I agree with Colin. There is something about this book that sits uneasy with me.
First, the Dawley text does well to incorporate both a social and political history into a monograph on the birth and growth of Progressivism. By linking progressive domestic reforms with the imperial drive to “redeem” the larger world, Dawley’s text succeeds on some levels. By studying this highly influential period, Dawley makes the claim that during the first third or so of the twentieth century was born the notion that being a good American citizen equated to being a good world policeman. This notion is crucial because both during the Progressive Era and in more contemporary international politics this ideology still have a very tangible impact.
I am also aware of the historiography significance of this text. By linking the reform at home with the expansion overseas, Dawley attempts to place the formation of domestic American culture and social life as from the same process as international relations. And by doing so he creates a more transnational understanding of domestic culture. But I think he takes an awkward methodological and ideological approach to doing so.
Who am I to criticize Dawley (doctorate from Harvard and a very well respected historian) but I simply feel the text does not sit well. First I think his writing of transnational American culture is very much unidirectional. We see Progressivism influencing the sort of politics of the Roosevelt and Wilson’s eras, but we do not see the impact that these imperialist policies have on these foreign nations. Surely you can link progressivism to domestic policy, but what about the impacts that these international policies have had on Panama, Mexico and the remainder of Latin America. American globalism and militarism of the period shirly reconfigured citizenship, economic structures and social life in many post-colonial states in the Western Hemisphere.
By failing to include this, as well as some of the other detriments of Progressive Era agendas (both domestic and international) he seems to paint to positive of a picture of this time period. This goes in contrast to the large body of literature that documents the domestic failings of this period (such as the continuation of racial identies, the creation of sexual hierarchies, and the creation of a heteronormative white ideal around with which all other social hierarchies are created) as well as the international (the birth of U.S. economic imperialism). He does not give enough attention to the shortcomings of these imperial projects, such as U.S. expansion into Latin America that surely had economic incentives. He also underplays the less attractive practices of prominent figures of the time, such as Theodore Roosevelt whose international expansionist agenda surely influenced the rise of American imperialism and globalization. As a result, the text seemed to have a celebratory tone, celebrating the Progressive Era for its crucial impact on contemporary politics, but only the “positive impacts”. I cant help but think that by doing such the text is laden with Dawley’s personal ideological preferences and that these ideals of an America policing the world and spreading democracy (which Dawley claims were aims of Progressives) were at the time (as well as now) rhetorical straw men for the spreading and justification of economic imperialism.
So the text was a bit hard for me to really appreciate after I finished it. What does everyone else think?
I agree with you John. This book was a big "Ehhhhh" after I read it. In addition to everything you've mentioned, the fact that most of his sources were secondary sources was kind of a disappointment. The breadth of his book was impressive in that he discusses domestic and international developments in progressivism beginning around 1900 and continuing through the 1920s. Therefore I expected for there to be more primary sources. I thought he could have found or used more primary sources if he discussed the impact of the international policies like you said. Maybe it's just me, but I can't fully get a behind a book that relies heavily on secondary sources.
ReplyDeleteI agree. This just didn't sit easy with me. At first, I was looking forward to getting into this because of past reading I've done on the same era and my interest in it. Reading Dawley's introduction....he promised so much. He began promising to tell us of the vital link between progressivism's efforts at creating a more economically just America and its similar efforts abroad. Bringing in this new (to me) transnationalist perspective into the topic's dialogue, I was looking forward to this.
ReplyDeleteWhat kept coming back to me after I flipped page after page was an article by Peter Filene, "An Obituary for Progressivism" (or something to that effect). In short, Filene argued that there has been in the past so much argument over who the Progressives were and what the nature of their movement was that it might not be historiographically helpful to think of it as a movement. He contends that the so-called progressives were of such a variety--from business tycoons to Protestant Social Gospelers to middle class women, and that they were advocating for such a variety of goals that were many times contradictory--that to call this a Progressive "movement" is intelectually irresponsible and misleading.
While I don't completely buy every part of Filene's article, I kept running into the same problem with Dawley's characterization of the Progressive. Were they internationalist or isolationist? Were they Social Darwinists or Protestant "crusader" advocates? Were they for international equality among the world's societies or were they white supremacist eugenicists? Was Woodrow Wilson a Progressive or was he at heart a "Victorian liberal"? (268)
Dawley even contends that just as any legacy exists in a changing world, Progressivism underwent a great many ideological and methodological changes.(341) But, how many planks can we replace from Dawley's proverbial Ship of Theseus and still have it be his ship?
I appreciate Dawley's new take on combining the US's international affairs with its domestic. Indeed, I think that this is a helpful jumping point for more transnational dialogue in contemporary historiography. I also think that Dawley has definitely happened upon a largely neglected area of analysis in this time period, but there's still something I can't put my finger on...maybe it's the Progressive Era?