LIBRARY
Michigan State
“ g‘University

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

The Role of the Home Economics Profession
in the Reproduction of Social Relations:
an Exploration of Selected Theoretical
and Historical Questions

presented by
Mildred Howitson McLachlan

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PhD degree in Family Ecology

66ka

 

Major professor

Date December 14, 1982

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

-v -—- “Hm—m w-«u—wuae.‘-u.-w-‘—-

 

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
m

RETURNING MATERIALS:

 

 

 

Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

THE ROLE OF THE HOME ECONOMICS PROFESSION
IN THE REPRODUCTION OF SOCIAL RELATIONS:
AN EXPLORATION OF SELECTED THEORETICAL

AND HISTORICAL QUESTIONS

BY

Mildred Howitson McLachlan

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology
1982

ABSTRACT
THE ROLE OF THE HOME ECONOMICS PROFESSION
IN THE REPRODUCTION OF SOCIAL RELATIONS:

AN EXPLORATION OF SELECTED
THEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL QUESTIONS

BY

Mildred Howitson McLachlan

The question underlying this study is the involvement
of the home economics profession in power relations. The
study brings a critical dimension to the self-examination of
the field of home economics. It examines how the political
nature of activities of professionals have been understood
and explores conceptual issues related to the analysis of
power in home economics. The focus is on two sets of rela-
tions: the sexual division of labor and the division between
intellectual and manual labor.

An analysis of historical literature on home economics
indicates that studies written by home economists generally
do not deal with power in the sexual division of labor or
the division between intellectual and nanual labor. The li-
mitations of historical studies are eXplored. Functionalist
tendencies are pointed out, and the limitations of function-
alist approaches for dealing with questions of power are dis-
cussed. The influence of positivism is also noted. Using
elements from Habermas' social theory, the limitations of a

positivist philosophy and its social role are considered.

Mildred Howitson McLachlan

This analysis lends weight to the proposal that home econo-
mists need to understand the political role of their profes-
sion, and indicates that frameworks used in existing histori-
cal studies are inadequate for that task.

Alternative frameworks are required. The study suggests
that analytical tools must first be developed to study spe-
cific power relations in which home economists are involved.
Aspects of Foucault's work are introduced. His conceptuali-
zations of knowledge and power seem useful for an analysis
of power relations in home economics.

The final section explores the fruitfulness of using
Foucault's strategy of discursive analysis. Using examples
from the home economics literature, an analysis of the dis-
course of homemaking is developed and particular power rela-
tions are explored.

The eXploratory analysis indicates that Foucault's ap-
proach illuminates power relations in home economics. Fur-
ther research using this framework is suggested. The study
indicates that the power relations in which home economists
have been involved are complex. These power relations need
to be considered when decisions are made about future goals

and activities in the profession.

Copyright by
MILDRED HOWITSON ‘MCLACHLAN

1982

Dedicated to
my parents,
Toit and Rina McLachlan,
and
to the memory of my friend and colleague,

Marilyn R. Parkhurst

iii

ACK NOWL EDGMEN TS

would like to thank

Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, major professor and co-director of
the research, for her support, enthusiasm, and keen un-
derstanding of the issues facing the home economics pro-
fession;

Dr. Richard T. Peterson of the Department of Philosophy,
co-director of the research, for being the scholar and
teacher that he is, and for seeing the merit in this un-
dertaking, especially when I had doubts;

Dr. Margaret Bubolz and Dr. Barbara Ames, members of the
guidance committee, for their interest and sound advice;
Dr. Barrie Thorne, for challenging me to explore the
links between home economics and feminism;

Colleagues at the Non-Formal Education Information Cen-
ter, for making my graduate assistantship a job I didn't
want to leave;

Donald Huntington, for word processing the dissertation
with skill, cheerfulness and patience; and

Family and friends, for their encouragement and support.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I 0 INTRODUCTION. 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

H

Context . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . .
Challenges to Professional Practice .
Conceptual Issues . . . . . . . . . .
The Division of Labor . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Division Between Intellectual and
Manual Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Sexual Division of Labor . . . . . . . . . 15
Outline of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

II. REVIEW OF HISTORICAL LITERATURE IN HOME
ECONOMICS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 20

Women's Education and Home Economics. . . . . 25
Home Economics, the Public and the Private. . 32
Home Economics and Housework. . . . . . . . . 35
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . .i. . . . 37

III. CRITIQUE OF HISTORICAL LITERATURE . . . . . . . 39

Theoretical Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Functionalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Positivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Habermas' Critique of Positivism. . . . . . . 51
Science and Technology as Ideology . . . . 57

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

IV. CONCEPTUALIZING POWER AND KNOWLEDGE . . . . . . 61

Power 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 64

Further Conceptual Requirements . . . . . . . 68
Foucault: Background . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Discourse and Discursive Analysis . . . . . . 71

Objects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Theoretical Strategies . . . . . . 74
Foucault's Critique of Traditional Notions

of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Micropowers and Normalization . . . . . . . . 78
Foucault's Propositions about Power and How

it Should be Studied . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Limitations of Foucault's Conceptualization

of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

V

vi

CHAPTER

V. EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF THE DISCOURSE

HOMEMAKING O O O O O C O O O O C O O

The Discourse of Homemaking
Objects . . . . . . . . .
Statements. . . . . . . .
Concepts. . . . . . . . .
Theoretical Strategies. . . .

Power Relations in the Discourse.
New Content for Homemaking. . .

Homemaking as Women's Primary Vocation

Interrelated Power Dimensions .
Summary and Conclusions . . . . .

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study. . . . .
Suggestions for Future Research .
Implications for Home Economics .

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . .

PAGE

OF

87
87
91
95

101
102
114
120
128

O O O O O 133
. . . . . 136
. . . . . 137
. . . . . 138

. . . . . 142

Chapter One
INTRODUCTION

This study explores some conceptual and theoretical is-
sues concerning the development of an adequate framework for
the study of home economics in social and historical perspec-
tive. It suggests that the social role of the field must be
understood in terms of power. First, a critique of conven-
tional approaches used in studies of the history of home eco-
nomics is developed. On the basis of this analysis a number
of requirements for an adequate theoretical framework are
outlined. Finally, the study introduces aspects of the work
of one theorist, namely Michel Foucault, and examines what
discursive analysis, a strategy based on Foucault's work,
could contribute to the historical understanding of the so-

cial role of home economics.

Context
The current efforts within the profession of home eco—
nomics to reconsider its goals and philosophy provide the
context of the study. During the last decade, home econo-
mists, like other academic and professional groups, renewed
their efforts at self-examination and definition of their

field. One of the major elements of this process was the

publication, in 1979, of Home Economics: A Definition, a
paper commissioned by the American Home Economics Associa-
tion, written by Brown and Paolucci. In this work, which
home economists have used as a basis for study and continued
dialogue about the future of the field, the authors charac-
terize home economics as a practical science concerned with
the persistent problems of the household and the family.
Brown and Paolucci (1979) see as the major dilemma of the
era the limitations placed on individuals to participate
actively and critically in political thought and action.

In light of the present state of affairs, Brown and
Paolucci (1979) define the mission of home economics as fol-
lows:

to enable families, both as individual units and gen-

erally as a social institution, to build and maintain

systems of action which lead (1) to maturing in indi-

vidual self-formation and (2) to enlightened coopera-

tive participation in the critique and formulation of

axial goals and means for accomplishing them (p.
In the final chapters Brown and Paolucci (1979) explore the
knowledge required in a field with such a mission, and the
kind of social action required from its members.

For such a mission to be implemented, however, it would
be necessary to add historical and social analyses to the
work begun by Brown and Paolucci (1979). In fact, a short-

coming of their paper is the absence of reflection on the

role home economics professionals may have played in the

very process of depoliticization and the rationalization of
relations which the authors wish to overcome. In other
words, the authors do not consider the political role of the
field. Without an understanding of the historical role of
the profession in society and the social reality it has be-
come, the possibilities open for the field will remain
vague. As Peterson (1979) points out in a critique of £2132

Economics: A Definition,

 

It is not enough to state goals for a profession but
these must be stated concretely (in the dialectical
sense) in their relation to existing conditions. This
requires not only consideration of the social context
of the profession, but also of the internal state of
the profession, the functions it actually performs
today, the relations to other institutions it main-
tains, the conflicts and dilemmas resulting from
these relations . . . (p. 89).

Purpose of the Study

 

The present study aims to contribute to the historical
analysis of home economics. By examining assumptions and
existing theoretical frameworks of historical studies, and
exploring an alternative framework, the groundwork is laid
for more concrete and specific studies of home economics
history. In this way the study seeks to sharpen home econo-
mists' views of realistic goals and expectations for their
profession.

Specific dimensions of the historical evolution of
"helping professions" (Lasch, 1979, p. 15) that have come

under scrutiny in recent years are the focus of the study.

The dimensions addressed are the development of a more
specialized and complex division between intellectual and
manual labor, and the role of professions in shaping the

sexual division of labor.

Challenges to Professional Practice

 

Recent historical and sociological studies have raised
questions about the outcomes of the various reforms advoca-
ted and implemented by intellectuals and professionals. In
particular, professionals have been criticized for eroding
family autonomy (Lasch, 1979) and for contributing to wo-
men's oppression (Ehrenreich and English, 1978).

As a field of study and practice that has throughout
its history stated its goals in terms of service to families
(Vincenti, 1982), home economics needs to take note of the
challenge directed to professions with regard to their role
in shaping family life. As a field with a predominantly
female clientele, and which is generally associated with
women's work in the home, home economics must heed the chal-
lenge to. professions regarding their role in maintaining
women's oppression.

Lasch (1979) criticizes professionals for undermining
family autonomy. He bemoans the erosion of family life, and
claims that social scientists and professionals have usurped
the family's rightful role as the primary socializing agent

of children. According to Lasch (1979), "The history of

modern society, from one point of view, is the assertion of
social control over activities once left to individuals and
their families” (p. xx). Lasch seeks to show how the ex-
perts eroded parents' confidence in their own skills, and
increased families' dependence on the expertise of teachers,
psychologists, and other helping professionals. He maintains
that what social science has called "interdependence" in
modern society, is in fact a reflection of "changing modes
of domination” (p. 24). In other words, Lasch argues that
relations between professionals and family members involve a
form of domination. Lasch develops a critique of functional-
ist sociology for its view that the changes in family life
are the outcome of abstract social forces. In contrast he
sets out to argue that,
the family did not simply evolve in response to so-
cial and economic influences; it was deliberately
transformed by the intervention of planners and poli-
cymakers (p. 13).
Thus Lasch (1979) argues that professionals contribute to
shaping social relations through their professional activi-
ties.

Lasch's argument can be understood in terms of the
development of an increasingly complex and specialized divi-
sion of labor in which intellectuals have come to play a
more direct social role. This intensification of the divi-

sion between intellectual and manual labor involves the exer—

cise of a form of control through specialized knowledge of

one individual or group over another. Thus a set of social
relations are developed which involve dependence and domina-
tion.

The feminist movement also poses a challenge to profes-
sionals in general, and to home economists in particular.
There are two dimensions to this challenge. Like ILasch
(1979), Ehrenreich and English (1978) emphasize the division
between intellectual and manual labor.. But they argue that
it is women's autonomy in particular that has been eroded
by the experts. Ehrenreich and English criticize doctors,
home economists, and child psychologists for eroding women's
traditional skills and knowledge. They claim. that women
have become dependent on "masculinist" experts (p. 18).

Furthermore, for Ehrenreich and English (1978), the
activities of professionals contributed to shaping relations
between men and women and defining women's role in society,
by promoting a certain kind of family, of which the wife and
mother was the core (Zaretsky, 1982). This latter role of
the professionals can be understood in terms of the shaping
of the sexual division of labor in society.

Other recent historical studies of women's work and fam-
ily roles also make mention of the role of home economics.
Hartmann (1974) sees home economists as key figures in promo-
ting the ideology of motherhood. Hartmann claims that the
activities of home economists served to reassert the tradi-

tional values of home, family, and motherhood. According to

Hartmann the ideology that motherhood was women's primary
vocation, and that women's place was in the home, remained
essentially the same from the mid-nineteenth century into
the twentieth century. However, the way in which women were
convinced of the ”truth" of these ideas, had changed. For
Hartmann (1974), the new conveyors of the ideology in the
twentieth century were the home economists. She states,
The particular form that the ideology took in this
period was the home economics movement, with its em-
phasis on precision, science, and efficiency in house-
keeping (p. 183-184).

Strasser's (1977) study of women's household work like-
wise analyzes home economics in terms of ideology. Her em-
phasis, however, is not on the ideology of "women's separate
sphere" but rather on the development of a new ideology) ne-
cessary for the full incorporation of the home into the capi-
talist market. According to Strasser (1977) home economists
were involved in,

formulating an ideology which applied principles of
capitalist social relations -- rationality, wage 1a-
bor, class, hierarchy, and privacy -- to household
life and promoted new roles for women as workers and
consumers in economic life (p. 257).
Thus, like Hartmann (1974), Strasser (1977) pictures the
role of home economists in society in terms of their contri-
bution to shaping ideology related to women's roles in socie-
ty.

By focusing on their role in intensifying the division

between intellectual and manual labor, and in the sexual

division of labor, these studies assign a role to profes-
sions in the transformation and maintenance of social rela-
tions in society. In essence, they assert that professional
activity must be understood as actually contributing to the
reproduction of specific social institutions and relations
in particular ways. Zarestky (1982) argues, for example,
that the family was not simply eroded, as Lasch (1979) would
argue, but transformed and preserved as an economically pri-
vate unit through the activities of various groups, includ-
ing professions. These kinds of social activities, which
appear to be far removed from explicit political practices,
are nevertheless a form of political activity. They involve
the exercise of power, and reproduce social relations that,
however indirectly, serve to nmintain the existing economic
and social order. Taken together, these processes can be
understood in terms of a politics of social reproduction.

The present study suggests that home economists need to
address the challenges directed to them with regard to their
role in the intensification of the division between intellec-
tual and annual labor, and the sexual division of labor. In
other words, home economists need to study the role of their
field in social reproduction, particularly with regard to
shaping two sets of relations, the division between intellec-

tual and manual labor, and the sexual division of labor.

Conceptual Issues

 

Such a project poses particular conceptual problems.
Some critical remarks on the strategies used by the authors
cited earlier indicate the kinds of conceptual and theoreti-
cal issues at stake.

Lasch (1979) makes a critical point: In order to under-
stand the role of social groups such as professions in shap-
ing social relations, a functionalist’ analysis is inade-
quate. Such an analysis would attribute social change to
abstract, social forces, and thus obscure human. agency' in
social change. Nevertheless, Lasch (1979) falls into a kind
of functionalism himself, by asserting a one-way, and direct
influence of social scientists and professionals on families
and individuals. He neglects the interests family members
may have had in the reforms promoted by the professionals.
He also does not consider families' need for the knowledge
professionals had to offer. By neglecting these dimensions
Lasch (1979) neglects the contribution of individuals and
families themselves to the changes brought about in society.
Also, Lasch (1979) does not deal with the resistance profes—
sionals might have encountered in their attempts to insti-
tute reforms. Furthermore, to blame social scientists and
professionals for the erosion of traditional knowledge,
which in many cases had become dysfunctional because of
urbanization and industrialization, is to give them power

far beyond what they had.

10

On the one hand, Lasch (1979) seems to assign to profes-
sionals a key role in social transformation. Yet, on the oth-
er hand, he regards professionals essentially as function-
aries of the state or corporate capitalism. Thus, according
to Zaretsky (1982), Lasch (1979) maintains that behind the
reforms promoted by middle class professionals, lay "the
need of twentieth century capitalism to reorganize and soci-
alize the sphere of private and familial life” (p. 190).
Such a view of the activities of professionals reduces them
to "instruments" of a more powerful unit, and so does not
allow for the possibility that professionals could also act
independently, as human actors who have their own interests
as professionals, which may be in conflict with that of the
state or corporate concerns. Thus, Lasch's (1979) analysis
does not illuminate the particular social role of intellectu-
al activity.

A similar problem seems to plague recent studies of
women's work in the home (Strasser, 1977; Hartmann, 1974;
Ehrenreich & English, 1978). Although their emphases differ,
these authors all analyze home economics and the role of
home economists in society in terms of ideology. The study
by Ehrenreich and English (1978) illustrates the conceptual
dilemma. On the whole, their study is a careful analysis of
the gradual erosion of women's autonomy and the invasion of
the home by experts, including home economists, to dictate

to women how they should raise their children and do their

11

housework. Nevertheless, their analysis is not discrimina-
ting enough. Their analytical framework does not allow them
to distinguish carefully between issues of gender and exper—
tise at work in the activities of the professionals. Ehren-
reich and English (1978) state, for example,
The eXperts' answer to the Woman Question was not sci-
ence after all, but only the ideology of a masculin-
ist society, dressed up as objective truth (p. 5).

There may be a more complex set of power relations in-
volved in the activities of professionals than is suggested
by Ehrenreich and English. The authors seem to oppose know-
ledge to ideology, and to reduce the intellectual activities
of professionals to expressions of ideology. Such an analy-
sis obscures the real knowledge being developed and used by
professionals. Furthermore, an emphasis on ideology as a
framework of false beliefs or ideas could obscure the real
social effects of the cognitive practices of professionals.
Thus, an analysis that focuses on ideology seems to exclude
the possibility of a richer analysis of the social role of
professionals.

Similar conceptual problems occur in Zaretsky's (1982)
analysis of the relation between the family and the welfare
state. Zaretsky wants to maintain Lasch's emphasis on human
agency in social change, and the feminist concern for wo—
men's ambivalent experience of the modern family. After re-
viewing the history of the modern welfare state in America,

he concludes that the welfare state has preserved the family

12

as an "economically private unit," and that
state policy toward the family was not dictated by

any capitalist conspiracy. Rather it was the outcome
of a series of single-issue reform movements. . . (p.

218).
Thus Zaretsky (1982) acknowledges the contribution of a vari-
ety of different actors in efforts to change social rela-
tions (as evidenced in state policy). Yet, the actual con-
tribution of particular groups, for example, professionals
like home economists, are not theorized. It would seem that
Zaretsky's analytical categories are inadequate for such a
task. This is illustrated by the fact that in the midst of
his careful analysis, he can state,

I try to show that the class and sexual structure of

American society, rather than the intentions of a

single group, shaped the meaning of diverse reform

efforts in unforeseen (and still untheorized) ways

(p. 192).
This statement seems contradictory to his eXplicit intent to
maintain human agency in social change, because it reduces
specific actions to "class and sexual structure." Zaretsky
wants to avoid reducing social change to the outcome of in-
tentional activity of one group, but then replaces this re-
duction with another, namely a set of encompassing terms --
"class and sexual structure." These terms are not very use-
ful for eXplaining the role of specific agents in social
change.

To study the role of home economics in social reproduc-

tion a framework is required that would allow one to examine

13

the field in relation to the sexual division of labor and
the division between intellectual and manual labor. This
should be done in a way that allows one to examine the par-
ticular relations in which home economists were involved,
and the cooperation and resistance they encountered in their
reform efforts. The present study suggests that the intel-
lectual activities of home economists could have contributed
to power relations in ways that are not open for examination
in terms of the categories provided by a class analysis or
an analysis of ideology. The study seeks to develop some

conceptual tools for such an analysis.

The Division of Labor

The concept of the division of labor is central to the
present study. In particular, two dimensions of the division
of labor, the division between intellectual and manual la-
bor, and the sexual division of labor, are pertinent. Work-
ing definitions of these concepts are developed below.

All human societies are characterized by a division of
labor. This division of labor concept refers in general to
the fact that each individual in a society does not produce
everything he or she needs, but specializes in some tasks,
while entering into exchange relationships with others to
obtain the goods and services needed to live in that society

(Braverman, 1974; Lloyd, 1975).

14

Thus specialization and interdependence are key dimen-
sions of the division of labor. Although conceptually, at
least, such a division does not imply the development of pow-
er in relations of interdependence, it seems that historical-
ly, specialization and interdependence have been accompanied
by relations of power.

Division between Intellectual and Manual Labor The
division between intellectual and manual labor is based on
the rise of distinctively cognitive practices. In a general
sense it involves the separation of thought from doing, and
thus gives rise to specialization and interdependence. Such
a division means, in a general way, that some individuals or
groups in society are able to have their material needs met
through the manual labor of others. In a more Specific use
of the term, it refers to the set of relations that develop
through a breakdown of the labor process which separates
intellectual activity, organization, planning, and decision
making from the actual manual labor process. Based on this
kind of development, management practices have evolved which
give certain individuals or groups direct or indirect
control over other people's labor.

Thus the concept can be used to refer to relations in a
factory, for example, where planning and management is done
by Specialists and managers, and workers carry out the spe-
cific tasks assigned to them. Such a division of labor in-

volves a lack of control over one's own labor, because the

15

worker does not understand the total work process.

Control is exercised more indirectly through the intel-
lectual practices of academics and professionals when ab-
stract thinking is regarded as necessary to understand and
solve social problems. To the extent that intellectuals are
recognized as authorities, and their counsel sought in more
and more areas of life, and specialized and esoteric know-
ledge is developed, the division between intellectual and
manual labor is intensified. As indicated earlier, such an
intensified division of labor seems to be characteristic of
modern society.

Sexual Division of Labor It is generally agreed that

 

all known human societies have allocated at least some tasks
by gender (Brown, 1970; Kay and Voorhies, 1975; Rubin,
1975). The concept of the sexual division of labor is used
to refer to patterns of specialization in particular tasks
according to gender. While such a division of labor seems
universal, the way in which tasks are allocated is specific
to each group or community, and no clear pattern of responsi-
bilities can be established (Lloyd, 1975; Illich, 1982).
While the allocation of some tasks is influenced by biology,
for example, childbearing and lactation, the sexual division
of labor in general cannot be regarded as biologically deter-
mined. Even the tasks closely associated with childbearing
represent cultural variety with regard to the involvement of

men and women. The specific form childrearing takes, and the

l6

importance assigned to it, also vary from society to socie-
ty.

Relationships of power between men and women often have
an economic dimension, as a woman is economically dependent
on a man in a situation where the husband is the sole earner
of income in a family (Luxton, 1980). The economic dimen-
sion of the sexual division of labor stretches beyond such
direct dependence, however. For example, it finds expression
in the belief that it is normal that women could be paid
less than men, because "they do not have families to sup-
port" -- which is concretely expressed in gender-specific
jobs in which women earn less than men do in comparable
jobs.

Central as the economic dimension of the sexual divi-
sion of labor is, it is not the only pattern of dependence
associated with such a division of labor: Political and cul-
tural dependence, for example, are expressions of the fact
that women may be dependent on male policy makers, and on
male writers or "informers" to form their political opin-
ions. Similarly, they may be more or less dependent on the
artistic eXpressions of men to develop imagery and patterns
of language use.

In science and education generally, the exclusion of wo-
men from most fields has left them dependent on approaches
worked out by and large by men, focusing on topics regarded
as important by men, using methods regarded as valuable by

men 0

17

The sexual division of labor predates capitalism. Its
interaction with class divisions is an important considera-
tion -- sets of relations develop in which these divisions
intersect in important ways.

In industrial society the specialization of the sexual
division of labor has been associated with the separation of
the domestic domain of home and family from. the [public
sphere of decision making and production. Traditionally, in
this division and distinction, women work in the home, and
are closely associated with it, while men work in, and are
associated with, the public domain. Thus the sexual division
of labor in industrial society can be associated with pat-
terns of specialization with the husband specializing in
earning the income, and women being associated with house-
hold, family, and children; and interdependence of men and
women. Specialization and interdependence serve to emphasize
and exacerbate differences between the sexes.

The concept of the sexual division of labor also refers
to patterns of restriction and exclusion to which women are
subjected. For example, they are or have been routinely ex-
cluded from political decision making, most professions, ex-
ecutive positions in business and industry, and leadership
roles in education and religious institutions. They' have
been restricted to» certain environments, certain careers,
and certain artistic and cultural expressions. Accompanying

this has been a measure of isolation and invisibility.

18

Such patterns of distinction, specialization, interde-
pendence, exclusion, restriction, and isolation have given
rise to relationships of power between men and women. Pat-
terns of relative autonomy and dependence emerge, and are
institutionalized and internalized, giving to the sexual

division of labor a dimension of structural domination.

Outline of the Study

 

Chapter II examines how historical literature on home
economics portrays the role of the profession in shaping so-
cial relations. General comments on the focus of the histor-
ical literature are followed by a discussion of the way the
literature deals with questions that relate to the sexual
division of labor and the role of home economists in shaping
this set of relations.

Chapter III examines the theoretical assumptions that
underlie historical studies of home economics. Using con-
cepts from Jurgen Habermas' comprehensive social theory, the
political character of professional activity and the failure
of functionalist theoretical strategies to account for power
in home economics practices are discussed.

Given the shortcomings of existing explanations of the
social role of home economics, Chapter IV identifies the
need to develop a more adequate analysis of power in the
practices of home economists. The chapter sets out to devel-

op analytical tools appropriate to the task. Finally, the

19

chapter introduces aspects of the work of the French theo-
rist, Michel Foucault. Foucault's eXplorations on the inter-
relation of knowledge and power appear useful for the pre-
sent study. Discursive analysis, a strategy developed by
Foucault, may contribute to the kind of analysis of home eco-
nomics the present study requires.

Chapter V examines the fruitfulness of using discursive
analysis to study the role of home economics in social repro-
duction. It uses examples from the writings of home econo-
mists to develop a discursive analysis. The chapter first
sketches the dimensions of a discourse of homemaking, and
then develops an analysis of power relations in the dis-
course, focusing cxi the intensification of the division be-
tween intellectual and annual labor, and the sexual division
of labor.

Chapter VI includes a summary, and reflections on the
limitations of the study, future research, and the implica-

tions of the study for the home economics profession.

Chapter Two
REVIEW OF HISTORICAL LITERATURE IN HOME ECONOMICS

The purpose of this chapter is to examine how histori-
cal accounts of home economics characterize the role of the
field in the reproduction of social relations. In particu-
lar, it focuses on how home economists perceive the role of
the field in maintaining and shaping a specific set of soci-
al relations, namely relations that are a part of the sexual
division of labor.

Three questions guide the analysis of historical stu-
dies of home economics. These questions address particular
aSpects of women's roles and the sexual division of labor,
namely women's education, the division between the domestic
and the public sphere, and the content of women's work. The
questions read as follows:

1. How do historical studies characterize develop-
ments in women's education, and the relationship
between home economics and women's education?

2. How do historical studies portray the relation-
ship between the family and other social institu-
tions? How do they see the role of the field of
home economics in maintaining and transforming

relations between the family and society?

20

21

3. How do historical studies describe changes in the
content of homemaking, and the role of the field
of home economics in those changes?

Before turning to a discussion of these questions, a
few remarks about the scope of the review and some general
comments about historical literature on home economics are
in order.

The review covers readily available historical accounts
of home economics in the United States of America, written
or commissioned by home economists. Home economics histori-
ans typically associate the beginning of the profession with
the Lake Placid Conferences on Home Economics, held from
1898 to 1908, and the subsequent organization of the Ameri-
can Home Economics Association. Nevertheless, they recognize
earlier educational and other activities as a part of the
general history of the field. A similar perspective is adop-
ted in the present review. It covers accounts of the history
of home economics as a field of study, an educational move-
ment, and a profession. Studies of the development of par-
ticular content areas and specializations, such as child
development, food and nutrition, and textile studies, were
not included.

While historical accounts reflect, to some extent, the
self-perception of home economists about the field and its
role in society, it is difficult to gauge the relation be-

tween these studies and the actual practices of home

22

economists. The extent to which home economists agreed with
published views is a matter of conjecture. As Vincenti
(1981) points out in her recent study of the history of the
philosophy of home economics, many published accounts of
home economics are isolated statements, and seem to reflect
the views of only a few home economists. The literature of

the professional association, particularly the Journal of

 

Home Economics, shows little dialogue‘on statements among
home economists. While Vincenti's (1981) comments pertain
specifically to philosophical statements, her observations
can be extended to historical studies.

The historical literature on home economics is quite ex-
tensive. The sources reviewed can be classified into three
broad categories. The first group consists of those articles
published at regular intervals in the Journal of Home Econo-
m_ig§ to commemorate specific events or milestones in the
history of the field, such as the fiftieth anniversary of
the American Home Economics Association (AHEA) (e.g., Adams,
1959; Andrews, 1948; Bane, 1959; O'Brien, 1948; Zuill,
1959). Typically, these articles serve to promote the pro-
fession and its activities and to provide inspiration for
the future. It is therefore not surprising that they are
generally uncritical, self-congratulatory, and devoid of
rigorous theoretical reflection (Fritschner, 1973).

Secondly, a large number of studies focus on home eco-

nomics in education. There are general studies of home

23

economics education, and specific studies tracing the devel-
opment of home economics programs in particular schools and
colleges (Bevier, 1928; Bevier & Usher, 1906; Carver, 1979;
Eppright & Ferguson, 1971; Ferrar, 1964; McGrath & Johnson,
1968; Paolucci, 1980). Also in this group are accounts of
the development of the AHEA (Baldwin, 1949; Pundt, 1980).
These accounts share a number of characteristics. They are
largely descriptive, giving factual information about when
and how and by whom programs were started and conducted.
Their intent, in general, is to eXplain the origin and devel-
opment of home economics or specific programs in home econom-
ics.

In most cases, the explanation takes the form of a
chronological account of events or developments. For exam-
ple, Bevier's (1928) study of the development of home econom-
ics as it relates to women's education is in three parts.
This widely quoted study starts with a summary of education-
a1 developments in early America. This is followed by an ac-
count of the development of women's education. In the final
section Bevier first describes the various movements and
events which led to the founding of the American Home Econom-
ics Association, and then recounts “new developments" in the
field. Ferrar's (1964) study of the history of home econom—
ics in relation to liberal education follows a similar chron-
ological pattern. Reviewing developments at the end of the

nineteenth century, Ferrar concludes,

24

Home economics was evolving in response to the social
and economic conditions created by industrial develop-
ment, as well as to the needs, interests and apti-
tudes of women in the family (p. 10).

Except for occasional references to "social and econo-
mic conditions created by the industrial revolution" (Lee &
Dressel, 1963) these studies do not systematically relate de-
velopments in home economics to social changes. No studies
were found that focused on the actual role of home economics
in shaping social relations.

A third group of studies are those that focus on the
philosophy or ideas behind homeeconomics, rather than on
its activities and achievements. (Budewig, 1957; Vincenti,
1981). Budewig (1957), for example, criticizes the overem-
phasis on events and activities in historical studies of
home economics. She proposes that an adequate historical
perspective on home economics must focus on the ideas under-
lying those events and activities. Budewig traces the "idea"
behind home economics to Francis Bacon, who maintained, ac-
cording to Budewig, that the concerns of everyday life, such
as food, clothing and shelter, were worthy of study and the
application of science. Budewig finds this idea also in the
work of Count Rumford, Catherine Beecher, and Ellen H. Rich-
ards. She concludes that historically, the fundamental idea

that gave rise to home economics has been "that the real and

the ideal are one in spirit" (p. 305). She continues, "It

25

is the spirit of home economics that must be maintained if
home economics is to have meaning for the future" (p. 306).
Given this perspective, Budewig criticizes those historical
studies that analyze the development of home economics in
terms of other social developments, such as the women's move-
ment, the cooking school movement, agricultural education or
sewing classes (Budewig, 1964). Having rejected an under-
standing of the history of home economics in terms of other
social events, Budewig (1957) adopts an analysis of the
field in terms of the history of thought. Useful as such an
analysis may be for establishing the uniqueness and enduring
qualities of home economics, it does not contribute to an
understanding of its role in social reproduction.

As these comments show, the focus in existing studies
of the history of home economics does not seem to be on its
role in social reproduction. This is borne out by the fol-
lowing analysis of the literature at the hand of the ques-

tions posed earlier.

Women's Education and Home Economics
The events and activities generally associated with the
origin and development of home economics in the latter half
of the nineteenth century took place in the midst of chang-
ing views and practices regarding women's education. The ef-
fects of education on women, the content of their education,
and the merits of coeducation were topics of frequent debate

among educators. Although perspectives on this matter

26

differ, most historical writings on home economics relate
the development of the field to the issues surrounding
women's education.

In Home Economics in Education (1928) Bevier studies
home economics in relation to women's education. She main-
tains, "while the study of the home and its activities has
many offerings of interest to men, yet it primarily concerns
women, and has developed as a special phase of the education
of women" (p. 8). While a tacit acceptance of the sexual
division of labor is already evident in this statement, it
becomes more explicit in the discussion of educational lead-
ers' concerns about coeducation and the content of women's
education. Bevier concludes that women had a basic right to
higher education and that "the enlargement of the field of
woman's activities" necessitated training. Furthermore, co-
education had probably become a permanent factor in educa-
tion. Referring to the opinions of educational leaders she
continues,

Neither men nor women overlooked the biological argu-
ment for difference in training for men and women be-
cause they have different functions in society. Nei-
ther men nor women were willing that the best inter-
ests of the home should suffer from any cause, and
particularly not at the hand of women. Coeducation
was clearly one great step in the evolution of women.
The question arose what was to be the next step (p.
102).

According to Bevier, these educational leaders were con-
cerned that women's education was not sufficiently preparing

them for their "sacred and imperative task" of being homemak-

ers and wives. She states,

27

Women had no desire to evade their high duty as
conservers of the race. The home was still the
bulwark of the nation, but it was in many ways a new
home in which all that was best of the old was to be
retained, modified by new conditions and with new
problems (p. 107).

Bevier quotes a statement made in 1907 by Dr. Elmer E.
Brown, United States Commissioner of Education, in which he
argued that the integration of women's education had been
successfully accomplished, but that its differentiation
still had to be worked out, because men and women had differ-
ent functions in society. For Bevier, home economics was
the embodiment of this differentiation.

In a similar manner, Ferrar (1964) regards the differen-
tiation of women's education as a progressive step. She
characterizes women's education in the new women's colleges
of the East as "hampered by tradition." Thus Ferrar argues,

There they had continued to struggle for rec0gnition
of their intellectual equality and of their right to
equal educational opportunity. As a result, the tra-
ditional curriculum persisted, long after women in
the West had finished this phase and were ready to
interest themselves in science applied to the home
(p. 6).

Ferrar's remark refers to the development of women's
programs in the land grant institutions. Historical accounts
of these programs reflect an acceptance of the sexual divi-
sion of labor, and of the notion of women's moral superiori—
ty. Gilcrest (1947) describes the development of home eco-
nomics programs at Michigan Agricultural College in such

terms. She notes that the legislation passed in 1855 to

establish the college did not exclude women from attending.

28

But, the curriculum was to focus on agriculture, English and
technical skills related to agriculture. According to Gil-
crest, "Such a curriculum, designed for farm boys, naturally
did not interest girls . . ." (p. 2). Nevertheless, ten wo-
men enrolled in 1870, and in 1879 the first woman graduated
in agriculture. Gilcrest (1947) notes, "Women were always
welcome at Michigan Agricultural College in the old days be-
cause of their needed 'ameliorating effect,‘ so it was said"
(p. 4). According to Gilcrest, a Woman's Course of Study was
established on the recommendation of a Faculty Committee
established in 1895 to examine the reasons for the college's
low enrollment. The committee stated that,
the organization of a woman's course (was) not only .
. . a duty, but . . . the great privilege of the Agri-
cultural College to lead in the training for home
work, known as domestic economy (p. 4).

Similarly, Eppright and Ferguson (1971) describe how
the home economics program at Iowa State University grew out
of its Ladies course. Initially, when the Iowa State Agricul-
tural College opened, women and men were admitted, and they
took the same courses. According to Eppright and Ferguson
(1971) Mary B. Welch, the wife of the college president, was
concerned about the kind of education the women were get-
ting, and its lack of relevance to their future tasks as
homemakers. The authors state that a program was developed,
"that offered three dozen young women of Iowa a kind of edu-

cation that would prepare them specifically for homemaking

and 'discipline their minds'" (p. 9).

29

In a way similar to Ferrar (1964), Rose (1949) sees the
differentiation of women's education in home economics pro-
grams as a progressive step. Home economics would give women
access to higher education, and a role in the larger socie-
ty, without challenging the sexual division of labor, or the
notion of the home as women's special sphere. She states,

Through the burgeoning of this movement in home econo-
mics, women acquired a room of their own in the field
of higher education -- a place which they might oc-
cupy unchallenged and where they might work freely, a
center from which they might extend to the community
the results of their thinking about their special in-
terests and needs, an oasis of influence centered on
the home in the industrial house of Jack's building
(p. 511).

In summary, these studies of the history of home econo-
mics in relation to women's education seems to regard it as
a progressive response to the concerns of educational lead-
ers regarding women's education.

A different perspective on the relationship between
home economics and women's education is provided by Budewig
(1957). At the beginning of her study, she takes a position
similar in some respects to that advanced by Bevier (1928),
when she states,

Although education for home and family living is not
exclusively by and for women but by both men and
women for families, we cannot avoid recognition of
the still obvious fact that the major portion of re-
sponsibility for homemaking and education for homemak-
ing falls upon women. Therefore, education for home
and family living and the problems of education of
women cannot be separated (p. 9).

Nevertheless, at the conclusion of her study, she argues

that it is a mistake to see home economics as an outgrowth

30

of the women's movement, because it did not further the
goals of that movement. She maintains that the feminist
goal to prove that women were the intellectual equals of men
demanded that women and men study the same courses. And
since home economics focused on home and family life, sub-
jects considered to be ”strictly feminine pursuits" (Bude-
wig, 1964, p. 9) at the time of the development of the
field, it could not contribute to that goal. She cites as
evidence the fact that few women's colleges offered home eco-
nomics courses. Likewise, in Budewig's opinion, the woman's
movement did not contribute to the development of home eco-
nomics. Budewig (1964) concludes,
Therefore, I believe it is erroneous to say that home
economics 'grew out of' the woman's movement and un-
fruitful to continue to attempt to trace the develop-
ment of home economics through the history of women's
education. To do so is to ignore the motivating for-
ces behind the woman's movement and to be unaware of
the profundity of the home economics movement and its
significant social implications (p. 10).

In spite of these references to the social role of home
economics, Budewig's (1957) study does not throw light on
that role. This is due to the fact that she focuses on the
”idea" behind home economics, rather than actual social de-
velopments in the field.

A final perspective on the relationship between home
economics and women's education is provided by Marjorie

East. In a recent study, Home Economics, Past, Present,

and Future (1980) she identifies ”The Education of Women

31

for Womenhood: Homemaking" as one of several ”models" of
home economics. She regards this model as "competing" with
the "Applied Science" model, and does not attempt to explore
how they have historically been interrelated. East also
devotes a chapter to the ”Femaleness" of the field but she
does not provide any consistently historical or social analy-
sis of how its predominantly female clientele and membership
have shaped the field. She merely states, "If femaleness
has influenced our field it must be because of special char—
acteristics of women" (p. 137).

In conclusion, historical studies of home economics
which relate the development of the field to women's educa-
tion recognize the existence of the sexual division of 1a-
bor. The development of home economics programs is regarded
as a progressive step in contributing to broadening the wo-
men's sphere of influence, and bringing science: into 'the
household, without challenging or changing the sexual divi-
sion of labor. No analysis of the role of home economics in
maintaining or shaping the sexual division of labor appeared
in the studies available to the researcher.

Historians' perceptions of the relation between home
economics and its clientele, and the rode of gender in these

relations, are further explored in the sections that follow.

32

Home Economics, the Public and the Private

Some historians note that the development of the new
profession meant access to the public sphere for some women
(Rose, 1949). Nevertheless, consistent historical analysis
of the relationship between the domestic and the public
sphere, the changes in this relationship, and how women,
including professional women, experienced these changes, is
meagre.

The existence of a division between the domestic and
the public is generally accepted, and as the previous sec-
tion shows, most writers implicitly assume women's associa—
tion with home and family. The relation between home and
family and the rest of society is usually couched in func-
tionalist terms -- society has particular needs that the
family must fulfill. It is generally accepted that women
are the main actors in the family's efforts to carry out its
tasks.

Historical writings on home economics reflect a certain
ambivalence toward the family and toward women. On the one
hand, they emphasize the home as "the bulwark of the nation"
and women's role as "preservers of the race" (Bevier, 1928).
Yet, they often also deride the home for its backwardness,
and women for their ignorance. Thus, Andrews (1948) accepts
as a basis for the development of home economics, the follow—

ing statement of Edward Youmans:

33

Our kitchens are fortified intrenchments of ignor-
ance, prejudice, irrational habits, rule of thumb,
and mental vacuity . . . . The spirit of improvement
must invade this last stronghold of stupidity, the
kitchen (p. 291).

Such statements seem to provide a basis for the justifi-
cation of home economists' involvement in the home. Without
critique or analysis, Bevier quotes extensively from a
speech given by Mary E. Sweeney, President of AHEA, at its
15th Annual Meeting in 1922. The statement gives one promi-
nent home economist's view on the relation between the pro-
fession and its clientele. Sweeney stressed the need for
professional input into families, because of housewives'
ignorance. She also recognized the difficulty involved in
seeking entrance into the home, because of its privacy. Thus
she stated,

Our professional work has had to do with the home,
which as an institution is traditional and conserva-
tive. Those within it have had only a half-hearted
belief in home-making as a profession and in the func-
tioning of science in everyday life. Homes are indi-
vidual units; there are few ways of reaching them col-
lectively. No outside forces connected with incomes
unify their attitude, interest, and point of view,
and get certain standards into their mass mind and
consciousness (Quoted in Bevier, 1928, pp. 182-183).

Sweeney seems to be justifying the existence and expan-
sion of home economics on the basis of women's ignorance.
What is described here, although not in such terms, is a
transformation in the relation between the domestic sphere
and the rest of society -- a new set of relationships in

which the professional has carved out for herself a key

role.

34

Other studies also reflect how social relations between
the family, professionals, and other social institutions are
viewed by home economists. East (1980), for example, recog-
nizes changes in the family's relation to the government,
but does not analyze the role of home economics in the loss
of family autonomy she perceives as a result of these social
changes. In fact, East characterizes the role of the home
economist only as one of helping families adapt to increas-
ing interdependence in society through educational programs.
Similarly, Budewig (1957) sees home economics as being pri-
marily concerned with adapting to change in the culture:
Home economics itself must adapt, and its task is to help
families to adapt also.

This, in essence, seems to be the way in which home eco-
nomics historians analyze the relation between the family,
professionals and other social institutions. Changes are
due to abstract social forces over which individuals and
families have little control, and home economists can assist
them to adapt to these changes.

In the next section the perceptions of historians of
home economics of the content of household work and the role
of home economists in shaping the work is reviewed. While
the historical literature does not pay much (attention to
this matter, the scattered comments do give some idea of the
historical view of the content of women's work in the home,
and, particularly, how the role of home economists with re-

gard to the work done in the household has been understood.

35

Home Economics and Housework

Home economics historians, like other historians of the
household, note that home economists recognized the home as
a place of work (Hartmann, 1974; Hayden, 1981). Thus, home
economists had a more realistic view of the household and
family life than many sociologists and others who focused
almost exclusively on interpersonal relations. The question
is whether and how historians of home economics account for
the transformation in household work in the nineteenth and
twentieth century, and what role they assign to home econo~
mics in this process.

Some historical writings include references to house-
work as dignified and important. The authors of such works
often stress the role of home economics in making housework
dignified, scientific, and professional. Bevier (1928), for
example, cites the 1913 syllabus prepared for the American
Home Economics Association by its Committee on Nomenclature
and Syllabus as evidence for the develOpment of the "scien-
tific phase of home economics" and the "scientification" of
housework. However, she does not indicate how widely the
syllabus was used or what effect it actually had on homemak-
ing practices.

Other statements link home economics and the develop-
ment of scientific homemaking more directly. For example,

an editorial in the Journal of Home Economics of 1911,

 

"The Home Economics Movement in the United States," accepts

36

the role of the expert in the redefinition of housework. It

states,
Just as the chemist in his laboratory has decided for
the farmer the proper rotation of crops and the exact
kind of fertilizer for each, and has given him the
balanced ration for the production of milk or of fat
in his cattle, thus revolutionizing farming while
raising it to the dignity of a profession, by exactly
the same application of the results of science in
many fields is housekeeping and homemaking being put
on a higher plain (1911, p. 323).

In her account of early developments in land grant in-
stitutions, Bevier (1928) quotes extensively from statements
made by college administrators and early program leaders re-
garding housework and home economics. A fragment from a re-
port by Mary B. Welch on the program at Iowa State College
reflects the view held by many of these leaders,

It (the department of domestic economy) has not only
given them manual skill, but it has also increased
their respect for all branches of such. labor, and
added dignity to that part of their life work hither-
to considered menial drudgery (Quoted in Bevier, p.
122).

In sum, the historical literature: in home economics
does not discuss the relationship between housework and home
economics in great depth. When a relationship is identified,
home economics is credited with putting housework on a busi-

nesslike basis and relieving drudgery.

37

Conclusion

 

This chapter examined historical literature in home
economics to determine how the role of home economics in
social reproduction has been understood by home economists.
The review focused on three questions relating to the sexual
division of labor. It considered the relationship of home
economics to women's education, the role of home economics
in shaping relations between the family and. other' social
institutions, and its role in transforming the content of
housework and homemaking.

The analysis indicated that historical studies of home
economics generally focus on the field itself rather than on
its relations with the larger society. The emphasis is on
events and activities in the field. The activities are rare-
ly discussed in the context of social and historical change.
Where social change is considered, it is regarded as being
caused by abstract social forces and the role of home econo—
mists is to'respond to those changes, to adapt, and to help
individuals and families to adapt also.

Studies that attempt to go beyond an emphasis on events
and activities are equally abstract. These studies focus on
enduring ideas underlying the developments and changes in
the field, or on changes in the philosophical underpinnings
of activities. Generally, such studies do not relate ideas
and philosophies to the actual social role of the profes-

sion.

38

With regard to the sexual division of labor, it appears
that historical studies accept such a division as a natural
and inevitable characteristic of society. While historians
do not agree on the association between home economics and
women's concerns, they recognize that home economics to a
greater or lesser extent is concerned with issues surround-
ing women's education, their place in the home and in socie-
ty, and the content of their work. While historical studies
may credit home economies with specific roles in society,
for example, making housework scientific and relieving drud-
gery, no study was found that actually analyzed the social
role of home economists in shaping and maintaining the sexu-

al division of labor.

Chapter Three
CRITIQUE OF HISTORICAL LITERATURE

The previous chapter focused on the portrayal of partic-
ular dimensions of the sexual division of labor in home eco-
nomics historical literature. The intent was to eXplore and
illustrate how home economists have interpreted changes in
social relations following in the wake of the development of
capitalism. The review showed that the femaleness of the pro~
fession, its links with women's education, and its preoccupa-
tion with women's work are accepted by home economics histo-
rians. Yet, the complex social relations implied by this
interconnection of the sexual division of labor and the di-
vision between intellectual and manual labor are not theo-
rized.

The chapter suggests that the lack of attention to is-
sues of gender in relation to professionalization may be
linked to particular theoretical commitments and unexamined
assumptions made by home economists. The chapter first iden-
tifies a number of theoretical commitments evident in the
historical literature on home economics. These are then
placed in a larger social and historical context. To this

end, some theoretical propositions and arguments advanced by

39

40

Jurgen Habermas are sketched, and related to the home econom-
ics literature. The chapter concludes that the frameworks
and theoretical assumptions adopted in studies of the his-
tory of home economics are incapable of dealing with ques-
tions of power in social relations, and actually obscure its

working.

Theoretical Commitments

The historical literature in home economics does not
have great theoretical sophistication. In this it reflects
the home economics literature in general. The emphasis in
the field has typically been on practice rather than on theo-
rizing. Nevertheless, theoretical commitments and assump-
tions about science, the role of intellectuals in society,
and the nature of social change can be inferred from the lit-
erature.

With some notable exceptions, historians accept the
faith in science that has dominated home economics since the
early years. This faith is probably best; exemplified. by
Ellen Richards, who is generally regarded as the founder of
the home economics profession. In a biography of the leader,
Hunt (1958) records that Richards described herself as that
member of the first Lake Placid Conference who had "faith in
science as a cure-all" (p. 144). This stance also is reflec-
ted in Richards' many books and articles.

The applied science model of home economics is often

cited by historians as the: definition of the field. In

41

Introduction to Home Economics, Bane and Chapin (1945)
open the chapter on the history of the field with this
statement:
The home economics movement grew out of a realization
of the lag between the findings of science and their
applications where they would be of untold value to
mankind -- in the home (p. 121).

Typically, historians see the development of the strong
emphasis on science, especially natural science, in home eco-
nomics as a neutral event, a consequence of the rapid devel—
opment of the sciences. According to Bevier (1928) the rea-
son for the early development of the scientific phase of
home economics, as indicated in the syllabus of 1913 (Commit-
tee on Nomenclature and Syllabus, 1913), was the wideSpread
interest in food and the development of nutrition research
in the United States Department. of Agriculture. Budewig
(1964) sees the reason for the early emphasis on chemistry
as largely an historical accident. She argues,

If psychology, or sociology, or anthropology had been
more developed fields of knowledge at the turn of the
century, the face of home economics might look differ-
ent today (p. 13).
Thus the virtually exclusive emphasis on natural science in
the early years of home economics is noted by historians.
Where they recognize a need for the study of social phenome-
na, the difference between the study of natural and social

phenomena is regarded as one only of content, not of methodo-

logy. The purpose of both is prediction and control.

42

East's (1980) analysis of the oft-quoted 1902 defini-
tion of home economics is indicative of the orientation to-
ward a unitary view of social and natural science, and an
emphasis on control and prediction as the goals of science.
The definition reads as follows:

Home economics in its most comprehensive sense is the
study of the laws, conditions, principles and ideals
which are concerned on the one hand with man's immedi-
ate physical environment and on the other hand with
his nature as a social being, and specially of the re-
lation between those two factors (Lake Placid Confer-
ences on Home Economics, 1902, pp. 70-71).
In her analysis of the definition, East (1980) understands
"laws" as social contracts, "conditions" as empirical data,
and "principles" as rules that eXplain or predict. Under
"ideals" she includes norms, goals, and hopes. She inter-
prets "man's nature as a social being" to refer primarily to
the "regularities, predictabilities, and potentials" signi-
fied by the concept, human nature. Home economics studies
all of these in the same manner, namely through analysis,
examination, and recording.

Some historians reflect more self-critically on the pre-
dominance of science in home economics. Vincenti (1981)
identifies it as a major theme in the philosophy of the
field. She finds the belief in science dominant from the
inception of home economics as a field of study, until the
late 1970's. She suggests that until then, “scientific know-

ledge and methodology had remained perhaps the most impor-

tant means of accomplishing the goals of the field" (p.

43

243). She argues that while some home economists regarded
the scientific method as the only valid method to gain know-
ledge and therefore also the only method appropriate to home
economics, others rejected this view. She states,
Home economics seems to have reflected the cultural
attitudes toward science. When positivism was strong,
home economics accepted science as the bases for its
professional activities apparently without qualms.
When positivism came under frequent criticism, home
economists also began to write about the negative
implications of a scientific bias in the philosophy
and work of the profession (p. 244).

Yet Vincenti is hesitant to conclude that home econo-
mists explicitly held to a positivist view of science. She
does not regard the omission of other ways of knowing as suf-
ficient evidence for such a view. Vincenti seems to oppose
science in: ethics and religion, rather than to the question
of whether a restricted philosophy of science was accepted
by the profession.

An earlier critic of the emphasis on science in home
economics was Carolyn Budewig (1957, 1964). She recognized
the limits of the scientific method, and called for an inte-
gration of science and humanities in home economics. Bude-
wig (1964) states,

For a field that so admirably combines the "two cul-
tures," science and the humanities, and depends for
its success and effectiveness on the interrelation-
ship of the two, it is the more the pity that at
least equal attention has not been given its humanis-
tic side; or perhaps "core" rather than "side" is the

more descriptive word in this case (pp. 13-14).

She continues:

44

As we all know, the "idol" today is science, as it
has been throughout the lifetimes of all of us. This
time span also encompasses the life of home economics
as a field of knowledge in the universities. Science
being descriptive rather than normative enables many
to predict and control. Science is abstract, imper-
sonal, objective. It describes what is rather than
what ought to be. It is a very important way of know-
ing, with this we cannot argue. But science is not
the only way. Enduring institutions reflect integra-
tion in both the scientific and humanistic "cultures"
and home economics can be no exception (p. 14).
While Budewig alerts home economists to the one-sidedness of
an exclusive emphasis on science and the value of the humani~
ties, it remains unclear how integration could be achieved.
Budewig (1957) does not reflect on how the emphasis on sci-
ence also permeates perspectives on the profession's role in
society. And when she urges home economists to drop their
"scientific conceit" and see homemaking for the art it is,
she suggests "searching out values that count" but gives no
indication of the basis on which these values shall be cho-
sen. She still regards it as the professionals' responsibil-
ity to decide what kind of education is necessary "for home
and family living that will build yet a better home life for
all people" (p. 308).

Historical studies of home economics which focus on the
recounting of facts and figures, with little interpretation
of the facts, reflect a kind of empiricism. Though they do
not necessarily intend to do so, such studies match a view

of the world that gives an independent existence to objec-

tive facts, and obscures their relation to the subject

45

observing them, and their relation to other events and cir-
cumstances. As pointed out in the previous chapter, such
factual or empirical accounts of home economics seldom re-
late developments in home economics to other social or his-
torical events. Where attempts are made to place those de-
velopments in historical context, the relation is usually
presented in a unidirectional, causal way. The historically
contingent nature of the larger social context is not ex-
plored.

In the dialectical tradition, such analyses are criti-
cized as being abstract, because events are treated as if
they exist in isolation from others. In contrast, dialectic-
al thinkers stress the need for concrete analysis. Hegel,
the father of the modern dialectical tradition, stressed
that social events must be understood as part of a totality.
The interconnection of objects and subjects leaves neither
untouched. Both subjects and objects are also shaped by pre-
vious events and experiences. To understand specifics, they
must be treated as historical and placed in the larger con—
text. This kind of analysis is called concrete analysis.

There is a place for abstract thought and analysis, but
these must be placed in context.

Concrete thought is required if we are to assess the
real possibilities of a given historical situation
and so if we are to be able to act in it consciously
and effectively (Peterson, 1979, p. 67-68).

One of the consequences of abstract analysis in home

economics is that changes in the field are not related in a

46

systematic way to changes in the larger social system. And,
where an effort is made to relate changes to other social
events, these changes are generally discussed as the result
of the working of abstract social forces. This perspective
does not allow for human intention and action in bringing
about change.

Where changes in the society are recognized, the role
of the professional is characterized as one of helping peo-
ple adapt to change. Where changes were regarded by the pro-
fessionals as negative, it was also their role to stem the
tide of change. This reinforces the view that people are
not actors, making independent decisions, and thus shaping
their own futures. Rather, they respond to changes not of
their own making.

The abstract analyses of the history of home economics,
the general acceptance of the scientific model and a scien-
tistic or empiricist world view culminate in home economics
historical literature in an absence of critical reflection
on professional activity, even an endorsement of social con-
trol by experts, and social engineering.

While home economics historians do not explicitly sub-
scribe to the tenets of functionalism and positivism, it can
be argued that the historical literature shows the impact of
functionalism as a theoretical model, and positivism as a
philosophy of science. This is hardly surprising, for their

assumptions have virtually become the common sense of

47

educated people and their influence is pervasive (Peterson,
1979; McCarthy, 1978). To substantiate this claim, the basic
assumptions and principles of functionalism and positivism
are briefly reviewed below.

Functionalism. According to McCarthy (1978), function-
alist notions are already discernable in the work of Durk-
heim. In the Anglo-American world, Malinowski and Radcliffe-
Brown are early proponents of this view. More recently, Tal-
cott Parsons (1954) and Robert Merton (1957) have developed
complex functionalist theories in sociology. There is wide-
spread disagreement among functionalists about specific for-
mulations of the approach. In general, however, it is "asso-
ciated with unfolding models of change based upon metaphors
of biological growth cn: evolution" (Giddens, 1979, p. 236).
Thus functionalists hold the view that social systems have
organismic characteristics, change is gradual and unfolding,
and the result of abstract social forces, rather than human
action.

In spite of attempts of some functionalists to overcome
the limitations of positivism, functionalists generally ac-
cept positivistic philosophies of science. Thus Giddens
(1979) states,

Functionalism has been closely connected with a natur-
alistic standpoint in social philosophy, if natural-
ism is understood to refer to the thesis that the log-

ical frameworks of natural and social science are in
essential respects the same (p. 237).

48

As will be shown in the next section, this is a basic
tenet of positivism.

Ppsitivism. It would be impossible to identify one
distinct positivistic philosophy of science about which
there is general agreement today. There have been many expo-
nents, many revisions, and many critics. Saint-Simon and
Comte were early advocates of a positivist philosophy. Spen-
cer and Haeckel contributed their evolutionary positivism.
More recently, philosophers at the University of Vienna and
Cambridge University developed the perspective known as logi—
cal positivism (McCarthy, 1978).1 McCarthy states that this
perspective has disintegrated as a unified movement. Yet it
has been reworked and absorbed into other perspectives, so
that the net result is that the "legacy of logical positiv-
ism" -u- a legacy of convictions and attitudes, problems and
techniques, concepts, and theories -- pervades contemporary
thought (pp. 137-138).

Although there have been considerable debate and disa-
greement among positivists and neo—positivists about the va-
lidity of the basic tenets of this philosophical orientation
toward science, a number of general assumptions may be put
forward to indicate its basic premises. McCarthy (1978)
identifies four:

1. "The unity of scientific method." This implies that the
methods of the natural sciences also apply to the study

of human behavior.

49

"the goals of inquiry -- explanation and prediction --
are identical, as is the form in which they are real-
ized: the subsumption of individual cases under hypothe-
tically proposed general laws."

"The relation of theory to practice is primarily technic-
al. If the appropriate general laws are known and the
relevant inital (sic) conditions are manipulable, we can
produce a desired state of affairs, natural or social.
But the question of which states of affairs are to be pro-
duced cannot be scientifically resolved. It is ultimately
a matter of decision, for no 'ought' can be derived from
an 'is,‘ no 'value' from a 'fact.‘ Scientific inquiry is
itself 'value-free'; it strives only for objective (inter-
subjectively testable) value-neutral results."

"The hallmark of scientific knowledge is precisely its
testability. . . . Thus the empirical basis of science
is composed of observation statements . . . that can be
said either to report perceptual experiences or, at
least, to be motivated by them" (McCarthy, 1978, pp. 138-
139).

Finally, the claim that the methods of the natural and

analytical sciences are the only sources of reliable know-

ledge, is also generally regarded as part of a positivist

philosophy, although it may be more accurately regarded as

an objectivistic claim.

50

The influence of positivism is suggested in home econom-
ics in the persistent goal of becoming more scientific, and
wanting the housewife to be more scientific also; in the
emphasis on empirical research to the virtual exclusion of
other types of studies, and in the viewPoint that profession-
als provide technical knowledge to help families solve their
problems. Historical studies and accounts also reflect the
influence of positivism. With few exceptions these studies
do not raise questions about the veneration of science, and
the exclusive concern for doing empirical research. Empiri-
cist influences can be seen in the "factual" nature of many
historical studies.

The question to be considered is whether a positivist
self-understanding is an: adequate one for a field like home
economics. According to the West-German social theorist and
philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, there are epistemological and
sociological reasons why positivism must be critiqued and
transcended if a more adequate understanding of society is
to be developed.

By applying elements from Habermas' theoretical frame-
work to the self-understanding of home economics as reflec-
ted in historical literature, it becomes clear that existing
frameworks for studying the social role of home economics
are inadequate. The analysis also lends weight to the argu—
ment advanced earlier that the role of professionals in soci-

ety needs to be understood in terms of power.

51

Habermas' Critique of Positivism

 

Habermas' critique of positivism is premised on the ca-
tegorical distinction he makes between work and interaction
as the two basic dimensions of human life. According to
Habermas (1970a), work, or purposive-rational action, the
activities through which human groups control outer nature,
involves instrumental action and rational choice. Purposive-
rational action is governed by technical rules. It seeks to
find the most suitable means to reach given ends under spe-
cific conditions. According to Bernstein (1976), "Work, as
a primary level of action, refers to the ways in which indi-
viduals control and manipulate their environment in order to
survive and preserve themselves" (p. 193).

With interaction, Habermas understands,

communicative action, symbolic interaction. It is
governed by binding consensual norms, which define
reciprocal expectations about behavior and which must
be understood and recognized by at least two acting
subjects. Social norms are enforced through sanc-
tions. Their meaning is objectified in ordinary lang-
uage communication. While the validity of technical
rules and strategies depends on that of empirically
true or analytically correct propositions, the validi-
ty of social norms is grounded only in the intersub-
jectivity of the mutual understanding of intentions

and secured by the general recognition of obligations
(1970a, p. 92).

 

 

Habermas maintains that human social evolution must be
understood in terms that distinguish between work done ac-
cording to technical rules, and interaction that proceeds ac-

cording to norms that require justification. Habermas works

52

out this distinction between work and interaction at a num—
ber of levels (McCarthy, 1978).

He develops a theory of cognitive interests in which he
maintains that different kinds of interests underlie differ—
ent kinds of activity. According to Habermas, cognitive or
"knowledge-constitutive interests" are "basic orientations
rooted in specific fundamental conditions of possible repro-
duction and self-constitution of the human Species, namely
work and interaction (1971, p. 196). These cognitive in-
terests function to,

shape and determine what counts as objects and types
of knowledge: they determine the categories relevant
to what we take to be knowledge, as well as the proce-
dures for discovering and warranting knowledge claims

(Bernstein, 1976, p. 192).

Habermas maintains that a technical interest in pre-

 

diction and control of objectified processes underlies pur-
posive-rational action. A practical interest "in securing
and expanding possibilities of mutual and self-understanding
in the conduct of life" corresponds to communicative action
(McCarthy, 1978, p. 57).

On the basis of the theory of cognitive interests, Ha-
bermas makes a methodological distinction between the empiri-
cal-analytical sciences, which correspond to an interest in
technical control, and the historical-hermeneutic sciences
which have a practical interest.

In summary, Habermas distinguishes between the techni-

cal, which refers to means-ends rationality, the empirical-

53

analytical sciences, and purposive-rational action; and the
practical, which refers to the rational concern for coming
to mutual understanding on the basis of norms and values,
and corresponds to the hermeneutic sciences and communica-
tive action.

Habermas also identifies a third cognitive interest,
namely, an emancipatory interest. The status of this inter-
est is different from that of the technical and the practi-
cal interests. McCarthy (1978) clarifies the distinction as
follows:

The interest of self-reflection in emancipation is
viewed then as an interest in social relations organ-
ized on the basis of communication free from domina-
tion. From this perspective power, ideology, and cri-
tical self-reflection do not have the same anthropolo-
gical status as work and interaction (p. 93).

Habermas links ideology to power at work in social rela-
tions. For Habermas, ideology is more than a set of false
notions or ideas making up people's misunderstanding of
their social relations and material conditions. Rather, he
understands ideology as at work in language and communica-
tion. When the working of power in social relations is mis-
represented, communication among people becomes distorted,
as the interests being served are hidden or distorted (Haber—
mas, 1970). The critique of ideology, for Habermas, is aimed
at freeing subjects from misconceptions in their understand-
ing of themselves and their society, and thus altering the

quality of their interaction in the direction of the "ideal

speech situation" (McCarthy, 1975, p. xvii). This involves

54

more openness of expression, equality of access to informa-
tion, and ease of participation.

According to Habermas, an emancipatory interest under-
lies critical social science and the critique of ideology.
Critical science

is concerned with going beyond (the goal of producing
nomological knowledge) to determine when theoretical
statements grasp invariant regularities of social
action as such and when they express ideologically
frozen relations of dependence that can in principle
be transformed (Habermas, 1971, p. 310).

Moving to a more explicitly sociological and historical
analysis, Habermas carries the distinction between work and
interaction over into the realm of the organization of socie-
ty. He differentiates between society's institutional frame-
work which "consists of norms that guide symbolic action"
and subsystems, such as the economy "in which primarily sets
of purposive-rational action are institutionalized" (1970a,
p. 93).

Habermas develops his critique of positivism on the ba-
sis of these distinctions between work and social interac-
tion. He claims that positivism obscures the distinction
between work and interaction, between the technical and the
practical. At the epistemological level, this restricts ra-
tionality to the methods of the empirical-analytical sci-
ences. The problem with the claim that the methods of the
empirical-analytical sciences are the only reliable means to

gain knowledge is that it cannot be verified through those

methods.

55

The norms governing the activities of scientists are
not open to reflection through the methods of the empirical-
analytical sciences. It is impossible to explain how a com-
munity of scientists could develop solely through technical
rationality. A scientific community presupposes a level of
action, namely social interaction or communication, that can
only be grasped if a more inclusive form of rationality is
accepted. The existence of such a community presupposes con-
sensus arrived at through interaction about the norms that
guide their scientific practice. The objectivism of the so-
cial sciences is attributed to the failure to recognize
this, and 11) the consequent reduction of all rationality to
one kind, namely technical rationality.

The reduction of practical rationality to technical ra-
tionality leads to a redefinition of the role of the profes-
sional as one of applying technical knowledge derived from
empirical-analytical sciences to reach given goals. The
norms and values underlying these goals are not open to exam-
ination through empirical-analytical means. As long as those
are considered to be the only rational means, norms and val-
ues are beyond rational. discussion. The interests served
through the interaction of the professional with the public
are not open for discussion. Thus Habermas would argue that
a positivistic understanding of intellectual activity is ide-
ological because reflection (M: the power exercised in those

activities is blocked.

56

Habermas argues further that. a. positivistic self-un-
derstanding is not limited to the sciences, but that it oper—
ates in advanced capitalist countries on a much larger
scale. He identifies two important tendencies in these soci-
eties since the 1870's. In the first place, he notes the
increased role of science in society. Habermas argues that
the interdependence of research and technology has made sci-
ence the leading productive force in the society.

Secondly, the state is increasingly involved in the eco-
nomy. This has become necessary to stabilize the economic
system, which is prone to periodic crises, due to over-pro-
duction, and under-consumption. Thus the state becomes more
actively involved in reproducing class relations. It now has
to find a way to justify its involvement in a system which
distributes surplus wealth unequally (Habermas, 1975). How-
ever, justification <x1 the basis of traditional world views
is no longer feasible. Furthermore, the democratizing re-
sults of bourgeois emancipation in the nineteenth century
(e.g., the right to vote, and general political participa-
tion), cannot be taken away without seriously threatening
the stability of the system, which is what state interven-
tion wants to prevent at all costs.

In this situation, the task of politics becomes nega-
tive. The main function of government becomes one of secur-
ing economic growth and stability. Its action is now geared,

toward the elimination of dysfunctions and the
avoidance of risks that threaten the system: not . .
. toward the realization of practical goals but

toward the solution of technical problems (Habermas,
1970a, p. 103).

57

This technical management of society requires not the
participation of citizens, but, in fact, the depoliticiza-
tion of the population, for

public discussions could render problematic the frame-
work within which the tasks of government action pre-
sent themselves as technical ones (Habermas, 1970a,
p. 103).
The key problem then becomes how this depoliticization will
be made acceptable to the masses. Habermas, following Mar-

cuse, argues that it is achieved by making science and tech-

nology into an ideology.

Science and Technology as Ideology
The ideological dimension of science and technology is
tied to the obliteration of the distinction between work and
interaction. In developing his argument, Habermas contrasts
capitalist societies and traditional societies.
"Traditional" societies exist as long as the develop-
ment of subsystems of pmrposive-rational action keep
within the limits of the legitimating efficacy of cul-
tural traditions (Habermas, 1970a, p. 95).
However, the capitalist mode of production provides a mecha-
nism for self-sustaining economic growth. Consequently, this
guarantees the permanent expansion of subsystems of
purposive-rational action and thereby overturns the
traditionalist "superiority" of the institutional

framework to the forces of production (Habermas,
1970a, p. 96).

 

Increasingly, areas of life, such as the family, former-
ly organized on the basis of eXplicit norms , are subjected

to instrumental reasoning. This development effectively

58

obscures the normative content of more and more institutions
in society.

In addition, science and technology function as an ideo-
logy to the extent that people lose consciousness of the dis-
tinction between work and interaction. With the rapid devel-
opment of science and technological progress it appears that
the development of the social system depends, not on develop-
ment. in .mutual understanding, but. on scientific-technical
progress. Habermas argues that this understanding can become

a background ideology that penetrates into the con-
sciousness of the depoliticized mass of the popula-
tion where it can take on legitimating power. It is a
singular achievement of this ideology to detach socie-
ty's self-understanding from the frame of reference
of communicative action and from the concepts of sym-
bolic interaction and replace it with a scientific mo-
del. Accordingly the culturally defined self-under-
standing of a social life-world is replaced by the
self-reification of men under categories of purposive-
rational action and adaptive behavior (1970a,
pp. 105-106).

The technocratic ideology places the activities of pro-
fessionals beyond the reach of public discussion. The inter-
ests served through professional activity are not open for
discussion. Furthermore, as people begin to understand them-
selves and their society in terms based on purposive-ration-
al action, they also accept the role of eXperts in society,
and the limitation of their own political role to that of
choosing among administrators.

Habermas maintains that it is the task of critical theo-

.ny to bring to light the distortions in people's self-under-

standing through the critique of the technocratic ideology.

59

Habermas identifies as the most urgent practical problem of
our time,
to oppose all those intellectual and material tenden-
cies that undermine or suppress practical discourse,
and to work toward the achievement of those objective
institutions in which such practical discourse can be
concretely realized (Bernstein, 1976, p. 219).

To return to the context of the present study, Haber-
mas' concern for uncovering structures and practices that
undermine open communication free from distortion, is echoed
in the mission statement proposed for home economics, cited
in Chapter I (p. 2). However, the analysis of Habermas' cri-
tique of positivism suggests that professions themselves
have been involved in suppressing practical discourse. It
would seem, therefore, that for home economics to implement
the mission stated by Brown and Paolucci (1979), it needs to
understand its own role in maintaining oppressive relations.

The analysis of historical literature in home economics
indicated that existing historical studies do not reflect on
power exercised through the activities of home economists.
To the extent that they remain at the level of factual re-
porting, and use functionalist strategies that obscure ques-
tions of power, their analytical categories make it impos-

sible for them to challenge the dominant ideology, or the

involvement of home economists in maintaining that ideology.

60

In effect, those categories allow them to propagate the tech-
nocratic ideology. Thus it would seem that new frameworks
need to be used to critically analyze the social and histori-

cal role of home economics.

Conclusion

While Habermas' approach suggests a basic framework for
such a critical analysis, it does not provide appropriate
analytical tools. Habermas focuses primariLy on the repro-
duction of the existing economic system, and the role of the
state in maintaining that system, and the claSs relations
within it. Habermas' concern is with the misrepresentation
and masking of power relations, rather than with the particu-
lar dimensions of distorted communication in which power is
at work. To develop an analysis of particular power rela-
tions, the present study turns to the work of another theo-
rist, Michel Foucault, whose work seems to provide analyti-

cal tools suited to the task.

Chapter Four
CONCEPTUALIZING POWER AND KNOWLEDGE

The present study argues that an adequate understanding
of the social role of home economics must recognize power at
work in the relations in which home economists participate.
Two sets of social relations were identified as pertinent
for understanding power in the practices of home economists.
These relations are the sexual division of labor, and the
division between intellectual and manual labor. However, the
analysis of historical literature in home economics showed
that conventional accounts of the activities of home econom-
ics do not take power into consideration. In particular,
these studies fail to: offer an analysis of the Specific
kinds of power relations represented in the sexual division
of labor and the division between intellectual and manual
labor.

In Chapter II, historical literature on home economics
was reviewed to examine how the evolution of the field has
been related to certain aspects of the sexual division of
labor. The review focused on developments in women's educa-
tion, the changing relationship of the family to other insti-
tutions in society and the content of housework. The analy-
sis indicated that the available historical accounts neglect

issues of power in gender relations.

61

62

In Chapter III, the assumptions underlying historical
studies were examined. Using concepts from Habermas' compre-
hensive social theory it was argued that positivist and func-
tionalist assumptions underlay most of these studies.

A functionalist approach is inadequate for several rea-
sons. It typically includes a view of society as an organism
of which the different parts are to be integrated. In this
view society has "needs," to which individuals or groups re-
spond. Needs are often portrayed as trans-historical. Such
a view of society also favors an orientation to the status
quo. A functionalist account of the activities of home econ-
omists sees their activities as responding to society's en-
during needs, and obscures their political character. Corres-
ponding to this view of society is the notion that change is
due to abstract social forces, rather than the activities of
individuals or groups. Consequently, functionalist accounts
give one-way, causal explanations, thus obscuring the rela-
tional aspects of change. In other words, the interaction,
cooperation, resistance, and contradictions that occur in
the process of change are obscured.

The scientistic self-understanding of the field, evi-
dent in historical studies of home economics, reflects the
influence of the dominant technocratic ideology in society.
It gives rise to a view of the activities of the field in

terms of the technical application of knowledge. Such a

63

perspective obscures the political character of professional
interventions. Inasmuch as historical studies describe home
economics in causal terms, for example, as responses to "so-
cial needs," and suggest that such explanations are suffici-
ent, they obscure the dimensions of power in social rela-
tions, and the interests being served by the interventions
of home economists.

The present study rejects a functionalist approach to
understanding the social role of home economics, because it
obscures power in professional activities. It also suggests
that those approaches that attempt to explain the activities
of home economists in terms of the exercise of the power of
the state, or "patriarchy," or "capitalism" may be inade-
quate. A number of such studies were reviewed briefly in
Chapter 1;. ‘While these studies recognize that the activi-
ties of professionals in general, and home economists in par-
ticular, involve the exercise of power, they do not reflect
systematically on the particular nature of the power rela-
tions professionals enter.

Therefore, before power in home economics can be ex-
plained, and related to other dimensions of power in soci-
ety, it seems necessary to analyze the particular workings
of power in home economics practices. The present study pro-
poses to bracket the question of explaining power in home
economics in relation to other forms of power, and to ex-

plore the particulars of power relations in home economics.

64

A first task in such an eXploration is the development
of analytical tools. The remainder of this chapter will be
devoted to this task. First, a conceptual definition of pow-
er is attempted. This is followed with a statement of par-
ticular requirements for an analysis of power as it relates
to intellectual practices. In the final section selected
aspects of the work of Michel Foucault are introduced. Fou-
cault's emphasis on the interrelation of knowledge and pow-
er, and his conceptualization of power seem to provide the
kind of analytical categories required to analyze Specific

power relations in home economics.

22221:.

The concept of power is an ambiguous one, and its mean-
ing is highly disputed among social theorists. It has been
variously linked to wants, needs, interests, and conflict. A
first distinction can be made between power as a capacity,
that is, power to do something, and power as relational,
that is, power over someone.

In one prevalent view, power is understood in terms of
intention or willed action, that is, the likelihood that ac-
tors will reach intended outcomes. Lukes (1974) summarizes
this view, which he calls one-dimensional, as one that,

involves a focus on behaviour in the making of _d_e_-_
cisions on issues over which there is an observ-
able conflict of (subjective) interests, seen as

express policy preferences, revealed by political par-
ticipation (p. 15).

 

65

This perspective sees domination as a network of deci-
sion making without considering the institutional background
against which it takes place.

In opposition to this view, some theorists have seen
power as a property of a group, the medium through which the
group's interests can be reached. From this perspective,
domination is primarily an institutional phenomenon. Human
agency (e.g. in decision making) is either not considered,
or regarded as being determined by the institutional arrange-
ment.

Several attempts have been made to reconcile these two
perspectives. Bachrach and Baratz (1962, 1963), for example,
attempted to overcome the emphasis on behavior in the one-
dimensional view in terms of "mobilization of bias." Lukes
(1974) summarizes this view as follows:

It involves a qualified critique of the behavior-
al f_ogu_§ of the ffist view . . . and it allows for
consideration of the ways in which decisions are
prevented from being taken on potential issues over
which there is an observable conflict. of (subjec-

tive) interests, seen as embodied in express policy
preferences and sub-political grievances (p. 20).

 

As both Lukes (1974) and Giddens (1979) point out, this
view still stays within the framework of understanding power
as a matter of the will and intention of social agents.

Lukes (1974) develops a "three-dimensional View" of pow-
er in which he attempts to overcome the emphasis on decision
making. In his view, power is exercised when one actor or

party can affect another in a way contrary to that other's

66

interests. Thus power can be exercised in the absence of
observable conflict.

Giddens (1979) argues that Lukes still does not deal
satisfactorily with the reality that people do not always
act in accordance with their own interests, whether someone
intervenes or not. He maintains that, because the notion of
interests refers to individual interests, Lukes still has
not resolved the problem of incorporating structural domina-
tion into the framework of power. In a recent essay, Lukes
(1977) makes an attempt in this direction. He maintains that
structural domination places limitations on the ability of
both parties in power relations. Thus he develops a notion
of power as involving the relative autonomy of actors within
structurally determined limits. While this is a useful ela-
boration, it still associates power with individual action,
and structural domination as somehow conditioning power.
Nevertheless, it indicates that structural domination limits
a person's ability to function as a subject who is fully
aware of his or her interests and able to realize those.

Giddens (1979) develops a comprehensive set of concepts
in an attempt to incorporate notions of action and structure
into a unified social theory. As a part of this larger ef-
fort he also develops a notion of power in terms of "the du-
ality of structure" (p. 5). An explication of Giddens' the-
ory will not be attempted here. Nevertheless, he advances

several propositions regarding power that seem pertinent for

67

the present project, and these will be outlined below:

1.

Power is not an act in itself, but makes its appearance
in action.
Power is not a resource that can be used, yet it has to
do with the utilization of resources. Giddens (1979)
states,
Resources are the media whereby transformative capaci-
ty is employed as power in the routine course of soci-
al interaction; but they are at the same time structur-
al elements of social interaction (p. 92)
Power involves human agency, but this does not imply a
subject/object differentiation. (Thus, for Giddens, agen-
cy does not imply acting with full consciousness of one's
interests.) He maintains that power should not be under-
stood in terms of intention, will, motivation, or want-
ing.
Power is a relational concept. It "concerns the capabili-
ty of actors to secure outcomes where the realization of
these outcomes depends upon the agency of others" (Gid-
dens, 1979, p. 93).
Power in social systems is regarded as "involving repro-
duced relations of autonomy and dependence in social in-
teraction" (Giddens, 1979, p. 93).
Finally, power relations are two-way. Giddens states,
Power relations are relations of autonomy and depen-
dence, but even the most autonomous agent is in some

degree dependent, and the most dependent actor or par-
ty in a relationship retains some autonomy (p. 93).

68

On the basis of this analysis, power is to be under-
stood as relational, and involving human agency. However,
power is not necessarily exercised with the full conscious-
ness of one's interests, given that reproduced relations of
autonomy and dependence in society restrict full conscious-

ness of one's needs and interests.

Further Conceptual Requirements

To study power relations in the activities of home eco-
nomics, it is necessary to understand knowledge as having so-
cial effects. This is not to be construed as an instrumental
relation, as if knowledge is merely a thing or a resource
that one has and can use in social relations to achieve a
desired effect. Rather, intellectual activity must be seen
as forming and reproducing social relations at the same time
as theoretical knowledge is produced and employed. The soci-
al role of home economics and home economists should also
not be reduced to ideology. If ideology is seen in strict op-
position to knowledge, as is often done, reducing home eco-
nomics to ideology would deny the coherence of the intellec-
tual activities of home economists. Furthermore, treating
home economics' knowledge merely as disconnected beliefs un-
derlying the activities of home economists obscures the role
of theoretical practices in shaping social relations.

It has been claimed in the present study that the activ-

ities of home economists have political dimensions. This is

69

not to be understood in instrumentalist terms. It would be
inadequate, and no advance over a functionalist perspective,
to understand professional activity as the application of
knowledge to reach given ends. Knowledge can be used in this
way for political purposes. In one sense, the power exer-
cised through the technical application of knowledge is an
important dimension of the activities of professionals, but
an exclusive focus on such activities obscures the working
of power in more subtle ways in relations of which home eco-
nomists are a part.

The requirements outlined thus far have defined the so-
cial role of home economics in terms of knowledge relations,
and also in terms of power relations. It is evident that an
adequate framework for studying the role of home economics
in social reproduction must allow one to conceptualize the
relation between power and knowledge in a way that does not
reduce knowledge relations to power relations. Nevertheless,
the close interaction between knowledge of power must be con-
ceptualized.

Finally, a concept of power must be developed that al-
lows one to study power relations in their variety and speci-
ficity. In other words, the specific power relations of
which home economists are a part, must be studied in their
integrity. Nevertheless, to move from an analysis of power
to eXplaining the role of home economics in social reproduc-

tion, these power relations must eventually be placed in the

70

context of other power relations, for example, the repro-
duced relations of power existing in the sexual division of
labor, economic power relations, and the exercise of state

power.

Foucault: Background

 

Having sketched conceptual requirements to analyze spe-
cific power relations in home economics practices, selected
aspects of the work of Foucault are outlined below to illus-
trate what the kind of analysis he proposes could contribute
to the understanding of power in home economics practices.

Foucault, a French intellectual, has made the detailed
examination of the relationship between knowledge and power
the focus of his work of the last two decades. Foucault's
writings have covered such apparently diverse topics as in-
sanity, the evolution of the medical profession, the history
of the French prison system, and the history of sexuality in
the West (Sheridan, 1980). One of his associates, Donzelot
(1979) has traced the development of the social work profes-
sion using strategies akin to those developed by Foucault.

Foucault's analytical approach seems useful, in the
first place, because, with the notion of discourse, he pro-
vides conceptual tools to see intellectual practices in soci-
al terms. Furthermore, he maintains that the social content
of intellectual activity is to be understood in terms of pow-

er. These aspects of his work are discussed below.

71

Foucault's historical studies are not merely studies of
events and activities of the past. His intent is to trace
the historical development of particular forms of rationali-
ty in the West. Foucault is critical of the modern philosoph-
ical tradition with its emphasis on autonomous rationality,
the rational subject, the abstract distinction between sub-
jectivity and objectivity, and the norms that guide the for-
mation of knowledge. Foucault maintains that such an empha-
sis haS obscured how knowledge actually plays a formative
role in society.

Given his rejection of received approaches to questions
about knowledge, Foucault (1972) has set himself the task of
developing a new set of concepts to shift the focus away
from the subject/object distinction, to the social role of
knowledge.

He wants to focus on the kinds of knowledge and the con-
ditions that make the development of certain forms of know-
ledge possible, rather than on the problems of the validity

of certain kinds of knowledge.

Discourse and Discursive Analysis

 

A key concept in this formulation is that of a dis-
course. A discourse is a linguistic framework that involves
forms of knowledge and intellectual activity. It is not con-
stituted through the will, intention, or action of an indi-

vidual, nor does it correspond to particular world views,

72

traditions or goals of participants in the discourse. Ra-
ther, it is constituted through formative rules which oper-
ate at a non-intentional level.

While resembling linguistic analysis in some respects,
discursive analysis is more general. Its rules of formation
are not the formal rules of grammer or logic, for example.
At another level, discursive analysis is more specific, be-
cause it takes specific historical circumstances into ac-
count, and its formative rules involve social relations.
Through these rules of formation the dimensions of a dis-
course come into being. The dimensions of a discourse are
the objects that are created, the statements allowed, the
concepts used, and the theoretical strategies chosen. These
dimensions are briefly discussed below.

Objects.

Objects are the things spoken about in the discourse.
In a general sense, these are the things considered impor-
tant by those who have, or claim to have, the authority to
speak in the discourse. Foucault emphasizes that the dis-
course does not merely signify things that already exist:
the discourse actually creates the things of which it
speaks. The formation of objects is ruled by the complex in-
terrelation of "surfaces of emergence," "authorities of de-
limitation," and "grids of specification" of the discourse.
These are the institutions and groups in which the objects

first appear, the persons and groups who have authority to

73

name the objects, and the systems and concepts of classifica-
tion used. Foucault naintains that the existence of a dis-
course does not depend on the objects remaining the same all
the time. Rather, the discourse depends on the permanence
of this set of relations.

How the discourse talks about the objects that it con-
stitutes is clarified by considering the statements that are
made, concepts that are developed, and strategies that are
chosen in the discourse according to its rules of formation.
Statements

The discourse includes a range of statements. These
statements do not necessarily form a logical, deductive sys-
tem. Nevertheless, there are rules which guide the formation
of statements. These rules concern the authority of the
subject who makes the statement, the site from which it is
made, and the position or situation of the subject who makes
the statement. Power operates in these statements. Not
anyone or everyone can make a statement with authority. The
kind of statement made, and its authority, are influenced by
the site from which it is made. Finally, the statement is
influenced by the position or situation of the speaking sub-
ject. With this Foucault seems to mean whether one is in the
position of a listener, as in the confessional, or an observ-
er using standardized tools, and that the kind of statement

one can make is influenced by this position.

74

Concepts

Out of the variety of statements that do not Show coher-
ence at first glance, and that may even seem to contradict
one another, a set of concepts can be identified. According
to Foucault these concepts do not arise directly from world
views or ideas held by individuals in the discourse. One
should not attempt to trace them back to such ideas.
Theoretical Strategies

This term refers to the ways of knowing chosen as appro-
priate to use in the discourse. It relates to the way state-
ments, concepts and objects are grouped together. As in the
case of concepts, Foucault claims that theoretical strate-
gies chosen do not emerge directly from world views or from
particular interests of subjects. Rather, these strategies
emerge (Hi the basis of the range of concepts and statements
employed to talk about the objects of the discourse.

The interaction of rules of formation of the discourse
creates a "discursive space" or "relational field" within
which the intentional activities of individuals or groups
are to be understood.

Knowledge operates centrally in the discourse. Foucault
makes a distinction between general knowledge (savoir) and

specific theoretical knowledge (connaisance). Within the

 

discourse they are related. Theoretical knowledge, although
more abstract than everyday knowledge, is developed within

the broader framework constituted according to the formative

75

rules of the discourse. Thus the specific rules of a theoret-
ical discipline are not totally removed from the more gener-
al and abstract rules of discursive formation.

Such a perspective on knowledge allows Foucault to main-
tain the relative independence of intellectual practices and
the activities of professionals, while relating them to
other social practices. This provides a tool for the histor-
ical analysis of particular disciplines and professions with-
in a broader framework of knowledge.

Foucault (1978) regards the era since the French Revolu-
tion as the era of the emergence of "knowable man.” The in-
stitutions of the modern era, such as the family, factories,
hospitals, and mental institutions, are uniquely organized,
functioning according to specific cognitive techniques, such
as record keeping, observations, and the development of
standards based on scientific norms. Foucault would not link
the emergence of the social sciences only to the prior exis-
tence of natural science and the social scientists' fascina-
tion with the methods of the more mature sciences, but also
to the emergence of these cognitive techniques that devel-
oped in particular institutions. Foucault argues that these
techniques have gradually provided the norms and standards
in terms of which people come to know themselves.

For Foucault this role of knowledge involves the exer-

cise of a particular kind of power. The era of knowable man

76

is also the era of the politicization of the body, the exten-
sion of control over life. There developed in Western socie-
ties multiple forms of power that served to discipline
bodies and regulate populations. However, received notions
of power are insufficient for understanding the working of

these forms of power.

Foucault's Critique of Traditional Notions of Power.

Foucault (1980) argues that it is inadequate to under-
stand power as it functions in modern society in terms of
right, sovereignty, or law. In the modern philosophical tra-
dition, he argues, power has been based on a juridical or
economic model. In that model, power is established contrac-
tually, and involves individuals giving up their rights to
establish sovereignty. Power is legitimate power, and oppres-
sion occurs when power oversteps the boundaries of the con-
tract. Thus power is a commodity, something that one has,
and that can be taken away. This notion of power is tied up
with the traditional distinction between subjectivity and
objectivity. It sees power operating between rational sub-
jects. For Foucault, this is power on the monarchical model,
power vested in one source, exercised from above, and en-
forced through the law. Foucault argues that this is a nega-
tive view of power, because it is seen as essentially repres-
sive.

Foucault argues that the traditional view of power is

77

unable to account for the much more pervasive forms of power
exercised in modern society. In fact, he says, as long as
power is solely understood in terms of the juridical model,
the power that is exercised through subtle ways of domina-
tion and subjugation is obscured. Foucault therefore rejects
analysis in terms of sovereignty and obedience, to focus on
domination and subjugation, which in his view is the more
significant way in which power functions in modern society.
(Of course, Foucault does not deny the existence of power in
the former sense, but he does not consider analysis in terms
of that kind of power as the most fruitful way to understand
modern society.)

Foucault launches his critique of received notions of
power in the context of a consideration of the development
of a discourse of sexuality. Foucault (1978) maintains that
to talk about sexuality in terms of repression is not suffi-
cient. What this language of repression obscures is the so-
ciety's will to know and to talk about sexuality. But this
speech is regulated throught the discourse. The development
of Iknowledge about sexuality, through. definition, confes-
sion, description, is also at the same time the development
of new forms of control over bodies. The activities of soci-
al scientists and professionals are not to be understood
solely in terms of liberating people from repression, but al-

so as developing new forms of control because they developed

78

a new set of concepts through which people come to under-
stand their human possibilities, their bodies, their sex.
Thus, for Foucault, the era of "knowable man" is also
the era of "bio-power." The development of all the tech-
niques and methods to discipline bodies and regulate the pop-
ulation represent the development of a biopolitics of the
population. Foucault understands these: historical. changes
in power relations in society in terms of micropowers and

normalization.

Micropowers and Normalization.

 

Foucault is committed to studying power relations in
specific situations, in all their variety and intricacy.
Foucault uses the concept of "micropowers" to refer to these
local, varied, and pervasive relations of power. Knowledge
and relations of knowing are a part of micropower relations.
The development and use of particular methods of knowing in-
volve power. Foucault (1980) states that power is involved
in

the production of effective instruments for the forma-
tion and accumulation of knowledge -- methods of ob-
servation, techniques of registration, procedures for
investigation and research, apparatuses of control
(p. 102).

Foucault sees these micropowers as having a more gener-
alized effect in society. He argues that the exercise of pow-

er in knowledge relations, and the use of knowledge in power

relations have given rise to a disciplinary society. He

79

characterizes the society as one in which people's self-un-
derstanding is shaped by the techniques used in and the know-
ledge generated through the human and social sciences. Fou-
cault refers to the kind of power exercised through know-
ledge as normalization. He considers this more pervasive and
of greater importance for understanding modern society, than
power exercised through the Law. Normalization, thus, is a
kind of regulation exercised in society through knowledge
relations. One could also understand normalization as the
power dimension of an intensified division of intellectual
and manual labor in society.

For the Specific analysis of power in terms of domina-
tion, subjugation, micropowers, and normalization Foucault
lays out a set of "methodological precautions" (1980, p. 96)

regarding the study of power. These are summarized below.

Foucault's Propositions about Power and
How it Should be Studied.

1. Analysis of power and power relations should be concerned
with power in specific situations, where it functions in
specific institutions through specific techniques.

2. Analysis of power should not be at the level of intention
or decision making by rational subjects. He proposes not
asking "Who has power and why?", but "How' does power

work?" He argues that one should study,

80

how things work at the level of on-going subjugation,
at the level of those continuous and uninterrupted
processes which subject our bodies, govern our ges-
tures, dictate our behaviours, etc. (Foucault, 1980,
p. 97).

For Foucault power is not to be understood as exercised
between subjects, but rather as that which subjugates peo-
ple. Thus he states,

We should try to discover how it is that subjects are
gradually, progressively, really and materially con-
stituted through a nmitiplicity of organisms, forces,
energies, materials, desire, thoughts, etc. We should
try to grasp subjection in its material instance as a
constitution of subjects (Foucault, 1980, p. 97).
This does not mean, however, that power is totally haphaz—
ard or the outcome of abstract forces. In fact, Foucault
(1978) talks about power relations as being, "both inten-
tional and nonsubjective" (p. 94). By this he means that
there are aims and objectives involved, but that these
are run: the direct result of the decisions of individual
subjects.

3. Power is not a homogeneous phenomenon or a thing. It is
not an institution or a structure, nor is it a commodity
that one group or individual has and uses to dominate ano-
ther. Rather,

Power must be analyzed as something which circulates.
. . . It is never localised here or there, never in
anybody's hands, never appropriated as a commodity or
piece of wealth. Power is employed and exercised
through a net-like organisation. And not only‘ do
individuals circulate between its threads; they are

always in a position of simultaneously undergoing and
exercising this power (Foucault, 1980, p. 98).

81

Thus power comes from many points and occurs everywhere
in non-egalitarian and changing relations (Foucault,
1978, p. 94).
Power should not be examined as something that originates
with a central authority like the state, and reaches down
into every social relationship. Such a view is insuffici-
ent, Foucault maintains, because the state cannot gain ac-
cess to every power relation. What is more, the state de-
pends on existing relations of power for its functioning.
Foucault (1980) argues,
The state is superstructural in relation to the whole
series of power networks that invest the body, sexual-
ity, the family, kinship, lknowledge, technology' and
so forth. True, these networks stand in a condition-
ing-conditioned relationship to a kind of "meta-pow-
er" which is structured essentially round a certain
number of great prohibition functions; but this meta-
power with its prohibitions can only take hold and se-
cure its footing where it is rooted in a whole series
of multiple and indefinite power relations that sup-
ply the necessary basis for the great negative forms
of power (p. 122).
Rather than studying power as descending from above, one

should "conduct an ascendipg analysis of power" (Fou-

 

cault, 1980, p. 99). Such an analysis would start with
the techniques and mechanisms of power and then move to
an analysis of how these techniques and mechanisms are
used, modified and extended by more generalized forms of
domination. Foucault (1980) States:
It is only if we graSp these techniques of power and
demonstrate the economic advantages or political util-
ity that derives from them in a given context for spe-
cific reasons, that we can understand how these mech-

anisms came to be effectively incorporated into the
social whole (p. 101).

82

Thus, in addition to the analysis of specific power rela-
tions, an important dimension is to examine how, "general
powers or economic interests are able to engage with
these technologies" (Foucault, 1980, p. 99).

5. AS noted before, Foucault sees power not as a thing that
can be used, but as a relation. Thus, power is relation-
al. Power relations, furthermore, are not the outcome of
other relations, neither do they act only to prohibit or
limit other relations. Foucault (1978) states it in this
way:

Relations of power are not-in a position of exteriori-
ty with respect to other types or relationships (eco-
nomic processes, knowledge relationships, sexual rela-
tions), but are immanent in the latter; they are the
immediate effects of the divisions, inequalities, and
disequalibriums which occur in the latter, and con-
versely they are the internal conditions of these dif-
ferentiations; relations of power are not in super-
structural positions, with merely a role of prohibi-
tion or accompaniment; they have a directly produc-
tive role, wherever they come into play (p. 94).
Limitations of Foucault's Conceptualization of Power
While Foucault's recent work is more political, and
makes reference to power operating in class relations and
through the state, he is basically opposed to thinking in
terms of totality, or "global" forms of power. Consequently,

Foucault does not provide analytical tools to relate Speci-

fic power relations to the exercise of more encompassing

kinds of powers.

Foucault maintains that power is always accompanied by

resistance, in fact, that it depends for its existence on "a

83

multiplicity of points of resistance: these play the role
of adversary, target, support, or handle in power relations"
(Foucault, 1978, p. 95). Again, this notion of resistance
as occuring in particular instances, in many forms and in
many places, is in opposition to any notion of world views
or global strategies. Thus he rejects the notion that revo-
lution can result from the actions of one group, as for exam-
ple through class struggle. Rather, it is the multiple re-
sistances and diffuse networks of power and resistances that
would make revolution possible. However, Foucault has not
yet shown how this would actually come about.

This points to one of the central weaknesses in Fou-
cault's work. He seems to feel negatively about the working
of disciplinary power in modern society, and detects a gener-
al increase in disciplinary coercion. While Foucault seems
to regard these historical forms of power as potentially al-
terable, he does not provide a coherent account of what an
alternative would look like, or how the kind of power he

characterizes could be overcome.

Conclusions

 

In spite of these limitations, Foucault's conceptualiza-
tion of power seems useful for analyzing power in the prac-
tices of home economists. The concepts of micropowers and
normalization, and the way in which knowledge and power are
linked in Foucault's work show features of the requirements

laid out above for a framework for studying the role of home

84

economics in social reproduction. Foucault views knowledge
in social terms. For Foucault, knowledge relations and power
relations are distinct, yet interrelated. By focusing on mi-
cropowers, Foucault draws attention to the specifics of par-
ticular relations involving intellectual. activity; without
reducing them simply to instances of the exercise of power
by the state, the dominant class, or economic forces. He
leaves room for recognizing contradictions in power rela-
tions in society, opening up for closer examination rela-
tions that are often simply labeled examples of state con-

trol or class hegemony.

Chapter Five

EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF THE DISCOURSE OF HOMEMAKING

In the previous chapter it was proposed that discursive
analysis might contribute to an understanding of home econo-
mics in terms of social reproduction. This chapter eXplores
the usefulness of such an approach. It is suggested that a
discourse of homemaking developed in the United States of
America during the nineteenth century, and that home econom-
ics played a key role in its deve10pment and functioning.
The analysis of the discourse is in two parts. First the
discourse of homemaking is reconstructed in broad outline,
by identifying key aSpects of four dimensions, namely the
objects created, statements made, concepts used, and theore-
tical strategies adopted in the discourse. Further analysis
is in terms of the power relations of which home economics
was a part, as these relations contributed to, transformed,
and reproduced the sexual division of labor and the division
between intellectual and manual labor. The chapter concludes
with reflections on the kinds of power relations created and

maintained through the activities of home economists in the

85

86

discourse of homemaking, and on the fruitfulness of discur-
sive analysis as an approach to understanding the role of
home economics in social reproduction.

While the chapter includes reflections on these mat-
ters, its purpose is not principally to establish the exis-
tence of the discourse of homemaking or to defend the claim
that it actually exists. Neither does it aim to establish
within a particular historical period the actual power rela-
tions in which home economists were involved. Rather the
aim is to eXplore the contribution discursive analysis could
make to the study of such power relations.

For the eXploratory analysis, examples were drawn from
a range of home economics literature sources. With a few
exceptions, all the works consulted were published between
1898 and 1930. During that period, the foundations of the
new profession of home economics were laid. The Proceed-
ipggi of the ten Lake Placid. Conferences (1899-1908) were

examined. Several early volumes of the Journal of Home Eco-

 

nomics, the publication of the American Home Economics Asso-
ciation, organized in 1909, also were examined. In addition,
textbooks, manuals, and other books by home economists were

scrutinized.

87

The Discourse of Homemaking

 

This section draws theoretical concepts from the work
of Foucault, and examples from the home economics litera-
ture to begin to outline the discourse of homemaking. For
the purposes of this study it is assumed that written texts
in home economics are not merely reports of events or ideas,
but actually a part of a discursive practice, which creates
objects, produces particular statements, forms concepts, and
chooses distinct theoretical strategies. Examples from the
home economics literature serve to indicate the range and
kinds of objects, statements, concepts and theoretical stra-
tegies that make up the discourse.

Objects

Among the objects of the discourse of homemaking are
the home, homemaking and the homemaker, and women's
ignorence. The first designation of these objects probably
occurred in social groups which had specific eXpectations
and concerns regarding the sexual division of labor. Such
groups would be families, the church, and schools, for
example. As the following examples from the home economics
literature Show, home economists assumed the authority to
talk about these matters. Each of the objects identified
above are briefly discussed:

The home The discourse focuses on the home as an ob-

 

ject with characteristic features. For example, it defines
the ideal home as the place, "where the adult worker is rest-

ed and refreshed, where the child is prepared for effective

88

citizenship and where hospitality may exert its cheering and

refining influence" (Abel, 1903, p. 29).
The home should be considered the place where are to
be developed and conveyed the precious qualities
which are so vital to the continuity of the race and
the progress of human society and civilization. Those
factors which are of a. more material or physical
nature, such as shelter, food, dress and personal
health, are to be estimated in their relation to
mind, character and effective conduct (Wood, 1902, p.
27).

The home is called upon to give up its former indepen-
dence, and to accept its dependence on other institutions.

No longer is the home an independent unit where the
family may do as it chooses; rather it is a demonstra-
tion that the sum total of all family activities, the
final resultant of the family life, is an acceptable
Share in the larger community life (Hickok, 1916, p.
441).

While the home is a part of society it must retain its
uniqueness, as the following statement points out:

The individual home is unspeakably precious, it has
even been called indispensible to the continued in-
tegrity of a nation . . . (Abel, 1903, p.29).

11: must also fulfill the functions society assigns to
it. It is to be "the retreat from outside annoyances" and
"a place to recreate ourselves for labor" (Abel, 1927, p.
12).

Homemaking and the homemaker The discourse identi-
fies homemaking as women's primary vocation. It makes a dis-
tinction between homemaking and housekeeping, and defines in

some detail what homemaking is, and should be. As the analy-

sis of statements, concepts, and theoretical strategies will

89

show, the discourse deve10ps a comprehensive language which
gives specific content to homemaking, and sets standards for
it. Here a few examples must suffice to support the claim
that homemaking is an object in the discourse.

Homemaking is woman's primary vocation:

. . . of all the activities in which a woman may be
engaged. . .. , she is best adapted to be employed in
the maintenance of her home -- this is the function
for which by nature she is constituted, which is cap—
able of giving her the largest measure of happiness
in return, which is the field in which she can be of
the greatest service in the community, aad (sic)
which has possibilities for culture beyond that of
any other employment (Warbasse, 1911, p. 59).

Homemaking is a task particularly suited to women. Rich-
ards (1899) states, for example, that "women take kindly to
the regular systematic oversight which this home economics
demands, if once they see the value of it" (p. 111).

The woman is the head of the household, its manager,
"the centre of [the] centre" (Spencer, 1911, p. 51), the
"centralized authority which has the power to regulate the
family behavior as regards social affairs" (Hickok, 1916, p.
446).

The content of homemaking was undergoing change. Rich-
ards (1899) states,

Housekeeping no longer means washing dishes, scrub-
bing floors, making soap and candles; it means spend-
ing a given amount of money for a great variety of
ready-prepared articles and so using the commodities
as to produce the greatest satisfaction and the best

possible mental, moral, and physical results
(p. 103). (Emphasis added.)

90

Homemaking includes, according to the discourse, provid-
ing good food, pure air, space and time for recreation, and
protection from disease; cultivating taste, a sense of beau-
ty, and culture; teaching morality; and developing "rational
sociability," meaning healthy forms of recreation (Lake
Placid Conferences on Home Economics, 1905, p. 85).

Women's ignorance The discourse makes "women's ignor-
ance" into an object with specific features. Ignorance is
related to women's lack of scientific training, the absence
of homemaking standards, women's unwillingness to accept
what science has to offer, and their tendency to cling to
outdated practices.

The following references to women's ignorance indicate
the development of this perspective:

It is the present duty of the economist to magnify
the office of the wealth-expender, to accompany her
to the very threshold of the home, that he may point
out with untiring vigilance its woful (Sic) defects,
its emptiness caused not so much by lack of income as
by lack of knowledge of how to spend it wisely (Ed-
ward Devine, quoted in Richards, 1899, p. 100).

Women enter this vocation (i.e. homemaking) with vari-
ous degrees of skill and efficiency which must be sup-
plemented by training if they are to carry on the
work of the home in such a way that the ideals of our
family life are to be preserved and we are to rear a
happy, healthy American people (Richardson, 1920, p.
300).

In her account of the Lake Placid Conferences on Home
Economics, Richards (1908) states:

10 years ago one of the crying needs of the country
as seen by some students of social tendencies was the

appreciation of what science might do for the house-
wife in her daily home keeping, in making her work

91

both easier and more efficient. But the obstacle
seemed to be in the woman herself. She had no faith
in the promises held out to her by the fanatical sci-
entist. . . . How could she be induced to look with
serious eyes upon the new century bearing down on her
with irresistible power? (p. 20).

How the discourse talks about these objects is shown
below by considering the statements that are made, concepts
that are developed, and strategies that are chosen in the
discourse.

Statements

 

The formation of statements is guided by rules concern-
ing the authority of the subject who makes the statement,
the site from which it is made, and the position or situa-
‘thMi of the subject who makes the statement. It would seem
that home economists sought to gain the authority to make
statements about the home and homemaking, for example,
through appeals to women's ignorance and lack of training.

The kind of statement, and its authority, are also in-
fluenced by the site from which the statement is made. The
university, the school, one's own home, or the laboratory
would be sites of a homemaking discourse. The sites from
which statements are made could shift. (It might be, for
example, that the authority of one's statement could change
with a shift from merely giving advice out of one's own ex-
perience, speaking from one's own home, to speaking out of
the university with its hierarchical arrangements, and gener-

al status as a source of knowledge in society.

92

The statements made by home economists reflect their
aspiration to develop new norms and standards for homemak-
ing, to redefine it in scientific and businesslike terms, to
be recognized as authorities, to provide training and ad-
vice, and thus, generally, to become the accepted mediators
between the family and other institutions, for example, busi-
ness and the state.

The discourse includes a wide variety of statements re-
garding the crisis in home and family life, the new stand-
ards applicable to homemaking, and women's ignorance and
need for assistance and training. Some examples follow.

The discourse includes statements about change and con-
tinuity in the family. At first glance, these statements
seem to contradict one another. They are, nevertheless, all
a part of the discourse.

There are statements that emphasize the timelessness of
the family and the home and their enduring, essential charac-
teristics.

The family is regarded as a normal social institution:

Of all normal social relations the most important is
that which exists between a man and a woman and their
own children, what we call the true family group. It
has been the soul and center of early settlements and
the solid foundation of civilized states (Abel, 1927,
p. 10).

The discourse stresses unity and harmony of interest as

defining characteristics of the normal family. Thus, for

example, Richards (1911) states,

93

the civilization of the past has been developed, we
believe, through the family home, the bond of mutual
interest. between parent and child, grandparent and
grandchild, brother and sister, which makes coopera-
tion under one roof possible (p. 117).

These apparently timeless characteristics are given spe-
cific historical content. For example, for Vincent (1908)
the essential characteristics of the family are similar to
those Richards identifies, namely,

a unity of thought and sentiment which binds adults
and young into a common life and inspires a common
loyalty. It is only in such intimacy that the highest
types of personality can be fostered (p. 155).

Yet Vincent continues with the statement: "Only as this
higher unity replaces the earlier economic unity can the fa-
mily render efficient social service" (Vincent, 1908, p.
155). Thus he seems to regard unity and harmony of inter-
est not as timeless characteristics, but specific to a parti-
cular historical period.

On the other hand, the discourse includes statements
that give the appearance that historically-specific charac-
teristics of family life under industrial conditions have
always been essential aspects of life. Thus it talks about
the family's role in relation to the market place as if this
role had remained constant throughout history. For example,
the home is said to be the place,

where the adult worker is rested and refreshed, where
the child is prepared for effective citizenship and
where hOSpitality may exert its cheering and refining

influence (Abel, 1903, p. 29).

Even more explicitly, the discourse states that the

94

ideal home

has provided a place of rest and recuperation after
labor and of preparation for future work, both the
preparation of the adult for the work of the coming
day and also the long preparation of the child for
future social service (Lake Placid Conferences on
Home Economics, 1905, p. 84).

Finally, it points out counterproductive elements of
traditional family life, and seeks to eliminate them. For
example, traditional economic unity must be replaced with a
"higher unity" of thought and sentiment (Vincent, 1908,
p.155), individualism must be abandoned, and idiosyncratic
and haphazard ways of doing housework must be abandoned in
favor of the scientific approach.

For example, Richards (1899) states,

"Children are workers in preparation, are future citi-
zens. The state cannot afford to allow them to grow
up inefficient." Therefore public welfare demands
that the home life shall be governed by the best know-
ledge which science has been able to gather with
reference to health and efficiency (pp. 25-26).

A number of other examples of such statements indica-
ting the need for changes in homemaking and the family fol-
low.

The housewife needs access to expert advice in order
to adjust to modern conditions and standards (Abel,
1927, p. 103).

Women enter this vocation (i.e.homemaking) with vari-
ous degrees of skill and efficiency which must be sup-
plemented by training if they are to carry on the
work of the home in such a way that the ideals of our
family life are to be preserved and we are to rear a

happy, healthy American people (Richardson, 1920, p.
300).

95

Concepts

The discourse of homemaking develops a set of concepts
that appeal to nature, biology: and tradition to character-
ize home and family, homemaking and women's roles.

The family is a "normal" social institution as Abel's
(1927) statement cited previously indicates:

Of all normal social relations the most important
is that which exists between a man and a woman and
their own children, what we call the true family
group. It has been the Ԥ931_ and center of early
settlements and the solid foundation of civilized
states (p. 10) (Emphasis added).

The normal family of the discourse is monogamic and
heterosexual, constituted through legal marriage between two
partners, and it includes children (Henderson, 1902; Howard,
1911).

Henderson (1902) claims that "convictions which create
and maintain the monogamic family have become innate in our
modern civilization" (p. 63).

Similar evolutionary and biological metaphors are used
in the following statements:

The home is "the place in which social and domestic in-
stincts are cultivated, where there may be mutual under-
standing and sympathy in success or in failure" (Abel, 1927,
p. 12) (Emphasis added).

what is represented by the term "home" is the germ
of Anglo-Saxon civilization, the unit of social pro-
gress . . . the home is the nursery of the citizen
. . . no subject can be of greater importance than a

discussion of the standards involved in home life
(Richards, 1899, p. 5) (Emphasis added).

96

The home should be considered the place where are to
be developed and conveyed the precious qualities
which are so vital to the continuity of the race and
the progress of human society and civilization (Wood,
1902, p. 27).

Women are said to be by nature adapted to homemaking,
and the division of labor between men and women is thought
to be rooted in biology.

Thus, women and men have different places in the "evolu-
tion of civilization," and the "manifest destiny of women"
is "to be the mother of children and the creator of the
home" (West, 1920, p. 343). Richards (1899) states,

Women take kindly to the regular systematic oversight
which this home economics demands, if once they see
the value of it (p. 111).

Another concept used to characterize the family's role
in society and women's role in homemaking, is that of Speci-
alization.

The family is said to have delegated certain tasks to
other institutions. It gives up much of its educational task
to the school (Lake Placid Conferences on Home Economics,
1905) and its productive functions to the factory. It is re-
peatedly stated that the home has become "a place of consump-
tion, not of production" (Richards, 1899, p. 23).

The specialization characteristic of the market place
is said to carry over into the family:

The increasing pressure for specialization in all
kinds of work gives new meaning to the demand that
the man of the family, at least that family in which
there are young children, shall be able to concen-

trate on the earning of the money income, and that
the woman shall be free for her important duties in

97

the center of home life, of choosing, adjusting, dis-
pensing, teaching, and there making in the many other
ways . . . her necessary contribution to the income
(Abel, 1927, p. 243).

The concept of specialization could be seen as a
"bridge" between the set of concepts based on organic meta-
phors and a set of concepts that reflect the influence of
economic rationality. Examples of such concepts employed in
the discourse are management, scientific nanagement, exper-
tise, and professionalism. The following statements employ
such concepts.

The home is a business, it should be run with "far
sighted business sense" (Richards, 1899, p. 50); and studied
like a business unit (Kinley, 1911).

Given its similarity to business, successful family
life is _at times defined in businesslike terms -- it re-
quires order, a division of labor understood and accepted by
all family members, and systematization (Terrill, 1907). In
contrast, irregularity, for example in mealtimes, is consid-
ered a sign of problems in a family (Hyams, 1900).

Management is a key concept in the discourse. According
to Gross and Crandall (1963) the concept was first intro-

duced by Maria Parloa, in her First Principles of Home Man-

agement and Cookery (1880), but it is already present in

 

Beecher's Treatise on IDomestic Economy (1852, first pub-

 

lished in 1841) in which she emphasizes as the key to sound

housekeeping, "a habit of system and order" (p.157).

98

Homemaking is characterized in managerial terms. Mana-
gerial statements include, "It is the work of the housewife
to initiate, plan and direct the business of the house" (Ter-
rill, 1907, p.6). And, the woman is "manager of the house
and the buyer of nearly all the commodities that are con-
sumed by the household" (Abel, 1927, p. 43).

Homemaking further requires making a distinction be-
tween "essentials and non-essentials of housekeeping," econo-
mizing strength and time, and striving for efficiency (Wade,
1901).

Scientific management principles are considered applic-
able to the household: "All of the productive processes in
the home are facilitated by the application of the princi-
ples of scientific management" (Hickok, 1916, p. 445).

Concepts like "Standardized Operations," "Standard Con-
ditions," "Dispatching," "Scheduling," and "Efficiency Re-
ward" are adopted from scientific management and applied to
homemaking (Frederick, 1923).

With the introduction of scientific management, the
general concept of management takes on a different meaning:

what separates the new "Scientific Management" from
the old methods by a sharp dividing line which all
must recognize is the application of the true labora-
tory method. Each complex question is separated into
its parts and then each part is studied by itself

with the help of all known sciences (Journal of Home
Economics, 1911a, p. 195).

 

 

Women's roles are described in terms that reflect a

business orientation. For example, the homemaker is called

99

"Director of Consumption" (Journal of Home Economics,

 

1916c, p. 372). She is a "Purchasing Agent," "Producer of
Finished Goods," "Conserver of Health," and "Home Account-
ant," as well as "Regulator of Social Activities," "Teacher
of Children," and "Creator of Home Atmosphere" (Hickok,
1916, pp. 444-447).

Homemaking is also defined in terms of professionalism
by comparing it with other professions. Wood (1926) wants
homemaking to be a profession that would render "a special-
ized and superior service" (p. 66). To accomplish this goal,
women should receive standardized'training.

Theoretical Strategies

 

The theoretical strategies chosen in the discourse of
homemaking reflect a transition from an orientation to home-
making as a craft, practiced more or less according to per-
sonal preference and tradition, to a science, practiced ac-
cording to scientific principles and standards developed by
scientists and professionals.

The discourse reflects two themes: The need for science
and a scientific approach to homemaking, and the need for
education and training.

Thus, Catherine Beecher (1852) argues that Domestic
Economy should become a science:

This should be done because it 933 be properly and
systematically taught (not practically, but as a £1:
egge), as much so as political economy or M
science, or any other branch of study; because it em-

braces knowledge, which will be needed by young women
at all times and in all places; because this science

100

can never be properly taught until it is made a
branch of study; and because this method will se-
cure a dignity and importance in the estimation of
young girls, which can never be accorded while they
perceive their teachers and parents practically at-
taching more value to every other department of sci—
ence than this (p. 6).

Home economists set themselves the task to develop a
body of scientific knowledge regarding the home and homemak-
ing. For example, Goodrich (1902) calls for developing a
"true science" of home economics, increasing the body of ex-
act knowledge, classifying what has been collected, and de-
veloping a laboratory for studying home and social econom-
ics. She concludes, "There must 'be increased knowledge in
the line of scientific investigation, of accurate observa-
tion, of practical application and demonstration" (p. 37).

To develop a scientific approach to homemaking the home-
maker needs formal training by the professionals. Thus sci-
entific study is not to be limited to the professional.
Terrill (1907) writes,

The fullest, most completely rounded education is
none too good for one who is called upon to use and
impart so varied information as is the housewife. The
study of science is especially practical for one who
aspires to master all the things that come within the
range of her work (p. 6).

The discourse develops abstract systems tc analyze and
classify household tasks (Wood, Lindquist and Studley,
1932), and introduces record-keeping systems, budgeting, and

accounting procedures into the family (Bradford, 1921).

Homemaking involves the application of scientific

101

knowledge. It requires using scientific methods, and mana-
ging family life according to business principles. To be a
successful homemaker, a woman must implement standards for
housekeeping that are based on scientific knowledge.

In the following sections theoretical strategies used
are further elaborated in the process of analyzing the power

relations in the discourse.

Power Relations in the Discourse

The dimensions of the discourse indicate the range and
kinds of objects, statements, concepts and strategies that
are a part of the discourse of homemaking. In the following
sections the discourse will be analyzed to eXplore the kinds
of power relations that seem to be at work in and through
the discourse of homemaking. Following Foucault's suggestion
that discursive analysis should start with specific power
relations, and subsequently move to studying the interaction
of such local power relations with other instances of the
exercise of power, a kind of "ascending" analysis of power
relations is attempted.

The analysis seeks to Show that distinctive power rela-
tions operate in home economics. It demonstrates how discur-
sive analysis permits the identification of specific power
relations, and, to some extent, the interrelation of those
power relations. The analysis is carried out in several
stages. First, specific aspects of the attempt to give new

content to homemaking are identified. The cognitive

102

strategies used have the potential to give rise to relations
of relative autonomy and dependence between professionals
and homemakers. Such relations of relative autonomy and
dependence involve power. They are discussed as instances
of normalization, and linked to the intensification of the
division between intellectual and manual labor.

Secondly, examples of the efforts to define homemaking
as women's primary vocation are identified. Again, these
Show that power relations of specific kinds are involved in
the discourse. Here the focus is on how the activities of
home economists could have shaped and reinforced the sexual
division of labor.

Thirdly, the analysis seeks to show that the power rela-
tions existing in the sexual division of labor and in the di-
vision between intellectual and nanual labor can be interre-
lated.

Finally, the analysis develOps evidence that the power
relations identified in the previous stages intersect and
overlap with, and contribute to, other power relations in so-
ciety, such as economic relations and the exercise of state
power. The section also includes some observations about
the possible role of home economics in social reproduction,
based on the exploratory discursive analysis.

New Content for Homemakigg

Four aspects of the attempt to give new content to home-

making are identified here. In the first place, criticism

of homemaking practices includes a cognitive dimension:

103

women's knowledge about homemaking is insufficient because
it lacks scientific rigor. Secondly, an elaborate new lang-
uage of homemaking is introduced. Homemaking is defined as
something that requires particular kinds of abstract cogni-
tive strategies. Furthermore, norms and standards for home-
making are developed on the basis of science. And, finally,
homemaking, to be done successfully, requires training. Ex-
amples from the home economics literature are given to illus-
trate the kinds of statements made regarding each of these
aspects. The micropower relations involved are identified,
and discussed in terms of normalization and the intensifica-
tion of the division between intellectual and manual labor.

The discourse calls into question the adequacy of tra-
ditional ways of doing housework. Traditional practices are
said to be based on inadequate, outdated and inaccurate know-
ledge on the part of women. The discourse maintains that the
specific, practical knowledge that women use in their own
homes is not sufficient. Homemaking requires the application
of scientific principles. Thus, women's ignorance in matters
of homemaking is defined in terms of their lack of scientif-
ic knowledge. To overcome ignorance, there is a general call
for training and scientific investigation regarding all as-
pects of homemaking.

The discourse also develops a comprehensive new lang-
uage of homemaking, based on the authority of science. Thus
it defines homemaking as an activity that involves specific,

abstract cognitive strategies. Home economists took upon

104

themselves the task of developing the new science of homemak-
ing. Such a task required systematizing existing knowledge,
conducting research directly related to the household, and
applying research findings from other disciplines to the
problems of the home.

The discourse calls for putting homemaking on a scienti-
fic basis. For example, as indicated on page 99, Catherine
Beecher (1852) argues that Domestic Economy should become a
science.

In a similar manner, Goodrich (1902) calls for develop-
ing a "true science" of home economics, increasing the body
of exact knowledge, classifying what has been collected, and
developing a laboratory for studying home and social econo-
mics.

Richards (1911) states,

It is universally conceded today . . . that home keep-
ing under modern conditions requires a knowledge of
these conditions and a power of control of persons
and machines only obtained through education or
through bitter experience, and that education is the
less costly (p. 123).

She concludes, "Household engineering is the great need
for material welfare, and social engineering for moral and
ethical wellbeing" (p. 124).

Pattison (1915) also shares the conviction that science
is applicable to homemaking. She asks, "And how should the
home be run?" and then answers,

Science has told us in almost every detail. It is no
longer an imitation standard of the way others do it,

but an original output, based upon research and stand-
ard practice instructions. Every theory and working

105

idea that. is developed in the world at large, is
available for the home, for every one of these goes
from, and comes back into some home (pp. 165-166).
All aspects of homemaking are to be mastered by sci-
ence, as the following statements show:
Cleanliness should be scientifically understood by
those responsible for the order of homes and food.
This subject until recently was on a rule-of-thumb
basis; but the science of bacteriology has defined
just what cleanliness is and placed it within the
realms of accuracy. Cleanliness has both an hygienic
and an esthetic side. Its practical Significance
should be elucidated (Warbasse, 1911, p. 53).
A knowledge of chemistry is necessary to an under-
standing of food composition, of cooking, cleaning,
etc. For the mother, modern psychology is an indis-
pensable study, if she is to understand her child and
wisely guide its development (Terrill, 1907, pp.6-7).
The scientific management. movement; in home economics
exemplifies the efforts to put homemaking on a scientific
basis. Household efficiency experts, such as Frederick
(1923), did not base their work on research conducted in the
home. Rather, they adapted principles of scientific manage-
ment, developed in industry, to the household. They wrote
several books on the subject of household management, in
which they introduced an elaborate vocabulary and detailed
instructions on how to run a. household along scientific
lines. Thus, in Household EnLineering (1923), one of the
first full-length books on the subject of scientific manage-
ment in the home, Frederick introduces the housewife to the
Principles of Scientific Management, and tells how to apply
them in the home. For the first time, concepts like "Stand-

ardized Operations," "Standard Conditions," "DiSpatching,"

"Scheduling," and "Efficiency Reward" are used to talk about

106

housework.

Frederick (1923) also gives advice about "The Labor-Sav-
ing Kitchen." All tasks are broken down into steps, kitchens
are redesigned and time studies introduced to reduce the
time and energy used in doing daily household chores. The
housewife is told to draw up daily, weekly, and monthly work
schedules, since, "Standardized work anywhere relaxes the
nervous strain" (p. 85). All aspects of housework should
come under the sway of efficiency principles: house clean—
ing, food planning and preparation, laundry' work, family
finances, and purchasing.

The introduction of scientific management into the
household was not the first or the only attempt to systema-
tize housework and put it on a scientific basis. The begin-
ning of the analysis and systematizing of household work may
well be traced to Catharine Beecher (1852), who emphasized
system and order in her writings.

As a subject for study, the profession of homemaking
could be systematized using an esoteric language. The Ameri-
can School of Home Economics divided it into the following
subjects for its correspondence courses (Le Bosquet, 1904):

Chemistry of the Household

Household Bacteriology

House Sanitation

Foods and Dietetics

Principles of Cookery

The house -- its plan, decoration, and care
Personal Hygiene

Home Care of the Sick

Textiles and Clothing

Study of Child Life
Care of Children (pp. 53-54).

107

Wood, Lindquist and Studley (1932) also analyze the
responsibilities of the homemaker and classify them in an
elaborate chart. Responsibilities are divided into, "Those
involving manipulative skills," and "Those involving manage-
rial abilities." Under the former heading are included,
among other tasks, food preparation and service, clothing
construction and repair, and care of children. Each task is
broken down further into component parts. For example,
childcare involves bathing, dressing, and feeding; manageri-
al tasks include such responsibilities as "Purchasing and
Business Management," and "Directidn of household operation"
with its components -- "efficient oversight of plant, "Sche-
duling and dispatching of work," and "Efficient oversight of

workers."

Mary Pattison devotes a chapter of her book, Princi-

ples of Domestic Engineering (1915) to "Time and Motion

 

Study." She gives detailed instructions on how to conduct
such studies in one's own home. Pattison acknowledges that
each completed task will be different for each individual
household, but "the separate parts, or standard units of
these tasks, is (sic) the same" (p. 107).

Another aspect of the analysis and systematizing of
housework is the development of elaborate record keeping
systems. The promotion of such systems usually accompanies
references to homemaking as a business operation. Thus, for

example, Bradford (1921) states,

108

The business of housekeeping needs its records, not
only those dealing directly with finances. . . , but
those showing such facts as the quantities of staple
supplies bought each season and the amount remaining
on hand (p. 175).

Bradford goes on to provide an elaborate list of sub-
jects to include in a classification of household records,
and a system resembling that of an office, of using index
cards to keep records.

In a similar manner, Carruth (1920) suggests using an
extensive card-filing system in conjunction with the check-
book to put housekeeping on a businesslike basis. She
states,

Why not, then, at least begin to put up a business-
like appearance by using them both? And using them
as a part of a "system of household accounting" cer-
tainly has the true ring of administrative effici-
ency! (p. 37).

Terrill (1907) provides classification systems for
household eXpenditures. She divides household expenditures
into Rent, Operating Expenses, Food, Clothing, and Higher
Life, and suggests a classification system for household ex-
penses (taken from Alcott Stockwell's "The Keeping of House-
hold Accounts" in the April, May, and June 1904 issues of
The Home Science Magazine).

Though the author stresses that the classifications are
only suggestions, and that they should not be slavishly
followed, but rather adapted to suit one's own particular

needs, such systems nevertheless suggest a way of life --

one that includes certain kinds of expenditures -- as

109

normal. The classification Terrill. (1907) gives reads as
follows:

1. Housekeeping
a. Provisions
b. Ice
c. Fuel
d. Rent
e. Dometic (sic) Service
f. Miscellaneous

2. House-furnishing
a. General (including all furniture)
b. Kitchen and Dining-Room
3. Library Supplies
a. Books and Periodicals
b. Stationery and Postage
4. Miscellaneous
a. Sundries (eXpressage, flower for house, thread,
etc.)
b. Other (fire insurance, moving, telephone: service,
etc.)

5. Gifts (p. 58)

Terrill (1907) gives a similar classification system

for personal expenses (pp. 58-59).
Budgeting and record keeping introduce business princi-
ples into the household. These procedures were to be on a
scientific basis. An example of the effort to give scientif-
ic weight to budgeting schemes is Engel's laws on the tenden-
cies in the changes of expenditures in different categories
of the budget. Richards (1899), Terrill (1907), and Abel
(1927) quote these laws. They read as follows (Terrill,

1907):

l. The proportion between expenditure and nutriment
grows in geometric progression in adverse ration
to well-being; in other words, the higher the

income, the smaller is the per cent of cost of
subsistance.

 

110

2. Clothing assumes and keeps a distinctly constant
proportion in the whole.

3. Lodging, warming and lighting have an invariable
proportion whatever the income.

4. The more the income increases the greater is the
proportion of the different expenses which express
the degree of well-being (p. 19).

The introduction of scientific management ‘principles
and its vocabulary, other efforts to systematize home mak-
ing, and the introduction of elaborate record keeping and
budgeting systems into the home are all instances of defin-
ing homemaking as an activity that requires particular ab-
stract cognitive strategies. Another aspect of the develop-
ment of new content for homemaking is the effort to deter-
mine norms and standards on the basis of science. The budget
guidelines and record keeping systems introduced above are
instances of the development of norms and standards for home-
making. Thus, the discourse suggests that expenditures
should be classified in order to facilitate comparison of a
large number of families "studying the avenues of expense to
determine in what way the maximum of health, physical, men-
tal and moral is reached" (Terrill, 1907, p. 14). Some addi-
tional examples can be cited.

Home economics assumed responsibility for setting stan-
dards and developing norms. Hunt (1910) sees "domestic sci-
ence as a means of setting standards and of helping every
member of the community to live up to them. . ." (p. 270).

Following a similar line of reasoning, Abel (1903)

states that home economics,

. it“:

111

stands for the application to life in the home of the
results of exact knowledge in many fields; it seeks
to establish standards in hygienic living, to decide
what is the cleanly and orderly and beautiful house,
what is healthful in dress and in food; to find, in
short, what are the material conditions that afford
the proper setting for ideal home life . . . (p. 29).

An editorial in the Journal of Home Economics (1911a)
states:

It is idle to say that the average housewife without
special training for the task can undertake this es-
tablishment of standards and comparative costs; it is
her part to fill out intelligently schedules that
should be presented to her by the expert. The home
should boldly call for help from those who study la-
bor conditions in far less important fields (p. 197).

Another example of setting standards is given in Hyams'
description (1900) of the work of the Louisa M. Alcott clubs
in Boston. She argues that it is the duty of "cultured men
and women" to help the poor, by arousing "within these peo-
ple a desire for right living." This is to be done by train-
ing young children in the preparation of food, dish washing,
table setting and serving, sweeping and dusting, as well as
the "proper use of knife and fork." She concludes,

While it may be impossible for them at present, owing
to poverty stricken conditions, to Rake practical use
of all they learn, we are teaching for the future of
the world, and when the opportunity does present it-
self they will be able to embrace it intelligently
(p. 17).

In a paper presented some years later (1905) Hyams sum-
marizes the purpose of the work as follows:

The endeavor is always to connect actual conditions
with others more desirable, and, whenever necessary,
to raise the ideal by such subtle steps as to avoid
offense; to acquaint the child with sanitary, esthe-
tic and economic principles in detailed relations

with the finish, furnishings, and care of her own
home (p. 60).

mm

rm.“

112

Successful homemaking is thus redefined according to
standards set by the experts. One is to measure one's
achievements according to their standards.

Finally, redefinition of homemaking in terms of science
and according to principles of efficiency helps to create a
demand for training. Homemaking is defined as a vocation
that requires training, and to be a successful homemaker,
one should undergo training. The call for women to be educa-
ted for homemaking is sounded repeatedly:

Women enter this vocation (i.e. homemaking) with vari-
ous degrees of skill and efficiency which must be sup-
plemented by training if they are to carry on the
work of the home in such a way that the ideals of our
family life are to be preserved and we are to rear a
happy, healthy American people (Richardson, 1920, p.
300).

The woman must be trained for her business (Hickok,
1916, p. 442).

The housewife needs expert teachers in her own home,
and help in studying out her conditions (Journal of
Home Economics, 1911a, p. 197).

 

The housewife needs access to eXpert advice in order
to adjust to modern conditions and standards (Abel,
1927, p. 103).

Wood (1926) argues that standardized training will con-
tribute to making homemaking a profession which delivers spe-
cialized and superior services. She continues,

Like other occupations, too, there must be secured a
standard of training for homemaking in the future by
which members of the profession may measure. . . .
It does not necessarily mean that every homemaker
will be equally well trained any more than that every
doctor or lawyer is, but rather that there will be
certain minimum standards which every professionally-
minded homemaker will strive to attain (p. 67).

Training for homemaking is of a particular kind, namely

113

scientific training. One author writes,

The fullest, most completely rounded education is
none too good for one who is called upon to use and
impart so varied information as is the housewife. The
study of science is especially practical for one who
aSpires to master all the things that come within the
range of her work. A knowledge of chemistry is neces-
sary to an understanding of food composition, of cock-
ing, cleaning, etc. For the mother, modern psycho-
logy is an indispensable study, if she is to under-
stand her child and wisely guide its development (Ter-
rill, 1907, pp. 6-7).

Efforts to develop new content for homemaking involve
relations of power, based on cognitive strategies. Particu-
lar kinds of micropower relations develop between profession-
als and homemakers, it would seem, where traditional know-
ledge is undermined, and where a new language of homemaking
is adopted. The standards of health, efficiency, cleanli-
ness, and thrift set by the experts also create micropower
relations. To the extent that women internalize those stand-
ards, and strive to maintain them, power is at work. Home
economists stated. explicitly' that. women. should. internalize
the language of the discourse. For example, Richards (1911)
was of the opinion that women should accept technological
progress, and believe what the experts told them.

According to Hunt (1959) Richards believed that,

women had to develop an attitude of mind which would
lead them to develop an interest in science and to
call in the help of experts with questions like "Can
I do better than I am doing?", "Is there any device
which I might use?" "Is my food the best possible?",
"Have I chosen the right colors and the best materi-

als for clothing?", "Am I making the best use of my
time?" (p. 161).

114

These kinds of relations established through the dis-
course can be understood in terms of normalization. To the
extent that women internalize the new language of scientific
homemaking, accept the standards set by home economists, and
accept their authority, these relations could contribute to
the intensification of the division between intellectual and
manual labor.

Homemaking as Women's Primary Vocation

 

In a number of ways the discourse seeks to define home-
making as women's primary vocation. Previously (Chapter I,
pp. 15-18) the sexual division of labor was defined in terms
of relations of power. Relations of relative autonomy and
dependence between men and women were defined in terms of
patterns of distinction, specialization, interdependence, ex-
clusion, restriction, and isolation. Examples from the home
economics literature indicate how such patterns were created
or reinforced through the discourse of homemaking. It is ar-
gued that this is one way in which the discourse contributes
to the sexual division of labor.

The discourse designates homemaking as the vocation in
which women specialize in an increasingly interdependent
world. In the language of the discourse the family has be-
come a specialized unit which focuses on socialization and
consumption. The family is said to have given up much of its
educational function to other institutions (Lake Placid Con-

ferences on Home Economics, 1905). It also "gives up" its

 

115

productive functions. The home becomes "a place of consump-
tion, not of production" (Richards, 1899, p. 23). Women's
specialization correSpondS to the specialization of the fami-
ly in society rather than to the diversification that marks
men's jobs in the market place. In a society increasingly
marked by greater specialization on the basis of skill and
training, gender remains the basis of women's specializa-
tion.

The notion of specialization is evident in the concepts
used to define women's role in the family. In the discourse,
the wife and mother is the center of the family. She rules
the home (Abel, 1911). Or, as Spencer (1911) states,

And women are in the storm centre of this profound
reorganization of the family and of household labor.
They must be, for they are the centre of this centre
(p. 51).

Because the woman is the head of the household, success-
ful family life is her responsibility. An attitude of accep-
tance of her part in the division of labor in the family,
and the ability to carry out her functions -- particularly
the function of adding to the income through management and
thrift, are "probabLy the most important of all the factors
in successful family life" (Abel, 1927, p. 243).

The importance and dignity of homemaking are impressed
upon women:

a woman, who has charge of a large household, should

regard her duties as dignified, important, and diffi-
cult (Beecher, 1852, p. 150).

 

116

every woman should imbibe, from early youth, the im-
pression, that she is training for the discharge of
the most important, the most difficult, and the most
sacred and interesting duties that can possibly em-
ploy the highest intellect (Beecher, 1852, p. 157).
She who is the mother and housekeeper in a large fami-
ly is the sovereign of an empire, demanding more va-
ried cares and involving more difficult duties, than
are really exacted of her who wears a crown and pro-
fessedly regulates the interests of the greatest na-
tion on earth (Beecher & Stowe, 1975, p. 222).

The homemaker is also the manager of the household. The
home is established as a distinct sphere, and women are asso-
ciated with that sphere. The discourse assigns to women a
measure of autonomy within the domestic sphere.

Women's specialization in homemaking and their associa-
tion with the home involve instances of separation, restric-
tion and exclusion. It separates women and men into differ-
ent categories. This is stated in a variety of ways in the
discourse. For example, West (1920) states that women and
men have different places in the "evolution of civiliza-
tion" (p. 243). In his introduction to a Manual compiled by
Van Rensselaer, Rose and Canon (1921), Liberty Hyde Bailey
states, "The woman's work and the man's work together make
the welfare of any people secure" (p. v).

Such specialization not only separates women from men,
it also separates women from one another, because homemaking
continues to take place in isolated houses.

Relative to men, women are restricted to certain envi-

ronments, e.g. the home, and the neighborhood, and careers

117

associated with homemaking and mothering, such as teaching
and nursing.

The discourse includes such statements as the follow-
ing:

She does her part in life best when she stays at home
and does her own work. . . (Wade, 1901, p. 102).

. . . of all the activities in which a woman may be
engaged. . . , she is best adapted to be employed in
the maintenance of her home -- this is the function
for which by nature she is constituted, which is ca-
pable of giving her the largest measure of happiness
in return, which is the field in which she can be of
the greatest service in the community, aad (sic)
which has possiblities for culture beyond that of any
other employment (Warbasse, 1911, p. 59).

Women also are restricted to certain kinds of relations
with the market, namely as buyers, or spenders of the income
(Abel, 1927, Terrill, 1907). Women's political role is re-
stricted to the protection of their domain -- the home. Thus
for example, the discourse calls upon middle class women to
engage in a "public work for the home," that is, working for
the enactment of laws to ensure pure air, clean water, and
unadulterated food.

Hunt (1907) states,

intelligent educated women are entering upon public
work, not as a substitute for that work which is done
in the interest of home life, but as a necessary
means under present conditions of realizing those
ideals for which the home stands (p. 12).

It is not because women think that they need other
work than that for the home that they have entered
upon these new forms of activity, but because they
see that under present conditions they can not with-
out adding public to private work accomplish the

tasks which always have been theirs and always will
be (p. 15).

 

118

Similarly, Buell (1907) states

Every question which makes for the uplift of the indi-
vidual, physically, mentally, morally and spiritual-
ly, every question of public betterment, we now in-
clude as necessary factors in making the successful
home. We have reacht (sic) an altruistic plane where
we do not ask is this particular effort going to bene-
fit your home or mine? If it benefits any home, it
is a part of our responsibility (p. 93).

Thus women's role as homemaker is given a kind of moral
dimension. Women begin to see that they have influence out-
side their own homes:

She is gaining an understanding that no home prOSpers
or perishes to itself alone; that the doors of all
homes open on the highway of a common happiness, and
that economic values are human values (Lathrop, 1916,
p. 8).

While this moral responsibility seems to give women a
wider social role, it still restricts them to matters that
pertain to the household. Such restriction could mean that
women are excluded from most professions, managerial posi-
tions in business enterprises and political leadership. For
example, to the extent that women internalize the language
of the discourse, such exclusion and restriction would seem
inevitable, even natural to them.

The instances of separation and specialization, and pat-
terns of restriction, isolation, and exclusion serve to up-
hold and intensify gender distinctions and give rise to rela-
tions of relative autonomy and dependence between men and
women.

The discourse claims that while clearly distinct, men's

work and women's work are complementary and of equal worth,

 

119

as Bailey's statement cited on p. 116 suggests. However,
the language of complementarity and equality obscures the
fact that women's specialization in consumption increases
her economic vulnerability, and makes her more dependent on
her husband's income.

To establish homemaking as an important and satisfying
task the discourse develops a set of concepts and practices
that maintain the characteristics of men's work as the norm.
Thus it reinforces the superiority of men's work over wo-
men's work. This attitude is reflected, for example, in the
description Frederick (1923) gives of her introduction to
scientific management by her husband and other efficiency
engineers. She states,

In every instance I saw how these efficiency princi-
ples were saving time, and effort, and money, wher-
ever applied. The more I saw and read, the more cer-
tain I felt that they could save time and effort and
money in my business -- the home (p. 14).

In other words, homemaking would have status when it is
done the way men do their work, using the principles of sci-
ence and business.

The home economic literature illustrates how the dis-
course reproduces patterns of specialization, restriction
and exclusion and accepts a "male model" of work as the norm

and standard for women's work. In these ways, the discourse

contributes to the sexual division of labor.

.. l

120

Interrelated Power Dimensions

The analysis of the homemaking discourse has indicated
that the activities of home economists contributed to repro-
ducing the sexual division of labor as well as the division
between intellectual and annual labor. Sets of power rela-
tions interrelate in a: number of ways. Discursive analysis
throws light on these interrelations.

The development of a body of scientific knowledge re-
garding homemaking relied on, and created, new patterns of
dependence in relations between men and women, and intensi-
fied the division between intellectual and manual labor.

The norms and standards based on science contribute in
the first place to the intensification of the division be-
tween intellectual and manual labor. But the promotion of a
scientific language of homemaking also relates to gender di-
visions in society. Because most scientists have been men,
at least some concepts and strategies used in science may be
regarded as "male concepts," reflecting their interests and
concerns, rather than those of women. To the extent that
such interests behind concepts and approaches were not taken
into account by those who developed the discourse of homemak-
ing, the potential for male bias in the language of the dis-
course existed. Such an argument is advanced by Ruddick
(1982) who states that because "most thinkers have been men,
most disciplines are partly shaped by 'male' concepts,

styles and strategies." She concludes,

“in"?

121

To the extent that the disciplines are shaped by
"male" thought, mothers and other women may feel ali-
enated by the practices and thinking of their own dis-
ciplines (p. 92n).

Not only in the profession of home economics in which
women are in the majority, but also in the home, the dis-
course may have accepted without questioning a language and
a way of thinking that originated with men, and served male
interests rather than the interests of women.

Another way to look at the interrelated aspects of pow-
‘er is to focus on the transformation of the domestic sphere
through the discourse of homemaking. While the discourse
speaks of the privacy of the home, and the importance of
maintaining the individual family home, it also defines the
family's tasks in relation to society outside the family. At
a basic level, this is evident in the oft-repeated state-
ments in the discourse that the family must give up its inde-
pendence, that women must recognize the "social" dimension
of their homemaking activities, and that the family must be
seen for what it is: a part of a larger social unity.

The discourse also contributes to the "socialization"
of the household through the kinds of interventions des—
cribed earlier. The efforts to redefine homemaking, to devel-
Op norms and standards for it, to develop courses and write
books that women would read, and to gain direct access to
the home represent interventions in the home. These inter-

ventions serve to intensify the division between intellectu-

al and manual labor.

n. F":

122

The interventions of professionals also influence the
sexual division of labor. On the one hand the discourse
seeks, through various strategies, to create the home as a
matriarchal unit: although the father retains the status of
being head of the family, the woman is its core, the center,
the head of the home. Thus the home is established as wo-
men's sphene of influence. From one perspective this could
be understood as a challenge, albeit limited, to male author-
ity. At least, it seems to bring about a change in the power
relations in the family. Women could, for example, gain pow-
er in the sexual division of labor, through alliance with ex-
perts, as they implement the methods and standards advanced
by the professionals, for example with regard to childrear-
ing and budgeting.

Nevertheless, whatever autonomy the family had before,
it is undermined with the entry of professionals into the
home. It becomes, in a sense, a contested sphere, less pri—
vate than before. And, women's ability to exercise power
depends, at least in part, on their adherence to norms and
standards set by experts. Thus women's ability to exercise
power in the family is influenced by their relations with
eXperts, which also involve power.

In sum, power relations in the sexual division of labor
are shaped through the relations that are part of the inten-
sification of the division between intellectual and manual
labor. Traditional patriarchal power is changed to include

a ”normalized sexual division of labor." Likewise, the "new"

’E“""""-_1

123

homemaking is shaped by the standards and norms set by
experts on the basis of scientific disciplines whose lang-
uage may be at least partly informed by "male" interests,
rather than women's concerns.

Power relations in the discourse of homemaking also in-
teract with other relations, particularly the exercise of
state power, and class hegemony.

An important dimension of the sexual division of labor
reproduced in the discourse of homemaking is the economic de-
pendence of women on men. To the extent that women internal-
ized the notion that homemaking was their primary vocation,
that their work was complementary toizmen's work, and of
equal value, their economic dependence on men could have
been obscured. However, such economic relations not only
benefitted men, more than women, but also had wider econo-
mic implications. These cannot be examined in detail here,
but it is instructive to note that Illich (1981), using an
analysis that resembles Foucault's in some respects, sees
the development of homemaking as a distinctive set of activi-
ties aroumd the organization of consumption, the development
of a mechanism indispensable to the functioning of advanced
capitalist society. Illich calls women's unpaid housework
"shadow work" and argues that it is a prototype of other
kinds of work in society -- unpaid, yet necessary for the
continuation of the economic system.

The discourse maintains class distinctions by assigning

particular tasks to middle class women, making them the

 

124

voice of the poor, and giving them a kind of moral responsi-
bility as guardians, not only of their own families, but
also of the poor. For example, Hyams (1900) argued that it
was the duty of "cultured men and women” to help the poor by
arousing ”within these people a desire for right living" (p.
18).

Another instance of efforts to maintain class distinc-
tions is the hierarchical language used to differentiate
home economics education at various levels, from elementary
school to college. For example, this is reflected in nomen-
clature proposals put forward at the Sixth Lake Placid Con-
ference (1904). The following titles were suggested:

Handwork in elementary schools

Domestic Science in the secondary schools
Economics in normal and professional schools
Euthenics in colleges and universities (p. 64).

These titles reflect an hierarchical arrangement with a
craft orientation at the lowest levels and a scientific and
professional orientation at the highest levels. Strasser
(1977) argues that it represents an attempt at maintaining
class distinctions.

The discourse also reinforces class distinctions in the
different ways experts interact with poor and middle class
families. The experts gain more or less direct access to
families who fail to live up to minimum standards, for

example, through home visits and demonstrations, to teach

thrift, budgeting, accounting, and food preparation. In an

125

Italian district in Chicago, for example, a model flat was
outfitted, and children, working single women, and mothers
were taught the American way of furnishing and cleaning a
home, and how to prepare American foods simply and cheaply.
The program also involved home visits by the experts (Ransom
& Wilkins, 1916).

In another setting the home economists gained access to
immigrant families through their children, as Hyams' (1900)
description of the work of the LouisaM. Alcott clubs in Bos-
ton indicates. In a later report, Hyams (1905) stresses the
important part that home visits played in the work. The pur-
pose of the visits were to study home conditions. This in-

vestigation was done, she states,

thru (sic) a great many personal visits -- always
dropping in unexpectedly, and often remaining for a
meal -- and also thru (sic) the children, who are

askt (sic) to keep notes for a week at a time of the
three meals each day, and to get from their mothers
as accurately as possible the amount and cost of food
bought (p. 56).

In middle class families power relations are less obvi-
ous. One could say that, in part, the homemaker averts the
expert's direct entry into the family by her efforts to main-
tain the standards set by the experts. Thus there still ex-
ists a power relation between the eXpert and the individual
homemaker. Furthermore, power relations also exist where
the homemaker recognizes her need for training, and attends

classes, or reads the books written by the experts, and in

this way, internalizes, at least in part, a particular set

126

of norms and standards regarding homemaking.

A similar kind of analysis is made by Donzelot in T_hg
Policing of Families (1979), a study of the development of
the social work profession in France. Donzelot proposes that
the modern family has been transformed to function as a mech-
anism for the deployment of micropower relations in many
spheres. To illustrate how the family operates as a mechan-
ism of social regulation, and is transformed to fit its soci-
al role, Donzelot introduces the idea of the "floating" of
family values and social norms against each other. Through
this process, which operates indifferent ways in middle-
class and poor families, family autonomy, emotional intensi-
ty and economic stability are either decreased or channeled
to fit the social norm. However, the social norm is also
somewhat flexible. If this was not the case, family values
might be totally destroyed, making the family too directly
dependent on the state. Conversely, families might withdraw
from society, and become too independent. In both cases the
purpose of regulation would be defeated.

Among the poor, where family autonomy may be counter-
productive from society's perspective, independence has to
be checked. If it is done too harshly, however, it may cre-
ate excessive dependence on the state. Consequently, a com-
plex system of guardianship is introduced. Donzelot traces
the activities and transformations of the social work profes-

sion as the agents of tutelage. He examines the changed

127

relationships between the judicial, psychological and educa-
tive components of the profession as the demands of society
changed, and shows how the professionals carved out for them-
selves positions of relative power.

In the bourgeois family, regulation works differently.
The family can maintain its independence -- which it values
highly -- by making sure that it fulfills society's expecta-
tions for its children. Thus it prevents the direct inter-
vention of the state in its internal operation. Yet, in
their efforts to meet expectations, parents seek the help of
experts in childrearing, attend classes, and visit the psy-
choanalyst themselves. As in the case of poor families, the
helping professions attain a certain intermediary position
of power between the middle-class family and the state.

Donzelot indicates a kind of intermediary position for
professionals between the family and the state. It would
seem that in the discourse of homemaking the intensification
of the division of intellectual and manual labor involved
the development of a number of state-affiliated organiza-
tions through which professionals could be mediators between
the family and the state. For example Abel (1927) lists the
variety of agencies active in home economics, including gov-
ernment agencies, the extension system, vocational education
programs, and demonstrations and exhibits -- the latter to
reach even those homemakers who are not interested in attend-

ing classes or reading books. She gives a detailed list of

128

the governmental programs in home economics, including the

Bureau of Home Economics in the United States Department of

Agriculture, the Home Economics Division of the United

States Bureau of Education and Federal Board of Vocational

Education, the United States Public Health Service, State

Departments of Education, Boards of Health, and Departments
and Colleges of Agriculture.
Abel (1927) concludes,

Thanks to the growth of the Home Economics movement,

there is now an admirable body of trained profession-

al workers, teachers and administrators who are organ-

ized under various governmental and other agencies,

and to them we look to take a leading part in the new
education for home making (p. 141).

Summary and Conclusions

This chapter developed a discursive analysis based on
the work of Foucault. Examples from the home economics liter-
ature were used to sketch the dimensions of a discourse of
homemaking. Power relations in the discourse were then exam-
ined. The analysis focused on the role of home economics in
relation to the sexual division of labor, and the intensifi-
cation of the division between intellectual and manual la-
bor.

The eXploratory analysis carried out in this chapter
suggests that home economists were involved in a variety of
power relations that shaped the sexual division of labor,

and intensified the division between intellectual and manual

129

labor. Micropower relations were formed in the practices
that were a part of giving new content to homemaking. Power
relations were created and maintained through methods used
to gather information, and systematize homemaking practices,
such as record keeping, observations, budgeting, and classi-
fication systems. Micropower relations also existed where
standards for homemaking were developed and put into prac-
tice. The analysis also indicated that the discourse of home-
making gave rise to a normalized sexual division of labor,
to the extent that relations between men and women were
shaped by knowledge relations. These power relations were
shown to be linked to other power relations, thus serving to
reproduce class relations and to maintain, and in some sense
extend, the power of the state.

Substantively, discursive analysis seems to overcome
the limitations of conventional historical studies of home
economics because it identifies the kinds of power relations
in which home economists participated. Likewise, at the con-
ceptual and theoretical level, discursive analysis seems to
overcome the limitations identified in existing studies of
the history of home economics. As the following brief discus-
sion indicates, it is a non-functionalist and non-reductive
approach that recognizes the social dimensions of intellectu-
al activity and analyses these in terms of power relations.
Discursive analysis provides a way to examine specific pow-

er relations and, to some extent at least, allows for the

130

interaction of power relations.

Foucault's strategy of discursive analysis provides a
way to examine the activities of home economists in non-func-
tionalist terms. Foucault rejects all attempts to understand
society as an organic unit, or as having enduring, transhis-
torical needs. Thus, from Foucault's perspective, profession-
al activity is not merely a response to social "needs." Dis-
cursive analysis seeks to show that professional activity
shapes social relations in particular ways, and that power
is involved in the social practices of professionals. Thus
social change is not seen simply as the result of abstract
social forces, but as a process that involves social prac-
tices, including discursive practices. The exploratory ana-
lysis indicated that home economists' responses to problems
they perceived in society involved shaping social relations.

Secondly, discursive analysis provides an approach to
understanding the social dimensions of intellectual activi-
ty. The eXploratory analysis indicated that the discourse
shaped social relations through the cognitive strategies it
used, even as it developed and implemented theoretical know-
ledge. Thus, for example, the strategies of record keeping,
budgeting, and accounting introduced into the household gen-
erated knowledge, defined how homemakers were to understand
their roles, and created new relations between the profes-
sionals and homemakers. Likewise, the observations made dur-

ing visits to poor families provided information which were

131

used in the develOpment of theoretical knowledge, while the
visits also imposed new standards on the family, and served
to maintain a hierarchical relationship between experts and
the poor.

In the third place, discursive analysis provides a way
to understand the social content of professional activity in
terms of power. The analysis of the discourse of homemaking
showed how power operates in the discourse to shape both the
sexual division of labor, and the division between intellec-
tual and manual labor.

Finally, an analysis in terms of micropowers and normal-
ization provides a way to focus on the specific power dimen-
sions of theoretical activity. It is a non-reductive account
of power, because it does not understand relations between
intellectuals and their clients in terms of the exercise of
the power of the state, or corporations, for example.

Nevertheless, while it focuses on specific relations,
for example, between home economists and women, the dis-
course allows one to study the interrelation of their activi-
ties with other groups participating in the discourse. The
analysis of the homemaking discourse attempted to link the
powerrelations in the discourse with other forms of power,
for example, the exercise of the power of the state, and the
power operating in class relations.

It must be noted, however, that the relationships

132

between discursive and non-discursive practices, and between
micropowers, and the more "global" kinds of power, are not
clearly drawn by Foucault. A similar ambiguity remains in
Foucault's work regarding the way in which power as exer-
cised in the discourse can be overcome. This shortcoming
makes a consideration of the implications of the present
study for home economics problematic, because it cannot be
done with reference to an alternative posed by Foucault.

The exploratory analysis of the discourse of homemaking
indicates that Foucault's work provides concepts and strate-
gies that meet the requirements for a theoretical framework
set out in the previous chapter. Discursive analysis may
thus prove fruitful for studying the role of home economics
in social reproduction. The final chapter explores the poten-
tial use of such a framework further, and suggests some im-
plications of the present study for the home economics pro-

fession.

Chapter Six

SUMMARY AND CONCL USIONS

The central problem underlying the present study was
the question of power in the home economics profession. Has
home economics served to reproduce class relations? Has the
field contributed to women's oppression? Has it, in its ef-
forts to serve families, helped to increase state power over
everyday life?

The last two decades have witnessed growing critique of
the role of professionals in society. Recent historical and
sociological studies implicated home economics in power
struggles of various kinds. A number of these studies were
reviewed in Chapter I. In different ways they argue that
home economics has played a role in maintaining oppressive
gender relations and class relations (Hartmann, 1974; Stras-
ser, 1977). Furthermore, professionals generally, and home
economists in particular, have been accused of contributing
to the extension of state power over everyday life (Zaret-
sky, 1982; Lasch, 1979; Ehrenreich & English, 1978).

Home economists have engaged in examination of the phi-
losophy of the field and its goals in the last decade. The
present study maintained that, unless reflections on the phi-

losophy of the field are complemented with concrete studies

133

134

of its actual social role, the formulation of realistic
goals for the profession will remain abstract, and the imple-
mentation of those goals problematic.

The intent of the study, therefore, was to contribute a
critical dimension to the current self-examination of the
home economics profession, by examining how the political
nature of the activities of professionals have been under-
stood, and eXploring conceptual issues related to the analy-
sis of power in home economics. The study focused on two
sets of relations in which home economics have been in-
volved, namely, the sexual division of labor, and the divi-
sion between intellectual and manual labor.

The study rejected a functionalist approach to under-
standing the social role of home economics, because such an
approach obscures the power dimension in their activities,
as Chapters II and III indicated.

Likewise, it found the approaches used in existing cri-
tical studies of home economics inadequate. Those studies
indicated that home economics contributed to the reproduc-
tion of patriarchy and capitalism, for example. However,
they were not enlightening about the particular nature of
power relations of which home economics was a part, or the
complex interaction of those relations with the global
powers represented in the class and gender systems of the
society.

The present study, therefore, proposed that before the

135

role of home economics in social reproduction can be explain-
ed, it would be necessary to analyze specific power relation
in which home economists took part. Chapter IV began to de-
velop the analytical tools necessary for such a task. It out-
lined the requirements for carrying out such an analysis and
then introduced theoretical strategies developed by Michel
Foucault in his historical studies of knowledge and power.
Foucault's work provides strategies for analyzing specific
power relations and a conceptualization of the interrela-
tion of knowledge and power that appeared useful for the
kind of analysis of home economics the present study pro-
posed.

An exploratory analysis of the discourse of homemaking
in Chapter V demonstrated the fruitfulness of using the ana-
lytical categories Foucault introduces, for studying power
relations in home economics.

The analysis demonstrated that home economics has his-
torically been involved in power relations of various sorts.
In particular, it has contributed to shaping the sexual di-
vision of labor, and intensifying the division between intel-
lectual and annual labor. The study suggested, furthermore,
that the particular power relations in which home economists
have been involved can be linked to more "global" forms of
power. However, the form these links have taken in different

historical periods need to be examined in future research.

136

Limitations of the Study

Because of its eXploratory nature, the present study
focused on only one discourse of which home economics has
been a part. Other discourses, such as the discourse of sex-
uality, also could be analyzed to examine the role of home
economics in shaping social relations.

Only a partial analysis of the discourse of homemaking
was attempted. A limited range of objects, concepts, state-
ments, and cognitive strategies were identified. To develop
the discursive analysis further, other objects, for example
"motherhood" and "the family," may be introduced, along with
the concepts, statements, and cognitive strategies employed
to create these objects.

The evidence used in this study to examine the homemak-
ing discourse was of such a nature that the analysis and con-
clusions drawn from it must remain somewhat speculative.
The examples used to develop the discursive analysis were
drawn from a narrowly defined range of sources. The analysis
was limited to home economics literature as the source for
examples to sketch the dimensions of the discourse. Because
discursive analysis cuts across disciplinary boundaries, and
includes both general knowledge, and more Specific theoreti-
cal knowledge, a more complete discursive analysis would re—
quire examining the activities of other disciplines, for ex-
ample sociology and social work, and materials that reflect

the language of homemakers themselves.

137

The discursive analysis carried out in the present stu-
dy remained rather abstract. To contextualize the discourse
of homemaking, the analysis must incorporate some considera-
tion of events and activities outside the discourse. A more
historically concrete analysis would also seek to recognize
historical shifts, trends, and changes within the discourse,
such as changes in the prominence of certain objects and con-

cepts, or the development of new cognitive strategies.

Suggestions for Future Research

 

In addition to the proposals to develop a more complete
analysis of the discourse of homemaking, particular areas of
research are suggested.

To trace the origin of the homemaking discourse, the re-
lations between early leaders of the movement, and those
social groups to whom matters concerning the household and
family were important, could be eXplored. Such groups would
include the church, families, and schools, for example. One
could explore where and how the need for training in homemak-
ing arose. For example, did parents demand training for
their daughters? What was being said in sermons, newspapers,
and magazines regarding women's roles? How did these state-
ments correspond to the efforts of certain individuals and
groups to gain authority to make statements about homemak-
ing?

To study the social impact of the homemaking discourse,

138

the extent to which the language of the discourse was inter—
nalized could be examined. For example, how did women inter-
nalize the scientific concepts, styles of work and attitudes
toward homemaking proposed by the professionals? A related
question concerns the kinds of resistance professionals en-
countered in their efforts to transform homemaking.

Another dimension of the homemaking discourse to be
studied is the alliance between home economists and other
professional groups and women's associations, and how power
operated in and through those alliances.

To contextualize the (discursive analysis, and relate
discursive and non-discursive practices, the practices of
home economists and others to shape homemaking practices
could be studied in relation to specific developments in the
labor market. For example, one could examine whether and how
the power relations of the discourse assisted the develop-
ment of other kinds of power relations. For example, did the
relations that developed between experts and women in the
discourse prepare women for other kinds of relations, such

as dependence on advertising?

Implications for Home Economics

 

The eXploratory analysis suggested that the social role
of home economics has been more complex than conventionally
understood. While home economists sought to serve families,

give dignity to women's work, and relieve the drudgery of

139

housework, their activities also served to undermine women's
autonomy and the relative privacy of the family. To some
extent, therefore, home economists have played a role in the
general evolution of multiple forms of control over the re-
production of everyday life that characterizes modern socie-
ty (Busacca & Ryan, 1982).

Home economists need to recognize that their profession—
al activities are not politically neutral, but actually in-
volve the exercise of power. It seems clear that in the pre-
sent decade professional activity related to the family will
increasingly take place in the midst of intense political
struggles. The uncertainty over economic prospects, particu-
larly the future of social services, will have implications
for home economics. Home economists carry out their profes-
sional activities in the midst of continued feminist cri-
tique of traditional patterns in family life, and the devel-
opment of a powerful conservative voice intent on reestab-
lishing traditional family values. Battles over child care,
inflation, unemployment, and cutbacks in social programs all
affect home economics.

Home economists will have to clarify their own position
in these power struggles. This will require, among other
things, continued study of the historical role of the field
in terms of power.

One of the weaknesses of the present study is that it

did not examine changes over time in the power relations it

140

identified. It may be, for example, that home economists
were more critical of existing social arrangements at cer-
tain times than at others. Recent studies in women's history
seem to suggest. that early home economics leaders ;played
such roles (Blair, 1980; Hayden, 1981; Sklar, 1973; Wright,
1980 & 1981). Studying the practices of those home econo-
mists, and the factors that contributed to the development
of a critical or conformist stance at various time, would
help present-day home economists to ‘understand their own
position better, and to make informed decisions about their
role in society.

Home economics has historically dealt with matters of
everyday life -- clothing, food, shelter, interpersonal rela-
tions -- in a "non—therapeutic," or preventive mode, normal—
1y through educational channels. While the study indicates
that power occurs in the kinds of relations these practices
entail, it would seem that home economists are in a position
to provide knowledge and skills that could contribute to de-
creasing the separation between intellectuals and non-intel-
lectuals in society. For example,‘ making available basic
information about nutrition and hygiene could counteract an
excessive dependence on medical expertise. Home economists
need to consider what taking on such roles would mean in
terms of institutional affiliations, professional status,

and funding sources.

 

141

Finally, in considering their role in social reproduc-
tion, home economists also need to address questions like
the following:

-- Whose interests are being served by practices of

home economists?

-- Who defines the needs home economists "serve?"

-- How do links between professionals and other insti-

tutions, e.g. state agencies, universities, and
schools, influence the political choices open to

the professional?

BI BLI OGRAPHY

BI BLI OGRAPHY

Abel, M. H. Labor problems in the household. Proceedirgs
of the Fifth_Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics.
1903, PP. 29-37.

 

Abel, M. H. Successful family life on the moderate income.
(Second Edition Revised) Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott
Co., 1927.

Adams, G. 50 years of home economics research. Journal of
Home Economics. 1959, 51, pp. 12-18.

 

American Home Economics Association. The field of Home Eco-
nomics: What it is. Washington, D. C., 1964.

 

 

Andrews, B. R. Home Economics 1848-1948. Journal of Home
Economics. 1948, 49, p. 291.

 

 

Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. 5. Decisions and non-decisions:
An analytical framework. American Political Science
Review. 1963, 51, pp. 641-651.

Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. S. The two faces of power. Amer-
ican Political Science Review. 1962, 56, pp. 947-
952.

Baldwin, K. E. The AHEA Saga. Washington, D.C.: American
Home Economics Association, 1949.

 

Bane, L. The philosophy of the early home economists. Jour-
nal of Home Economics. 1959, 51, pp. 547-548.

Bane, L. & Chapin, M. R. Introductan to home economics.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1945.

Beecher, C. E. A treatise on domestic economy. (Revised
Edition) NeW"York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers,
1852.

Beecher, C. E. & Stowe, H. B. The American woman's home.
Hartford, Conn.: Stowe-Day Foundation, 1975.

 

Bernstein, R. CL The restructuring of social and political
theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1976.

142

143
Bevier, I. Home economics in education. (Second Edition
Revised) Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1928.

Bevier, I. & Usher, S. The home economics movement, Part
1; Boston: Whitcomb and Barrows, 1906.

 

Blair, K. J. The clubwoman as feminist. New York: Holmes
& Meier, 1980.

 

Bradford, E. F. Household records. Chapter VI in Van Rens-
selaer M.; Rose, F. 5. Canon, H. (Compilers) A manual
of home-making. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1921.

 

Braverman, H. Labor andgjmonopoly capital. New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1974.

 

Brown, J. K. A note on the division of labor by sex. Amer-
ican Anthropologist. 1970, 12, pp. 1073-1078.

 

Brown, M. & Paolucci, B. Home Economics: A definition.
Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics Association,
1979.

Budewig, C. Home economics in historical perspective. The
field of Home Economics: What it is. Washington, D.
C.: American Home Economics Association, 1964, pp. 5-
17.

 

Budewig, F. C. Origin and development of the home economics
idea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nashville:
George Peabody College of Teachers, 1957.

Buell, C. S. Household adjustment to changing industrial
conditions. Proceedings of the Ninth Lake Placid Con-
ference on Home Economics. 1907, pp. 93-98.

 

Busacca, R. 8 Ryan, M. P. Beyond the family crisis. Democ-
racy. 1982, 3, pp. 79-92.

Carruth, E. K. A card system of household accounting. Jour-
nal of Home Economics. 1920, 12, pp. 37-39.

Carver, M. N. Home economics as an academic discipline: A
short history. University of Arizona: College of
Education, 1979.

 

Committee on Nomenclature and Syllabus. Syllabus of Home
Economics. Baltimore: American Home Economics Associ-
ation, 1913.

 

144

Donzelot, J. The policing of families. New York: Panthe-
on Books, 1979. (Translated by R. Hurley, Les Editions
de Minuit, Paris, 1977).

East, M. Home economics: Past, present, and future. Bos-
ton: Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1980.

Ehrenreich, B. 8 English, D. For her own good. Garden
City, N. Y.: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1978.

 

Eppright, E. S. & Ferguson, E. S. A century of home econom-
ics at Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University Home Economics Alumni Association, 1971.

 

Ferrar, B. M. The history of home economics education in
America. East Lansing: Michigan State University,
1964.

 

Foucault, M. The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Har-
per Colophon Books, 1972. (Translated by A. Sheridan,
Editions Gallimard, 1969).

Foucault, M. The history of sexuality. Volumgfil. An in-
troduction. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978. (Trans-
lated by R. Hurley, Editions Gallimard, 1976).

 

 

Foucault, M. Power/knowledge. Selected interviews and
other writings. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980. (Ed-
ited by C. Gordon).

 

 

Foucault, M. Power, truth, strategy. Sydney: Feral Publi-
cations, 1979. (Edited by M. Morris, & P. Patton).

Frederick, (L Household engineering: Scientific engineer-
ing in the home. Chicago: American School of Home
Economics, 1923.

 

Fritschner, L. M. The rise and fall of home economics: A
study with implications for women, education, and
change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Davis: Uni-
versity of California, 1973.

Giddens, A. Central problems in social theory. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1979.

Gilcrest, M. The first three decades of home economics at
Michigan State College 1896-1926. East Lansing: Mich-
igan State College, School of Home Economics, 1947.

 

 

145

Goodrich, H. I. Standards of living: Introduction. Pro-
ceedings of the Fourth Lake Placid Conference on Home
Economics. 1902, pp. 36-37.

 

Gross, I. H. & Crandall, E. W. Management for modern fami-
lies. (Second Edition) New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, 1963.

 

Habermas, J. Knowledge and human interest. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1971. (Translated by J. J. Shapiro, Suhrkamp
Vorlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1968).

Habermas, J. Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon Press,
1975. (Translated by T. McCarthy, Suhrkamp Vorlag,
Frankfurt am Main, 1973).

 

Habermas, J. On systematically distorted communication. In-
guiry. 1970, 1;, pp. 205-216.

Habermas, J. Toward a rational society. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1970a. (Translated by J. J. Shapiro, Suhrkamp
Vorlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1968).

 

Hartmann, H. I. Capitalism and women's work in the home,
1900-1930. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New
Haven: Yale University, 1974.

Hayden, D. The grand domestic revolution. A history of
feminist designs for American homes, neighborhoods, and
cities. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1981.

 

Henderson, C. R. Social conditions affecting the law of
domestic Life. Proceedings of the Fourth Lake Placid
Conference on Home Economics. 1902, p. 61.

 

Hickok, H. M. The business of homemaking. Journal of Home
Economics. 1916, _8_, p. 441.

 

 

Howard, G. E. What courses in sociology, pure or applied,
should be included in college departments of Household
Science? Journal of Home Economics. 1911, 3, pp.
33-43.

 

Hunt, C. L. The life of Ellen H. Richards 1842-1911. Wash-
ington, D.C.: American Home Economics Association,
1958.

 

Hunt, C. L. Social work for students of home economics.
Journal of Home Economics. 1910, 2, pp. 268-270.

 

146

Hunt, C. L. Women's public work for the home. Proceedings
ofjghe Ninth Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics.
1907, pp. 10-17.

 

Hyams, I. F. The Louisa M. Alcott Club. Proceedings of
the Second Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics.
1900, pp. 18-23.

 

Hyams, I. F. Teaching of home economics in social settle-
ments. Proceedings of the Seventh Lake Placid Confer-
ence on Home Economics. 1905, p. 54.

Illich, I. Shadow work. Boston: Marion Boyars, 1981.

Illich, I. Vernacular gender. The coevolution_quarter1y.
Spring 1982, pp. 4-23.

 

Journal of Home Economics. The goal of household efficien-
cy. 1916, 3, pp. 264-265.

Journal of Home Economics. The home economics movement in
the United States. 1911, 3, p. 323.

Journal of Home Economics. Household measurements. 1916a,
3, p. 202.

Journal of Home Economics. The new gOSpel of efficiency.
1911a, 3, pp. 194.

Journal of Home Economigg. An outline: Education for the
home. 1916b, 3, p. 372.

Journal of Home Economics. A press notice. 1916c, 3,
p. 505.

Journal of Home Economics. Report on college courses in
home economics. 1911b, 3, pp. 25-28.

Kay, M. M. & Voorhies, B. Female of‘ the species. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1975.

 

Kinley, D. Aspects of economics of importance in household
science. Journal of Home Economics. 1911, 3, pp.
253-261.

Lake Placid Conferences on Home Economics. Proceedings of
the Fourth Conference. 1902.

 

Lake Placid Conferences on Home Economics. Proceedings of
the Sixth Conference. 1904.

 

 

147

Lake Placid Conferences on Home Economics. Home Economics
at the University of Wisconsin: A housekeeper confer-
ence. Proceedings of the Seventh Conference. 1905,
pp. 84-88.

Lasch, C. Haven in a heartless world. New York: Basic
Books, Inc., Harper Colophon, 1979.

Lathrop, J. C. The highest education for women. Journal
of Home Economics. 1916, 3, pp. 1-8.

Le Bosquet, M. American school of household economics. Pro-
ceedings of the Sixth Lake Placid Conference on Home
Economics. 1904, pp. 52-57.

Lee, L. & Dressel, P. Liberal education and home econom-
ics. New York: Institute of Higher Education, Teach-
ers College, Columbia University, 1963.

 

Lloyd, G. B. The division of labor between the sexes: A
review. In C. B. Lloyd (ed.) Sex,_discrimination, and
the division of labor. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1975, pp. 1-24.

 

Lukes, S. Essays in social theory. London: The Macmillan
Press Ltd., 1977.

 

Lukes, 8. Power. A radical View. London: The Macmillan
Press Ltd., 1974.

Luxton, M. More than a labor of love. Toronto: Women's
Press, 1980.

McCarthy, T. The critical theory of Jurgen Habermas. Cam-
bridge: The MIT press, 1978.

McCarthy, T. Translator's introduction. In J. Habermas,
Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon Press, 1975,
(Translated by T. McCarthy, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt
am Main, 1973), pp. vii-xxiv.

McGrath, E. J. 8 Johnson, J. T. The changing mission of
home economics. New York: Teachers College Press,
1968.

 

Merton, R. K. Social theory and social structure. (Re-
vised and enlarged edition) Glencoe, Illinois: The
Free Press, 1957.

148
O'Brien, R. BHNHE celebrates a quarter century of service.
Journal of Home Economics. 1948, 33, pp. 193-196.

Paolucci, B. Evolution of home economics. Human Ecology
Forum. Winter 1980, 1_0 (3), pp. 17-21.

 

Parsons, T. Essays in sociological theol. (Revised Edi-
tion) Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1954.

Pattison, M. Principles of domestic engineering. New York:
The Trow Press, 1915.

Peterson, R. T. Critical discussion of "Home economics: A
definition." In Home economics: A definition. Wash-
ington, D. C.: American Home Economics Association,
1979.

 

Pundt, H. AHEA. A history of excellence. Washington,
D.C.: American Home Economics Association, 1980.

 

Ransom, R. & Wilkins, J. A city‘housekeeping center. Jour-
nal of Home Economics. 1916, 3, pp. 417-418.

 

Richards, E. H. The cost of living as modified by sanitary
science. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1899.

 

Richards, E. H. The outlook of home economics. Journal of
Home Economics. 1910, 3, p. 17.

 

Richards, E. H. The social significance of the home econom-
ics movement. Journal of Home Economics. 1911, 3,
pp. 117-125.

 

Richards, E. H. Ten years of the Lake Placid Conference on
home economics; its history and aims. Proceedings of
the Tenth Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics.
1908, pp. 19-25.

 

 

Richardson, E. Future administrative problems in vocational
education in home economics. Journal of Home Econom-
1C8. 1920' L2, pp. 299-307.

 

Rose, F. A room of their own. Journal of home economics.
1949, 33, p. 511.

Rubin, G. The traffic in women: Notes on the "political
economy" of sex. In R. R. Reiter (ed.) Toward an an-
thrppglogy 215 women. New York: Monthly Review Press,
1975, pp. 157-210.

 

 

149

Ruddick, S. Maternal thinking. In Thorne, B. & Yalom, M.
(eds.) Rethinking the famil . New York: Longman,

1982, pp. 76-94 .

Sheridan, A. Michel Foucault. The will to truth. New
York: Tavistock Publications, 1980.

 

Sklar, K. K. Catherine Beecher. New Haven: Yale Univer-
sity Press, 1973.

 

Spencer, A. G. What courses in sociology, pure or applied,
should be included in schools or college departments of
household science? Journal of Home Economics. 1911,
3, pp. 47-57.

 

Strasser, S. M. Never done: The ideology and technology of
household work, 1850-1930. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Stoneybrook: New York State University, 1977.

 

Strasser, S. M. Never done. New York: Pantheon Books,
1982. '

Terrill, B. M. Household management. Chicago: American
School of Home Economics, 1907.

Thorne, B. & Yalom, M. (eds.) Rethinking the family. New
York: Longman, 1982.

Van Rensselaer, M; Rose, F. & Canon, H. (Compilers). 3
manual of home-making. New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1921.

 

Vincent, G. E. The industrial revolution and the family.
Proceedings of the Tenth Lake Placid Conference on
Home Economics. 1908, pp. 152-155.

 

Vincenti, V. B. A history of the philosophy of home econom-
ics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College Park,
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, 1981.

Vincenti, V. B. Toward a clearer professional identity.
Journal of Home Economics. 1982, 14 (3), pp. 20-

 

 

 

25.

Wade, M. L. Refined 1ife on small incomes, or, the woman
who does her own work. Proceedings of the Third Lake
Placid Conference on Home Economics. 1901, pp. 101-
103.

Warbasse, J. P. Extracts from a discussion of the education
of girls in domestic sociology and the arts of home-mak-
ing. Journal of Home Economics. 1911, 3, pp. 52-
60.

 

150

West, M. If not why not? Journal of Home Economics.
1920’ $2, pp. 337-3470

Wood, M. Homemaking as a possible profession. Journal of
Home Economics. 1926, 33, pp. 63-67.

 

Wood, M. W.; Lindquist, R. & Studley, L. A. Managing the
home. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1932.

 

Wood, T. D. Some controlling ideals of the family life of
the future. Proceedings of the Fourth Lake Placid Con-
ference on Home Economics. 1902, pp. 25-31.

Wright, G. Building the dream. New York: Pantheon Books,
1981.

Wright, G. Moralism and the modern home. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1980.

Zaretsky, E. The place of the family in the origins of the
welfare state. In Thorne, B. & Yalom, M. (eds.) Re-
thinking the family. New York: Longman, 1982, pp.
188-224.

Zuill, F. Fifty years of achievement in the American Home
Economics Association. Journal of Home Economics.
1959, 33, pp. 519-520.

Additional References: Discursive Analysis

Abel, M. H. Safe food and how to get it. Proceedings of
the Seventh Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics.
1905, pp. 139-140.

 

Abel, M. H. Mrs. Richards and the Home Economics Movement.
Journal of Home Economics. 1911, 3, pp. 342-348.

Abel, M. H. Practical experiments for the promotion of home
economics: The New England Kitchen. Journal of Home
Economics. 1911b, 3, pp. 362-366.

 

Andrews, B. R. Family account boOks. Journal of Home Eco-
nomics. 1916, 3, pp. 545-551.

Andrews, B. R. Third Annual Convention, American Home Eco-
nomics Association. Journal of Home Economics. 1911,
l, p. 1.

 

Cox, L. H. The value of the woman of leisure. Journal of
Home Economics. 1916, 3, pp. 407-413.

 

Dewey, M. The future of home economics. Proceeding of
the Tenth Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics.
1908, pp. 155-158.

 

Dewey, M. Ideals and standards of living for large numbers.
Proceedings of the Tenth Lake Placid Conference on
Home Economics. 1908, pp. 101-105.

Ellwood, C. A. Courses in Sociology. Journal of Home Eco-
nomics. 1911, 3, pp. 44-46.

 

Frost, W. G. The country home. Proceedings of the Tenth
Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics. 1908, pp.
159-161.

 

Gibbs, W. S. The development of home economics in social
work. Journal of Home Economics. 1916, 3, pp. 68-
74.

Glenn, M. W. The significance of the home. Journal of Home
Economics. 1916, 3, pp. 463-475.

 

151

 

152

Goodrich, H. I. Suggestions for a professional school of
home and social economics. Proceedings of the Second
Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics. 1900, pp.
26-33.

Hunt, C. L. Tendencies toward public and private industries
in woman's work. Proceedings of the Fourth Lake Placid
Conference on Home Economics. 1902, p. 56.

Hunt, C. L. Women's public work for the home. An ethical
substitute for cooperative housekeeping. Journal of
Home Economics. 1909, 3, pp. 219-224.

 

Koll, M. Women and present day prices. Journal of Home
Economics. 1920, 33, pp. 75-76.

Larned, L. H. Housekeeping as a profession. Proceedings
of the Third Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics.
1901, p. 109.

 

Lebovitz, J. The home and the machine. Journal of Home
Economics. 1911, 3, pp. 141-148.

 

Macleod, S. J. The household budget. Journal of Home
Economics. 1920, 33, pp. 270-272.

 

 

Mann, A. R. The home and the community. Journal of Home
Economics. 1916, 3, pp. 569-576.

 

 

Nesbitt, F. Cost of living. Journal of Home Economics.
1920, 33, pp. 35-36.

 

Norton, A. P. Domestic science as a social factor. Proceed-
ings of the Sixth Lake Placid Conference on Home Econom-
ics. 1904, pp. 15-16.

Poulter, A. A score card for farm dwellings. Journal of
Home Economics. 1920, 33, pp. 545-547.

 

Report of the Teachers College Conferences on Homemaking.
Homemaking as a centg for research. New York: Co-
lumbia University, 1927.

Reynolds, M. The woman of today. Journal of Home Econom-
ics. 1916, 3, p. 191.

Richards, E. H. Report of Committee on Personal Hygiene.
Proceedings of the Sixth Lakte Placid Conference on
Home Economics. 1904, pp. 64-67.

153

Stanley, L. It convenient kitchen. Journal of Home Econom-
ics. 1916, 3, p. 493.

 

Sweeney, M. E. The president's address. Journal of Home
Economics. 1921, 33, pp. 385-386.

 

Talbot, M. Dormitory life for college women. Journal of
Home Economics. 1910, 3, p. 490.

 

 

Van Weber, A. R. Psychic factors affecting home economics.
Proceedings of the Ninth Lake Placid Conference on
Home Economics. 1907, pp. 148-151.

White, J. M. Requirements of the modern house. Proceedings
of the Tenth Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics.
1908, pp. 107-114. ‘

 

Winslow, E. A. An eXperiment in socializing home economics
education. Journal of Home Economics. 1920, 33,
pp. 26-28. .