Dreilinger’s lively account offers an in-depth look at a profession that enabled women to participate in public life even when they were excluded from most jobs and fields of study. Throughout the history of the field, there was a constant tension between those who sought to elevate home economics to a serious and scientific level and others who saw it as merely women’s work.
After the Civil War, women found themselves in mixed land grants, and historically black colleges could study “domestic science,” which taught farming skills necessary for survival in agricultural areas. In some universities, this has allowed women to study science. Ellen Richards, one of the discipline’s founders, achieved “special student” status at MIT by studying chemistry in the 1870s. of his life: improving the home, and therefore society, through science”. The power of science could be harnessed to promote healthy living through nutrition, but also to educate smart consumers. As corporations increased mass production in the 1920s, women with degrees in home economics pursued careers in business, in consumer-oriented industries ranging from food production to department stores.
The field was renamed “home economics” in 1899, linking it to economics and suggesting serious reflection on the purpose of domestic spaces now that “the Industrial Revolution had definitively eliminated the home as a site of economic production”. Many of the profession’s early theorists believed that home economics should be tied to progressive social causes. The first household economists were consumer activists, who sought to “protect the working class and urban poor from unscrupulous merchants selling shoddy fabrics and clothing, bacteria-infested meat from filthy slaughterhouses and flour bleached with lead”.
Home economics demonstrated its usefulness to the American war effort in both World Wars, with specialists employed by the federal government to work in food preservation and to organize the production of uniforms and surgical supplies for the ‘army. Eleanor Roosevelt added further importance to the profession by singling out the work of home economists for celebration and inspiration as “an education in democracy”.
Dreilinger pays considerable attention to the contributions African American women made to the home economy, even though they were kept out of mainstream white organizations until the 1960s. As early as the 1890s, educators such as Margaret Murray Washington, the third wife of Tuskegee Institute founder Booker T. Washington, developed home science as a way “to educate moral leaders who would uplift their communities.” Another prominent African-American leader, Flemmie Kittrell, who earned a doctorate in nutrition from Cornell University in the 1930s and taught at Howard University, was sent by the State Department to Liberia to study the malnutrition and spent the 1940s and 1950s traveling and consulting in other countries. countries in the developing world.
During the Cold War, home economics was a tool in the United States’ anti-Communist arsenal, a means to export “free market abundance and Western-style democracy around the world, to transform geopolitics modernizing the house”. Yet the field had its regressive side at home: school administrators across the country often sent girls of color back into home economics to better prepare them for careers as domestics or, in the case of Chicana girls in California , such as “maids, teenage mothers, laundresses and factory seamstresses.”
By the 1950s, the battle for the soul of the profession was beginning to tilt in favor of those who insisted that its purpose was to educate women for marriage. Home economics has been officially defined by the American Home Economics Association (AHEA) as “the field of knowledge and service primarily concerned with strengthening family life”. Surveys from the time show that the majority of home economics majors planned to become housewives, while women who wanted to study other subjects were no longer limited to science. These associations with home and hearth virtually guaranteed that the field would be a target of the feminist movement in the 1970s. Even as the AHEA endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment and attempted to rehabilitate its image by insisting on its relevance to modern life, young women with professional ambitions began to withdraw from the profession.
We can thank home economics for a number of taken-for-granted features of contemporary life, from the Head Start preschool program to school lunches and freeze-dried mixes for prepared foods (a by-product of home economists’ research on the best astronaut rate). Dreilinger finds that today, the field may even be experiencing a small resurgence, with more male involvement. Partially revamped as teaching life skills, compulsory home economics in schools, she says, could help narrow the gender gap that puts women in charge of the bulk of tasks housewives. Adhering to this old progressive strain, Dreilinger points out that home economics “is, can, and should be an interdisciplinary ecological field that explores the connections between our homes and the world with a view to addressing the root causes of problems such as hunger. , homelessness, isolation and environmental devastation.
It’s a noble task, to be sure, but one that wouldn’t be out of step with the often surprisingly progressive past of home economics.
The Secret History of Home Economics
How pioneering women harnessed the power of the home and changed the way we live