Performing the Promise of Plenty in the USDA's 1933–34 World's Fair Exhibits

Abstract

The New Deal Department of Agriculture maintained that reducing agricultural output would create stable access to desirable foods and economic prosperity. This essay elucidates how the food displays in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) exhibits at the 1933–34 World's Fair in Chicago promoted this argument by creating the impression that the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) would restore the land of plenty. To accomplish this objective, narratives of advances in the food system were constructed in ways that stimulated visitors to perform as American consumers; fair-goers engaged in an embodied experience of food security as provided by AAA.

Keywords:

• New Deal
• World's Fair
• Agricultural Adjustment
• Consumption
• Display Technique

Acknowledgements

Portions of this essay have been presented at the 2007 Popular Culture and American Culture Associations Joint Conference, the 2005 Association for Theatre in Higher Education Conference, the 2005 International Federation for Theatre Research/Fédération internationale pour la recherche théâtrale, the 2004 American Society for Theatre Research Conference, and the 2004 Fall Graduate Colloquium at Northwestern University. A version of this essay received the Elizabeth Inchbald Essay Prize from the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Theatre and Drama, Northwestern University. It is derived fromWhite's dissertation, “‘Paradox ofWant Amid Plenty’: Aesthetics of New Deal Food Rights Performances.” She wishes to thank Tracy C. Davis, Stefka Mihaylova, Christina McMahon, Jesse Njus, and Dan Smith for their insightful comments on this essay.

Notes

1. Anthropologist Sidney Mintz uses the term “ritualized” to refer to “the spread of internal meanings [significance for everyday life] [which] can be stimulated and manipulated; the simultaneous control of both the foods themselves and the meanings they are made to connote can be a means to pacific domination” (Sweetness 122, 20–22).

2. Indeed, fair guides’ incidental mentioning of citizens’ struggles attest to the Great Depression's impact on reception. A story illustrating Travelers’ Aid services featured a boy who wanted to sell his dog for food. “Wally” typified the boys and men between ages of 12 and 20 that hitchhiked to the fair hoping to find work (“Are” 8).

3. The USDA predicted AAA's stimulation of agricultural prices, a rebounded benefit for industry through increasing farmers’ purchasing power, and resultant increased employment for urban workers. Agricultural historians have thoroughly documented AAA's successes and shortcomings in terms of its assistance to various agricultural constituencies, applicability to different commodities, ability to raise farm prices, creation of agricultural dependency on government funding, expedition of capital investment and technological advancement on farms, and consolidation of farms. Some scholars elaborate the difficulty of making a definitive conclusion about AAA because of US engagement in World War II.

4. Both Roger Lambert and Janet Poppendieck argue that the FSRC was an attempt to mollify the public following the pig slaughter. These historians also offer detailed accounts of public opinion about this emergency measure.

5. I am drawing on Bruce McConachie's argument that “performances tend to be ‘condensational events’ in which certain primary metaphors, condensed from cultural-historical interaction, emerge as significant” (583). McConachie is building on Lakoff's and Johnson's theory of “embodied realism” in which physical interaction with the environment creates basic metaphors through which human beings perceive nonphysical elements.

6. Adult admission was about three times the price of a movie ticket, pricing out most impoverished citizens. Less than 20 percent of the total visitors were admitted without charge. Roughly 80 percent of 1933 attendees came from outside of Chicago; use of rail, automobile, and bus transportation indicates that these individuals had some disposable income (“Attendance 1934”). Additionally, African Americans were largely excluded from the fair as employees, performed in degrading Midway amusements, and suffered discrimination as visitors (Rydell 166–67).

7. There was still an international presence at the fair. Belgium, England, Germany, Holland, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Switzerland, and Spain contributed villages. There was also an “Oriental village.” However, only a handful of international exhibitors participated, including China, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Japan, and Mexico. Century of Progress president Rufus Dawes expressed disappointment about this: “Although it is true … that we experienced some benefits as a direct result of the depression, … our invitations for the participation of foreign governments were not presented at a time favorable for their reception” (68). Only 4 percent of registered visitors were foreign and of that number roughly 37 percent were from Canada (“Where” 16).

8. Shannon Jackson expands on Austin's speech act theory to discuss mechanisms which allow for felicitous and infelicitous uptake in performance, that is, whether a performative utterance will be affirmed or denied (176–219).

9. Robert Rydell has done extensive work in this area regarding US fairs during the depression.

10. Eve Jochnowitz concludes that a “feminized vision of the future” was vital to manufacturers’ promotion of processed food at the 1939–40 New York World's Fair (110). Jochnowitz also demonstrates how exhibits’ citations of normative gender desires capitalized on women's control of familial consumption practices.

11. For studies regarding women's employment as an “issue” in the Great Depression, see: Boris, Milkman, Scharf, and Storrs.

12. Unless otherwise noted, descriptions of this exhibit are taken from “Dairy Products Build Superior People.”

13. Folke T. Kihlstedt concludes that at this fair, “Visitors saw a vision of a future in which democracy, capitalism, and consumerism were affirmed by science and technology” (97).

14. Unless otherwise noted, descriptions of this exhibit are taken from the Meat and Live Stock exhibit brochure.

15. Anthropologist Joseph R. Gusfield notes, “Eating is not only a physiological process. It is also a form of self-production through communication. We ingest symbolic forms” (77).

16. In 1933, the federal building had more visitors than any other, with 15,500,000 patrons total or roughly 57 percent of all attendees (“United States Congress” 85 and “Attendance Tables”).

17. Michael Baxandall states, “because it has been offered for inspection, [the spectator] takes it that the object has been considered worthy of inspection” (34).

18. “The NEW TRAIL in Agriculture” included five life-size cutouts: County Agent, Mrs. Wheat Farmer, Farmer, Uncle Sam, and Mrs. City Housewife (Photo no. NWDNS-016-EX-51-015).

19. By 1939, 78 percent of farms had AAA contracts (Schuyler). Despite ongoing criticism of AAA, it was revived almost immediately in 1936 after being ruled unconstitutional as the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act and revised again in 1938; it served as the basis of farm policy into the late-twentieth century (Libecap).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ann Folino White

Ann Folino White (PhD, Northwestern University) is Assistant Professor at the Department of Theatre and Residential College in the Arts and Humanities, Michigan State University