A loose, overlapping set of ideas and practices (roughly 1890–1920) grounded in three shared assumptions:
Three Core Assumptions
Modern industrial society created new problems that older political and moral systems couldn't manage
Expertise—especially science, professional knowledge, and investigation—was essential
The state had both authority and responsibility to intervene for the public good
×
Progressive Expertise
Progressives believed that trained professionals—engineers, social scientists, doctors, economists, journalists—could study social problems scientifically and design rational solutions.
Examples of Progressive experts:
Muckraking journalists who investigated corruption
Social workers who studied urban poverty
Efficiency experts who redesigned factories
Public health officials who tracked disease
Economists who analyzed monopolies
This represented a major shift: solutions to social problems would come from trained professionals, not just politicians or religious leaders.
Critical Point
🔑 Key Insight
Progressivism was not only rational and technocratic. It was also deeply emotional.
Reform often began with crisis, fear, outrage, and disgust—not calm policy design.
Why Start with a Novel?
How fiction became political fact
The Rational Reform Story
Progressivism is often taught as rational reform:
Commissions investigating problems
Data collection and surveys
Legislation based on evidence
Experts and administrators implementing solutions
But The Jungle reveals another dynamic...
Framing Claim
🔑 Central Argument
Reform was frequently driven by visceral reaction rather than abstract reasoning.
Progressivism grew not only out of analysis, but out of emotional confrontation with the hidden costs of modern life.
Part II
The Progressive Faith in Exposure
Revelation as reform strategy
Progressive Faith in Exposure
Progressives believed:
Social problems were concealed beneath everyday normalcy
Exposure would force recognition
Recognition would compel reform
Tools of Exposure
This belief animated:
Investigative journalism ("muckraking")
Social surveys and reports
Documentary photography
Factory inspections
Public commissions
×
Muckraking Journalism
"Muckrakers" were investigative journalists who exposed corruption, abuse, and injustice. The term came from Theodore Roosevelt, who compared them to a character in Pilgrim's Progress who raked muck (filth) rather than looking up at higher things.
Famous muckrakers included:
Ida Tarbell: Exposed Standard Oil's monopolistic practices
Lincoln Steffens: Investigated urban political corruption in The Shame of the Cities
Jacob Riis: Photographed tenement poverty in How the Other Half Lives
Upton Sinclair: Revealed meatpacking conditions in The Jungle
Key magazines: McClure's, Collier's, Cosmopolitan, American Magazine
These journalists combined sensational writing with careful investigation to shock middle-class readers into supporting reform.
Exposure as Revelation
🔑 Interpretive Emphasis
Exposure was not persuasion—it was revelation.
Progressives assumed moral consensus already existed. The problem was ignorance, not disagreement.
Background: Socialist writer, spent 7 weeks investigating Chicago meatpacking plants
Goal: Expose immigrant exploitation and industrial violence
Published:The Jungle (1906)
"I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."
Sinclair's Actual Goals
Sinclair did not primarily aim to reform food safety.
He sought to expose:
Immigrant exploitation
Industrial violence
The disposability of labor under capitalism
×
The "Disposability" of Labor
Sinclair argued that industrial capitalism treated workers as expendable—when one was used up (injured, sick, or exhausted), there were always more immigrants arriving to replace them.
Examples from The Jungle:
Workers with missing fingers from machinery accidents
People forced to work while sick or injured
No compensation for workplace injuries
Workers fired when they became too weak to keep pace
Constant speed-up pressures and longer hours
The meatpacking companies calculated that it was cheaper to replace workers than to make workplaces safe or pay decent wages. This is what Sinclair meant by "disposability"—workers were treated as raw material, not human beings.
Fiction as Investigation
🔑 Interpretive Emphasis
Sinclair treated fiction as a form of investigation.
Narrative immersion was meant to generate knowledge through experience rather than data.
The Central Irony
"I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach."
— Upton Sinclair, reflecting on The Jungle
He aimed to provoke class consciousness.
He instead provoked consumer panic.
What This Reveals
This disconnect reflects the priorities of Progressive reform culture itself.
Certain kinds of suffering were politically actionable. Others were not.
Part IV
Disgust as a Political Emotion
The analytical center of the lecture
How Disgust Works
Disgust operates differently from sympathy:
Sympathy asks for identification with others
Disgust demands distance, cleansing, and control
×
Sympathy vs. Disgust in Reform
Sympathy is an emotion of identification and connection. When you feel sympathy, you imagine yourself in someone else's position and want to help them. This requires seeing them as fundamentally like you.
Disgust is an emotion of revulsion and self-protection. When you feel disgust, you want to create DISTANCE between yourself and the contaminating thing. You want it cleaned up, controlled, removed.
Why This Matters for Reform:
Sympathy-based reform: Help the poor, protect workers, provide welfare—because they're human beings like us who deserve better
Disgust-based reform: Regulate meat, inspect factories, control disease—because contamination threatens US
Sinclair tried to use sympathy (feel for Jurgis), but readers responded with disgust (protect me from bad meat). Disgust-based reforms passed quickly; sympathy-based reforms did not.
Disgust in The Jungle
In the public response to The Jungle:
Bodily contamination replaced moral argument
Spoiled meat overshadowed injured workers
Danger became universal and intimate ("this could poison YOU")
Key Interpretive Claim
🔑 Central Argument
Progressive reform was often most effective when injustice was reframed as personal physical threat.
This Helps Explain...
Rapid passage of food regulation
Slower progress on labor rights
The rise of consumer protection as a political priority
Part V
From Outrage to Authority
The state responds
The State Responds
Public outrage created legitimacy for:
Federal investigation
Inspection regimes
Permanent regulatory institutions
×
Federal Response to The Jungle
Within months of The Jungle's publication, Congress acted decisively:
Pure Food and Drug Act (1906)
Prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated or misbranded food and drugs
Required accurate labeling of ingredients
Created federal oversight of food and medicine
Meat Inspection Act (1906)
Mandated federal inspection of meat processing plants
Required sanitary conditions in slaughterhouses
Prohibited sale of adulterated meat
Established the Bureau of Chemistry (later the FDA)
Presidential Investigation
President Theodore Roosevelt sent investigators to Chicago packinghouses. Their confidential report confirmed Sinclair's allegations, which helped overcome industry opposition to regulation.
Why the State Acted
🔑 Interpretive Emphasis
The state did not act simply because conditions were immoral.
It acted because public trust in invisible systems collapsed.
A Shift in Governance
This marks a shift in how government worked:
Legitimacy increasingly rested on expert oversight
Complex industrial systems demanded surveillance
The state positioned itself as guardian of everyday life
Key Synthesis Point
🔑 Major Takeaway
The Progressive state expanded through crisis management, not ideological consensus.
Part VI
The Limits of Reform
What The Jungle did not change
Sinclair's Disappointment
Despite reform:
Labor conditions remained harsh
Immigrant vulnerability persisted
Structural inequality endured
Critical Question
🤔 Question to Consider
Why were some forms of suffering politically actionable while others were not?
A Recurring Progressive Pattern
This reveals a broader tendency:
Reform stabilized capitalism more often than it transformed it
Order and safety took precedence over redistribution
Reform addressed symptoms more readily than structures
Concluding Insights
Making sense of Progressive reform
Resist a Celebratory Narrative
Progressivism was:
Innovative
Emotionally powerful
Institutionally transformative
Morally uneven
Final Insight
🔑 Key Takeaway
Progressive reforms protected the public while also redefining who needed protection—and who needed control.