Before it fades into the cluttered background of bronze and marble furniture in Washington DC, let’s lend a moment to Sabin Howard’s new relief sculpture honoring our World War I veterans in Pershing Park.
Friday, October 11, 2024
Full Metal Frieze
Saturday, August 12, 2023
American Stay Home?
Foreign travel was once a difficult, tedious process. As recently as a few decades ago it was simply too expensive for most people. When my grandmother first went to Italy in 1953, she spent two weeks on a ship, and returned as the first unaccompanied woman in our family to venture beyond these shores. Today—notwithstanding small inconveniences and indignities—international travel is quicker, cheaper, and more accessible than ever. Even in the midst of a post-pandemic lull, the numbers are astronomical: the UN World Tourism Organization estimates that 960 million people crossed international borders for leisure in 2022. This summer, the number of Americans outbound to Europe is projected to exceed 2019 figures for the first time.
But is this “democratization” of travel really spreading its benefits, or just trivializing them? Is a world of mass tourism really a better one?
Mark Twain declared, “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness.” Concurred Gustave Flaubert, “Travel makes one modest – you see what a tiny place you occupy…”. These writers were speaking of the kind of edifying travel once restricted to well-off gentlemen and ladies taking the Grand Tour of Europe, finishing their academic educations by visiting the physical places they had studied. Twain and Flaubert didn’t envision three-day port calls at Disney’s Castaway Cay, or nipping to Vegas or Macau to pull slots. Still, there is a certain appeal to this quaint truism. When we speak of a certain kind of thoughtful person, doing certain kinds of exploration, travel indisputably can broaden the mind.
Trouble is, most of us are not thoughtful, and the travel "products" we are sold aren’t meant to enhance our modesty. A literal world of destinations means we approach the world like a Chinese menu, opting for the parts we already know we will like. The trillion-dollar tourism industry is only too happy to help us reinforce our tastes. To fulfill the educational premise of Twain and Flaubert, it makes more sense to travel where we never thought of going. Instead of the faubourgs of Paris, we might learn more from the favelas of Brazil. Instead of being just another warm body at St. Moritz, we might watch glaciers die in Greenland. Obviously, very few would contemplate investing their time and money this way. Notwithstanding the “broadening” of minds, the vast majority of modern travelers seek good times, not a profound ones.
Let’s not fool ourselves: even with a world of edifying opportunities at our feet, there seems very little actual education going on. Anyone who has witnessed a swarm of cruise passengers descend on Venice knows that few come to admire the Tintorettos. More customary activities include storming the Rialto bridge, taking selfies. (A recent Instagram Reel of a “Disney” guy dismissing Venice, saying “we have all this at Epcot’, racked up more than eight million views.) Nor do we photograph that eel sticking its head out of a crevice in the Great Barrier Reef to learn anything from it. The eel—and the Rialto—are just elements of backdrop for the curated “lives” we create for social media. The young man who felt free to deface the Colosseum because he “didn’t know it was ancient” was not a rare bad apple. He’s typical produce from his particular orchard.
“No matter where you go”, the old saying goes, “there you are.” To put it another way, while virtually anyone can travel to a place, leaving our biases and preconceptions behind is a great deal harder. Will that conservative retiree from Waxahachie experiencing the benefits of European train travel for the first time (“Jiminy, this sure is nice!”) revise his opinion on subsidized public infrastructure when he gets home? Will a visit to an urgent-care clinic that doesn’t first demand his credit card really change his views on “socialized medicine”? Positive as those experiences might be, as instructive of alternate ways of organizing things, is he not more likely to make excuses than reverse his core beliefs? Not all souls are cut out for epiphanies.
Venice, the Galapagos Islands, Easter Island and other unique places are delicate, in very real danger of being touristed to death. And for what, fundamentally? How many Instagram posts are worth the loss of a reef trampled by thousands of rented flippers? The French government closed Lascaux Cave in 1963 because the breath of millions of visitors was destroying rock art that had survived for 19,000 years. Visitors today see a replica, with very few aware of the difference. For most, authenticity as such was not the goal as much as sticking pins in a conquest map.
In cuisine, the word “locavore” is used a badge of honor. Maybe it’s time for something similar when it comes to travel. Instead of burning tons of jet fuel to tan in the Seychelles, we can roast ourselves on the many fine sandy beaches on the US. Instead of castles on the Rhine, we can discover the under-appreciated manses of the Hudson.
In centuries past, simply to reach a foreign destination, let alone to snag a refrigerator magnet there, amounted to a life accomplishment. Its very difficulty lent the experience a significance that almost demanded travelers to transform. Making the process more convenient, more ordinary, has paradoxically made us less likely to derive the same benefits. In a wide open world, maybe the most radical itinerary shouldn’t require an airport at all.
Nicholas Nicastro’s next book, Fulcrum: The Life and Science of Archimedes, is out next spring from Reaktion Press.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Trump Tower of Babel
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Naples: Hot Mess
Spaccanapoli at dawn |
Plastinated capital |
Thursday, April 12, 2018
The Republic of Entropy
Friday, April 21, 2017
The March That Was Left Behind
Saturday, September 17, 2016
The New Victorians
Sarah and Gabriel Chrisman keep the fires burning. |
The Chrismans might be called “lifestyle antiquarians”. Or “anthrochronologists”. Or “practical archaeologists”—I’ve struggled with phrases to describe them exactly. They are fascinated by the latter Victorian period, and have decided not only to study it, but to live like people of reasonable means in the years 1880-1900. And so, they reside in a 128 year-old house in Port Townsend, a town with much surviving Victorian architecture. They wear Victorian clothes, and read Victorian literature (high and low) by the light of Victorian oil lamps. They sleep on a feather bed, and keep and prepare their food with Victorian appliances, using recipes gleaned from period sources. And so on.
They make concessions to practicality. There’s an old Isuzu truck parked in front of their house; Sarah pursues her writing career with a steel-nibbed fountain pen, but is still reachable by email. They have a PayPal account. “No one understands better than us that we can’t completely recreate the past,” says Gabriel. The vast infrastructure for that—the gas works and the ice deliverymen and the parts to repair their period machines—no longer exist.
So why do they bother? There’s been a lot of chatter about them on the interwebs, reacting to their project with varying degrees of fascination, incredulity, and scorn (e.g., see here). The word “twee” comes up a lot, as in “those twee hipsters”. As much as most people bother to process it, the Chrismans’ lifestyle is dismissed as a particularly rabid form of nostalgia—a Masterpiece Theatre obsession run amok.
The reality is far more interesting. Sarah is trained in cultural studies, Gabriel as a historian and archivist. As they conceive it, the Victorian period was not a superseded style obliterated by progress. It was literally what novelist L.P. Hartley called the past—“a different country” where things were done differently. It was a place where real people lived, with a real culture that was not at all “twee” to them. And so, like any good pair of cultural anthropologists, the Chrismans became “participant observers” in this different community, immersing themselves far beyond the reading of monographs and the attending of scholarly conferences.
Is their immersion complete? Of course not (see above). What they mostly have left to participate in are the processes of material culture: what’s it like to light a period oil lamp? (Answer: it’s easy, but there’s a knack to it.) What’s it like to wear a corset all day and all night? (Answer: it’s not as uncomfortable as you’d assume.) What’s it like to visit the ladies’ room in a full-length Victorian outfit? (Answer: Victorian undergarments are more hygienic, and more friendly to female anatomy, than their modern equivalents.) What’s it like to keep time with a period watch? (Answer: difficult, because the electromagnetic fields we moderns live in tend to gum up the components.) The Chrismans have, through their experiential studies, recovered knowledge of the past that is simply invisible to conventional historians, because the written sources don’t bother to discuss such mundane, everyday things.
Alas, contemporary attitudes have become a drag on their project. Due largely to the BBC and Hollywood, most people have a vaguely pleasant sense of Victorian aesthetics, but a hostile one to its politics. The very word “Victorian” is often used as a pejorative, synonymous with classism, racism, sexism, and sexual prudery. “The past is garbage” is an attitude that can be voiced in polite society, even though, as Sarah argues, “saying that would never be OK if it was about some foreign group.” Folks who abhor ethnic stereotypes think nothing of stereotyping millions of people who lived in the past— people who, as Gabriel notes, “can’t defend themselves now.”
Complicating the picture is the fact that Victorian times are perceived as the heyday of worldwide colonialism, genocide of American Indians, and Jim Crow. Few formerly marginalized people (and their white allies) have much nostalgia for times they view as irredeemably repressive. To them, the Chrismans’ vigorous defense of their era sounds tone-deaf.
But this isn’t exactly fair. First, because not all Victorians supported the old sins, and in some cases pioneered resistance to them. Second, because few deserve to have their lives defined by the worst excesses of their times. Imagine a person from 2016 waking up in 2116, and immediately saddled with blame for Bangladeshi sweatshop labor and the flooding of southern Florida—despite the fact that they personally strove to buy American and drove a hybrid car. Indeed, the very notion that Victorian times were inherently more evil than modernity is at least debatable, and perhaps laughable. They may have had children working bobbin machines in 1880, but they didn’t fill the oceans with plastic or drop barrel bombs on civilians.
It’s unthinking and unfair, but progressivist arrogance takes its toll on the Chrismans. Sarah, who is mercurial and expressive, finds she must summon up the energy to step outside her door, even in hip, liberal Port Townsend. “It’s like running a gauntlet. I don’t know what I’ll find when I go out there.” Reactions to her hand-sewn wardrobe and corseted waist range from dewy admiration to white-hot anger—as if she is personally trying to undo a century of feminism. (She has written a book, Victorian Secrets, on what she learned wearing that half-desired, half-detested garment.) Gabriel, whose day job is in a bicycle shop, comes off as the prose to Sarah’s poetry—a mechanic and rationalist. He faces less hostility for looking different, perhaps because men’s fashions haven’t changed as much.
To a historical novelist like me, several of whose books as set in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a visit to the Chrismans is a tour of Candyland. Their restored wood-burning range, with its jet-black skin and nickel warming racks, is like a polished locomotive. Sarah’s high-wheel tricycle (alas, a reproduction) has a cleverly asymmetric design—the Millennium Falcon of bikes. When seen through the Chrismans’ eyes, Victorian times don’t seem twee or repressive as much as more immediate, a place one could actually visit and learn from. If the past is a foreign country, they are ready to be your guides. May their 19th century go on forever.