What is the significance of the phrase, “Cold War, Warm Hearth,” in the title of Elaine Tyler May’s essay?
2 thoughts on “Week 4 Day 2 Discussion Question 2”
Meghan Keating
In Elaine Tyler May’s essay, she examines the effects of cold war ideology on American family life. The phrase “Cold War, warm hearth” shows the importance of the nuclear family and a stable home life in an increasingly uncertain era. May states that the American dream, in the mind of Nixon and many young people in the 1950’s, was “successful breadwinners supporting attractive homemakers in affluent suburban homes,” an ideal that had significance in comparison to the USSR’s view that valued female independence outside the household as well. In his “Kitchen Debate,” Richard Nixon made the argument that consumerism was the way to define domestic freedom in the time period, showing how the household was closely connected to the ideological conflict between the Soviet Union’s communism and the American commercial nuclear family at the time. In opposition to the oppressive and increasingly uniform work force, the home became a symbol of freedom, offering both an escape in the form of consumerism and a sense of recovery following World War II. May states, “A home filled with children would create a feeling of warmth and security against the cold forces of disruption and alienation” caused by the advent of the atomic bomb and increasing tensions with the USSR. She argues that “children would also be a connection to the future and a means of replenishing a world depleted by war deaths,” showing how the home was not only seen as an area of ideological freedom in opposition to communism, but was also a reaction to the lingering effects of WWII and the nuclear fear descending over the nation.
Throughout Elaine Tyler May’s essay, she analyzes the huge change in family culture that occurred in post-war America. She specifically references the nuclear family, which was present throughout the Cold War in response to the fear of nuclear annihilation. While Americans feared World War III on the horizon, people looked for a source of control, security, and comfort, which they found in creating families. While America was amidst the Cold War, family life in suburbia provided a “warm hearth.” In the 1955 KLS survey, responders fervently displayed a sense of strong commitment to family life, many noting that the benefits largely outweighed the sacrifices. The astounding number of adults marrying young and having multiple children reveals the need for conformity at the time, certainly in the family aspect of life. Even though some couples admitted to the obstacles and struggles throughout their relationships, they understood that it was “not a perfect life, but it was secure and predictable,” as they clung “to the family as a security in a chaotic world.” However, May also argues that many people “endeavored to live in tune with the prevailing domestic ideology,” they discovered that it “required a heavy investment of self.” She suggests that the need for security and conformity almost hid the reality of family life, which can be difficult and not always rewarding. While the KLS survey showed a huge majority of positive responses, Americans may have suppressed the truth about their home life in fear they would lose the sense that their family was in fact their “warm hearth” in the midst of the Cold War.
In Elaine Tyler May’s essay, she examines the effects of cold war ideology on American family life. The phrase “Cold War, warm hearth” shows the importance of the nuclear family and a stable home life in an increasingly uncertain era. May states that the American dream, in the mind of Nixon and many young people in the 1950’s, was “successful breadwinners supporting attractive homemakers in affluent suburban homes,” an ideal that had significance in comparison to the USSR’s view that valued female independence outside the household as well. In his “Kitchen Debate,” Richard Nixon made the argument that consumerism was the way to define domestic freedom in the time period, showing how the household was closely connected to the ideological conflict between the Soviet Union’s communism and the American commercial nuclear family at the time. In opposition to the oppressive and increasingly uniform work force, the home became a symbol of freedom, offering both an escape in the form of consumerism and a sense of recovery following World War II. May states, “A home filled with children would create a feeling of warmth and security against the cold forces of disruption and alienation” caused by the advent of the atomic bomb and increasing tensions with the USSR. She argues that “children would also be a connection to the future and a means of replenishing a world depleted by war deaths,” showing how the home was not only seen as an area of ideological freedom in opposition to communism, but was also a reaction to the lingering effects of WWII and the nuclear fear descending over the nation.
Throughout Elaine Tyler May’s essay, she analyzes the huge change in family culture that occurred in post-war America. She specifically references the nuclear family, which was present throughout the Cold War in response to the fear of nuclear annihilation. While Americans feared World War III on the horizon, people looked for a source of control, security, and comfort, which they found in creating families. While America was amidst the Cold War, family life in suburbia provided a “warm hearth.” In the 1955 KLS survey, responders fervently displayed a sense of strong commitment to family life, many noting that the benefits largely outweighed the sacrifices. The astounding number of adults marrying young and having multiple children reveals the need for conformity at the time, certainly in the family aspect of life. Even though some couples admitted to the obstacles and struggles throughout their relationships, they understood that it was “not a perfect life, but it was secure and predictable,” as they clung “to the family as a security in a chaotic world.” However, May also argues that many people “endeavored to live in tune with the prevailing domestic ideology,” they discovered that it “required a heavy investment of self.” She suggests that the need for security and conformity almost hid the reality of family life, which can be difficult and not always rewarding. While the KLS survey showed a huge majority of positive responses, Americans may have suppressed the truth about their home life in fear they would lose the sense that their family was in fact their “warm hearth” in the midst of the Cold War.