Stereotypes In The Progressive Era

Today, some may argue that we at the dawn of a new emerging Progressive Era. Most historians cite the Progressive Era as the period between 1890-1920. The United States saw massive industrialization, paradigm changing inventions such as electricity, the telephone, and automobile, but also extensive activism in social change and political reform. Walter Lippmann wrote Public Opinion in the twilight of the Progressive Era. In chapters, eight and nine, Lippmann explores the idea of “progress” in terms of stereotypes and addresses the “blind spot” inherent of all stereotypes. He delves deep into the multifaceted relationship of moral codes with how they relate to stereotypes and the facts. First, to illustrate how “progress” became in ingrained
in the American lexicon, Lippmann first explores the term evolution and relativity. While the theory of Relativity was just emerging in the early twentieth century, the theory of Evolution had been around since the mid-nineteenth century. Evolution, while a technical biological hypothesis, the term had engrossed most fields of knowledge, whenever something changed, it evolved. It had become such a general term; it had lost much of its original meaning. Lippmann speculated whether Relativity would follow the same route. However, for the concept to reach such esteem, first it must correspond to something, regardless of how imprecisely. Philologist and historian, Professor J. B. Bury explains the “evolution” of the idea of Progress. The new approach needs to undertake both a peripheral and particular expressions in the overall cognizance with striking material evidence. The period in England from 1820-1850 had this evidence supplied by vast changes brought about by the mechanical revolution. In those years, people saw steam navigation conquer land and water, and the darkness of cities and homes vanquish when illuminated by gas. In America, the industrial revolution brought the concept of Progress to become stereotyped to almost become synonymous with American. The American, whether long time native or new immigrant could stand any insult expect the accusation he is not progressive. While the stereotype of the Progressive American was exemplified in impressive expanding cities with skyscrapers, it failed to address the growing poverty in the slums. They cheered their growing census numbers while ignoring the effects of overcrowding. They bragged on expanding industry but failed to address the depletion of natural resources. Here is the point where the stereotype does not always correspond with all the facts. That is because every stereotype has its blind spot.
That blind spot can be on the outer edges of peripheral vision concealing minor details or move to the center field of vision to black out major specifications. For a blind spot conceals some fact, if it were taken into consideration, would change the entire image the stereotype invokes. When America entered the First World War, they had a stereotypical view of what it would entail for victory. By recruiting unlimited armies, and producing unlimited ships and munitions, victory would be achieved. The blind spot, the unintended consequences of absolute victory, allowed America and allies to push forward towards complete victory without the regards of what the fruits of victory were. On one hand, the blind spot allowed for an unwavering march towards complete, absolute victory, which at the time appeared to be a great thing. However, there comes a time when the blind spot is revealed, and a day of reckoning fragments the stereotype. History shows the flaws in the advantage of the complete victory and the humiliation of an
enemy. Would a different moral code have prevented the humiliation imposed on the utterly defeated countries that gave rise to Fascism? One’s code has its genesis in the standardization and emphasizes from prejudices preformed from stereotypes. The moral code acts as a design of behavior serving the intention practiced by the code. Our facts to support our system are adjusted to fit our code. If the facts were viewed in their natural, neutral state, judgments of right and wrong would be difficult. However, the tendency is to apply he rules when they are convenient to employ. We are all aware of the commandment “Thou shall not kill”. This points out that all codes are open to numerous interpretations. Lippmann asks the question if it is all right to kill a person to stop him from killing children. Therefore, if it is permissible to slay in this case when else is appropriate. There are hosts of scenarios that allow killing, according to interpreters of the law to justify killing. There are endless confusions to infect the mind until most any atrocities can be warranted, as those that affected the minds of prewar Germans in 1914. Whereas the code may apply to one situation, it may not apply to all. That is because it is problematic to weave a code that applies to human psychology, the material world and traditions dictated by a culture. This why a loving father can be a tyrant to employees, the earnest civil servant who at home works toward social reform, but abroad may exploit the very social aspects he was against. Moral codes are often subjective to the particular circumstance. In the final analysis, Lippmann’s views on moral codes, stereotypes, and their blind spots, and reviews of “progress” are as relevant today as in the twilight of the Progressive era.
Many argue we have moved forward with progress on some social matters such as recent Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage rights. Some argue progress would mean readdressing particular constitutional issues such as the second amendment. However, in each case the interpretation, what is progress for some is the opposite of others. The perception of volatile issues is clouded by people’s stereotypes and confounded by the blind spots. One side sees their stereotype of a gun toting theater attendee as a menace to a civilized society; the other side’s stereotypical view sees a potential hero that adverts a tragedy. If the stereotypes’ blind spots were exposed, both sides could see the merits of the other side’s argument and that no simple answers exist. The ambiguity of moral codes may best be portrayed in popular culture by the serial killer character Dexter. Dexter uses his own “moral code” to justify his serial killing of murderers who have beat the system. While this is pure fiction, it reflects how moral codes are developed by one’s interpretations of the pictures in their heads. Whether or not we are in the dawn of a new a Progressive Era, only history will tell. What is certain, the current twenty-first-century university student has unprecedented access to information
through various forms of media. How this will affect their stereotypes and blind spots, and the influence on progress and individual moral codes remains to be seen.