![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The American Experience of Emma Goldman
Apr. 14th, 2004 06:44 amHave any of you seen the new American Experience documentary on Emma Goldman?* It played on the local PBS station Monday. I was going to try for a more nuanced view than, "Well, what can you expect from the capitalist media", but really taking any other theme for a review would just be nit-picky. Sometimes you just have to go with the classics.
They get most of the actual details of Goldman’s life right and that part is fun to watch. Really, they could hardly fail with that. Emma Goldman’s almost day-to-day account of her own life is broadly available and fairly well read for those who care to find it. The problem with this documentary is a typical one for a biography. It insists on the history of Great Men, even if in this case it’s a Great Woman. The history of anarchism and the anarchist movement of that time period is completely de-contextualized or ignored. The only reference to the IWW, for example is when Lenin asks Goldman and Alexander Berkman if the Wobs are capable of leading the American social revolution.
I guess the thing that actually got to me was when professional hand-wringer Kevin Baker ** describes Emma Goldman’s politics and the theory of anarchism as "jaw-droppingly naïve" Hmmm, I’ll consider that Kevin …
Ok, considered. Fuck off.
It’s not just the gall of a comfortable, never-challenging-politically, professional writer simply dismissing the politics and hopes of an immigrant, working class, woman revolutionary from a century before. It’s not just that many of the things being fought for at that times are things taken for granted now. It’s not just that’s it’s an appalling and ahistorical to judge a past movement with today’s standards. It’s also that it ignores the fact that she was not the only one with similar ideas. Throughout the movie, historical events or movements are mentioned, then it’s back to treating Emma Goldman (and to some degree Alexander Berkman) as an incredibly Unique and Special individual.
Which of course she was. But not in the way they mean it. Whenever one watches biographies of people who were enemies of the state in their own time, there’s an undercurrent of "If only they had realized how special they were they could have worked to succeed instead of wasting their time with the rabble on a unachievable goal."*** Emma Goldman became famous, and she said similar things in her lifetime, because there was mass working class organizing and activism. Without downplaying her extraordinary speaking abilities, tireless fundraising and ability to rise above societal restrictions due to her gender, ethnic background and class, if there had been no revolutionary working class movement at the end on the nineteenth century, we would not know the name Emma Goldman.
But this relationship is inverted throughout the documentary. There is some discussion, for example, about the theory of anarchism being too idealistic. Someone makes the obligatory "It’s just a different kind of Christianity" argument. Others shake their heads and cluck. How could such a head–in-the-sky ideology possibly fit in with the day-to-day concerns of labor unions? They imply that it’s simply impossible. While this has certainly always been a historic tension in anarchist theory, it ignores the fact that the anarchist movement of this time was mostly working class, and that anarchists were active in bread and butter issues like agitation for the 8-hour day. That’s why the Haymarket martyrs were anarchists, after all. (Happy International Workers Day, by the way. Locals, please remember our store is closed on May 1 to honor the real labor day.)
The whole theory of anarcho-syndicalist revolution **** is also never really explained. The viewer is left hanging about how this supposedly brilliant woman sees the revolution happening when it actually had a great deal of bearing on Berkman and Goldman’s assassination attempt on Henry Frick. I’m not arguing that it was correct, but the idea of the Great General Strike certainly had many adherents throughout a cross section of the revolutionary milieu of the time. Certainly among most working class anarchists and the IWW, the most revolutionary union during a certain part of Goldman’s life. The success of the Russian Revolution, while owing a partial debt to syndicalist thought, also rendered it obsolete as a mass theory of revolution in most of the world (Spain until 1939 or so is an obvious exception) but that wasn’t until many years after the assassination attempt..
Things I would have liked to see discussed: Was Goldman seen by other anarchists as making the anarchist movement too middle class because she was interested in birth control and sex, i.e. women’s issues? How do feminists who would like Goldman as a role model deal with the fact that she was indifferent to suffrage because it was a false goal (Goldman’s thoughts were along the lines of today’s "let gays into the military as long as we end the military")? What was Goldman’s influence on anarchism as a whole? Was Goldman actually an anarchist theorist, or simply an eloquent and moving public speaker? What is her influence today? What was the influence of 19th century anarchist principles on reforms that did happen (free education for all, official equality between the sexes and races, etc.)?
Of course, not a single activist, labor organizer, or politico was interviewed for the documentary. Only academics and writers were allowed to comment of Goldman’s history and legacy. Certainly some are sympathetic. I will say that the documentary made me love Tony Kushner more than I already do. I also thought it was great that they got a professor with a real anarchist beard***** (Barry Pateman******) to be Goldman’s main defender and he was very eloquent. Martin Duberman was also looking good and had a nice coat.
I know I’m being overly critical with this entry. This documentary wasn’t made for anarchists, politicos, or anyone with a working knowledge of radical history. And lord knows, if they had a modern-day anarchist it would have been some moron like John Zerzan talking about how Goldman had no criticism of industry and civilization and was no better than Stalin.
But these things always become a question of legacy at some point. At the Labor Relations school where I went to college, there was a picture of Emma Goldman among many union organizers and businessmen. Her plaque, amidst the myriad titles "oil tycoon", "banker and philanthropist", "union organizer" etc. bore the simple "social reformer". It probably was well intentioned. But it would make her turn in her grave if she knew.
*oh, while you’re there, be sure to take the poll! Btw, I will say that I think the website has more information than the film. Including excerpts from "Mother Earth".
**an example of a powerful opening sentence by Kevin Baker from his website: "The children are back at Columbine High School now for the new school year—if they can still truly be called children …" Wow. That’s a daring position. I wouldn’t usually think of 14-18 year olds as children except in the sense that we are all children of someone.
*** Actually one of my favorite songs is about this kind of historical revisionism: "Ulrike" by Chumbawamba. Inspired by an article about Ulrike Meinhoff which said that if she had only been a reformer instead of revolutionary she could have worked hard and been a Green MP by now. Chumbawamba has her post-mortem, no-apologies response, "Don’t think I walked into banks to stand in the Queue./ Don’t think I pressed up to the plexi-glass just to talk to you. / Don’t wait for me to say I’m sorry. I won’t / Who wants to be a Green MP? I don’t."
**** annoyingly, the best description of Gerges Sorel’s theories are on a neo-fascist website. That is NOT the link provided.
*****Not a full Kropotkin, but close enough for 2004.
******What happened to Candace Falk, btw?
They get most of the actual details of Goldman’s life right and that part is fun to watch. Really, they could hardly fail with that. Emma Goldman’s almost day-to-day account of her own life is broadly available and fairly well read for those who care to find it. The problem with this documentary is a typical one for a biography. It insists on the history of Great Men, even if in this case it’s a Great Woman. The history of anarchism and the anarchist movement of that time period is completely de-contextualized or ignored. The only reference to the IWW, for example is when Lenin asks Goldman and Alexander Berkman if the Wobs are capable of leading the American social revolution.
I guess the thing that actually got to me was when professional hand-wringer Kevin Baker ** describes Emma Goldman’s politics and the theory of anarchism as "jaw-droppingly naïve" Hmmm, I’ll consider that Kevin …
Ok, considered. Fuck off.
It’s not just the gall of a comfortable, never-challenging-politically, professional writer simply dismissing the politics and hopes of an immigrant, working class, woman revolutionary from a century before. It’s not just that many of the things being fought for at that times are things taken for granted now. It’s not just that’s it’s an appalling and ahistorical to judge a past movement with today’s standards. It’s also that it ignores the fact that she was not the only one with similar ideas. Throughout the movie, historical events or movements are mentioned, then it’s back to treating Emma Goldman (and to some degree Alexander Berkman) as an incredibly Unique and Special individual.
Which of course she was. But not in the way they mean it. Whenever one watches biographies of people who were enemies of the state in their own time, there’s an undercurrent of "If only they had realized how special they were they could have worked to succeed instead of wasting their time with the rabble on a unachievable goal."*** Emma Goldman became famous, and she said similar things in her lifetime, because there was mass working class organizing and activism. Without downplaying her extraordinary speaking abilities, tireless fundraising and ability to rise above societal restrictions due to her gender, ethnic background and class, if there had been no revolutionary working class movement at the end on the nineteenth century, we would not know the name Emma Goldman.
But this relationship is inverted throughout the documentary. There is some discussion, for example, about the theory of anarchism being too idealistic. Someone makes the obligatory "It’s just a different kind of Christianity" argument. Others shake their heads and cluck. How could such a head–in-the-sky ideology possibly fit in with the day-to-day concerns of labor unions? They imply that it’s simply impossible. While this has certainly always been a historic tension in anarchist theory, it ignores the fact that the anarchist movement of this time was mostly working class, and that anarchists were active in bread and butter issues like agitation for the 8-hour day. That’s why the Haymarket martyrs were anarchists, after all. (Happy International Workers Day, by the way. Locals, please remember our store is closed on May 1 to honor the real labor day.)
The whole theory of anarcho-syndicalist revolution **** is also never really explained. The viewer is left hanging about how this supposedly brilliant woman sees the revolution happening when it actually had a great deal of bearing on Berkman and Goldman’s assassination attempt on Henry Frick. I’m not arguing that it was correct, but the idea of the Great General Strike certainly had many adherents throughout a cross section of the revolutionary milieu of the time. Certainly among most working class anarchists and the IWW, the most revolutionary union during a certain part of Goldman’s life. The success of the Russian Revolution, while owing a partial debt to syndicalist thought, also rendered it obsolete as a mass theory of revolution in most of the world (Spain until 1939 or so is an obvious exception) but that wasn’t until many years after the assassination attempt..
Things I would have liked to see discussed: Was Goldman seen by other anarchists as making the anarchist movement too middle class because she was interested in birth control and sex, i.e. women’s issues? How do feminists who would like Goldman as a role model deal with the fact that she was indifferent to suffrage because it was a false goal (Goldman’s thoughts were along the lines of today’s "let gays into the military as long as we end the military")? What was Goldman’s influence on anarchism as a whole? Was Goldman actually an anarchist theorist, or simply an eloquent and moving public speaker? What is her influence today? What was the influence of 19th century anarchist principles on reforms that did happen (free education for all, official equality between the sexes and races, etc.)?
Of course, not a single activist, labor organizer, or politico was interviewed for the documentary. Only academics and writers were allowed to comment of Goldman’s history and legacy. Certainly some are sympathetic. I will say that the documentary made me love Tony Kushner more than I already do. I also thought it was great that they got a professor with a real anarchist beard***** (Barry Pateman******) to be Goldman’s main defender and he was very eloquent. Martin Duberman was also looking good and had a nice coat.
I know I’m being overly critical with this entry. This documentary wasn’t made for anarchists, politicos, or anyone with a working knowledge of radical history. And lord knows, if they had a modern-day anarchist it would have been some moron like John Zerzan talking about how Goldman had no criticism of industry and civilization and was no better than Stalin.
But these things always become a question of legacy at some point. At the Labor Relations school where I went to college, there was a picture of Emma Goldman among many union organizers and businessmen. Her plaque, amidst the myriad titles "oil tycoon", "banker and philanthropist", "union organizer" etc. bore the simple "social reformer". It probably was well intentioned. But it would make her turn in her grave if she knew.
*oh, while you’re there, be sure to take the poll! Btw, I will say that I think the website has more information than the film. Including excerpts from "Mother Earth".
**an example of a powerful opening sentence by Kevin Baker from his website: "The children are back at Columbine High School now for the new school year—if they can still truly be called children …" Wow. That’s a daring position. I wouldn’t usually think of 14-18 year olds as children except in the sense that we are all children of someone.
*** Actually one of my favorite songs is about this kind of historical revisionism: "Ulrike" by Chumbawamba. Inspired by an article about Ulrike Meinhoff which said that if she had only been a reformer instead of revolutionary she could have worked hard and been a Green MP by now. Chumbawamba has her post-mortem, no-apologies response, "Don’t think I walked into banks to stand in the Queue./ Don’t think I pressed up to the plexi-glass just to talk to you. / Don’t wait for me to say I’m sorry. I won’t / Who wants to be a Green MP? I don’t."
**** annoyingly, the best description of Gerges Sorel’s theories are on a neo-fascist website. That is NOT the link provided.
*****Not a full Kropotkin, but close enough for 2004.
******What happened to Candace Falk, btw?
