This webcomic emerged from a master's seminar. Some of the participants wrote background texts as part of their seminar work; links are provided in the comic strips. Some texts are based on the classic term paper format, others are written in the form of letters. We experimented with a writing format that was the standard form of academic communication before the letter was replaced by the journal article in the 19th century.
Kunst, Demokratie und Re-formance (von David Ratzel)
A reproduction of "Fortitude" hung in Jane Addams’ room for over 25 years, showing the importance of art for Jane Addams11. . To Addams, the picture represented on one hand the strong ruler and on the other hand a pensive ruler lost in thought. Just as Addams had hung the art print in her room, over time reproductions of art paintings were hung throughout Hull House. Gradually, Addams and Ellen Gates Starr developed the idea that art should be made accessible to all. According to Addams, the experience of art "combines moments of aesthetic experience, individual identity, development and community building" (ibid.). This is why it was so important to the two founders of Hull House to give children access to art.
Furthermore, Addams placed great importance in the Hull House practice of linking the products of industrialization back to traditional arts and crafts. At the time, industrialization was increasingly displacing traditional handicrafts that were indigenous to a wide range of countries and cultures. This increasingly threatened cultural identities. For Starr, the machine was a symbol of society's inability to meaningfully connect work and life 2. Addams and Starr also spoke of the alienation of work, life and art from each other. Consequently, immigrant children in Chicago had little connection to the traditional skills of their parents who had emigrated to the USA and thus no connection to the country they originated from. In this context, Addams and Starr speak of an unthinking Americanization via assimilation into a "seemingly homogeneous US population" 3. Jane Addams criticized this "assimilation". It was important to her that schools include the cultural backgrounds of individual students as well as introducing them to US history. This observation led to the idea for the "Labor Museum" in Hull House, which opened in November 1900, and in which traditional arts and crafts were to be given a public space. Addams became aware of traditional arts and crafts through her observations of the visitors to Hull House who came from the neighboring working-class neighborhoods (ibid.: 164). The visitors used traditional spinning and weaving methods from their home countries to make garments.
Labor Museum and Generational Conflict
Dewey, Mead and James advocated a "unity of head and hand" through which a [sharpness of mind] would be made possible4. With this in mind, the Labor Museum's mission was not only to moderate the generational conflict, but also to relate industrial labor back to its origins in craftsmanship. In the presentation and direct observation of production, a link was to be created not only between the weaving and spinning materials themselves, but also between the craft and the finished product. This was also achieved by demonstrating the activities during the exhibitions 5.The workers, who presented their craft on site, had the opportunity to experience themselves as active actors and specialists in their work 6. With the publicity and popularity of the Labor Museum, the demand for the items created in the exhibitions also increased 7.
The ideal image of the child
In terms of craft, the ideal image of the child played an important role for Addams and the other settlers. The natural instinct of children to play was emphasized, which would be lost for adult factory workers at work8. The assumption is that industrial workers are neither stimulated in their imagination and creativity, nor do they have a connection to their work and the finished product. For Addams, play and art therefore formed an important balance, and she considered both in their "productive interplay"9. What she meant by this was that in play, encounters between people are made possible as well as in art and handicrafts. Well-designed spaces for play and for people to meet in were of great importance to Addams. Together with architects closely associated with Hull House, she campaigned for sensible urban development. Even the design of these meeting and play spaces was meant to express the process of art-making described above. Chicago is still known today for its outstanding playground infrastructure10.
Artistic expression
Likewise, spaces were created at Hull House for artistic expression. A wide range of artistic expression, including theater and visual arts, was facilitated by Addams and her colleagues. In order to meet these demands, Hull House had to expand over time and purchase additional buildings11. The various clubs that offered different art events proved to be very popular throughout the neighborhood. Enella Benedict's name stands as an embodiment of the belief that, according to Addams, arts and crafts needed to be an important part of the educational work at Hull House. Benedict was described by another resident of Hull House as if her hands were always busy but her tongue was still (ibid.: 106). This helps to describe Benedict's drive. She provided services for her art club, took care of the necessary material and implemented her desire to be active in visual creation with the visitors. Benedict was very active at the Butler Art Gallery in Hull House. This gallery was open to anyone, and it exhibited artworks by artists who were friends of, or affiliated with, Hull House. Works of art were also borrowed from the Chicago Art Museum for display at Hull House 12.Benedict later re-functioned the Butler Art Gallery so that the works created by the visitors themselves were displayed rather than selected art from "outside"13.
Re-performance
Benedict's work reflects Addams' belief in re-formance. The term re-formance is a compound of “reform” and “perform”14. Reform was understood to mean the reshaping of the person, especially of oneself. By moving into the neighborhood, the residents of Hull House reformed their way of life and confronted the situation in Chicago's working-class districts. The settlers were confronted with their irritation about the "otherness of the other", which Addams called the method of "inquiry as perplexity" (ibid.). Literally translated, this would mean "enquiry through perplexity"; contextually, this is to be understood in such a way that the permanent confrontation of the settlers with the life of the Chicago working-class population, which was so different for them, repeatedly caused irritations, which became the basis of their research and work. This is not least aimed at the domestic discourse that was held in particular during the weekly meeting over tea 15.These meetings discussed everyday problems the neighbors faced, such as the lack of rubbish disposal by the city of Chicago. Discussions which used to take place behind closed doors of the individual households were taken into the public space to try to find solutions. In this way, an irritation about the "otherness of the other" also took place among neighboring women themselves. Benedict's art offerings and the Labor Museum were also part of the "performance" in the form of observable crafts and exhibitions. The plays performed at Hull House, whose plots revolved around the problems of the residents of the working-class neighborhoods, are another example 16. "Re-performance" was therefore also clearly expressed on an artistic level at Hull House. The popular exhibitions and performances brought the neighbors and artists into contact with interested observers from different social classes. Thus, in "re-formance", Addam's conviction of democracy as a “reciprocal relation” between different social classes becomes apparent (ibid.: 188f).
Literature
1:Cf. Pinhard, Inga (2009): Jane Addams: Pragmatismus und Sozialreform, Opladen : 146f.
2:ibid.:163.
3:ibid.: 160.
4:Jackson, Shannon (2000): Lines of Activity; Performance, Historiography, Hull-House Domesticity. Ann Arbor, MI: 106.
5:Cf. Pinhard, Inga (op. cit.): 164f.
6:ibid.
7:Pinhard, Inga (op. cit.): 165.
8:Cf. Jackson, Shannon (op. cit.): 105.
9:Cf. Pinhard, Inga (op. cit.): 155f.
10:https://www.richter-spielgeraete.de/de/spielraeume/maggie-daley-park-chicago/
11:Cf. Jackson, Shannon (op. cit.): 99.
12:Webb, Guiniviere Marie (2010): Origins and Philosophy of the Butler Art Gallery and Labor Museum at Chicago Hull-House. The University of Texas at Austin: 61ff.
13:Cf. Jackson, Shannon (op. cit.): 107.
14:Cf. Althans, Birgit (2007): Das maskierte Begehren: Frauen zwischen Sozialarbeit und Management. Frankfurt am Main: 196ff.15:ibid.
16:ibid.: 196ff.
Written and footnoted by Felicitas Braun
Hull House, Chicago, June 1894
Dear John,
Thank you for your last letter! I am glad that you and your little family will soon be moving to Chicago and that you will be accepting the professorship of education, psychology and philosophy at the university 1 These are exciting times in Chicago. There has never been such a big workers' protest as the present Pullman Strike! George Mortimer Pullman must have thought that the workers would thank him forever for the company-owned houses, which were of a better standard than the dwellings of other workers. And he thought that his workers would therefore accept major wage cuts while the rents remained the same. Recently I joined the mediation committee and am trying to defuse the conflicts. Last week I visited the striking workers in the Pullman factory housing estate, had dinner with some of the workers and visited the tenements 2.
Working conditions and health and safety in Chicago leave much to be desired; disease and hunger lurk everywhere, especially in our neighborhood around Hull House. At our settlement, we aim to help make the living conditions in our neighborhood more bearable and to consider how the situation can be improved together with the people – not over their heads. That seems to be the problem with Pullman. He should be engaging with his workers to find out what they need. He reminds me instead of King Lear in Shakespeare's drama, who condemns his daughter as unjust because she supposedly does not show him enough gratitude for his generosity but has her own ideas for a good life3.
I think that our democratic coexistence must be based on the understanding that the different classes of society are mutually dependent on each other4. . For this, cooperation and mutual responsibility are indispensable, no longer only in the personal and family sphere, but also in the exercise of social obligations. That is what we are trying to do at Hull House, and I believe this is also your idea of school as a place for democratic cultivation, isn't it? But we could discuss that over a cup of tea when you come to visit us again soon at Hull House. And maybe I can finally persuade you to become a member of the Hull House Board of Directors5.
Looking forward to our next conversation. Farewell, John.
Jane
1:Cf. e.g. Oelkers, Jürgen (2009): John Dewey und die Pädagogik. Weinheim u.a.: 208.
2:Cf. Harvey, B. C. (2015): Jane Addams: Social Worker and Nobel Peace Prize Winner. Berkeley Heights, NJ: 68. Siehe auch: Knight, L.W. (2006): Citizen: Jane Addams and the Struggle for Democracy. Chicago and Illinois.
3:Cf. http://www.sojust.net/speeches/addams_lear.html.
4:Daniel Tröhler also emphasises Addams' view "that the different classes of society are interdependent and that a social relationship should be understood as 'a reciprocal relation'". 'Hull House', she says, 'was opened on the theory that the dependence of classes on each other is reciprocal [...]'". Cf. Tröhler, Daniel (2005): Moderne Grossstadt, soziale Gerechtigkeit und Erziehung. Early Pragmatism as exemplified by Jane Addams. In: Jürgen Oelkers & Tröhler, Daniel (eds.), Pragmatism and Pedagogy. Zurich: 99.
5:Inga Pinhard explains: "Addams speaks of the first Board of Trustees, but Dewey's election is only recorded for the meeting of the Hull House Trustees on 13 April 1897. In contrast to Deegan, [Charlene Haddock] Seigfried (...), as implied by Addams herself, dates Dewey's entry into the Board of Directors as early as 1895" Pinhard, Inga (2009). Jane Addams: Pragmatism and social reform: educational theory and practice in the Progressive Era. Opladen et al: 179 (footnote 154).
To the bibliographyHow U.S. sociology became separated from social work (written by Katharina Weyland).
1. Introduction
The history of any discipline and its origins is important for its own self-perception as well as for its relationship to other disciplines and to the society that surrounds it. It is also this history that is passed on to the next generations and thus introduces and socializes them into their own guild.1. In the following article I would like to present the genesis of the two disciplines of sociology and social work in the United States. Drawing on the work of Patricia Lengermann and Jill Niebrugge (2007), I make use of three different narratives about the emergence of the two disciplines: Natural History, which understands the origins of the two disciplines as independent and separate; Social History, which identifies common origins and then notes a differentiation until the two disciplines were completely separated into academic sociology and energetic practical social work; and finally, critical history, which adopts a critical historiographical perspective with the aim of uncovering blind spots and tendentious aspects in previous historiography and thus rehabilitating in particular discriminated and marginalized players in terms of their significance and thus opening up existing narratives to reinterpretation2.
2. Critical History
The third narrative tells of those who have been forgotten or intentionally written out in previous historiography (ibid., p. 93). Of the three narratives about the relationship between sociology and social work, it is the only one in which the 'settlement movement' appears at all. In this, it is the work in the 'settlement houses' where sociology and social work were naturally united in a "science of reform" (ibid., pp. 94, 98) in the years 1885-1920, and whose goal was to bring about reforms based on scientific knowledge (ibid., p. 94). The 'settlement sociologists' understood their work as a seamless connection between theory and practice (ibid.). On the other hand, one concern of critical history is to make visible the achievements of women, their accomplishments and pioneering work in sociology (ibid., p. 93).
2.1 Pioneering work in the Settlement House.
The "settlement movement" – as a place and movement in which the potentials of sociology and social work came to bear and mutually inspired each other – had immense advantages over the individual disciplines: "it had a coherence of theory, method, practice, and purpose; it had a major theorist in Addams; it had an ongoing process of communication through the settlement networks and publications; and it had a research agenda that focused on producing major social reforms. Where academia constrained sociology and the bureaucratic caseload controlled social work, the settlement sociologists worked from a base that they had constructed, could adjust, was consistent with their sense of sociology, and had a built-in practice of reflexivity."3 The settlement movement, and Hull House in particular (cf. ibid.), produced a specific theory, a specific methodology, and an impressive corpus of knowledge that actually triggered social reforms. Unlike the two associated disciplines, the movement’s work was focused on structural, social reforms.
2.2 Gender Policy
In 1870, 1 percent of Americans went to college, 20 percent of whom were women; in 1900, 4 percent of Americans attended college, 36 percent of whom were women (cf. ibid., p. 96). But – this was the great paradox – after graduation there were practically no professional opportunities for women. "The great contradiction of the revolution in women's higher education was that it prepared the first college graduates for a world of opportunities that did not really exist.... Thus the problem of what to do after graduation was a troubling one for the first generation of college women."4. In this political situation, the "settlement movement" was a movement and a place where (white) women could pursue a profession and from which they could influence public life and gain "auctoritas" (influence, authority) (cf. ibid., p. 95, p. 102, p. 103). In this context, Jane Addams can be understood as a prototype, as well as an archetype, of how a woman became involved in public life and in American sociology (cf. ibid., p. 94). Black women, on the other hand, had a much harder time. They could only make their contribution in the settlement as volunteers; a professional occupation was not available to them there either (cf. ibid., p. 95). Jane Addams also defined the settlement as a "life choice" in contrast to other traditional social work (ibid., p. 96). Work in the settlement was thus not a nine-to-five job, but a choice to live and work in the settlement house.
2.3 Rejection from both sides
The settlement movement perceived itself as close to both emerging disciplines, but was rejected by both. The sociological school rejected the settlement movement as too unscientific and "too practical"; the social work community rejected it as too theoretical and abstract (cf. ibid., p. 107). Social work, which was completely situated in the ethic of "self-reliance" (cf. ibid., p. 108), also criticized that the settlement movement focused on major structural reforms instead of immediate help for the individual: "The [social workers] would find the most natural and effective way out [...], the other [e.g. the residents of the settlements] would say that the whole social order was wrong ... "5.This was indeed a substantial conflict between the two movements. While social work saw the individual as responsible, Jane Addams advocated for a social code of ethics to address structural problems, such as the lack of organization (cf. ibid., p. 108). Lengermann & Niebrugge aptly describe the position of the settlement movement as "the radical middle" – between sociology and social work (cf. ibid., p. 109). For a long time, rejection from both sides led to the settlement movement being marginalized and written out of the disciplines' genesis. Discrimination against women and the associated devaluation and ignorance of their work also meant that settlement sociology did not survive (cf. ibid., p. 110).
3.The Narrative of 'Natural History'.
From the perspective of this narrative, American sociology sees itself as a seamless continuation of its European origins (cf. ibid., p. 68). Here, the transfer of European ideas and concepts to America is seen as unproblematic, as a continuum without ruptures. Thinkers such as the French philosopher Auguste Comte (founder of positivism)6 and the English philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903, pioneer of Social Darwinism) (cf. ibid., p. 68, p. 80), and especially German scholars such as Georg Simmel and Max Weber are considered formative for the discipline (cf. ibid., p. 68). From the perspective of this narrative, the history of sociology is a history of ideas, i.e., a development of sociological theories (cf. ibid., p. 66) – and decidedly not a history of the practical application of these theories to social problems (ibid., p. 70). Sociologists, then, are those who think about social phenomena in an attempt to uncover general principles and formulate them as theories7.In the first introduction to scientific sociology by the famous sociologists Robert E. Park and Ernest Burgess, published in 1921 and titled “Introduction to the Science of Sociology”, the authors programmatically distinguished academic sociology from social work and the notion that social work is a kind of applied sociology – "It is a fallacy [...] that social work has been, and is, applied sociology. [...] nothing could be further from the truth. The origins of sociology and social work go back to different motives, they have pursued different paths, each has upon occasion been indifferent, hostile, or even contemptuous of the other"8. The difference between the two disciplines is not only emphasized here, it is in fact showcased.
The history of social work presents itself in the reading of 'natural history' as a history of practical social work and welfare.9. The beginnings of social work are considered to be either in the Middle Ages, or in the 19th century, where social problems began to be addressed systematically10because they had reached a high degree of complexity and were particularly grave (cf. ibid., p. 68). That is, social work then became a discipline when the need for social support was increasingly recognized and responded to in a systematic and organized way. Over time, diagnosis and treatment become more refined. In the process, support services and interventions focus on the individual in question, since the cause of social problems is seen less in structural societal problems than in an inadequate or faulty adaptation of the individual to his or her environment (cf. ibid., p. 68). It is important for the self-image of social work that it provides direct and immediate help (and not 'only' through an indirect improvement of social macrostructures)11. From the perspective of natural history, the two disciplines have always been fundamentally different and have also developed separately and independently of each other (cf. ibid., p. 68, p. 70).
4. The Narrative of Social History
The narrative of 'social history' takes a social or sociological perspective on events – not only are ideas and concepts considered, but the focus is on the various players, i.e., people, organizations, and institutions12. In this narrative, the development of the disciplines is presented as follows: In the years just before and then especially after the American Civil War (1861-65), the two domains are initially unseparated, sharing common origins, common interests and the goal of solving the pressing social problems of the time (cf. ibid., p. 63, p. 73). Only between 1890-1920 do they diverge into two disciplines. The year 1921 marks the full separation of the disciplines. Despite this split, there was and still is a continuing debate between the two disciplines – movements of reconciliation and demarcation as well as overlaps in terms of topics and the people involved13.
4.1 Common Origins
The common origins of both disciplines lie in the Social Science Movement, a broad democratic movement in the 19th century with its roots in the democratic thought of England and France, "in the grand tradition of the struggle for human betterment"14.In the context of these broad democratic movements, there were countless charitable activities. In an effort to consolidate and coordinate the diverse and disparate charitable activities, the American Social Science Association (ASSA) was founded in 1865. The goals it set out to achieve were: 'scientific investigation' (i.e., investigation by the means of science; cf. ibid., p. 74), advocacy (representation of interests, advocacy), and political reform (cf. ibid.). This triple objective clearly demonstrates that scientific approaches and methods, advocacy for those in need, and political goals were still united at this point, although they were later divided among the individual disciplines.
Fitting into the same picture is the fact that the organization collaborated with many other groups and reform movements and maintained diverse relationships with other sectors of society: "women's rights, temperance, education for African Americans, urban sanitation, community social services, abolition of sweatshops, against child labor, care for the indigent, the orphan, the elderly, the disabled, the incarcerated" (ibid., pp. 75-76), "Association for the Advancement of Women, Women's Christian Temperance Union" (ibid., p. 76).
In the 1880s, however, there was increased controversy within the organization about its purpose and, in particular, about the relationship between research, advocacy, and reform.15,16
4.2 Differentiation and separation of disciplines
Within the ASSA, more and more subgroups gradually emerged, each becoming more specialized and thus pursuing only one of the three goals. In 1909, the ASSA dissolved. The disparate efforts could no longer be united under one roof17. For decades, social work was a matter for volunteers and was thus per se "unprofessional" (cf. ibid., p. 82). However it had a home from which it worked and was perceived as such from the beginning, namely a wide range of governmental and non-governmental institutions by which welfare was provided. Moreover, it had a distinct clientele ("clientele," ibid., p. 82) – those who were socially vulnerable. What social work as a discipline still lacked, then, was expertise (both in its own self-image and in the eyes of the public) and social status. Expertise came in 1917 with the book Social Diagnosis by Mary Ellen Richmond, which provided a method for the guild that was communicable and constituted the core of its expertise from then on: casework (case study) with an aura of medical authority (in casework a 'diagnosis' was first made ) (cf. ibid., p. 83). As the generation of volunteers fell away, training programs and educational institutions were established (cf. ibid., p. 82). "Freestanding schools of social work" were also affiliated with universities (cf. ibid., p. 84). The nature of the affiliation varied enormously; what these schools had in common was that they were increasingly dominated by women or women were being 'dumped' into them18.
Unlike social work, sociology in 1890 did not yet fulfill any of the characteristics of a profession. Sociology was practiced in a wide variety of places and by a wide variety of people: at universities and colleges, state institutions, COS (Charity Organization Societies), in church institutions, by trade unions, and in social settlements – by intellectuals and by ordinary citizens. It thus also had no clear clientele, no clear expertise, and no official status (and thus no claim to a corresponding salary)19. Sociology took advantage of the period of expansion and change in the U.S. university landscape in the 1880s and 1890s (cf. ibid, p. 85) to establish itself and, in the process, chose the university, the "academy"20. In 1905, sociologists founded their own professional association, the American Sociological Association (ASA) at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, with the goals of promoting sociological research and scholarly discourse among scientific sociologists.
DThe ASA also published a regular journal. By 1905, then, sociology had a home (the university), a professional association, a professional journal, a certain number of accredited professionals, and some consensus about its subject matter. What was still missing was a communicable method and a special corpus of specific knowledge that constituted its expertise (cf., ibid., p. 89). The year 1921 marked the separation of the disciplines. That year, social workers also founded their own professional association, the American Association of Social Workers (AASW) (later: National Association of Social Workers, NASW, 1955). A decisive work for sociology and its profession was published at the same time21, the first introduction to the science of sociology by Robert E. Park and Ernest Burgess, in which sociology is defined as "the science of collective behavior"22 22 and clearly distinguished from social work: "it can be regarded as a fundamental science and not mere congeries for social welfare programs and practices"23. It was part of the self-image of this academic discipline of sociology that partisan involvement in social issues hindered the objective scientific study of social issues. Academic sociologists turned more and more to quantitative methods (and hypothesis verification)24. Social work, on the other hand, saw itself as a service profession concerned with counseling and helping those in need in a practical and direct way. Training centers were clearly demarcated from the rest of the university. Untrained workers were excluded from the Association of Social Workers (the AASW) (see ibid., p. 90). Substantive discussions about theory versus practice, activism & reform were overlaid with gender issues and politically motivated typecasting – women were said to be made for social work because of their natural domesticity and missionary zeal (cf. ibid., p. 92). They might also be satisfied with what could be paid25. Men, on the other hand, would be ill-suited to work with those in need. They preferred work with "the normal human being" (ibid.) and (so the implication goes) adequate pay.
4.3 Points of contact
In parallel with this clear separation of disciplines, however, there were also currents in which common origins continued to be cultivated, or at least in which there were struggles over the relationship between science and social engagement and political activism. It is true that in 1922 the journal 'Social Forces' was founded, in which the relationship between sociology and social work was discussed over and over again. However, social workers did not feel valued by sociologists and felt they could not benefit from courses in sociology for their work. In 1925, M.J. Karpf, the head of a large Chicago social agency, complained that "the sociologist looks down upon the social worker with [...] contempt [...] as persons who meddle in other people's affairs, and [...] they do their work by rule of thumb.”26. The two professions became increasingly distant from each other.
5. Conclusion
For sociology, the separation of disciplines has meant that it still has no clearly-defined sphere of professional training and employment, and no base from which to directly influence and improve people's lives. Social work, in turn, continues to struggle with the fact that it is still not recognized as a 'real' authority and entity with expert knowledge that could guide the public on social issues with the help of specialized knowledge (cf. ibid., p. 11). To this day, there are overlaps in terms of the people involved, movements of convergence, and movements of demarcation between the two disciplines. Even today, the tension between "objectivity" versus "advocacy" is debated. In 2004, for example, ASA President Michael Burowoy argued that sociology should play a more active role in the world (see ibid., p. 113).
Footnotesn
1Cf. Lengermann & Niebrugge 2007, S. 71
2 Cf. Lengermann & Niebrugge 2007
3 Lengermann & Niebrugge 2007, S. 98
4 Fitzpatrick 1990, S. 8
5 Supplements KW, Trattner 1979, S. 198
6 Cf. ibid., S. 64, S. 68, S. 70, S. 80
7 „those who study the phenomena of social behavior“, Sydnor Walker of the Rockefeller Foundation 1928, zitiert nach: Lengermann & Niebrugge 2007, S. 70
8Park & Burgess 1921, S. 36
9„those who do social welfare“, Sydnor Walker of the Rockefeller Foundation 1928, zitiert nach Lengermann & Niebrugge 2007, S. 70
10„organize and systemize the giving of relief“ Burgess 1923, S. 362
11 Cf. Trattner 1979, S. 198
12 Cf. Lengermann & Niebrugge 2007, S. 72
13 Cf. Lengermann & Niebrugge 2007, S. 63, S. 73
14 Cf. Lengermann & Niebrugge 2007, S. 72
15 In 1880, Daniel Coit Gilman, president of John Hopkins University and president of the ASSA, clearly advocated the orientation towards a scientific sociology: "This association is not a society for the promotion of reform, nor an assembly whose object is charity; but its object is the promotion of science". Cf. Haskell 1977/2000, p. 158.
16 In 1886, Samual Eliot, the second president of the ASSA, advocated the orientation towards social commitment: Social Science was "emphatically the science of reform." Cf. Bernard & Bernard 1943, p. 567.
17 Cf. Lengermann & Niebrugge 2007, S. 80
18 Cf. ibid., Cf. Keller 2012, S. 32
19 Cf. Lengermann & Niebrugge, S. 85f
20 Cf. ibid., S. 82, Cf. Keller 2012, S. 69
21 Cf. Keller 2012, S. 30
22 „Introduction to the Science of Sociology“, Lengermann & Niebrugge 2007, S. 80; Cf. Keller 2012, S. 30
23 Park & Burgess 1924, S. 42
24 Cf. ibid., S. 90, S. 93; DeVault, 2007, S. 159; Keller 2012, S. 68
25 also mit niedrigen Löhnen, Cf. „to take what can be paid“, Shoemaker 1998, S. 187
26 Karpf 1925, S. 420
Literature used
(Written by Sofia Kohler)
Dear Duygu,
After many texts I have finally written a letter to you. I had already started telling you about Jane Addams. She pondered over so many things which we always thought about. She plays a leading role here and is also known as a very charismatic personality. This woman simply does her own thing at Hull House (she doesn't like to be told what to do) and always manages to gather a great many people around her and inspire them for her goals. Many of these people are women who don't want to live their lives exiled in privacy. There is an insanely (!) good novella about an upper-middle-class woman at that time who was banished in this manner. "Yellow Wallpaper" (1892) by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Addams also knew the book (you will understand the exclamation mark if you read it too).
Hull House is almost exclusively populated by women. The few men who live here are housed in a separate building. This is important, according to Addams, to create spaces for women which are free of psychological and physical violence, which allow for self-development and which detach women from societal expectations of them and their role as women. According to Addams, "a space dominated by women contains unique powers" (I read this in Hamington 2009 on p. 51). Part of living in Hull House, therefore, is that men generally don't hold much sway here - the prevailing social norms as a whole are reversed here for a change. Men also generally do not occupy leadership positions and tend to be supportive interlocutors. Nevertheless, Addams does not reject political cooperation with men. On the contrary, when it comes to larger social issues, she firmly believes "that women and men work best together on these public measures" (I also got this from Hamington 2009, on p. 52: "that men and women work best together on these public measures"). Feminism is definitely not man-hating by default!
George Herbert Mead and John Dewey are often at Hull House. Dewey rings a bell, doesn't he? We discussed him in the seminar on education theories. This was the guy who wrote a lot about experience and democracy – we had been reading excerpts from "Experience and Nature" (1995) and "Democracy and Education" (1993) at the time. Democracy for him was a way of life – I can only now understand what that really means... Addams also holds that democracy must be understood as a way of life! Both of them see democracy as the exchange, consideration and appreciation of the daily experience of many people among and with each other1. A key aspect that we unfortunately never dealt with in the seminar – We can understand Dewey and especially his theory of democracy and education a lot better by looking at how his experiences at Hull House and his friendship with Jane Addams influenced him2.
Feminism and pragmatism cannot work without each other at Hull House; they enhance each other. Unfortunately, this was somehow forgotten in philosophical debates until the 1990s, I read that in Gregoratto (2018, on p. 49). Not even 21st century feminist philosophy makes much reference to this form of pragmatic feminism3. This is perhaps not so surprising because, unfortunately, women's feminist pragmatism cannot make much of an impact here locally beyond Dewey. Women have little access to educational institutions here and, moreover, have often been simply labeled as 'shrill and dogmatic' even in the decades that have followed4.
Yet both currents have so much in common: from the perspective of pragmatism and feminism, knowledge is assumed to emerge when different points of view interact and communicate; the points of view of groups that are marginalized in society are also important. Within both currents, the concept of objectivity is recast as assuming that there is no neutral, experience-independent point of view. This results in the insight that different perspectives must be included in order to generate cognition or knowledge, and to work on solving concrete problems5. After seeing this in Hull House, I even understand Donna Haraway better when she says in her remarks on situated knowledge that there is no 'view from nowhere', and that to claim that there is this placeless perspective is the 'God trick'! I remember that we both almost went crazy with this difficult reading...
Anyway, this negotiation of plural points of view is virtually the heart of pragmatist-feminist theoryg6. Moreover, both currents attempt to dissolve traditional philosophical dualisms, something like mind vs. body or reason vs. emotions. Instead, they draw a picture of the individual who is both producer and product of social negotiation processes. Thus, pragmatists and pragmatist feminists assume that individuals form and are formed in interactions with persons or the environment. This is how communities become intertwined. Furthermore, both strive for multidisciplinary ways of working - of course, because the points of view should be as different as possible7. I wish I had known all this BEFORE I wrote my term paper for the seminar on educational theories!!!
Now this was all terribly theoretical. But the Hull House residents would disagree! 'Pragmatic feminists', even if they don't call themselves that, see theory and practice as dynamic and mutually influencing8. All work in Hull House (including scientific work) starts from the experiences of social workers which are then fed back into the practice of work9. Experience and knowledge are not opposites, but interconnected; experiences are reflected upon and thus become accessible. The problems of science are therefore problems of daily life in concrete situations.10 The residents would be astonished or rather angry if they knew how concrete practical experiences and narratives are still devalued in our seminars...
The overriding goal of Addams and the other women is to achieve social and political reform, trying to think and work intersectionally. That is – power structures are not only found in gender constructs. 'Race,' class, and other social factors also intersect - creating multiple discriminations11.Finally, Addams also pushes for more than just liberal feminism. Feminism that merely advocates that women have the same rights as men or are paid the same for the same work is not enough12.I thought I told you about "feminism for the 99%,"13 Addams advocates something like that as well. It's not enough to have a few more women in leadership positions, because it's still primarily women, especially women of color, who are being exploited.
There are the few women who benefit through liberal feminism, and many others who lose out and remain in low-paying service jobs. After all, who minds the kids in daycare? Who cleans offices and companies? Who sews our clothes? These are all still predominantly poorly-paid women's jobs14. This is becoming increasingly clear during the Coronavirus crisis, which you keep writing to me about. It suddenly becomes very apparent that underpaid yet essential work is still predominantly women's work. Addams already believed 120 years ago that 'liberal' feminism was not sufficient. Instead, we would have to fundamentally question and change social structures15, with intersectional thinking or other ways of combining different differentiations together being the most important prerequisite16.
In terms of 'gender', Addams believes that supposedly typically 'feminine' character traits are incredibly valuable traits. Particularly when it comes to the claim of advancing society, towards a more supportive society. She also repeatedly emphasizes the 'feminine' capacity for caring as valuable and powerful17. The brilliant thing is – although she writes about 'feminine' character traits, she would never consider them natural or innate. Think about it – this woman is already thinking consistently constructivist in the 19th century! While she says that certain character traits are ascribed to female persons, she also sees that they have emerged historically18. So Jane Addams engages with issues of gender or intersectionality very early on, even if she doesn't yet use the terms the way we do in discussions of equality in the 21st century. I learned the term for it at university: intersectional feminism 'avant la lettre'!
The fact that 'female' characteristics are generalized often leads to determinism – something like: 'Women are just more empathetic than men and therefore they should take care of the children of the family. That's the way it is, that's the way it's always been, and that's the way it's always going to be.' Addams strongly condemns that. She was definitely not an essentialist!19 ! Addams even takes it a step further – Gender has emerged historically, but it always includes creative responses to specific contexts20. That means that subjects – concrete persons – are active and not only determined from the outside! For this reason, I find it insanely sympathetic and fascinating. She unites so many different feminist problematics and theoretical currents in her work and writings, without the different views contradicting or excluding each other21.
Good old Addams hasn't even forgotten about socialist feminism. While she doesn't necessarily call herself a socialist, she does endorse the views of Florence Kelley, Mary Kenney, or Eugene Debs. Like the other women, Addams holds "that women's oppression is integrally enmeshed in class struggle" (I have translated the original quote: "that women's oppression is integrally enmeshed in class struggle" in Hamington 2009, p. 50). Thus, she always considers that there are class differences and struggles, but she still does not see social (power) relations as unchangeable, i.e. deterministic. Although social conditions influence us, if Addams has her way, individuals always have the possibility to react openly and creatively to concrete situations. After all, subjects are not just passive and malleable. Therefore, she is super optimistic when she envisions a better world. This image of people who can solve problems creatively and act spontaneously is, of course, necessary for thinking change22.
Hope I haven't overwhelmed you with all this, but there's so much going on here and I'm able to gain an incredible amount of valuable experience. Nevertheless, it is a shame that we are not experiencing this together and that I can only write this letter to you about the exciting work at Hull House and Jane Addams' thoughts. I very much look forward to seeing you again soon and to discuss feminisms! I definitely have a lot to tell you about pragmatist feminism at Hull House and I look forward to hearing your take on the matter!
Hugs to you and your little ones, Agathe.
P.S.: These are the books I used for this letter. Perhaps one or the other fits your homework topic. I hope you are able to write in spite of closed daycare centers?
Footnotes
1 Cf. Sullivan 2001 S. 66.
2 Cf. Hamington 2009 S. 51f.
3 Cf. Rumens & Kelemen 2010 S. 138
4 Cf. I also read this in Rumens & Kelemen 2010, on p. 134
5 Cf. Gregoratto 2018 S. 363-365
6 Cf. Rumens & Kelemen 2010 S. 142
7 Cf. Gregoratto 2018 S. 363-365
8 Cf. Sullivan 2001 S. 65.
9 Cf. Gregoratto 2018 auf S. 363 und 367
10 Cf. Rumens & Kelemen 2010 S. 132f.
11 Cf. Gregoratto 2018, S. 363 u. 367.
12 Cf. Hamington 2009 S. 49
13 Cf. Arruzza, Fraser & Bhattacharya 2019.
14 Cf. Arruzza, Bhattacharya, Fraser 2019, S. 61 f.
15 Cf. Hamington 2009 S. 49.
16 Cf. Gregoratto 2018. S. 363 u. 367.
17 Cf. Hamington 2009 S. 50f.
18 Cf. Hamington 2009 S. 50f.
19 Cf. Hamington 2009 S. 50f.
20 Cf. Rumens & Kelemen 2010, S. 140.
21 Cf. Rumens & Kelemen 2010, S. 138
22 Cf. Hamington 2009 S. 49f.
Literature used
John Dewey's discussion of the reflex arc concept as the basis of pragmatist action theory (Written by Lennart Harting).
John Dewey (1859-1952) published the essay "The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology "1 in the journal Psychological Review in 1896. As part of the journal's fiftieth anniversary celebrations, this article was selected by 70 of the best-known American psychologists as the most influential since the journal's inception22. The German translation "Die Elementareinheit des Verhaltens" (The Elemental Unity of Behavior) was published in the anthology "Philosophie und Zivilisation" (Philosophy and Civilization) in 2003. In this article, Dewey not only criticizes the behaviorist organizing principle of the stimulus-response schema that was widely used at the time. Rather, Dewey revolutionizes it by not considering sensation (stimulus) and action (reaction) as detached from each other, but by relating them within a circuit ("What we have is a circuit, not an arc or broken segment of a circle."3. Martin Suhr borrows the German translation of 'circuit’4.from this). Dewey speaks of the "unity of the act" and thus conceptualizes actions as a single entity. Stimulus and reaction refer to each other reciprocally. In this essay, Dewey lays the epistemological foundation for overcoming subject-object dualism, until then a guiding notion for philosophy. The reflex arc essay is thus considered paradigmatic for the formulation of the pragmatist theory of action, in which perception is considered part of action. Dewey criticized the reflex arc concept, which had been developed in distinction to common psychological stimulus-response models of the time, for perpetuating the dualism between stimulus and response: "[T]he older dualism of body and soul finds a distinct echo in the current dualism of stimulus and response. Instead of interpreting the character of sensation, idea and action from their place and function in the senso-motor circuit, we still incline to interpret the latter from our preconceived and preformulated ideas of rigid distinctions between sensations, thoughts and acts."5
Thus, actions begin with the active selection of stimuli, and it is the action itself which determines which stimulus the action responds to. The reflex arc is replaced by the notion of a 'circuit' in which stimulus and response are constantly extended in a kind of circle6. Dewey states7: „The sensory stimulus is one thing, the central activity, standing for the idea, and the motor discharge, standing for the act proper, is a third. As a result, the reflex arc is not a comprehensive, or organic unity, but a patchwork of disjointed parts, a mechanical conjunction of unallied processes. What is needed is that the principle underlying the idea of the reflex arc as the fundamental psychical unity shall react into and determine the values of its constitutive factors. More specifically, what is wanted is that sensory stimulus, central connections and motor responses shall be viewed, not as separate and complete entities in themselves, but as divisions of labor, function factors, within the single concrete whole, now designated the reflex arc”.8
This is no longer a sum of "sensation – idea – movement "9, i.e. a 'one-after-the-other-occurrence', but a 'coordination' of these components, as a mediating element. This makes it possible for him to attribute a circular character to the reflex arc and to make it a circuit. Through the 'coordination' of stimulus and response, he argues, a continuous expansion of experience is possible for the individual. Dewey illustrates this change with an example of a child reaching for a candle flame:10
"The common interpretation would state that the sensation of the candlelight is a stimulus to the extension of the hand in response, the resulting burning of oneself is a stimulus to the withdrawal of the hand in response, and so on."11
The sensation of the candlelight (peripheral stimulus) would thus prescribe the idea of action (central activity), from which the action ("motor reaction") takes place. At this point, Dewey sees the weakness of the conventional view of the reflex arc – the sensory stimulus is not merely the gaze toward the candle (which would be equivalent to a motor movement); rather, the stimulus presupposes a long history of cooperation between the eye and the hand12. Thus, in this example, the first part of the course of action is the active perception and interpretation of the stimulus (hearing, feeling, seeing, and understanding). In the second part, the connection to the first is established by an action-practical interpretation of the perceptions.13 What is special and essential about Dewey's conception here is the coordination that occurs, which connects both parts – "The reaching, in turn, must both stimulate and control the seeing. The eye must be kept upon the candle if the arm is to do its work; let it wander and the arm takes up another task. In other words, we now have an enlarged and transformed coordination; the act is seeing no less than before, but it is now seeing-for-reaching purposes"15)
As a result, not only is disintegration into individual components inhibited (i.e., a repetitive substitution of experience), but the reaction also expands or transforms the experience. Accordingly,16 "the so-called response is not merely to the stimulus; it is into it. The burn is the original seeing, the original optical-ocular experience enlarged and transformed in its value. It is no longer mere seeing; it is seeing-of-a-light-that-means-pain-when-contact-occurs“.17)
From this perspective, therefore, stimulus and response are no longer considered separate from each other, but rather they generate each other reciprocally. This idea of reciprocity is a basic premise of pragmatist thought that was subsequently picked up by Dewey's colleagues such as George Herbert Mead and Jane Addams. Dewey and Mead were indeed frequent guests at Hull House. However, we do not know whether Florence Kelley's child actually burned himself on a candle during one of their dinners together.
Footnotes
1 Original English version: https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1896.html (accessed online: 01/16/2020).
2: Cf. Suhr 2005: 33
3 Dewey 1896: 363
4 Suhr 2005: 33
5 Dewey 1972: 96f
6 Cf. Suhr 2005: 33
7 Dewey 2003: 230-231
8 Dewey 1896: 358
9 Suhr 2005: 35
10 Cf. Suhr 2005: 33-36
11In the original: "The ordinary interpretation would say the sensation of light is a stimulus to the grasping as a response, the burn resulting is a stimulus to withdrawing the hand as response and so on" (Dewey 1896: 358).
12 Cf. Suhr 2005: 35
13 Cf. Strübing 2005: 61
14 Dewey 2003: 232
15 Dewey 1896: 359
16 Dewey 2003: 232-233
17 Dewey 1896: 359-360
Verwendete Literature