WritingSampleforSmithsonianMuseum

SubmittedMarch17,2015
Excerptsfrom:
TheFordMan:Fordism,Art,andtheMechanicalManDuringtheInterwarEra

Whethermysticalconceptornot,individualidentitywasnotsomething
Americanswillinglysurrendered.Avibrantdiscoursepulsedthroughouttheinterwar
periodthatdebatedtheconceptionofhumansasrobots,despiteanyvictoriesthe
FordistBehavioristsidemayhaveproclaimed.BecauseFordismandBehaviorism
renderedindustrialworkersdoublyrobotic,thediscourseoverFordismsroboticizing
effectsontheindustrialworkerwieldedthesymboloftherobotmostpotentlyofall.
CentraltoCapeksinventionwasitsinabilitytoassertandmaintainauniqueidentity,
andinR.U.R.capitalistsinventedtherobottobemanufacturedenmasseasa
standardized,LetGeorgeDoItmechanism[that]isputinquantityproductionlike
Fords.1Thescientists,engineers,andemployersdeterminedtheidentitiesoftheir
creations,imbuingtheirmechanicalmenwithonlythosecharacteristicsthatwould
enablethemtolaboreffectively.Afterhavingbeencreated,Capeksrobotscando
nothingbutconstantlyreiteratetheirimposedidentity,foreverfollowingpreprogrammed
instructionsthatis,ofcourse,unlesstheydiscoverideals.Commentatorsquicklyand
consistentlycitedtheparallelsnotjustbetweentheserobotsandFords,butalsobetween
robotsandFordsworkers.Suchindustrialproductionisasystemofturningmeninto

1OLeary,Margaret.PlaysfromBohemia.NewYorkTimes10Sep.1922:BRM4.

Robots,arguedonemanin1923;itisanexploitationoftherobotswhomakethe
Fords,claimedanotherthatsameyear.2Thislatterarticlecontinueditscritique,erecting
ahierarchyofmanhoodintheprocess:thehistoryoftheworldisthebiographyofgreat
men,andthegreatmanhasneveryetexistedwhowasmerelyarobot,aperfectly
disciplined,marvelouslyefficientandsoullesshumanmachineapparentlytheidealof
modernlargescaleindustrialorganization.
Sixteenyearslater,thesameantiprogressivistlanguagewasstillbeingleveled
againstFordistindustrialpractices.Ata1939symposiumreportedintheNewYork
Times,theReverendJamesJ.Tompkins,thewidelyknownfounderoftheNovaScotia
cooperativemovement,lecturedhisaudience:ThentakeamanlikeHenryFordno
reflectionsintendedandhegetsholdofideasandpeopleandmakesrobotsandslaves
ofallofussothattheworkerafterpunchingholesalldayhastogooutandgetdrunk.He
isntaworker;hehasajob.Workisasacredthing.3Inthemiddleoftheinterwar
period,FrancesPerkinssoontobecomeFDRscelebratedSecretaryofLaborhad
becomewellawareduringhertenureasNewYorkStateIndustrialCommissionerofthe
anxietiesthatFordismproducedinAmericanworkers.Sherespondedtotheseconcerns
ata1929luncheoninherhonor,assuringtheaudiencethat[o]neofthedutiesofher
officewasthepreventionoftherearingofaraceofrobots.4
Interestingly,Perkinsluncheonsaw[r]epresentativesofcapital,laborandthe
publicunitedinherhonoraraceofrobotsconcernedallparties,thoughfor
2System:DoomingtheTwelveHourDay.Editorial.ChicagoDailyTribune,7Jun.1923.Robots
whomake:Mr.FordasaCandidateIfHeIs,Editorial.ChicagoDailyTribune,27Oct.1923:6
3MacDonald,W.A.ActionisStressedInAdultEducation,NewYorkTimes,17May1939:3.
4CapitalandLaborHonorMissPerkins.NewYorkTimes,1Feb.1929:14

dissimilarreasons.Justasonesidebewailedworkersastheunfortunateandunwitting
victimsofFordistrobotism,anotheraccusedworkersofactivelyengagingadifferent
formofmassproducedidentity:unionizing.Duringtheera,procapitalcommentators
frequentlyattackedlaborunionsashotbedsofrobotism.ThePulitzerPrizewinning,
syndicatedpolemicistWestbrookPeglerwhofinishedthirdbehindRooseveltandStalin
inTimes1941ManoftheYearpoll5apotheosizedthisrhetoricaltactic.Intheprocess
ofcastingunionsashavensofcorruption,criminality,andtyranny,Peglerrepeatedly
condemnedunionmembersasnominallyfreeAmericanswhohadbeenreducedtothe
statusofsubhumanrobotsbytheirunionleaders.Unionmemberswererobotsinthe
ranks,controlledbybuddingHitlersandStalins,denudedoftheirownabilitytowield
theirrespectivelaborpowerasfreeindividuals.Peglersattacks,andthoselikehis,
successfullycapitalizeduponthepotentandpervasiveAmericandiscourseofidentity
androbotism,addinganotherstaintotheuniformofcollectivismandcommonality.6
Peglersfrequentanddefamatoryuseofrobotalsobrilliantlycapitalizedupon
thenationalistdiscourseoftheperiod.Beginninginthe1920sandpeakinginthe1930s,
themainstreammediarepeatedlyinvokedthetermtodescribethecitizensofother
nations,addingadditionalmenacetotheconcept.Nowrobotswerenolongersimply
thoughtlessandfacelessmasses,butforeigntoboot.Sohereweseethelaststageofthe
Fordistrobotdiscourse.Asshownabove,bothprolaborandprocapitaladvocateshad
keptAmericanworkerscontinuouslyawareoftheirpotentialtobecomearaceof
robots.Nowsuchunsettlingnotionswereprojectedabroad,withtheseforeignrobots
5Witwer,David.WestbrookPeglerandtheAntiUnionMovement,JournalofAmericanHistory,92.2
(2005)
6ibid

allowingforaclearotheragainstwhichworkerscouldasserttheirhumanity.
Ultimatelythough,thishumanitywascircumscribed,definedspecificallyinoppositionto
nationswhoseideologiesdifferedfromthatofProgressiveEraAmerica.
Unsurprisingly,RussiaandGermanywerethemostcommonrecipientsofthe
epithet.Immediatelyafterthe192223debutofR.U.R.,Russiabecameacountryof
robots.TheBolshevikiweremakingrobotsofthepeople,wentone1923NewYork
Timesarticle.TheBolshevikiarethedirectsuccessorsoftheCzaristregime.Theyhave
putthepeopleinbarracksandmaderobotsofthemall.7Eightyearslater,justasthe
secondnationaltourofR.U.R.began,thesamelanguagereverberatedtodenigratethe
SovietFiveYearPlan.HadasympatheticAmericanworkershopesbeenbrightenedby
thepromisesoftheBolshevikgovernment,theymayhavedimmeduponhearing
MatthewWoll,VicePresidentoftheAmericanFederationofLabor,announceonthe
NewYorkTimesfrontpagethatSovietRussiaisanationofrobots.8HadtheFiveYear
Planstirreduprenewedoptimismaboutautopiansocialiststate,suchdreamsmayhave
fadedinthelightofnewsthatthePlanrevealstheblindacceptancebyRussian
collectivismitrevealsastrangeinsensitivitytotheforeordainedcreationofaraceof
robots.9Communismmadenotonlyrobotworkersbutrobotchildren,too,accordingto
theeyewitnessaccountofEveGarretteGrady,wifeofU.S.industrialistWilliamH.
Grady.Russianchildrenwerethemostuninterestingintheworld,shewasquotedin
theNewYorkTimesassaying,theyweremillionsoflittlerobotswhohadgrownup
underthecommunistregime;inanarticletitledMakingLittleRobotsinSoviet
7AssailsEducationUndertheSoviet.NewYorkTimes,8Aug.1923:14
8LaborMovestoBarAllSovietProductsFromNationby1932.NewYorkTimes28Jul.1930:1
9MakingLittleRobotsinSovietRussia.Editorial.NewYorkTimes,17May1931:66

Russia,theNewYorkTimesechoedthesesentiments.10Russiasnewleader,Josef
Stalin,wasallowedtobeparthuman,butofcoursehewasalsosomerobot
soulless.11
JustaftertheU.S.pressestablishedsocialismandcollectivismasinevitablybirthinga
robotrace,itrapidlyconflatedrobotswiththeevilsofGermanfascism.AsoneNewYork
Timeseditorialexplained,throughthelensofCapekandunderthesubheadingTheNew
Robots;
Robotisatermthathadagreatvogueintheworldseveralyearsago.
Robotswerethedehumanizedautomataintowhichcapitalismhad
presumablytransformedtheworkingmassesTheCzechauthorof
R.U.R.aimedhissatireagainstthecapitalistsystem.Butitremainedfor
HitlerstotalitarianState,professedlyasubstitutefordiscredited
capitalism,tocarrytherobotideafarbeyondanythingchargedupagainst
thecapitalistsystembyitsseverestcritics.
TheriseoftheNationalSocialistsnullifiedcritiquesofthedehumanizingeffectsof
FordistU.Scapitalism.Germansweretherealrobots,notAmericans;HitlerturnedFord
intoablessing.TocontestFordistcapitalism,toclaimitsabusesandroboticizationofthe
worker,isactuallytoinvitetruerobotismintotheUnitedStates.HitlermoldedGermans
intopuppetsoftheStatetwentyfourhoursintheday,andineveryfiberoftheir
physicallife,andineverynerveoftheirconsciouslife.Germany,however,wasnotthe
onlynationthathadreachedthispointpastwhichRobotismcangonofurther.The
editorialcontinues:[Robotism]isthescopeoftheclaimswhichthenewanticapitalist
States,whethertheHitlertypeortheStalintype,makeupontheirsubjects.Inshort,to

10SaysHungerCutsRussianEfficiency.NewYorkTimes14Apr.1931:11
11Durant,Walter.Stalin:Man,Mouthpiece,Machine.NewYorkTimes18Jan.1931:78

beanticapitalism,orevenjusttoarguethedehumanizingplightoftheworking
masses,istoalignoneselfwiththesenewforeignstates.Itistobeprorobot.
Dissentthuscircumscribed,robotsthushyperdemonized,whathappenedwhen
workersnaturallychosetodenytotheircategorizationasrobots?Todosomeant
declaringtheirbasicidentitiesashumansinsteadofasworkers,ashiftthatforeswore
aclassconsciousnesslongstigmatizedasinhumanandrobotic.Workershuman
identitieswerebydefaultalsoAmericanandindustrialcapitalist;indeed,Fordistrobot
andidentitydiscoursesrenderedhuman,American,andindustrialcapitalist
inextricablefromoneanother.Ofcourse,Idonotsuggestthatallsuchindividualswould
haveidentifiedthemselvesthisway.Rather,thecrucialpointistheconstrictedrhetorical
positioninwhichprolaborentitiesworkers,unions,andsympathizersfound
themselves.Eagertoconfrontthedehumanizingeffectsofindustriallabor,whilealso
forcedtocounterclaimsofimposedFordistidentities,robotismandgroupthink,
soullessnessandbrainlessness,antiAmericanism,Bolshevism,andfascism,theseentities
retreatedtotherhetoricalgroundofAllarehuman,12asaNewYorkTimesArticlethat
TakesIssueWithMr.Fordargued.LaborbegantousephrasessuchasWearenot
robots!andtorefertoitselfinhumanizingterms,asexemplifiedinthispleafroma
Detroitautoworker:
Oneofthemostpricelesspossessionsstillretainedbymodernmaniswhat
iscalledmanhoodWouldyoubeaMANfree,proud,independent,
POWERFUL?Thengettogetherwithyourfellowworker,ORGANIZE
YOURSELF,andyouwillbeinapositiontoproudlylookintotheeyesof
foremen,strawbosses,andalltheworldandsay:IAMAMAN.13
12Feld,RoseC.SaysBigIndustriesCanBeKeptHuman.NewYorkTimes,6Jul.1924:XX3

HeretheemployeeisforcedtoremindhisforemanIAMAMAN,butinsodoing
severshimselffrombeingfirstaworker.Throughsuchstatements,theideaofthe
workingclasstransformedfrombeingunderstoodasapowerfulmonolithofpurposeto
beingaconstellationofindividualmen,eachofwhompreservedthecapacitytobe
freeandindependent.
Thus,oneisnolongerassurprisedtohearNormanThomastheSocialist
PresidentialcandidatedecryHooversruggedindividualismamyth,thereby
implyingindividualismasaworthyideal.14ForThomas,theU.S.hadbecomeacountry
ofeconomicdynasties,Babbitts,robotsandhumantelevoxesfromwhichhedesiredto
distancehimselfandtheSocialistmovement.Norisoneassurprisedtohearsomeone
likeHaroldRosenbergatthetimeaselfdescribedcommunistintellectualformulating
atheoryofindividualidentitythattriestoadapttoBehaviorism:
Incontrastwiththepersonrecognizedbythecontinuityofhisbeing,we
maydesignatethecharacterdefinedbythecoherenceofhisactsasan
identity.Representingthehumanindividualasanactor,thetermstands
againstthebiologicalorhistoricalorganismconcept,whichvisualizes
actionasamereattributeof,andclueto,abeingwhocanbeknownonly
throughanintuition[read:Introspection].15
Rosenbergcontinuedontourgetheproletariantocontrolhisownidentity,tolayclaim
tohisactions,bynaminghimself[originalemphasis],inthemodelofHamletsThisis
IHamlettheDane!WhateveronemaythinkofRosenbergslogic,thesimilarities

13AutoWorkerNews(Oct.1927),p.4.CitedinLewchuk,WayneA.MenandMonotony:Fraternalismas
aManagerialStrategyattheFordMotorCompany,TheJournalofEconomicHistory,Vol.53,No.4
(Dec.,1993),pp.824856
14Thomas,Norman.ProsperityaMyth,SaysNormanThomas.NewYorkTimes27Dec.1928:28
15Rosenberg,Harold.CharacterChangeandtheDrama,originallywrittenin1931,reprintedin
TraditionoftheNew(NewYork:McGrawHill,1959)132.

betweenHamletsselfaffirmationandthatoftheDetroitautoworkersIAMAMAN!
arestriking.
BothThomasandRosenbergviewedthemselvesasprofessionaladvocatesofthe
workingclass,sotheircalculatedcommentsofferparticularlyclearinsighttothepower
thatFordistBehavioristideologywielded.Clearlyanathemainitsutopianform,
inevitablypromptingprotest,thisideologyoperatedtodetermineandcircumscribe
reactionsagainstit.Fordisminterpellatedaservile,efficient,andcontrollableworking
subject,onewhoseidentitywasstandardizedandimposedfromabove.Individual
identityespeciallyanintuitedonebeyondoutsidecontrolwaseliminated,andthe
ideologyleftus,werecall,withthatstrangecreationthatlookslikeamanbutreallyis
notaman.BecauseofR.U.R.,thisvagueformulationreceivedconcrete,externalized
forminthesymboloftherobot.TherobotmediatedFordismsutopiatothepublic,
functioningasaculturalhyperboleitwasatrueprospect,onethathadtobeconsidered,
butsimultaneouslywassoexaggeratedastoseemimpossible.Foranationfundamentally
opposedtoFordismsidealroboticworker,then,therobotservedthreefunctions:asan
exaggeration,itpalliatedfearsofFordismsrealization;asathreat,itcuedreactions
againstit;asastigma,itshapedanddelimitedthesereactions.Inthislastcapacity,the
robotprimarilyoperatedtostigmatizecollectivismandclassconsciousness,prompting
workersandleftistintellectualstoagitateforrecognitionashumanindividuals.
ThiswasacompromiseforFordwho,despitehiscontroversialbeliefs,knew
thathissystemofproductionofferedtoomanybenefitsforAmericanstorefuseit
completely.Sohowtocoexistwithsociety?Whowouldtendthemachines?Hewanted

robots,butnotiftheyweregoingtobeclassconsciousones.Thoughimperfect,hecould
workwithhumans,especiallyhumanindividuals,especiallysomeonedeclaringIAMA
MAN.Suchapersonpositionedhishumanidentityaboveaworkingone,andFordwas
confidenthecouldmoldthisindividualmanintoTheFordManoutlinedinthe
companypamphlet.16

[excerptbelowisfromlatersectionoftheessay]
WonderfullyillustratingthepervasivenessofFordsviewsonmechanics,
efficiency,andthebodyduringtheinterwarperiodistheoftenoverlookedcultureof
marionettetheater.BeginningattheendofWorldWarIandextendingthroughthe
1930s,theUnitedStatesexperiencedaculturalphenomenonthatisfascinatinglyself
containedwithintheinterwarperiod,asmarionettetheatertookonamagnitudeand
culturalstatusthatithadneverbeforeenjoyed.Fordismproducedthisphenomenon,
claimsMIThistorianJohnBell,whodatespuppetmodernismto1919andeagerly
notesthatalongwithNewYorkCity,Detroitwastheothergreathubofmarionette
theaterduringtheera.17Bellscorrelationisanecdotal,butthesourcesfromtheperiod
repeatedlyaffirmastrongconnection.JustwhileFordismandBehaviorismframedthe
bodyasanobjectbecontrolled,regulated,anddisciplined,marionetteplaysintheir
performanceandreceptiondramaticallyaddressedtherelevanceofthehumanbodyin
theMachineAge.Theriseofpuppetryinpopularculture,particularlyitsrelationship

16Ibid,842
17Bell,John.Strings,Hands,Shadows:amodernpuppethistory,(Detroit:DetroitInstituteofArts,2000)
72.

withdance,createdarealmofdiscourseinwhichanxietiesaboutthevalueand
sovereigntyofthehumanbodywerevoiced,palliated,andreinscribed.
Atthepeakofthe1928holidayseason,betweenChristmasandNewYearsDay,
twoNewYorktheaterswereoverrunbypuppetsandmannequins,alongwiththechildren
parentsintowwhofiledintoseethemperform.ThefirstwasthemidtownMartin
BeckTheatre,thenewhomeofthewellreputedTheatreGuildcompanyofrecentR.U.R.
fame.RenditionsofPeterRabbitt,RaggedyAnn,andtheMarchoftheWooden
SoldierswereamongtheactsbywhichtheSueHastingsMarionnettesdazzled
audiencesattheMartinBeck.Theshows,onereviewerremarked,wereasprofessional
asanyproductionofONeillorShaw.18
Meanwhile,downtownattheProvincetownPlayhouse,theyoungRemoBufano
conductedhislargemanikinsinperformancesofCinderellaandJuliusCaesars
Circus.BufanosshowwasconsiderablylesshighhatthanHastings,thoughits
anticsappealedtothesensibilityofhisjuvenileaudience.Bufanoslukewarmcritical
receptionwasarelativelyinauspiciousmomentforthemanwhothenquicklybecame
NewYorksmostcelebratedavantgardepuppeteer.19Overthesucceedingyears,
BufanostrademarkoversizedpuppetsgracedthetheatersandoperahousesofNew
York,Philadelphia,andothermajorU.S.metropolises.Helecturedonpuppetry,authored
booksonthesubject,andwasevenselectedbyWPAofficialstoheadtheFederalTheater
ProjectsMarionetteDivision.WhileBufanos1928Christmasshowsmaynothavefully

18MarionettesRuleatTwoTheatres.NewYorkTimes27Dec.1928:30.
19Bell,John,p.64

suggestedthisfuturesuccess,thereviewernonethelessadmittedthatBufanospuppets
achievedagustoseldomattainedbyhumanactors.20
Humanactorswouldfaceonlyincreasingchallenges,asjustayearlatertheNew
YorkTimesdeclaredaseachangeinmoderntaste:puppetry,onceapartofthe
childrenskingdom,wasnowproperadultentertainment.21Twoyearslaterstill,in
1931,aneventunprecedentedinAmericantheatersweptthroughtheMetropolitanOpera
HousesofNewYorkandPhiladelphia.TogethertheNewYorkLeagueofComposers,
thePhiladelphiaOrchestra,andRemoBufanocombinedtostageProkofieffsLePas
dAcier(DanceoftheAgeofSteel)andStravinksysOedipusRex,thelatterarranged
byJeanCocteau.Theproductionwashailedassensational,filmedfordistributionby
RKOoneoftheBigFivemoviestudiosoftheeraandthesoundsofOedipus
RexweresentoutovertheairwavesoftheNationalBroadcastingCompany.
CriticsclaimedtherealprotagonistsofOedipusRextobeBufanospuppets,
sixawesome,fifteenfootfigureswholevitatedhighabovethestageastheydanced
andgesturedtotheStravinskyscore,whilebeneaththemstoodthePrincetonGleeClub
impersonatingtheGreekpopulace.Foranaudiencemembertooverlookthe
dichotomiesherewouldhavebeendifficult,evenifheorshedidnotconsciouslyregister
theirimplications.Theempyrealpuppetsabove,godlikeintheirstature,uniqueness,and
gracefulweightlessness;thePrincetonGleeClubcomprisingtheimpersonatedmasses,
boundtothestagebelow.Aswithengineeredmachines,Bufanossupermarionettes

20Ibid,64
21Paris,W.L.Middleton.EventThePuppetsMeetinConvention.NewYorkTimes22Sep.1929:SM5

asonereviewercalledtheminareferencetoGordonCraigwerehumancreationsthat
inturnemphasizedthelimitsandinsufficienciesofhumanity.22
Whileaudiencesmayormaynothaveflushedoutallofthelessonsofmarionette
theater,critics,commentators,dancersandactorseagerlyvoicedtheiropinions,creating
adiscourseinwhichofpuppetmachinesclashedpubliclyinnewspapers,journals,
books,andfilm.23NewYorkTimesdancecriticJohnMartin,documentingthisNew
InterestinPuppetsandTheirUses,wrotethat[t]hemuchdiscussedmarionetteswhich
wereemployedintheLeagueofComposersproductionofStravinskysOedipusRex
wereeffectiveargumentsforthesuperiorityofpuppetsoverhumanactors.24Some
avidlypraisedthisnewartform,someflatlybewailedit,stillothersandMartinis
actuallyinthiscampfellinbetweentheseopinions,seeingmarionettesasrepresenting
bothagainandaloss.Whateverthespeakersperspective,though,alloftheresponsesto
OedipusRexandtomarionettesingeneralcentereduponestablishinganewdefinition
ofhumanthatwasdistinguishablefromthenewanthropomorphicpuppet,andvice
versa.
Manyarguedthattherelevanceofmarionettesactuallydependedontheir
inhumanityifpuppeteersaimedfornaturalismintheirrepresentationsofbodyand
movement,thenmarionetteswouldbemerelyimitatinghumanactorsordancers.Puppets
shouldcapitalizeupontheirownnaturalstate,whichisstatic,asopposedtothe
22OedipusRexGetsAmericanPremiere.NewYorkTimes11Apr.1931:23.
23InjournalssuchasParnassus,forexample,onefindsreviewsofMaxvonBoehnsbookDollsand
Puppets[seeMcMahon,A.Philip,DollsandPuppets,Parnassus,Vol.5,No.2(Feb.,1933),p.25.
Meanwhile,figureslikePaulMcPharlinandRemoBufanopublishedworksoftheirown,includingthe
lattersBookofPuppetryin1929.Asnotedabove,themoviestudioRKOdistributedafilmversionof
OedipusRex.
24Martin,John.TheDance:Marionettes.NewYorkTimes23Aug.1931:X7.

naturalstateofahumanbeing[which]isdynamic.25Becauseofthisnaturalstate,
puppetsrepresentedmovementwithoutwasteadoptingtherhetoricofFord,Coolidge,
andHoover,criticsrepeatedlypraisedtheirefficiencyandtheireconomical
movements,andcriticizedastoohumanthoseunstableandjigglingpuppetsthat
ambledabout.26Othercritics,attemptingtodiscounttheculturalsignificanceofthe
marionette,actuallydismisseditonsimilargrounds.Itswoodennessofcountenance,its
completelackofpassiondisparagedoneNewYorkTimeswriter,whorelegated
marionettetheatertomerecomedy.Butwhetherthroughpraiseorinvective,puppets
begantoamassaratherstableandratherfamiliarpublicdefinition:constructed,efficient,
passionless,andsuperhuman,puppetsunsurprisinglyearnedsuchepithetsasrobotson
stringsandminiaturerobots.27ThatRemoBufano,whileheadoftheWPAs
MarionetteDivision,attemptedtoorganizeaproductionofR.U.R.andresignedwhen
blockedbysuperiors,somehowseemsfitting.
Theintersectionofrobotandmarionetteterminologydidnotrevolveasmuch
aroundthehumanidentity,asdiscussedintheprevioussection,thanitdidaroundthe
humanbody.28Infact,bothasculturalconceptsandasculturalrealities,robotsand
marionetteswerecentralelementswithinagreaterdiscoursethatpermeatedthetwenties
andthirties,onethatconcernedtherelationshipbetweenthe(dancing)body,itslabor
power,andmachines.ThearrivalofmoderndanceintheU.S.oftenthankstoforeign
25Ibid
26Martin,John.TheDance:MachineAge,NewYorkTimes22Mar.1931:X4.
27RobotsonstringsfromPope,Virginia.ABeauxArtsBallforFieryModerns.NewYorkTimes18
Jan.1931:81.MiniaturerobotsfromDesignerofPuppetsHasExhibitinSchool.NewYorkTimes31
Mar.1935:N2.OnRemoBufanoresigningoverR.U.R.,seeBufanoQuitsWPAUnit.NewYorkTimes
15Nov.1937:8.
28WithoneimportantexceptionbeingGertrudeSteinsmarionetteplay,Identity,of1935

dancetroupesgalvanicormechanicalmusic,andmotionpicturetechnologyreadily
coalescedwithpreexistinganxietiesabouttheMachineAge;thisconjuncture
producedavibrantpublicdiscourseinwhichdefinitionsofthehumanbodyitsvalue,
itscapabilities,itsmaterialnaturewereonceagaindebated,homogenized,and
reinscribed.
NEWESTBALLETSSCORNTHEMERELYHUMANFORMreadthe
headlineof
Herman
Scheffauers
article,
publishedin
NewYork
Times
Magazineon
July4,1926.
Dispatched

3. One of the images of Bauhaus dancers that accompanied Scheffauers article, with caption.

from
Germany,itsBerlinbylinelikelyseemedparticularlyforeigninthemagazines
IndependenceDayissue.29OnemayalsofinditinterestingtoknowthatScheffauer,a
formerU.S.resident,hadbeenindictedenabsentiabyaGrandJuryfortreason,
convictedofdisseminatingproGermanpropagandaduringWorldWarI.Notquitewar
29Scheffauer,Herman.NewestBalletsScorntheMerelyHumanForm.NewYorkTimesMagazine4
Jul.1926:SM22.

timepropaganda,Scheffhauersmagazinearticlehailedthelatestproductionsofthe
GermanBauhaustheTriadicandmechanicalballetsandfeaturedfourphotosof
incrediblyodd,quasirobotdancersalongsidethetext
(fig.34).Inthearticle,Scheffauertrumpetsthe
advancementstheBauhaushadmadebyincorporating
thehumanbodyintomodernart,particularly
emphasizingtheworkofBauhaustheaterdirectorOskar
Schlemmer.Schlemmersanalysesanddistillationsof
humanformandmovementgiveusthehumanbody
seenandconceivedasapurelytechnicalorganism;a
machine,ifyouwill.Scheffauercontinuesonto
4. Another of Scheffauers Bauhaus dancers.

describethemainbreakthroughsoffirstthemechanical

andthentheTriadicballets:
Now,amerehumandancerisconfinedtoshortsteps,ayardorsoeither
way;tolowleaps,atmostayardormoreabovetheground.Heisableto
freehimselffromthelawofgravityonlyforasecondItisherethatthe
automatonandmarionettecometriumphantlyintotheirown.Theartificial
figure,whenequippedwithallthesubtletiesofmoderntechniques,
permitsofeverypossiblemovement;everypossiblepositionatany
moment
Butthereisanothertypeofballet.Contrarytothemovementthatembues
[sic]themarionettewithhumanorsuperhumancapacities,wehavethat
whichreduces(insomecaseselevates)theunadornedorabstractor
neutralhumanbeingtotherankofapuppet.30
ForScheffauerandtheBauhausartscientists,whoserelianceuponnaturallawsand
almostmathematicaldeductionsapparentlyensuredtheirauthority,thehumanbody
30Ibid

wasdoublyimpotent:boundtothegroundandoutperformedbyitsartificialcounterpart,
thebodywasalsovulnerableenoughtobereducedorinanevenmorederogatory
reading,elevatedtothestatusofcontrollable,mindlesspuppet.Whatoneiswitnessing
intheseballetsis,asScheffauerdescribes,thedematerializationofthecorporealinto
thesymbolical.31Ifnotdevaluedbysuperhumanpuppets,thenthebodybecomes
dematerializedinfavorofamorepreciousobject,puremotion.Eitherway,boththe
contemptforandirrelevanceofthebodyisclear.Theimpactofthisspecificarticleinthe
U.S.isdifficulttogauge,butthestatesidecareerofanearlier1926newspieceoffersan
ideaofthesaliencesuchissueshad,atleastwitheditorsofmajornewspapers.This
AssociatedPressarticlehighlightedtheideasofEnricoPrampolini,anItalianfuturistand
esteemedintellectual.Hebelievedthattheactorisauselesselementintheatricalaction
anddangeroustothefutureofthetheatre,andthatfutureperformanceswouldfeature
onlyabstractforces.NOACTORSINTHEATREOFFUTURE,HEPREDICTS,
withaRomebyline,waspickedupbytheNewYorkTimes,WashingtonPost,andthe
LosAngelesTimes,andpossiblyothers,onJanuary2.32
PrampolinismagnetictheatermaywellhaveseemedfantasticaltoU.S.readers,but
thedissolvingsignificanceofthehumanactorhepredictedcouldalsohaveappeared
increasinglypropheticoverthefollowingyears.Bufanossuperhumanmarionettesthe
realprotagonistshoveredasjustonesymbolofthisdevaluatingprocess;therobots
onstringsofTonySargsModernisticTragedyoftheMarionettes,dancingatthe

31FansofLucyLippardandOscarMasotta,andespeciallythosewhoattempttoclaimtheideaof

dematerializationasbelongingtooneortheother,willbeinterestedtonotethatScheffauersusage
appearedfiftyyearsbeforeeitherofthetwocriticsappliedthetermtocontemporaryart.
32NoActorsinTheatreofFuture,HePredicts.NewYorkTimes2Jan.1926:10

riotouslymodernistic1931BeauxArtsBall,wereanother.Suchsimulacrabeganto
emergeinHollywoodaswell.Forthe1932movieDancersintheDark,Paramount
StudiosplacedtheirstarletMiriamHopkinsinthearmsofamechanicalmatetofilm
theclimacticdancescenes.Topromotethefilm,Paramountrannewspaperadsimitating
theformatofrealarticles,theheadlinereading:ROBOTUSEDASDANCE
PARTNER.Themechanicaldancerwasriggeduptodoafancyfoxtrot,waltz,or
tango,andlead[Hopkins]likeanyhumandancingpartner.33Themalelead,Jack
Oakie,wasonlycalledinforlongshots.JusttwoyearslaterOakiemayhavebeenout
ofajobcompletely,asnewspapersreportedavogueinthemajormoviestudiosforrobot
themedfilms.34Examplesaboundofathreatrealorimaginedtotherelevanceofthe
humanprotagonistduringtheinterwarera.Forthoseopposed,theexuberancewithwhich
somefilmstudios,theaterdirectors,andculturalcriticspraisedthisprocessofhuman
obsolescencewouldhavemadeitseemallthemorereal,allthemoreinevitable,allthe
morethreatening.
Hopkinsrobotpartnerrepresentednotonlythedisappearanceofthe(male)
protagonistbothintheaterandfilm,asactoranddancerbutalsoshowedtheextentto
whichtheadvancementsScheffauertoutedin1926hadbeenabsorbedinto,orwere
alreadyextantinAmericandance.Indeed,themechanicaldancerandthehuman
puppetwerepotentthemesindanceanddancecriticismintheU.S.,andfunctionedas
symbolsthroughwhichanxietiesabouttherelationshipbetweenhumans,machines,and
themodernworkenvironmentcouldbeexpressedandalleviated.Somepowerfulcritics
33RobotUsedasDancePartner.LosAngelesTimes7Feb.1932:B12
34Schallert,Edwin.StudiosLiningUpStoriesofRobots,LatestIdeainSearchforNewFilmThemes.
LosAngelesTimes1May1934:13.

wereoptimisticabouttheintersectionofdancerandmachine.AlongNewYorkTimes
feature,forexample,expoundedonthebenefitsofmachinestomoderndance,aswellas
moderndancesredemptionofthemachineage.Efficiencymayindeedbeafetish,
wroteJohnMartinin1928,assomeassert;mankindmaybedegeneratingintoaraceof
robotsbutthefactneverthelessremainsthatthedancehasflourishedintheregimeof
thegrosslymalignedmachine.Martinhimselfdrawsadirectlinebetweentheefficiency
gospelofFord,Coolidge,andHooverandtheriseofmoderndance,writing,Underthe
impetusofaworldmovementtowardefficiencyandthereclamationofwaste,thedance
wasrevitalized.35
Thisrevitalization,iftrue,createdanotherhierarchyofauthorityandknowledge
fortheperiod.Throughscientificanalysisandtechniques,expertpractitionersof
thesenewdanceformscreatedabiomechanicalknowledgethatcouldonlybetaughtto
theirhordesofpupils,notintuitedbythem.Infact,onlymedicalspecialistscouldtruly
understandtheseprocessesofmovement,asitisactuallytoaphysiciannoway
concernedwithartthat[moderndance]owesitsorigin.AccordingtoMartin,aDr.Bess
MensendieckofGermanyactuallyinventedthisphysicalculturewhiletryingtocreate
asystemforphysicalefficiencyforattainingthegreatestpowerandrangewiththelast
expenditureofenergy.Thepervasiveeconomicconceitculminatesinthefollowing
passage;
Therehasbeennothingofsentiment,nothingofemotion,inthegrowthof
thisnewtechnicalmethod.Theremerefactthatitsadvocateshave
renouncedoldmethodsimplies,itistrue,adegreeofesthetic
selectivenessandtheexistenceofacreed,ifonlyoneofnegation.Butthe
35Martin,John.TheDanceisAttunedtotheMachine.NewYorkTimes,24Feb.1929:79.

techniqueitselfhasnotbeenpromptedbyanyurgeofthesoulorany
irrepressibledemandforselfexpression.Itisapurelymechanistic
development,bentonachievingtheendsofasoundlyandwiselypractical
era:namely,togetthegreatestpossiblyhealthyreturnonevery
investment,whetheritbeofmoney,fuelormuscle.36
Thebodywasamotor,energyitsfuel,motionitspurpose;orthebodywasrobotic,
divestedofsentimentandemotion,movingonlyaccordingtothestandardized
instructionsofmorepowerful,moreknowledgeableexperts.Thecorporealthusnolonger
hadmeaningasanobjectinitself,butasamerecontainerofthetwomostcoveted,
immaterialobjectsintheAmericaneconomy,motionandenergy.
Unsurprisingly,manyobjectedtothisview.Thesedissentersbelievedthat
moderndanceeithersymbolizedorcontributedtothewidespreaddehumanization
resultingfromFordismsMachineAge.Decryingthedanceofthecity,oneNewYork
TimesauthorcontinuedtoproclaimthatTraditionisArcadianthetraditionofthe
balletremainsthetraditionofArcadia,andthehumanraceisolderthananyofthe
machinesithassosedulouslyinvented.Heyearnedtoresuscitatethespacebetweenthe
primitivebruteandthebrutethatmachineshavemade.Inshort,thereliesallhumanity
andthehumanities,therelieshintsofnymphs,shepherdesses,fauns,satyrs,andladsof
thevillage.Forthisauthor,machinesandmachineinspireddancehadbanished
humanitytoamythicrealm.Shouldtheprogressofmachinescontinueunimpeded,
bothindanceandindustry,heenvisionedafamiliarend:WeBecomeRobotsInthis
formofimpersonaldramawerearesupposedtoseeourselvesdeprivedofguiding
personalbrainsreducedtotherankoftherobotswhichtheCapeksinvented.37
36Ibid
37Irving,Carter.JazzBringsFirstDanceofTheCity.NewYorkTimes14Jun.1925:SM9.

Toavoidthisroboticfate,torevitalizeanowmythichumanity,manyimploreda
revivalofwhathadnowbecomefolkdance.AnotherNewYorkTimesarticle
documentedtheseincreasedandreactionaryrevivalefforts,whichincludedimitatingthe
dancesofAmericanIndiansandEnglishpeasants.WrittenbytheproMachineAgeJohn
Martin,however,thispieceofferstwoperspectives:first,itshowstheantiprogressivist
protestthatpartiallymotivatedthisrevivalism;second,itrevealsMartinspowertoelide
thisopposition,reframingitassupplementaryandindeedindebtedtomodernization:
ithasfrequentlybeendeclaredthatthemuchmalignedmachineageis
lethaltocultureanddestructiveofeverythingsimpleandhuman;yetthis
sameagehasmadeaspecialpointofdiscoveringofdiscoveringandto
preservingthefinesimplicityandrichhumanityofthepeasantartswhich
precedingperiodshavebeenpronetopassoverascrudeanduncouth.38
Thedancesofthesimpleman,Martincontinues,areabletoconveytowewhoare
lesssimpletheverysoilofpastcultures.
Importantly,thereconciliatorytacticthatMartindeploysisonefoundinmanyof
thecommentariesonmachinesandmoderndance,frombothsidesofthedebate.
Compromisesandmiddlegroundsemergefromavidmodernists,whorecognizeaneed
toassimilateandneutralizedissentingvoicesandtraditionalforms,andfrom
traditionalists,whooftenaffectatoneofpragmaticresignationtothegripthat
technology,industry,andefficiencyhaveonU.S.society.Thuseventhatpropagandistof
dematerialization,HermanScheffauer,concludedhisarticleonasemicomfortingnote,
claimingthatthedramaoftraditionisnotyetsodeadthatitmustabjectlysurrenderthe
boardstotheinanimate.Itishighlyprobablethatthevitalwillalwaystriumphoverthe
38Martin,John.TheDance:FolkArtasInspiration.NewYorkTimes3Jan.1932:X6.

mechanical.39Alternatively,theauthorwhosopolemicallycalledforareturntoArcadia
ultimatelybacksdown,certainthathislackofexpertiseundermineshisbeliefs.Perhaps
thenewstuffonlyneedstobehumanized,herelented.Thefearsofantimoderns
palliated,thedangersofprogressminimized,whatremainedwasamandatefor
moderniststoproceedwiththeirdematerializinganddevaluatingofthebody,solongas
theystagetheoccasionalFolkFestival.
Notincidentally,whilethefolkdancemovementwasgainingpublicacceptance
inNewYork,theFordMuseumopenedinDetroit,dedicatedtomemorializingtheold
crafttraditionsintheUnitedStates.DescribingthemuseuminMovingForward,Henry
Fordlaysoutthelogicbehindtheinstitution:
Theartsoftheoldcraftsmanhavenotbeenlostandneitherhavehis
materials.Ifwedonotfollowhiminourworkoftoday,itisnotbecause
wecannot,butbecauseineveryrespectwehaveimprovedmightilyon
whathedid.Wecan,ifwesocare,doanythingthathedidanddoit
better.40
Becauseoldtraditionsandmaterialshavebeenpreserved,mummifiedbehindmuseum
glassorsimulatedonstage,theycanbeabandonedinreality;Arcadiahadbecomethe
therapeuticdaytripormythicaldaydreamforthemodernera.
Aswithitsquellingofanxietiesoverrobotismandidentity,Fordismhererevealed
itselfasanentrenchedanddominantideologycapableofabsorbingandappropriating
critique.Itisworthreemphasizingthatdancersandmarionetteartistsoftenexplicitly
definedtheirworkasindialoguecriticalorcelebratorywiththeworkingbody,as
wellastheMachineAgeseviscerationofit.AsdancehistorianMarkFranko
convenientlysummarizes:
TheperformanceofworkconstitutedanewdirectioninAmericatheatrical
culturebetween1929and1941.Worksactualdoingbecameasubject
39Scheffauer,Herman.NewestBalletsScorntheMerelyHumanForm.NewYorkTimesMagazine4
Jul.1926:SM22.
40Ford,MovingForwad,p.125.

worthyofattentionandartistictreatment,andhencetherepresentationof
workandworkersbydancerscoulditselfbelegitimatelyvaluedaslabor.
Thecoincidenceofdanceandwork,oftenaquestionofthecollective
ratherthanthesingularbody,wasinturninfluencedbyFordist
organizationalformations.41

41Franko,Mark.TheWorkofDance:Labor,Movement,andIdentityinthe1930s(Middletown:
WesleyanUniversityPress,2002)p.1.

InthewordsofthefamousDetroitbasedpuppeteerJohnMcPharlin,puppetrywas
handicraftintheMachineAge,andwasakindofspiritualsalvefortheinexorable
hardnessoftheencroachingmachineageaccordingtoaprominenthistorianofthe
subject.42ProkofieffsAgeofSteel(fig.5)theballetperformancethataccompanied
BufanosOedipusRexwasaskepticalcommentaryontherhythmofmachine
industryanditslargescaleefficiency.43Motivatingthefolkdancerevivalwasnot
simplyadelightedantiquarianism,butadesiretoreconstitutetheFordizedbodyasa
relevantsiteofcreation,knowledge,andselfcontrol.Butthepuppetssoonbecame
superhuman,andmodernballetsoondematerializedthebody,andfolkdance
5. Two dancers from
Serge Prokofieffs Pas dAcier (Age of Steel). [from Martin, John. The Dance: Social Satire, New York Times, 19
becamethehandmaidenofmodernity.Understandingthatthedancerasworkermetaphor
wasextensiveduringtheperiod,oneseesintheseexamplesthatFordismsworkingself
waspracticallyunimpeachable,asattemptsatcritiqueweresimplyreinterpretedtoits
benefit.Butwasthispermanentlyso?Hadtheinterwarperiodarrivedatanewdefinition
ofworkthatrequiredthedevaluationanddematerializationofthemodernworkingbody?
Itisaquestionwhichwillhavetobeansweredbywiserheadsthanmine,saidthe
authorwhopinedforArcadia.44

42Bell,John,p.72.
43Martin,John.TheDance:SocialSatire.NewYorkTimes,19Apr.1931:109.
44Carter,Irving.JazzBringsFirstDanceofTheCity.NewYorkTimes14Jun.1925:SM9.