Analysis of Hubris in Devil in the White City

The World’s Fair of 1893 was an event which captivated the world with mastery of architecture and synthesis of world cultures, exposing fairgoers and even those who never experienced the fair firsthand to what it’s designers and builders considered a grand empire, harnessing the latest in technology and age-old beauty, and what was to Chicagoans and others, a heavenly place. Erik Larson, in his novel entitled The Devil in the White City, asserts that there can be no misinterpretation of the fair as an event not entirely rooted in the pride and arrogance of those who fought for it, those who won the right from the rest of the world to construct it, and those who still protested the success of the Chicago 1893 World’s Fair out of misguided and narrow-minded pride in their own cities, through his portrayal of the overall pursuit of the fair.

Some of the first surfacings of the hubristic notion of nearly world-wide exclusive pride and confidence in cities bidding for the Fair exclusively by their own citizens and government administrations set the tone for the selection of the host city, and for the rest of the 1893 fair altogether.  Congruently, Larson considers common attitudes toward American presence in the previous World’s Fair, the Exposition Universelle of Paris, quoting the 1889 Chicago Tribune’s Paris correspondent with, “Other nations are not rivals, they are foils to France, and the poverty of their displays sets off, as it was meant to do, the fullness of France, its richness and its splendor (Larson).”  This nationalistic statement of arrogance was not exclusive to France, but this example of hubristic ideals is representative of the mindset of the Gilded Age, at least for certain in regard to the 1893 World’s Fair.

While Chicago definitely experienced a boom in the years prior to the 1893 Fair, there was an underlying citywide conviction that the fair was somehow owed to the city in the name of its recent success for the US.  Larson describes the scene of the crowd waiting to hear the final tally between cities bidding for the fair, and quotes a Chicagoan spectator with, “Gentlemen.  I am prepared to state that any person from St. Louis would rob a church (Larson).“  Another added, “or poison his wife’s dog,” which apparently drew general “wide agreement” from the crowd.   Bold statements like these fueled newspaper and other press coverage of the race for the fair, with cities leading campaigns which verbally bullied other candidates.  Though the Fair was meant to stand as an embodiment of human progress, its early procedures indicated anything but.

Hubristic attitudes flourished throughout this period in the Gilded Age, in the US and otherwise, but were perhaps highlighted most completely by Larson in his portrayal of the internal US campaigns for the fair and their strategies.  The procedures for deciding which city should host the fair no doubt contributed greatly in the end to the grandeur and decadent nature of the Exhibition.  Because cities so diligently boasted their own attributes and abilities and disrespectfully downplayed those of other cities, which ever was selected then inherently had to “live up to their own hype.”  Whoever won the vote for designation of the Fair, no matter which city out of those bidding, had set the stage for at least a completely hubristic attempt at displaying the power of their city or nation, because of the arrogance which stood so prevalently throughout the process.  Any minute tidbit of exposition with lackluckster quality would spell disgrace, immediately set upon by the now rival cities, again out of hubristic arrogance.

New York and Chicago also fueled a conflict which should have been dissolved by American brotherhood, with Chicago claiming a right to fair in light of recent expansion and success in the iron, steel, and stockyard industries, not to mention skyrocketing to being the second most populous city in the US, and New York claiming some sort of intrinsic right to the Fair because of their reputation as the art and music capital of the US, and status as what might have well been the “center of everything.” (Larson)  Chicago Tribune reporters vied for the fair by citing “the hawks, buzzards, vultures and other unclean beasts, creeping, crawling and flying,” over and through New York as the true pursuers of the fair (Larson). 

New York however, embodied singularly as a pursuer of the fair, claimed intrinsic right to its ceremonies almost as those of nobility demand power because of the hubristic assumption that it is rightfully theirs, because they alone are deserving and able. New York scoffed at Chicago even after she had won the race to the Fair, predicting a meager showcasing of cows and bloody pigs with provincial displays and guests wandering about, disgracing the world in the wake of the anniversary of Columbus’ monumental discovery and earning the US a name as undeserving and even validating of humor in their assumption that they could handle an undertaking like the fair (Larson).  New York felt deserving of the ceremonies because of their historical standing as influential and prominent in the realms of architecture, art, music, and just about everything else (Larson).   

These displays of hostility between cities both on US ground were indicators of the hostility, which can arise out of hubris in any circumstances as great as a World’s Fair, where the weakness in the pride of men can mar the best of intentions, like showcasing human progress.

With these attitudes in mind, it can reasonably be called into question the direction which the Fair was fated to set course for.  In what should’ve been a cooperative race made up of politically correct deliberations to come to a universal consensus for the prime location of the 1893 Exposition, reason was met with arrogant conflict and complete dismissal of any form of cooperative decision making.  The process for selection a host city should’ve been reflective of the true purpose of the fair, which was to be showcasing human progress, technological and otherwise, and bringing citizens of the world together for something truly grand.  While Larson, fairgoers, and other historians and observers of the fair do not deny that this goal was met, the cynicism in the birth of the Fair definitely served to bring out the evils in the humanity, which also were showcased during the Exposition. 

Larson works up from small coincidental tragedies, like the death of heavily contributing architect Root, and the snatching of Jane Adams purse within the Fair’s first moments of operation, to accidental massacres that could’ve been avoided, had careless human error not come into play, such as the fire in the Cold Storage Building which annihilated sever firefighters before the eyes of guests.  Guests watched the spectacle as if it were another exhibit.  Larson reflects, “Some even brought lunch (Larson).”   And, in The Devil in the White City’s most obvious ode to the evils of humanity, Larson foils Daniel Burnham to H.H. Holmes, who harnessed the fair as his own personal playground for preying on guests and gruesomely, sadistically, taking their lives. 

It can be called an inevitability that in any display which brings together the furthest reaches of humanity, culminating in massive displays of power and industry amidst a gathering of hundreds of thousands of vastly different guests, would also yield, albeit in smaller doses, evidence of the evils of humanity and how they too have flourished. 

Though the Columbian Exposition of 1893 has been considered an unparalleled success, it’s rocky beginnings, which pushed to the surface hubristic attitudes of arrogance and a willingness to abandon loyalty to fellow countrymen, foreshadowed the evils released throughout the course of the fair, which kept in balance the proceedings.  Humanity cannot exist innocently and unmarred in temporary White Cities, and these common attitudes which impede that dream are expressed in Larson’s work primarily in its open, in his portrayal of the quest for a host city.

Works Cited

Larson, Erik. Devil in the White City. New York: A Division of Random House, Inc., 2003. Print.