2016 01 02 Cultural and Social History - Vol 13 No 1 - Sharples

Magazine Overview

This document is an academic article titled "Sky and Stardust: The Flying Saucer in American Popular Culture, 1947-1957" by John Sharples, published in the journal *Cultural and Social History* in 2016. The article investigates the relationship between the flying saucer phenomenon and post-war American popular culture, examining its connection to narratives of home, technology, and authority.

Introduction

The essay posits that the flying saucer, as an object embodying a specific cultural moment, served as a focal point for discussions on aesthetics, power, and modernity in post-war America. It offered an alternative to other cultural touchstones like the atomic bomb or Hollywood stars, reflecting both optimism for the future and apprehension about past conflicts. The flying saucer is described as a 'monster' with a flexible identity, evoking fear, fascination, and playfulness. Over time, it became domesticated within American society. The period covered is from Kenneth Arnold's 1947 sighting to the launch of Sputnik I in 1957, during which over 5,000 flying saucer observations were reported to the U.S. Air Force. The launch of Sputnik marked a shift, with the flying saucer being eclipsed by other perceived threats.

Historiography

The historiography of the flying saucer has largely focused on its role in science fiction and cinema. Works by M. Keith Booker and Mark Jancovich are cited. The article aims to explore less-considered aspects, such as how popular non-fictional accounts questioned official explanations and how the flying saucer was viewed both as a returning ancient fear and a symbol of modernity.

Theoretical Framework: The Monster Concept

The article employs theoretical frameworks from Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and Asa Simon Mittman to define the flying saucer as a 'monster' in relation to otherness and human status. This approach considers the monster's physical appearance, location, process, and its challenge to common sense. The etymology of 'monster' is explored, linking it to 'memory' and 'signifying something out of the ordinary.' The concept of the monster is also linked to times of crisis and specific cultural moments, suggesting the flying saucer must be examined within its socio-cultural context.

The article distinguishes between institutional and popular forms of knowledge, where scientific knowledge attempts to order phenomena within natural norms, while popular understanding views them as repositories of superstition. It argues that flying saucer reports often resisted the 'disenchantment of the world' brought about by rationalism, challenging discourses of the individual, home, and nation in the post-war US. This is framed as an interplay between looking 'up' (observational attentiveness, fantasy) and 'down' (groundedness, practicality).

Part One: 'I Know What I Saw'

This section focuses on the beginnings of the flying saucer phenomenon, particularly Kenneth Arnold's sighting in June 1947, which preceded the Roswell incident. Arnold's report set the tone for subsequent accounts, highlighting an initial conflict between his empirical evidence and the Air Force's contradictions. The Associated Press headline described 'Saucer-like Objects' flying at 1,200 m.p.h. Arnold himself stated he knew what he saw, though he attributed the term 'flying saucer' to the press. The media's uncertainty was reflected in headlines like 'The Somethings.' Arnold clarified that the objects flew *like* a saucer, not that they *were* saucers. The term 'flying saucer' quickly became widely known, appearing in Webster's Dictionary by 1956. This naming convention is analyzed as a strategy to connect the unknown to the familiar, to name and domesticate that which threatens. The article cites Jacques Derrida on how monstrosity is 'mis-known' until it becomes normalized.

Arnold's account is presented as a challenge to common sense and cultural convention. His disagreement with the media stemmed from the interpretation of the visual image and the 'spectatorship' it generated. The article contrasts 'spectatorship' (the look, gaze) with 'reading' (decipherment, decoding), noting that Arnold's report highlighted sensory immediacy that resisted easy interpretation. The 'impact' of visual events, as described by Nicholas Mirzoeff, evokes admiration, awe, terror, and desire, leading to a suspension of disbelief.

Early reports emphasized the visual spectacle of flying saucers. An example from May 1951 describes 'crystal ball' objects performing like hummingbirds and moving at extreme speeds. The 'Lubbock Lights' incident is mentioned, where descriptions of shapes as 'playing tag' or 'like a huge humming bird' failed to capture the sudden movement and speeds. Another incident in 1954 in Sand Springs, Oklahoma, involved a 'mysterious ball of fire' that caused traffic problems, with headlines comparing it to road-works or car accidents.

Naming and Containment

Naming the flying saucer is presented as a strategy of containment. Emphasizing its playful aspects was another strategy. Arnold's comments also linked the saucer to contemporary technological progress, confirming its historical status rather than representing a complete break from the past. Arnold reported that other pilots had been briefed about seeing similar objects. The flying saucer is described as a 'curious vision of modernity,' poised between scientific enlightenment and superstition. Ken Hollings' *Welcome to Mars* is cited regarding the post-WWII period, where 'the fantasy of science' became intertwined with reality. The flying saucer appeared on the boundary of the possible, near the edge of aviation technology, with advancements like the breaking of the sound barrier and the development of jet planes occurring around the same time.

The article argues that the flying saucer should not be seen solely as a product of superstition. It critiques Waldemar Kaempffert's view that flying saucers proved science hadn't 'seeped down into the multitude.' The author contends that technological progress was sometimes mistaken for exorcisms of the past, and that 'uncanny discourses' remain intertwined with modernity's rationalization processes.

Kenneth Arnold's initial report was not inherently absurd, and other reports received an open-minded reception. *Life* magazine's 1950 publication of 'Farmer Trent's Flying Saucer' was initially presented as credible, though a reader later suggested forgery. The flying saucer symbolized modernity, a disavowal of the immediate past and present, and a gesturing towards the future. Charles Fort's accounts were reclaimed, suggesting a longer tradition of aerial objects. Claims for Biblical sightings and historical precedents were made, redefining the flying saucer as an historical object. Science fiction, particularly Hugo Gernsback's *Science Wonder Stories*, is noted for depicting 'spaceships' shaped like flying saucers prior to 1947.

Historicizing the flying saucer involved looking backwards and creating artificial genealogies. The flying saucer posed a cognitive challenge, defying conventional understanding of flight through its movement, speed, and silence. While traditional monsters are often physically threatening, the flying saucer's 'monstrosity' lay in its impact on cultural understanding and its challenge to epistemological worldviews. Its unearthliness was emphasized, contrasting with terrestrial technology.

Despite claims, it was not just movement or speed, but its simultaneous escaping from and connection to everyday life that defined the flying saucer. The term 'flying saucer' became a broad label for any unidentified object, encompassing various shapes, colors, and performances, signifying unfamiliarity. Domestication involved controlling its threatening aspects, seen in advertisements for children's pajamas, toys, and hotels, where the alien or saucer was made less threatening or subdued.

Comparison with the Atomic Bomb

The flying saucer provided a visual counterpoint to other technological performances of the era, most notably the atomic bomb and its mushroom cloud. Carl Jung noted the influence of the 'threatening situation of the world today' on flying saucer representations, largely stemming from 'the bomb.' Films like *The Day the Earth Stood Still* explicitly linked flying saucers to the Manhattan Project. However, the emotions inspired differed: the atomic bomb was a 'horrifying spectacle,' described with violent language, representing a primal creature and a threat to boundaries of category and culture. The mushroom cloud was never described as playful, unlike the flying saucer.

Part Two: 'It was a strange time ...'

This section begins by discussing the concept of 'alien visitation' as a hallmark of the 20th and 21st centuries, serving a role similar to figures like Bigfoot or ghosts. Peter Dendle's notion that belief in flying saucers was a reaction to cosmic loneliness is questioned due to the playful nature of many accounts. More usefully, Dendle suggests that the discourse surrounding alien visitation, intertwined with government conspiracy, positions the 'monster' as a vehicle for resistance against authorities perceived as sole proprietors of knowledge. This section turns to how 'mistrust' manifested at the popular level.

Kenneth Arnold's initial account was met with disbelief by military and aviation authorities. An Associated Press report from June 26, 1947, noted that the 'flying saucer situation' had national security implications and the potential for mass hysteria. The article highlights the linguistic conformity in eyewitness accounts of the lights over the White House in July 1952, contrasting with the atomic bomb accounts. Descriptions of the objects noted their radical movements and unbelievable speeds. The response included a 'stunned silence' and headlines like 'Saucers Swarm Over Capital.' Jet fighters were placed on alert. The article notes the ironic commentary that authorities who had dismissed flying saucer reports were now chasing shadows and radar blips.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The article consistently frames the flying saucer phenomenon within the context of post-war American culture, exploring its symbolic meanings, its representation in media, and its relationship to societal anxieties and technological advancements. The author adopts an analytical and critical stance, drawing on cultural theory and historical accounts to deconstruct the phenomenon. Key themes include the tension between modernity and tradition, the construction of the 'monster,' the interplay between popular and institutional knowledge, and the domestication of the unknown. The article suggests that the flying saucer, while seemingly fantastical, was deeply embedded in the socio-cultural and technological landscape of its time, serving as a mirror to contemporary concerns and aspirations.

This document is an excerpt from a publication titled 'CULTURAL AND SOCIAL HISTORY', issue number 10, dated March 2016. The author is JOHN SHARPLES. The content focuses on the cultural history of flying saucers in post-war America, examining public perception, government investigations, and media representation.

The Arnold Sighting and Early Skepticism

The article begins by discussing Kenneth Arnold's 1947 flying saucer report and the immediate skeptical response from military spokesmen, who compared the speed of the alleged craft to a V-2 rocket. Over the following decade, various government reports, including Project Sign, Project Saucer, Project Grudge, and Project Blue Book, attempted to investigate these phenomena. Arnold's sighting is presented as a pivotal moment that established the flying saucer as a subject of debate between institutional knowledge and popular accounts, with the media often exploiting the story for commercial purposes.

Donald Keyhoe's 'The Flying Saucers Are Real'

A significant portion of the text is dedicated to Donald Keyhoe's 1950 book, 'The Flying Saucers Are Real,' which is described as the first influential attempt to promote the idea of flying saucers as alien spacecraft. Keyhoe's thesis suggested a policy of gradual revelation by the United States Air Force (USAF), aiming to prepare the public for the existence of extraterrestrials. He cited an extract from a 1947 USAF document, 'Project "Saucer" Preliminary Study of Flying Saucers,' which stated that saucers were not jokes and that visitations should be expected. Keyhoe believed that the USAF's contradictory statements and explanations (often attributing sightings to meteorological phenomena) were part of an intricate program to prepare America and the world for the secret of flying disks. The author notes that Keyhoe's work adopted a 'conspiracy thriller' style, positioning the USAF, rather than the saucers, as the antagonist, feeding into post-war paranoia.

Donald Menzel and Scientific Explanations

In contrast to Keyhoe's approach, Donald Menzel, a scientist, sought to shut down debate outside of a scientific tradition. In a 1952 Look magazine article, Menzel attributed flying saucer sightings to psychological factors, suggesting that people are 'nervous' and 'enjoy being frightened a little.' He proposed that common explanations included balloons, papers, distant planes, Venus, and optical phenomena like mirages. Menzel even suggested readers could simulate these effects at home.

Media and Public Interpretation

The article examines how newspapers and magazines like Life and Popular Science engaged with the flying saucer phenomenon. Life's 1952 article on 'the case for flying saucers' provoked a significant reader response, with interpretations ranging from philosophical to nonsensical. Popular Science invited readers to join the Air Force's project to study saucers, framing it as a scientific endeavor. However, attempts by the USAF in 1951 to explain sightings as 'only plastic balloons' were met with incredulity, highlighting a public preference for sensationalism over official explanations. The text notes the contrast between scientific figures like Dr. Urner Liddell and Dr. Robert A. Millikin, who dismissed public interest, and the public's desire for something sensational.

The Flying Saucer as a Cultural Object

The article discusses how the flying saucer became a contested space in public discourse. It references Susan Lepselter's comments on alien abduction narratives and the 'explanation fatigue' experienced by the public. By 1957, the tone had shifted, with coverage in Life describing an 'Interplanetary Space Convention' near Giant Rock Airport, California, where '1,200 earthlings' gathered, showcasing the cult-like properties of the phenomenon. The author notes the shift from genuine mystery to a more domesticated cultural object.

Shifting Narratives and Cultural Significance

The text traces the evolution of the flying saucer narrative, from early reports and government investigations to its integration into popular culture. It contrasts the moral message of early songs like '(When You See) Those Flying Saucers' (1947), which connected UFOs to Judgment Day and Armageddon, with later songs like 'The Flying Saucer' (1956), which presented the phenomenon as an object of fun and popular culture. The article suggests that the flying saucer, by the late 1950s, had become a familiar part of American society, no longer an ultimate outsider. The appearance of Sputnik I in 1957 is noted as a further development in generational anxieties related to extraterrestrial objects. The flying saucer is portrayed as a 'plastic' cultural object capable of representing optimism, fear, wonder, and serving as entertainment, challenging institutional knowledge and generating invasion worries.

The article concludes by positioning the flying saucer as an important object for historical inquiry, reflecting the psychological phenomena, the monstrous geography of the immediate post-World War Two period, and traditional American institutions. It highlights the interplay between scientific knowledge (represented by Menzel) and popular knowledge (represented by Keyhoe) and personal experience (represented by Arnold).

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this excerpt include the tension between scientific skepticism and public belief in flying saucers, the role of government investigations and their perceived secrecy, the influence of media in shaping public perception, and the flying saucer as a cultural artifact reflecting post-war anxieties and technological optimism. The editorial stance appears to be analytical and historical, exploring the cultural construction and evolution of the flying saucer myth without necessarily endorsing or dismissing the reality of the phenomenon itself. It emphasizes the social and cultural context in which these beliefs and narratives emerged and persisted.