The Bird Hat Craze
By Megan D.
The late 1880s saw a fashion craze that seemed to sweep both the markets and popular culture equally. The use of exotic objects such as fruit, furs and animals in the millinery (hat making) business mostly among fashionable women became the norm. However, perhaps the most debated accessory was the use of birds as hat ornaments. the utilization of birds as décor was both highly revered and detested. Bird feathers, and I some cases entire stuff birds were used as topping for a Victorian era hat. Often, even birds considered to be endangered were used in order for hats to be "one of a kind" for those patrons who were willing to pay sometimes outlandish prices for them. In one instance, ornithologist Frank Chapmen walked the streets of Manhattan on a hat survey and counted about three quarters of the 700 hats he view as being decorated in bird ornament in some way (Ehrlic).
In America alone, the gull, tern, heron and egret populations saw sharp declines along the Atlantic coast (Price). Even popular magazines noted that the craze would probably decimate large populations of birds due to the attractiveness of owning a bird hat. Profits were extremely lucrative, in fact, in 1903 a business whose purpose was solely the hunting and gathering of plumes for trading would make roughly $32 per ounce! Thus even through controversy, the roughly 83,000 people who worked in the millinery business stood strong against opposition as the money was simply too good (Ehrlic).
However many people were not so easily swayed by the monetary gains of the plume trading industry. They saw the hunting of birds for something as trivial as fashion to be cruel and irresponsible. In the same time period states were forming individual Audubon Societies under the purposes of campaigning for bird protection against the millinery industry (Price). These advocates launched what could be called the first modern movement to conserve animals. Although it started as primarily grassroots, it gained notable esteem.
One thing I find exceedingly interesting, is that this grassroots movement of Audubon organizations across the country were primarily run by women of leisure, fashionable women of city society. In fact, about 80% of all membership and half the leadership was female (price). I immediately thought back on the information we had been given earlier in the class about women of leisure and their endeavors at social change in young women's homes. One must ask if the high level of female involvement in these societies had to do with this trend of community involvement among upper class women as a means of finding something to keep themselves occupied (most of the plans to boycott the industry was done through the use of lush afternoon teas as informational meetings).
However there are other societal considerations that may put the debate into a more understandable context. First, we must understand the time in which this "craze" occurred . Second, we must consider the moral implications of women and their place in this time in history. The 19th century saw major advances in the industrial world. Things that were once taken as sacred part of nature were now being used for inventions that were changing the way humans lived (oil, wood, steel etc). Perhaps one hundred years earlier, when things weren't considered to be as expendable, using animals for such "selfish" means would have been even more hotly debated than in the 1890s.
Another consideration is the level of moral involvement the opposition might have had. Women in the Victorian era were seen as precious, virginal, moral individuals, who were not to ruin their nature in any way were defaming their names, and the names of their counterparts by participating in such a vulgar practice of wearing birds upon their heads. Women were supposed to be a wall of morality around a perverse world. Their actions were to reflect their given status. In essence, no one was to be more moral than the woman. The fur trade most certainly could not be fully blamed for it's indecency, that was what was to be expected, but if women were buying into such a defamatory practice, then society as a whole could be considered to be in danger (Price). This is an interesting dichotomy. We seem to have the old fashioned ideals of times past clashing with the need for advancement in more modern times; a theme we have seen often during this class. What is more interesting is that this dichotomy is occurring within the same level of the social strata. Arguments could be made on both sides of the debate, but perhaps the most important lesson that could be taken from this very interesting cultural craze was it's ability to show the affects of modernity on the ideals of a people.
Works Cited
Ehrlic. Paul R. Dobkin. David S. Wheye. Darryl. "Plume Trade." 1988. Stanford University.
Price. Jennifer. "When Women Were Women, Men Were Men, and Birds Were Hats." Flight Maps: Adventures with Nature in Modern America. New York: Basic Books, 1999
The late 1880s saw a fashion craze that seemed to sweep both the markets and popular culture equally. The use of exotic objects such as fruit, furs and animals in the millinery (hat making) business mostly among fashionable women became the norm. However, perhaps the most debated accessory was the use of birds as hat ornaments. the utilization of birds as décor was both highly revered and detested. Bird feathers, and I some cases entire stuff birds were used as topping for a Victorian era hat. Often, even birds considered to be endangered were used in order for hats to be "one of a kind" for those patrons who were willing to pay sometimes outlandish prices for them. In one instance, ornithologist Frank Chapmen walked the streets of Manhattan on a hat survey and counted about three quarters of the 700 hats he view as being decorated in bird ornament in some way (Ehrlic).
In America alone, the gull, tern, heron and egret populations saw sharp declines along the Atlantic coast (Price). Even popular magazines noted that the craze would probably decimate large populations of birds due to the attractiveness of owning a bird hat. Profits were extremely lucrative, in fact, in 1903 a business whose purpose was solely the hunting and gathering of plumes for trading would make roughly $32 per ounce! Thus even through controversy, the roughly 83,000 people who worked in the millinery business stood strong against opposition as the money was simply too good (Ehrlic).
However many people were not so easily swayed by the monetary gains of the plume trading industry. They saw the hunting of birds for something as trivial as fashion to be cruel and irresponsible. In the same time period states were forming individual Audubon Societies under the purposes of campaigning for bird protection against the millinery industry (Price). These advocates launched what could be called the first modern movement to conserve animals. Although it started as primarily grassroots, it gained notable esteem.
One thing I find exceedingly interesting, is that this grassroots movement of Audubon organizations across the country were primarily run by women of leisure, fashionable women of city society. In fact, about 80% of all membership and half the leadership was female (price). I immediately thought back on the information we had been given earlier in the class about women of leisure and their endeavors at social change in young women's homes. One must ask if the high level of female involvement in these societies had to do with this trend of community involvement among upper class women as a means of finding something to keep themselves occupied (most of the plans to boycott the industry was done through the use of lush afternoon teas as informational meetings).
However there are other societal considerations that may put the debate into a more understandable context. First, we must understand the time in which this "craze" occurred . Second, we must consider the moral implications of women and their place in this time in history. The 19th century saw major advances in the industrial world. Things that were once taken as sacred part of nature were now being used for inventions that were changing the way humans lived (oil, wood, steel etc). Perhaps one hundred years earlier, when things weren't considered to be as expendable, using animals for such "selfish" means would have been even more hotly debated than in the 1890s.
Another consideration is the level of moral involvement the opposition might have had. Women in the Victorian era were seen as precious, virginal, moral individuals, who were not to ruin their nature in any way were defaming their names, and the names of their counterparts by participating in such a vulgar practice of wearing birds upon their heads. Women were supposed to be a wall of morality around a perverse world. Their actions were to reflect their given status. In essence, no one was to be more moral than the woman. The fur trade most certainly could not be fully blamed for it's indecency, that was what was to be expected, but if women were buying into such a defamatory practice, then society as a whole could be considered to be in danger (Price). This is an interesting dichotomy. We seem to have the old fashioned ideals of times past clashing with the need for advancement in more modern times; a theme we have seen often during this class. What is more interesting is that this dichotomy is occurring within the same level of the social strata. Arguments could be made on both sides of the debate, but perhaps the most important lesson that could be taken from this very interesting cultural craze was it's ability to show the affects of modernity on the ideals of a people.
Works Cited
Ehrlic. Paul R. Dobkin. David S. Wheye. Darryl. "Plume Trade." 1988. Stanford University.
Price. Jennifer. "When Women Were Women, Men Were Men, and Birds Were Hats." Flight Maps: Adventures with Nature in Modern America. New York: Basic Books, 1999
posted by Leslie Madsen-Brooks at 9:32 AM
5 Comments:
This was a really great post. I like how you tied the hats into the larger picture. I think women's activist reaction to the hats definetly represented the virtuous mother role women were expected to play. This parallels the temperance movement where it was not enough for women not to drink, or even for their husbands not to drink. Instead, it was their duty to protect society from vice and abolish alchol completely. Women used what power they had to influence society, although it may seem sexist today, in the 1890's morals were their greatest ally. As a side not, victorian style hats are repearing today. Women have hat clubs and there are even Tea houses where entry is not admitted without a hat...although I doubt they are made of a whole bird :)
It seems that the Bird Hat really is very symbolic of the time where women were for the first time stepping out of their role within the home and standing up for something they believe in. It must have been really difficult to try and step out of their traditional roles and very smart to use their positions within their home as evidence for their arguments. I find it so ironic that something that could be so popular within American soceity can often be so damaging to our environment, which is very applicable to many things in our society.
This topic really highlights the pressure put upon women to walk this fine line between social presentability and independent integrity. On one hand, these hats were considered fashionable and they were very expensive, signifying that they commanded a lot of respect. On the other hand, women were expected to fulfill this role of the upstanding social reformer. It must have been difficult for a woman to try to fit two such conflicting expectations.
Maybe the bird itself symbolized a status equivalent to that of the victorian woman of the upper class. It may sound silly, but the bird seems to have a very elegant appeal as a beatiful creature, and not to mention, the bird is white. Just as white represents purity when a woman gets married. When pple do outrages things that seem to lack reason, its often because they have a perspective unparallell to popular belief. Those who could afford fur garments probaly capitalized on this craze to sustain their status in society.
I'm with Nina, who the hell came up with that idea? I suppose there is supposed to be lots of symbolism in terms of its design and appeal, and I wasn't aware that people were all that fond of nature at that time. Perhaps it had something to do with how men wore feathers on their hats, after all make-up use to be a man-thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home