The
Progressive Era was an age of reform. Labor violence, and industrial accidents,
combined with deplorable working conditions and a feeling that the trusts were
in control of people's lives, fueled the desire for reform. Both the
working-class and the middle-class were instrumental in these changes.
Shelton
Stromquist theorizes that it was the working class, via strikes, that
stimulated the progressive movement. "Workers were the agents in the
construction of a new urban politics…"[1] He
states that "mass strikes, political insurgency and the "social
crisis" of American capitalism in the 1890s created a unique set of
conditions that serve as a breeding ground for corporate consolidation and
social and political reform."[2]
The working class had motive to press for
changes because of the personal discomfort caused by difficult working
conditions, such as unreasonably long hours, poor safety practices and low wages.
The unions that formed were meant to help provide job security and fight for
better working conditions. Occasionally, violence occurred, such as during the
Homestead strike. "Strikes… Prompted the formation of cross class
alliances…"[3]
While
strikes "gave temporary span and direction to municipal progressivism,"[4]
they struck some middle-class Americans as almost too revolutionary. As
Stromquist points out, "class conflict and mass protest created conditions
that invited reform but did not wholly dictate the outcomes."[5] However,
the middle class supported reform, as they read about conditions and events in
newspapers and muckraking. The middle-class became worried about how the
working class situation was going to affect them. Beyond this, many
middle-class citizens were truly concerned for the working class and felt
compassion for them. They felt compelled to do something about it.
Maureen
A. Flanagan argues that the middle class, particularly upper- middle class,
white men and women, such as those that formed the City Clubs of Chicago, were
the key group or groups in shaping progressive reform. "It is commonly
accepted that male and female reformers in the first two decades of the 20th
century had different agendas for reform…"[6] Both
the men's City Club and the Women's City Club of Chicago tackled "problems
of garbage disposal, public education and police power."[7] However,
the women held a more humanitarian view of "well-being" [8]
and of "ensure[ing] moral and social order"[9]
through “Municipal Housekeeping.” [10] The
men, on the other hand viewed the city as a business and as such it should be
run like one. They were "thinking in terms of profitability in fiscal
efficiency."[11]
While the men’s clubs tended to look at the
issues through the eyes of a businessman, the women’s clubs strove to make the
world a better place through social reform. Regardless, reform was achieved
through politics. Often this took place at the city level, but increasingly, as
issues became more complex, it took place at the state, and even national
level. Therefore, as the working-class fought for better conditions, the
middle-class became concerned and worked to make big reforms through politics.
Together, the working-class and middle-class men and women worked hard to shape
progressive reform.
[1]
Sheldon Stromquist, “The Crucible of Class: Cleveland Politics and the Origins
of Municipal Reform in the Progressive Era.” Journal of Urban History 23, no 2. (1997):194
[2] Ibid.195
[3] Ibid.194
[4] Ibid.194
[5] Ibid.195
[6] Maureen
A. Flanagan, “Gender and Urban Political Reform, the City Club and the Women’s
City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era,” The American Historical Review 95, no 4 (1990):1033
[7] Ibid.1046
[8] Ibid.1045
[9]Ibid.1045
[10] Ibid.1046
[11]Ibid. 1046
Jaime,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I too believe that both groups were instrumental in the progressive movement. To me, it seems like both middle/upper class women and the working class were groups that were underestimated and assumed irrelevant to the political spectrum. Even though women did not get to vote until 1920, they were able to place huge amounts of pressure on candidates to understand and accommodate their needs. The working class and immigrants also applied pressure in their own ways, through strikes, to make their desires relevant to politicians and lobbyists alike. Both the women and working class strove for better more sanitary and safer conditions for all citizens. To quote Maureen Flanaghan, " Instead, members of the Women's City Club viewed the city as they had viewed their homes, a place where health and welfare of all members should be sought."
Maureen A. Flanagan, “Gender and Urban Political Reform, the City Club and the Women’s City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era,” The American Historical Review 95, no 4 (1990):1050.
I agree with you both in that women were instrumental in bringing about progressive reform in the 20th century, but often overlooked by historians because they did not have the right to vote and basically all of the key political decisions at the time came from men. I believe their success was rooted in the fact that the City Club and the Woman's City Club often disagreed on some of the issues Jamie mentioned, such as municipal waste collection, since it brought attention to the fact that perhaps not all issues should be looked at from an economic perspective alone.
ReplyDeleteGreat work.
Very excellent post! I thought your focus on Stromquists views that you mentioned championed more for the workingman, rather than Flanagans WASP approach. You are right though in stating in the end it was politics that brought about the reform, but it only eventually happened because after this election the economy got ran even farther into the ground.After the Sherman Anti Trust act, there would not be real political reform until the 1930's and the New Deal.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. I, like everyone else, agreed that both articles articulated the work put in by both groups. But I feel that both are getting too much credit for the situation. Both articles even describe how neither directly influenced the situatio. The women couldn't make direct impact at the ballot, and the protestors needed the sympathy card to receive a popular view point and support. This does not diminish their role in reform, but they could not have been the only instigators. Immigrants making cheaper wages upsetting the working balance, newspapers more accessible then ever, and the great divide between Middle Class and the 1% became more obvious. These reason and many more could have been given the same significance to Progressive Reform.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that both groups from Flanagan's article and Stromquist's had their hand in Progressivism and each group had their different category of change. The working and middle class protested and rebelled for a better and fair economic system, while forcing political leaders to change towards Progressivism in the manner of strikes and riots. The men and women's clubs approached Progressivism in a less demanding way, but both important.
ReplyDeleteGood post!
Precise blog outlining the groups instrumental in initiating reform for workers and schools among other municipal concerns of the day. In my own blog I took the same stance as you in yours, I deduced from the articles that both groups in question had brought about reform on the municipal level. By refusing to allow the need to reform work environments, public schools, municipal waste and cost of living, these progressive leader groups facilitated a palpable rise in the standard of living.
ReplyDelete