The Historiography of Catholic Laywomen and Progressive Era Reform

The Historiography of Catholic Laywomen and Progressive Era Reform Deborah A. Skok I n her 1993 article about Catholic history, Leslie Tentler quoted a colleague who said to her, “It’s too bad. . . . You folks do interesting work. But you’ll always be marginal to the profession.”1 Tentler argued persuasively that mainstream historians ought to pay more attention to Catholic history, and in the fourteen years since the article was written considerable scholarship has appeared that offers the promise of spanning the divide. The subject of laywomen and reform, especially during the Progressive Era, offers one exciting bridge between the scholarship of Catholicism and more “central” topics in U.S. history. The study of reform addresses topics from the neighborhood to the nation, including gender and the state, transnational reform movements, and the uses of urban space—all areas in which scholars of Catholicism may contribute to larger debates in the field. Since Tentler’s article, more basic research has been done on Catholic women’s benevolence and reform efforts, although much remains to be done. We have seen more works that consider Catholics, Protestants, and Jews together, and studies have emerged that examine the effects of Catholicism on the emerging welfare state, on gender ideology, and on the culture and built environment of cities. Even though “mainstream” scholars still rarely do primary research in Catholic documents, some are beginning to notice the research being conducted by scholars of Catholicism. Catholic Laywomen: From Anti-Reformers to Activists In his classic 1955 work The Age of Reform, Richard Hofstadter defined Progressive reformers as old-stock Yankee Protestants, suffering from anxiety because of a “status revolution” which threatened their political and social position .2 Nervous about the growth of large corporations, they feared that industrial 1 1. Leslie Woodcock Tentler, “On the Margins: The State of American Catholic History,” American Quarterly 45, no. 1 (March 1993): 104. 2. Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform (New York: Vintage Books, 1955), 131. capitalism would reduce competition, destroy small business, and therefore weaken the middle class from whence the reformers themselves arose. In Hofstadter’s analysis, the reformers also feared the growing industrial proletariat, made up largely of immigrants who seemed to threaten the American way of life. He argued that these Yankee Protestants were motivated by abstract ideals of justice, while immigrants appeared to subvert democracy because they were motivated instead by personal loyalties and insular group ties. The reformers looked to the state to regulate big business and insure competition, to foster reforms that would promote democracy, and to ameliorate working conditions in order to prevent violent revolution by the masses.3 Echoing the writings of some prominent Progressives, historians thus defined immigrants and non-Protestants from early on as the anti-reformers . They were seen as corrupt political bosses or huddled masses benefiting from the largesse of others, which rendered their reform work all but invisible to mainstream history.4 Of course, women in general were also given short shrift in many early works on Progressive reform. Yet even as a narrative of Progressive women began to emerge, Protestant and non-sectarian women won a seat at the table with the male reformers while Catholics and Jews remained in the position of outsiders. Allen Davis’ classic 1967 book Spearheads for Reform focused on Progressive women, especially Jane Addams and others involved in the settlement house movement. Davis also perpetuated Hofstadter’s vision of Progressive reformers as native-born Yankees ministering to immigrants. He noted the existence of settlements run by Catholic and Jewish people, but dismisses the Catholic settlements in particular as “more like missions than settlement houses,” and argues that they “contributed very little to social reform.”5 For Davis, the real settlements were non-sectarian. Yet in fact, the majority of residents in these “non-sectarian” settlements were Protestants, and religious activities did sometimes take place within.6 Davis also perpetuates the image of idealistic Yankee Progressives doing battle with corrupt, Irish-Catholic political bosses. Davis’ account of Hull House’s battles against Chicago Alderman Johnny Powers provides an example.7 Some of Davis’ contemporaries outlined a more flattering portrait of ethnic politicians which involved the idea of “Urban...