Contact

A Loss of Security during the Great Depression

Dec 6, 2009
Kathryn Swoboda
Uncategorized

          Lizbeth Cohen’s Making a New Deal; Industrial Workers in Chicago 1919-1939, gives us a lot to work with. Cohen examines some of the greater consequences of the Great Depression, by looking at the industrial workers in Chicago from 1919-1939. Cohen argues that during the depression, industrial workers lost more than employment, homes, insurance plans, but that they also lost a sense of security as well, security that had been provided by family, employers, and ethnic communities. People were use to relying on them in times of need. Ethnic benefit societies, churches, banks, building and loan associations, and neighborhood stores, workers’ welfare capitalist employers, and paternalistic families were so damaged by the depression that they were unable to meet the level of support so many expected. Cohen feels that they then lost faith and harbored distrust for them when this occurred, but most importantly also lost a sense of security they had been use to. I wonder, after reading this, how much was it a loss of security and how much was it a general shift in the distribution of power in American society, that allowed organizations federally funded to interfere eventually? Did this loss of security have any other consequences on American society?
        

              A federal welfare state was virtually non existent in America until the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Maybe it was a combination of America’s ideals about self reliance or maybe it was an innate distrust of “big government”, but whatever it was, people didn’t have and didn’t want support from their federal government. Many of these industrial workers were first and second generation immigrants, and so that may have contributed to their reluctance to seek support from anything federally funded. There was also a distrust and annoyance for federal employees and social workers, Mr. Goich’s experience with the social workers is an illustration of this tension between the two. (214) People instead relied on closer connections, like family, employers, and ethnic communities for survival. Cohen suggests that it was tradition to do so. It was expected. Whatever the reasons behind it, people had to turn to these alternative support systems.

        Traditionally, Cohen argues, people turned to their closest connections for support, most often family. Yet, families were overwhelmed. Never before had so many people been out of work or in financial crisis at one single time. “When one family faced an emergency like illness or death, neighbors and other close associates could usually afford to help. But the effects of the Great Depression were so pervasive that people could no longer count on much assistance from these old networks.” (218) With family unable to aid them, they had to look elsewhere.
There were private charities they could in desperate times, rely on. These usually included churches and other ethnically based clubs and organizations. They raised funds and worked with the local government to do so, but one usually had to belong to these organizations to benefit and they could only do so much. Cohen writes, “At the same time that the depression increased the demand for welfare services, it also undermined the financial resources of many religious and ethnic welfare agencies.” (229) When the Church was unable to meet the financial needs of so many, people, instead of rationalizing that these programs funds had just been exhausted, lashed out at the church and accused it of stealing. Not only were Catholic churches affected, but all churches that provided any type of social service. General distrust grew, reflected in lower church attendance. (226)

         While it was interesting reading about how the Great Depression affected people’s relationships with local ethnically run banks and local neighborhood stores, what I actually found to be one of the most interesting topics was how the depression affected people’s relationships with their employers. I had never heard of welfare capitalism before and certainly had never thought of employers as administering any support during tough times. Looking at the photograph of the Oscar Meyer company distributing food is very shocking as that it’s hard to believe. Yet, Cohen provides photographic support and good evidence, so I don’t question it. Cohen says these employers actually felt it was a duty to help their employees as the depression deepened.(238) I guess these are just words that employees are not familiar seeing today.

       Finally, Cohen examines some of the depression’s consequences on the family structure. The depression was hardest on fathers and husbands trying to support their families and be breadwinners, and eventually this led to a break down in the family structure Cohen argues. Employers were more likely to hire women and children, because they would work for less. Now instead of husbands being the breadwinners and controlling the purse strings, now wives did. “Evidence abounds that men suffered severely from their loss of status as the family’s chief breadwinner,” Cohen explains. Evidence shows men withdrew emotionally, became angry and violent, and some even committed suicide. (247) Children lost respect for fathers, transferring it to their mothers. Evidenced by one child’s own words, “”I certainly like my mother lots more, for she buys me everything.” Wives began asserting themselves more in the household, in the bedroom and elsewhere. One woman explained, “I am the boss in the family for I have full charge in running this house. You know, who make the money he is the boss.”(248) If this is not the most blatant evidence that their was a shift in the distribution of power, during the Great Depression, I don’t know what is.

         The Great Depression seemed to cause shifts in the distribution of power in all areas of people’s lives. When no longer able to seek support from their church, people looked elsewhere and the church lost some of its authority. The same happened with the local banks. Cohen asserts, “For many working people, the failure of what was often a local bank owned by a member of their ethnic group meant more than the loss of hard-earned dollars. It also meant loss of faith in the ability of their ethnic communities, particularly their leaders, to support them in times of trouble.” (231) So, as a result their leaders lost some of their authority. Finally, on a smaller scale we can look to the decline in the Patriarchal family as an example of a power shift.
         

        Over the last year or two, families have been suffering from hard economic times as well. The Great Depression seemed to cause not only security issues, but also bigger changes in society. Could we see similar trends develop today if we looked? Or are we somehow more protected from the changes in society, because we have welfare and unemployment checks, so we’re not as reliant on family or churches anymore, and we don’t expect assistance from employers, local stores, and local banks? Or are we just as vulnerable as were before?

4 Comments
Tags

4 Comments

  1. Elizabeth Gresk  •  Dec 6, 2009 @3:35 pm

    I, too, was interested in the growth of the welfare state. Because of the time period that we were born in, I can’t really imagine the country not having some sort of welfare program. (This section also reminded me of the impact that immigration restrictions developed in the late 1800s have on today’s visa and green card procedures.) For me, reading about the experiences of ethnic charities and local efforts to help the unemployed showed just how much things have changed in 80 years. I don’t know if this is a good thing or not, though. In many ways, by making the federal government (or state government) the provider of money and supplies, the localized community is somewhat a thing of the past. I’ve come across research that discusses how critical the ethnic community is in helping new immigrants assimilate into a new culture. In some ways, it seems like these local ties have been broken and I can only see this as having a negative effect for immigrants today.

    What also surprised me about this reading was the absolute despair that everyone found themselves in. Things went from bad to worse overnight, and often people had not even done anything wrong or were not aware of the precarious situation. After reading the stories of immigrant families moving from place to place and seeing the pictures of belongings literally thrown out of houses, I was better able to conceptualize the human costs of the Depression. I was also interested in how Cohen’s account is from an urban perspective. For me, at least, when I hear the term “Great Depression”, I immediately think of Dust Bowl farmers, not urban workers. Given the fact that well before the 1930s the population of the United States was predominantly urban, I think this attests to the power that images and pop culture have in shaping current ideas about the past (i.e.: Dorothy Lange, John Steinbeck).

    After reading this chapter, I’m not sure how much credence I can give to the idea that today’s economic situation is as bad as the Depression. It is certainly a horrible situation and many people are affected, but looking at the numbers of unemployed, all of a sudden a 10% unemployment rating seems almost good. I think part of the reasons why today’s situation hasn’t yet reached the point of the Great Depression is because of the Great Depression. Today, credit cards, discount stores, welfare options, etc. are all available to people. Due to our country’s experiences during the Depression, it seems like we are somewhat better able to handle today’s crises. Whether or not the way that these methods ‘handle’ economic crises is a good thing remains to be seen.

    The question about security and authority is interesting. Given that the cultural norms about men and women and power have somewhat shifted since the 1930s, it would be interesting to see if there are new conflicts arising in today’s economic troubles (perhaps children vs. both parents?).

  2. Caroline Moore  •  Dec 7, 2009 @12:41 pm

    Katie highlights several important points that Lizbeth Cohen addresses in Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago 1919-1939. In her exploration on the impact of the Great Depression on Chicagoans, Cohen cites the importance of questioning how the “structure of people’s lives…was transformed during the crisis” (218). As Katie mentions, many Americans sought help from inner circles of family and friends. I thought it was heartwarming to hear about the charitable efforts of many to keep their intimates financially afloat. While people initially turned first to their families and friends for financial assistance, the effects of the Depression were so widespread and pervasive that this support system proved to be inadequate: “as the circle of unemployment widened, intimates became less able to help, engrossed as they were in their own difficulties” (219). Economic times were tough on all and forced people to turn to alternative methods for achieving financial support.

    In an effort to deal with the “cataclysm of such magnitude” (217), ethnic communities played a large role in supporting its members. People turned to welfare agencies that had “served their ethnic group or religious faith in the past” (220) and additionally solicited charity from church groups. I thought it was interesting that people expected the church to be able to provide for their needs and, when it failed to do so, the church’s credibility was threatened. People began to realize the all-encompassing effects of the Depression as the wealthier people became less generous with their money: the voluntary approach to relief was floundering and “as the elite of an ethnic group tightened its belt, the effects were felt all the way down the social ladder” (223). Many Americans at the time were in dire straights. As Elizabeth mentions, the photo of belongings strewn across sidewalks and in the streets really depicts the harsh reality of the Depression.

    The demise of the ethnic banks was yet another inevitable, inescapable factor of the Depression. Prior to reading Cohen, I had no idea that state law prohibited branch-banking—a fact that led to the emergence of so many small ethnic banks. The staggering fact that 163 out of 199 Chicago banks had closed their doors contributed immensely to the “loss of faith in the ability of their ethnic communities” to support people in tough times (231). I cannot help but wonder, had people been able to use branch-banks to safeguard their money, would the effects of the Depression have been as devastating for as many people?

    Another aspect of Cohen’s piece that piqued my interest was her discussion of the ways in which two companies—Western Electric and International Harvester’s Wisconsin Steel Works—were able to “cushion the impact of the Depression…on employees” (246). Refusing to abandon their workers, these companies went against the grain and acted in a different manner than many of their fellow welfare capitalists. Although these companies were certainly the exception to corporate protocol in their efforts to safeguard employees, there is something to be said for the deontological approach employed by both to protect the very people who help make the businesses successful in the wake of the labor movements and upheaval common during the first part of the twentieth century. That these two companies refused to abandon their employees and were willing to help in dire straits attests to the universal sense of implication among Americans.

  3. Mary Jane  •  Dec 7, 2009 @9:47 pm

    Cohen’s Making a New Deal; Industrial Workers in Chicago 1919-1939 provides a thorough account of how the Great Depression affected different aspects of American society. As Katie points out, Cohen emphasizes the notion that many people relied on ethnic communities to combat economic hardships. As Cohen remarks, “When they found themselves in financial distress, they sought contact with people of the nationality group from which they themselves emanated” (219). From churches and charitable organizations to small stores and banks, Cohen explores the assorted “ethnic” organizations that attempted to render assistance during the trying 1930’s. While I found Cohen’s description of these communities very interesting, her essay left me with several questions. Was the tendency to affiliate with one’s own ethnic group only prevalent among recent immigrants? Or was this a strategy embraced by all Americans during the 1930’s. Was this ethnic “security system” that Katie discusses something that immigrants eventually relinquished, or did all Americans maintain a loyalty to their “original” nationalities?

    In addition to the services rendered by ethnic communities, some employers sought to assist their troubled workers. Cohen calls this trend “welfare capitalism.” She remarks that “As the depression deepened, many employers felt it was their responsibility to assist their workers, the natural fulfillment of their mission as welfare capitalists…In these hard times, it was important that the private sector, not the state, turn things around” (238). Katie expresses surprise at the thought of “employers administering services during rough times.” I did not find the notion of welfare capitalism particularly surprising, especially since it seems to persist today. Indeed, many companies provide laid-off employees with job counseling services and severance packages. What I found most surprising was that some companies embraced welfare capitalism even though it did not seem to be the “status quo.” For instance, Cohen remarks that Western Electric was one of the only companies to successfully implement “work sharing” and ensure that employees maintained adequate salaries and worked a sufficient number of hours (245). I found myself wondering why Western Electric would become so invested in their employees’ well-being. Was it an attempt to create the most efficient and effective workforce? Or were they actually motivated by humanitarian concerns and a sense of responsibility toward their employees? In response to these inquiries, Cohen simply remarks that “It is not clear why Western Electric went to such great lengths to cushion the impact of the depression on its employees” (245). Cohen should have attempted to provide a more thorough explanation for this seeming anomaly.

    Similar to Katie, I was also very interested in Cohen’s discussion about the Great Depression’s impact on family dynamics. Since few men managed to maintain their jobs, the economic downturn robbed husbands of their role as providers. As Cohen describes, this left many men feeling emasculated: “Evidence abounds that men suffered severely from their loss of status as the family’s chief breadwinner. One investigator of a large group of unemployed families concluded that most husbands felt deeply humiliated” (247). I found this phenomenon a little paradoxical. Men felt humiliated and emasculated because they could not live up to the societal expectation that they should be providing for their wives and children. However, it seems that the Great Depression undermined and essentially reversed all “societal expectations.” Given the economic situation, were men still expected to provide financial stability for their families? Or was this concept just so ingrained that people did not attempt to realign expectations with reality?

  4. Katie O'Mealia  •  Dec 8, 2009 @3:25 pm

    Katie touched on some of the points that I found most intriguing in Cohen’s work: the American public’s relationship with the church and the government. As she pointed out with evidence from Cohen, the church interestingly played a more vital role in helping individuals in the depression than the government. However, because the church was unable to fully support individuals, it was discredited as an institution. The case that Katie makes concerning the change in distribution of power is a valid one. Because the church was unable to live up to expectations, individuals looked elsewhere and “lashed out at the church and accused it of stealing (Swoboda). When individuals found better aid elsewhere, the church gradually started to lose its loyal followers. Over the coures of the early twentieth century and early nineteenth century, America had become a society based more on commercial enterprises. Because the church was unable to support its parishioners financially, it could no longer be the center of their lives. People could survive on money. They could not survive on religion alone.

    Cohen makes an interesting point concerning the church’s desire to aid their parishioners financially by providing an example of a church in the African American community that did not even attempt to cover their parishioners monetary issues. Instead, that church focused on spiritual experiences. That church enjoyed a wealth of parishioners in the Depression. The church in general should have seen the valor of the spiritual church’s doing. They should have realized that by aiding their parishioners financially, they were detracting from the original and fundamental purpose of religion as a spiritual aid. By helping out financially, they brought individual’s financial troubles into the church, a place that should have been safe from the troubles of the outside world.

    Though the church was simply trying to help in the best way possible, it lost its credibility along the way, and paved the way for individuals to develop more trust in the government and, as Cohen and Katie point out, their employers. Their employers were in a more sound place financially, so helping their employees was a more logical and feasible action than the church helping every one of its parishioners. The church was not a money-making enterprise. Employers, however, were still generating some money that could be distributed.

    Katie also makes an interesting point about how the reaction of the employers during the Depression can relate to the reaction of employers today. Would the same thing happen? Is it? A prime example of how the world has changed and gone in a more inhospitable direction can be evidenced by last year’s bail out when company executives utilized bail out money to give themselves bonuses. Those companies had gone bankrupt, left numerous employees jobless, yet the executives still felt the need to take a big fat check for themselves. Compassion has slowly eeked out of the American business place, and has instead been replaced by greed.

    This transition from compassion to greed can perhaps be linked back to Katie’s point that the social centers have changed. Possibly, because the church is no longer the center of society, because families are no longer a major element of the foundation, there is less compassion. Perhaps the depression is somewhat responsible for the reaction to the economic downturn today, in that it removed the compassionate element out of business and society.