Social Consequences of the Great Depression in American Theater
Dire monetary conditions caused people to look for someone to blame, to re-examine their individual role in the context of the group, to believe in money as both the cause and the solution to problems, to contemplate alternate political systems, and even to create and destroy dreams. America was festering with broken people, broken bank accounts, and broken dreams.
In “Both Your Houses,” Maxwell Anderson explores the initial repercussions of the Great Depression, when a greater political awareness seemed to arise among the American people. Money became such a national focus point that the people naturally became more interested in governmental spending and the allocation of national resources, perhaps looking to make the government a scapegoat which could be blamed for their personal monetary troubles.
After all, if the government can’t handle its money in an honest and fair manner, it is no surprise that its people would suffer under such a corrupt system – and if the government is corrupt, maybe it is to blame for the widespread poverty among its people, because “you can look up and see the depression all around you” (Anderson, 1933: 11). On the other hand, the government could conceivably provide monetary relief to the people and thus would be accepted into a savior role. Money and politics, then, are simultaneously accepted as both the cause and solution to society’s problems.
Alan McClean, for example, represents a kind of every man character, in so far as the fact that his intentions are purely for good and his concerns seem to represent those of the people. As an individual he seeks to regulate the group; he wants to reveal and destroy what is dirty in the senate in order to quit wasting the government’s money on useless and trivial improvement projects designed to only benefit people and politicians in certain areas while overlooking others.
The bill in question throughout the play was intended to cover only forty million dollars, no small sum by any standards but a particularly obscene one during the 1930s, but by the time it is actually passed it covers four hundred and seventy-five million dollars due to each representative tacking on whatever they wanted specifically for their state. Clearly, American citizens and newspapers alike would have a field day picking apart such a costly bill passed while the country was in a state of widespread depression. Society would be quick to blame the federal government for their poverty and clamor for a change in government policy, while the government would blame the House of Representatives for passing the bill in the first place. The cycle of blame is as endless as it is futile.
Although the circumstances surrounding the bill in “Both Your Houses” are undoubtedly exaggerated for purposes of theatrical effectiveness, the inflated bill can be viewed as a symbol of the individual and self-serving purposes that lie inside all of humanity, not just within the representatives. Basic human instinct tells us to look out for ourselves first and worry about others later, if ever, once we become secure. On a similar level, each representative with the exception of McClean seems more concerned with themselves – that is to say, whether or not their actions will ultimately pay off for them individually in the form of re-election, and whether or not their state will benefit from the proposed bills – than they are for the whole of the nation. As long as the individual feels taken care of, he or she can over look the needs of the entire group without too much remorse.
McClean, however, seems to possess a genuine interest in passing a bill that at least does not needlessly drain the nation’s funds, even if it would not quite end up directly benefitting anyone in particular. In the long run, not depleting the nation’s treasury in “wasteful, useless, extravagant, ridiculous” (p. 53) ways is a legitimate concern for every citizen in America. The goal McClean attempts, though rather unsuccessfully, to work towards is beneficial to both the individual and the whole of society. Money which is not frivolously used could instead be used to help aid unemployed workers, which would cause a boost in the overall quality of life in America, which would in turn cause a decrease in crimes like stealing and petty larceny.
McClean went wrong when he assumed that the other representatives would at some point feel guilt over the obscenely large price tag attached to the bill and thus be inspired to vote against it. In reality, when every individual involved in the vote stood to benefit from the bill, few of them were able to look beyond their immediate interests and think instead about the good of the entire society. America as a country in the midst of depression could do far more important and essential things for its citizens than build an over-priced dam or establish “a patrol of the Canadian border for the Japanese beetle” (p. 40), but instead the representatives get caught up in the idea of instant personal gratification.
Due to the impossible nature of singling out one individual representative to be held accountable for allowing the bill to pass, this effectively allows each representative to feel as though the blame is deflected from them and is instead shouldered by the entire House of Representatives. When an individual is part of a group, they ultimately may feel less than responsible for their own actions. “To hell with the country!” one of the representatives exclaims, “We’re climbing on the bandwagon!” (p. 131). This shows the re-definition of self in a group context, because no individual is obligated to feel solely responsible for what they do. Instead, each individual thinks in context of what the group does.
The average person in America is against this “money bill” (p. 156) once word of it gets out because, as one of the assistants puts it, “this government’s costing a sight too much.” However, one of the representatives bluntly points out that a lack of money might cost the assistant his job, though “it’s high-minded of [him] to consider the good of the country” (p. 157). The assistant is quick to take back his disagreement with the bill, which demonstrates how difficult it can be for someone to consider the plight others before they consider themselves. When it comes down to their job or someone else’s, said person must consider taking food from their mouth in order to feed someone else, and even the most compassionate person is likely to choose their own comfort as priority at the expense of another’s possible discomfort.
Clifford Odets’s “Awake and Sing!” and “Waiting for Lefty” debuted in 1933 and 1935 respectively, when the panic of the Great Depression was reaching a peak and people began to realize the economic crisis might not be just a temporary and passing phase. Due to these social concerns, the climate of America was ripe for plays which offered commentary on the situation.
“Awake and Sing!” focuses on “a struggle for life amidst petty conditions” (Odets, 1933: 15), the exact problem most families were facing during the 1930s. In this particular case, we follow a Jewish family struggling to make ends meet in the Bronx. Among the characters within and on the fringe of the Berger family, one comes to realize that none of these people have ever obtained exactly what they want out of life, and due to the stress caused by their poverty they come to blame and resent one another, instead of solidifying in their mutual cause to survive the hard times.
Take for instance Ralph, the son of the family, who even at his age of some twenty years remains bitter over never having had the money to take tap lessons or get his teeth fixed when he was younger. When he says, referring to his impoverished lifestyle, “I don’t know … every other day to sit around with the blues and mud in your mouth … all my life I want a pair of black and white shoes and I can’t get them. It’s crazy!” (p. 24), the pain and discomfort of not having money in a society flooded with costly dreams is quite evident. His grandfather Jacob expresses this conundrum adequately when he says, “In a house like this [Ralph] don’t realize even the possibilities of life. Economics comes down like a ton of coal on his head” (p. 69). When money becomes the focus of life, it becomes hard to see beyond circumstances, to think of anything other than that there must be something more, something better in the world.
Ralph, obviously, is not the only character who is affected by the strains of obligation to family as opposed to sole obligation to self. Because a family is a group that an individual generally feels some responsibility towards, one is often faced with the choice between what is best for them and what is best for the family. Bessie, the mother of the family, feels as though she is “not only the mother but also the father” (p. 15) of the house, despite the fact that there is a father in the household. She has let go of whatever dreams she as an individual had in order to provide and care for her family, and must face the harsh realities brought forth by a life lived hand to mouth. Her sole purpose in life is survival, which at times causes her to overlook the importance of feeding the soul instead of just the belly. She has made her choice and does what is best for the family, because in her case, it is impossible to do both.
The poverty and hunger brought forth by the Great Depression clearly caused society at times to neglect not only their souls but also their dreams. The philosopher Simone de Beauvoir states that “life is occupied in both perpetuating itself and in surpassing itself; if all it does is maintain itself, then living is only not dying” (Elgin, 2000: 403). The problem in the Berger family does just that: they are trapped in a struggle only to survive, neither improving nor diminishing in assets and resources, but strictly maintaining the level at which there is scarce opportunity to do anything more than exist, let alone actively seek to pursue whatever dreams they may hold dear.
Bessie does not want her son to marry a penniless orphan girl he will have to provide for and also does not want to “let [Ralph’s] sixteen bucks out of the house” (p. 32), but she is all too eager to marry her daughter off so that a man will take over the burden of providing for her. Bessie’s beliefs, while contradictory, ultimately fulfill their self-serving purposes: Ralph does not marry his girl and she no longer has the sole responsibility of feeding Hennie.
Hennie has her chance to pursue real love taken away when she becomes pregnant out of wedlock, and is instead forced to commit herself to a monetarily sensible, loveless marriage to ensure that she and her child will survive without adding further burden to her immediate family. In this case, Hennie as an individual takes a hit for the well-being of her family. Bessie is the one who choreographs the marriage of Hennie to Sam Feinschreiber, a recent immigrant, figuring that he will never come to know the child is not his. She considers Sam to be suitable because “he put enough in the bank, a good living … he’ll come tonight for supper. By Saturday, they’re engaged” (p. 43). The obvious injustice of this reflects that the mother has become so overburdened that she no longer cares what she must inflict or pawn off on others to maintain her steadfast grip on life just above the poverty line. She puts her self-interest and that of the family’s above Sam’s best interest.
The juxtaposition of minor and serious conflicts helps maintain the feeling of realism in the play. While the Berger family is busy trying to survive, they still find time to argue about the minor and trivial events of daily life, which demonstrates the basic inability of people to just live and let live, even in the face of far more serious concerns. Instead, we experience the nitpicking of Bessie at her children, calling them ungrateful and making speeches about what she believes to be her self-sacrificing nature. Bessie also picks on Jacob, her father who serves as a font for Communist ideology, in the unfortunate manner in which people seem to speak to the elderly with a lack of respect. Moe, the boarder in the house who is also Hennie’s true love, can think of nothing else to say but “What the hell kind of house is this it ain’t got an orange!!” (p. 48) when he finds out Hennie is to be married. Human nature causes people to focus on small problems, which are more easily addressed than larger problems, which are far more all encompassing and difficult to cope with.
Jacob, not surprisingly, seems to be the only family member to offer any solutions, in addition to being critical of the way the family and society in general exist. He often seeks to inspire and guide Ralph to live a better life, and ultimately he sacrifices his own life in order to provide Ralph insurance money so that he may escape from the clutches of poverty. His suicide is foreshadowed when he fights with Bessie for one of the final times and exclaims “But Ralph you don’t make like you. Before you do it, I’ll die first … this is a house? Marx said it – abolish such families” (p. 44).
Though money never magically solves any problem, Jacob hopes it will provide Ralph with the courage and opportunity to escape before he becomes too hardened and beaten down to believe that happiness is obtainable. The knowledge that Ralph finally comes to possess is this: “We don’t want life printed on dollar bills, Mom!” (p. 106). He chooses to take off and start his own life without the insurance money, because he has risen above the capitalist ideology that claims money paves the only path to success and excellence. Ralph can not be free if he remains a slave to the dollar or to his family, so he chooses to put his individual interests first for once.
“Waiting for Lefty,” also written by Odets, takes place during a taxicab strike and uses flashbacks of various striker’s previous life experiences to demonstrate the origin of why they have come to believe that striking is the solution to their economic crisises. Here we explore similar themes found in Odets’s previous play, such as the presence of alternate political ideas, the decay of love amidst poverty, and money seen not exactly as a solution to life’s problems, but at least as one less stress inducing factor. Clearly, these were popular themes to be explored during the Great Depression, since almost no one was left untouched by the social effects of hardship.
Fatt, representative of the evils of capitalism and corporations, serves as the anti-hero of the play and, large as he is, provides a stark contrast to his starving workers. To try and convince his workers not to strike, Fatt uses every bureaucratic technique he can grasp his chubby hands on, from calling them communists and cowards to trying to stir up feelings of patriotism. Try telling anyone who is working their “fingers to the bone” (p. 10) only to come home hungry with hardly enough money to pay their rent that they should continue on in honor of their country, and as happens in the play, even war veterans are sure to protest. Communism is not exactly embraced straight out in the play, because at this time in American history communism was practically considered a dirty word, but instead it is slowly revealed as the driving force behind social change and revolution.
When Fatt says, “Red and yellow makes a dirty color, boys … what the hell’ll they do for you? Pull you out and run away when the trouble starts … they’ll have your sisters and mothers in the whore houses, like they done in Russia. They’ll tear Christ off his bleeding cross. They’ll wreck your homes and throw your babies in the river” (p. 4), he is obviously invoking all the things that people hold dear – loyalty, family, religion, households, babies – as a cheap ploy to make the strikers fear communism as evil and destructive. People tend to fear and hate the unknown, often before they bother to find out anything about it.
Communism is defined as the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat, workers, in order to set up an economic system where every person in society is cared for and paid equally, no matter what job they choose to work (Costello, 1997: 282); in the case of the Great Depression and even in present day America, many people would like the opportunity to share in the wealth of the country, if not to the extent of evoking communism as a means of getting there. Alternate political beliefs become more apparent in times of turmoil and dissatisfaction as proposed solutions to problems like poverty, which has plagued our society from the very beginning. Joe, one of the strikers, adequately sums up these feelings when he describes workers as “the black and blue boys! We been kicked around so long … but I guess anyone who says he don’t like it, he’s a red boy to the leaders of the union” (p. 6). When people feel hungry, tired, and abused enough, anything that promises an easier life is bound to look better than what they have, or do not have, under the restraints of a capitalist society.
Joe and his wife Edna, for example, are suffering along on six or seven dollars a week (p. 11) with two kids to feed and rent to pay, and the hard reality of poverty is starting to grate on their relationship. Here we begin to realize how the lack of money can cause serious problems in what would otherwise be a fairly stable relationship. Though it is entirely possible Edna is making idle threats in an attempt to spur Joe to action, she basically threatens to leave him because he is failing to provide for her and the children. “The world is supposed to be for all of us” (p. 11), she tells him, which supports the community welfare ideas of communism in addition to encouraging Joe to talk to his fellow workers and organize a strike. The important issue to keep in mind is that the severe need for more money was an issue in everyone’s life in 1935 due to the depressed economy, and yet poverty affects the individual just as certainly as it affects the group. Poverty, no matter what the cause, stimulates the same problems no matter who or what is to blame.
Flor and Sid, despite being engaged for three years, still feel pressured to go their separate ways due to dire financial circumstances. Irv, Flor’s brother, tells her that “nowadays is no time to be soft. You gotta be hard as a rock or go under” (p. 25) in response to her declaration of undying love for Sid. At times, Flor seems almost convinced that her future with Sid is an entirely bleak one, except that in the end her love for him is too strong to be denied no matter what the economic reality may be. The hope for happiness to lie in wait beyond what can be found in immediate and tangible resources still exists, although these two would probably end up slightly bitter and estranged a few years later, like Edna and Joe, if they continued down the path of poverty. “If we can’t climb higher than this together – we better stay apart,” Sid admits, torn between dreams and reality. “We got the blues, Babe – the 1935 blues” (p. 29). The constant struggle between maintaining hope and admitting the unpleasant reality is ever present and undeniable.
Lefty, the man who is talked about throughout the play but never heard from or seen, is symbolic perhaps of left-wing ideas. We get the sense that he is a sort of Christ figure, in the fact that he is murdered for fighting for what he believes in. He does not die in vain, clearly, because as Agate says, “Slow death or fight! It’s war … we’ll die for what is right! Put fruit trees where our ashes are!” (p. 51-52). His death is perhaps the final factor in leading these men to strike no matter what the cost or consequences might be. In this case, an individual sacrifices himself for the good of the group.
O’Neill’s “The Iceman Cometh” deals with the decaying and entertaining of dreams far more whole-heartedly than the aforementioned plays, while also offering a social commentary on vanishing idealism. All this takes place in Harry Hope’s bar, located in the downtown West Side of New York. Larry, a token patron of the bar later referred to as the “Old Grandstand Foolosopher” (p. 83) by Hickey, is constantly spouting off about the stupidity of pipe dreams and their effect on the people who entertain them, because “as the history of the world proves, the truth has no bearing on anything. It’s irrelevant and immaterial … the lie of a pipe dream is what gives life to the whole misbegotten lot of us” (O’Neill, 1940: 9).
He obviously feels as though mankind itself is a poor brood that only continues on because of careful, contrived illusions that allow people to feel better about themselves. In Larry’s opinion, “the material the ideal free society must be constructed from is men themselves and you can’t build a marble temple out of a mixture of mud and marble” (p. 30). Larry sees himself as an individual, removed from the group, and no longer responsible for their actions.
Oddly enough, despite his strong and repetitive complaints about illusion and the faults of mankind, Larry is no more pleased than any of the drunken gang when Hickey shows up and begins to shatter their pipe dreams one by one. Perhaps this is because he is still guilty of holding on to his own pipe dream: that he is better than and removed from the whole of society and is just waiting to die. Larry himself admits that “it’s a great game, the pursuit of happiness” (p. 14). As Hickey says, “he doesn’t want to be bothered understanding. But he does understand all right!” (p. 219).
The reality of America is that, though it is a country built on hopes and dreams of freedom and happiness, not everyone is free or happy, and “it isn’t often that men attain the true goal of their heart’s desire” (p. 36). Particularly during the Great Depression, happiness was certainly not present in many people’s lives. Hickey goes so far as to suggest that what makes people so miserable is their inability to admit the truth about themselves; when he “finally had the guts to face [him]self and throw overboard the damned lying pipe dream that’d been making [him] so miserable” (p. 79), he felt relieved of the fictitious pretenses which had really only made him feel inadequate and unworthy as the person he was.
Hickey knew that society and, more specifically, his wife, saw him as someone who needed to change – and he could never accept himself as an individual as long as society required and fully expected him to serve a different role. Hickey clearly was not meant to be sober, monogamous, or responsible; his identity, as selfish as it may seem, is wrapped up in being drunk, sleeping around, and making mistakes. He is an individual who is unable to act for the benefit of society at large and instead can act only in his best interest. In order to be free of societal constraints, he ultimately must kill his wife. The desperation Hickey faced upon realizing that he could never fulfill his wife’s pipe dreams of him straightening out and sobering up left him with no choice but to severe the tie with what was trying so hard to force him into a role he could never fulfill. We understand why he does it; he has to do it.
By examining some of the plays written during the Great Depression, we come to realize that a few notable themes emerge, including the passing of blame from one person to another, the re-evaluation of the individual in the context of a group setting, the belief that money is both the problem and the solution, the exploration of alternate political ideologies, and the presence and lack of dreams in American society. Yet even though America is no longer in the midst of an economic crisis, these problems still penetrate every layer of our society, from the richest level down to the poorest. Perhaps, at core, Americans will never forget what our ancestors went through in order to just survive – or maybe, we were all cursed from the beginning to suffer the consequences of our behavior, and we will continue to reap and sow our rewards and punishments for the rest of all time.
