One Man's Meat Is Another Man's Poison: Imagery of Wholesomeness in the Discourse of Meatpacking from 1900–1910

Abstract

Anybody who thinks about The Jungle today believes that Sinclair wrote his book to expose the foul conditions of the meatpacking industry. In fact, he wrote it to awaken the nation to the exploitation of immigrant workers in Chicago's Packingtown and to advocate the workers' conversion to Socialism. But the early 20th-century American public, obsessed with cleanliness and wholesomeness, did not care about the immigrants' welfare. They cared that foreigners, likely carriers of diseases, were threatening the cleanliness of their meat supply. How Sinclair's call to Socialism led to a public outcry to clean up the meatpacking houses is a stunning example of the power of imagery to resonate with the public and, ultimately, to effect change. Images of disease and wholesomeness were used to manipulate readers' interpretations of the alleged abuses of the meatpacking industry. Journalists framed their articles by selecting certain issues and images that supported their particular view of reality (Entman 53) and reinforced the public's concern with cleanliness and fear of foreigners. The imagery of wholesomeness, which pervaded all discussions of meatpacking, suggested physical, mental and moral health, and the mingling of these forms of health was common in popular discourse of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The discourse of wholesomeness was tied to social concerns regarding dirt, disease and immigrants. It was a commonly held belief in the United States that moral weakness or poor self-- control, not poverty, were responsible for the high incidence of disease and death among the urban masses. Much of this urban population, particularly in the Chicago stockyards, comprised waves of Irish, German, and Slavic immigrants seeking a better life. Americans claimed that it was not the size but the character of the immigrant pool that made them uncomfortable, and they were repulsed by the newcomers' personal habits including lack of hygiene and consumption of strange foods.' Americans considered these immigrants the great unwashed who were incapable of improving their environment due to ignorance and lack of discipline. The body of media discourse examined for this paper consists of news and opinion articles from consumer magazines and newspapers during 1905-1907.2 These are the years when Sinclair exposed his findings of the meatpacking industry as well as the years immediately before and after passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act. Additionally, these media vehicles carried advertising targeted to consumers most likely to purchase meat products. Advertisers, particularly Armour and Swift, positioned their products as wholesome food; meat was described as pure, high quality, and doctor-recommended. The magazines and newspapers reflect a broad spectrum of views on the meatpacking controversy. The muckraking journals rallied behind Sinclair, painting a grim picture of filthy factories and exploited workers, while the more conservative business papers supported the capitalists' enormous profits and productivity. Century Magazine's founder and editor, Dr. Hosiah Gilbert Holland, known as a popular and effective preacher of social and domestic issues (Mott 459-- 60), wrote editorials that covered morals and manners, politics, religion, and current affairs. In 1902, the magazine ran a series of articles on the major corporations of the day: the Beef Trust, United States Steel Corporation, Standard Oil Company, and the American Sugar Refining Company. The magazine was considered an effective force in political and social reform during its 60 years of publication. Cosmopolitan magazine ran a series in which distinguished men and women described their attitudes toward life, and the October 1906, issue carried Upton Sinclair's story, What Life Means to Me. Leslie's Weekly, the tired business man's weekly, provided entertainment and self-improvement. From June through November of 1906, the paper ran seven news articles or editorials in support of the meatpackers; one article decrying the cruelty to cattle; and one criticizing the meatpackers' use of preservatives. …