Different Goals: Corporate Expansion and Public Disenchantment with the City in the Early 20th Century
by Miles Gamble
The History of Businesses, the Public, and the City
A quantitative study presented by Louis Galambos and Barbara Barrow Spence for Johns Hopkins showed that from the turn of the century to the Roaring Twenties, the middle class perception of big business, corporations, or large private entities was highly unfavorable.[1] One possible explanation for the strong disapproval of big business is a change in the way people saw the city.
The relationship between corporations and the general public has a deep history in the United States.[2] As early as the turn of the century, corporations began establishing themselves in cities. At the same time, individuals and families became economically stronger, enabling them to leave the city for a better life on the periphery. From the late 1880’s to the 1940’s, the relationship between the public and corporations was characterized by the introduction of middle class ideology, business expansion, and the concept of space and its proper use.
Before 1880, many cities in the United States barely hosted any private business of large influence or magnitude; rather, there were smaller businesses that were contained to the particular city they operated within.[3] During the late 1880’s, the railroad industry had a significant enterprise, made stronger by its continual expansion into the west and other regions across the country.[4] This growth of the transportation industry in the United States led to large-scale access of American cities, such as New York City. As more individuals inhabited the city, businesses that were established in cities in the early 1900’s had more individuals to expand their workforce, boosting commerce and creating more jobs, establishing what was to become the American middle class.[5] However, despite the fact that citizens began making more money from the expansion of city enterprises, their perception of big business soured.
As business grew in cities in the early 1900’s, more citizens became part of what came to be the “middle class”, a term that was barely used in the national vocabulary before the turn of the century.[6] Concomitantly, and ironically, as businesses saw more financial success in the 20th century, the rising middle class desired to leave the cities. Some historians believe the reason why urbanites wanted to exit cities was due to a desire for space that could not be satisfied in the crowded city.[7] For example, overcrowding in Chicago had bulged three-fold between the 1920’s and 40’s, which was a major reason why families left the city for the more spacious suburbs.[8] Though this movement of people seems like a simple reaction to congestion of the city, there existed a more complex motive for middle class families to move to the suburbs.
The History of Businesses, the Public, and the City
A quantitative study presented by Louis Galambos and Barbara Barrow Spence for Johns Hopkins showed that from the turn of the century to the Roaring Twenties, the middle class perception of big business, corporations, or large private entities was highly unfavorable.[1] One possible explanation for the strong disapproval of big business is a change in the way people saw the city.
The relationship between corporations and the general public has a deep history in the United States.[2] As early as the turn of the century, corporations began establishing themselves in cities. At the same time, individuals and families became economically stronger, enabling them to leave the city for a better life on the periphery. From the late 1880’s to the 1940’s, the relationship between the public and corporations was characterized by the introduction of middle class ideology, business expansion, and the concept of space and its proper use.
Before 1880, many cities in the United States barely hosted any private business of large influence or magnitude; rather, there were smaller businesses that were contained to the particular city they operated within.[3] During the late 1880’s, the railroad industry had a significant enterprise, made stronger by its continual expansion into the west and other regions across the country.[4] This growth of the transportation industry in the United States led to large-scale access of American cities, such as New York City. As more individuals inhabited the city, businesses that were established in cities in the early 1900’s had more individuals to expand their workforce, boosting commerce and creating more jobs, establishing what was to become the American middle class.[5] However, despite the fact that citizens began making more money from the expansion of city enterprises, their perception of big business soured.
As business grew in cities in the early 1900’s, more citizens became part of what came to be the “middle class”, a term that was barely used in the national vocabulary before the turn of the century.[6] Concomitantly, and ironically, as businesses saw more financial success in the 20th century, the rising middle class desired to leave the cities. Some historians believe the reason why urbanites wanted to exit cities was due to a desire for space that could not be satisfied in the crowded city.[7] For example, overcrowding in Chicago had bulged three-fold between the 1920’s and 40’s, which was a major reason why families left the city for the more spacious suburbs.[8] Though this movement of people seems like a simple reaction to congestion of the city, there existed a more complex motive for middle class families to move to the suburbs.
Middle Class Ideology and Private Space
From the 1900’s to 1910’s, the city was home to businesses and industrialization, a place where capital was constantly sought and competition was necessary for commerce. However, the ideology of the new middle class shifted their focus from public to private property.[9] Rather than being recognized for living among expanding businesses in the city, “the [middle class] family was recognized by home ownership, and by the quality of that home,” which translated into a valorization of the suburbs, where space for homes was more abundant.[10] Meanwhile, the city became denser as businesses acquired more property, leading to severe crowding in the city center, prolonged isolation from the non-work world, and employee frustration.[11]As urban space became constrained by rising industry in cities, the middle class not only developed an ideology[12] that would justify movement out of the city, but also saw expanding businesses as the problem they were moving away from.
Criticism of Big Business
Furthermore, as businesses expanded throughout American cities in the early 1900’s, their treatment of employees was under public scrutiny. Ironically, the more business entrepreneurs expanded their enterprises in American cities, the more the public accused them of corruption.[13] Employee strikes and antitrust movements, for example, were at their peak from 1900-1940; because workers felt they were underpaid and made to work under hazardous conditions for the sake of monopoly expansion.[14] Since public disapproval of big business revolved around space in the city, how businesses used that space became another area of criticism.[15]
In conclusion, the corporation as it existed in the United States more than 100 years ago was not fully trusted or embraced by the general public. Though businesses were necessary at the turn of the century and helped propel American cities into industry, their expansion in the city in directly pushed the middle class away. Although the rising middle class was the result of business expansion and industry, middle class ideology defined private space as an optimal goal. The result was the association of businesses with the city, a place that was seen as cramped, hazardous, and over-crowded, leading to an unfavorable view from the middle class. Thus, the relationship between businesses and the public became divergent: the public believed in a life absent of direct contact with industry, and businesses sought to make industry in the city their foundational goal for financial gain. What was certain for both entities was the need for space in terms of ownership and success.
Notes:
[1] Galambos, Louis. “The Public Image of Big Business in America, 1880-1940,” The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland (1975) pg. 248
[2] Galambos, 7-39
[3] Ibid, 7
[4] Ibid, 8.
[5] Wright, Gwendolyn. “Moralism and the Model Home: Domestic Architecture and Cultural Conflict in Chicago, 1873-1913”. From The Suburban Reader. Routledge, New York City, NY and London, England (2006) pg. 93
[6] Wright, Gwendolyn. “Moralism and the Model Home: Domestic Architecture and Cultural Conflict in Chicago, 1873-1913,” pg. 92
[7] Gordon, David, “Capitalist Development and the History of American Cities,” From The Suburb Reader, Routledge, New York City, NY and London, England (2006) pg.121
[8] Ibid, 93
[9] Wright, Gwendolyn. “Moralism and the Model Home: Domestic Architecture and Cultural Conflict in Chicago, 1873-1913”. From The Suburban Reader. Routledge, New York City, NY and London, England (2006) pg. 93
[10] Wright, Gwendolyn. “Moralism and the Model Home: Domestic Architecture and Cultural Conflict in Chicago, 1873-1913”, pg. 93
[11] Capitalist Development and the History of American Cities (1978)
[12] Downing, Andrew Jackson, The Architecture of Country Houses (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1850)
[13] Galambos, 255.
[14] Ibid, 255-56.
[15] loc. cit.
From the 1900’s to 1910’s, the city was home to businesses and industrialization, a place where capital was constantly sought and competition was necessary for commerce. However, the ideology of the new middle class shifted their focus from public to private property.[9] Rather than being recognized for living among expanding businesses in the city, “the [middle class] family was recognized by home ownership, and by the quality of that home,” which translated into a valorization of the suburbs, where space for homes was more abundant.[10] Meanwhile, the city became denser as businesses acquired more property, leading to severe crowding in the city center, prolonged isolation from the non-work world, and employee frustration.[11]As urban space became constrained by rising industry in cities, the middle class not only developed an ideology[12] that would justify movement out of the city, but also saw expanding businesses as the problem they were moving away from.
Criticism of Big Business
Furthermore, as businesses expanded throughout American cities in the early 1900’s, their treatment of employees was under public scrutiny. Ironically, the more business entrepreneurs expanded their enterprises in American cities, the more the public accused them of corruption.[13] Employee strikes and antitrust movements, for example, were at their peak from 1900-1940; because workers felt they were underpaid and made to work under hazardous conditions for the sake of monopoly expansion.[14] Since public disapproval of big business revolved around space in the city, how businesses used that space became another area of criticism.[15]
In conclusion, the corporation as it existed in the United States more than 100 years ago was not fully trusted or embraced by the general public. Though businesses were necessary at the turn of the century and helped propel American cities into industry, their expansion in the city in directly pushed the middle class away. Although the rising middle class was the result of business expansion and industry, middle class ideology defined private space as an optimal goal. The result was the association of businesses with the city, a place that was seen as cramped, hazardous, and over-crowded, leading to an unfavorable view from the middle class. Thus, the relationship between businesses and the public became divergent: the public believed in a life absent of direct contact with industry, and businesses sought to make industry in the city their foundational goal for financial gain. What was certain for both entities was the need for space in terms of ownership and success.
Notes:
[1] Galambos, Louis. “The Public Image of Big Business in America, 1880-1940,” The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland (1975) pg. 248
[2] Galambos, 7-39
[3] Ibid, 7
[4] Ibid, 8.
[5] Wright, Gwendolyn. “Moralism and the Model Home: Domestic Architecture and Cultural Conflict in Chicago, 1873-1913”. From The Suburban Reader. Routledge, New York City, NY and London, England (2006) pg. 93
[6] Wright, Gwendolyn. “Moralism and the Model Home: Domestic Architecture and Cultural Conflict in Chicago, 1873-1913,” pg. 92
[7] Gordon, David, “Capitalist Development and the History of American Cities,” From The Suburb Reader, Routledge, New York City, NY and London, England (2006) pg.121
[8] Ibid, 93
[9] Wright, Gwendolyn. “Moralism and the Model Home: Domestic Architecture and Cultural Conflict in Chicago, 1873-1913”. From The Suburban Reader. Routledge, New York City, NY and London, England (2006) pg. 93
[10] Wright, Gwendolyn. “Moralism and the Model Home: Domestic Architecture and Cultural Conflict in Chicago, 1873-1913”, pg. 93
[11] Capitalist Development and the History of American Cities (1978)
[12] Downing, Andrew Jackson, The Architecture of Country Houses (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1850)
[13] Galambos, 255.
[14] Ibid, 255-56.
[15] loc. cit.