Our Lives, Our Thoughts and Our Allegiance: New Immigrants and American Industry in 1914

Through comparative analysis of the immigrant labor forces at work in iron mining in northern Minnesota, coal mining in Illinois, and steel milling in the Calumet region of Chicago and Gary, this paper addresses the forms of social distance separating and marginalizing new immigrants from American society and trade unionism that existed in 1914, the year that marked the end point of mass immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe. The “new immigration” was a labor migration that congregated its subjects overwhelmingly in what were called "unskilled" or "semi-skilled" forms of labor. Skilled work was largely, with certain variations, the preserve of "American" or old immigrant workers. This labor gulf separating new immigrants and American workers was hardened by a spatial separateness. New immigrants often lived in what have been called industrial villages—the mining town or location, the factory neighborhood— striking in their isolation and insularity from mainstream society. This separateness and insularity became a major preoccupation for corporate managers, Progressive reformers, and for American trade unions as new immigrants began to engage in major labor struggles leading up to 1914. But among the three industries, only the union of coal miners, the United Mine Workers, enjoyed success in organizing the new immigrants. In the steel mills and the iron mines, the unions were either rooted out or failed to gain a foothold at all. The explanation for these differences is to be found in the different forms of industrial development among the industries studied.

RESILIENT WOMEN, METISTIC SCIENTISTS: A MULTIPLE CASE STUDY OF HOW WOMEN NEGOTIATE THEIR SITUATEDNESS IN SCIENCE FIELDS

The concept of feminist metistic resilience postulates that the voiceless, the marginalized and the minority in societies employ strategies in order to turn tables in their favor. This study presents a qualitative analysis of how women, considered to be the minority, negotiate their situatedness in science fields in order to effect change in their lives or that of the society and why they become successful. By “situatedness,” I refer to the everyday life of women as they live and encounter people, society and culture, especially, the life of women who have transcended the culturally stipulated role of women and are excelling in a male dominated field. The study, in different dimensions, conceptualizes the reason for the fewer number of women in science; looks at how scientific methods and practices inhibit the development of women in science; and, finally, interrogates the question of objectivity in science. It becomes apparent, through feminist metistic resilience, that women become successful when they accept conventional practices in scientific arrangements and structures. They accept the practices by embracing and not questioning structures and arrangements that have shaped the field of science and by shifting shapes and assuming different forms in order to adapt to conditions they encounter. Apart from adapting and shape shifting, the women also become successful through environmental and social influences. My analysis suggests that more women can be encouraged to pursue science when women practicing science begin to question structures and arrangements that have shaped the practice of science over the centuries. The overall findings of the research provide implications for policy makers, educators and feminist researchers.

Living with Differences: From Everyday Fundamentalisms to Invitational Communication

This project examines fundamentalism understood as an everyday way of living poorly with difference. It demonstrates that the fundamentalist is not reducible to stereotypes of the terrorist, extremist, irrational madman, or religious zealot. All of these characterizations--common in mainstream media--depict the fundamentalist as them, and rarely, if ever, as us. Rather, this project understands fundamentalism in terms of fundamental interpretive constructs that constrain our ways of being-with others, skew our interpretive and responsive possibilities, distort our perceptions of difference, and affirm our poor treatment of others. Following Martin Heidegger's conception of the hermeneutic structure of existence, this dissertation calls attention to the ways in which such fundamentalisms filter our interpretation. Yet the hermeneutic character of existence also highlights the incompleteness of any particular frame of interpretation and indicates the possibility of alternative interpretive responses. The project turns to a feminist theological hermeneutic in order to indicate more hopeful and liberating ways of living with difference, ways that point beyond everyday fundamentalism toward invitational communication. Through new readings of familiar biblical narratives, this dissertation revisits the fundamentalisms that trigger these narratives in order to draw out an alternative feminist theological hermeneutic, or what is termed here an invitational hermeneutic. Each story offers unique ways of making sense of being-with and sharing the world with others of difference that redress the impoverished and fundamentalist forms of self-preserving care and understanding. By examining the well-loved stories of the Good Samaritan, Ruth and Naomi, Queen Esther, and the Apostle Paul and Lydia, the dissertation identifies interpretive and responsive possibilities that together issue an alternative hermeneutical invitation: to understand difference compassionately, to engage strangers and family members alike with rehabilitative care and concernful reticence, and to extend graceful hospitality to others. In these ways, the dissertation indicates possibilities beyond the horizon of fundamentalism, invitational possibilities of living and communicating with difference.