The philanthropists who accumulate large fortunes while keeping within the letter of the questionable methods of society for obtaining wealth, and who afterwards gain the applause of their fellows by conferring benefits upon those who had no share in the production of that wealth are legion. The business men who look to the development of the character of the man who co-operate with them to exploit any given industry are comparatively few in number.32

Historical Continuity

The perspective on illiteracy which emerged from the work of Fitzpatrick and his colleagues in the Reading Camp Association in the 1899 to 1907 period, which we may term "literacy for mental and social uplift", bears a striking resemblance to the one formulated by Ryerson and his fellow educational reformers 40 to 50 years earlier indicating a large measure of historical continuity. In particular, both arose in a period of intensified economic exploitation and social disruption, and identified what were seen as the low moral standards guiding the behavior of the labouring poor--and not the harsh economic and social conditions--as the primary cause of the new social problems of the time, such as crime, "soldiering" and "pauperism". Moreover, both perspectives represented literacy instruction as a vehicle of mental and spiritual "uplift" for the labouring poor, i.e. a means of reducing personal and social deviance among them.

However, an important feature distinguishing Fitzpatrick's from Ryerson's perspective is the fact that the former embodies a critique of some of the exploitative practices of employers, and puts forward a limited advocacy of the material interests of the workers. T his innovation illustrates the influence of the reformist social gospel and Progressive movements during the period of the emergence of monopoly capitalism. In spite of this critical theme in Fitzpatrick's views, he was able to obtain the cooperation of a number of employers, both as members and financial contributors of the Reading Camp Association.30 How was this possible?

Corporate-Liberalism

To answer this question, we must return to Fitzpatrick's distinction between those capitalists who "accumulate large fortunes while keeping within the letter of the questionable methods of society", and those "businessmen who look to the development of the character" of their employees (who he said are "comparatively few in number"). 34 Here, Fitzpatrick is identifying what was a real split within the ruling class between those who continued to cling to a more traditional, predatory "laissez-faire" approach, and a small but growing number of "enlightened" "corporate-liberal" capitalists, recognized the necessity of seeking some form of accommodation with moderate reformist elements, even if of a token nature, in order to forestall growing labour militancy in a time of rapid economic development. 35 Fitzpatrick openly allied with the latter. For example, in 1903 he praised such employers: