8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Early-Cold War Attitudes about National Security and Gender, December 23, 2000
This review is from: In the Name of National Security: Hitchcock, Homophobia, and the Political Construction of Gender in Postwar America (New Americanists) (Paperback)
Author Robert Corber's assertion that homosexual men and lesbians were intentionally excluded from the early-Cold War consensus is not surprising because, in the late 1940s and through the 1950s, the message to gays and lesbians clearly was: Conform or you will be at least marginalized and, perhaps, demonized. What is surprising is Corber's main premise that liberals primarily sought to "manage and contain the demands of women and minorities for greater recognition." This is a provocative thesis, and Corber uses the films made by Alfred Hitchcock in the 1950s "to demonstrate how these liberals achieved and retained hegemony over American society in the 1950s by producing a united cultural front." I disagree with some aspects of Corber's interpretation, but this is very interesting, occasionally exciting, reading.
According to Corber, in The Vital Center, "one of the most influential books of the postwar era, when Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wanted to emphasize the conspiratorial nature of the American Communist Party, he compared it to gay male subculture." Corber explains that Schlesinger's purpose was two-fold: "it helped to consolidate the Cold War consensus by making membership in the Communist party and other forms of political dissent seem `unnatural'" and "it helped to insure that gender and nationality functioned as mutually reinforcing categories of identity by suggesting that engaging in homosexuality and other `perverted' sexual practices was un-American." According to Corber: "Americans who thought of themselves as part of the gay and lesbian subcultures that began to emerge in the postwar period in large urban areas...could be seen as disloyal citizens engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow the American government." This is a provocative theory.
If, for the sake of this discussion, we accept Corber's thesis that both Communists and gay men and lesbians were perceived in the 1950s as conspiring to overthrow American government, his approach to gender issues in Hitchcock's films, which are at the center of this book, is fascinating. Corber's premise is "to emphasize the extent to which to which the construction of gender and sexual identity was governed by the discourses of national security." According to Corber: "Examining Hitchcock's films in the context of the emergence and consolidation of the national security state suggests that the juridical construction of `the homosexual' and `the lesbian' as security risks provided the American government with a mechanism for containing resistance to the postwar settlement." Corber seeks "to establish the crucial connections between gender, national identity, and national security in postwar American society." According to Corber: "I want to show that in the 1950s the construction of male and female subjectivity was conditioned by the identification of homosexuality and lesbianism as threats to national security." Corber makes his case most effectively in discussing two of Hitchcock's films: "Strangers on a Train" (1951) and "North by Northwest" (1959). According to Corber, the former was based on Patricia Highsmith's "blatantly homophobic novel, " and "identified individual conformity to the political and sexual norms sanctioned by the state as an act of supreme patriotism." Corber writes: "Strangers on a Train goes further than the federal government in attempting to police male same-sex behavior." In Corber's view, this film "shows that straights are...susceptible to blackmail. Because their sexual identities are fluid and unstable, straights are incapable of resisting the sexual advances of gay men and lesbians." Corber writes: "Hitchcock's film questions whether the threatened homosexualization of American society can be presented....The crisis over government employment of gay men and women who pass as straight appears to justify extreme measures." According to Corber, Strangers on a Train "helped to underwrite and consolidate the postwar settlement by ratifying the liberal critique of postwar American culture."
In Corber's view: "North by Northwest stresses the way in which gender and nationality functioned as mutually reinforcing categories of identity in postwar America." In this film, in Corber's view, "Hitchcock shows how the discourses of national security operate so as to contain resistance to the postwar settlement." Corber writes: "North by Northwest shows that the construction of gender and national identity anchored and guaranteed each other in post-war America." Furthermore, according to Corber, "North by Northwest" helped "to underwrite and consolidate the link between communism and homosexuality in the discourses of national security." This is powerful film criticism, whether or not one accept's Corber's interpretation.
A large part of my disagreement with Corber involves chronology and causation. In particular, I expect we would disagree about the answer to this question: Was the McCarthyism of the early 1950s determinative, or merely illustrative, of deep-seated fears of Communist subversion? In the introduction, Corber refers to the "the wave of anti-Communism unleashed by the McCarthy hearings." In my opinion, this "wave of anti-Communism" began rolling several years before Senator McCarthy came to national prominence following a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, in February 1950. McCarthyism was, therefore, a symptom, as well as a cause, of a larger phenomenon of political intolerance. Indeed, Corber, himself, writes that Schlesinger's The Vital Center, which was published in 1949, "[c]ontribut[ed] to the anti-Communist hysteria then sweeping the nation." McCarthy clearly exploited, but did not begin, the domestic anti-Communist crusade of the early Cold War. Similarly, Hitchcock's films of the 1950s did not create, but merely reinforced, attitudes about the link between national-security issues and gender.
Corber is a very sharp, imaginative, and incisive analyst of popular films. Readers not intimately familiar with the films on which he focuses (and I am not) must, I suppose, accept his interpretations. I suspect, however, that Corber reads too much into Hitchcock. It is possible that these films were merely clever entertainments, without the deep and complex political content that Corber sees in them. Because Corber's grasp of the history of the early Cold War era is less assured, I believe that many readers will find Corber's comments about Hitchcock's films far more persuasive than his approach to the history of the era. But that does not detract from the fact that practically every page of this book is thought-provoking.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Riiiiggghhhtttt., February 18, 2003
By A Customer
This review is from: In the Name of National Security: Hitchcock, Homophobia, and the Political Construction of Gender in Postwar America (New Americanists) (Paperback)
Riiiiiggghhht.
This book is a fine example how people can twist something using texual and intertexual analysis into something to fit their own agendas.
I find, in the selection I read, that there is poor use of visual evidence. The author mearley asserts something and then asserts another based on the previous assertion - which is fine, I suppose, if you already agree with his viewpoint before you started reading the material. Which means you can either try to pull out some snippits of insight or just nod your head like "yes men".
The conclusions are sloppy and questionable and while he asserts propoganda at every turn... his baises lead me to beleive his book is indeed propoganda itself.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
