1 Marx, K., “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonanparte” in Marx, K. and Engels, F. Selected Works, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1951), I, p. 225; Thompson, E.P. The Making of the English Working Class (Hammondsworth, 1968), p. 213.Google Scholar

2 See Abbott, E. and Breckinridge, S., Truancy and Non Attendance in the Chicago Schools (New York, [1917] 1970), Chs. 1, 2.Google Scholar

3 Sources: For 1910 and 1920, Burgess, E. and Newcombe, C. (eds.) Census Data of the City of Chicago 1920 (Chicago, 1931); for 1930, see U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Fifteenth Census of the United States: 1930. Population Vol. II (Washington, 1933), p. 1143.Google Scholar

4 Merrill, L.F., “A Report Concerning the Plans of 596 Children on Leaving Eighth Grade,” The Chicago Schools Journal, 5 (1922–23): 156.Google Scholar

5 Ibid. Google Scholar

6 Ibid., p. 155 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

7 See Cubberley, E.P., Public Education in the United States (Boston, 1934), pp. 164–65; Carlton, Frank Tracy, Economic Influences upon Educational Progress in the United States 1820–1850 (New York, 1965), Ch. 5. For a recent influential restatement, see Trow, M., “The Second Transformation of American Secondary Education,” in Bendix, R. and Lipset, S.M., Class, Status and Power (London, 1965), pp. 437–449.Google Scholar

8 Smith, Timothy C., “Immigrant Social Aspirations and American Education, 1880–1930,” American Quarterly, 51 (Fall 1969): 523–543; see also his “Native Blacks and Foreign Whites: Varying Responses to Educational Opportunity in America, 1880–1950,” Perspectives in American History 6 (1972): 309–335.Google Scholar

9 Landes, W. and Solomon, L., “Compulsory School Legislation: An Economic Analysis of Law and Social Change in the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of Economic History 32 (1972): 58–59. See also Fishlow, A., “Levels of Nineteenth-Century Investment in Education,” ibid., 26 (1966): 418–424.Google Scholar

10 Tyack, D., The One Best System (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 242, 234–235.Google Scholar

11 See for example Katz, M., “Who Went to School?” History of Education Quarterly 2 (Fall 1972): 432–454; Bamman, H., “Patterns of School Attendance in Toronto, 1844–1878: Some Spatial Considerations,” ibid: 381–409; Denton, F.T. and George, P.J., “Socio Economic Influences on School Attendance: A Study of a Canadian Country in 1871,” ibid 13 (Summer 1973): 221–232; Katz, M., The People of Hamilton, Canada West (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 29–30, 38–41, 278–290; Fishlow, A., “The American Common School Revival: Fact or Fantasy,” in Rosovsky, H. (ed.), Industrialization in Two Systems: Essays in Honor of Alexander Gershenkron (New York, 1966): 40–67; Vinovskis, M., “Trends in Massachusetts Education 1826–1860,” History of Education Quarterly 12 (Winter 1972): 501–529; Kaestle, C., The Evaluation of an Urban School System (Cambridge, 1973): Ch. 5; Kaestle, C. and Vinovskis, M., “Quantification, Urbanization, and the History of Education: An Analysis of the Determinants of School Attendance in New York State in 1845,” Historical Methods Newsletter 8 (December 1974): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Katz, M., “The Origins of Public Education: A Reassessment,” History of Education Quarterly 16 (Winter 1976): 400. In his The People of Hamilton Katz noted that “men of all ethnic backgrounds sent their sons to school for increasingly long periods of time” but he explains this ultimately as a product of “assimilation.” (pp. 286–287). Katz's primary interest however, is in differences between ethnic groups, which he explains as a consequence of “class” differences (p. 290).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 For valuable analyses of the nature of “family economy,” and of the family economy of late 19th century working class people, see Modell, J., “The Fruits of Their Toil: The Family Economy of American Workingmen in the Late 19th Century,” in mimeo., Department of History, University of Minnesota, December 1974; and Golden, C. “Children in the Family Economy: Philadelphia, 1880.” Social Science History Association Meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 21–23, 1977.Google Scholar

14 Hence the title of this paper. See Thompson, , The Making of the English Working Class, which Thompson writes, “The changing productive relations and working conditions of the Industrial Revolution were imposed, not upon raw material, but upon the free-born Englishman — and the free-born Englishman as Paine had left him or as the Methodsits had moulded him. The factory hand was also the inheritor of Bunyan, of remembered village nights, of notions of equality before the law, of craft traditions. He was the object of massive religious indoctrination and the creator of political traditions. The working class made itself as much as it was made.” (p. 213).Google Scholar For a similar argument, see Gutman, H., “Work, Culture, and Society in Industrializing America, 1815–1919,” American Historical Review, 78 (June 1973): 442, where Gutman differentiates between “society” and “culture.” CrossRefGoogle Scholar Finally, it is to be noted that while a full analysis of class formation would investigate the conditions under which a working class class-consciousness emerges, class consciousness is not a necessary consequence or feature of the process of class formation.Google Scholar

17 Analogous arguments have been made by a growing number of British and American historians in recent years concerned with the explanation of working class culture. In addition to Thompson's and Gutman's works already cited, see Thompson, E.P., “Time, Work, Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism,” Past and Present, 38 (1967): 56–97; Foster, J., Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution (London, 1974), especially Chapter 7; Gray, R.Q., The Labor Aristocracy in Victorian Edinburgh (Oxford, 1976); Jones, G.S., “Working-Class Culture and Working-Class Politics in London, 1870–1900: Notes on the Remaking of a Working Class,” Journal of Social History (Summer, 1974): 460–508; Pollard, S., “Factory Discipline in the Industrial Revolution,” Economic History Review (1968): 254–271: Reid, D., “The Decline of Saint Monday, 1766–1876,” Past and Present 71 (1976): 76–101; Thomas, Keith, “Work and Leisure in Pre-Industrial Societies,” Past and Present, 29 (1962): 50–62; Sewell, W., “Social Change and the Rise of Working-Class Politics in Nineteenth Century Marseilles,” Past and Present, 65 (1974): 75–109. See also Marrus, M., “Social Drinking in Belle Epoque,” Journal of Social History, 7 (1974): 115–141; Tilly, L. and Scott, J., “Women's Work and the Family in Nineteenth Century Europe,” Comparative Studies in Society and History (1975): 36–64; Laurie, B., “Nothing on Compulsion: Life Styles of Philadelphia Artisans, 1820–1850,” Labor History 15 (Summer 1974): 327–336; Walkowitz, D J., “Statistics and the Writing of Working Class Culture: A Statistical Portrait of the Iron Workers in Troy, New York, 1860–1880,” ibid., 416–461; Faler, Paul, “Cultural Aspects of the Industrial Revolution, Lynn, Mass.; Shoemakers and Industrial Morality, 1826–1860,” ibid., 367–394; Faler, P. and Dawley, A., “Working-Class Culture and Politics in the Industrial Revolution: Sources of Loyalism and Rebellion,” Journal of Social History 10 (Summer 1976): 466–481; R, and Lynd, H., Middletown (New York, 1929), Pts. I, II; Kornblum, W., Blue Collar Community (Chicago, 1974); Mills, C. W., White Collar (New York, 1951), Pts. II, III; Sennett, R., Families Against the City (New York, 1974), Pts. II, III; Griffen, C., “Workers Divided: The Effect of Craft and Ethnic Differences in Poughkeepsie, New York, 1850–1880,” in Thernstrom, S. and Sennett, R. (eds.), Nineteenth Century Cities (New Haven, 1969), pp. 49–97; Sennett, R. and Cobb, J., The Hidden Injuries of Class (New York, 1972); Farber, B., Guardians of Virtue: Salem Families in 1800 (New York, 1972); Alt, J.A., “Beyond Class: The Decline of Industrial Labor and Leisure,” Telos, 28 (1975): 55–80; Pleck, E., “Two Worlds in One: Work and Family,” Journal of Social History, 10 (1976): 177–195; Kohn, M., Class and Conformity: A Study in Values (Homewood, II, 1969); Dawley, A, Class and Community (Cambridge, 1976).Google Scholar

18 It is important that the difference between “class” as I use it in this paper and “class” as used by liberal historians and sociologists be made explicit. Class is usually used to signify the existence of a group in a stratification system in which different indices of inequality coalesce, for example, educational attainment, occupation, income. “Class” as I have used it here, refers not to some index of inequality, but to the structure of social relations in a capitalist society, specifically a wage labor system in which class relations are defined in terms of the sale and purchase of labor power. Accordingly, the class position of the working class is characterized by the sale of labor power on the labor market for wages. There is thus a clear difference between the kind of questions asked by historical demographers—questions for the most part located within an inequality problematic concerned with issues of inequality, its correlates and its reproductions through education—and the kind of question I have addressed in this paper: questions concerned not with inequality, but the class structure of social relations in capitalist societies. For a further discussion, see my “Capitalism and Schooling: A History of the Political Economy of Education in Chicago, 1880–1930.” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1978), Chapter I.Google Scholar

19 The nature of the evidence utilized (much of cross-sectional data), and the neglect of any kind of statistical analysis, underline the fact that this paper represents only the beginning of a larger research project on the making of the Chicago working class, focusing particularly on the role of education, in which I will attempt to assess the significance of the major factors involved in the making of the Chicago working process, and to test statistically the relationships among child labor, home ownership, and school attendance. Accordingly, a comprehensive account of school attendance, child labor, and other aspects of the educational behavior of the Chicago working class will require a complex series of multiple regressions to test for the interrelationships among variables such as size and regularity of income, source of income (husband, wife, children, boarders, and lodgers), length of school attendance, years in America, school performance, home ownership, ethnicity, and place of birth. For instance, it could be reasonably hypothesized that school attendance goes up as income goes up, perhaps with a time lag, holding ethnicity constant; a multiple regression analysis would provide what, to coin a phrase, might be called the coefficient of “the marginal propensity to consume, viz., the rate at which consumption expenditures vary as income changes). Again, it would be important to explicate the impact of home ownership and the extent of impact of boarding and lodging on school attendance and child labor: was the former directly related and the latter inversely related to child labor? How strong was the relationship between ethnicity on the one hand and home ownership, child labor, and boarding and lodging on the other hand? What are the connections between different stages of the family life cycle and school attendance, child labor, ethnicity, and home ownership? Are there systematic determinative relations between position in the social division of labor (or work experience) and other aspects of working class culture (as Foster, Gray, Bowles and Gintis, Edwards, Dawley, and others have recently argued), including educational behavior? The question promises to be a particularly important and exciting one to answer.Google Scholar

20 See Department of the Interior, Census Office, Tenth Census, 1880, Population (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1881), Vol. 1, p. 870; Bernett, E.H., “The Chicago Labor Force 1910–1940.” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1949), Appendices E-1 and E-3.Google Scholar

21 See Cressy, P.F., “Population Succession in Chicago 1898–1930,” American Journal of Sociology, 44 (1938): 59–70.Google Scholar

22 U.S. Immigration Commission, Reports (Washington, D.C., 1911), Vols. 26–27, 307–308.Google Scholar

23 Derived from U.S. 13th Census by Burgess, and Newcomb, C., Census Data of the City of Chicago, 1920, p. 56.Google Scholar

24 Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistic, Report (1884), 135–391. Some 2,129 families were studied, of which only 354 were residing in Chicago, a major weakness of the study, for to include Chicago's families on a proportional basis would necessitate including something over 1,300 Chicago families in the sample used. Since the economic condition of the Chicago working class was much more difficult than that of the State as a whole, the IBLS figures perhaps grossly inflate the economic welfare of the Illinois working class.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., pp. 257, 258, 259, 265.Google Scholar

26 Ibid., pp. 269–270.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., p. 302.Google Scholar

28 Ibid. Some actual family budgets provided a more concrete sense of these conditions. Thus, a Chicago German family, husband a baker, earned $450 a year in 1884 when visited by the IBLS. The family expenses were $600 a year. The family consisted of the two parents and three boys, aged 16, 13, and 11. The oldest boy worked, earing $150 a year, so that “if it were not for the assistance rendered by the eldest son, their expenses would exceed their earnings.” Alternatively, Bohemian family was able to save some money each year with the help of the incomes of two boys. Finally, the case of a Scandinavian laborer, earning $405 a year, with a son, aged 11, earning $200, provides an example of a family who, even with the financial help of the boy, could not cover their expenses for the year ($632) with the joint income ($605): “Family members 5 — parents and three children, two boys aged nine and eleven, and one girl seven. Live in a rented house, containing 4 rooms for which $8 per month is paid. House is a frame structure, poorly furnished with no carpets. They overrun their income.” See pp. 359, 371.Google Scholar

29 Testimony of McLogan, P.H., The Relations Between Labor and Capital, I, pp. 576, 570, 575.Google Scholar

30 Talbert, E.L., “Opportunities in School and Industry for Children of the Stockyards District,” in Bloomfield, M. (ed.), Readings in Vocational Guidance (Boston 1915), p. 404.Google Scholar

31 Ibid, pp. 403–405. A further 13 of 110 who left because of reasons relating to school did so because they “preferred to work”: 36 because they “didn't like school,” which might easily be interpreted as disguised forms of economic necessity. Talbert limits economic necessity to the 171 cases of “lack of money.” One of the striking features of studies such as Talber's was an extraordinarily tight and economistic definition of economic necessity that not only excluded direct forms of poverty-related phenomena (for example, parental illness or working at home), but also were without any consideration of the nature of the family economy, which includes not only poverty considerations in an absolute sense, but also economic roles, i.e., relative poverty.Google Scholar

32 Montgomery, L., “The American Girl in the Stockyards District,” in Bloomfield, , Vocational Guidance, pp. 455, 473.Google Scholar

33 Todd, H., “Why Children Work; The Children's Answer,” McClures Magazine, 40 (April 1913): 69.Google Scholar

34 Kennedy, J.C. and others, Wages and Family Budgets in the Chicago Stockyards District (Chicago, 1914), pp. 12–13, 39–40, 65–66, 80.Google Scholar

35 Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics, 17th Annual Report (1914), p. 8.Google Scholar

36 McCluer, F.L., “Living Conditions Among Wage Earning Families in 41 Blocks in Chicago (1923).” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1928), pp. 255–57.Google Scholar

37 Letter from Bodine, William to Orlander, Victor. Victor Orlander Papers, Box 8, Chicago Historical Society.Google Scholar

38 Talbert, , “Opportunities,” p. 406; 409; see also Montgomery, , “The American Girl,” pp. 455–457.Google Scholar

39 Todd, , “Why Children Work,” p. 74.Google Scholar

40 U.S. Commissioner of Labor, Seventh Special Report, The Slums (Washington, D.C. 1894), p. 76.Google Scholar

41 Ibid.Google Scholar

42 Source: Abbott, E. and Breckinridge, S., Truancy and Non Attendance in the Chicago Schools (New York, [1917] 1970), Chapter 19.Google Scholar

43 Montgomery, , “The American Girl,” pp. 455–456.Google Scholar

44 Talbert, , “Opportunities,” p. 431.Google Scholar

45 Kennedy, , Wages, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

46 Ibid., p. 14.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., p. 64.Google Scholar

48 See Wilson, , Mary McDowell, p. 30, and below.Google Scholar

49 Montgomery, , “The American Girl,” p. 456.Google Scholar

50 Talbert, , “Opportunities,” p. 431.Google Scholar

51 Breckinridge, and Abbott, , Delinquency, p. 81.Google Scholar

52 Source: U.S. Immigration Commission. Reports, Immigrants in Cities, Vol. 26–27, p. 318.Google Scholar

53 Source: Ibid., p. 319.Google Scholar

54 Source: Ibid., p. 320.Google Scholar

55 Ibid., p. 321. The difference was particularly obvious with respect to boarders and lodgers: 37.3% for families with foreign-born fathers as against 10.6% for native-born and 8.3% for native born of foreign father. Moreover, the percentage of Lithuanians, Slovaks, and Magyars dependent on this source of income was very high (79.5 percent, 76.9 percent, and 65.0 percent, respectively). Again, both the German and the Irish had the highest proportion of children at work, followed closely by the Bohemian and Moravians, and the Swedish, although with a few notable exceptions, the level of child labor was generally high.Google Scholar

56 Among the Bohemians, and Moravians, , only 53.6 percent of family income was derived from the earnings of the husband, but 33.8 percent from the earnings of children; yet among south Italians, 67.9 percent of the family income was derived from the husband and 19.7 percent from children. Yet despite this difference in percentages of children's income, both of these groups derived very low proportions of their family income from boarders or lodgers (5.8 percent and 4.2 percent respectively). On the other hand, north Italians (27.7 percent), Magyars (34.0 percent), and Slovaks, (28.9 percent) derived a considerable fraction of their income from boarders and lodgers, but only a relatively small proportion from child labor (13.8 percent, 11.9 percent, 1.2 percent, respectively). It is also noteworthy that Germans and Irish of foreign birth, the two groups which had an annual income of over $1,000, were among the two groups which had the smallest proportion of income from the earnings of the husband and the highest proportion of income from the earnings of children (see Table 6). The Commission also found that of the 2,237 households, 64 percent consisted of a single family without boarders or lodgers; particularly obvious in this regard were the native-born of native father, the native-born German, and Irish, the foreign-born Bohemian and Moravian, German, Irish, south Italian, and Russian Jew. On the other hand, 73.5 percent of the Lithuanians and 74.7 of the Slovaks took in boarders and lodgers. (see Reports, Vols. 26–27, pp. 290–291).Google Scholar

57 The data in Table 7 indicate that the inverse relationship existed between child labor and boarders/lodgers in a relatively strong ratio (double or more) in at least 9 out of 15 ethnic groups, viz., German and Irish native-born of foreign parents, Bohemian, and Moravian, , German Irish, north Italian, Lithuanian, Magyar, and Slovak. This would seem to imply that for many groups, child labor and boarding/lodging were alternative sources of income, rather than supplementary. In only 0.9 percent of families did families draw upon both sources of income simultaneously, whereas in 10.8 percent of the cases, the husband and children were the joint source of family income, and in 26.7 percent of the cases, the husband plus boarders and lodgers were the source of family income.Google Scholar

58 Kennedy, , Wages, p. 64. It was even the case that where both Polish and Lithuanian families took in boarders and lodgers, Lithuanians still received more from them than the Poles (p. 65).Google Scholar

59 Source: Immigration Commission, Reports, Vol. 26–27: p. 292.Google Scholar

60 Source Ibid., p. 302.Google Scholar

61 Source: Compiled from U.S. Bureau of the Census, 15th Census of the United States: 1930. Special Report on Foreign-Born White Families by Country of Birth of Head (Washington, D.C., 1933), p. 129.Google Scholar

62 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 15th Census of the United States: 1930. Population, Vol VI, Families (Washington, D.C., 1933), p. 354.Google Scholar

63 Palickar, S.J., “The Slovaks of Chicago: With General Information on the Race and the Distribution of the Same,” Illinois Catholic Historical Review, 4 (1921): 187.Google Scholar

64 Ibid., p. 194.Google Scholar

65 Ibid., p. 188.Google Scholar

66 See Bodnar, J., “Immigration and Modernization: The Case of Slavic Peasants in Industrial America,” Journal of Social History, 10 (Fall 1976): 58. See also Fox, P., The Poles in America (New York, 1922), p. 78; Zogoda (19 July 1893); Bodnar, , “Immigration”: 50.Google Scholar

67 Grzemski, J.P., “Thrift Among the Poles,” in Poles of Chicago, 1837–1937 (Chicago, 1937), p. 184. Another estimate put the number of Polish controlled building and loan associations in 1928 at 115. See Magierski, L., “Polish American Activities in Chicago, 1919–1939.” (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Illinois, 1946), p. 23.Google Scholar

68 Auditor of Public Accounts of Building, Loan and Homestead Associations of the State of Illinois, Thirteenth Annual Report (1940), p. viii, ix.Google Scholar

69 Breckinridge, and Abbott, , Delinquency, p. 304.Google Scholar

70 Bodnar, J., “Materialism and Morality: Slavic-American Immigrants and Education, 1890–1940,” The Journal of Ethnic Studies, 3 (Winter 1976): 11. See also Cohen, R.D. and Bodnar, J. “Ethnicity and Schooling in the U.S.: The Twentieth Century.” Unpublished paper.Google Scholar

71 Source: Calculated from Immigration Commission, Reports, Vol. 30, Table 2, pp. 564–5.Google Scholar

72 Thomas, and Znaniecki, , 2, pp. 1364–1365; Bodnar, , “Immigration,” p. 53, pp. 56–57; see also his “Materialism,” pp. 5–6, 14.Google Scholar

73 This has been a theme of several recent studies of Chicago Poles. See Kantrowicz, E.R. “Polish Chicago: Survival Through Solidarity,” in Holli, M.G. and Jones, P. d'A., The Ethnic Frontier: Group Survival in Chicago and the Midwest (Grand Rapids, 1977), pp. 180–209; Greene, V., For God and Country: The Rise of Polish and Lithuanian Ethnic Consciousness in America (Madison, 1975); and Schneider, D. and Smith, R., Class Differences and Sex Roles in America Kinship and Family Structure (Englewood Cliffs, 1973), p. 35.Google Scholar

74 Dziennik Chicagoski (6 June 1896). All references to ethnic newspapers are to the Chicago Foreign Language Press Survey Collection at the Chicago Historical Society.Google Scholar

75 Barton, Jos. J., Peasants, Strangers: Italians, Rumanians and Slovaks in an American City (Cambridge, Mass., 1975), p. 71; Kantrowicz, , “Polish Chicago,” pp. 187–205. Italians, on the other hand, were for the most part indifferent or hostile to the church. This was less so for Italian women, however. See Vecoli, R.J., “Prelates and Peasants. Italian Immigrants and the Catholic Church,” Journal of Social History, 2 (1969): 217–268.Google Scholar

76 Palickar, , “The Slaves of Chicago,” p. 188.Google Scholar

77 Poles of Chicago, pp. 95–114.Google Scholar

78 See Parot, J., “The American Faith and the Persistence of Chicago Poloma.” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1971), pp. 107–112. See also Magiarski, , “Polish American Activities,” Chs. 3, 4, 5; Poles of Chicago, Parts Six, Eight, Ten, Eleven.Google Scholar

79 Thomas, and Znaniecki, , 2, p. 1528.Google Scholar

80 Ibid., pp. 1530–1531.Google Scholar

81 Magierski, , “Polish American Activities,” p. 42; Thomas, and Znaniecki, , 2, p. 1532.Google Scholar

82 Poles of Chicago, pp. 5, 128–134; Kantowicz, , p. 187.Google Scholar

83 Bodnar, , “Immigration,” p. 58.Google Scholar

84 See Thomas, and Znaniecki, , 2, p. 1336.Google Scholar

85 See Bodnar, , “Materialism,” pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

86 See Skibinska, A.M., “Polish Language Supplementary Schools,” in Poles of Chicago, p. 135.Google Scholar

87 Feldstein, and Costello, , p. 136.Google Scholar

88 Magierski, , “Polish American Activities,” p. 39.Google Scholar

89 Dziennik Zwiazkowy (5 September 1914).Google Scholar

90 Dziennik Chicagoski (24 August 1906).Google Scholar

91 See Dziennik Zwiazkowy (4 and 26 November, 2 December 1910); (28 July, 20) and (22 September, 6 October, 1, 2, and 4 November 1911).Google Scholar

92 Ibid., (17 January 1918).Google Scholar

93 Ibid. (5 September 1914).Google Scholar

94 Ibid.Google Scholar

95 Dziennik Chicagoski (27 May 1904).Google Scholar

96 See Bodnar, , “Materialism,” p. 2.Google Scholar

97 Thomas, and Znaniecki, , 2, p. 1532.Google Scholar

98 Ibid.Google Scholar

99 Ibid., p. 1533.Google Scholar

100 Denni Hlastel (9 September 1919).Google Scholar

101 For details of Czech strategies to ensure the viability of their ethnic culture, see my “Capitalism and Schooling,” pp. 402–404.Google Scholar

102 Dziennik Zwiakowy (25 May 1909).Google Scholar

103 Ibid. (16 June 1909).Google Scholar

104 Narod Polski (23 June 1909).Google Scholar

105 Diennik Zwiakowy (8 September 1910).Google Scholar

106 Ibid. (30 August 1911).Google Scholar

107 Ibid. Google Scholar

108 Ibid., (29 June 1917).Google Scholar

109 Polonia (23 August 1919).Google Scholar

110 Przebudzenie (6 November 1927).Google Scholar

111 Denni Hlastel (11 September 1915).Google Scholar

112 Ibid. Google Scholar

113 Svornost, (30 June 1880; also 8 January 1890).Google Scholar

114 Merrill, , “A Report”: 156.Google Scholar

115 Unfortunately, Jews, Chicago have not produced the narrative histories and autobiographies that New York Jews, for instance, have. See Howe's, Irving brilliant World of Our Fathers (New York, 1976); Kazin, Alfred, A Walker in the City (New York, 1951); Rischin, Moses, The Promised City: New York Jews, 1879–1914 (Cambridge, 1962); Higham, John, Send These To Me (New York, 1975). The major works I could find on Chicago's Jews were Phillip Bregstone's Chicago and Its Jews (Chicago, 1923); Wirth, Louis, The Ghetto (Chicago, 1928); Mazur, E. “Jewish Chicago: From Diversity to Community,” in Holli and Jones, pp. 264–291; Meites, H.L. History of the Jews of Chicago (Chicago, 1924); Rosenthal, E., “Acculturation Without Assimilation? The Jewish Community of Chicago, Illinois,” American Journal of Sociology, 66 (Nov. 1960): 275–288.Google Scholar

116 Jewish Daily Courier (18 March 1914).Google Scholar

117 Wirth, , The Ghetto, p. 54. See also p. 61.Google Scholar

118 Ibid., p. 91.Google Scholar

119 As early as 1891, the Jewish press in Chicago was postively evaluating the compulsory education law in Illinois. “The highest objective of the law is: send your children to school, take them off the streets, and if possible, take them out of the stores, shops, and factories.” The Reform Advocate (20 February, 1891).Google Scholar

120 Jewish Daily Courier (4 September 1916).Google Scholar

121 Quoted in Olneck, and Lazerson, , “The School Achievement of Immigrant Children 1900–1930,” History of Education Quarterly, 14 (Winter 1974): 473.Google Scholar

122 Jewish Daily Courier (18 March 1914).Google Scholar

123 Ibid., (4 September 1916).Google Scholar

124 For example, see the Jewish Forward (22 May and 15 June, 1924, 8 June 1928); the Jewish Daily Courier (20 May 1912 and 31 July 1927); The Reform Advocate (1 July 1911); and the Chicago Chronicle (15 June 1928).Google Scholar

125 Daily Jewish Courier (25 Masy 1923).Google Scholar

126 See The Reform Advocate (22 May 1891 and 27 August 1927); Daily Jewish Courier (2 May and 7 June 1912); (1 June 1917); (12 May 1922); (25 April 1923); (31 July, 2 September, 22 September 1927); (9 February 1928); the Chicago Jewish Cronicle (9 December 1933).Google Scholar

127 Jewish Forward (25 June 1924).Google Scholar

128 Ibid.Google Scholar

129 Ibid.Google Scholar

130 Ibid.Google Scholar

131 Wirth, L., “Culture Conflicts in the Immigrant Family.” (unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1925), p. 93.Google Scholar

132 Quoted in Wirth, , The Ghetto, p. 177.Google Scholar

133 Ibid., pp. 208–228; Bregstone, , Chicago and its Jews, pp. 33ff.Google Scholar

134 Daily Jewish Courier (23 May 1923).Google Scholar

135 For a discussion of similar tensions in Chicago's Italian community, see my “Capitalism and Schooling,” pp. 407–415.Google Scholar

136 See footnotes #11 and #12; and Olneck, M. and Lazerson, M. “The School Achievement of Immigrant Children: 1900–1930”: 453–482.Google Scholar

137 Thompson, P., “The Peculiarities of the English,” Socialist Register, 1965: p. 357. (Emphasis in the original).Google Scholar

138 Even then most historians who either explicitly use or implicitly assume a theory of ideological hegemony for the most part conceptualize it as a form of imposition of ideas from the top down upon the working class rather than as a particular form of structured practice, and a process that is riddled with conflict between conflicting classes. See Williams, R., Marxism and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977); Gray, R.Q. The Labor Aristocracy in Victorian Edinburgh (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976); and my “Capitalism and Schooling,” Ch. 1.Google Scholar

139 For a useful summary, see Gutman, and Smith, and Schneider, ; but see also Rubin, L.B. Worlds of Pain (New York, 1976); M. Komarovsky Blue Collar Marriage (New York, 1967); Gans, H. The Urban Villagers (New York, 1972); Sennett, R. and Cobb, J. the Hidden Injries of Class Kornblum, W. Blue Collar Community .Google Scholar

140 Thompson, , The Making of the English Working Class, p. 11.Google Scholar

141 Inplicit in the ethnocultural (e.g. Jensen, Kleppner, Allswang) conceptualization of class and ethnicity is the economistic assumption derived from stratification theory that “class” can be reduced to some statistical value representing an index of income, occupation, education or residence, and that “ethnicity” is a nominalistic category denoting place of birth. See Jensen, R. The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict 1888–1896 (Chicago, 1971); Kleppner, P. The Cross of Culture: A Social Analysis of Midwestern Politics 1850–1900 (New York, 1970); Allswang, J. A House for All Peoples: Ethnic Politics in Chicago, 1890–1936 (Lexington, 1971).Google Scholar