The economic ideologies of Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. Du Bois: 1895-1915.

摘要

This study, which compares the economic ideas of Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. Du Bois, challenges the assumption expressed in many recent works that their approaches are fundamentally different. Specifically, it seeks to correct the overemphasis in recent scholarship on both the dependency of Washington's economics on Carnegie's gospel of wealth and the anti-Washington character of Du Bois's economics.;The primary methodology consists of a comparative analysis of economic texts contained in published works between 1895 and 1915. Analytical tools are adapted from works by Clifford Geertz, Ferdinand de Saussure, Roman Jakobson, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and others. Complementing the comparative analysis is a historical survey of the economic ideas which influenced Washington and Du Bois.;The textual and historical analyses lead to three main points. First, Washington and Du Bois are in agreement in relation to the major elements of their economics. These elements, grounded in the concept of a distinct African-American economic sphere, illuminate precisely the area that white economic texts of the era ignore--the economic problems facing African Americans in the rural South. Secondly, the manner in which they express their economic ideas is complex, interweaving their own ideas with terms freely borrowed from their white allies, e.g., laissez-faire benefactors in the case of Washington, and social reformers in the case of Du Bois. Thirdly, as a result of the interweaving, their economic texts have a remarkable ability to speak to African-American concerns, while simultaneously engaging their white audiences in dialogue. Understanding how this linguistic approach, which has deep roots in the African-American linguistic tradition, operates within their economic texts is a key task of the study.;Two main conclusions emerge from the study. First, the standard assumption that the economic views of Washington and Du Bois share little in common is wrong. Their economic texts are united both on the level of content and of methodology. Secondly, their economic texts propose an alternative understanding of economic problems in the United States at the turn of the century, which, unlike laissez-faire and social economics, recognizes the importance of African Americans in the economic development of the nation as a whole.