The Google Doodle today honors Jane Addams, founder of social work in America, pacifist, women’s rights activist, immigration assimilationist, “Boston marriage” participant, and key figure in a dozen social reform movements including those promoting probation and juvenile courts in the criminal justice system.
I didn’t recall ever seeing her discussed by libertarians, but it turns out Milton Friedman cited her alongside Florence Nightingale and Albert Schweitzer as an example of the philanthropic achievements that can be “the product of individual genius, of strongly held minority views, of a social climate permitting variety and diversity.” To give the other side its due, Stephen Hicks discusses some of her less attractive Progressive instincts here.
On the Boston marriage, by the way, see coverage in the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Magazine, and WBEZ. Addams’ devoted lifelong companion was Mary Rozet Smith, with whom she spent thirty years until the two died a year apart. Reports WBEZ, “They also made major financial decisions, such as co-owning a home in Maine. At one point they considered adopting a child together.”
Addams’ best-known contribution may have been as the American champion of the settlement house movement, which reached out to distressed immigrants to help them solve their problems with an emphasis on education and assimilation to middle-class American standards, as well as social reform more broadly. Today’s progressivism finds it somewhat complicated to deal with such a legacy, which may be one reason she has been suffering an eclipse from her previous status as possibly the most admired American woman ever.
9 Comments for “Remembering Jane Addams”
posted by Jorge on
I didn’t even know she had still been alive.
Wait, she wasn’t? Well I don’t mind remembering her, but I don’t get it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Although she is known in Chicago (the roots of the Chicago progressive movement owe as much to her as to Saul Alinsky), and to folks who are versed in American history of the era (who also know of Dorothy Day and a number of other visionary women of of the period), she is probably unknown to 95% of Americans in general.
I grew up knowing about her because my teacher in Grades 1-8 admired her, and taught us about her, and learned a lot more when I got involved with the progressive Democratic movement in Chicago.
I didn’t know about Milton Friedman’s thoughts about her, but I’m not surprised. She had a lot of admirers in University of Chicago circles, which was one of the hubs of progressive Democratic politics in Chicago.
posted by Jorge on
In other words, this topic is not relevant to this website.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In other words, this topic is not relevant to this website.
Huh? Why not? Not every post on IGF has to have progressive-bashing as its reason de etre.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Addams’ best-known contribution may have been as the American champion of the settlement house movement, which reached out to distressed immigrants to help them solve their problems with an emphasis on education and assimilation to middle-class American standards, as well as social reform more broadly.Today’s progressivism finds it somewhat complicated to deal with such a legacy, which may be one reason she has been suffering an eclipse from her previous status as possibly the most admired American woman ever.
Well, sure. But progressives, for the most part, revere her legacy, while recognizing that Adaams was, as we all are, shaped by the needs, attitudes and controversies of her times.
I suspect that modern conservatives are a lot less comfortable with her legacy than modern progressives.
Adaams was a committed pacifist, ardent egalitarian, critic of the unbridled capitalism of the day, feminist and suffragette.
She was a founder — along with Teddy Roosevelt, Robert LaFollette and others — of the Progressive Party, and fought for public welfare, stricter child-labor laws and other reforms. She helped pass the first model tenement code and the first factory laws. She agitated to eliminate poisonous sewage, impure milk, smoke-laden air, and unsafe factory conditions.She pushed government to expand human services.
Typical of the times, she was a firm believer of “Americanism”, and at Hull House stressed the role of children in the Americanization process of new immigrants. Like Jefferson, believed that cities deadened humanity, and fostered the “play movement” to allow children to grow up outside the sweat shops.
She was a committed Christian of the “social Christian” movement variety, and although remained a member of a Presbyterian denomination, she regularly attended a Unitarian Church and Ethical Society in Chicago.
Adaams was a remarkable woman who worked tirelessly for the “Social Gospel” as she understood it.
My guess is that modern conservatives — both of the social conservative and the libertarian stripes — would be openly hostile to Adaams and her ideas if she were alive today. They are certainly hostile to her spiritual and political descendants.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Sorry Walter, but today’s progressives would have no problem with the settlement house movement… One of the best examples of which in modern times is how Houston handled the aftermath of Katrina.
Evacuees were given broad social services support with the aim of either getting them back on their feet and able to return to New Orleans or if they wished to remain in Houston, to be productive members of our city.
To make that happen, then-Mayor White and other city leaders (public and private sector) lead the effort to bundle things with a long enough time frame to get people connected to housing, jobs, training, day care, etc… But not unlimited. The expectation – clearly communicated – was that this was a path to becoming a productive contributing citizen… And was largely successful.
Modern conservatives talk an awful lot about personal responsibility, assimilation and the like but refuse to invest in getting people the bootstraps they need to pull themselves up.
posted by jared on
Modern conservatives talk an awful lot about personal responsibility, assimilation and the like but refuse to invest in getting people the bootstraps they need to pull themselves up.
Patently untrue, although it’s a lie that progressives often repeat. According to the Journal of Philanthropy (not a conservative publication), Conservatives and Liberals Are Equally Generous, Study Finds.
Conservatives are more likely to donate to groups such as the Salvation Army, that help people turn their lives around. Liberals are more likely to donate to groups such as Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions.
If taxes were lower, conservatives (and maybe liberals) would both donate more.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Conservatives are more likely to donate to groups such as the Salvation Army, that help people turn their lives around. Liberals are more likely to donate to groups such as Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions.
Is this fact or fiction?
Obviously, liberals are more likely to donate to Planned Parenthood, given the strong opposition to both contraceptives and abortion among conservatives. But are conservatives more likely to support groups that “help people turn their lives around” than liberals?
The article you cited says this:
and the article cited in that article (a study testing fundraising for a childrens’ charity using different “pitches”) notes this:
I don’t doubt, I suppose, that among liberals (those that are knowledgeable, anyway) United Charities is much more likely to be funded than the Salvation Army.
But that probably has a lot less to do with the fact that the Salvation Army “help[s] people turn their lives around” (so do many of the organizations included in United Charities) than the fact that the Salvation Army is overtly religious and intensely homophobic. I know that I wouldn’t give a penny to the Salvation Army, given the many excellent alternative charities.
Anyway, I’d be curious to see if you can reference a study that directly supports your thesis.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Simple ‘cookie cutter’ commentary on how someone notable from the past “most” have thought ‘x, y, z’ about modern political issues or viewpoints, is always a tricky (often self-serving) business.
In many ways she was in fact quite ‘progressive’ in the modern sense of the world. She — as did most of these folk — reject the idea of Marxist radicalism (and economic anarchy) in favor of more centrist, middle class idea “capitalism + conscious = better life”.
Some of these ideas were — within a modern context — better then others. It was indeed the popular idea — among many reformers — to focus on”assimilation” when it came to new Americans and the native Indians.
Was it generally well-meaning? Yes. Was it entirely evil? No, but it often took for granted the idea of their being – better and worse “races”(even among the white, European immigrants) and this assumptions/process was especially cruel when it came to Indian policy.
Today, ‘assimilation’ is actually more or less the norm in terms of policy and most non-profits when it comes to immigrants. Learning English is almost always a priority and second generation immigrants do generally speak — assuming access to education — American English as well as the general population.