In my response to this particular reading I want to focus on a very specific aspect of Orsi’s writing. At one point in his book, Orsi focuses on the women of Italian Harlem and their independence (or lack thereof) during this time period. What most interested me was the dynamics of interactions between the men and women. Although I am looking at this from a much more modern and perhaps feminist perspective, I found it strange that not only was a woman’s reputation much more easily tarnished, but if a man had anything to do with said tarnishing, there was no blame placed on him. It was not uncommon – in fact, fairly universal – that women were expected to have a chaperone when going out on the streets. That was a trait present in many societies. However, this was one of the many repressive aspects for women in Italian Harlem.

Another expectation for women was that they would stand by their husbands, no matter how awful the state of their relationship. I was particularly struck by the story of Theresa, who for many years denied that her husband was committing adultery, despite gossip to the contrary. The anger and resentment that filled her left her unable to produce milk for her second baby, and when she went to care for that baby, she was filled with guilt for leaving her other children behind. It was a vicious downward cycle, and pride was the only reason behind it. I have heard of complicated family politics, but this one seemed to beat many others I’ve heard.

However, there was one segment I read that I actually found slightly empowering, though others may find this logic strange. Of course it would make sense that girls would be respected for refusing a boy’s advances – but girls could even physically stick up for themselves. I remember being quite amused reading that a boy, boasting about his girlfriend, “felt that wallop good and proper, and no sick girl can deliver a punch.” (p. 138) Although it does not seem fair that a girl should need to be prepared for this manipulative courtship ritual, it gave the girls a chance to defend themselves, which I feel is important.

It is clear that though women had power within the households, they had very little power in the outside culture. So despite the fact that time tends to erase hardship from memory, women had to deal with a lot of repression in Italian Harlem.

Orsi’s book in general focuses on contradictions. The domus is a source of both extraordinary pride and bitter resentment for its inhabitants—not in turn, but at the same time. It is this psychic mingling that Orsi most enjoys describing, and it is at its apex when Orsi describes the role of women in the domus.

Italian women in East Harlem were part of a comically complex system. They were indirect power brokers: it was they who determined how money was spent and who could call the domus theirs, but at the same time they had to remain publicly subservient to men. An unmarried woman, who was a member rather than a leader of a domus, had it the worst. Her condition was one of unending and unfair submission, to her brothers, her father, her mother, and the obsessive eye of the community.

I found it strange that East Harlem allowed women to play these opposed roles. Why did the matriarch, who ran the central unit of Italian life, have to express her power in indirect ways? It was no secret that women ran the domestic show, and the public subservience of the matriarch was therefore an elaborate and wholly unnecessary spectacle. Men futilely attempted to show that they had power, and the roots of their actions were in vindictiveness.

For while matriarchs were revered for their wisdom, they were also despised for their cunning. An effective matriarch oppressed her daughters, undermined her husband, and pitted her sons against each other. Thus, whenever men were given control over women’s lives, men’s decisions seem to have been guided by a repressed pool of resentment. Thus we see the men of East Harlem ruining the reputations of young women, and demanding ridiculous public displays of obeisance. These actions were often ridiculous means of compensation, but they were born in bitterness.

In the last class, we discussed the bitterness in the father’s role in the domus. This section now described how the women were not spared bitterness, either, despite their central roles in the domus. While women were revered as the pillars of domestic life (and domus life was focused on domestic life), at the same time they were oppressed by that role. Women did not report feeling any sense of empowerment; rather, they were controlled by the “distant” presence of of their male counterparts. The males only were distant and “helpless” because they were “spoil[ed]” and “wait[ed] upon” by the “silent” mothers. And before they even were mothers, the single girls were in essence bullied and controlled by their brothers in their dating lives. Thus the role of the woman wasn’t even the “neck” (as described by a student last class) of the family, but was the limbs of the male brain. This is not to say that the males were happy and content, either. While they were empowered, they were also viewed as peripheral figures in domus life. In this powerfully family-oriented society, I wonder how it survived for so long with such unsatisfied members. Neither group expressed satisfaction, nor fulfillment, with their gender roles. The women saw it as “burdens” (139), the men sighed “if only I had the power” (133). I can understand a matriarchal, or patriarchal, society in which the members feel content and fulfilled within their roles, but if that is not the case, it surprises me that were was as much adherence to the ways of the past as their was. The second section, however, offered me more insight into the continuity and structure of the domus. A major theme of the Madonna celebration was ‘generation’ and passing of the heritage to the next generations who were growing up in a foreign land. It was this ceremony, I think, more than the actual family life, that connected people to the domus. All of the family members convened at this time, journeying from near and far, to feel unified in turning to a common belief. This lasted for generations, and was subject to less resistance within the people. The mothers had someone to turn to with their struggles, the men were reconnected with their maternal affections, and the children were actively and tangibly connected to the ways of their grandparents. I can understood how this event could smooth the conflicts and arising discomforts within domus life.

I started off this reading with the idea that women were a respected figure in Italian Harlem and received the most power of all, especially in the domus (specifically in the home).  I also knew the hard life that young women – girls, adolescents, and unmarried women – lived, with abuse from brothers (older and younger), fathers, comari and compari, as well as neighborhood young men.  That being said, I believed that these hardships were just stepping stones in becoming powerful adult women and mothers.

1. Mothers exacted all the power in the family.  Often times, fathers felt snubbed by his children’s fidelity towards their mother.
2. Everyone looked towards the mother or the older woman of the family for advice.  Eldest sons were at their mother’s beck and call.  The matriarchal elders held all of the Italian traditions and values, ready to give advice and help anyone in need.
3. Though their power was mainly in the home, they had no problem exerting power outside in the form of punishment towards misbehaving children.
4. Women “controlled the family finances, and the various members of the household were expected to hand their paychecks over to them” (133).

The list of admiral qualities of an Italian-American woman’s life goes on and on, but then Orsi turns the tables.  He says “our task now is to explore the consequences of the power of women in Italian Harlem, to go deeply into their power in order to find there the real nature of their powerlessness” (143).  He uses Theresa as an example – a single mother with a hard life who in the traditional Italian system is not seen as a “good woman.”  I’d rather ignore this form of argumentation because it is extremely specific and doesn’t address the life of all Italian-American women.  Her case is special, and though I feel for her, Theresa’s example is just one of many various stories.  There were some things, though, that Orsi mentions that I think do represent some powerlessness for women.  They were kept in “great and deep silence” (145), not allowed to speak up against injustices within the domus (mainly, I believe, he is talking about domestic abuse here).  That being said, most women who are subject to domestic abuse feel powerless, and this is not unique to Italian culture.  Because women were the center of the domus, all “frustration, anger, and resentment” (147) was focused towards them.  As we’ve discussed before, fathers acted out against mothers in a power rivalry, as did daughters and sons.  Women, within close knit communities, even “viewed each other as rivals for power and love” (148).  In a traditional culture, though, I believe that these women were given a lot that others have been prohibited from.

Marina B. Nebro 

The Power and Fragility of the Domus

The thing that stood out to me the most when reading these two excerpts was the constant reference of the domus and how it connected to other topics. In each excerpt, Orsi picks one major topic to explore: the first being the role of women and the second being the significance of la Madonna herself. Each section described these topics in great depth, yet both revealed just how powerful yet fragile the domus can be.

For instance, women in Italian Harlem were seemingly subservient and were “dominated by men”. This was somewhat true in the sense of public persona as well as in the strict upbringing and pressure women experience to get married. However, once a woman managed to reach her pinnacle of being married having children, they became the sheltered and secret center of the domus. Ultimately, it was the woman who had total control of whether or not the domus would thrive. The domus was dependent upon the ability to maintain and respect traditional Italian views and cultures, and the woman of the household was believed to be the only one with such authority to make sure these values were instilled in the posterity.

Connections to the domus are also seen in the discussion of the festa for la Madonna as well. La Madonna was seen as a “beacon of light” for many Italian immigrants who would pray to her for all sorts of miracles. For the actual festival, the most important thing was true devotion to la Madonna. What did this devotion serve? Well, for one thing, it helped to ease immigrant guilt for leaving home, it helped to maintain some spiritual ties with Italy, and a sense of community was felt during the ceremony. Members of the domus were brought together during the festa, once again highlighting the importance of community.

We can draw from these two excerpts that the preservation and veneration of the domus had a significant impact on Italian-American culture. It had the power to affect gender roles and to bond a community together, and it had the influence to instill certain values and morals to future generations. However, there was always a constant threat to the domus both from the world outside Italian Harlem and the physical distance from Italy (distance was a common problem and struggle immigrants dealt with, according to Orsi). The only way the domus could truly survive would have to be through devotion to common icons/community festivals (la Madonna) and through the power to sustain traditional Italian beliefs, which women exuded.

-Cassandra Price

Once again, Orsi brings to light the complexities of gender roles within the domus. Although married women with children served as a source of power and authority within the domus, they were also confined by the community’s definition of the “good woman.” As Orsi writes, “Their power, although it is real, is also their powerlessness.” Despite their private role as an all-powerful matriarch, women (both single and married) were subject to a much higher authority: the demands of Italian culture. By threatening the reputation of women, especially those who were unmarried, men were able to use this public ideal to wield control over those who dominated the life of the home and, therefore, the domus. To call this system a “private-public dichotomy” seems like an oversimplification of what is truly going on here. The authority of men may have been merely theatrical, but it is important to note that power within the domus was actually quite diffuse. Power was everywhere, yet it was also nowhere at the same time.  

The Madonna served an important role for women by providing a means of expression for their fears and concerns. For the entire Italian community, however, the Madonna provided much more than a means of expression.  It reflected their home values, helped them overcome distance, and overall maintained their sanity. Contrary to the idea that the devotion was merely an act of self-deception, the festa was actually a reorientation of Italian tradition and values. Perhaps the devotion can be considered self-deception in the sense that it gave Italian immigrants the illusion of still being in their hometowns. More accurately, however, the festa was a way in which people were able to resituate themselves morally and reintegrate themselves culturally. It was a process of rejuvenation.  One may even be so bold as to describe it as a process of purification. It purified people of thoughts and emotions that threatened their fundamental beliefs. This not only refers to conflicting thoughts originating from American culture, but also to feelings of resentment that originated from within the domus itself. As Orsi explains, healing stories were “cathartic,” ultimately evoking feelings of attachment to the domus, despite people’s frustration with it.

The public-private dichotomy between the mother and father that was so characteristic of life in Italian Harlem reminded me of the concept of dramaturgy that I learned in my sociology class last semester. From a dramaturgical viewpoint, people play roles in their daily lives, almost as if they are always actors. The part of dramaturgy that reminded me of the dichotomy of Italian Harlem was the concept of front stage vs. backstage. Like it sounds, backstage represents the private aspects of our lives. In Italian Harlem, the backstage occurred inside the home, where outsiders could not witness the authority of the mother. The backstage was so private in this case that great precautions were taken to prevent anyone outside the home from seeing it. As the curtain comes up, or as a family ventures onto the streets, backstage is almost forgotten as the family is now performing for the masses. In this front stage (the place that we want people to see), the father has all the authority. This whole “act” that was put on by families in East Harlem is similar to the idea of drama and chaos backstage at a theatre and the neat, polished performance given to the audience.

On a different note, the second section of this reading clarified some confusion I previously had when reading the very first chapter of the book. When I read the detailed description of the festa in Chapter 1, part of me didn’t understand how people could be so reverent to the point where they would lick the aisles of a church. This reading made me understand the reason that this devotion was so important to the residents of East Harlem. The festa symbolized so much for the immigrants: connection between generations that might otherwise have been vastly different, the bridging of New York City and their hometowns in Italy, and a return to one’s roots (in particular, the mother). Without this celebration, many of these immigrants would have nothing to pull them through the difficult other 51 weeks of the year. In a way, their devotion is what held them together and reminded them why they fought so hard to protect the domus.

These chapters showed me that my stereotype of Italian family life was incorrect. I had always imagined Italian families from that generation to be far warmer than what Orsi describes. The huge number of Mafia movies set during that time period that I watched portrayed Italian families obsessed with rispetto and disdainful of outsiders, but also tremendously warm and gregarious with one another. This stereotypical family refused to let its sons and daughters date outside the community, and it had nothing but contempt for those who did not support their families with hard work—but it also wrapped its members in a cocoon of endless gatherings, gifts, and feasts.

Orsi would tell me I was wrong. To him, rispetto was colder and more complex. Mothers denied their children the chance to play or even to go outside; fathers gave their children little except tyrannical posturing. At first, this was contradictory to me. If the chief concern of the domus is to protect its own, why would those within it be so needlessly cruel to each other?

The answer, it seems, is that a family in Italian Harlem was not made up of individuals who cooperated to ensure one another’s well being. The domus was not a family as we know it; it was a body that disregarded the individuals within it, that judges its parents and its children based not on their ability to make each other happy but on their ability to show rispetto to one another and the outside world.

We may think of this structure as oppressive. There can be no doubt that the children of immigrants did. In some cases, it seems, even their parents had lingering issues with it. Yet the domus could not be given up. While it and its emphasis on respect were external, its values were internal. No one taught children rispetto; it was so deeply engrained in Italian Harlem that children merely absorbed it like air or water. It was so pervasive, so deeply rooted in people’s minds, that it was nearly impossible to escape.

The paradox of Italian Harlem continues. Previously, many immigrants expressed no desire to return back to Italy, with the exception of seeing loved ones, but this sentiment changes. While clinging to culture in order to retain the sense of community, comfort, and stability is understandable, Italian Harlem’s rigid adherence to a domus-centric society comes across as counterproductive towards achieving the American dream.

The rules governing life in the domus seem to directly contradict the ideas of liberation from an oppressive homeland; they are extremely restrictive in nature and demand segregation and complete submission. They not only enforce the idea of segregation but also went so far as to criticize others outside of their ethnic community. Italian Harlem was an isolated region of old-fashioned Italy itself, where Italians married other Italians, to produce and raise more Italians, who only adhered to ‘Italian’ domus-centered lifestyles. Immigrants who left to pursue a life in America simultaneously condemned what they considered the “American way” and feared their children will grow up to be American. One man expressed that although his children did “’things in the Italian manner,’ [he was still] afraid that they were ‘thoroughly American’.” This is a catch-22 for the younger generations, because they, having grown up in America, would never be able to meet the high standards of maintaining pure Italian values.

Additionally, the entire domus structure comes across as a paradox to me. First off, stress on both blind loyalty to relatives and strong moral values seems like a contradiction to me; one of the ‘rules’ stated is that you should stick by a relative whether they are right or wrong, but their being wrong might entail unethical or immoral behavior. Overall, the domus system breeds it’s own destruction. The stress on respect and authority within the family is revealed to create more rifts than ties, whether it is due to the rivalry between the eldest son and father, the husband and brother-in-law, etc. Italian men were perpetually angry not because the domus was dying but because its values were clung to.

[On a side note] Though not entirely surprising based on the abuses of the Church in Italy, I thought it was interesting that, while being “Christian” was synonymous with being a good citizen, there was avid anticlericalism sentiment and parents discouraged their sons from joining the clergy.

Overall, Italian Harlem is a region of extremes to me. Not only is the domus like a Chinese finger trap, but the entire community’s resistance to American influence and cultural integration is as well; the more the immigrants and older generations struggled to maintain the domus, traditional ‘Italian’ values, and separate themselves from their ‘American’ peers, the more conflicts and tensions seemed to arise.

In discussing the domus community of the Italians in Harlem, Orsi delineates the codes and norms the immigrants maintained and distinguishes their lifestyle from the way of the native Americans. I found this tension of immigrant life very interesting in that while the Italians actively came to settle in America, they came not for ideological, but rather for practical, reasons and thus they attempted to transplant themselves proudly in America while refusing to be American; instead seeking to keep every bit of their roots maintained, done through the method of Italian domus lifestyle. Even while living in America, “when immigrants wanted to criticize their children’s new ideas … they accused them of being American,” a jab at the very country in which they chose to reside (78). And in describing the lifestyle they expected for their future generations, planted in American soil, descriptions were based upon Italian circumstances, such as one woman’s “warning to her children to be faithful to Italian ways,” wherein she expected them to “have a house like [her] grandfather had in Italy” (78).

Even then, the notable characteristics of being American were independence, individualism and rejection of traditional nuclear family life, and the first-, and even second-generation Italians chaffed at such American ways. They, instead, relied upon the constraints of domus life to keep them all in line with Italian morals, claiming that Italians were the only ones who knew how to raise a family properly. I found it quite interesting as to how such an open, fluid and vibrant domus community could flourish on the shores of a foreign and counter environment. Orsi gives countless pages of description of the vibrancy of the domus and comments that “the life of the domus spilled out into closely watched streets and hallways” (92). Both private and public life for the immigrants were influenced by their heritage, and while the fourth chapter offers some harsher, more critical perspectives of domus life, it yet admits that “American-born generations … always remained bound by the demands and values of the domus” (129). Somehow, the first-generation immigrants were able to create a tight enough community life that the following generations still maintained ties to whatever extent, even while dabbling in integrating into their American identity.