The Food Factory

As the nation’s population expanded at the turn of the 20^th century, so did its appetite for convenient processed foods.  As factories mass-produced clothing, furniture, appliances, among other items, they also industrialized food production for the mass consumption.  The following excerpt offers a graphic description of the stockyards in Chicago’s Packingtown, the terminus where live animals would be slaughtered and processed.

“They climbed a long series of stairways outside of the building, to the top of its five or six stories.  Here was the chute, with its river of hogs, all patiently toiling upward; there was place for them to rest to cool off and then through another passageway they went into a room from which there is no returning for hogs...they had chains which they fastened about the leg of the nearest hog, and the other end of the chain they hooked into one of the rings upon the wheel.  So, as the wheel turned, a hog was suddenly jerked off his feet and borne aloft.  At the same instant the car was assailed by a most terrifying shriek...the shriek was followed by another, louder and yet more agonizing...once started upon that journey, the hog never came back; at the top of the wheel he was shunted off upon a trolley, and went sailing down the room.  And meantime another was swung up, and then another, and another, until there was a double line of them, each dangling by a foot and kicking in frenzy—and squealing...there would come a momentary lull, and then a fresh outburst, louder than ever, surging up to a deafening climax...one by one they hooked up the hogs, and one by one with a swift stroke they slit their throats.  There was a long line of hogs, with squeals and lifeblood ebbing away together; until at last each started again, and vanished with a splash into a huge vat of boiling water...it was porkmaking by machinery, porkmaking by applied mathematics...they were so innocent, they came so very trustingly; and they were so very human in their protests—and so perfectly within their rights!  They had done nothing to deserve it; and it was adding insult to injury, as the thing was done here, swinging them up in this cold-blooded, impersonal way...each one of these hogs was a separate creature.  Some were white hogs, some were black; some were brown, some were spotted; some were old, some young...each of them had an individuality of his own, a will of his own, a hope and a heart’s desire; each was full of self-confidence, of self-importance, and a sense of dignity.  And trusting and strong in faith he had gone about his business...while a black shadow hung over him and a horrid Fate waited in his pathway...relentless, remorseless, it was; all his protests, his screams, were nothing to it—it did its cruel will with him, as if his wishes, his feelings, had simply believe that there was nowhere a god of hogs, to whom this hog personality was precious, to whom these hog squeals and agonies had a meaning?  Who would take this hog into his arms and comfort him, regard him for his work well done, and show him the meaning of his sacrifice?”

The preceding text is from Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel, The Jungle; a realist dramatization of the “fate” of millions of animals slaughtered annually for human consumption (Sinclair).  It also provided a dramatic account of the plight of immigrant workers and their conditions of existence at the turn of the century.  While The Jungle realistically illustrated a dramatization of the dehumanization of immigrant factory workers who were viewed as disposable as the animals they murdered, the novel’s immense popularity raised public awareness of the unsanitary and unhealthy conditions of factory-produced meat products.  Critics countered that because Sinclair’s novel was a work of fiction, and that it was so extreme, they made attempts to discredit its validity.  However, Sinclair, in response to numerous inquiries and the scrutiny of industrialists, declared in a 1906 news publication that while the characters in The Jungle were fictitious, the conditions of the stockyards, meat factories, and laborers was “an exact and faithful picture of conditions as they exist[ed] in Packingtown, Chicago,” and stated that he spent “seven weeks in the stockyards district alone, living with the people,” substantiating workers claims through the labor bosses, doctors, lawyers, and merchants, all whom confirmed there was evidence that a system of graft was in place to keep the truth from the public and the federal government (Sinclair “Is The Jungle True?”).  

Though capitalist industrialists used every ounce of the hog “except the squeal,” for maximum profit, once journalists and writers of the early 20^th century grabbed the attention (and the stomach) of American citizens, the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt found itself compelled to act upon the atrocious accounts that came out of stockyards.  The public outcry over the learned usage of chemicals agents to mask the fact that much of the meat the nation consumed was spoiled and not fit for human consumption, led to a Department of Agriculture investigation to determine the purity of foodstuffs, and it was discovered that writers such as Upton Sinclair were correct (MindTap).  Toxic chemicals were used to process mass-produced meat (MindTap).  Additionally, it was discovered that many over the counter medicines were ineffective and sometimes dangerous for the consumer (MindTap).  The investigation prompted the Senate to pass legislation banning the sale of tainted food and drugs.  And while the bill stalled in the House of Representatives the public, after reading The Jungle, pressed the United States government to ultimately form what would later be known as the federal Food and Drug Administration (MindTap). 

Works Cited

"MindTap - Cengage Learning." MindTap - Cengage Learning. Cengage Learning, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/index.html?nbId=107659&nbNodeId=27378118#!&parentId=27378345>. The Reform Impulse.

Sinclair, Upton. ""Is 'The Jungle' True?" - Upton Sinclair - The Independent." "Is 'The Jungle' True?" New York University Digital Library Services, n.d. Web. 21 May 2015. <http://dlib.nyu.edu/undercover/jungle-true-upton-sinclair-independent>. Digital Library Technology Services

Sinclair, Upton. "Chapter 3." The Jungle. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2001. N. pag. Print.

Mechanization of the Mind

Technological advances offered increased productivity and efficiency in the factory system, however, as Oliver Wendell Holmes stated in 1870, “The more we examine the mechanism of thought, the more we shall see that the automatic, unconscious action of the mind enters largely into all of its processes” (Trachtenberg, pg. 45).  Holmes presciently believed that the binary of the American work ethic—the diligence of hard work would equate to individual economic reward, while the undisciplined and under-productive worker was indicative of defects in moral character—could become the source of great anxiety for factory workers.  This social construct permeated every level of American society including the emerging middle class.  Cultural perceptions were that if labor was not mechanically productive they were somehow deficient and not worthy of success.  This is a mode of thought that led to a mechanization of the mind, as industrialization became a part of the daily life in cities with the advent of streetcars, elevators, and other byproducts of industrialization (Trachtenberg, pg. 45-46). 

A shift to a mechanized cultural environment was glaringly evident within population centers.  The previous labor model of agrarianism—a laborer who worked in harmony with the natural cycle of the Earth and meant that daytime was devoted to production, while nighttime meant peaceful rest for the laborer—had been discarded for industrialized capitalism.  The evolution of technology, which provided mechanization and automation and meant factories and cities remain productive around the clock.  This shift did not occur without consequences on human capital, whose senses were now bombarded with constant noise of city life, every day of every week, and every month of every year.  The result of mechanization created the phenomenon of neurasthenia, which became so prevalent in society that researcher George M. Beard, in 1884, initiated a case study of this new phenomenon.  He published his work in a book entitled, American Nervousness.  Using mechanization as a metaphor for the human nervous system, Beard maintained the nervousness and anxiety workers experienced was attributed to the organic mechanized system (a human-being) exhibiting psychological strain as it struggled to adapt to an alien environment (Trachtenberg, pg. 47). 

Beard’s work also discovered that psychological disorders were not exclusive to factory workers.  It extended to the middle class as well, the “four million salaried brain-workers,” which comprised of an educated workforce that began to experience mental breakdown and anxiety due to culturally normalized expectations.  To simplify his research, he asserted the construct of time had become problematic for middle class workers who were expected to arrive at their jobs on time, who were expected to produce a certain amount of work within a predetermined period of time, whose transport to and from work was dictated by the timetable of trains or streetcars, who essentially became enslaved by time itself.  Their entire existence was controlled by time.  According to Beard, time was a contributing factor for middle class anxieties.  However, another source of middle class anxiety, according to Beard, was a perception that “lower orders” of factory workers may “succumb to insanity of the incurable kind,” which meant the middle class experienced great concern that factory workers, unhappy with their labor conditions, would be the cause chaos and anarchy which could then result in a complete breakdown of social order in the cities (Trachtenberg, pg. 48).  Their fear of social Armageddon had some amount of validity as factory workers pushed unions to fight for eight hour workdays, along with an immigrant workforce that promoted European socialism as a prescriptive remedy for their dismal conditions of existence.  An antidote was needed to appease both the impoverished wage-slave, as well as the educated worker who had become slaves to time.  However, the inoculation of all classes of workers against their afflictions would not form until the federal government would shift its attention toward the plight of labor, in general.

Works Cited

Trachtenberg, Alan. "Mechanization Takes Command." The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age. New York: Hill and Wang, 2007. Print.

The Paradox of Industrialization

The Gilded Age, produced not only an elite class of wealth-holders, it also created a class of people whose newly acquired purchasing power fueled an industrialized economy.  The demography of this class was the equivalent of middle to upper middle class, in modern terms.  They possessed material resources which allowed them to purchase a never-ending river of abundant commodities that were manufactured and brought to market as fast as labor could produce.  Perhaps Horatio Alger’s instructional “rags to riches” novels presented in a previous blog post offered factory workers a sense of hope, and that hard labor and a strong work ethic might offer a chance to improve their economic mobility.  Factory production clipped along at a steady pace, which benefited the overall economy of the country.

The 1860's experienced unprecedented production output.  Many believe industrialization and mechanization could promise unlimited goods which would be consumed by the masses.  The country held onto a hope that rapid technological advances would create a less laborious life for most households, and that technology could be an instrumental democratizing economic agent of change that would improve the lives of all Americans.  The primary symbol for economic prosperity was mechanized technology, which at the time was celebrated around the country as a source of abundant production.  However, societal beliefs that mechanized factory work could offer a cornucopia of products to enhance the daily lives of many, a dark undercurrent came with that belief.  With the celebration of technology an inequitable bifurcation of class structure emerged, which was evinced by the oppressive poverty in the slums of factory towns and large cities.

The rapid mechanization, combined with deluded market confidence--in particular, the overall sense that a free-market economic system could continue to expand without repercussion or retraction--was derailed by global economic contraction that occurred between 1873 and 1896.  The economic crash left no industry unscathed.  Ironically, it was industry that created the dire conditions of the twenty years of economic depression during the later 19^th century.  As overproduction of factory goods flooded global markets, consumer demand could not maintain a level of consumption commiserate with manufacturing output.  Massive surpluses, along with disintegrated market conditions led to excessive price erosion and devastating deflation.   Weakened economic conditions led to cuts in factory wages, layoffs, and a complete breakdown of steady employment.  Industrial workers already earned a sub-par wage which guaranteed lifelong impoverishment. 

The stock market crash in 1873 triggered a global economic depression which resulted in bankruptcies and business enterprise failures in the U.S.  As many as six thousand businesses closed in 1874 alone.  Eventually, the crisis bled into nine hundred closures per month during 1878 (Trachtenberg pg. 39).  While it can be said capitalists took a large economic hit during this period, the collapse of steady employment without industrial or governmental safety nets in place for labor proved to be too much for struggling workers to bear. 

Wage-earners became suspicious of the close relationship between capitalists, corporations, and a federal government that did little to represent the common interests of its constituents.  Labor unrest was commonplace during the economic depression of the 1870s, but the crest of the wave broke in 1877 when the Baltimore and Ohio railroads instituted an unannounced 10 percent cut in wages.  Ultimately, the wage cut culminated in the great railroad strike of 1877.  There are many factors that make this particular work stoppage significant.  The strike gained solidarity from other railroad’s workers, as well as support from other industrial workers, small local businesses, and by farmers, all

of whom had all suffered economically from the depression that appeared to be provoked by a speculative economic bubble.  The mood of the country turned dark when alienated laborers destroyed the very machines they worked with on a daily basis.  This raised the ire of big business who called on the federal government to protect property and restore civil order.  

However, some companies didn't wait for government response and took control of local law enforcement, hiring armed police officers and militia men to protect their assets.  It must be said that one kink in hiring local mercenaries to rough up a disgruntled workforce is that many of the thugs refused to fire upon the strikers, many of which were relatives or friends.  The chaos finally came to an end when President Rutherford Hayes authorized federal troops to use violent force on the strikers in order to protect machines owned by railroad companies. 

Rutherford’s executive order offered protection to machines over the lives of United States citizens, and his action resulted in the deaths of more than one hundred people.  Companies had lost millions of dollars to damaged or destroyed property.  The reaction to suppress labor was swift and oppressive.  They went after the unions.  Many strikers were fired and blacklisted from working with other companies, and union leaders were fined and jailed.  However, the most significant outcome of the great railroad strike of 1877 was the creation of armories in all major cities by the federal government.  The armories would house a standing domestic army, which became the “national guard” (Trachtenberg).  Industrialization of society now required the industrialization of state military force to maintain civil order and protect the interests of big business, who with brute force and union-breaking stratagem, demonstrated that they were stronger than labor, and therefore, the fittest to survive...with the help of violent coercion from federal government.

Works Cited

Trachtenberg, Alan. "White City." The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age. New York: Hill and Wang, 2007. N. pag. Print.

Herbert Spencer

Survival of The Fittest

One byproduct of industrialization and the subsequent rapid accumulation and consolidation of wealth during the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, was the generalized theory that a strong work ethic could generate socioeconomic mobility.  This belief was reinforced by industrialists who subscribed to the teachings and philosophy of Herbert Spencer.  Spencer is best known as one of the top sociologists who took Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and applied it to social theory (Johnson).

Interestingly, it was Spencer who developed the well-known phrase “survival of the fittest,” which he based on a hypothesis that self-preservation was an innate human trait, and consequently equated social evolution with Darwin’s idea of biological natural selection.  Spencer believed societal change was an inevitable evolutionary process in which only the strongest would survive, and that weaker orders of humanity would eventually cease to exist (Johnson).

Materially, Spencer thought an elite class of wealth-holders stood a stronger change of survival by the shear virtue of their capacity for social and economic adaptation.  However, a complication for this form of adaptive strategy, if true, implied that economically inferior people were expendable, and if they were expendable wealth-holders would eventually run out of impoverished people to exploit for economic gain.  Spencer’s philosophy was severely flawed, but his concept did not stop its perpetuation (Johnson).

Young Boy Working in a Glass Factory

Writer Horatio Alger, became immensely popular from his “rags-to-riches” stories which promoted one singularly common theme, that a strong work ethic and self-determination were the prescriptive keys to economic success in a competitive labor market.  Many of Alger’s “central characters...were impoverished young boys who used their natural talents” to achieve material success (MindTap).

Alger’s blueprint for socioeconomic achievement caught on like wildfire as popular culture of the period devoured millions of copies (MindTap).  The concept of survival of the fittest became so ingrained in American culture that it continues to be the first line of moral defense for many wealth-holders, today. 

While Alger’s may have modeled his central characters—ordinary-yet-exceptional individuals who transcend economic obscurity—after famous industrial giants such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and J.P. Morgan, all who became pinnacles of material success.  However, the only wealthy industrialist of the period who actually rose from oppressive poverty to stratospheric wealth was Irish immigrant Andrew Carnegie (MindTap).  Which begs a question.  Did Horatio Alger offer instructional guides offering economic hope for the poor laborer, or was his body of work institutionalized propaganda that reinforced Social Darwinism during an age of unregulated capitalist industrialism?

Works Cited

"MindTap - Cengage Learning." MindTap - Cengage Learning. Cengage Learning, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/index.html?nbId=107659&nbNodeId=27378118#!&parentId=27378345>. 15.2 The Rise of Big Business and Industrialization. Social Darwinism

Johnson, Bethany. "Herbert Spencer: Theory & Social Darwinism." Sociology 101: Intro to Sociology. Study.com, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

The Squalor of Industrial Shanty Towns

Living Conditions of Progressive Era Laborers

Some forward-thinking progressives participated in the political system to establish improved conditions for labor, while others mobilized to bring social reform directly where it was needed, the impoverished urban neighborhoods of industrial workers.  One progressive who stood out during this period was Jane Addams.  

Addams was increasingly frustrated with the inaction of Chicago political bosses who chose to ignore the appalling living and working conditions of factory workers.  While she remained persistent with political activism, Addams sought to enlist like-minded private citizens to promote social welfare for the poor through Settlement Houses, which were large buildings where progressive volunteers established settlements in the midst of poor urban neighborhoods to offer aid to economically disadvantaged families.  

Settlement Houses became havens for people who were willing to perform work but were unable to find jobs because of the factory system's manipulation of labor.  The unemployed or poor worker relied on progressive social welfare programs such as the Settlement House to learn adaptive methods of survival in the changing landscape of an industrialized economy that had suffered multiple depressive slumps during the late 19th century.  Addams fervently believed gainful employment was “a great source of moral and physical health” for the individual, and was essential for the well-being of society as a whole.  Through grass-roots efforts Settlement Houses became a social safety net for countless impoverished laborers and their families.  

As with William Graham Sumner's call for social reform a decade earlier, Addams enthusiastically encouraged educated young people and wealthy individuals to “devote themselves to the duties of good citizenship by “arousing the social energies" of the working poor through informative civic education so they could understand and participate in the electoral system.  Like Sumner, Addams believed all citizens had a moral social duty to improve the conditions of disaffected laborers, and thought their work could help raise the disadvantaged out of poverty. 

Hull House, Est. 1889

              Addams founded Chicago's Hull House in 1889, which became a large hub that propelled social reform into action. Soon after Hull House opened the concept of Settlement Houses took hold in other industrialized cities.  Settlement Houses encouraged civic awareness, promoted education and childcare, vocational training and networking, and instilled a glimmer of hope to the masses of impoverished laborers around the country.

Works Cited

Johnson, Michael P. Reading the American Past: Selected Historical Documents. 5th ed. Vol. 2. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Document 21-1 Jane Addams on Settlement Houses. Pgs. 101-104. Print.

"MindTap - Cengage Learning." New Industrial Order 15.9 Study Guide. Cengage Learning, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/index.html?nbId=107659&nbNodeId=27378118#!&parentId=27378360>.

Time period: The Gilded Age

The disease: Unequal Distribution of Wealth

The symptom: Extreme Class Division

The solution: Progressive Humanitarianism

 

The Gilded Age experienced unprecidented economic growth.  This growth translated into an increasingly elite class of wealth-holders who amassed more wealth than most citizens of the nation, combined.  Labor conditions were unbearable for the poor, and after a series of violent labor uprisings awareness of labor's discontent grew among industrialists.  Something had to be done to quell the violence before it became a legitimate threat to the nation's economy.

Systemic economic inequality eventually received attention from a group of progressive thinkers who argued that social reform was the prescriptive action needed to appease impoverished workers.  In 1883, William Graham Sumner promoted the necessity to acknowledge the dismal conditions of the poor, and conceptualized a social contract, one which established obligations from wealth-holders to help the poor, and established expectations from the poor laborers as well.

Common questions during the period pondered social welfare.  Should spare change be given to a pauper? is one obligated to donate money to charity? should donated money support housing for unwed mothers? and the largest most important question, was the government was obligated to offer assistance to the economically destitute masses?  The deplorable conditions of the poor weighed on the minds of many who became increasingly socially aware.  The anxiety of the wealthy betrayed symptoms of an extremely unbalanced socioeconomic order.

Sumner claimed he could not identify a cogent definition to describe a poor man.  However, he did offer his interpretation of a pauper.  Sumner believed that a pauper is someone who is unable to earn a living, whose power to generate enough income fell well below the level necessary for basic survival.  Sumner’s definition implies there were plenty of poor laborers willing to work, but that inconsistent employment and wage stagnation had eroded their ability to purchase consumable goods and services. 

Looking for a solution to remedy the economic malaise of laborers, Sumner developed a remedy.  He was convinced that a harmonious society required the economic cooperation of industry, and the production capacity from labor, which in turn could benefit the entire country, economically.  For Sumner, the key to overall economic success, was for wealth-holders to help the economically disadvantaged improve their working and living conditions.  If one or both actors did not participate in social reform the country could potentially become unproductive and fall into an economic depression.  Sumner's call to action was illustrated in simple terms.  If you obtain wealth you are obligated assist others, and if you could not obtain wealth, it was the duty of others to help support you. 

Sumner promoted a society of economic reciprocity.  This meant a sense of duty was directed at wealthy individuals to provide for the less fortunate, while in the spirit of mutuality the downtrodden laborers who received assistance were expected to remain productive participants of a consumerist society.  The establishment of a social contract between capital and labor was the only way the country could mend the great economic class divide, and by raising the standard of living for poor workers, it would in turn allow consumption of products that wealthy industrialists produced. 

Works Cited

Johnson, Michael P. Reading the American Past: Selected Historical Documents. 5th ed. Vol. 2. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Document 18-2 William Graham Sumner on Social Obligations. 45-48. Print.

“God Almighty in His most holy and wise providence, hath so disposed of the condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignity; others mean and in submission” (John Winthrop, 1630)

The above excerpt comes from “A Model of Christian Charity,” which was delivered by John Winthrop as he sailed with fellow colonists on the Arbella in 1630, en route from England to plant their colony in Massachusetts.  

Many see Winthrop’s speech, in its entirety, as a brilliant vision for a utilitarian social order. His reasoning and logic was solid.  The cultural demographic on the ship ranged from lower orders of labor and skill craftsmen, along with political and religious refugees and wealthy merchants; all were in search of a new life and economic opportunity in America.

Presciently, Winthrop established socioeconomic expectations for the group, and with foresight, he knew the success of the colony was interdependent upon the hard work of lower orders of labor, ingenuity of entrepreneurial merchants, and required a charitable elite to balance out social order in the New World.  Each class constituted a piece of the social weal, whose survival depended upon unconditional mutual cooperation.  Without utilitarian order, the colony would fail.  For Winthrop, failure was not an option.

Today, some view Winthrop’s speech as the original blueprint for American socioeconomic class division and a byproduct of English society.  However, the need for socioeconomic division become apparent after the second Industrial Revolution in the late nineteenth century, when capitalists relied on a steady stream of lower orders of labor to fill the factories which resulted with the large concentration of capital as industrialists consolidated their holdings. 

In the spirit of Winthrop’s pragmatism, the lower classes of impoverished settlers relied on the wealthy, and conversely, the wealthy were dependent on the poor.  Initially, the social inter-dependency was symbiotic; however, at some point wealth-holders lost their moral compass as socioeconomic reciprocity evaporated.  The industrialists of the nineteenth century had amassed enormous fortunes acquired from a consumerist market system whose success relied on a perpetually-impoverished class of laborers.  The consumerist market created enormous wealth, but at the expense of stagnant wages for workers who remained in a cycle of poverty.  Paradoxically, this was known as The Gilded Age.