The Age Of Reform Summary

2100 Words5 Pages

Richard Hofstadter's The Age of Reform

In 1955, Richard Hofstadter wrote his Pulitzer Prize winning book The Age of Reform, about the Gilded Age. Hofstadter’s arguments about the Populist and Progressive movements and their origins started debate and renewed scholarship on the Populist and Progressive movements. Many historians did not agree with Hofstadter’s arguments and published their own papers stating their conclusions based on their own research. This scenario occurs all the time in the history field. One historian writes a book or paper and other historians accept or reject his arguments by doing their own research and making their own conclusions. Many historians wrote about the Progressive era after Hofstadter did. Many …show more content…

Filene wrote “An Obituary for “The Progressive Movement”” in direct response to Hofstadter and other historians that there was never a Progressive ‘Movement.’ He argues that most historian are too caught up in defining Progressivism that they do not consider what it means for something to be a movement. He states that a social movement is a group acting to cause change or to stop change. Filene argues that there was never a movement, that society and progressives were too fractured to act as one group. He argues that there are many different types of progressives split on a wide range of issues. He argues that progressives were split ideologically as well as on courses of action. This is in direct opposition of Hofstadter who argues that even though there were differences in action every progressive had similar values. Filene then argues against a geographical model of the progressive movement because the area of the country someone was from did not necessarily point to one’s viewpoint. He also denounces Hofstadter’s “status revolution” argument. He argues that progressive cannot be seen as a middle-class response to a status revolution because progressives came from all class, the wealthy, the poor and the middle class. In the end of his paper, Filene asserts that historians have tried to apply a certain concept to their data, which has caused a mess. He argues that while a progressive era may have occurred that there was no clear movement, …show more content…

When Richard Hofstadter published his book, The Age of Reform, his assumption of their being a Progressive movement was widely accept in the historical world. His controversial claim that a status revolution coupled with nativist fears caused the populist and progressive movements caused a boom in research and scholarship on the Populist and Progressive Movements. In 1977, Peter Filene published his “An Obituary for “The Progressive Movement.”” In it, he explains persuasively that there was no Progressive ‘movement’ because there was not a movement. He argued persuasively against almost all of Hofstadter’s conclusions, showing through the theories of and research of other historians that Hofstadter was very much wrong. In 1981, Richard L. McCormick published, “The Discovery That Business Corrupts Politics: A Reappraisal of the Origins of Progressivism.” In this article, McCormick takes the argument laid down by Filene and revises it to create the most persuasive argument out of the four articles examined in this paper. He argues that there was a movement just that it lasted for a very short period of time, specifically two years. He argues that the realization of the influence that corporations had on the government caused this movement and that the short attention span of the nation led to the rise of a bureaucratic system to regulate it. His argument answers

Open Document