skocpol los orígenes institucionales del voluntariado.pdf

7/29/2019 SKOCPOL Los orgenes institucionales del voluntariado.pdf

1/21

A Nation of Organizers: The Institutional Origins of Civic Voluntarism in the United States

Author(s): Theda Skocpol, Marshall Ganz and Ziad MunsonReviewed work(s):Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp. 527-546Published by: American Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2585829 .

Accessed: 10/09/2012 19:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

The American Political Science Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2585829?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2585829?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa


2/21


3/21

The Institutional Origins of Civic Voluntarism in the United States September 2000span disciplines. Historians portray U.S. voluntarygroups as local, informal, and profusely varied-untilindustrial modernization brought standardization andbureaucracy. Versions vary (cf. Wiebe 1967 and Ryan1997), but the main story line features the eclipse ofonce vital particular communities by nationalizingforces (for a critique of such historiography, seeBender 1978). Offering another variant of the standardwisdom, political scientists Gerald Gamm and RobertPutnam (1999, 513) use U.S. city directories from 1840to 1940 to tally groups they assume were "obscure,scattered, and often small." Their analysis reveals thatsmaller cities and places outside the East had greaternumbers of voluntary groups per capita. Reasoningfrom the theory of social capital outlined in Putnam'sMaking Democracy Work (1993), Gamm and Putnam(1999, 533, 549, 551) argue that the U.S. "civiccore wasin the periphery" because associations were "createdand sustained most easily" in "slow-growing"commu-nities that were "relatively small and homogeneous."Indeed, theorists of social capital have become thelatest exponents of the small-is-beautiful school of civicvirtue. In this perspective "horizontally"but not "ver-tically" organized groups foster and sustain face-to-face networks essential for healthy democracy. "Takingpart in a choral society or a bird-watching club canteach self-discipline and an appreciation for the joys ofsuccessful collaboration," reasons Putnam (1993, 90);and small groups foster societal trust andgovernmentalefficiency. To test such ideas, Putnam measured thedensity of purely local sports, recreational, and culturalgroups in various regions of Italy. "Local branches ofnational organizations"were deliberately excluded be-cause "organizations 'implanted' from the outside havea high failure rate," whereas "the most successful"groups are "indigenous ... initiatives in relatively co-hesive local communities" (Putnam 1993, 91-2, includ-ing n. 35). Invoking widely held ideas about U.S. civichistory, Putnam (1993, 91-2) concludes that regions ofItaly thick with local recreational and cultural groups"rivalTocqueville's America of congenital joiners."AN ALTERNATIVEACCOUNT OFAMERICAN ASSOCIATIONALDEVELOPMENTSmall-as-beautiful understandings of America's civicpast prevail today, but a quite different account ap-pears in historian Arthur Schlesinger's (1944) classicarticle, "Biography of a Nation of Joiners." Focusingon "voluntarybodies of sizable membership, reason-ably long duration, and fairly large territorial extent,"Schlesinger (pp. 2, 25) portrays the development of a"vast and intricate mosaic" of large-scale associations"reaching out with interlocking memberships to allparts of the country."In colonial America, Schlesinger (1944, 5) argues,voluntary groups were few and usually tied to localchurch congregations. But the struggle for indepen-dence from Britain taught "men from different sectionsvaluable lessons in practical cooperation," and "theadoption of the Constitution stimulated still further

528

applications of the collective principle." A new asso-ciational model crystallized in the early 1800s, a time offlux and experimentation in the democratizing repub-lic. Ambitious organizers developed a standard ap-proach: They chose an "imposing" name, "sentforth ... agents on the wide public," and "multiplied""subsidiarysocieties ... over the length and breadth ofthe land." Associations began to organize along thelines of "the Federal political system, with local unitsloosely linked together in state branches and these inturn sending representatives to a national body"(Schlesinger 1944, 11). Subsequently, the Civil Warbrought a "heightened sense of nationality," redoubled"Northern endeavors to plan far-flung undertakings,"and so gave "magnified force" to association-buildingin the late 1800s (Schlesinger 1944, 16).Although not explicitly theoretical, Schlesinger'soverview highlights the role of national organizers wholearned from political experience, and it suggests thattranslocal federations fostered local chapters. What ismore, Schlesinger's evidence resonates with the ideasof scholars (e.g., Berman 1997; Evans 1997; Levi 1996;Tarrow 1996a) who criticize social capital theory fordownplaying the influence of government in civil soci-ety. As Sidney Tarrow (1996a, 395) puts it, "thecharacter of the state is external" to the social capitalmodel, because "civiccapacity" is seen "as a native soilin which state structures grow rather than one shapedby patterns of state building." Reinforcing doubtsabout such thinking, Schlesinger suggests that Ameri-can voluntary groups developed in close relationship tothe representative and federal institutions of the U.S.state.UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND NEWEVIDENCEWere nationally organized associations prevalent orscarce in America's past, and did translocal linkagesencourage or undercut local voluntary groups? What, ifanything,did governmental institutions and episodes ofnation-state formation have to do with the develop-ment of U.S. membership associations? The contrast-ing perspectives we have reviewed need to be adjudi-cated with systematic data and methods of analysis.Ideally, we would like to draw a "sample" from amaster directory listing membership groups of all typesand sizes, past and present. But no such census exists;and post-1955 directories miss many groups that livedand died in the past. Because no straightforwardrandom sample can be drawn, we triangulate, usingseveral sources of data.To explore Schlesinger's hypotheses more systemat-ically than he was able to do, we consider not justscattered examples but the entire universe of very largeU.S. membership associations, using data from anongoing study (Skocpol et al. 1999) of the origins anddevelopment of all U.S. voluntary groups, apart fromchurches and political parties, that ever enrolled 1% ormore of adults as members. In the larger study, direc-tories and historical works were used to compile thenames of groups whose membership might have ex-


4/21

American Political Science Review Vol. 94, No. 3ceeded 1% of U.S. adults (the baseline includes bothgenders for mixed associations, but 1% of men orwomen for single-gender groups). Data have beenuncovered to determine that 58 associations exceededthis threshold. Here we examine 46 groups that re-cruited 1% of American men and/or women,.at anytime prior to the 1940s, when Schlesinger's overviewended.'A study of only very large associations would obvi-ously bias our findings, so we use two additional kindsof evidence. Historical directories and compilations(Breckinridge 1933, Part I; Palmer 1944; Preuss 1924;Schmidt 1980; Stevens 1899) enable us to situate verylarge groups in relation to other translocal organiza-tions. In addition-and this is the crucial evidentiaryaspect of our study-we use city directories to obtainlistings of locally present voluntary groups of all kinds(see Appendix B). For the same geographically dis-persed set of cities examined by Gamm and Putnam(1999), we ask what proportion of all groups listed incity directories were part of translocal federations. Wealso probe the relative stability of 'strictly ocal versustranslocally connected groups. By combining differentbodies of data and looking for overlaps between uni-verses of national and local groups, we are able to gowell beyond what previous scholars have done. We candocument and theorize anew about the relationship oflocal to translocal association-building in the historicalformation of American civil society.LARGE MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATIONS:PREVALENCE, FORMS, AND ORIGINSMost observers assume that large voluntary associa-tions (apart from political parties and religious denom-inations) were absent in preindustrial America. Butconventional wisdom is mistaken, as Table 1 reveals.Moral crusades and political movements; labor unionsand farmers' associations; veterans' and women'sgroups; recreational and civic associations; and frater-nal groups of many sorts-undertakings of each typeattracted hundreds of thousands or millions of mem-bers. To be sure, some large membership organizationspassed out of existence after brief campaigns to attaina policy goal, and others flared up and died downwithin just a few years. Nevertheless, most of the 46groups listed in Table 1 fit Schlesinger's conception oflarge and persistent membership associations. Morethan two-fifths crossed the 1% membership thresholdbefore 1900, and more than three-quarters exceededthis mark before 1920. Large voluntary associationshave flourished in all eras of U.S. history.Table 1, which draws on group records, officialhistories, and scholarly studies (see Appendix A),indicates when and where thie first organized unit of1 Twelve other U.S. membership associations crossed the 1%thresh-old after 1940. Of these, five were founded and attained very largesize between the late 1950s and the 1990s;seven others were foundedbefore 1940 but grew very large only afterward. Reinforcing theconclusions eportedbelow, six of seven foundedbefore 1940 (andall five foundedbefore 1920) were representative ederationswithintermediate iers at the state or regional evel.

each named association appeared and classifies theaims of the group's founders. In some cases, such as theIndependent Order of Odd Fellows (Stillson 1897,211-4) and the Young Men's Christian Association(Hopkins 1951, 15-9), the founders originally thoughtthey were establishing what we call a local "portal" fora European-based group to pass into the UnitedStates.2 In other cases, founders envisaged a localgroup centered in a particular city or state and onlylater decided to pursue national ambitions. Otherfounders planned from the beginning to build a trulynational association, even if it took some time torealize their plans. Still other founders negotiatedcombinations of previously formed local or regionalgroups. The General Federation of Women's Clubs(GFWC), for example, was pulled together in 1890when the leaders of the Sorosis Club of New York Cityconvened a meeting of about five dozen clubs fromacross the United States (Wells 1953, chap. 2).

Many scholars assume that combination of preexist-ing groups must have been the principal way nationalassociations emerged, usually after the U.S. economybecame more centralized at the very end of the nine-teenth century. But Table 2 shows that the fusion ofsubnational groups was hardly the typical route bywhich ultimately large membership associations cameinto being. Combinations from below account for only13% of all foundings of very large groups; and onlyanother one-fifth were originally focused on a particu-lar city or state. Remarkably, in more than three-fifthsof cases, associational founders undertook nationalprojects from the start;these launchings occurred fromthe early 1800s through the early 1900s.Nation-State Formation and VoluntaryMembership FederationsMajor junctures of U.S. state formation clearly punc-tuated the development of translocal civil associations.No national groups emerged in colonial times. Apartfrom transnational religious denominations, the earli-est translocal association was the Masons; lodgessprang up in cities, towns, and military garrisons, and"sovereign grand lodges" formed alongside the govern-ment of each colony. But the deeply rooted Masonicgrand lodges (which corresponded to the states afterthe American Revolution) were never able to agree ona nationally unified governing structure (Stillson 1926,226-7). Certain higher orders affiliated with Masonryeventually adopted unified structures, but basic "bluelodge" Masonry never took this institutional step.The American Revolution and debates over theConstitution, along with contentious and evangelicalreligious movements in the new nation, spurred earlyAmericans to organize all kinds of voluntary groups,2 Twoother associationsncluded n tables1 and 2 alsomoved ntothe United States fromabroad:The Red Crosswas foundedas theU.S.nationalpartof an internationalmovement, nd the Maccabeesstarted n Ontario,Canada, ndveryquickly rossed heborderwithnationalambitions n the United States.We classifyboth as nationalfoundings,reserving he term "portal" or associationsoriginallyfoundedas local U.S. outpostsof foreign-centered ssociations.

529


5/21


6/21


7/21

The Institutional Origins of Civic Voluntarism in the United States September 2000Similar representative federal institutions were soonadopted by many other brotherhoods, including Amer-ica's first indigenously spawned fraternal organization,the Improved Order of Red Men, which evolved froma Baltimore-centered "tribe" into a three-tiered order(Lichtman 1901, chaps. 5-6). More telling, three-tieredarrangements were adopted by minority-ethnic orders,such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians, launched in1836 (Ridge 1986); the German Order of Harugari,launched in 1847 (Stevens 1899, 234-5); and theBohemian Slavonic Benevolent Society, started in 1854and explicitly modeled after the Odd Fellows (Mar-tinek 1985, 22). As new ethnic groups arrived in theUnited States, they formed associational edificestopped with national and state bodies even when therewere barely enough members to form chapters scat-tered across a few large cities.Organizational routines that included local member-

ship meetings, standardized rituals, and the dispatch ofelected officers and representatives to regularstate andnational governing conventions soon proved attractiveto more than just fraternal groups. Early mass temper-ance associations, for example, went through a periodof organizational experiments, some of which faltered(Dannenbaum 1984; Krout 1925). The American Tem-perance Society proved too top-down to sustain itspopular appeal, and it evolved into a national centerfor publishing and lobbying (much like late-twentieth-century American professional advocacy groups). TheWashingtonian movement experimented during the1840s with radical, bottom-up democracy (much like1960s-style New Leftists), only to find that looselynetworked, entirely flexible local groups with few rulesand no state or national governing structures could notsustain themselves beyond the initial popular fervor(Grosh 1842; Maxwell 1950). Thereafter, many Amer-icans interested in "the temperance cause" flowed intothe Sons of Temperance, founded in 1842, and theIndependent Order of Good Templars (IOGT),founded in 1851, both of which achieved enduring newsyntheses of moral fervor and representative federalorganization. The Sons combined temperance advo-cacy with lodge rituals and the provision of socialbenefits (Hodges 1877); and the Good Templarsadapted fraternal forms to America's first civic exper-iments with gender and racial inclusion, allowingwomen and African Americans to become membersand serve as elected leaders (Fahey 1996).If Schlesinger was right about early-nineteenth-cen-turyAmericans converging on a model for large mem-bership associations that paralleled governmental fed-eralism, he was likewise correct that the Civil Warbrought a "heightened sense of nationality" to associ-ation-building. As Table 2 shows, associations thatwould manage to grow very large emerged at anaccelerated rate starting in 1864, and most postwarfoundings were nationally ambitious from the start.Half the eventually large groups founded between 1819and 1859were initiallynationalprojects,but in the late1800s more than two-thirdsof such launchingswere

532

national projects.3 In the same era, hundreds of othernationally or regionally ambitious associations werealso launched (Palmer 1944; Stevens 1899).Following the Civil War, the national-state-localmodel diffused across various kinds of voluntary en-deavors in addition to fraternal brotherhoods andsisterhoods. It was adopted by veterans' associations(from the Grand Army of the Republic to the Ameri-can Legion); by independent women's groups (fromthe Woman's Christian Temperance Union, to theGeneral Federation of Women's Clubs, to the NationalCongress of Mothers, which eventually became themodern PTA); by farmers' organizations (from theGrange, to the Farmers' Alliances, and ultimately theAmerican Farm Bureau Federation); and by assortedmoral and political crusades (including the YMCA,which added a state tier to its organizational structurein 1866, as well as Christian Endeavor, the AmericanProtective Association, and the National AmericanWoman Suffrage Association).In one especially telling case, the Knights of Colum-bus, federalism hardly came easily. Founded in NewHaven as a local Irish Catholic men's group, theKnights of Columbus was initially embedded in churchparishes and dioceses and was closely supervised byCatholic clerics (Kaufman 1982, chaps. 1-4). As cog-nate groups emerged across Connecticut, they re-mained so embedded. But a deliberate switch to alocal-state-national federated structurewith elected layleaders came in the late 1880s and 1890s, when leadersdecided to take the Knights of Columbus national incompetition with the Masonic Knights Templar andother Protestant-dominated fraternal associations.Pressures to compete and legitimize the undertakingdrew the Knights of Columbus toward the governancemodel widely used by nationally ambitious associationsof that time, even when "going federal" meant break-ing from the original diocesan mold. The group alsoimitated the standard U.S. associational practice ofelecting lay officers, instead of having priests or bishopshead its local, state, and national councils.Overall, nearly three-quarters of the U.S. member-ship associations that grew very large before 1940 (34of 46 groups) developed federated organizational ar-rangements that resembled the representative, three-tiered institutions of U.S. government. As Table 1indicates, 28 of these 34 adopted the federal-state-localform when they first established a national organiza-tion. Six others shifted from a national-local arrange-ment to the multitiered structure that included stateunits. Interestingly, several of the associations thatmoved away from center-local arrangements did soafter members outside the founding center pressed forthe addition of state units with significant authority.For example, the General Federation of Women's3Many "national" federations incorporated modest numbers ofmembers from English-speaking Canada, and sometimes peoplefrom Australasia and Europe as well. Although some of these wereAmericans living abroad, we do not count foreign-based members indeciding whether associations exceeded 1% of the U.S. adult popu-lation. Like Canadianbaseball teams today, foreign chaptersandmemberswere incorporatednto U.S.-centered nstitutions.


8/21

American Political Science Review Vol. 94, No. 3Clubs was orchestrated by New York clubwomen, butwomen's groups in Maine and Utah spontaneouslyestablished their own state federations and pressed thenational center to accept the new institutional level(Wells 1953, 34-7). Similarly, soon after the 1898launching of the Fraternal Order of Eagles in Seattle,Washington, members in New York campaigned toestablish state-level "aeries" (Fraternal Order of Ea-gles 1913; O'Reilly 1904, 77-81).Among the membership associations in Table 1 thatdid not adopt the federal-state-local format, fourgroups (the Knights of Labor, Red Cross, AmericanFederation of Labor, and Congress of Industrial Orga-nizations) developed other kinds of multitiered ar-rangements; two others, the blue-lodge Masons and theWashingtonian temperance movement, never devel-oped national centers.4 Of the 46 U.S. voluntary asso-ciations that attained very large memberships before1940, only six (13%) were permanently institutional-ized as center-local organizations.5 A representativelygoverned intermediate tier, usually at the state level,was overwhelmingly typical.Why Did National-State-Local FederalismTake Hold?Institutional theories (see Hall and Taylor 1996) allowus to go beyond Schlesinger in understanding whyAmerica's largest membership associations (and hun-dreds of smaller ones as well) adopted an organiza-tional structure similar to the institutional arrange-ments of U.S. government. Two arguments arerelevant: hypotheses about "political opportunity struc-tures" and ideas about organizational imitation.Social movements often organize to take advantageof opportunities for leverage offered by governmentalinstitutions (Kitschelt 1986; Tarrow 1996b). From thebeginning, the American political system rewardedmovements and associations able to coordinate effortsat the national, state,,and local level. From temperanceand antislavery crusades, to farmers' groups, women'smovements, and nativist agitations, groups aiming toshape public opinion and influence legislators learnedthe advantage of cross-level organization. By serving asa bridge between local sets of citizens and elected4 State organizations are not entirely absent in these cases. Masons,of course, have strong state-level grand lodges. The Red Cross madebrief attempts to set up state units before settling on a regionalarrangement. State organizations with very weak representation atthe national level are parts of the AFL (and AFL-CIO), althoughinternational unions have always been the key units in the laborfederations.5Of these, GUPOCS was a short-lived movement of church-basedgroups and individual petition-signers; the Boy Scout troops andTownsend/Old Age Revolving Pensions groups were coordinated bycorporate-styledirectorates. Center-local arrangementscharacterizethe Elks, the Moose, and the Shriners, all of which evolved frominterurban networks originally devoted to recreational activities.Interestingly,some years after the national foundings, factions withinboth the Moose and the Elks agitated for the establishment of stategrand lodges. Such efforts did not succeed because the urban lodgesdid not want to give up their direct ties to the national center.Nevertheless, purely voluntary, nonsovereign state associations areallowed by both the Moose and the Elks.

officials, associations could influence both Congressand state legislatures (for instances, see Skocpol 1992,parts 1, 3). Operating across levels, moreover, groupscould pursue social as well as political change. "OurOrder," explained the Right Worthy Grand Templar ofthe Independent Order of Good Templars (IOGT) in1881 (quoted in Turnbull 1901, 88-9), "is organized todestroy the evils growing out of the drink traffic, andthe individual use of alcoholic drinks." Because the"drunkard-makers have strong Local, State, and Na-tional Organizations," subordinate lodges reach out tosave individuals and agitate public opinion, while"against the State Liquor Union" the IOGT arraysthestate-level "Grand Lodge; and against the AmericanBrewers' Congress and National Distillers Union" itdeploys the national-level "R.W.G. Lodge."But the response of activists to political opportuni-ties and challenges is not a sufficient explanation,because many nonpolitical associations also adoptedrepresentative-federal arrangements. For the Odd Fel-lows, the Knights of Columbus, and other ritual orsocial associations, constitutional federalism was a wayto coordinate activities across localities and regions.According to institutional theorists of organizationaldevelopment (Powell and DiMaggio 1991), organiza-tion-builders who face complex challenges in condi-tions of uncertainty are inclined to copy well-under-stood, already legitimate models in their environment.Dynamic variants of sociological institutionalism (e.g.,Clemens 1997) suggest that innovative adaptations ofthis sort are likely when ambitious but somewhatmarginalized organizers (such as immigrants to Amer-ica) confront unprecedented challenges or opportuni-ties and are able to draw on a new "repertoire" ofcollective action. After the American Revolution, theU.S. Constitution offered a widely understood andprestigious model for cross-local coordination in an erawhen popular mobilization made sense for all kinds ofpurposes. Once some groups used this model success-fully, others found it legitimating and competitivelyadvantageous to follow suit.Still, as the United States industrialized, representa-tive-federal associations might have given way to class-divided or corporate-style associations paralleling theemergent national market economy. But a cataclysmicand pivotal political event, the U.S. Civil War, inter-vened to reinforce the legitimacy and practicality ofpopularly rooted federalism as the preeminent modelfor large-scale association-building. The United Statesin 1860 had little in the way of a standing army, so bothsides in this internecine struggle relied upon civilian aswell as elected leaders to assemble local volunteers intostate units, and then to mold state units into theclashing armies and civilian relief organizations of theUnion and the Confederacy (Brockett 1864; McPher-son 1988, chap. 10). After the war ended, spirits soaredon the winning Union side. Inspired by a new sense ofnational purpose and thoroughly familiar with federalmodels of popular mobilization, northern men andwomen who grew to maturity in the late 1800slaunched manynew mass-based ederations,even as

533


9/21

The Institutional Origins of Civic Voluntarism in the United States September 2000electoral mobilization by clashing party federationsalso reached its peak (McGerr 1986).Qualitative evidence suggests ways in which Unionmobilization encouraged postwar association-building.Railroad workers who met during the Civil Warlaunched the Ancient Order of United Workmen fromMeadville, Pennsylvania, in 1868, aiming to bridge classdivisions and offer insurance and cultural uplift to allAmerican working men (Upchurch 1887). America'sthird largest fraternal association, the Knights ofPythias, was founded in Washington, D.C., in 1864 byyoung clerks who met in the wartime civil service anddevised a ritual of sacrificial brotherhood that appealednot only to former soldiers but also to all Americanswho hoped to reknit North and South (Carnahan 1890,chaps. 5-6). Another regionally disparate group offederal clerks started the Patrons of Husbandry (orGrange) in 1867. This happened after Minnesota na-tive and federal agriculture official Oliver Kelley wascommissioned by President Andrew Johnson to assessrural needs in the devastated South (Nordin 1974,chap. 1). Using Masonic ties to make contacts in thedefeated region, Kelley soon realized that farmers, too,could benefit from a nationwide fraternity.With fellowofficials-each of whom, like him, moved back andforth between Washington and his home region-Kelley designed a federation that incorporated someexisting farm groups and stimulated the founding ofthousands of local granges.The Civil War also emboldened civicly mindedwomen. Along with the famous wartime nurse ClaraBarton, many other women and men who had beenactive in the wartime U.S. Sanitary Commission agi-tated from the 1860s to 1881 for congressional charterof the American Red Cross (Davidson 1950b). Mean-while, females moved to the fore in the massivetemperance movement. Willing to accept women lead-ers and members on equal terms, the IOGT held itsown during the war and burgeoned afterward, prod-ding the Sons of Temperance to accept females. ButAmerican women wanted an even more predominantrole. Determined to counter male drunkenness, whichhad been exacerbated by military service, and fightgovernment policies favorable to the liquor industry,which had become a lucrative source of tax revenuesduring the war, reformers convened in Cleveland,Ohio, in 1874 to launch the Woman's Christian Tem-perance Union (WCTU). Some of these women hadmet in Union relief efforts; all of them applauded thewomen's crusades against saloon-keepers that spreadin the Midwest during the early 1870s (Mezvinsky1959). Grassroots protests were hard to sustain, how-ever, so women gathered at a summer camp for theNational Sunday School Assembly to institutionalize"the grand temperance uprising."In cadences resonantwith the "Onward Christian Soldiers" rhetoric ofUnion victory, a "Committee of Organization ... con-sisting of one lady from each state" issued a "Call"toorganize the national WCTU (reprinted in Tyler 1949,18). "In union and in organization," roclaimedtheCall, "are .. success and permanence,and the conse-

534

quent redemption of this land from the curse ofintemperance."NATIONAL FEDERATIONS AND LOCALGROUPSAlthough translocal voluntary federations may haveemerged early in U.S. history and proliferated after theCivil War, it is possible that local groups weighed muchheavier in community life. And perhaps chapters oflarge federations often proved short-lived, as socialcapital theory might predict, leaving the ground to betilled by purely local joiners and organizers. To evalu-ate these possibilities, we need data on characteristicsof local groups.Membership Groups in City DirectoriesGamm and Putnam (1999, 524) show that voluntarygroups listed in U.S. city directories peaked in relationto population around 1910. What kinds of groups werethese? To find out, we analyzed listings for 1910 (or theclosest year available) for the same 26 cities from everyregion studied by Gamm and Putnam.6 In Table 3,cities are arrayedfrom top to bottom according to theirsize in the 1910 Census, and their groups are classifiedinto structural categories. We count as "federated"several kinds of translocally linked groups: churches,unions, chapters of very large U.S. federations (listedin Table 1), and chapters of smaller federations. Wetally as "nonfederated" all membership groups, includ-ing church-linked modalities, hat were not clearly partof separately organized translocal federations.Had we eliminated local units affiliatedwith translo-cal associations (as in Putnam 1993), we would havemissed most of the groups tallied in Table 3. In everycity, most of the groups listed in the directories werepart of regional or national federations, rangingfrom aminimum of 63% in Boston to a maximum of 94.5% inRome, Georgia. Local groups not so connected wereslightly more prevalent in the larger cities, whereasgroups in the smallest cities were overwhelminglyfederated. Looking more closely, we see that, in addi-tion to churches, very large membership associationswere at the very heart of American civil society locallyas well as nationally. Churches and other religiouscongregations, devoted to translocal world views andlinked to federated institutions of various sorts, werenumerous in every city. Equally prevalent were localchapters of large membership federations listed inTable 1. And most "unions" were linked to the Amer-ican Federation of Labor or the Knights of Labor.From 8% to 29% of groups in these cities were localchapters of federations other than the very largest.These smaller federations, which ranged from ethnic6 We are grateful to Gamm and Putnam for giving us copies of someof the directories they used. In most cases, we obtained copies fromlibraries or historical societies in the respective cities or usedmicrofilms in the extensive collection of city directories held by theBoston Public Library.These copies were either for the same yearsor within one year of directories used by Gamm and Putnam (1999,Appendix A).


10/21


11/21


12/21

American Political Science Review Vol. 94, No. 3tionately large number of churches, including somevolatile white and African American Baptist congrega-tions). Local chapters of America's largest voluntaryfederations (apart from AFL unions and the Knights ofLabor) were also quite stable. In contrast, nonfeder-ated local groups were not very persistent, contrary towhat social capital theory suggests.Among federated groups, unions were markedly lessstable than churches and chapters of large membershipfederations. Part of the reason may be that laborgroups were not consistently included by compilers ofcity directories. But when labor groups were listed, theyoften appeared at just one decade point, because theyrose or fell in response to industrial struggles andeconomic booms and busts. For example, unions andKnights of Labor assemblies disappeared following thedefeat of strikes in Leadville, Colorado, and unionsmultiplied temporarily during the ship-building boomin Bath, Maine, during World War I.

In six of the eight small cities, units of translocalfederations other than the very largest were morepersistent than nonfederated local groups, but in alleight cities such smaller federated units were much lesspersistent than chapters of the largest federations. Theera between 1880 and 1920 witnessed the rise anddemise of hundreds of insurance-providing fraternalassociations (such as the Order of the Iron Hall and theKnights and Ladies of the Fireside), the vast majorityof which remained modest in membership. Many ofthese groups soon proved economically insolvent, andthe more successful ones tended to merge or turn intoinsurance companies after 1910.Churches and local units of the largest voluntaryfederations proved the most persistent. The average ofcity percentages in Table 4 shows this, and anothercalculation documents the same point. Adding to-gether all 450 groups that were relatively stable acrossthese eight cities between 1890 and 1920, we find that31% were religious congregations and another 38%were clubs or lodges connected to the largest cross-class national federations. Thus, more than two-thirdsof all stable groups fell into these categories. Oncefounded, churches and chapters linked to the largestfederations took firm root and became the enduringcore of civil society in modernizing America.Chapters of major federations flourished in partbecause national and state leaders in such vast civicrepublics as the Odd Fellows, the Grand Army of theRepublic, and the WCTU assumed responsibility forsustaining as well as initiating local chapters. Reportsof annual or biennial meetings describe all the stepstaken by elected officers-and the many miles theytraveled-to shepherd their flocks. To enhance theirreputation for sound leadership, supralocal officers notonly offered inspiration and programmatic suggestionsbut also fostered connections among chapters in theirorbit. When a local club or lodge ran into trouble,moreover, supralocal leaders could make a real differ-

ence, especially in the larger, well-established federa-tions. They might ask neighboring chapters to supportfaltering units (as in the "Big Brother Aerie" programmounted by the Fraternal Order of Eagles). During.

economic downturns, national or state officials mightforgive shares of local dues; when meeting housesburned down, they orchestrated appeals for aid. Sup-port from above could sustain locals of major federa-tions, whereas disconnected groups or the chapters ofweak federations often faltered.VOLUNTARY FEDERATIONS IN A NATIONON THE MOVEBecause large membership federations were central tolocal communities as well as the nation, we need toknow more about how they developed. As a first step,we can dissect the growth of very large membershipfederations with units at the state level as well as thelocal and national levels. How were such federationsassembled?We can readily imagine a pattern in which, afternational organizers declare a new project, local groupsspread and memberships swell; only later do state-levelunits emerge. In fact, a very different dynamic usuallyprevailed, namely, an encompassing network of state-level units formed very early in the life of expandingfederations. To illustrate this point, figures 1 and 2display the slopes of membership growth and local andstate organizational trends for the Knights of Pythias, agiant fraternal group that grew from a national projectlaunched at the end of the Civil War, and for theGeneral Federation of Women's Clubs (GFWC),which formed in 1890 as a combination of city groups.Despite disparate origins, both the Knights and theGFWC became institutionalized across many stateswell before their memberships burgeoned and beforemost local units were established.These instances are not atypical. Figure 3 analyzesthe relationship of membership growth and cross-stateinstitutionalization for 30 of the 34 federal-state-localgroups listed in Table 1 (Appendix A discusses the fouromissions). This figure documents a strong relationshipbetween the timing of recruitment of at least 1% ofmen and/or women and the timing of institutionaliza-tion in at least 60% of then-existing states and territo-ries.10Extensive institutionalization and large member-ship growth often occurred around the same time: Halfthe groups in Figure 3 are on or very close to thediagonal. Yet, the figure clearly shows that 11 of 30groups (37%) established institutions spanning at least60% of states before recruiting 1% of adults intomembership, even though this was quite an organiza-tional feat at a time when new states and organizedterritories were joining the nation in thinly populatedregions. For example, the WCTU is situated well belowthe diagonal in Figure 3; it had established "unions" in60% of states and territories by the early 1880s,considerably before it had enrolled 1% of women (inthe late 1910s).11 Only three groups appear far above10We also examined charts with higher thresholds of state organi-zation. Raising the bar to 70% or 75% causes data points to crowdtoward the diagonal but does not change the underlying patternsreported here.

11The founding of a state unit was a significant marker of associa-

537


13/21


14/21

American Political Science Review Vol. 94, No. 3

FIGURE . The Development of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, 1890-194055 -18,00050-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16,00045

/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~40 ((0a0 12,000 E"CU5 EN2' 3 10,000 M0 c0)Cu% 2 8,000o / ~~~~~~~~~~~-~200= -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Z E15

4,02,000

o) (%J I co co C0 CN It co cCO 0 CN It co cCO 0 CN co CO 0 CN It co cCOOM O 0) 0) 0 C)0 0 0) 0) 0) (N4 (N (N (N (N M~ M~ M~ M M Itco co co co co 0 0 0) 0 0) 0) 0 0) 0) 0 0) 0 0) 0 0) 0) 0 o 0 0) 0)

----state organizations -local clubs membership inlO0s)

1999). As the United States expanded, translocallyorganized associations were very appealing (Berthoff1971, chap. 27). People arriving in new places lookedfor familiar group meetings; members arranged "trav-eling cards" or introductions from native lodges orclubs to allow them admittance to cognate units else-where. Furthermore, if the new places did not alreadyhave familiar groups, authoritative supralocal centersand widely shared knowledge of standardized associa-tional routines allowed members to become instantcivic organizers. Strangers who shared the bond ofmembership in a nationwide association could coordi-nate their efforts, and local activists could contactleaders at higher levels for guidance and reinforce-ment. Based on primary testimonies, scenarios such asthe following played out again and again. Each excerptreveals notable feats of collective action by mobileAmericans aided by national and state institutionalcenters and a translocal network of leaders.

The firstOdd Fellows' odge established n the WesternMississippi alleywas Travellers'RestLodge,No. 1, in thecity of St. Louis,for which a charterwas grantedby theGrandLodgeof the United Stateson the 18thof August,1834.... St. Louiswasthenaninsignificantrontier own,with about7000 inhabitants.Therewereseven petitionersforthis odge"madeup"of transientmembers henin andabout the city:one from England; wo from Kentucky;threefromPennsylvania;nd one fromMaryland.By thetime the lodge was institutedall but one of the originalsignersof the petitionhaddisappeared nd othershadtobe substituted.... SamuelL. Miller of HarmonyLodge,

No. 3, of Baltimore, who was about to remove to Alton,Illinois, was commissioned [by the U.S. Grand Lodge inMaryland] to institute the lodge.... At the close of thefirst year the lodge had 115 members" (reported in Stillson1897, 355).Being an account of the introduction of the Order ofKnights of Pythias in the Grand Domain of Minnesotaby ... David Royal who has been a continuous member ofMinneapolis Lodge No. 1 for 27 years. In November 1868I joined Wilmington Lodge No. 2 Wilmington Delaware.In the spring of '69 I arrivedin this City [Minneapolis] andshortly after was employed as car builder for the C.M. &St. Paul Railways at their Shops in this City. In the winterof '69-70 I talked up Pythianism among the workmen andsoon had a list of 13 names. I opened up correspondencewith Supreme Chancelor Read who sent me some Blankapplications for a dispensation [to open a lodge] and fullinstructions how to precede. About the first of June Ireceived a letter from Supreme Chancelor Read statingthat Bro[ther] Jacob H. Heisser of Marrion Lodge No. 1 ofIndianapolis Ind had recently arrived in Minneapolis andhad also written him about starting a Lodge. I wasrequested to drop Bro Heisser a line through the Postoffice and unite our efforts which request was compliedwith....Saturday evening June 25 1870 a preliminary meetingwas called [to apply for a charter].... I was chosenPresident and Bro Heisser [who had recruited two poten-tial members was chosen] Secretary.... Supreme Chan-cellor Read arrivedJuly 9th 1870.... At Odd Fellows HallMinneapolis Minn July 11 1870 agreeable to a call of theSupreme Chancelor of the Knights of Pythias SamuelRead of New Jersey a number of Knights and Citizens of

539


15/21

The Institutional Origins of Civic Voluntarism in the United States September 2000

FIGURE 3. Membership Growth and Institutionalization of State Units in Large U.S. MembershipFederations1980

American Bowling Congress *1960 e Woman's MissionaryUnion ,

MEMBERS FIRST Eagles1940(na) ,0American Legion uKu KluxKlan1920 German National Alliance* N, FarmBureauV RoyalArcanum~ *\ PTA

XU Woodmen of the World - K?n 190\M Knightsof Columbus.~ 1900 Mdr odeu rEastern Star F ModernWo e ! U GFWC * Jr. Order of UnitedAmer. Mechanics(n ~~~~~~~~~~~Farmerslliance ' Maccabees*

CI). ChristianEndeavor *P MNationalAmer. Woman SuffrageAssoc.D 1880 GAR * RedMMen *Woman's ChristianTemperance Union0 ~~~~~~~~AQUWYMCAGrangeua|Knights of PythiasGoodTemplarsMl'C 1860N. ,, OISons of Temperance STATEORGANIZATIONSFIRSTP 1840 MI OddFellows0 | - AmericanTemperance Society

1820 I I I l1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980

Enrolls1%of U.S.menand/orwomenNote: Includes most federal-state-local groups from Table 1. Asterisks indicate parameters estimated with known limits. See Appendix A for sources anddiscussion of omitted groups and full names of organizations.

Minneapolis and vicinity assembled for the purpose oforganizing a Lodge of4the Order (Royal [1890s] n.d.).There are now [in the 1890s] seventy [women's] clubs in theNebraska State Federation, and applications for member-ship constantly arriving.... To fully understand what Statefederation has done, it is well to consider that more thantwo-thirds of the clubs now auxiliary to it were coexistentwith it, and would never have been formed at all but for thepermanence of organization and the wider range of thoughtwhich union with it and the General Federation promised.In one town of about fifteen hundred inhabitants there hadbeen no literary organization of any kind for ten yearsprevious to this movement. The same is true of many othertowns on these prairies, each with its quotient of intelligent,well-educated people, transplanted from the cultured atmo-sphere of the older States, who had become discouraged bythe difficulties of their environment, but who are nowdeveloping State pride, and are enthusiastically alive to allthe privileges of federated clubs (reported in Croly 1898,779).National and intermediate institutions, representa-

tively governed, helped the modernizing United Statesbecome a nation of associational organizers as well as acollection of potential joiners. Supralocal centers pro-vided resources and created incentives for leaders to

540

reach out and help establish new local units, even asthese same centers continued to link and inspire theefforts of established chapters. Nationally standard-ized and shared institutional models also made itpossible for every associational member to become anorganizer, should need or opportunity arise (as it didfor David Royal and Jacob Heisser after they arrivedseparately in Minneapolis). Supralocal institutionswere anything but irrelevant or oppressive bureau-cratic overhead. By making it easier for Americans to"combine," even when (actual or potential) "broth-ers" and "sisters" did not previously know one an-other personally, these arrangements furthered asso-ciational vitality in an expanding and mobile nation.Disparate local groups bubbling up sporadically andinformally from below could never, we submit, haveachieved the same widespread and stable civic results.

RECONCEPTUALIZINGCIVIC VITALITY NAMERICAAND BEYONDOur findings reveal the theoretical as well as empiri-cal weaknesses of vocalist arguments about the rootsof American civic voluntarism. Drawing on social


16/21


17/21


18/21


19/21

The Institutional Origins of Civic Voluntarism in the United States September 2000Berthoff, Roland. 1971. An Unsettled People: Social Order andDisorder in American History.New York: Harper and Row.Bordin, Ruth. 1981. Woman and Temperance: The Quest for Powerand Liberty, 1873-1900. Philadelphia, PA: Temple UniversityPress.Bordin, Ruth. 1986. Frances Willard:A Biography. Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press.Breckinridge, Sophinisba. 1933. Women in the Twentieth"Century:Study of TheirPolitical, Social, and Economic Activities. New York:McGraw-Hill.Brockett, Linus Pierpont. 1864. The Philanthropic Results of the Warin America. New York: Sheldon.Brown, Richard D. 1974. "The Emergence of Urban Society in RuralMassachusetts, 1760-1830." Journal of American History 61 (1):29-51.Bryce, James. 1895. The American Commonwealth, 3d ed. Vol. 2.New York: Macmillan.Carnahan, James R. 1890. Pythian Knighthood: Its History andLiterature. Cincinnati: Pettibone Manufacturing/Fraternity.Chalmers,David M. 1965. HoodedAmericanism: The FirstCenturyofthe Ku KluxKlan, 1865-1965. New York: Doubleday.Child, Clifton James. 1939. The German Americans in Politics,1914-1917. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Chudacoff, Howard. 1972. Mobile Americans: Residential and SocialMobility in Omaha, 1880-1920. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.Clark,Francis E. 1906. ChristianEndeavor in All Lands: A Record ofTwenty-FiveYearsof Progress. Boston: United Society of ChristianEndeavor.Clawson, Mary Ann. 1989. ConstructingBrotherhood: Gender, Class,and Fraternalism.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Clemens, Elisabeth S. 1997. The People's Lobby: OrganizationalInnovation and the Rise of Interest Group Politics in the UnitedStates, 1890-1925. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Committee on the Judiciary,U.S. Senate. 1918. "National German-American Alliance Hearings ... United States Senate, Sixty-FifthCongress, Second Session on S. 3529..., February 23-April 13,1918." Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Croly, Jennie June. 1898. TheHistory of the Women's Club Movementin America. New York: Henry G. Allen.Curtis, James E., Edward G. Grabb, and Douglas E. Baer. 1992."VoluntaryAssociation Membership in Fifteen Countries."Amer-ican Sociological Review 57 (2): 139-52.Dannenbaum, Jed. 1984. Drink and Disorder: Temperance Reformfrom the WashingtonianRevival to the WCTU. Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press.Davidson, Walter. 1950a.Historyof theAmerican National Red Cross.Vol. 38. State Organizationand Relations within the Period ofCongressional Charter.... Washington, DC: American NationalRed Cross.Davidson, Walter. 1950b.Historyof theAmerican National Red Cross.Vol. 39. General Organization. Washington, DC: American Na-tional Red Cross.Deemer, Edward S., P. A. Shanor, and H. J. Deily. 1896. History of

the Junior Order,United American Mechanics. Boston: Fraternity.Desmond, Humphrey J. 1912. The A.PA. Movement: A Sketch.Washington, DC: New Century Press.Drucker, Peter F. 1993. The Ecological Vision: Reflections on theAmerican Condition. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPress.Dunning, N. A., ed. 1891. The Farmers'Alliance Historyand Agricul-turalDigest. Washington, DC: Alliance.Eckstein, Harry. 1961. A Theory of Stable Democracy. ResearchMonograph No. 10. Princeton, NJ: Center for International Stud-ies, Princeton University.Engle, Willis D. 1912. History of the Orderof Eastern Star. Indianap-olis, IN.Evans, Peter, ed. 1997. State-Society Synergy:Government and SocialCapital in Development. Research Series, Number 94, Interna-tional and Areas Studies. Berkeley: University of California.Fahey, David M. 1996. Temperanceand Racism. Lexington: Univer-sity Press of Kentucky.Foley, Michael W., and Bob Edwards. 1999. "Is It Time to Disinvestin Social Capital?" Journal of Public Policy 19 (2): 141-73.Fraternal Order of Eagles. 1913. Constitutionand Laws of the Grand

544

Aerie and Constitution for Subordinate Aeries Fraternal Order ofEagles. Chicago: Attwell.Fuller, Guy H., ed. 1918. Loyal Order of Moose and Mooseheart.Mooseheart, IL: Mooseheart Press.Gamm, Gerald, and Robert D. Putnam. 1999. "The Growth ofVoluntary Associations in America, 1840-1940." Journal of Inter-disciplinaryHistory29 (Spring): 511-57.Ganz, Marshall. 1994. "Voters in the Crosshairs: How Technologyand the Market Are Destroying Politics."American Prospectno. 16(Winter): 100-9.General Union for Promoting the Observance of the ChristianSabbath. 1828. "The Address of the General Union ... Accompa-nied by Minutes of ... Its Formation, Its Constitution and Offic-ers." New York: Daniel Fanshaw.Grosh, A. B. 1842. WashingtonianPocket Companion, 2d ed. Utica,NY: R. W. Roberts.Hall, Patricia Kelly, and Steven Ruggles. 1999. "Moving throughTime: Internal Migration Patterns of Americans, 1850-1990."Presented at the Social Science History Association, Fort Worth,Texas, November.Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C.R. Taylor. 1996. "Political Scienceand the Three New Institutionalisms."Political Studies44 (Decem-ber): 936-57.Hansen, John Mark. 1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the FarmLobby, 1919-1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Hicks, John D. 1935. The Populist Revolt:A History of the Farmers'Alliance and the People's Party. Minneapolis: University of Minne-sota Press.Hodges, Samuel W. 1877. "Sons of Temperance-Historical Recordof the Order." In Centennial Temperance Volume. New York:National Temperance Society and Publication House. Pp. 544-98.Holmes, William F. 1975. "The Demise of the Colored Farmers'Alliance." Journalof Southern Histoty 41 (May): 187-200.Holtzman, Abraham. 1963. The Townsend Movement. New York:Bookman.Hopkins, Charles Howard. 1951. History of the YMCA. in NorthAmerica. New York: Association Press.Howard, David M. 1992. People, Pride and Progress. 125 Years of theGrangein America. Washington, DC: National Grange.Independent Order of Odd Fellows [IOOF]. 1844. Journal of Pro-ceedings of theRight WorthyGrandLodge of the IndependentOrderof Odd Fellows ... to the Close of the Annual Session, 1843...New York: McGowan and Treadwell.John, Richard. 1995. Spreading heNews: TheAmerican Postal Systemfrom Franklin to Morse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.Joyce, Michael S., and William A. Schambra. 1996. "A New CivicLife." In To Empower People, 2d ed., ed. Michael Novak. Wash-ington, DC: AEI Press. Pp. 11-29.Kaufman, Christopher J. 1982. Faith and Fraternalism:TheHistoryofthe Knights of Columbus, 1882-1992. New York: Harper and Row.Kinzer, Donald L. 1964. An Episode in Anti-Catholicism: The Amer-ican Protective Association. Seattle: University of WashingtonPress.Kile, Orville Merton. 1921. The Farm Bureau Movement. New York:Macmillan.Kitschelt, Herbert P. 1986. "Political Opportunity Structures andPolitical Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies."British Journal of Political Science 16 (January):57-85.Knights of Labor of North America. 1883. Constitutionof the GeneralAssembly, DistrictAssemblies and Local Assemblies of the Orderofthe Knights of Labor of North America. Marblehead, MA: States-man.Knights of the Maccabees. 1894. Revised Laws of the Knights of theMaccabees of the World.... Port Huron, MI: Riverside.Knights of the Maccabees. 1901. "Note the Progress of the Macca-bees" (reverse side of a postcard). Port Huron, MI: GeneralOffices [of the Maccabees].Kopf, Edward. 1977. "Untarnishing the Dream: Mobility, Opportu-nity, and Order in Modern America." Journal of Social History11

(Winter): 202-27.Krout, John Allen. 1925. The Origins of Prohibition. New York:Alfred Knopf.Ladd, Everett Carl. 1999. The Ladd Report. New York: Free Press.Larson, Leland A., and James R. Cook. 1991. The Woodmen Story:


20/21


21/21

skocpol los orígenes institucionales del voluntariado.pdf

Documents