Erik Schneiderhan
ASA Presentation Draft
January, 2008
5
regarded as proper subjects of relief, unless it shall appear that there are old people or an unusual
number of small children dependent upon them, or in cases of temporary disability not included in the
above.” The Relief & Aid Society also was responsible for coordinating disbursement of relief funds to
other organizations engaged in social provision, through its Committee on Existing Charitable
Institutions. By controlling funds, the Relief & Aid had significant influence, through its various
committees, over who was worthy of engaging in social provision. In other words, it appropriated
some of the state’s power over the consecration of organizations of social provision. Control of funds
allowed the Relief & Aid to dictate what the organizations did and whom they helped.
It is remarkable that the Mayor decided the businessmen at the helm of the Relief & Aid were
better equipped to serve the interests of the public than the city government. These were not just any
businessmen—most of Chicago’s Gilded-Age millionaires would serve on the ’s board at some point in
their careers. And putting so much power and money in the hands of a group of largely native,
Protestant, wealthy citizens had consequences for how charity was dispensed. The practice of helping
people address the challenges presented by a burgeoning capitalist system was now tightly linked to
what Bourdieu (1990:112-13) described as an “economistic” logic, meaning that it “recognizes no other
form of interest than that which capitalism has produced.” That which is not commodified, which has
no price, “finds no place in its analyses.” In the early stages of the relief effort, the Relief & Aid Society
scrambled to provide relief to as many people as possible. But, the elites also wanted to avoid the
development of a dependent class and therefore sought to get people off relief and into paying jobs.
Deep suspicion of potential fraud, a belief in work tests to weed out the lazy, rigorous and invasive
investigation of charity cases, and a division between worthy recipients (bourgeois who had lost
everything in the fire) and unworthy recipients (everyone else) all fed into the early work of the
organization and helped support the interests of the capitalist elites. The gradual gravitation toward a
more economistic practice of social provision was intensifying as the Relief & Aid Society privileged the
Convention