of films critical of established policy
the blackface musical disappeared in the 1930s its legacy and military authorities, traditional religion, and the rich.
influenced postwar racial "problem films," comedies, and (Curiously, no data are reported about film depictions of
musicals. As a result, Hollywood still does not provide much specifically political institutions.) Readers who have followed
cultural support for black empowerment. the culture wars of the last decade will not find these data
This argument is sufficiently controversial that it may surprising.
obscure the most stimulating implications of Rogin's analysis, But what sets Hollywood's America apart from other main-
which go beyond blackface. Because the cultural traditions of stream social science studies of popular culture is its use of
Europe could not sustain themselves in America, Rogin elite theory for explanatory purposes. The authors contend
suggests that popular entertainment essentially became that liberal, antiauthority trends in film do not reflect chang-

753
Book Reviews: AMERICAN POLITICS September 1997

ing public tastes but, rather, changes within the film industry Drawing the Line: Legislative Ethics in the States. By Alan
itself, especially the demise of the studio system, the end of Rosenthal. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1996.
film censorship, the rise of television, the coming of indepen- 268p. $40.00.
dent producers, and the emergence of new film rating
Gerald Benjamin, SUNY, New Paltz
systems. These factors have combined to shift power within
the industry toward more liberal, alienated, and expressively "Sit down," the Speaker gestured. (A bad sign. She stayed
individualistic factions, whose films spring from their own behind her desk.) "I've been looking over your mileage.
quite jaundiced view of American life. Don't you car-pool with a couple of other members?" "Sure,"
Sustaining this argument empirically would require that the freshman legislator said. "But I thought everyone just
overtime data on the film elite's attitudes be compared with billed for the mileage, whoever drives. It's a way for making
shifts in film content. A single cross-sectional elite sample up for the pay being so low." "No," the Speaker responded.
(with only a 64% response rate) is not sufficient to establish "We bill for actual expenses. It's better that way: for the
the argument. After all, at an earlier (pre-1982) period, there legislature: for our majority: and for you." A small lesson in
may have been sizable gaps between film content and elite ethics from a leader to a member, delivered early and
attitudes, gaps attributable to external political forces uncon- effectively—before a scandal broke, before a problem be-
sidered by the authors. For example, the "proauthority" films came a crisis. This kind of leadership, willing to set and
of the 1950s may have had something to do with the enforce ethical standards by example and action, is one of
anticommunist attacks on Hollywood in that period, rather Alan Rosenthal's principal recommendations for dealing
than filmmakers' social views, which may well have been with the burgeoning concern for the perceived decline of
quite liberal even then. In short, contra Powers, Rothman, ethical behavior in American state legislatures.
and Rothman, the filmmaking elite does not operate in a Formal actions that codify ethical standards—laws, rules,
political void. regulations—can be some help, Rosenthal acknowledges.
Moreover, the content analysis, though generally persua- After initial skepticism, for example, he came to see merit in
sive, contains some troubling anomalies. For example, what statutes barring lawmakers from taking even a "single cup of
might Powers, Rothman, and Rothman have to say about the coffee" from lobbyists. Such laws, the author now thinks,
recent, hugely successful Apollo 13, which lauds military work to reduce members' sense of obligation to lobbyists and
astronauts and NASA officials in terms as resoundingly may help alter the "capitol culture" in the states in salutary
patriotic as any in a John Wayne epic? Lacunae of this ways.
sort—along with questionable qualitative observations by the But there is a serious downside to this approach. Laws tend
authors—exaggerate the antiauthority shift in film content to proliferate, creating complexity and often leaving mem-
over time. bers defensive and uncertain about what is required of them.
Under such conditions, the focus inexorably shifts from
The argument also encounters theoretical problems. Since internalized consensual standards of behavior to enforce-
the authors report no findings on audience responses to the ment of detailed codes, with a predictable diminution of the
films in their sample, the extent of elite influence on the reputation of the legislative process each time an offense,
public is at best conjectural. Moreover, if film elites are as however small, is discovered.
powerful as the authors assume and elite theory requires, why Rosenthal is one of the foremost advocates for legislatures
is this fact not reflected in public opinion? Should not a among American political scientists of this generation. This
powerful film elite be able to turn the public toward its own fine book is the most recent manifestation of his worry that
ideological direction? According to the authors, public opin- we are making it harder and harder for our representative
ion in the United States rejects the antiauthority, liberal institutions to function effectively. "There are signs today,"
ideology of thefilmmakingelite and theirfilms.What kind of Rosenthal writes, "that the institutional fabric of the
power, then, dofilmmakershave? Indeed, why call them an legislature is unraveling" (p. 6). Increasingly, he thinks,
elite at all? institutional life and behavioral standards are being de-
In an appendix to this study David Rothman attacks film fined not within but outside legislatures, most often by
theorists, including Michael Rogin, for a multitude of sins. unsympathetic critics in the media who barely understand
The most important of these alleged failings is the poststruc- the houses they cover.
turalist assumption that film does not represent society but But as Rosenthal also notes, legislators themselves share
actually defines it; that traditional social science methods are some of the blame for the condition of our state representa-
useless in the analysis offilms;and that U.S.filmsconstitute tive bodies. For leaders preoccupied to a greater degree than
a conservative defense of repression in America, all of which ever with campaign politics and the retention of power,
views are at sharp variance with Powers, Rothman, and effective policymaking and guardianship of the legislature's
Rothman. I agree with the methodological critique, but it is institutional stakes become distinctly secondary. This results
wrong to accuse Rogin of treating films as defining U.S. in law making at its worst—government as one more tool for
society. The opposite is in fact true: Rogin's entire argument raising campaign funds and gaining partisan advantage.
is based on the historical reality of slavery and racial If anything, Rosenthal understates the problem. What we
subordination, which gave rise to the ideological masks of are witnessing is hypertechno-democracy consuming repre-
blackface. Moreover, as Hollywood's America demon- sentative government. The qualities required for legislatures
strates, conventional social science methods do not assure to work are interpersonal trust, civility, and a willingness to
objectivity in the analysis of political culture. Nor are such find common ground. All of these are poisoned by the
methods able to achieve poststructuralism's creative and instruments of political change that have become dominant
subtle—though speculative—interpretations of culture in an era of entrenched incumbency bolstered by big, inside
and politics. Rogin and Powers, Rothman, and Rothman money: relentless, continuous personal attack politics; un-
have much to learn from one another; meanwhile, those compromising position taking; and the use of the criminal
interested in political culture can learn much from the indictment to build some careers and destroy others.
conversation between these two books. Both books deserve In this paralyzing political environment, Rosenthal pro-
to be read and pondered. poses that legislators and their leaders repair to three self-

754

You might also like