The Persistence of Core Intellectual Issues

Over the course of the progressive era, intellectuals and prominent individuals in society debated over a relatively finite set of core issues. For example, notable thinkers like William James and John Dewey denounced heavily capitalistic viewpoints that resulted in creating social inequality in society. They were somewhat viewed as dissidents in their own right because they believed in advancing educational opportunities so that underprivileged members of society could be self-sufficient. This viewpoint was partially shared by individuals like Herbert Croly, who felt as though industrialization resulted in inequality that should be alleviated by the government. His shared belief in progressive democracy argued for the overall public’s well-being and participation in government. However, critical thinkers like Walter Lippmann were apprehensive towards offering such optimistic views of society, given that the public was not entirely capable of synthesizing the way in which policy affects them. Future generations of intellectuals have persisted in debating the same progressive era issues concerning industrialization’s consequences and the capacity of people to participate in a democratic government. 

Firstly, it is important to define and contextualize the way in which the industrial development of the progressive era resulted in a wide array of social and political consequences. Industry reflected a major shift from an agrarian society where companies built massive empires that employed millions of people. This resulted in developing a shared experience for many workers in which society was polarized towards having a middle, working, class, and elites who owned the means of production. This polarization of large numbers of people equated to social inequalities in many forms. For one, people were effectively treated as resources that could be exploited. The value of land and ownership was replaced with the need for a job in factories where strikes and disputes were common. Finally, industry resulted in a consumer culture that emphasized material gains and wealth. The net result of this shift towards industrial society was pivotal in shaping the way future intellectuals would deal with the social inequalities that were created. 

Industrialization as the exploitation of land and people. The issue of industrialization has continued to generate discourse surrounding the way in which it exploits both people and the land. Problems during the progressive era were heavily related to labor and the way in which it generated social inequality. Meridel Le Sueur’s account of a labor strike in I Was Marching gave testament to the social inequalities generated through industrialization and its problems. Le Sueur’s account heavily criticized the strike as exemplifying American chaos that resulted in bloodshed, discontent, and schism.  The industrial model of America created a hierarchy that suppressed and exploited generations of Americans that helped generate wealth for only a select few who owned the means of production. In another instance, Le Sueur recounted that she “felt their direct and awful movement” while serving the men that treated women adversely in the first place.  Le Sueur’s mention of nostalgic feelings towards not feeling like an individual was also indicative of how Americans suffered shared exploitation at the hands of industrial development.  Shared suffering at the hands of corporations was not just a political consequence of industrialization, but it was also a core issue that required the federal government to intervene. This issue was a prominent progressive problem that dealt with how society was going to fare in the wake of an innovative and unregulated work environment. 

Consumerism and social inequality. By the 1950s and 60s, the industrial production of consumerism also generated social inequality with regards to women’s rights. For instance, while Le Sueur’s experience reflected social consequences that dealt with labor issues, Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique accounted for how industrial production perpetuated and enforced gender inequality. As companies produced goods that made life easier, women were subjected to a life of domesticity where their role in the home was thoroughly enforced.  Indeed, the way in which women could not take part in professional work or exercise financial autonomy was cited as being “the problem that has no name.”  Despite technological advancements in the way that people work and consume goods in their free time, women were not able to actively participate in the economic aspect. This was a moral consequence of industrial development that resulted in women being treated as marginal members of society. It is clear that advancements in consumer culture did not solve the real-world problem of social inequality when it came to women. In relation, the same core issue of exploitation persisted, albeit in the form of a social issue rather than a labor one. 

Even in the year 2002, the same problem of exploitation is still a pertinent issue when it comes to land use. Industrial development has long been credited for the destruction of natural resources in exchange for short term wealth. Given that the environment is a finite resource that differentiates societies from one another, the issue of industrial development contributed to an enduring problem of the exploitation of the land. In writing The Agrarian Standard, Wendell Berry posited that industrial development neglects both people and the land.  The author gave evidence that reflected how farming was “an immeasurable gift” because it differentiated people in different parts of the world instead of treating them like “machinery.”  Surely, earlier critical thinkers also regarded this facet of industrial development as an irreversible problem related to democracy. As land gave people the freedom to exercise the economic freedom that they were entitled to, having corporations and companies use the land for exploitation defeated the ultimate purpose of democracy. Such an abstract interpretation of land and its implications for society is heavily related to the way in which Croly criticized industrialization because it exploited people, undermined democratic values and required regulation by the government. 

People’s capacity to impact the future. Lippmann’s earlier perspective that individuals do not have the capacity to understand and interpret policies that impact their future was also relevant to future intellectual discourse. Views like Lippmann’s suggested that society would prosper under the swift guidance of a government that was not hindered by the volatility of public opinions and influence. This viewpoint reflected a common progressive issue that Clark Kerr mentioned in his inaugural address as the president of the University of California. The Worth of Intellect addressed this same issue by noting that a school, analogous to a nation, was “too massive and complex an institution to owe its character to a few.”  Kerr argued that expanded educational opportunities allowed people to actively participate in an institution’s progress and realization of a shared vision.  While thinkers like Lippmann interpreted the concept of participation in a negative light, Kerr supported the view that people and their contributions to society were pivotal in fostering continued growth and progressivism.  While the context of participation has shifted from a national perspective to an academic one, the same progressive issue of society’s capacity to influence the future was still evident. 

As we have seen, the core issues of the progressive era have persisted in being relevant to the intellectual discourse of future generations. With regard to industrial development and people’s capacity to participate in government, issues stemmed from the social inequalities that were created. Le Sueur’s account of a 1934 labor strike in Minneapolis showed that industrialization caused people to engage in shared suffering because of exploitation. Similarly, industry’s development of consumerism allowed society to consume goods, but it still did not solve real social problems such as gender inequality. Progressive era concerns over the neglect and exploitation of the land also reflected modern issues related to undermined democratic values. Finally, attitudes towards people and their ability to add value in society through participation were similar to Kerr’s argument that educational opportunities were important for social progress. 

Bibliography

Berry, Wendell. "The Agrarian Standard | Wendell Berry | Orion Magazine." Orion Magazine. http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/115/ (accessed December 10, 2012).

Friedan, Betty. The feminine mystique. New York: W.W. Norton, 1963.

Kerr, Clark. "Days of Cal | Clark Kerr's Inauguration Address ." The Bancroft Library. http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/CalHistory/inaugural.kerr.html (accessed December 10, 2012).

Le Sueur, Meridel. "Anthology of Thirties Prose." American Studies @ The University of Virginia. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/white/anthology/meridel.html (accessed December 10, 2012).

#2 – Capitalism and Freedom

In 1962, Milton Friedman published Capitalism and Freedom.  His book described economic capitalism as it relates to liberal society and he argued strongly for a free-market approach to many regulation-driven programs.  His own position appears to be one of European liberalism in that he advocates dispersed and limited governmental power.  This quote is a part of Friedman’s first chapter in which he establishes his premise, that political freedom and economic freedom are closely related and that the former virtually requires the latter .  Within the context of global events in the 1950s and  ‘60s, particularly with regards to Communism abroad and scope of government at home, and throughout Friedman’s book, this quote concisely describes the competing viewpoints of economic theory in politics.

At the time of its publication, Friedman’s book would have likely been considered outright blasphemy by a significant portion of the world.  The Cold War era is commonly known as a showdown between capitalism and communism and the quote clearly argues in favor of free capitalism versus totalitarian communism, the latter of which is identified as the “modern totalitarian state” in Friedman’s quote .  Friedman’s arguments clearly qualify as an intellectual’s reaction to the Cold War and he thoroughly supports this philosophical declaration of war on behalf of a liberal conception of freedom.

Politically speaking, Friedman’s quote draws a clear line between the two opposed ideologies.  He does not simply write off the idea of a government-controlled economy, as a pure propaganda piece might have done.  Rather he acknowledges that a certain amount of government does inevitably occur; but when it does, the effect is too weak the social unity of the agents acting within the market in question .  This argument actually runs counter to the common view of Communism, making it a bold statement.  It is a necessary view for the simple dichotomy in Friedman’s quote, however.  Since Friedman’s premise is binary, it makes sense that the arguments supporting his conclusion are going to be either pro or con, though in varying degrees.

In this case, the influence of government harms a society’s sense of unity, supposedly by taking the power of choice out of their hands.  Friedman argues this point from other directions as well.  The freedom of the individual is very important throughout Friedman’s entire book and he argues that there is a give and take between individual freedoms and government activity within the governed population.  According to Friedman, the act of governing removes certain individual freedoms in the interest of protecting the general freedoms of the whole society .  This view is very relatable to the themes of personal liberty versus governmental influence that are commonly known to have run strong in the ‘60s as part of the Civil Rights movement and on throughout the Vietnam War.  This also illustrates why Friedman’s quote can operate as a binary, this or that statement.  He is presenting the options of personal liberty or government control and arguing that personal liberty actually creates a stronger economy by encouraging diversity and growth .  This could easily be interpreted as the intellectual explanation of why Communism was doomed to fail, and ultimately did in its once-powerful form.

#4 – The Teachings of Modern Christianity, Vol. II

This quote by Reinhold Niebuhr in Witte and Alexander’s book The Teachings of Modern Christianity, Vol. II, originally published in 1944 and republished in Witte’s book of essays in 2006, is particularly relevant to the theme of religion’s role in an increasingly secular and intellect-based society.  Niebuhr is an ideal candidate to argue this topic as he is considered to be one of the most important American theologians of the 1900s; he was particularly focused on the concept of human sinfulness and justice and championed the Christian realist idea that people should primarily work toward creating a just society even though such a thing would be virtually impossible to fully attain .  As an expression of Niebuhr’s fundamental attitude toward humanity and the interaction between people and politics, this quote is fairly comprehensive.  It also has an obvious role in a discussion of Modern Christianity as Niebuhr is particularly well suited to approaching theology in a way that is accessible to secular intellectuals.

A discussion of this quote hardly needs to go beyond the quote itself, the content is so dense with both literal and abstract meanings.  Niebuhr’s description of human nature is a complicated series of give and take that describes the nature of “children of darkness” and “children of light.”  The immediate inference is that children of light are Christians and children of darkness are everyone else, though it could also be argued that members of democratic civilizations are the children of light because he is describing them as sentimental, and unfamiliar with the perils of anarchy .  These alternative interpretations illustrate that there is not much difference, fundamentally, between Christians and non-Christians and that civilization is a greater binding factor than religious preference.

This interpretation of Niebuhr’s quote is developed more fully elsewhere in his writing.  He claims that people crave order because of their natures and because of the development of culture.  That is, being a part of civilization increases the human desire to continue to be part of a civilization .  This claim would suggest that all of humanity is inclined to become children of light, but also that simply being part of a civilization can weaken its members.  This interpretation comes from the original quote in which Niebuhr called children of light foolish because they do not know the power of self-will .  When these ideas are brought together, it can be seen why Niebuhr argued so strongly that it was the obligation of humanity to constantly pursue justice, so as to avoid growing soft and naïve.

Up to this point, Niebuhr is arguing as a Christian appealing to secular intellectuals and never relents from that perspective.  Though he does make an effort to meet intellectuals on their terms, with reason and historical evidence.  He cites the history of democracies as being overly optimistic regarding human nature and that this has only ever caused trouble within those civilizations .  It is clearly his motivation to make his readers more attentive to moral and ethical concerns.  His own ideal is obviously Christian, but his argument is general and applicable enough that it could be considered an argument on behalf of simple morality, urging secular intellectuals to at least consider the implications of continuing on in complacency, which is also the overall theme of The Teachings of Modern Christianity.

#5 - I’ll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition

The source of this quote was I’ll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition, which was a series of essays written by twelve southerners in 1930. This work sought to remind the nation that Southern principles of lifestyle and culture were severely under attack by industrialization. Moreover, the tone of the quote suggested that southern principles of economic prosperity and enjoyment of leisure time were wrongfully criticized. The whole work defended the agricultural lifestyle of the south by noting that slavery was not that inhumane and the fruits of labor were to be enjoyed. In fact, the whole collection of essays criticized industrialization as a catalyst of urbanization and a national identity that was hardly even American. Finally, the twelve southerners who contributed to the essays were eventual poets, novelists, and writers in general. 

With respect to the whole work, the authors vigorously argued that industrialization was a vice that was not a necessity for living a happy, meaningful life. For example, in arguing that the North’s tendency to focus on industrialization was extraneous, the authors also feared that it had invaded the south and caused a serious “crisis” . However, the south was not being complacent or lazy in their outlook towards social and economic progress; instead, the south was already an example of a successful way of life that did not require such drastic changes. The authors also argued that any attempt to break down southern ways of life were blatant attacks on its success.  

A major theme that this manifesto related to was a critical reaction to social progressivism. For instance, the advent of industrialization created problems in American society such as greed, degradation of the environment and other social issues. Critical reactions to this were aimed at pointing out how American ways of life were prosperous in the south. Also, industrialization profoundly changed American life. People became more cosmopolitan when they lived in cities and began to adopt more liberal attitudes towards other important social issues such as women’s rights, African-American relations, and consumerism. Because this marked a sharp transition from the old way of life that Americans were used to, conservative thinkers like the twelve southerners published this work as a form of backlash. The authors had a clear problem that the old dogma of American agricultural society was being severely challenged. 

Finally, this work is significant to the theme of consumer culture and its implications on the American people. For example, since consumer culture was indicative of America’s progress and the ability to enjoy life through material goods, there were also negative implications. Mainly, American people began to focus extensively on accelerated industrial progress that would further the aggregation of wealth, material resources and prosperity. This resulted in an insatiable greed that would overshadow the modest work ethic that America came to encompass. The twelve southerners sought to undermine this viewpoint by showing that living beyond one’s means is not a great long-term strategy for a prosperous society. Ultimately, this source idealized the notion of conservative criticism through the progressive period.

#9 – The Feminine Mystique

The quote for number nine was an important phrase in Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique, which was written in 1963. The book was significant for the time period because it reflected the way in which women were subjected to menial lives of housework, chores and being ultimately subordinate to men. The book’s chapters were structured alongside major points of criticism about how women were generally undermined in society and subject to cultural oppression by men. For instance, Friedan repeatedly criticized how women’s roles were defined through domesticity, namely housework while being a mother and wife. Most of her criticisms were specifically oriented towards “the suburban housewife,” who was under the pretense that she was happy with the life that she had in the 1950’s” . Ultimately, the quote was a mockery of how women were complacent in their domestic roles and how they should seek alternative means of finding happiness in life.

The overall context of the book suggested that women of the 1950s and ’60s were culturally subjected to being inferior by men. Friedan utilized examples from history, the sciences and the current state of women to illustrate her point. For instance, she criticized the way in which psychologists like Sigmund Freud justified women’s roles in society through purely sexual terms . Also, Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was utilized in order to show that women were effectively trapped in the lower tier of fulfillment. Historical examples about how women’s educational opportunities were limited were used in order to show that the state of the woman in 1960 was marginal at best.

The first major theme that this work idealizes is feminism. During the era of the 1950s and ’60s, the nuclear family was seen as an ideal household structure. However, this societal paradigm placed women at home with their children, with domesticity as the core facet of their lives. Surely, this instigated criticism from women like Friedan who felt that a life of domesticity was not a paradigm situation. For its time period, this was considered to be a culturally radical viewpoint that raised eyebrows among conservative thinkers. Friedan’s work also reflected the theme of feminism and radicalism through its vigorous endorsement of taking action. In the final chapter of the book, Friedan urged women to not only reconsider their roles in the home but in society as a whole for the coming years . 

Another major theme that this work related to was consumer culture. Friedan’s initial quote poked fun at how superficial things like appliances, clothes, and automobiles were intended to fulfill women’s personal desires. This theme aligned with historical notions of consumerism because the 1950’s allowed women to spend less time working on chores and tasks that used to be done manually. Also, Friedan’s thoughts on women’s magazines and how their messages were controlled by the male stereotype epitomized the way in which the mass media sought to reinforce social roles by clearly defining femininity within the context of a happy housewife. Consequently, women were further marginalized at the hands of a culture that ignored the real needs of women.

Bibliography

Friedan, Betty. The feminine mystique. New York: Norton, 2001.

Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Print. 

Twelve Southerners. I'll take my stand: the South and the agrarian tradition. New York: Harper and Row, 1962.

Witte, John and Frank S. Alexander. The teachings of modern Christianity on law, politics, and human nature, Vol II. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006. Print.