What do you think?
Rate this book
From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, more Americans belonged to fraternal societies than to any other kind of voluntary association, with the possible exception of churches. Despite the stereotypical image of the lodge as the exclusive domain of white men, fraternalism cut across race, class, and gender lines to include women, African Americans, and immigrants. Exploring the history and impact of fraternal societies in the United States, David Beito uncovers the vital importance they had in the social and fiscal lives of millions of American families.
Much more than a means of addressing deep-seated cultural, psychological, and gender needs, fraternal societies gave Americans a way to provide themselves with social-welfare services that would otherwise have been inaccessible, Beito argues. In addition to creating vast social and mutual aid networks among the poor and in the working class, they made affordable life and health insurance available to their members and established hospitals, orphanages, and homes for the elderly. Fraternal societies continued their commitment to mutual aid even into the early years of the Great Depression, Beito says, but changing cultural attitudes and the expanding welfare state eventually propelled their decline.
Much more than a means of addressing deep-seated cultural, psychological, and gender needs, fraternal societies gave Americans a way to provide themselves with social-welfare services that would otherwise have been inaccessible, Beito argues. In addition to creating vast social and mutual aid networks among the poor and in the working class, they made affordable life and health insurance available to their members and established hospitals, orphanages, and homes for the elderly. Fraternal societies continued their commitment to mutual aid even into the early years of the Great Depression, Beito says, but changing cultural attitudes and the expanding welfare state eventually propelled their decline.
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
22 people are currently reading
526 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
June 19, 2017
This is a nice overview of the history of fraternal orders in the US (with a few tidbits about English friendly societies tossed in). The book describes how individuals (via voluntary mutual aid) could provide themselves with health insurance/sick benefits, life insurance (with some retirement insurance through the selling of endowment policies), and (to some degree) workers' compensation for on the job injuries. Organizations (whose members came from a variety of backgrounds) were able to avoid issues of adverse selection by creating rules about who could get what insurance and what would be covered (no coverage for incidents that occurred because of immoral behavior, i.e. accidents that occurred while the person was drunk or STDs). Many organizations were also able to avoid moral hazard issues by actively monitoring those receiving benefits.
This book also provides great examples of rent-seeking activities of special interest groups, which sometimes involves the fraternal orders themselves. This is especially the case when Beito describes the various means by which the individual chapters of the American Medical Association would try to get state laws passed that would have adverse consequences on the ability of mutual aid societies to provide benefits to their members. One example is how the AMA tried to ban the practice of mutual aid societies hiring doctors based on a salary basis (as opposed to fee-for-service). The AMA would even go so far as to try to revoke a doctor's certification if he was salaried by a local fraternal lodge.
There was a lot of moralizing (especially in the promotion of ideas of self-help) by the fraternal orders in how they portrayed the services they provided. This moralizing was individualistic but an individualism not of self-reliance but of mutual cooperation. These fraternal orders (which included many women's groups, as well) gave members the opportunity to practice organizational skills (through ordinary participation in the fraternal order) and promoted something that has been lacking recently in the U.S.: civic engagement. There are a couple of chapters that note how important this was to minority communities both in providing local medical service that was not provided by the state and in developing the organizational skills that would bear fruit in the Civil Rights movement.
The book connects the decline of fraternal orders to the increase in the welfare state (this is just a standard crowding out argument that should not be controversial). The problem comes when deciding this was a good or a bad thing. It is important to note that membership in fraternal orders never comprised more than a large minority of the population. Those not in a fraternal order self-selected out of membership. This could be due to many reasons, not least of which is that many of those not in mutual aid societies were able to provide for themselves without the benefits provided by fraternal orders. So whether government provision of medical, injury, or other types of insurance is desirable would depend on the population not covered by mutual aid societies. More research needs to be done in this area. I have little doubt, though, that self-provision of these types of services also creates more beneficial social norms than government provision of these services.
My one major complaint with the book is that the writing of the story is not that engaging. My comparison book is Daniel Okrent's wonderful history of prohibition in the U.S., Last Call. I think books like these may be best written by either a team of authors (one who has done the academic research and one who has experience writing for a general audience, e.g. the Freakanomics team) or by a talented author who has a familiarity with the subject matter, e.g. Robert Wright or Michael Lewis.
This book also provides great examples of rent-seeking activities of special interest groups, which sometimes involves the fraternal orders themselves. This is especially the case when Beito describes the various means by which the individual chapters of the American Medical Association would try to get state laws passed that would have adverse consequences on the ability of mutual aid societies to provide benefits to their members. One example is how the AMA tried to ban the practice of mutual aid societies hiring doctors based on a salary basis (as opposed to fee-for-service). The AMA would even go so far as to try to revoke a doctor's certification if he was salaried by a local fraternal lodge.
There was a lot of moralizing (especially in the promotion of ideas of self-help) by the fraternal orders in how they portrayed the services they provided. This moralizing was individualistic but an individualism not of self-reliance but of mutual cooperation. These fraternal orders (which included many women's groups, as well) gave members the opportunity to practice organizational skills (through ordinary participation in the fraternal order) and promoted something that has been lacking recently in the U.S.: civic engagement. There are a couple of chapters that note how important this was to minority communities both in providing local medical service that was not provided by the state and in developing the organizational skills that would bear fruit in the Civil Rights movement.
The book connects the decline of fraternal orders to the increase in the welfare state (this is just a standard crowding out argument that should not be controversial). The problem comes when deciding this was a good or a bad thing. It is important to note that membership in fraternal orders never comprised more than a large minority of the population. Those not in a fraternal order self-selected out of membership. This could be due to many reasons, not least of which is that many of those not in mutual aid societies were able to provide for themselves without the benefits provided by fraternal orders. So whether government provision of medical, injury, or other types of insurance is desirable would depend on the population not covered by mutual aid societies. More research needs to be done in this area. I have little doubt, though, that self-provision of these types of services also creates more beneficial social norms than government provision of these services.
My one major complaint with the book is that the writing of the story is not that engaging. My comparison book is Daniel Okrent's wonderful history of prohibition in the U.S., Last Call. I think books like these may be best written by either a team of authors (one who has done the academic research and one who has experience writing for a general audience, e.g. the Freakanomics team) or by a talented author who has a familiarity with the subject matter, e.g. Robert Wright or Michael Lewis.
October 24, 2018
Four and a half stars. This is the book I was really looking for when I read "Bowling Alone" by Robert Putnam. While Putnam looks at the much broader grouping of social clubs and societies, I think that by focusing on fraternal organizations Beito gets much closer to the mark.
By the authors own admission this is far from a comprehensive study of fraternal organizations. There were just too many to address them all and with many being "secret societies" records are just too limited. Once the limits are understood, however, Beito does an outstanding job of examining the history and innovations of the mutual aid organizations. Fraternal societies were revolutionary in providing low cost insurance against sickness and death to a broad swath of population. They also served as a spring-board to integrate immigrants and minorities into productive society. By focusing on the age-old virtues such as mutual aid, character building, self-restraint, thrift, and self-help and providing the tools to accomplish these; they were a vital part of society through-out the 19th and 20th centuries.
The down turn for mutual aid came from many directions both internal and external. The majority of external forces were focused through the government at both the state and national levels. Old-line 'big insurance' and the AMA teaming up with government regulators challenged and limited the friendly societies at every turn. The fraternal orders are not blameless however, by accepting and even encouraging regulations to stifle competition and being slow to adapt to a changing society they limited themselves until they were unable to change with the times.
The early mutual aid societies were innovators in promoting such things as preventative medicine, contract medical care, and retirement communities. They offered competitive medical services to the poor and working class. They also offered the assurance of funeral benefits or even life insurance to these same working class and poor immigrants. Later on it was a lack of innovation and adaptation to the welfare state that brought about their demise. An interesting quote about group policies when the were first offered by employers was especially prescient. “Group insurance would subject employees to ‘American Serfdom’." However, even with this prescience, few organizations would or could (because of regulations they supported) use similar policies to stay relevant in the 20th century.
The mutual aid and fraternal societies played a vital role in the development of the nation. Their promotion of self-reliance, thrift, character, financial security, and brotherhood (or sisterhood) are sorely missed today.
By the authors own admission this is far from a comprehensive study of fraternal organizations. There were just too many to address them all and with many being "secret societies" records are just too limited. Once the limits are understood, however, Beito does an outstanding job of examining the history and innovations of the mutual aid organizations. Fraternal societies were revolutionary in providing low cost insurance against sickness and death to a broad swath of population. They also served as a spring-board to integrate immigrants and minorities into productive society. By focusing on the age-old virtues such as mutual aid, character building, self-restraint, thrift, and self-help and providing the tools to accomplish these; they were a vital part of society through-out the 19th and 20th centuries.
The down turn for mutual aid came from many directions both internal and external. The majority of external forces were focused through the government at both the state and national levels. Old-line 'big insurance' and the AMA teaming up with government regulators challenged and limited the friendly societies at every turn. The fraternal orders are not blameless however, by accepting and even encouraging regulations to stifle competition and being slow to adapt to a changing society they limited themselves until they were unable to change with the times.
The early mutual aid societies were innovators in promoting such things as preventative medicine, contract medical care, and retirement communities. They offered competitive medical services to the poor and working class. They also offered the assurance of funeral benefits or even life insurance to these same working class and poor immigrants. Later on it was a lack of innovation and adaptation to the welfare state that brought about their demise. An interesting quote about group policies when the were first offered by employers was especially prescient. “Group insurance would subject employees to ‘American Serfdom’." However, even with this prescience, few organizations would or could (because of regulations they supported) use similar policies to stay relevant in the 20th century.
The mutual aid and fraternal societies played a vital role in the development of the nation. Their promotion of self-reliance, thrift, character, financial security, and brotherhood (or sisterhood) are sorely missed today.
August 29, 2014
Interesting Quote:
"The shift from mutual aid and self-help to the welfare state has involved more than a simple bookkeeping transfer of service provision from one set of institutions to another. As many leaders of fraternal societies had feared, much was lost in an exchange that transcended monetary calculations. The old relationships of voluntary reciprocity and autonomy have slowly given way to paternalistic dependency. Instead of mutual aid, the dominant welfare arrangements of Americans have increasingly become characterized by impersonal bureaucracies controlled by outsiders."
-David Beito, From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State
"The shift from mutual aid and self-help to the welfare state has involved more than a simple bookkeeping transfer of service provision from one set of institutions to another. As many leaders of fraternal societies had feared, much was lost in an exchange that transcended monetary calculations. The old relationships of voluntary reciprocity and autonomy have slowly given way to paternalistic dependency. Instead of mutual aid, the dominant welfare arrangements of Americans have increasingly become characterized by impersonal bureaucracies controlled by outsiders."
-David Beito, From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State
April 11, 2009
Beito does a very good job exploring the number of ways in which traditional fraternal organizations, founded on the principles of mutual aid, promoted social welfare in the U.S. until the rise of the welfare state in the Great Depression. The widespread and achievements are indeed impressive. But he skirts very lightly around the very selective nature of mutual aid, which appears to weed out those most in need of aid. If even the fraternal organizations of the poor won't help these (the mentally ill, those in need of rehabilitation, those with a predisposition to illness), who will? Additionally, Beito's criticism of the concept of "service" in chapter 11 suggests an ideological prejudice in favor of the concept of self-interest, and has some very distasteful implications.
September 23, 2010
"From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967 by David T. Beito (2000)"
June 27, 2018
The more I read of history and distant places, the less convinced I am that there are some good things that are inherently government activities. This book, for instance.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews