Aspects of Americanization in 1920s and 1930s

1 Table of Contents

2 Introduction

3 Developing Systems
3.1 A second Industrial Revolution
3.2 Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management
3.3 System Builder Insull
3.4 Henry Ford and the Car that turned the World around

4 The American Impact on Germany
4.1 Germans and Americanization
4.2 City Life
4.2.1 Jazz, Movies, and the Symbols of Modernity
4.3 Literary Voices in Neue Sachlichkeit
4.3.1 Bertold Brecht – Ambivalence in the mind
4.4 The Bauhaus School – From L’Esprit Noveau of Corbusier to Bauhaus of Gropius

5 Conclusion

6 Bibliography
6.1 Primary Texts
6.2 Secondary Texts
6.3 Further Readings
6.3.1 Primary Texts
6.3.2 Secondary Texts

2 Introduction

Following the daily newsreel, it is possible to have the impression of a very diverse reception of America and American politics, sometimes negative, sometimes positive. However, it is remarkable that this reception is almost certainly distorted in a peculiar way by means of generalizing the issue, which has become a very traditional response towards America and its symbols. It can be observed that these tidal waves of anxiety have their history especially in Germany, which only exists in its political form since 1871, when Bismarck used the favorable conditions to unite the different German states under Prussia into the newly proclaimed Kaiserreich.

Although the Wilhelmian Reich seemed to be relatively stable, political forces and events finally led to the catastrophe of the first World War with its devastating consequences for Europe and especially for Germany, which not only lost part of its territory, but also its political and economical power through the Treaty of Versailles. This state of affairs left an unstable country, in which the public mind increasingly began to look overseas towards an America that showed a solution for most of its economic, social, or political problems. It is true, of course, that Germans had felt the American influence before. However, the peak of this America-boom, whether American friendly or Anti-American, was reached in the Weimar Republic, where a fierce debate on an ambiguous America picture took place.

While the European countries mainly stumbled from one bloody conflict to another, America further developed its technology and at the same time its main sociological ideas, such as how technology should be implemented in a nation’s society. Inventors and scientists strived to set up working systems that could make work and life more efficient. Electrification was the charming word of the day, and when Samuel Insull took over Edison’s Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, one of the most powerful and complex systems, both economically and technologically, was set up. This is probably the place where Henry Ford picked up his ideas, and using the Principles of Scientific Management by Frederick Winslow Taylor, he founded another powerful economic system, which soon should become a symbol for modernism all over the world: the Ford Company.

In the eyes of their founders, these systems not only were a great enterprise, but also part of a larger social reform, which could bring forth improvements for the life conditions of the workers of these companies. Nevertheless, one should look at the other side of the coin, too. When I mention Insull as the successful builder of such an economic system, it is also necessary to point out that his system was not without errors. While the Black Friday appeared as a warning for later generations in history books, and while the stock market crashed along with the deflation of the Dollar, his financial system showed significant weaknesses, for which Insull was intended to be prosecuted. Other weaknesses were exposed as well, for instance the fact that Ford’s automobile empire declined, mostly because it was caught in its own system like a spider in its web, resulting in the unability to make the necessary changes. These and other reasons, along with the fear of a decline of culture, were the weapons that Anti-Americanists were bringing up to shun Americanization of the European and especially German culture.

On the other hand, it were the Bolsheviki who sought the contact with Ford and Taylor and invited American specialists into their industrial underdeveloped country, which resulted in the fact that almost every kolkhoz was using Ford’s tractors. Lenin, who studied Taylor’s ideas in his exile in Denmark, argued that it had to be possible to introduce the Taylor-system with a socialist character and hence support the publicly owned economy. This certainly impressed German union leaders and left winged intellectuals and led to the development of a strong Taylor Tourism in the early Twenties.

There also was a strong cultural notion in the influence that America had on European countries. Although America and its systems were usually referred to as mass systems, sometimes even as soulless systems without culture and heritage, the Weimar Republic also had been a place of new cultural developments that were taken from American developments and given a European style. This refers especially to the Bauhaus, to the L’Esprit Nouveau, to the movement of the Neue Sachlichkeit, which gained strong publicity through its new style in the public in the 1920’s.^Note

3 Developing Systems

3.1 A second Industrial Revolution

In his book American Genesis Thomas P. Hughes describes an era, in which America started to define itself (and to be defined) as a “nation of machine- and system builders:”^[1]

“Dieses Buch erzählt von einer Epoche, in der die Vereinigten Staaten von der Begeisterung für alles Technische ergriffen wurden und die jetzt schon fast Geschichte ist. Der Literaturkritiker und Historiker Perry Miller zeichnet ein faszinierendes Bild der Amerikaner, die voller Begeisterung alle technischen Neuerungen begrüßten. Sie ‚stürzten sich in den technologischen Strudel und jubelten freudig mitten im Wasser. Während sie in den Stromschnellen hinuntergerissen wurden, riefen sie einander zu, hier erfülle sich ihr Schicksal...’ Um 1900 hatten sie das verheißene Land der technologischen Welt erreicht, die Welt als Artefakt. Dabei hatten sie Charakterzüge angenommen, die heute als typisch amerikanisch gelten. Sie waren zu einer Nation von Maschinen- und Systembauern geworden, die geleitet wurden von dem Bestreben, die materiellen Gegebenheiten dieser Welt systematisch zu ordnen und damit zu beherrschen.“^[2]

The picture drawn by Miller and Hughes is convincing and provides explanation for the excitement that took over a whole continent, including even the so called old world.

It already started during the Civil War, when new technology was introduced first, although the provision and production of this technology was comparably rudimentary until the turn of the century. A first impression of the developing industrial strength of America could be received at the World Fairs, which had been regularly organized since 1851, especially at the World Fair in Chicago in 1893 with the exhibition of a new kind of city. The wheel of modernism really began to spin when new inventions by Edison, Bell, etc. appeared, while the Wright Brothers started to successfully experiment with motorized aircrafts.

Already the philosophers, politicians and intellectuals introduced their notions of the development. Lewis Mumford declared a new phase of technical development to come about. In his book Technics and Civilization Mumford he describes his view of consecutive eras of technical development in which the actual phase with its development of electricity is called the Neotechnical phase.^Note Basis for this assumption is the machine, its parts, and its functions. Important are the supposed agents of mechanization, which include the purposes and/or powers, which stand behind a development, including wars, interest of profits, the introduction of new techniques and materials such as the printing method by Gutenberg, or in our case the introduction of electricity.^[3] A proposed technological phase also includes changes in the conditions of social order. As Mumford declared, Electrification was one of the developments that brought social change. So it is no wonder that Lenin, in order to completely change the order of his country from a backward rural society into a modern, communist country, introduced his doctrine of electrification.^Note

Others basically followed this assumption to use these new kinds of energies to build new transportation systems in order to create more room in overcrowded cities and with this to prevent social unrest. It was supposed to replace the leadership of profit hungry capitalists by engineers and scientists.^[4] There were reasons, of course, for this type of social reform: Gifford Pinchot (Governor of Pennsylvania in 1925), who aside of his enthusiasm for these technological systems and their potential for change, feared the monopoly:

“diese böse Spinne.. [, die] sich beeilt ihr Netz über die ganzen Vereinigten Staaten auszubreiten.“^[5]

Further people also attempted to bring up the relation of man and machine. Joseph K. Hart, a university professor and editor of the Survey,^[6] thought as much as Pinchot of a new era. His opinion was that man has always tried to bring order in the chaos by ruling or taming natural forces. However, man had to pay horrible prices for this system:

“Die Griechen hatten 90 Prozent ihrer Bevölkerung versklavt und entwürdigt, um ein System des Dienens und Produzierens zu schaffen, das es der Minderheit erlaubte, ein friedliches und angenehmes Leben zu führen und die Philosophie, die Künste und die Wissenschaften zu pflegen. Mit der britischen industriellen Revolution kam die Nutzung der Dampfkraft und die Fähigkeit, die Welt in beachtlichem Umfang als Produktionssystem zu organisieren. Doch auch hier musste ein erschreckend hoher Preis dafür bezahlt werden. Hart warf der Dampfkraft vor, sie sei der „große Zentralisierer“ gewesen, habe die Menschen entwurzelt und in vielsprachigen Zentren zusammengeführt. [...Männer und Frauen seien zudem] verführt, die Maschine als Sinn und Zweck des Lebens zu betrachten. Darüber hinaus hat [...] die Dampfkraft uns die alten Normen der handwerklichen Qualität, des guten Geschmacks und der Kultur genommen.“^{Note 2}

This is the context in which the ideas and principles of Insull, Ford, or Taylor have to be seen. It is the spirit of the time, this ambivalence of unlimited belief in the machine and in technology; and on the other hand the distrust in these things. The public seemed to be torn apart between sheer enthusiasm and a fear of a still unknown technology, a feeling that our contemporaries probably know all too well, if compared.

3.2 Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management

„Früher stand der Mensch an erster Stelle; in der Zukunft muss das System den Vorrang haben“

Frederick Winslow Taylor, 1911.^[7]

As the development of Mass production became more apparent, other problems introduced themselves. Since

“mass production [is] something more than quantity production,”^[8] new methods of management had to be employed. Mass production, as we know it, contains on the one hand “continuous process manufacturing,” and on the other hand “interchangeable parts manufacturing,” whereas “high degree of mechanization, application of power, accurate tools (which needed to be fool proof,…^Note) and a uniform quality”^[9]

needed to be applied. All these characteristics were developed in the process of industrialization of the country. However, in order to gain high output rates of production one player somehow had been forgotten during this process: It was manpower that still had to be organized. Although the skilled workers were proud of their craftsmanship, their labor was far from being systematized at that point. This meant to improve management “physically” – material and parts had to be moved to the locations of their assembly, which includes the “intellectual” task of “detailed planning and ordering of the assembly process” and thus reduce as much of the time as it was possible without to wear the machines and tools too much down.^[10]

[...]

^Note For citations I will use English, if possible. However, if the only source available was in German I will use German instead, even though the original might be English. Citations in citations will not be mentioned extra, as they are part of the text I have already cited.

^[1] Hughes, p 11.

^[2] Hughes, p. 12.

^Note Mumford: see Bibliography. The other phases are: The Eotechnic Phase, in which primarily the foundations of machine development were laid. The agents of this phase were the use and development of new materials like iron, glass,etc. The use of energy was still limited to water, fire, and other so called natural resources. This phase started in the classic antiquity and reigned during the mediaeval era until the industrial revolution in England, which introduced a new phase, the Paleotechnic Phase.

^[3] Mumford, pp. 60-106.

^Note Während des Bürgerkrieges und der Hungersnot der ersten Revolutionsjahre setzte Lenin den Aufbau der sowjetischen Wirtschaft als oberstes Ziel (» Sozialismus ist Elektrifizierung plus Sowjetmacht «) und ließ jede Opposition gegen seine Politik unterdrücken. © 2002 Bibliographisches Institut & F. A. Brockhaus AG. Schlagwort „Lenin“.

^[4] Hughes. p. 304.

^[5] Hughes. p. 307.

^[6] Hughes. p. 308.

^{Note 2} Hughes. p. 308: Here Hart and also Hughes mention the most important argument, which also Anti-Fordists and Anti-Americanists later were constantly using. Ironically was Hart an American, who in no account was Anti-technological. The opposite is the case: He favors electrification as medium of liberation for man to return to these norms of quality of craftsmanship, of taste, and culture. For him electrification meant an antidote towards steam power.

^[7] Hughes. p. 194.

^[8] Robertson. p. 303.

^Note …as German agents of Anti-Americanism used to mock.

^[9] Robertson. pp. 303ff.

^[10] Robertson. pp. 304ff.