Social Thought in the Gilded Age
The power of ideas and the choices over how to deal with industrialization, immigration, and urbanization helped to structure the possible solutions needed to address the growing gap between wealth and poverty in the United States. Choose one of the following ideas listed below promoted during this time period and identify why you support this school of thought.
Economic Individualism
Social Gospel
posted by Mr. H @ 3:59 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
I am split in support between Economic Individualism and Social Gospel. I support key features of each social thought. For Economic Individualism, I support the ideas that an individual should use their skills to better themselves, and take advantage of the opportunity presented before them. I also agree with the Capitalistic system promoted by these thinkers. Parts that I do not agree with are the laissez-faire economics, and Social Darwinism.
As for the Social Gospel, I support the ideas of reform of the then current systems. The formation of reformation programs that brought wealth and distributed it to the community, and the focus on life in the city & immigrants are key features of the Social Gospel movement.
Both of these sides have their pros however if I had to side with one it would most certainly be Economic Individualism simply beause if I put myself in that time I would much rather provide for myself and my family rather than helping others, call me what you will but like I said placing myself in the time period a lower class immigrant with nothing to his name I would push out of the way whoever I could to scrape together what money and social status I could to better my life and the life of my family. I guess I would be a Boss Tweed of sorts however i do support this and the survival of the fittest mind set.
Ok so I suppose today we established what my political affiliations are. So I'll have to go with the Social Gospel. I understand where people are coming from when they say the individual must propel themselves forward, however, especially in the time of immigration and urbanization, this was impossible for many. I feel that those that have gotten ahead in the system and are benifiting should help those that are behind and are unable to make it on their own, for the time peroid the main focus should be getting the immigrants on their feet. However, the ability of the government to limit abuse of this privilage would be difficult at the very least. There would defentaly would have had to be more government intervention in the system and people would have to adapt to this new policy to make it work. This would have been impossible but it's still what I support. Ulrizzle
This comment has been removed by the author.
What can i say? I am capitalistic in nature. If i am to take a side on the matter, i must side with Economic Individualism. Although there are certain aspects of this economic system that may not be as pleasant as others, i believe that people and their money should be left alone. The Social Gospel movement seems to me, as more of a communistic approach to how the economy should be run. If you buy into the thoughts and beliefs of the Social Gospel, then you are in danger of falling into the mind-set of Marxism. Through hard work, individual skill, drive and, determination, one is able to succeed in an Economic Individualistic society quite successfully.
I'd have to side with Economic Individualism. As an immigrant living in poverty the most important part of my life would be to provide for my family. I'm going to work as hard as I possibly can for my family and my hard work should pay off for myself and my family alone. As Mobb Deep say in their song "Survival of the Fittest".. "There's a war going on outside no man is safe from", life in the new world was most likely a war. The nameless and faceless government isn't going to provide for me, so I'm going to fight for what I want and need to survive. Though Social Gospel may seem easier for a lot of immigrants because Economic Individualism would be impossible for all, with a little cunning and luck someone could make a life for themselves.
Economic Individualism
I think that every individual should be able to work and use there skills to give themselves a better life. It gives everyone I think a fair chance to better themselves and it’s almost like survival of the fittest if you think about it. The people who work harder to better themselves are the people who will succeed in life. You look at the lower class and really the only way they have to provide themselves and there family with a better life is through Economic Individualism. Overall it’s just a better idea I think it gives everyone a fair chance. It makes it so everyone has a fair chance in life and the harder you work the more money you will have and that is truly the way it should be.
I believe in the social gospel even though i agree with most aspects of the economic individualists point of view. Im not really big into religion but the oppurtunities for some people are determined at birth. Some people are so poor that they can't even go to school or even live somewhere. Not everybody can have accesibility to better their skills in one type of job. Also some of the immigrants that came over they did succeed but most of it was pure luck and good thinking. They weren't skilled in anything really.
While I live in a capitalistic society I do believe that the social gospel would have been a better choice of life for the people living in this point in time. Almost the whole society was in the lower half of the barrel and only a small portion where well off that it would have benefited the people and would have given them a fair shake at success instead of basically being born to live poor and not being able to get out .
Post a Comment
<< Home