Isaac M. Rubinow and the migrant-knowledge origins of the standard of living

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date issued

Editors

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Reuse License

Description of rights: CC-BY-SA-4.0
Item type: Item , ZeitschriftenaufsatzAccess status: Open Access ,

Abstract

In the Progressive Era, the standard of living became a social scientific and policy-relevant bureaucratic measurement. As historians have shown, the ostensibly objective statistical metric of consumption challenged a “market-driven conception of wages or income” and rested on normative assumptions about the ideal standard, family roles, and labor relations.1 It was also embedded in a discourse on who could attain it and how. A migrant-knowledge approach to the development of standard of living measurements explores how American social scientists drew these normative contours in relation to their experience and understanding of what they termed the immigration problem, the influx of Southern and Eastern European immigrants who sought to live and work in the United States between the 1880s and 1920s. Migrant knowledge encompasses knowledge both by and about immigrants, drawing attention to immigrant actors who cross state borders, bring cultural baggage along with material belongings, and often maintain ties to their places of origin. This concept assumes that immigrants do not have particular knowledge by virtue of being immigrants; rather, it asks how immigration-related experiences, discourses, and institutions shape modes of knowing and communicating that knowledge. It takes knowledge as embodied practice, influenced by material conditions as well as its own materiality.2 This approach frames the debate on immigration and the standard of living as a mutual engagement of both immigrants and native-born Americans, made tangible through their knowledge practices.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Published in

The journal of the gilded age and progressive era, 25, 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2026, https://doi.org/10.1017/S153778142610139X

Relationships

Collections

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By