美國 革新主義運動과 主導勢力의 問題(1900-1916) = The Leading Social Forces in the American Progressive Movement, 1900-1916

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The main purpose of this paper is to criticize the traditional historians' interpretations on the nature of the American Progressive Movement by pointing out their limitations on the problem of the leading social forces in the reform movement.
Against the "Populist" historians, tracing the roots of Progressivism to Populism and the radical farmers, the author pointed out the following paradoxes; the paradox that the gγeat majority of Progressive leaders had been opposed to the Populist principles and their exponent, William Jennings Bryan; the fact that the Progressive crusade was supported by so many wealthy men that this fact was difficult to reconcile with the Populists' well known bias against great wealth.
Against the "Progressive" historians, emphasizing the "democratic" elements such as middle class reformers, social workers, and intellectuals, the author pointed out the following facts: the fact that, in their "practice", reform measures and agencies were later captured by the conservatives and thus perverted in their original progressive purposes;
the fact that many reforms have practically worked in a way precisely against the grain of democratic hopes.
Against the historians of the "status revolution" thesis, emphasizing the elements of the urban gentry or upper middle class, the author pointed out the following ironic facts: the fact that the Mowry Chandler mould of the ideal progressives, the youngish, college educated, native born, Protestant, professional or independent businessman was also found in the conservative camp; in other words, the fact that both the progressives and their opponents came from a similar background.
Against the "New Left" historians, emphasizing the importance of large indu¨strial corporations and their conservative intentions, the author pointed out the following facts that did not fit such an interpretation; the fact that none of the major pieces of reform legislation had included the provisions the big businessmen desired most; and the fact that Roosevelt and Wilson need constantly reassure big business that they did not want to destroy them.
In this light, the author concluded that the "search-for-order" thesis presented by Robert Wiebe and Samuel Hays had the most sound validity, accordingly, that the leading social forces in the Progressive Movement came from the bureaucratic minded professionals or specialists; and thus that the movement should be regarded as a "new middle class" movement in which the professional groups were endeavouring to introduce efficiency, rationality, and stability into the newly emerged industrial-urban society.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ.머리말
• Ⅱ.「傳統的 解釋」과 그의 問題點
• 1.人民主義 ·革新主義的 解釋과 그의 問題點
• 2.身分革命說과 그의 問題點
• Ⅲ.「新解釋」과 그의 問題點
• 1.新左派的 解釋과 그의 問題點
• 2.秩序追求說의 根據
• Ⅳ.맺는말