Mediaboss Marketing

In June 2020, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., tweeted a photo of her father, former vice president Richard B. Cheney, with the hashtag #realmenwearmasks. Wearing a white cowboy hat and a surgical mask, he presented the familiar tropes of masculinity and of political power, becoming a prop for his daughters efforts to encourage GOP supporters to follow public health recommendations to curb the spread of the coronavirus.

More recently, one of Cheneys newest colleagues, Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., also employed a familiar gender trope to express her position regarding face masks. Calling masks oppressive, she appropriated the famous feminist slogan My body, my choice as she tweeted the hashtag #FreeYourFace.

As these tweets and hashtags reveal, masks have become the most visible sign of our current political, cultural and social moment. Wearing a mask is not only a matter of public health, an individual choice or sign of a civic courtesy. Its now the latest chapter in the culture wars over our identity as a nation, our fundamental values and our rights as citizens. Communities across the country are paying the price as case numbers soar.

The current politics around mask-wearing are nothing new. During the 1918 flu pandemic, directives to wear masks turned into a political battle over patriotism, gender and power. Just like today, clear lines marked the pro- and anti-mask camps, although they did not necessarily accord with partisan divisions. Part of it was because of the different political situation in 1918. As the flu pandemic coincided with World War I, Americans were more prone to rally behind their government than to enter a partisan debate. Moreover, President Woodrow Wilsons administration cracking down on all forms of dissent made voicing any criticism much more difficult. Portraying the flu as the common enemy turned the debate over masks into a question of patriotic duty, lessening the chance that the issue would break down along partisan lines.

Yet despite the strong hand of the state during World War I, mask orders in 1918 were not coordinated on the federal level but were left to cities and local authorities.

Shortly after the outbreak of the flu, state officials and city health boards pushed for mask mandates, understanding that they would be useful to combat the pandemic, and save the economy. Indianapolis, for example, issued a mask mandate and school closures, while state officials in Salt Lake City decided to only recommend the wearing of masks not require them.

Some complained it was difficult to breathe in masks, or that they made work impossible. And gender played a significant role in shaping ones attitude toward masks. Despite how cowboys and farmworkers in the West donned face covering, the gauze mask that became popular during the flu pandemic connoted femininity.

State and local authorities tried to appeal to men by portraying mask resisters as slackers, invoking patriotism by alluding to draft evaders. Wearing masks was a civic duty, claimed Oakland Mayor John Davie, arguing that it is sensible and patriotic, no matter what our personal beliefs may be, to safeguard our fellow citizens by joining in this practice. Using similar propaganda tactics as the ones used for war mobilization, ads in newspapers warned that Coughs and Sneezes Spread Diseases, As Dangerous as Poison Gas Shells. By circulating ads and publications that likened the fight against influenza to fighting in the war, authorities attempted to shame those who did not join the war effort against the flu by wearing masks.

Illustrators also poked fun at mask resisters, who they portrayed primarily as men. But some women also refused to wear masks. Several women organized Anti-Mask Leagues, similar to other womens clubs in this period, where they sought to fight state officials and city ordinances through petitions and demonstrations.

Even more surprising, masks in 1918 were never used as a political prop. Unlike 2020, when masks became a blank canvas to express ones views, whether it is supporting Black Lives Matter, calling people to vote or promoting the names of presidential candidates, flu masks were not used to convey a message, but stuck to the conventional white gauze design. Even suffragists, who were known for their savvy use of fashion in their campaigns, did not use masks creatively.

Yet, if in 1918 masks were not used to promote political agendas, they were still imbued with the contemporary politics of the day. Similar to this current moment, masks became a conduit to discuss the limits of government power, as well as if and how much authorities should intervene in individuals lives and the economy in the name of public health.

If today our masks are much more colorful, creative and brazen than those of a century ago, the debate they spur is remarkably familiar. Just like in 1918, masks are the visible symbol of our current political moment, and they will serve as evidence for future historians to understand our present.

Einav Rabinovitch-Fox teaches U.S. and womens and gender history at Case Western Reserve University.

Read more:
Commentary: The battle over masks has always been political - Bend Bulletin