Rethinking Home Economics

Edited by Sarah Stage and Virginia B. Vincenti
Ithaca: Cornell, 1997. 347 pp, $18.95 (paper)

Lynne M. and Angelo C. Gilli

This book emerged from the editors' belief that there was a need to know more about home economics so as to better understand the various aspects of its history: weighed by the painful trials and struggles on one hand and its accomplishments and successes on the other. Early on in the planning phase, the editors agreed that for such an investigation to be meaningful, both home economists and historians that studied women had to be involved. Their efforts were realized when they succeeded in obtaining funding for a two-day conference entitled Rethinking Women and Home Economics in the Twentieth Century.' From that meeting in Ithaca, came a series of essays. The chapters in this book are from among those. The work was divided into five sections: 1. More Than Glorified Housekeeping; 2. Women's Place: Home Economics Education; 3. They Cannot All Be Teachers: Forging Careers in Home Economics; 4. Home Economics, Race, Class, and Ethnicity; and 5. Who Speaks for the Consumer? Home Economics and Business A total of fourteen essays, most perhaps longer than they needed to be, pretty much covered the subjects in these five areas.

One of the editors, Sarah Stage, declared in the Introduction, that bringing in women's history with politics and professionalization established a larger ground in which to study home economics. From within this new framework, the writers attempted to address the question of how and why home economics developed as it did and what can be learned from the experiences of the early women in the profession. Home economics had particular difficulty in defining itself from its inception as a profession. This was apparent at the first Lake Placid meeting in 1899. High on that agenda was choosing a name for the organization. After prolonged debate and much disagreement, a compromise was reached to adopt the term "home economics". But this didn't settle the matter permanently. Disagreements among home economists on several matters, including their organization's goals and objectives and what to call themselves, continued up to the present time.

Early on, a three layered terminology was adopted within the rubric of home economics. Primary school work was called household arts", in the secondary schools it was labeled "domestic science", and the term "home economics" was applied to college and graduate work. Even so, discord within the profession continued. From the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, through to the height of its beleaguerment in the 1960s and 1970s, home economics was funded through federal funds. And, as succinctly stated by the editor: "The history of home economics seems rife with strategies that produced short-term gains and long-term problems." It was saddled with the sabotaging effect of gender stereotyping and sex discrimination throughout its history while seeking to gain respectability for home economics in academia. One of the early controversies centered around whether home economics should be professionalized by infusing it into career preparation for college-educated women, or whether it should be a vehicle to improve women's skills in cooking and sewing, or whether it should be a mechanism to train better servants. There were strong and outspoken advocates for each of these positions. The impasse served to slow the impact of the profession over the decades in which these arguments prevailed.

Nancy Tomes presented an interesting essay describing the posture of home economics in popularizing Sanitary Science back around the turn of the twentieth century. During that era, there were two leading factors that made the role of Sanitary Science so critical. First was that infectious diseases were the leading cause of death. Second, the effectiveness of municipal public health services was both limited and unreliable. Therefore home economics played a highly important role in providing useful information to immigrants and minorities about evading the dangers of germs through correct sanitation practices. Such information was dovetailed into instruction for housekeeping practices. Ironically, as the standard of living went up and death rates from infectious diseases went down during the 1920s, the importance of bacteriological cleanliness decreased in significance. Tomes pointed out that society may experience a revival of fears regarding public health matters. This may be the outcome of the recent concerns brought on by the AIDS epidemic and emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

The essays in this work described the manner in which home economics became involved in a variety of the societal concerns that emerged throughout the past hundred years. For example, parent education was a major focus for a considerable time. Home economists became enmeshed in the debate between strict versus nurturing parenting. Ironically, this served to further lock the profession into the gender bind because parenting was associated with mothers. Another extended debate occurred over whether the profession should embrace vocational home economics as technical training for future jobs outside one's home, or whether it should be integrated in general liberal arts education as preparation for life. An outcome of this debate, fueled by federal legislation, was that home economics was expected to go beyond the notion of cooking and sewing. It was called upon by some to encompass consumerism, environmentalism, and family and community relationships. As a result, several names have been used by the profession over time, including: family and consumer education, family and consumer sciences, human development, human ecology and family living, human science, and human ecology.

An essay by Margaret W. Rossiter reviewed the inroads made by males during the period of 1950 - 1970 in the areas of child development and family relationships. It was during this period when home economics came under siege at the university level, even at the land-grant schools. In many cases, programs were dismantled or blended with other areas. Rossiter provided a detailed narrative about this movement and actions of several university presidents who wielded the greatest negative impacts upon home economics as a profession.
Another concern during those times was that women who came into the field would saturate the market for teachers. In response to the concern, a variety of career paths were developed. Included were academics, hospital dietetics, business and industry, and even extension agents (which were funded by the 1914 Smith-Lever Act to improve living conditions in the rural areas). Three essays describing these events were included.

An underlying theme throughout was the ongoing search for the place of home economics in society. The major problem was the gender issue, which is one that has existed for an equally long period of time in other fields such as nursing, trade and industrial occupations, technical occupations, and a string of others. Genderism, while lessening to some extent, still continued to be an issue in a large sector of the work force at the time of this publication. The essays were followed by a "Chronology of Events and Movements Which Have Defined and Shaped Home Economics", which was well developed. The opening entry was dated 1841 and the last one was 1995. The editors must have had in mind those who desired to obtain a bird's eye view of how the professional unfolded since its inception.

Footnotes were provided in each essay, which would be of value to serious students as documentation. Supplementary to this was a suggested reading list in the back of the book. The Index was well organized, making it relatively simple to use.

As is so often found in edited works of this nature, there was a lack of continuity from essay to essay. Hence the development of home economics over the years was not described in a seamless manner. On the other hand, the writers succeeded in minimizing the use of jargon that professionals are so prone to do. There was repetition of certain matters, particularly that of the gender problem and the ongoing struggles in the never ending quest for an identity that all could agree upon. It was, on the whole, a good treatment of home economics.

This book review contributed by Lynne M. Gilli, Chief, Career and Technology Services Branch, Division of Career Technology and Adult Learning, Maryland State Department of Education and Angelo C. Gilli, Sr., President, IDEAS, Inc., Pasadena, Maryland.