DIXON Chris

DIXON, Chris

Nanzan University Repository / 南山大学機関リポジトリ

Comments on: Dr. Yamamoto Akiyo’s“Reorganization of Gender Relations amongEast European Immigrants in the United States:Realities and Representations”CHRIS DIXONTHE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLANDDr. Yamamoto presents us with a fascinating paper exploring the experiencesof female Hungarian migrants to the United States during the late nineteenth andearly twentieth centuries. Acknowledging that those experiences were shaped inpart by popular images of immigrants, Dr. Yamamoto also considers the ways inwhich Hungarian women were represented in the United States. Examining thoseissues from a range of perspectives, she paints a picture of Hungarian womenimmigrants as a group who endured considerable social dislocation and hardship,but whose resilience and initiative enabled them to both adapt, and contribute, totheir new homeland. Dr. Yamamoto’s paper also raises a number of interestingquestions concerning American society and culture during a period characterizedby dynamic economic growth and challenges to the established political order andculture.The gendered nature of late nineteenth-and early twentieth-century Europeanmigration to the United States has long been apparent to historians. As Dr.Yamamoto notes, however, there are few detailed analyses of individualimmigrant women, or of women who belonged to specific national or religiousgroups. In particular, historians have paid scant attention to the experiences ofHungarian women who migrated to the United States. This paucity of specificsecondary studies exploring migrant women’s experiences has been only partlyaddressed by the growth of “women’ s history” and “gender studies.” Dr.Yamamoto’s paper helps fill that historiographical lacuna.Dr. Yamamoto points out that prior to 1911, relatively few Hungarian womenmigrated to the United States. During the next three years, however, there was adramatic transformation of immigration from Hungary, so that by the outbreak ofWorld War One, the number of Hungarian women migrating to the United Statesexceeded the number of male immigrants. This was a significant transformation,which raises several questions. First, it would be useful to have a little moredetail about the demographics of Hungarian migration to the United States.Precise statistics are no doubt elusive, but some more detail regarding thenumbers of migrants, their marital status, their place of origin in Hungary (beyondthe general point that most migrants were from rural areas), as well as the ratio of131NANZAN REVIEW OF AMERICAN STUDIESVolume 30 (2008): 131-135Proceedings of the NASSS 2008 Social Sciences IImale and female migrants, would all be useful for those of us unfamiliar with thisparticular migration to the United States.It would be useful, too, to know a little more about the class status of themigrant group under review. Dr. Yamamoto notes that some Hungarian men whohad already migrated to the United States sent instructions to family membersback in Hungary about how best to dispose of their land. Yet for some men, oneof the motives for migration was to send money home to Hungary to enable thefamily to purchase land or start a business. This implies they enjoyed middle-class, or at least lower-middle-class, status. And certainly the evidence presentedin this paper suggests―as we would expect―that most Hungarian migrantsbelonged to the working, rather than middle classes. That was certainly the viewof many other Americans, who resented the involvement of Hungarian and otherEastern European women in the bitter strike actions of the 1890s. Dr. Yamamotothus has the material at hand to contribute to our understanding of the specificclass origins and aspirations of, as well as gender relations amongst, theHungarian immigrant community in the United States. It would also be helpful toknow something about how many of those Hungarians who emigrated made theirhomes permanently in the United States. How many returned to Hungary?Again, such statistics might be difficult to locate, but even a general sense of thenumber of “returnees” would enhance the narrative. Finally, it would beinteresting to know specifically what happened in 1911 that prompted anincreasing number of Hungarian women to migrate to the United States.Dr. Yamamoto’s case study of Mária Sedlock’s experiences puts a human faceon the process of migration. Clearly, women such as Sedlock had relatively fewlife choices in Hungary, and Dr. Yamamoto is right to point out that emigrationwas one prospective means of securing material security and greateropportunities. Her description of the relatively “closed” nature of the Hungariancommunity in Mingo Junction, Ohio, and the consequent pattern of endogamy,was of course not particular to that community at that time. Amongst a range ofcomparable processes was that which had long occurred on the western frontier ofthe United States. By the late nineteenth-century Ohio was no longer on thefrontier as it was famously, if largely mythically described by Frederick JacksonTurner; but many of the traditions and practices of frontier life persisted longafter 1893, when Turner announced the frontier had closed.The nineteenth century also witnessed the rise of what historians have labeledas “companionate marriage.” For the women―and men―of Dr. Yamamoto’scase study, marriage was more a pragmatic decision than a romantic attachment.If Hungarian migrants to the United States made marital choices largely on thebasis of material, rather than romantic considerations, it would be useful to learn alittle more about their responses to the development of companionate marriage.For example, did expectations―on the part of Hungarian men as well aswomen―shift over time, and was romantic love considered to be an “American”phenomenon? If so, was companionate marriage amongst Hungarians aCHRIS DIXON132component of the process of “Americanization.”? As Dr. Yamamoto’s paperdemonstrates, Hungarian immigrants took matters of national loyalty andpatriotism very seriously, particularly during the First World War, which not onlypitted the Austro-Hungarian Empire against the Allies, but also encouragedHungarian nationalism and independence.As part of her broader discussion of gender relations amongst the Hungarianmigrant community, Dr. Yamamoto provides an interesting, and at timesdisconcerting, analysis of the practice of taking in “boarders.” Many nineteenth-century American families took in boarders, sometimes to ease the transition forrecently-arrived migrants, but usually to supplement the family budget. Nodoubt, despite the cramped conditions, which afforded little room for privatespace, the companionship of boarders was often welcomed. However, as Dr.Yamamoto reveals, the companionship that was sometimes expected, andapparently sometimes provided, was of the most intimate kind. Hungarianwomen who stayed at home to manage households in which there were boarderscould be exposed to sexual harassment, extending all the way, in some cases, toexpectations that they would provide sexual services to their boarders. This isperhaps the most interesting, and provocative part of Dr. Yamamoto’ spresentation. As well as raising fundamental questions concerning the nature ofdomestic economies amongst Hungarian immigrant families (for example, whatwas the size of migrant families, and were Hungarian migrants able to buy theirown property, or did they continue to live in rented accommodation?) she haschallenged us to think about the ways in which sexuality was constructed duringthe late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In effect, Dr. Yamamoto issuggesting that at least some Hungarian women were reduced to a form ofprostitution. This, in turn, raises challenging questions concerning thecommodification of women―particularly working class, migrant women―in aculture where women were expected to be living symbols of purity, and wheregender roles were constantly being challenged by social, political, and economicforces.Within the inevitable constraints of a conference presentation, Dr. Yamamotohas provided some tantalizing glimpses into the intimate lives of Hungarianmigrants. Whilst it is never a straightforward matter to analyze the most privateaspect of human behavior, there is scope to press the analysis further. Onequestion that came to mind concerned contraception: if some Hungarian womenwere resorting to a form of prostitution, were they able to exercise any choiceabout conception? What forms of contraception were available to them? What,indeed, did they know about family planning?I wondered, too, about men’s role―apart from the obvious one―in all of this.The fact that some Hungarian women were reduced to providing sexual servicesprompts questions about those who availed themselves of such services: werethey Hungarian men, other immigrants, or native-born Americans? Beyond theobvious determination of some men to satisfy their sexual urges, did men think ofComments on: Dr. Yamamoto Akiyo’s “Reorganization of Gender Relations among East European Immigrants in the United States”133all women as sexual objects? Did Hungarian men accept the prevailing culturalnorm in the United States, whereby women were regarded as morally superior tomen? Did they put “their” women on a pedestal, from which some womenapparently fell―albeit with a considerable “push” from sexually predatory men?The issues that Dr. Yamamoto raises concerning the sexual lives of Hungarianwomen also prompt further questions regarding relationships between Hungarianwomen and native-born “American women”―particularly those middle-classwomen who played such a significant role in shaping cultural norms ofwomanhood, and who were prominent in the reform movements of the day. Thisissue can be addressed from two perspectives. In the first instance, it would befascinating to learn more about the ways in which American feminists thoughtabout, and reacted to, the issues confronting women migrants from Hungary. It isoften asserted that the American feminist movement played little attention to theplight of migrant women. Separated from migrant women by language, custom,culture, and class, feminists often found it difficult to understand or empathizewith women whom they frequently considered uncultured, uncivilized, andperhaps unfit for the rights of citizenship. Nonetheless, even as the feministmovement focused on the struggle for women’s political rights, there was also arecognition that the underlying culture of sexism that sustained politicalinequalities could not be separated from that which commodified women andtheir labor―including their sexual and reproductive labor.This, in turn, raises questions about the relationship between Progressivismand migrant women. As we all know, and as our students inevitably remind us,Progressivism was an amorphous, often contradictory impulse. Yet if theProgressives did not constitute a coherent “movement,” they did share a numberof values, or at least principles. And whilst the feminist movement mightequivocate about the role of migrant women in American democracy, Progressivewomen labored to help migrants and working-class women. No doubt, that formof the Progressive spirit was less in evidence in smaller town, or rural areas, but inlarge urban centers such as Chicago and New York women such as Jane Addamsdevoted themselves to helping those less fortunate than themselves. Theiractivism sometimes reflected a middle-class distaste for what they considered asthe “dirty” habits of the migrant women forced to live in overcrowded, unhealthyconditions, and much of their work centered around teaching working-classwomen―who were often migrant women―how to maintain their domesticenvironments and their families in a healthy condition. Progressivewomen―including a few middle-class Hungarian women who involvedthemselves in the reform movements of the day―were thus seeking to extendtheir vision of women as protectors of the nation’s physical and spiritual welfare,and as the essential guardians of the next generation of Americans, to the millionsof women who arrived in the United States from the nations of Europe―includingHungary.In that context it is implausible that Progressive women were not appalled byCHRIS DIXON134the sexual abuse of migrant women. Adding to this clash of sexual values wasthe fact that during the post-bellum period a “purity crusade” sought toregulate―and ultimately abolish―prostitution and other forms of what wasregarded as sexual deviance. Purity crusaders’ complementary attempts toregulate contraception, and to prevent the distribution of information aboutcontraception―including the passage in 1873 of the notorious ComstockLaw―suggested the extent to which many middle-class reformers were alarmedby what they regarded as sexual promiscuity and the debasement of womanhood.It is beyond the scope of Dr. Yamamoto’s current paper to provide a detailedinvestigation of where Hungarian migrant women in the United States fit into thiscomplicated and sometimes contradictory culture of proscription and fear. But Ihope she is able to consider these questions in her future work. Similarly, Dr.Yamamoto has provided us with fascinating clues regarding the ways in whichHungarian women conformed to, and challenged, the prevailing culture of“separate spheres.” At the same time as some Hungarian migrant women foundemployment outside the home, others were little more than domestic slaves,confined to the private sphere, and with few opportunities to participate in orengage with public life. The notion of separate spheres, and the domesticideology that sustained the distinction between “private” and “public” was inlarge measure a cultural construct, rather than an accurate reflection or descriptionof how most women lived their lives. Yet even as cultural constructs, domesticityand the celebration of women’ s role in the private sphere, and the distinctwomen’s networks they encouraged, were powerful influences, and representedideals to which many women aspired. For Hungarian women during the earlytwentieth century, determined to prove their fidelity to their new nation, even asthey continued to value their Hungarian origins, domesticity comprised afundamental aspect of the American “ideology.” Dr. Yamamoto is to becongratulated for giving us so much to think about.Comments on: Dr. Yamamoto Akiyo’s “Reorganization of Gender Relations among East European Immigrants in the United States”135

Comments on: Dr. Yamamoto Akiyo’s “Reorganization of Gender Relations among East European Immigrants in the United States: Realities and Representations”

https://nanzan-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=199&item_no=1&attribute_id=22&file_no=1

Comments on: Dr. Yamamoto Akiyo’s “Reorganization of Gender Relations among East European Immigrants in the United States: Realities and Representations”

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Nanzan University Repository / 南山大学機関リポジトリ