AMST 3253W

Midterm Exam

Ideological constructions of citizenship in the post-WWII United States

“A formulation of the political state and of citizenship that, as Marx put it in the "Jewish Question," abstracts from the
substantive conditions of our lives, works to prevent recognition or articulation of differences as political - as effects of
power - in their very construction and organization; they are at most the stuff of divergent political or economic
interests.” – Wendy Brown1

It could be argued that far from universal, inclusive category, citizenship is always actively

constructed, defined, compromised, and readjusted in relation to political and ideological forces.

The notion of citizenship implies rights, privileges, and obligations in particular community,

typically nation-state. The history of the United States illustrates the gap between the ideal of

citizenship and lived realities of citizens. For example, Lipsitz states that in the United States “true

cultural franchise and full citizenship requires white identity (1998: 71). However, the practices of

inclusion and exclusion in the full citizenship or identity markers that bring one closer towards that

ideal are contested and changing. Post-WWII and post-Vietnam eras serve as examples of

ideological redefinitions of citizenship. In this paper I will argue that race, gender, sexuality and

class are powerfully redefined in the post-War periods privileging particular identities and

constructing “ideal citizens” that are in line with capitalist, national, and cultural politics of the

time.

In the US, the period after WWII is characterized by economic growth, prosperity and world

leadership. The economic growth has been fueled by capitalizing on the war economy and

providing various government subsidies for personal consumption, as well as large scale

infrastructure projects, such as highways and rise of suburbia. However, what on the surface

appeared as mass prosperity and social harmony, underneath it hid various exclusions and

inequalities. Women, which temporarily occupied industries during WWII were actively recruited

into domesticity in order to make space for men to have jobs. The mass affluence was also not

1
accessible to all – African-Americans and various ethnic minorities were excluded through various

mechanisms of segregation. For example GI Bill, that is often cited as one of the important state

interventions which fueled economic growth and middle-class prosperity was largely inaccessible to

African Americans.2 The full citizenship was increasingly attached to middle-class consumption,

whiteness and suburban family life – idealized representations of which could be seen in the 1950s

TV shows such as The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet.

However, the economic prosperity and economic growth cannot be separated from the Cold

War logic that fueled the economy and technological innovations as well as certain ideological

constructions of citizenship. According to Serlin, medical innovations such as Dreyfuss hand and

various prosthetic devices allowed returning WWII veterans to “challenge the emasculation often

associated with their amputation” (16). Simultaneous construction of femininity and domesticity

was accompanied by the construction of masculinity. Serlin states that “the two constituent aspects

of the male body – its relation to productive labor and its relation to heterosexual masculinity – took

on increasing significance”(24). Those that felt emasculated by the war injuries could now rely on

technology in order to prove their “manliness and self-reliance” (46). The hierarchies of disability

with gendered implications got established as well – work and war related injuries became sources

of pride, while the inherent disabilities remained symbols of monstrosity (35). Post-WWII was a

also a period of mass paranoia – against communists, homosexuals, and various other “deviants” –

fueled by people like Sen.McCarthy which resulted in uniformity, secrecy, social control and (self)

policing. The military’s practice to discharge those suspected of “homosexual behavior or for

otherwise unmasculine psychological or physiological traits” (39) could be seen as being applied in

the larger society as well.

All the above examples points out to particular ideals of citizenship and hierarchical value

system of which citizens are valued over others. White, heterosexual, middle-class men were

2
privileged subjects of the state and were used as models of ideal citizenship. Such ideals were also

used to fight ideological Cold War battles and fuel consumerism, cultural politics, and

“hypernationalism” (2) of the post-WWII.

Contrary to WWII, the US states after Vietnam War was in the very different place

politically, economically, and culturally. Vietnam War was defeat, but not only militarily, but also

socially domestically in terms of dissident and general social unrest that war has fueled. Social

ideals carefully crafter in the post-WWII period has disintegrated, those that were previously

silenced and invisible demanded rights and recognition and economy was reaching stagnation. The

1960-1970s were some of the most tumultuous years in the US history. However, by the late 1970s

the war was over, large social movements became smaller and less radical, and conservative

backlash was about to start. The figure of the veteran, contrary to WWII veteran who even with

disability was able to symbolize power, progress, and national unity/destiny, was much more bleak.

This has been reflected in post-Vietnam films, such as Apocalypse Now, and various media

representations – fragile, self-abusive, and depressed. Vietnam veterans reflected the state of the

United States.

With the elections of Reagan in 1980 concerted effort to recuperate white heteromasculinity

was launched. Reagan attempted to rewrite history and fuel patriotism by insisting that Vietnam

war, like all wars, was heroic and meaningful. Reagan was promising the return to idealized past –

before civil rights movements – where white men had almost total control of racialized and

gendered social order (Lipsitz, 75). Patriotism served to reassemble that identity – either through

internal or external enemies and deviants. According to Lipsitz “patriotism has often been

constructed in the United States as a matter of a gendered and racialized obligation to paternal

protection of white family” (75). Furthermore, the economic downturn and deindustrialization could

be blamed on radicalism of the previous generation and loss of American character and values,

3
instead of corporations in search for greater profits. Women and ethnic minorities had to be pushed

back and disciplined often being disproportionately affected by increasing privatization and

dismantling of the welfare state. The class war (which was a hidden reality of the Vietnam war)

intensified during the Reagan years. Reagan claimed that “ending government regulation would free

the private sector to find market-based solution to social problems” (92). However, the free market

solutions instead of alleviating increased inequalities, often marginalizing those that did not fit the

notion of ideal citizenship. The white heterosexual men, although not exclusively, were the primary

winners of the neoliberal and neoconservative counterattack. Lipsitz states that “neoconservatives

present people of color at home and abroad as the new enemy to be scapegoated for the lost wages

of whiteness” (95).

Although citizenship is a contested terrain, including or excluding certain people at different

times and for different reasons, the post-WWII and post-Vietnam citizenship and dominant identity

formations allows us to analyze complexities of the process. It can be argued that historically

dominant identities and groups (white, upper class, heterosexual, male) even if occasionally losing

power use time of the post-wars to recuperate and reassert its influence.

4
1
Wendy Brown, “Wounded Attachments,” Political Theory, 21, no. 3 (1993): 391.

2
“One does not require a particularly acute historical sense to surmise that the GI Bill was built on premises of both
legal and de facto inequality; the certainty that blacks would encounter racial restrictions in moving to claim their
benefits was surely understood by the political architects of the measure” (pg. 105)
Hilary Herbold, “Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill,” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 6
(1994-1995): 105.