Interconnectedness, and the Mentality of the Masses--Katie Moore

I’m beginning to find it hard to deal with any of the concepts we’ve covered thus far in class and readings in and of themselves (i.e. ideology, mentality, authenticity, habitus, practice theory, reflexivity, etc).  It seems like they are all so interrelated that it is hard to conceptualize any one in isolation.  Authenticity is a big part of the American “mentality” as discussed by Fischer (2010:203); Victorian Americans consciously crafted their “selves” by developing their personal character while striving to remaining sincere in their relationships with others and suspicious of the sincerity of others.  Later they turned inward to seek a “true” rather than a “new” self unadulterated by the reserve and restraint demanded by popular society.  The mentality of re-crafting oneself is inherently self-reflexive and at the same time is largely influenced by overarching ideologies (which we found out can mean many things, according to the variety of definitions and applications explored by Eagleton).  All of this is connected to Bordieu’s concept of habitus and practice theory and as the place between the self and the social, where everyday practice is at once shaped by social constructs and dominant forces while simultaneously an opportunity to ignite change and challenge the way things are.

On another note, I found the Fischer article very interesting for its methodology of trying to actually track the changes in the mentality of Americans from some of the earliest colonists through today, rather than the psychological “standards” throughout time.  It is hard to get at the minds of ordinary people in the past, because the masses often lacked the resources, skills, or forums to be heard.  This leads to a study of mentality filtered through the lens of the upper class and of academics or experts who deem themselves authorities on the subject.  This problem is also relevant in history and historical archaeology where we really have to “dig” to get beyond the extant information that the upper class and powerful deemed important enough to write down.

It is interesting to think about how this problem has largely changed, especially in the last 20 years (at least in the US).  Almost everyone, regardless of economic class has access to the internet, television, cell phones, and at least an elementary level education (granted the variability to access is a big asterisk in this discussion).  Public libraries and public schools make computers and internet access available to virtually anyone, and anyone with internet access has the ability to be heard through social networking sites, commenting or “twittering” about news stories (which are often incorporated into new broadcasts in order to get the opinions of the masses), or creating a blog.  It seems that tracking the “mentality” of modern Americans can draw on a much wider resource base than in the past, although whether the average person feels “heard” in that wormhole of endlessly expanding information we call the internet is up for debate.

I really enjoyed the Fischer article, but I also felt like there was a big gap in the data set which often jumped from the Victorian era to the 1950s and beyond with little regard for what was going on in between.  The discussions of “control” and “choice” in particular would have benefitted from the inclusion of the WWI and WWII eras, á la women’s rights, Rosie the Riveter, rations, economic security, etc.