The Home Economics Movement: Discrepancies between founding intentions and contemporary internalizations

Abstract

Since its inception in 1909, The American Home Economics Association (AHEA) founded by Ellen Swallow Richards strived to actualize its purpose of “the improvement of living conditions in the home, the institutional household and the community” (Spring, 2018). To the founding home economists, the word “home” seemingly encompassed more than just a physical place of residence. Contemporary discourse on the home and home economics education in the early twentieth-century by these pioneers suggests much broader definitions of these terms than historians have previously acknowledged, definitions that truly aimed to provide a vehicle for women to enter the public sphere and acquire careers in academia and social reform. Many scholars have been rather dismissive of the home economics movement as an expanding force in women’s freedoms. It has long been contended that home economics curricula solidified women as housekeepers and housewives, preventing them from participating in public affairs. Other scholars have recently urged a reconsideration of the movement’s progressivism (Stage, Elias, Seifrit Weigley). These scholars assert that although women’s activities were often ascribed to their femininity, domesticity, and morality, these attributes were not antithetical to women’s involvement in the public sphere. Women’s political activity was actually deeply rooted in domesticity. These scholars contend that the AHEA worked to integrate education on the domestic sciences with professionalism in order to extend women’s reach into public affairs.

Although the intentions of the home economics movement and its leaders may have been progressive, contemporary public discourse and popular press representations of the movement, which are largely understudied, had a large impact on its circulation and legacy. Thus it is important for us to investigate as they can provide insight into why the movement did not propel successfully in the direction it intended. I contend that the home economics movement did aim to extend women’s reach into the public sphere, but was misinterpreted and misrepresented in contemporary discourse. Therefore, the movement suffered in gaining popularity and did not reach its full potential. In this paper, I first analyze the events driving the creation of the home economics movement, including Ellen Swallow Richards and the founding of the AHEA. This information provides background and insight into the exigency of the movement, commenting on its purpose and intentions. I validate scholarly opinions of the movement asserting its progressivism through contemporary anecdotal pieces communicating the missions of founding home economists. Next, I analyze speech proceedings of the Lake Placid Conferences and the AHEA founding and debates on the inclusion of home economics courses in women’s colleges that depict how the home economics movement was contemporarily understood. This will demonstrate a vital element of the movement that greatly hindered its trajectory and created a slanderous connotation. I also analyze published home economics curricula to demonstrate courses were not limited to traditional domestic activities, but truly pursued the municipal housekeeping missions of early advocates of home economics. Finally, I compare the founding intentions of the home economics movement with the realities of what home economics manifested as in schools throughout the twentieth-century, further illustrating public divergence. I argue that this miscommunication of intention between founders and the public may have been responsible for popular dismissive claims of the home economics movement’s progressivism. Because of this, the movement was not appropriately recognized as an empowering force, politicizing domesticity and emphasizing education and professionalism to expand women’s options.