Muriel Rukeyser responded
to the American jitters in a poetry collection published in 1938, US1. The book is most famous for the “documentary’
poems known as the “Book of the Dead.” Like other artists at that time – I am
thinking of Dorothea Lange’s pictures of Great depression miseries, or James Agee’s
Let us now praise famous men - Muriel Ruykeyser saw in the Depression not only
a great rebuke to capitalism, but, as well, to the modernist focus on a certain
sort of subject – infinitely cultivated, infinitely melancholy – and sought to bring
modernist shock tactics into the field, so to speak.
Modernist shock was out there in the tools and industry. The
book of the dead is based on a typical bit of All American skunkery: a company,
Dennis and Rinehart, hired miners in West Virginia to drill a tunnel under a
mountain to divert a river to an electric plant. Discovering that there was a
mass of silicate heavy rock under the mountain, the company – wanting to
exploit the silica – had the men dry drill that rock in particular, instead of
using water hydraulic drills, which were the legal standard. Dry drilling
creates dust clouds of silicate, and silicate is inimical to human lung tissue.
A thousand or so died of silicosis, a peculiarly
horrible condition that strangles you.
“-What was their salary?
- It started at 40 cents and dropped to 25 cents per hour.”
Unfortunately the
miners’ families, instead of being grateful that the U.S. wasn’t run by Stalin,
actually stooped to lobbying to have the company investigated. Congress eventually
investigated, and did nothing. The workers sued, and the courts decided a
workers’ life is maybe worth a generous thousand dollars. Stalin, however,
never ruled America, it should be pointed out. And Rukeyser, due to her “communist
sympathies”, was duly attacked in the fifties, with the American Legion
sponsoring a campaign in 1958 to get her fired as a “red influence” from Sarah
Lawrence University.
The book of the dead poems are about an industrial accident.
It is interesting to look across the divides – between, say, the aesthetic and
the medical – and notice that industry in America, for the greater part of the
century, was designed by white men trained in a certain way, among certain
institutions – military, educational, corporate - while much of the
countervailing work – the work of understanding the hazards of industry – fell
to women who were often outsiders in those institutions. Muriel Rukeyser wrote
a review of an autobiography by one of those women – the unjustly forgotten
Alice Hamilton. In the obituary of Hamilton published in the NYT, it was noted
that she and her two sisters were brilliant, each in their own field. Indeed,
her sister Edith Hamilton is probably better known than Alice today – millions of
American students got their knowledge of Greek mythology from her book on the
subject. Rukeyser, in a famous early poem, rejected “Sappho” for “Sacco” –
although that early gesture was not definitive of all her work. Still, I like
to think that Rukeyser, the Hamilton sisters, and Rachel Carson form a
mini-tradition of American dissent that truly did rage against the machine. Alice
Hamilton was the first woman, I believe, to teach at Harvard; she was a pioneer
of industrial medicine, and she was unafraid to campaign politically for workplace
safety; she wrote to her friend, Gerard
Swope, the president of GE, about the dangers of asphalt as early as the
1940s; and of course she was investigated as a Red by the FBI.
Rukeyser’s on the road poems, unlike Kerouac later on, did
not take the road as a natural given, but as a created thing, sprung from
industrial design, equipment, materials and human body tissue. In her review of
Alice Hamilton’s autobiography, Rukeyser expressed an aesthetic/political credo
that I like a lot: that the work place is a “testing-place of democracy.” And Rukeyser
saw, as Alice Hamilton did, the explicit gender terms under which the human product
was turned out in the treadmill of
production:
“It seemed natural and right that a woman should put the
care of the producing workman ahead of the value of the thing he was producing;
in a man it would have been thought sentimentality or radicalism,” writes Dr.
Hamilton. The manager of a big plant said to her that a man would see in his
own workmen only a part, and a bothersome part of the plant’s machinery; but a
woman would see them as individuals, as so many fathers and husbands and
brothers.” Of course, this grossly
ignores the women who worked in the factories, from seamstress to the pecan
shellers of San Antonio, whose strike in 1938 was a precipitating event in
Texas’s history of anti-labor union law. However, the gendering of a view of
the human as a “part” is an important, and missing element in the history of
the American century that is falling to pieces right in front of our nose. It
deserves some more sweeping treatment.
No comments:
Post a Comment