On 7/21/2012 10:25 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> That Progressivism is not a "movement," in Filene's
> estimation anyway, does not suggest the lack of
> ideological affinity among those who called
> themselves Progressive.


Either I am missing your point or you are dodging my
question.  So let me try again: what "ideological
affinity" does Filene identify as essential to
progressivism?  (I assume you are not suggesting
that looking for ideological affinities is not
part of what Filene takes up.)

I would also be interested to know whether you
classify say Fisher as a "progressive". (Against (?)
Roy, I would say we only learn from Tom Leonard that
a lot of economists supported eugenics during the
Progressive Era, not that eugenics is essentially
progressivist.)

Additionally, eugenics is not one thing.  During
the Progressive Era it included instruction in
birth control, although of course it also extended
to forced sterilization (as in the work of
conservative Paul Popenoe).  Use of the word
"eugenics" therefore often becomes anachronistic.

If we want to look for a common source of support
for eugenics in the early 20th century US, we probably
should look at socio-economic status. (E.g., Fortune
magazine readers in the 1930s overwhelmingly supported
eugenics.)  Possibly observant Catholics were exempt.

Finally, I think it is fair to note a subtext often found
in discussions of this bit of history.  There has been
an effort in the US to tar with a eugenicist brush
contemporary inheritors of the progressivist left's ambition
(whether or not well founded) to use government to improve
human prospects.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac