120
JOURNAL O F W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
BENEFICENT M ATERNALISM : A rgen rgen t ine in e M ot herho herhoo od in Com Com para paratt ive iv e Perspe Perspectiv ctivee, 1880–1920 Karen Karen Me ad
This article place placess an im portant portant A rgent rgent ine volun tary associa association, tion, t he Ben Ben eficen ficen t S ocie ciet y, within w ithin the international in ternational co con text of wo w omen’s men’s ma m at ernalist rn alist act act ivism iv ism.. M ead ead focu focu ses ses on t he efforts efforts of elite women’s women’s assoassociations to influence government assistance to poor women and children, arguing that such influence depended not only on governmental structure, but also on women’s ability to take advantage of prevailing cultural and nationalist concerns. Comparing Argentina with France and the United States, Mead weighs the importance of Catholicism, medical corporations, immigration, and differences among local groups of maternalists in explaining the success of the Beneficent Society before 1920 and its subsequent marginalization.
“
T
he Beneficent Beneficent Society Society . . . is is an imp regnable fortress against w hich all ho stile actions m u st fail. fail.”” 1 Argentine p resid resid ent Carlos Pell Pellegrini egrini thu s described the nation’s most prominent association of women in 1892, to the d isapp isapp ointm ointm ent of an ambitious ambitious p hysician hysician wh o had hostile hostile acti action on v ery mu ch in mind . Although little little know n ou tsid tsid e Argentina, Argentina, the Benefic Beneficent ent Society (Sociedad de Beneficencia) merits attention for its welfare activism, as well as its politic political cond cond u ct, w hich lent the ag ency an au ra of im im pregnability in the contentious arenas of social policy and public health. The history of the organ ization betw een 1880 1880 and 1920 1920 sug gests how A rgentine women attempted to take advantage of structural opportunities to participate in the state-building efforts that characterized the era, as w ell ell as how they u sed available available notions of gend gend er to enhan ce their materna list list prerogatives. I use the term maternalism here to refer broadly to any organized acti ac tivis vism m on th e part of wom en w ho claim claim that they p osses ossesss gendered qu alalifications to understand and assist less-fortunate women and, especially, children. Out of a potentially potentially vast arr ay of organizations organizations th at fit th is description, scription, I foc focus on those that sou ght a relatio relationship nship w ith governm ent as a m eans to en han ce their effe effecti ctiveness. veness. Su Su ch o rgan izations came into th eir own during the late nineteenth century in a number of Western nations and hav e rece received ived the attention of historians historians interested interested n ot only in in w omen , bu t also in the architectu architectu re of so-cal so-called led w elfare elfare states.2 Early Early attemp ts on © 2000 JOURNAL OF W OMEN ’S H ISTORY, VOL . 12 N O . 3 (A UTUMN )
2000
EA D KAREN M EAD
121
the p art of Seth Seth Koven an d Sony a Michel Michel to generalize across across geograp hical boun d aries ce celebrated lebrated th e ways in w hich matern alist alist id id eologies eologies chalchallenged the sup posed bou nd aries aries betwee between n p ublic ublic and and private during the years betw een 1880 1880 and 1920 1920.. By By u sing th e pr ivate “virtu es” of dom esticesticity to legitimate legitimate w om en’s en’s pu blic relationsh relationsh ip to p olitic oliticss and the state, maternalists ternalists played played an imp ortant role in d eterm eterm ining how the state defined the n eeds of mothers an d children as w ell ell as in creati creating ng institutions institutions an d program s to ad d ress ress those needs. 3 What emerges less clearly in comparative literature about maternalism, nalism, although it is is often often p ronou nced nced in case case stud ies, ies, is is the imp ortance of sociocultural issues to the strategies and accomplishments of women’s en’s agen cies. cies. The The Argen tine case reflects reflects a similar situ ation in the N orth Atlantic Atlantic region region d ur ing this p eriod eriod of rapid social social and and ec econom onom ic chan ge assoc associated iated with ind ustrializatio ustrialization n and the geograp hic mobility mobility of capital capital and labor. labor. Maternalists Maternalists deman d ed th e exp exp ansion of governm ent resp resp onsibility, which in some measure required redefinition of the nation and a reassessment of citizens’ relationships to the state. Women’s efforts to influ ence soci social al policy policy w ere shap shap ed n ot only by ava ilable ilable political political op p ortun ities, ities, bu t also also by their their ideas about gend er and th e mod ern nation.4 Th e particular ways in wh ich ich w omen accomm accomm odated their agendas to larger larger nationalisms nationalisms an d mad e them selves selves necessary necessary to m od ernization ernization p rojec rojects ts helped d etermine which wom en’s en’s group s achieved achieved nationally nationally influential roles. roles. In In Argentin a, wom en w ith the greatest imp act on social social p olicy olicy and end ur ing constructions constructions of gend er w ere those who convincingly convincingly embr ac aced ed national progress, progress, as the ad ministrative ministrative elite elite defined it, and app lied lied th em5 selves selves to main taining social ord er in its w ake. The equ ation of wom en w ith social social order r aises aises questions questions th at p reoccupy a less optimistic current of maternalist historiography. Which group s controll controlled ed th e way matern al valu valu es were cel celebrated ebrated in p u blic blic, and to wh at extent extent did em ph asis asis on wom en in the family family promote or preclud preclud e fem fem inist politics politics with a g reater emp hasis on w om en’s en’s social social equ ality ality an d economic independence?6 A related question concerns the relationships among maternalists and their “beneficiaries.” Was maternalism a subset of p atern alist alist ph ilanth ilanth rop y, w hich fu fu nctioned as a “d eliberate eliberate d epo litic liticizizing strategy” vital to the p ositive ositive forms forms of pow er exerc exercis ised ed by th e mod ern 7 state, as cyn cyn ical ical analysts ha ve asked ? To assess these questions in the Argentine context, I compare the Beneficent Soci Society ety to an alogou s w om en’s en’s associations associations in France and the United States States d ur ing th e same p eriod eriod . I initial initially ly chose chose these tw o countries as exemp exemp lars of d iffe ifferent rent forms of govern m ent w ithin the Koven and Michel Michel p arad igm ou tlined tlined below. below. Yet the m ore satisfying satisfying elemen ts of the comparison come from the usefulness of these nations as alternate loca-
122
JOURNAL OF W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
tions of Catholicism, on th e one han d , and massive imm igration, on th e other—two imp ortan t variables in u nd erstand ing the rise of the Beneficent Society and its emu lators. Organ izations in Fran ce and the Un ited States also illustrate the w ays that d istinct m aternalist cu rrents w ithin the sam e national setting might d ivid e in respon se to government action. Koven and Michel have claimed that maternalists were more likely to achieve organizational strength and influence over social policy in “weak” states (those with limited federal governm ents) than in “strong” states (those more bureaucratic and interventionist).8 Critics of this theory complain that th e labels “weak” an d “strong” are too simp le to capture the differences between national political systems. 9 Here, I follow Koven an d Michel’s m odel, but d efine “w eak” and “strong” states according to th eir links to corp orate group s that sou ght to d efine social p olicy— religious establishm ent, and the m ed ical profession. I comp are the poten tial for women’s influence in Argentina to that in France, which possessed a centralized pu blic health bu reaucracy an d robust Catholic Chu rch, and the United States, which had fragmented Protestant congregations and p rivate enterp rise med icine. Interesting in itself, this com p arison also p resents the Beneficent Society in different terms than those used by many Argentine historians.10 Contemporary observers always m entioned the socias’ (Beneficent Society members) elite status. In 1912, for example, as French plenipotentiary minister Fouqu es Dup arc sough t in his month ly dispatch to exp lain th e society’s un u sua l p restige, he allowed th at it w as deserved “both for th e social rank of the mem bers and for th e results they obtained from the h um anitarian and econom ic points of view.”11 Yet class alone cannot explain th e achievements or flaw s of the Beneficent Society. Many nat ions had rich, p olitically active w omen, bu t only in Argentina w as a volun tary w omen’s association brough t into th e Ministry of the Interior as an ad ministrative agency of a repu blican governm ent. We may begin to u nd erstand more completely the ascend ancy of the Beneficent Society and other maternalist groups by acknowledging the political opportunities available in a new government dedicated to the establishm ent of national cultu re in m od ern Argentina. Not on ly did ambivalence abou t Argentin a’s Sp anish Catholic past com p licate this objective, bu t so did th e arrival of large nu m bers of Europ ean imm igrants, Italian and Span ish m en for the most p art, whose p resence seemed to threaten Argentine elites’ cultural hegemony and undermine local family structures. Socias influ enced p olicy d ebates of the early 1880s because of their class, bu t they could n ever have maintained such influ ence w ithout strategic manipu lation of gend ered ideas, which respond ed to elite anxieties about national cohesion.
2000
KAREN M EAD
123
Comparisons with France and the United States also sharpen the d iscu ssion of such var ied top ics as Catho lic cu ltur al politics, national cohesion, and d ifferent strategies and rhetoric of amateur and p rofessional social workers. In approaching these issues, I have relied on the secondary literatu re generated by scholars wor king on these two coun tries. Latenineteenth-century Argentines were also interested in international comparisons. Systematic study of foreign health and welfare programs w as com m on am ong p hy sicians and fem ale activists, and Beneficent Society mem bers were able to use the d iplomatic netw ork of the state to requ est information abou t ph ilanthrop ic end eavors in all coun tries wh ere the Argentine government was represented. Such information, socias hop ed, wou ld “p ermit the Society to establish comp arisons and take advan tage of the results.” 12 I proceed in a similar spirit.
The Beneficent Society and the Argentine Governmen t Althou gh th e governm ents of the United States and especially France were challenged by civil war and revolution d ur ing the nineteenth centu ry, Argentine lead ers’ inability to agree on basic questions of p olitical organ ization before the 1850s p reclud ed institu tional cont inu ity in a m ore d ramatic way, and final resolution of political and ad ministrative qu estions did not occur until 1880. The statesmen who achieved this settlement believed that economic liberalism, secularized government, and encouragement of immigration wou ld gu arantee rapid progress and enable the new Argentine nation to claim its place in the modern world exemplified by northern Europe. These statesmen traced much of their philosophy to Bernardino Rivadavia, a liberal leader of the early 1820s, whose visionary endeavors had included the creation of the Beneficent Society in 1823.13 He emp owered th e association to expand and sup ervise public education of young girls and to manage three charitable establishm ents for w omen an d children—the Foun d ling H ome (Casa de Expósitos), Hosp ital for Wom en (Hosp ital Rivad avia), and Orp han age for Girls (Casa de H u érfanas)—w hich, un til then, had been ru n by m ale religious orders.14 Rivadavia had han d picked the original thirteen socias. Although he soon th ereafter fell from p olitical grace, the org anization and its establishments su rvived su bsequent d ecad es of p olitical unrest throug h m embers’ w iles. At n o time w ere local Catholic clergy in p ositions to regain control of welfare services, bu t th e gover n m ent o f Man u el de Rosas (1829–1852), a p olitical enemy of all that Rivad avia ha d rep resented , forced the society underground for a time. With the ascendance of liberalism in the 1850s, how ever, the society’s track record stood it in go od stead, and its lead ers
124
JOURNAL OF W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
became skilled in using Rivadavia’s name to defend the agency from attacks, p lacing th emselves in th e main stream of nation alist liberalism. By th e 1870s, the Beneficent Society ha d established an Asylu m for Insane Wom en (Hosp ital Nacional d e Alienad as), Child ren’s H ospital (Hospital de N iños), and several orph anages. Socias’ attention to institutionbu ild ing intensified after 1876, wh en th e agency surrend ered ninety-eight girls’ schools to the Argentine Department of Education. In 1880, when vexing questions about the nation’s political organization were settled, the city of Bu enos Aires becam e th e nation ’s capital. As th e govern m ent of the Prov ince of Bu enos Aires aban d oned the city for a n ew cap ital at La Plata, provincial leaders ceded a variety of functions and agencies—inclu d ing the Beneficent Society—to the new nat ional govern men t. In explaining the elevation of the Beneficent Society to t he M inistry of the Interior, Minister Anton io d el Viso did not refer d irectly to socias’ w illingn ess to volunteer their labor bu t stressed th at their ad ministrative efficiency was th e “best guaran tee that the m onies of the N ation w ould be ju d iciously ap plied to their compassionate d estination.”15 In add ition, the society h ad no formal ties to the Catholic Chu rch, w hich w as imp ortant to secu larizing forces in the n ew g overnm ent. The w omen w ere wellorganized, experienced, and p laced a p remium on w orking coop eratively at a time w hen m en involved in organ izing p ublic health services were comp etitive, vying w ith each other for ad ministrative p ositions and careless with governm ent m onies. Within a few years, however, the country’s most prestigious public health professionals—usually referred to as higienistas (hygienists)— organized Asistencia Pública (Public Assistance), which would become the other p rimary h ealth an d w elfare agency in th e capital. Fru strated by the gov ernm ent’s un w illing ness to elevate Asistencia Pública from th e level of municipal government, its leaders sought alliances with the men of the national governm ent’s Departmen t of H ygiene in repeated attemp ts to assume command of Beneficent Society establishments and the relatively hand some bu d get Congress voted to them each y ear. In th is competitive climate, the society not only retained autonomy over its internal affairs, but also continued to expand the number and size of establishments it constru cted an d ad ministered as the governm ent’s agent. Socias’ control over not on ly asylum s but also med ical facilities chagrined p u blic health officials w ho w ere not em p loyed by th e Beneficent Society. Immigration into the country produced exponential population growth , however, leaving man y ill, aband oned , and d estitute peop le for these agencies to attend . In Bu enos Aires alone, there were nearly ten times as man y p eople in 1914 as there w ere in 1870, and one-half again as man y arrived and left before census takers could count them. 16 Following a
2000
KAREN M EAD
125
financial crisis in 1890, private agencies proliferated in response to the misery of the u rban p oor, but w retched cond itions ran ahead of institutional resp onses. In this shifting en vironm ent, th e Beneficent Society retained control of key health and welfare institutions for wom en, and shaped the gen d er ideas of their d ay, claiming p articu lar virtues on behalf of them selves and their clients.
Catholicism, Me dicine, and the State i n France and Argen tina Critics of the Beneficent Society an d oth er w om en’s volu nta ry associations in Argentin a often stressed th eir religion, leveling th e charge of Catholicism as if it w ere a self-eviden t accu sation of conserv atism an d ignorance.17 Perhaps because the assum ed connections between the Chu rch and women are so prevalent in the period literature, modern literature contains no analysis of a key aspect of the Argentine setting: Argentine w om en w ere able to exercise influ ence over social policy because th e Catholic Church in Argentina was so feeble. Comparison with France on this p oint is instru ctive. For most of the nineteenth century, French governments were content to leave edu cation of girls (especially in the coun trysid e) and trainin g of female teachers to the Catholic Church. Given the absence of professional opportunities for women, they flocked into the new noncontemplative teaching and nu rsing ord ers that the Church had begun to organize in 1796. The n u mb er of female religiou s increased from th irty tho u sand to somewhere between one hun dred thirty thousand an d on e hund red fifty thou sand d ur ing the last half of the centu ry.18 These nu mbers w ere imp ortant not only because nu ns w ere the only persons trained to perform essential tasks in hosp itals and asylum s, bu t also because the vast majority of women with any formal education were most familiar with Catholic notion s of family and society. The Catholic concept central to all charitable endeavors is that of caritas, the u nifying love that bind s hu man s to God and each oth er. In an organ ic society conceived as a collection of families bou nd togeth er in a hierarchy th at was d ivinely ordained, caritas obligated more fortu nate families to love an d share th eir material blessings w ith th e poo r, Chr ist’s earthly representat ives. These ideas fit smooth ly with bou rgeois w om en’s dom estic and reprod uctive interests, and shap ed th ese w omen’s und erstand ing of their responsibilities in an increasingly combative industrializing society.19 Encouragement of private ph ilanth ropy w as an economical way for govern m ent to extend social assistance, and , by the 1860s, state sub sidies to both secular and religiou s establishm ents reached their zenith. 20 Official
126
JOURNAL OF W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
sup p ort extend ed to small asylum s organized by laywom en as well as to large charity hospitals. When republicans gained control of the French governm ent after 1870, they w ere not withou t concern for p oor w omen or worker families, but they explicitly rejected caritas as an organizational principle for social assistance in a modern society bound by “cash, selfinterest, and the m arket,” not fam ilial ties.21 Rep u blicans w ere less interested in subsidizing asylum s than in bu ild ing and staffing secu lar girls’ schools. The overriding d evelopm ent that shap ed all app roaches to gend er in the early d ecad es of the Third Repu blic, how ever, was th e falling n ational birthra te. After th e d isastrou s Franco-Pru ssian War, this “crisis of dep op u lation” ap p eared as an issue w ith serious ram ifications not on ly for French virility but also national security. Questions of maternity riveted the attention of male political and religiou s lead ers in a way th at ma rginalized w omen from p olicy d ebates.22 Catholic clergy foun d French w om en’s d eclining fertility a serious m atter ind eed, and the m ost conservative amon g them thou ght th e only way to strengthen the family w as to reject ind u strial d evelopm ent an d ur ban life altogether. More useful to th e government, however, were French hygienists who set out to improve fertility and decrease infant mortality among working women without reducing the a vailability of female labor o r ov erly restricting em p loyers’ p rerogatives. 23 As the governm ent of the Third Repu blic moved against the Catholic Chu rch, it pu t w omen wh o w ere involved in trad itional Catholic charities on the d efensive withou t provid ing significant op p ortun ities for w omen with a more secular approach to social relations. Women remained vital to p hilanthropic networks bu t rarely achieved official governm ent p ositions. Men set them selves the tasks of redu cing infant m ortality an d improv ing fertility rates of w orking w omen by legislating matern ity leaves, more abun d ant health care, and financial sup port to p revent child aband onment.24 The dozen s of m aternal an d infant charities in Paris, for exam p le, w ere controlled and inspected by em ployees of the govern men tal agency Asistance Publique (Public Assistance, greatly envied by Argentine hygienists), wh ich coordinated all pu blic health in the capital and throu ghout m uch of the nation. Many Catholic w omen w ere inspired to organize d u ring this period , but th ey did so in op position to government p olicy and were thus anathema to rad ical repu blicans.25 At th e same tim e, ho w ever, an ticlerical legislators who feared the connections between w omen and the “black p eril” of the clergy w ere no more sym p ath etic to femin ists w ho elaborated p iercing critiques of contrad ictory rep ub lican ad herence to both ind ivid u al liberty and gender hierarchy.26 Although un willing to imagine females as
2000
KAREN M EAD
127
citizen-voters, lawmakers were open to improvement of women’s legal position within the sexual division of labor, particularly if it enhanced their effectiveness as mothers. Many feminists astutely cooperated with this political line, adv ocating significant imp rovements to marr ied w omen’s rights. 27 Their influ ence, how ever, did not extend to other p olicy realms. Although many among the Argentine administrative elite studied France’s exam p le, there w as no institu tion in Argentina as strong as th ose in France. The most im p ortan t d ifference was in each coun try’s respective Chu rch history. Until the late eighteenth centu ry, Argen tina ha d b een on the fringe of the Sp anish Emp ire, and the Catholic Chu rch w as more thinly represented there than in other areas of the Americas. The w ars of indepen d ence had created imp ortant d ivisions amon g w hat clergy there w ere, and Rivadavia’s efforts to eliminate the influence of the regular orders w iden ed tho se d ifferences. Rosas’s cynical u se of the Cath olic Chu rch as a p olitical weap on brou ght it to its nad ir in Argentin e history. The Chu rch work ed to rebu ild itself after mid -centu ry by m inistering to th e dom inant classes and had as yet no p astoral mission am ong th e poor. While ind ividu al elite families practiced charitable giving to d epend ents and almsseekers, there w as little trad ition of organ ized lay charity. The Beneficent Society was an obvious exception, but it only began to expand these activities after mid -centu ry, along w ith a han d ful of sma ll p rivate w om en’s associations. Many proposed public and private welfare projects found ered over lack of fun d ing, build ing m aterials, and convents to train staff for the establishm ents. 28 While the Argentine m edical corp oration w ould eventually attach itself to the state in th e man ner of Asistance Pu blique in Fran ce, it w as still in the early stages of this p rocess, w hereas the French had been at it in a serious m ann er since the seventeenth centu ry. Great progress was m ad e in u niversity ed u cation and professionalization d ur ing th e 1870s in Argentina, but in public health virtually everything remained to be done. Hyg ienists eager to p romote th is work ad mired Asistance Publiqu e for its scientific achievements, control of Parisian health care p rovid ers, and influence over national organization of medicine.29 Yet th e n ew Arg entine governm ent d isapp ointed th ese men by denying them sweeping control of the French m od el and fun d ing th e Argentine Asistencia Pública on ly throu gh the m u nicipal bud get of Bu enos Aires. Du ring th e 1880s, the oratory of Argentine legislators (many of wh om were p hysicians) rang w ith th e same imp assioned anticlericalism as that of French r ad ical repu blicans, bu t, in fact, local clerics w ere on the d efensive and w ithout p opu lar supp ort. There was no institu tional level at w hich local Catholic hierarchy could effectively resist secularization of educa-
128
JOURNAL OF W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
tion, civil registries, or m arr iage. N or could it restrict layw om en’s entra nce into social w ork o r organ ize rival projects. The finan cial crash of 1890 created consid erable hard ship for the w orking classes in cities and served as a catalyst for th e organ ization of several p rivate char ities that greatly exp and ed th eir assistance to wom en and child ren in th e follow ing year s. These organ izations w ere exp licitly Catholic in orientation, and, while many liberal legislators objected to the subsid ies that th e Argent ine Congress voted to these agencies, they w ere politically feasible becau se the local Chu rch w as w ithou t significant p olitical pow er in th e 1890s, and therefore non threatening. Layw omen were vital to th e fu nctioning of Catholic charities becau se the Chu rch h ad so few t ies to the p oor. In contr ast to French wom en, Argentine m atrons could carry ou t their spiritual obligations in explicit support of the state. They used the ideas associated w ith caritas to ju stify th eir desire to leave their own hom es and interven e in tho se of oth er w om en. Yet they claim ed tha t the social cond itions that w arranted this activity w ere only temp orary—the incip ient d ifficulties of an as yet im p erfect but eagerly aw aited liberal ord er. Encyclicals of Pop e Leo XIII du ring th is period sou gh t to reposition th e Catholic Church in a capitalist world in which the “Mother” Catholic Church could g u aran tee social p eace to the “Father” state. 30 Prominent Argentine Catho lic w om en’s associations adop ted a p arallel argu men t by offering to ease the situation of poor Argentine and imm igrant wom en u ntil men in the govern men t could straighten out the econom ic and political details. The Señoras of Saint Vincent de Paul, for example, although they formed the largest of the Argentine w omen ’s associations an d the on e with the closest ties to the Chu rch, d id n ot ad vocate the restoration of a golden age, Catholic or oth erw ise. In its exp lanation of social questions, their literatu re called u p on th e thou ght of Herbert Spencer, the British sociologist w ho interpreted m arket relations in term s of evolu tionary theory and believed that th ose who could n ot comp ete shou ld p erish according to the d ictates of natu ral selection. The señora s (often referred to as vicentinas), believing th at it was u nw ise for th e state to care for th e poor wh o, by virtue of being poor, were obviously unfit, offered to “intercede with compassion in th e struggle for life, between the d agger of the victor and the chest of the vanq u ished .” 31 Vicentinas carried this secular u nd erstanding of governm ent-pop u lace relations, their Catholic ideals of the p erman ence of family bond s, and an insistence on the n eed for imp roved h ygiene into the hom es of poor w omen to w hom they d istributed d onations. They also bu ilt asylu ms and w orkshop s, w hich th e governm ent subsidized . For staff, they relied on the management and nursing skills of French Sisters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul, recruited from Europe as were the or-
2000
KAREN M EAD
129
d ers that staffed m ost local hosp itals.32 The beneficent ha d little desire for Argentine girls to become nu ns. As Argentine w omen’s associations expan d ed their mem bership after 1890, and applied themselves more consciously to class conciliation after 1900, the Beneficent Society became increasingly im p orta nt to its sup p orters in gov ernm ent as an exem p lar of proliferating activism. Yet the events of 1890 had proved an imp ortant tu rning p oint for the society as well. As they beat back repeated attempts of male-run agencies to take over th eir institutions, socias u sed the press to make know n their opinions and expan d the image of wom en. Althou gh the sh arp ening econom ic d ifficulties of 1889 and 1890 inten sified h yg ienists’ efforts to relieve the Benefi cent Society of its ad m inistrative responsibilities, ultimately, the crisis worked to the society’s ad vantage, as its spokespersons attributed to socias and their clients the chara cteristics mo st critically absen t from m ale con d u ct of p u blic life. Trad itionally femin ine abn egation an d self-sacrifice, for exam p le, became sp ecific virtues that enabled poor wom en to stretch inad equate incomes far enou gh t o hold families together in an a ge of m aterialism, ju st as the society held the national family together despite governmental financial profligacy. The biggest showdown between higienistas and socias was over the Casa de Expósitos, an establishm ent w here parents could leave un w anted new borns w ith total anonym ity. Hygienists w anted access to the institution in ord er to stu d y qu estions of illegitimacy, child aban d onm ent, and —especially critical in th e late 1880s—rising in fant m ort ality rat es, w hich d efied th eir notions of progress. In 1888, the society had d efend ed its right to adm inister the hom e by arguing that socias’ m atern al instin cts w ere m ore app ropriate to the care not only of orp han ed inm ates but also of troubled wom en w ho m ight reclaim their children in the futu re.33 National Depar tment of Hygiene physicians were not p ersuad ed by this argum ent, however, and redou bled their efforts to reorganize the hom e along the lines “consecrated by the experience of what has occurred in France,” wh ere anon ymou s adm issions w ere no longer allowed .34 In her official response to the Department of Hygiene, society president Isabel Hale d e Pearson d id n ot argue w ith its techn ical precepts (many of which the hom e’s doctors had sup ported ) and agreed that speaking of the French mod el was the “equivalent of saying th at the p rescriptions correspon d to the most ad vanced p rinciples of science,” but w arned that the d epartm ent’s prop osed imp lemen tation p olicies w ere impr actical.35 Forced by th e govern m ent’s fina ncial crisis to resort to p u blic solicitation of don ations for the Casa de Exp ósitos, socias were met with a generous resp onse, not only from large don ors bu t also from scores of p eop le
130
JOURNAL OF W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
w ho contribu ted fifty centav os at a time. When, after increasing pressur e from th e Depar tm ent of Hy giene, the society offered to resign control of the hom e, d aily Argentine new spap er La Prensa pu blished the resignation letter wherein socias spoke of their efficiency, economy, and patriotism. They claimed that recent public response to the home’s plight demonstrated that they h ad the “confid ence of the p eople” in th eir hon est ad ministration and econom ic man agement. 36 The governm ent h ad little choice bu t to agree, und er the circum stances, and refused their resignation. As socias came to d escribe their clients w ith th e same char acteristics tha t th ey claim ed for th emselves—abn egation, self-sacrifice, w illing ness to work hard , and sou nd econom ic man agement skills—they d escribed la mu jer argent ina (“the Argentine w oman ”) in term s that ad d ressed th e concerns of a nation u nd ergoing econom ic d epression. As prosp erity retur ned in th e mid -1890s, the Beneficent Society continu ed to refine an d d issem inate their vision of the Argentine w oman , app lying th e same virtues not only to econom ic situation s but a lso to the strength o f character necessary to maintain Argentine culture at the family core. Increasingly, however, their vision respon d ed more consciously to anxieties raised by imm igration. In France, the “depopulation crisis” compelled doctors and politicians to in itiate a “corrective interven tion” into p oor w om en’s fam ily lives to prevent squ and ering of the nation’s pop ulation.37 Many of these men assigned a key role to the hou sewife/ moth er in maintaining family life in a growing nation, and worked toward securing state protection for the family as a m eans of d efend ing social ord er. Bu t French legislators never consulted women to refine their knowledge of family needs, and many d ismissed as antimod ern th e social vision of Catholic w omen. 38 In Argentina, wom en retained g reater control over the d iscour se of motherhood not only because of structural differences but also because qu estions of nat ionalist anxiety were d ifferent th an th ose in France. Pop u lation g rowth was strong (local hygienists were smu g abou t the fact that French wom en in Argentina d emonstrated high birthrates in contrast to French wom en at h ome), bu t there were d oubts abou t the society’s futu re as many people came and went, abandoning w omen, children, and the eld erly an d leaving th em ou tsid e the p rotective reach of family n etworks. The Beneficent Society argued that (with their help) Argentine women had the strength and virtue to hold families—and thu s the nation—together and that they already knew how to do these things because they were w om en. Neither h ygienists nor clerics were in a p osition to challenge su ch claims, and thou sand s of relatively p rivileged w omen follow ed th ese id eas into action. The governmen t of the French Third Repu blic worked to w rest caritas
2000
KAREN M EAD
131
from the han d s of wom en and p erfect techn iques of pop ulation man agement th at corresp ond ed to a m od ern class society bou nd by econom ic relations. In contrast, as the Argentine elite observed the growth of a prosperous, but increasingly cosmopolitan, society that exhibited what they perceived as unbridled materialism, the “oligarchy” sought to invent a society bound by familial solidarities, with a particular emphasis on filial loyalty to th e patria (fatherland). Women played an integral role in th is society.
Immigration and M aternalism in the Un ited S tates and Argen tina The relationship between w omen’s activism an d the state was m u ch d ifferent in th e United States than in either Argentina or France. The federalist structure of the state and unwillingness of most legislators to expan d the pow er of the national government d ur ing mu ch of the nineteenth century fostered the vitality of women’s activism. Early disestablishmen t of chu rch from state also d istingu ished th e United States. The selfgoverning congregations typical of U.S. Protestantism were dependent on lay sup p ort, and the strength of wom en amon g the laity allowed them to expand their social authority.39 After the Civil War, the courts an d p olitical parties that stru ctured the formal p olity w ere ill-equipp ed to ad dress social conflicts associated with industrialization. Building on the moral reform imp etus of the an tebellum period , wom en’s associations took advantage of many opportunities to improve the delivery of health and social assistance. 40 As a dynamic industrial economy took hold in their region, white, middle-class women in Northern U.S. cities were in the best position to benefit from t heir organ izational experience du ring t he Civil War. Wom en in m any setting s in th e United States accept ed great resp onsibility for the w elfare of their comm un ities, and this was now here more pron oun ced than amon g African-American w omen. 41 Bu t wh ite w omen in the North w ere better placed to infl u ence governm ent p olicy as well as gain access to edu cation. The p resence of U.S. w om en in high er edu cation, more than forty thousand in 1880, was critical to their participation as both voluntary an d p rofessional social work ers.42 As for the m ed ical pro fession, its comp arative lack of interest in im proving maternal and child health throu gh governm ent programs is suggested by th e absence of nat ional infant m ortality statistics at the tu rn of the century.43 The free-enterprise mod el of health care adop ted in the United States accorded little prestige to practice of public medicine and encouraged ph ysicians to remain indep end ent of the state. Historian Alisa
132
JOURNAL OF W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
Klaus has sh own how the structure of the p rofession not only left room for a w oman -oriented policy netw ork bu t also allow ed w omen far greater opp ortun ities to practice med icine, both as d octors and nu rses.44 Klau s had also p rovided key insights into th e impact of imm igration on m aternalism. In the Un ited States as in Argentina, pop ulation w as increasing rap idly, but far more growth w as du e to imm igration th an reprod u ction of native-born w hites. The fear of “race suicid e” on th e par t of the w hite mid d le class bred their concern for “race betterm ent” w ith regard to imm igrants and non wh ite peop le. “Race betterment” w as not as urgent an issue for U.S. p oliticians and p hy sicians as was the “d epop u lation crisis” in France, bu t it was comp elling enou gh to p romote a sup portive political env ironm ent for wom en d edicated to the cause.45 President Theodore Roosevelt used the concep t “race su icide” in sp eeches d esign ed to en courage white women to adopt certain family values, but the national governm ent took no organized initiative in p romoting su ch beh avior.46 U.S. w omen, therefore, encountered fewer obstacles to their ow n program s than d id th eir counterp arts in France. H istorian Molly Ladd -Taylor has d evised a typ ology that id entifies two p rincipal maternalist app roaches to the situation of poor w omen and children in the United States.47 “Sentimental” maternalists were typified by the N ational Congress of Mothers, w hich w as a group of wom en w ho were traditionalists on women’s place—their own and their clients’— w ithin the h ome an d family. “Progressive” m aternalists were typ ified by those associated with H ull Hou se, the Chicago settlement h ouse w here inno vative reform ers created a su p p ortive milieu for activist mid d le-class women and their clients among the neighborhood’s immigrant community. Although p rogressives also encouraged poor moth ers to stay hom e, they believed in their right to choose between marriage and career, and un d erstood th eir contributions in term s of professional expertise as well as femin ine cap acity for nu rtu re. In sp ite of differences, how ever, both typ es of U.S. matern alists w ere mov ed by an ideology wh ose app eal, according to Ladd -Taylor, “cann ot be understood apart from the white Protestant alarm over ‘race suicid e’ in the late nineteenth a nd early twen tieth centu ries.” 48 As the popu lation became more ethnically diverse, maternalists sought to “remind Anglo-American women of their moral and civic responsibility to bear (and stay hom e with ) child ren an d to teach imm igran ts ‘Am erican’ family patterns.” 49 Such an xieties were even m ore pronou nced in Argentina, where immigrants formed a larger p ercentage of the p opu lation th an in th e United States. Early statesmen had hop ed for northern Eu ropean imm igrants to cultivate the vast interior of the country. After the 1870s, however, the
2000
KAREN M EAD
133
majority of immigrants came from south ern Europ e and a large percentage preferred to p u rsue op portu nities in the boom ing coastal cities rather than take u p agricultu ral labor. In contra st to U.S. cities, w here imm igran t work ers were welcomed pr imarily in u nskilled labor and the Democratic Party, in Argentin a, im m igrant s cam e to represent a m ajority of com mercial and indu strial entrepreneurs as well as skilled and un skilled laborers, but did not participate in electoral politics because naturalization was difficult.50 Thus, even before labor conflicts in the twentieth century focu sed an ti-imm igrant sentim ent on “foreign agitators,” nat ive-born elites were concerned with preserving an Argentine culture that reinforced their social and p olitical d om inan ce. Metaph orical associations betw een family and nation w ere usefu l to a paternalist governm ent in need of an inclusionary d iscourse that m ight encourage p ermanen t settlemen t and patriotic sentiment am ong imm igrants wh o remained withou t formal political rights. But the skewed sex ratios resulting from immigration increased anxieties that “real” fam ilies were n ot servin g as social cemen t. Immigrant men comprised the largest group in the adult Argentine p op u lation , especially in Buen os Aires. (In Buen os Aires in 1887, for example, among people fifteen years old and older, there were 38,207 Argen tine-born m en to 135,792 foreign -born ; 51,703 Argen tine-born w om en to 69,080 imm igran t wo m en.51 ) Not only were Argentine men d ramatically outn u m bered by foreign-born m en, but th ey were also far less likely to mar ry tha n w ere imm igrants. While several conserv ative voices argu ed for the n eed to p rotect Argentine w omen from the foreign hord e, far m ore concern attached to w orkers of the fu ture. Who w ould incu lcate the child ren of foreign men with a love for Argentina? Wom en th u s created a cru cial role for them selves in d efining the Argentine national family. Refashioning traditional ideas about women as cur ators of cu lture (an idea that h ad often been used to keep them at h ome), op timistic sour ces p raised the ab ility of Argentin e w om en to socialize foreign men as well as their children .52 It was easy to blam e foreigners for th e disorder of broken families and abandoned relatives, and there was alw ays imp ressionistic eviden ce to confirm these fears. A seven-mo nth -old baby n am ed Gu ido, for examp le, w as ad mitted to the Beneficent Society’s Casa de Expósitos when his paren ts return ed to Italy. At the p ort, the ship’s captain h ad refused to allow Gu ido on board because he had the m easles; his parents left him behind .53 Memb ers of volu nta ry associations w ere well aw are, how ever, that it was imp ossible for m ost poor w omen to benefit from m ost of the aspects of trad itiona l Hispa nic fam ily life that t hey th emselves enjoyed . The id eal Argentine family they champ ioned w as therefore something of a hybrid that revolved around women’s service. They praised clients who were
134
JOURNAL OF W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
mostly female h eads of h ousehold struggling to maintain familial relations in the mid st of un precedented social and geograph ic mobility. The hom e as a theoretical locu s of Argentin e pat riotism offered sp ecial ad vantages in this coun try w here a short and temp estuous p olitical history p rovid ed little material for un ifying nation al my ths. Yet the Beneficent Society, in particular, could claim a long, apolitical, institutional p atriotism. As early as th e 1880s, French tr aveler Emile Daireau x had left Argentina with an image of porteñas (Buen os Aires wom en) as p aragons of patriotism. He asserted that th e history of the porteña was tantamount to the h istory of “national sentimen t” in th e Argent ine Repu blic. This national sentimen t “is born of her an d in her. It is she wh o ma kes it the religion of her children, and one could add that it is the only religion she cares to teach th em.” 54 The concept of the Argentine hom e elaborat ed by w om en’s agencies w as elastic and inclu sive, encour aging all w om en to elect this w ay of life. Authentic argentinidad (Argentineness) was defined by society spokesw omen in d escribing clients’ lives and d raw ing attention to th e intimate sph ere of action in w hich p atriotism w as reprod u ced as a female virtu e. In 1907, at the Benefi cent Society’s ann u al p u blic aw ard s cerem on y, Presid ent Etelvina Costa d e Sala inv oked w om en’s historic abilities to sup p ort their dependents. “The traditional organization of the Argentine family, constituted exclusively on selflessness and preserved throu gh all of our tran sform ations, is the prop itiou s env ironm ent in wh ich ou r [clients] hav e d eveloped th eir exception al virtu es. Dau gh ters raised in the am bience common to all our old h omes, from th e most hu mble to the m ost lofty, know tha t th e idea of self-sacrifice to alleviate the p ain of loved ones is th e legitimate an d natu ral fruit of so mu ch shared affection.” 55 Socias insisted th at the Argentine family w as a n atur ally occu rring ph enomenon w hich h ad shap ed their lives and tau ght them the value of love and self-sacrifice in holding families and the nation together. Their message was heard, how ever, by man y sup por ters w ho ap preciated their efforts in h opes th at they could redu ce social disord er attributed to imm igran t w orkers. At the sam e ceremon y, Minister of Foreign Relations an d Religion Estanislao Zeballos equ ated the Beneficent Society w ith th e p atriotism of the n ation’s first call for n ational ind epen d ence in M ay 1810. “N ow the great Argentin e social task is to lose no time in th e form ation of ou r character, becau se we are constru cting a nat ion on the tra gic fact that all of our glorious traditions from the year ’10 are disappearing as we assimilate the traditions, beliefs, interests, qualities, and passions of the races that arrive from abroad in successive waves and absorb our man ners, instead of us being a ble to absorb th em! . . . It is the imm aculate trad ition of May tha t th e Socieda d d e Beneficencia represents: love, virtu e,
2000
KAREN M EAD
135
and p atriotism!” 56 The ceremony’s aud ience, pr imarily wom en from other benevolent agencies and governm ent officials, respon d ed w ith enthu siastic app lause. According to on e reporter, “Dr. Zeballos had know n how to interp ret the feeling s latent in all of their sp irits.” 57 By 1910, th e Argen tine state had g one some d istance tow ard the centralized , interventionist mod el that legislators had w anted from th e start. The Beneficent Society enjoyed a secu re niche w ithin th is governm ent, embod ying the ideals of w oman hood they had w orked to associate w ith the prop agation of Argentine cu lture. Wom en w ho received fin ancial assistance an d p u blic recogn ition from the society almost always w orked for income in ord er to maintain d epend ents, and merited fin ancial aid in socias’ eyes becau se the w ork a vailable to them w as insu fficient and/ or ill paid. The society exerted p ressure w hen possible to open new opportunities for women’s employment outside the home.58 Even more energetic measures were taken in this regard in the training p rograms and hom es for w orking w omen th e Señoras of Saint Vincent d e Pau l spon sored. Withou t criticizing p revailing econo mic doctrine or the patriarchal family, the beneficent championed the efforts of wom en w ho w ere not served by these systems yet still encour aged th eir filial loyalty to the fatherland. Although the practical considerations of these beneficent maternalists led them to endorse work for women in a way that scand alized m any w ho saw female factory labor as a disturbing trend in mod ern life, as a group , they were unlikely to ap prove su ch em p loymen t u nless it wa s a dire necessity. They did not, for examp le, u nd erstand w omen’s econom ic par ticipation in th e life of the nation as grou nd s for legal chang es in w om en’s statu s or p olitical rights. As a d ifferent ap pr oach to m aternalism em erged, how ever, such issues began to d ivid e activist wom en.
Progressiv e M aternalists in Argen tina By th e end of the nineteent h centu ry, a small nu m ber of female college grad uates began to p rodu ce a second stream of maternalism in Argentina. Imm igrant wom en were an importan t presence in this group not only because imm igrants w ere well represented more generally in th e urban middle class but also because immigrant families apparently were mo re willing to sen d their d au gh ters to college. Argentin es were also vital to the group , how ever, and , w hen th ey definitively separated from other maternalists in 1904, these w omen emp hasized edu cation rather th an n ational origins with their organization’s name: Asociación Universitarias Argentinas (Association of Argentine University Women). Universitarias (as these women were often referred to) quickly tired of the prevailing
136
JOURNAL OF W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
ideology of la mujer argentina. Although most w ere not as bold as Alicia Moreau de Justo, the socialist feminist who spearheaded campaigns for women’s rights and democracy throughout much of the twentieth centur y, they were anxious to u ncoup le successfu l motherhood from th e idea of cu ltural cu rator and d istingu ished them selves, as she did, from “w omen imp regnated by a sp irit so Span ish,” claiming instead to be “p enetrated by th e spirit of Europ ean an d Am erican civilization.”59 Much like U.S. progressives, Argentine universitarias differed from local sentiment alists pr imarily in th eir desire to create professional em p loym ent for th emselves in social service. The feminism several universitarias end orsed w as consistent with a maternalist desire to app ly nurtu ring materna l qualities to social qu estions of the d ay. As a grou p , they d id n ot embrace su ffrage or equ al rights, bu t rather a d iscour se that h armon iously blend ed hom e, motherhood , and social ju stice.60 Yet th e issue of mid d leclass em p loymen t had a sign ificant ly different imp act in Argent ina. In the United States, progressive maternalists were the first women to gain federal employment with the creation of the Children’s Bureau in 1912. This achievement an d all futu re bu reau w ork relied on close relationships w ith w omen’s p rivate associations, wh ose sup port remained imp ortant even as the bu reau created new opp ortun ities for female employment w ithin government.61 In Argentina, universitarias also began w ith the support of the beneficent, who were just as enthused as themselves about the spread of domestic science. But the desire of universitarias to create employment for themselves based on scientific expertise was illreceived by sentimentalists in Argentina, not only because it threatened their governm ent p ositions but also because it w as subversive to the gend er id eology u pon wh ich th ose positions rested . Universitarias sough t emp loyment in a w elfare system that relied h eavily on w omen w hose comp etence was rarely consid ered in the econom ic terms that d etermined m en’s wages. This was obviously the case with th e ad m inistra tive labor o f the Benefi cent Society. More extensively, how ever, the largest pu blic hospitals, and man y p rivate ones, relied on th e nu rsing skills of Eu ropean religious w omen wh ose vocation enabled them to w ork for a nom inal salary. Cecilia Grierson, p erhap s the best-know n universitaria, railed against this situ ation and its Europ ean m od els. She regretted that “France, w hich w e so love to imitate, has p erhaps on e of the w orst forms of nu rsing assistance,” an d w as ind efatigable in h er efforts to establish a professional nursing school in Buenos Aires.62 Althou gh the Escuela d e Enferm eras (Schoo l for N u rses) eventu ally cam e un d er the aegis of Asistencia Púb lica, med ical directors of th at agen cy’s hosp itals rarely sent th eir lay staff there for training because they were unwilling to raise nurses’ wages.
2000
KAREN M EAD
137
Although individu al wom en m ight enter “male” professions, the creation of new realms for female employment was limited. Thus Grierson, also Argentin a’s first fem ale med ical do ctor, cou ld h ave m ad e her living as such, but w as un able to raise nu rsing to a professional statu s either for herself as an in stru ctor or as a category of “respectable” emp loymen t for p oor an d m idd le-class wom en. Similarly, w hen universitarias called attention to factories emp loying wom en and child ren in violation of legal hou rs and safety stand ard s and offered to p lace them selves in charg e of insp ection and application of penalties, Department of Labor officials snubbed them. They might volunteer their time to inspect and denounce infractions of the law “ju st like any oth er person,” but the d epartm ent w ould not pay them to d o so.63 The econom ics of w om en’s volun tary labor w as bolstered b y the elaborate gend er ideology that th e Beneficent Society for years had embo d ied. Women’s work was vital to the social fabric, but its value was great becau se, by d efinition, wom en’s work w as performed in service to others. The Beneficent Society an d its emu lators am ong Catholic agencies encouraged the wag ed emp loyment of poor w omen w hose families were dep end ent on their incomes, but th ey were less enthu siastic about w aged labor for middle-class women seeking a measure of independence for themselves. The Beneficent Society d id n ot obstru ct the careers of w om en w hose training took p lace in their hospitals, but th ey d id n othing to assist them or promote new professional opportunities for women in their institutions, wh ich th ey clearly had the p ower to d o. Nor w ere the beneficent generous with fed eral fu nd ing for new p rograms.64 Under such circumstances, universitarias grew increasingly restive and began to define themselves in more explicit contrast to their forebears. Universitarias rejected Catho lic morality as th e basis for ad missions to institutions or for the routinization of daily life among institutionalized w omen and children. They also emp hasized d istinctions in class terms, contrasting th e beneficent w ith m idd le-class w omen like them selves entering professions with “a measure of the legitimate aspiration to becom e self-su fficient, to erad icate from w om an’s sp irit that false sham e of work.” 65 To th e more tr ad itional, it was n ot w ork bu t self-su fficiency th at vied with the id eal of the Argentine wom an as the cohesive force in th e household an d n ation. As universitarias distanced themselves from the patronage of other women’s associations, they grew closer to male hygienists who shared their p rofessiona l interests. N o d ou bt, scientific congresses were more satisfying to universitarias than their encoun ters with th e beneficent. Bu t, even if the men who heard their papers admired the intellectual prowess of universitarias, they w ere less willing than the beneficent (p erhaps because
138
JOURNAL OF W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
of their history w ith them ) to share jobs they considered theirs.66 Women seeking entry into social work p rofessions were thu s id eologically stran d ed w ith a scientific d iscou rse that alienated other m atern alists, and a claim to nu rtu re that, in the opinion of hygienists, qu alified th em to volun teer but not take on p aid p rofessional roles. Moreover, while the social turbulence associated with an organized w orking class had once raised h op es for achievem ent of class conciliation am ong w om en of different backgrou nd s in th e hom e, by 1910, p oliticians and even the clergy sought a greater role for themselves. Universitarias were drawn to the rights-based discourse of socialists, but the Socialist Party d id not fully end orse the econom ic indep end ence for w omen th at universitarias w anted for th emselves, although it sheltered some of their projects. 67 At the same tim e, imp ortan t Catholic p relates w ho sou ght leadership of a new social Catholicism moved to capture the leadership of several associations that layw omen had created. In th e fu tu re, p riests wou ld seek to control the u nionization an d evangelization of working w omen.68 Teod elina Alvear d e Lezica, a leader of tw o Cath olic group s, saw the b enefit of a form al alliance amon g imp ortan t w om en’s associations, w hich cou ld preserve and enlarge their p rerogatives. How ever, her p roposal was re jected by the Beneficent Society, whose first loyalty was to the government it served .69 In ma ny w ays, the Beneficent Society remain ed an imp regnab le fortress, bu t one th at w as increasingly less central to th e d efense of the state. When H ipólito Yrigoyen b ecam e presiden t in 1916, he don ated his salary to the society, continuing the courtly gesture he had begun in the 1890s w hen he w as a n ormal school teacher. This p ersonal don ation, however, sym bolized th e increasing d epen d ence of the society on elite generosity. Expansion of their bud get and official comm itment to n ew p rojects was not forthcoming. With the cooperation of scientifically trained women, the society migh t hav e comp eted m ore successfu lly for new fun d ing. With the coop eration of the Señoras of Saint Vincent d e Pau l, the society m ight hav e used grassroots Catholic sup p ort to leverage more p olitical influ ence. As it w as, each grou p of women labored in a separate sphere, and , by the 1930s, the state had become a “surrogate father through the services of (male) physicians, whose loving attention to babies and their moth ers” w as free of u nw anted ad vice from w omen’s group s.70
Conclusion Argentin e matern alists greatly expan d ed social assistance for w om en and children betw een 1880 and 1920, making themselves a cond u it through w hich state resou rces cou ld flow to these grou p s. Withou t the Beneficent
2000
KAREN M EAD
139
Society it w ould have taken mu ch longer to organize quality med ical care for ind igent w omen and children. Along with Catholic associations, socias offered other kinds of aid to working-class women as well, and their maternalist vision w as mu ch m ore generous than the biosocial evolu tionary fun ctionalism of the era’s lead ing hy gienists with w hich it comp eted. Although Argentine anticlericals tended to d ismiss religious w omen as slaves of the Catholic Chu rch, for the tu rn of the centu ry th ere is more evid ence to suggest that wom en u sed Catholic ideas to expand their range of useful activities into areas tha t th e local clergy regard ed as second ary. Thousands of middle-class women who wished to participate in maternalist action w ere welcom ed in su ch Catholic charities as the Señor as of Saint Vincent de Paul by laywomen more energetic than their spiritual ad visors. Their allegiance d id n ot rep resent an overt rejection of universitaria programs, but, rather, the inconceivability of joining those women who were tru ly privileged by u niversity ed ucation. The increasing imp ortance of Catholicism to national mod els of moth erhood w as disturbing to universitarias, bu t it w as not the only thing to prevent cooperation. In Argentina, possibilities for alliance were more limited than they were in th e United States, in p art becau se of structural d evelopm ent. Matrons of the Beneficent Society show ed considerable p olitical creativity in expan d ing their responsibilities and prestige w ithin a “w eak” government d u ring th e 1880s and 1890s. The Argentine govern men t w as “weak,” how ever, becau se it w as new, not becau se it w as com mitted to a limited, fed eralist stru cture. As the state bu reaucracy solidified , male hygienists acqu ired the organizational mom entum to control fun ding for new endeavors. They cou ld n ot d islod ge the Beneficent Society, but, as a perm anen t fixture in a now “strong” governm ent, the society w as no m ore open to th e creation of positions for ed u cated w omen than w ere male-ru n agen cies. The beneficent were unable to adjust their notions of female gender to include professional expertise, in contrast to the way they had earlier expan d ed them to claim econom ic efficiency. This failu re lim ited th e ability of other women to follow them into government, limited their own potential since their organization came to appear archaic amid increasingly inn ovative hygienists, and , p erhap s, limited th e ways in wh ich w omen of the p op u lar classes migh t claim th e right to state assistance. If, as sociologist Lisa D. Bru sh has sug gested, “m atern alism is feminism for hard times,” 71 then it seems pru d ent to remember that, between 1880 and 1920, women in Argentina (like women in France) stood a far better chance of receiving a hear ing if they d eman d ed it on behalf of their citizen children rather than themselves. All maternalists recognized this on one level or another, and yet they were unable to cooperate to their mutual advantage. Although the entrance of middle-class men into the
140
JOURNAL OF W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
un iversity and the p rofessions p rovided the basis for alliances betw een all man ner of men, it seemed to h ave had the op posite effect on w omen in pu blic life. Maternalism d id not cause th is, but its espou sal of d epend ence and protection continued to direct women’s attention away from each other, in sp ite of its glorification of the p otential they sh ared. N OTES Support from a Mellon fellowship and the Women’s Studies Program at Washington University in Saint Lou is, Missouri, as well as the enth u siastic participa tion of the stud ents in my “Women and the State” class encourag ed m e to write this article. I wou ld like to than k John Chasteen, Stacey Robertson, Joan Sup p lee, Liann Tsoukas, Devaughn Williams, and the editors of and anonymous readers for the Journal of Women’s History for their perceptive suggestions that have improved th is manu script. 1
Qu oted in Emilio R. Coni, M emorias de un M édico Higienista: Cont ribución a la historia de la higiene pública y social argentina (1967–1917) (Bu en os A ires: Talleres Grá ficos A. Flaib an , 1918), 312. 2
Seth Koven and Sonya Michel, eds., Mothers of a New World: Maternalist Politics and t he Origins of Welfare St ates (Ne w York : Rou tled ge, 1993); Gisela Bock and Pat Than e, eds., Maternity and Gender Politics: Women and the Rise of European Welfare States, 1880–1950s (London: Routledge, 1991); and Linda Gordon, ed., W omen, t he St ate, and W elfare (Mad ison: Un iversity of Wisconsin Press, 1990). 3
Seth Koven a nd Sony a Michel, “Wom an ly Dut ies: Mater na list Politics and the Origins of Welfare States in France, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States, 1880–1920,” A merican H istorical R eview 95, no. 4 (1990): 1076–108. 4
See Miriam Coh en and Michael Ha nagan , “The Politics of Gend er and the Makin g o f the Welfare State, 1900–1940: A Com p arat ive Per spective,” Journal of Social History 24, no. 3 (1990): 469–84. 5
On Argentine notions of progress during this period, see Karen Mead, “Gendering the Obstacles to Progress in Positivist Argentina, 1880–1920,” His panic A merican H istorical R eview 77, no. 4 (1997): 645–75. 6
Lyn n Y. Weine r, “De fin ing th e Issues ,” Journal of Women’s History 5, no. 2 (1993): 96–131, esp. 96. Weiner ’s ar ticle w as p art of a larg er section entitled , “Maternalism as a Paradigm ,” a d iscussion am ong several historians. 7
Jacqu es Donzelot, The Policing of Families, trans. Robert Hu rley (New York: Pantheon, 1979), 55. 8
Koven an d Michel, “Wom an ly Du ties,” 1093–94.
9
See Jan e Lewis, “Wom en ’s Agen cy, Matern alism , and Welfare,” Gender and History 6, n o. 1 (1994): 117–23. 10
For examp le, Carlos Correa Luna, Historia de la Sociedad de Beneficencia, 2
2000
KAREN M EAD
141
vols. (Bu enos Aires: Sociedad d e Beneficencia d e la Cap ital, 1923). Int erp retation s of the society as backw ard are H éctor Recalde, Beneficencia, asistencialismo estatal y previsión social, 2 vols. (Buenos Aires: Centro Editor América Latina, 1991); and Emilio Tenti Fanfani, Estado y pobreza: Estrategias típicas de intervención, 2 vols. (Buenos Aires: Centro Editor América Latina, 1989). For beneficent societies as part of the modern apparatus of power, see Eduardo O. Ciafardo, “La práctica benéfica y el control d e los sectores pop ulares d e la ciud ad d e Bu enos Aires, 1890– 1910,” Revista de Indias 54, no. 201 (1994): 383–408. 11
Fouq u es Du p arc to Min ister of State, 5 Ju ly 1912, Nou velle serie, vol. 3, fol. 154, Archives d u Ministère d es Affaires Etran gères, Paris, Fran ce. 12
Actas, 16 June 1902, leg. 13, fol. 37, Sociedad de Beneficencia, Archivo General d e la N ación (hereafter SB/ AGN ), Buen os Aires, Argentina. 13
For late-nineteenth-century opinions of Bernardino Rivadavia, see V. F. López, Historia de la República Argentina, 10 vols. (1893; reprint, Buenos Aires: J. Roldan, 1911), vol. 9; Nicolás Avellaneda, Escritos literarios (Buenos Aires: La Cu ltu ra Arg ent ina, 1915), 38–46; and Barto lomé M itre, Ensayos históricos (Buenos Aires: La Cult u ra Arg en tin a, 1918), 200–13. 14
Ministerio de Relaciones Esteriores y Culto, “Decreto organizando la Socieda d d e Beneficencia y n ombr and o socias,” in Documentación histórica de la Sociedad de Beneficencia, 1823–1909 (Buen os Aires: Imp. y casa editora d e Jua n A. Alsina, 1909), 5. See also Correa Luna, Historia de la Sociedad, vo l. 1, ch ap . 1. 15
Argentina, M emoria presentada al H onorable Congreso de la República A rgentina por el Ministro del Interior Dr. Don Antonio del Viso, correspondiente al Año de 1880 (Bu enos Aires: Im p rent a d e La Tribu na N acional, 1881), xvi. 16
The 1869 censu s of Bu eno s Aires record ed nea rly 177,000 inh abitan ts; the 1914 censu s recorded nea rly 1.5 million . 17
Moderate examples includ e M emoria present ada al Honorable Congreso Nacional en el Año 1887 por el Ministro del Interior Dr. D. Eduardo Wilde (Buenos Aires: Im p renta d e La Tribu na N acional, 1886), 48–56; an d Ernestin a A. Lóp ez d e Nelson, “Nuevos ideales filantrópicos: No el arte de curar, sino la ciencia de prevenir,” Boletín Mensual del Museo Social Argentina 3, nos. 25–26 (1914): 64–79. An extreme examp le is the d rawings in th e liberal newspap er El Mosquito, 9 Sep tem ber 1883, 1. 18
See Claud e Lan glois, Le Catholicisme au feminin: Les congrégations françaises à supérieure générale au X IX e siècle (Paris: Ed ition s d u Cerf, 1984), 306–8; an d Stev en C. Hau se, w ith Ann e R. Kenney, Women’s Suffrage and Social Politics in the French Third Republic (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), 259. 19
Bonnie G. Smith, Ladies of the Leisure Class: The Bourgeoises of Northern France in t he N ineteent h Cent ury (Prin ceton , N .J.: Prin ceton U n iver sity Press, 1981). 20
Rachel G. Fuchs, Poor and Pregnant in Paris: Strategies for Survival in the Nineteenth Century (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1992), 100. See also Rachel G. Fuchs, Abandoned Children: Foundlings and Child Welfare in
142
JOURNAL OF W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
Nineteenth-Century France(Albany: State Un iversity of N ew York Press, 1984); an d Donzelot, Policing of Families. 21
Smith, Ladies of the Leisu re Class, 159. For constraints on ind ividu alist p olitics d u ring th e Third Repu blic, see Karen M . Offen, “Depop u lation, Nationalism, an d Feminism in Fin-de-Siècle Fran ce,” A merican H istorical R eview 89 (Ju n e 1984): 648–76, esp. 665–71. See also Jud ith F. Ston e, “The Rep u blican Broth erh ood : Gen d er and Ideology,” in Gender and the Politics of Social Reform in France, 1870–1914, ed . Elinor A. Accamp o, Rachel G. Fu chs, and Mary Lyn n Stewa rt (Baltimo re, Md.: Joh ns H op kins Un iversity Press, 1995), 28–58. 22
Offen, “Depop u lation”; and Alisa Klaus, Every Child a Lion: The Origin s of M aternal and Infant Health Policy in the Un ited St ates and France, 1890–1920 (Ithaca, N .Y.: Corn ell Un iver sity Press, 1993), 91–93. 23
On legislative en thu siasm for h ygienist expertise, see Rachel G. Fuchs, “The Right to Life: Paul Strau ss and the Politics of Motherh ood ,” in Gender and the Politics of S ocial Reform, 82–105. 24
See Jan e Jenson , “Represen tation s of Gen d er: Policies to ‘Protect’ Wom en Worker s and Infants in Fran ce an d the Un ited States before 1914,” in Women, the State, and Welfare, 152–87. See also M ary Lyn n Stew art , W omen, Work, and the French State: Labour Protection and Social Patriarchy, 1879–1919 (Kingsto n, Can ad a: McGillQu een’s Univer sity Press, 1989). 25
Steven C. H au se, w ith Ann e R. Kenney, “The Develop men t of the Cath olic Wom en ’s Su ffrag e Mov em en t in Fra nce, 1896–1922,” Catholic Historical Review 67, no. 1 (1981): 11–30. 26
See Joan Wallach Scott, Only Paradoxes To Offer: French Feminists and the Right s of M an (Cambr idg e, Mass.: H arv ard Un iversity Press, 1996), chap . 4; Ston e, “Repu blican Brotherh ood ,” 28–58; an d O ffen, “Dep op u lation,” 664–76. 27
Offen, “Dep opu lation.”
28
For an account of the first h ospital sisters in Buen os Aires, see Olga M. García d e D’Agosino, “La Mu nicip alidad , el Hosp ital General d e Hom bres y las Herm anas d e la Caridad,” in II Jornadas de la Hist oria de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires (Bu enos Aires: Inst itut o H istórico d e la Ciu d ad d e Bu enos Aires, 1988), 283–99. 29
Ernest Allen Crider, “Mod ernization and H u man Welfare: The Asistencia Pú blica an d Bu en os Aires, 1883–1910” (Ph.D. d iss., Oh io Stat e Un iver sity, 1976). 30
“Qu od ap ostolici mun eris” (1878), and “Rerum nova rum ” (1891), both in The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo X III, p ref. Joh n J. Wynn e (N ew York : Benz iger Brothers, 1903); and Mary E. H obgood , Catholic Social Teaching and Economic Theory: Paradigms in Confl ict (Philad elph ia: Tem p le Univ ersity Press, 1991), cha p . 2. 31
Las Conferencias de Señoras de la Sociedad de San Vicente de Paul en la República A rgent ina. En el 25 aniv ersario de la fun dación del Consejo General, 1889–1914(Buenos Aires: Comp añ ía Sud -Americana d e Billetes d e Ban co, 1914), 35–37. °
32
In 1907, there was one small community of German nuns, one commu-
2000
KAREN M EAD
143
nity to run the Irish orp han age, one larger compan y of Span ish Siervas de María, wh ile there were twelve French ord ers—most nu merous and most imp ortant in nu rsing/ adm inistrative works—and a somewh at lesser nu mber of Italian orders w hich had the largest num ber of schools and centers of religious p ropa gand a. See Pedro Santos Martínez, “Religión e imm igración en 1907: Un informe d el Arzobispad o d e Bu enos Aires,” A rchivu m: Revist a de la Jun ta de Hist oria Eclesiastica A rgentina 16 (1992): 127–44, esp. 140–43. 33
“Reclamación de la Sociedad de Beneficencia,” La Prensa, 14 October
1888, 1. 34
Presid ente d e la Comisión to Presidenta [Isabel Hale d e Pearson], Ap ril 1891, Casa d e Expósit os, leg. 101, fol. 178, SB/ AGN . 35
Hale de Pearson to Minister of the Interior, 20 April 1891, reprinted in Intendencia Municipal, Patronato y Asistencia de la Infancia en la Capital de la República: Trabajos de la Comisión Especial (Bu enos A ires: Establecimien to “ El Censor,” 1892), 345. 36
Sociedad de Beneficencia, Origen y desenvolvimiento de la Sociedad de Beneficencia de la Capital, 1823–1912 (Bu eno s Aires: Establecim iento Tipog ráfico M . Rod rígu ez Giles, 1913), 280. 37
Donzelot, Policing of Families, 25.
38
Rachel G. Fuchs, “France in a Comparative Perspective,” in Gender and the Politics of Social Reform, 157–87, esp . 161. 39
This section of my argument follows that of Kathryn Kish Sklar, “The Historical Fou nd ations of Women ’s Pow er in th e Creation of the Am erican Welfare State , 1830–1930,” in M others of a New W orld, 43–93. See also Lor i D. Ginz berg , Women and the Work of Benevolence: Morality, Class, and Politics in the NineteenthCentury United States (New H aven , Conn .: Yale Un iversity P ress, 1990). 40
See Thed a Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992). 41
See Eileen Boris, “The Power of Motherhood: Black and White Activist Wom en Redefin e th e ‘Political,’” in Mothers of a New World , 213–44, Eileen Bor is, “What a bou t the Working of the Working Moth er?” Journal of Women’s History 5, no . 2 (1993): 104–7; Lind a Go rd on , “Black an d Wh ite Vision s of Welfare: Wom en ’s Welfare Activ ism , 1890–1945,” Journ al of A merican H istory 78, no. 2 (1991): 559–90; and Darlene Clark Hine, “‘We Specialize in the Wholly Impossible’: The Philanthr op ic Work of Black Wom en,” in Lady Bountiful Revisited: Women, Philanthropy, and Power, ed. Kathleen D. McCarthy (N ew Bru nsw ick, N .J.: Rutgers Un iversity Press, 1990), 70–93. 42
Sklar, “H istorical Fou nd ation s of Wom en’s Power,” 62.
43
Klaus, Every Child a Lion, 13; and Robyn Muncy, Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890–1935 (New York: O xford Un iversity Press, 1991), 58–60.
144
JOURNAL OF W OMEN’S H ISTORY
A UTUMN
44
Klaus, Every Child a Lion, 43–87.
45
On t he eu genic sensibilities of the Progressive movem ent, see Alisa Klaus, “Dep opu lation and Race Su icide: Maternalism and Pronatalist Id eologies in Fran ce and the United States” in M others of a New W orld, 188–212. 46
Ibid., 190.
47
A concise statement of this typology is Molly Ladd-Taylor, “Toward Defin ing Ma tern alism in U.S. H istory,” Journal of Women’s History 5, no. 2 (1993): 110–13. 48
Molly Lad d -Taylor, M other-Work: W omen, Child W elfare, and the State, 1890– 1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 5. 49
Ladd-Taylor, Mother-Work, qu otation on 5, 49–63. Klaus also stresses th e importance of “race suicide” and “scientific motherhood” with more emphasis on the work of public health doctors in Klaus, Every Child a Lion, 31–41, 139–57. See also Linda Gordon, Pitied But Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare, 1890–1935 (New York: Free Press, 1994), 46–49, 84–88; and Joanne L. Goodwin, “An American Experiment in Paid Motherhood: The Implementation of Moth ers’ Pension s in Early-Tw entieth -Centu ry Chicago,” Gender and H istory 4, no. 3 (1992): 323–42. 50
See Samuel L. Baily, “The Adjustment of Italian Immigrants in Buenos Aires a n d N ew York , 1870–1914,” A merican H istorical R eview 88 (Ap ril 1983): 281– 305. 51
Buenos Aires, Comisión Directiva del Censo, Censo general de población, edificación, comercio e indu strias de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires(Bu enos Aires: Comp añía Su d -American a d e Billetes d e Ban co, 1889). 52
This optimism was especially prevalent around the 1910 Independence Cent enn ial. See, for exam p le, Robert o J. Payró, “Cr iolla,” in La Nación: 1810, 25 de Mayo 1910 (Bu en os Air es: La N ación , 1910), 171–74. 53
Actas, 16 N ov em ber 1903, leg. 13., fol. 256, SB/ AGN .
54
Emile Daireau x, La vie et les m oeurs a la Plata, 2d ed . (Par is: H achet te, 1889),
199. 55
A repor ter from a jou rnal d evoted to social welfare record ed the even t in “Los p remios la virtud ,” A nales del Patronato de la Infancia 15 (May 1907): 142–48, qu otation on 143. 56
Ibid., 147.
57
Ibid., 148.
58
For an account of the Beneficent Society pressuring commercial establishments to hire young wom en to spare them from sweated labor in their homes, see, for exam p le, “Socieda d d e Beneficencia,” Boletín de la Unión Industrial Argentina 109 (23 Ap ril 1889): 2–3. Than ks to Fernan d o Rocchi for br ingin g th is to m y attention.
2000
KAREN M EAD
145
59
Alicia Moreau , Emancipación civil de la mujer (1918), tra nslat ed in Kath erine S. Dreier, Five Months in the Argentine from a Woman’s Point of View, 1918 to 1919 (Ne w York : Fred eric Fairchild Sh erm an , 1920), 244–47. 60
Asun ción Lavrin, W omen, Femin ism, and S ocial Change in A rgent ina, Chile, and Uruguay, 1890–1940 (Lincoln : Un iver sity of N ebr ask a Press , 1995), 26–32. 61
On cooperation am ong w omen of d iverse social ranks, see Molly Lad d Taylor, “‘My Work Came out of Agony and Grief’: Mothers and the Making of the Shep pa rd Tow ner Act,” in M others of a New World, 321–42. 62
Cecilia Grierson, “Escuelas de Enfermeras,” A rgent ina M édica 5, no. 13 (30 Mar ch 1907): 209. 63
“El trabajo d e las mu jeres y d e los niños. Gestiones d e las Universitarias Argentinas,” La Prensa, 10 Octob er 1909, 8. 64
In 1918, six thousan d pesos of governm ent su bsidies went to th e progressive maternalists, wh ereas nearly seven h un d red thou sand w ent to sentimentalist association s. The bu d get for th e Beneficent Society’s gover nm ent facilities wa s over four million pesos. See Emilio R. Coni, Higiene Social, A sistencia y previsión social: Buenos Aires caritativo y previsor (Buenos Aires: Imprenta Emilio Spinelli, 1918). 65
Ernestina López, “La m u jer argentin a y la obra social,” in La N ación, 151– 61, quot ation on 152. 66
See Lavrin , W omen, Femin ism, and S ocial Change, 106–8.
67
See Asun ción Lavrin, “Women , Labor, and the Left: Argentina and Chile, 1890–1925,” Journal of W omen’s History 1, no. 2 (1989): 88–116; an d Ma ría Silvia Di Liscia and Ana María Rodríguez, “El Socialismo y la Iglesia. Aportes sobre la condición femenina, 1918–1929,” in La Mitad del País: La M ujer en la sociedad argentina, ed. Lid ia Knetcher an d Marta Pan aia (Buen os Aires: Centro Editor d e Latin o A m érica, 1994), 341–53. 68
Sand ra McGee Deutsch, “The Cath olic Chu rch, Work, and Woma nh ood in A rgen tin a, 1890–1930,” Gender and H istory 3, no. 3 (1991): 304–25. 69
Actas, 31 Au gu st 1914, leg. 18., fol. 222, SB/ AGN . See also Karen M ead , “Oligarchs, Doctors, and Nuns”(Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbar a, 1994), cha p . 8, esp . 366–68. 70
Lavrin, Women, Femin ism, and Social Change, 124.
71
See Lisa D. Brush, “Love, Toil, and Trouble: Motherhood and Feminist Politics,” Signs 21, no. 2 (1996): 429–54.
