Interview with Dr. Elijah Anderson
::
::
Contributor
Anderson, Elijah ; McKiernan, Stephen
Description
Dr. Elijah Anderson is a sociologist, cultural theorist, scholar and professor in Sociology at Yale University, where he specializes in Urban Ethnography. Dr. Anderson received his Ph.D. in Sociology at Northwestern University.
Dr. Elijah Anderson is a sociologist, cultural theorist, scholar, and the Sterling Professor of Sociology and African-American Studies at Yale University. He specializes in Urban Ethnography. He is the author of several books including his most recent, titled Black in White Space: The Enduring Impact of Color in Everyday Life (2022). His other books include Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City (1999), winner of the Komarovsky Award from the Eastern Sociological Society; Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community (1990), winner of the American Sociological Association’s Robert E. Park Award for the best-published book in the area of Urban Sociology; and the classic sociological work, A Place on the Corner (1978). Dr. Anderson received numerous awards and recognition, including the consultant for the White House, United States Congress, and the National Academy of Science. In 2002, he was awarded the Stockholm Prize in Criminology. Previous to his tenure at Yale University, he was a Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Anderson received his Ph.D. in Sociology from Northwestern University.
Date
2009-07-09
Rights
In Copyright
Date Modified
2017-03-14
Is Part Of
McKiernan Interviews
Extent
52:43
Transcription
McKiernan Interviews
Interview with: Elijah Anderson
Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan
Transcriber: REV
Date of interview: 9 July 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Start of Interview)
SM (00:02):
... as soon as I get everything ready here. I got to turn the sound up. All right. Can you hear me?
EA (00:06):
Yeah, I can hear you.
SM (00:07):
All right. Very good. Pretty nice weather we are having.
EA (00:13):
Oh, it is.
SM (00:15):
Considering all that rain we had.
EA (00:16):
It is not as hot and humid as it usually is this time of year.
SM (00:22):
First question I would like to ask then ... Again, thank you very much for doing this. When do you think the (19)60s began, in your opinion? And what do you think was the watershed moment for most of the young people from the boomer generation?
EA (00:41):
Well, I guess it depends on how you think of the (19)60s because, for a lot of people, the (19)60s are thought of as this period of a certain quest for freedom, individualism, that kind of thing, but especially a time of free-thinking people. I know, stereotypically, it is all about relaxing standards and that kind of thing and the so-called deviant people becoming more legitimate, that kind of thing. I mean that is what people like to think. There is a book by a mentor of mine, Howard Becker, and the book is entitled Outsiders. Basically, in this book, what he does is speak about the issue of rules. He tries to account for deviant behavior. Up to this point, scholars have talked about deviance as, again, in an objective kind of way, that mission being that deviant behavior is behavior that goes against society's standards, values, and rules. Basically, given that perspective, it is pretty easy to tell what deviance is and what it is not. What Becker does in his book is raise a lot of questions about that. He comes up with the so-called subjective view of defiance and, basically, this view of deviance says that deviance is whatever powerful people say it is at the time, and to really know deviance, you have to know something about how people react to certain acts and how they then go about labeling people that they consider to be in violation of standards, values, and rules that you care about or that certain people labeling them deviant, that care about them, you see? What he introduced in this book, which was published in 1963, but the source articles were written over a period of time through the late (19)50s, what he points to here is a profound relativity with respect to rulemaking and rule breaking, and I think that, to some extent, his idea was, to some extent, perhaps a manifestation of the period which you are speaking, where people more and more were trying to embrace this kind of relativism and trying to see the other side, trying to put themselves in the place of people who would be thought of as deviant or people who would be castigated, put down, subjected to the whims of the powerful and that kind of thing. What he did was basically he was able to come to appreciate the so-called victims of society and even to underscore the fact that they were not so bad after all, if you know what I mean? But I think this is what you saw more and more in the 1960s with more and more young people raising questions about the status quo, raising questions about the established institutions, especially when those institutions were fomenting and fostering a war that they did not believe in, to go and die in. So, you have every reason, people, to raise up and to rise up, I should say, and raise questions about the system, and this is what people ultimately did in the (19)60s. I do not know if that is what you meant, but-
SM (04:55):
Yeah. Well, that is beautiful. As a follow-up-
EA (04:57):
But, to me, that is what the (19)60s kind of represented.
SM (05:01):
Based on what you just said and what Becker said in his book, The Outsiders, how do you respond? You have heard this over probably the last 15, 20 years from columnists, like George Will, and even politicians, like Newt Gingrich, that they place all the ills of American society and they point right back to that era of the boomer era, whether it be the (19)50s, (19)60s, and (19)70s, for the breakdown of the family, the breakdown of American society, the breakdown of morals, the lack of respect for authority. When Ronald Reagan became president, they praised him for trying to beat these kinds of things. But still, they will write about the boomers in that era in very negative terms. How do you respond to that?
EA (05:54):
Well, I think basically what you had in the 1950s in America was a strong sense that we lived in a rather homogeneous society, and this society was basically quite Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Of course, this included people who were that way and wanted to be that way, it seemed, even to the point of divesting themselves of their own ethnic particularities instead of joining into this great American way, so to speak. So there was a great and strong pull or a push for people to assimilate, that is to divest themselves of their particularities, whether they be whatever ethnic group, and to really blend in to be a part of this great American way and to contribute, to some extent, to this homogeneity, if not in phenotype, then in values and orientation, so to speak. I think this is what you did have in the Eisenhower era when Blacks and other minority groups basically were pretty much likely to try hard to assimilate, to divest themselves of their own ethnic particularities, and join in the great American way, so to speak. A lot of people, of course, were fine with that. But the (19)60s, I wrote about a kind of license for people to experiment and to move off the plantation, so to speak, and that is what people did. I think that your more conservative commentators react to this with a great alarm, thinking that, well, if people really do go off the plantation, this has implications for the integrity of the plantation itself and the values that uphold that plantation. I think, to some extent, they would be in line with trying to support that ideology that supports the plantation, not to break it down, if you know what I mean, the structures that hold it together, so to speak.
SM (08:26):
Again, a lot of people that I have interviewed have had a hard time trying to classify boomers over a 20-year period because the early boomers, those born between (19)46 and (19)56, seem to have been more involved than those in the latter part. So, I have had some individuals having a hard time with labels on generations. This is a two-part question. If you were to look at this generation, is there one specific event that you think had the greatest impact on them in those early years, those years between (19)46 and, say, (19)70 or (19)75? And secondly, what is the most important event that affected your life?
EA (09:09):
Well, I think I could answer maybe both questions with one answer. I mean I think that probably John F. Kennedy's assassination was extremely important for so many of the so-called boomers, but not only his assassination but, not long after that, the assassination of King and Robert Kennedy. These political assassinations, I think, were really very important to the coming of age of boomers and perhaps the rise in a certain ability to question the system and even to embrace a kind of cynicism with respect to the system, I think. This is one of the things that came about for so many of the boomers, a kind of awakening, if you will, of losing one's innocence, so to speak. I think that may be the biggest thing that these assassinations contributed. I think those were probably the major development, so to speak. I am not just talking about one assassination. I am talking about a series of major political assassinations, you see. Even if they were not intended to be political, they became politicized, I am sure, if you will.
SM (10:45):
If you were to put a couple of adjectives to describe some strengths and weaknesses, you have already mentioned quite a few of them in your opening comments, but just some adjectives to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the boomer generation.
EA (10:57):
Well, I think probably the biggest thing is just the number of people who were just born after people returned from the war. I think just the number is pretty impressive and certainly provocative to the status quo. Just mere numbers, I think, is very important. I think, with that, faults, so to speak, in the system, you have all kinds of implications for various issues that people are dealing with, whether it is what to do about resettlement after the Great War, or whether it has to do with family life following that, how people live, the suburbanization of people, growing up in the suburbs. At the same time, growing up in the suburbs did not mean that people were leaving behind their racial predilections, so to speak. I think that the racism that we saw that basically undergirded the beginning of this country, not to mention the great Civil War that we had and then Emancipation and then the riots in the cities and then the incorporation process that gave us the Black middle class as we know it and even the split between the Black underclass and the Black middle class that followed thereafter. And yet, many of these people who were the middle class did not enjoy any ability to really live in suburban communities in the same way that their white counterparts lived in these communities before them. In fact, the whole history of this race relations period had to do with the fact that Black people were moving into communities and white people were constantly moving out, and it was almost like a dog chasing its tail, so to speak, getting nowhere fast in terms of really being able to deliberate the problems of race and racism and social place in this country. So I think that, for me anyway, that these are some of the big issues that were at least if not confronted by the boomer, at least these were issues that they were having to deal with, though many abdicated their responsibilities to deal with some of these problems. But at the same time, you have to say that some of these individuals stepped up to the plate, so to speak, and began to fight for social change in a very positive sense. But we have this problem that is really best described as unfinished business, so to speak.
SM (14:25):
Right. You bring up a very important point because, again, I got a two-part question here. What has been the overall impact of boomers on their kids with respect to carrying on some of their ideals and their activism into the next couple generations? And secondly, along that point, what is your thought regarding these boomers? Have they copped out, most of them? There's obviously many who have stayed with the fight for many particular issues. But did most of them fall by the wayside for the almighty dollar as they grew older
EA (15:07):
I would not try to judge that. I mean but certainly, there is a lot of work to be done in this country by all people, boomers included. Whether or not the torch has really been passed from one generation to the next in terms of the boomers' responsibility or whatever, I mean that is hard to say because so many of these issues and problems are not so much a function of one generation passing off to another as much as it is an issue of structural forces that beset each succeeding generation, so to speak. That generation then has to deal with what it has to deal with in order to be, and I think this is the biggest issue. When you have a period of quietism, so to speak, you probably get people who are not so energized. When you have a period where people are confronted by exigencies of life that they have no pattern for, no experience in dealing with, then people may well become quite creative, so to speak. So it really is not so much a matter of one generation passing on its values as much as it is one generation having to deal with the exigencies of life that are quite different from the generation and those conditions that preceded them, so to speak. So that is what I would say about this. I would not think that a generation could simply pass its values intact onto another generation without considering the issues and the factors of life that the succeeding generation would have to deal with. I think you would have to consider all that in order to get a good read on that particular generation's ability to cope, so to speak.
SM (17:13):
How do you respond to some of the young people of that era, when they were young said that we were the most unique generation in American history because we were going to be the change agents for the betterment of society in every way? Of course, young people have idealism. We are going to end racism, sexism, homophobia, and war. But just-
EA (17:33):
I do not think any generation has any premium on that, so to speak. I mean it is basically up to people to deal with what that we have to deal with. Every generation is unique, really. Every generation is different. I mean no generation has a monopoly on any of these answers, so to speak, to the problems that face mankind up to people to deal with, each and every generation. I would not go so far to say that it is the most unique generation. I think that it is more complicated than that. At the same time, it is really important to appreciate the fact that the generation that faces great challenges certainly have a real set of issues from which they might grow and develop in that a unique generation. But I do not think there is anything intrinsic about a group of people that make them the greatest, so to speak, other than the challenges that they face and the way they responded to those challenges, if you know what I mean? In a sense, out of their hands, if you follow me? It is a matter of how people respond to what is before them. I think that the World War II generation, oftentimes called the greatest generation, but I think you have to look at the challenges that face that generation and subsequent challenges that face the boomers after that, if you follow me, and how they were able or not able to respond to those challenges. That is what I would say.
SM (19:30):
How important were the college students of that era, I am talking about the (19)60s, early (19)70s again, in ending the war in Vietnam, their influence on policy in America, the pressures they put on universities? But in society, how important, on a scale of, say, one to 10, with 10 being the highest number, where would you place the impact that that protest had in ending the war?
EA (19:55):
Well, I think that that protest was extremely important for-
SM (19:58):
Dr. Anderson, could you speak up just a little bit, too?
EA (20:00):
Yeah. I think that that protest movement was very, very important, but it was not just antiwar. It was also the demonstrations and protests against the racial status quo and the ways in which the movement for civil rights somehow culminated in riots and, ultimately, an incorporation process that brought about greater civil rights not only for Black people, but for all Americans. Also, it paved the way for the emergence of a Black middle class that was no longer so dependent on living in these inner-city communities, but one that was increasingly corporate, so to speak. But I think that we had that situation, which is certainly one that has to be, I think, appreciated. But you also had this group of people who stepped up to the plate and basically demonstrated quite effectively against the war. But they had been previously edified by all the struggles that they witnessed, from civil rights to the cultural nationalism, to ultimately the incorporation process. They were all part of that. Basically, you have them becoming very, very concerned not only about the expression of American power in the world, but they were concerned about their own brothers and sisters being taken away from them and having to fight far off in Asian war. Another piece that is important to this is the fact that we had the draft then, you see, and we did not have the professional army the way we do today. So, the fact that there was a draft basically meant that certain constituencies would be, to some extent, informed and then perhaps active in a way that would call an end to the fighting that they would expect to shore the burden of, so to speak, fighting and dying, you see. That is one thing that we do not have today. We do not have the same political action related to ones that are trying to save one's own blood, so to speak, whether it be your son, your daughter, or yourself or your husband or whoever it was, you see. We do not have the same thing going on today. We have a more professional army. I think that if we had an equal opportunity to be in Iraq or to be in Afghanistan, I think that you would probably see more protests against the war today, you see. But the truth was, back in the Vietnam era, we had more of an equal opportunity for participating in that war. And even then, it was one-sided in terms of the rich and well-to-do versus the poor because the rich and well-to-do oftentimes could get college deferment or whatever or their parents kept them out of harm's way through their political and economic influence, so to speak. So, the burden of it oftentimes fell on the ordinary American more so than the others. But I think that when you have this equal opportunity situation, you are bound to have more protests and you are bound to have political leaders who basically take their decision making a bit more seriously, at least with the consideration of the viewpoint of people who would make up their constituencies, so to speak.
SM (24:14):
We saw in the late (19)60s, early (19)70s, kind of a split in the antiwar movement where African American students split away from the antiwar movement and, of course, toward what was going on in civil rights here in the United States, and we saw it a lot at Kent State. But I wanted you to comment on Dr. King's [inaudible] Vietnam speech. I think it should be required to be read in every college classroom because he was so far ahead of the game. Just your thoughts on the courage of him and that speech and maybe a couple comments on the reaction in America, not only in the civil rights community, but in America as a whole.
EA (24:56):
Well, I think basically a lot of people thought he was out of line with that speech, in part because they figured that he was really a civil rights leader, not somebody who should put his nose into foreign policy issues. And yet, he said very, very powerfully that, to some extent, the civil rights movement, it was related to this more general struggle for antiwar and peace and that kind of thing. That really disturbed a lot of people, including Lyndon Johnson himself, who had, up to that point, been listening more and more to King, but then, all of a sudden, recoiled. So there was that issue. But I think that, for King, it was a moral issue, that he thought he had a moral obligation to speak out, and he did.
SM (26:00):
One of the things that I am trying to get at in this process is the healing process. If you will bear with me, I had taken a group of students to see Edmund Muskie about a year before he died. He had just gotten out of the hospital, and he was not feeling very well. It was one of our Leadership on the Road programs, and there were 14 students. We taped it. We were talking about the (19)68 convention and a lot about the divisions in America as a whole. I asked him, "Have we healed at all since 1968 and the Vietnam War?" And he paused for a minute, almost had tears in his eyes. The students were looking at each other, "Why is not he responding?" And then he finally said, "I have been in the hospital for the last couple weeks, and I have been watching Ken Burns' The Civil War." He said, "We have not healed since the Civil War." So, he went on to talking about that particular aspect as opposed to the response since the Vietnam War. My commentary and question is this, with all the divisions that were happening in that (19)60s and (19)70s, the divisions in America, pro-war, antiwar, divisions between Black and white, between those who supported authority and those who were against, between those who supported the troops and those that were against, and all the other divisions, had we healed at all as a ... Do you think the boomer generation has healed at all since that time?
EA (27:40):
Well, I think that is a very provocative question, to be sure, and it may be a bit opposed as not so much a matter of healing as it is a matter of just simply ignoring the situation and dealing with other fish to fry, so to speak. Today, as we live our lives, we are dealing with economic change of a high order, probably the most important change since the Industrial Revolution, so to speak. As we make this change technologically, moving from manufacturing to service and high technology as a way to organize this economy, there are great numbers of people who are not making a change. So we have a lot on our plate right now today. You see, it's these kinds of issues, these kinds of demands that we have to deal with. But today, that oftentimes takes our attention away from other issues, so to speak, maybe going to preoccupy us and maybe even substitute for healing, so to speak. So, what we have is not so much healing as a scabbing over, so to speak, looking at issues and challenges all the time. It may be that that is the way it is, that nothing has healed completely. But we get new challenges from time to time. So today, we are dealing with this big economic issue, you see. That does not mean that we're done with slavery. It does not mean we're done with the Civil War. It does not mean that we have done with the civil rights movement. It just means that we have a sort of preoccupation with dealing with the present, so to speak, present problems and issues, the trials and tribulations of living our lives. That is what it seems to me.
SM (29:43):
Well, that is a beautiful answer because the last couple days I have been seeing some of my former students and the frustrations they have of finding a job. I have a friend who graduated from Penn who has been laid off twice in the last year, unbelievable stories. We are in a very-very, very tough economy. I think we're about hitting our 30 minutes here. Do you want to go 15 more minutes? We might be able to finish it.
EA (30:13):
Okay.
SM (30:14):
Because when my tape hits, and it has not hit yet, so we have not hit 30 minutes. I wanted to follow up to your response. Have you been to the Wall in Washington?
EA (30:25):
No, I have not.
SM (30:25):
I have been there many times. The Wall was built as a nonpolitical entity, mentored healing the wounds of the troops who fought and their families. It is supposed to be nonpolitical. I go down there every year on Memorial Day and Veterans Day, and I cannot help but constantly hearing politics there, even though they do a great job with the Wall stuff. Do you think the Wall has done anything with respect to ... Well, I know it is done a lot for the soldiers and the troops that fought and their families, but those who may have been against the war before the war ... It gets right back to that healing question. Has it done anything beyond just the military?
EA (31:05):
Well, I think it is not only a symbol of the war and our involvement there, but it is also a very powerful ...
SM (31:18):
15 more minutes. Okay, here we go.
EA (31:20):
Yeah, I think that is basically a matter of it memorializes people who made the supreme sacrifice, and I think that is a very important consideration here. That is probably the most important consideration. It does not necessarily heal, but it is a way to pay homage to people who gave their full measure, so to speak.
SM (31:48):
In your eyes, when did the Vietnam War end, and what was the major reason that it did end?
EA (31:54):
Well, I mean that is a complicated piece. But certainly, you look at the pictures, the iconic photographs of the day. The helicopters were taking people from the rooftops of certain buildings there. You realized that even that moment was not going to be the end the war, so to speak, but it is something more than that. It is just not so much a particular moment that you can say it is over kind of thing, but it has to do with, to some extent, the healing process and the way in which the US military and diplomatic corps basically took themselves out of that situation. That does not happen all at one time, but it happens over a period of months and even years, if you follow me? Some people, even though the war would be officially over, would consider the war to still be going on months after the declaration that it is over, if you know what I mean, because people have to adjust and get back to a sense of normalcy and that kind of thing. So, it is not so much a matter of something that is exact and pinpointed, if you follow me, but it is something that goes on and on. I think today, we could certainly say that we're done with all that and we are moving on to something else. Of course, now you have development in those areas where people once were fighting. You have development. You have hotels. You have commerce. You have all kinds of things that really say quite emphatically that it is a new day. You have people from there and people from here who fought in the war, who fought each other, who are now coming back together and discussing issues and discussing their various roles, not so much in anger, but just as a way to communicate with one another and let one another know that the hatchet has been buried, so to speak. I think when you have that kind of a situation, then you can begin to say that it is done and over, if you follow me, no exact moment, no exact time. Although certainly, we have the official administrative definition of the end of the war, so to speak. But even though you had that, things continued to progress, if you follow me, I think.
SM (34:31):
One of the things about the civil rights movement, and it was such a great mentor and role model to other movements that followed. I would like your thoughts just on the impact that this movement had on, and just general comments, on the women's movement and the Chicano, the Native American movement, certainly the antiwar movement, the gay and lesbian movement, the Earth Day, the environmental movement. A lot of the people that lead these efforts looked back to the role modeling of the civil rights movement.
EA (35:05):
Oh, of course. Well, you have to understand that the Black situation was and is a special situation in this country. No other group has been brought here in chains and made to work for no wages and then emancipated in the Great War and then still subjected to second class citizenship, segregated in certain communities, discriminated against, hated, despised by people in the way that Black Americans were. So the civil rights movement, the protests for civil rights for Black people, is iconic and was major in so many respects. As people rose up to challenge the system, of course, a lot of people's heads were turning to this great race dealing with this situation of injustice, so to speak. A lot of people paid attention and even got involved, to some extent. It was not just the Blacks who went through this disestablishment, so to speak, and made itself free, but various people worked with Black people that helped to free not only them, but the country from its past, so to speak. But the civil rights movement itself culminated in the riots that happened in the cities around this country, great demand for civil rights and incorporation. Ultimately, what we did, we had the movement from the civil rights movement to the cultural nationalist movement and the riots in the cities. And then you had tremendous violence all over this country. The powers that existed had a real problem on its hands, how to deal with this whole situation in something of a very public kind of way, if you follow me? It tried to do this by putting these problems down by dealing with the revolts or the riots or whatever it was. You have to understand, too, that when this was happening, it was happening during the Cold War, you see, when this country and Russia, or the Soviet Union, were vying for leadership of the world. They were saying to each other, "Well, we have got the better system. We have got the better system." We were looking at the satellite, looking for people to follow them in some of the developing countries that were colored, in fact, looking for leadership from the Soviet Union or from the West. A big issue was who really had the better system in terms of being able to facilitate the development of people of color, to some extent. So given that this country was trying for leadership of the world, they really had a big fly in the ointment with the way that it had historically treated Black people and still treated Black people. You see? So there was a great need for this country to basically step up to the plate and get on the right side with respect to civil rights, you see, because there was a lot at stake. There was leadership of the world at stake, you see. So this is one thing that they had to do, that they had to deal with. When they did this, they engaged and you had this movement, the riots or what have you. They culled it out with violence. But they also worked to incorporate Black people in the system, you see.
SM (39:22):
[inaudible]-
EA (39:25):
Through affirmative action, set asides, what have you, they created a new Black middle class, you see, a class that effectively would cull out other people and show that if you work hard, you can be not only meritorious, but you can also have something in this world, you see. So, this was a very important thing because they brought Black people forward, in part, because of all these other issues that were going on at the time, especially the fact that the issues of the wider world, the third world, the developing countries, the developed nations. All those issues were very important to the success of the civil rights movement here that resulted in first class citizenship for Black people, but also, to some extent, an incorporation process that helped Black people to take their place in American society. That struggle is still going on. It is not over. But we have made a lot of progress, for sure.
SM (40:39):
Do you consider the Black Power movement a negative or a positive in that process?
EA (40:45):
I think, in some ways, it was bold. There were times when it was highly negative, and times when it was very positive. I think the major thing was that it set the stage for the incorporation process that we saw that basically gave us the Black middle classes that exist today. I think that without the issues that were put on the table in the (19)60s and the (19)70s by the cultural nationalists and by the so-called Black Power movement, that you probably would not have had the degree of incorporation that we have right now today, or even the motivation to incorporate Black people or to have Black people live as first class citizens in this country without that, without protests-
SM (41:41):
Could you-
EA (41:42):
... on the system's institutions, if you will.
SM (41:42):
Would you be able to comment on, since you are a scholar, if you think there were any books that were very popular at that time that influenced people of all colors, boomers, and then, of course, the impact that the music of the boomer generation has had because that is all you hear on the radio now is music from that period, it just seems that.
EA (42:01):
I think that if you are going to think about what effect that the boomers in that period, you have to undoubtedly look at the kind of education they were getting during the civil rights movement and during the antiwar movement and the cultural nationalist period and all that. Increasingly, you had these young students, white, Black, whoever, but especially the white middle class, more and more being edified, educated by people who brought a certain sensitivity to the problems of the history of Black people in this country, including the studies of slavery and race relations and that kind of thing. So many of these schools around the country began to incorporate Black studies courses and that kind of thing. All of this gave both Black people and young white people a clearer sense of the history of this country. I think that was very, very important for their understanding, but also the notion of the possibilities for the country itself. I think those things were very, very important to implement. We could go on and on with that. But I think that is-
SM (43:19):
Any thoughts on the music?
EA (43:21):
I think those are important. I think also what you began to see as a result of the civil rights movement and the incorporation process was a proliferation of different kinds of music that Blacks were involved in. You began to see the emergence, undoubtedly, of rhythm and blues and blues and jazz and hip hop and rock and all these variations that came about. You began to see the influence of Black singers and performers crossing over, you see. I think that was very, very important. I think that the music of The Beatles was very important. I think Elvis Presley was very important. I think Michael Jackson was very important. All these stars were important for the way in which they helped us to integrate our society, as it were. I think this, to some extent, is a function of the civil rights movement, but also the ways in which we have been able to move toward the diversity and the acceptance of diversity within our country with all of this, the music, the civil rights movement. All that was very, very important in this process, and I think we are all beneficiaries of what happened there.
SM (44:41):
I have two more questions. One's a question on trust. I can remember being in a college 101 psychology class many years ago, and the professor said in one of the very first classes that ... He was defining the meaning of trust, and he said, "We all have to trust someone in life. If you go through life and you cannot trust people, you probably will not be a success in life." So, I am bringing this question up because all the leaders that a lot of the boomers saw, they were lying to them many, many times, from presidents on down. The students at least that I knew, and many of the boomers, did not trust anybody that was in a leadership role, whether it be a university president, a congressman, a senator, even leaders in the church, corporate leaders, you name it. It is because they had been disappointed so many times by leaders who had lied to them, whether it be President Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin, in recent years, the things about John Kennedy and maybe being linked to the killings of the two people in Vietnam. President Eisenhower lied on national television about the U-2 incident. Then we had Richard Nixon and Watergate. And then there were just, over and over, things where leaders who were voted in, people wanted to trust them, realized that they could not trust them. The body counts in the Vietnam War, all these things. Just your thoughts on, finally, if these young people cannot trust, what are they passing on to their kids? So just your comments on do we have a problem with trust?
EA (46:26):
Well, I think trust is very important, for sure. I think that what you see with the major assassinations I mentioned, this period of political assassinations, that really ended the period of innocence for Americans, boomers in particular maybe, but Americans in general. I think this is very, very important. But it was also important not just in terms of people becoming more mature, so to speak, but it also ushered in a kind of cynicism, if you will. I think this was very, very important. I think that we're still living with consequences of that, and it will take time to get that back. But so many people have basically taken leave, abdicated, checked out, so to speak. But now and then, we have a charismatic figure emerge, and then hope is restored. I think that is what we have today with Barack Obama's emergence as the political leader that he is. The jury is still out, of course, whether or not he is going to do all that he has promised to do or whether he is going to have the integrity, ultimately, that we all like to attribute to him. But so far, I think he has been really showing first-rate leadership that basically begins to heal so much that has happened in our past that has made us doubt. So I think the trust issue is always there, and it gets rebuilt with succeeding generations, but most importantly, through acts that we can have faith in, so to speak.
SM (48:19):
My last question is, when the best history books or sociology books are written 50 years after a period, what do you think people will be saying about the boomer generation with all its complexities, with all its diversity? What will professors in your shoes be saying 50 years from now at Yale in soc classes and history classes about the boomer era, the (19)60s, the (19)70s, and their lives, basically?
EA (48:52):
Yeah. Well, why do not we hold off on that one for a while? Once we get a sense of how this works out, then I will respond to that. Okay? Give me time to think about that one.
SM (49:03):
Very good.
EA (49:08):
So now you have the tape, and you are going to transcribe it?
SM (49:11):
Yep. I am going to transcribe it probably myself and-
EA (49:19):
But let me say this. I do not want to make this available until I have had a chance to read it and to edit it, that kind of thing.
SM (49:26):
Oh, yeah. I am doing that with everybody. In fact, I have not transcribed any. I am doing the transcribing myself on all of them.
EA (49:37):
I understand. I just want to look because I like to be able to review it and edit it before it is out there, and I would like to respond more fully to certain points you raised.
SM (49:48):
Yeah. The only other part I could not ask you today is just responses to some of the names of the period.
EA (49:55):
Yeah.
SM (49:56):
So anyways ...
EA (49:57):
But you have your work cut out for you.
SM (50:00):
Yep. But ...
EA (50:00):
If you can get this back to me at a certain point, I can deal with it and we can move along. But you raised a lot of good questions, a lot of good issues. I want to commend you for that.
SM (50:12):
Well, it is my first book.
EA (50:13):
I was going to ask you.
SM (50:16):
You know what I want to do in my next book?
EA (50:18):
What is that?
SM (50:18):
I want to write about Dr. King and the Vietnam speech.
EA (50:23):
Well, that sounds good. That sounds good. I mean he was a great man, for sure, great American. I think that a lot of these issues you have been raising today, are just right on, right on the money.
SM (50:36):
Well, I know Mrs. Bagley. Do you know her?
EA (50:38):
No. No.
SM (50:39):
She is the sister of Coretta Scott King. So, I have gotten to know her. She is not well, but she has taken a liking to me. She was upset that I left Westchester. She used to call me. I have not talked to her in a while, but I am going to call her. She can only sit down for 20 minutes because she is not well. I am going to interview her for the book and go from there. But Dr. Anderson, Yale is so lucky to have you. That is all I have to say.
EA (51:10):
Well, thank you very much. I am glad I am here. I am glad that I am here and able to teach and spread the word and that type of thing.
SM (51:21):
Yeah. Of course, every one of my interviews is going to have a picture that I have taken of each of the guests, either when I interview them in person, but I have some great shots of you when you were here in Westchester two years ago.
EA (51:32):
Okay. Well, when you transcribe it, get it to me. And then I will have to edit it and work it out.
SM (51:35):
Yep. Will do.
EA (51:35):
Okay.
SM (51:36):
You have a great weekend coming up, and I hope your wife's arm's better.
EA (51:43):
Thank you. Thank you. I am looking forward to getting her back to her therapy today. I am going to leave tomorrow, heading to Philly. Then I got to be back Monday because she has got another appointment for therapy. So anyway, well, listen, I am glad we got this done, and I look forward to reading it and responding and editing the whole thing.
SM (52:05):
Super.
EA (52:06):
Okay.
SM (52:07):
You have a great day.
EA (52:08):
Okay, Steve.
SM (52:09):
Yep. Can I call you Eli?
EA (52:10):
Sure, absolutely.
SM (52:13):
Because I have so much respect for you, I want to call you Dr. Anderson.
EA (52:16):
I call you Steve. You can call me Eli.
SM (52:18):
All right, Eli, thank you very much.
EA (52:20):
I am glad you raised a lot of those questions. I thought they were good questions, and I tried to answer as best I could.
SM (52:26):
Yeah, they were great answers.
EA (52:28):
I think some of the points could be elaborated, that kind of thing. So I look forward to seeing the transcript.
SM (52:34):
Okay.
EA (52:34):
Take care now.
SM (52:34):
Yep, you, too. Bye now.
EA (52:37):
Okay, Steve. Bye.
(End of Interview)
Interview with: Elijah Anderson
Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan
Transcriber: REV
Date of interview: 9 July 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Start of Interview)
SM (00:02):
... as soon as I get everything ready here. I got to turn the sound up. All right. Can you hear me?
EA (00:06):
Yeah, I can hear you.
SM (00:07):
All right. Very good. Pretty nice weather we are having.
EA (00:13):
Oh, it is.
SM (00:15):
Considering all that rain we had.
EA (00:16):
It is not as hot and humid as it usually is this time of year.
SM (00:22):
First question I would like to ask then ... Again, thank you very much for doing this. When do you think the (19)60s began, in your opinion? And what do you think was the watershed moment for most of the young people from the boomer generation?
EA (00:41):
Well, I guess it depends on how you think of the (19)60s because, for a lot of people, the (19)60s are thought of as this period of a certain quest for freedom, individualism, that kind of thing, but especially a time of free-thinking people. I know, stereotypically, it is all about relaxing standards and that kind of thing and the so-called deviant people becoming more legitimate, that kind of thing. I mean that is what people like to think. There is a book by a mentor of mine, Howard Becker, and the book is entitled Outsiders. Basically, in this book, what he does is speak about the issue of rules. He tries to account for deviant behavior. Up to this point, scholars have talked about deviance as, again, in an objective kind of way, that mission being that deviant behavior is behavior that goes against society's standards, values, and rules. Basically, given that perspective, it is pretty easy to tell what deviance is and what it is not. What Becker does in his book is raise a lot of questions about that. He comes up with the so-called subjective view of defiance and, basically, this view of deviance says that deviance is whatever powerful people say it is at the time, and to really know deviance, you have to know something about how people react to certain acts and how they then go about labeling people that they consider to be in violation of standards, values, and rules that you care about or that certain people labeling them deviant, that care about them, you see? What he introduced in this book, which was published in 1963, but the source articles were written over a period of time through the late (19)50s, what he points to here is a profound relativity with respect to rulemaking and rule breaking, and I think that, to some extent, his idea was, to some extent, perhaps a manifestation of the period which you are speaking, where people more and more were trying to embrace this kind of relativism and trying to see the other side, trying to put themselves in the place of people who would be thought of as deviant or people who would be castigated, put down, subjected to the whims of the powerful and that kind of thing. What he did was basically he was able to come to appreciate the so-called victims of society and even to underscore the fact that they were not so bad after all, if you know what I mean? But I think this is what you saw more and more in the 1960s with more and more young people raising questions about the status quo, raising questions about the established institutions, especially when those institutions were fomenting and fostering a war that they did not believe in, to go and die in. So, you have every reason, people, to raise up and to rise up, I should say, and raise questions about the system, and this is what people ultimately did in the (19)60s. I do not know if that is what you meant, but-
SM (04:55):
Yeah. Well, that is beautiful. As a follow-up-
EA (04:57):
But, to me, that is what the (19)60s kind of represented.
SM (05:01):
Based on what you just said and what Becker said in his book, The Outsiders, how do you respond? You have heard this over probably the last 15, 20 years from columnists, like George Will, and even politicians, like Newt Gingrich, that they place all the ills of American society and they point right back to that era of the boomer era, whether it be the (19)50s, (19)60s, and (19)70s, for the breakdown of the family, the breakdown of American society, the breakdown of morals, the lack of respect for authority. When Ronald Reagan became president, they praised him for trying to beat these kinds of things. But still, they will write about the boomers in that era in very negative terms. How do you respond to that?
EA (05:54):
Well, I think basically what you had in the 1950s in America was a strong sense that we lived in a rather homogeneous society, and this society was basically quite Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Of course, this included people who were that way and wanted to be that way, it seemed, even to the point of divesting themselves of their own ethnic particularities instead of joining into this great American way, so to speak. So there was a great and strong pull or a push for people to assimilate, that is to divest themselves of their particularities, whether they be whatever ethnic group, and to really blend in to be a part of this great American way and to contribute, to some extent, to this homogeneity, if not in phenotype, then in values and orientation, so to speak. I think this is what you did have in the Eisenhower era when Blacks and other minority groups basically were pretty much likely to try hard to assimilate, to divest themselves of their own ethnic particularities, and join in the great American way, so to speak. A lot of people, of course, were fine with that. But the (19)60s, I wrote about a kind of license for people to experiment and to move off the plantation, so to speak, and that is what people did. I think that your more conservative commentators react to this with a great alarm, thinking that, well, if people really do go off the plantation, this has implications for the integrity of the plantation itself and the values that uphold that plantation. I think, to some extent, they would be in line with trying to support that ideology that supports the plantation, not to break it down, if you know what I mean, the structures that hold it together, so to speak.
SM (08:26):
Again, a lot of people that I have interviewed have had a hard time trying to classify boomers over a 20-year period because the early boomers, those born between (19)46 and (19)56, seem to have been more involved than those in the latter part. So, I have had some individuals having a hard time with labels on generations. This is a two-part question. If you were to look at this generation, is there one specific event that you think had the greatest impact on them in those early years, those years between (19)46 and, say, (19)70 or (19)75? And secondly, what is the most important event that affected your life?
EA (09:09):
Well, I think I could answer maybe both questions with one answer. I mean I think that probably John F. Kennedy's assassination was extremely important for so many of the so-called boomers, but not only his assassination but, not long after that, the assassination of King and Robert Kennedy. These political assassinations, I think, were really very important to the coming of age of boomers and perhaps the rise in a certain ability to question the system and even to embrace a kind of cynicism with respect to the system, I think. This is one of the things that came about for so many of the boomers, a kind of awakening, if you will, of losing one's innocence, so to speak. I think that may be the biggest thing that these assassinations contributed. I think those were probably the major development, so to speak. I am not just talking about one assassination. I am talking about a series of major political assassinations, you see. Even if they were not intended to be political, they became politicized, I am sure, if you will.
SM (10:45):
If you were to put a couple of adjectives to describe some strengths and weaknesses, you have already mentioned quite a few of them in your opening comments, but just some adjectives to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the boomer generation.
EA (10:57):
Well, I think probably the biggest thing is just the number of people who were just born after people returned from the war. I think just the number is pretty impressive and certainly provocative to the status quo. Just mere numbers, I think, is very important. I think, with that, faults, so to speak, in the system, you have all kinds of implications for various issues that people are dealing with, whether it is what to do about resettlement after the Great War, or whether it has to do with family life following that, how people live, the suburbanization of people, growing up in the suburbs. At the same time, growing up in the suburbs did not mean that people were leaving behind their racial predilections, so to speak. I think that the racism that we saw that basically undergirded the beginning of this country, not to mention the great Civil War that we had and then Emancipation and then the riots in the cities and then the incorporation process that gave us the Black middle class as we know it and even the split between the Black underclass and the Black middle class that followed thereafter. And yet, many of these people who were the middle class did not enjoy any ability to really live in suburban communities in the same way that their white counterparts lived in these communities before them. In fact, the whole history of this race relations period had to do with the fact that Black people were moving into communities and white people were constantly moving out, and it was almost like a dog chasing its tail, so to speak, getting nowhere fast in terms of really being able to deliberate the problems of race and racism and social place in this country. So I think that, for me anyway, that these are some of the big issues that were at least if not confronted by the boomer, at least these were issues that they were having to deal with, though many abdicated their responsibilities to deal with some of these problems. But at the same time, you have to say that some of these individuals stepped up to the plate, so to speak, and began to fight for social change in a very positive sense. But we have this problem that is really best described as unfinished business, so to speak.
SM (14:25):
Right. You bring up a very important point because, again, I got a two-part question here. What has been the overall impact of boomers on their kids with respect to carrying on some of their ideals and their activism into the next couple generations? And secondly, along that point, what is your thought regarding these boomers? Have they copped out, most of them? There's obviously many who have stayed with the fight for many particular issues. But did most of them fall by the wayside for the almighty dollar as they grew older
EA (15:07):
I would not try to judge that. I mean but certainly, there is a lot of work to be done in this country by all people, boomers included. Whether or not the torch has really been passed from one generation to the next in terms of the boomers' responsibility or whatever, I mean that is hard to say because so many of these issues and problems are not so much a function of one generation passing off to another as much as it is an issue of structural forces that beset each succeeding generation, so to speak. That generation then has to deal with what it has to deal with in order to be, and I think this is the biggest issue. When you have a period of quietism, so to speak, you probably get people who are not so energized. When you have a period where people are confronted by exigencies of life that they have no pattern for, no experience in dealing with, then people may well become quite creative, so to speak. So it really is not so much a matter of one generation passing on its values as much as it is one generation having to deal with the exigencies of life that are quite different from the generation and those conditions that preceded them, so to speak. So that is what I would say about this. I would not think that a generation could simply pass its values intact onto another generation without considering the issues and the factors of life that the succeeding generation would have to deal with. I think you would have to consider all that in order to get a good read on that particular generation's ability to cope, so to speak.
SM (17:13):
How do you respond to some of the young people of that era, when they were young said that we were the most unique generation in American history because we were going to be the change agents for the betterment of society in every way? Of course, young people have idealism. We are going to end racism, sexism, homophobia, and war. But just-
EA (17:33):
I do not think any generation has any premium on that, so to speak. I mean it is basically up to people to deal with what that we have to deal with. Every generation is unique, really. Every generation is different. I mean no generation has a monopoly on any of these answers, so to speak, to the problems that face mankind up to people to deal with, each and every generation. I would not go so far to say that it is the most unique generation. I think that it is more complicated than that. At the same time, it is really important to appreciate the fact that the generation that faces great challenges certainly have a real set of issues from which they might grow and develop in that a unique generation. But I do not think there is anything intrinsic about a group of people that make them the greatest, so to speak, other than the challenges that they face and the way they responded to those challenges, if you know what I mean? In a sense, out of their hands, if you follow me? It is a matter of how people respond to what is before them. I think that the World War II generation, oftentimes called the greatest generation, but I think you have to look at the challenges that face that generation and subsequent challenges that face the boomers after that, if you follow me, and how they were able or not able to respond to those challenges. That is what I would say.
SM (19:30):
How important were the college students of that era, I am talking about the (19)60s, early (19)70s again, in ending the war in Vietnam, their influence on policy in America, the pressures they put on universities? But in society, how important, on a scale of, say, one to 10, with 10 being the highest number, where would you place the impact that that protest had in ending the war?
EA (19:55):
Well, I think that that protest was extremely important for-
SM (19:58):
Dr. Anderson, could you speak up just a little bit, too?
EA (20:00):
Yeah. I think that that protest movement was very, very important, but it was not just antiwar. It was also the demonstrations and protests against the racial status quo and the ways in which the movement for civil rights somehow culminated in riots and, ultimately, an incorporation process that brought about greater civil rights not only for Black people, but for all Americans. Also, it paved the way for the emergence of a Black middle class that was no longer so dependent on living in these inner-city communities, but one that was increasingly corporate, so to speak. But I think that we had that situation, which is certainly one that has to be, I think, appreciated. But you also had this group of people who stepped up to the plate and basically demonstrated quite effectively against the war. But they had been previously edified by all the struggles that they witnessed, from civil rights to the cultural nationalism, to ultimately the incorporation process. They were all part of that. Basically, you have them becoming very, very concerned not only about the expression of American power in the world, but they were concerned about their own brothers and sisters being taken away from them and having to fight far off in Asian war. Another piece that is important to this is the fact that we had the draft then, you see, and we did not have the professional army the way we do today. So, the fact that there was a draft basically meant that certain constituencies would be, to some extent, informed and then perhaps active in a way that would call an end to the fighting that they would expect to shore the burden of, so to speak, fighting and dying, you see. That is one thing that we do not have today. We do not have the same political action related to ones that are trying to save one's own blood, so to speak, whether it be your son, your daughter, or yourself or your husband or whoever it was, you see. We do not have the same thing going on today. We have a more professional army. I think that if we had an equal opportunity to be in Iraq or to be in Afghanistan, I think that you would probably see more protests against the war today, you see. But the truth was, back in the Vietnam era, we had more of an equal opportunity for participating in that war. And even then, it was one-sided in terms of the rich and well-to-do versus the poor because the rich and well-to-do oftentimes could get college deferment or whatever or their parents kept them out of harm's way through their political and economic influence, so to speak. So, the burden of it oftentimes fell on the ordinary American more so than the others. But I think that when you have this equal opportunity situation, you are bound to have more protests and you are bound to have political leaders who basically take their decision making a bit more seriously, at least with the consideration of the viewpoint of people who would make up their constituencies, so to speak.
SM (24:14):
We saw in the late (19)60s, early (19)70s, kind of a split in the antiwar movement where African American students split away from the antiwar movement and, of course, toward what was going on in civil rights here in the United States, and we saw it a lot at Kent State. But I wanted you to comment on Dr. King's [inaudible] Vietnam speech. I think it should be required to be read in every college classroom because he was so far ahead of the game. Just your thoughts on the courage of him and that speech and maybe a couple comments on the reaction in America, not only in the civil rights community, but in America as a whole.
EA (24:56):
Well, I think basically a lot of people thought he was out of line with that speech, in part because they figured that he was really a civil rights leader, not somebody who should put his nose into foreign policy issues. And yet, he said very, very powerfully that, to some extent, the civil rights movement, it was related to this more general struggle for antiwar and peace and that kind of thing. That really disturbed a lot of people, including Lyndon Johnson himself, who had, up to that point, been listening more and more to King, but then, all of a sudden, recoiled. So there was that issue. But I think that, for King, it was a moral issue, that he thought he had a moral obligation to speak out, and he did.
SM (26:00):
One of the things that I am trying to get at in this process is the healing process. If you will bear with me, I had taken a group of students to see Edmund Muskie about a year before he died. He had just gotten out of the hospital, and he was not feeling very well. It was one of our Leadership on the Road programs, and there were 14 students. We taped it. We were talking about the (19)68 convention and a lot about the divisions in America as a whole. I asked him, "Have we healed at all since 1968 and the Vietnam War?" And he paused for a minute, almost had tears in his eyes. The students were looking at each other, "Why is not he responding?" And then he finally said, "I have been in the hospital for the last couple weeks, and I have been watching Ken Burns' The Civil War." He said, "We have not healed since the Civil War." So, he went on to talking about that particular aspect as opposed to the response since the Vietnam War. My commentary and question is this, with all the divisions that were happening in that (19)60s and (19)70s, the divisions in America, pro-war, antiwar, divisions between Black and white, between those who supported authority and those who were against, between those who supported the troops and those that were against, and all the other divisions, had we healed at all as a ... Do you think the boomer generation has healed at all since that time?
EA (27:40):
Well, I think that is a very provocative question, to be sure, and it may be a bit opposed as not so much a matter of healing as it is a matter of just simply ignoring the situation and dealing with other fish to fry, so to speak. Today, as we live our lives, we are dealing with economic change of a high order, probably the most important change since the Industrial Revolution, so to speak. As we make this change technologically, moving from manufacturing to service and high technology as a way to organize this economy, there are great numbers of people who are not making a change. So we have a lot on our plate right now today. You see, it's these kinds of issues, these kinds of demands that we have to deal with. But today, that oftentimes takes our attention away from other issues, so to speak, maybe going to preoccupy us and maybe even substitute for healing, so to speak. So, what we have is not so much healing as a scabbing over, so to speak, looking at issues and challenges all the time. It may be that that is the way it is, that nothing has healed completely. But we get new challenges from time to time. So today, we are dealing with this big economic issue, you see. That does not mean that we're done with slavery. It does not mean we're done with the Civil War. It does not mean that we have done with the civil rights movement. It just means that we have a sort of preoccupation with dealing with the present, so to speak, present problems and issues, the trials and tribulations of living our lives. That is what it seems to me.
SM (29:43):
Well, that is a beautiful answer because the last couple days I have been seeing some of my former students and the frustrations they have of finding a job. I have a friend who graduated from Penn who has been laid off twice in the last year, unbelievable stories. We are in a very-very, very tough economy. I think we're about hitting our 30 minutes here. Do you want to go 15 more minutes? We might be able to finish it.
EA (30:13):
Okay.
SM (30:14):
Because when my tape hits, and it has not hit yet, so we have not hit 30 minutes. I wanted to follow up to your response. Have you been to the Wall in Washington?
EA (30:25):
No, I have not.
SM (30:25):
I have been there many times. The Wall was built as a nonpolitical entity, mentored healing the wounds of the troops who fought and their families. It is supposed to be nonpolitical. I go down there every year on Memorial Day and Veterans Day, and I cannot help but constantly hearing politics there, even though they do a great job with the Wall stuff. Do you think the Wall has done anything with respect to ... Well, I know it is done a lot for the soldiers and the troops that fought and their families, but those who may have been against the war before the war ... It gets right back to that healing question. Has it done anything beyond just the military?
EA (31:05):
Well, I think it is not only a symbol of the war and our involvement there, but it is also a very powerful ...
SM (31:18):
15 more minutes. Okay, here we go.
EA (31:20):
Yeah, I think that is basically a matter of it memorializes people who made the supreme sacrifice, and I think that is a very important consideration here. That is probably the most important consideration. It does not necessarily heal, but it is a way to pay homage to people who gave their full measure, so to speak.
SM (31:48):
In your eyes, when did the Vietnam War end, and what was the major reason that it did end?
EA (31:54):
Well, I mean that is a complicated piece. But certainly, you look at the pictures, the iconic photographs of the day. The helicopters were taking people from the rooftops of certain buildings there. You realized that even that moment was not going to be the end the war, so to speak, but it is something more than that. It is just not so much a particular moment that you can say it is over kind of thing, but it has to do with, to some extent, the healing process and the way in which the US military and diplomatic corps basically took themselves out of that situation. That does not happen all at one time, but it happens over a period of months and even years, if you follow me? Some people, even though the war would be officially over, would consider the war to still be going on months after the declaration that it is over, if you know what I mean, because people have to adjust and get back to a sense of normalcy and that kind of thing. So, it is not so much a matter of something that is exact and pinpointed, if you follow me, but it is something that goes on and on. I think today, we could certainly say that we're done with all that and we are moving on to something else. Of course, now you have development in those areas where people once were fighting. You have development. You have hotels. You have commerce. You have all kinds of things that really say quite emphatically that it is a new day. You have people from there and people from here who fought in the war, who fought each other, who are now coming back together and discussing issues and discussing their various roles, not so much in anger, but just as a way to communicate with one another and let one another know that the hatchet has been buried, so to speak. I think when you have that kind of a situation, then you can begin to say that it is done and over, if you follow me, no exact moment, no exact time. Although certainly, we have the official administrative definition of the end of the war, so to speak. But even though you had that, things continued to progress, if you follow me, I think.
SM (34:31):
One of the things about the civil rights movement, and it was such a great mentor and role model to other movements that followed. I would like your thoughts just on the impact that this movement had on, and just general comments, on the women's movement and the Chicano, the Native American movement, certainly the antiwar movement, the gay and lesbian movement, the Earth Day, the environmental movement. A lot of the people that lead these efforts looked back to the role modeling of the civil rights movement.
EA (35:05):
Oh, of course. Well, you have to understand that the Black situation was and is a special situation in this country. No other group has been brought here in chains and made to work for no wages and then emancipated in the Great War and then still subjected to second class citizenship, segregated in certain communities, discriminated against, hated, despised by people in the way that Black Americans were. So the civil rights movement, the protests for civil rights for Black people, is iconic and was major in so many respects. As people rose up to challenge the system, of course, a lot of people's heads were turning to this great race dealing with this situation of injustice, so to speak. A lot of people paid attention and even got involved, to some extent. It was not just the Blacks who went through this disestablishment, so to speak, and made itself free, but various people worked with Black people that helped to free not only them, but the country from its past, so to speak. But the civil rights movement itself culminated in the riots that happened in the cities around this country, great demand for civil rights and incorporation. Ultimately, what we did, we had the movement from the civil rights movement to the cultural nationalist movement and the riots in the cities. And then you had tremendous violence all over this country. The powers that existed had a real problem on its hands, how to deal with this whole situation in something of a very public kind of way, if you follow me? It tried to do this by putting these problems down by dealing with the revolts or the riots or whatever it was. You have to understand, too, that when this was happening, it was happening during the Cold War, you see, when this country and Russia, or the Soviet Union, were vying for leadership of the world. They were saying to each other, "Well, we have got the better system. We have got the better system." We were looking at the satellite, looking for people to follow them in some of the developing countries that were colored, in fact, looking for leadership from the Soviet Union or from the West. A big issue was who really had the better system in terms of being able to facilitate the development of people of color, to some extent. So given that this country was trying for leadership of the world, they really had a big fly in the ointment with the way that it had historically treated Black people and still treated Black people. You see? So there was a great need for this country to basically step up to the plate and get on the right side with respect to civil rights, you see, because there was a lot at stake. There was leadership of the world at stake, you see. So this is one thing that they had to do, that they had to deal with. When they did this, they engaged and you had this movement, the riots or what have you. They culled it out with violence. But they also worked to incorporate Black people in the system, you see.
SM (39:22):
[inaudible]-
EA (39:25):
Through affirmative action, set asides, what have you, they created a new Black middle class, you see, a class that effectively would cull out other people and show that if you work hard, you can be not only meritorious, but you can also have something in this world, you see. So, this was a very important thing because they brought Black people forward, in part, because of all these other issues that were going on at the time, especially the fact that the issues of the wider world, the third world, the developing countries, the developed nations. All those issues were very important to the success of the civil rights movement here that resulted in first class citizenship for Black people, but also, to some extent, an incorporation process that helped Black people to take their place in American society. That struggle is still going on. It is not over. But we have made a lot of progress, for sure.
SM (40:39):
Do you consider the Black Power movement a negative or a positive in that process?
EA (40:45):
I think, in some ways, it was bold. There were times when it was highly negative, and times when it was very positive. I think the major thing was that it set the stage for the incorporation process that we saw that basically gave us the Black middle classes that exist today. I think that without the issues that were put on the table in the (19)60s and the (19)70s by the cultural nationalists and by the so-called Black Power movement, that you probably would not have had the degree of incorporation that we have right now today, or even the motivation to incorporate Black people or to have Black people live as first class citizens in this country without that, without protests-
SM (41:41):
Could you-
EA (41:42):
... on the system's institutions, if you will.
SM (41:42):
Would you be able to comment on, since you are a scholar, if you think there were any books that were very popular at that time that influenced people of all colors, boomers, and then, of course, the impact that the music of the boomer generation has had because that is all you hear on the radio now is music from that period, it just seems that.
EA (42:01):
I think that if you are going to think about what effect that the boomers in that period, you have to undoubtedly look at the kind of education they were getting during the civil rights movement and during the antiwar movement and the cultural nationalist period and all that. Increasingly, you had these young students, white, Black, whoever, but especially the white middle class, more and more being edified, educated by people who brought a certain sensitivity to the problems of the history of Black people in this country, including the studies of slavery and race relations and that kind of thing. So many of these schools around the country began to incorporate Black studies courses and that kind of thing. All of this gave both Black people and young white people a clearer sense of the history of this country. I think that was very, very important for their understanding, but also the notion of the possibilities for the country itself. I think those things were very, very important to implement. We could go on and on with that. But I think that is-
SM (43:19):
Any thoughts on the music?
EA (43:21):
I think those are important. I think also what you began to see as a result of the civil rights movement and the incorporation process was a proliferation of different kinds of music that Blacks were involved in. You began to see the emergence, undoubtedly, of rhythm and blues and blues and jazz and hip hop and rock and all these variations that came about. You began to see the influence of Black singers and performers crossing over, you see. I think that was very, very important. I think that the music of The Beatles was very important. I think Elvis Presley was very important. I think Michael Jackson was very important. All these stars were important for the way in which they helped us to integrate our society, as it were. I think this, to some extent, is a function of the civil rights movement, but also the ways in which we have been able to move toward the diversity and the acceptance of diversity within our country with all of this, the music, the civil rights movement. All that was very, very important in this process, and I think we are all beneficiaries of what happened there.
SM (44:41):
I have two more questions. One's a question on trust. I can remember being in a college 101 psychology class many years ago, and the professor said in one of the very first classes that ... He was defining the meaning of trust, and he said, "We all have to trust someone in life. If you go through life and you cannot trust people, you probably will not be a success in life." So, I am bringing this question up because all the leaders that a lot of the boomers saw, they were lying to them many, many times, from presidents on down. The students at least that I knew, and many of the boomers, did not trust anybody that was in a leadership role, whether it be a university president, a congressman, a senator, even leaders in the church, corporate leaders, you name it. It is because they had been disappointed so many times by leaders who had lied to them, whether it be President Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin, in recent years, the things about John Kennedy and maybe being linked to the killings of the two people in Vietnam. President Eisenhower lied on national television about the U-2 incident. Then we had Richard Nixon and Watergate. And then there were just, over and over, things where leaders who were voted in, people wanted to trust them, realized that they could not trust them. The body counts in the Vietnam War, all these things. Just your thoughts on, finally, if these young people cannot trust, what are they passing on to their kids? So just your comments on do we have a problem with trust?
EA (46:26):
Well, I think trust is very important, for sure. I think that what you see with the major assassinations I mentioned, this period of political assassinations, that really ended the period of innocence for Americans, boomers in particular maybe, but Americans in general. I think this is very, very important. But it was also important not just in terms of people becoming more mature, so to speak, but it also ushered in a kind of cynicism, if you will. I think this was very, very important. I think that we're still living with consequences of that, and it will take time to get that back. But so many people have basically taken leave, abdicated, checked out, so to speak. But now and then, we have a charismatic figure emerge, and then hope is restored. I think that is what we have today with Barack Obama's emergence as the political leader that he is. The jury is still out, of course, whether or not he is going to do all that he has promised to do or whether he is going to have the integrity, ultimately, that we all like to attribute to him. But so far, I think he has been really showing first-rate leadership that basically begins to heal so much that has happened in our past that has made us doubt. So I think the trust issue is always there, and it gets rebuilt with succeeding generations, but most importantly, through acts that we can have faith in, so to speak.
SM (48:19):
My last question is, when the best history books or sociology books are written 50 years after a period, what do you think people will be saying about the boomer generation with all its complexities, with all its diversity? What will professors in your shoes be saying 50 years from now at Yale in soc classes and history classes about the boomer era, the (19)60s, the (19)70s, and their lives, basically?
EA (48:52):
Yeah. Well, why do not we hold off on that one for a while? Once we get a sense of how this works out, then I will respond to that. Okay? Give me time to think about that one.
SM (49:03):
Very good.
EA (49:08):
So now you have the tape, and you are going to transcribe it?
SM (49:11):
Yep. I am going to transcribe it probably myself and-
EA (49:19):
But let me say this. I do not want to make this available until I have had a chance to read it and to edit it, that kind of thing.
SM (49:26):
Oh, yeah. I am doing that with everybody. In fact, I have not transcribed any. I am doing the transcribing myself on all of them.
EA (49:37):
I understand. I just want to look because I like to be able to review it and edit it before it is out there, and I would like to respond more fully to certain points you raised.
SM (49:48):
Yeah. The only other part I could not ask you today is just responses to some of the names of the period.
EA (49:55):
Yeah.
SM (49:56):
So anyways ...
EA (49:57):
But you have your work cut out for you.
SM (50:00):
Yep. But ...
EA (50:00):
If you can get this back to me at a certain point, I can deal with it and we can move along. But you raised a lot of good questions, a lot of good issues. I want to commend you for that.
SM (50:12):
Well, it is my first book.
EA (50:13):
I was going to ask you.
SM (50:16):
You know what I want to do in my next book?
EA (50:18):
What is that?
SM (50:18):
I want to write about Dr. King and the Vietnam speech.
EA (50:23):
Well, that sounds good. That sounds good. I mean he was a great man, for sure, great American. I think that a lot of these issues you have been raising today, are just right on, right on the money.
SM (50:36):
Well, I know Mrs. Bagley. Do you know her?
EA (50:38):
No. No.
SM (50:39):
She is the sister of Coretta Scott King. So, I have gotten to know her. She is not well, but she has taken a liking to me. She was upset that I left Westchester. She used to call me. I have not talked to her in a while, but I am going to call her. She can only sit down for 20 minutes because she is not well. I am going to interview her for the book and go from there. But Dr. Anderson, Yale is so lucky to have you. That is all I have to say.
EA (51:10):
Well, thank you very much. I am glad I am here. I am glad that I am here and able to teach and spread the word and that type of thing.
SM (51:21):
Yeah. Of course, every one of my interviews is going to have a picture that I have taken of each of the guests, either when I interview them in person, but I have some great shots of you when you were here in Westchester two years ago.
EA (51:32):
Okay. Well, when you transcribe it, get it to me. And then I will have to edit it and work it out.
SM (51:35):
Yep. Will do.
EA (51:35):
Okay.
SM (51:36):
You have a great weekend coming up, and I hope your wife's arm's better.
EA (51:43):
Thank you. Thank you. I am looking forward to getting her back to her therapy today. I am going to leave tomorrow, heading to Philly. Then I got to be back Monday because she has got another appointment for therapy. So anyway, well, listen, I am glad we got this done, and I look forward to reading it and responding and editing the whole thing.
SM (52:05):
Super.
EA (52:06):
Okay.
SM (52:07):
You have a great day.
EA (52:08):
Okay, Steve.
SM (52:09):
Yep. Can I call you Eli?
EA (52:10):
Sure, absolutely.
SM (52:13):
Because I have so much respect for you, I want to call you Dr. Anderson.
EA (52:16):
I call you Steve. You can call me Eli.
SM (52:18):
All right, Eli, thank you very much.
EA (52:20):
I am glad you raised a lot of those questions. I thought they were good questions, and I tried to answer as best I could.
SM (52:26):
Yeah, they were great answers.
EA (52:28):
I think some of the points could be elaborated, that kind of thing. So I look forward to seeing the transcript.
SM (52:34):
Okay.
EA (52:34):
Take care now.
SM (52:34):
Yep, you, too. Bye now.
EA (52:37):
Okay, Steve. Bye.
(End of Interview)
Date of Interview
2009-07-09
Interviewer
Stephen McKiernan
Interviewee
Elijah Anderson
Biographical Text
Dr. Elijah Anderson is a sociologist, cultural theorist, scholar, and the Sterling Professor of Sociology and African-American Studies at Yale University. He specializes in Urban Ethnography. He is the author of several books including his most recent, titled Black in White Space: The Enduring Impact of Color in Everyday Life (2022). His other books include Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City (1999), winner of the Komarovsky Award from the Eastern Sociological Society; Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community (1990), winner of the American Sociological Association’s Robert E. Park Award for the best-published book in the area of Urban Sociology; and the classic sociological work, A Place on the Corner (1978). Dr. Anderson received numerous awards and recognition, including the consultant for the White House, United States Congress, and the National Academy of Science. In 2002, he was awarded the Stockholm Prize in Criminology. Previous to his tenure at Yale University, he was a Distinguished Professor of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Anderson received his Ph.D. in Sociology from Northwestern University.
Duration
52:43
Language
English
Digital Publisher
Binghamton University Libraries
Digital Format
audio/mp4
Material Type
Sound
Description
1 Microcassette
Interview Format
Audio
Subject LCSH
Sociologists; College teachers; Yale University; Anderson, Elijah--Interviews
Rights Statement
Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly.
Keywords
Anti-War Movement; Civil Rights Movement; Vietnam Memorial; John F. Kennedy; Deviance; Howard S. Becker; Outsiders—Defining Deviance
Files
Citation
“Interview with Dr. Elijah Anderson,” Digital Collections, accessed May 1, 2024, https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/846.
