Dear Friends

[true_enough]

Periodically I stand up and wave around a book called Dear Friends that features 19th century photographs of men in very affectionate poses. zekiel has pointed out a site for the book that shows some of those photos. As I said in zekiel's journal I think this observation is very interesting: This installation of highly suggestive and ambiguous photographs

Comments

[bonehed]

Thanks for posting the link. I remember you mentioning them earlier - it was quite an eye full to actually see them.

[true_enough]

I had the same reaction. Kind of a combination of "wow" and "damn". What's kind of funny is that the more I looked at them the less sexual they seem to be. Still, it took a long time for it to sink in that those men were operating under different social ideals and that in many ways they were more progressive then than we are now. For me, those photos really put a new light on Old West fiction.

[zebra363]

I'm still struggling with the concept of "passionate but innocent". From that website:

nineteenth-century American men and women were in many ways encouraged to establish intense, even passionate, bonds with members of their own sex... these ties could be romantic in ways that we would identify as sexual, but that Victorians, in their state of pre-Freudian innocence, would not.

Emotionally passionate, physically affectionate, but not crossing the line into sexual? Or yes, sexual, but not considered a big deal? What do they mean by "innocence"?

[finnigan_geist]

I'm pretty sure what they'd mean by that is that they were innocent of the whole "subconscious" thing Freud (damn that man) brought into use. Meaning, people of the same sex would have incredibly close, affectionate relationships that would be viewed as platonic, whether they were or not. Like, you could have your best female friend, emotionally as close to you as a sister, whom you showed lots of physical affection, who lived with you, and nobody, including the two of you, would ever think that it was a sexual relationship (the way we view it). Then Freud came along with his id and his phallic symbols and his repression and unlocked this whole ordeal and bah! Anyway I'm tired and sorry if this didn't make sense. Grrr Freud.

[true_enough]

Thank you so much. Really, I couldn't have put it better myself. I have the same feelings about Freud. He really ruined the party.

[finnigan_geist]

I hate Freud so hard in the face and sides, especially because I'm an English and Psychology major. As a psychologist, almost no one considers Freud's theories as truly being relevant or applicable anymore, but we have to recognize him as a major pioneer. And then I get to my English classes and people are talking about "repressed memories" and "superego" and "Oedipus complex" and "penis envy" and it makes me want to bite something.

[zebra363]

Hello again... the April 2005 National Geographic has an article on preserving Civil War battlefields. It has an authentic-looking photo, taken with an old tintype camera, of two modern-day reenactors sitting close together, one with his hand on the other's shoulder. (It also mentions that dedicated reenactors eat very little, since Civil War soldiers were mostly skin and bones - now that's taking it very seriously indeed!)

I hope you found a helpful paper towel! *g*

[true_enough]

I hope you found a helpful paper towel! *g*

I did! :) And then even though I wrote it out I can't bring myself to throw away the paper towel. Sheesh! Sentimental (or maybe superstitious) over a paper towel.

It was common for soldiers to march 25 miles a day which would explain why they were so worn down. I honestly don't know how any of them survived.

I think it's interesting how the reenactors obviously recognize the closeness between the soldiers and mimic it even though they were brought up in such different times. I can't help but believe that it really is in our nature to pull people close to us especially during hard times and that the bubble of personal space that most of us live in is not natural at all.

[zebra363]

the bubble of personal space that most of us live in is not natural at all

Yes, you're probably right. I've led a fairly solitary life in many ways, with a good-sized bubble, but I think that's a learned habit. It always interests me to read about living situations where extended family groups share living space, or groups of people have to live very closely together (submarine crews, or ships' crews in the Hornblower era!).

It's interesting to look at monkey/ape species - some live in groups and some are solitary.