1) What were the roots of the strong anti-theatrical prejudice extant in pre-Civil War America? Why was even theater attendance considered improper for women?
As stated in the text, actors and actresses were viewed as low and common person (2). Notable scholars commented freely on how the American public did not seem to accept theatrical expectations as proper. Actors and actresses alike were thought to be of low moral character, free-spirited and drunkards. Another scholar, Clara Morris, retorted that actors were not taken seriously because they were "buffoons" (p. 3). Because of this negative stereotype, actors were seen as having no social standing. To add to this chagrin, actors and actresses were also openly ridiculed in religious setting by figures such as Reverand Robert Hatfield, who declared the theater the "haunt of sinners" (p. 4).
This "vagabond lifestyle," to obviate, did not make theater a socially accepted career or for women. During this time period, women were stigmatized as having their place in the home, which was considered the "womanly sphere" of house and home (p. 2). The text almost suggests that women were not supposed to have a social life outside of the home, thus suggesting this to be the main reason why theater attendance would be considered taboo. Also of note is that those who attended the theater were not considered "decent" people. A lady actress during this time was considered unfemine
This time period was characterized by the ending of the Victorian era, which had celebrated women's work as good household management. Domesticity was shown to be the only appropriate working task for women. To have women take a place on the stage, or in any career for that fashion, seemed almost intolerable as it presented a trespassing into men's economic territory.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You spend the first paragraphs confirming that actors were thought by the Victorians to be disreputable, but don't really explain why they got that reputation aside from the fact they moved around a lot. What made not having a permanent address a bad thing?
ReplyDeleteI understand your comment. I did not elaborate further past the first paragraph because I wanted to move on to the second part of the question and felt like I had sufficiently answered the first part of the question in the opening paragraph. Instead of focusing on the nomadic lifestyle (which I do not feel I strongly allude to), I focus on the debauchery and the supposed low morals that actors were seen as having. If I need to focus more on this, I can do so.
ReplyDeleteI see the points that you make in regard to the question of anti-theatrical prejudice. You might have enhanced it a bit by discussing the role of religion more - both in terms of its influence on societal norms, as well as its direct role in the subjugation of women through these Victorian norms. I agree with the points that you make, but would have reinforced the institution of religion as the common thread that weaves them together.
ReplyDelete