Sunday, February 19, 2012

Module 6, Progressive Reform


After reading Gender and Urban Political Reform: The City Club and the Women’s City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era by Maureen Flanagan, I came to the conclusion that the author feels as though women’s groups were leaders in progressive reform. In the article, Flanagan touches on how the men’s group and the women’s group “took opposing positions on several current municipal issues in a way that reveals profound differences in their conceptions of city government and for the general welfare of the people.”1 The main difference presented between the two groups seems to be how the men were more focused on the business aspect, where the women were more interested in what was for the people and city, a very progressive thought.1
The Crucible of Class: Cleveland Politics and the Origins of Municipal Reform in the Progressive Era by Shelton Stromquist paints a slightly different picture of the dominating force in progressive reform at the turn of the century. Stromquist feels as though the true progressives were the organized labor and working class. Stromquist described the strikes and “episodes of conflict”2 as a way to give a “temporary spin and direction to municipal progressivism by calling forth responses from other organized interests.”2 I feel as though the strongest point that Stromquist made in his essay was how the conflicts between the differing classes and their opinions is what gave the issues the energy to reform. The solutions that arose out of conflict were the beginnings of progressive action during this time in history.
I don’t think there was just one key group that helped shape progressive reform. I think it was a combination of all parties, working at once, although not necessarily together, that developed reformation over a long period of time. So, by saying that, I would have to agree with both Flanagan and Stromquist. I feel as though this is a logical conclusion due to the idea that shape does not always take form from one instigator. Many factors can go into and be a part, large or small, of any type of different event. Progressive reform was not shaped solely by women, just as it was not shaped solely by the working class. Reform came from the combined effort of multiple factors, which all created one shape. The Grand Canyon was formed by rain, ice, wind, volcanism, continental drift, and even the orbit of the earth… not just by the Colorado River.



1.     Flanagan, Maureen A; "Gender and Urban Political Reform: The City Club and the Woman's City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era," The American Historical Review 95, no. 4 (October 1990): Page 1036, 1038
2.      Stromquist, Shelton; "The Crucible of Class: Cleveland Politics and the Origins of Municipal Reform in the Progressive Era," Journal of Urban History 23, no. 2 (1997): Page 194

2 comments:

  1. I agree with you, I think any reform movement that is as widespread as progressivism was has to come from many and diverse sources. I first thought that the Men's Club had the right idea, prioritising the fiscal impacts of various reforms, then realised that it does not matter who's methods I agree with, but who's methods drove the progressive movement.
    I like your analogy about the Canyon as well, it fits well here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also agree that it took more than one group to start the progressive movement. Both groups created a large impact and influenced politics and reform during the progressive era. It's amazing to see how much impact women had without the ability to vote during this time.

    ReplyDelete