In last weeks panel presentations, the notion that Tateh had betrayed his socialist views for the perks and luxuries of capitalism was brought up. Many argued that he betrayed his socialist sympathies by leaving the workforce and strike supported by the IWW, changing his name, and moving into the film business. Despite these arguments, I still believe that Tateh did not betray his embracing of socialism, instead, he adapted to the world he lived in to provide for his beloved daughter.
From the beginning of the novel, it was very clear that Tateh was a family man. Of course, it is true that he left his wife who was cheating on him with her boss for extra money to make ends meet. But Tateh certainly loves his daughter and would do anything to keep her safe, tying her on a string so she won't get kidnapped, almost sending her away to live with others during the strike, and always trying to provide a better standard of living. We had seen the living standards that Tateh and his daughter were living in, a squalid apartment with barely any furniture. Given his situation, naturally Tateh would want to do anything in his power to make life better for his daughter.
Then, there is the idea that leaving the strike supported by the IWW was a betrayal of his socialist ideals. While I can not disagree with the idea that leaving the strike went against his socialist values, I can certainly understand why he left. I think he just became fed up with how his ideals could not be integrated with the 1920s environment, and decided that it was better look out for his family. Selfish? Maybe. But completely understandable. Fighting with people he may never know to help them gain a few more pennies in their weekly wages might be the noble thing to do, but he has a responsibility to his daughter that comes first.
As we reach the passages set in Atlantic City, we see that Tateh (now the Baron Ashkenazy) and his daughter are much happier. They are able to have a standard of living they would never have dreamed of back in the days they spent living in New York City. His daughter is now turning into a lovely young lady and Tateh himself is a confident, well-off man. Tateh is the poster boy of the American Dream. For all we know, Tateh could still keep his socialist sympathies and ideals at heart. Except, he now has the security and luxuries that his new job provides all because of his choice to hold the responsibility of his daughter's well-being over his own ideals and adapting, not betraying his values, to the world around him.
4 comments:
I agree with you 100%. I was getting kind of upset when people kept saying that he abandoned his Socialist values for more selfish pursuits -- because that's not what he was doing at all! Abandoning a dangerous, violent strike to protect your daughter is not a selfish impulse. He left because staying would have brought harm to his daughter, whether they got their heads cracked open or whether they starved to death on poor wages.
Either way, he did the right thing. I think family has always come first for Tateh, and I think what he does is pretty admirable, more admirable than staying to fight for the cause would have been. He probably would have died, and would have just been "another protester" fighting for pennies added to the wages, but he achieved his own American Dream, and we can't fault him for that.
He becomes disillusioned with the IWW cause not because of ideology, but because he comes to believe that the total revolution--and equality for workers--he dreams of is not going to be a reality. The forces against the international workers' revolution are simply too powerful (remember, he comes to this conclusion with blood from their policeman's baton running down his face). This isn't necessarily socialism's fault--he can still be seen as deeply critical of a capitalist system that pays thugs to beat up strikers. He decides that he personally is not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to sustain a prolonged strike.
And given the rather idyllic, social-equality aspect of his "vision" that leads to his film about the multicultural group of kids playing together, we CAN see an aspect of his "socialist" ideals coming out in his art. He makes himself an "aristocrat" with his assumed title, but he doesn't actually *become* an aristocrat in his sensibilities.
I agree with you completely and I was getting ticked at how was criticizing Tateh for abandoning the socialist cause. He did, but because he wanted a better life. Some people said that Tateh was already living in livable conditions with a livable wage as a socialist, which to me is a completely false. Tateh's family was so poor, his wife had to go so far as to become a prostitute for her boss to help keep the family aloft.
Tateh was doing what any reasonable father was doing: taking responsibility of his child and supporting them. Isn't that fair to ask for? I'm not for or against any economic system. But if things aren't going so well, doesn't it make sense to change them for the better?
Side note: Maybe some people were in support of Tateh's betrayal of the socialist cause because of all the recent media coverage on the Occupy Wall Street movement and class warfare. After the 2007-08 recession and the failure of the banks, I can see why people are so frustrated with capitalism.
And there's no indication that Tateh no longer believes that a socialist system would mean a vast improvement in the lives of working people--he still identifies himself proudly as a "socialist" to Mother. He simply decides that he doesn't want to (or can't) spend HIS life fighting for the cause in a country where the odds are stacked so highly against success. It's not the IWW's fault that "winning" in Lawrence will only gain minor improvements for the workers, in other words. Tateh's choice is mainly personal--he acknowledges a limit to his willingness to sacrifice.
Post a Comment