The almost cliché image of the white picket fence has become synonymous with the ideals of the American Dream. Behind the fence, there is invariably a perfectly manicured lawn, a green carpet upon which life can unfold. This image and its associations are not, however, accidental. In her book, "Domesticity at War", Beatriz Colomina notices that, since the Second World War, the lawn has taken a central space in the imagination of the country, becoming first a in order to make space for diversity, both social and ecological. symbol of the stability of the homes soldiers were hoping to return to, offering a space where those at home could still perform duties for the nation, and, after the war, propagating the image of an idealized lifestyle, one maintained with hard work and dedication. In recent years, the lawn has emerged once again as a site of conflict, this time between those hoping to preserve this idealized image, and those seeking to break the uniformity in order to make space for diversity, both social and ecological.
Fighting for the Lawn
The concept of the well-maintained lawn dates back to 18th-century Europe, particularly England and France, where lawns were a symbol of wealth and leisure. In America, this idea first emerged as suburban developments expanded in the 19th and 20th centuries, but it was only during World War II that the lawn gained this heightened status, that of a symbol of both domestic architecture and national identity.
Related Article
Exploring the Legacy of Modernism in Landscape ArchitectureDuring wartime, popular household magazines such as House Beautiful or Life propagated this image of an idealized version of home, always presented with a manicured lawn and perfectly tended flowerbeds. According to these articles, this was the image that American soldiers were dreaming of returning to, so maintaining it became a matter of national duty. The press also encouraged relatives to send images and article cuttings to the front lines, further cementing the connection. Thus, maintaining the home soon turned into keeping the lawn, "a challenge for the fighters at home" as an article in the House Beautiful, March 1942 edition, describes it.
During World War II, the lawn became a battlefield. Maintaining the lawn was a form of war, a national duty performed for the morale of both those at home and those in the armed forces. Keeping the lawn amounted no less than keeping the face of the nation. – Beatriz Colomina in Domesticity at War, p.114
The expectation to maintain a green, well-trimmed lawn became a social norm, often tied to notions of responsibility, tidiness, and civic pride. This was no easy task. Articles of the time often depicted the lawn as a site of battle, where weeds, pests, and drought were presented in almost military terms, as enemy combatants to be overtaken. Pests, in particular the Japanese beetle, soon became the default image of this domestic war, with exaggerated parallels drawn between this invasive species and its country of origin. The strategies and methods of attack against these threats were also militarized, with lawn machinery often described either as armed equipment or "built by gun craftsmen," as described by texts collected by Beatriz Colomina. A wide array of chemical products became available to manage lawn pests, weeds, and diseases. As the pesticide industry developed rapidly as a byproduct of military research into chemical warfare, the descriptions were more than just metaphorical. It would take several years to discover the hidden environmental costs of these practices.
Together with the development of the lawn was that of the "victory garden," a rectangular patch of the lawn transformed into a vegetable garden. Also supported by popular magazines, the idea of growing your own vegetables had a multitude of positive effects, such as lowering the pressure on farmers and conserving resources typically dedicated to packaging and transportation. It was also seen as a measure of self-sufficiency and resilience, a mark of a responsible citizen.
This also complimented the hobby of tending to your front and backyard, a hobby heavily encouraged during this time. In addition to its advantages for the local economy, this was also seen as a healing practice for both veterans and those affected by the ever-present image of war and its consequences. The lawn and garden are depicted as a safe, peaceful space, conducive to health for both the body and the mind, and garden therapy was often recommended for hospitalized patients suffering from psychological ailments.
After 1945, this image and its associations persisted in the collective memory. During the Cold War, the idealized American lawn became part of the broader narrative, symbolizing not just personal success but also the success of the capitalist system in providing a higher quality of life. This played an essential role in propaganda efforts, materialized most famously in the famous Kitchen Debate at the 1959 American National Exhibition in Moscow.
Fighting Against the Lawn
In recent years, a different type of debate has emerged, one concerned with the ecological impact of the turf grass lawn. In its traditional form, the lawn is a monoculture, supporting only one type of plant, often water-intensive, not adapted to the local climates, and offering almost no space for other species of plants and insects, which we now understand as being vital to the health of the environment. The system is also vulnerable to diseases, invasive species, and uncontrolled insect outbreaks, which leads to the need to use chemical pesticides and fungicides that can contaminate the air or water. The alternative might seem simple: planting native pollinator-friendly species instead of turf grass. However, when compared to the heavy symbolism of the perfectly manicured lawn, the preferred course of action becomes much more conflicted, turning the lawn once again into a battleground of a different kind.
This new clash can be exemplified by the experience of Janet and Jeff Crouch, as narrated by the New York Times. As they became aware of the multiple benefits of having a more diversified front yard, the couple began planting flowering native species around their home in Columbia's Cedar Lane Park. As their embrace of native plantings and local wildlife became more apparent, neighbors began to pressure them to remove the unconventional garden, citing violations of community bylaws. This petition was supported by their homeowners association (HOA), a type of neighborhood institution that enforces community rules, including architectural and landscaping guidelines, and protects property values in a given area.
The couple refused to comply with the demands, taking the matter to court. This pushback highlights the tension between traditional lawn aesthetics and evolving environmental consciousness. With the help of sustainability groups and local legislators, the Crouches won the legislative battle and helped transform these struggles into a new law in Maryland, one that restricts homeowner associations from banning pollinator-friendly landscapes or mandating traditional turf grass. This ensures that any homeowners in the state who want to transform their yards into a more biodiverse habitat are free to do so without fear of legal repercussions.
Their victory underscores a significant shift, a move towards renegotiating the role of the lawn within American society. Continuing as a site of conflict, the lawn can remain a compelling symbol that empowers homeowners to use their front and back yards to make a difference, display their beliefs, and contribute positively, only this time it could be towards the benefit of their communities and environment in a broader sense, welcoming a diversity of species and a less-uniform image, one that welcoms diversity within their communities.
