Philanthropic Landmarks: the Toronto Trail from a Comparative Perspective, 1870S to the 1930S Thomas Adam

Document generated on 09/23/2021 11:35 a.m. Urban History Review Revue d'histoire urbaine Philanthropic Landmarks: The Toronto Trail from a Comparative Perspective, 1870s to the 1930s Thomas Adam Volume 30, Number 1, October 2001 Article abstract In this essay the author compares nineteenth-and early twentieth-century URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1015939ar philanthropy in Toronto to that in German and American cities such as Leipzig DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1015939ar and New York, The argument is divided into four parts, each dealing with different aspects of philanthropy. In the first part of this essay, the author See table of contents develops his concept of "philanthropic culture", which is the theoretical basis for this essay. The main thesis is that donating became a bourgeois behavioural pattern, which served to integrate new elites, women, and religious and ethnic Publisher(s) minorities into social structures, mainly "High Society". The second part of the essay examines wealthy Torontonians who became philanthropists. This part Urban History Review / Revue d'histoire urbaine paints the portrait of the typical Toronto philanthropist. The concept of philanthropy did not emerge on the American continent, but was imported ISSN from Europe. Therefore, the third part of the essay is dedicated to exploration of how philanthropic models were transferred from Europe to Toronto. The 0703-0428 (print) last part investigates the development of Toronto's philanthropic 1918-5138 (digital) landmarks—the Toronto General Hospital, the Art Gallery of Toronto, the Royal Ontario Museum, and the Toronto Housing Company. Explore this journal Cite this article Adam, T. (2001). Philanthropic Landmarks: The Toronto Trail from a Comparative Perspective, 1870s to the 1930s. Urban History Review / Revue d'histoire urbaine, 30(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.7202/1015939ar All Rights Reserved © Urban History Review / Revue d'histoire urbaine, 2001 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ Philanthropie Landmarks: The Toronto Trail from a Comparative Perspective, 1870s to the 1930s1 Thomas Adam Abstract "Toronto has come to be known as a philanthropic In this essay the author compares nineteenth-and early city" twentieth-century philanthropy in Toronto to that in "I know of no place where there are so many charitable organi• German and American cities such as Leipzig and New zations in proportion to its population as in Toronto,"2 asserted York, The argument is divided into four parts, each J. J. Maclaren at the twenty-fourth annual session of the Na• dealing with different aspects of philanthropy. In the tional Conference of Charities and Correction in 1897. Only a first part of this essay, the author develops his concept few years later, J. A. Turnbull started his article about associ• of "philanthropic culture", which is the theoretical basis ated charities in Toronto with the statement: "Toronto has come for this essay. The main thesis is that donating became to be known as a philanthropic city..."3 While Maclaren and a bourgeois behavioural pattern, which served to inte• Turnbull both exaggerated the scale of philanthropic undertak• grate new elites, women, and religious and ethnic mi• ings in Toronto, it is true that the city had no more and no fewer norities into social structures, mainly "High Society". philanthropic undertakings than other North American and Euro• The second part of the essay examines wealthy Toron- pean cities at this time.4 Housing projects for working-class tonians who became philanthropists. This part paints families, museums, art galleries and hospitals in New York, the portrait of the typical Toronto philanthropist. The Leipzig, and Toronto were organized and financed by wealthy concept of philanthropy did not emerge on the Ameri• citizens. Philanthropy was the foundation of urban society on can continent, but was imported from Europe. There• both sides of the Atlantic until the turn of the twentieth century. fore, the third part of the essay is dedicated to Despite the introduction of the welfare state by Bismarck in exploration of how philanthropic models were trans• 1870s Germany, philanthropists were still essential for the fi• ferred from Europe to Toronto. The last part investi• nancing of cultural and social public institutions. Social housing, gates the development of Toronto's philanthropic for instance, was integrated into the governmental welfare sys• landmarks—the Toronto General Hospital, the Art Gal• tem only after World War I. Furthermore, philanthropy predates lery of Toronto, the Royal Ontario Museum, and the the welfare state in every case. One must see this development Toronto Housing Company. in a timeline: for centuries, philanthropy in its broadest sense was the only method of social and cultural assistance. In the Résumé nineteenth century this remained true for all European and North Dans cet article Vauteur compare la philanthropie des American cities. Even with the introduction of, and the slow 19ième et 20ième siècles à Toronto avec celle des villes amalgamation with, or even replacement by, the welfare state, américaines et européenes tel que Leipzig et New York. philanthropy remained the most important form of social organi• Vargument se divise en quatres parties, dont zation. Until the late nineteenth century the only form of responsi• chacqu 'une se concerne avec des aspects différents de bility known to all members of society was a private one. la philanthropie. Dans la première partie de cet arti• Modern sociologists and economists such as Burton Allen Weis- cle, Vauteur explique son concept de « culture philan• brod, H. B. Hansmann and E. Gauldie, argue that philanthropy thropique »—la base théorique de son travail. Vauteur results from market or state failure and emerges when the state constate, comme thèse centrale, que la donation était or the market fails to provide for all citizens. Such an analysis is devenue un élément du comportement bourgeois (non fundamentally flawed because it is based on the experience of pas seulemenet à Toronto, mais aussi ailleurs) qui ser• the twentieth century and the invasion of the state into the pri• vait à intégrer les nouveaux élites, les femmes, et les mi• vate sphere.5 To assume that the state held full responsibility for norités religieuses et ethniques dans les structures providing cultural and social services is ahistorical because no• sociales, notamment dans la Haute Société. La body, even in the socialist workers movement, ascribed such re• deuxième partie du texte examine les Torontoniens sponsibilities to the state. Philanthropy happened because riches qui sont devenus philanthropistes pour but de wealthy citizens felt responsible for the good of their community. caractériser le philanthropiste typique de Toronto. En The thesis of my large research project is that donating became outre, la philanthropie n'était pas du continent nord- a bourgeois behavioural pattern that served to integrate new américain, mais était importée de l'Europe. Par con• elites, women, and religious and ethnic minorities into social séquent, la troisième partie de cet article se concerne structures, mainly "High Society". In this short paper, however, I avec l'explication du transfer des modèles philan• will show only that the philanthropic engagement of industrial• thropiques de l'Europe à Toronto. La dernière partie ists and entrepreneurs—the homo novae of the nineteenth cen• du texte examine le dévélopement des « monuments » tury—paved a path into Toronto's High Society. philanthropiques de Toronto : l'Hôpital Général de Toronto, le Musée d'Art de Toronto, le Musée Royal In comparing the philanthropic culture of Toronto with that of d'Ontario, et la Société Charitable fournissant des loge• Leipzig and New York in the late nineteenth and early twentieth ments de Toronto. centuries, I will examine the specific nature of the philanthropic culture of Toronto. In contrast to the philanthropic culture of Leipzig, where the state did not interfere, and to that of New York, where governmental support targeted only cultural but not social philanthropy, Toronto's philanthropic scene is charac- 3 Urban History Review / Revue d'hfc urbaine Vol. XXX, No. 1 (October 2001) Philanthropie Landmarks in Toronto terized by a strong combination of government support and phil• of philanthropy. I define philanthropy as the provision of finan• anthropic engagement of wealthy citizens in both cultural and cial, material, and ideal resources for cultural, social, and educa• social spheres. The examples of Toronto and New York seem to tional institutions by upper-class citizens. This may happen by prove Geoffrey Finlayson's argument that philanthropy was al• means of foundations, "limited dividend companies", member• ways part of a mixed economy.6 In both cases, philanthropy is ship organizations, or by bequests and donations. My concep• not the only form of social welfare. The city governments in tion includes cultural philanthropy—the support of art galleries Toronto and New York became involved in the provision of so• and museums—as well as social philanthropy—the support of cial welfare at the end of the nineteenth century. However, even social housing projects and hospitals. for Toronto and New York, this situation of mixed economy did Research on philanthropy lacks a chronological and compara• not occur until the turn of the century. Pure philanthropy existed tive context. As Judith Sealander points out, most of the re• much earlier. In the cases of Boston and Leipzig, Finlayson's ar• search about American philanthropy focuses on the period after gument is simply untrue.

Load more