Perhaps no single endeavor of a modern
society tells more about that society than its system of welfare. Modern
welfare systems are political creations, they deal in matters ranging
from the economic to the sociological to the psychological, and they reflect
common denominators in the social, cultural, and religious values that
the people of a nation hold. In the United States in the last quarter
of the nineteenth century and the first third of the twentieth, social
reformers, interest group partisans, and other public commentators carried
on a vigorous public discussion of welfare problems and their solution,
a discussion that finally culminated in the Social Security Act of 1935.
This study describes and comments on that discussion, especially on the
social insurance movement that it produced, beginning about the turn of
the century.
The study examines public utterances, especially as they illuminated
Americans' attitudes toward impoverished and dependent people. The focus
is on ideas and attitudes, rather than on organizational histories of
one or more social insurance propaganda groups, or upon the legislative
progress and fate of particular social insurance bills. It is on ideas
which propagandists were willing to express openly, in the efforts to
shape public attitudes or to identify their causes with beliefs and assumptions
that they perceived that the public already held. Yet this is not a study
merely of ideas in the abstract, examined for their own sakes. Rather
it deals with those ideas that actually or potentially affected social
development--those ideas that proponents actually proposed, by more or
less careful social engineering, to build into institutional structures.
Historian Stephen Ambrose has edited a book, Institutions
in Modern America: Innovation in Structure and Process (Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1967), around the concept of institutional history,
and introduced it with a perceptive essay on the need for historians to
illuminate the process of institution-building. This study is in that
vein. Its thesis is that the discussion of welfare exhibited the same
urge toward more highly rationalized structures that was transforming
other social institutions from corporations to universities; but that
the rationalizing ideal had to compete with another concept of welfare
stressing personalized help and relationships.
This investigation was supported in part
by a grant from the Social Security Administration, U. S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D. C. I wish to convey my
appreciation for that support, especially to Mr. Frank Caffee, Mrs. Virginia
Reno, and others of the Social Security Administration Research Grants
Staff. Goshen College, the recipient institution, also furnished substantial
support, granted me a year without teaching duties for my research, and
surrounded me with congenial colleagues who encouraged me intellectually
and personally. Sem Sutter, a history major at Goshen, proved to be a
most capable research assistant. My deep thanks to these also.
Theron F. Schlabach
Associate Professor of History
Goshen College
September 27, 1969 |