Jane Addams on Inequality and Political 2019005439, 2019007804, 9780203731154, 9781351399333, 9781351399319, 9781351399326, 9781138303348, 9781138303355

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
Preface
Acknowledgements
1. Introduction: Political Friendship and Justice among Unequals
Addams’s Expansion of Political Friendship
Purpose and Approach
Organization and Contents
Notes
References
2. Addams’s Friendship Practices
Notes
References
3. Economic Foundations of Pragmatist Political Friendships
Class Relations and Social Ethics
Charitable Relations between Philanthropist and Beneficiary
Filial Relations
Household Labor
Industrial Amelioration
Educational Methods
Political Reforms
Notes
References
4. Economic Foundations of War and Peace
Class Hierarchies and Possibilities for Cross-Class Friendships in
Democracy and Social Ethics
Class Hierarchy in Newer Ideals of Peace
Tribal Patriotism and Survivals of Militarism
Conclusion: From Tribal Patriotism to Cosmic Patriotism
Notes
References
5. Possibilities for Transnational Political Friendship
Transnational and Subnational Economic Hierarchies
Women’s Peace Activities and de Facto Transnational Organization
Conclusion: The Place of Stories in de Facto Organizational
Processes
Notes
References
6. Conclusion: A Feminist Pragmatist Approach to Political Friendship
Addams and the Tradition of Aristotelian Political Friendship
Possibilities for Transnational Friendships: The Transnational Migration of Care Workers
Notes
References
Index

Citation preview

JANE ADDAMS ON INEQUALITY AND POLITICAL FRIENDSHIP

In this book, Wynne Walker Moskop addresses the practical and theoretical problem of how unequal political friendships evolve toward arrangements the parties consider reciprocal and just, a problem neglected by scholars of democracy who associate reciprocity and justice only with equal parties. Jane Addams insisted that Hull House was not a charity with philanthropic aspirations; rather it had to bring “two classes” to a shared purpose and more egalitarian relation. The problem was, and still is, how? Drawing on several bodies of scholarship—including Addams’s writings, secondary works about her collaborations, literature on Aristotelian political friendship, and feminist scholarship on the global migration of care workers—Moskop shows the importance of Addams’s practices to the continuing relevance of unequal economic relations for shaping political friendship. Contributing to a lively conversation about Addams’s work as a pragmatist thinker and social reformer that began three decades ago, Jane Addams on Inequality and Political Friendship is an invaluable resource to students of democratic theory, feminist political theory and philosophy, and American pragmatism. It illuminates the importance of overlooked conditions for friendship and justice in unequal relations, given people’s ongoing subordination because of race, class, gender, and citizenship status in the U.S. and transnationally. Wynne Walker Moskop is Associate Professor of Political Science and affiliate Associate Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies at Saint Louis University. Moskop teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on American political thought, feminist theory, contemporary ideologies, and the history of political thought. Her articles and reviews have appeared in a range of journals, including American Political Thought, American Quarterly, the Journal of Political Psychology, American Studies, Political Theory, American Political Science Review, the Quarterly Journal of Ideology, and The Journal of Politics.

JANE ADDAMS ON INEQUALITY AND POLITICAL FRIENDSHIP

Wynne Walker Moskop

First published 2020 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Taylor & Francis The right of Wynne Walker Moskop to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Moskop, Wynne Walker, author. Title: Jane Addams on inequality and political friendship / Wynne Walker Moskop. Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019005439 (print) | LCCN 2019007804 (ebook) | ISBN 9780203731154 (Master) | ISBN 9781351399333 (Adobe) | ISBN 9781351399319 (Mobi) | ISBN 9781351399326 (ePub3) | ISBN 9781138303348 (hardback) | ISBN 9781138303355 (pbk.) | ISBN 9780203731154 (e-book) Subjects: LCSH: Addams, Jane, 1860–1935--Political and social views. | Equality--United States. | Friendship--Political aspects. Classification: LCC HV28.A35 (ebook) | LCC HV28.A35 M67 2019 (print) | DDC 303.3/720973--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019005439 ISBN: 978-1-138-30334-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-30335-5 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-73115-4 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Taylor & Francis Books

In memory of my parents, who gave me a love for ideas and conversation, and an appreciation for differences among people. For me, these find deep satisfaction in the feminist pragmatist narratives of Jane Addams. And In memory of two of my family who shared Addams’s Progressive Era activism, great aunt Helen W. Tippy, a resident of Hull House and labor lawyer, and great grandfather Worth M. Tippy, a Methodist minister and leader in the Protestant social gospel movement. And To my family and friends who continue to add immeasurably to my life and my store of perspectives.

CONTENTS

Preface Acknowledgements

ix xi

1

Introduction: Political Friendship and Justice among Unequals

1

2

Addams’s Friendship Practices

19

3

Economic Foundations of Pragmatist Political Friendships

37

4

Economic Foundations of War and Peace

72

5

Possibilities for Transnational Political Friendship

99

6

Conclusion: A Feminist Pragmatist Approach to Political Friendship

Index

128 145

PREFACE

Jane Addams is a largely untapped resource for democratic political theory. She is deservedly famous as a social reformer, a founder of the settlement house movement in the U.S., a founder of social work, a suffrage and peace activist, and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Her achievements qualify her as a pre-eminent practitioner of political friendship. Since Aristotle, political friendship has been understood as a collaboration among parties who share a common purpose, on terms that all parties consider reciprocal and just. But, from my perspective as a political theorist, Addams was more than a practitioner. She wrote five books about her experiences at Hull House and in the women’s international peace movement. These books, and many articles and speeches, detail her collaborations, and possibilities for better collaborations, across boundaries of class, ethnicity, race, gender, and nation. Her narratives about those experiences reveal her as a pre-eminent theorist of political friendship. Her major contribution to democratic political thought and practice is to look for justice and reciprocity where modern democratic thinkers have not looked: in relations between parties who are unequal. Modern democratic thinkers since the seventeenth century have understood justice and reciprocity to apply only to equal relations, usually relations among democratic citizens. The problem with this modern version of justice, as feminist care thinkers have observed, is that it provides no moral guidance for parties in unequal dependency relations. Addams responds to this problem by working out what justice and reciprocity require in unequal relations between those at the top of systemic economic hierarchies and those at the bottom. I wrote this book because I have been so taken by the problem and by Addams’s response. All of us are deeply involved in unequal relations at different stages in our lives; such relations shape our families, our work, and our associations in the larger

x Preface

society. Beyond unequal relations that are visible to us, we are caught up in less visible neoliberal market relations that serve upper class financial interests at the top of systemic economic hierarchies at the expense of poor and oppressed peoples at the bottom. These relations are proliferating subnationally and transnationally. I believe Addams’s writings provide a sorely needed theoretical and practical guide for developing political friendships that are reciprocal and just in the context of inequality. I hope this book will motivate others to find the inspiration in Addams that I have found.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book owes much to advice and assistance from many. I want to acknowledge first the scholars who have shaped the revival of interest in Addams over the last three decades. I took inspiration from Mary Jo Deegan, Marilyn Fischer, Maurice Hamington, Wendy Sarvasy, and Charlene Seigfried, whose work has been especially important to my understanding of Addams’s practice of political friendship across boundaries of class, ethnicity, race, gender, and nation. Also key was Hilda Satt Polacheck’s account of life at Hull House (1991), the only published account by a neighborhood resident. In addition, I am indebted to the institutions that have digitized so much of Addams’s work. Without these easily accessible online texts, this project would have taken much longer. Questions and insights offered at my presentations to conferences in political science, sociology, and women’s studies, and to two workshops at Washington University in St. Louis, have found their way into this book. I am especially grateful to P.J. Brendese, Mary Jo Deegan, Mary Ann Dzuback, Judy Failer, Paige McGinley, Julie Webber, Patricia M. Lengermann, and Gillian NiebruggeBrantley. In addition, I thank my good friend and colleague, Eloise Buker, for comments on multiple chapters; and Eldon Eisenach and Michael Zuckert for comments on a version of Chapter 2, which was published in American Political Thought (summer 2018). My special thanks to Penny Weiss, who read early versions of nearly all chapters, some more than once, and offered encouragement along the way. Her talent for criticism that is simultaneously trenchant and gentle has been a wonderful source of intellectual and emotional sustenance, as her friendship has been. I also thank Brennin Weiswerda for her excellent editorial assistance in preparing the final manuscript. At Saint Louis University, I am grateful to the College of Arts and Sciences for a sabbatical leave and to Political Science Department Chair Ellen Carnaghan for

xii Acknowledgements

a course release; both provided much-needed time to complete this book. I am also grateful to the Political Science Department and the Mellon Faculty Development Fund for supporting travel for research and conference presentations. Graduate assistants from the Departments of Political Science and Philosophy have been diligent proofreaders at different stages, including James (Twigz) McQuire, Borislav Shull, Thomas Holland and, especially, Harrison Kratochvil. At Routledge, I am exceedingly grateful to Natalja Mortensen, Senior Political Science Editor, for recognizing the potential of this project at an early stage, and for maintaining confidence in it throughout the duration. My thanks as well to Editorial Assistant Charlie Baker for his expeditious handling of the review process, cover design, and other production responsibilities and to Felicity Watts for careful copyediting. Finally, I am grateful for useful comments from anonymous reviewers for Routledge. Part of Chapter 1 and an earlier version of Chapter 2 were originally published in “Jane Addams and Possibilities for Transnational Political Friendship,” by Wynne Walker Moskop (2018), in American Political Thought 7(3) (summer): 400–431. doi: 10.1086/697375. I thank The University of Chicago Press for permission to reprint. Part of Chapter 6 was first published in “Justice as Friendship: An Aristotelian Perspective on Global and Local Justice,” by Wynne Walker Moskop, in Justice et injustices spatiales, ed. Bernard Bret, Philippe Gervais-Lambony, Claire Hancock, Frédéric Landy (Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest 2010), pp. 163–180. I am grateful for permission to use this material. Finally, I am all too aware that without the steadfast support of Randall Moskop, completing this book would have been more difficult than it was. His patience with time consumed by the book, encouragement to see it through, and understanding of its importance to me, have kept me going, and his experienced eye was invaluable for reviewing proofs of the manuscript. I’m grateful to Katherine Moskop and Walker Moskop for distracting me with their interesting lives, adding more beautiful people to our family, supporting me more than they know, and asking periodically, “How’s the book?”

1 INTRODUCTION Political Friendship and Justice among Unequals

Jane Addams, co-founder of Chicago’s Hull House settlement and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, described the relationship between the philanthropist and the beneficiary in the Progressive Era industrial world as the one of the most “incredibly painful obstacles” that confronted her and other democratic-minded residents of Hull House as they lived and worked in a poor immigrant neighborhood spawned, and then neglected by, industrial capitalism (Addams 2002c, 63). Even though Addams insisted that Hull House was not a charity with philanthropic aspirations, its residents nonetheless had to confront the hierarchical class division that charitable organizations do—“an unconscious division of the world into the philanthropists and those to be helped.” Their upper-middle class status positioned Addams and most Hull House residents among the philanthropist class; yet, Addams wrote, the democratic motives of Hull House residents were in “revolt” against this “assumption of two classes” (62). Somehow the “two classes” had to be brought to a shared purpose that transformed their unequal economic relation into a more egalitarian relation. The puzzle was, and still is, how? Addams’s solution, which she describes in multiple accounts, is that persons and groups who are unequal due to their different status in philanthropist and beneficiary classes must become friends who build cosmopolitan democratic communities—despite their economic inequality and, actually, in the context of that inequality.1 By many accounts, Addams was a first-rate practitioner of personal friendship. Scholars note that her close and enduring friendships with Hull House co-founder Ellen Gates Starr, philanthropist Mary Rozet Smith, and many labor activists and social reformers—including Mary Kenney, Florence Kelley, Julia Lathrop, W.E.B. DuBois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, and John Dewey—contributed to her successes (Deegan 2002; Elshtain 2002, 24; Hamington 2005; Knight 2010; Fischer 2014). They note also that she relied on personal friendships among Hull

2 Introduction

House residents as a source of strength for the whole community (Stebner 1997; Elshtain 2002; Hamington 2004; Knight 2010). However, those accounts do not focus on the hierarchical class relations that concern Addams, the changes that must occur for unequal parties to become friends, or the economic underpinnings of her collaborative friendships. Those topics are my interests in this book. Instead of seeing the world as a mix of independent actors—whether these be individuals, corporations, nonprofits, or established political entities like nations and international organizations—Addams sees the world in relational terms. Her accounts explore the hierarchical social and economic relations that shape our daily lives and our place in the larger society. Her pragmatist approach uncovers these relational underpinnings of society in ways that are helpful for understanding and countering xenophobic political and economic divides today. I focus on Addams’s experiential accounts of her collaborations with and among immigrant groups surrounding Hull House. I argue that she is a first-rate practitioner of political friendship, understood in the Aristotelian sense of an association that is just because the parties make reciprocal contributions to a mutual utilitarian purpose. Addams’s friendship practices contribute to democratic theory in two ways. First, she develops political friendships where contemporary democratic thinkers generally do not think to look—among persons and groups who are unequal in power and resources. Her experiential accounts detail the epistemological and structural changes through which unequal persons or groups become friends by discovering mutual interests and negotiating reciprocal contributions to a common goal. Second, Addams’s pragmatist, process-oriented accounts expand political friendship beyond current applications to democratic citizens, in fact, beyond the boundaries of any formal association; her accounts provide a model that is useful for understanding possibilities for political friendship even in today’s transnational market relations. Addams and other residents of Hull House worked for more than 40 years in their diverse immigrant neighborhood on Chicago’s West Side to move beyond class divisions and build a cosmopolitan democratic community to address common civic problems (Addams 1907/1964, 2002a, 2002b; Seigfried 1996; Sarvasy 2010). Addams forged across-class collaborative friendships with and among her diverse immigrant neighbors, labor unions, professional experts, philanthropists, and government agencies in Chicago’s Progressive Era industrial world. Hull House residents helped to organize or hosted day care facilities, art classes, a social science debate club, a museum, dramatic performances, and a women’s club, among other functions. They also investigated and responded to causes of the problems that threatened their neighborhood. For example, they tracked high death rates to uncollected garbage; then they sent volunteers into the filthy alleys to document the failures of city garbage inspectors, advocated for improvements, and eventually led successful neighborhood initiatives to improve services and reduce death rates (Addams 1911). Hull House became a social laboratory for experimenting with and gradually working out

Introduction 3

how middle-class, educated Hull House residents and disparate, impoverished neighboring ethnic groups could come together as a community to investigate, understand, and address the common problems they experienced. Although Addams disliked the clinical connotation of the term social laboratory (Seigfried 1999, 214), she spoke often of the need to maintain an experimental approach open to change with circumstances and community needs. Jane Addams’s many books provide numerous accounts of how these unequal relationships evolved toward collaborative partnerships that were more egalitarian and closer to the democratic ideals that motivated Addams and Ellen Gates Starr to found Hull House in the first place. She often describes them as friendships or friendly relations. She also refers to their comradeship or fellowship (Whipps 2004; Lake 2014). Of particular interest to me is Addams’s suggestion that the cosmopolitan communities of immigrants that grew from friendly cross-class relations at Hull House can serve as a model for developing peaceful and more just relations transnationally (Addams 1907, 11–19, 235–236; 1911, 308). Addams, who won the 1931 Nobel Peace Prize, worked to spread her pragmatist approach through international organizations, especially the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, as well as through settlement houses, labor unions, and public service agencies. In Newer Ideals of Peace (Addams 1907/1964), written as Addams worried about the increasing nationalistic fervor and belligerence she observed in the world, Addams reflects on different approaches to peace, including the “peace-secured-by-the-preparation-for-war theory” that seems to prevail (5), the “older dovelike ideal” illustrated by Tolstoy’s moral appeal to pity for the suffering caused by war (3–4), and the “newer, more aggressive ideals” she has in mind (3). She considers the first absurd. And she deems older ideals of peace “passive” and dependent on recruiting people to a personal moral dogma, in the face of existing industrial conditions that require a more social and active approach (3–4). Addams identifies this approach with “newer ideals of peace” that rely on possibilities for building community among people of different classes and ethnicities who are linked by their need to address common problematic conditions. Her goal is to replace the old nationalist version of patriotism and the “war virtues” that go with it by a “cosmic patriotism” (237) that requires practical attention to a “larger and more varied environment” (214). As a path forward, Addams argues for attention to the growing “industrial relations” that can respond “to the cause of the poor” and to the “unfolding of worldwide processes” that can “nurture … human life” (113, 237–238). She distances herself from the ideas of speculative philosophers, such as Kant, that progress inevitably will result in the “subsidence of war” (23); instead she looks for “an adequate ethical code” in the newer “wide commercial relations” of her time (221). To Addams, commercial and industrial relations are “social relations,” not in the vague sense of merely involving other persons, but in the sense of economic relations that shape an entire society. In this context, an adequate ethical code means “free[ing] ourselves from the individualistic point of view sufficiently to

4 Introduction

group events in their social relations and to judge fairly those who are endeavoring to produce a social result through all the difficulties of associated action” (Addams 1907, 175). Identifying the economic relations and drawing our ethics from them is the challenge; it is easier for the benevolent philanthropist to stick to the individualist path, which attracts recognition from others, than to aim for a humbler democratic “social ethic,” or “social morality” that is less visible to others (175). To develop collaborative political friendships, we must turn to a social ethic that is grounded in the wider industrial and commercial relations that shape the particular relations that we observe and feel in our immediate experiences. Even though Addams founded Hull House “on the theory that the dependence of the classes on each other is reciprocal” (Addams 1911, 91) and sees interdependence as the key to cross-class friendships, she recognizes that the distance between philanthropist and beneficiary classes is geographic as well as economic. The wider social relations that concern Addams are not always evident to people in their daily lives. Even in the same city, “the poor and overburdened” beneficiary class often are invisible to the philanthropist class because space separates them; only “the daily paper” connects them (Addams 1907, 215). Their economic reciprocity and interdependence are difficult to identify. Along with newspapers, Addams and other Hull House residents reduced the invisibility of Chicago classes to each other by examining and publicizing their interdependent economic relations and facilitating collaborative friendships that could address problems spawned by those relations. Addams sees similar possibilities in the international arena, despite much greater distances.

Addams’s Expansion of Political Friendship Most modern democratic thinkers do not entertain the possibility of political friendships as broad as those Addams envisioned. Schooled in the tradition of Kantian universalism to associate friendship and justice with equality, they tend to overlook the kinds of unequal relations that concern Addams, even though such relations affect all of us. We spend most of our lives in unequal relations, as children and parents, employees and employers, students and teachers, members of subordinate and dominant social groups; yet treatments of justice, friendship, and reciprocity almost invariably focus on equal relations. In this vein, political theorists and philosophers who focus on political friendship cast it narrowly as civic friendship among ostensibly equal democratic citizens (see Allen 2004; Schwarzenbach 2009; Inamura 2015). This puts aside difficult questions about whether and how diverse unequal parties—citizens and noncitizens, dominant and marginalized racial groups, philanthropists and beneficiaries, professional experts and their clients—can collaborate on terms that are not merely kind or charitable, but reciprocal and just in the context of their particular unequal relations.2 The very idea that unequal collaborations can be just seems strange to

Introduction 5

most democratic thinkers. Their association of justice and reciprocity with egalitarian relations necessarily neglects the pervasive need in today’s global environment to understand possibilities for political friendship among unequal transnational parties. Fortunately, the concept of political friendship admits a broader interpretation, one rooted in Aristotle’s claim that just political regimes and associations of all kinds—whether equal or unequal—are utilitarian friendships built on common interests (Aristotle 1999, Nicomachean Ethics VIII.9–12). Addams’s feminist pragmatist friendship practices demonstrate both the possibility and the usefulness of a broad and flexible understanding of political friendship that illuminates possibilities for democratizing the unequal relations that contemporary democratic thinkers neglect. As Wendy Sarvasy among others observes, Addams was a pioneer in forging “woman-centered” cross-class alliances that transcended the gendered divisions between public and private spheres, as well as divisions of ethnicity and race, to address neglected but pervasive public problems (Sarvasy 2010; also see Deegan 2002; Fischer 2004). Thus, Addams’s approach to political friendship updates the concept to cover inequalities of race, gender, and ethnicity, as well as class, by including groups commonly relegated to the margins in formal politics. Her approach can serve a similar purpose in the international arena. It sends us to look for potential political friendships in the context of commercial and industrial relations that do not observe national borders. For any who may be skeptical that Addams’s collaborations qualify as political friendship, it is important to keep in mind the definitive features that Addams’s political friendships share with democratic civic friendship. In both cases, the key point is not to think of all friendships as personal, as Sibyl Schwarzenbach (2011) reminds us that many in the modern West do. All political friendships—equal or unequal—center on shared utilitarian interests. This means that they can be forged among persons who are strangers when they gradually develop mutual trust and reciprocity through bonds forged by common interests or projects rather than personal bonds, as Danielle Allen (2004, 156–157) persuasively elaborates. According to Schwarzenbach, features of personal friendship such as “reciprocal awareness and liking,” treating others as “moral equals,” wishing them well, and acting on that wish are introduced into democratic civic friendship through social customs, institutions, and law; for example, when we educate ourselves “about how citizens live in other parts of [our] city or country,” and when we are “willing to help [others] in times of crisis,” or to ungrudgingly give “tax dollars for basic assistance” (Schwarzenbach 2011; also see Schwarzenbach 2009). Jane Addams’s political friendships, like democratic civic friendships, originate when strangers pursue a common utilitarian purpose. However, her political friendships have a more specific pragmatic purpose and origin than friendship based on citizenship in a democratic society. They center on problems that cannot be addressed by a predefined national group of citizens; they require collaboration among those who are affected by a specific problem. This origin of

6 Introduction

Addams’s political friendships will resonate with those who are familiar with John Dewey’s explanation of the origin of the “public” in The Public and Its Problems published in 1927. “Public” does not refer to government institutions, but rather to actual relations among those who perceive themselves to be “seriously affected” by the consequences of actions taken by others, and who form a group to control those consequences (Dewey 1927/1954, 35). Addams’s collaborative friendship practices informed the more abstract works of Chicago School pragmatists Dewey and George Herbert Mead, who were her friends and sometime collaborators at Hull House. Dewey used Addams’s book Democracy and Social Ethics in his classes, served as a trustee of Hull House, and participated in many events there (Fischer 2002, 279, 284). Although these male writers are better known as the theorists and philosophers of pragmatism, feminist scholars recognize that Addams also was a chief theorist whose “theory/activism dynamic” informed the more theoretical writings of Dewey and other Chicago School men (Sarvasy 2010, 294–295; Fischer 2004, 44). Whereas not all male pragmatist philosophers gave Addams credit, Dewey did—although, perhaps not to the extent he should have, as Charlene Seigfried observes (Dewey 1945; Seigfried 1996, 30, 45–49, 58–75; Seigfried 1999, 213). Seigfried was among the first to document Addams’s influence on Dewey (Seigfried 1996, 45, 49, 58–59, 73–79; 1999, 212–213) and describes two ways in which Addams’s contributions to pragmatism go beyond those of Dewey and other classical pragmatists. First, Addams draws from “a wider and more diverse range of experiences …, particularly those outside of the white, male middle class, such as factory and domestic workers, various ethnic groups of recent immigrants, and poor and working-class women” (Seigfried 1999, 221). Second, she develops a pragmatist account of experience from women’s experiences, particularly those of early generations of white, college-educated women like herself and other women settlement members as well as those of inner-city working-class women of diverse ethnic backgrounds, including a usually neglected segment of this population—namely, poor, elderly women. (Seigfried 1999, 221–222; also see Fischer 2014) As Seigfried’s description of Addams’s contributions to pragmatism suggests, unlike democratic citizens in abstract legal relations, the parties to pragmatic political friendship relate to their common purpose in diverse ways. Their reciprocity as “moral equals” does not mean that the benefits and burdens of friendship are, or should be, the same. Nevertheless, the parties develop enough trust and good will to collaborate on the problem they need to address. In Addams’s narrative of the well-to-do charity visitor motivated to “improve” an impoverished family (described in detail below), moral equality—what Addams calls a “democratic ethic”—grows, despite the fact that the parties’ contributions to their common purpose (in this case, the well-being of the family) cannot involve equal

Introduction 7

economic reciprocity, as that would not be fair in the context of their different and unequal capacities to contribute.3 Writing against the grain of modern democratic thought that locates friendship, justice, and reciprocity in egalitarian relations, Addams devoted much of her life and writing to working out the dilemma of reciprocity between parties who are unequal in power and resources. Her first and most philosophical book Democracy and Social Ethics, originally published in 1902, clarifies why certain dominant characters in unequal relations—“the charity worker …, the wealthy father claiming rights over his daughter’s life, the bourgeois family enslaving the working girl, King Lear insisting on Cordelia’s sacrifice, George Pullman hoping to buy worker loyalty”—all “suffer from a lack of democratic ethics” (Joslin 2004, 65). In these examples, the party in the role of philanthropist takes the perspective of charity, which assumes the philanthropist’s moral virtue and expects gratitude from the beneficiary, without regard for the perspective of the beneficiary. This is the one-sided, individual approach to ethics that Addams struggles against. She vehemently resisted the idea that Hull House was a charity, and spent her life building reciprocal friendships based on social ethics. It is important to note that Addams’s concern about the gap between philanthropist and beneficiary classes (and philanthropists’ preference for individual ethics over more democratic social ethics) was not only about inequality based on wealth. Addams understood that these “class” relations often were entangled with inequalities of race, ethnicity, citizenship status, and gender that were embedded in the superior status and power of groups situated in the philanthropist class. In fact, race and ethnicity were conflated in the culture of her time, so that writers often ranked immigrants from different nationalities in a “hierarchy of worth,” according to “whether they were closer to Anglo-Saxons, or to persons of African descent” (Fischer 2014, 41). On a number of occasions, Addams specifically addressed subordination of African Americans who would likely be part of the financially secure upper-middle class if racial inequality were not an issue. Addams notes, for example, “the difficulty of finding positions, with which many of the educated young Negroes in Chicago are confronted and … the difficulty of equal opportunity and a square deal” (Addams 1908). Addams scholars who note Addams’s concern with unequal relations (Seigfried 1996, 229–230; Whipps 2004, 120–123; Sarvasy 2010; Fischer 2014) do not delve into how commercial and industrial relations shape various kinds of inequality. They overlook how those relations influence the process through which unequal parties can evolve toward a democratic ethic that is compatible with collaborative friendship. Most highlight community and fellowship in the context of cultural diversity; they focus particularly on feminist elements that Addams contributes to pragmatism, such as relying on situated knowledge and sympathetic understanding, listening to multiple perspectives, and recognizing the interdependence of different social groups (Seigfried 1996, 45–48, 58–59, 74–75;

8 Introduction

Hamington 2004; Whipps 2004; Bardwell-Jones 2012; Sarvasy 2010, 294–296; Fischer 2014; Lake 2014). The scholars who take up Addams’s claim for the international relevance of her community building experiences at Hull House tend to focus on cultural and ethnic diversity to the neglect of Addams’s concern with unequal class relations. For example, Celia Bardwell-Jones argues that Addams’s experience with cosmopolitan immigrant communities provides the foundation for a “transnational public ethos of care” by opening “a boundary space … between people who are culturally different; each becomes open to the experience of the other,” which makes “mutual recognition” and “affectionate interpretation” possible (BardwellJones 2012, 6). And Judith Green supports Addams’s view that social sentiments and “habits of action” that grow from immigrants’ experience with cultural diversity are more likely than abstract “moral theorizing” to spread peaceful cosmopolitanism (Green 2010, 235–236). This is not to say scholars entirely miss Addams’s concern with inequality. But they do not dwell, as Addams does, on the question of how industrial and commercial relations shape possibilities for reciprocal collaborations among parties who are unequal as well as diverse. The emphasis on cultural diversity among scholars who focus on Addams’s international experiences in her writings in the years around World War I is not surprising. Addams’s own narratives emphasize diversity among nations and nationalisms more prominently than class inequality. For example, although Addams collaborated with women from different classes as well as ethnicities and races at the 1915 International Congress of Women at The Hague, the women came as delegates from individual nations. Addams’s narratives emphasize similarities and differences among neutral nations as well as nations on both sides of the conflict (Addams et al. 1915/2003). Her focus is on the ethics and practice of peace-making among diverse nations. After the war, she saw the League of Nations as a promising way to address “overstimulated nationalisms” (quoted in Green 2010, 239). In this context, the urban immigrant cosmopolitanism of Hull House and its surrounds contributes to the international peace movement by combating parochial versions of nationalism. Transnational class inequalities were less developed and less visible in her time than our own, and they receded further in the context of warring nations. Nevertheless, close examination of Addams’s later writings—particularly Newer Ideals of Peace (Addams 1907) and Peace and Bread in Time of War (Addams 1922/1945)—show the influence of her early concern with the hierarchical gap between philanthropist and beneficiary classes, the continuing importance of commercial and industrial relations, and the shape these systemic economic relations take in conflicts between nations. Scholars who study global market relations today give us good reason to revisit Addams’s earlier accounts of Progressive Era cross-class collaborations. Scholars’ descriptions of these twenty-first-century economic relations point to the pervasiveness of systemic class hierarchy that resembles the hierarchy Addams observed between philanthropist and beneficiary classes. Urban planners and geographers

Introduction 9

show how global economic relations spawn “geographic disparities” between “have and have not global regions” as well as “have and have not neighborhoods” (Bromberg et al. 2007, 1). Have and have-not classes in separate regions are shaped and connected by changing global trade patterns, a shift of responsibilities away from nation-states to transnational institutions (such as the EU, WTO, and NAFTA), a “concentration of investments in the most globally competitive urban agglomerations,” and the “decline of rust-belt and rural regions” (1). The global migration of care workers provides a useful example of global class divisions. Global economic shifts have drawn more women into the labor force and increased the demand for care work. Today, some of the best information about unequal exploitative relations and the collaborations developed to counter them come from feminist care scholars who study the global migration of care workers (especially Robinson 1999, 2006, 2011; Ally 2005; Misra et al. 2006; Tungohan et al. 2015). Feminist care scholars have documented “a trans-national division of labour” between low-paid female migrant workers who leave their own families in the global South to work for middle-class families in the global North. Global economic forces situate these workers in exploitative relations with the powerful global actors—developed states, corporations, and global financial institutions—that determine the conditions under which the care workers have access to employment and resources (Robinson 1999, 2006, 2011; Ally 2005; Misra et al. 2006).4 The global migration of care workers exhibits, on today’s global scale, the hierarchical division Addams describes between philanthropist and beneficiary classes. Fortunately, scholars are already examining transnational collaborations that aim to address problems of migrant care workers, and some collaborations appear to operate on principles that Addams might have imagined (Tungohan et al. 2015). However, unlike Addams, most feminist care scholars share the modern Kantian association of justice and reciprocity with equality. And that limits their capacity to elaborate epistemological changes that must occur to democratize political friendships among unequal parties. Their accounts are less informative than Addams’s about how unequal parties learn to respect each other’s situated knowledges, pool those knowledges, identify a common purpose, and negotiate different contributions that all consider just.

Purpose and Approach I aim to translate Addams’s Progressive Era cross-class political friendships for use in this new context. Her political friendships among diverse immigrant communities contribute to democratic theory by providing a model for addressing difficult questions about how diverse parties in hierarchical relations—citizens and noncitizens, philanthropists and beneficiaries, professional experts and their clients, and subnational and transnational groups can form relations on terms that are fair and just. These would be reciprocal relations that go beyond charitable

10 Introduction

donations, concessions, or authoritative decisions by the more powerful parties. In the chapters that follow, I draw key conceptual features from Addams’s accounts of her pragmatist political friendships and locate them in political theory discussions of political friendship. I suggest how Addams’s approach can be useful as a pragmatist paradigm for developing political friendship in the context of unequal relations, especially transnational relations, such as those involved in the transnational migration of care workers. Addams’s approach to fostering political friendship across inequalities of class, race, ethnicity, sex, and citizenship status is a timely topic, given the contemporary subordination of peoples—internationally as well as in the U.S.—on similar grounds. I hope to attract attention to the continuing relevance of unequal economic relations for shaping possibilities for political friendship; question the widely held assumption among democratic thinkers that political friendship, justice, and reciprocity apply only among equals; and point the way to negotiating unequal collaborations that are friendly and just. In addition to Addams’s writings and secondary works about her, I draw on contemporary scholarship on Aristotelian political friendship and feminist care scholarship about the global migration of care workers to show how Addams’s friendship practices remain useful for understanding possibilities for political friendship among unequal parties in contemporary times. Ultimately, I hope to promote Addams’s friendship practices as a resource that is useful for political and social theorists, analysts, and practitioners who have not focused on conditions for friendship and justice in unequal relations. It seems vital to do that, given contemporary issues surrounding immigration and the apparent need to build political friendship among diverse peoples who are unequal in power and resources. I also hope that spreading Addams’s insights about unequal political friendships will be useful for community organizers, social workers, and other professionals who can benefit from Addams’s methods; like her, they devote their lives to facilitating political friendship among their diverse sets of clients and constituents. Upper-level undergraduate and graduate courses that address methods for engaging diverse urban or transnational groups in common endeavors will also find Addams’s insights helpful. The need to negotiate relations that are reciprocal and just among unequal parties arises in many academic, professional public service, and business contexts, including social work, urban studies, education, social movements, and public policy and administration. Finally, because of the pervasive need among those who consider themselves democrats, and because of the need to recognize Addams as a key figure in the history of American political thought and a key contributor to democratic theory and practice, I hope this work will be interesting to a wide general audience.

Organization and Contents The chapters below are organized conceptually around the problem that concerns Jane Addams—how to develop political friendships with and among parties who are unequal in power and resources. Chapters 2 through 5 elaborate Addams’s

Introduction 11

political friendship practices, how those practices are shaped by hierarchical economic relations, and how the economic foundations of her political friendships explain their usefulness transnationally as well as locally. The concluding chapter elaborates Addams’s contributions to the long tradition of Aristotelian political friendship, focusing on how she expands political friendship beyond current applications to democratic civic friendship. Chapter 2 draws heavily on Addams’s experiential accounts of friendships to detail two methods by which Hull House residents and the immigrant families in their neighborhood move past the class boundaries that link, as well as separate, them to become friends. The first method—direct personal interaction between persons from different classes—confronts class hierarchy directly. It demonstrates to the philanthropist group that they are ignorant of the conditions that face the neighborhood and that they can learn about those conditions only by listening to the neighbors who actually experience the conditions. For example, Addams describes how a charity visitor arrives in the home of a family prepared to give “advice upon the industrial virtues,” such as hard work, thrift, and self-support (Addams 1907/1964, 16–17). Not surprisingly, the charity visitor soon grasps that she is ill equipped to teach industrial virtues, she loses her sense of “superiority to … her hostess,” recognizes the social usefulness of her hostess, develops humility and, with that, the capacity to learn from her host family. This moves their relationship toward the reciprocity that marks friendship, even though their contributions cannot be the same and their economic inequality remains. Addams’s second method for building political friendship confronts class hierarchy less directly. This method focuses on civic, social, and educational activities that draw together neighborhood residents, Hull House residents and, often, city agencies or university professors as equal participants in a setting that reduces the influences of their class hierarchy, allows them to learn from each other, and facilitates further collaboration to address neighborhood issues. I analyze accounts of each method to flesh out Addams’s understanding of the industrial and commercial structures that connect the parties, how Addams and Hull House residents facilitate interaction between diverse parties, and how the parties come together in a common project. Addams’s most important contribution to political friendship emerges through these methods: she shows the process by which parties change so that they learn to respect each other’s situated knowledges, pool those knowledges, identify a common purpose, and negotiate different but commensurable contributions to it. Chapter 3 probes the pragmatist economic grounding of Addams’s cross-class collaborations in the industrial and commercial relations of her time. Her political friendships emerged in response to problems such as exploitative working conditions, poor sanitation, lack of education, and other problems related to poverty and the position of different parties at opposite ends of an economic hierarchy. In Chapter 3, I focus on Addams’s accounts of different kinds of hierarchical class relations in Democracy and Social Ethics. Addams’s narrative about how the charity

12 Introduction

visitor and her host family evolve toward political friendship serves as a paradigm for understanding how relations between philanthropist and beneficiary classes evolve in multiple different sets of hierarchical relations. Subsequent chapters examine “filial relations” between parents and their adult daughters, relations between employers of household labor and their live-in laborers, “industrial relations” between company employees and company president, and relations between educational institutions and methods and students from poor immigrant families. In the concluding chapter, Addams turns to “political reform” and relations between self-centered middle class reformers whose narrow view of politics as the government establishment overlooks poor immigrants marginalized by that establishment, and crude and corrupt politicians who focus on real needs of their poor constituents but respond only by dispensing favors. In combination, these narratives operationalize—they perform rather than theorize—Addams’s pragmatist understanding of ethics as social rather than individual. Social ethics consider the circumstances of action, its relational context, and its effects on others; social ethics include the perspectives of affected others who are not parties to the original action. In contrast, individual ethics are narrow and self-regarding; they center on the moral purity of the philanthropist party and neglect the perspectives of others who are affected by their actions. The self-centered perspective of individual ethics misses Addams’s point that class relations are social as well as economic. The class relations described by Addams are shaped by systemic relations of the Progressive Era industrial world that connect people’s daily lives in particular patterns. These systemic economic and social relations precede and exist apart from particular relations between individual persons, even as they shape those relations. Because such systemic relations are so embedded in our environment, they are essential components of any realistic analysis of obstacles to more democratic relations. This, I argue, is a basic premise that underlies Addams’s pragmatist analyses of problems and her approach to developing cross-class political friendships to address those problems. This premise has not captured the attention of Addams scholars. The problem is that, without it, we miss the fact that Addams’s first step toward cross-class collaborations is to examine and clarify the systemic relational links so that unequal persons and groups who are affected by the same particular circumstances or actions can recognize what they have in common. Otherwise, they will not be able to collaborate effectively on a common course of action. I explore the economic foundations of Addams’s cross-class collaborative friendships to show (1) how her narratives situate particular hierarchical relations in larger systemic class relations, (2) how such systemic relations link individuals from diverse class and ethnic backgrounds in ways that offer the potential for reciprocal collaboration, and (3) why the practical insights of marginalized beneficiary groups are key to political friendships. In Chapter 4, I take my effort to theorize Addams’s pragmatist approach to relationality another step. I identify connections between the multiple kinds of class hierarchy Addams described in Democracy and Social Ethics and her claim in

Introduction 13

Newer Ideals of Peace (1907) that her experiences at Hull House building collaborative friendships with immigrant neighbors can serve as a model for developing similar relations in the international arena. Most Addams scholars who take up her claim for the international relevance of her experiences at Hull House do not focus on her concern with class hierarchy. Despite the fact that class hierarchy anchors every chapter of Democracy and Social Ethics, scholars focus largely on the importance of diversity in Addams’s collaborations with immigrants from multiple nationalities (Whipps 2004; Green 2010; Bardwell-Jones 2012). The few scholars who recognize that Addams’s hopes for international collaborations are tied to unequal class relations do not delve into the economic foundations of these relations or how those foundations shape possibilities for political friendship in the context of unequal class relations, locally or transnationally (Fischer 2009; Sarvasy 2009). I fill in that gap by elaborating how Addams’s accounts of Progressive Era class hierarchies in Democracy and Social Ethics are related to her hope for transnational collaborations in Newer Ideals of Peace (1907). A careful reading of Newer Ideals of Peace shows that, in each chapter, Addams describes how the contrast between war and peace is manifested on a local scale in systemic class hierarchies of big cities such as Chicago. Newer Ideals re-casts this hierarchy in terms of militarism versus industrialism, with the former reflecting the individual ethics of philanthropist groups and the latter, the social ethics of beneficiary groups. Thus, Addams’s approach in Newer Ideals has much in common with her approach to different versions of class hierarchy in Democracy and Social Ethics. I elaborate the connections between class hierarchies that Addams describes in Democracy and Social Ethics and Newer Ideals of Peace to emphasize Addams’s consistent concern with hierarchical economic and social relations of industrialism and how these systemic relations shape both problems that perpetuate war and possibilities for addressing those problems. Similar to misguided educational and political reformers described in Democracy and Social Ethics, traditional peace advocates described in Newer Ideals often act on the basis of allegiance to selfregarding individual ethics that fail to acknowledge systemic economic and social relations, the experiences of beneficiary groups marginalized by those relations, and the social ethics that can be generated only from the experiences and perspectives of the marginalized. The path from individual to social ethics, from class oppression to democratic relations, and from militarism and war to “newer ideals of peace” is the same. It rests on collaborative political friendships that are grounded in existing hierarchical economic relations, and that aim to bridge that hierarchy with a common purpose rooted in the experiences, needs, and emerging social ethics of the poor. Such friendships include all parties in ways that are reciprocal and fair—even in the context of their unequal power and resources. In Chapter 5, I follow Addams’s argument recasting systemic class hierarchy as militarism versus industrialism into Peace and Bread in Time of War and other writings and speeches produced during and after World War I. From Addams’s perspective, the path to peace requires transnational political friendships that

14 Introduction

incorporate as partners and friends those groups that, out of necessity, have been most directly concerned with “bread labor” to sustain life—the working class, the poor and oppressed more generally, and women. In this chapter, I address the most obvious difficulty facing those who would take up Addams’s suggestion that the political friendships she forged with and among poor immigrant neighbors surrounding Hull House can serve as a model for developing similar friendships transnationally. The difficulty is how to develop cross-class political friendships when the parties on opposite ends of systemic class hierarchies are separated by oceans and continents. They lack the propinquity of classes that was crucial at Hull House (Addams 1895, 184). The settlement house was established in crowded impoverished immigrant neighborhoods to provide the opportunity for residents to see the painful effects of systemic class hierarchy in their neighbors’ daily lives, and to collaborate with neighbors to mitigate the problems that confronted them. How can parties at opposite ends of transnational economic hierarchies, who are separated by oceans and continents, forge similar political friendships? I draw on Addams’s accounts of her activities in the international peace movement to argue that certain kinds of de facto organizational processes, meaning processes that follow the contours of systemic economic relations and the problems they shape, can substitute for the propinquity of classes available at Hull House. I glean eight lessons from Addams’s accounts of transnational cross-class relations and then explain how these lessons gain substance from people’s stories about their everyday lives. The lessons distance Addams from “older ideals of peace” and universal moral truths abstracted from particular contexts (Addams 1907, 23; Green 2010, 224). They provide experiential details that allow democratic-minded readers to confront vicariously the seeming strangeness of unequal political friendships by making them familiar. Chapter 6 draws on lessons about de facto organization to locate Addams in the tradition of Aristotelian political friendship and elaborate her contributions to it. Although Aristotle opens the door to friendship and justice between unequal parties, his theoretical explanation leaves hanging questions about how unequal parties must evolve epistemically—what they must learn about the conditions that link them and each other’s perspective—to collaborate on terms that are just. Addams’s pragmatist friendship practices answer this question about friendship and justice in the context of inequality. In imagining how justice operates among unequals, Addams addresses issues that modern democratic thinkers since Kant have pushed aside. This innovation expands political friendship beyond contemporary applications to civic friendship among democratic citizens to make it useful for thinking about possibilities for political friendships to bridge the gap between classes transnationally as well as locally. I illustrate the usefulness of Addams’s approach by applying it to feminist care scholars’ investigations of the transnational migration of care workers and the collaborations those workers have developed (Ally 2005; Moors and de Regt 2008; Tungohan et al. 2015). This application of Addams’s pragmatist approach to forging political friendship suggests how existing organizations could benefit from more information about

Introduction 15

Addams’s work helping unequal parties to agree on fair terms of collaboration and proportionate contributions to a common purpose. The application also suggests how journalists and political leaders could improve their capacity to investigate and address the gap between have and have-not global classes. Addams herself might hope that pragmatist investigations of the kind she conducted would eventually jar global actors at the top of the market hierarchy, expose the one-sidedness of their knowledge, and enhance their regard for the situated knowledge necessary to understand actual conditions. Some powerful global actors might conceivably acquire a measure of humility (or at least awareness of their ignorance) sufficient to make them question the narrow market lens through which they view the world. Might some seek additional perspectives and even initiate their own investigations? Today, mass media, films, documentaries, and social media make it possible for strangers who live thousands of miles apart to acquire a vicarious, temporary experience of conditions in other parts of the world, learn from the experience of others, and explore ways to bridge the distance between classes. In this regard, journalists have an important role, and they can benefit from using Addams’s expanded version of political friendship to guide investigations. Often, media focus more on suffering in various parts of the world than on the underlying causes of suffering. Although this has the potential to motivate global actors, it also carries the trap of the charitable impulse that worries Addams. It is important that global actors from the philanthropist class who may be motivated by these reports not assume that they alone know how to address the problems of poverty depicted on screen and in print, or that they can address these problems through charitable donations. They need Addams’s warning against the hierarchical, ill-informed impulse of charity and her argument for reciprocal friendship among unequals. Addams’s approach to forging unequal friendship rooted in hierarchical economic relations would also be helpful for directing journalists to focus more than they currently do on investigating and reporting underlying causes of conditions they spotlight. Of course, none of this is likely to happen unless collaborative transnational friendships develop to investigate, publicize, and resist exploitative economic relations. Transnational labor organizations and beneficiary class alliances will need to press both global actors and media outlets to value situated knowledges, encourage the participation of all who are affected by a problem, and recognize the justice of different, proportionately commensurable contributions to a common purpose. All of these steps are modeled by Jane Addams’s practices of fostering political friendships in the context of inequality and difference.

Notes 1 I shift to the present tense when I discuss Addams’s accounts, because she writes in the present tense, a technique that brings the reader into the experience. 2 Schwarzenbach suggests briefly how democratic civic friendship might apply beyond national borders. Here, where one might expect her to consider unequal exchanges involving non-state global actors that operate beyond state boundaries, she reverts to a Kantian liberal universalist focus on states as equally sovereign actors. She writes: “Any

16 Introduction

state that views the value and duty of civic friendship as central to its self-conception will quite naturally build this value into its foreign relations as well”; the result will be “interstate friendship” based on “universal principles, individual rights, and the rule of law” (Schwarzenbach 2009, 249). 3 Despite the arguments of scholars who describe Addams’s social ethic as maternal (for example, Elshtain 2002), Wendy Sarvasy (2010) argues that it is not, because Addams prescribes sympathetic understanding for unequal class relations, where the point is to move away from hierarchical versions of caring, whether maternal or paternal. My argument supports Sarvasy’s view. 4 My account is taken from Moskop (2010).

References Addams, Jane. 1895. “The Settlement as a Factor in the Labor Movement.” In Hull House Maps and Papers by Residents of Hull House, 183–206. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell and Co. Addams, Jane. 1907/1964. Democracy and Social Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Addams, Jane. 1907. Newer Ideals of Peace. New York: Macmillan. Addams, Jane. 1908. “Advantages and Disadvantages of a Broken Inheritance.” Bulletin of Atlanta University 183 (June): 1–2. http://contentdm.auctr.edu/cdm/compoundobject/ collection/rwwl/id/1523/rec/4. Addams, Jane. 1911. Twenty Years at Hull House. Chautauqua, NY: The Chautauqua Press. Addams, Jane. 1922/1945. Peace and Bread in Time of War. With a New Introductory Essay by John Dewey. New York: King’s Crown Press. Addams, Jane. 2002a. “The Modern Lear.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 163–176. New York: Basic Books. Addams, Jane. 2002b. “The Objective Value of a Social Settlement.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 29–45. New York: Basic Books. Addams, Jane. 2002c. “The Subtle Problems of Charity.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 62–75. New York: Basic Books. Addams, Jane, Emily G. Balch, and Alice Hamilton. 1915/2003. Women at The Hague, Introduction by Mary Jo Deegan. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. Allen, Danielle. 2004. Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Ally, Shireen. 2005. “Caring About Care Workers: Organizing in the Female Shadow of Globalization.” Labour, Capital and Society 38 (1 and 2): 185–207. Aristotle. 1999. Nicomachean Ethics, second edn, trans. Terence Irwin. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Bardwell-Jones, Celia. 2012. “Addams and Immigration: Cultivating Cosmopolitan Identities through a Transnational Public Ethos of Care.” Society for the Advancement of Philosophy (March). New York. Bromberg, Ava, Gregory D. Morrow, and Deirdre Pfeiffer. 2007. “Editorial Note: Why Spatial Justice?” Critical Planning 14 (summer): 1–4. Deegan, Mary Jo. 2002. Race, Hull House, and the University of Chicago: A New Conscience against Ancient Evils. New York: Praeger. Dewey, John. 1927/1954. The Public and Its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press. Dewey, John. 1945. “Democratic versus Coercive International Organization: The Realism of Jane Addams.” Introduction to Peace and Bread in Time of War, by Jane Addams, ix–xx. New York: King’s Crown Press.

Introduction 17

Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 2002. Jane Addams and the Dream of American Democracy: A Life. New York: Basic Books. Fischer, Marilyn. 2002. “Jane Addams’s Critique of Capitalism as Patriarchal.” In Feminist Interpretations of John Dewey, ed. Charlene Haddock Seigfried, 278–297. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Fischer, Marilyn. 2004. On Addams. Toronto: Thomson Wadsworth. Fischer, Marilyn. 2009. “The Conceptual Scaffolding of Newer Ideals of Peace.” In Jane Addams and the Practice of Democracy, ed. Marilyn Fischer, Carol Nackenoff, and Wendy Chmielewsky, 165–182. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Fischer, Marilyn. 2014. “Addams on Cultural Pluralism, European Immigrants, and African Americans.” The Pluralist (fall): 38–58. Green, Judith. 2010. “Social Democracy, Cosmopolitan Hospitality, and Intercivilizational Peace: Lessons from Jane Addams.” In Feminist Interpretations of Jane Addams, ed. Maurice Hamington, 223–254. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Hamington, Maurice. 2004. Embodied Care: Jane Addams, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Feminist Ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Hamington, Maurice 2005. “Public Pragmatism: Jane Addams and Ida B. Wells on Lynching.” Journal of Speculative Philosophy 19(2): 167–174. Inamura, Kazutaka. 2015. Justice and Reciprocity in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Joslin, Katherine. 2004. Jane Addams, A Writer’s Life. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Knight, Louise. 2010. Spirit in Action. New York: W.W. Norton. Lake, Danielle. 2014. “Jane Addams and Wicked Problems: Putting the Pragmatic Method to Use.” The Pluralist 9(3): 77–94. Misra, Joya, Jonathan Woodring, and Sabine N. Merz. 2006. “The Globalization of Care Work: Neoliberal Economic Restructuring and Migration Policy.” Globalizations 3(3): 317–332. Moors, Annelise, and Marina de Regt. 2008. “Migrant Domestic Workers.” In Illegal Migration and Gender in a Global and Historical Perspective, ed. Marlou Schrover, Joanne Van Der Leuv, Leo Lucassen, and Chris Quispel, 151–170. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Moskop, Wynne Walker. 2010. “Justice as Friendship: An Aristotelian Perspective on Global and Local Justice.” In Justice et Injustices Spatiales, ed. Bernard Bret, Philippe Gervais-Lambony, Claire Hancock, and Frédéric Landy, 163–180. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest. Robinson, Fiona. 1999. Globalizing Care: Ethics, Feminist Theory and International Relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Robinson, Fiona. 2006. “Care, Gender and Global Social Justice: Rethinking ‘Ethical Globalization.’” Journal of Global Ethics 2(1): 5–25. Robinson, Fiona. 2011. The Ethics of Care: A Feminist Approach to Human Security. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Sarvasy, Wendy. 2009. “A Global ‘Common Table’: Jane Addams’s Theory of Democratic Cosmopolitanism and World Social Citizenship.” In Jane Addams and the Practice of Democracy, ed. Marilyn Fischer, Carol Nackenoff, and Wendy Chmielewsky, 183–202. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Sarvasy, Wendy. 2010. “Engendering Democracy by Socializing It: Jane Addams’s Contribution to Feminist Political Theorizing.” In Feminist Interpretations of Jane Addams, ed. Maurice Hamington, 291–309. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.

18 Introduction

Schwarzenbach, Sibyl. 2009. On Civic Friendship: Including Women in the State. New York: Columbia University Press. Schwarzenbach, Sibyl. 2011. “A Failure of Civic Friendship.” Huffington Post (May 25). www. huffingtonpost.com/sibyl-a-schwarzenbach/a-failure-of-civic-friend_b_387528.html. Seigfried, Charlene Haddock. 1996. Pragmatism and Feminism: Reweaving the Social Fabric. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Seigfried, Charlene Haddock. 1999. “Socializing Democracy: Jane Addams and John Dewey.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 29(2): 207–230. Stebner, Eleanor. 1997. The Women of Hull House: A Study in Spirituality, Vocation, and Friendship. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Tungohan, Ethel, Rupa Banerjee, Wayne Chu, Petronilla Cleto, Conely de Leon, Mila Garcia, Philip Kelly, Marco Luciano, Cynthia Palmaria, and Christopher Sorio. 2015. “After the Live-in Caregiver: Filipina Caregivers’ Experiences of Graduated and Uneven Citizenship.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 47(1): 87–105. Whipps, Judy D. 2004. “Jane Addams’s Social Thought as a Model for a PragmatistFeminist Communitarianism.” Hypatia 19(2): 118–133.

2 ADDAMS’S FRIENDSHIP PRACTICES

Jane Addams and most other residents of Hull House tend to be well-educated, upper-middle class, white, and female volunteers.1 They live cooperatively in Hull House, a mansion that Addams renovated and furnished with an inheritance from her father, where they “defray” their own expenses. They work in Hull House studios, workshops, the surrounding urban neighborhood, and the city, often without wages. They can afford to do this, and they are moved to do it by Christian, humanitarian, and democratic impulses, as Addams elaborates in her essay “The Subjective Necessity for Social Settlements,” published in 1892 and re-published in 1910 as Chapter 6 in Twenty Years at Hull House. Most Hull House residents are socio-economically positioned in the philanthropist class, at the upper end of the hierarchy that Addams identifies in the Progressive Era industrial world. Like Addams herself, they share features of a new generation that grew up in the latter part of the nineteenth century: they are mostly well off, well educated, and well-traveled. Addams writes: We have in America a fast-growing number of cultivated young people who have no recognized outlet for their active faculties. They hear constantly of the great social maladjustment, but no way is provided for them to change it, and their uselessness hangs about them heavily. … These young people have had advantages of college, of European travel, and of economic study, but they are sustaining this shock of inaction. (Addams 2002d, 21–22) Addams and other young women in this cohort are especially affected by this inactivity. Their education and exposure to the problems of the industrial world through travel and education prepared them for independent thought and action,

20 Addams’s Friendship Practices

but instead they find their faculties stymied and their ambitions frustrated by patriarchal limitations on women’s responsibilities in the family and the lack of opportunities for women in the world (20–21; Knight 2010, Ch. 2). Addams sees the social settlement as their outlet. It welcomes their participation and consumes their energies in “an experimental effort to aid in the solution of the social and industrial problems which are engendered by the modern conditions of life in a great city” and “to relieve … the over-accumulation at one end of society and the destitution at the other” (25–26). Whereas young people from the philanthropist class found a much-needed outlet in social settlements such as Hull House, they had more than they knew to learn there. Addams identifies the challenge that immediately confronted them. These young, highly motivated people must be emptied of all conceit of opinion and all self-assertion, and ready to arouse and interpret the public opinion of their neighborhood. They must be content to live quietly side by side with their neighbors, until they grow into a sense of relationship and mutual interests. (Addams 2002d, 26) In the settlement house context of class inequality, the door to friendship would open only when the residents restrain exercise of the advantages and ambition afforded by their class background enough to be guided by neighborhood perspectives.2 Residents of the neighborhood around Hull House are immigrants and other poor people living in crowded tenements, without adequate food, clothing, or facilities for washing themselves or their clothes. Addams describes in her 1893 essay, “The Objective Value of a Social Settlement,” how Hull House neighbors are pulled and pushed about by dealings of factory owners, corrupt political bosses, and industrial forces that are mysterious to them (Addams 2002b). Because people in the neighborhood often are first-generation immigrants from different ethnic groups, their languages and cultures differ. Their needs differ as well, depending on factors such as age, education, skills, health, whether the family has young children who require supervision or teenagers who seek engagement with peers. Further, they have limited ability to communicate across ethnic groups. Because people in the neighborhood experience problems of the industrial world more directly than Hull House residents do, they have knowledge and experience that Hull House residents lack. Yet without the catalyst and gathering space provided by Hull House, neighborhood residents have difficulty coming together in ways that clarify the social roots of their common problems. Neighborhood residents are situated in the beneficiary class, at the lower end of the Progressive Era industrial hierarchy. By locating individuals and groups in philanthropist and beneficiary classes, Addams calls attention to their relation to each other in the socio-economic structure of the Progressive Era industrial world. She focuses not on individuals

Addams’s Friendship Practices 21

who happen to be wealthy or poor, but on the fact that the relation between classes when one class possesses the resources on which the other depends necessarily positions individuals in a hierarchical economic relation. Every personal relation is also a group relation. In this context, even personal relations have an underlying economic relation and a potential political relation as a social group that may act to promote its common interests. Addams describes two methods by which Hull House residents and the immigrant families in their neighborhood—individually and collectively—move past the class divisions that separate them to become friends. The first method— direct personal interaction—confronts hierarchy directly. It demonstrates to the philanthropist group that they are ignorant of the conditions that face the neighborhood and that they can learn about those conditions only by listening to the neighbors who actually experience the conditions. The second method confronts class hierarchy less directly. This method focuses on civic, social, and educational activities that draw together neighborhood residents, Hull House residents and, often, city agencies or university professors, as equal participants in a setting that reduces the influence of class hierarchy on their mutual relations, enables them to learn from each other, and thereby facilitates further collaboration on neighborhood issues. Addams gives a detailed account of the first method in her description of the “charity visitor,” which appeared originally in The Atlantic in 1899, the year Addams co-founded Hull House, and was published again in 1902 in Democracy and Social Ethics (Addams 1907/1964). This account addresses the gap between philanthropist and beneficiary classes in terms that are sufficiently explicit to provide a paradigm for the way Addams thinks about reciprocal friendship between unequal parties. Whereas Hull House residents do not consider themselves charitable visitors, their status as educated upper-middle class persons who can afford, and are motivated, to do the work of the settlement house casts them in the mold of the charity visitor in the eyes of their neighbors. And, in truth, most of them have the charity visitor’s background, and they must learn what she must learn. They confront the same class division, and they strive constantly to move beyond it. The story of the charity visitor is the story of how persons and groups situated in the philanthropist class must evolve to develop friendships with persons and groups situated in the beneficiary class. Read in combination with “The Subjective Necessity for Social Settlements,” the story of the charity visitor provides an intimate look at the perspective of many educated well-to-do young women of Addams’s generation, whose Christian and humanitarian motives inspired them to work with the poor. Addams’s personal experiences—her family background, college education, and travels—authorize this insider’s view of the charity visitor’s perspective as it evolves from prolonged close contact with her host family. Recall Addams’s insistence that the young settlement house residents must empty themselves “of all conceit of opinion and all self-assertion” to become open to their neighbors.

22 Addams’s Friendship Practices

Similarly, the charity visitor must move from a one-sided philanthropic effort informed only by her own opinion to a reciprocal friendship that can address needs of the host family because it incorporates their perspective and experiential knowledge. Further, the charity visitor herself benefits from the friendship in ways that parallel how settlement house residents benefit from living “side by side with their neighbors.” Overall, readers see in the epistemological evolution of the charity visitor how settlement house residents and others in the philanthropist class need to change to facilitate reciprocal cross-class friendships that can ground progressive social change. In Addams’s account, the charity visitor arrives in the home of a family that is “industrially ailing,” ready to give “advice upon the industrial virtues and to treat the members of the family almost exclusively as factors in the industrial system.” The specific advice she has been taught to give is that they “must work and be self-supporting, that the most dangerous of all situations is idleness” (Addams 1907/1964, 16–17). Not surprisingly, the charity visitor soon sees that she is “no more fitted to cope with actual conditions” than are members of her “brokendown family.” Whereas her grandmother was equipped with the “industrial virtues and housewifely training” that the charity visitor wants to teach, she herself is not (18). When the charity visitor recognizes how ill equipped she is to teach industrial virtues, she loses her sense of “superiority to … her hostess”; she sees that her hostess “represents social value and industrial use, as over against her own parasitic cleanliness and a social standing attained only through status” (16). This account suggests that a first step in moving beyond the gap between the charity visitor and the family she visits is a dose of reality, a confrontation with her family’s experience that lowers the charity visitor’s status in her own eyes and elevates the status of her family. She sees that they have a social value and industrial use, including situated knowledge that she lacks.3 In terms of industrial use, her wealth, education, and social status do nothing. It turns out, then, that even her benevolent intent tends to lose the value she gave it when she became a charity volunteer. Addams (69–70) says that the charity visitor develops humility. Similar to settlement house residents, her humility aids in restraining her privilege and ridding herself of all “conceit of opinion” (69-70). To be sure, the position of the charity visitor in the philanthropic relationship was never as elevated in the eyes of her host family as it was in her own eyes. The ethical standards of the “industrially failing” families differ from hers. As a result, the family both misunderstands the motives of the charity visitor and has keen critical insight into them. Despite their poverty, neighborhood families are extremely generous to each other. Their shared economic precariousness makes “outflow of sympathy and material assistance the most natural thing in the world” (20). This contrasts sharply with the “delay and caution” they experience when the representatives of charitable agencies give relief. The neighborhood families are used to wealth coming from industrial success, which they associate with the coldness and calculations of selfish men, such as a rich landlord (24). They

Addams’s Friendship Practices 23

wonder: “If the charity visitor is such a person, why does she pretend to like the poor” (23)? Their suspicion is fed by the fact that charitable visitors and associations supervise them closely. They wonder: Why should being good to the poor require such severe supervision of them? “Why not let us alone and stop your questions and investigations” (24)? The contrast with their own generous inclinations suggests to them that the charity visitor’s motives actually are not generous (22). Still another puzzle to the families is that the charity visitor does not give them what they think they need. If they need new shoes, why does the charity visitor not give them one of the many pairs they suppose she has at home? After all, their much poorer neighbors would gladly lend a pair of shoes they need for themselves (29–30). The “neighborhood mind,” as Addams describes it, does not view the charity visitor as good or pleasant; if she is useful, it is only incidentally so. The neighborhood’s “sole standard of judgment is industrial success,” a standard the charity visitor herself does not meet (25). Further, when some neighbors see others who may not be “deserving” get resources from the charity agencies, they feel that they deserve the same resources. Then “dependence upon the charitable society is substituted for the natural outgoing of human love and sympathy” (28). From this perspective, most charity workers, who are mostly well-meaning upper middleclass volunteers, reinforce rather than mitigate the hierarchical gap between classes. Beyond being suspicious of the charity visitor’s strange motivations, the poor view the charity visitor with “certain kindly contempt,” which she does not understand (24). The only charity appreciated by the neighborhood “is that of the visiting nurses, who by virtue of their professional training render services which may easily be interpreted into sympathy and kindness” (26). Also, unlike the typical charity visitor, the nurses are skilled and useful. In addition to the different ethical standards that separate the charity visitor and her family, there are related cultural differences. For example, the charity visitor advises her family that saloons foster evil, but the male members of the family know saloons as a safe communal space where they socialize with neighbors and are occasionally provided a free meal (32). The charity visitor preaches kindness toward children, but her family sees the need to intimidate and control their children. The family thinks, “If you did not keep control over them from the time they were little, you would never get their wages when they are grown up” (45). The charity visitor has been taught that there is something wrong with too much care for appearances, but young women of the neighborhood spend their hard-earned scarce funds on clothes. Appearance is the only part of material success the poor see, the standard by which the world of industrial success judges them, and the only sign of success and status they can display (34–37). From their perspective, investing in appearance is quite reasonable. Given these ethical and cultural differences between the charity visitor and the intended beneficiary family, the charity visitor risks urging on a neighborhood family actions that she would not have to consider in the case of her own family.

24 Addams’s Friendship Practices

And she does not recognize the consequences for her host family. For example, the charity visitor’s allegiance to industrial virtues sometimes causes her to encourage children to go to work early to support their families. She fails “to see that the boy who attempts to prematurely support his widowed mother may lower wages, add an illiterate member to the community, and arrest the development of a capable workingman” (42). As she gradually becomes acquainted with the experiences of her neighborhood family, she learns that the actions oriented most immediately toward industrial virtues often make little sense in light of conditions they experience. The charity visitor gradually observes the consequences of substituting her “higher” ethical standard for the neighborhood’s “lower” standard “without similarity of experience” (59). Ultimately, her perspective and her values broaden as a result of taking into consideration the conditions that confront her host family. One detailed example is Addams’s description of the charity worker’s puzzlement about how to advise the family of a man who is unable to get a job, initially because he participated in a strike. After a prolonged period of unemployment when other strikers have found jobs, the man tells himself that the reason for his continued unemployment is that he is still blacklisted. His wife, at least to all appearances, does not complain while she supports the family alone. The charity worker learns that the man, in truth, is not very skilled. On the other hand, she also sees that other men solicit his advice, that he spends time reading in the library, that he speaks frequently at meetings of workers, and that (aside from his tendency toward the intellectual at the expense of profitable pursuits) he “has formed no bad habits.” She sees that, although he lacks the industrial virtues, “he has undoubted social value” (48). Caught between her initial mission of instilling industrial virtues and lessons learned from the experiences of her host family, the charity visitor shrinks from the thought of convincing the wife that her husband is worthless and she suspects that she might turn all [the wife’s] beautiful devotion into complaining drudgery. To be sure, she could give up visiting the family altogether, but she has become much interested in the progress of the crippled child who eagerly anticipates her visits, and she also suspects that she will never know many finer women than the mother. She is unwilling, therefore to give up the friendship and goes on bearing her perplexities as best she may. (Addams 1907/1964, 50–51) Some charity workers are motivated by these perplexities and their desire for friendship “to live in a tenement house as simply as the other tenants do” (63). In doing this, they “assume to have put themselves upon the industrial level of their neighbors” and to be tackling societal problems of poverty together. However, Addams cautions, “they have left out the most awful element of poverty, that of imminent fear of starvation and a neglected old age” (64). The charity worker

Addams’s Friendship Practices 25

who only visits clearly does not experience the worst elements of poverty. She can leave the problems of the tenement behind, but the tenement families who live there permanently cannot. The charity worker must live with the perplexities of her limited knowledge and capacity and act accordingly—sometimes keeping quiet and trusting the instincts of her host family—to become their friend. What lessons can persons in the philanthropist class learn from Addams’s account of the charity visitor? 

 

 

Through direct experience with lives and needs of people who are situated at the bottom end of the industrial world, the philanthropists can recognize that their good intentions often are uninformed. They are ill-equipped to teach industrial virtues to poor and working-class families. Through the same path as the charity visitor, they can acquire the humility they need to learn from those they came to help. With humility comes openness to learning how industrial conditions look from the perspective of those who experience the worst consequences of those conditions. Because the philanthropists cannot presume to have the same knowledge as the poor, they must listen to the poor and develop sympathetic knowledge to help improve conditions. Absent the situated knowledge that comes from the family’s experience of its own problems, the philanthropists cannot contribute to a solution. Humility also opens the philanthropists to perceiving and learning to value the good qualities in the poor and marginalized families with whom they interact. Finally, the philanthropists understand that their perplexity about how to narrow the gap between respect for industrial virtues, and the good qualities of persons who lack industrial virtues, cannot necessarily be resolved. Once the philanthropists see that their advice may make conditions worse for the intended beneficiaries, they develop a degree of reticence to giving that advice. They learn that, sometimes, they must keep quiet to be a friend.

Addams’s summary of the charity visitor’s path to sympathetic understanding of her host family’s experiences apply generally to the philanthropist class. The charity visitor’s wider social activity, and the contact with the larger experience, not only increases her sense of social obligation but at the same time recasts her social ideas. She is chagrined to discover that in the actual task of reducing her social scruples to action, her humble beneficiaries are far in advance of her, not in charity or singleness of purpose, but in self-sacrificing action. She reaches the old-time virtue of humility by a social process. She gets the dust upon her head because she has stumbled and fallen in the road through her efforts to … march with her fellows. She

26 Addams’s Friendship Practices

has socialized her virtues not only through a social aim but also by a social process. (Addams 1907/1964, 69) For the charity visitor, friendship with her host family isn’t just a matter of developing a kindly sentiment and affection. It’s a matter of moving beyond onesided charity, or mercy, to act “justly” (69)—to equalize, or democratize, a relation that remains unequal in power and resources. Although Addams’s account focuses on the charity visitor’s ethical and epistemological evolution toward friendship, it offers lessons for how members of the philanthropist class in general—including Hull House residents—learn to practice friendship in the context of hierarchical class relations. It captures the dynamic epistemological evolution through which charitable impulses that motivate many young people who find an outlet in the social settlement houses can meet the challenge to move beyond the “conceit of [their own] opinion and … self-assertion,” become open to the opinions of their diverse neighbors, and grow into reciprocal friendship with them. Readers can see how settlement house residents and others in the philanthropist class need to change to facilitate reciprocal cross-class friendships that can ground progressive social change. Addams’s account also suggests that, just as the charity visitor’s perspective evolves, so does her family’s perspective toward her. It appears that the family becomes less suspicious of her motives and develops a degree of trust. Hilda Satt Polacheck (1991), who penned the only published account of a neighborhood resident about Addams and Hull House, confirms this impression of the neighbors’ view of Addams and Hull House settlement. Hilda Satt immigrated from Poland as a young girl and settled in a Jewish enclave with her family, which is when her relationship with Jane Addams began. One night, fresh from the drudgery of making cuffs in a shirtwaist factory, Satt walked into Hull House and encountered Addams in the reception room. When Addams asked what she wanted to do, Satt replied that she didn’t know. Addams introduced her to the Hull House Labor Museum, which exhibited many ongoing activities from which Satt could choose (Polacheck 1991, 63–64). One thing led to another, and Satt was exposed to and took advantage of many opportunities. In addition to learning the finer cloth-making skills and embroidery taught by neighborhood residents at the Hull House Labor Museum, she developed her talent as a writer, took classes at the University of Chicago, taught English at Hull House, dramatized a book written by a Hull House resident (at Jane Addams’s suggestion), and had it performed by the Hull House Players. Along the way, Satt met many people who opened new worlds to her, including the editor of a small magazine that published some of her work and her future husband, William Polacheck. She often observed neighbors who were caught in minor offenses and “bewildered” by police reactions come to Addams for help. She provides several accounts of how Addams helped to organize neighbors to

Addams’s Friendship Practices 27

work with public agencies to attack neighborhood problems such as inadequate garbage collection. From Satt’s perspective, Hull House was an “oasis in a desert of disease and monotony” (73). And, to her, Jane Addams embodied the spirit of Hull House. She never made one feel that she was doling out charity. When she did something for you, you felt she owed it to you or that she was making a loan that you could pay back. … The most forlorn scrubwoman received the same warm welcome as the wealthy supporters of the house. (Polacheck 1991, 74–75) Satt’s description highlights a key point of the kinds of friendship Addams fostered: the persons positioned in the beneficiary class experienced a reciprocal exchange. That didn’t change the fact that Addams was a member of the philanthropist class who had the resources to give, or the fact that Satt and other neighbors benefitted from the resources that Addams and Hull House provided. Addams and other Hull House residents made contributions to the exchange that Satt believed were reciprocated when the neighbors found ways to “pay back.” The reciprocal relationship left Satt feeling respected and empowered. This illustrates the operation of a democratic ethic in the context of inequality. In Democracy and Social Ethics, Addams takes a similar approach to the relationship between an employer and a household employee who resides in the employer’s house. Addams observes that some employers of such household labor “make heroic efforts to supply domestic and social life to their employees,” including “books and papers and companionship.” However, this results in only “a simulacrum of companionship.” The employee may or may not feel “a genuine friendship for her employer,” but “the unnaturalness of the situation comes from the insistence that she has merely because of the propinquity” (Addams 1907/1964, 121). When the employer takes on the role of the philanthropist by “sympathetically” substituting her own “interests and affections” for those the employee misses by living apart from her own family and friends, the employee becomes “dependent upon the good will of her employer.” To Addams, “that in itself is undemocratic” (122), because the employer imposes a self-centered individual perspective on a social relation. A democratic social ethic would recognize that an employee’s own “interests and affections” are separate from her employment; it would provide arrangements that allow her a normal social life with friends of her own choosing; and, in the social relation of employment, it would return a fair wage for work performed (127, 130–134). Addams’s essay “The Modern Lear” makes much the same point about the hierarchical relation between a company and its employees in a labor dispute (Addams 2002a; also see Addams, 1907/1964, Ch. 5). Here, the company president plays the role of philanthropist who imposes his own values and priorities on the lives of employees, when by rights, he should provide fair compensation

28 Addams’s Friendship Practices

and not expect any return beyond work performed well. For my purposes, this is a particularly useful account of how not to develop friendship. Addams compares the president of Pullman’s treatment of Pullman employees before and during the 1894 Pullman strike to Shakespeare’s story of King Lear’s treatment of his daughter Cordelia, who, in comparison to her sisters, did not demonstrate the gratitude he demanded in return for the gift of a kingdom. As Addams explains, although the forces of [Shakespeare’s] tragedy were personal and passionate …, this modern tragedy in its inception is a mal-adjustment between two large bodies of men, employing company and a mass of employes. It deals not with personal relationships, but with industrial relationships. (Addams 2002a, 163) Addams had an intimate look at events surrounding the Pullman strike; as a member of the conciliation board appointed by the Civic Federation of Chicago, she tried repeatedly to mediate between the Pullman company and its employees (Knight 2005, Ch. 13). In her account, what the president of the Pullman Company had in common with King Lear was that he “heaped extraordinary benefits upon those toward whom he had no duty recognized by common consent” (Addams 2002a, 165, emphasis added). This is not to say that King Lear had no duty to his daughter or the president, no duty to company employees, but that the benefits they bestowed exceeded their duty; and the measure of gratitude they demanded exceeded what the beneficiaries expected, or could be expected, to return. In a friendship, even between unequal parties, duty to another is determined by a common purpose that is recognized by the other. That key element of friendship was missing when the king and the company president demanded gratitude from the beneficiaries that was commensurate with their own estimation of what they had given, without regard for the beneficiaries’ perspective on the “benefit.” Neither Cordelia nor the Pullman employees wanted or needed the gifts they received. Addams faults Lear for not knowing “his daughter’s heart,” refusing “to comfort and advise her,” and thinking so highly of “himself as the noble and indulgent father that he … lost the faculty by which he might perceive himself in the wrong” (167). He could imagine no sin on his part and “no fidelity on the part of Cordelia unless she gave him the sign [of gratitude] he demanded” (167). Similarly, the president of the Pullman Company bestowed a great gift on his employees, or so he thought. He “built and regulated an entire town” for them. On Addams’s account this might have worked out into a successful associated effort, if he had had in view the sole good of the inhabitants …, if he had called upon them for self-

Addams’s Friendship Practices 29

expression and made the town a growth and manifestation of their wants and needs. (Addams 2002a, 166) However, not only did Pullman not consult his employees; his ultimate goal was not their good. It was “commercial and not social, having in view the payment to the company of at least 4 percent on the money invested.” As a result, there was no way to adjust the rent employees paid the company “to wages, much less to needs.” Assuming that he could judge the needs of Pullman employees, the president “denied to them the simple rights of trade organization,” which would have provided them an outlet for expressing their common needs (166, 167). Addams suggests that the president of Pullman had another goal beyond the commercial: the town he built “became a source of pride and an exponent of power” that “gave him a glow of benevolence.” He was situated in the philanthropist class, and he understood his position as an employer to be philanthropic rather than social and industrial. He intended “to give his employes the best surroundings,” but the problem was how he measured that. He measured the usefulness of the town not by the “standards of the men’s needs,” but by “what the outside world thought of it” (167), meaning what the outside world thought of his good works. Unlike Addams’s charity visitor, the president of Pullman did not engage with the experiences and perspectives of the intended beneficiaries of his actions. Remaining ignorant of their situated knowledge and the standards of judgment that made sense to them, Pullman never developed humility, and never became a friend. Addams’s account shows that the president of Pullman neither listened nor investigated. Instead he discounted his employees’ wishes, tried to silence them, and demanded their gratitude to him for what he had chosen to provide. He forgot the common stock of experience which he held with his men. He cultivated the great and noble impulses of the benefactor, until the power of attaining a simple human relationship with his employes, that of frank equality with them, was gone from him. (Addams 2002a, 167–168) At that point, Addams writes, the president and his employees “had no mutual interest in a common cause” (168), no shared grounds for reciprocity. Like Lear, the president of Pullman believed he had given more than was due and received in return much less than was due. His demand for a form of gratitude that did not reflect the hearts and minds of the recipients brought “ingratitude” (165). Addams concludes that, as long as the more powerful see themselves as superior benefactors who are “‘good to people,’ rather than ‘with them,’ they are bound to accomplish a large amount of harm” (172).

30 Addams’s Friendship Practices

In Addams’s accounts of Lear and the president of Pullman, the relationship between benefactor and intended recipient is one-sided. Both Lear and the president of Pullman imagined a basis for reciprocity with their intended beneficiaries that didn’t exist. They thought they themselves could determine the benefit for which the recipient should be grateful. In contrast to Addams’s charity visitor, neither Lear nor the president of Pullman engaged their intended beneficiaries enough to learn from them and respect their perspectives. Because they never developed humility required to imagine themselves “in the wrong,” they were incapable of changing course. Addams concludes that the root of the mistake made by George Pullman and King Lear is “egoism.” This causes them to overestimate their own role and block their perception of their beneficiaries’ views and the realistic view of conditions that they could garner only from listening to the beneficiaries (172).4 What quality did the president of Pullman need to move toward friendship with the employees? Addams’s diagnosis is that, between Pullman’s commercial goals and his pride, he “lost the faculty of affectionate interpretation” of the others’ situation (168). According to Addams, this “sympathetic interpretation” involves the desire to understand and respond to others’ expressions of their needs. As Addams applies this approach to social problems, it also involves a larger type of “sympathetic knowledge” (Addams 1912, 11). At Hull House, this meant knowledge of how particular persons experienced problems that affected them— knowledge gleaned in the first instance through listening, as the charity visitor in Addams’s account gradually learned to listen to her host family. Each of the parties affected by the problem being addressed gained knowledge of it through investigation of the underlying causes. In unequal relations, the more powerful party cannot gain this knowledge without listening to and collaborating with the less powerful party. Addams’s accounts clarify that what becomes democratic in the unequal friendship between the charity visitor and the host family is the epistemological process, the give-and-take through which they gradually integrate their different knowledges to figure out what is good for the family and how each can contribute. This process results in a structural change to the still unequal friendship, a change from lack of understanding and respect, to mutual, equal respect for the parties’ different knowledges, experiences, and roles in the friendship. The failure to engage in such a democratic, mutually respectful social process is the fault Addams finds with the president of Pullman. If he truly had the wellbeing of employees as his purpose (as he told himself), he would have engaged with the employees, allowed them to organize to identify and express their collective utilitarian interests, and negotiated with them. Like the charity visitor, he might have transitioned from the one-sided stance of benevolence, developed humility, learned from employees, and moved toward friendship with them through a reciprocal process of negotiation. He might have recognized that the employees were “grop[ing] toward justice” (Addams 2002a, 169). These

Addams’s Friendship Practices 31

epistemological and structural changes are Addams’s key contributions to our understanding of how reciprocity can be established in unequal friendship. In sum, Addams’s accounts of the friendship that developed between the charity visitor and her host family and the friendship that could have developed between the employer of household labor and the employee, or between the Pullman president and Pullman employees, model what to do and what to avoid to build reciprocal utilitarian friendship between parties in hierarchical economic relations. Whereas the president of Pullman failed to develop a mutual relationship based on common interest with the people he set out to help, Hull House residents often did develop such relationships with their neighbors, as Hilda Satt Polacheck affirms. Addams also relates stories about a second, more indirect method by which Hull House practices narrowed the gap between classes. In contrast to the direct personal interaction of philanthropist and beneficiary groups described above, Hull House residents helped their neighbors in the beneficiary class develop empowering collaborative friendships among themselves. Those collaborations, in turn, empowered neighborhood groups in ways that narrowed the gap between classes. In these more egalitarian collaborations, Hull House residents often performed support roles—for example, as mediators, interpreters, and hosts—and Hull House itself provided an appropriate gathering space. But the activities themselves belonged to the neighborhood participants. Addams’s 1893 essay, “The Objective Value of the Social Settlement,” describes four different categories of activities sponsored by Hull House (Addams 2002b). In addition to humanitarian activities aimed at alleviating immediate distress (which tended to involve the direct method of fostering cross-class friendships), Hull House sponsored civic, educational, and social activities. A central point of the essay is that these different activities were “not formally or consciously” chosen by Hull House residents but devised “according to the receptivity of the neighbors,” and reliant on the neighbors’ participation (32). Addams lays out the particulars of how neighbors from different ethnic groups, or with different levels of income or education, or different family composition, benefitted from participation in different kinds of activities. In facilitating these activities, Hull House residents take into account as many sides as possible. They respond “not to the poor people alone, nor to the well-to-do, nor to the young in contradistinction to the old, but to the neighborhood as a whole, ‘men, women, and children taken in families as the Lord mixes them’” (32). In joint activities with Hull House residents, neighborhood residents have no reason for suspicion or resentment, as they do with the charity visitor who tries to teach industrial virtues she so obviously lacks. In the egalitarian setting of Hull House’s civic, educational, and social activities, no “benefit” is imposed by a powerful other. In “The Objective Value of a Social Settlement” and other works, Addams provides numerous examples of collaborative civic activities that respond to civic distress. Hull House residents worked with neighbors and city agencies to

32 Addams’s Friendship Practices

investigate and respond to the problems that threatened their neighborhood. For example, they tracked high death rates to uncollected garbage and unsanitary plumbing. They enlisted volunteers to roam filthy alleys to document the failures of city garbage inspectors, investigated illegal plumbing conditions, advocated for improvements, eventually leading to successful neighborhood–city collaborations to improve services and reduce death rates (Addams 1911, Ch. 13). To address miserable working conditions and low wages in factories and sweatshops whose owners resisted improvements, Hull House residents facilitated the organization of a number of labor unions. They provided space, interpreters, and other forms of assistance; but the unions (and groups that became unions) did the organizational work needed to address their own labor issues. In “The Settlement as a Factor in the Labor Movement,” Addams (2002c) recounts how the disorganized and overcrowded sewing trades created the power to help themselves, with the support of Hull House. Women were doing relatively unskilled finishing work for low wages, undercutting the possibility for skilled male tailors to earn a living wage. Some of these women worked to supplement household income so that they could “add something to the family comfort.” But others worked long hours every day without earning enough to pay their rent. Competition from women who did unskilled finishing work meant that the skilled tailors could not support their families without putting their “little children at work as soon as they can sew on buttons” (48). In the specific case of the cloak workers, a principle obstacle to organization was disagreement between the skilled male tailors who wanted to organize and the women finishers who did not. Another obstacle was the absence of an appropriate meeting place. The only places available were saloons where the women refused to attend. Differences of language, culture, religion, as well as class separated the roughly dressed, “grimy” Russian-Jewish tailors and the comparatively well-dressed American-Irish sewing girls; these constituted a third obstacle (50–51). Hull House provided a space to meet, residents who chaperoned, an interpreter, and a space to air and examine the harmful effects of disorganization in their trade. Participants educated each other about the conditions that connected them. They also came to understand that, although the women doing finishing work seemed to benefit in the short term, that benefit came at the expense of the tailors, their families and, in the longer term, of the women themselves and their neighborhood. These disparate groups succeeded in uniting for a common purpose. The cloak workers and several other unions organized at Hull House; then, through negotiations, protests, and strikes, they succeeded in improving wages and working conditions. The first step—educating each other and forming the democratic friendship required to organize—was an indirect method of creating the bargaining power required to narrow the class gap between the labor/beneficiary class and the owner/philanthropist class. As the accounts of volunteer garbage inspectors and the sewing trades testify, in some cases, neighborhood collaborative friendships grew into formal associations such as

Addams’s Friendship Practices 33

labor unions; at other times, residents and neighbors worked together for a limited time to address particular problems. Not all neighborhood collaborations focused on civic issues or projects. Social and educational activities based on common pleasures and enjoyment are more easily shared, more easily tailored to a mutual interest. They, too, undercut the hierarchical difference between classes. They brought Hull House residents and others from the philanthropist class together with neighborhood residents outside their unequal economic relationship. As Addams emphasizes, the settlement differs markedly from relief stations in desiring: to know [its neighbors] through all the varying conditions of life, to stand by when they are in distress, but by no means to drop intercourse with them when normal prosperity has returned, enabling the relation to become more social and free from economic disturbance. (Addams 1911, 165) Addams believes that, whereas it is natural “to feed the hungry and care for the sick,” it is just as “natural to give pleasure to the young and to minister to the deep-seated craving for social intercourse that all men feel” (Addams 2002d, 27). The reward for the settlement house resident in the latter case is not the gratitude that egoistic benefactors require. It is something democratizing, something “spontaneous and vital and lacks that irksome sense of obligation” that the philanthropist often feels (27). Hull House residents organized or hosted several activities that were “more social and free” from the influence of unequal economic power. Among these were a social science club, women’s clubs, a school, labor organizations, dramatic productions, athletic competitions that diminished the influence of gang leaders on young boys, and discussions of current events. Many of these activities were run by neighbors themselves. According to Addams, “young girls from the neighborhood assist in the children’s classes, mothers help in the nursery, young men teach in the gymnasium, or secure students for an experimental course of lectures” (Addams 2002b, 41). As this description reflects, people in the neighborhood brought different things to their common collaborations—business skills, sewing, artistic talent, different cultural traditions, and any number of other contributions; yet they considered their contributions commensurable. At Hull House, “the play instinct and the arts” served a special purpose: they allowed both children and adults to express their “aspirations” and also their “historic background” (Addams 1930, 345). For example, on one occasion Greek immigrants performed Sophocles’ play Ajax in Greek at Hull House. The performance brought together professors from local universities who were eager to hear the play in Greek and appreciative of the “charming interpretation” of Sophocles, and Greek immigrants who were surprised that anyone else cared about their performance (260). Addams emphasizes shared joys more than shared

34 Addams’s Friendship Practices

problems as the chief component of bonds among diverse immigrant populations in the modern city. We are told that the imaginative powers are realized most easily in an atmosphere of joy and release, that which we have come to call recreation. This must be held in mind if the city would preserve for its inhabitants the greatest gift in its possession—that which alone justifies the existence of the city—the opportunity for varied and humanizing social relationships. (Addams 1930, 368) In Newer Ideals of Peace, Addams (1907, 172) testifies to the life-enhancing, empowering importance of play to all aspects of life: “We have not as yet utilized this joy of association in relation to the system of factory production. … But … it would bring a new power into modern industry.” Addams suggests that the effects of friendships built on common pleasures multiply. In collaborative activities that are social, civic, or educational, as opposed to oriented toward alleviating specific distress, the same persons who experience the effects of economic power in hierarchical class relations can experience egalitarian participatory relations. Participation in multiple overlapping relations tends to normalize all relations; it reduces the tendency of the philanthropist class to presume that their perspective is so superior that they have no need to consult with others, and the tendency (and need) of the beneficiary class to be suspicious or resentful of such presumption. The weight imposed by economic dependence of some on others decreases. As Addams explains, the social clubs organized at Hull House offered neighborhood residents the opportunity for friendly relations with persons living all over the city. During our twenty years hundreds of these non-residents have directed clubs and classes, and have increased the number of Chicago citizens who are conversant with adverse social conditions and conscious that only by the unceasing devotion of each, according to his strength, shall the compulsions and hardships, the stupidities and cruelties of life be overcome. The number of people thus informed is constantly increasing in all our American cities, and they may in time remove the reproach of social neglect and indifference which has so long rested upon the citizens of the new world. (Addams 1911, 366) Hilda Satt Polacheck’s (1991) descriptions of the educational and social activities she enjoyed at Hull House reinforce the effectiveness of this indirect method of narrowing the gap between philanthropist and beneficiary classes. She points out that she had opportunities not only to develop her talents and her confidence, but also to expand her contacts with persons from a wide variety of educational, professional, and social groups.

Addams’s Friendship Practices 35

In sum, in addition to forging friendships directly between philanthropist and beneficiary groups, Addams’s friendship practices combat these class divisions indirectly by pointing the way to democratic collaborations on common problems and pleasures in their neighborhood and city. The social, nonhierarchical relationships formed at Hull House between diverse persons carry over to civic purposes on which the parties come to agree. In the process, persons and groups from different backgrounds and situations, with different skills and talents, learn to value their different contributions to a common purpose. This establishes a democratic ethic of reciprocity and friendship among them. In the process, persons or groups situated in the marginalized beneficiary class in industrial relations come together in a political friendship that empowers them. It enables them to collaborate as activists to persuade or resist egotistical philanthropist class actors such as the Pullman president. Ultimately, Addams’s narratives demonstrate that she approaches political friendship through a pragmatist lens. The possibility of friendship begins from an empirical reference point in existing industrial conditions: the parties are linked by social and economic relations and circumstances that affect all of them, albeit in ways they do not necessarily recognize. Addams’s particular concern with narrowing the gap between philanthropist and beneficiary classes is reflected in her careful attention to the epistemological process by which unequal parties from different economic classes—the charity visitor and her host family, the employer of household labor and the laborer-in-residence, and the company president and company employees—recognize their interdependence, identify a common purpose, and negotiate contributions that all parties consider reciprocal and fair. When parties from different economic classes collaborate, they are changed; and their purpose is to change in some way the conditions that sparked their collaboration. For Addams, this is the path to activism. By showing the process through which unequal parties can develop friendly collaborations that observe a democratic ethic, Addams models a solution to the problem of unequal relations overlooked by contemporary democratic thinkers.

Notes 1 Hull House was co-educational. Some residents were men. Also not all residents were of the philanthropist class. 2 While debates about various kinds of privilege are not new, academic debates about privilege associated with race, class, and gender grew in the last decades of the twentieth century. For a sampling of discussions, see Kimmel and Ferber (2014). 3 Elizabeth Anderson (2017) provides a detailed overview of feminist scholarship on situated knowledges. Pioneering contributions in this field include Haraway (1988), Code (1991), Harding (1991), Hartsock (1998), and Hill Collins (2000). 4 Celia Bardwell-Jones (2012) also draws on Addams’s accounts of the charity visitor, King Lear, and George Pullman, but her purpose is to develop the “social ontology” of affectionate interpretation as a basis for a “public ethos of care.”

36 Addams’s Friendship Practices

References Addams, Jane. 1907. Newer Ideals of Peace. New York: Macmillan Addams, Jane. 1907/1964. Democracy and Social Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Addams, Jane. 1911. Twenty Years at Hull House. Chautauqua, NY: The Chautauqua Press. Addams, Jane. 1912. A New Conscience and an Ancient Evil. New York: Macmillan. Addams, Jane. 1930. The Second Twenty Years at Hull House. New York: Macmillan. Addams, Jane. 2002a. “The Modern Lear.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 163–176. New York: Basic Books. Addams, Jane. 2002b. “The Objective Value of a Social Settlement.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 29–45. New York: Basic Books. Addams, Jane. 2002c. “The Settlement as a Factor in the Labor Movement.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 46–61. New York: Basic Books. Addams, Jane. 2002d. “The Subjective Necessity of the Social Settlement.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 14–28. New York: Basic Books. Anderson, Elizabeth. 2017. “Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (spring), ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford. edu/archives/spr2017/entries/feminism-epistemology. Bardwell-Jones, Celia. 2012. “Addams and Immigration: Cultivating Cosmopolitan Identities through a Transnational Public Ethos of Care.” Society for the Advancement of Philosophy (March). New York. Code, Lorraine. 1991. What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Haraway, Donna J. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14(3) (fall): 575–599. Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hartsock, Nancy. 1998. The Feminist Standpoint Revisited and Other Essays. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Hill Collins, Patricia. 2000. Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge. Kimmel, Michael S., and Abbey L. Ferber. 2014. Privilege: A Reader. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Knight, Louise W. 2005. Citizen: Jane Addams and the Struggle for Democracy, Ch. 13. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Knight, Louise W. 2010. Spirit in Action. New York: W.W. Norton. Polacheck, Hilda Satt. 1991. I Came a Stranger: The Story of Hull-House Girl, ed. Dena J. Polacheck Epstein. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

3 ECONOMIC FOUNDATIONS OF PRAGMATIST POLITICAL FRIENDSHIPS

Jane Addams associates particular individuals or groups with philanthropist and beneficiary “classes” by situating them in the systemic economic relations of the Progressive Era industrial world, which she often terms “industrial” and “commercial.” Relations between the groups that Addams understands as philanthropist and beneficiary classes are not strictly economic in a narrow sense. Seen through Addams’s pragmatist lens, the undemocratic gap between classes that she and other democraticminded residents of Hull House confront is not merely that some have more than others, but that the two classes are caught up in the same net. Commercial and industrial relations operate to the advantage of one class and the disadvantage of the other, thereby organizing society in a pervasive hierarchy that carries multiple, more specific versions of the same hierarchy, even in relations that individuals perceive as personal. These economic relations are, in Addams’s terms, also “social relations.” They connect people’s daily lives in particular patterns that are shaped by systemic relations of the Progressive Era industrial world. I describe them here as “economic relations” to avoid the contemporary connotation of social relations as merely subjective, discretionary relations between individual persons who happen to associate with each other, and to emphasize their systemic nature. Systemic economic relations precede, and exist apart from, particular relations between individual persons, even as they shape (and are shaped by) those relations. Because they are embedded in our environment, systemic economic relations are essential components of any realistic analysis of barriers to more democratic relations. I argue that this is a basic premise that underlies Addams’s pragmatist analyses of problems and her approach to developing cross-class political friendships to address those problems. In the last two decades, scholars have documented Addams’s concern with inequality, including her concern with inequality based on race and gender as

38 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

well as class (Seigfried 1996, 1999; Deegan 2002; Sarvasy 2010; Fischer 2014). However, they have not delved into exactly how the inequality that concerns Addams rests on systemic economic relations and how those relations shape the particular goal-oriented political collaborations she fosters. Absent this information, we miss much of the pragmatist import of Addams’s work. In particular, without understanding the economic foundation of her cross-class friendships, we fail to consider the ways in which possibilities for most political friendships stem from connections between the parties that larger economic and social relations have already made. Because political friendships are utilitarian rather than (or more than) personal, they grow out of the need to recognize and work toward a common goal that is shaped by existing economic relations. To put it another way, existing economic relations set conditions to which the parties to friendships must conform to achieve a common goal. These economic relations determine which parties should be included and the parameters of reciprocal contributions between the parties. Addams’s first step toward cross-class collaborations is to examine the systemic relational links between classes to identify persons and groups who are affected by the same particular circumstances or actions and enable them to recognize what they have in common. This must happen before they can collaborate on an effective course of joint action. For example, when Russian Jewish male tailors who struggle to support their families compete with low-paid Irish women and girls who do piecework, the interests of the two groups appear to conflict (Addams 2002a). Only by uncovering the ways in which the competition between these two groups undercuts wages in the sewing trades, and the wellbeing of families that depend on those wages, can they arrive at a shared understanding of a common goal and devise a plan to achieve that goal. Addams’s attention to this pragmatist investigative process and to the epistemological evolution of the different parties as they recognize how their diverse experiences are linked, informed the better-known political theory of her friend and colleague John Dewey. Dewey (1927/1954) published The Public and Its Problems after Hull House had been operating for almost 40 years, during which time he and Addams had been close collaborators. It puts forth his theory of how democratic communities, or “publics,” form when persons recognize how consequences of actions taken by others affect them and then collaborate to discourage or encourage those consequences. Although Dewey does not credit Addams in the Public and Its Problems, he does recognize her importance elsewhere (Dewey 1945; Seigfried 1996, 48–49, 74–75). As feminist scholars have noted, Addams’s “pragmatist account of experience” goes beyond Dewey in incorporating “a wider and more diverse range of experiences” that includes those of “factory workers, various ethnic groups of recent immigrants” and different racial groups. Addams particularly emphasizes experiences of “inner-city working-class women of diverse ethnic backgrounds” and poor women, as well as women of her own class and race (Seigfried 1999,

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 39

221–222; also see Fischer 2014). I want to add that the process through which Addams, Hull House residents, and their neighbors develop the latent potential for collaborative friendships offered by systemic economic relations contributes not only to the theory of how publics form, but also to the process. In particular, Addams’s accounts go beyond Dewey in describing how unequal parties can identify a common goal and work out contributions to it that are reciprocal and fair. My focus on the economic foundations of Addams’s collaboration is intended to ferret out this illuminating contribution to pragmatist and democratic thought. In addition, this focus points to possibilities for future collaborative friendships between unequal parties who are linked by extant social and economic relations, transnationally, as well as locally. We can think of the collaborative political friendships Addams facilitated as “counterpublics,” a term used by contemporary feminist pragmatist Nancy Fraser to describe marginalized social groups that coalesce around common goals and collaborate to bring them to public attention (Fraser 1997, 81–82). Addams’s cross-class utilitarian friendships also rely for progress toward social justice on the experiences and epistemic perspectives of groups that are marginalized by systemic economic and social relations. For her, progress comes from the critique of systemic economic and social relations that only these marginalized groups can provide. Addams’s experiential accounts help with Fraser’s project: to form counterpublics beyond national boundaries, because “the cumulative weight of transnational processes is calling into question … the premise of exclusive indivisible citizenship, determined by nationality and/or territorial residence” (Fraser and Honneth 2003, 90). In this chapter, I explore the economic foundations of Addams’s cross-class collaborative friendships to show (1) how her narratives situate particular hierarchical relations in larger systemic class relations, (2) how such systemic relations link individuals from diverse class and ethnic backgrounds in ways that offer the potential for reciprocal, or democratic, collaboration, and (3) why the practical insights of marginalized beneficiary groups are key to democratic collaborations, that is, to political friendships. My method is to examine Addams’s accounts of particular hierarchical relations in her first book, Democracy and Social Ethics, to theorize more than existing scholarship has the relational basis for pragmatist political friendships—in Addams’s time and, perhaps, in our own. In Democracy and Social Ethics, originally published in 1902, Addams’s pragmatist approach to ethics is on full display. Each chapter describes a different class-based hierarchy that is situated within larger systemic relations between philanthropist and beneficiary classes. In addition to the relation between the charity visitor and her host family, these include “filial relations” between parents and their adult daughters— which reflects the experience of Addams and many other young women of her generation as described in “The Subjective Necessity of the Social Settlement” (Addams 2002b); relations between employers of household labor and their livein laborers; “industrial relations” between company employees and company

40 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

president—which includes Addams’s narrative about exchanges between Pullman company employees and the company president; and relations between educational institutions and methods and students from poor immigrant families. The concluding chapter turns to “political reform” and relations between elites in the self-centered philanthropist group who understand politics narrowly as the government establishment, to the neglect of those marginalized by government action, and crude and corrupt politicians who are close to the common people and serve them by dispensing favors. I will extrapolate from Addams’s analyses how economic relations shape both the conditions under which unequal parties must collaborate, and the changes these differently situated parties must go through to collaborate on terms that are reciprocal and just in the context of their inequality. I begin by outlining the connection Addams makes between Progressive Era class relations and social ethics. Then I draw on Addams’s account of each hierarchical class relation in Democracy and Social Ethics to detail how systemic economic relations infect the culture of the industrial world to help one class to acquire and retain the advantages of wealth, education, and social status, and constrain the other class’s efforts to do so.

Class Relations and Social Ethics When taken together, Addams’s narratives about hierarchical class relations in Democracy and Social Ethics perform, rather than theorize, her pragmatist understanding of ethics as social rather than individual. Social ethics consider the circumstances of action, its relational context, and its effects on others; social ethics also include the perspectives of affected others who are not parties to the original action. In contrast, individual ethics are narrowly self-regarding. More unflatteringly, individual ethics are governed by self-centered moral purity, often portrayed simplistically as adherence to moral principle, without regard for relational context, the impact of one’s actions on others, or the perspectives of those affected others. According to Addams, an adequate ethical code requires “free[ing] ourselves from the individualistic point of view sufficiently to group events in their social relations and to judge fairly those who are endeavoring to produce a social result through all the difficulties of associated action” (Addams 1907/1964, 175). The challenges are to identify the larger economic relations that shape particular relations and possibilities for change, and to draw one’s ethics from them. This is particularly difficult for parties in the philanthropist class position. The powerful and benevolent have the means to insulate themselves from unwanted criticism. If they follow an individual ethic, it’s rewarded by recognition from others and caters to their self-importance. It’s more difficult and less rewarding for them to aim for a humbler democratic “social ethic,” or “social morality” because it’s less visible to others and resistant to the class hierarchy (175). Addams’s analysis of

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 41

George Pullman’s motives for providing “benefits” to company employees without considering the perspectives and needs of employees (discussed in Chapter 2) illustrates this point most explicitly. Every chapter of Democracy and Social Ethics testifies to the one-sidedness of the philanthropist’s individual ethical code, whether the setting is relations between parents and children, household employers and live-in domestic workers, company presidents and employees, or hierarchical relations embedded in educational methods and approaches to political reform. At the same time, the philanthropists’ engagement with groups positioned as beneficiaries constantly presses a more social, more democratic perspective on them—if they choose to listen or if they are forced to listen when a political friendship among the beneficiary groups, for example a labor union, becomes powerful enough to be heard. On Addams’s account, people in the philanthropist class who become aware of problems experienced by poor people in the immigrant quarters of big cities look for a code of ethics that takes these social circumstances into account (4). This inclination leads them to a new “conception of Democracy not merely as a sentiment which desires the well-being of all men, nor yet as a creed which believes in the essential dignity and equality of all men, but as that which affords a rule of living” that puts “their conduct to a social test” (6). The new ethical code, and the new conception of democracy it fosters, are “not attained by travelling a sequestered byway” (6). The reason is “that social perspective and sanity of judgment come only from contact with social experience.” That is “the surest corrective of opinions concerning the social order, and concerning efforts, however, humble, for its improvement” (7). According to Addams, the chapters of Democracy and Social Ethics “are studies of various types and groups who are being impelled by the newer, more social conception of democracy to an acceptance of social obligations involving in each instance a new line of conduct” (11). The impetus comes from seeing the effects on people’s lives of systemic industrial and commercial relations and the ways in which those relations shape exchanges among individuals or groups at opposite ends of a class hierarchy. Although Addams’s emphasis on class relations may call to mind a Marxist approach, her understanding of philanthropist and beneficiary “classes” is pragmatist rather than Marxist. Her emphasis on friendship, fellowship, and community testify that, unlike Marxists, she did not look for conflict between classes to increase. As Mary Jo Deegan explains, Addams shared Marxists’ concern with inequality, and she was influenced by her work on Hull House Maps and Papers (Residents of Hull House 1895) with Florence Kelley, Hull House resident and socialist labor reformer; but her explanations for inequality and her remedy differed. She resisted the Marxist reduction of sources of conflict to relations between bourgeois and proletarians, and she supported liberal democratic values such as free speech (Deegan 2017, 256). Instead of looking for class conflict to increase, Addams sought to mitigate it by helping unequal parties come together

42 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

to deliberate about mutual problems on terms that all parties consider reciprocal and fair. For instance, although she expressed opposition to strikes, when they resulted in disruption and violence, she blamed not the unions, but the powerful parties who had failed to respond to workers’ needs (Fischer 2004, 103). Further, her concern with economic inequality does not reduce sources of conflict to relations between bourgeois and proletarians. Addams’s view of class incorporates a number of inequalities that are often conceptualized and treated as if they were entirely separate from economics— inequalities of race, ethnicity, sex, and citizenship status that intersect and affect the way industrial and commercial forces distribute resources. For example, some of the disempowered are economically prosperous black men whose professional or entrepreneurial success would place them in the philanthropist class were it not for their race. Their success does not, in the end, save them from being pushed into the position of beneficiary groups who can be, and often were, deprived of their livelihood (Addams 1908). They could be denied the opportunity to live, attend school, or work where they would prefer. The same point applies to inequality of power and resources due to sex, which sends many women without other sources of support into prostitution (Addams 1912), and inhibits even women such as Addams from well-to-do families from having the control over resources exercised by men of their same class. Addams herself experienced this limitation when her father pressed her to attend Rockford Female Seminary close to home rather than Smith College, as she preferred (Joslin 2004, 26; Knight 2005, 75–77). Addams writes about all of these circumstances as components of the class structure of her time. She understands how each of them, and combinations of them, shape class hierarchy, power, and privilege in the Progressive Era U.S. Beyond her work with diverse ethnic groups at Hull House, evidence that she was well aware of intersecting (not strictly economic) sources of class hierarchy is visible in her advocacy for woman suffrage, leadership of women’s peace initiatives, concern with conditions that sent women into prostitution, exchanges with prominent African American thinkers and activists such as W.E.B. Dubois and Ida Wells-Barnett, and participation in multiple local and national civic organizations that advocated equality for all. That said, it is important to keep in mind why Addams’s collaborations with African Americans receive so little attention in this chapter. Addams’s writings about her collaborative political friendships, and all of the chapters of Democracy and Social Ethics, center on her experiences with immigrant groups. Those accounts, which are my primary sources for understanding the class-based underpinnings of her collaborations, refer primarily to ethnic and cultural differences, not to racial differences. This is not to say that Addams did not recognize the relevance of color, or the importance of historical context to discussion of boundaries between race and ethnic identities. She was well aware that Progressive Era discussions of the status of different groups of immigrants were

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 43

racialized, and that color was central to this discussion, largely because of the history of African slavery in the U.S. (Addams addresses these issues in Newer Ideals of Peace, as I discuss in the next chapter). Nevertheless, African Americans were not at the center of Addams’s stories about immigrant groups in her neighborhood. When Hull House was founded, only 1.3% of Chicago’s population comprised African Americans and 78% comprised immigrants and their children (Fischer 2014, 38). Immigrants from Northern Europe, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe were all considered white, but they often were portrayed in a racial hierarchy, with Anglo-Saxon and Teutonic immigrants at the top and Greeks, Italians, and Jews from Eastern Europe at the bottom (40). One report counted 36 European (white) races.1 This was the primary context of Addams’s interaction with immigrants around Hull House. As one might expect in this environment, Addams’s concern for racial inequality and oppression was less evident in Hull House operations than in her interactions with prominent civic leaders. Nevertheless, even though Addams was not “immersed in black communities” as she was in immigrant communities, she helped to establish settlement houses that served African Americans, campaigned with Ida B. Wells-Barnett against efforts to segregate Chicago public schools (Fischer 2014, 38), supported civic organizations that included black women, such as the League of Women Voters and the Women’s City Club (Deegan 2010, 220), and helped to found both the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Urban League (Deegan 2010, 221). Many of these collaborations involved African Americans who were prominent in civic life, but who were nonetheless marginalized in ways that Addams addresses in some of her shorter writings, as Mary Jo Deegan (2010) and Marilyn Fischer (2014) have described. Overall, this chapter advances my effort to uncover the pragmatist economic foundations of Addams’s cross-class collaborations. My focus on the ways in which systemic economic relations shape smaller-scale hierarchical relations between persons makes it easier to bring Addams’s descriptions of unequal class relations and their potential for developing into collaborative friendships to bear on her claim that this same approach applies even when she turns to transnational issues of war and peace, where the primary parties are generally assumed to be nations rather than groups situated in philanthropist and beneficiary classes. This focus reveals a pragmatist path from the economic foundations of Addams’s collaborative friendships at Hull House to similar foundations of her later collaborations in the international peace movement. Further, it suggests that the same pragmatist path can be useful for understanding possibilities for cross-class political friendship in a contemporary context, in which global market relations shape have and havenot classes that transcend nationality and citizenship. I take up these questions in Chapter 5.

44 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

Charitable Relations between Philanthropist and Beneficiary Addams’s first narrative in Democracy and Social Ethics is about the relation between the charity visitor and her host family, which will be familiar from my discussion in Chapter 2. Addams’s narrative about the charity visitor serves as her paradigmatic example of the gap between classes and the changes that are needed for unequal parties to become friends. This also is the narrative that introduces friendship between the charity visitor and her host family as the standard for collaborations that are fair and just, even when the relation remains unequal. To Addams, friendship means that relations between the parties become democratic, even in the context of inequality, where fairness requires different and unequal contributions to achieve a shared purpose. The charity visitor and her host family stand in for roles of the philanthropist and beneficiary classes in the Progressive Era industrial world. The initial oppositional pattern of interaction Addams describes between parties in hierarchical charitable relations is repeated in her analyses of other kinds of class relations described in subsequent chapters of Democracy and Social Ethics. Addams’s description of the charity visitor is the best place to begin an examination of the pragmatist economic underpinnings of Addams’s political friendships. In keeping with Addams’s own class background and experience, she focuses more on what the charity visitor should learn and how, than on what the host family should learn; this is the point she elaborates in more detail in “The Subjective Necessity for Social Settlements” (Addams 2002b). Addams’s account of the charity visitor and her host family elaborates the epistemological process through which this occurs and enables the young charity visitor to acquire humility, to become open to and learn to respect the experiential insights of her host family. This epistemological evolution is essential before she can understand and learn to perform what is required of her in a reciprocal relation with her impoverished host family. From her host family, the charity visitor learns, for instance, not to emphasize to the family of the man who is not rehired after a strike when so many of his fellow workers are, that the reason he was not rehired is that he lacks the industrial virtues. That would not be useful to the man or his family. She observes that, although the man may not be the best or most efficient worker, he has social utility of a different sort—that he reads, reflects, is well-spoken, and is sought after for advice (Addams 1907/1964, 48– 50). She also must learn that children should not leave school and go to work in the factory to make their family self-supporting; in this case, adhering to industrial virtues cuts short the education of youth and stunts their intellectual and emotional development. Although parents who immigrated to improve the lot of their families are painfully aware of this sacrifice made when their children have to abandon school to work, the charity visitor acquires this knowledge gradually from her engagement with the family (42). This evolution on the part of the charity visitor facilitates reciprocal contributions to a common goal—the wellbeing of the family—between persons who are

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 45

unequal in terms of wealth, education, social status, and power in general. From the host family, the charity visitor gains knowledge she would not have otherwise, appreciation for the virtues of her host family, friendship with them, and, if she shares the democratic impulses of Hull House residents, the satisfaction of a relation that bridges class hierarchy and contributes to a more democratic future. Of course, the host family also learns and benefits as the relation evolves toward friendship. In addition to the benefits of the charity visitor’s sympathetic understanding, the family may gain some access to material, cultural, and educational resources that may emerge through the charity visitor’s ties and resources. The long-term goal for both parties, however, is for the family to experience less poverty and disease and to increase their capacity to collaborate and act on the basis of experiences they share with others. This path to democratic change illustrates how reciprocity between unequals works. In unequal relations, reciprocity clearly does not require similar or equal contributions from the different parties; given their different circumstances and the expectation that both aim for the well-being of the family, equivalent contributions would be unfair and ineffective means of progress toward their common purpose. In the narrative of the charity visitor and her host family, the first step toward developing social ethics is to recognize and gradually work out reciprocal contributions that would be fair and effective means to achieving a common goal. To do that, the parties—especially the philanthropist party—must recognize not only that they live in different circumstances, but that these different circumstances are inextricably linked by systemic economic relations, industrial and commercial relations, that the parties cannot escape. Addams sets the narrative of the charity visitor clearly in the class hierarchy: The only families who apply for aid to the charitable agencies are those who have come to grief on the industrial side; … through sickness …, loss of work, or for other guiltless and inevitable reasons; but the fact remains that they are industrially ailing and must be bolstered and helped into industrial health. (Addams 1907/1964, 16) That is the social and economic setting for the role of the charity visitor, who is a “well-bred” college woman whose background is similar to that of many Hull House residents. Unlike the democratic-minded residents of Hull House who have already recognized their limitations, she presumes to teach “industrial virtues” and “to treat the members of the family almost exclusively as factors in the industrial system” (17). The gap between the charity visitor’s experiences and those of her host family appears in their opposite expectations with regard to almost every practice each of them considers virtuous. For example, the charity visitor preaches thrift and saving to be self-supporting, but the family sees the hunger of the neighbor and generously gives what they could save to the hungry neighbor. “The poor are accustomed to help each other and to respond

46 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

according to their kindliness; but when it comes to worldly judgment, they use industrial success as the sole standard” (25). In this context, the industrial virtues seem selfish, and indeed that is the neighborhood’s opinion of the charity visitor who spouts strange notions of virtue instead of providing the shoes they need, when she must have so many pairs at home (29). Although the family views “a glass of beer” as “quite right and proper,” they learn to pretend to share the charity visitor’s cautions against it; but only because they are “quick to learn what the conditions” for food and rent are (27). To the visitor they gravely laud temperance and cleanliness and thrift and religious observance. The deception … arises from a wondering inability to understand the ethical ideals which can require such impossible virtues, and from an innocent desire to please. (Addams 1907/1964, 28) In the end, the charity visitor, who has taken her motivation to the point of action, finds that the prescriptions for virtue she brought with her based on her own limited experience at the upper end of the class hierarchy “constantly tend to float away … unless they have a basis in the concrete relation of life” (68). In Addams’s account, the charity visitor’s experience with her host family represents “wider social activity” that “increases her sense of social obligation” and “recasts her social ideals.” She acquires humility that opens her to learning from and respecting the experiential knowledge of her host family. She gets the dust upon her head because she has stumbled and fallen in the road through her efforts to push forward the mass, to march with her fellows. She socialized her virtues not only through social aim but by a social process. (Addams 1907/1964, 69) The social process of engaging first-hand the experiences of her host family moves the charity visitor from the particular standard of individual ethics acquired in her experience in the philanthropist class to a social ethic. She recognizes the partial, self-centered, self-serving component of her notion of virtue only by engaging in a social process that teaches her these things. Her growing friendship with her host family teaches her the human needs they have in common, despite their different class backgrounds. When the settlement house as a whole takes these lessons seriously, it facilitates joint action to address particular effects of poverty, what the poor need, and how their needs relate to others whose lives are embedded in the same systemic economic relations. In chapters subsequent to the narrative about the charity visitor, Addams shows how the perspectives of the philanthropist group in general reflect the charity visitor’s perspective. In the process, she also shows why the relation between the charity visitor and the host family serves as a paradigm for understanding both the

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 47

structure of class-based relations described in other chapters—that is, how the parties are linked by systemic relations—and the potential those relations offer for collaborative friendship. In every chapter of Democracy and Social Ethics, the parties in the philanthropist class position perceive and act only on their own experiences, without regard for the experiences of those at the bottom of the class hierarchy. And the experiences of the subordinated group continue to be the key to democratic change. Thus the first step toward collaboration across classes is always, as Addams advises, that the philanthropist parties need to confront their epistemic disadvantage—the inadequate one-sidedness of their knowledge base— abandon preconceived opinions based on that narrow perspective, and become humble enough to listen to the wider, better-grounded perspectives of the beneficiary parties. As this initial step suggests, despite the pervasiveness of systemic hierarchical relations, there is hope for more democratic relations and collaborative political friendship. The same industrial and commercial relations that shape the problems that plague cities under industrialization also link philanthropist and beneficiary groups in ways that offer the potential for addressing problems. Because of this link, parties on opposite ends of the same particular hierarchical economic relation are affected in different ways by the same actions and events. The structural link between them makes it possible for them to think about what they have in common and the extent to which collaboration can benefit both parties. The problem is how to develop a democratic collaborative process in this unequal context. The positions of the parties to a particular unequal social relation differ so markedly and often seem so opposed that it is difficult to imagine how they can arrive at a common goal or negotiate reciprocal contributions to it. Nevertheless, in Addams’s view, the particular social relations through which philanthropist and beneficiary parties are inextricably linked press those parties, particularly the philanthropist party, to abandon the one-sided individual ethics that inform their opinions in favor of ethics that are appropriate to the relations in which they are embedded. These ethics necessarily are more social and, consequently, more democratic than individual ethics. Addams’s analyses of how unequal parties can evolve toward collaborative friendship focus most often on those in the powerful philanthropist class. That is the perspective most familiar to Addams from her own experience and her motivation for founding Hull House. The encounter between the charity visitor and her host family begins as a one-sided exchange which the more powerful philanthropist party approaches as if the other’s experience and perspective were either of no account or actually harmful and, in either case, must be improved. This pattern will be familiar from my discussion of the charity visitor in Chapter 2. The charity visitor presumes to know and instruct her host immigrant family on the “industrial virtues” she believes they need. On the opposite end of the class hierarchy, the immigrant beneficiary family sees clearly that the charity visitor lacks first-hand knowledge of both industrial virtues and the immigrants’ own

48 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

circumstances. They also suspect her motives and observe that, despite her wealth, she is less generous than their impoverished neighbors. Differences in experience and perspectives between the immigrant family and the young woman who comes to instruct them capture the painful obstacle that confronted Addams and other democratic-minded well-to-do young people in the late nineteenth century and motivated them to join the settlement house movement, as Addams (2002b) elaborates in “The Subjective Necessity for Social Settlements.”2 The charity visitor’s background, her uninformed humanitarian motives, and her gradual evolution toward friendship with her host family mirror the background, motives, and evolution of Addams and other young people who turned to the settlement house as an outlet for their energy and interest, only to find that their motives alone were an inadequate guide for changing conditions. They learned that the key to change had to come from the family’s experiences and perspectives. Addams’s description of the charity visitor’s evolution toward a democratic mode of relating to the family shows the merits of Addams’s advice to those who join the settlement house movement: they must empty themselves of “all conceit of opinion and all self-assertion, and [be] ready to arouse and interpret the public opinion of their neighborhood” (26). Relations described in subsequent chapters of Democracy and Social Ethics follow the same pattern of a hierarchical class relation in which the more powerful party clings to “individual ethics” shaped by class background and power perspective. Individual ethics of the powerful overlook larger social relations, the impact of relations on those whose fates are linked to theirs, and the fact that their “individual ethics” rely entirely on their own good moral intent, of which they themselves are the only judge. In each of the hierarchical relations Addams describes, readers see the problem that occurs when individual ethics rather than social ethics prevail. Judging people by purity of motive … would be to abandon the contention … that the processes of life are as important as its aims. We can all recall acquaintances of whose integrity of purpose we can have no doubt, but who cause much confusion as they proceed to the accomplishment of that purpose, who indeed are often insensible to their own mistakes and harsh in the judgments of other people because they are so confident of their own inner integrity. (Addams 1907/1964, 102) Individual ethics that prioritize the philanthropists’ “purity of motive” suppress recognition of existing social relations between parties, in macro industrial and commercial relations, and in particular institutions. Addams’s familiarity with the philanthropist class experience isn’t the only reason for her focus on that group’s perspective. The other is that, even though the philanthropist group has greater motivation to stick with individual ethics as opposed to social ethics, at the same time, they have farther to go before more

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 49

democratic relations can develop. The beneficiary group holds the key to any change that democratizes relations. As Addams explains, the “unlooked-for result of the studies” in Democracy and Social Ethics is: that while the strain and perplexity of the situation is felt most keenly by the educated and self-conscious members of the community, the tentative and actual attempts at adjustment are largely coming through those who are simpler and less analytical. (Addams 1907/1964, 12) The beneficiary groups have the most pressing material needs, and they see the most immediate, if not the ultimate, cause of their problems. The less powerful parties in the class hierarchy have more knowledge to impart; they have the experiential foundation required for action to democratize relations. The obligation of the more powerful party is to listen, respect, and follow cues from the less powerful party, transition from individual ethics toward ethics that are more social and democratic, and direct their actions and resources accordingly. Those in the philanthropist class who see the disconnect between the individual and family codes of ethics they have acquired from their upbringing and the new social relations they confront as adults must “slowly learn that life consists of processes as well as results, and that failure may come quite as easily from ignoring the adequacy of one’s method as from selfish or ignoble aims.” They must learn that democracy is “not merely … a sentiment which desires the well-being of all men,” but “a rule of living.” A “standard of social ethics is … attained … by mixing on the thronged and common road where all must turn out for one another, and at least see the size of one another’s burdens” (6). Because the knowledge of the beneficiary party is more central to democratic change, the hierarchy of knowledge presumed by the philanthropist must be reversed.3

Filial Relations The next of Addams’s (1907/1964, 11) “studies of various types and groups who are being impelled by the newer conception of democracy to an acceptance of social obligations” addresses “filial relations.” Here Addams shows how the relation between a well-to-do young woman and her parents reflects, in certain respects, the class gap between the charity visitor and her host family. On Addams’s account, the young woman has acquired from education and travel a democratic, humanitarian urge to work in the larger community. At the same time, her socialization has instilled a competing urge: an obligation to her family, to fulfill her parents’ expectations that she will care for their home and family. Of course, this is the situation—and it is Addams’s own situation—that leads her to pen “The Subjective Necessity for Social Settlements” (Addams 2002b), discussed in the previous chapter.

50 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

In Democracy and Social Ethics, Addams offers relations between parents and their daughters as an explicit illustration of the perplexity and mal-adjustment brought about by the various attempts of young women to secure a more active share in the community. We constantly see parents very much disconcerted and perplexed in regard to their daughters when these daughters undertake work lying quite outside of traditional and family interests. (Addams 1907/1964, 73) Women of Addams’s class had no need to work because they relied for their livelihood on their family inheritance, which was normally controlled by their father. Because the daughter in a reasonably well-off family was expected to “have no motive larger than a desire to serve her family,” any effort to “break away” to serve a larger community was seen as “willful and self-indulgent” (74). The only legitimate reason to leave was to marry to start her own family (74). Addams searches for a way for democratic-minded young women to recognize both “the family and the social claim” without violating either (75). The parents’ claim on the daughter—which seems to be exercised especially through the father’s wealth and his expectation that a loving daughter will obey his wishes without resentment—runs against changes in society that the daughter sees better than the parents can. She sees more because of her broader education and travels. She also sees that she is much more limited in her activities than are sons in the family. Addams observes that, whereas the state has long made claims on sons during wartime, as the state grows more democratic, it makes claims on the rest of the family, too. The state needs the family’s contribution not only to protect it against threats from the outside, but to reconstruct and maintain it during peace (78). Addams insists it is important to recognize the social obligations of all members of the family. Otherwise, the continued domestic constraints on daughters provide a … flagrant example of the ill-adjustment and misery arising when an ethical code is applied too rigorously and too conscientiously to conditions which are no longer the same as when the code was instituted, and for which it was never designed. (Addams 1907/1964, 79) Addams sees parental and family control in areas “which belong to the adult judgment of the child and pertain to activity quite outside the family life” (79–80). This outdated ethical code is rooted in the larger class hierarchy confronted by Addams. It is even embedded in the organization and values of the patriarchal family, where class and sex intersect. Ownership is a key component of who is entitled to what. Whereas families have long accepted that a son would make his

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 51

own way in the world, a daughter is regarded “as a family possession” whose “delicacy and polish are but outward symbols of her father’s protection and prosperity” (82–83). The daughter who develops a notion of obligations outside the family to the larger society, through enhanced opportunities in education and travel available to women—and the awareness these opportunities bring of democratizing social forces—violates the strongly held patriarchal assumptions about daughters belonging to their families (82). If her family does not respond to new circumstances, the family feels wronged. On the other hand, often the educated daughter submits to the family, but “in such instances … she feels wronged” (85). Conflict in filial relations presents the same conflict between individual and social ethics that marks charitable relations. The drag on the young woman’s motivation to participate in community life does not come only from her family. Although institutions of higher learning are open to her, as they were not to previous generations of women, Addams identifies a problem with the one-sidedness of educational methods. The colleges have long been full of the best ethical teaching, insisting that the good of the whole must ultimately be the measure of effort, and that the individual can only secure his own rights as he labors to secure those of others. (Addams 1907/1964, 88) The problem Addams sees is that—despite this concern with the “good of the whole”— “the training has been singularly individualistic; it has fostered ambitions for personal distinction, and has trained the faculties almost exclusively in the direction of intellectual accumulation” (88); it has neglected “the larger desires of which all generous young hearts are full” (89). The young woman who “has been trained solely for accumulation” of various kinds of distinction lacks the professional opportunities open to young men. Further, her narrow training has left her distrusting her “finer impulses … which would naturally have connected her with human interests outside of her family and her own immediate social circle” (90). Addams’s view is that parents need “to consider even their little children in relation to society as well as to the family” (92) and encourage education “which comes from participation in the constant trend of events” (93). The various members of the family would then have experiences that “become larger and more identical” (94). That would promote social ethics and reciprocity among the generations. Keeping in mind friendship as Addams’s response to how the charity visitor and her host family can collaborate on reciprocal terms, I suggest that cross-class friendship remains the model by which we judge relations between parents and their adult daughters and other hierarchical class-based relations Addams describes in Democracy and Social Ethics. Parents who develop a social ethic that incorporates the experiences of their daughters vis-à-vis the larger society would have an

52 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

experience similar to the charity visitor who learns to collaborate on reciprocal terms. The parents would no longer feel wronged by a daughter’s desire to work in the community. Rather, they would support that desire. The parents would recognize that larger social relations require a new kind of social ethic, and the daughter would have no reason for resentment once she saw how her parents’ love, and desire to help, had combined with respect for her own perspective. While Addams herself does not use the term “friendship” to describe this more reciprocal approach to filial relations, I look to the friendship between charity visitor and her host family as an appropriate paradigm for democratic collaboration between other parties caught in hierarchical economic and social relations. At the end of the chapter on filial relations, Addams returns to the story of King Lear to explain his ethical shortcoming in terms that again suggest friendship as a useful paradigm for the kind of reciprocity that is possible and appropriate between parties who are different and unequal. “That a man should be so absorbed in his own indignation,” as Lear was at his daughter’s failure to show the gratitude he believed she owed him, “that he should lose his affection in his anger, simply reveals the fact that his own emotions are dearer to him than his sense of paternal obligation” (97). If the parallel with the charity visitor and individual ethics holds, Lear would need to modify his critical perspective based on individual ethics and, in line with social ethics, become open to his daughter’s perspectives, experiences, and needs. On the other side, Cordelia is not blameless for deserting her father. We want to remind her that “pity, memory, and faithfulness are natural ties” … to be prized … We do not admire the Cordelia who through her self-absorption deserts her father, as we later admire the same woman who comes back from France that she may include her father in her happiness and freer life. (Addams 1907/1964, 99) Although Cordelia’s “beneficiary” status positions her better than her father to move toward a social ethic, her movement in that direction is slow. Addams expresses Lear’s failure in terms that suggest what social ethics and reciprocity require of him, but she is less specific about how Cordelia should have acted. It seems that a more social ethic requires Cordelia to recognize the importance of her natural ties to her father, and to be more respectful and attentive to her father’s needs (98). In other words, it requires the sympathetic knowledge that scholars associate with Addams’s approach to friendship and community. But it does not require a degree of gratitude or obedience that would sacrifice a grown daughter’s desire to exercise her own judgment; that would mark a turn away from reciprocal social ethics and a return to individual ethics.

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 53

Household Labor In Chapter 4, Addams associates the individual ethic of the philanthropist class with the employer of household labor. In fact, she writes that perhaps “no relation has been so slow to respond to the social ethics which we are now considering, as that between the household employer and the household employee, or, as it is still sometimes called, that between mistress and servant” (Addams 1907/1964, 103). This was not an unusual relation in turn-of-the-century Chicago, where about 20% of households employed domestic workers, often young immigrant women who typically lived with the family, receiving room and board and a modest wage in return for service.4 Addams prefaces her discussion of hierarchical relations involving live-in household labor with the caution that the “tendency to be so sure of integrity of purpose as to be unsympathetic and hardened to the means by which it is accomplished” is particularly “constant … in the mind of the women who in all the perplexity of industrial transition are striving to administer domestic affairs.” Their ethics come from “individual and family codes, untouched by the larger social conceptions” (102–103). Addams traces the source of the unusually strong allegiance to individual ethics among women employers of live-in household laborers to the traditional belief that a woman’s obligation is to the home and, further, that she can maintain the purity of character required for fulfilling this obligation only by staying in the home. At an earlier time when maids in the mistress’s employ did their spinning in her home, she felt responsible for them as well. But as soon as factory production moved spinning out of the home, it also removed the morals of women workers from the purview of the mistress (104–105). Some functions that have no parallel in factory organizations remain in the home—functions such as the preparation of food for the family and tending to their other personal needs. Those functions remain under strict supervision of the mistress of the household (107). Problematically, the mistress’s outdated code of individual ethics mandates that the household employee live in her household—in it, but not of it, so to speak. She “insists that those who minister to the comforts of her family shall minister to it alone, that they shall not only be celibate, but shall be cut off, more or less, from their natural social ties” (110). Whereas the prevailing individual and family ethical code isolates female household employees from their natural social ties, it allows for male workers “of dignity and ability” to enter the house temporarily to “tune a piano” or “put up window shades,” with no expectation that the workers should abandon “their family and social ties” to live in the home of their employer. The male workers would naturally resent and resist such an expectation (111). The male workers are not expected to be part of the household. How does this outmoded ethical code affect the mistress who employs household labor? Addams thinks it is likely to be unsettling, because “personal ministration to a normal, healthy adult, consuming the time and energy of another

54 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

adult” is “difficult to reconcile” with increasingly democratic relations in the larger society (113). A factory employer parts with his men at the factory gates at the end of a day’s work; they go to their homes as he goes to his, in the assumption that they both do what they want and spend their money as they please; but this solace of equality outside of working hours is denied the bewildered employer of household labor. (Addams 1907/1964, 113) The household employer may see that her “new waitress is quite as pretty and stylish as [her] daughter is,” and be saddened by the waitress’s “wistful look” when the daughter “goes off to a frolic” (113). “If it were not for the undemocratic ethics used by the employers of domestics, much work now performed in the household would be done outside”; and the laborer hired to do domestic work, like workers in other trades would be able to control her time in the hours when her work is finished. Like them, her wages would be “paid altogether in money” that she could “spend in the maintenance of a separate home life.” Finally, she would have the opportunity to join with “other workers of her trade” to advocate for better methods, products, and working conditions (116). These arrangements would bring household laborers and their employers into a collaboration that meets the condition of reciprocity required in social ethics. In that sense, it would be a collaborative utilitarian friendship similar to those Addams fostered with and among her immigrant neighbors. Absent such arrangements, a household employee works under conditions arbitrarily established by her employer. If she “breaks a utensil or a piece of porcelain,” she is judged only by her employer, who is surrounded by loyal family. This exacerbates “the feeling of loneliness in the employee” (118), who is “isolated socially” as well as industrially (119). She works in a different part of the city from where she was raised and without ties to those she attended school with or danced with in public dance halls (119). Some employers move haltingly toward social ethics. They sense the democratic relations in the larger society, recognize the social isolation of their live-in employees and “make heroic efforts to supply domestic and social life” to them. They may take the employee for a drive, “arrange to have her invited out occasionally” or “supply her with books and papers and companionship.” To Addams, however, this is a simulacrum of companionship. The employee may have a genuine friendship for her employer, and a pleasure in her companionship, or she may not …, and the unnaturalness of the situation comes from the insistence that she has, merely because of the propinquity.

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 55

All the while “the employee is practically debarred by distance and lack of leisure from her natural associates” (121). And her dependence “upon the good will of her employer” is “in itself … undemocratic” (122). Thus, even the sincerest feeling of personal friendship on the part of the employer does not establish the reciprocity required for social ethics, precisely because it relies still on the philanthropic inclination of the employer. Because of their isolation, women in household labor have difficulty caring for their own “aged parents and the helpless members of the family” (123). It may even be difficult to see their relatives and friends. Their family life is not considered as valuable as the family life of the employer (124). This unnaturalness will continue, Addams says, “until employers of domestic labor become conscious of their narrow code of ethics, and … break through the status of mistress and servant, because it shocks their moral sense” (126). What is needed to make the relation reciprocal and fair from the perspective of both employer and household employee? “A fuller social and domestic life among household employees” would help secure “their entrance into the larger industrial organizations by which the needs of a community are most successfully administered” (127). First, as noted above, the household employee needs to work under conditions established by contract for labor outside the household. She needs to control her hours and the time when her work is finished. A clear portion of her wages should be paid in money. She should have a way of associating with others who do similar work. In addition, in cases where household workers have no proximate family ties, “a remedy against social isolation would be the formation of residence clubs, at least in the suburbs, where the isolation is most keenly felt” (133). These arrangements would enhance reciprocity by limiting the employer’s power to impose conditions of employment that intrude on the employee’s natural ties and “the larger industrial organizations” of the community and make room for the household employee to participate in wider social relations of the community. A utilitarian friendship between household employer and live-in domestic laborer requires that the employer abandon an individual ethic that puts the needs of her own family and her outdated, self-centered expectations ahead of perspectives of the employee and her natural and social needs.

Industrial Amelioration Addams’s discussion of “industrial amelioration” in Chapter 5 returns to relations between the president of Pullman Company and company employees that will be familiar from my discussion in Chapter 2. Addams focuses on relations that preceded and provoked the infamous strike of 1894, which involved Addams in unsuccessful attempts to mediate. To Addams, the Pullman strike presents the growing conflict … between the democratic ideal which urges the workmen to demand representation in the administration of industry, and the accepted

56 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

position, that the man who owns the capital and takes the risks has the exclusive right of management. It is in reality a clash between individual or aristocratic management, and corporate or democratic management. (Addams 1907/1964, 139) It is also a conflict between individual and social ethics, “in this case, a benevolent employer, and the ethics of a mass of men, his employees claiming what they believed to be their moral rights” (143). The company president was so confident that he knew what the employees needed better than they did that he “built and … regulated an entire town, without calling upon the workmen either for self-expression or self-government” (143–144). He considered himself the best judge even of their social life outside their “industrial life” in the Pullman Company. The Pullman employees “resented the extension of industrial control to domestic and social arrangements” which were generally freer than their industrial life. They did not want to “be taken care of” (144) in ways reminiscent of the father taking care of his daughter. There was a major mismatch between employees and a paternalistic benevolent employer eager to use his own superior standards to guide and improve lives of those employees, without leaving them the opportunity to organize and express their desires. He was “so confident of the righteousness of his aim that he had come to test the righteousness of the process by his own feelings and not by those of the men” (145). Like the other conflicts Addams describes in Democracy and Social Ethics, this one matches outmoded individual virtues—virtues the Pullman president associated with “the model workmen of his youth”—against an emergent code of social ethics (148–149). “Day after day … the wires constantly reported the same message, ‘the President of the Company holds that there is nothing to arbitrate.’” It was as if “the ideal of one-man rule was being sustained in its baldest form” (150). His position was shared by most stockholders of his company and those of similar companies “who had had the same commercial experience … They not only felt themselves right from the commercial standpoint, but had gradually accustomed themselves also to the philanthropic standpoint, until they had come to consider their motives beyond reproach” (150). All of them have much in common with the possessive father and King Lear. They assume they know what is best, without regard for the perspective of those affected by their actions. What would a more democratic social ethic that actually reflected the social relation between company president and employees require? Addams considers and then rejects a few alternatives that have been either tried or proposed. Sometimes companies appeal to stockholders to support various benefits for employees on the ground that it will establish better relations, prevent strikes and, ultimately, increase profits to the stockholders (156). Although the practice of providing benefits is not problematic in itself, Addams criticizes the basis of the appeal, which imposes the individual ethic of the benefactor—via the expectation

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 57

of gratitude for benefits provided—on the industrial relation between employer and employee. The stockholders, like the Pullman president, expect gratitude where there is “no legitimate reason to expect” it, and they “confuse the mind of the public” by presenting the issue in this form. The relation between employers and employees requires a social ethic that addresses “the question of wages and hours,” because that is the primary concern of trade unions (157). An approach that Addams considers more social and democratic than offering benefits with the expectation that employees won’t strike is for a company “to divide a proportion of the profits at the end of the year among the employees.” However, that is problematic to the extent “that the employing side has the power of determining to whom the benefit shall accrue” (158). The approach to employer–employee relations that Addams considers most beneficial is to “establish standards to which the average worker and employer may in time be legally compelled to conform” (158). This approach is most beneficial because it meets conditions of reciprocity for collaborative friendships that bridge the hierarchical gap between employer and employee. Any “sane manufacturer … knows very well that the cost of material, wages, and selling prices are determined by industrial conditions completely beyond his control” (159–160). Nevertheless, the manufacturer generally follows his own “selfregarding” principles and looks for “results from casual philanthropy which can only be accomplished through those common rules of life and labor established by the community for the common good” (160). The answer to this problem of overreliance on the manufacturer’s individual ethic is reasonable, agreed upon standards that the employers and employees “may … be legally compelled” to follow (158). Addams takes her discussion of appropriate ethics for industrial relations down to the level of individual choices. She compares the reactions of three people on a streetcar toward a boy of eight who darts onto the streetcar to hawk newspapers. One is a “self-made man,” who purchases a newspaper thinking to encourage the boy’s work; another is a philanthropic woman who purchases no newspaper but is motivated to donate more money to schools for such boys; a third is a working man “trained in trades-union methods” (169). Only the third person is equipped by experience to understand that “the boy’s natural development is arrested” by having to sell newspapers instead of attending school. The working man knows this “because he has seen many a man, entering the factory at eighteen and twenty, so worn out by premature work that he was ‘laid on the shelf’ within ten or fifteen years.” This experience has taught the working man that not all can follow the path of the self-made businessman and, therefore, that the best way to respond to the plight of the eight-year-old newspaper seller is “to agitate for proper child-labor laws” (169). Thus, in this case, the path toward a relation that is reciprocal and fair is preceded by agitation and recognition of clashing motives and goals. The working man is closer to “social morality” than the other two who are overconfident of their moral purity. He is in the best position to agitate

58 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

and teach because of his more democratic experience on the side of industrial relations (176). That perspective is not known (or in some cases, not acknowledged) by the businessman or the philanthropist.

Educational Methods In the last two chapters of Democracy and Social Ethics, Addams shifts her focus from the social relations between the particular parties she has been describing to how general relations between philanthropist and beneficiary classes shape, and are in turn shaped by, both educational methods and efforts toward political reform. In Chapter 6, Addams focuses on the ways in which class hierarchy shapes a mismatch between the methods of middle-class education reformers and the experiences of the recent immigrants they aim to educate. Like others in the upper classes, the reformers impose their own individual ethic, neglecting the possibility of a social ethic that considers immigrants’ experiences and needs. Immigrants in a crowded big city in the U.S. are challenged by stark differences from circumstances in their home country (Addams 1907/1964, 180–188). The domestic arts at which women excelled in their home countries are no longer useful or valued, even by their children, who are rapidly re-socialized by the streets and the schools. Many working parents are illiterate and also entirely unfamiliar with the American notion that links success to education. Often immigrant children have moved from a rural setting where they could see all members of their family working with their hands on tasks that contributed to the wellbeing of the entire household; even the children themselves played an active role, perhaps helping to pick fruit or gather coal that had fallen from trains. In their new land, the same children are expected to sit still in their school in the big city and to share the goals of teachers whose goals and methods are entirely foreign to them. Further, their experience is so different from their parents’ experience that they lose respect for the parents’ old-fashioned skills and ideas. One result is that, as parents and children experience different circumstances, and the traditional customs and crafts of their native land lose traction in the new culture, distance between generations grows. Meanwhile, these alien educational methods do little to help immigrant youth adapt to their new circumstances or to mitigate the gulf between philanthropist and beneficiary classes. In Addams’s view, educational institutions should consider the experiences of immigrant children and their families. As things stand, education is designed by and for those at the upper end of the Progressive Era class hierarchy. Education based entirely on the experiences and expectations of only the middle-to-upper classes undercuts “the democratic ideal,” which requires “that [the school] shall give the child’s own experience a social value; that it shall teach him to direct his own activities and adjust them to those of other people” (180). Some manufacturers support “educational institutions in connection with their factories” and incorporate instruction in “industrial virtues.” In such cases, the

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 59

“middle-class educator constantly makes the mistakes of the middle-class moralist when he attempts to aid working people” (212). The middle-class educator, like the charity visitor, aims to instill the individual “virtues of thrift, industry, and sobriety.” Such an educator fails to recognize that these virtues serve the established classes and neglect the experiences and circumstances of poor and working people. In this way, the middle-class educator resembles the businessman who buys newspapers from the eight-year-old who sells them on the streetcar, or takes on promising students as office boys and clerks (191). He assumes that all boys should acquire the individual virtues and skills that he has acquired, and that proper training in such virtues and skills will equip them to follow his path to success in business and secure status in the middle or upper class. Nowhere, not even in manufacturer-supported educational institutions, does Addams see education designed for those who will be factory workers. Addams grows “impatient” with education that emphasizes only “reading and writing,” neglecting the “ordinary experience of life” (180–181) and leaving children unable to connect their education to their lives. As a pragmatist, she concedes that, at a time “when each man had his own shop, it was perhaps wise to lay almost exclusive stress” on individual industrial virtues (212), but, “as industry has become more highly organized, [and] life … incredibly complex and interdependent,” (213) she believes that this approach to education no longer fits the circumstances. From her pragmatist perspective, if a workingman is to have a conception of his value at all, he must see industry in its unity and entirety; he must have a conception that will include not only himself and his immediate family and community, but the industrial organization as a whole. (Addams 1907/1964, 213) Educational methods should provide him with this conception. Philanthropist reformers who prefer training in individual virtues for commercial success miss this crucial point. For Addams, educational methods that are isolated from students’ experiences in the larger world, contribute to the monotonous existence of those who work long hours at physically demanding and repetitive factory tasks with their hands. Even the children who stay in school and master the curriculum are not prepared for a future working in factories. The problem is, as Marxists observe, that factory workers will be “alienated” from their life’s activity. But for Addams, the problem is more than that. Factory workers educated narrowly to read and write, with no effort to educate them to participate in the world, will have no basis for understanding the larger social system in which they live and to which they contribute. Addams protests: As the political expression of democracy has claimed for the workingman the free right of citizenship, so a code of social ethics is now insisting that he shall

60 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

be a conscious member of society, having some notion of his social and industrial value. (Addams 1907/1964, 192) This does not mean that Addams calls for vocational or technical education, not at all. She considers that misguided. What kind of education is appropriate for future factory workers? Addams answers that working people often fashion their own moral code, which suggests a more appropriate approach to their education than philanthropists’ efforts to instill individual virtues and skills for success. When “workingmen” organize, they tend to “appeal to the most abstract principles of justice and brotherhood” (215). If they could establish their schools on this moral code, it is doubtful whether they would be of the mechanic institute type. Courses of study arranged by a group of workingmen are most naïve in their breadth and generality. They will select the history of the world in preference to that of any period or nation. The “wonders of science” or “the story of evolution” will attract workingmen to a lecture when zoology or chemistry will drive them away. The “outlines of literature” or “the best in literature” will draw an audience when a lecturer in English poetry will be solitary. This results partly from a wholesome desire to have general knowledge before special knowledge, and is partly a rebound from the specialization of labor to which the workingman is subjected. (Addams 1907/1964, 215) Addams cites a “crude” but “noteworthy” attempt to give a larger social meaning to factory labor by taking advantage of the democratizing potential of commercialism (217). A factory in Dayton holds an annual meeting with the entire labor force so that all can hear about how the business is extending its reach in the world. In this meeting, salesmen who have traveled the world report on methods of advertisement and promotion adapted to the various countries. Stereopticon lectures are given upon each new country … invaded by the product of the factory. The foremen in the various departments of the factory give accounts of the increased efficiency and the larger output over former years. Any man who has made an invention in connection with the machinery of the factory, at this time publicly receives a prize, and suggestions are approved that tend to increase the comfort and social facilities of the employees. At least for the moment there is a complete esprit de corps, and the youngest and least skilled employee sees himself in connection with the interests of the firm, and the spread of an invention. (Addams 1907/1964, 217–218)

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 61

Beyond this kind of effort to connect workers to their products, Addams points to the importance of using art to connect the lives of working people to the larger world. She looks to art to offer the consciousness of participation and well-being which comes to the individual when he is able to see himself “in connection and cooperation with the whole”; … the workman needs someone to bathe his surroundings with a human significance—someone who shall teach him to find that which will give a potency to his life. His education, however simple, should tend to make him widely at home in the world, and to give him a sense of simplicity and peace in the midst of the triviality and noise to which he is constantly subjected. He, like other men, can learn to be content to see but a part, although it must be a part of something. (Addams 1907/1964, 219–220) If working people are to have a sense of the larger world, and their place in it, they require more than access to a mechanistic education. They require access to history, multiple forms of art, and literature that include them, so they can “see” themselves in that larger world. This approach to education calls for reciprocity in both content and method. It requires an exchange between the liberal forms of knowledge favored by middle and upper classes, and the life experiences of immigrant working people. Philanthropist groups are called on to share the goods of history, art, and literature, and, at the same time, to reshape those goods in line with the experiences of beneficiary groups. The social ethic embedded in the systemic interdependence of these classes requires this reciprocity. In addition to such reciprocity of content, an approach to education appropriate for industrial relations requires reciprocity via a participatory process. That requires that immigrant working people participate in their own education and in the education of those who help to educate them. Educational methods that are well suited to connecting immigrant youth to their own experiences, and to the larger world, bring them closer to friendly reciprocal relations with others. According to Marilyn Fischer, Addams’s understanding of reciprocity in educational methods requires taking people out of hierarchical educational relations, and into relations where they can give to and learn from each other. Many dimensions of immigrant cultures could be used for fostering reciprocity … in settings where immigrants and Americans could both function reciprocally as teachers and students. Businessmen could teach English to immigrants who would in turn teach them how to use the tools and materials of their skilled handcraft work. Women’s classes could be held in the school kitchen, with the immigrants teaching how to make fine pasta and peasant soups in exchange for English lessons. (Fischer 2014, 42)

62 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

These, of course, are the kinds of cross-class reciprocal activities Addams fostered at Hull House. Addams’s goal is to transform education from instruction in an individual moral code that maintains class hierarchy and benefits the middle and upper classes, into a kind of education that teaches a social moral code that undercuts class hierarchy and promotes democratic social relations. This movement toward reciprocity in education echoes the process through which the charity visitor, the possessive father, the employer of household labor, and company president develop enough humility to recognize the limitations of their knowledge. Then they become open to the perspectives and experiences of those at the other end of hierarchical relations in which they are intimately involved. At this point, middle and upper class education reformers acquire not only a social ethic. They acquire a broader and more realistic understanding of their own interdependence with others who are differently situated in the same systemic economic relations. Ultimately, reciprocal educational methods prepare both classes to form collaborative political friendships to achieve common goals in other areas of their interdependent lives.

Political Reforms In the last study in Democracy and Social Ethics, Addams focuses on how hierarchical relations between philanthropist and beneficiary classes shape (and are shaped by) efforts of political reformers to clean up Chicago’s notoriously corrupt politics. From Addams’s systemic pragmatist perspective, the problem with reform efforts that target only corruption in government is that corruption is not the core problem, and government is not the whole of politics. Addams judges reform proposals according to whether they meet the standards of “political democracy,” by which she means whether they make democracy visible as “a social expression and not a mere governmental contrivance” (Addams 1907/1964, 221). As she sees it, most efforts to reform the political system fall short because elites miss the relevance of social relations. Like the company president, education reformers, and others at the top of class hierarchy, political reformers have difficulty “interpret[ing] sympathetically the motives and ideals of those who have acquired rules of conduct in experience widely different from” their own experience (222). The influential “well-to-do-men of the community” began at the wrong point with political reforms. They “think of politics as something off by itself.” Although many of them are sincere in recognizing “political duty as part of good citizenship,” what they consider “political” is not the expression of their moral or social life. As a result of this detachment, “reform movements” started by business men and the better element, are almost wholly occupied in the correction of political machinery and with

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 63

a concern for the better method of administration, rather than with the ultimate purpose of securing the welfare of the people. (Addams 1907/1964, 222–223) Such “reform movements tend to become negative and to lose their educational value for the mass of the people,” because they treat political activity as “a thing set apart from daily life” (223). The beneficiary group also makes errors in politics. Their errors are in the opposite direction but are nonetheless closer to a social ethic than elitist reform efforts. The working class looks to corrupt elected politicians as their leaders. These politicians are the “real leaders” of the people, more so than the middleclass reformers, because they “are part of the entire life of the community which they control.” Their corruption notwithstanding, they are engaged with the lives of the beneficiary group and, to that extent, are “giving a social expression to democracy” (224). They “realize that the people as a whole are clamoring for social results, and [that] they hold their power because they respond to that demand” (224). Addams illustrates this point with the story of an alderman, who bails out his constituents when they are arrested, or says a good word … when they appear … for trial, uses his pull with the magistrate when they are likely to be fined for a civil misdemeanor, or sees what he can do to “fix up matters” with the state’s attorney when the charge is really a serious one. (Addams 1907/1964, 231) These actions of the alderman are consistent with “the ethics held and practised by his constituents” (231). An alderman who owns a saloon may allow gamblers in after the legal hour without fear that police will harass either the alderman or the gamblers, who know very well that they are protected and why. This protection requires that the policeman on the beat must pretend not to see into the windows each time that he passes, and he knows, and the young [gambler] knows that he knows, that nothing would embarrass “Headquarters” more than to have an arrest made on those premises. (Addams 1907/1964, 234) This example and many others show how the alderman serves constituents by doing favors and the multitude of ways in which different persons are indebted to the alderman. Such cases spawn “contempt for the whole machinery of law and order” (234). In addition to making arrangements with police and the court system to benefit the people, the alderman typically “seizes days of family festivities for making friends,” for example, by giving “presents at weddings and christenings” (236).

64 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

In the face of “this big manifestation of human friendliness, this stalking survival of village kindness,” the political reformer’s appeals “are negative and impotent” (240). The power of the kindly but corrupt ward politician who dispenses favors to poor constituents is aided by the fact that even the poorest constituents prefer to see themselves represented by someone with the power to dispense favors, and they like seeing the evidence of that power in the politician’s visible prosperity. It is a sign to them of the myth that brought many immigrants to the U.S. The politician’s daily actions set the standard; they become an ideal for others, even above the actions of those whose lives are more like their own. “A bright Chicago boy might well draw the inference that the path of the corrupt politician not only leads to civic honors, but to the glories of benevolence and philanthropy” (257). To illustrate, Addams describes voters’ reactions to a cartoon that depicts in starkly different terms “the successful alderman … drinking champagne at a table loaded with pretentious dishes and surrounded by other revelers” and “a bricklayer, who sat upon a half-finished wall, eating a meagre dinner from a workingman’s dinner-pail.” The expectation was that voters in a working-class ward would prefer the bricklayer. However, to the chagrin of the reformers, … it was gradually discovered that, in the popular mind, a man who laid bricks and wore overalls was not nearly so desirable for an alderman as the man who drank champagne and wore a diamond in his shirt front. The district wishes its representative “to stand up with the best of them.” (Addams 1907/1964, 257) To Addams, this desire for social esteem in the eyes of the upper class illustrates an unfortunate “absence of class consciousness” that is “optimistic” and “naïve.” The people succumb to “the thoroughly American belief that … a man [who] is working with his hands today” probably will be better off tomorrow. Thus “there is no need of being too closely associated with common working people.” (258). The naiveté of this perspective reminds us that the human impulse to imitate is powerful and also “that the loss of social estimation, keenly felt by all of us, is perhaps most dreaded by the humblest” (259). From a social justice perspective, the overriding problem with working people admiring expensively dressed politicians who prosper from corruption is that “the political corruption of the city presses most heavily where it can be least resisted, and is most likely to be imitated” (260). The consequences of corrupt government fall heaviest upon the poorest and least capable. When the water of Chicago is foul, the prosperous buy water bottled at distant springs; the poor have no alternative but the typhoid fever which comes from using the city’s supply. When the garbage contracts are not enforced, the well-to-do pay for private service; the poor suffer the

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 65

discomfort and illness which are inevitable from a foul atmosphere. The prosperous business man has a certain choice as to whether he will treat with the “boss” politician or preserve his independence on a smaller income; but to an Italian day laborer it is a choice between obeying the commands of a political “boss” or practical starvation. (Addams 1907/1964, 260–261) The corrupt political leaders’ mode of engagement with the people—material gifts and favors—hinders the ability of working people to see themselves in the context of systemic economic relations. The narrow focus of middle-class reformers on corruption and the equally narrow focus of working people on personalized benefits bestowed by corrupt but prosperous politicians obscures the visibility of systemic economic relations. Both class perspectives hinder progress toward the democratic social ethics that can be derived from those larger relations. Addams’s analysis of efforts to reform politics indicates that narrowing the gap between classes would require a new kind of reformer—someone “who really knew the people and their great human needs, who believed that it was the business of government to serve them, and who further recognized the educative power of a sense of responsibility” (265–266). This type of reformer might understand how to “analyze the situation … to find out what needs, which the alderman supplies, are legitimate ones which the city itself could undertake, in counter-distinction to those which pander to the lower instinct of the constituency” (266). A person who appreciates receiving a Christmas turkey from the alderman might also grow to appreciate “the city which supplies her little children with a Kindergarten,” or “the Board of Health which properly placarded a case of scarlet fever next door and spared her sleepless nights and wearing anxiety” (266). Similarly, people might learn to weigh appreciation for favors such as bail for a wayward son against the value of city-provided facilities to entertain and educate youth. They might learn to weigh the freedom to gamble illegally against the city’s ability to provide a gym where “well-conducted sports are possible” (267). A voter eager to serve the alderman to keep his own employment with the city might learn to prefer the security of a “well-administered civil service” (267) to a system based on corruption. Given the need for political reformers who could see the potential for this transition to a wider social ethic, Addams asks: Would it be dangerous to conclude that the corrupt politician himself, because he is democratic in method, is on a more ethical line of social development than the reformer, who believes that the people must be made over by “good citizens” and governed by “experts”? The former at least are engaged in that great moral effort of getting the mass to express itself, and of adding this mass energy and wisdom to the community as a whole. (Addams 1907/1964, 270)

66 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

Addams seems to affirm that the superior social ethic of the corrupt politician, if still deficient, is a better starting point for reform than the individual ethic that guides most middle-class political reformers. “The success of the reforming politician who insists upon mere purity of administration and upon the control and suppression of the unruly elements in the community may be the easy result of a narrowing and selfish process” (271). This selfish process results from “knowing” only the experiences of the philanthropist group and ignoring the experiences of the beneficiary group. This diagnosis of the problem with middle-class political reformers—a self-centered ethic—is the same as with the other kinds of class relations described in Democracy and Social Ethics. The solution—political reform better suited to existing economic relations—is also similar to solutions in other kinds of class relations described in Democracy and Social Ethics. All require an uncomfortable transition to “a new type of democratic relation” that mimics the relation the charity visitor develops with her host family, and the relation that company presidents who would improve on George Pullman’s approach could develop with employees. In terms of political reform, the new democratic relation combines attention “to genuine social needs, through the political machinery,” with an effort to “remodel that machinery” so that it incorporates the perspectives of those whose needs it would serve (272). Economists who understand individual cases of need narrowly, as “mere data,” or social reformers who work “to make such cases impossible, solely because of the appeal to [their] reason,” cannot effect the necessary remodeling. Democratic political reform involves a new “civic virtue” that is not merely intellectual. It depends on widening the struggles of working-class people beyond the principle of self-interest, so that they see themselves in a movement that “embraces all the members of the community, and rises into a sense of the common weal” (269). That is the path by which working people may come to appreciate public kindergarten for their children, or public playground facilities for their children, more than a Christmas turkey from the alderman. Reformers who neglect the emotional and experiential component of the transition to a new democratic relation lose “contact with a great source of vitality,” for “the mass of men seldom move together without an emotional incentive” (273). The combination of intellectual and emotional components required for political reform demands active engagement across class and ethnic boundaries to gradually establish reciprocity between parties at opposite ends of the class hierarchy. This process is not for “timid and irresolute persons” or persons who “shrink before the need of striving forward shoulder to shoulder with the ‘ruder’ men, whose sole virtue may be social effort.” These ruder persons, including politicians who cater to their constituents through corrupt means, are often “pushing forward social morality,” but through means that are irrational and corrupt (274). Middle-class political reformers who would imitate the democratizing process demonstrated in Addams’s account of the charity visitor must not mind reciprocal exchanges with the people whose needs they would serve, or

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 67

with persons whose ethics differ from their own. These diverse perspectives are a source of knowledge that reformers would not otherwise have. Readiness to engage real persons as they are, as one encounters them, is a cornerstone of Addams’s pragmatist social morality. This outlook keeps her open to the perspectives of others—not to agree with them, or to uncritically grant the merit of their position, but to include in her frame of reference all who are affected by a given set of economic relations, and to learn from the diverse situated knowledges they bring to the table. Some high-minded moralists eschew exchange with those whose moral principles differ from theirs, but not those who understand the nature of democratic change. For example, Frederick Douglass criticized the Garrison abolitionists— the faction of the anti-slavery movement that would have “no union with slaveholders”—because action based on that principle leaves the slaves and their masters to fight their own battles, in their own way. This I hold to be an abandonment of the great idea with which that Society [of abolitionists] started. It started to free the slave. It ends by leaving the slave to free himself. (Douglass 1965) Understood in Max Weber’s terms, the Garrison abolitionists eschew responsibility when they distance themselves from the realities of politics that political leaders and activists necessarily face. Weber wrote about the difficulties for political leaders who adopted “an ethic of ultimate ends” which prioritized their own ascetic cleanliness and rejected “an ethic of responsibility,” which acknowledged the need in politics to sometimes soil one’s hands in the name of responsibility to serve the public good (Weber 1946). Viewed through Addams’s lens, the wouldbe political reformer who insists on moral purity must abandon not moral principle, but a mistaken principle, an individual code of ethics unsuited to existing social relations. According to Addams, one of the hardest lessons for political reformers “who are attempting to define and attain a social morality” is to recognize and remember “that they cannot adequately test the values of their efforts” or “be sure of their motives” until “their efforts are reduced to action.” In the end, “action is … the sole medium of expression for ethics” (Addams 1907/1964, 273). Reformers should not be deterred by the uncertainty of success, as Addams was not deterred in her effort to mediate between George Pullman and striking workers, or in her efforts to unseat corrupt 19th ward alderman Johnny Powers (Addams 1965). Neither should reformers be deterred by inevitability of mistakes along the way. In action, “the power to distinguish … adventitious mistakes is perhaps the most difficult test which comes to our fallible intelligence” (Addams 1907/1964, 274). Maurice Hamington cites a 1901 exchange about lynching between Addams and her long-time colleague in reform, Ida B. Wells, as an

68 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

example of Addams’s acceptance of fallibility and her ability to learn from her mistakes (Hamington 2005, 172). When Addams argued against lynching in The New York Independent without pointing out “that the accusations that prompted lynching were completely fabricated,” she inadvertently bolstered the belief of many white people “that black men had a predilection for licentiously accosting and violating white women” (172). Hamington sees Addams’s omission as “a failure … to follow her own feminist pragmatist methodology.” Although she lacked the situated “sympathetic knowledge to comprehend more fully the lynching question,” she “did not use the resources available to her” to test her ideas. Later, Addams became “more sensitive and active on behalf of race, eventually joining Wells to help found the NAACP” (173). Another important lesson of Addams’s accounts of hierarchical relations in Democracy and Social Ethics is that developing reciprocal political friendship in the context of inequality places the larger burden on the more powerful party. Those at the top of the class hierarchy must, as Addams says, “give up” the selfish individual code of ethics that they have grown up with and share with other members of their class. Addams argues “that much of our ethical maladjustment in social affairs arises from the fact that we are acting upon a code of ethics adapted to individual relationships, but not to the larger social relationships to which it is bunglingly applied” (Addams 1907/1964, 221). Reformers who are motivated by humanitarian or Christian impulses to go out in the world and participate in the betterment of the larger community have accepted some obligation, but only as a one-sided charitable obligation that doesn’t necessarily incorporate the perspectives of intended beneficiaries. They misunderstand what is required of them until engagement with the experiences of the beneficiary class teaches them the depth of the difficult change they must make to a new democratic relation. From Addams’s pragmatist perspective, the idea that the powerful or wealthy party in a relation owes more is not a matter of a one-sided version of charity that depends on the discretionary benevolence of persons who have more material resources to give. It is owed to other parties who are situated in interdependent systemic economic relations that, regardless of interdependence, prefer the perspective and material interests of the more powerful parties. The less powerful parties are affected by actions of the powerful, often without their knowledge or consent. In this context, political friendship requires reciprocity that offsets the advantage given to the powerful party by hierarchical economic relations. It requires that the employer of live-in domestic laborers give up control over the employment relation to elevate the perspective and needs of the laborers in their employment contract. The same is true of the company president vis-à-vis company employees and of education and political reformers vis-à-vis their immigrant clientele. That the more powerful party bears the greater burden in a reciprocal friendship between unequals is not an odd notion. In the history of political thought, Aristotle (1999), and later Thomas Aquinas (1964), contended that reciprocity in unequal friendships requires a distribution of resources that is proportionate to the

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 69

respective roles of the parties in achieving the goal of the friendship, as I will elaborate in Chapter 6. Aristotle and Aquinas recognize that, in terms of material resources, self-interested attachment to those resources, and friendship’s requirement that the parties share a common goal, the more powerful party naturally owes more and must “give up” more, as a matter of justice. Further, a preferential option for the poor is a key tenet of both Catholic and Protestant Social Gospel teachings on social justice. As Addams observes, when the more powerful party in an unequal relation fails to give up the self-centered code of ethics that marks their class, the problem is not necessarily malevolent intent. Often it is “an honest lack of perception as to what the situation demands” (Addams 1907/1964, 221). The nature of our interdependent relations is not always clear. In the charitable, filial, household employment, and industrial company relations described in Democracy and Social Ethics, the powerful and weaker parties are clearly defined, as are the circumstances of their immediate hierarchical relation. But one must look harder to identify larger economic relations that shape those individual relations. And in considering educational methods and politics, where even the parties to the relation may not be clear, one must look still harder, as Addams does, to identify whose actions affect whom and how. Only then can one initiate a reciprocal exchange that has long-term democratizing potential. As long as these larger social relations are not immediately apparent, there is no possibility of addressing the gap between individual and social ethics and the “strain and difficulty” that gap produces (221). Addams’s analyses in Democracy and Social Ethics clarify that possibilities for political friendship between philanthropist and beneficiary classes are grounded in systemic economic relations of the Progressive era that make the parties interdependent. Social reformers at any level cannot expect to make progress toward a new social ethic and a new democratic relation without observing the contours of these systemic relations and actively engaging others who are parties to these same relations. As readers digest Addams’s descriptions of how undemocratic class relations are embedded in and transmitted by the different hierarchical relations she describes, they learn, or gradually absorb vicariously, the kinds of information she looks for to clarify the contours of each particular class hierarchy. They also learn how to think about reciprocity between unequal parties in multiple different kinds of relations. This makes it possible to imitate Addams’s method. I attempt this in the next chapter by identifying the shape of class hierarchies in Addams’s transnational travels and interactions, primarily through her descriptions in Newer Ideals of Peace (Addams 1907).

Notes 1 The Dillingham Commission’s 1911 Report on Immigration, cited by Fischer (2014, 40). 2 Marilyn Fischer identifies three motives for social settlements in this text: to democratize society, to share more broadly in human life, and to fulfill Christian humanitarian impulses (Fischer 2004, 15).

70 Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations

3 Addams’s observation that the less powerful parties have more knowledge to impart, stronger incentive to adopt ethics that are more social and democratic, and also a stronger basis for action, comes as well from other prominent pragmatist thinkers of the Progressive Era, particularly those concerned about racial subordination. Anna Julia Cooper (1892, 31) wrote: “Only the BLACK WOMAN can say when and where I enter, in the quiet, undisputed dignity of my womanhood, without violence and without suing or special patronage, then and there the whole Negro race enters with me.” And W.E.B. Dubois (1903) observed: “We the darker ones come even now not altogether empty-handed: there are to-day no truer exponents of the pure human spirit of the Declaration of Independence than the American Negroes; there is no true American music but the wild sweet melodies of the Negro slave; the American fairy tales and folklore are Indian and African; and, all in all, we black men seem the sole oasis of simple faith and reverence in a dusty desert of dollars and smartness” (Ch. 1). 4 According to the Encyclopedia of Chicago History, “By 1870, one in five Chicago households employed domestic workers, who accounted for 60 percent of the city’s wageearning women” (Graff 2005). Most domestic workers lived with the family.

References Addams, Jane. 1907. Newer Ideals of Peace. New York: Macmillan. Addams, Jane. 1907/1964. Democracy and Social Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Addams, Jane. 1908. “Advantages and Disadvantages of a Broken Inheritance.” Bulletin of Atlanta University 183 (June): 1–2. http://contentdm.auctr.edu/cdm/compoundobject/ collection/rwwl/id/1523/rec/4. Addams, Jane. 1912. A New Conscience and an Ancient Evil. New York: Macmillan. Addams, Jane. 1965. “Why the Ward Boss Rules.” In The Social Thought of Jane Addams, ed. Christopher Lynch, 124–133. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. Addams, Jane. 2002a. “The Settlement as a Factor in the Labor Movement.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 46–61. New York: Basic Books. Addams, Jane. 2002b. “The Subjective Necessity of the Social Settlement.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 14–28. New York: Basic Books. Aquinas, Thomas. 1964. Commentary on Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” 2 vols, trans. C. I. Litzinger. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Ethics.htm. Aristotle. 1999. Nicomachean Ethics, second edn, trans. Terence Irwin. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Cooper, Anna Julia. 1892. A Voice from the South. Xenia, OH: The Aldine Printing House. http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/cooper/cooper.html. Deegan, Mary Jo. 2002. Race, Hull House, and the University of Chicago: A New Conscience against Ancient Evils. New York: Praeger. Deegan, Mary Jo. 2010. “Jane Addams on Citizenship in a Democracy.” Journal of Classical Sociology 10(3): 217–238. Deegan, Mary Jo. 2017. Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892–1918. New York: Routledge. Dewey, John. 1927/1954. The Public and Its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press. Dewey, John. 1945. “Democratic versus Coercive International Organization: The Realism of Jane Addams.” Introduction to Peace and Bread in Time of War, by Jane Addams, ix–xx. New York: King’s Crown Press. Douglass, Frederick. 1965. “The Anti-Slavery Movement. A lecture by Frederick Douglass, before the Rochester ladies’ anti-slavery society, Rochester, 1855.” In The Life and

Political Friendship’s Economic Foundations 71

Writings of Frederick Douglass, ed. Philip S. Foner, Vol. II, 333–359. New York: International Publishers. Reprinted in 1965 in Slavery Attacked: The Abolitionist Crusade, ed. John L. Thomas, 126–131. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. www.thenagain.info/ Classes/Sources/Douglass.html. DuBois, W.E.B. 1903. The Souls of Black Folk. Chicago, IL: A. C. McClurg & Co. Fischer, Marilyn. 2004. On Addams. Toronto: Thomson Wadsworth. Fischer, Marilyn. 2014. “Addams on Cultural Pluralism, European Immigrants, and African Americans.” The Pluralist (fall): 38–58. Fraser, Nancy. 1997. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Post-Socialist” Condition. New York: Routledge. Fraser, Nancy, and Axel Honneth. 2003. Redistribution or Recognition: A Political –Philosophical Exchange, trans. Joel Golb, James Ingram, and Christiane Wilke. New York: Verso. Graff, Daniel A. 2005. “Domestic Work and Workers.” Encyclopedia of Chicago, www. encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/386.html. Hamington, Maurice. 2005. “Public Pragmatism: Jane Addams and Ida B. Wells on Lynching.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 19(2): 167–174. Joslin, Katherine. 2004. Jane Addams, A Writer’s Life. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Knight, Louise W. 2005. Citizen: Jane Addams and the Struggle for Democracy, Ch. 13. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Residents of Hull House. 1895. Hull House Maps and Papers: A Presentation of Nationalities and Wages in a Congested District of Chicago. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell and Co. Sarvasy, Wendy. 2010. “Engendering Democracy by Socializing It: Jane Addams’s Contribution to Feminist Political Theorizing.” In Feminist Interpretations of Jane Addams, ed. Maurice Hamington, 291–309. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Seigfried, Charlene Haddock. 1996. Pragmatism and Feminism: Reweaving the Social Fabric. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Seigfried, Charlene Haddock. 1999. “Socializing Democracy: Jane Addams and John Dewey.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 29(2): 207–230. Weber, Max. 1946. “Politics as a Vocation.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. and trans. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, 77–128. New York: Oxford University Press.

4 ECONOMIC FOUNDATIONS OF WAR AND PEACE

The core of Addams’s pacifist message before and after World War I is that, whereas war “represents destruction … the life of the garrison and the taxgatherer,” labor represents the opposite: “productive effort, holding carefully what has been garnered by the output of brain and muscle, guarding the harvest jealously because it is the precious bread men live by” (Addams 1907, 234). In both Newer Ideals of Peace (1907) and Peace and Bread in Time of War (1922), published 15 years and a World War apart, Addams links her message to the “marvelous book” Bread Labor, by Russian peasant philosopher and Tolstoy inspirer T. M. Bondereff. She admires his expression of “the striking antithesis, the eternal contrast between war and labor, and between those who abhor the one and ever advocate the other” (Addams 1907, 234; also see Addams 1922/1960, 91–92). Addams consistently connects peace with the production of bread, because, to her, peace is not “merely absence of war, but the unfolding of life processes which are making for a common development” (1907, 238). She looks “in the social realm” for “the moral equivalent for war—something heroic that will speak to men as universally as war has done” (Addams 1907, 24; Addams quotes her pragmatist colleague William James). Addams is optimistic that people are “discovering these moral substitutes” by admiring “less each day … the heroism connected with warfare and destruction,” and more each day the heroism that “pertains to labor and the nourishing of human life” (24). This kind of heroism is a peace virtue, but it is not passive. Like heroism in war, it requires “courage and daring,” but it is expressed in labor to sustain life. The heroism Addams has in mind “manifests itself … in universal determination to abolish poverty and disease, a manifestation so widespread that it may justly be called international” (25).

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 73

Addams laments that most peace advocates of her time have not found their way to a set of concepts associated with peace and the production of bread to sustain life. They are still caught up in the set of concepts associated with war. Just as “alchemists wasted their lives in searching for a magic fluid and did nothing to discover the great laws governing chemical changes and reactions,” advocates of peace too often “have committed the time-honored folly of looking for a sudden change in men’s attitude toward war” without investigating “the great laws” that govern possibilities for peace (234). Addams herself undertakes that investigation in Newer Ideals of Peace. She looks for “the great laws” that govern possibilities for peace in the same place she looked for the source of democratic social ethics—in industrial relations of cosmopolitan cities. There Addams observes how the individual ethics of the upper classes resist the social and democratic ethics of the poor and working-class immigrants surrounding Hull House, as I described in Chapter 3. In addition, she observes how the same self-centered, upper-class ethics support “survivals of militarism”—practices and institutions of outdated tribal versions of patriotism— and resist forces of peace that sustain life. To identify forces of peace and “substitutes for the war virtues,” she turns to working class and poor immigrants in large cities whose social ethics are more consistent with “ideals of labor” (217, 224): “We must obtain our first lessons in social morality from those who are bearing the brunt of the overcrowded and cosmopolitan city which is the direct result of modern industrial conditions” (205). Addams suggests that her collaborations with and among poor immigrants in the crowded quarters of big cities can serve as a model for transnational collaborations that center on ideals of labor and virtues of peace (11–19, 235–236).1 I have described Addams’s collaborations at Hull House as political friendships, because they were pragmatist, utilitarian collaborations that bring people together across boundaries of class, ethnicity, and race to work toward a common goal. Further, the very different and unequal parties developed terms of collaboration that all considered reciprocal and just. Often their joint effort addressed a particular problem that affected all of them, for example, harmful working conditions, low wages, disease from uncollected garbage, unsanitary housing, and child labor. Addams’s larger purpose throughout is to bridge the painful gap between groups at opposite ends of systemic economic hierarchies. In this fourth chapter, I extend the argument of Chapter 3 about how systemic class hierarchies shape conditions for Addams’s political friendships at Hull House to how similar systemic hierarchies shape conditions for political friendships that span oceans and continents. Addams’s focus shifts in Newer Ideals from the different kinds of urban class hierarchies that she discussed in Democracy and Social Ethics (Addams 1907/1964) to issues of war and peace, but she does not leave behind her concern with systemic class hierarchy. I argue that she re-locates the hierarchy of philanthropist over beneficiary classes described in every chapter of Democracy and Social Ethics onto the terrain of patriotism, where it appears as a hierarchy of militarism over

74 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

industrialism. At the upper end of this hierarchy, Addams finds nationalist versions of patriotism touted by government and business elites to support militarism. At the lower end, she finds cosmopolitan versions of patriotism that emerge among crowded urban communities of diverse immigrants who combine allegiance to their respective native countries with allegiance to their new country. Further, Addams associates the spirit of militarism, and the possessiveness, competition, and belligerence of nationalist versions of patriotism with the powerful and propertied; and she associates the peaceful spirit of industrialism with poor and working people. Because of their daily experiences, working-class and poor people know what the upper classes do not: “Workmen have always realized, however feebly and vaguely they may have expressed it, that it is they who in all ages have borne the heaviest burden of privation and suffering imposed on the world by the military spirit” (Addams 1907, 113). It is clear, then, in both Democracy and Social Ethics and Newer Ideals of Peace that the lower classes hold the key to collaboration that is peaceful and just. Addams claims that whether we adapt to the “larger and more varied environment” in the international arena depends on developing industrial relations that can respond to the perspectives of working class and poor people and thereby make way for the “unfolding of world-wide processes” that can “nurture … human life” (Addams 1907, 113, 237–238). Before this vision can be realized, unequal parties must come to recognize how systemic economic relations link them across national boundaries as well as boundaries of class, race, and ethnicity.2 All of us will need to learn an inclusive process for organizing that fits the contours of systemic economic relations that shape particular problems. Explaining that is an overarching purpose of Addams’s arguments in Newer Ideals. Most scholars who pursue Addams’s claim that her Hull House collaborations model possibilities for transnational collaborations focus primarily on the ethnic diversity of her collaborations (see Whipps 2004; Green 2010; Bardwell-Jones 2012). While they generally recognize that Addams’s transnational collaborations cross class as well as ethnic lines (Fischer 2009; Sarvasy 2009), they do not reach the particular question that concerns me: how systemic class hierarchy shapes Addams’s political friendships. This inattention to the influence of class hierarchy in Addams’s peace writings is not surprising. Admittedly, in Democracy and Social Ethics, class hierarchy is front and center in every chapter, not only as the definition of a problem, but as the economic grounding of the political friendships that Addams sees as a remedy. Class hierarchy is less prominent in Newer Ideals, where it is translated as a hierarchy of forces of war over forces of peace. What seems to turn commentators away from Addams’s concern with class hierarchy in issues of war and peace is not that such hierarchy is absent in Newer Ideals. Rather the problem seems to be that chapters of Newer Ideals focus on class-related issues in U.S. cities rather than on international peace.3 Chapter titles illustrate: “Failure to Utilize Immigrants in City Government,” “Group Morality in the Labor Movement,” “Protection of Children for Industrial Efficiency,” “Protection of Women

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 75

in City Government,” and “Utilization of Women in City Government.” Three chapters suggest a more direct relation to ending militarism and war—“Survivals of Militarism in City Government,” “Militarism and Industrial Legislation,” and “Passing of the War Virtues.” But the context is still, always, economic relations in big cities. The ways in which these hierarchical urban economic relations support “survivals of militarism” bear further examination if we are to better understand Addams’s argument that cross-class political friendships among new immigrants can serve as a model for peaceful transnational collaborations. John Dewey, Addams's friend and long-time collaborator at Hull House, points out that many critics of Addams’s pacifism before and during the war erred in casting her as a pacifist of the “passive” stripe; someone who wanted to do nothing in response to circumstances that, to them, warranted war to protect their country. Dewey believes that these critics fail to understand how Addams’s pacifism veers away from traditional diplomacy and the “terms of peace” (Dewey 1945/1960, xii) which are intended merely to avoid war. Far from being passive, Addams made a “dynamic and vital contribution to the peace movement” through “her insistence on the necessity of international organization” (xiv). What critics miss, in Dewey’s view, is that Addams does not refer to traditional government organizations and actions. “For … to trust to traditional political ‘organization’ to create peaceful relations between nations involves reliance upon just that exaggerated nationalistic and power politics that has brought the world to its present pass” (xv). Addams’s pacifism relies instead on a “process of organization … that cuts across nationalistic lines. Moreover, instead of setting up a super state, it also cuts under those lines” (xv). My theory about the alignment of class hierarchies in Democracy and Social Ethics, and Addams’s writings about peace and transnational relations, benefits from a suggestion made by John Dewey, who argues that Newer Ideals of Peace and Peace and Bread in Time of War, despite the years that separate their publication, should be understood as parts of the same project (Dewey 1945/1960, xii). Adopting Dewey’s perspective, I read Newer Ideals and Peace and Bread as parts of the same extended process-oriented project. The project, as I understand it, is to identify forces of militarism that hinder peace and forces of industrialism that promote peace,4 and to suggest a process of organization that clarifies and promotes a path to democracy and peace. My argument that Addams’s description of the path to peace in Newer Ideals and Peace and Bread parallels and extends to the international arena her earlier argument for bridging class hierarchy and boosting the social ethics of working class and poor people does not mean that there are no differences between Newer Ideals and Peace and Bread. Rather it emphasizes that, in both books, Addams consistently links her pacifist message to possibilities for collaborative friendships that are organized according to the contours of systemic economic relations. The class relations that concern Addams—broadly understood to include all economic,

76 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

social, and political hierarchies shaped by industrialism—forge connections between groups across great distances, across boundaries of nations, as well as across boundaries of class, ethnicity, and race. My goal of showing how class hierarchies ground Addams’s analysis of forces of war and forces of peace is both less and more ambitious than it may seem. On the one hand, Addams claims direct connections between the economic relations that anchor her diverse cross-class collaborations at Hull House and the industrial and commercial relations she sees as key to peaceful transnational collaborations. On the other hand, these connections appear to be elusive, since some Addams scholars do not focus on them and others are openly skeptical. If they are as important to forging collaborative political friendships as I think they are—transnationally as well as locally—we cannot afford to overlook them. They hold important clues for developing future transnational political friendships. To set a clear context for this argument, I begin with a brief overview of the different class hierarchies Addams describes in Democracy and Social Ethics, which I detailed in Chapter 3. The next section identifies parallels between Addams’s analyses of those hierarchies and her analyses of hierarchies related to war and peace. The third section—the bulk of the chapter—focuses on the problems Addams identifies with outdated tribal versions of patriotism and survivals of militarism in Chapters 2 through 7 of Newer Ideals. I conclude with a discussion of “cosmic patriotism,” the alternative to tribal patriotism that Addams proposes in Chapter 8. By showing how the gap between classes that motivated Addams to build crossclass political friendships with Hull House neighbors also shapes her later writings about international peace, I extend the logic of Democracy and Social Ethics to transnational relations. This approach presses me to uncover the economic grounding of possible transnational collaborations, described in Newer Ideals in the same way that Addams uncovers the economic grounding of cross-class collaborations in Democracy and Social Ethics. However, because Addams is less explicit about cross-class collaborations in Newer Ideals, this is not a simple matter. Newer Ideals weaves together in complex ways discourses of militarism versus industrialism, tribal versus cosmic patriotism, and virtues of war versus emerging virtues of peace. I draw out the economic underpinnings of these discussions to elaborate the role of economic relations in more explicit terms than Addams does, and also in more explicit terms than scholars have conceived. If my argument holds, scholars who emphasize the diversity aspect of Addams’s experiences to the neglect of class hierarchy, and critics who see a disconnect between the organization and purpose of Newer Ideals, overlook more than Addams’s concern with bridging class hierarchy. They overlook Addams’s pragmatist emphasis on fair collaborative processes between unequal parties and her insistence that those processes must address needs that arise in the context of existing industrial and commercial relations. I continue this line of argument in Chapter 5. There I draw on Peace and Bread and Addams’s other writings and speeches about peace to show how Addams’s approach to forging transnational political friendships that respond to people’s

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 77

needs rely on systemic economic relations and the class hierarchies they produce. These macroeconomic relations provide an inescapable context that inclusive political friendships cannot avoid. The questions that interest me in the current chapter and Chapter 5 are: How do economic relations between classes, understood broadly as systemic social relations shaped by industrialization, ground the collaborative political friendships that Addams envisions in the international arena, as well as those she forges at Hull House? On what basis do unequal parties collaborate across class boundaries when they must also bridge national borders and great distances? To understand better how pragmatist political friendships operate in transnational as well as local contexts, it is important to understand the systemic structure and reach of the problem or goal that motivates them. As I argued in Chapter 3, if we miss these elements, we miss the nature of the problem to be addressed, the parties who are affected by it and, therefore, the parties who must be involved in any solution that pushes toward democracy and peace.

Class Hierarchies and Possibilities for Cross-Class Friendships in Democracy and Social Ethics In Democracy and Social Ethics, Jane Addams (1907/1964) demonstrates how relations that people experience initially as personal are embedded in larger systemic economic relations. These relations impose conditions which parties to the relations must confront to respond effectively to problems rooted in those relations. That is why Addams’s “social relations” are essentially economic relations. Until the parties affected by particular economic relations come to understand how they are linked through processes of exchange embedded in systemic relations of industrialism, they are not in a position to collaborate effectively as political friends. They have no way of understanding how to introduce reciprocity into their hierarchical relation. Addams’s discussion of charitable relations is a paradigm for the other hierarchical class relations she discusses. In the chapter on “filial relations,” the young woman who wants to go out in the world confronts her family’s patriarchal cultural expectations that place her, even as an adult, under the control of her father. What kind of reciprocal friendship is possible in such circumstances? Strict patriarchy doesn’t admit a democratic social ethic; so, how must the relation change to become more reciprocal? Just as Addams advises the middle- and upper-class young people who enter settlement work, and just as the charity visitor learns to introduce reciprocity into a hierarchical relation, the father must give up preconceived notions of what is appropriate for the daughter, listen to her, and learn from her experience. Even more, the father must give up some of his economic power over the daughter; he must abandon the notion that he is entitled to use that power to direct the daughter without regard for her own wishes. The same point applies to the employer of live-in household labor, who should not expect the household laborer to give up her own family, friends, and

78 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

social life, at the discretion of the employer’s family. The social ethics required by the economic relation between the employer of household workers and those workers, requires that the employer collaborate with domestic workers in reciprocal labor relations instead of treating the workers as if their lives belonged to the employer’s household. This requires conditions similar to those demanded by workers who can return to their own homes and families after work—fair wages and reasonable working conditions and hours. Additionally, because livein domestic workers are separated by their circumstances from their own families and friends—their employers need to develop mechanisms that facilitate these natural relations, such as alternative opportunities and places to socialize, or perhaps convenient transportation. Creating such mechanisms probably requires collaborating with other employers of live-in domestic workers and with groups of those workers to pool material and social resources to benefit, for example, all live-in workers in a particular area. Similar to the household employer, the company president should not presume to know better than company employees what their home and social life should be like. Much less should he expect them to express gratitude for his benevolence by moderating their demand for higher wages. Like the protective father and the employer of household labor, his paternalistic plans for the homes, education, and lives of workers, made without regard for the needs they experience and express, mirror in industrial terms Addams’s paradigmatic description of charitable relations. The company president’s expectation for gratitude is one-sided, or nonreciprocal. A reciprocal political friendship requires that he collaborate with employees to fulfill their needs. When Addams addresses the misguided plans of education and city government reformers, she extends the paradigm of relations between philanthropist and beneficiary classes beyond relations between father and daughter, or employer and employee, to larger social relations in which systemic class hierarchy would be less apparent without her probing analysis. Addams’s chapter on educational methods emphasizes that education reforms are designed and supported by the middle- and upper-classes with the experiences of youth from those classes in mind; because education isn’t connected with the experiences of new immigrants, it remains for them a hierarchical, alien experience. In Addams’s view, democracy and social ethics require education that is reciprocal in terms of content and process. The philanthropist groups need to share the goods of history, art, and literature and, at the same time, to reshape those goods in line with the experiences of beneficiary groups, as a social ethic based on the systemic interdependence of classes requires. There should also be reciprocity in the educational process, so that immigrant working people participate in their own education and extend their skills and experiences to educate their educators, as they did in the labor museum at Hull House. In Addams’s view, political reformers are similarly detached from the daily experiences of immigrants and others in the beneficiary class they presume to

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 79

help. The problem is that they treat politics and government as something apart from the life of the community. This leads to a narrow sort of tinkering with mechanisms of government and politics. For example, it can lead to focusing on particular forms of corruption without considering how that tinkering will contribute to (or detract from) the well-being of the people—and especially those people at the lower end of the socio-economic hierarchy. As in the case with educational methods, a more reciprocal and democratic approach to political reform would consider the whole of social life, down to the particular experiences of the beneficiary classes, through collaborations that respect their voices as well as their experience. In each of the class hierarchies examined in Democracy and Social Ethics, the party on the lower end of the class hierarchy contributes the experiential perspective—the epistemology or knowledge base—required for an ethic that is social, democratic, and reciprocal. However, the power to deploy that perspective is hindered by the persistent individual ethic of the group that possesses the resources. This will happen unless people in that group recognize how existing industrial conditions incorporate them in systemic, interdependent economic relations with the poor, and how those relations press toward social justice.

Class Hierarchy in Newer Ideals of Peace As a pragmatist, Addams searches for newer ideals of peace “as we may daily experience them” in the economic relations of cosmopolitan cities. She is concerned that most peace advocates do not recognize how “survivals of militarism” in those cities combine with aggressive nationalist versions of patriotism to mask the role of economic relations in achieving peace (Addams 1907, 27). Business and government elites whose self-interest is served by survivals of militarism are even less likely to see how such survivals hinder progress toward peace. Addams searches for the path by which “military ideals of patriotism” can be replaced by “a rising concern for human welfare.” This is similar to her search in Democracy and Social Ethics for a path by which the egoistic individual ethics of the philanthropist class could be replaced by the social ethics and humanitarian ideals emerging from the working class. She take[s] an accounting between those forms of governmental and social organization which are the historic outgrowth of conquest and repression and the newer forms arising in their midst which embody the social energy instantly recognizable as contemporaneous with our sincerest moral life. (Addams 1907, 28) I look to her accounting to see how she translates hierarchy of business and elite groups over marginalized “beneficiary” groups as a hierarchy of militarism over industrialism. Admittedly, the need for translation makes the role of systemic class

80 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

hierarchies less obvious in the international arena than it is in the immediately observable hierarchies of Addams’s Hull House neighborhood. This means the economic grounding of transnational political friendships is also less obvious than the economic grounding of Addams’s pragmatist political friendships at Hull House. Yet, it is clear from the beginning of Newer Ideals, that, as a pragmatist, Addams looks to existing social and economic conditions of industrialism to distance the newer ideals from older ideals of “speculative” philosophers such as Kant, who argue that progress of civilization inevitably will result in the “curtailment of brute force” and “subsidence of war” (23). The problem with this view is that these earlier writers “could not possibly have foreseen the tremendous growth of industry and commerce with their inevitable cosmopolitanism which has so recently taken place” (24). Whereas newer ideals of peace are anchored in existing industrial conditions, older ideals are not. Addams identifies two strains in these older traditional ideals of peace: one emphasizes “sensibility” and the other “prudence” (7). The first strain, sensibility, “appeal[s] to the higher imaginative pity” by “reducing all life to personal experience” (3). As an example, Addams cites Tolstoy, who “drags us through the campaign of the common soldier in its sordidness and meanness and constant sense of perplexity.” We see the soldier’s “hunger, cold, and death” at the behest of his superior for causes “he does not understand” (4). This “dovelike ideal” of peace appeals to personal moral dogma and repulsion to violence, not on existing economic conditions (3–4). The second strain in older ideals “appeal[s] to the sense of prudence” (4) by “set[ting] forth the cost of warfare with pitiless accuracy” (5). In Addams’s view, neither personal dogma nor prudential appeal are workable, because neither is grounded in existing industrial conditions. The most common approach to peace—the “peace-secured-by-the-preparation-for-war theory”—is not an ideal of peace at all. It is strategy that relies on militarism and traditional virtues of war (5). The newer ideals Addams proposes are “more aggressive” than the older, more passive ideals (3). Addams’s are “active and dynamic” forces that would, if “made really operative upon society, … do away with war” (3). The reason for their progressive impetus is that they are grounded in systemic economic and social relations of industrialism that connect us all and shape our daily experience. These connections also turn out to be a source of social morality. Older ideals of peace, which overlook these systemic economic relations, naturally adhere to individual morality or personal dogma. They have no other source. Addams’s continuing concern with systemic economic relations points to two parallels between Democracy and Social Ethics and Newer Ideals of Peace that are key to my argument. The first parallel is that Addams searches in both books for evidence of the social morality required for democracy and peace among poor and marginalized peoples. In Newer Ideals, virtues of peace are social, altruistic virtues of the kind she associates with the beneficiary class in Democracy and Social

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 81

Ethics. On the other side of the class hierarchy, virtues of war are individual, egoistic virtues, the same kind she associates with the philanthropist class in Democracy and Social Ethics (Addams 1907, 12–19).5 War virtues, like other individual virtues, arose initially in pre-industrial times when people’s lives were less connected by far-reaching economic and social relations and were shaped more directly by narrow interests of tribe and nation. Those virtues have outlived their usefulness in the context of newer relations of industrialism, which push toward virtues of peace. War virtues are not only not useful in the context of these newer systemic relations, they are a drag on the progressive potential of those relations. Continued allegiance to individualistic war virtues blinds people to the need to investigate current and evolving social conditions of industrialism, the class hierarchies spawned by these conditions, and the ways in which those at the bottom develop the social virtues required for democracy and peace. In Democracy and Social Ethics, the self-regarding arrogance of the charity visitor, father, household employer, company president, and middle-class education and political reformers, are all due to a common error: they see things only through their own narrow perspective in the philanthropist class world and follow an ethic shaped by that experience. In Newer Ideals, Addams explains that major players in transnational relations make the same mistake. Diplomats, generals, business people, and other elites in most countries also have an individual ethic, understood in this context as a militaristic ethic based on a competitive tribal version of patriotism, that fails to consider wider social relations beneath or beyond what the classes in power perceive as “national” interest. In contrast, those who are guided by forces of industrialism—either locally or transnationally—follow a social ethic grounded in the broader perspective of poor and working-class people who are concerned with the bread labor that sustains life. The second parallel between Democracy and Social Ethics and Newer Ideals of Peace is the path toward social morality. For Addams, we can move toward social morality “specifically by establishing nobler and wiser social relations and by discovering social bonds better fitted to our requirements” (Addams 1907, 213), meaning the requirements imposed by existing industrial conditions. This cannot be done without investigation and knowledge of those conditions, whether the conditions are local or transnational. In Democracy and Social Ethics, Addams urges young people who entered settlement houses to abandon their preconceived opinions and individual ethics and immerse themselves in the problems of the city neighborhoods surrounding them. There, she believes, they will learn about social morality from working class, poor, and oppressed people. In Newer Ideals, she gives similar advice to humanitarians who insist on the abstract rights of “natural man.” Because they do not really know the people whose rights they defend, their perspective closes off “the opportunity of being caught and carried forward in the stream of their hopes and aspirations” (29). Like the young people who moved into settlement houses, they should avail themselves of knowledge gleaned from experiences of the people they wish to defend. Their social

82 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

sentiments “must be enlightened, disciplined and directed by the fullest knowledge”; otherwise they “are as blind as … egoistic sentiments” (10). The idea is to “deal with real people and obtain a sense of participation with our fellows.” This “substitute[s] the scientific method of research for the a priori method of the school men” who neglect existing conditions (28). To proceed, we should “detect and … follow the tiny paths of progress which the unencumbered proletarian with nothing but his life and capacity of labor, is pointing out for us” (30). Addams’s expectation that social morality emerges from the beneficiary class does not mean that she thinks proletarians are clamoring for peace. Like others, they are susceptible to dominant rhetoric about the nobility of war. Addams looks to them because “they are living in the kingdom of kindness” (18; emphasis added). They are pressed by economic conditions they face daily to live by an ethic that is more social than individual. Without that more social ethic, survival would be even more difficult than it is (17–18). Living in a new land in an urban neighborhood with many other nationalities, “they are laying the simple and inevitable foundations for an international order … [by] developing the only sort of patriotism consistent with the intermingling of the nations” in a crowded place where resources are in short supply (18). Because of their cosmopolitan living conditions, they can neither retain the patriotism of the land they left behind, nor adopt the patriotism of the unfamiliar land where they have moved. Thus, the paths of the proletarian shift social sentiments away from a militarist focus on defeating external enemies and demonstrating virtues such as courage in battle, and toward recognition of how existing industrial conditions provide the foundation for democratic social morality and peace. As Addams expresses it, the paths of poor and working-class people “lead to a type of government founded upon peace and fellowship as contrasted with restraint and defense” (30). Addams’s advice to examine existing conditions by walking with “the poor and oppressed” is both a mandate for social science inquiry and a warning that peace and fellowship “can never be discovered with the eyes of the doctrinaire” (30). Her goal is to clarify how the surviving strains of militarism, and the traditional version of patriotism that supports them, inhibit discovery of the new forms of organization grounded in industrialism (28). Her inquiry emphasizes that the old version of patriotism is the “patriotism of the clan” and the territory it possesses. This “tribal” patriotism is unsuited and “unworthy” for “a great cosmopolitan nation,” because it is based on a sharp boundary between those regarded as insiders and those regarded as outsiders (216). Founded on an “age other than our own,” it is totally inadequate to help us through the problems which current life develops. We continue to found our patriotism upon war and to contrast conquest with nurture, militarism with industrialism, calling the latter passive and inert and the former active and aggressive. … We tremble before our

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 83

own convictions, and are afraid to find newer manifestations of courage and daring lest we thereby lose the virtues bequeathed to us by war. (Addams 1907, 217) Addams insists that we cannot make progress toward the newer ideals until we become “impatient” with the old “version of patriotism founded upon military prowess and defense” and find a way to cross the boundary between insiders and outsiders that began with the life of the tribe (217). Where should we look to find our way? Addams turns again in Newer Ideals to the city: “If we would institute an intelligent search for the social conditions which make possible this combination [of insiders and outsiders], we should naturally seek for them in the poorer quarters of a cosmopolitan city” (11–12). There we find every opportunity and necessity for kindliness such as the tribe itself afforded, and there is in addition, because of the many nationalities that are gathered there from all parts of the world, the opportunity and necessity for breaking through the tribal bond. (Addams 1907, 12) In Chapters 2 through 7 of Newer Ideals, Addams effectively deconstructs the traditional tribal understanding of patriotism as a desirable trait of good citizenship. She links tribal patriotism to outmoded egoistic individual ethics that (1) reflect interests of established and powerful insiders, (2) treat poor and working people—especially recent immigrants—as outsiders and look to government for protection against these perceived threats to the established order, and (3) inhibit the progressive impetus of existing conditions of industrialism.

Tribal Patriotism and Survivals of Militarism In Chapter 2, “Survivals of Militarism in City Government,” Addams shows how the mistaken association of future peace with war virtues began early in the history of the American republic with abstract ideals that were “afraid of experience” and “untouched by worldly wisdom” (Addams 1907, 32). American founders “refused to look at the difficulties and blunders which a self-governing people were sure to encounter, and insisted that, if only the people had freedom, they would walk continuously in the paths of justice and righteousness” (32). They rooted their institutions in English laws that carried “survivals” of “the successful struggle of the barons against the aggression of the sovereign, although the new country lacked both nobles and kings” (33–34). As a result, they “carefully defined what was germane to government and what was quite outside its realm,” and government “became an entity by itself away from the daily life of the people” (35). Its orientation was toward external threats. “Having looked to the sword for independence from oppressive governmental control” during the

84 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

Revolution, the American founders “came to regard the sword as an essential part of the government they had succeeded in establishing” (36).6 This survival of militaristic attitudes pushed aside the point that “the very crux of local self-government” rests on the right to respond to particular “needs as they arise” (35). Addams points to the “immigration situation” to illustrate the consequences of a government organization oriented toward external threats and divorced from conditions of daily life. She explains that eighteenth-century ideals of liberty and equality, along with developments in industry and commerce, have encouraged individuals to choose where they want to live (40–41). The influx of immigrants at the turn of the twentieth century means that it is time to “face the proposition that the whole situation is more industrial than political” (42). It does not suffice to give immigrants “rights of an American citizen,” while ignoring the “exploitation and industrial debasement” to which they are subjected by the business class (43). As Addams explains, “the actual importing of immigrants” is directed by the “business man” who is so often in charge in the U.S. (44). Representatives of the transatlantic lines … convert the peasant holdings into money, and provide the prospective emigrants with needless supplies. … The brokers in manufactured passports send their clients … to a port suiting their purposes. On the way, the emigrants’ eyes are treated that they may pass the physical test; they are taught to read … to meet the literacy test; they are lent enough money to escape the pauper test, and by the time they have reached America they are so hopelessly in debt that it requires months of work to repay all they have received. During this time they are completely under the control of the last broker in the line. … The exploitation continues under the employment agency, … petty lawyers …, and, finally by the lodginghouse keepers and the landlords who are not obliged to give the housing which the American tenant demands. (Addams 1907, 44–45) Addams notes that well-meaning reformers who worry about exploitation of immigrants tend to ignore these hierarchical economic relations. As a remedy, they appeal to the personal charitable impulses of voters. Addams describes one reformer who begged voters “to throw away all selfish thoughts of themselves when they went to the polls and to vote in behalf of the poor and ignorant foreigners of the city” (48). Addams sees in this appeal an “attitude of contempt, of provincialism, the survival of the spirit of the conqueror toward an inferior people” (49). She retorts that “immigrants will be ready to adapt themselves to a new and vigorous civic life founded upon the recognition of their needs if the Government … will only admit that these needs are germane to its function” (51). As things stand, the separation of government from daily life produces “a municipal administration … which … is largely reduced to the administration of restrictive measures.” Those who come in direct contact with restrictive measures

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 85

are not only the criminal elements which are “the legitimate objects of their control,” but “the semi-dependent poor, who appeal to them in their dire needs” (52). Because the “mechanical method of civic control” pursues the same purpose toward the poor as it does toward criminals, it “inevitably produces the indifferent citizen, and the so-called ‘professional politician’” (52). The citizen sees that “real processes of government do not concern him,” and the politician spends time avoiding legalities and responding in various illegal ways to popular demands neglected by legislation (53). Repressive laws left over from militarism are supported by “the better element of the city” but enforced by officials “who have attained office because of political pull” (54). The result is an alliance between government administration and vice that redounds to the benefit of neither “the better element” nor the poor (55). The community remains divided between “the repressed, who is dimly conscious that he has no adequate outlet for his normal life and the repressive, represented by the cautious, careful citizen holding fast to his own,—once more the conqueror and his humble people” (61). The class hierarchy embedded in survivals of militarism is clear. Those in charge resist recognition of existing economic and social relations, just as possessive nineteenth-century fathers fail to recognize the increasing independence of their daughters, employers fail to recognize that employees need independent lives, and middle-class education and political reformers fail to recognize circumstances of immigrants. In all cases, their errors are those of the privileged, whose position allows them to operate according to egoistic impulses and individual virtues without much pressure to look at life beyond their own experience. In Chapter 3, “Failure to Utilize Immigrants in City Government,” Addams warns that, when elites “demand to be protected from the many unsuccessful,” they forget “that a revival in self-government, an awakening of its original motive power … can come only from a genuine desire to increase its scope, and to adapt it to new and strenuous conditions” (63). Anyone who would inspire enthusiasm for self-government needs “a genuine understanding of the needs of the simplest citizens” and knowledge of “how to reveal their capacities and powers” (63). Such knowledge is acquired by “manhunting into those curious groups we call newly arrived immigrants” (64). Instead Addams sees the opposite—disinterest and a failure to “utilize immigrants in city government.” She suggests how immigrants might usefully be involved in collaborations to improve city government. Even though nine out of every ten immigrants are of rural birth and are fitted to undertake that painstaking method of cultivating the soil which American farmers despise, they nevertheless all tend to congregate in cities where their inherited and elaborate knowledge of agricultural processes is unutilized. (Addams 1907, 65)

86 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

However, if government were to facilitate a combination of village life and agriculture, to which many immigrants are accustomed, that would provide a useful outlet for their skills. Beyond including many immigrants in public life, this combination of town and country also would limit the “constant removal to the cities” of American farm families who retreat from the “unnecessary solitude” and “dreariness” of life alone on their own acreage (66–67). This is not the only missed opportunity to develop political friendship between elites and immigrants in city government. Addams notes a widespread lack of appreciation for contributions that immigrants make to cities, such as “eating houses in lower New York” where one hears discussion not of the liberty that immigrants believe Americans care for but of matters such as “the need of a readjustment of the industrial machine” to promote justice (69). She bemoans that even “the statesman shuts himself away” from the “great reservoirs of human ability and motive power” found in immigrant communities. He thinks it is “patriotic to hold to governmental lines and ideals” established as “a military inheritance” more than a century earlier (70). These examples are disconnects between the immigrants’ “desire to earn their daily bread and their citizenship” (71). The politician who “attempts to naturalize the bewildered immigrant … must perforce accept the doctrinaire standard imposed by men who held a theory totally unattached to experience, and he must, therefore, begin with the remote Constitution of the United States” rather than with the immigrant’s daily experience (72). This politician maintains the unnecessary disconnect. So too does “the American business man who will not brook any governmental interference in industrial affairs,” having “inherited [the] instinct that government is naturally oppressive … and must be checked” (90). Addams identifies a better approach in Germany, where government is concerned with the needs of working people. Stated in terms of my argument, this approach is better because it involves political friendship between government and working people. The German government’s concern for the needs of workers is manifested, for instance, in taxing manufacturers for accident insurance for workers, “old-age pensions and sick benefits” (88), regulations of rent, and “usury laws” (89). “As a result of constant supervision of industry, the German police although a part of a military government, are constantly employed in the regulation of social affairs” (89). Their role is not confined to the “negative role of preserving order and arresting the criminal,” as it is “in a Republic founded upon a revulsion from oppressive government” (90). The German perspective on government lends itself to political friendship precisely because it is inclusive and multi-sided rather than exclusionary and one-sided. In Chapter 4, “Militarism and Industrial Legislation,” Addams focuses on the problem that government does not consider industrial legislation to address conditions faced by immigrants or workers in general to be a government responsibility. As a result, in industry, the business class operates with little official restraint. Because of this neglect by government, “the gigantic task of standardizing the

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 87

successive nations of immigrants … has fallen upon workmen who alone cannot ignore the actual industrial situation” (93). Working men who confront the need “to maintain a standard of wages against the constant arrival of unskilled immigrants” (93) have “been forced into fraternal relations” with immigrants. The trade unions, then, have “take[n] on the paraphernalia and machinery which have hitherto associated themselves only with governmental life and control” (94). Thus the immigrants learn about self-government through the labor union, which “alone has appealed to their necessities” (95). Labor organizing is a clear example of the kind of political friendship that develops when diverse groups of workers and immigrants combine to resist oppression and exploitation by the business class. Addams quotes from a University of Wisconsin study describing the Chicago stockyard strike of 1904: “This was not merely a strike of skilled labor for the unskilled, but was a strike of Americanized Irish, Germans, and Bohemians, in behalf of Slovaks, Pols, and Lithuanians,” who are among “the most oppressed of the peasants of Europe” (96). Addams notes that those who observed the strikers’ meetings “heard the same address successively translated by interpreters into six or eight languages,” and “saw the respect shown to the most uncouth of the speakers by the skilled American men representing distinctly superior standard of life and thought, could never doubt the power of the labor organizations for amalgamation” (96–97). This example of the power of labor unions captures how important strands of Addams’s thinking come together. In particular, it points to both the ethnic diversity of immigrant collaborations that scholars have emphasized, and the understudied influence of systemic class hierarchy that I aim to illuminate. The economic pressure from diverse immigrants’ common class position as laborers in hierarchical industrial relations brought them together in a political friendship. And that political friendship sowed social morality and respect between diverse groups of skilled laborers with a “superior standard of life” and equally diverse laborers who were unskilled and “uncouth” (96). For Addams, the Chicago stockyard strike illustrates the stark opposition between militarist perspectives, which cast government as a force for defense of established interests, and the people and labor unions, who act as an inclusive antidote. “Government … often finds itself, not only in opposition to the expressed will of the people making the demand at the moment, but apparently against the best instincts of the mass of the citizens as a whole” (104). In this case, the city “had so protected the property interests invested in the stockyards, that none of the sanitary ordinances had ever been properly enforced,” resulting in a “sickening stench and scum” on the river that “at times made that section of the city unendurable.” In addition, “the smoke ordinances were openly ignored,” and the meat inspector did not “ever seriously interfere with business” (105). In the face of these conditions, as well as the low wages, the union was the first “big friendly force” that offered help to the immigrant workers. The union spoke “in a language they could understand, through men with interests akin to their own,

88 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

and it gave them … their first chance to express themselves through a democratic vote.” The immigrants “poured out their gratitude and affection” in a “devotion, … comradeship, and … fine esprit de corps” that “should have been won by the Government itself from these newly arrived, scared, and untrained citizens” (107). The political friendship offered by the union served as an alternative forum where new immigrants could practice the skills and virtues of citizenship denied them by the exclusionary defensive posture of government. Addams concludes that, when government neglects the need for industrial legislation, it fails “to bring men together upon that most natural and inevitable of all foundations, their industrial needs” (112). The limited scope of government pushes progressive citizens to place their “hopes … in voluntary organizations” (112) in the international arena as well as in cities. The International Association of Workingmen, established in 1864, was the first to elevate “all workingmen above the prejudice of race, and united them by wider and deeper principles than those by which they were separated into nations” (113–114). In the face of existing commercial relations fostered by “business aggression and … appeals for military defense and for the forcing of new markets,” the IAW was the voice of international peace and democracy. It aimed for an industrialism which would be “the handmaid of a commerce ministering to an increased power of consumption among the producers of the world, binding them together in a genuine internationalism” (115). Addams’s emphasis on the class hierarchy underlying urban survivals of militarism continues in Chapter 5, “Group Morality in the Labor Movement.” There she complains that society is “divided into camps in relation to the industrial system.” The two camps are “typified by the Employers’ Associations and the Trades Unions,” each of which exhibits “group morality—the employers tending toward the legal and contractual development of morality, the workingmen toward the sympathetic and human” (124–125). When hostility breaks out, “capital lines up on one side, and labor on the other, until the ‘fair-minded public’ disappears” (140). Addams suggests that this happens when the sentiment “my country right or wrong” or loyalty to one’s “own kind” emerges as “group morality.” She explains, for example, that in the Chicago teamsters strike, there was “an enormous increase in the feeling of race animosity, beginning with the imported negro strike-breakers, and easily extending to ‘Dagoes’ and all other distinct nationalities” (141). This destroys “the principle of racial and class equality” which is “at the basis of American political life” and is particularly evident in “a city of mixed nationalities” such as Chicago (141). Under a group morality that subordinates those who are not of one’s own kind, even children are affected by class hierarchy and “the furrow of class prejudice” (142). It is clear here how Addams’s perspective on class hierarchy differs from a Marxist perspective, insofar as she does not look to class conflict as the driver of change. Rather, she looks to a “fair-minded public,” and possibilities for cross-class political friendships, to democratize an unjust and exploitative economic hierarchy.

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 89

In Chapter 6, Addams turns her attention to the dominance of militarism over industrialism. This helps to explain why the U.S. falls behind European countries “in protective legislation” for the poor, for immigrants, and especially for children. The founding era left the U.S. with an “emphasis … upon personal liberty”; that liberty is to be maintained by limiting the sphere of government, which is understood to be “of necessity oppressive” (151). The militarist perspective that the primary purpose of government is to defend against outsiders is exacerbated by Americans’ “unconscious attitude of contempt … toward the weaker and less capable,” an attitude spawned by American emphasis on “economic success” (151). The weak, especially the new immigrants among them, apparently are not considered to be in need of defense. “We all despise our immigrants a little because of their economic standing. The newly arrived immigrant goes very largely into unskilled work …; and then, because he is in this lowest economic class, he falls into need,” and English-speaking Americans resent his claim on charitable funds (151–152). In Germany and England, where immigrants are fewer, they do the same unskilled work for low wages as those in the U.S. but are considered citizens who are entitled to protective legislation. In the U.S., “[o]ur moral attitude toward one group in the community is a determining factor of our moral attitude toward other groups, and this relation of kindly contempt, of charitable rather than democratic obligation” vis-à-vis the economically weak may be one reason why the U.S. “is sadly in arrears in the legislation designed for the protection of children” (152–153). The deficit in protective legislation is most pronounced in the Southern states, where the vast majority of illiterate children between ten and 14 who work reside (153). Simplification of labor tasks made possible by technology has made a child’s labor as valuable as an adult’s labor (154). American views of government as a repressive force that should not regulate daily life have kept the U.S. from developing legislation needed to protect children from this labor. In Addams’s view, the toll of child labor includes harm to the physical health of children (155–156), avoidance of work and mental breakdown from excessive labor at a pre-mature stage of development (157–160), parents who become financially dependent on children (161), and a decrease in good workmanship (162–164). Here again, Addams suggests how including immigrants and their needs in a collaborative educational process could respond to these problems. She advocates “uniform compulsory education laws,” education that “endeavors to widen and organize the child’s experience with reference to the world in which he lives” (168), and play during the “full period of childhood and youth” (170). With this approach, children gain, in a way suitable to their level of development, “the training and fibre which will later make [their participation in industry] effective” and equip their “minds [to] finally take possession of the machines which they will guide and feed” (169). Incorporating play as part of education offers a child the chance to “cultivate within himself the root of a culture, which alone can give his later activity a meaning” when he confronts the “one-sided activity”

90 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

associated with subdivision of labor (169–170). Addams extends the importance of play to factories where large numbers of people work long hours. “It would bring a new power into modern industry if the factory could avail itself of that esprit de corps, that triumphant buoyancy which the child experiences when he feels his complete identification with a social group” (172). She argues that, just as we have “democratized education in the interests of the entire community,” we should democratize “recreation and constructive play” because they “afford the best soil for establishing genuine democratic social relations” (178) in factory workers as well as in children and older youth. In Chapter 7, Addams addresses the hierarchy of men over women that is embedded in the restricted franchise and women’s loss of their traditional “housekeeping” function after it became a government function supervised by men. As in the case of immigrants and their children, Addams links beliefs and values that emerged in founding-era militarism to the exclusion of women from voting. The franchise began at a “time when the problems of municipal government were still largely those of protecting the city against rebellion from within and against invasion from without” (180–181). The franchise “was naturally given solely to those who were valuable to the military system” (181), those who had “the ability to bear arms” (182). However, in Addams’s time, when cities had become “a stronghold of industrialism,” that ability is too narrow to include all who contribute, women in particular (182). People in cities confront problems of “insanitary housing, poisonous sewage, contaminated water, infant mortality, the spread of contagion, adulterated food, impure milk, smoke-laden air, ill-ventilated factories, dangerous occupations, juvenile crime, unwholesome crowding, prostitution and drunkenness” (182). The remedies that are needed fall in the category of “city housekeeping” (183). The problem is that when city bureaus are charged with inspecting housing and cleaning streets (185), these housekeeping tasks become a collective responsibility of those who have the vote, the men who have been authorized by military prowess of other men in another time and place. According to Addams, cities have failed in their housekeeping tasks “partly because women, the traditional housekeepers have not been consulted as to its multiform activities” (183). The problem is not only that the men in charge are ill-equipped by both their socialization and government’s limited scope, and, consequently, function poorly in this role. It is also that women “are … missing the education which the natural participation in civic life would” offer (184). Women face other consequences when they lose their housekeeping function. They “have furnished the breadstuffs from time immemorial,” and until the industrial era, they controlled their working conditions. However, “since the application of steam to the processes of kneading bread and of turning the spindle,” women have “been denied the privilege of regulating” their work (189). Meanwhile, industry has drawn increasing numbers of working women who need protective legislation but cannot vote for it (190). “Women directly controlled the surroundings of their work as long as their arrangements were

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 91

domestic,” but under new conditions when they work outside the home, they need the franchise to do that (192). “So far as women have been able, in Chicago at least, to help the poorest workers in the sweatshops, it has been accomplished by women organized into trades unions” (192). In this way, women still take some responsibility for the health and well-being of the community. They learn democratic ways of doing this in the same place as immigrant men—not from a government that neglects their needs, but from political friendship in trade unions. The examination of Addams’s argument in Chapters 2 through 7 of Newer Ideals is intended to respond to my questions about how systemic social and economic relations of industrialism shape the process of organization that Addams envisions transnationally, just as they shape the process she used at Hull House. Her political friendships at Hull House are organized to encompass persons and groups that are connected to each other by some problem or condition that is shaped by systemic economic relations—relations that may not be recognized without the kind of social scientific investigations Addams undertakes. Political friendships organized this way are flexible and inclusive; they vary with the nature of the problem to be addressed. In observing the contours of systemic relations that shape a particular problem, they avoid excluding parties that have a stake in addressing the problem. One example in Newer Ideals of how systemic industrial relations create common interests across boundaries of nationality is the collaborative friendship among skilled and unskilled immigrant laborers who supported the Chicago stockyard strike. Addams’s prime example of organization across national boundaries is the International Association of Workingmen, which unites “all workingmen” on the basis of “wider and deeper principles” than the out-moded tribal versions of patriotism that separated them into competing national groups (113–114). The organization of the IAW reflects common interests that are shaped by transnational industrial hierarchies. When scholars miss the nature of Addams’s organizational process, it is because they miss the role of systemic class hierarchies in shaping possibilities for collaborative friendships. As Dewey explains, Addams’s pacifism does not rely on established political organizations to foster peaceful collaborations, because those organizations tend to be afflicted with nationalist versions of patriotism. Addams’s pacifism relies instead on a “process of organization” that flows above and beneath national boundaries. This process is not, however, undefined. It follows the contours of systemic economic relations and incorporates all parties who are affected by a particular relation. Unless we recognize how systemic economic relations connect people who may not be known to each other, we cannot develop a process of organization that includes all the parties who should be involved in any democratic political friendship. Some Addams scholars who have not emphasized Addams’s process of organization still provide support for my claim that systemic class hierarchies of industrialism ground Addams’s political friendships. Marilyn Fischer (2009) casts Newer

92 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

Ideals as a response to peace advocates of Addams’s time who failed to recognize the central role of “the poor and oppressed” in progress toward peace. Fischer explains that these advocates were influenced by Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinist distinction between militarism oriented toward combatting external threats and industrial capitalism based on “laissez-faire economics” and voluntary exchange. They held that industrial capitalism necessarily presses for the peaceful conditions it requires, and that international organizations—supported by nationstates and acting through international law—could address any conflicts that arose (Fischer 2009, 167–168). Addams, on the other hand, associates industrialism not with capitalism, but with the modern city; “organized as a vast, interdependent whole functioning for the ‘sustentation of the group,’ and … independent of government regulation” (170). Fischer’s point is that Addams agrees with other peace advocates that industrialism is key to peace, but she contests their claim that laissez-faire economics favored by the powerful and propertied, and international organizations that serve interests of particular states, can promote peace. Fischer explains that, in both Democracy and Social Ethics and Newer Ideals, Addams favors institutions and processes that counter survivals of militarism by paying “particular attention to those at the bottom of society, specifically immigrants and the urban poor, with special focus on women and children” (Fischer 2009, 169). On Fischer’s account, the “scaffolding” of Newer Ideals is intended to demonstrate that “survivals of militarism” in city government—including ordinances and government reforms advocated by the business class to protect private property (170), the control over workers’ lives exercised by owners of the means of production (171), and the ways in which “business aggression” in international commerce operates as justification for imperialism (174)—constitute obstacles to peace. Fischer’s analysis underscores Addams’s life-long emphasis on the fact that those at the bottom of class hierarchies are the key to progress toward both democratic social ethics and international peace (175). However, she stops short of considering how systemic class hierarchies shape conditions for these ideas and how possibilities for transnational political friendships put those ideals to use. Wendy Sarvasy also supports the relevance of class hierarchy to Addams’s vision for international peace. Although she does not address how those hierarchies shape possibilities for transnational political friendships, she comes close. Like Fischer, Sarvasy recognizes that Addams’s vision for transnational collaboration does not depend on “the role of law, local or international” (Sarvasy 2009, 187). Sarvasy seeks Addams’s answers to questions such as: “What are the sources of cosmopolitan ethics? And how are diversity and transnationalism interconnected?” (183). Sarvasy clearly recognizes that class hierarchy has a role. She notes that Addams’s emphasis on “acts of solidarity” among transnational immigrant families “challenge[s]” hierarchy, specifically “the late-nineteenth-century justifications of U.S. imperialism based on a hierarchy of civilizations and a paternalistic understanding of the United States’ role in the world.” In addition, Sarvasy recognizes that Addams was as determined in the international arena as

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 93

she had been at Hull House to avoid any unequal charity relationship. “Since [Addams’s] aim was to eradicate the economic causes of war,” humanitarian aid could not be the ultimate or the only answer (192). Addams’s turned instead to “feminized” bread politics based on the traditional approach of women to the production of food, which centered on “‘human use,’ in contrast to a masculine approach centered on exchange or ‘money-making’ value.” On Sarvasy’s account, Addams’s feminized bread politics divorces it from market forces and called on women to form cross-class alliances to respond to global food needs (193). Clearly Sarvasy maintains a focus on Addams’s concern with class hierarchy, if not with how that hierarchy shapes possibilities for political friendship. Contemporary scholars of political friendship, like some of the early peace advocates, focus on formal political organization, specifically, on civic friendship among citizens of a particular democratic state. Here, boundaries of the friendship are defined formally by legal citizenship, not by any process that “cuts across nationalistic lines” or “under those lines,” and not by any notion of how political friendship should be organized to bridge the gap between classes. Certainly, scholars of civic friendship recognize the importance of democratic processes for identifying and addressing existing inequalities. But their processes do not define which parties should be included in the friendship (see Allen 2004; Schwarzenbach 2009; Inamura 2015). Democratic civic friendships are conceived only in the context of equality (see Chapter 1, this volume). The parties are assumed to be equal under law, and the terms of justice are defined by legal requirements that mandate the same or similar treatment for ostensibly equal citizens. From this perspective, attempts to negotiate different treatment among citizens, or to include noncitizens on equal terms with citizens, are often illegal, and even if not strictly illegal, may be considered unfair. Thus, formal terms of citizenship tend to overlook the particular circumstances of groups marginalized by economic, racial, and/or cultural factors, a point Addams (1907) makes repeatedly in describing problems of recent immigrants to the U.S. And, of course, narrowly defined political friendship among democratic citizens puts aside the question of how a process of organization grounded in systemic economic relations could bring together unequal transnational parties.

Conclusion: From Tribal Patriotism to Cosmic Patriotism In the eighth and final chapter of Newer Ideals, “Passing of the War Virtues,” Addams returns to the concern she introduced at the beginning of the book—the unfortunate lingering attachment to militarism and outdated virtues of war and the corresponding neglect of newer virtues of peace emerging under existing industrial conditions. She explains that, in the U.S., “survivals of militarism” have “moved … from the New England village,” where Revolutionary War ideals took root, “into huge cosmopolitan cities,” where the emphases on “military

94 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

prowess and defense” and common history and descent are confounded by new circumstances (Addams 1907, 215). The problem is not that there is nothing to admire in a war virtue such as courage in battle, but that it is a serious mistake to accord such virtue of an earlier time the right to dominate the present, which has traveled out of its reach … We may admit that the experiences of war have equipped the men of the present with pluck and energy, but to insist upon the selfsame expression for that pluck and energy would be as stupid a mistake as if we would relegate the full-grown citizen, responding to many claims and demands upon his powers, to the school-yard fights of his boyhood, or to the college contests of his cruder youth. (Addams 1907, 211) Consistent with her pragmatism, Addams argues that, just as the virtues of the youth need to change to match the conditions of adulthood, the energies formerly devoted to war need to be redirected to address the need for democratic and peaceful collaboration under new conditions of industrialism. These conditions call for a new “social order which includes liberty of individual action and complexity of group development … [that] would nurture all into a full and varied life.” Discovering “substitutes for the war virtues” requires “spontaneous and fraternal action as virile and widespread as war itself” (213). Instead of a common sense of danger, we need a common sense of “the march of social needs” (214). The needy in a village might be cared for by kindly neighbors who see their suffering; however, in big industrial cities, “we have seen the breakdown of village standards of morality” (215). Because cities are “divided so curiously into the regions of the well-to-do and the congested quarters of the immigrants,” we cannot rely on the charitable impulses of neighbors. “There is no intercourse, not even a scattered one,” between the wealthy and the poor, “save what the daily paper brings, with its invincible propensity to report the gossip of poverty and crime,” which, she grants, may be “healthier” than it seems (215). In these circumstances, she asks, “How shall it be made to seem as magnificent patiently to correct the wrongs of industrialism as to do battle for the rights of the nation” (216)? Addams’s answer is the “cosmic patriotism” she finds among urban immigrant communities (237). Their experience holds the antidote to the tribal patriotism that insists on sharp distinctions between insiders and outsiders. If we would institute an intelligent search for the social conditions which make possible this combination [of insiders and outsiders] we should naturally seek for them in the poorer quarters of a cosmopolitan city where we have, as nowhere else [conditions that make it possible]. (Addams 1907, 11–12)

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 95

In those quarters, there is every opportunity and necessity for compassion and kindliness such as the tribe itself afforded, and there is in addition, because of the many nationalities which are gathered there from all parts of the world, the opportunity and necessity for breaking through the tribal bond. (Addams 1907, 11) This is not only a question of how to create solidarity out of diversity, although certainly it is that, as multiple scholars have demonstrated (Whipps 2004; Fischer 2009, 2014; Sarvasy 2009; Green 2010; Bardwell-Jones 2012). Industrial cosmopolitan cities raise questions about the “painful” gap between classes that Addams describes in Democracy and Social Ethics. That class hierarchy bolsters the interests of the class that directs the course of government, business, education, and places cultural value on militarism and the egoistic virtues that support it. Conversely, it diminishes the interests of the class that lacks access to the benefits of industrialization and would benefit from alternative government, business, educational and cultural practices. But cosmopolitan cities also point to the kinds of political friendships that might address the gap. Cosmopolitan cities: are the places in which it is easiest to study the newer manifestations of government, in which personal welfare is considered a legitimate object; for a new history of government begins with an attempt to make life possible and human in large cities … Public baths and gymnasiums, parks and libraries, are provided first for those who are without the security for bare subsistence, and it does not seem strange to them that it should be so. (Addams 1907, 15) Addams knows firsthand about services for those who lack security, because she has been active in political friendships to establish those services. She sees emerging signs of humanitarianism in cosmopolitan cities as “a prophecy of the future development in city government,” and sees “the daily lives” of cosmopolitan immigrant groups as “a forecast of coming international relations” (16). Addams is confident in the potential of cosmopolitan immigrant collaborations to point the way to transnational collaborations that are suited to existing industrial conditions. This has much to do with the way a “community of interests”— such as the labor community behind the stockyard strike—develops in cities. Because of their difference in all external matters, in all of the non-essentials of life, the people in a cosmopolitan city are forced to found their community of interests upon the basic and essential likenesses of the common human nature. … It is natural that this synthesis of the varying nations should be made first at the points of the greatest congestion, quite as we find that

96 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

selfishness is first curbed and social feeling created at the points where the conflict of individual interests is sharpest. (Addams 1907, 17) It would be a mistake to conclude that Addams believes a humanitarian combination of “altruistic and egoistic impulse” necessarily arises from the combination of congestion and diversity in cosmopolitan cities, or from a vague likeness of human nature. Addams suggests that we may be surprised to find coalescence of altruism and egoism among diverse immigrant groups in congested cities: simply because we fail to comprehend that the individual, under such pressure, must shape his life with some reference to the demands of social justice, not only to avoid crushing the little folk about him, but in order to save himself from death by crushing. (Addams 1907, 17–18) Addams experienced firsthand both how the poor immigrants surrounding Hull House were crushed by harsh industrial conditions and exploitation by the business classes and how they could come together to improve their working conditions. She saw that immigrants of different nationalities are able to combine egoistic and altruistic impulses to work together. Their daily experiences teach them “cosmopolitan relations” (18). Experience with poverty, crowded and unsanitary living conditions, low wages, and harmful working conditions, pushes them toward “the demands of social justice” to avoid crushing others or being crushed. Immigrants living in these conditions encounter “an insuperable difficulty” if they turn to the old tribal patriotism. Consequently, they develop “the only sort of patriotism consistent with the intermingling of the nations” (18). This cosmopolitan version of patriotism that blends allegiance to the old homeland with allegiance to the new, and to immigrants of other nationalities who share the new, stems from the “community of interests” that emerges from immigrants’ recognition that they are connected by common problems they experience at the bottom of a class hierarchy. Thus, Addams sees “social morality” growing out of the “coalescing of the altruistic and egoistic impulse” (18), not automatically, but because of a “community of interests” that transcends individual interests and tribal patriotism and transforms them into social interests and a cosmopolitan patriotism. Addams’s confidence in poor cosmopolitan immigrant communities as “humbled harbingers of Newer Ideals of Peace” (18) does not mean that she thinks they are “shouting for peace—on the contrary, if they shout at all they will continue to shout for war,” in accord with old notions of patriotism, even as their daily experiences teach them cosmopolitan relations (17). This resistance to newer ideals results from a failure to examine current problems. Instead, like most

Economic Foundations of War and Peace 97

others, they blindly follow motivations for war that arose, and institutions and practices that developed, in an earlier era. Addams explains: We continue to defend war on the ground that it stirs the nobler blood and the higher imagination of the nation, and thus frees it from moral stagnation and the bonds of commercialism. We do not see that this is to borrow our virtues from a former age and to fail to utilize our own. (Addams 1907, 26–27) As a result, “our humanitarianism is soft and literary, and has given itself over to unreal and high-sounding phrases” (27). What we need to do, Addams argues, is adjust “our morality and courage to our present social and industrial developments” and use those as a foundation for working out new humanitarian ideals “by daily experience” (27). That explains the organization of Newer Ideals of Peace that puzzled some of her contemporaries as well later students of her work. The chapters examine “daily experience … in the modern city” (27), because that is where Addams discovers how survivals of militarism “are responsible for much of the failure in the working of democratic institutions” (27). At the same time, she also finds in the modern city pressure for the newer ideals, because of a “movement for social amelioration” and “protective legislation which regards the weakest citizen as a valuable asset” (27–28). “When the State protects” the weakest citizens as “civic resources,” just as “it formerly defended its citizens in time of war, industrialism versus militarism comes to be nurture versus conquest” (28). When Addams returns to this point in the concluding chapter of Newer Ideals, she again associates politics centered on virtues of peace with immigrants in big cities. Her political friendships— transnational as well as local—are rooted in the “communities of interest” that center on needs of the poor and oppressed, who are intimately acquainted with the problems and possibilities of politics based on “bread labor” to sustain life (234). The next chapter will focus on Peace and Bread and other works on peace to show how these communities of interest develop transnationally.

Notes 1 As Marilyn Fischer observes, in today’s terminology and global environment, “transnational” is a more accurate description than “international” of the kinds of collaborations Addams had in mind (Fischer 2009, 176). 2 As I noted in Chapter 3, Addams understands these larger economic relations in a broad sense as systemic “social relations” that are embedded in existing industrial conditions and processes. I describe them as “economic relations,” or “economic and social relations,” to avoid confusing Addams’s “social relations” with a contemporary understanding of any nonbusiness or nongovernment exchange between persons as a social relation. 3 Some scholars are skeptical of the link that Addams tries to make in Newer Ideals of Peace between urban class hierarchies and progress toward newer ideals of peace in the international arena. Ever since the publication of Newer Ideals of Peace, critics have questioned whether and how Addams’s approach in that book serves her purpose.

98 Economic Foundations of War and Peace

Marilyn Fischer observes that Addams’s friends and colleagues Florence Kelley and George Herbert Mead, as well as biographer Allen Davis, see a disconnect between the organization of Newer Ideals and its concern with ideals that can promote peace around the world (Fischer 2009, 165; Mead 1907). 4 This also seems to be Sarvasy’s (2009) approach. 5 Marilyn Fischer (2003, 75) is right that “for Addams peace and democracy are overlapping concepts.” 6 As Addams puts it later in the book, “survivals of militarism” have “moved … from the New England Village into huge cosmopolitan cities,” where the emphases on “military prowess and defense” and common history and descent are confounded by new circumstances (Addams 1907, 215). This is Fischer’s (2009) point when she justifies the “scaffolding” of Newer Ideals.

References Addams, Jane. 1907. Newer Ideals of Peace. Chatauqua, NY: The Chatauqua Press. Addams, Jane. 1907/1964. Democracy and Social Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Addams, Jane. 1922/1960. Peace and Bread in Time of War. With an Introductory Essay by John Dewey. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall & Co. Allen, Danielle. 2004. Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Bardwell-Jones, Celia. 2012. “Addams and Immigration: Cultivating Cosmopolitan Identities through a Transnational Public Ethos of Care.” Society for the Advancement of Philosophy (March). New York. Dewey, John. 1945/1960. “Democratic versus Coercive International Organization: The Realism of Jane Addams.” Introductory Essay for Peace and Bread in Time of War, by Jane Addams. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall & Co. Fischer, Marilyn. 2003. On Addams. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Fischer, Marilyn. 2009. “The Conceptual Scaffolding of Newer Ideals of Peace.” In Jane Addams and the Practice of Democracy, ed. Marilyn Fischer, Carol Nackenoff, and Wendy Chmielewsky, 165–182. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Fischer, Marilyn. 2014. “Addams on Cultural Pluralism, European Immigrants, and African Americans.” The Pluralist (fall): 38–58. Green, Judith. 2010. “Social Democracy, Cosmopolitan Hospitality, and Intercivilizational Peace: Lessons from Jane Addams.” In Feminist Interpretations of Jane Addams, ed. Maurice Hamington, 223–254. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Inamura, Kazutaka. 2015. Justice and Reciprocity in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mead, George Herbert. 1907. “Review of The Newer Ideals of Peace by Jane Addams.” American Journal of Sociology 13: 121–128. https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Mead/pubs/ Mead_1907c.html. Sarvasy, Wendy. 2009. “A Global ‘Common Table’: Jane Addams’s Theory of Democratic Cosmopolitanism and World Social Citizenship.” In Jane Addams and the Practice of Democracy, ed. Marilyn Fischer, Carol Nackenoff, and Wendy Chmielewsky, 183–202. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Schwarzenbach, Sybil. 2009. On Civic Friendship: Including Women in the State. New York: Columbia University Press. Whipps, Judy D. 2004. “Jane Addams’s Social Thought as a Model for a PragmatistFeminist Communitarianism.” Hypatia 19(2): 118–133.

5 POSSIBILITIES FOR TRANSNATIONAL POLITICAL FRIENDSHIP

The gap between philanthropist and beneficiary classes that Jane Addams and other residents of Hull House found so painful was not limited to Chicago and other large cities. The class gap was, and still is, transnational. Collaborative political friendships that can address this must be transnational as well. Addams recognizes that need in Newer Ideals of Peace when she proposes her multi-ethnic, cross-class collaborations at Hull House as a model for collaborations to promote peace and democracy in the international arena (Addams 1907, 11–19, 235–236), where the gap between classes is magnified—and perhaps even more entrenched. In Newer Ideals, Addams observes that peace advocates have erred by not investigating the “great laws” that govern possibilities for peace (234). Then she undertakes that investigation herself. As I described in Chapter 4, Addams links obstacles to peace with a transnational economic hierarchy topped by “survivals of militarism” and outmoded tribal versions of patriotism that push toward war and serve the interests of business and government elites at the expense of the poor and working classes. To counter these forces of militarism, she argues, transnational collaborations should build on forces of industrialism that promote peace, specifically, on the “bread labor” that sustains life (234). Addams continues this line of argument in Peace and Bread in Time of War (Addams 1922/1960), wherein she turns to Russian peasants’ well-known love of the soil to explain the logic of bread labor: In the Russian peasant’s dread of war there has always been a passive resistance to the reduction of the food supply, because he well knows that when a man is fighting he ceases to produce food and that the world will at length be in danger of starvation. (Addams 1922/1960, 93)

100 Transnational Political Friendship

From Addams’s perspective, the path to peace requires transnational political friendships that are grounded in the production of food and the capacity of existing industrial conditions to support human life. That is also the path to democracy and social justice. Such political friendships, like those at Hull House, must incorporate as partners in a common venture those groups that, out of necessity, have been most directly concerned with bread labor to feed their families: the working class, the poor and oppressed more generally, and women. This chapter addresses the most obvious difficulty facing those who would collaborate across classes transnationally, when the parties on opposite ends of systemic economic hierarchy lack the propinquity of classes available at Hull House. For Addams, “propinquity is an unceasing factor” in the existence of the settlement (Addams 1895, 184). Settlement house residents encounter daily the painful disparity between classes in every aspect of their neighbors’ lives, especially the disparity in material resources and the consequences of that disparity. The settlement house is established in crowded impoverished immigrant neighborhoods for that very reason (Chapter 2, this volume). Addams’s story about differing reactions of passengers on a bus to a young boy hawking newspapers illustrates the advantages of propinquity of classes (Addams 1907/1964, 169; Chapter 3, this volume). One passenger, a philanthropic woman, is motivated to donate money to schools for such boys. A second passenger, a self-made businessman, buys a newspaper to encourage the boy’s work ethic. Both assume the solution to poverty is to help impoverished individuals to develop appropriate virtues or skills. Neither sees how systemic industrial conditions push the boy toward earning wages instead of attending school. A third passenger is a working-class man who is familiar with trade union methods. His response to the newsboy having to work is to advocate for legislation that restricts child labor. He is the only one of the three passengers who has acquired through prior experience a social ethic that equips him to understand the newsboy’s circumstances in systemic terms. Most settlement house residents are like the philanthropic woman on the bus and Addams’s charity visitor. They have been insulated by their family background from daily contact with poverty. The epistemic framework they have developed through their limited experience is not adequate because that experience is not adequate. The settlement house is the antidote that provides relatively well-to-do young people with the opportunity to gain sympathetic knowledge of the immigrant neighbors’ lives and circumstances, and the epistemic evolution that flows from that. Addams (1907/1964, Ch. 2) describes that evolution in the paradigmatic case of the charity visitor who gradually acquires sympathetic understanding of her host family’s daily experiences. Propinquity of classes provides an opportunity for settlement house residents to learn that the source of the painful gap between classes is systemic and, consequently, that it requires a social rather than an individual solution. That means collaboration to share society’s resources, not charity. By living in poor immigrant neighborhoods, settlement

Transnational Political Friendship 101

house residents acquire an understanding of systemic aspects of poverty that approximates (but cannot duplicate) the epistemic perspective of the workingclass passenger on the bus and immigrants in the settlement house neighborhood. They also learn how to collaborate with diverse class and ethnic groups. Addams and other Hull House residents are able to work directly with their immigrant neighbors and city agencies to identify problems, the parties directly affected by those problems, and methods of collaborating with those parties on terms that all parties consider reciprocal and just. Absent prolonged experience with the poor, it’s all too easy for well-to-do people to overlook systemic causes of poverty and to treat poor people as individuals whose hunger, homelessness, or illness inspires one-sided charity rather than reciprocal friendship. In a transnational context, where propinquity of classes is hard to come by, it is difficult to see how the two methods Addams used to foster cross-class political friendships at Hull House can work. As I described in Chapter 2, the direct method for bridging the gap between classes relies on face-to-face contact between philanthropist and beneficiary groups that is rarely available transnationally. The indirect method for bridging the gap requires that groups in the “beneficiary” class first collaborate face-to-face to develop an intra-class political friendship. Then that friendship can build capacity to exert pressure for change on the recalcitrant philanthropist groups which control resources. However, intraclass collaboration is difficult when beneficiary groups are spread across different countries. The advantages of propinquity of classes are apparent in the differences between Addams’s accounts of Chicago’s class relations in Democracy and Social Ethics (Addams 1907/1964) and her accounts of transnational class relations in her writings about war and peace. Addams’s experiential narratives about Chicago class relations are close-up, the details almost microscopic; they draw readers inside each relation through sociological and psychological portraits of the class perspectives of each party in the class relations she analyzes. Her narratives about transnational class relations—although still experiential— are, at the same time, more removed from the immediate experiences of the poor and oppressed. In addition, Addams casts transnational class relations in more general terms than class relations in big cities. She describes these transnational relations as a hierarchy of militarism over industrialism, which works to the advantage of nationalist interests of business and to the disadvantage of cosmopolitan interests of the poor. Local class relations are still relatively easy to identify, but the way they fit into the systemic transnational economic relations which shape them are not so easily identified. In this complex setting, with multiple layers, how are people with power and resources to be motivated and educated to develop political friendships with the poor and marginalized peoples in local settings who generate and conserve social ethics and forces of peace? How can poor and oppressed people who live in different countries forge political friendships among themselves? My overriding questions are: In transnational political

102 Transnational Political Friendship

friendships, what factors can substitute for the propinquity of classes that is central to political friendships forged at Hull House? How can parties who are caught up in transnational economic hierarchies evolve toward a common purpose and negotiate contributions to it that all parties consider reciprocal and just? Despite the difficulties, Addams sees a path by which the links among local and transnational class hierarchies can be clarified so that political friendships can be formed and problems can be addressed. Her accounts of her activities in the international peace movement provide evidence of the substitutes she sees. Addams participated in and often led many woman-centered peace societies— most famously, the Women’s Peace Party, the 1915 International Congress of Women at The Hague, the second International Congress at Zurich during the Paris peace negotiations, and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Her descriptions of her activities in these societies suggest that certain kinds of organizational processes substitute for the propinquity of classes available at Hull House. Although Addams was a big supporter of international organizations, her allegiance was not to traditional government organizations or to any formal organization. As her friend and colleague John Dewey observes, Addams favored a “process of organization … that cuts across nationalistic lines. Moreover, instead of setting up a super state, it also cuts under those lines” (Dewey 1945, xv; see Chapter 4 above). I would add that Addams ties these processes to existing industrial and commercial relations that shape exploitation and oppression through economic hierarchy at the same time that they produce the capacity for peace (Addams 1907, 42, 228). She calls such organizational processes “de facto” (Addams 2005b, 181). Addams illustrates how de facto organizational processes can operate even within a formal political organization—the League of Nations. In 1918, she expresses her hope that the League of Nations might “be founded not upon broken bits of international law, but upon ministrations to primitive human needs.” Founded this way, instead of on traditional formalities of international law, “the League would be organized de facto as all the really stable political institutions in the world have been” (Addams 2005b, 181). De facto organization attends to needs because it follows the outlines of existing conditions and relations of industrialism and the ways in which they shape people’s needs. Addams’s transnational political friendships are pragmatist precisely because they are de facto, insofar as they recognize the contours of existing economic hierarchies to include parties at the bottom as well as at the top, and to democratize their collaboration. The ultimate purpose of the resulting political friendships is to democratize the economic relations themselves, to move them toward justice from the perspective of those at the bottom. As a pragmatist, Addams finds reason to be optimistic about the possibility of political friendships that cross national as well as class boundaries in examples that actually exist. In Newer Ideals, she reminds readers that there already is an

Transnational Political Friendship 103

international effort to rid the face of the earth of tuberculosis, in which Germany, Italy, France, England and America are engaged with such enthusiasm. This movement has its international congresses, its discoverers and veterans, also its decorations and rewards for bravery. (Addams 1907, 25) It operates not only at the level of state action; it also operates on the ground, with careful attention to local conditions. “Its leaders devote hours to careful teaching and demonstration, they reclaim acres of bad houses, and make over the food supply of huge cities” (25). When the international effort to fight tuberculosis “reclaim(s) acres of bad houses, and make(s) over the food supply of huge cities,” it points to the kinds of processes that shape political friendship across national borders. The peoples and interests covered by such political friendships must match the breadth of the transnational economic relations that shape conditions in the poor quarters of big cities where tuberculosis thrives. That requires reciprocal collaboration between those with power and resources and the urban poor who are most directly affected by the disease. The transnational effort to eliminate tuberculosis involved a pragmatist process of organization which was similar to the political friendships Addams fostered at Hull House to improve garbage collections and investigate unsanitary plumbing which were contributing to disproportionate levels of disease in their neighborhood (Addams 1911, Ch. 13). The collaborators investigated conditions that caused the problem; then they worked to mitigate those conditions by partnering with the poor people most directly affected and prioritizing their needs. In Peace and Bread, Addams foregrounds an additional transnational collaboration: the cooperative effort of Allied countries during World War I “to relieve the starvation and distress throughout widespread areas” of Europe. As Addams explains, the Allied collaboration to distribute food responded to economic relations created by war that affected all people, but were much more damaging to people who bore the worst consequences of the fighting, bombing, blockades, and tariffs. “Although there had been universal bad harvests in 1916, the war itself was primarily responsible for the increasing dearth of food” in myriad ways. Many of the men who were involved in production of food before the war “were in active army service,” and, during the war, many of the women were involved in activities “such as the manufacture of munitions [or] … shipbuilding. … Their wholesale withdrawal wrought havoc both in agriculture and in industry” (Addams 1922/1960, 24). Women, children and, sometimes, war prisoners, cultivated the European fields. There was a shortage of fertilizers, “which could not be brought from remote ports nor be manufactured as usual in Europe, because nitrates and other such materials essential to ammunition were being diverted to that use.” Ships carrying food were destroyed by U-boats, “and many remote markets had become absolutely isolated, as that they could no longer contribute their food supplies to the hungry” (24–25).

104 Transnational Political Friendship

Addams was particularly encouraged by the prospects of future transnational collaboration in this case. She saw that the distribution of food involved an “unexpected turning” in which the dominant “motive for producing and shipping food on the part of great nations was no longer a commercial one.” The motive “shifted to a desire to feed hungry people with whose governments [the Allies] had entered into obligations” and whose desperate circumstances were caused by war-time disruptions of the normal food supply (83). This shift meant that political friendships were formed to distribute food on the basis of need, rather than profit, temporarily disrupting the transnational class hierarchy that elevated forces of militarism and war over forces of industrialism, peace, and the needs of the poor and oppressed. This disruption brought the economic hierarchy closer to the terms of political friendship. Addams’s descriptions of the political friendships formed to combat tuberculosis and distribute food, like those formed at Hull House, illustrate how the contributions made by parties at opposite ends of economic hierarchies necessarily are different and unequal. Parties positioned in philanthropist and beneficiary groups obviously cannot contribute the same things to any collaboration between them. Charity visitor and host family, company president and employees, and middleclass education reformers and immigrants to be educated—all are positioned differently with respect to each other and to larger society, and they have different resources to contribute. The same is true of parties at opposite ends of transnational class hierarchies. In each case, the parties’ contributions to a political friendship must be commensurate with their respective positions, roles, and resources. Otherwise their collaboration will not be reciprocal and just. Political friendships among unequal parties differ from both nonreciprocal, or one-sided, charitable relations in which the powerful party determines what the less powerful party needs, and reciprocal egalitarian friendships in which the parties have the same role and make the same contributions. Addams understood systemic transnational economic hierarchies, and the need for collaborations of a parallel extent, long before the end of the twentieth century, when the view gained currency among urban planners and geographers (Bromberg et al. 2007; Lawson 2007) and feminist care scholars studying the global migration of care workers (Robinson 2006a, 2006b; Mahon and Robinson 2011). Globe-spanning economic hierarchies are more visible today than in Addams’s time, but possibilities for transnational political friendships that can mitigate them still are not well understood (although collaborative efforts are underway, as I elaborate in the concluding chapter). Meanwhile, wars proliferate; and famine persists in some regions alongside plenty in others. Further, as feminist care scholars working in international relations have shown, transnational economic hierarchies topped by business and government interests in the global North press people from the global South to immigrate to the North in search of employment. Then, the democratic societies of the North discriminate against the immigrants who have responded to their need for cheap labor, thereby

Transnational Political Friendship 105

reinforcing systemic economic hierarchy (Robinson 2006a, 2006b; Mahon and Robinson 2011). In fact, discrimination against migrants is widespread in the world (OHCHR 2010; Longhi 2013). In the U.S., Trump-era discrimination has extended beyond exploitative labor conditions to government aggression against immigrants, even against some of those who seek political asylum through legal avenues (Associated Press 2018; Minian 2018). In this context, Addams’s accounts of how transnational economic hierarchies promote war, and how political friendships can counter harmful effects of those hierarchies, have not lost any of their relevance. Today, Addams’s narratives are useful for making transnational class hierarchies visible to those with power and resources. But even when the powerful are positioned to facilitate transnational political friendship, they generally lack Addams’s pragmatist understanding of the hierarchical economic relations to which they themselves are contributing. Addams’s descriptions of the experience of poor and oppressed people during war and famine may offer these powerful groups a vicarious sense of the painful gap that separates transnational classes. Those descriptions hold the potential to motivate and educate them, just as direct experience did for the motivated and educated young people who flocked to the settlement house movement. Addams’s narratives also explain, for those who become motivated and educated, how certain kinds of organizational processes can mimic on a macro scale the processes Addams used to foster direct cross-class political friendships at Hull House. Unless one not only travels the world, but travels for the purpose of investigating experiences of marginalized classes—for the purpose of listening to them, learning from their experiences, and incorporating their voices and epistemological perspectives in collaborations—as Jane Addams did, often on side trips from some official responsibility, the painful disparities between classes, the systemic economic hierarchies that shape those disparities, and the organizational processes needed to address them are not visible. Addams’s narratives extend to others the benefit of her travels and experiences, locally and globally. The first section of the argument below focuses on Addams’s accounts of how hierarchical economic relations extend beneath, as well as beyond, national boundaries and thereby point to the need for transnational cooperation which reaches local levels. In Addams’s time, as in the present, these economic relations are particularly visible in problems related to immigration. Addams’s narratives demonstrate how narrow nationalist constructions of politics in the U.S. serve business interests that shape migration patterns and neglect the economic conditions that confront new immigrants. Her narratives also demonstrate how consequences of this neglect increase in complexity as they spread to different local settings. Somehow, transnational political friendships must understand and address the local consequences of transnational economic relations. The second section of the argument focuses on the kinds of organizational processes that can connect local and transnational economic hierarchies and

106 Transnational Political Friendship

address their effects. These are de facto processes that are not limited by narrow constructions of politics or borders of particular countries. I examine Addams’s activities in women’s peace societies and the League of Nations to glean lessons about how international cooperation should be organized to include the poor and oppressed as partners and to address the complex local repercussions of transnational economic relations. Lessons drawn from Addams’s activities are clues to what processes of organization can substitute transnationally for the propinquity of classes available at the settlement house. I conclude by elaborating on the importance to these processes of the stories people tell about their daily lives. These stories provide the substantive human and ethical core that connects people’s needs to systemic economic hierarchies. They testify why pragmatist political friendships that would address the needs of the poor and oppressed must observe the contours of existing systemic economic relations.

Transnational and Subnational Economic Hierarchies Addams begins to translate her analyses of cross-class collaborations at Hull House for the international arena in Newer Ideals. There she associates business and government elites with a tribal, nationalistic version of patriotism and survivals of militarism in big cities in the U.S. Conversely, she associates working-class and poor immigrants with a cosmopolitan version of patriotism and forces of industrialism that push for peace. In Peace and Bread and other writings and speeches based on experiences during and after World War I, she places this argument in a transnational setting. Readers learn how nationalist fervor and militarism serve business interests and overlook the difficult economic conditions faced by the poor, especially recent immigrants, who are regarded as outsiders by established interests. During war, the poor bear the worst consequences when their energies are diverted from laboring for bread to fighting. In addition to experiencing the brutality of war, they see food sources and public services dwindle. Readers also learn from Addams’s accounts how middle-class soldiers and their families who did not initially doubt their patriotic duty to support their country’s war effort began to question it once the consequences of war came into their personal experience. In Addams’s time, as in contemporary times, transnational relations between business elites and those who labor to produce bread and sustain life are particularly visible in problems faced by new immigrants and in larger patterns of transnational migration. Addams views these class relations as systemic economic and social relations that are in many ways comparable to those she observed at Hull House, because they are grounded in the same industrial and commercial relations. Such relations can be detected at local, national, and transnational levels, although the connections between these levels are not clear without investigation. Addams learned about the connections among multiple levels of systemic economic hierarchies from her immigrant neighbors as well as from her own study and travel.

Transnational Political Friendship 107

Recall Addams’s description of the ways in which American business interests control and profit from the influx of immigrants into the U.S. Agents of the transatlantic steamship companies cluster in cities such as Palermo to seek out potential migrants “in their own villages.” They “convert the peasant holdings into money, and provide the prospective emigrants with needless supplies, such as cartridge belts and bowie knives.” Then “the brokers in manufactured passports” send them “to a port suiting their purposes” (Addams 1907, 43). From that time on, “at least until a grandchild is born on the new soil, [the immigrants] are subjected to various processes of exploitation from purely commercial and selfseeking interests.” The steamship agents are followed by others who are controlled by “the last broker in the line” in a “dingy office in an American city.” Some in this long commercial chain treat their eyes so they can “pass the physical test,” and some teach them to “read sufficiently well to meet the literacy test.” Still others loan them money until “they are so hopelessly in debt that it requires months of work to repay all they have received.” After that, the immigrants are exploited by employment agencies, politicians in charge of the naturalization process, lawyers, liquor dealers, “and finally, by the lodging-house keepers and the landlords who are not obliged to give them the housing which the American tenant demands” (44–45). Addams’s explanation centers on the point that such exploitative transnational business relations are beyond the reach of institutions and laws of particular countries. The problem is exacerbated by outdated tribal versions of patriotism that prevail in many countries. In the U.S., her prime example, nationalist patriotism left over from the American colonies’ struggle to win independence from Britain continues to shape political institutions and laws a century later. Immigrants to the U.S. are treated under an 1802 law designed to assimilate aliens who came in search of political liberty they couldn’t have in their homeland. The naturalization process presumes a limited political sphere that sees government as an oppressive force that must be constrained to preserve individual liberty. Consequently, it focuses on immigrants’ understanding of the U.S. Constitution, which is appropriate only insofar as the search for political liberty is still in play (43–44). Addams laments that this approach to naturalization does not recognize existing conditions in which immigration is driven more by economic than political factors: “Significant figures … show emigration to rise with periods of depression in given countries and immigration to be checked by periods of depression in America, and we refuse to see how largely the question has become an economic one” (43). Failure to take these new economic conditions into account means that we “shut our eyes to the exploitation and industrial debasement of the immigrant” (42). Meanwhile, “the real issues are being settled by the great industrial and commercial interests which are at once the products and the masters of our contemporary life” (42). Whereas the century-old law and naturalization process do not serve immigrant outsiders, they do serve the interests of insiders—those who immigrated

108 Transnational Political Friendship

earlier, established themselves economically, and then came to consider themselves the only “legitimate” citizens. Addams elaborates: We consider our social and political problems almost wholly in the light of one wise group whom we call native Americans, legislating for the members of humbler groups whom we call immigrants. The first embodies the attitude of contempt or, at best, the patronage of the successful toward those who have as yet failed to succeed. We may consider the so-called immigration situation as an illustration of our failure to treat our growing Republic in the spirit of a progressive and developing democracy. (Addams 1907, 39) As a result of prioritizing outmoded political ideals ahead of existing economic conditions, the U.S. does not grant new immigrants “real political fellowship” (39). That is extended only to insiders who are considered legitimate Americans, largely by virtue of their established economic success. These insiders are the custodians of the tribal patriotism that supports established business interests and overlooks exploitation of immigrant outsiders by those interests. This account extends the logic of Addams’s argument in Democracy and Social Ethics to relations across national and ethnic groups as well as classes. Just as laws and policies proposed by middle-class education and government reformers serve established interests rather than the needs of immigrants, laws that aim to maintain political liberty protect the interests of “legitimate Americans” against outsiders. Of course, this class hierarchy also protects established interests against those of the native poor, especially those with darker skin, as I discuss below. The narrow political fellowship among economically successful “legitimate” citizens carries a complex racial component influenced by the history of slavery in the U.S. This is one example of the ways in which the effects of transnational economic hierarchies proliferate and increase in complexity as they interact with diverse local conditions. As Addams explains, in the years following World War I, the construction of legitimate U.S. citizenship, and corresponding distrust of outsiders, marginalized immigrants from southern Europe more than immigrants from northern Europe. Addams describes the 1927 Chicago mayoral race, in which the successful candidate attracted the votes of outsiders denied full fellowship by vilifying the English King George, who “personif[ied] to the cowed citizens of foreign birth, the titular head of ‘the Nordics’” (Addams 1930, 265). Non-Nordic immigrants from southern Europe had long heard “about the English foundations of our national institutions,” and the claim “that the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution are alone worthy to define what constitutes acceptable patriotism.” To them, the mayoral candidate’s unflattering depiction of King George “afforded an enormous release in a psychological sense.” These non-Nordic immigrants were well aware that the Nordic “older stock,” felt threatened by the fear “that we may suddenly find one day that we

Transnational Political Friendship 109

are no longer ourselves because our center of gravity is not securely based upon Anglo Saxon and Puritan stock” (265). The non-Nordics were quite pleased when criticism of King George suggested “that the Anglo-Saxon was no better than he ought to be or at any rate that he would no longer be allowed to dictate what Chicago should teach its school children, whose racial background was as good as anybody’s!” (266). Not surprisingly, this “revolt against the dominant race” extended beyond southern European immigrants to the “two hundred thousand colored people living in Chicago.” To these people who “need[ed] … a champion” more than others, King George represented for the moment the men of those dominant races who were the slave traders on the coast of Africa, who were the masters on Southern plantations, who were the shrouded night riders in the reconstruction days, the members of the Ku Klux Klan who had recently denied full high school privileges to an ambitious colored group living in the neighboring city of Gary. (Addams 1930, 267) The revolt against the Nordics also included Native Americans. They, too, were attracted by the mayoral candidate’s denigration of King George. The Chicago members of the Council Fire of American Indians … begged to be set right in the school histories in which a successful foray of the Red Skins was invariably described as a massacre while one made by the Whites was called a victory over a savage foe. The Indians also submitted that they were the real 100 percent Americans and that something was due them on that count as well. Of course with the allegiance of all these voters, the candidate was elected by an overwhelming majority. (Addams 1930, 267) Addams sees another example of sub-national and supra-national effects of American tribal patriotism and the racialized construction of legitimate citizenship in the Quota Act of 1821. Southern European immigrants encountered ostracism after the war, but with the Quota Act, that ostracism grew into a legal restriction of immigration (263–264). Pressure to restrict immigration arose “from many causes,” but “the emotional content in the demand was obviously due to the fact that as a nation we had become during the war overconfident of our own notability of purpose and had learned to distrust all foreigners as ‘unworthy’” (264). The Quota Act disrupted the transnational pattern of migration in which workers traveled to the U.S. “in the spring to work upon railroad construction and repairs” and then returned home in the winter (277–278).

110 Transnational Political Friendship

At the same time, the quota exacerbated racial divisions in the U.S.1 For years, “Latins and Slavs … had performed the unskilled labor in American’s industrial centers” (282). When they no longer came, it paved the way for an influx of Mexican laborers. This shift in the ethnic origin of labor gradually injected a new element of racial distinction in class relations, which Addams experienced in the immigrant neighborhoods surrounding Hull House. At first the Italians received [the Mexican immigrants] almost as a group of their own countrymen …, but as the Mexicans in their innocence mingled freely with the negroes from the South, who had come to Chicago in larger numbers about the same time that the Mexicans themselves had come, and because many Mexicans were dark of skin they gradually became discriminated against, even by the people of Latin origins, who in Europe do not discriminate against the dark-skinned man. (Addams 1930, 282) Eventually, the Hull House “Latin Club … split upon nationalistic lines,” and the Italians demanded that Hull House not rent their assembly hall to the Mexicans for fear “that the hall would lose its prestige if it were being used by people of color!” This incident showed a “sorry aspect of the Americanization of immigrants”; clearly, “the Italians had copied their standard of social excellence from their American neighbors” (283). In other words, they adopted the historically rooted contempt that many established white Americans exhibited toward people of color. In addition to exacerbating racial divisions in the U.S. and disrupting transnational labor patterns, the Quota Act also affected transnational family relations. Addams heard about this firsthand. Because a Hull House building hosted the Immigrants’ Protective League, the settlement became familiar to immigrants as a distribution point for “the issuance of food orders under the Hoover Commission.” Immigrants “came to Hull House begging for information” about the Quota Act (268). Many of them told stories of how they had been separated from family members back home, unable to bring them to the U.S. during the war. Those family members “who had sold all their belongings … were waiting at points of embarkation often remote from their homes.” Some were stranded for “years in a strange land and country” (268). Immigrants found that stranded family members they supported, labeled “fireside relatives,” were unable to come to this country (269). The ripple effects of the Quota Act, below and beyond national borders, illustrate how a law that serves narrowly constructed tribal patriotism in one country can have unintended effects on the transnational economic relations in which it is embedded. The U.S. law does not take these unintended transnational effects into account; nor can any law that aims only at conditions in a particular country. When the Labor Office of the League of Nations recognized problems

Transnational Political Friendship 111

related to migratory labor across multiple continents, and called a meeting in Geneva in 1921 to discuss them, Addams heard about it from her Italian immigrant neighbors. They were: very much excited because such care was to be taken on behalf of their friends. At the time the Italians had a habit of going to South America in the early winter … [when] crops south of the Equator were ripening, and they would work their way up through South and central America and the United States into Manitoba, harvesting all the way. But sometimes they would get into difficulties in remote places where they could find no Italian consul and the whole undertaking was fraught with many difficulties, some of them purely legalistic. It seemed to them the most natural thing in the world that somewhere the nations should meet and discuss this awkward situation which could not be remedied by Italy alone nor even by the powerful United States, but could only be taken care of through international agreement. (Addams 2005a 330) Addams’s accounts of the difficulties encountered by transnational migrant laborers— along with her accounts of how nationalist political ideals and institutions serve insider business interests and neglect economic conditions that confront immigrant outsiders—illustrate how hierarchical economic relations operate both beneath and beyond national borders, with little or no restraint. These accounts also explain Addams’s long campaign for international cooperation to address problems caused by the continuing dominance of old nationalist political ideals and institutions that are blind to the transnational reach of existing industrial conditions. In the next section, I turn to Addams’s efforts toward international cooperation in women’s peace societies and the League of Nations. Consistent with her argument that progress toward peace rests on attention to existing industrial conditions, and her understanding of how industrial conditions affect possibilities for international peace, she looks within women’s peace societies and the League of Nations for de facto organizational processes that follow contours of the systemic economic hierarchies in which particular problems are embedded and must be addressed. In the international arena, organizational processes that would reach across classes come up against the lack of propinquity between classes. I examine Addams’s accounts for evidence about how she thought transnational de facto organizational processes could overcome this difficulty and incorporate needs of poor and oppressed peoples scattered in diverse locales.

Women’s Peace Activities and de Facto Transnational Organization For transnational political friendship to match the contours of connected transnational and subnational economic hierarchies, the parties at the upper end of these hierarchies must reach out to those at the lower end to understand how all

112 Transnational Political Friendship

are affected in different ways by the same systemic economic relations. Further, those at the upper end of transnational hierarchies must go through an epistemological evolution to rid themselves “of all conceit of opinion and all selfassertion, and [be] ready to arouse and interpret” not only “the public opinion of their neighborhood,” as Addams (2002, 26) wrote of young people who entered the settlement house movement; they must find a way to “arouse and interpret” the opinions of the poor and oppressed at multiple locations in systemic transnational economic hierarchies. To put it another way, they must identify macrolevel processes that substitute for the micro-level processes that link classes directly at the settlement house. Addams’s accounts of her activities in women’s peace societies and international organizations illustrate how this can happen. Organizations that are usually led by well-educated middle- and upper-class people can adopt certain processes to facilitate on a macro-scale, and without the propinquity of classes available at Hull House, the epistemological evolution required to democratize their perspectives and practices. These processes mark the path away from nationalistic tribal versions of patriotism that support militarism and the interests of established elites against those of outsiders, and toward cosmopolitan versions of patriotism that support forces of peace and interests of the poor and oppressed. Further, these processes show how leaders and spokespersons of transnational organizations can develop and preserve political friendships with the people whose voices and needs provide the motivation for their work and the substance at its core. In Chapter 4, I explained why Addams considers women to be aligned historically and systemically with forces of peace rather than forces of war. Because of women’s socialization in their historical role of feeding their families, they share the poorer classes’ antipathy to war and inclination toward peace, understood by Addams (1907, 238) to mean “the unfolding of life processes which are making for a common development.” Like the poor, and unlike the rich and powerful, women who care for their families have heightened awareness of mutual dependence in personal and community relations and tend to develop virtues that are more social than individual and egoistic. Both women and the poor are more removed by their historical experience from the self-interested, nationalist drive to compete for possession and profit than are business and government elites who turn too quickly to war. To put it another way: women and the poor are similarly situated vis-à-vis the need to sustain life. Addams suggests that, before and during the war, the times were ripe for women’s activities to turn toward promoting international peace. “It [was] quite understandable that there was no place for woman and her possible contribution in international affairs under the old diplomacy,” because “such things were … not ‘woman’s sphere’” (Addams 1922/1960, 81). But conditions changed. Just as women entered into politics when clean milk and premature labor of children became factors in political life, so they might be concerned with international affairs when these at least were dealing with such human and

Transnational Political Friendship 113

poignant matters as food for starving peoples who could be fed only through international activities. (Addams 1922/1960, 81) Addams lost no time living the role she envisioned for women in international affairs. Woman-centered peace societies and meetings—such as the Women’s Peace Party, the 1915 International Congress of Women at The Hague, the second International Congress at Zurich during the Paris peace negotiations, and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom—are the most common setting for Addams’s accounts of the international peace movement. Addams and other women with experience in settlement houses were also active in League of Nations initiatives. Many women at the forefront of peace societies and meetings were, like Addams, educated women who could muster sufficient resources to finance their own travel. Addams’s accounts often center on discussions among these prominent women and between them and government leaders in various countries. Given the class background of many leading peace advocates, and the fact that, in a transnational context, they lacked the propinquity to the poor available at settlement houses, it is important for any who would adopt Addams’s methods to examine how prominent women peace activists formed collaborative friendships with poor people. Those are the people who suffer most from war, are best informed about the consequences of war on their daily lives and, on Addams’s account, are positioned as systemic repositories of social virtues. Yet Addams and other prominent peace advocates do not live among the poor in other countries or have more than occasional contact with some of them. The same problem confronts leaders of democratic social movements today. How are they to build political friendships that include the poor and oppressed peoples in distant lands who experience the worst effects of problems related to neoliberal market forces, maldistribution of resources, and climate change? The situated knowledges and social ethics of the poor and oppressed are necessary to the success of political friendships that would respond to their needs. Lessons gleaned from Addams’s accounts of de facto organizational processes in the women’s peace movement suggest how contemporary social reformers and human rights activists can build transnational political friendships across boundaries of class, ethnicity, and race. These lessons center on how de facto organizational processes can promote the epistemological evolution of those positioned at the top of systemic economic hierarchies, democratize their practices, and thereby facilitate transnational political friendship with and among poor people. Below I draw eight lessons about de facto organization from Addams’s accounts. I. Those who would develop transnational political friendships across classes benefit from prior experience with poor and oppressed people at the bottom of economic hierarchies. It is important to recognize from the outset that Addams, and most of the other women peace activists she mentions, brought to their work in the peace

114 Transnational Political Friendship

movement years of direct experience working with immigrants, poor people, and labor groups—in settlement houses and elsewhere. Their experiences with these groups educated them about systemic economic hierarchies. They already knew that systemic transnational relations had diverse effects in different local settings, and they had already gone through an epistemic evolution that broadened any individual perspective acquired from their class background to a social perspective. The women were perhaps as well prepared as middle- and upper-class persons could be for cross-class collaboration in the international peace movement. They brought to their transnational collaborations the benefits of propinquity of classes they experienced in big cities. To illustrate: along with Addams, Emily Green Balch and Alice Hamilton were selected by the 1915 International Congress of Women at The Hague to meet with leaders of warring countries to open a path for mediating peace (Addams 1930, 126). Balch was a sociologist who taught at Wellesley and, like Addams, had been a social settlement leader. Hamilton, a physician who lived at Hull House for more than two decades, “was a life-long medical investigator of the environmental and occupational causes of illness,” whose “groundbreaking work” paved the way for her to become “the first woman” on the Harvard faculty (Deegan 2002). The accounts of these three delegates from the Hague Congress provide a record of the Congress and their meetings with officials in different countries (Addams et al. 1915/2003). The three “were received by the governments in fourteen capitals” (Addams 1930, 125); they met with prime ministers, foreign ministers, presidents, the Norwegian king, the Pope, and “members of parliaments and other leaders of public opinion” (126). To their work, their negotiations, they brought the epistemological perspective they had acquired working with poor and working-class immigrants of diverse ethnic backgrounds. They also brought their skills at collaborating with these immigrants to research the roots of their problems and fashion solutions. II. The poor and oppressed must be actively incorporated in any collaborative friendship to address their needs, regardless of prior experience of leaders. Women leaders at international meetings such as the Hague Congress did not rely completely on their own considerable prior experience working with the poor. Although their previous experience prepared them to detect the influence of systemic economic hierarchy, socialized their perspective, and developed their collaborative skills, it could not inform them about the new groups of people and the need for differently configured collaborations required to address relations of war. Problems such as the need to distribute food in areas of famine require their own investigations and collaborations. Fortunately, the women at The Hague were more diverse—in terms of class and nationality—than the backgrounds of Addams, Balch, and Hamilton might suggest, and so too were influences on the Hague Congress. Women from 12 countries and different “classes, creeds, and parties” participated, including some leaders of trade unions. All were “united in expressing sympathy with the suffering of all, whatever their nationality, who are fighting for their country or laboring under the burden of war” (“Resolutions

Transnational Political Friendship 115

Adopted by the International Congress of Women at the Hague,” in Addams et al. 1915/2003, 124). “Expenses of the Congress were guaranteed by British, Dutch, and German Women … who all agreed to raise one third of the sum required” (120). Platforms and proposals that resulted from this and other peace conferences were informed by the perspectives of marginalized socio-economic groups, even though women from these groups are not prominent in Addams’s accounts of meetings. The diversity of attendees, who included representatives from countries most directly affected by war and famine, provided some opportunity for epistemic growth even at the upper levels of organization. In other words, there was some propinquity of transnational classes at the top of the pragmatist political friendships that developed at The Hague. III. Like women’s peace societies and the larger peace movement, transnational political friendships built on de facto organization should be decentralized. Addams considers it a mistake to think that all peace efforts should feed into one central organization: “In the same war, it is more than five times better to have offices in [many cities] than to have one bang-up office organization in New York City alone” (Addams and Balch 2005, 353). The Women’s Peace Party (WPP), for example, was never a top-down organization. Organized in January 1915 at a two-day convention of women in Washington D.C. that drew 3000 attendees, it was the culmination of meetings held in a number of different U.S. cities; and its officers had all been affiliated with existing peace organizations. The WPP soon established branches in several states; many of them were preexisting women’s organizations affiliated with the WPP (Addams 1922/1960, 7–10). By the time of the first annual meeting of the WPP in January 1916, there were “one hundred and sixty-five group memberships, totaling about forty thousand women” (20). Decentralization facilitates the expression of perspectives and needs of different class, ethnic, and racial groups at local levels. Voices of these different groups are sources of multiple situated knowledges that can balance and correct the privileged perspective of many leading peace advocates. Since these voices are also the source of social ethics, they remind those at the upper end of economic hierarchies of the ongoing need to restrain their epistemic privilege and tendency toward individual ethics. Like the young people who flocked to the settlement house movement, leaders of transnational democratic movements “must be emptied of all conceit of opinion and all self-assertion” (Addams 2002, 26). Local peace societies and protests provided a constant reminder of the imperative to restrain epistemic privilege. They included activists from many walks of life. Addams reports that people in many towns and cities were eager for lectures and peace literature and also that the peace activists used many other methods of “propaganda”—including poetry, songs, and theatre—to spread their message to different audiences in different venues (11–12). Protests against the war drew even more diverse groups. The Chicago Daily News of March 6, 1915 reported that a protest drew “commercial interests,” socialists, and people from newspapers, colleges, labor organizations, “women’s clubs and state and city

116 Transnational Political Friendship

governments, native Americans and foreign born citizens from many lands, peace societies and churches of different faiths” (quoted by Addams 1930, 124). The Women’s Peace Party also reached out to “mutual benefit societies, … trade unions and socialist groups” (9); immigrants from different nationalities; and international groups, such as the English League of Democratic Control, the Dutch Central Organization for a Durable Peace, and international branches of the Association for the Promotion of International Friendship (Addams 1922/ 1960, 11). The purpose of the WPP’s extensive local and international outreach was not only to include diverse national perspectives, but to include perspectives of marginalized peoples in different local circumstances. A special conference on Oppressed and Dependent Nationalities held as part of the December 1916 meeting of the Women’s Peace Party in Washington, D.C. called attention to the fact that as Americans [the WPP] believed that good government is no substitute for self-government, and that a federal form offers the most satisfactory method of giving local self-government in a country great in territory or complex in populations. How America’s international policies might support or express these principles was the problem before the conference. It was believed that valuable advice could be given by those citizens of the United States who by their birth belonged to the dependent or oppressed nationalities, and who, through their American experience were familiar with the workings of our federal form of government. (Addams 1922/1960, 21–22) Consistent with this belief, speakers at the conference included “prominent representatives” from depressed and dependent peoples—“Poles, Czechoslovaks, Lithuanians and Letts, Ukrainians, Jugo-Slavs, Albanians, Armenians, Zionists and Irish Republicans” (22). Exchanges with different national and class groups were deliberately built into the organizational processes of the Women’s Peace Party. IV. Transnational political friendships should not rely only on organized societies that share their specific purpose; they should welcome efforts related to their purpose that are made by other groups. This point, like the need for decentralized organization, is intended to counter arguments which prioritize unified strategy and control over diverse input. Addams cautions that it is a “mistake to regard as coincident the movement toward peace with the organized peace societies” (Addams and Balch 2005, 355). That would neglect the role of many other societies and organizations in promoting peace. Large groups in the interest of peace are already organized in the churches, in the whole academic world of schools and universities and among the organizations of women, with their study committees and lectures. Peace is discussed in chambers of commerce, among scattered business men in Rotaries

Transnational Political Friendship 117

and Lions, farmers and farmers’ wives in and outside of the granges and cooperative organizations, working people, unionists and non-unionists, the political parties with their easy platform promises, the large bodies of war veterans, torn between a horror of war and a conception of patriotism which exalts war. Certainly all these groups make part of the picture, and it is scarcely conceivable that one type of organization can effectively minister to the needs of all. (Addams and Balch 2005, 353–354) Addams bolsters this point with a long list of the peace-related goals of different organizations: adherence of the United States to the World Court, elimination of narrowly nationalistic textbooks from the schools, abolition of compulsory military training from colleges and high schools, membership of the United States in the League of Nations, agreement to international consultation in times of world crises, agreement to cooperate in military control of an acknowledged aggressor, drastic modifications of the Monroe Doctrine or its disavowal, withdrawal of marines from all foreign territories, abolition of private manufacture of and trade in munitions, revision of the Japanese Exclusion Act to put Japanese migration under the quota regulation, compulsory universal arbitration, codification of international law, and above all disarmament. (Addams and Balch 2005, 353) Like the need for decentralization, the need to include peace-related goals of other societies testifies to the diversity of interests that the women’s peace movement welcomed. It also testifies to the systemic ties between subnational and transnational systemic economic hierarchies. Participation in the World Court and opposition to the international munitions trade are linked to eliminating compulsory military training in schools and textbooks that reinforce narrow nationalist versions of patriotism. The subnational and transnational levels are not entirely distinct from each other. That is why Addams’s pragmatist political friendships rely on de facto organizational processes. Such processes dispute the problem-solving capacity, as well as the capacity for justice, of transnational collaborations that involve only countries and negotiations among leaders of those countries. Transnational collaborations that involve only national governments and exclude the poor and oppressed, exhibit the same deficiencies Addams identifies in narrow constructions of politics that serve insider business interests and neglect the economic needs of immigrant outsiders. V. It is important to avoid treating goals that differ from one’s own as oppositional. From Addams’s perspective, when different peace groups prioritize different goals, they are not “quarreling” (Addams and Balch 2005, 354); they are bringing diverse perspectives and strategies to bear on a widely shared end that simply

118 Transnational Political Friendship

cannot be realized without including all affected parties and the different perspectives that come from their varying experiences. Addams’s impulse was never to reduce sources of input from those who had a stake in the problem at hand. She consistently supported the value of plural perspectives. The reason? “It is not only a question of interesting a great many people and people in different places but in interesting the most unlike and divergent groups” (353). For those who may object that such an inclusive process involves too many people and is necessarily inefficient, Addams cautions against applying methods they have learned in “other fields without investigating as to how far the conditions are the same” (353). Peace efforts and business, for instance, are directed at different purposes. In business, one seeks “the maximum economy in overhead, especially in personnel, and the minimum of overlapping.” In peace, if you could put one hundred persons at work instead of ten to secure a given effect, you have ninety additional people whose active devotion to the cause … illuminates and enriches their own lives … [and] creates so many foci of contagion [for spreading] genuine peace-mindedness and a new outlook upon world affairs. (Addams and Balch 2005, 353) Like the need for decentralized organization, and the need for outreach beyond formal peace societies, the need to welcome diverse input derives in large part from a pragmatist emphasis on collecting input from all sources relevant to a problem so that the progress made can be sustained. VI. It is important to involve all who are affected by a problem in an inclusive, democratic collaborative process to address that problem. This is not only a matter of effectively pursuing a widely shared purpose; it is also a matter of justice, and, therefore, of democracy and peace. The second International Congress of Women, chaired by Addams, met in Zurich in May 1919 during the Paris peace negotiations. The Congress made clear that conditions of war had drawn many nations and people into transnational economic relations that were less visible than the war itself. The delegates passed a resolution that urged all governments at the Paris peace conference to develop the interallied organizations formed for purpose of war into an international organization for purposes of peace so that the resources of the world—food, raw materials, finance, transport—shall be made available for the relief of the peoples of all countries from famine and pestilence. (Zurich Congress resolution, quoted by Addams 1922/1960, 160–161) This resolution posits that resources that belong to the world through ongoing shared industrial and commercial relations, as well as shared humanity, are distributed unjustly, in large part by the war, to the extreme detriment of many. It

Transnational Political Friendship 119

assumes that deployment of transnational economic and social relations that link people across the globe should not be controlled by some groups to the disadvantage of others, and that justice requires that these shared transnational relations be subject to voices and needs of all who are affected. That is, transnational relations should be democratized to serve peace by providing equitable access to food and other resources produced by human civilization. Democratization would have required political friendships that would (1) recognize how forces of militarism shifted resources away from forces of industrialism and the production of food to serve nationalist and business interests, and (2) bridge the gap between groups at opposite ends of this transnational hierarchy. When the Zurich Congress received an advance copy of the Treaty of Versailles, which had just been negotiated, the Congress passed additional resolutions protesting the injustice of the treaty’s lopsided, undemocratic terms of peace. According to Zurich Congress resolutions, By guaranteeing the fruits of the secret treaties to conquerors, the terms of peace tacitly sanction secret diplomacy, deny the principles of self-determination, recognize the right of the victors to the spoils of war, and create all over Europe discords and animosities, which can only lead to future wars. (quoted by Addams 1922/1960, 162) Other violations of justice included “the demand for the disarmament of one set of belligerents only” and “financial and economic proposals” that would mean “poverty, disease, and despair” for many Europeans and “must result in the spread of hatred and anarchy within each nation” and “the rule of force continued” (163). Viewed through Addams’s feminist pragmatist lens, these unjust terms supported a punitive economic hierarchy in which forces of war would continue to dominate forces of peace. VII. Political friendships require a positive focus to motivate and direct action toward a shared goal. In Newer Ideals, Addams describes how trade union strikes tended to focus on the negative element of “battle, of mere self-seeking” (Addams 1907, 99–100), to the neglect of the positive element: opportunities to convert enemies to allies (99–100). In Peace and Bread, Addams sees such a positive purpose in the Allied effort to distribute food during the war. She had an intimate view of that effort through her work with the U.S. Department of Food Administration during the war to conserve food in the U.S. for distribution in Europe. She visited many cities and towns to encourage people “to produce and conserve food” and to persuade them that “only through such an effort could the civilian populations throughout a large portion of the globe survive.” In her view, the “effort to feed hungry people,” portended “a new and powerful force … to be reckoned with as a factor in international affairs.” In the past, peace advocates often “were reduced to the negative proposition of preventing war, they had none of the positive incentive which arises from looking after economic and social needs”

120 Transnational Political Friendship

(Addams 1930, 146). The distribution of food provided a way to focus opposition to war on a positive goal that required transnational cooperation. VIII. Detailed on-the-ground investigation of any transnational problem is essential to de facto organizational processes that conform to the contours of existing economic conditions and systemic economic hierarchies. A problem of the scope of war-time famine extends like the arms of an octopus, in many directions at once. All of these “arms” are systemically related and must be investigated locally and analyzed and addressed transnationally. Addams illustrates this with the Allied effort to distribute food. She was impressed that the Allies devoted the same attention to complex details of producing and distributing food as they devoted to making war (Addams 1922/1960, 87). For example, when the Belgian government had to take responsibility for providing food to its hungry people, the U.S. loaned Belgium $15 million per month. But more than the loan was involved. Addams explains that the $15 million: was spent in the United States for food and its value was carefully considered by the Division of Research in Nutritive value in the Department of Food Administration. This Division undertook to know … what were the necessary daily rations to maintain health and strength in the several occupations, and how the requirements could best be met from the stores on hand. (Addams 1922/1960, 85–86) Addams herself was a leader in many on-the-ground investigations—internationally as well as at Hull House. Her accounts of her travels during and after the war, and the stories she heard from convalescing soldiers and their nurses, from the families of young men who had gone to fight, and from the diverse attendees at peace meetings, illuminate how middle- and upper-class persons evolve epistemically as a result of their experiences with war. When Addams, Emily G. Balch, and Alice Hamilton represented the 1915 Hague Congress by traveling to different European countries to meet with foreign ministers and other national leaders, their activities did not stop with those high-level negotiations. They took many side trips to talk with people, to listen to their stories about the wartime conditions they faced, their needs, and the ways in which war had changed their perspectives on military solutions to the war and militarism in general. During these side trips, Addams and her colleagues continued to acquire knowledge and to make the local contacts needed to facilitate the work of the Congress and other peace organizations in which they were active. These trips added to the women’s store of experience working among the poor in the settlement house and labor movements. The side trips are then central, not tangential, to Addams’s overriding mission—her nonstop investigation of conditions that fall heavily on the poor. Those conditions, and the relations that produce them, are obstacles to the bread labor that sustains life and, therefore, to peace.

Transnational Political Friendship 121

Addams reinforces lessons about decentralized, inclusive, localized processes with an explanation of how such de facto organizational processes operate in a formal organization: the League of Nations. In a 1932 radio interview following her call for increased U.S. participation and membership in the League of Nations, Addams emphasized that, contrary to the common opinion that the primary purpose of the League is the use of force for mutual defense of member nations—a task tied to nationalist versions of patriotism—operations of the League are closely connected to the daily lives of people and their needs: “To say that the League is remote from our daily experiences is absurd” (Addams 2005a, 330). The interests of the League touch us intimately in one way or another almost every day of our lives, but those interest lie in the way of protection for the helpless, the welfare of children and a thousand other aspects of life which have nothing to do with the use of force.2 (Addams 2005a, 331) Addams’s observations portray the League, at least to some extent, as a de facto organization that reaches into, and is informed by, the daily lives of people. For that reason, in the transnational hierarchy of militarism over industrialism, she aligns the League with the latter. Despite being a league of nations, it is on the side of those who labor to produce bread that sustains life, that is, on the side of social justice. It tends toward the social ethic that emerges among the poor and oppressed to counter self-seeking business and nationalist interests. The de facto organizational processes gleaned from Addams’s accounts of her peace activities are macro versions of processes she uses at Hull House to develop unequal political friendships that are perceived by the parties as just. However, because the gap between classes that worries Addams is more explicit in her urban immigrant neighborhood, and because the settlement benefits from propinquity of classes, there is no need at Hull House to lay out macro-level processes for building cross-class collaborations across great distances. In the international arena, it is critical to spell them out, as Addams clearly sees.

Conclusion: The Place of Stories in de Facto Organizational Processes Lessons drawn from Addams’s accounts of her peace activism in different transnational organizations point to the de facto processes by which leaders and spokespersons from the middle- and upper-classes can develop political friendships with poor and oppressed people who suffer the worst effects of war and other systemic problems. These lessons also make more explicit practices that were implicit in Addams’s political friendship practices at Hull House. This is

122 Transnational Political Friendship

helpful for understanding why political friendships forged at Hull House can serve as a model for similar friendships in the international arena. However, lessons about process are hollow if we fail to connect them to stories about people’s lives, as Addams did in her accounts of political friendship practices, both at Hull House and in the women’s international peace movement. For, in the end, stories transmit the importance of daily experiences to others; they provide the substance that organizational processes are intended to grasp and address. I take that substance to be how differently situated people experience systemic economic conditions. Stories that bring experiences of the poor to those who have little direct contact with the poor help these relatively well-to-do people to evolve epistemically so that they develop a degree of sympathetic understanding. I offer a few examples. Many of the stories Addams heard and then tells her readers show how war gradually makes visible systemic economic relations that are initially experienced as isolated events or phenomena. War teaches the middle- and upper-classes more than they had known about how class hierarchy shapes the hierarchy of militarism over industrialism. People from these classes tell stories that reveal how war provides at least some of the experience they need to evolve epistemically toward sympathetic knowledge of the experiences of the poor and oppressed. Although this happens in the absence of the kind of propinquity to the poor and oppressed available at a settlement house, the relatively well-to-do who live in countries where there is fighting or famine find it hard to avoid at least some familiarity with the experience of the poor and oppressed who bear the brunt of war. Relations of war bring their own unfortunate context for propinquity of classes. During their travels on behalf of the International Congress of Women at The Hague, Addams and her colleagues visited hospitals full of convalescing soldiers. From these soldiers and their nurses, and also from the mothers of soldiers who had been home on furlough, Addams learned “that there are surprising numbers of young men who will not do any fatal shooting because they think that no one has the right to command them to take human life” (Addams 1915, 77). She explains that the soldiers generally were patriotic young men who were not reluctant to fight for their country; yet she sees among them signs of a “revolt against war” (Addams 1915). One told her that in three and a half months of fighting he had not ever “shot his gun in a way that could possibly hit another man,” that his brother, an officer, hadn’t either, and that he knew “dozens and dozens” who do not shoot with the intention of killing anyone (76–77). During a visit to one hospital, the women were told of five soldiers who had been cured and were ready to be sent back to the trenches, when they committed suicide, not because they were afraid to die but they would not be put into a position where they would have to kill others. (Addams 1915, 77)

Transnational Political Friendship 123

In several countries Addams and other delegates visited, they saw that it was common to provide soldiers with stimulants before sending them into the handto-hand combat of a bayonet charge. This was not for lack of courage but because of aversion to war (74). To Addams, these stories demonstrate how patriotic young soldiers who are confronted with the consequences of war can evolve epistemically, so that they question the nationalist stance that led them to fight for their country. Once they face actual conditions and ramifications of war, they move away from their patriotic willingness to join the fray toward a broader social perspective that leads them to “revolt against war.” Addams (1976) details how a similar epistemic evolution can occur among those who are more distant from the front lines. One story is “a composite” from talks she had with two women from countries on opposite sides of the conflict (127). She describes a woman who had long worked on behalf of delinquent children and had seen her country progress in its concern for this work. She took pride in the work of her son, a university professor who conducted research that would be useful in alleviating harmful factory conditions “for the well-being of the working classes in whose children [she] had become so interested” (128). Neither this woman nor her son questioned her son’s duty to fight when called upon, at least not at first. The doubts came as repercussions of war multiplied and became increasingly clear. Gradually through the months when always more of the people’s food supply and constantly more men were taken by the government for its military purposes, when I saw the state institutions for defectives closed, the schools, abridged or dismissed, women and children put to work in factories under hours and conditions which had been prohibited years before, when the very governmental officials who had been so concerned for the welfare of the helpless were bent only upon the destruction of the enemy at whatever cost to their fellow citizens, the state itself gradually became for me an alien and hostile thing. (Addams 1976, 128) The woman wonders why “the great nations of Europe should be reduced to [the] primitive appeal” to young men to suffer hardship fighting for their country, when “other motives which enter into modern patriotism and are such an integral part of devotion to the state” must also be considered (128–129). “Other motives” include the appreciation the woman felt for her country’s progress establishing institutions and schools for the delinquent children to whom she had devoted her career. When the war deprived those institutions of resources, it also deprived the woman and others like her of more positive motives for “devotion to the state.” After this woman’s son was killed in battle, she received a letter revealing that her son’s perspective had taken a turn similar to hers.

124 Transnational Political Friendship

He wrote that whenever he heard the firing of a huge field piece he knew that the explosion consumed years of the taxes which had been slowly accumulated by some hard working farmer or shopkeeper, and that he unconsciously calculated how fast industrial research could have gone forward had his department [at the university] been given once a decade the costs of a single day of warfare, with the command to turn back into alleviation of the industrial conditions the taxes which the people had paid. (Addams 1976, 129) Making matters worse, the woman learned later that her son “had been consulted in the manufacture of asphyxiating gases” because his earlier research had addressed how “fumes released in a certain industrial process might be prevented from injuring” factory workers. She considered that “a forced act of prostitution” (130). This story demonstrates that people who are not poor but who have careers that acquaint them with how systemic class hierarchy works against the poor can be susceptible to patriotic appeals that justify war. Despite being in careers where understanding of systemic disadvantages of the poor is important, they initially fail to connect the war with those systemic disadvantages. However, when these people confront the consequences of war in terms that threaten the persons and causes to which they had devoted their careers, they connect their own experiences and the stories they hear with the systemic hierarchies they have known in a different context. The background, motives, and experiences of the woman in Addams’s story parallel in a general way those of Addams and other young people who joined the settlement house movement. When war broadens the woman’s experiences, she grows epistemically, just as settlement house residents grew. She connects her motives and career experience with the impact of war on the poor. Then she comes to associate war with the negative motives of nationalistic business and government elites. She looks for a positive reason for patriotism. The network of women’s transnational peace organizations suggests how such stories find their way into organizational processes. After the prominent women who lead peace societies return home, and when they meet again in new settings, the stories of the people they have met remain with them. The stories are told and retold, as reminders and reinforcements of their experiences, and as vicarious experience for readers and audiences. The sympathetic knowledge acquired through multiple experiences and stories about those experiences stay with the women, even without the continuing propinquity to the poor and oppressed. Their store of sympathetic knowledge supplies ethical and cultural perspectives that ready the women for future cross-class political friendships. The stories teach them the importance of inclusiveness in their investigations and collaborations. This argument about the continuing influence of sympathetic knowledge— both in the persons who develop it and in the organizational processes they value—finds support in contemporary feminist scholarship on the staying power of affect long after the experience that produced it has ended. For example,

Transnational Political Friendship 125

Rachel Brown examines the continuing capacity of migrant care workers to care for the families they leave behind, arguing that scholarship on the “global care chain” errs in its implication that migrant caregivers transfer care, as a kind of product, from their own families in the global South to the families of their employers in the global North. As Brown observes, care is not a product that can be detached from one location and moved to another; caregivers who migrate do not stop providing care to their own families; they just care in a different way, for instance, by sending money to support the family and keeping in touch with them through internet technologies. The “bodily impressions” left by their experiences caring for their family stay with them and their families emotionally when they move away, and those impressions are translated materially into new forms of caregiving (Brown 2016). Similarly, Addams and other women peace advocates retain “bodily impressions” of the sympathetic knowledge acquired from collaborations forged at settlement houses with poor immigrant neighbors and labor unions. When they travel abroad, they retain impressions of their encounters with other poor and working-class people who suffer from war; and they pass to their audiences and organizations stories that capture the perspectives of the original tellers. The experiences and stories of experiences constitute a kind of “propinquity chain,” through which leaders of an organization continue their commitment to on-theground research and inclusion of multiple situated knowledges.3 This is not to suggest that retention of experiences with poor and oppressed people makes the women peace advocates qualified to speak for these people, or that one experience supplies sufficient knowledge for different contexts involving different peoples and cultures. But it does suggest that middle-class leaders of the peace movement who engage poor and working-class people directly in settlement houses and during their international travels investigating local conditions retain impressions from those encounters and the stories people tell them. It also suggests how those stories and the process of telling and re-telling the stories can inform a wider audience about how systemic class hierarchies affect daily lives of the poor—all in the absence of the constant propinquity among classes that is available at the settlement house. The lessons gleaned from Addams’s accounts of her political friendship practices in the peace movement emphasize the importance of paying attention to daily lives and social ethics of those who labor for bread, telling their stories, and drawing on their perspectives through inclusive, multi-level organizational processes and on-the-ground investigations. If these processes are to progress toward peace and social justice, they should be de facto processes that begin with problems that confront the poor and recognize how existing industrial relations shape those problems. This requires cross-class political friendships—between wealthy nations and oppressed and dependent nations and also between sub-national and supranational groups at both ends of systemic economic hierarchies. Absent de facto processes that are grounded in systemic economic relations and informed by the

126 Transnational Political Friendship

life stories of those who labor for bread, collaborations cannot incorporate the perspectives and resources needed to re-shape economic hierarchies that exploit some to the benefit of others. Then the collaborations cannot operate as political friendships that serve a mutual purpose. It is important to remember that, if Addams’s model of political friendship at Hull House is to be realized on a transnational scale, friendships that bridge the gap between classes aren’t enough. Intra-class friendships among beneficiary groups are key. In a transnational context, that means that those with power and resources should take steps to foster political friendship among the poor and oppressed, beyond and beneath national boundaries. That increases the capacity of those who suffer most from war and other harmful effects of transnational economic hierarchies to inform and organize themselves to resist powerful parties who do not acknowledge their own role in exploitative economic relations. In sum, transnational political friendships need de facto processes that facilitate and protect regular collaboration among (as well as with) those at the bottom of systemic economic hierarchies. This requires that organizational processes incorporate, retain, and build on experiences and stories of the poor and oppressed.

Notes 1 After the quota, the “rough adjustment of immigration to prosperity [came] to an end.” Addams (1930, 278) notes that the disruption led “some wise people” to question “whether there is not something to be said for more mobility of labor and for increasing use of highly developed transportation facilities” instead “of shutting the gates.” 2 Addams (2005a, 330) notes that “three former residents of Hull House have been identified with the League: Julia Lathrop as an assessor of the Child Welfare Division, followed later by … Grace Abbott, the present chief of the Children’s Bureau, and Dr. Alice Hamilton, who served on a health commission.” 3 I am grateful to Paige McGinley for the idea of a “propinquity chain.” It captures my meaning well.

References Addams, Jane. 1895. “The Settlement as a Factor in the Labor Movement.” In Hull House Maps and Papers by Residents of Hull House, 183–206. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell and Co. Addams, Jane. 1907. Newer Ideals of Peace. New York: Macmillan Addams, Jane. 1907/1964. Democracy and Social Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Addams, Jane. 1911. Twenty Years at Hull House. Chautauqua, NY: The Chautauqua Press. Addams, Jane. 1915. “Revolt against War.” In Women at the Hague: The International Congress of Women and Its Results, ed. Jane Addams, Emily G. Balch, and Alice Hamilton, 55–81. New York: Macmillan. Addams, Jane. 1922/1960. Peace and Bread in Time of War. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall & Co. Addams, Jane. 1930. The Second Twenty Years at Hull House. New York: Macmillan.

Transnational Political Friendship 127

Addams, Jane. 1976. “War Times Challenging Woman’s Traditions.” In Jane Addams on Peace, War, and International Understanding, 1899–1932, ed. Allen F. Davis, 127–139. New York: Garland. Addams, Jane. 2002. “The Subjective Necessity of the Social Settlement.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 14–28. New York: Basic Books. Addams, Jane. 2005a. “How to Build a Peace Program? William Hard Asks – Jane Addams Answers.” The Survey 68 (November 1, 1932): 550–553. In Jane Addams’s Writings on Peace, ed. Marilyn Fischer and Judy D. Whipps, 329–338. New York: Continuum. Addams, Jane. 2005b. “World’s Food and World’s Politics.” Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work (1918): 650–656. In Jane Addams’s Writings on Peace, ed. Marilyn Fischer and Judy D. Whipps, 175–181. New York: Continuum. Addams, Jane, Emily G. Balch, and Alice Hamilton. 1915/2003. Women at the Hague, Introduction by Mary Jo Deegan. Amherst, MA: Humanity Books. Addams, Jane, and Emily Green Balch. 2005. “Is a United Peace Front Desirable?” In Jane Addams’s Writings on Peace, ed. Marilyn Fischer and Judy D. Whipps, 353–356. New York: Continuum. Associated Press. 2018. “‘The Toughest Year’: How Shifting US Immigration Policy Dominated 2018.” The Guardian (December 21). www.theguardian.com/us-news/ 2018/dec/21/us-immigration-policy-2018-travel-ban-migrant-caravan. Bromberg, Ava, Gregory D. Morrow, and Deirdre Pfeiffer. 2007. “Editorial Note: Why Spatial Justice?” Critical Planning 14 (summer): 1–4. Brown, Rachel. 2016. “Multiple Modes of Care: Internet and Migrant Caregiver Networks in Israel.” Global Networks 16(2): 237–256. Deegan, Mary Jo. 2002. “Introduction.” Women at The Hague: The International Peace Congress of 1915, 11–34. Amherst, MA: Humanity Books/Prometheus. Dewey, John. 1945/1960. “Democratic versus Coercive International Organization.” Introductory Essay for Peace and Bread in Time of War, by Jane Addams. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co. Lawson, Victoria. 2007. “Geographies of Care and Responsibility.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97(1): 1–11. Longhi, Vittorio. 2013. The Immigrant War: A Global Movement against Discrimination and Exploitation. Chicago, IL: The Policy Press. Mahon, Rianne, and Fiona Robinson, eds. 2011. Feminist Ethics and Social Policy: Towards a New Global Political Economy of Care. Vancouver: UBC Press. Minian, Ana Raquel. 2018. “America Didn’t Always Lock Up Immigrants.” New York Times (December 1). www.nytimes.com/2018/12/01/opinion/sunday/border-de tention-tear-gas-migrants.html. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). 2010. “Join Hands to Protect the Human Rights of all Migrants.” (September 8). www.ohchr. org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/GMG.aspx. Robinson, Fiona. 2006a. “Beyond Labour Rights.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 8(3): 321–342. Robinson, Fiona. 2006b. “Care, Gender and Global Social Justice: Rethinking ‘Ethical Globalization.’” Journal of Global Ethics 2(1): 5–25.

6 CONCLUSION A Feminist Pragmatist Approach to Political Friendship

Jane Addams’s career-long concern with bridging the painful gap between classes is clear. Democracy and Social Ethics (Addams 1907/1964) details how systemic economic hierarchies in big cities shape possibilities for cross-class collaboration. Addams’s later books, Newer Ideals of Peace (Addams 1907) and Peace and Bread in Time of War (Addams 1945), extend her analyses of class relations to the international arena. There, she describes the hierarchy of militarism and forces of war over industrialism and forces of peace, and emphasizes the need for de facto organizational processes to counter this hierarchy. The persistence of Addams’s concern with the injustice of economic relations that benefit business and commercial interests at the expense of the poor underscores the economic foundations of her pragmatist political friendships. And those economic foundations are the source of Addams’s two major contributions to the tradition of Aristotelian political friendship. First, Addams’s concern with bridging the gap between the top and bottom of hierarchical economic relations leads her to develop and practice principles of friendship and justice where contemporary democratic thinkers do not imagine they apply: between persons who are unequal in power and resources. Modern democratic thinkers in the tradition of Kant and Rawls understand justice to require equal reciprocity, for example, among democratic citizens. Rawls’s (1971) notion of justice as fairness is a strategy for correcting inequalities among democratic citizens, where justice requires equality. And feminist care thinkers criticize modern justice precisely because it applies only to equal relations and overlooks unequal relations of dependency. That’s why they posit an ethic of care to supplement justice (see, for example, Held 2006, 68–72, 88, 146–147, 158–162).1 Unlike modern democratic thinkers, Aristotle does theorize about friendship among unequal parties. He explains that justice requires unequal parties to

Conclusion 129

contribute proportionally, not equally, to the common goal of their friendship (Aristotle 1999, Nicomachean Ethics VIII.11–14). However, he leaves the issue in the realm of theory. It is Addams who provides detailed experienced-based accounts of the epistemological and structural changes involved in developing cross-class friendships that are reciprocal and just.2 Addams’s second contribution grows out of the first. Her concern with unequal relations enables her to expand political friendship beyond contemporary applications of Aristotelian political friendship, which limit themselves narrowly to civic friendship among democratic citizens (Allen 2004; Schwarzenbach 2009; Inamura 2015, Ch. 5).3 In contrast, Addams’s political friendships include persons who do not necessarily share in ruling: citizens who cannot vote (women), noncitizens (recent immigrants), and other groups that are affected by existing economic relations but that are often excluded from centers of power and influence that control those relations. This expansion of possibilities for political friendship reflects Addams’s criticism of narrow versions of politics that neglect economic conditions. It also updates political friendship to reflect contemporary gender and race critiques; these critiques show how narrow definitions of politics bolster discriminatory economic and social practices by insulating issues deemed “private” or “social” from the political process (Sarvasy 2010). Ultimately, Addams expands political friendship beyond boundaries of nations, and beyond boundaries of any formal association. Her approach makes it possible to identify structural links between parties that are forged by hierarchical economic relations, and to fashion de facto organizational processes by which those parties can collaborate on terms that are reciprocal and just, even in the context of their inequality. Chapter 5 outlines how de facto organization operated in the international women’s peace movement.

Addams and the Tradition of Aristotelian Political Friendship To locate Addams’s contributions more specifically in discussions of Aristotelian political friendship, it is important to recognize at the outset that there is more affinity between Addams and Aristotle than the well-known misogynistic and elitist elements of Aristotle’s thought might suggest. Scholars have observed that Aristotle shares certain features with feminism, including attention to relational context and interdependence as a common human condition (Groenhout 1998; Mann 2012). These features are central to Addams’s thought as well (Seigfried 1996, Ch. 10; Hamington 2004; Sarvasy 2010, 294–296). Her pragmatist approach to political friendship, like Aristotle’s, situates persons in interdependent social relations. This differs from the modern liberal understanding of persons as abstract individuals who are assumed to have equal capacity to contract to form voluntary associations, unhampered by existing economic and social relations. Scholars’ discussions of political friendship are rooted in Aristotle’s understanding of persons as social and political animals who depend on their multiple

130 Conclusion

associations to fashion the best possible life (Aristotle 1984, The Politics 1.2).4 Because associations are so central to people’s lives, it is crucial that they meet the standards of friendship, which, for Aristotle, are also the standards of justice for the participants. Associations that qualify as friendships are based on a common, mutually recognized purpose (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics VIII.2.1155b30– 1156a5). This purpose determines what parties should be included and how they can collaborate on terms that are reciprocal and just, as opposed to one-sided and unjust. Aristotle explains that: In every community there seems to be some sort of justice, and some type of friendship also … fellow voyagers and fellow soldiers are called friends, and so are members of other communities. And the extent of their community is the extent of their friendship, since it is also the extent of the justice found there. … But whereas brothers and companions have everything in common, what people have in common in other types of community is limited. (Nicomachean Ethics VIII.9.1159b26–35) As this explanation indicates, justice, like friendship, differs in different associations because associates have different things in common. Justice “is not the same for parents toward children as for one brother toward another, and not the same for companions as for fellow citizens” (VIII.9.1160a1–3). If parents treated their children as they would treat adult citizens, that would be unjust, because it would demand too much of the children and too little of the parents. It would not serve the mutually beneficial purpose of rearing a child to become a good and competent adult. If citizens treat each other as they would treat children, that, too, would be unjust; each citizen would assume too much authority over the other. Despite the different forms that justice takes in different kinds of friendship, the relationship between parties is always mutually beneficial, always reciprocal, even when the friendship is between unequal parties, such as monarch and subject, or parents and children. In these cases, justice requires reciprocity that is proportional rather than equal (Nicomachean Ethics VIII.8–14). Reciprocity is proportionate to the parties’ different roles in achieving the common purpose that defines the friendship (V.3–5).5 Addams has a similar understanding of how reciprocity and justice operate in the context of inequality, although she is less explicit about it than Aristotle. She treats systemic economic hierarchies as structural associations that the parties usually do not recognize. She argues that exchanges between powerful business interests and the poor and oppressed can be democratized and made reciprocal, even while the structural inequality between the parties remains. She elaborates this point most explicitly in Democracy and Social Ethics, wherein she describes how the George Pullmans of the world could collaborate with their companies’ employees on democratic terms that respect the employees’ role in the company without intruding on their private lives. Addams also explains how middle-class education and political reformers could involve immigrants in their plans for

Conclusion 131

reform instead of imposing their own ill-informed, one-sided plans. In these examples, and others I describe in Chapter 3, Addams’s analyses suggest that structural economic associations have the potential for political friendship because the pre-existing economic relations offer the opportunity for the parties to work toward reciprocal contributions to a common purpose. It is clear in her analyses that parties situated at opposite ends of economic hierarchies cannot make the same contributions to a common purpose; rather, they have different roles in the existing hierarchical relation and, consequently, different capacities to contribute. There can be no justice between the parties unless reciprocity reflects, and works to counter, the unequal structural relation that shapes the terms of their exchange. With Addams, as with Aristotle, reciprocity must be commensurate with a mutually beneficial purpose and the role each party plays in achieving that purpose. The difference is that, for Addams, both the purpose of the friendship, and the respective roles of the parties, are shaped by systemic economic relations that set conditions for the political friendship. To see how Addams’s pragmatist political friendships work, it is important to remember that political friendships differ from commonplace contemporary notions of friendship as personal. If friendship can exist among a group of voyagers, a company of soldiers, or members of other kinds of communities, as well as among family members and personal friends, it is clear that not all friendships rest on bonds of personal affection or kinship. Political friendships are utilitarian. To Aristotle and contemporary students of democratic civic friendship alike, political friendships rest on goals that are useful to all parties (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.VIII.2; Groenhout 1998, 185, 187, 190–193; Allen, 2004, 127; Schwarzenbach 2009, 2011). As Danielle Allen (2004) observes, the advantage of political friendships based on utility rather than personal bonds is that they make it possible to “talk to strangers” to agree on a common purpose. Addams’s political friendship practices demonstrate this advantage many times over. At Hull House, she brings together immigrant neighbors who are strangers to each other. She works with them to identify common problems, to trace those problems to root conditions, and to develop political friendships to combat the problematic conditions. The same approach is evident in her accounts of the international peace movement, when she traces famine and other consequences of war to forces of militarism and nationalism and describes how peace advocates collaborate with distant peoples to resist those forces. Key questions for understanding how principles of reciprocity and justice apply to any association—whether the association is formal and recognized or structural and unrecognized—are these: 1. 2.

How are the associates related structurally to each other? What role in the relation does each associate have? (Are they owners and employees? Political reformers and their public clientele? Business leaders and labor unions?)

132 Conclusion

3. 4.

In an association bounded by a particular economic relation, what common purpose can the associates identify? What contributions by the different parties are commensurate to (a) that purpose, (b) the power structure of the relation, and (c) the respective roles of the parties?

Needless to say, outside the context of equality—where benefits and burdens of the parties are similar, if not the same—there is no clear answer to these questions. In unequal relations, there is no exact measure for whether respective contributions of the parties are reciprocal and just, and, therefore, for whether the association qualifies as a friendship. Such questions can be answered only through practice in particular relational contexts. That is why the lessons about de facto organizational processes that I describe in Chapter 5 are so important to Addams’s cross-class political friendship practices. Addams’s pre-eminence as a practitioner of political friendship lies in the ways in which her de facto organizational processes gradually work out, or perform, standards of reciprocity and justice required by existing structural economic associations. Through practice, Addams and other participants learn how to negotiate reciprocity in these contexts. As Charlene Haddock Seigfried observes, Addams’s emphasis on experiential knowledge means that no one knows the complete truth. Addams resists “assumptions of one-sided expertise or moral authority” and holds to an “anti-elitist principle of reciprocity” (Seigfried 2009, 41). On the one hand, “the miserable conditions in which the immigrant poor lived and worked, and the obstacles they faced in trying to better their conditions, made the activities of the Hull House residents objectively necessary.” On the other hand, “privileged members of society were also in need of enlightenment of the sort that those supposedly less well-off were uniquely in a position to offer them” (42). It is important for reciprocal exchanges between privileged groups that provide care or other benefits and those who receive benefits to be “subjectively recognized as beneficial to” both. Both should be involved in “every possible stage of inquiry and services” and both should understand the roots of “the injustices that led to the oppressive conditions” (42). Addams’s experiential accounts draw readers into the epistemic and structural evolution that parties to unequal associations must go through to identify a shared purpose and to establish commensurability between their different and unequal contributions to that purpose. In this way, her accounts enable democratic-minded readers to confront the seeming strangeness of unequal political friendships by making them familiar. After reading Addams’s account, readers do not expect the contributions of the charity visitor and her host family to be equal. That would not seem right, because we know that the purpose of the friendship—the wellbeing of the immigrant family—is shaped by the hierarchical structural connection between industrial world philanthropist and beneficiary classes. The different contributions made by the privileged charity visitor and the host family can serve their shared

Conclusion 133

purpose only by offsetting the harmful consequences of economic hierarchy. The friendship is not supposed to center equally on the charity visitor. Although she benefits morally and psychologically in ways that Addams describes (Addams 2002b, 2002c), those benefits are proportionate to her contribution, as the party that benefits from an economic class hierarchy, to the well-being of the party that suffers from the same economic hierarchy. In the long term, the charity visitor and her host family share the benefits of establishing a more just democratic society. There is great value in Addams’s experiential accounts of friendship among unequals, beyond fleshing out the contextual details of unequal friendships which Aristotle does not provide. She shows how practitioners of this type of friendship learn from multiple perspectives and negotiate judgments about a common purpose and their respective contributions to that purpose. Aristotle does not detail any such process for developing political friendship among unequals. However, he has a useful term for making highly contextualized judgments: phronesis, often translated as prudence or practical wisdom. According to Aristotle, phronesis is the ability to see and achieve “what is good for themselves and for a human being” in existing circumstances (Nicomachean Ethics 6.5.1140b7–11, 6.7.1141b4–7, 12–13, 24–29). Phronesis is always contextualized and always attentive to audiences, emotions, and situations (6.5). Addams’s pragmatist methods suggest that she epitomizes a feminist version of phronesis with features beyond those Aristotle had in mind when he named Pericles as the leading example of the phronimos (Nicomachean Ethics 6.5). Virginia Eubanks delineates the terms for “feminist phronesis” which, I suggest, are characteristic of Addams’s accounts: (1) feminist phronesis is grounded in the everyday experiences of the parties who are judging what is appropriate; (2) it recognizes how the particular circumstances of different persons are shaped by their different locations in structures of power such as race, class, gender, ethnicity; (3) it attends to how persons’ different locations shape their perspective, resulting in different “situated knowledges”; (4) it puts their different perspectives in dialogue to develop collaborative plans for action; (5) this collaborative phronesis leads to shared goals for collective action (Eubanks 2011, summarized in Flyvbjerg et al. 2011, 9). If we take Jane Addams’s approach to political friendships as a prime performance of it, feminist phronesis is primarily a relational process that involves awareness of one’s location vis-à-vis others in a particular hierarchical economic relation. It also involves collective processing of multiple situated knowledges by persons and groups in that same hierarchal relation. This collective processing is accomplished through de facto organization that follows the shape of an existing economic relation to avoid excluding any parties affected by that relation. The eight lessons gleaned from Addams’s accounts of activities in the women’s peace movement (see Chapter 5, this volume) spell out how de facto organization works. Addams’s detailed narrative of how the charity visitor learns from her host family (Chapter 2, this volume) is the paradigm for all the cross-class political friendships she facilitates or analyzes. In this and other accounts, Addams locates

134 Conclusion

each party in the context of existing systemic economic hierarchies. Her analyses show that the perspective of parties on opposite ends of these hierarchies—charity workers and clients, or company owners and employees, or wealthy and poor states—are based on their different experiences in different locations in systemic economic relations. That is why privileged parties on the upper end who do not see their dependence on others tend toward individual ethics, and why parties on the lower end who do see their mutual dependence tend toward social ethics. A major purpose of the de facto organization Addams recommends is to bridge the gap between these class perspectives. On Addams’s accounts—in Democracy and Social Ethics, Newer Ideals of Peace, and Peace and Bread in Time of War—as the parties become increasingly conscious of their respective positions in systemic economic hierarchies, and of the structural connections between them, it is possible for them to evolve together, through inclusive de facto organizational processes, toward a common purpose and proportionately reciprocal contributions to that purpose. When the purpose of collaboration is to democratize exchanges between unequal parties, there can be no leaders and followers in the traditional sense of these terms. As parties located at opposite ends of systemic economic hierarchies recognize their structural association and begin to communicate with each other, they can gradually develop a mutual purpose and come to agreement on contributions to that purpose that are commensurate to their respective positions in the structural association. Then they have a political friendship. Similarly, more egalitarian intra-class groups at the lower end of economic hierarchies can recognize the connection between themselves and form political friendships that empower them to resist groups from the upper classes that remain self-centered. Whether the friendship is across classes or within the beneficiary class, the parties need to make judgments about how the problems they experience are embedded in systemic economic relations, who the other parties to those relations are, and how the structural connection between them shapes possibilities for collaborating on terms that are reciprocal and just. Addams’s pragmatist approach to developing political friendships with and among poor and oppressed peoples anticipates Nancy Fraser’s contemporary pragmatist work on “subaltern counterpublics,” her term for marginalized social groups that gradually coalesce around common purposes and collaborate to elevate them as priorities in the public sphere (Fraser 1997, 81–82). In today’s global environment, Fraser explains, we need to form publics outside the customary boundaries of national citizenship, because “the cumulative weight of transnational processes is calling into question … the premise of exclusive indivisible citizenship, determined by nationality and/or territorial residence” (Fraser and Honneth 2004, 90). Addams’s treatment of existing systemic economic hierarchies as structural associations that shape possibilities for political friendship, and the de facto organizational processes she uses to foster such friendship in the women’s international

Conclusion 135

peace movement, respond to the need Fraser identifies for transnational counterpublics. Today, lopsided neoliberal market exchanges that cross national boundaries often are understood in the language of contracts, as fair agreements between equally autonomous agents. When contemporary discussions of democratic civic friendship put aside the possibility of unequal friendship, they miss an opportunity to question the justice of such transnational economic contracts. They also put aside difficult questions about whether and how transnational market relations can be transformed into associations that are friendly and just.6 Addams’s de facto organizational processes that follow the contours of transnational economic hierarchies can address these limitations of contemporary democratic thinking and provide a path to much-needed transnational counterpublics. Addams’s lessons about the de facto organizational processes are especially valuable for addressing practices that contemporary global actors tout as democratic when they are not. Most of the time, leaders of transnational corporations, international organizations, and powerful states negotiate with less powerful groups and states as if the terms of exchange were equal, as if both parties come to the table with the same degree of freedom to enter an agreement. Parties at the upper end of systemic economic hierarchies tend to ignore the fact that their position gives them the power to dictate terms that serve their own interests. In effect, they present themselves as the “legitimate” insiders in a global economy, and they treat parties at the bottom end of economic hierarchies as outsiders. Addams offers powerful lessons for resisting these global insiders and for informing those in the upper classes who might join the resistance. To illustrate, I will apply Addams’s pragmatist lens briefly to economic relations that shape the transnational migration of care workers. That is a case where transnational beneficiary groups and their allies are already organizing.

Possibilities for Transnational Friendships: The Transnational Migration of Care Workers Feminist care scholars have already taken the first step that Addams recommends. They investigated the problem that concerns them: conditions faced by care workers who migrate from the global South to care for families in the global North. Because these scholars have traced the cause of this migration to underlying systemic economic relations, their work lends itself to Addams’s pragmatist approach to building political friendship on existing economic foundations. Systemic economic relations involved in the migration of care workers developed in the context of two major influences (my account draws primarily on Robinson 1997, 2006; Ally 2005; Dyck 2005; Misra et al. 2006). First, in the last half of the twentieth century, shifts in global economy and changing demographics drew more women into the international labor force, which has, in turn, led to increased demand for the kind of care work traditionally performed by women. Second, neoliberal market strategies—globally as well as in the U.S.,

136 Conclusion

facilitated by lending prescriptions from the World Bank and the IMF—have resulted in downsizing of state welfare programs, reduced subsidies and taxes, an increase of women in the formal work force, and a corresponding increase in the demand for inexpensive care for children, the elderly, and the disabled. Because developed states have not responded to this demand, the burden for care has shifted to “the least powerful”—immigrant women workers. The result is “a trans-national division of labour” between the relatively privileged middle and upper class women in the global North who are in the labor force, and lowpaid female migrant workers who leave their own families to do care work in the homes of families in the North (Heyzer and Wee 1994, 44–45; quoted by Misra et al. 2006, 318–319). This saves governments of the receiving countries the expense of adequate investments in care of children, the elderly, and the disabled. Meanwhile, there is also an increased demand for care work in the global South for the children that women have left behind—either to migrate to the North, or to work in factories in the South. But the shortage of care in the South looks different than in the North. More women are poor, and they work so they and their children can survive. Women who migrate leave their children alone—with extended family, if they’re lucky; with older siblings, usually girls, who are then deprived of education; or with lower-paid caregivers. Countries in the global South often encourage the migration of women care workers to the global North because the remittances they send back are so important. The chief actors that influence this transnational migration, and who are situated as a global “philanthropist” class, to use Addams’s terms, are developed states, multinational corporations, and international lending institutions. It is clear that these agents often associate with each other in ways that benefit each of them. However, the effects of the agreements between global economic powers are felt by the poor in their own countries, and migrant care workers and their families, who are parties to their structural economic association but not to their agreements. These unrecognized members of the structural association do not necessarily benefit, and in any case, not to the extent that the powerful parties do. Migrant care workers are participants in multiple unequal, unrecognized, and nonvoluntary structural associations that include: a b

c

Relationships between developed states and mothers who are drawn into the workforce without state support for childcare; Relationships between developed states in the global North that need childcare for their workforce and developing states in the global South whose care workers respond because they lack employment opportunities at home; Relationships between global lending institutions (and their corporate and state supporters) and developing states that define and limit employment opportunities for citizens of those states.

Conclusion 137

Obviously, these economic relations involve an exchange of some sort, technically, an agreement. This is clear when developing states make economic concessions in return for loans from the powerful global actors, and also when domestic workers in the South migrate to the North in return for low wages from working families there. Neoliberal supporters of the global market would see these market exchanges as voluntary and beneficial to all parties. Their claim is that market capitalism benefits developing states by bringing them capital and commercial opportunities and benefits migrant care workers by providing better employment choices than they would have at home. This may be true, but only as a consequence of economic relations that benefit the wealthier parties. Although a neoliberal orientation casts care-market relations as contractual exchanges in which the care worker and the developing state choose the best option, in truth, neither may have much choice in the matter. Similar to George Pullman, business interests that shaped patterns of migration during Addams’s time, and insider “legitimate citizens” who supported survivals of militarism in big cities, parties at the top of transnational economic hierarchies shape the transnational migration of care workers today. Based on their economic interests, these powerful parties determine conditions of exchange with the parties at the bottom. In these circumstances, the parties are not contributing to a mutually beneficial purpose that all parties recognize. And the contributions expected from the different parties are not proportionate to their respective ability to contribute. Addams would not see these exchanges as reciprocal and just. The less-than-voluntary exploitative relations that shape the transnational migration of care workers testify that everyone who is involved in care market relations—which is virtually everyone—is connected with others in webs of economic relations that are not reciprocal and not just. Yet parties to transnational economic relations lack the propinquity of classes that Addams considers key to Hull House collaborations to offset the effects of unjust economic relations. Understood in Addams’s terms, the egotism of global philanthropist-class actors, their allegiance to a narrow market-oriented world view that serves their interests, and their separation from migrant care workers and their families, all block these global actors’ perception of the conditions that confront migrant care workers. The path to education, humility, and openness to diverse perspectives that is available to residents of the settlement house is not readily available to the global actors. Under these conditions, how can political friendships develop to serve the needs of migrant care workers? Addams’s emphasis on the pleasures and benefits of association and the need to bring association into factories suggests that the best path forward for migrant workers is to organize their own political friendships, and to recruit sympathetic allies from among those who are positioned at the top of transnational economic hierarchies. Collaborative work for a common purpose can reposition migrant care workers in political friendships that press recalcitrant powerful parties to recognize them as participants in decisions that affect them. Addams considers

138 Conclusion

labor organizations the most essential friendship for the otherwise disaggregated beneficiary class: “If in all departments of social, political, and commercial life, isolation is a blunder, and results in dreariness and apathy, then in industrial affairs isolation is a social crime; for it there tends to extermination” (Addams 2002a, 47). Addams’s story about how the disorganized and overcrowded sewing trades created the power to help themselves illustrates her point. She addressed the problem of Irish-American girls doing low-paying unskilled finish work which undercut the ability of Russian Jewish tailors to support their families. Efforts to solve the problem by unionizing pitted the two groups against each other (48). Nevertheless, after Hull House provided a space to meet, residents who chaperoned, an interpreter, and a space to air and examine the “consequences of disorganization,” the two groups did come together. Participants educated each other about the conditions that connected them and succeeded in uniting for a common purpose. The cloak workers and several other unions organized at Hull House; through negotiations, protests, and strikes, they succeeded in improving wages and working conditions. They educated each other and residents of Hull House when they met, but educating factory owners and diminishing their control required the collective power created by unions. Because the migrant care workers are separated from each other and potential allies by great distances, they can learn from Addams’s accounts of the de facto organizational processes in the women’s international peace movement. These pragmatist processes follow the contours of existing economic relations to incorporate all persons and perspectives who are affected by results of those relations. As I describe in Chapter 5, these processes avoid centralization and preserve multiple layers that reach out to poor and oppressed peoples at local levels and preserve channels for input from diverse locales even at the upper levels of any organization. Today, migrant care workers in some countries are organizing; and they often seem to organize in ways that are consistent with Addams’s recommendations for de facto processes. They work with labor organizations, churches, and NGOs to create safe spaces—sometimes physical, and sometimes virtual—to congregate and create their own subaltern counterpublics, with varying degrees of success (Ally 2005; Dyck 2005; Moors et al. 2009; Tungohan et al. 2015; Tungohan 2016, 2017a, 2017b). They rely on social media as an important vehicle for communicating across distance and facilitating counterpublics with the capacity to boost collective problem-solving. These subaltern public spaces for migrant care workers serve the role that Hull House served: a catalyst and safe gathering space. Labor organizations for migrant care workers, their church and NGO allies, and their allies among feminist care scholars perform the essential tasks of investigating and publicizing root causes of conditions for migrant care workers. These investigations reveal underlying structural associations that shape conditions for migrant workers, so that all can see who the parties are, and whether their interest is too self-centered to be shared by other parties. Viewed through Addams’s lens, these

Conclusion 139

structural associations clarify the terms of the de facto organizational processes that Addams recommends—processes that can maintain the flow of situated knowledge both between migrant care workers and their allies, and among migrant care workers who are scattered in distant locations. Labor organizations for migrant care workers and their allies demonstrate how migrant workers can organize, create subaltern counterpublics, and identify safe gathering spaces for these activities. They do all this to house their political friendship and to identify ways to respond to common problems. Ideally, the kinds of investigations and political friendships facilitated by Addams a century ago (and, today, by care workers and their NGO and scholar allies) can educate at least some of the powerful global actors and the client populations whose economic interests they represent. The investigations might jar global actors, shake their “egotism,” and widen their perception. Some powerful actors from the benefactor class might acquire a measure of humility (or at least awareness of their ignorance) sufficient to make them question the narrow market lens through which they view the world. Might they question their assumption that market capitalism is a just and effective guide for democratic life? If they see their ignorance of real labor conditions of migrant care workers, some may seek additional perspectives and even initiate their own investigations. But given that powerful global actors do not live among the diverse, widely dispersed migrant care workers (even if they would), how can they develop the “sympathetic knowledge” of migrant conditions they would need to bridge the gap between philanthropist and beneficiary classes? Sympathetic knowledge is more than a source of motivation. It is not the emotion of sympathy, although it does value empathetic connection. The root of sympathetic knowledge is the perspective that values situated knowledge, that is, the knowledge of conditions brought to the table by those situated to experience conditions directly. What powerful global actors lack but need is respect for this kind of knowledge, as something that they cannot have, and cannot acquire, by themselves. In contemporary times, mass media, films, documentaries, and social media have the potential to spread the kind of situated knowledge that can educate and motivate upper class groups who are both out of touch with conditions faced by the poor and oppressed, and ignorant of the ways in which powerful actors are responsible for nonreciprocal economic relations that operate to the disadvantage of the poor. First, however, the media themselves must be introduced to Addams’s pragmatist insights. It matters whether coverage of suffering in various parts of the world illuminates the systemic transnational economic relations that contribute to the suffering. Otherwise powerful actors, who may be motivated by media reports, are likely to assume that they know how to address the problems of poverty depicted on screen and in print, and that they can address these problems through charity. As Addams warned, and as contemporary studies show, charitable giving tends to be guided by the wishes and perceptions of the philanthropist group rather than the expressed needs and real conditions of intended

140 Conclusion

beneficiaries (Tronto 2013). The charitable relationship clearly is not reciprocal. It is not a political friendship, although it may grow into one through the kinds of shared experiences described by Addams. The lessons gleaned about de facto organization from Addams’s activities in the international peace movement provide guidance for how situated knowledges and experiences of the poor can be shared through political friendships. In that context, these situated knowledges inform the goals of the friendship and proportionately reciprocal contributions when parties are unequal in power and resources. Valuable though they are, investigation of consequences of the neoliberal care market and publicity of those consequences are unlikely to provide sufficient motivation for powerful parties to become aware of their ignorance, develop a degree of humility, and gain the respect for the situated knowledge that is required to support democracy and social justice. The media, as a vital forum for the transmission of differently situated knowledges, needs to focus more than it does now on investigating and reporting underlying economic relations that shape the existing conditions they spotlight. Transnational labor organizations and activism will be needed to press both global actors and media outlets to investigate issues raised by migrant care workers, in collaboration with those workers. From Addams’s perspective, progress toward social justice by migrant care workers and ally organizations, as well as by other associations that address conditions of the poor, lies in pragmatist political friendship grounded in existing systemic economic relations. Separately, the transnational groups that are marginalized by these economic hierarchies are members of a disempowered structural association, as were immigrant neighbors surrounding Hull House. Jane Addams’s experiential narratives detail how marginalized groups, transnational as well as local, can use de facto organizational processes to develop political friendships that have the potential to disrupt their exploited status in systemic economic hierarchies and re-position them as participants in political friendships.

Notes 1 Feminist care thinkers such as Virginia Held (2006) and Joan Tronto (1993, 2013) see care and justice as different—but not opposed—moral systems. As Hollie Sue Mann observes, they suggest that care provides the larger ethical framework in which justice can operate, because the development of “caring subjects” is necessary for producing justice among democratic citizens (Mann 2012, 195). 2 Since Addams’s time, a number of feminist thinkers have linked friendship and justice in ways that neither Kantian thinkers nor most care thinkers do. Marilyn Friedman (1995, 66) comments that “the earliest Greek code of justice placed friendship at the forefront of conditions for the realization of justice.” Ruth Groenhout (1998) suggests thinking of care in the context of Aristotelian friendship. 3 Mann (2012, 200) notes that, for Aristotle, “complete reciprocity need not be present” in personal friendships that are unequal, but her analysis does not reach issues of justice in unequal political relations.

Conclusion 141

4 I use traditional notation for Aristotle’s works. 5 Reciprocal justice between equal democratic citizens considers only two terms; it measures whether the two things exchanged are equal. In contrast, proportionate exchange between two unequal parties always involves consideration of four terms. It considers both the relation between two persons and the relation between the two things exchanged (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics V.3–5; Aristotle, Politics III.1280a14–17). As Jill Frank observes, when reciprocal justice addresses the things exchanged between presumably equal democratic citizens, it is also commensurable with the parties’ equal status (Frank 2005, 85–86). 6 For example, in On Civic Friendship, Sibyl Schwarzenbach (2009) argues persuasively that Aristotelian civic friendship is a more inclusive approach than feminist care ethics or either liberal or Marxist paradigms for treating women as full citizens in the democratic state. However, when she suggests briefly how civic friendship might be applied in the international arena—where one might expect her to consider unequal exchanges between corporate and other non-state actors that operate beyond state boundaries—Schwarzenbach reverts to a liberal universalist paradigm that focuses on states as actors. She writes that “Any state that views the value and duty of civic friendship as central to its self-conception will quite naturally build this value into its foreign relations as well,” and the result will be “interstate friendship” based on “universal principles, individual rights, and the rule of law” (Schwarzenbach 2009, 249).

References Addams, Jane. 1907/1964. Democracy and Social Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Addams, Jane. 1907. Newer Ideals of Peace. New York: Macmillan. Addams, Jane. 1945. Peace and Bread in Time of War. With a New Introductory Essay by John Dewey. New York: King’s Crown Press. Addams, Jane. 2002a. “The Settlement as a Factor in the Labor Movement.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 46–61. New York: Basic Books. Addams, Jane. 2002b. “The Subjective Necessity of the Social Settlement.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 14–28. New York: Basic Books. Addams, Jane. 2002c. “The Subtle Problems of Charity.” In The Jane Addams Reader, ed. Jean Bethke Elshtain, 62–75. New York: Basic Books. Allen, Danielle. 2004. Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Ally, Shireen. 2005. “Caring about Care Workers: Organizing in the Female Shadow of Globalization.” Labour, Capital and Society 38(1&2): 185–207 Aristotle. 1999. Nicomachean Ethics, Second Edition, trans. Terence Irwin. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Aristotle. 1984. The Politics, Second Edition, trans. Carnes Lord. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Dyck, Isabel. 2005. “Feminist Geography, the ‘Everyday,’ and Local–Global Relations: Hidden Spaces of Place-Making.” Canadian Geographer 49(3): 233–243. Eubanks, Virginia. 2011. “Feminist Phronesis and Technologies of Citizenship.” In Real Social Science: Applied Phronesis, ed. Bent Flyvbjerg, Todd Landsman, and Sanford Schram, 228–245. New York: Cambridge University Press. Flyvbjerg, Bent, Todd Landsman, and Sanford Schram. 2011. Real Social Science: Applied Phronesis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

142 Conclusion

Frank, Jill. 2005. A Democracy of Distinction: Aristotle and the Work of Politics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Fraser, Nancy. 1997. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the Post-Socialist Condition. New York: Routledge. Fraser, Nancy, and Axel Honneth. 2004. Redistribution or Recognition?: A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London and New York: Verso. Friedman, Marilyn. 1995. “Beyond Caring: The De-Moralization of Gender.” In Justice and Care: Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics, ed. Virginia Held, 61–78. Boulder, CO: Westview. Groenhout, Ruth. 1998. “The Virtue of Care: Aristotelian Ethics and Contemporary Ethics of Care.” In Feminist Interpretations of Aristotle, ed. Cynthia A. Freeland, 171–200. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Hamington, Maurice. 2004. Embodied Care: Jane Addams, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Feminist Ethics. Chicago, IL: The University of Illinois Press. Held, Virginia. 2006. The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. New York: Oxford University Press. Heyzer, Noeleen, and Vivienne Wee. 1994. “Domestic Workers in Transient Overseas Employment: Who Benefits, Who Profits?” In The Trade in Domestic Workers: Causes, Mechanisms and Consequences of International Migration, Vol. 1, ed. Noeleen Heyzer, Geertje Lucklama a Nijeholt, and Nedra Weerakoon, 31–102. Kuala Lumpur/Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Asian and Pacific Development Centre/Zed Books. Inamura, Kazutaka. 2015. Justice and Reciprocity in Aristotle’s Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mann, Hollie Sue. 2012. “Ancient Virtues, Contemporary Practices: An Aristotelian Approach to Embodied Care.” Political Theory 40(2): 194–221. Misra, Joy, Jonathan Woodring, and Sabine N. Merz. 2006. “The Globalization of Care Work: Neoliberal Economic Restructuring and Migration Policy.” Globalizations 3(3): 317–332. Moors, Annelies, Ray Jureidini, Ferhunde Ozbay, and Rima Sabban. 2009. “Migrant Domestic Workers: A New Public Presence in the Middle East.” In Publics, Politics and Participation: Locating the Public Sphere in the Middle East and North Africa, ed. Seteney Shami, 177–202. New York: SSRC books. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Robinson, Fiona. 1997. “Globalizing Care: Ethics, Feminist Theory, and International Relations.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 22(1): 113–133. Robinson, Fiona. 2006. “Care, Gender and Global Social Justice: Rethinking ‘Ethical Globalization.’” Journal of Global Ethics 2(1): 5–25. Sarvasy, Wendy. 2010. “Engendering Democracy by Socializing It: Jane Addams’s Contribution to Feminist Political Theorizing.” In Feminist Interpretations of Jane Addams, ed. Maurice Hamington, 291–309. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Schwarzenbach, Sibyl. 2009. On Civic Friendship: Including Women in the State. New York: Columbia University Press. Schwarzenbach, Sibyl. 2011. “A Failure of Civic Friendship.” Huffington Post (May 25). www. huffingtonpost.com/sibyl-a-schwarzenbach/a-failure-of-civic-friend_b_387528.html. Seigfried, Charlene Haddock. 1996. Pragmatism and Feminism: Reweaving the Social Fabric. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Seigfried, Charlene Haddock. 2009. “The Courage of One’s Convictions or the Conviction of One’s Courage: Jane Addams’s Principled Compromises.” In Jane Addams and the

Conclusion 143

Practice of Democracy, ed. Marilyn Fischer, Carol Nackenoff, and Wendy Chmielewski, 40–62. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Tronto, Joan C. 1993. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York: Routledge. Tronto, Joan C. 2013. Caring Democracy: Markets, Equality and Justice. New York: New York University Press. Tungohan, Ethel. 2016. “Intersectionality and Social Justice: Assessing Activists’ Use of Intersectionality through Grassroots Migrants’ Organizations in Canada.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 4(3): 347–362. Tungohan, Ethel. 2017a. “From Encountering Confederate Flags to Finding Refuge in Spaces of Solidarity: Filipino Temporary Foreign Workers’ Experiences of the Public in Alberta.” Space and Polity 21(1): 11–26. Tungohan, Ethel. 2017b. “The Transformative and Radical Feminism of Grassroots Migrant Women’s Movement(s) in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 50(2): 479–494. Tungohan, Ethel, Rupa Banerjee, Wayne Chu, Petronilla Cleto, Conely de Leon, Mila Garcia, Philip Kelly, Marco Luciano, Cynthia Palmaria, and Christopher Sorio. 2015. “After the Live-in Caregiver: Filipina Caregivers’ Experiences of Graduated and Uneven Citizenship.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 47(1): 87–105.

INDEX

Abbott, Grace 126 African Americans 7, 42, 43,70, 88, 110 Ajax (Sophocles play) 33 Allen, Danielle 4, 5, 93, 129, 131 Anderson, Elizabeth 35 Anglo Saxon 43, 109 Anti-slavery movement 67 Aquinas, Thomas 68, 69 Aristotle vii, 2, 5, 10, 11, 14, 68, 69, 128–131, 133, 140, 141 Association for the Promotion of International Friendship 116 Balch, Emily Green 114–118, 120, 126 Bardwell-Jones, Celia 8, 13, 35, 74, 95 Belgium 120 beneficiary class 1, 4, 7–9, 12, 15, 20, 21, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 43, 44, 58, 62, 68, 69, 73, 78, 79, 80, 82, 99, 132, 134, 138, 139 Bondereff, T.M. 72 bread 8, 13, 14, 72, 73, 75, 76, 81, 86, 90, 93, 97, 99, 100, 103, 106, 119–121, 125, 126, 128, 134 Brown, Rachel 125 business 10, 33, 57–59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 74, 79, 81, 84, 86–88, 92, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 104–108, 111, 112, 116–119, 121, 124, 128, 130, 131, 137 capitalism 1, 92, 137, 139 care scholars 9, 10, 14, 104, 135, 138

care workers 9, 10, 14, 104, 125, 135–140 Catholics 69 charity 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 21–27, 29–31, 35, 39, 44–49, 51, 52, 59, 62, 66, 68, 69, 77, 78, 81, 84, 89, 93, 94, 100, 101, 104, 132–134, 139, 140 charity visitors 6, 11, 21–26, 29–31, 35, 39, 44–49, 51, 52, 59, 62, 66, 77, 81, 100, 104, 132, 133 Chicago 4, 6, 7, 13, 26, 28, 34, 43, 53, 64, 70, 87, 88, 91, 99, 101, 108–110, 115; 1927 mayoral race 108 Chicago Daily News 115 Chicago School 6 child labor 57, 73, 89, 100 Children’s Bureau 126 Child Welfare Division 126 churches 116, 138 cities 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, 19–21, 31, 32, 34, 35, 41, 43, 47, 54, 58, 64, 65, 70, 73–75, 78, 79, 81, 83–88, 90, 92–97, 99, 101, 103, 106, 107, 109, 114, 115, 119, 128, 137 citizenship 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 14, 16–18, 34, 36, 39, 42, 43, 59, 62, 65, 70, 71, 83–89, 93, 94, 97, 98, 108, 109, 116, 123, 128–130, 134, 136, 137, 140, 141 Civic Federation of Chicago 28 civic friendship 4, 5, 11, 14–16, 93, 129, 131, 135, 141 class consciousness 64 Constitution, US 86, 107 Cooper, Anna Julia 70

146 Index

corruption 12, 20, 40, 62–67, 79 cosmopolitanism 1–3, 8, 73, 74, 79, 80, 82, 83, 92–96, 101, 106, 112 counterpublics 39, 134, 135, 138, 139 Davis, Allen 98 Dayton, Ohio 60 Deegan, Mary Jo 1, 5, 38, 41, 43, 114 democracy 1–7, 9–19, 21, 27, 30, 32, 35–42, 44, 45, 47–52, 54–59, 62, 63, 65–71, 73–82, 88–95, 97–101, 104, 108, 113, 115, 116, 118, 126–135, 139–141 democratization 5, 9, 26, 33, 49, 51, 60, 66, 69, 88, 90, 102, 112, 113, 119, 130, 134 Department of Food Administration (US) 119, 120 ‘deserving’ poor 23 Dewey, John 1, 6, 38, 39, 75, 91, 102 Dillingham Commission 69 domestic workers 6, 41, 53–55, 68, 70, 78, 91, 137 Douglass, Frederick 67 drunkenness 90 DuBois, W.E.B. 1, 42, 70 Dutch Central Organization for a Durable Peace 116 education 3, 5, 7, 10, 11–13, 16, 19–22, 31–34, 40, 41, 44, 45, 49–51, 58–62, 65, 68, 69, 78, 79, 81, 85, 89, 90, 95, 98, 101, 104, 105, 108, 113, 114, 130, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141 English League of Democratic Control 116 epistemology 2, 9, 22, 26, 30, 31, 35, 38, 44, 79, 105, 112, 113, 114, 129 European Union (EU) 9 Eubanks, Virginia 133 factories 6, 20, 26, 32, 34, 38, 44, 53, 54, 57–59, 60, 90, 123, 124, 136–138 feminism 5–7, 9, 10, 14, 35, 38, 39, 68, 104, 119, 124, 128, 129, 133, 135, 138, 140, 141 filial relations 12, 39, 49, 51, 52, 77 Fischer, Marilyn 1, 5–8, 13, 38, 39, 42, 43, 61, 69, 74, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98 food 20, 46, 53, 90, 93, 99, 100, 103, 104, 106, 110, 113, 114, 118–120, 123; see also bread Frank, Jill 141 Fraser, Nancy 39, 134, 135 Friedman, Marilyn 140

garbage 2, 27, 32, 64, 73, 103 Geneva 111 George III, King 108, 109 Germany 86, 89, 103, 115 global care chains 125 global migration 9, 10, 104 global North and South 9, 104, 125, 135, 136 gratitude 7, 28, 29, 33, 52, 57, 78, 88 Greeks 33, 43 Green, Judith 8, 13, 14, 74, 95 Groenhout, Ruth 129, 131, 140 Hague Congress (1915) 114, 120 Hamilton, Alice 114, 120, 126 Hamington, Maurice 1, 2, 8, 67, 68, 129 Harvard 114 Held, Virginia 128, 140 Hoover Commission 110 household labor 12, 27, 31, 35, 39, 53–55, 62, 77, 78 Hull House vii, 1–4, 6–8, 11, 13, 14, 19–21, 26, 27, 30–35, 37–39, 41–43, 45, 47, 62, 73–78, 80, 91, 93, 96, 99–106, 110, 112, 114, 120–122, 126, 131, 132, 137, 138, 140; Labor Museum 26; Players 26 humility 11, 15, 22, 25, 29, 30, 44, 46, 62, 137, 139, 140 International Monetary Fund (IMF) 136 immigrants 1–3, 6–8, 9–14, 16, 21, 26, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40–44, 47, 48, 53, 54, 58, 61, 64, 68, 69, 73–75, 78, 83–98, 100, 101, 104–111, 114, 116, 117, 121, 125–127, 129–132, 136, 140 Immigrants’ Protective League 110 individual ethics 7, 12, 13, 40, 46–49, 52, 53, 55–58, 66, 73, 79, 81, 83, 115, 134 individualism 3, 4, 40, 51, 81 industrialism 13, 74–77, 79–83, 88–92, 94, 97, 99, 101, 102, 104, 106, 119, 121, 122, 128 industrialization 47, 77, 95 industrial virtues 11, 22, 24, 25, 31, 44–47, 58, 59 ingratitude 29 International Association of Workingmen (IAW) 88, 91 International Congress of Women at The Hague (1915) 8, 102, 113–115, 120, 122 Irish 38, 87, 116, 138 Italians 43, 65, 110, 111

Index 147

James, William 72 Japanese Exclusion Act (1924) 117 Jews 26, 38, 43, 138 justice 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14–17, 30, 39, 60, 64, 69, 71, 79, 83, 86, 93, 96, 98, 100, 102, 117–119, 121, 125, 127, 128, 130–132, 135, 140, 141 juvenile crime 90 Kant, Immanuel 3, 4, 9, 14, 15, 80, 128, 140 Kelley, Florence 1, 41, 98 Kenney, Mary 1 Ku Klux Klan 109 laissez-faire economics 92 Lathrop, Julia 1 League of Nations 8, 102, 106, 110, 111, 113, 117, 121 League of Women Voters 43 legitimate citizens 108, 109, 137 Lear, King 7, 27–30, 35, 52, 56 liberty 84, 86, 89, 94, 107, 108 Mann, Hollie Sue 129, 140 Marxism 41, 59, 88, 141 McGinley, Paige 126 Mead, George Herbert 6, 98 Mexicans 110 militarism 13, 73–76, 79, 80–90, 92, 93, 95, 97–99, 101, 104, 106, 112, 119–122, 128, 131, 137 Monroe Doctrine 117 moral purity 12, 40, 57, 67 munitions trade 103, 117 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 43, 68 National Urban League 43 nationalism 3, 8, 74, 75, 79, 91, 93, 101, 102, 105–107, 110–112, 117, 119, 121, 123, 124, 131 Native Americans 108, 109, 116 naturalization 86, 107 neoliberalism 113, 135, 137, 140 New York 86, 115 New York Independent 68 Nobel Peace Prize vii, 1, 3 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 138, 139 Nordic 108, 109 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 9

organizational process 14, 91, 102, 105, 111, 113, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 132, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140 pacifism 72, 75, 91 Palermo 107 paternalism 56, 78, 92 patriarchy 20, 50, 51, 77 patriotism 3, 73, 74, 76, 79, 81–83, 86, 91, 93, 94, 96, 99, 106–110, 112, 117, 121–124 peace movements 8, 14, 43, 75, 102, 113–115, 117, 122, 125, 129, 131, 133, 135, 138, 140 peace virtues see virtues of peace philanthropist class 1, 4, 7, 15, 19–22, 25–27, 29, 32–35, 40–42, 46–49, 53, 79, 81, 137 phronesis 133 Polacheck, Hilda Satt 26, 27, 31, 34 Polacheck, William 26 Politicians 12, 40, 63–66, 85, 86, 107 Pope 114 Powers, Johnny 67 pragmatism 2, 3, 5–7, 10–12, 14, 15, 35, 37–41, 43, 44, 59, 62, 67, 68, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 79, 80, 94, 102, 103, 105, 106, 115, 117–119, 128, 129, 131, 133–135, 138–140 progressive era 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 19, 20, 37, 40, 42, 44, 58, 69, 70 propinquity 14, 27, 54, 100–102, 106, 111–115, 121, 122, 124–126, 137; propinquity chain 125, 126 prostitution 42, 90 Protestants 69 Pullman, George 7, 28–31, 35, 40, 55–57, 67, 130, 137 Pullman Strike (1894) 28, 55 Quota Act (1821) 109, 110 Rawls, John 128 reciprocal friendship 7, 15, 21, 22, 26, 68, 77, 101 reciprocity 2, 4–11, 12, 13, 15, 21, 22, 26, 27, 29–31, 35, 38–40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 61, 62, 66, 68, 69, 73, 77–79, 101–104, 128–132, 134, 137, 140, 141 relief stations 33 republic, American 83, 108 Revolution, American 84, 93, 108 Rockford Female Seminary 42 Russians 32, 38, 72, 99, 138

148 Index

Sarvasy, Wendy 2, 5–8, 13, 16, 38, 74, 92, 93, 95, 98, 129 Schwarzenbach, Sibyl 4, 5, 15, 16, 93, 129, 131, 141 Second International Congress at Zurich during the Paris Peace Negotiations see Zurich Congress Seigfried, Charlene Haddock 2, 3, 6, 7, 18, 38, 129, 132 settlement houses 3, 14, 20–22, 26, 33, 43, 46, 48, 81, 100, 101, 105, 106, 112–115, 120, 122, 124, 125, 137 sewing trades 32, 33, 38, 138 situated knowledges 7, 9, 11, 15, 22, 25, 29, 35, 67, 113, 115, 125, 133, 139, 140 slavery 43, 67, 70, 108, 109 Smith, Mary Rozet 1 Smith College 42 social Darwinism 92 social ethics 4, 6, 7, 11–13, 16, 21, 27, 39–42, 44–58, 59, 61–63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 73–81, 82, 92, 95, 100, 101, 108, 113, 115, 121, 125, 128, 130, 134 social media 15, 138, 139 social morality 4, 40, 57, 62, 66, 67, 73, 80–82, 87, 96 Spencer, Herbert 92 Starr, Ellen Gates 1, 3 strikes 24, 28, 32, 42, 44, 55–57, 67, 72, 87, 88, 91, 95, 119, 138 sweatshops 32, 91 sympathetic knowledge 25, 30, 52, 68, 100, 122, 124, 125, 139 sympathetic understanding 7, 16, 25, 45, 100, 122 tailors 32, 38, 138 tenements 20, 24, 25 The Atlantic 21

Tolstoy, Leo 3, 72, 80 Treaty of Versailles 119 tribalism 73, 76, 81–83, 91, 93–96, 99, 106–110, 112 Tronto, Joan 140 Trump, Donald 105 tuberculosis 103, 104 typhoid fever 64 unions 2, 3, 32, 33, 41, 42, 57, 67, 87, 88, 91, 100, 114, 116, 117, 119, 125, 131, 138 universalism 4, 15, 141 University of Chicago 26 University of Illinois 142, 143 University of Wisconsin 87 virtues of peace 72, 73, 76, 80, 81, 93, 97 virtues of war 76, 80, 81, 93, 94 War of Independence, American 107; see also Revolution, American war virtues see virtues of war Washington, D.C. 115, 116 Weber, Max 67 Wellesley 114 Wells-Barnett, Ida B. 1, 42, 43, 67 Whipps, Judy 3, 7, 8, 13, 74, 95 Women’s Peace Party (WPP) 115, 116 Women’s City Club 43 Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom 3, 102, 113 Women’s Peace Party 102, 113, 115, 116 World Bank 136 World Court 117 World War I 8, 13, 72, 103, 106, 108 WTO 9 Zurich Congress 102, 113, 118, 119