THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS Usable Performance Feminism for Our Time:Reconsidering Betty Friedan Author(s):Dorothy Chansky Source:Theatre Journal,Vol.60,No.3,Feminism and Theatre,Redux (Oct.,2008),pp.341-364 Published by:Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/40211067 Accessed:16-01-2016 12:04 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms&Conditions of Use,available at http://www istor org/pagel info/about/policies/terms.isp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,researchers,and students discover,use,and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive.We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR,please contact support@jstor.org. Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Theatre Journal. STOR http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theatre Journal. http://www.jstor.org Usable Performance Feminism for Our Time: Reconsidering Betty Friedan Author(s): Dorothy Chansky Source: Theatre Journal, Vol. 60, No. 3, Feminism and Theatre, Redux (Oct., 2008), pp. 341-364 Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40211067 Accessed: 16-01-2016 12:04 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Usable Performance Feminism for Our Time:Reconsidering Betty Friedan Dorothy Chansky Betty Friedan is readily acknowledged as "the mother of the modern feminist movement,""feminism's matriarch,"and,perhaps more synoptically,as an advocate of social change "whose passion for ideas paralleled her passion for justice."1 It is a commonplace that The Feminine Mystigue-Friedan's head-on assault on a nexus of social norms and then-legal practices that trapped a broad swath of women in the dead-end role of homebound,financially dependent housewife and mommy-"effec- tively launched the women's movement in 1963."2 Although none of the five books she wrote following The Feminine Mystique came close to rivaling the 1963 wake-up call in either sales or ideological impact,Friedan remained a media celebrity and sought- after lecturer,writer,and academic presence until virtually the end of her life on her eighty-fifth birthday in 2006.Her later books,moreover,took up feminist issues well beyond equality in the workplace,making them progressive and useful,whether or not they achieved the notoriety of her first battle cry. Despite her revolutionary-and I do not think the word is hyperbolic-work,both Friedan and her writing are now often approached with optics somewhere on the spectrum from misty nostalgia to harsh critique.?For students of feminism in theatre and performance this is unfortunate.Friedan saw theatre as a powerful cultural tool. She also enjoyed the pleasures and perils of the limelight in a feminist-as-rock star way achieved by few.Marginalizing her may be fashionable,but since her influence and the issues she championed are still with us,neither she nor her legacy should be ignored. In this essay,I want to use Friedan's writing and persona as touchstones to consider how her ideas-and by extension second-wave feminism,which is often dismissed as Dorothy Chansky is associate professor of theatre at Texas Tech University,where she heads the history/ theory/criticism track.She is currently working on a book about domestic labor and food in twentieth- century American theatre and drama.She is a former book review editor of Theatre Journal. The author wishes to thank Kristine Newhall and Jonathan Chambers for their insights and recom- mendations for this article. 1 Michael Shelden,"Behind the Feminist Mystique,"in Interviews with Betty Friedan,ed.Janann Sherman (Jackson:University Press of Mississippi),189-94;Robert Selle,"Feminism's Matriarch," in Interviews with Betty Friedan,171-73;Judith Hennessee,Betty Friedan:Her Life(New York:Random Hou3e,1999),287. 2Geraldine Bedell,"Why We Love Those Wise Big Women,"New Statesman,8 May 2000,22. 3I borrow the nouns here from Janelle Reinelt's "Approaching the Sixties:Between Nostalgia and Critique"(Theutre Survey 43,no.1 [May 2002]).Reinelt asserts that it is possible to criticize foibles and failures of 1960s efforts toward social change while still "reaffirmlingl what must be taken forward into the futurc"and offering"an intervention into present and ongoing struggles about how to define the self,the citizen,and the nation"(40). Theatre Journal 60(2008)341-364 @2008 by The Johns Hopkins University Press This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Usable Performance Feminism for Our Time: Reconsidering Betty Friedan Dorothy Chansky Betty Friedan is readily acknowledged as "the mother of the modern feminist movement," "feminism's matriarch," and, perhaps more synoptically, as an advocate of social change "whose passion for ideas paralleled her passion for justice."1 It is a commonplace that The Feminine Mystique - Friedan's head-on assault on a nexus of social norms and then-legal practices that trapped a broad swath of women in the dead-end role of homebound, financially dependent housewife and mommy - "effectively launched the women's movement in 1963."2 Although none of the five books she wrote following The Feminine Mystique came close to rivaling the 1963 wake-up call in either sales or ideological impact, Friedan remained a media celebrity and soughtafter lecturer, writer, and academic presence until virtually the end of her life on her eighty-fifth birthday in 2006. Her later books, moreover, took up feminist issues well beyond equality in the workplace, making them progressive and useful, whether or not they achieved the notoriety of her first battle cry. Despite her revolutionary - and I do not think the word is hyperbolic - work, both Friedan and her writing are now often approached with optics somewhere on the spectrum from misty nostalgia to harsh critique.3 For students of feminism in theatre and performance this is unfortunate. Friedan saw theatre as a powerful cultural tool. She also enjoyed the pleasures and perils of the limelight in a feminist-as-rock star way achieved by few. Marginalizing her may be fashionable, but since her influence and the issues she championed are still with us, neither she nor her legacy should be ignored. In this essay, I want to use Friedan's writing and persona as touchstones to consider how her ideas - and by extension second-wave feminism, which is often dismissed as Dorothy Chansky is associate professor of theatre at Texas Tech University, where she heads the history/ theory /criticism track. She is currently working on a book about domestic labor and food in twentiethcentury American theatre and drama. She is a former book review editor o/Theatre Journal. The author wishes to thank Kristine Newhall and Jonathan Chambers for their insights and recommendations for this article. 1 Michael Shelden, "Behind the Feminist Mystique/' in Interviews with Betty Friedan, ed. Janann Sherman (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi), 189-94; Robert Selle, "Feminism's Matriarch/' in Interviews with Betty Friedan, 171-73; Judith Hennessee, Betty Friedan: Her Life (New York: Random House, 1999), 287. 2Geraldine Bedell, "Why We Love Those Wise Big Women," New Statesman, 8 May 2000, 22. 3 1 borrow the nouns here from Janelle Reinelt's "Approaching the Sixties: Between Nostalgia and Critique" (Theatre Survey 43, no. 1 [May 2002]). Reinelt asserts that it is possible to criticize foibles and failures of 1960s efforts toward social change while still "reaffirm[ing] what must be taken forward into the future" and offering "an intervention into present and ongoing struggles about how to define the self, the citizen, and the nation" (40). Theatre Journal 60 (2008) 341-364 © 2008 by The Johns Hopkins University Press This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
342 /Dorothy Chansky dated and exclusionary,asexual,and monolithic4-have remained relevant to theatre practitioners and performance analysts with feminist goals.By performance,I mean both the performance of scripted roles and plays and something more like what Erving Goffman called the presentation of self in everyday life.For actresses and other famous women,these two come together in unavoidable ways.In theatre qua theatre,academic criticism and theory of the 1980s and 1990s worked powerfully against granting cred- ibility to the sort of feminist work that could claim Friedan and her thinking as a direct influence.5 A concern for the constructedness of gender and intervention against the suppression or outright discrediting of lesbian sensibility led to a school of criticism that rarely addressed mainstream plays except to discount their value to progressive feminism.s Meanwhile,however,audiences for both experimental and traditionally constructed feminist theatre enjoyed work that materialist critics wrote off as either liberal(read too invested in the status quo)or cultural(read too willing to trade the patriarchy for a matriarchy and to see motherhood as women's main commonality) and,in any case,insufficient to the materialist task.? No one interested in feminism is unaware of either the populist backlash that gained traction in the late 1980s and early 1990s or of the renascent appeal of the stay-at-home-mom route newly repackaged in the 2000s as"choice."8 I was struck by See Astrid Henry's Not My Mother's Sister:Generational Conflict and Third-Wave Feminism (Bloom- ington:Indiana University Press,2004)for a fine analysis of how feminism of the 1960s and 1970s has been (re)constructed as doctrinaire,white,and anti-sex in order to allow feminists of the 1990s and beyond to believe they are breaking wholly new paths in their work.Among the ironies Henry notes is how lesbian,black,and Chicana third wavers invoke and build on the work of such women as Adrienne Rich,Lillian Faderman,Audre Lorde,bell hooks,and Gloria Anzaldua,even as they insist on the newness of their own presence as spokeswomen for the groups they represent. 5 For instance,Charlotte Canning's Feminist Theaters in the U.S.A.:Staging Women's Experience (Rout- ledge,1996)has not so much as an index entry for Betty Friedan,although Tom Hayden,Shulamith Firestone,and "the women's movement"are credited as seminal influences on theatres that self-identi- fied as feminist between 1969 and the mid-1980s. The best-known of these theorists are Jill Dolan,Sue-Ellen Case,Elin Diamond,and Peggy Phelan. Others whose work was frequently invoked and whose theories were crucial to parsing the psychoana- lytic and philosophical underpinnings of gender as performance include Judith Butler,Laura Mulvey, Luce Irigaray,and Teresa de Lauretis.This list is representative and not exhaustive."Mainstream"is an imprecise term;I use it here to mean plays and theatre reviewed in nationally read publications such as the New York Times or Time magazine or to refer to plays likely to be presented by regional or even community theatres in many cities and states.In no way does the term suggest an opinion about artistic worth or excellence;rather,it indicates cultural traction,circulation,and recognition among a broad segment of Americans who attend plays. 7 Jill Dolan's The Feminist Spectator as Critic(Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,1988)discusses each of these three branches of feminism and,in fact,names the categories as major rubrics under which several kinds of related strands of feminisms are grouped.Dolan discusses and provides ex- amples of liberal and cultural feminist theatre productions,basically situating them as well-meaning though dated or misguided.The book argues that realism cannot be (sufficiently)eye-opening,and that materialism cannot mean for feminist theorists what it does for so many historians namely,a precise and detailed concern with the objects,technologies,and social circumstances proscribing and sculpting lives under investigation (or performance or interpretation).Psychoanalytic and linguistic writings are the key discourses underpinning her materialism. The "bible"on the former is Susan Faludi's Backlash:The Undeclared War Against American Women (New York:Crown,1991).For a trenchant analysis and critique of the latter,see "Homeward Bound" by Linda R.Hirshman (American Prospect 16,no.12 [December 2005]:20-26).As of this writing,the latest critique of stay-at-home momdom is Leslie Bennetts's The Feminine Mistake:Are We Giving Up Too Much?(New York:Voice,2007),which focuses on the economic problems of giving up work and This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
342 / Dorothy Chansky dated and exclusionary, asexual, and monolithic4 - have remained relevant to theatre practitioners and performance analysts with feminist goals. By performance, I mean both the performance of scripted roles and plays and something more like what Erving Goffman called the presentation of self in everyday life. For actresses and other famous women, these two come together in unavoidable ways. In theatre qua theatre, academic criticism and theory of the 1980s and 1990s worked powerfully against granting credibility to the sort of feminist work that could claim Friedan and her thinking as a direct influence.5 A concern for the constructedness of gender and intervention against the suppression or outright discrediting of lesbian sensibility led to a school of criticism that rarely addressed mainstream plays except to discount their value to progressive feminism.6 Meanwhile, however, audiences for both experimental and traditionally constructed feminist theatre enjoyed work that materialist critics wrote off as either liberal (read too invested in the status quo) or cultural (read too willing to trade the patriarchy for a matriarchy and to see motherhood as women's main commonality) and, in any case, insufficient to the materialist task.7 No one interested in feminism is unaware of either the populist backlash that gained traction in the late 1980s and early 1990s or of the renascent appeal of the stay-at-home-mom route newly repackaged in the 2000s as "choice."8 1 was struck by 4 See Astrid Henry's Not My Mother's Sister: Generational Conflict and Third-Wave Feminism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004) for a fine analysis of how feminism of the 1960s and 1970s has been (re)constructed as doctrinaire, white, and anti-sex in order to allow feminists of the 1990s and beyond to believe they are breaking wholly new paths in their work. Among the ironies Henry notes is how lesbian, black, and Chicana third wavers invoke and build on the work of such women as Adrienne Rich, Lillian Faderman, Audre Lorde, bell hooks, and Gloria Anzaldua, even as they insist on the newness of their own presence as spokeswomen for the groups they represent. 5 For instance, Charlotte Canning's Feminist Theaters in the U.S.A.: Staging Women's Experience (Routledge, 1996) has not so much as an index entry for Betty Friedan, although Tom Hayden, Shulamith Firestone, and "the women's movement" are credited as seminal influences on theatres that self-identified as feminist between 1969 and the mid-1980s. 6 The best-known of these theorists are Jill Dolan, Sue-Ellen Case, Elin Diamond, and Peggy Phelan. Others whose work was frequently invoked and whose theories were crucial to parsing the psychoanalytic and philosophical underpinnings of gender as performance include Judith Butler, Laura Mulvey, Luce Irigaray, and Teresa de Lauren's. This list is representative and not exhaustive. "Mainstream" is an imprecise term; I use it here to mean plays and theatre reviewed in nationally read publications such as the New York Times or Time magazine or to refer to plays likely to be presented by regional or even community theatres in many cities and states. In no way does the term suggest an opinion about artistic worth or excellence; rather, it indicates cultural traction, circulation, and recognition among a broad segment of Americans who attend plays. 7 Jill Dolan's The Feminist Spectator as Critic (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1988) discusses each of these three branches of feminism and, in fact, names the categories as major rubrics under which several kinds of related strands of feminisms are grouped. Dolan discusses and provides examples of liberal and cultural feminist theatre productions, basically situating them as well-meaning, though dated or misguided. The book argues that realism cannot be (sufficiently) eye-opening, and that materialism cannot mean for feminist theorists what it does for so many historians - namely, a precise and detailed concern with the objects, technologies, and social circumstances proscribing and sculpting lives under investigation (or performance or interpretation). Psychoanalytic and linguistic writings are the key discourses underpinning her materialism. 8 The "bible" on the former is Susan Faludi's Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (New York: Crown, 1991). For a trenchant analysis and critique of the latter, see "Homeward Bound" by Linda R. Hirshman (American Prospect 16, no. 12 [December 2005]: 20-26). As of this writing, the latest critique of stay-at-home momdom is Leslie Bennetts's The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much? (New York: Voice, 2007), which focuses on the economic problems of giving up work and This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
USABLE PERFORMANCE FEMINISM FOR OUR TIME 343 signs showing the cffects of these phenomena in a venue where I least expected them: a pair of obituaries in the Smith Alumnae Quarterly that appeared two years apart. "Remembering Julia McWilliams Child '34"(SAQ,summer 2004)is a glowing and respectful pacan to the French chef,complete with a bullet list of accomplishments and a quoted demurral on the part of the recently deceased that her success was due to any talent.Indeed,Child claimed that she was uncomfortable about the notion of being remembered as a celebrity.The online version of the article includes a link to a 2003 interview.Later in 2004.Smith started an annual Julia Child event that featured, in its third year,a panel titled"What I Learned in the Kitchen."Two years after Child's obituary,Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz's "A Player on the World Stage"remembered the recently deceased Betty Goldstein Friedan (class of 1942)(SAQ,summer 2006).Here, the writer gives with one hand and withholds with the other.We learn of a Friedan interested in having her colors done and misjudging Gary Hart's escapades.While praising Friedan's "energy and sass,"Horowitz offers a reminder that Friedan "will never be elevated to sainthood in some kind of political heaven,for she brought to the game of life too much that insulted and offended others."There is no bullet list of books,no mention of how Friedan would like to be remembered,no link to any interview,and no impending annual event.There is also no mention of Friedan hav- ing achieved "the most outstanding record of any student ever matriculated at Smith" at the time of her graduation.0 There is,however,in the same issue,an excerpt from Child's last book,as well as interview with Alex Prud'homme called "Baking Pies with Aunt Julia." How baking pies and learning in the kitchen came to trump sass and sociological insight in an editorial notion of what will appeal to a Sisters'School imaginary is not unrelated to how Friedan's signature style(direct,eager,forthright,rough-edged)and even appearance(plump,blowzy,grey-haired,unreconstructed by surgery or personal trainers)came to be the antithesis of feminist chic.Nor is this shift unrelated to how Broadway and high-priced Off-Broadway have dealt with women's issues and with women as characters and actresses in the years since the appearance of The Feminine Mystique.In Friedan's case,professional(read critics and other high-profile feminists who knew her personally)response to her writing was perhaps colored by a sense that she was unpleasant in her personal dealings.In live public forums,however,among people outside any feminist"inner circle,"she was routinely received as captivating, magical,and galvanizing.Mediated forums offer an opportunity to consider how the needs and norms of television and journalism themselves construct a feminism and females in which style overwhelms-or at least outweighs-sociological insight and trying to return later.Only 74 percent of women who leave the workforce and want to return manage to do so,and only 40 percent return to full-time professional jobs,according to Bennetts's findings. Women's standards of living typically drop 36 percent when they divorce,while men's rise 28 percent. Bennetts is a full believer in the emotional benefits of marriage as partnership;her project here is to expose the financial realties of opting out of the workforce,even for just a few years. Jennifer Maddox Sergent,"Remembering Julia McWilliams Child34,"Smith Alumnae Quarterly, summer 2004. 10Daniel Horowitz,Betty Fricdan and the Making of The Feminine Mystique (Amherst:University of Massachusetts Press,1996),86.Friedan did say in an interview that she would like her epitaph to read:"She helped make women feel really good about being women.Therefore,they were better able to freely love themselves and more fully love men";see Glenn Lewis,"Betty Friedan's Life So Far: Personal Truths Spark a Movement,"Library Journal(1 April 2000):112. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
USABLE PERFORMANCE FEMINISM FOR OUR TIME / 343 signs showing the effects of these phenomena in a venue where I least expected them: a pair of obituaries in the Smith Alumnae Quarterly that appeared two years apart. "Remembering Julia McWilliams Child '34" (SAQ, summer 2004) is a glowing and respectful paean to the French chef, complete with a bullet list of accomplishments and a quoted demurral on the part of the recently deceased that her success was due to any talent. Indeed, Child claimed that she was uncomfortable about the notion of being remembered as a celebrity.9 The online version of the article includes a link to a 2003 interview. Later in 2004, Smith started an annual Julia Child event that featured, in its third year, a panel titled "What I Learned in the Kitchen." Two years after Child's obituary, Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz's "A Player on the World Stage" remembered the recently deceased Betty Goldstein Friedan (class of 1942) (SAQ, summer 2006). Here, the writer gives with one hand and withholds with the other. We learn of a Friedan interested in having her colors done and misjudging Gary Hart's escapades. While praising Friedan's "energy and sass," Horowitz offers a reminder that Friedan "will never be elevated to sainthood in some kind of political heaven, for she brought to the game of life too much that insulted and offended others." There is no bullet list of books, no mention of how Friedan would like to be remembered, no link to any interview, and no impending annual event. There is also no mention of Friedan having achieved "the most outstanding record of any student ever matriculated at Smith" at the time of her graduation.10 There is, however, in the same issue, an excerpt from Child's last book, as well as interview with Alex Prud'homme called "Baking Pies with Aunt Julia." How baking pies and learning in the kitchen came to trump sass and sociological insight in an editorial notion of what will appeal to a Sisters' School imaginary is not unrelated to how Friedan's signature style (direct, eager, forthright, rough-edged) and even appearance (plump, blowzy, grey-haired, unreconstructed by surgery or personal trainers) came to be the antithesis of feminist chic. Nor is this shift unrelated to how Broadway and high-priced Off-Broadway have dealt with women's issues and with women as characters and actresses in the years since the appearance of The Feminine Mystique. In Friedan's case, professional (read critics and other high-profile feminists who knew her personally) response to her writing was perhaps colored by a sense that she was unpleasant in her personal dealings. In live public forums, however, among people outside any feminist "inner circle," she was routinely received as captivating, magical, and galvanizing. Mediated forums offer an opportunity to consider how the needs and norms of television and journalism themselves construct a feminism and females in which style overwhelms - or at least outweighs - sociological insight and trying to return later. Only 74 percent of women who leave the workforce and want to return manage to do so, and only 40 percent return to full-time professional jobs, according to Bennetts's findings. Women's standards of living typically drop 36 percent when they divorce, while men's rise 28 percent. Bennetts is a full believer in the emotional benefits of marriage as partnership; her project here is to expose the financial realties of opting out of the workforce, even for just a few years. 9 Jennifer Maddox Sergent, "Remembering Julia McWilliams Child '34," Smith Alumnae Quarterly, summer 2004. 10 Daniel Horowitz, Betty Friedan and the Making of The Feminine Mystique (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996), 86. Friedan did say in an interview that she would like her epitaph to read: "She helped make women feel really good about being women. Therefore, they were better able to freely love themselves and more fully love men"; see Glenn Lewis, "Betty Friedan's Life So Far: Personal Truths Spark a Movement," Library Journal (1 April 2000): 112. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
344 Dorothy Chansky is then repackaged as "change"or "progress."I return to Friedan's performance of her feminist self in a later part of this essay.What follows immediately below is a consideration of Friedan's personal history with theatre and how it contributed to her feminist thinking and writing. Theatre and Fricdan:Roots and Routes Betty Friedan's own use of theatre and performance falls into two categories:she references theatre in her writing,and she labels herself an actress as she nods to her ability to galvanize crowds regardless of her personal mood.In no way do I mean to read Friedan as an actress-or even a frustrated actress-in the sense of being someone who sought to play scripted roles in the context of play productions,although she enjoyed doing this when she was very young.Rather,it is the figure of public woman seeking to convey her ideas via spoken words,embodied emotions,and personality and thereby forging a career that makes Friedan's public image-and her self-image- useful here.Her own interests in what we might call"regular"theatre(scripts,tickets, roles,programs,characters,reviews)say much about how this art speaks to educated audience members who are supporters though not professionals in the field. Friedan's interest in theatre began in childhood.Like many upper-middle-class white girls growing up on the heels of the advent of the American Little Theatre movement, Friedan had parents who encouraged her participation in dramatic activities,and she says she loved "hanging around"the amateur Peoria(Illinois)Players-a group suc- cessful enough to build their own theatre,to offer what Friedan called"semi-profes- sional"performances,and to use children,which suggests a varied repertory.Friedan claimed she always got the child parts for which she auditioned.2 She recalled her mother taking her to Chicago for a weekend for her eighteenth birthday and seeing Katharine Cornell in Saint Joan and Helen Hayes in Victoria Regina.She also wrote that seeing The Little Foxes meant recognizing her mother in the grasping,demanding wife character who is killing her husband.3 Friedan won the Dramatic Honor Prize for her performance in the senior class play,Jane Eyre,as Bertha Rochester-the original madwoman in the attic.While in high school she also drafted an outline for a play about a strike at a mill.4 Friedan thrived as an undergraduate,because,as she wrote,"the life of the mind, and the life of music and art and theater and writing and social conscience was the important life at Smith,not the small world of social snobbery."15 Theatre,then,in her mind,belongs to socially involved,mentally sharp people's habitus-an unremarkable notion among middlebrows and many intellectuals for most of the twentieth century, and arguably its own realm of social snobbery.During Fricdan's first year out of col- lege,when she attended the University of California,Berkeley,as a graduate student i For an analysis of how the American Little Theatre Movement spoke to the social and cultural aspirations of middle-class Americans during the 1910s and 1920s,see Dorothy Chansky,Composing Ourselves:The Little Theatre Movement and the American Audience(Carbondale:Southern Illinois Uni- versity Press,2004). Betty Friedan,Life So Far (New York:Simon and Schuster,2000),22. Tbid.,30.Comell's Saint Joan played in Chicago in early June 1936,at which point Friedan was fifteen,so the memoir is mistaken about the eighteenth-birthday trip. 4bid.29. 15bid,37. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
344 / Dorothy Chansky is then repackaged as "change" or "progress." I return to Friedan's performance of her feminist self in a later part of this essay. What follows immediately below is a consideration of Friedan's personal history with theatre and how it contributed to her feminist thinking and writing. Theatre and Friedan: Roots and Routes Betty Friedan's own use of theatre and performance falls into two categories: she references theatre in her writing, and she labels herself an actress as she nods to her ability to galvanize crowds regardless of her personal mood. In no way do I mean to read Friedan as an actress - or even a frustrated actress - in the sense of being someone who sought to play scripted roles in the context of play productions, although she enjoyed doing this when she was very young. Rather, it is the figure of public woman seeking to convey her ideas via spoken words, embodied emotions, and personality and thereby forging a career that makes Friedan's public image - and her self-image - useful here. Her own interests in what we might call "regular" theatre (scripts, tickets, roles, programs, characters, reviews) say much about how this art speaks to educated audience members who are supporters though not professionals in the field. Friedan's interest in theatre began in childhood. Like many upper-middle-class white girls growing up on the heels of the advent of the American Little Theatre movement,11 Friedan had parents who encouraged her participation in dramatic activities, and she says she loved "hanging around" the amateur Peoria (Illinois) Players - a group successful enough to build their own theatre, to offer what Friedan called "semi-professional" performances, and to use children, which suggests a varied repertory. Friedan claimed she always got the child parts for which she auditioned.12 She recalled her mother taking her to Chicago for a weekend for her eighteenth birthday and seeing Katharine Cornell in Saint Joan and Helen Hayes in Victoria Regina. She also wrote that seeing The Little Foxes meant recognizing her mother in the grasping, demanding wife character who is killing her husband.13 Friedan won the Dramatic Honor Prize for her performance in the senior class play, Jane Eyre, as Bertha Rochester - the original madwoman in the attic. While in high school she also drafted an outline for a play about a strike at a mill.14 Friedan thrived as an undergraduate, because, as she wrote, "the life of the mind, and the life of music and art and theater and writing and social conscience was the important life at Smith, not the small world of social snobbery."15 Theatre, then, in her mind, belongs to socially involved, mentally sharp people's habitus- an unremarkable notion among middlebrows and many intellectuals for most of the twentieth century, and arguably its own realm of social snobbery. During Friedan's first year out of college, when she attended the University of California, Berkeley, as a graduate student 11 For an analysis of how the American Little Theatre Movement spoke to the social and cultural aspirations of middle-class Americans during the 1910s and 1920s, see Dorothy Chansky, Composing Ourselves: The Little Theatre Movement and the American Audience (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004). 12 Betty Friedan, Life So Far (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000), 22. 13 Ibid., 30. Cornell's Saint Joan played in Chicago in early June 1936, at which point Friedan was fifteen, so the memoir is mistaken about the eighteenth-birthday trip. 14 Ibid., 29. 15 Ibid., 37. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
USABLE PERFORMANCE FEMINISM FOR OUR TIME 345 in psychology,she and a girlfriend attended a production of Lady in the Dark,an event Friedan remembered in part for an incident that occurred in a psychology department encounter shortly after she saw the musical.Lady:in the Dark is about a successful magazine editor who undergoes Freudian analysis,resulting in her leaving her job to marry.Friedan and her friend cringed when they returned to their office and one of their professors-a liberal,a pacifist,and a citizen committed to anti-Nazism-re- marked,"O,here come the career women."16 By the time she wrote The Feminine Mystique,Friedan had a clear sense that both attending the theatre and writing plays with useful messages were salutary activities. So,too,was participating in theatre as an activity of one's own.The Feminine Mystique reflects these assumptions.For instance,Friedan cites the case of a housewife who had given up her job in response to her husband's displeasure over her "failure to 'play the feminine role';she was trying to compete with him;she wanted 'to wear the pants.'" The woman "absentmindedly achieved flamboyant local success as the director of a little-theater group,"but gave up her enjoyable work when her son was hit by a car while she was at a rehearsal.She took this to mean that she was at fault for the acci- dent.7 Friedan makes clear her own belief that the woman should have remained with her theatre project for the sake of personal wholeness.Friedan also blames the sort of unsatisfying sexual relations she highlights in Mystique for "the declining audience of Broadway theaters...and the American novel,"again positing theatre as a significant venue for emotionally and intellectually engaged adults.1 She uses plays(most notably A Doll House)as repositories of important messages for feminism and as indicators of what is unhealthy in the America of which she wrote.1 Nonetheless,her looking to Broadway for indicators of progressive thinking shows a belief in theatre-or at least a certain kind of "serious"theatre-as a locus of significant ideas. Casual students of American history may make their own connections between Friedan's 1963 Feminine Mystique and the Broadway musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (although there is no direct indication that Friedan herself used the musical as inspiration or example for the book).In 1962,the same year Friedan completed the manuscript of Mystique and published an article excerpted from the book in Mademoiselle,How to Succeed garnered seven Tony Awards,including Best Musical, as well as a Pulitzer Prize for drama-only the fourth musical to win the latter.How to Succeed,which ran for 1,417 performances in its initial incarnation and was revived on Broadway in 1995,is a satire of corporate ladder-climbing,but for feminists,its signature poison kiss is the lyrically sappy song,"Happy to Keep His Dinner Warm," in which the ingenue-a secretary-rhapsodizes about her desire to marry,retreat to suburbia,and watch her adored hubby "go onward and upward."She fully expects to be ignored and awaits the day that she can announce she's pregnant.20 Friedan's 16 Horowitz,Betty Friedan,98.Horowitz reads Friedan's interest in the play in terms of the pro- tagonist's recovery of the key trauma of her life:the moment when her father contrasted his"ugly duckling"daughter with his beautiful wife(99). Betty Friedan,The Feminine Mystique(1973;repr,New York:Dell,1974),340-41. 1sbid,253. 1 Ibid.,75-76.Regrettably,her indictment of Tennessee Williams's "man-eating"women(with a focus on Suddenly Last Summer)in the context of the nervous-making "increasingly overt male homosexual- ity"falls wide of any mark of standing the test of time;see ibid.75-76,262-63. http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/howtosucceedinbusinesswithoutreallytrying/happytokeephisdinnerwarm.htm (accessed 14 March,2007).Music and lyrics by Frank Loesser. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
USABLE PERFORMANCE FEMINISM FOR OUR TIME / 345 in psychology, she and a girlfriend attended a production of Lady in the Dark, an event Friedan remembered in part for an incident that occurred in a psychology department encounter shortly after she saw the musical. Lady in the Dark is about a successful magazine editor who undergoes Freudian analysis, resulting in her leaving her job to marry. Friedan and her friend cringed when they returned to their office and one of their professors - a liberal, a pacifist, and a citizen committed to anti-Nazism - remarked, "O, here come the career women."16 By the time she wrote The Feminine Mystique, Friedan had a clear sense that both attending the theatre and writing plays with useful messages were salutary activities. So, too, was participating in theatre as an activity of one's own. The Feminine Mystique reflects these assumptions. For instance, Friedan cites the case of a housewife who had given up her job in response to her husband's displeasure over her "failure to 'play the feminine role'; she was trying to compete with him; she wanted 'to wear the pants.'" The woman "absentmindedly achieved flamboyant local success as the director of a little-theater group," but gave up her enjoyable work when her son was hit by a car while she was at a rehearsal. She took this to mean that she was at fault for the accident.17 Friedan makes clear her own belief that the woman should have remained with her theatre project for the sake of personal wholeness. Friedan also blames the sort of unsatisfying sexual relations she highlights in Mystique for "the declining audience of Broadway theaters . . . and the American novel," again positing theatre as a significant venue for emotionally and intellectually engaged adults.18 She uses plays (most notably A Doll House) as repositories of important messages for feminism and as indicators of what is unhealthy in the America of which she wrote.19 Nonetheless, her looking to Broadway for indicators of progressive thinking shows a belief in theatre - or at least a certain kind of "serious" theatre - as a locus of significant ideas. Casual students of American history may make their own connections between Friedan's 1963 Feminine Mystique and the Broadway musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (although there is no direct indication that Friedan herself used the musical as inspiration or example for the book). In 1962, the same year Friedan completed the manuscript of Mystique and published an article excerpted from the book in Mademoiselle, How to Succeed garnered seven Tony Awards, including Best Musical, as well as a Pulitzer Prize for drama - only the fourth musical to win the latter. How to Succeed, which ran for 1,417 performances in its initial incarnation and was revived on Broadway in 1995, is a satire of corporate ladder-climbing, but for feminists, its signature poison kiss is the lyrically sappy song, "Happy to Keep His Dinner Warm," in which the ingenue - a secretary - rhapsodizes about her desire to marry, retreat to suburbia, and watch her adored hubby "go onward and upward." She fully expects to be ignored and awaits the day that she can announce she's pregnant.20 Friedan's 16 Horowitz, Betty Friedan, 98. Horowitz reads Friedan's interest in the play in terms of the protagonist's recovery of the key trauma of her life: the moment when her father contrasted his "ugly duckling" daughter with his beautiful wife (99). 17 Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (1973; repr., New York: Dell, 1974), 340-41. 18 Ibid., 253. 19 Ibid., 75-76. Regrettably, her indictment of Tennessee Williams's "man-eating" women (with a focus on Suddenly Last Summer) in the context of the nervous-making "increasingly overt male homosexuality" falls wide of any mark of standing the test of time; see ibid., 75-76, 262-63. 20http://iwvw.stlyricsxom/lyrics/howtosucceedinbusinesswithoutreallytrym^ (accessed 14 March, 2007). Music and lyrics by Frank Loesser. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
346 Dorothy Chansky New York Times obituary quoted the song verbatim to limn the woman whose chains Friedan sought to break as "happy to keep his dinner warm till he came wearily home from downtown."21 While it would be foolish to disregard the satirical purpose of How to Succeed,it would also be wrong to disregard the setup upon which it depended.Whether or not corporate America was rife for deflating because of its infrastructure based on image, fakery,opportunism,intimidation,acquiescence,and dumb luck,the infrastructure was gendered.When one of the musical's numbers admonishes the leering executives that "A Secretary Is Not a Toy,"it is skirt-chasing within-not the gross injustice of-a gen- dered division of labor that was being lampooned.Friedan's blockbuster book forever changed any hegemonic sense that such a setup was invisible,fair,or acceptable. Although How to Succeed seems at first glance like the logical place to start in con- sidering the intertwining of Friedan's second-wave feminist agenda with both theatre and "real life,"her most politically astute biographer offers insights that suggest starting earlier and elsewhere.Daniel Horowitz's Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique is subtitled,The American Left,the Cold War,and Modern Feminism. Horowitz's project is to show that Friedan's sensibilities and ideas about women's inequality,class inequality,and social justice did not spring full-blown in reaction to a mind-numbing routine of carpools and cookies in Westchester.Rather,by tracing the details of her college and pre-marriage careers,Horowitz demonstrates Friedan's long-standing involvement with and sophisticated understanding of activism.Not only did she study with progressive economist Dorothy Wolff Douglas at Smith(in a course that "emphasized labor history,utopian movements,and socialist thought"), but she also attended summer programs at the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee.2 Highlander's mission was to fight for social justice for African Americans and women; among other activities,Friedan participated in a writers'workshop where the genres covered for imparting effective documentary information included drama.After leaving graduate school,Friedan worked as a labor journalist for nine years,first for the Feder- ated Press(a left-wing news service,in a position she got because of her Highlander background)and then for UE News,"the official publication of the United Electrical, Radio,and Machine Workers of America,a radical union in the forefront of the fight for social justice for African American and women workers."23 Why not,then,trace Betty Friedan's legacy retroactively to Pajama Game,the 1954 musical in which a union activist at a factory falls in love with a new supervisor and manages to get both the man and the salary increase?This show,like How to Succeed, was a major hit,running for 1,063 performances and winning the 1955 Tony for Best Musical,as well as the 2006 Tony for Best Revival of a Musical.A revised trajectory in theatre as a feminist tool would begin with what Friedan advocated rather than what she deplored.Ben Brantley's review of the 2006 Broadway revival describes it as"a bona fidc adult love affair,with all its attendant frictions,translated into the populist poetry of hummable songs."All these features-adultness foremost-emerge in the song"7 Cents,in which the workers figure out what they can do with the raise for 21 Margalit Fox,"Betty Friedan,Who Ignited Cause in 'Feminine Mystique,'Dies at 85,"New York Times,5 February 2006. 2 Horowitz,Betty Friedan,52 23bid,121. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
346 / Dorothy Chansky New York Times obituary quoted the song verbatim to limn the woman whose chains Friedan sought to break as "happy to keep his dinner warm till he came wearily home from downtown."21 While it would be foolish to disregard the satirical purpose of How to Succeed, it would also be wrong to disregard the setup upon which it depended. Whether or not corporate America was rife for deflating because of its infrastructure based on image, fakery, opportunism, intimidation, acquiescence, and dumb luck, the infrastructure was gendered. When one of the musical's numbers admonishes the leering executives that "A Secretary Is Not a Toy," it is skirt-chasing within - not the gross injustice of - a gendered division of labor that was being lampooned. Friedan's blockbuster book forever changed any hegemonic sense that such a setup was invisible, fair, or acceptable. Although How to Succeed seems at first glance like the logical place to start in considering the intertwining of Friedan's second- wave feminist agenda with both theatre and "real life," her most politically astute biographer offers insights that suggest starting earlier and elsewhere. Daniel Horowitz's Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique is subtitled, The American Left, the Cold War, and Modern Feminism. Horowitz's project is to show that Friedan's sensibilities and ideas about women's inequality, class inequality, and social justice did not spring full-blown in reaction to a mind-numbing routine of carpools and cookies in Westchester. Rather, by tracing the details of her college and pre-marriage careers, Horowitz demonstrates Friedan's long-standing involvement with and sophisticated understanding of activism. Not only did she study with progressive economist Dorothy Wolff Douglas at Smith (in a course that "emphasized labor history, Utopian movements, and socialist thought"), but she also attended summer programs at the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee.22 Highlander's mission was to fight for social justice for African Americans and women; among other activities, Friedan participated in a writers' workshop where the genres covered for imparting effective documentary information included drama. After leaving graduate school, Friedan worked as a labor journalist for nine years, first for the Federated Press (a left-wing news service, in a position she got because of her Highlander background) and then for UE News, "the official publication of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, a radical union in the forefront of the fight for social justice for African American and women workers."23 Why not, then, trace Betty Friedan's legacy retroactively to Pajama Game, the 1954 musical in which a union activist at a factory falls in love with a new supervisor and manages to get both the man and the salary increase? This show, like How to Succeed, was a major hit, running for 1,063 performances and winning the 1955 Tony for Best Musical, as well as the 2006 Tony for Best Revival of a Musical. A revised trajectory in theatre as a feminist tool would begin with what Friedan advocated rather than what she deplored. Ben Brantley's review of the 2006 Broadway revival describes it as "a bona fide adult love affair, with all its attendant frictions, translated into the populist poetry of hummable songs." All these features - adultness foremost - emerge in the song "7Vi Cents," in which the workers figure out what they can do with the raise for 21 Margalit Fox, "Betty Friedan, Who Ignited Cause in 'Feminine Mystique/ Dies at 85," New York Times, 5 February 2006. 22 Horowitz, Betty Friedan, 52. 23 Ibid., 121. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
USABLE PERFORMANCE FEMINISM FOR OUR TIME 347 which they are fighting.Like several other songs in the show,this one involves male and female turn-taking within the same song-that is,a kind of egalitarianism-at both the musical and lyrics levels.In terms of content,the song reveals something that receives as much attention in this particular show as the usual love interests and flirtation at the heart of so many plays and musicals:the desire for justice in the workplace.The working women are not looking to retire into the household,and the working men do not see their futures primarily in terms of figuring out"how to succeed in business." Both envision being heard,redressing inequity,and spending their increased earnings. As the two union members-a man and a woman-rhapsodize about what they could do over time with the raise,it is the man who wants a washing machine and carpeting for the living room,while the woman imagines travel and,finally,owning a factory so the boss can work for her.Moreover,for the latter to come true,the woman who sings the lyric will need to earn her seven-and-a-half cents per hour(with a little overtime) over a twenty-year period.Since she is also the leading lady and we are rooting for her to get her guy,it is clear that she does not equate the resolution of her problems with the conclusion proffered in the typical marriage plot.Dropping out to stay home does not enter the equation,but neither does social climbing.The benefits of union action make for a good workplace and a good love story. Unions were not a panacea for their women members.Horowitz notes the failures of the Left in general and unions in particular to support women members'needs for systematic attention to child care,maternity leave,equal pay,and other forms of concrete social change that contributed to Friedan's disillusionment with the labor movement as a means to women achieving equality.24(Unions were,however,forums for discussing these issues.)Horowitz's sympathetic assessment of Friedan's repressing her labor- activist past locates her silence in a fear of McCarthyism and red-baiting-a fear that, for those who observed it firsthand,could remain alive and frightening regardless of the passage of time and changes in cultural perceptions.Whatever Friedan's personal disappointments,though,it is worth asking:What kept labor unions and their collec- tive possibilities out of mainstream American theatre after Pajama Game?25 Nelson Lichtenstein,in State of the Union:A Century of American Labor,locates an "erosion of the union idea"during the 1950s and 1960s.2 The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 (passed the same year as the president outlined the Truman Doctrine-the "contain- ment"policy that marked the start of the cold war)defanged trade unions by ban- ning union shops,enacting "right to work"statutes,forbidding secondary boycotts (resistance by other,sympathetic unions),forbidding unions to contribute to political parties,and requiring union leaders to attest that they were not members of the com- munist party.(Management was not bound by the same requirement.)Unions became many,fragmented,and top-heavy with their own management,and their focus on cost-of-living increases above all else made them comfortable-enough bedfellows with M Horowitz,Betty Friedan,139-42 Bells Are Ringing,the 1956 musical,features a female lead who is a telephone operator at an an- swering service and who previously sold ladies'underwear.The 1949 South Pacific's female lead is a nurse.Beginning in 1962,working women as characters in musicals who were not singers or actresses might be secretaries,as is the case in that year's How to Succeed and in I Can Get It for You Wholesale, and later in Promises,Promises.The 1970 Company features an airline stewardess Nelson Lichtenstein,Stale of the Union:A Century of American Labor (Princeton,NJ:Princeton Uni- versity Press,2002)."Erosion of the Union Idea"is the title of chapter 4. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
USABLE PERFORMANCE FEMINISM FOR OUR TIME / 347 which they are fighting. Like several other songs in the show, this one involves male and female turn-taking within the same song - that is, a kind of egalitarianism - at both the musical and lyrics levels. In terms of content, the song reveals something that receives as much attention in this particular show as the usual love interests and flirtation at the heart of so many plays and musicals: the desire for justice in the workplace. The working women are not looking to retire into the household, and the working men do not see their futures primarily in terms of figuring out "how to succeed in business." Both envision being heard, redressing inequity, and spending their increased earnings. As the two union members - a man and a woman - rhapsodize about what they could do over time with the raise, it is the man who wants a washing machine and carpeting for the living room, while the woman imagines travel and, finally, owning a factory so the boss can work for her. Moreover, for the latter to come true, the woman who sings the lyric will need to earn her seven-and-a-half cents per hour (with a little overtime) over a twenty-year period. Since she is also the leading lady and we are rooting for her to get her guy, it is clear that she does not equate the resolution of her problems with the conclusion proffered in the typical marriage plot. Dropping out to stay home does not enter the equation, but neither does social climbing. The benefits of union action make for a good workplace and a good love story. Unions were not a panacea for their women members. Horowitz notes the failures of the Left in general and unions in particular to support women members' needs for systematic attention to child care, maternity leave, equal pay, and other forms of concrete social change that contributed to Friedan's disillusionment with the labor movement as a means to women achieving equality.24 (Unions were, however, forums for discussing these issues.) Horowitz's sympathetic assessment of Friedan's repressing her laboractivist past locates her silence in a fear of McCarthyism and red-baiting - a fear that, for those who observed it firsthand, could remain alive and frightening regardless of the passage of time and changes in cultural perceptions. Whatever Friedan's personal disappointments, though, it is worth asking: What kept labor unions and their collective possibilities out of mainstream American theatre after Pajama Game?25 Nelson Lichtenstein, in State of the Union: A Century of American Labor, locates an "erosion of the union idea" during the 1950s and 1960s.26 The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 (passed the same year as the president outlined the Truman Doctrine - the "containment" policy that marked the start of the cold war) defanged trade unions by banning union shops, enacting "right to work" statutes, forbidding secondary boycotts (resistance by other, sympathetic unions), forbidding unions to contribute to political parties, and requiring union leaders to attest that they were not members of the communist party. (Management was not bound by the same requirement.) Unions became many, fragmented, and top-heavy with their own management, and their focus on cost-of-living increases above all else made them comfortable-enough bedfellows with 24 Horowitz, Betty Friedan, 139-42. 25 Bells Are Ringing, the 1956 musical, features a female lead who is a telephone operator at an answering service and who previously sold ladies' underwear. The 1949 South Pacific's female lead is a nurse. Beginning in 1962, working women as characters in musicals who were not singers or actresses might be secretaries, as is the case in that year's How to Succeed and in / Can Get It for You Wholesale, and later in Promises, Promises. The 1970 Company features an airline stewardess. 26 Nelson Lichtenstein, State of the Union: A Century of American Labor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002). "Erosion of the Union Idea" is the title of chapter 4. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
348 Dorothy Chansky the cultural status quo.Lichtenstein quotes long-time AFL president George Meany on what Lichtenstein clearly reads as goals of diminished expectation:"We do not seek to recast American society in any particular doctrinaire or ideological image....We scck an ever rising standard of living."2 Workers themselves seemed primarily interested in their lives outside the factory rather than in improving their situation on the job itself. While labor had inspired artists and intellectuals during the 1930s and 1940s(think Clifford Odets and Elmer Rice,among many others),radicals of the 1950s and beyond looked elsewhere(think Jack Kerouac and Alan Ginsberg,again among many others), especially in the wake of the hearings chaired by Senator John McClellan in 1957 and 1958 whereby major corruption and nepotism were revealed to be part of the ordinary operation of the leaders of several unions(think On the Waterfront).In 1953,labor union membership"stood at its proportional apogee",28 pro-union sentiment dropped steadily, from an all-time high in 1957,before the hearings began,throughout the 1960s. Friedan,then,was not alone in turning away from a belief in the power of union activism,nor was she unusual in her anxiety about being associated with communism, particularly since she was a freelance journalist for women's magazines-notorious for their commitment to safe,middle-of-the-road,traditional,cheery ideology.Union members fantasizing about spending a seven-and-a-half cent per hour raise over a period of five-to-twenty years were not to be the stuff of which Broadway heroines were made.2 Friedan's final book,however,reveals that her concern with equity,ac- cess to adequate child and health care,and a guaranteed safety net for single parents trumped any of feminism's other concerns.This situates her,at the end of her life,in a radical group(which includes Lichtenstein),and hardly as a second-wave fogey whose ideas were totally passe.3 Nonetheless,some of her ideas became almost antediluvian in the eyes of many feminist theatre practitioners and theorists.It is worth examin- ing these ideas in order to ask whether the goals I am situating as still radical can be addressed by theatre and performance as Friedan understood these.Again,while the dominant stream of academic feminist performance criticism of the 1980s and 1990s would say "no,"widening the lens to include most theatergoers and practitioners may yield a "yes." Friedan's work proffers the usual bourgeois respect for theatre as a place where meaning resides in literary texts or where amateurs can display their social and intel- lectual depth(or possibly superiority).31Yet hers was a love-hate relationship with the Meany,quoted in ibid.,147. Ibid. x Nor were they to be the leaders of a national feminist movement,since the work and class that united them financially lost status and ceased to be a primary locus of either identity or pride.Inde- pendent,career-focused women as dramatic characters would come from the middle or upper middle classes,perhaps reflecting a shift in the anticipated sympathies of anticipated audiences. 3In the conclusion of his study.What's the Matter with Kansas?How Conservatives Won the Heart of America(New York:Metropolitan Books,2004),Thomas Frank notes that,even among religious fun- damentalists,the single group that does not cast its votes to reflect concerns with abortion or Jesus (among other hot-button topics)comprises union members,who understand politics as the realm for redressing inequality and social systems that fail to serve the rights of citizens for access to better health,education,and working situations. 3 For example,when she wrote of her outrage at her middle child's college-application process being sabotaged by a resentful private school headmaster,she listed as one of three examples of her son's being"your model everything to everyone"the fact that he played Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dreamt (Triedan,Life So Far,258.) This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
348 / Dorothy Chansky the cultural status quo. Lichtenstein quotes long-time AFL president George Meany on what Lichtenstein clearly reads as goals of diminished expectation: "We do not seek to recast American society in any particular doctrinaire or ideological image We seek an ever rising standard of living."27 Workers themselves seemed primarily interested in their lives outside the factory rather than in improving their situation on the job itself. While labor had inspired artists and intellectuals during the 1930s and 1940s (think Clifford Odets and Elmer Rice, among many others), radicals of the 1950s and beyond looked elsewhere (think Jack Kerouac and Alan Ginsberg, again among many others), especially in the wake of the hearings chaired by Senator John McClellan in 1957 and 1958 whereby major corruption and nepotism were revealed to be part of the ordinary operation of the leaders of several unions (think On the Waterfront). In 1953, labor union membership "stood at its proportional apogee",*28 pro-union sentiment dropped steadily, from an all-time high in 1957, before the hearings began, throughout the 1960s. Friedan, then, was not alone in turning away from a belief in the power of union activism, nor was she unusual in her anxiety about being associated with communism, particularly since she was a freelance journalist for women's magazines - notorious for their commitment to safe, middle-of-the-road, traditional, cheery ideology. Union members fantasizing about spending a seven-and-a-half cent per hour raise over a period of five-to-twenty years were not to be the stuff of which Broadway heroines were made.29 Friedan's final book, however, reveals that her concern with equity, access to adequate child and health care, and a guaranteed safety net for single parents trumped any of feminism's other concerns. This situates her, at the end of her life, in a radical group (which includes Lichtenstein), and hardly as a second-wave fogey whose ideas were totally pass^.30 Nonetheless, some of her ideas became almost antediluvian in the eyes of many feminist theatre practitioners and theorists. It is worth examining these ideas in order to ask whether the goals I am situating as still radical can be addressed by theatre and performance as Friedan understood these. Again, while the dominant stream of academic feminist performance criticism of the 1980s and 1990s would say "no," widening the lens to include most theatergoers and practitioners may yield a "yes." Friedan's work proffers the usual bourgeois respect for theatre as a place where meaning resides in literary texts or where amateurs can display their social and intellectual depth (or possibly superiority).31 Yet hers was a love-hate relationship with the 27 Meany, quoted in ibid., 147. 28 Ibid. 29 Nor were they to be the leaders of a national feminist movement, since the work and class that united them financially lost status and ceased to be a primary locus of either identity or pride. Independent, career-focused women as dramatic characters would come from the middle or upper middle classes, perhaps reflecting a shift in the anticipated sympathies of anticipated audiences. 30 In the conclusion of his study, What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004), Thomas Frank notes that, even among religious fundamentalists, the single group that does not cast its votes to reflect concerns with abortion or Jesus (among other hot-button topics) comprises union members, who understand politics as the realm for redressing inequality and social systems that fail to serve the rights of citizens for access to better health, education, and working situations. 31 For example, when she wrote of her outrage at her middle child's college-application process being sabotaged by a resentful private school headmaster, she listed as one of three examples of her son's being "your model everything to everyone" the fact that he played Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream (Friedan, Life So Far, 258.) This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
USABLE PERFORMANCE FEMINISM FOR OUR TIME/349 actual making of theatre,somcthing with which she had morc than passing familiarity, as her husband,Carl,finished his army tour of duty following V-E day as technical director of the Mickey Rooney Soldiers Show Company in Paris,and he founded and ran a summer theatre for two summers immediately following his and Betty's marriage in 1947.Carl later worked for the publisher of Theatre Arts Monthly and published an annual guide,the Summer Theatre Handbook.3 Whether or not Betty supported Carl's artistic interests,she wanted him to earn more money,which led to his leaving theatre to pursue a career in advertising.Betty Friedan reveals an ambivalent and sometimes dismissive relation to theatre workers in her memoir:on the one hand,she derides Carl's"theatre friends,with their'dahling'this and that,[who]ignored me when they found out I wasn't in the theater"3,on the other,she talks about choosing hotels about which she knows because theatre people stay in them.3 An attempt to look bohemian? A way to announce her frugality? Whatever her feelings toward people in "the business,"and whatever her issues with(and behavior toward)individuals who might challenge her on anything from mimeographing to homophobia,she loved engaging with live audiences and did not hesitate to use the word "actress"to define herself."I enjoyed the feedback... that suppressed actress who was not pretty enough,the ham in me,out in full voice now."35 Numerous accounts of Friedan's lectures tell of standing ovations,hostile men won over,rapt attention,and listeners in tears.If she lacked the skills to please her suburban neighbors on a quotidian basis or play well with others,she could hold an audience in the palm of her hand,and feminists made the most of this.Judith Hen- nessee,one of Friedan's biographers,outlines how two other committed feminists in the then-nascent women's movement wooed Friedan to head the new activist entity that Friedan herself suggested calling the National Organization for Women and the high points of whose initial mission statement she drafted.Catherine East,executive director of the Citizens'Advisory Council and a twenty-three-year veteran of civil service teamed up with Mary Eastwood,a Justice Department lawyer,to provide Friedan with statistics they had been collecting for years on discrimination in wages, social security,pensions,education,and fringe benefits.Neither East nor Eastwood could (or would)risk her job,but they sensed that Friedan's visibility,fearlessness, fame,and outspokenness(not to mention her freelance status and relentless drive for the next paying gig)could lead to action.Friedan did not disappoint. Friedan's own public career as a speaker and organizer-distinct from her work as a writer-suggests a high-voltage triangulation among her person,her personality,and her persona.Philip Auslander defines persona as"a presence that is neither an overtly fictional character nor simply equivalent to the performer's'real'identity."Drawing on Erving Goffman's frame analysis,Auslander asserts that social context produces behavior,and that celebrities have a public self whose behavior cannot be taken as an unmediated manifestation of "personality."Using celebrity actors as a starting point, he writes,with Jack Nicholson as an example:"The 'Nicholson'personage is not Hennessee.Betty Friedan.46-51:ibid.,70. Life So Far,70. 4lbid.,165,226 5bid,143. *Hennessee,Betty Friedan,99-108. 5 Philip Auslander,"Musical Personae,"TDR:The Drama Review 50,no.1(2006):102. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat,16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
USABLE PERFORMANCE FEMINISM FOR OUR TIME / 349 actual making of theatre, something with which she had more than passing familiarity, as her husband, Carl, finished his army tour of duty following V-E day as technical director of the Mickey Rooney Soldiers Show Company in Paris, and he founded and ran a summer theatre for two summers immediately following his and Betty's marriage in 1947. Carl later worked for the publisher of Theatre Arts Monthly and published an annual guide, the Summer Theatre Handbook.32 Whether or not Betty supported Carl's artistic interests, she wanted him to earn more money, which led to his leaving theatre to pursue a career in advertising. Betty Friedan reveals an ambivalent and sometimes dismissive relation to theatre workers in her memoir: on the one hand, she derides Carl's "theatre friends, with their 'dahling' this and that, [who] ignored me when they found out I wasn't in the theater"33; on the other, she talks about choosing hotels about which she knows because theatre people stay in them.34 An attempt to look bohemian? A way to announce her frugality? Whatever her feelings toward people in "the business," and whatever her issues with (and behavior toward) individuals who might challenge her on anything from mimeographing to homophobia, she loved engaging with live audiences and did not hesitate to use the word "actress" to define herself. "I enjoyed the feedback . . . that suppressed actress who was not pretty enough, the ham in me, out in full voice now."35 Numerous accounts of Friedan's lectures tell of standing ovations, hostile men won over, rapt attention, and listeners in tears. If she lacked the skills to please her suburban neighbors on a quotidian basis or play well with others, she could hold an audience in the palm of her hand, and feminists made the most of this. Judith Hennessee, one of Friedan's biographers, outlines how two other committed feminists in the then-nascent women's movement wooed Friedan to head the new activist entity that Friedan herself suggested calling the National Organization for Women and the high points of whose initial mission statement she drafted. Catherine East, executive director of the Citizens' Advisory Council and a twenty-three-year veteran of civil service teamed up with Mary Eastwood, a Justice Department lawyer, to provide Friedan with statistics they had been collecting for years on discrimination in wages, social security, pensions, education, and fringe benefits. Neither East nor Eastwood could (or would) risk her job, but they sensed that Friedan's visibility, fearlessness, fame, and outspokenness (not to mention her freelance status and relentless drive for the next paying gig) could lead to action. Friedan did not disappoint.36 Friedan's own public career as a speaker and organizer - distinct from her work as a writer - suggests a high-voltage triangulation among her person, her personality, and her persona. Philip Auslander defines persona as "a presence that is neither an overtly fictional character nor simply equivalent to the performer's 'real' identity."37 Drawing on Erving Goffman's frame analysis, Auslander asserts that social context produces behavior, and that celebrities have a public self whose behavior cannot be taken as an unmediated manifestation of "personality." Using celebrity actors as a starting point, he writes, with Jack Nicholson as an example: "The 'Nicholson' personage is not 32Hennessee, Betty Friedan, 46-51; ibid., 70. 33 Life So Far, 70. "Ibid., 165, 226. 35 Ibid., 143. ^Hennessee, Betty Friedan, 99-108. 37 Philip Auslander, "Musical Personae," TDR: The Drama Review 50, no. 1 (2006): 102. This content downloaded from 183.195.251.166 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 12:04:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions