PTF97.S2.Q16 - There are two especially influential interpretations of nineteenth...

camillawolff

I am confused here. I understand why the first part of A is correct. But, in regard to the second part of A, weren't the people who benefitted from the reforms the elites according to the passage?

ZekeGiordano

I think a big difficulty for me, and the main reason I got this question wrong, was too narrowly interpreting the question. After reading the question stem, I only thought about the different interpretations of the feminist opposition of the labor laws, since that seemed to be the main focus in the passage.

The question stem actually asks what the passage suggests about how the two schools of thought would differ in their writing of history of 19th century protective labor laws as a whole, not just the feminist opposition. The passage explicitly states how the two schools of thought differ fundamentally. To paraphrase, liberal legal historians analyze this era through the lens of the age of collectivism (shift in societal ideas) and characterize the passage of protective labor laws as starting with women and children and then eventually to men (gradual law change). The labor historians comparatively focus much more on class. The passage states that middle class feminists were the head of the opposition and that those middle class feminists were not thinking of the consequences for working class women. Labor historians are also said to believe that the feminist opposition was selfish due to it being rooted in privilege, and ignoring the opportunity to rethink the economic bases of social relations. Based on these fundamental differences in analyzing history, the passage suggests AC A.

To answer your question, I think you may have misinterpreted a portion of the passage. The reforms are the passage of protective labor laws for women. These were opposed by middle class and privileged women according to the labor historians. According to labor historians the people who benefitted from protective labor laws would be the laborers. Later in the passage it is discussed how men and the British government would benefit from these reforms, but this belief is not ascribed to the labor historians.