Title
Author(s)
Citation
Issue Date
Type
W.E.B.Du Bois and Booker T.Washington:1894-1905
小山, 花子
一橋研究, 31(4): 73-94
2007-01
Departmental Bulletin Paper
Text Version publisher
URL
http://doi.org/10.15057/17949
Right
Hitotsubashi University Repository
73
W．E．B，DuBois andBookefT．Washington：1894−1905
HANAKO KOYAMA
lntroduction
Booker T．Washington and W．E．B．Du Bois sha士ed the goa1of b1包。k’s facia1
up皿f㎡ng in the Iate nineteenth and e趾工y bvend仁th centuf土。s，but differed on ideo1ogi＿
c目1and tacdca1issucs on educadon and thc civ！and poudca1rights f0f b1acks．Whi1e
Washi噌。n stressed the ncccss吋。〔ndu昌tfial educadon纈nd c丑皿ed to put且side thc
highef go目1s of the acquisidon of the poHhca1且nd civi1fights undI b1ack got enough
wea！tb and recog㎡tion in｛o Ameri〔an society，Du Bois insisted that those go包1s
come togeth仁f with b1ack’s economic deve1opment，and should not b已postponed−In
T加Sm方砂I B加走Fo股pubhshcd in1903，Du B〇三s m量dc his行fst of丘。i丑1c士idcism
of W￡shington’s accommod乱don ph丑。sophy．In tho book，Du Bois（ユ973b，pp．41−
59）cfidcized W且shington as tea〔hing submission，minimizing tho imp0ftancc of
bhck’s highet cducadon，md not giving enough emphasis upon thc importanco of
b1ackヨs civhnd poHdca／rights．Du Bois（1973b，pp49−51）趾gued th乱t Washington’s
st蝸togy of comp正。mise1cd to the dcgr3daせ。n of b1且。k’s so〔ia1且nd poHせ。a1status
in the South，manifcst in the inc正。ase in1ynching and di呂f伽nchisemcnt of tho b1acks．
Un五kc Was㎞ngton，Du Bois caued for thc“mmtant”stmgg1e f0f black’s poliせ。且1
目nd civ！fights and tho cultiv且tion of由e t且1onted few b1且。ks in0fder to up冊t the
r乱。c．WMe W邊shington emphasized th仁necess卵。f1ndust舳educahon㎜d0f the
con♂㎡on of the growing cotporato c盆p三t目Hsm，Du Bois sttossed c1ass凸f長fen由tion
within山。 cホせng b1ack popu1ace（G乱ines，1996，pp．163−164）．
Despitc thcse diffcfcnces on the surf且。e，yet，it is not c且sy to dcterminc whothef
thefe is a fund乱menta1theoredca10f idooIogica1山f0f㎝ce b已榊een thc市0f丑。ial
74
一橋研究 第31巻4号
1eadcts．Du Bois（1968割，pp．236−237）himse1f suggests that he does not tota11y
dffef丘。m Washington in matte士s concer㎡ng b1肛k’s progtoss．W㎜c thc tcxtual and
hist0fica1cvidence c1cat1y shows that the士e趾e simi1鮒ities乱s we1as dissimi1atiせes
bchvcen the 帥。 leaders of thc岨。e，scholars divefge on thc interpfcta亡ive questions
of whethcf Du Bois can be fegafded as“ndmentauy11d1ffefcnt旺。m Washington，
乱nd of whethef Du Bois possessed丑sigd丘。ant intcuectuオand poHせ。目／origimHty
vis一会一vis W毘shingt㎝、Cmse（1968）日正gues that there is no fundamont訂diffo蛇nce
bc榊。en the耐0facia11eadefs．Acco舳ng to C正use，Washingt0Hnd Du Bois stood
undef the same umb士e1目。f the emcfging b1ack bourgeoisi已pfacdce乱nd imagim町，
邊nd djd not＆ffcr sjg㎡石。昆ndy in thejf phjユ。sophjcaユ割nd p旭。bc目1j］〕鉋n焔st鮒ions−On
the othef h乱nd，Apthekc士（1966）afgues that Du Bois had a unique phuosophy d正
危fcnt丘。m Washington’s．According to Ap山。ker（1996，P．34），Du Bois’s d冊er−
encε丘。m Wasbj略㎝is mt simp1y t包。dd but ph迎。sophcaJ・
This m且ttct is hafd t0feso工ve in a consistent way．Most importanせy，neithef0f
the 帥。 1eade士s ptoduced a cle趾乱nd coherent thco町 on b1ack’s1atgcr poHtica1量nd
soc滅go直／s togethef w王th the tacdc割1cons拙ef盆dons星nd p禰。dces．h the c丑se of Du
Bois，the intouectua1 且nd poH亡ical nu〔tuaせ。ns 趾。 great，mnging 丘。m the e1i亡ist
integrado㎡sm to sc堅egatio㎡sm，丘。m acせvism to ide汕sm，且nd缶。m communism to
｛仁aueged舳dcommu㎡st P舳一A砧。伽mdomHsm（Reed，ユ997，PP．3−4）。Anothef
thing to be takon count of is that jn由。 matter of black’s upHfdng，onc cmnot
i昌。／ate thc theo士ists’of丘。ia1prop乱ganda丘。m wh且t they pfac白。auy did f0f the士acc．
In somc instances，｛c王正p岨。dce may te皿m0fc about thcif thought than what thcy
ac亡ua1y wf0te，For oxamp！e，Washingtonヨs suppo士t f0f b1ack’s pouticオand civi1士ights
bocomes evident when one ex量mines what Washington did，耐hcf than wh量t he
wrote （Cmse，1966，pp．217−219）．Washi呼。n，最though advef｛sing the
accommod且亡iodst phi1osophy in0fdef to obtain white’s supp0ft and pat士。n且gc，
且。tua1y opposed to b1且。k’s dis丘mchisoment and〔1efcndcd pubHc cducadon in the
South．
This papef examines the diffefcnce between the up皿丘idoo1ogies of Du Bois
and W伯shington by1ooking at the histoti〔aユ。rigins and the natufe of thc djffctence．
I exp10fe thc i㎡舳。ontacts b帥een Washington且nd Du Bois，miniy in the pefiod
W．E．B．Du Bois and Booker T．Washington＝1894−1905
75
0f1894一ユ905，and invos亡ig丑te how the pefsomi and prof已ssion且1ost畑ngcment
affcctcd the of丘。ia1id已。logic丑1con趾t be帥。㎝Du Bois and Washington．I趾guo
th且t whi1c thcfc w且s a deafly phlosophic身1d冊efence，it was the pe士son乱1md pf0−
fession最estfmgement th旦t let the philosophical d冊ercncc havc m of丘。i且1appoaf−
mce and sever吋．I且1so趾guc｛且t Du Bois’s pc正sona1and p士。fessioml rivalq with
Washington mado Du Bois’s theoワ。f the raci旦1upH丘umocc昌s趾uy mtf0w．I趾guc
that bccauso of the compeせtion and thc utgc to disせngu三sh and idendfy himself vis一
身一vis Washingt㎝，Du Bois’s theoty came to omit an impott艘nt sct of issucs which
were thc spccia吋。f W且shington．Motc spccific乱uy，I趾gue th旦t Du Bois’s hos舳リ
tow鮒d W且shington and㎞s se1ト。on冊ence as a scho／af0f丑㎞gh f㎜k made㎞s
uplift thco町丑ppHcab1e on1y to the smau oHtc s伽t且，the ta1ented tenth，while／oaving
thc f0st of the b／ack popu1ace in a dubious submission to thc cHte．
My papcf consists of thrcc pafts．Fitst，I wi11ex丑mine some int0fpretations of
Du Bois−Washi噌。n contf0vcfsy’and Du Bois’s and Washington’s comment且ries on
oach othcr．I wiu discuss the works l〕y Cmso （ユ968），Aptheker（1966），Rcod
（1997）and Lewis（1993）．In the secona p鮒，I wm b士ie丑y examine tho histoty of
thc te1割tionship b榊。cn Washington and Du Bois bc亡we㎝1894and1905，when
the two 士丑。i乱11eaders丑ttemptod to buld且。oope細dvc f01ationship in v証n．By
tfacing the m且j0f cvcnts du・ing the pe士iod，I w㎜ show how thei士re！ationship
becamc丘xed md manifestcd in DμBois’s ofEcia1cfiti⊂ism of Washington纈nd his
css且y on“Thc Ta1cntcd Tenth．”In thc thifd paft，I will cr王ticauy cxaminc how｛c
riva吋between the tw0faci種1eaders m且de tho scope of Du Bois］s ph！osoplユy m〔l
scho1乱r1y imaginψon m士row且nd con丘ned to the expcticncc of tho few eHte b1量。ks。
Cmsc（1968，p．228）argucs th邊t the士e is缶nd且mcnt纈uy no d冊erencc botwoon
Du Bois md W丑shington丑s both／e且dors stood for b／a〔k’s poHtic目1and ecommic
pf091＝css丘。m the pcfsp已。tive of the eme壇ng b1ack bourgeoisie in Amcric盆一Cfuse
cx乱mines the re1adon be耐ecn Du Boi呂乱nd Washington in thc broader context of
the B1包。k Poworホ。o山sc．Cmsc趾gues that au B1ack Powcf discoufses，三ncluding
76
一橋研究 第31巻4号
thosc who do not exp止。idy ca1 themse1ves “B1ack Power，” are dobted to
Was㎞1gton．Acc0f出ng to Cruse（P．201），B1ack powef is“nothing but出。
econom王。 md poudca1phi1osophy of Booket T．W且s㎞ngton given宮1960’s m汕tant
shot in the且士m且na bf0ught up to date．”F0f Ctuse，Du Bois is mderstood盆s onc
of thc Black Powerites whose root is in Washington’s accommodadon p阯。sophy．
Cmse（pp．201−202）趾gues that Du Bois，when he cIear1y abandoned出e N＾CP
p㎞ユ。sophy md c汕。d fot a plan f0f 由e b工乱。k “economic coope柵㎡vc
commonwe星1th，” 垂浮煤@fo正th nothing but且pf0群am fo士economic md poHtica1B1ack
Powef−Acco砧ng to Cm呂。，｛c丑ueged趾fetence be耐een Du Bois md W且s㎞n酢。n
is just a spHt，m ideoiogic丑！dvision，w止㎞n 山。 mカn tendencies of the ncw，
巳me士ging A仔。−Amefican b1ack boutgcoisic over which course to tako f0f true bI乱。k
progress（p．227）．Crusc（Ibid．）says th盆t Washington’s was“basic汕y boufgcois，
se工仁holp，堅。up economics，plus functiom工，p雌。㎡c種education wi由a dc−omphasis of
civu fights丑git丑tion，”wh1e Du Bois emph且sizcd on1，civ王工rights−pf0test丑gitation，
socia1oquaHΨ，and higheピhumanides’education．1，They were two spokesmen of thc
rising b1ack bourgeolsie1n Americ盆。Washington was a bourgeois㎜せ。n心t spokes−
man；Du Bois was a boutg已。is伽＆cオintegfado㎡st（Cmse p．220）一
Apthckc士’s view on Du Bois stands in tadic身1contras士to Ctuse’s−Apthcker
（1966，pp 33−34）且rgユes th乱t thc di珂。rences between the two thc0fists wefe“basic
md not simply tacticaL”Accordng to Aptheker，the most important a士e the fouow−
ing facts．Du Bois“rcjcctod subordinadon”whi1c Washngton“accepted it；”Du Bois
fejectcd〔o1o㎡aH呂m but Washington assumcd its conせnuance；Du Bois cri㎡cizcd
c且pit疵sm wh］e Washington worshipped it（Ibid・）Thus，Apthekef（p・33）doos not
丘nd an“eno㎜ous in且uence”exefted by Wash1ngton upon b1ack mdonaHsts，
C士use （pp．217−219） opposes to Aptheke士’s view by saying th且t what
Washiogton actu宜uy did shows his fundamentaI sim1趾ity to Du Bois。丁脳ng count
of Was㎞ngton’s creadon of numerous b1ack’s cconomic md socia1insせ続せ。ns，Cmse
（p2！9）af駅es that Washington・s fccotd demonstt且tes that he ws・not agオnst
what Du Bois stood fot in civl rights，且nym0f0thm Du」Bois was ag射nst
WasHngton’s progfm of making b1ack ardsans businossm㎝and ptopc岬。wnefs，0f
his phi1osophy of Work and Money．”
W．E．B．Du Bois and Booker T．Washington＝ユ894−1905
77
R・・d（1997，PP．59−60）砒g・…h…h・…冊・・b・帥…h・帥・b1・・k…i・1
Ieaders shou1d bo undefstood in the context of the“competition f0f丑。cess”to thc
w㎞tc p丑tromge thf0ugh w㎞ch A品。−Amefic邊n poHtica1量nd inteuec亡ual activi㎡es took
pIace．W，Hc placing Du Bois in a bto丑def inte1ectu宮1tef畑in by1oo歴ng at his con−
ncction to tho ovo1utionist thought and sod宜1fcfomism in the1ate19｛且nd e趾工y
20th c㎝tufics，Reed（P．62）鮒gues th盆t Washi噌。n且hd Du掲。is sh鮒ed cett且in
basicホposidons of e1ite tendcncics．A〔c0fding to Reed （Ibid．），bo｛of them
a⊂cepted tho csscnせal mode1of socia1hie雌。hy that pfevalcd in the society，and
士n種nt射ned that“up1王命” of the b1ack popu1ation enta1ed 目n eHte＿dfiven 2ccfe㎡on of
the cha畑。tctistics of‘‘civ汕刎㎡on。”Both of t1ユem needed toユ曲tim量dze thei正aspira−
tions to uppet−c1ass whites who con耐。ucd tho monet且打and other士esou士。es neces一
…｛・・puR丑・ゼ中・（1bid・）・A・・…mp・・郷・fW・・hi・g…，D・B・i1冊・d・d・・
cfe且te㎞s o正iginオposidon so th且t ho c乱n st且nd out as a new，young1e且de士。f the
正ace and thus can acccss to these正esources．Thus，Reed afgucs that thefe was not
so much diffefence in tlユe substance of thci士phlo昌。phios 且s in tac亡ica1割nd poHtica1
matters．Du Bois’s acdvity was not且gainst the substmce of Washington’s philosophy
but m opposidon to the f乱。t that Washington had estabu呂hcd monopo1y ovct thc
access to pat正。nage sourcos・
If0㎡c汕y，Reed says，Du Bo王s’s w士it三ngs wef0in som0fcspccts no loss pa1atab1e
than W坤ington’s to tho whitc cHto stf舳一Acco士ding to Reed（p．60），the co舳。t
b榊。en Du Bois and Washington can bo und0fstood纈昌“the cu㎞inadon of a
tens土。n bctweon｛c spccific且gendas and the legitimacy c1畳jms of diffcfcnt c1cmcnts
of｛e bI纈。k e工ite丑nd the various whitc supp0ft gf0ups．”
Cruse’s且nd Rocd’s viows趾e vin出。ated by the facts that dcspito thc di脹rcnc仁
。n tho su士f丑。e，there砒e sevet最｛o0fctica1sim1afities be1ween the of丘。i且1ph土1oso−
p㎞cs of Was㎞ngton md Du Bois．Moo士e（1981，p．59）points out somc of th仁
importmt thc0fedca1simuaridcs bo帥。㎝Du Bois￡nd W乱shington．For ex旦mple，
Young Du Bois’s p王e目in T加P〃〃ψゐ加N磐m f0f“pa亡ionco”on tho p割ft of b1acks
in theif sttiving f0f cqua1opp0ftuψl cou1d be且群eeab1e to Washington（Ibid．）．
A1so，Du Bois’s1atcf intefest in the powef th且t cou1d bo dovc1opcd thf0ugh thc ac一
⊂umula㎡on of wea1出by b1ack hb0fefs is not distant缶。m Washingtonヨs emphasis
78
一橋研究 第31巻4号
upon the neod to tmin b1且。ks to pe士f0fm wcn at1且boring tasks on通fms md in亀。−
totios so that they cou王d acquifc the ptospcr坤that wou1d presum乱b工y訟iso thcm
from theif1ow1y pos拙。n in Amctican soci町（Ibid．）．Futthctmo士e，Du Bois’s con一
t士。versi且1idea expresscd most vigorous1y in theユ930s that bhcks shou1d tako advm一
tago of tho sc餌。g鮎。n thoy had bc仁n f0f⊂cd into md cvcn cxp1oit it fot their own
bene￡ts，is mt tot丑uy dissimi1af to Washington’s且。ceptmce of seg士。gadon as a Hnd
of sociopohdc乱1 h量ven within wh三。h b工丑。ks night ope伽te， to thci士 oconomic and
…i・1・d・・…g・（Ibid．）．
Washington’s且nd Du Bois’s assessments of e丑。h othet a1so supp0ft thc vicw
that thc diffc士。nce bctweon the tw0facial le艘dcrs is tho mattor of emph乱sis and not
stficHy of subst目nce−Du Bois，a1though eme正ging且s the c士itic of W量shington，did
not maintain his disagreement to Wa舳n邸。n consistent／y or pormanendy・In
ノ物〃磐卿砂 （Du Bois，1968且，P．236），王mmcdiatcly 目ftcf saying that thc
Washi呼。n−Du Bojs controvctsy st趾ted as㎜ideo1ogica1one，Du Bois sttesses that
thc帥。 tho0fios of bユack pf0群。ss“wcfc not且bso1utc1y co打t訟♂ctoq，”and that thcy
fep欄ented榊。』nds of leadefship，i．巳the／eadef昌h王p of wfit三ng且nd協。hing in Du
Bois，md｛e1eade士ship of money and organi2a日。n in W丑shingt㎝．This cont㎝don
somds liko an app士。v且1of thc出vision of1ab0f within thc samc pf0gf目m fot b1且。k’s
up岨dng to which both of the1eadefs were supposed to contfibutc．
On｛c othcf hand，Washington was a1so ambiva1ent on his theoredc最di脹t−
cnco丘。m Du Bois．Washington（ユO，P．608）accuscd Du Bois of not boing ac−
quainted enough of the cond主dons in the South where the m且j0fity of the A舟ican−
Ametican皿vcd．But W纈shington did not give theo士edca1tems to his and−Du Bois
phlosophy−Washington’s cf主dcism of Du Bois was morc of宮n informa工and poudcaI
mtufe，f・th0f山㎜fig0f0us1y th仁0f仁ti・・I0f phfIo・ophi・a工・w・・㎞ngton’s工etter to J・R・
B趾1ow on Mafch I，19u，is cmdid and to the point．This le士tot shows nothing but
thc砧。t th丑t Wa舳ngton’s inte11ect㎜1d雌rcncc to Du Bo1s w且s a matt0f0f
cmphasis and tactic，舳d even of tempcfament−Reg趾ding Du Bois，W丑s㎞ngton（ユO，
P．609）wfitcs：
I bcHeve that tlユe Negf0race is mabng progfess．1bcHcve th量t it王s bcttet
W．E．B．DuBoisandBookerT．Washington：1894−1905
79
for the f丑。e to cmph2sizo its opp0ftudせ。s thm to師。vct−much stress on
its disadvant邊ges−He bc丘。vcs that the Ne県。 race is ma㎞ng1itt1e p士。gfcss．
I bcHovo that we shou1d cu王tivate an evef mady，stf且ightfo士ward manner and
friendIy re1乱dons between whitc pcop1c md b1乱。k people Dr．Du Bois
pursuos thc policy of sti竹ing up strife botwcon wlユitc pcop1c and bI且。k
pcop1e−This wou1d not be bad，if aftcf stifting up stti石e between whit仁
people and black poop1c in the South，he would Hvc in thc South and be
bracc cnough to bce condi㎡ons whi〔h his unwise cou士se has he1ped To bfing
且boutヨ，but instcad of doing that，he 且ees to thc North ana 1cavcs the 岨nk
md齪。 of co1o止ed people in the South no bettef0ff because of thc unwisc
cou士se which ho and othcrs lie him h身ve pufsucd．
Then
he continues＝
We雌maldng Progtess as且faco−tfemendous pro9士。ss一且n〔l I beHeve it is
better to hoId up bcf0fc the colored pooplc thc fact that they afc 岬aking
progress than to condnua皿y ho1d up a pictute of gloom ana desp2ir before
them．
Furthefmore
Was㎞ngton says
且u tHs f㎜y conscious of the wrongs suffcfed by my訟。c．I say a1this not
with the idea of in my do群ec hmidng or⊂ifcumscfibing the progfcss or
g正。wth of thc伽。c in any direcせ。n，but I w盆nt to1宮y a sufc found出。n f0f
prog士ess．In a word，the gfcat weakness，in my opinion，of Df．Du Bois’s
posi㎡on is that ho f目i1s to recognizo the fact that it i昌a work of constfuc七〇n
that is bc￡0fc us now md not丑w0fk of destruction．
Note th纈t Wアashington s且ys“in且ny dhection，”and thus三nc1udcs the strκe for b1且⊂k’s
civi正 and poIi亡ica1 fights．
Lcwis（1993）providcs the hist0fica1宮。counts which昌how th且t tho idco1ogic邊I
80
一橋研究第31巻4号
dffetence1〕etween Du Bois md Was㎞ngton was not so c正idcal as山。山石。f0n〔e in
t仁mpc旭mcnt and pefsonaHty．Lcwis（1993，PP．286−287）趾gues that ideo1ogica1es−
trangement was m0f0｛n the mtu士e of consequence岨th0f th且n且。ause。”Lewis
（1993，p286）趾gues that tho Du Bois−Washi噌。n controvefsy emerged pfimari／y
a日p0fsom1and ptofo呂siom1conHicts，md then became王deo1ogic阯一To put it凸ffcr−
enHy，Lewis demo撮附ates that the con砧。t between the two r乱。ia11融defs was p士i−
m砒1y of non＿玉deo1ogica1natu舵，艘nd 亡h乱t thc non−idoo1ogical con舳。ts pfeceded thc
pub1ication of T加SmムゲBん。走Fo淡，王n w㎞ch Du Bois m3de the丘fst omcia1cfiti−
cism of Washington’s丑。commoda㎡on phlosophy，Lewis（Ibld．）鮒gues th乱t contf岬
to Du Boi呂’s cont仁ntion in㎞s autobio群aphy，D〃冶ゲDmn（Du Bois，1968b，p．
69），the Du Bois−Washington controve士sy begm with“出冊fcnccs in emphases，sus一
picions and insinuaせ。ns”且s wcu as“wi凸doctrim1shaping and h鮒de㎡ng in the
fo正。e 丘e工ds of 帥。 an丘thedcal egos．”
I do not he正eby reptoduce minutc1y au thc happenings between Du Bois ana
W丑s㎞ngton during thc pcfiod ofユ894t01905，Yet，somc fa〔ts cspcdauy i皿umimte
the mtufe of the es舳ngement betwocn thc two正ac王a1theo正ists．These facts show
th量t Du Bois had a ptidc且s艘scho1ar of宜high rmk，丑nd fefused to bc subsumcd
undc正Was㎞ngton’s pefsom1and inte11ectu丑1dominmcc．As Lcwis台hows，their
con皿。t rem目ined to be pfim日fiIy the ma士tef0f tactics and p0fsomHせ。s，rather thm
of ideolo罰’一To put it d冊ercnt1y，the idco1ogic且／dispute be市ecn Du Bois md
Washington w丑s fue1ed by the山fetencc in pe正som！i印md tac七。s．The tactica1且nd
pcrsonオdisp肚itios be帥een the 帥。1eadors cont正ibuted to the hoa亡ing of the ideo＿
1o裏。a1contf0vc士sy pcth・ps mot・｛an was objξcdvely neccssa町，and preventcd onc
丘。m sccing tho subs士antial simi1砿ities of thcir ideologies．This is not to say th旦t
there was no ideo1ogicオ山fcfence bc帥。cn Du Bois md W且shington．Du Bois’s
idea1ism，not on1y in the sonse of striving for the utopian goa正but目工so in the sense
of the p㎞1osophic邊1ideaHsm of Hegc1，is notab1c川、Yet，Du Bois’s inconsistcnt and
且mbiva1cnt atdtude tow趾d Washington shows th目t this differ㎝ce was not as cfuci最
W．E．B．Du Bois and Booker T．Washington＝ユ894−1905
8王
丑s thc〔1且sh in tempet身mcnt．
Let us brieBy soc thc coutse of events be帥een Washington纈nd Du Bois w㎞ch
occufred just bef0fe md疵。r thc pubHcation of Du Bois’；丁加SmムゲBん。冶Fo淡、
w㎞ch is Du Bois’s o冊。ia1ideo1ogica1cfidcism of Was㎞ngton．The cont纈。t be帥een
thc two mcn st砒ted as且fathe正norma／丑nd fricnd1y one，as Du Bois w士idng to
W．s㎞ngton in1894．1．tt．f to．sk f0f丑job op已㎡ng・t Tusk・g・・Du Bois had just
正etumed丘。m Eu止。pe，包nd was see目。g for a job．At this dme，Du Bois h且d“no
thing but thc gtcatcst乱dmif丑せ。n“缶f Was㎞ngton and Tuskegee（Du Bois，1968b，
p・69）・Du Bois appHed at both Tuskegee a早〔1Hampton丘。r w0fk・Du Bois did not
h丑v0fcscαadons且bout the Tuskcgee institute which he w邊s to show1a士。f−Du Bois
wf0te that if Washington’s t61e脾m，giving him a posi缶。n to teach ma｛emaせ。s，had
tcachcd c趾1i已f，he shou1d simp1y have gone to Tuskegee．M0feovet，Du Bois
（ユ968a，p 185；1968b，p．49）wfites th且t if wou1d be intctc．ting“to spc〔u1ate‘‘just
wh且t wou1d havc happoned if he h且d feceived the offef0f Tuskegee丘fst一“It w且s
Du Bois who made the choice to wo士k for W1berforce，whose1etter of acceptance
had 砒士ivcd catlict than that of Tuskcgoe．
Du Bois’s letter to Washington just after t1ユe famous“At1ant盆Compromise”
speech of1895a工so shows that the idco1ogic且工dif徒fcnco did not cxist任。m the be−
gin㎡ng．As Aptheker（Du Boisユ，p．39）notes，after Washington’s speech in1895
at the Cotton Exposidon in At1anta，Du Bois immcdiatc1y wtotc to pt丑isc
Washington．S1x days after the speech，Du Bois（Ibid．）wrote Washingt㎝to
“hcafti1y cong伽㎞且te”him upon his“phenomem1success at A由nta。”This pt｛se
was mt just a Hattery．Du Bois wtotc to thc Ncw York々吾to support W宜shingt
on’s個。ia1strate駆m叫fested in his At1ant且Speech．Du Bo王s（1，p，55）wf0te that
in Washingt6n’s stfatcgy thefe“might bc thc b纈sis of a rca1sctHcmont bctwecn
whites乱nd b工acks王n the South，if the South opened to the Negroes the do0fs of
c〔onomic opporlユln王ty and｛c Ncg士。cs co−opetated with thc whitc South in poHtic乱1
sympathy・”
Du Bois also stood fot Washngton in the N乱dom三A丘。−Ameficm Comc刊
meedng in C㎞cago in1899when￡㎞Ht丑nt min0fity denomcod W舶hington and his
wife （Lcwis， 1993， PP． 230−231）。At the meodng，the min0f吋 c士iticized
82
一橋研究 第31巻4号
W且sHngton’s cφvoc且せ。n ovcf｛c S乱m Hoscユync㎞ng and his opdmisdc view on
b1丑。k’s future．Reve士dy Cassius Rmsom，AME min1ste士，demanded th且t Washington
be cxpc皿ed ftom AME membetship．Du Bois1ed the defense信。r Washington，and
voted f0f a resoユution cx〔using his pafticipadon in o士ga㎡zcd discussion “which
might be fadic丑工in its utterances to the des血uction of his usefulness in conncction
with many causes”（Lcwis，1993，P・230）・Notewo干thy is th乱t王deo1ogic￡11y Du把。is
must have been c1oser to the positjons takon by thc m王n0fity and Revefdy R乱nsom
who had somo doubts about W纈shington’s1eadership（c￡Ibid．）．Yot，such且n idco−
Iogical di脹rence w且s not onough to1ct Du Bois take any of丘。ial dep鉗ture丘。m
WasHngton’s camp．Acc0fdng to Lewis（p．231），this王s bccausc Du Bois wc皿un−
dと正stood Was㎞ngton’s o⊂c且siom1dcp航tuto仔。m the pattem of the邊。commodadon
p㎜osophy．Inユ898and1899，there were activi㎡cs by Was㎞ngton to spcak f0f
b1量。k’s recognidon，and ag虹nst b1乱〔k’s di昌丘艘nchisemcnt in the South（Ibid．）．
Wh且t is not・w0fthy h・f・is th・t in this pefiod Du Bois did not judgo
W丑shington’s phlosophy on its face va1uc，but mderstood it as且wholc．Du Bois
m且y have been a1feady uncomf0ft丑b1c with Was㎞ngton’s丑。commodaゼ。n phlosophy
which mi㎡mized theエ。k of b1量。k’s higher educadon and socia工and poHtica1equ汕け
。f the b1acks，but砒d not of丘〔i目uy donouncod it．Rathe士，Du Bois cv乱1u邊tod
Was㎞ngton by what he出d to his face in generaL Such incidents且s Washington’s
A由nt丑Compf0mise呂pcech纈nd ev丑siveness on the Sam Hoso1ync㎞ng wcf0not
㎝ough for Du Bois to take且ny dccisivc stcp tow趾d and−Washington theo町and
Pmcdce・
Tho cxchange on Du Bois’s appointment at Tuskcgcc shows a de1ic且te but
dccisive coutsc Du Bois took tow趾d Washington’s p㎞losophy md its pmc丘。al mani−
festa亡ion of Tuskegee．Aftef the ini曲11ettef0n量job opening mendoned above，
thete w・士。耐・・hmcos．by whi・h Du Bois・ou／d join W・s㎞ngton at Tuskegee．In
J且nuaη1896，when Du Bois was considering1eaving Philadc1phia U㎡vcfsity，whc士。
hc was w0fking朋a fese趾。hef，Du Bois sent a lctte正as歴ng fot“my opening”
which W量shington thought he was“行tted to m”（Washington，1，pp．98−99）．
Was㎞ngton舵p皿ed p士。mpdy，but Du Bois dc1ayed目decision（Washington，ユ，p．
459n）一Du Bois丘n汕y docHned to w0fk at Tuskegce bo〔ause he aid not㎞ow“just
W．E．B．Du Bois and Booker T．Washington：1894−1905
83
how he cou1d bc of sen1ice‘‘to W且shingt㎝。Du Bois目1so impLed that the cuf士icu山
1um of Tuskegee1量。ked thc foundatiom1，scho1且f1y couts仁s which Du Bois was apt
to toach，such as“Histo巧・，Economics，［and1Socia1Probユems．”（W且s㎞ngton，4，pp．
152−153）。Du Bois，who gfadu且ted丘。m Fisk Univefsity，studied in Germ丑ny and
c且mod PhD from Ha町afd in㎞sto巧・，was e邊g0f to toach m0f0scholasdc宮na intel一
ユectu乱1coufses．Du Bois evcntually took thc of屋正且t A曲nta Univer的丁．
The thitd exchange about Du Bois’s appointment at Tuskcgcc cleaf1y shows Du
Boi昌’s re！uctance to work at Tuskegee，no matter how good the宜。commodations
and s且1ary wefc．Two months aftcf｛c Chicago con缶roncc，Washington scnt包no｛e士
1cttc・inv価ng Du Boi・to come to Tuskcgcc．As pet Du Bois’s fequest of July1899
（W且shington，5，p・ユ52），Was㎞ngton made deaf thc wo士k he expocted＆om Du
Bois丑nd the sa1目町．Washington wroto that hc wished Du Bois“to conduct socio一
ユ。gic乱1studies that wou工d pf0vo he1pfu工to out pooP1c，”espec阯y“some systemic
md p且instaking w0fk to be done with the coun町 districts in thc B1且。k Bolt．”
Washington aaaed th且t Tuskogoo’s“pfindng o冊〔o”wou1d bc whouy且t Du Bois’s
s帥ice，and the且momt of sa1町（P．245）。It ws c1c趾that Washington apPfeciated
Du Bois’s fccent study on Philadelphia’s b1ack communi呼，pubushcd in1899目昌丁加
P〃ん必ク〃n．N磐〃．
In Fobru町1900，Du Bois was s舳。onsidefing Washington’s offcf，but
showing onough skepticism，Du Bois ques㎡oned if he was“feally needed at
Tuskegee，”丑nd if his且ppointmcnt“wou1d not bo且柵thcf0rmmenta1use thm a
fmd且monta三 necess吋，“ given Tuskcgce’s b乱sic 土dea of industri星I cdu〔ation
（Washington，5，p443）．Two months1且tor，Du Bois wrote凸at he“丘muy decided
not to乱。copt”the job at Tuskegco．Thc feason is th且t Du Bois had bocn un乱b工。
of pctsuade himsc工f that thc opportunides thcfe趾e‘‘enough Iarge士th且n those here
2t At工anta U㎡vers吋”to justiウhis．moving．Pfiding himse1f且s a scho1鮒。f a high
伽nk，ho cven且ddcd that“the on！y opo㎡ng th丑t wou1d宜t舳。t”him would bo thc
onc th丑t brought him“ne胱f tho ccntres of cuユtufcs md1鮒ing”and thus gave him
・1趾ger Htct岬acdvity・（Washington，5，p．480）．This was p0fh且p昌㎝ough to show
Was㎞ngton Du Bois se1仁。on丘d㎝cc as a scho1且f㎜d that he was not going to be
just乱nother mm in thc se耐ice for W且s㎞ngton．At this dme，Du Bois had in mind
84
一橋研究第31巻4号
anothef way to se町e for thc black face，name工篶as position of thc supcfintendent
of the Washi噌。n D．C．schoo1s（Washington，5，pp．443−444）、
The bittef sttifc ovef the posi㎡on of｛c ass三stant supefintcndcnt of the b1ack
schoo1s of the Distfict of Co1umbia was indeed the丘fst sign of the mutu引enm吋
be榊en Du Bois and W里shington（c￡Lowis，1993，p．232）。THs dmらWas㎞ngton
deceived Du Bois to s且vc㎞s status as a racia11e乱def0f the countΨEaf1y in1900，
｛efe w量s乱v目。且ncy in the posidon。趾h鮒d W．Thompson wtote to Washington on
Match14．1900，that whi1e the most acccptab工e appointment wou1d be Du Bois，
Was㎞ngton cou1ポ㎞vc it by a nod of乱ssenゼ’（Washngt叫5，p・463）・Du Bois
was indeed seehng the posidon．In his榊。1ettcrs to Washington in Febm虹y，he
pfefeffed the posi七〇n to｛at at Tuskegee．Du Bois thought that．he wodd be ab工。
to se町e bo凸Washingto｛cause and the genc旭1cause of出e b1乱。ks by t舳ng the
posidon of tho且ssistant supefintendent．Du Bols needcd Was㎞ngton’s end0fsemont
to acquife thc posi㎡叫but Washington d1d not offe正it u1せmate1γ Inste盆｛
Wa中ngton（Du Bo紅1，P44）wrote Du pois not to wot軌and bec且me the as−
sistant supefintendent h㎞sel￡Du Bois must havc bittcf feeHngs about Washington
’s decep七〇n．Wfidng his third纈utobiog士aphy班。md㎡nedes，Du Bois s仙fcmcm−
bers the incident，inc1u出ng W且s㎞ngton’s te皿ng Pfcsident Rooseve1t且bout山e
‘也ng♂’to且ppoint Du Bois to the position．Remembefing｛e incide叫Du Bois
（1968も p．252） wfitos亡hat Thood0f0 Rooseve1t‘㎞ve正 fo士got the danget of my
pcfsomHty as later events proved．”Cu正ious1y，inメ助肋主榊砂似Du Bois temcmbcfcd
that the incidEnt about thc posiせ。n of Supcfintcndont happcncd aftet the pubH〔ation
of T加SmゐゲBん。走Fo従，just bef0fc山e establishment of the Niaga個・Movement，
邊nd m且de it sound uke an occutrence a丘ef the fix乱tion of the idco工。gica1con鋤。t
be帥een thc 耐。 figufes．
The so−c汕。d Boston珊。t in工ate1903is anothe士incident by which Du Bois−
Washington felaゼ。ns㎞p had t昼ken a coutsc tow趾d mutua1cmity fathcf than coop−
c舳。n Was㎞ngton doubted that Du Bois was behind Ttotte∼s“fevoエゴsuppo士七ng
him and｛us deceiving Washington−Du Bois was actua皿y against Ttotte士’s且。㎡on，
but became suspicious enough．Du Bois fem趾ked1ater in Decembefユ903that
最though hc“steadfasdy condcmned Mf．Tf0ttct’s acdon，”he“unhesitanuy”beHeved
W．E．B．Du Bois and BookerT．Washington：ユ894−1905
85
that Tf0tteエwas“品玉ne且fef the fight”than Washington（W且s㎞ng士。n，8，p．240）．
It was unde正su〔h且。oufsc of events th且t Du Bois’s T加Smムゲ月ん。冶Fo淡was
P・bu・h・d．丁加Smん？・bH・h・di・…1y1903，・・…i・・d・…1丑y・g纈i…W・・hi・脾・
The essay舳。ポ‘Of Mf，Booker T．Washington and Othefs“was an of丘。i且1an−
nounccment of Du Bois’s depaftufc丘。m Washington’s p阯。sophy纈nd camp．In the
essay，Du Bois mnounced th且t the dme had come to speak of the“m王stakcs and
shortcomings“of Washington，and ctidcized Washington邊s tcaching submissi㎝
rathcr than sel』sscftion，being三“compf0misor”of the two蝸。es，and mi㎡mizcd
the importmce of b1旦。k’s highc士。duc出。n and the civil and poHtica1fights（Du
Bois，1973b，pp．41−59）。Du Bois（p51）a1so s㎡d th丑t the re血m of Washington’s
pbilosophy of submission afc thc ds行anch王sement of thc b1割。ks，the civii infefiority
for the b／acks，and the withd正aw割1of the aid f0f b1盆。k’s high0f t向㎡ng。“The
Ta工。ntcd Tenth，”pubushcd in thc same yeaf in丑vobme Ht1ed Tあe N磐m Pm〃m to
which Washington阯so contributed，w邊s more in the mtuf00f the m纈㎡fostadon of
Du Bois’s own ph遣。sophy of thc伽。iオup雌dng．In that essay，Du Bo王s contcndcd
th乱t the black伽。e wou1d be saved by its“exceptiom1men，”and虹gucd f0f the ne−
ccssity of the couegc cducation f0f the ta1entcd b1且。k youth who wou！d tea〔h目nd
up趾t thc masses．Du Bois presentcd the top−down且nd even authorit肛ian view on
socie印 by insisting that丑 na㎡on wou1d be civiH乞ed “eve士“ ＆om thc “top
downw趾d，”md th且t the t目1cntcd t仁nth wouid puu“au th纈t af0w0fth the saving up
to theif vmt乱ge gf0und”（Du Bois，ユ971，p．36）．Pamously，Du Bois dec1a正ed th且t
th已。bject of au“ttuc”feHgion，i．e．tho highef education f0f thc c五tc distinct仔。m
Was㎞ngton’s indust正i量1educadon fo正the masscs，was not to m且ke men c且fp㎝tcfs，
b・… ㎜k・…p・・・…m・・（P．45）．
The躍thering in1904艘t the Camegie H邊u in New York was the“cHmax”of
an effott of severa工yeafs to 丑。compHsh some sott of rapprochemcnt be帥een
W艘s㎞ngton md㎜㎡一Washington缶fc仁s ln the ranks of b1ack1o丑de士ship（Apthckor，
1949，p345）．Was㎞ngton wrote Du Bois that there wou1d be纈“stricHy private
meeting” @of tho represcnt虻ive 丘gures of the b1ack 協。e，which wou1a “not be
conOned to those who m且y a膵。”with Washington’s own vlews‘‘reg鉗ding educa−
don and the posi㎡on w歴。h the mce sh汕assume in pub1ic a冊irs．
一橋研究 第31巻4号
86
Washington s㎡d山at the m仁。dng wou！d細ther“repfcsent且u the intcrests of the
畑。e”
iWashingt㎝，7，p71）．In Novembef，1903，W旦shi喀。n（7，pp．339−4）con一
冊med Du Bois｛at thc“main object of our Ncw Y0fk con庄fcnco”w乱s to“a群。o
upon cctt最n臼n由ment引princip1cs”and to see・in what way they undefstood or
m土sunderstood c且。h othef“and co雌ect mistakes乱s f砒且s possib1e。”A丘et sccing Du
Bois’s omcia1cri｛cism of Was㎞ngton，Was㎞ngton was more kocn on his own
stfategy and aim fcg虹dng the conkfence．He w士。te｛at thcy“shou1d bea士in mind
that the bu1k of ouf people．乱士e玉n the South，” and that the con有erence shouId havc
a工arge e工ement who wefと且qua㎡ntcd with Southem conditions“by cxpcticnce”且nd
thus cou1d spcak wi｛author吋．1n且ph士丑se which cou1d be taken as a direct attack
on Du Bois，Washington s丑id that｛ey shou工d旦void depending‘‘too much on me正e
theo町且nd untticd・schcmes of No正them co10fcd pcop1o’’（Ibid．）。
when the confef㎝ce was丘na皿y held in J・m丑ty，1904，it w且s not a candid
ホ。ussion of the opposing forces but a1most the con趾ma㎡on of Was㎞ngton’s
domimnce over士he Southcm pf0b1cms．O士g丑nizaせ。n汕y，thc confcfcn〔c appointcd
且。ommittee of由fco，whoso funcdonl was to 且ppoint a Committoc of Twelve
（Apthekot，1949，P 349）．The committee of Thtee met王n Ju！y and selected the
Committee of Twe1ve．But it did not pf0duce sig㎡丘。ant a〔㎞cvcmcnt．Du Bois
（1968b，p81）1且tcfユ且mented that thc Committee of Twe！ve“was un盆b王e to do any
offo〔tivo w0fk as丑steeting committee for the Negt0faco in Amotic艘．”To ac七v航
and m且ke motc usefuI the committee，Du Bois suggcsted that they c正eate“The
Committee of S疵可，”a much工趾gef gcnera工。ommittee士epfesendng the intetest of
thc mce（W乱shi噌。n，7，P．460n）．But Washington fcjcctod tho suggesせ。n（PP
451−452）・Disappointcd by W目shington・s contf0山ng charactefisせ。s md㎞s way of
pou㎡ca10fg乱㎡加tion，Du Bois f王muy士esigned the committe巳When he fesigncd，Du
Bois was dismusioned enough to m丑kc su士e that㎞s n乱mc“wou1d neve士一appe且f”in
rdadon to tho committ已e．
工n1905，Du Bois fomdcd the Niag趾a Movement，thc otganization of b1ack
“fadic目1s”㎜d anせ一Washingtonians−Besides its omcial go引s of the attオnm㎝t of the
poutica1and civil rights fo正tho b1且。k畑。e，Du Bois had in mina thc p正三nciplo of
the“行eedom of spooch且nd c士iticism“within thc b1ack commm吋，which was
W．E．B．Du Bois and Booker T．Washington：ユ894−1905
87
割。tuauy the丘eedom to spe丑k against Wa舳ngton（Du Bois，1968b，P．88）．
Was㎞ngton obviousユy did not士ake the movement邊s posidng a novc1pf0g士且m for
the bユ且。k p士。g士ess，W且shn帥n（9，p．56）wrote in a pctsona11et士ef to㎜chafd
Theod0f0Gteener th乱ピ‘th已who1c obje〔t of the Niagar且Mov已mcnt“w鮎just“t0
de島邊t 2nd opposo cvcfy thing” he did，a deconsttuc亡ivc 士ath0f than 且 consttucdvc
c伍。士t．Iro㎞c州y，as W且s㎞n事。n cs㎡m丑tcd，the Niag趾a Movement“not cfeate乱n
effccdvc institudon in terms of b1ack’s up皿fhng as a who1c．When it fenewcd as
N舳CP in1910，the whitc Hbota1s p1aycd a s主gn1日。ant士。1e・
Later in his u庄，w士iせng the thi正d且utobiogmphy，Du Bo王s feOected upon thc
imp0ftance of“ch昼伽。tef一’’At thc agc of dne印，Du Bois p正。ud1y femcmbefed how
mor汕y uptight hc had been．Du Bois（1968a，pp．277）wf0tc that despite thc
decfease in empha；is on thc mattcf0f ch且fact0f in his dme，he nevef｛c1css rct且ined
“an intefcst in what men皿0father than what they do。”Du Bois w且s proud that
“丘。m chi1dhood”he ttiod to bc“honcst，”“did not usuauy spe乱k in maIcc，”and
“h・d…i・tid・舳b…m…y”（PP．277−282）．I・i・…d1冊・・1…g・…wh・・㎞d
of opi㎡on Du Bois had fegafding Washington’s“charactet。”Obvious1y，Washington
did not posses the kind of ch鮒actcf which Du Bois p士ided in the autobiogt纈phy．
Especiauy notab1c is Du Bois’s i〔1ea on money−For Du Boi呂，tho man who w且s
“surely negHgent md ign0fant”in money m丑tt0fs（Ibid．p．279），W且s㎞ngton’s
excep七〇m！talent in moncy and o士ga㎡触don must h￡ve apPeatod to bc str邊nge and
冊nd・p1o・且b1・・
Theso facts show｛at thc porsoml con皿。ts and the山ffctcnce in tempe協ment
w乱s a1w目ys量。ritica1factor in affecdng the phiJosophi〔al and poli㎡c且1relations㎞p
be誠een Du Bois and Washington．It is imp0ftant to p1ace Du Bois’s cridcism of
Washi噌。n，m舳。stcd most notab！y inルSmムゲ肋。冶Fo偽in t㎞s context・n舌
Sm方was the pf0duct of Du Bois’昌。ff0ft to曇vc his persom！md pf0庄s呂ioml dis一
響。cmcnt wi｛W且shlngton an o冊。ia1且ppe趾㎜c已md iu目せ丘。adon，rather th丑n thc
stf￡ightforw趾d manifcstation of his ideo1ogic畳1doctrines．On the onc h呂nd，giving
88
一橋研究 第31巻4号
the dis且greoment wi山Washngton m of丘。ωvoice且nd工。雲。，Du Bois succcodcd in
cmcfging as a young mci星1王。adcr．On曲。 other hand，yet，thc urgo to distinguish
and iden岬himse1f vis一圭一vis Was㎞ngton lcd to Du Bois’s the0fedca1namwncss and
th已。riticism of Washin寡。n of旦dubious mturc．
Tho趾st to be notcd is Du Bois’s eHdsm．Du Bois’s oudsm was inmte in
h王msc1￡as a man of high education且nd ofωcnt，whose famiIy h且d bccn丘。c丘。m
昌1且veワfor over a hmdf0d ye砒s−But his eHtism was且1so a ptoduct of his re1伍tion
to Was㎞ngton−Du Bois’s e㎞sm was sh且ped and reshapod in his esttangement md
出sdncdon丘。m W且舳ngton．Du Bois’s tho0fy of educa｛on盆nd thc racia1uphfhng
is basic且1』y to emphasizo｛c f01c of the e1ite，whi／e tacidy phcing the mass st細ta
mdef the submission to the eHte，Du Bois did not deal dj正。ct1y with the pf0b工。m
of the up冊ng of thc mass，w㎞ch was the specia吋。f Washington．Du Bois’s view
was that tho taユ。ntca tenth wou1d guido｛c f0st of the black popu1a⊂o．This is且
。ufious division of1量bor，not on王y bc耐。en the e1ite and thc mass，but旦／so be榊。cn
Du Bois and Wa呂hington，It is邊s if Du Bois w皿deal w王th tho t引ented tenth，whilc
Washington sh汕t且ke cafe of the unt且1ontcd㎡nc．This，of coufsc，is not the
bf0包dest way to deal wi｛tho mattcr of b！ack’s upu田ng．Du Bois’s thoo町may wo士k
weu f0f tho c丑ses Hke himse阻且n eHto b工目。k with」high education，but does not apply
as a gcno柵1pf0g伽m fo士tho士aci且1up冊ng，In his sttugg／e to⊂ompctc with W且s
hington’s工eadeエship，Du Bois so仁ms to s士fess his own c且use too much and did not
constfuct a p士。g伽m which c且n宜pply for thc broader mass s舳t丑。His emphasis
upon highet educ且don fot b1acks may be ptaiseworthy，but it is aユso ttue that Du
Bois did not emph盆size enough upon the importmce of the upHf七ng of thc m乱ss
by〔lopicting industtia！education且s somehow in庄fior to tho highef‘humanities’edu−
cadon．F0f cx盆mpIe，his contendon that cducadon is to makc a c趾pentef且man，
and not a m且n a cafpenter，is to丑ppf0pfiate the meaning of oducation to thc収pe
of cducation he himsc1f h日d．It is indeod eno士mous that he does not discuss so
much about the non−upper chss blacks−A1though it may l⊃e u王dmate1y necess且町to
m邑ke丑。a印ent0f且mm，it is且1so c士uci宜I to makc a man a c且印。ntot at the outset
in orde士to1et hjm Hvc a皿徒，i・e・as a mcans of uving，as a pmfession．
There is a simi／虹mff0w−mindedness且bout Du Bois’s clitist thosis that the face
W．E．B．Du Bois and Booker T．Washington11894−1905 89
bc judged by its bcst p趾t丑nd not tho w0fst（Du Bois，王967，p．7；1903）．This
thcsis is found丑s e皿1y a w0fk且s Du Bois］s T加Pゐルa吻肋N磐m．In｛c w0fk，Du
Bois says that the uppet cI盆ss forms the士eaHzed idea1of the group，且nd that“丑s it
is tme that a mゼ。n must to some extent be mo纈sufcd by its s1ums，it is also tmc
・h・・i・・乱…1ybn・d舳・・d・・d丘muyj・dg・dbyi…pP…1包・・‘‘（ユ967，P．7）。
This father seeべs to be m egoisdc and se1日。onscious c珂to d畑w cHtc whitcs’attcn−
tion to cases！ike himse／f，and use it in ctdet to sytnboucauy” upu伍his tace，But
this thco町is simp1y not bf0且d enough船a cohefent progmm f0f thc tacia1up服t，
a／though王t m町not be wf0ng md may indccd f0fm a part of the broadef p士。gf且m
for bIack’s p正。g士。ss−The0fcせ。汕y，it m￡kes no m0fe sensc to say that one can judge
且柵。e by its best part th且n to s且y that whitos have att且ined highef stag仁s of
civiH加亡ion md thus鮒e a1tc且dy up冊ed．Such an afgumcnt docs not loot at the
王ntomal ptol〕工。ms of the facc，such as pov0fty，c1ass d冊efen由tion，and so forth−
Du Bois’s c正idcism of Washington is乱1so mmw in scope and of a dubiou昌
。haracte士．“Of Mr．South md the North，cou1d ha士d1y be a stf0ng cfiせ。ism（Du
Bois，1973b，P．49）．Du Bois（Ibid．）afgued that Wasbingt㎝”鮒。se as essen舳y
the！e且det not of one tace but of two，“a compf0miser”be帥een thc South，the
N0fth，纈nd thc Ncgm，”which had1o〔l to the surrender of thcif civi1and poh亡ic目1
rights．Yet，as Reed（ユ997，P．59）鉗gues，any poHtica1and王nteuectu目1pf0jcct since
Washington to upHft thc b1ack tacc nocded to pursue whito patf0㎜ge．Du Bois w且s
not an excepdon，although thefe might bo a diffefence in dcgroc−Du Bois was
cfi壮。種。f Was㎞ngton’s ncgugence of b1且。k’s cjvil and poIdc宮1tights，but it is im−
portant to note that，as mentionod abovc，Du Bojs inidany took a sympathotic
atdtuac tow虹d Washington’s At1anta Comptomiso Spccch aod his facia1progr且m．
Du Bois’s cfidcism of W乱shington朋accepせng b1量。k’s“inferio的τ”邑nd1ac㎞ng
“se／トassertion“is目1so an incorrcct presentation of thc m雄0f（Du Bois，1973b，p．
50）．Du Bois（Ibid．）b1目mes W纈shington f0f teaching且pohcy of submission and
邊djustment when there was乱greater economic dcvciopment，且nd wheo thc b1ack’s
醐。e−focHng bec乱me intcnsi昂ed．Howcvcf，Du Bo王s had his own vcfsion of tho ncg−
Hgonce of b1ack’s d三sdncdvc facial pride．If imit且亡ion is ono of the s三nc0fcst Hattetjcs
of thoso who趾e im…tated（SchuyIet，P ユ23），thcn Du Bois丑dvocated Hattcq，as
90
一橋研究第31巻4号
his uIせm且te ideal of soci仁ty was dycd with｛e domimnt white bourgcoisie phi工。so−
phy．In tho趾st chaptcf0f T乃吾Smんthere appea正s Du Bois’s ph正ase；“Ho wou1d
not A丘icanize Amcrica，f0f Amefica has too much to toach the wor1d and Affica”
（Du Bois，1973b，p4）．Compafe this with Was㎞ngton’s expHcit contendon ln T加
N磐m 加 肋。 Sm幼 that European reHgion，Christianiワ，is supcfi0f to bhck’s own
fcHgion rootcd in A丘ica（Was㎞ngton，1907，p．35；〔￡Was㎞ngton，1920，pp．16一
ユ7）、Ceft痂1ア，Du Bojs cond掲ues th邊士；“Hc wouユd mt b工each bis Ncgf0sod in a
Hood wlth white Ame正icanism，fo士he㎞ows that Negro blood has a mess量ge for
｛仁w0f工d”（Du Bois，1973b，P．4）．Nonctho王ess，Du Bois nevot showed convinc−
ing／y whethe士this b工丑。k’s message is dstinctively and innately of black face and
cu1ture，0f is just a dafk side of whites’dsc士imimtion in Amefic且whose casc cm
apPly to thc nadve Indians and othef 0pPfessed 士ace too．
Pefhaps Du Bois fe工t由at in mattets of poutics且nd otg肌iza七〇n，hc cou1d not
compete with Washington，Thus，he made a se1仁。onscious step to focus on the
issue of the−cu1tiv且せ。n of the b1且。k eHte，士athct than thc upli砧ng of the mass str胞．
Du Bois’s posi㎡on w包s ambiv最ent in th鮒he冊ded to coopefate with W虹舳ngton
fo士the s丑kc of thc p伽。tica1丑陥。七vity of㎞s own up岨prog醐m，wh1c hc must di仁
fefend且tc himself丘。m W且shington in otdcf to achicvc idcn的as乱1eadef with丑
dis㎞ctive！y indvidu■phiIosophy．Again，this is not to say that Du Bois judgod
W且shington’s pro脾m so／ely on the person最md pf0fession一群。unds，or that there
was no tang玉b1e ideo1ogica1di脹fence betwccn由。 two thcorists．To repeat，Du Bois
deaf1y had an ide必m whjch W丑s㎞ngton did not possess．F0f出e Du Bois who
once thought乱1〕out pufs㎡ng a phiユ。sophy career（Lewis，1993，pp94−102），matte正s
Hke fights，educ出。n，ident吋纈nd scκconsciousness f0f the b1乱。ks were of premium
imp0ftmce，both phi1osophic汕y and re必s㎡c汕y．Lewis（ユ993，P．89）wfites that Du
Bois“was an idea1jst by tcmpefament，一州ways bcHcving that it was possib1o，
somchow，to get丘。m thc wor1d’s wc1tcr−obse町。d phenomen乱一to the bedf0ck
of pfincip1es−uppcf−c丑se Truth。”
Wh且t is nc目reエto the tfuth is that the philosophic丑1and ideo1ogic最 di伍e］＝cnces
bc榊。en Du Bois丑nd Was㎞ngton were fuo工ed by thc c1ash in tcmpe畑m㎝t，and
that it was the1atter that g且ve the￡otmcr且pubHc appea帆nco and shape．This had
W．E．B．Du B〇三s and Booker T．Washington：1894−1905
91
made Du Bois’s up正行｛cory n砒rowcf than what was objective1y necessa町、It w乱s
not si＾ply Du Bois’s inhefent idc目usm and eH㎡sm，but㎞s ideausm and c皿tism ap−
pf0pri丑ted and fesh且ped in contfast to Washington，w㎞ch cruci乱uy丑冊。ted Du Bb
is’s the0fedc引standpoints−The persom1Fstfangement w乱s grea士enough f0f Du Bois
to m乱ke pubHc his dcp砒t口fc丘。m Washi噌。n．In tcrms of tacdc且1conside正adons，
Du Bois〔ou1d havc舳ed with W￡shington fo士the sake of the県e宜ter丘mn〔ia1and
human rosources and oppottunitios tlユat趾e cmcial fot tho imp1cmentation of his
ide且工for bhck’s pf0gress．But Du Bois did not withst且nd to do so．The tacdc量1and
persona1 djscfepancy be榊ecn the 帥。 was so dccisivc a呂 to・m丑ke one wonder if
｛ere would h且vc beon乱正eカ“contf0vcrsy”without the pefsom／and t￡〔tica1discf0p一
目ncy．Du Bois（1968￡，p．236）himself admits that Washington’s and his the0fies
we］＝e “not abso1ute1y cont岨dictory．” What made the 七vo theorics cont伽dict0fy or
appear tg be so was the deep and irreconc1目bk spht三n the w且y they wantcd thc
matt已ts to be done．Washington’s monopoHsせ。 pou〔y ovcf thc black up冊ng
pf0gfam made h王s poton曲1supp0fte士，Du Bois，one of the most acute critics of his
up1ift ptog旭m．Du Bois’s the0fe七。ahttempt was moエe uke a c岬，a cηof an eHte
b1ack scho1航and1cadet，to make whites fe〔ogni舵出e p趾t of black’s life that did
not gct cnough focus1n Washington’s b￡sic且uy pro−mass program of up冊ng．
Raymond A1beft Patterson’s comment on Du Bois in1906has a portion of the
truth．P纈tterson（Washington，9，p，135）wfitcs th且t Du Bois“is many genefaせ。ns
ahead of his正丑。e，somewhat mf0f亡unate1y for him and for thc畑。e。”Pattefson
舳nks that Du Bois is“a wonder刷mm in his way，”but does not think that Du
Bois’s theories are good f0f the colo士ed pcop1e一“Du Bois w目s at工east thc most
cxtfeme outcome of the工ate19th ccntuヴs Vi〔t0fian mot乱岬and㎝ughtenmcnt−
scien舳。 cdu〔aせ。n，which1et him see b1目。ks’fu1ユ1re in the三r d㎡matc integration and
h趾mony with whitcs in｛e highcf stage of civiH加ゼ。n一職ether his idca1of the
teleo1ogica1ud呼。f tho mces st皿ho1ds v汕d today，onc is perhaps more skep亡ica1
｛m Du Bois．
ReferenCeS
Aptheker，H．（1949）．The Washingt㎝一Du Bois confefence of1904．舳m川〃
92 一橋研究第31巻4号
S・吻，13（4），F・n！949，PP．344−351，
Ap｛ekef，H．（1966）．Comment．S切肋∫m加・L％6。（6），Novembef−December，PP．
27．35．
C士use，H．（1968）．Bchind tho B1a⊂k Power slogan in R功mm oグm〃。んガm∼New
Y0fkl W㎜am Morf0w，pp，193−258．
Du Boi昌，W．E．B．（1903）．The・t且1ented tenth in T加N磐m仰肋m lノ∫励∫ゲ励泌∫
勿仰榊棚励mノ榊励m N磐me∫ゲ力4ψ．Ncw Y0fkl James Potts，PP．33−75．
D。一
a．i。，W．E．B．（1967）．ル〃肋伽N磐。…∫。。沽砂．1。・1。，byE．Digby
B副tze皿．New Y0fk：S〔hocken．
Du Bois，W．E．B．（1968a）．丁加mカ〃怨卿妙グW且B．D批Boかノ∫o肋〃m
〃切ゴ低〃炉力m肋加プ4舌。〃百ゲ加却材。m励α。Ed−Hctbott Ap｛cker．Intemadonal
PubHshers．
Du Bois，W．E．B．（ユ968b）．D捌∫冶ゲゐ舳ル直∬砂オ舳”4m m勿肋g仰勿ゲ切m”
cmc桝New Y0fk＝Schocken．
Du Bois，W．E．B．（1971）．ノW E．B．Dn月必伽加Ed．Andfew G．Paschal．Ncw
Y0fk：Macmi皿an Pub1ishing Compmy．
Du Bois，W．E．B．（1973a）．丁加。州ゆmamc苫ゲ肌E．B．D助B必（Vo1．1）selec−
dons1877−1934．Ed．Herbe正t Apthekef．U㎡ve正si呼。f M乱ssachusetts Pfess．
Du Bois，W．E．B．（1973b）．丁加∫m右ゲbん。走〃冶一With New In廿。ducdon by
Herbert Apthckef．New Y0fk：ユ◇aus−Thomson Ofgadzation，
G且ines，K．K．（1996）．ψZ卿惚加mc甜Bん。走加a吾〃妙，仰肋。↓ ma m左im加加
W．E．B．Du Bois and Booker T．Washington：1894一王905 93
切m加肋。m励ワ。Chape1冊11：U㎡vers抑。f Notth Caf01im Ptess・
Gooding−Wi皿ams，R．（1987）．Phi1osoPhy of㎞stoq md soci且1cfidque in T力バmム
ゲBん。冶Fo姥．Soc王引Scicnce Informa亡ion，26（1），pp．99−114．
Lm｛D．L α993ク．豚月．B．D助Boか一彫怨仰妙ゲ拐伽〃〃68Jgjg Ncw Y0fk．．
Honq Ho1t md Comp肌y・
Mo0fe，」．B．（ユ981）．肌E．B．D班B桃Boston：Tw且ync PubHshcrs．
Reed，A．L．，」f．（ユ997）．灰石．月．D”B必maメm〃。m仰励。〃肋。惚加．F冴〃mゴ∫m m4
伽。o〃左’m．Ncw Yo士k＝Oxfo士d UP．
sch口yle・，G．s．（1927）．o口t g・eatest gi丘to Amefic且、Ed．Johnson，c．s．石加ψm4
仰郷メ。o伽加m”．New Y0fk：Oppo士tu㎡収，N且tion Urbm Lcaguo，pp．122−124．
Washington，B．T．and others．（ユ903）．ルN磐m仰肋m’メ・∫〃∫ゲ励〃鉗妙
ψm∫m肋肋音N磐舳∫ゲ広。4ψ・Now Yo士k：J且mc・Pott＆co・
Washington，B．T．and W．E．B．Du Bois．（1907）．ルN榊加加Sm扮冊
百。mm主。仰怨榊∫加〃肋。崩施加m伽ノma m伽m∫4舳伽m舌n左Phi1adc1phi丑＝Ge0fge W．
Jacobs＆Comp且ny・
Washington，B．T．（1920）．ψ抑m∫んmぴルm洲郷砂幼．Garden Ciワ：Diybkcday，
Pago＆Company・
Washington，B．T．（工972−1989）．ルBm伽τ肌∫〃榊n P砂鮒（14Vok、）．
Urbcn且：Ui■ivcrs吋。f I皿nois Prcss．
Z且mir，S．（！995）．D〃走m加∫’リ7E，B．D冴Boノ∫m4／1m栃。刎肋。惚加j888−j903
Chicago：Univers吋。f Chicago Pfess・
94
一橋研究 第31巻4号
11〕In H且mtd Udvef昌抑，Du Boi岳1e且mt p㎞丑。呂。phy from Jo彗i且h Roy〔e md Go0fgo S宜。卿乱。臥，and took
d朋昌。呂。n Eutopom phjlo；ophy inc1udi口g Kmt乱nd Hego1．Zamir（1995，pp．1ユ3−168）註nd Goo出ng−
Wi皿i乱m昌（1987）趾駅。 th且t thete i筍。1o趾王y 且。 io舳。n〔e of Hogo正an philosophy，o；po〔i且uy Hegor岳
P加胡m碗肋妙ゲψえ励。n Du Boi岳1呂f且d丑1theoリーPot Du Boj畠’昌1e丑ming jn philo昌。phy md it冨innuon㏄
on hi；intono〔tu且1丑n−profe昌呂ioη且1devoIopm仁趾，邊亘；o see Lewj… （1993．pp．79一ユ16〕．