Schneirov – American Disasters

January 26, 2014December 16, 2020

Disastrous Capitalism?

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In Eli’s post “The perverse and often baffling economics of disasters,” he examines Kevin Rozario’s “What Comes Down Must Go Up: Why Disasters Have Been Good for American Capitalism.” Rozario believes disasters may have positive economic effects particularly on capitalism. It does seem odd, as Eli notes, that a disaster where homes are damaged, property destroyed, resources ruined, industries interrupted, and lives lost may be counted as an economic good. It appears that any economic good may happen in the long run rather than immediately after the disaster. This argument reminds me of an article we read last week, Richard Schneirov’s “Thoughts on Periodizing the Gilded Age: Capital Accumulation, Society, and Politics, 1873-1898.” Schneirov credits much of the United States economy and capitalism to Civil War and Reconstruction. Schneirov does not state capitalism took off immediately at the end of the Civil War. Rather, the Civil War started economic trends that continued through the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.

Eli’s comparison of disaster and capitalism is an interesting one. Disasters, he writes must destroy things, and capitalism must also clear previous technologies to move forward. As Rozario puts it, capitalism “must constantly destroy to create.” I think the point holds to an extent, but capitalism and progress does not always need to destroy the past. Casting capitalism as a destructive force seems negative, and also belittles the effects of disaster. New technology often—if not always—builds on previous knowledge. Eventually, the advancement may come to replace earlier models, but it is not the same destruction inherent in a disaster.

Another point I find unusual in Rozario’s article is that many Americans have “a longstanding conviction that calamities are blessings.” Disasters are useful for exposing flaws in society and motivating people to address the issues. They can clear space for innovation. I do not entirely agree, however, that Americans commonly perceive disasters as blessings. It seems that people might have a tendency to be hopeful or optimistic; they must look for the best or the disaster could be overwhelming. The art on Hiroshima from the State of Emergency that I examined suggested this optimism. The pieces, while about something as terrible as thousands of deaths, held a sort of peaceful promise in their serene colors. Disasters are much more than economics; they involve people’s lives, hopes, and dreams.

January 22, 2014December 16, 2020

Its More Distinctive Than Some Think

Like Elcaldwell mentioned, all three articles read examine the ways in which we analysis/categorize history and the lenses through which we examine it. Rebecca Edwards, of Vassar College, passionately contributes to the thoughtful discussion that we have been having as a class about whether the label of “Gilded Age” is appropriate and just for what actually happened during the time period we are discussing. In the editor’s note of the “Forum: Should we abolish the ‘Gilded Age’”, she argues, as many in our class stated, that the most prominent Gilded Age stereotypes and historical assumptions do not rightly characterize the era. To wit, she “draws on the political trends and movements and policy innovations of those decades” and uproots the influences of other popular events like the Populist Party, the American Farmer’s Alliance, the Interstate Commerce Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act, and muckraking journalism.

Edwards’ argument regarding historicization of the Gilded Age is one of strength and valid historical backing, and I don’t seek to reject her interpretation out of hand; but, I disagree with her determination to abolish the Gilded Age as a separate period. As the editor’s note explains, her stance is part of a wider, more recent trend toward examining 1870-1920 as a single, unique period and possibly coining it the “long progressive era.” I completely agree with ElCaldwell’s assumption that that her frustration with existing perspectives on the Gilded Age comes from teachers and students, not from historians. The common high school textbook or lesson plan from high school teachers usually wants to hit the huge history events before and after the Gilded Age and skims the time period by unfortunately, using terms that now drive the popular perception of the Gilded Age as one of pure corruption, crony capitalism and Jim Crow. Yet, even with these possibly misinformed high school textbooks, Edward’s argument for a prolonged progressive era I believe falls short in comparison to Richard Schneirov’s argument in “Thoughts on Periodizing the Gilded Age: Capital Accumulation, Society, and Politics, 1873-1898.” Detailing a case for the distinct period of the Gilded Age, Schneirov, in my opinion, provides us with a more convincing argument to label the Gilded Age as a distinct period of its own that has very distinctive characteristics. I felt that Scheirnov’s essay was more valid than Edward’s as it used numerous historiographical evidence to support his claim for the periodization of the Gilded Age. Because this blog post does not allow me to go into further detail, our next assignment regarding a historiography, I will expand upon the great historiographical example by Scheirnov. Along with his examination of recent work and supporting evidence of periodization, Scheirnov briefly explains his opinion on the beginning date of this period and the differing views surrounding this seemingly unimportant but extremely interesting periodization factor. This possible small scale difference opens up the flood gates for a bigger question and a historiographical analysis of the start and finish of the Gilded Age.

January 22, 2014December 16, 2020

Questioning the Causality of a Changing Political Economy

Blog Post for 01/23/14

I found myself to be particularly intrigued by the discussion concerning the merit of greed during the Gilded Age during class on Tuesday. Particularly whether or not the newfound focus on capital accumulation, or what some might call greed, was either 1.) an inherently unnecessary evil 2.) a good in itself or 3.) a necessary component of economci progress that, while often having immoral motivations, is beneficial on the macro-level. Richard Schneirov’s article entitled Thought on Periodizing the Gilded Age: Capital Accumulation, Society, and Politics, 1873-1898 provides intriguing ideas to help us address this question. Ultimately his work seems to point towards the third understanding that posits as a necessary component of economic progress

Schneirov defines the Gilded Age as book-ended by two important transitions: a shift from a “self-employed” (196) mode of production to a capitalist one and from a proprietary competitive capitalist order to a corporate administered one. While both of these transitions are relevant to the question at hand, the first transition to a capitalist mode of production is of particular interest in the way that it illuminates the necessity of capital accumulation as an engine of progress. Schneirov, borrowing from Marx’s Capital, explains the progression from “simple commodity production” (199) where capital is merely a medium of exchange so as to procure commodity of equal value (C-M-C) and capitalism in which capital is invested into commodity in hopes of a profit (M-C-M). Fundamental to “simple commodity production” was an understanding among citizens that labor created value and that ethical exchange should thusly be equal. Schneirov points out the errors of this belief in noting that this supposed theft from producers was what modern economists would understand to be “the economy’s surplus, the sine qua non and the engine of progress and development.” (199) This understanding leads to an extraordinarily interesting notion concerning the causality of the economic shift during the Gilded Age; this shift towards a political economy focused on capital accumulation can be seen to have caused, or at the very least allowed for, the rise of big business and industrialization. This contrasts what seems to be a commonly accepted view that industrialization created the greedy economic culture of the Gilded Age. This is important to the question at hand because it demonstrates that a focus on capital accumulation (or what some might label as greed) was a necessary component of economic progress and not an avoidable vice or isolated shortcoming of the Gilded Age.

A question that still needs to be addressed is whether or not a political economy of capital accumulation is, by nature, driven by greed or, conversely, whether or not participants in the economy can invariably aim to maximize profits without being necessarily greedy.

January 22, 2014December 16, 2020

“Melting Pot–Disintegration of Individualism”

The post Civil War period known of as the Gilded Age embodied many changes in the American society. In James Connolly’s article he looks at the notion of “new urban history”. This focuses on the broad social changes that occurred during the Gilded Age. As referenced in Catherine’s post, she address the advancement in technology and the growth of capital. These new advancements became important to society because they allowed for the expansion and growth of America (through rail roads), and increasing diversity (through steamboat technology) of the American population. A phrase used to describe the American population is as a “melting pot”, but this phrase can also be used to define the decreasing desire to identify with individual culture and the “melting” of all individuals into urban culture. In Richard Schneirov’s written work, he attempts to periodize the Gilded Age through looking at capital, society and politics. Focusing more specifically on the aspect of society Schneirov looks at urbanization and industrialization and the idea of individualism. Individualism is something that I find to be of high importance when discussing the Gilded Age. With the transition to increased industrialization augments can be made that show how in this upcoming capitalist society how people have become part of a system and lack the interdependence that is become less prominent. In a capitalist society people can become lost as a result of being tied to their commute or working schedule in citifies or suburbs. Or farmers, who rely on machines and mass scale production as opposed to being self sufficient and only providing for ones family. An argument can be made that capitalism drives peoples desires to make money and become wealthy.

Shcallaway’s post brings up an interesting point connecting the work of James Connolly and Charles Calhoun. Both authors look at defining the Gilded Age and the effectiveness of the terms industrialization and urbanization. Unplanned urban growth and increasing capital are aspects in proving how people became more focused on their social status then the importance of themselves (as individuals). The importance and meaning in individualism is imperative when looking back on cultural history and what drives society.

January 22, 2014December 16, 2020

Being a Local: Space, Place, and Economics in the Gilded Age

James Connolly in his Bringing the City Back in: Space and Place in the Urban History of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era discusses the importance differentiating between locations. Often individual cities like New York, Boston, Atlanta, or Charlotte get lumped together and described by a single general story of urbanization. Connolly cites a novel by Edward Bellamy, Looking Backwards. In the novel, the city named is Boston, but the description could apply to nearly any city. The main character meets unnamed workers; everything remains anonymous. To a certain extent, this picture is not entirely inaccurate. Cities and urbanization seem to increase anonymity. One may live in a city skyscraper and not know the hundreds of people who live around you. Walking down the street, people keep their heads focused on the sidewalk and do not wave to every person they pass. In a small rural town, on the other hand, one might know all the details of a neighbor’s life and walking down main street turns into long conversations about an ailing relative. While these images are obviously stereotypical, there still seems to be some use in generally classifying cities.

While this general sweep may be useful and efficient, it is also important to note that each location will be unique. Generalities are just that—general. Every city, every neighborhood, every block will have a distinctive flavor and feel. Indeed, some of the tiny differences may be the most important place for historians to examine. For instance, Mary Lethert Wingerd suggests that differences between two places may contribute to the development of the location. The usual argument goes: St. Paul possibly developed more conservative politics that nearby Minneapolis because St. Paul was composed mostly of a conservative Irish-Catholic working class where as Minneapolis’ Scandinavian/Yankee Protestants were less conservative. Wingerd says the difference might have more to do with the “civic culture” of St. Paul derived from the relationship of business and labor and the Catholic Church.

Richard Schneirov’s piece focuses more on the economics of the Gilded Age. He ends listing some characteristics of the gilded age such as social instability and capital accumulation. These are the generalities that Connolly talked about, although they apply to economics rather than cities. Economics might also benefit from Connolly’s location-specific emphasis. New York probably has a very different economic landscape from New Orleans.

In the blog post the Merit of Specificity, this central question was posed, “Is the generalized overview more illuminating than the examination of a specific instance, or vice versa?” I think this question gets to the heart of the matter. I would say that both views are useful. Generalities may be simpler, easier, and can reveal accurate larger trends; yet they also obscure individuals. Look at specific cases may be illuminating and more specifically accurate, but it is difficult to look at every single thing on an individual scale.