Opening Windows onto Hidden Lives: Women, Country Life, and Early Rural Sociological Research 9780271056654

Citation preview

O p e n i n g W i n d ow s o n t o H i d d e n L i v e s

rural studies series Stephen G. Sapp, General Editor The Estuary’s Gift: An Atlantic Coast Cultural Biography David Griffith Sociology in Government: The Galpin-Taylor Years in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1919–1953 Olaf F. Larson and Julie N. Zimmerman Assisted by Edward O. Moe Challenges for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century Edited by David L. Brown and Louis Swanson A Taste of the Country: A Collection of Calvin Beale’s Writings Peter A. Morrison Farming for Us All: Practical Agriculture and the Cultivation of Sustainability Michael Mayerfeld Bell Together at the Table: Sustainability and Sustenance in the American Agrifood System Patricia Allen Country Boys: Masculinity and Rural Life Edited by Hugh Campbell, Michael Mayerfeld Bell, and Margaret Finney Welfare Reform in Persistent Rural Poverty: Dreams, Disenchantments, and Diversity Kathleen Pickering, Mark H. Harvey, Gene F. Summers, and David Mushinski Daughters of the Mountain: Women Coal Miners in Central Appalachia Suzanne E. Tallichet American Guestworkers: Jamaicans and Mexicans in the U.S. Labor Market David Griffith The Fight Over Food: Producers, Consumers, and Activists Challenge the Global Food System Edited by Wynne Wright and Gerad Middendorf Stories of Globalization: Transnational Corporations, Resistance, and the State Edited by Alessandro Bonanno and Douglas H. Constance Reactions to the Market: Small Farmers in the Economic Reshaping of Nicaragua, Cuba, Russia, and China Laura J. Enríquez Rural Education for the Twenty-First Century: Identity, Place, and Community in a Globalizing World Edited by Kai A. Schafft and Alecia Jackson

julie n. zimmerman and olaf f. larson

O p e n i n g W i n d ow s o n t o Hidden Lives Women, Country Life, and Early Rural Sociological Research

t h e p e n n sy lva n i a stat e u n i vers ity pres s u n i v e rs i t y pa r k , p e n n sy lvania

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Zimmerman, Julie N. Opening windows onto hidden lives: women, country life, and early rural sociological research / Julie N. Zimmerman and Olaf F. Larson. p.    cm. — (Rural studies) Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: “Examines the embeddedness of rural and farm women’s lives in rural ­sociological research conducted by the USDA’s Division of Farm Population and Rural Life (1919–1953). Explores how early rural sociologists found the conceptual space to include women in their analyses”—Provided by publisher. isbn 978-0-271-03728-8 (cloth: alk. paper) 1. Rural women—United States—Social conditions. 2. Sociology, Rural—United States—History. 3. United States—Rural conditions. 4. United States. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Division of Farm Population and Rural Life. I. Larson, Olaf F. II. Title. HQ1420.Z56 2010 305.40973'091734—dc22 2010018350 Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802-1003 It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48–1992.

This book is printed on Natures Natural, which contains 50% post-consumer waste.

Contents

Foreword by Jess Gilbert  vii Preface  xi Acknowledgments  xv

part 1: hidden windows, hidden lives 1 Opening Hidden Windows  3 2 “Agriculture Is Not the Whole of Country Life”  10 3 Women and Rural Society  27 4 Finding Women in the Division’s Research  46 5 The Test of Time  65

part 2: selected bibliography Citations from the Work of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1919–1953  83

part 3: reprints of selected publications 1 Woman’s Work on the Farm (1917)  133 2 The Woman on the Farm (1914)  135 3 Recommendations of the Committee (1919)  138

VI

contents

4 Farm Life Studies and Their Relation to Home Economics Work (1920)  146 Charles J. Galpin 5 The Advantages of Farm Life: A Study by Correspondence and Interviews with Eight Thousand Farm Women: Digest of an Unpublished Manuscript (1924)  149 Emily Hoag Sawtelle

References  187 Index  213

Foreword

The social sciences tend to be ahistorical. Sociologists and others typically seek to explain generalizable social relations, theoretically invariant across time and space, as if the course of historical events matters little. We are especially blind to our own professional and intellectual histories, at best viewing “the past as prologue,” not as operative in our present. Social scientists, I believe, stand to learn a lot from historians about the specificities of stories of success and failure, political timing, and momentous choice points. Historians, for their part, tend toward the opposite dilemma. They are often caught up almost entirely by the particularities of the past, reluctant to use their hard-won knowledge to inform current policy or political decisions. Occasionally, though, a book comes along that is both sociological and historical, achieving the best that these two essential disciplines can offer the academy as well as the polity. Such a volume you now hold in your hands. This third book by Olaf Larson and Julie Zimmerman extends their already important contribution to the history and sociology of rural America. The two previous volumes definitively document, describe, and analyze the first unit of the federal government that was devoted to sociological research: the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1919–1953. Here in their third book, Zimmerman and Larson focus on the Division’s extensive research concerning rural women. And what a treasure trove of research it is. Yet it remains practically unknown to historians and sociologists alike—an ignorance that, at long last, this volume remedies. The subjects of Opening Windows onto Hidden Lives have been doubly underserved. First, until quite recently, rural women have been rendered invisible by historians and social scientists, not to mention politicians and policy makers. Their “hidden lives” lay buried under myths and prejudices, yet they formed the bedrock of rural society. Feminist scholars are now excavating and illuminating the experiences of rural women. But also hidden, secondly, has been the research conducted on, with, and about them by rural sociologists in the early and mid-twentieth century. While not without their own blinders and prejudices, as Zimmerman and Larson elucidate, the sociologists nonetheless attended more to rural women than did any other researchers in the United

VIII

Foreword

States. (The exception was home economists, whose turf battles with the Division are also recounted in the pages to follow.) But hidden no more! Zimmerman and Larson do us the great service of rescuing this valuable but neglected work from government archives and the lonely shelves of land grant university libraries. They even give us five original documents from the emergent years around World War I. I am particularly struck by the last reprint, Emily Hoag Sawtelle’s study of eight thousand farm women’s views on rural life in the early 1920s. After quoting Booker T. Washington and an “eminent American Indian scholar” as well as John and Abigail Adams, she presents women’s voices on their “partnership” with their husbands (a heterosexual representation, to be sure). Sawtelle writes: “We speak of the homestead and farmstead interchangeably because the farm includes the home and the home encompasses the farm.” Here she anticipates some widely touted theoretical discoveries about the family farm (merging production and consumption, household and business) of the so-called new rural sociology of the 1980s. Sawtelle also scooped the parallel “new” rural, or agricultural, social history in claiming the centrality of women in family farming. The notion of “rural holism” derives from the Progressive era, when U.S. sociology was emerging; the USDA established the sociological Division in 1919. The research unit sought an integrated approach to rural life, combining farm, agriculture, and community (in addition to culture, geography, and social psychology). Women were seen as one important part of the whole, compared to the new discipline of home economics, which tended to treat women apart. Team Zimmerman-Larson’s historical sociology traces the continuation of the Progressive, integrated view into the New Deal era and beyond. Like Sawtelle’s family-farm analysis, they forcefully illustrate how the Division’s call for a holistic approach to rural problems, particularly one that transcends merely the economic, rings a contemporary bell today. This book, then, provides a valuable resource for both historians and social scientists who want to learn about rural women in the early to mid-twentieth century. It also aims at rural sociologists who want to know more about their own professional and ideological past as well as historians interested in cultural and intellectual trends. Recently a few historians, as Zimmerman and Larson show, have discovered and employed pieces of the Division’s research. But even these scholars, it’s fair to say, could not have guessed at the depth and breadth of the work done by the Division on rural women. What’s true of historians is even more true of sociologists (rural and otherwise, historical or not). Yet

Foreword

IX

historical sociologists will be especially pleased to see this volume, for it exemplifies the subdiscipline that seeks to integrate the two disparate academic fields. The book itself merges history and sociology. Few of us knew of the riches it presents. Now we hold them in our hands. Jess Gilbert President, Rural Sociological Society (2007–2008) Professor Department of Rural Sociology University of Wisconsin–Madison

Preface

This book is an unanticipated consequence of a project initiated to document and analyze the work of the first unit established in the federal government specifically for sociological research, namely the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This unit, started in 1919 and abolished in 1953, was charged with the study of rural life in America. The project about the Division resulted in two books. The first, Sociology in Government: A Bibliography of the Work of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1919–1953 (Larson, Moe, and Zimmerman 1992c), documented the Division’s publications of all types. The second, Sociology in Government: The GalpinTaylor Years in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1919–1953 (Larson and Zimmerman 2003), was a systematic examination of the Division’s work—the need for it, the problems or issues addressed, the methods used, and the contributions made. In the second book, a chapter was devoted to each of the Division’s major substantive areas of study, such as farm and rural population, levels and standards of family living, locality groups and other aspects of social organization of rural society, and farm labor. Other areas of research that did not merit separate chapters, but were too important to be overlooked, were treated in a chapter entitled “Some Other Areas of Research.” In this chapter, studies of rural women were given primary emphasis. Even so, the section on “The Division and Studies of Women” was less than four pages long. The Division’s research pertaining to rural women was often in the category of “fugitive” literature and was largely “hidden” in research that had another primary focus—that is, the community studies. In retrospect, it seemed that because of the paucity of sociological research on rural women in the first half of the 1900s and because of the important role of women in rural life, scholars and students might welcome a volume that would make the “fugitive” literature more accessible and would create an awareness of the rich information hidden away in unsuspected places. Hence this book. The larger project from which this volume emerged began in the 1980s when Edward O. Moe, then Principal Rural Sociologist with the USDA’s Cooperative State Research Service and a one-time Division staff member,

XII

Preface

discussed some of the Division’s accomplishments with David L. Brown, then Associate Director of the Agriculture and Rural Economy Division of the USDA’s Economic Research Service. Brown, in turn, happened to pass some of this information about the Division’s work on to William V. D’Antonio, who, at the time, was Executive Officer of the American Sociological Association. D’Antonio’s reaction was that the story of the Division was an important chapter in the history of American sociology and should be recorded. Brown followed by setting aside funds to get such a study started, with the idea that Moe, then retired and back in Utah, do the study. Brown and Moe approached me to see if I would be willing to be a consultant for the project. I had been on the Division staff for eight years, 1938 to 1946, during the peak of its activity. I had served on the Washington, D.C., staff and also as leader for the Division in two regional offices, first in Amarillo, Texas, and later in a new office in Portland, Oregon. Further, when at what is now Colorado State University, before joining the Division, I had a cooperative research project with it. And after leaving the Division to go to Cornell University, I continued to have close ties. In all, my involvement with the Division covered a span of about fifteen years. As discussions continued with Brown and Moe about the proposed project, it became increasingly apparent that Cornell was the preferred location, in part because of the depth of its libraries’ collection of the Division’s publications. The result was a cooperative agreement between the USDA’s Economic Research Service and Cornell’s Department of Rural Sociology, with me as principal investigator and Moe in a supporting role. Thus, I had an unanticipated diversion from my ongoing research to take on a project that at the beginning we thought might be completed in a year or so. In the early stages of the work to compile the bibliography, the graduate assistants engaged in this could not continue. They were replaced by Julie N. Zimmerman, who had been newly admitted to the Ph.D. program in Development Sociology. Julie’s contributions and commitment to the project soon earned her the status of coauthor for the project’s major publications. This led to a working relationship and friendship that has continued to the present. Another unanticipated consequence of the original project has been that Julie’s participation in it as a graduate research assistant has led her into an interest in the history of rural sociology and its significance that has been a characteristic of her professional career. As a graduate assistant she had the sociological imagination to recognize that the Division’s research she was documenting included nuggets of information that could be mined about the lives of farm and other rural women

Preface

XIII

in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. Her intellectual curiosity led her to place the Division and its work on women in the context of the Progressive era and to relate it to the home economics movement. Her scholarly persistence over time has resulted in her discovery of little-known inquiries about farm and rural women that preceded the Division. And it has led her to relate the Division’s work on women to the growing literature in the area of women’s studies, which has included studies of rural women. Olaf F. Larson Professor of Rural Sociology Emeritus Cornell University There are moments when a separate preface from each author is called for. This is one of those moments. Born in 1910, Olaf F. Larson is the oldest living member of our national professional organization, the Rural Sociological Society. His professional life spans most of the years of rural sociology and embodies a living history of our field. As a graduate student, he was present at the meetings that led to the formation of the Rural Sociological Society and was acquainted with the first field’s leaders, such as Charles J. Galpin. He went on to work at the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life and, to our knowledge, is one of only a very few persons remaining with this experience. In 1985, he was the recipient of the highest award given by our national society, Distinguished Rural Sociologist. With all of this in mind, it seemed appropriate that he have the opportunity to speak in his own distinct voice. As Olaf said, the project to rescue, document, and assess the work of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life has had unanticipated consequences. My own work on the project is no exception. When I began as Dr. Larson’s graduate research assistant more than twenty years ago, I could not have anticipated my continued involvement with the history of the Division, the blossoming of such a dear friendship, and having such an inspiring and exceptional mentor. Nor could I have anticipated that one day we would come to switch places, with myself being the principal investigator on research concerning the Division and Olaf playing the supporting role. The idea for the current analysis first emerged as I was reading the Division’s research and developing keywords for the first phase of the project: the bibliography (Larson, Moe, and Zimmerman 1992c). I kept noticing many and consistent references to rural and farm women: descriptions of their lives, and data documenting their varied work—in the home, on the farm, and in the agricultural labor force. While women were never the

XIV

Preface

main focus of the research, their consistent inclusion was unexpected and sparked my curiosity. Sixteen years later and with our last book having been completed for several years, one day Olaf called and asked, “How would you like to get into ‘trouble’ together again?” That phone call was all it took. I arranged my sabbatical and set to work on developing this book. Pursuing my initial hunch those many years ago, I delved back into the Division’s research. The inclusion of women in their body of work, I thought, could not have been an accident. Even still, I was surprised at the depth, breadth, and degree to which women were interwoven into the unit’s research. This book gave me the chance to not only examine the inclusion of women, but put it into theoretical and historical perspective. We tend to remember the history we lived. Now I not only have my own years, but I feel a part of these early years of rural sociology. And, because of working with Olaf, these years are not just pages in a book: for me they come alive with people and personalities. To work with Olaf Larson once in a career has been a treasure. To be able to continue that partnership these many years has been a privilege. When I first began work on this project as a graduate student, I had no idea about the history of rural sociology, what the Division was, what it had accomplished, or its role in the development of American sociology or the field of rural sociology. Little did I know then that I would become Historian for the Rural Sociological Society, continue to conduct research on the Division, and, in a way, carry on the torch for this nearly lost piece of our intellectual history. Julie N. Zimmerman Associate Professor, Rural Sociology Department of Community and Leadership Development University of Kentucky

Acknowledgments

Since its beginning twenty years ago, the larger project to document and analyze the contributions of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life would not have been possible without the support of many people. The initial project received funding and assistance from the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; the Department of Rural Sociology (now the Department of Development Sociology) at Cornell University; the Rural Sociology Program of the Department of Sociology (now the Department of Community and Leadership Development) at the University of Kentucky; the Rural Sociological Society; and the American Sociological Association. Yvonne Oliver at Fort Valley State College and our late friend and colleague Edward O. Moe played critical roles in the research, and our advisory group made up of former members of the Division helped guide our first analyses. Since this book would not have been possible without the work to first document and assess the Division’s contributions, we would like to thank all those who supported the project in its beginnings twenty years ago, particularly David Brown at Cornell University, who was so crucial in its initiation. Many have supported our continuing efforts to examine the importance of the Division and this current book project. In particular, we would like to thank both Dean Scott Smith and Associate Dean Nancy Cox of the University of Kentucky’s College of Agriculture, as well as Gary Hansen, chair of the Department of Community and Leadership Development at the University of Kentucky, for providing support and financial assistance so that we could pursue this unique opportunity to work together again. We would also like to thank Clare Hinrichs, the editor of the Rural Studies Series, for seeing this book through even beyond her term as editor; Jess Gilbert, 2007–8 president of the Rural Sociological Society and professor at the University of Wisconsin, for interrupting his sabbatical to write a wonderful foreword; the anonymous reviewers, whose insights and questions were invaluable; and Sarah Michelle Frank for her keen attention to detail in proofreading the manuscript. Finally, a special thank you is needed to the rural sociology graduate students in the Department of Sociology at the University of Kentucky, who listened about a time and place, and place in time, so very distant from their own.

1 Opening Hidden Windows

When historian Katherine Jellison discovered six community studies from the 1940s in the archives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, she described them as “among the first works to offer significant discussions of rural gender roles” (1991, 172). Not apparent at the time, however, was that the studies were but one piece of a much larger body of work conducted by the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, the depth and breadth of which have only recently been examined (Larson and Zimmerman 2003). The inclusion of women in these studies and the significance that ­Jellison placed on them raises important questions. Were these isolated studies? Are there more like them? If there are more, where are they? And, given that this was not a time when social sciences were giving priority to examinations of women and gender, why did this inclusion of women occur at all?

setting the stage The studies that Jellison discovered are known as the community stability/ instability studies. In rural sociology, they became classics and provided a standard for subsequent community research. Since the original studies were conducted, the communities have been restudied, some of them several times (Loomis 1958, 1959; Luloff and Krannich 2002; Mays 1968; Nostrand 1982; Ploch 1989). The sociological research of which the six community studies were part was conducted by the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life. Located in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “the Division,” as it came to be called, was established early in the development of rural sociology and conducted much of the first systematic research on rural America. The unit existed from 1919 until 1953, but despite its importance in the development of rural sociology, the history of sociology’s relationship

4

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

with government, and the breadth of its research, the Division’s body of work has largely remained hidden. In 1986, the invisibility of the Division’s contributions to knowledge about rural life and agriculture and the unit’s role in the development of rural sociology began to change. Formerly on the professional staff of the Division, Olaf F. Larson and Edward O. Moe began a project to rescue the Division’s research and understand its place in the intellectual history of rural sociology and sociology.1 Perhaps it is a testament to the breadth of the Division’s research that despite their former relationships with the unit, both Larson and Moe still underestimated the amount of research conducted by the Division. When the project was first created, a single monograph encompassing both a bibliography and a historical analysis of the Division was proposed. As work to identify Divisionproduced research progressed, however, it soon became clear that the bibliography alone would be book-length (Larson, Moe, and ­Zimmerman 1992c), and it was published separately from the full analysis (Larson and ­Zimmerman 2003). This book builds on the larger project, begun more than twenty years ago, of understanding the research and contributions of the Division ­(Larson, Moe, and Zimmerman 1992c; Larson and Zimmerman 2003). As part of the next chapter and next generation of the story, we examine how the approach that led to the inclusion of women in parts of the Division’s research developed and events that affected those areas of research. Since the initial project focused on rescuing the Division’s body of work and documenting the contributions of the unit and its research, we do not present again the entire history of the unit or the full breadth of its research (Larson and Zimmerman 2003). Instead, we focus on the intellectual genesis and contemporary contributions of this unit of the federal government in order to examine one of the unexpected legacies of the Division: its contribution to the knowledge base on rural and farm women.

1. The first formal proposal for the project was made by Olaf F. Larson, professor emeritus, Cornell University, and Edward O. Moe, former principal sociologist with the Cooperative State Research Service, USDA. Both served in the Division earlier in their careers. Larson worked in the Division from 1938 to 1946. He first served as leader in the newly established regional office in Amarillo, Texas, before going to Washington, D.C., where he conducted major work in rural rehabilitation research. He also served as leader in the regional office in Portland, Oregon. Moe worked in the Division from 1940 to 1942 as part of the staff in Washington, D.C. During this time, his work included the community stability/instability study in Iowa (Moe and Taylor 1942), and he later conducted research for the ­Columbia Basin irrigation project in Washington state. Since its beginnings, the project to rescue the work of the Division has produced several works, including papers and presentations (e.g., Larson, Moe, and Zimmerman 1992a, 1992b, 1992c; Larson and Zimmerman 2000, 2003; J. Zimmerman 1990, 1994, 2004, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2009).

Opening Hidden Windows

5

discovering women When the project to recover the Division’s research began, the first step was to document its products and understand their context and contributions. This was done by first compiling a bibliography of the unit’s work, understanding the changes that occurred in the content, topics, and types of analyses conducted, and developing a contextual understanding of the unit’s thirty-four years. For the bibliography, we developed a system of keywords that best described the main focus of each research product. As we examined every piece of research that could be located,2 the process of generating and assigning keywords for each citation meant reading and summarizing every publication or manuscript. As dominant trends emerged, so too did a curiously consistent pattern of repeated references to women, their work, and their lives. While this was noted at the time, the immediate need to first recover the Division’s body of work and understand the unit’s contributions precluded our examining it further (Zimmerman and Larson 2003, 257–60). In this book, we return to the Division’s body of research in order to explore the pattern of unexpected references to rural and farm women first noticed more than twenty years ago and to ask, are there more? What we found is that there are indeed more. In particular, three areas stood out where women’s lives were embedded within larger studies: the early standard of living studies (Bibliography 3); the social organization of community studies (Bibliography 4, 5, 6); and the hired farm labor and wage rate studies (Bibliography 7). In the Division’s research, rural and farm women were embedded within larger analyses of American rural life.3 Instead of examining the farm in isolation, Division researchers saw that the farm included the home and that women’s lives and work extended beyond the confines of home life. Focused on the social organization of communities, they saw women as contributors to and participants in that organization. And women were documented as participants in the hired and migratory agricultural labor

2. The search to compile a comprehensive list of the Division’s research was extensive. Former Division staff members were contacted, and an advisory committee provided important contacts and information. In some instances, boxes in attics from surviving relatives yielded what otherwise would have been fugitive literature. With new electronic search tools and some luck, we occasionally, if rarely, continue to discover additional articles or publications by Division staff (Galpin 1924c; C. Hamilton 1940; Kirkpatrick, Atwater, and Bailey 1924; Loomis 1940; C. Taylor 1937, 1940a, 1940b). 3. While much of the Division’s research was specific to women on farms, other research was more inclusive, pertaining to both farm and rural non-farm women. Consequently, we often use the more inclusive phrase “rural and farm women.”

6

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

force. Although women were never the specific ­subject of inquiry, the holistic approach underpinning the Division’s research opened room for including aspects of women’s lives and led to the documenting of some of their roles in rural life. The interwoven nature of women’s lives within parts of the Division’s research, we argue, is traceable to the conceptual foundations of holism in the Progressive era, its influence on the formation of the Division and rural sociology, and the coterminous rise of home economics. The resulting approach sought to understand rural social organization as a totality, while leaving the functioning and roles of women within the home to home economics. With their sights set on the whole, women were embedded within the Division’s analyses of farm, community, and agriculture, but they were never the sole or specific focus. While today our attention to women and gender is deliberate, with only one exception (Sawtelle 1924), the Division never conducted research that specifically focused on women. Moreover, any appearance of women does not mean that their lives or perspectives were privileged in the Division’s research. Nevertheless, given that this was a time when the world of women was more often invisible or subsumed within the household, their appearance in the Division’s research was unexpected.

organization of the book For much of history, the majority of the population, and thus the majority of women, lived in rural areas. Consequently, the history of American women is also the history of rural women (Lerner 2004a, 2004b; Fink, Grim, and Schwieder 1999). However, women’s viewpoints and their contributions have traditionally been overlooked in historical accounts, analyses, and theoretical frameworks (e.g., Danbom 2002; Faragher 1981; Scott 1988; Sharpless 1999). This book is about a hidden resource for understanding rural and farm women’s lives. It is about early American rural sociological research in the first part of the twentieth century and how parts of it included women. The basic purpose of our analysis is to understand the inclusion of women in the development of, and the resources included in, the nearly lost body of federally sponsored research conducted by the USDA’s Division of Farm Population and Rural Life. Another aim is to make more readily available this early rural sociological research, which has largely escaped the notice of most writers. Some of this research has remained hidden because women are so embedded in the studies that their role is not discernible on the surface. Some of it is fugitive literature, with only

Opening Hidden Windows

7

a few copies remaining in existence. And some studies are in publications relatively unknown to those in fields outside of rural sociology. We present these untapped and hidden resources within their larger context. In chapter 2, we examine how the Progressive era fueled the development of a holistic approach to rural life and how this informed the establishment of the Division. In chapter 3, we examine what that holistic view meant for the role of women in rural society, the coterminous ­development of home economics, and the influence of these two trends on the approach taken by the Division. In chapter 4, we examine three areas of the Division’s research where women were most consistently included, and the historical context surrounding each. In chapter 5, we provide an epilogue for the Division and place its research in the context of contemporary and historical work on rural and farm women.

opening windows In this book, we seek to open the Division’s body of work as a resource for today’s scholarship on women’s lives. While Katherine Jellison (1993, 2001) included the Division and its research in her analyses, references to the Division’s work in contemporary historical literature on rural and farm women have most often been limited to isolated studies. For example, in her examination of farm women in the South, Lu Ann Jones (2002) references Taylor and Zimmerman’s 1922 study ­“Economic and Social Conditions of North Carolina Farmers,” in which the Division was a cooperator. In her essay on New Mexico farm women, Joan ­Jensen (1991) cites one of the six community stability/instability studies conducted by the Division (Leonard and Loomis 1941). Other examples include Deborah Fink (1986), who references one of the many articles written by the Division for the annual Yearbooks of Agriculture (Baker and Taeuber 1940). She also cites the well-known study by Walter ­Goldschmidt (1947, 1978a), which was conducted during his time in the Division and engendered such controversy that it led to the termination of his appointment (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 50–51; ­Goldschmidt 1978a, 467–73; 1978b). Despite such references to particular studies, the fact that they are part of a much larger body of work systematically examining rural life in the United States has remained hidden. For instance, Rebecca Sharpless (1999) references Lively and Taeuber’s (1939) comprehensive work on migration. Initiated in the rural research unit of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and published through the Works Progress Administration, Lively and Taeuber’s research was the result

8

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

of one of many collaborative agreements with other federal agencies— a significant characteristic of the Division’s work. Sharpless also cites Oscar Lewis’s book On the Edge of the Black Waxy (1948), which was based on one of the cultural reconnaissance survey studies conducted as part of the largest project designed by the Division and was the only one of the seventy-one planned studies from the project that was published (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 104–6). While the social landscape necessary for understanding the whole of rural life included women, and women were seen as one of the many factors contributing to its social organization, the integration of women within the whole also meant that they remained hidden within any particular research project. Instead, studies and publication titles reflect the larger issues being examined. Most often it is not apparent that any particular study conducted by the Division contains information on rural or farm women. To open up access to the Division research, we focused on three research areas where women were most clearly and consistently interwoven, providing citations to them at the end of the book (Bibliography 1–7). The citations are from the full bibliography of the Division’s work (Larson, Moe, and Zimmerman 1992c), but arranged thematically rather than chronologically as in the original bibliography. The reprinted citations are intended to provide a window onto early rural sociological research that included women. They do not reflect the entire body of work produced by the Division, nor do they provide a listing of all research that might have been conducted in a particular area. In addition, not only were other rural sociologists not associated with the Division conducting similar research, but a researcher’s work could continue beyond his or her time working in the Division or association with the unit’s research. For us, history comes alive through the people who created it. The language of the era is very different from the more conversational style of today. Every statement is purposefully included, and each sentence can be replete with meaning. Sometimes ideas or details are left hanging as if they needed no further elaboration or their implications were self-evident. Other times, a statement will read as if leaving it out would somehow have meant leaving the idea incomplete. Because these voices often speak in a style so different from today’s, we wanted to provide easy access to them by reprinting some of the key documents that influenced the development of the embeddedness of women found in this early body of research (Reprints 1–5).

Opening Hidden Windows

9

conclusion Even though the inclusion of women held the potential to offer alternative views, this was not a path taken by Division researchers (e.g., J. Zimmerman 2007). While their integrative holistic approach opened windows onto the complexity of ways in which women’s lives were a part of agriculture and rural communities across the nation, prevailing conceptual models did not address women’s distinctive contributions or experiences. As a result, neither women’s lives nor their viewpoints were used as a basis to critically assess rural social processes or dominant theories. Even though this early rural sociological research does not examine gender as we might approach it today, to dismiss the research altogether risks maintaining its invisibility and that of the women found within it. Instead of using today’s standards to declare the success or failure of this research, we examine how these rural social scientists found conceptual space to include women. At a time that saw the growth of the field of home economics, which focused on a universal and essentialized urban-imagined woman in the home, redefining her role not as producer but as consumer and seeing her housekeeping abilities as evidence and ultimate expression of her innate womanhood, why would these predominantly male researchers include women’s lives in their investigations into rural life? They did so because, rather than separating out economic relations and asserting the primacy of farming as a business, they set their sights on the whole. For them, understanding the social was as important as understanding the economic. And even though they did not accord women any particular or special attention, they did adhere to taking a broad view of rural life. Being true to that view meant examining rural life in its totality. And, for them, the totality of rural life included women.

2 “Agriculture Is Not the Whole of Country Life”

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States was undergoing a marked transformation; moving toward being an industrial and urbanized society.1 Characterized as “a complete and fundamental change in our whole economic system” (Commission on Country Life 1917, 37), concerns grew surrounding a wide range of issues. For rural areas, two were particularly prominent: concern over the ability of agriculture to keep pace with the needs of urbanization, and the causes and consequences of rural outmigration.2 Although land values and agricultural prices were rebounding in the next decade, the agricultural depression of the 1890s had revealed the poor market position of farmers. And, despite the apparent recovery, rural out-migration persisted. As a result, views began to emerge that conditions in rural areas involved more than profitability and agricultural production.3 While industrialization treated farming as a business and 1. The chapter title, “Agriculture is not the whole of country life,” is from Roosevelt’s letter to Liberty Hyde Bailey appointing the Country Life Commission. The letter is included in the Commission’s final report (Commission on Country Life 1917, 42). 2. Of these, concerns over a rural exodus played out in particular, prompting much press coverage. For some, rural migration to urban areas was seen as adding to the already existing concerns about immigrants in urban areas (see, e.g., Lobao 2007, 465–66). For statements and overviews surrounding rural out-migration at the time, see, for example, Kinley (1909), Gillette (1910, 1911a, 1911b), and “Exodus of Farmers” (1908). This era has also generated a voluminous literature. For more of the rural details, see, for example, Bowers (1974) and Danbom (1979). For an extensive listing of the literature on U.S. rural history, see Danbom (2006). 3. For Liberty Hyde Bailey, a leader in the Country Life Movement, concerns about the limits of a productionist approach to understanding what was going on for rural families and the broader impacts of events in agriculture began to emerge in response to the agricultural depression of the 1890s. As Ellsworth noted about Bailey, “[he] was badly shaken when he discovered that his previous preliminary study . . . on the scientific aspects of orcharding, gave not even a single clue to the hard times among the fruit growers” (1960, 158). The importance of social aspects of country life is evident in Bailey’s writings. See, for example, Bailey (1911). See also Larson (1958). In addition to Bailey, other public figures who played similarly important roles included Sir Horace Plunket, Gifford Pinchot, and Walter Hines Page, among many others. See, for example, Galpin (1938a), Nelson (1965, 1969a, 1969b).

“Agriculture Is Not the Whole of Country Life”

11

defined the rural problem as solvable through economics, an alternative approach emerged. Challenging the primacy of economic relations, this view posited that understanding the deficits facing rural areas required examining the social aspects of agriculture and country life—its organization, its institutions, and its people.4 Moreover, the view that farming was more than a business was also consistent with the long-standing tradition of agrarian sentimentalism and romanticism, which many drew on in making their appeals.5 In asserting the importance of social relations, the holistic view of rural life that emerged opened the possibility of considering aspects “beyond economics.”6 It opened conceptual space for seeing the importance of the social organization of the countryside, agriculture, farming, institutions, and communities. In its breadth, it opened room for considering the role of women (e.g., Knowles 1988).7 And, with the Progressive era’s prescribed role for experts, it opened room for the development of the rural social sciences and, in particular, the establishment of the USDA’s Division of Farm Population and Rural Life.

the progressive era and rural holism Fueled by concerns over the effects of industrialization, during the Progressive era many and varied movements sought to find remedies for its ills.8 Shifting coalitions pursued a diverse array of reforms, from politics to corporate taxes to the settlement house movement. Even though these

4. These two opposing views concerning the best way to deal with rural issues are clearly laid out and discussed at length in Sanderson et al. (1927). A collaboration of the American Country Life Association and the American Farm Economics Association, the inquiry was prompted by Kenyon Butterfield and included prominent voices in both organizations and from both viewpoints. These two opposing views also played out in the development of agricultural colleges, as Kirkendall shows (1986). Knowles notes that the “farming as business” approach “crystallized” with the American Farm Bureau (1988, 304). For more on organizing the Farm Bureau, see, for example, Berlage (2001). 5. The phrase “beyond economics” was used by M. L. Wilson in his article by the same title in the 1940 Yearbook of Agriculture (1940). 6. Indeed, appeals to romantic agrarianism are not limited to this time period. As Danbom shows, even today the rhetoric and mythology remains powerful (1991). 7. Knowles argues that this holistic view of rural life was the reason that women’s voices found “significant expression” during this era in the form of various letter-writing campaigns (1988). 8. There are volumes of literature on the Progressive era. For concise historical overviews, see, for example, Buenker, Burnham, and Crunden (1977) and Thelen (1969). For an analysis of the role of women, see Frankel and Dye (1991).

12

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

efforts held some themes in common, there was no cohesive movement that bound all of them together. While urban-based reform efforts are better remembered, rural voices were also growing during this time (Bowers 1971, 1974). Bringing together many of the prevailing concerns about rural areas, the report of the Country Life Commission expressed a holistic approach to rural life. Despite limited support at the time for the circulation of its final report, the Commission reflected prevailing views regarding the problems facing rural areas and laid out a general plan for addressing them.9 Looking back, Ellsworth characterized the Commission’s work as “the first recognition by a federal agency that the production of more excellent citizens on the farm was at least as important as the production of more, bigger and better hogs and cotton, and that the current emphasis upon more scientific production would not solve a host of farm problems” (1960, 155–56). President Theodore Roosevelt specifically charged the Commission to examine the social context and conditions surrounding agriculture.10 Since agricultural productivity was already rebounding after the depression of the 1890s, the problems facing rural life, therefore, could not be limited to the productivity of agriculture. Instead, it reflected an “unequal development of our contemporary civilization” (Commission on ­Country Life 1917, 37). In his 1908 letter to Liberty Hyde Bailey requesting his leadership on the Commission, Roosevelt characterized the “larger problem” as “the social and economic institutions of the open country . . . not keeping pace with the development of the nation as a whole” (41). The idea that the needs of rural America extended beyond what could be solved through agricultural productivity was not only the central focus for 9. Over the years, writers have had differing views on the ultimate impact of the Country Life Commission’s Report (e.g., McConnell 1953; Johnstone 1940; Ellsworth 1960; Bowers 1974; Danbom 1979). These notwithstanding, the Commission’s report was still an important milestone (Peters and Morgan 2004; Ellsworth 1960). As Peters and Morgan state, “It is one of the first high-profile, comprehensive attempts to sketch out a broad-gauge vision of sustainability in American agriculture and the technical, political, cultural, and moral demands its pursuit would make on individuals, professions, associations, institutions of civil society, and all levels of government” (2004, 292). The Commission’s Report is credited with establishing rural sociology (Nelson 1969a; Ellsworth 1960; Johnstone 1940) and the expansion of the Cooperative Extension System, as well as other changes affecting rural areas (Peters and Morgan 2004; Ellsworth 1960; Johnstone 1940). In the late 1950s the Country Life Commission served as the inspiration for a proposal for a second Commission (see Wunderlich 2004). 10. Hooks and Flinn argue that Roosevelt’s charge to the Commission to examine the social aspects of rural life reflected his own uncritical stance toward industrializing capitalism and served the purpose of ensuring that the structure of the U.S. economy was left unchallenged (1981a).

“Agriculture Is Not the Whole of Country Life”

13

the Commission, it also became the basis for the remedies the ­Commission proposed. The chief difficulty or shortcoming responsible for rural deficiencies was “the lack of a highly organized rural society” (19). Consequently, the argument followed, what was needed was a broad consideration of the factors contributing to the social organization of rural life and the “development of community effort and of social resources” (107).11 These views laid the ideological and organizational foundation for the formation of the USDA’s Division of Farm Population and Rural Life.

the whole of country life and the division Even as concerns about rural areas were growing and coalescing, very little was known about the social context or “human element” of farms, agricultural production, or rural social organization.12 As a result, the Commission called for “Country Life Surveys” (1917, 118–20), setting the stage for a systematic study of the conditions of farm and rural life. At the same time, the Country Life Movement was growing, bringing together a “campaign for rural progress,”13 and rural sociology was beginning to emerge as a distinct field of intellectual inquiry.14

11. At the same time that the Commission was conducting its work, so too was a Commission on Agricultural Research of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. This committee recommended that institutions devoted to agricultural research and instruction should embrace “all lines of rural social science” (Association of American Colleges and Experiment Stations 1908, 16). See Pinkett (1984, 367). 12. The phrase “human element” was used by Charles Galpin in his 1920 address delivered at the University of West Virginia, which was later published in the 1948 Galpin memorial issue of the journal Rural Sociology. 13. Holism, or the need to address the whole of rural life, also found expression in the American Country Life Association (ACLA). Building on previous rural conferences, the ACLA was established in 1919 and sought to foster the idea of community across rural interests and for rural improvement. Even the American Farm Bureau, with its clear market orientation, was both a member and a supporter. Key leaders in and above the Division were engaged in the ACLA, were presenters at its annual conferences, were contributors to its publication Rural America, and played key leadership roles in the organization. For instance, Galpin served in multiple roles, including that of vice president under Liberty Hyde Bailey. Carl Taylor was vice president in 1934 and president the following year. H. A. Wallace was vice president in both 1929 and 1930, and M. L. Wilson was president in 1936. For a full history of the organization, which existed until 1976, see Wunderlich (2003). See also Wunderlich (2002). 14. When the Division was established in 1919, the field of rural sociology was still young. In 1915, the first department of rural sociology was approved at Cornell ­University, but it did not become active until three years later, when it was named the Department of Rural Social Organization (see Larson 1968). In 1922, the Rural Section within the ­American Sociological Association (ASA) was formalized (Nelson 1969a, 126–27). In

14

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

One of the common themes of the Progressive era was that experts could and should play a role in the pursuit of a larger public interest—a role well suited for the developing social sciences. One emerging field was sociology, which had recently distinguished itself from economics.15 Another was agricultural economics, within which two distinct views prevailed.16 While some agricultural economists focused on farm management and the productivity of individual enterprises, others looked beyond the needs of individual farmers to their collective relationships (Jesness 1959; H. Taylor 1922, 1959; Taylor and Taylor 1952, 84–98). Both sociology and agricultural economics played critical roles in the development of rural sociology. And it was in this changing intellectual landscape that rural sociology was seen as providing the experts and expertise needed to address the broader needs of country life (e.g., Brunner 1957; McDean 1984; Nelson 1969a; Pinkett 1984). The relationship between the federal government and the need to study the social needs of country life came together when David F. ­Houston became secretary of agriculture. Building on the work of his predecessor, James (Tama Jim) Wilson, who had greatly expanded research in the Department,17 Houston entered his position with the idea that the various functions of the Department needed to be reorganized. As he put it, the USDA needed to see to it that “its policing or regulatory functions do not interfere with the gathering of its information, nor the . . . use of 1937, this section led to the establishment of the Rural Sociological Society. For more details on the events and persons involved, see, for example, Collard (1984) and Holik and Hassinger (1986a, 1986b). For more on the development of rural sociology and some of the persons and issues involved, see, for example, Brunner (1957); Galpin (1938a), Nelson (1965, 1969a, 1969b), and Larson (1958). 15. The first department of sociology was founded in 1892 at the University of Chicago. In 1905, the American Sociological Society was formed as an organization separate from the American Economics Association ([American Sociological Society] 1906). In 1959, concerns over the acronym led to a petition, and the name was changed to the American Sociological Association (Rhoades 1981, 76; Martindale 1976, 125). For more on the relationship between economics and sociology, see Young (2009). 16. The American Farm Management Association was formed in 1910. In 1919, the American Farm Management Association and the Association of Agricultural Economists were consolidated into the American Farm Economic Association. Jesness (1959) characterizes agricultural economics’ emergence as the joining together of many streams and tributaries in a river system and included those from agronomy as well as those from economics. For discussions of the beginnings of agricultural economics, see also Taylor and Taylor (1952), Carstensen (1960), and H. Taylor (1922, 1959). 17. James Wilson served as secretary for three presidential administrations. Rasmussen notes that under Wilson’s leadership, the USDA became “one of the world’s greatest research organizations” (1990, 294). For a brief overview of Wilson’s three terms, see Wiser (1990). In an alternative approach, David Hamilton uses the perspective of state building to consider the history of the USDA (1990).

“Agriculture Is Not the Whole of Country Life”

15

these data” (1914a, 19). Houston also had a distinct interest in the social sciences. His background included political science, economics, and history as well as administrative positions at two universities. As a result, as USDA historian T. Swan Harding wrote, “In general it may be said that Secretary Houston ushered in a period when the Department devoted much more attention than before to broad social and economic issues affecting farmers” (1951, 63). In his first year as secretary, in 1913, Houston entered into an agreement with the General Education Board to establish the Rural Organization Service (ROS), the forerunner of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life.18 Houston described the ROS as the “beginning of most significant things for the rural life of the nation” (Baker et al. 1963, 74). The unit’s work was to focus broadly on the organization of rural interests. This included cooperative activity not only among farmers but among rural residents, as well as “the general organization of rural communities for economic, social and educational purposes” (Fosdick 1962, 57). Because of its focus, the setting up of the Rural Organization Service was seen as a “significant departure” from the Department’s primary focus on agricultural production (Wickware 1914, 468; “To Organize Rural Forces” 1913; Baker et al. 1963, 73). With the Rural Organization Service, a rationale for sociological investigations concerning rural life took shape. Houston wrote, “The emphasis, in the past, has been largely upon improving production; now the time has come to give attention to rural organization. . . . We shall study existing organizations and value them; and then try to bring into active cooperation all that will be helpful in advancing rural life” (Baker et al. 1963, 74). Thomas Nixon Carver, a rural economist from Harvard, was tapped to head the effort, and, after assessing the field, he established a plan of work for the unit (74).19

18. The Rural Organization Service was not supported with federal dollars, but was funded by the General Education Board. Consequently, while it was agreed that its head reported to the chief of the USDA Bureau of Markets, its staff were appointed not as USDA employees but as collaborators (Baker et al. 1963, 74). 19. It is easy to forget just how intertwined and overlapping the social science disciplines were at this time. Though Carver is often remembered today as simply an economist, his orientation at the time was not so strictly confined. “The bent of his mind was sociological as well as economic,” wrote Galpin (1938a, 199). Indeed, Carver was part of the group that organized the American Sociological Society as an organization separate from the American Economics Association ([American Sociological Society] 1906). While at Harvard, he published Principles of Rural Economics in 1911, which contains a chapter on social life. In 1924, he published Human Relations: An Introduction to Sociology with Henry B. Hall and Principles of Rural Sociology with Gustav A. Lundquist. See also Carver (1949), McDean (1984), and Taylor and Taylor (1952).

16

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

Even though the Rural Organization Service was established as a collaboration with the General Education Board (GEB), the GEB’s support was short lived. Expressing “dissatisfaction” with Carver’s “overelaborated” plan and the unwillingness of the ROS to “limit the work as desired” (Fosdick 1962, 58; [American Economic Association] 1914, 762), the GEB withdrew its support.20 The GEB blamed Carver and called the experience “the Board’s only major disappointment in the first twenty years of its activity” (Fosdick 1952, 58). In 1914, Houston took over the unit’s financing and put the work under the direction of Carl W. Thompson (Baker et al. 1963, 74). In 1915, he combined the Rural Organization Service with the Office of Markets to form the Office of Markets and Rural Organization (74). Two years later, the Office was redesignated the Bureau of Markets and Rural Organization (501).21 While the Rural Organization Service initially focused on the organization of farmers, the importance of the improvement of rural life quickly came to the fore (e.g., USDA, Office of Markets and Rural Organization 1915, 14). Publications produced by the ROS and its successor units reflect its continuing broad focus, which included the organization of rural communities and rural interests (Carver 1914a, 1915), the community fair (Moran 1917), women’s organizations (Evans 1918b), establishing rest rooms (places for women to rest) at marketing centers (Evans 1918a), and research on community buildings (Nason and Thompson 1920).22

20. While the General Education Board focused on education, funding Seaman Knapp’s farm demonstration work since 1906 (Baker et al. 1963, 44–45), the work of the Rural Organization Service was much broader. After his arrival, Carver was asked to draw up a plan for the unit for the next year (74). Calling Carver’s plan “overelaborated” and “extravagant,” the General Education Board ended their agreement (Fosdick 1962, 58). In his autobiography, however, Carver notes that tensions began early (1949, 178–79). Today, views differ about the impact of foundations on the development of knowledge forms, particularly the influence of Rockefeller monies (e.g., Bulmer and Bulmer 1981; Platt 1996; Richardson and Fisher 1999; Turner 1998, 1999). One of the dominant arguments is that foundations affected the development of sociology in the United States by favoring quantitative analyses and fostering the development of an elite network, both of which facilitated the growth of scientism. In this light, it is interesting that pursuing a broader focus on rural life meant splitting off the Rural Organization Service from this form of funding. 21. Baker et al. suggest that the Rural Organization Service was the first federal action taken on the findings of the Country Life Commission (1963, 53). Galpin, on the other hand, saw the establishment of the Division as the belated fulfillment of Roosevelt’s desire for a government unit to study the needs of country life (1924a, 1). 22. See Sanderson (1939). The Rural Organization Service is addressed further in the next chapter.

“Agriculture Is Not the Whole of Country Life”

17

For Houston, the problem of rural organization concerned both the organization of farmers and the organization of rural life. In his first “Report of the Secretary” in the 1913 Yearbook of Agriculture, he wrote that “the department has directed its attention mainly to the problem of the individual farmer, and the broader economic problems of rural life have received relatively little attention. It is now becoming clear that we must definitely and aggressively approach these newer and, relatively speaking, urgent problems” (Houston 1914, 26). Under “Other Rural Organization Problems,” Houston also included “The Woman on the Farm” (38).23 Houston held to a holistic view throughout his term, even listing the establishment of the Rural Organization Service among his most important achievements as secretary of agriculture (T. Harding 1951, 64). Houston wrote, “Present conditions, and particularly present states of mind, indicate the need of a fresh, broad survey of rural life, of its special problems, and of its relationships. It should be viewed as a whole” (1920, 58). During his last year as secretary of agriculture, Houston was presented with another opportunity to reorganize economics work in his agency. In 1919, he formed the Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics.24 The reorganization expanded the work conducted, reflected developments in the growing field of agricultural economics, and made the Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics “the general economic organization for the Department” (Baker et al. 1963, 69). The changes also included transferring rural sociology from the Bureau of Markets (70) and establishing a “Farm Life Studies” unit, signaling the institutional beginning of what would become the Division. As was his common custom, Houston formed advisory committees to develop recommendations for the reorganization. The first committee, made up of agricultural and farm economists, included Henry C. Taylor, who was chosen to head the resulting Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics (USDA, Office of the Secretary 1919a). One of the seven lines of work recommended by the committee was farm life studies. On its heels, another committee was formed to outline the fields of study for the Farm Life Studies unit (USDA, Office of the Secretary

23. Discussed further in the next chapter, Houston’s inclusion of women on the farm resulted from a letter-writing campaign. 24. The opportunity came when agricultural economist William Spillman resigned from the Office of Farm Management (Tenny 1947, 1018). Spillman had had deep disagreements with Houston, including over the use of General Education Board funds. For a detailed discussion of this sometimes very public dispute and its consequences for Spillman, see Carlson (2005).

18

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

1919b; Taylor and Taylor 1952, 422). The committee was led by Thomas N. Carver, former head of the Rural Organization Service. The twentyeight-member committee included individuals from within the USDA as well as from land grant colleges and reflected a wide range of rural interests, including rural sociology, home economics, agricultural economics, and the extension service.25 After receiving the committee’s report, Houston acted quickly. Within a week, he formed the Farm Life Studies unit and Charles J. Galpin, one of the pioneers in rural sociology and a member of the committee, became its head (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 11, 21).26 The report for the Farm Life Studies unit contained many issues similar to those brought up by the Country Life Commission, such as the role of the church, education, social organizations, farm labor, and farm women.27 And just as the Country Life Commission had seen the role of the social conditions of rural life as critical, so too did the committee.28 As a result, the focus of the unit and its research was to be on the larger whole of rural life: “if American agriculture is to develop in a large and satisfactory way, the conditions of farm life must improve in many communities” (USDA, Office of the Secretary 1919b, 5). After his retirement, Galpin reflected back on his time in the USDA. For him, the committee’s report not only directed the Farm Life Studies unit but “served as the official charter” for its successor, the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life (Galpin 1938a, 205).29 25. For more details on the two committees and their reports, see Larson and Zimmerman (2003, 18–21). See also Reprint 3. 26. While the work begun in the Rural Organization Service led into the establishment of the Farm Life Studies unit, and Thomas Nixon Carver chaired the committee that determined its scope of work, it was not until Galpin’s unit was established that consistent federal attention to the broader needs of rural life was seen as having begun in earnest. In his article in The Country Gentleman heralding the establishment of the Farm Life Studies unit, for instance, J. Clyde Marquis referred to the Rural Organization Service as “a rather spasmodic attempt” (1920, 48). Marquis also wrote other articles on farm politics for The Country Gentleman, which he edited from 1911 to 1912. In 1912, he also wrote “Social Significance of the Agricultural Press” for the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. He later became chief of the Division of Information in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (see USDA 1927). 27. More details on the inclusion of farm women in the committee’s report are addressed in chapter 3. 28. Similar themes were also evident in the first National Country Life Conference, as well as in Galpin’s survey of rural leaders (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 21; National Country Life Association 1919, 15–24; Galpin and Cox 1919, 94). 29. For an overview of the various forces that led to the establishment of the Division and a full discussion of the report, see Larson and Zimmerman (2003, chap. 2). See also J. Zimmerman (2008a).

“Agriculture Is Not the Whole of Country Life”

19

After chairing the committee forming the Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics, Henry C. Taylor became the unit’s head and his views and leadership would be critical for studies of rural life. Taylor not only saw the value of sociological research, he sought to have farm life studies in his agency (H. Taylor 1992, 144). He also fought to save it from early congressional budget cuts (Galpin 1938b, 44–45). To head the new Farm Life Studies unit, Taylor solicited his friend and former student Charles J. Galpin, even engaging in a sort of bidding war with the dean at the University of Wisconsin in order to obtain him (H. Taylor 1992, 145).30 Years later, Henry Taylor acknowledged that he valued sociological understanding because of his association with Galpin, writing to him, “You brought to me the impulse to see and understand the social side of rural life . . . the complex relations of human beings living in rural areas. Due to your influence more than that of any other man in America, agricultural economics has ceased to be simply a farm economics” (H. Taylor 1948, 129).31 Despite his support for sociological investigations, ironically, Henry Taylor objected to the word “sociology.” Instead he preferred the phrase “rural life,” which was used in the unit’s title for most of its lifetime (123).32 Like Houston and the Country Life Commission, Taylor advocated a broad view concerning agriculture (e.g., H. Taylor 1929). In contrast to those in agricultural economics who espoused a farm management approach that focused on farming as a business and the profitability of individual farmers, Taylor’s approach was “broad and inclusive,” as Penn noted at the time of his death (1969, 1000); he valued rural sociology as well as history and geography, and he always included “those things important to agriculture that occurred beyond “the line fence” (1001). Instead of focusing on the management of individual farms, ­Taylor placed

30. In his autobiographical My Drift into Rural Sociology, Galpin writes that it was his desire to continue working with Henry Taylor that ultimately drove his decision to go to Washington (1938a, 35). Much later, Lowry Nelson honored the impact of their relationship, writing, “If Galpin was the greatest single influence in the early development of rural sociology, his work was made possible by his friend, Henry C. Taylor” (1970, 98). See also C. Taylor (1948). 31. Henry Taylor reprinted the letter he had originally sent to Galpin in 1935 in a special issue of Rural Sociology devoted to Galpin (H. Taylor 1948, 129). 32. Sociologists in the Division often had official titles such as “economist” or “agricultural economist.” C. W. Thompson in the Office of Farm Management and Rural Organization used the title “specialist in rural organization.” It wasn’t until the early 1940s that the title “social science analyst” was used. Done specifically for the Division in 1940, the U.S. Civil Service announced its first examinations for “rural sociologist” (Larson and ­Zimmerman 2003, 22). Describing his time in the federal government, Walter Kollmorgen notes the role of official titles his experience as a geographer in the Division (1979).

20

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

agriculture within the context of “general issues of the rural economy,” which included issues of “rural living” (1001). Henry Taylor’s views were reflected in a 1927 symposium organized to consider the roles of economic and social factors influencing rural progress (Sanderson et al. 1927).33 Taylor advocated that the ultimate goal of both approaches should be better living, which could not, he argued, be obtained only by influencing the profitability of individual businesses and farms. Instead, “whether better income will be built into better living standards depends on the way the income is used” (H. Taylor 1927, 70). Whether on individual farms, within communities, or in the distribution of national income, unless increased profits were used in the “building of higher living standards,” they would be “diffused” and “cease to be available for better living” (71). In 1922, Taylor’s Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics underwent another change when Secretary of Agriculture Henry C. (Cantwell) Wallace established the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE). Explaining the move in his first report as secretary, Wallace wrote, “It is proposed to merge into this one bureau all the forces of the department which are engaged in agricultural economic work. The purpose is to inquire into every economic condition and force” (1921, 17). Even though the BAE was officially created by H. C. Wallace, Henry Taylor played a critical role in its formation. McDean argues that creating the BAE was based on a plan devised by Taylor (1983a, 77–79).34 Concerned with movements by Herbert Hoover, then secretary of commerce, to consolidate economics within his own agency, Taylor worked

33. The symposium was a joint effort by the American Country Life Association and the American Farm Economics Association. For more on the competing moral and economic arguments in agrarianism during this time, see Anderson (1961). After leaving the BAE, Henry Taylor laid out the breadth of his views and the importance of the whole of rural life in achieving “social justice” for farmers and farming in his presidential address to the American Country Life Association. Originally appearing in the October 1933 issue of Rural America, the article is reprinted in Taylor’s posthumously published autobiography (1992, 245–55). Taylor went on to be the first managing director of the Farm Foundation in 1935. While there, he focused the organization on the “broad problems of rural communities” (Penn 1969, 1000). His commitment and concern about the impact and causes that lay outside of agriculture and the farmers’ share of the national income continued throughout his career (e.g., Taylor 1962). 34. McDean argues that Wallace’s role was to enact the plan already devised by Taylor and already approved by Secretary Meredith (McDean 1983a; Tenny 1947; Hall 1983). Meredith had taken over as secretary of agriculture when David Houston left to become secretary of the treasury (see Dethloff 1990). He served for just over a year until Coolidge, the newly elected president, selected H. C. Wallace for the post. For an analysis of the impact of Progressivism’s rural concerns on H. C. Wallace, see Winters (1970). In his more recent analysis, Winters examines the contradictory nature of Wallace’s views (1990).

“Agriculture Is Not the Whole of Country Life”

21

to keep economics in the USDA (McDean 1983a; H. Taylor 1992; Tenny 1947). Describing the BAE, Vaughn later noted that with more than two thousand employees, the unit would be “the largest economic agency . . . in the federal government” (1994, 1319). Within the BAE, the unit that began as the Farm Life Studies unit became the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, which would be its name for most of its lifetime.35 With the creation of the BAE, the work of the previous Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics was elevated within the USDA. And the placement of the Division within the BAE also elevated the status of rural life studies.

support grows Over the years, the position that rural life required a broad viewpoint and that the organization of social relations was important for rural betterment continued to play an important role, particularly for the Division. Progressive-era views combined with new institutions of higher learning to produce what historian Richard Kirkendall calls the New Deal era of the service intellectual (Kirkendall 1966).36 Within this environment, the importance of understanding rural social relations not only received a boost, it was also the height of the Division’s lifetime. A key figure in this era was Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. (Agard) Wallace. Sometimes referred to as the “second Wallace,” H. A. Wallace saw the value of sociological investigations into the nature and role of rural life. In the foreword to the 1940 Yearbook of Agriculture, Wallace wrote, “I should like to think it is a step, even if a halting one, toward that marriage of the social and the natural sciences which I believe can be one of the great contributions of democracy to civilization” (H. A. Wallace 1940, vi). Later, Wallace would be credited with “the lifting of the social sciences to the same level as the natural sciences” (Culver 1996, 25).37

35. The Division of Farm Population and Rural Life was one of seventeen divisions within the BAE (Baker et al. 1963, 500). The unit retained the name Division of Farm Population and Rural Life except for 1939–47, when it was called the Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 21). 36. For Kirkendall, the New Deal was characterized by social scientists who rejected the ivory tower and held that they had an obligation of “active service to their society” (1966, 1). 37. For brief overviews and assessments of H. A. Wallace, see, for example, Kirkendall (1990) and Schapsmeier and Schapsmeier (1967).

22

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

H. A. Wallace not only saw the importance of a broad understanding of rural life, but in 1938 he was responsible for another elevation of the BAE (and with it, the Division) within the USDA’s organizational hierarchy.38 Seeking to provide better coordination for all of the Department’s action programs (H. A. Wallace 1939, 73–76), Wallace’s move ensured that the Division was “strategically placed in the USDA structure to have its social science expertise drawn upon by USDA agencies and by policy-makers” (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 35). This change placed the BAE, and the Division with it, at “the heart of the new Department structure” (Baker et al. 1963, 261). Like H. A. Wallace, M. L. Wilson also saw the need for sociological and other social science research on the pressing problems facing agriculture and rural life (Wilson 1938, 1–7; 1940). Wilson served in numerous roles within the USDA, including that of assistant secretary of agriculture.39 Wilson saw himself as “an economist by training . . . a rural philosopher by nature” (Wilson 1940, 922). Indeed, it was Wilson’s idea to expand the Division’s Washington staff to include other social science disciplines such as cultural anthropology. Together, Wilson and H. A. Wallace fostered an intellectual climate in the USDA that supported and valued the role of social science. In the summary chapter of the 1940 Yearbook of Agriculture, Gove Hambidge reflected echoes of the Progressive era’s holism when he noted that “what seem like separate problems are often found to be only parts of some larger problem; you cannot solve the parts by themselves; you have to work toward a solution of the whole problem” (1940, 3).

the division of farm population and rural life Like its parent unit, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Division focused primarily on conducting research. Henry Taylor, the BAE’s first chief, characterized the major functions of the BAE as “fact finding, information giving, and service rendering” (H. Taylor 1992, 138, 148). Within the BAE, the Division’s specific focus was on rural life.40

38. For more on the elevation of the BAE as well as its new role as the central planning agency for the USDA, see Larson and Zimmerman (2003) and Baker et al. (1963, 260–65). 39. For a full list of the positions held by M. L. Wilson, see Baker et al. (1963, 451). 40. The number of professionals in the Division varied greatly from as few as two in 1933–35 to as many as fifty-seven in 1939–40. From 1939 to 1946 the BAE had regional offices in each of which the Division also had staff. Over the Division’s lifetime, 146 ­different

“Agriculture Is Not the Whole of Country Life”

23

Taylor also believed that as an agency of all the people, the BAE, both the unit and its members, were obligated “to take the national or social welfare point of view, not a purely agrarian standpoint” (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 30; H. Taylor 1992, 147–48). But rendering services responsive to the needs of rural life writ large, and doing so with expertise, also required a broad and systematic knowledge base.41 While growing urban areas were garnering increasing attention from social scientists, rural life was mostly unexamined and rural sociology as an intellectual field was just emerging. As is commonly the case with units of the federal government, the Division did not have a totally free hand in determining its own research agenda. War, depression, and new federal programs all influenced the research conducted by the Division. But the unit did not limit itself to being a servant to the requests it received. Both Galpin and his successor as Division head, Carl C. Taylor, used the Division and its resources to promote and conduct research on rural life and worked to build the larger skill and knowledge bases that they needed. For Galpin, his cooperative agreements with researchers at other institutions played a central role in developing systematic knowledge about rural life. Since at the time there were few funding sources for research, these cooperative agreements stimulated much early rural sociological research (Brunner 1957, 6; Lively 1939, 201). In the Division’s first fifteen years, the list of accomplishments included cooperative research projects with forty-eight different institutions in thirty-seven states (Galpin 1934, 1–2). Later these agreements became referred to as “the Galpin subventions” (Nelson 1969a, 91). Galpin also worked to develop basic data resources on the farm population. At the time, because the decennial census did not disaggregate the farm population, there weren’t even basic demographic data for those living on farms. As Henry Taylor later noted, it was only through Galpin’s “supreme effort” that he convinced the Census Bureau to collect data on the farm population for the 1920 Census (H. Taylor 1939, 701; Galpin 1938b).42

professionals, mostly sociologists, held an appointment for some time within the Division (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 35–39, 283). 41. While there were a few studies on rural communities, as noted in Brunner (1957) and Nelson (1969a), these barely began to touch the depth and breadth that was needed. Moreover, there also needed to be skilled professionals to produce the needed knowledge. Both Galpin and Taylor used the position and resources of the Division to build the capacity of rural sociologists and of rural sociology as a field. For a full discussion of the contributions of the Division in the building of a social science research system, see Larson and ­Zimmerman (2003, chap. 15). 42. The 1920 Census of Population occurred just after the Division was established in 1919. It was because of the special tabulations made by Galpin and Veda Larson (Turner)

24

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

Galpin even funded, through the Division, the publication of the theoretically focused, three-volume Systematic Source Book in Rural Sociology with Pitirim Sorokin and Carle Zimmerman (Sorokin, Zimmerman, and Galpin 1930–32; Galpin 1938b, 59–63; Nelson 1969a, 182).43 Reflecting after his retirement on his time with the Division, Galpin characterized its research as “drillings here and there into the unknown elements of our Nation’s rural life” (1938b, 38). With its limited resources, his Division “smouldered but would not flame” (62). By contrast, his successor Carl Taylor had more staff and funding. Like Galpin, Carl Taylor also held a dual commitment to both knowledge building and discipline building. He also had the unique ability to take a direct request from an administrator and turn the question around so that the research not only provided the information needed by the request but also contributed to a larger understanding of rural life (Larson 2007).44 For instance, when asked by the Bureau of Reclamation to determine the standard of living needed in planning for settlers in the Columbia Basin resettlement project, Taylor refused. Instead, he asked, “What standard of living would settlers demand . . . without which they would be dissatisfied?” (C. Taylor 1947a, iv). By doing this, not only was Taylor responsive to the original request, he was also able to increase knowledge about rural standards of living. In addition to responding to the growing demands being placed on the unit, under Taylor’s leadership the Division also conducted multi-site community studies. His concern over whether the current sociological research was adding up to a larger body of knowledge about rural areas led him to initiate the cultural reconnaissance surveys, the largest multicommunity study ever attempted (C. Taylor 1944). With other researchers in the Division, he also produced an edited volume that brought together much of the research on rural America (Taylor et al. 1949).

that farm population was subsequently included in the county data for both the Agriculture Census and the Census of Population. Their work revealed the high degree of off-farm work engaged in by the farm population and resulted in off-farm work being included for the first time in the 1930 Agriculture Census (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 57–58). It also “represented the first step in including race as a demographic variable in describing the farm population” (Oliver 2003, 172). 43. In his autobiography, Sorokin discusses his work with Zimmerman and on the Source Book, noting that it had been “commissioned through the initiative of C. J. ­Galpin” (1963, 222–23). In his assessment of rural sociology, C. Horace Hamilton called the Source Book a “high point” in the development of the field (1950, 317). For more on the Source Book and Sorokin’s contributions to rural sociology, see T. Smith (1963). 44. This observation is from Olaf Larson, who knew Carl Taylor well.

“Agriculture Is Not the Whole of Country Life”

25

Sociology’s focus on the study of society, its social relations, and its social organization were the Division’s primary conceptual tools.45 Combined with a growing appreciation that problems facing rural areas extended beyond agricultural production to the whole of rural life the result was an approach that addressed the social context and social organization of farms, institutions, agriculture, and communities. In 1929, sociologists Pitirim Sorokin and Carle Zimmerman characterized the field this way: “Rural sociology . . . does not artificially isolate one side of the phenomena from others, and does not treat the objects studied as though they were ‘independent’ from all other forces, factors, and conditions. It studies them in their complexity, intercorrelations, and interdependence with other phenomena” (1929, 9). Indeed, the view that rural sociology was uniquely positioned to consider the social whole continued. In 1946, agricultural economist Marion Clawson reflected that the field’s emphasis on “life as a whole” gave sociology special value and provided it with a viewpoint not held in other fields (1946, 332).46

conclusion The Division of Farm Population and Rural Life was the first unit in the federal government devoted specifically to sociological research and was a leader in the development of the field of rural sociology.47 Over its thirty-four years, the Division served under seven different presidents (both Republicans and Democrats), eleven different USDA secretaries, and seven different BAE chiefs.

45. Hooks and Flinn argue that American sociology’s focus on individualist explanations and social Darwinism, while suited to reform goals, precluded sociologists from seeing and examining political and economic structural issues (1981b, 131–33). 46. While Clawson saw the unique contributions that rural sociology brought, particularly to the Central Valley and Columbia Basin economic planning projects, he also chastised larger sociology for not participating more in interdisciplinary “team” research (1946). 47. The Division played a central role in establishing and building the field of rural sociology. Over the years, many rural sociologists either spent time working in the Division or collaborated in one of its numerous cooperative agreements with colleges and universities. Thirteen past presidents of the Rural Sociological Society spent time in the Division, including the first woman to be president—Margaret Hagood. Carl Taylor (1946), Kimball Young (1945), and Charles P. Loomis (1967) also served as president of the American Sociological Association (ASA) (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 36). Because he was elected president while head of the Division, Carl Taylor was also the first person in a government position (nonacademic) to lead the ASA (Odum 1951, 205).

26

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

The holistic view emerging in the Progressive era laid the conceptual foundation for the Division, serving not only as a source of inspiration but as the underpinning for much of the Division’s work throughout its lifetime. Fundamental to this view was the belief that understanding and improving rural life required more than what economics alone could provide. The era also brought a belief in social scientific investigations and the role of experts, a task the changing federal government positioned itself to do. For the Division, pursuing a holistic approach meant seeing the main features of country life, agriculture, and rural communities as integrated entities adding up to more than the sum of their parts. Thus, instead of agricultural production being separated, the farm was seen as a broader socially based enterprise, and, as such, it included the home. Carle Zimmerman captured this view when he wrote, “It seems silly to make such an obvious remark as that the farm family enterprise is an organic whole, and any attempt to carve it into two parts and study the functionings of these parts separately is bound to lead to unreal conclusions” (1927, 223). Focused on the landscape of rural social relations and social organization, holism provided the opportunity for opening windows onto the lives of rural and farm women. Stressing not only the importance of the social but also the importance of understanding the whole of rural life, it opened room to consider a wide range of factors, including social institutions and daily living as well as leadership and social participation. Seen as a totality, women’s lives were embedded within the social context and organization of agriculture, farm life, and communities.

3 Women and Rural Society

The embeddedness of women in the Division’s research was influenced by two differing perspectives on the role of women. One saw a larger role for women in society but was particular to rural areas. The other, based on an urban Victorian ideal of separate spheres, firmly placed women within the home. These two views were reflected in two distinct trends at the turn of the last century: rural holism and the rise of home economics. While holism saw the home as part of the farm and women as part of the social organization of rural life, home economics focused on the home and women’s relationship to society was mediated by it. In between these two views stood the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life.

women and rural holism The emergence of a rural holism in the Progressive era opened room for seeing and including women in the social organization of rural life. Since the problems facing rural areas were neither reducible to nor fixable by focusing on agricultural production alone, then both the problems and their remedies could be seen as needing to include their social aspects as well. If the farm was not just a business but included the home, then women’s roles could be seen as including the home while also extending beyond it. Moreover, if the whole of rural life required attention, then examining its social organization meant including all of its participants, even women. Liberty Hyde Bailey reflected this view of women’s roles in his chapter dedicated to their contributions and participation in the transformation of the whole of rural life (1911). Tower summarized Bailey’s overall argument concerning women in his review in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences (1912). Among the “means of developing a better country life,” Tower noted Bailey’s argument for “reorganizing the household part of farm life so that woman may be more of a factor in the affairs of her community, and bringing people

28

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

together so that they may act together on questions affecting the community” (1912, 353).1 The Country Life Commission, headed by Bailey, also reflected the view that while women’s roles included the home, they extended beyond it. In their report, the Commission not only considered the role of women, but were explicit in naming and discussing the importance of farm women as contributors in the social organization of farms, agriculture, and communities. They also saw women as having a role in the ­development of rural and country life.2 In summarizing their work, the Commission identified “the burdens and narrow life of women” (1917, 20) as one of the “causes contributing to the general result,” noting that the remedy lay in “a quickened sense of responsibility in all country people . . . in the better safeguarding of the strength and ­happiness of farm women” (23).3 The attention given by the Commission to the role of women could have ended there, with the acknowledgment that they played a generalized role in the issues and challenges facing rural life. But the Commission went further and named “Woman’s Work on the Farm” (1917, 103–6) as one of the six deficiencies facing rural areas that it specifically examined (Reprint 1). The Commission explained their reasoning, they focused on the deficiencies “that seem to be most fundamental or most needed at the present time” (1917, 20; emphasis added).4 1. For more on Bailey and his contributions to rural life, see, for example, Larson (1958). 2. Roosevelt himself may have subscribed to a very restrictive view of women. For example, he wrote in his preface to the Country Life Commission report issued to the U.S. Senate, “If a woman shirks her duty as housewife, as home keeper, as the mother whose prime function is to bear and rear a sufficient number of healthy children, then she is not entitled to our regard” (quoted in Fink 1992, 26). This preface was not in the copies published by Sturgis and Walton in 1911 and 1917 or later by the University of North Carolina Press. Testi, in his analysis of the construction of masculinity in the Progressive era, situates Roosevelt’s views on women (1995, 1524). 3. This is also notable because, after all, the Commission could have achieved the same ends by relying on broad concepts, such as the family, that included women but maintained their invisibility. This was the case in Roosevelt’s second letter to Liberty Hyde Bailey, in which two additional members were added to the Commission. He uses the term “farmers” generically in his letter, specifically noting that this generic term should be read to include “all those who live in the open country and are intimately connected with those who do the farm work . . . in short, all men and women whose life work is done either on the farm or in connection with the life work of those who are on the farm” (Commission on Country Life 1917, 52–53). 4. To accomplish its charge, the Commission conducted the first survey of rural life, sending out 500,000 questionnaires. It also held public hearings in twenty-nine states and utilized personal correspondence and reports from specially held community meetings. Only five months after being formed, the Commission submitted its report (Peters and

Women and Rural Society

29

The Commission justified their attention to women through their holistic approach to rural life: “Realizing that the success of country life depends in very large degree on the woman’s part, the Commission has made special effort to ascertain the condition of women on the farm” (105; emphasis added). According to the Commission, although the role of women might not have been an issue everywhere, since this was often not the case, rural women ought to have specific consideration. One passage from the Commission’s report has been used to illus­ trate that it held to traditional gendered views regarding women’s roles (e.g., Jellison 1993, 3). At one point, the report states that “the routine work of women on the farm is to prepare three meals a day” (1917, 104). But the Commission did not see women’s roles as ending with the home, or their work in the home as existing in a vacuum. It wasn’t just the individual tasks women performed, it was the very routine, the unending “regularity” of women’s work regardless of any other demands on their time, that made their lives “more monotonous and the more isolated no matter what the wealth or the poverty of the family may be” (Commission on Country Life 1917, 104). Because of this, the Commission argued that “whatever general hardships, such as poverty, isolation, lack of labor-saving devices, may exist on any given farm, the burden of these hardships falls more heavily on the farmer’s wife than on the farmer himself” (104). While their roles in the home were part of the whole of women’s lives, the Commission did not limit its sights to the home. In their report, as the Commission discussed each of the six deficiencies they had identified, they also made some recommendations. For farm women, the areas needing help included diet, sanitation, running water, and “mechanical helps” in the home (105). But just as women were seen as a part of the whole of rural life, so too did the Commission’s recommendations include both women’s roles beyond the home and their relationship to larger rural conditions. Thus, the Commission’s suggestions included items such as the need for “the developing of women’s organizations” and “better means of communication” such as telephones and roads (105). The Commission’s attention to “lessening the burdens” of women was twofold: it “should relieve the woman of many of her manual burdens on the one hand, and interest her in outside activities on the other” (105). The Commission, providing relief for women’s home-based duties, would Morgan 2004; Larson and Jones 1976). Despite having conducted the survey, the Commission did not make specific use of the questionnaire’s responses in its report (Larson and Jones 1976).

30

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

allow them the ability to participate more fully in the whole of rural life: “The farm woman should have sufficient free time and strength so that she may serve the community by participating in its vital affairs” (105; emphasis added). In other words, part of the reason the role of farm women needed to be addressed was that women were needed as participants in the larger rural society.5 The Commission’s report also included comments about gender relations. These may reflect the Commission’s holistic view of rural life and rural social organization, or perhaps they were a common theme in the responses the Commission received. In their report, for instance, the Commission disapprovingly noted that “conveniences for outdoor work are likely to have precedence over those for household work” (104). Among the areas needing attention for farm women, the Commission also named “a less exclusive ideal of money-getting on the part of the farmer” (105). The report went on to recommend that “all rural organizations that are chiefly attended by men, should discuss the home-making subjects” because “the whole difficulty often lies with the attitude of men” (106).6 Among the changes needed to address rural conditions, the Commission focused on the larger “corrective forces that should be set in motion,” arguing that there is a “need of a social cohesion operating among all these affairs and tying them all together” (107). For farm women, this meant that, like the other deficiencies, their’s would also not be addressed separately. Instead, the Commission wrote, “relief to farm women must come through a general elevation of country living” (105). The interdependent approach taken by the Commission toward the remedies for rural life stemmed from the view that just as the problems facing rural areas resulted from larger social change, each deficiency or remedy could not be viewed in isolation from one another. Rather, they were all seen as integrated parts of a larger plan needed for rural America. The Commission wrote, “Separate difficulties, as important as they are, must be studied and worked out in the light of the greater fundamental problem” (25). For the Commission, the greater fundamental problem

5. This approach to women as interwoven into the larger landscape of social life may have been uniquely reserved for rural women. In other words, such a role was not explicitly extended or afforded to urban women, particularly with the rise of the doctrine of separate spheres (Kerber 1988). Still, Dye argues that home and community were “inextricably bound together” in early Progressive-era thought (1991, 3). Women’s roles in the community and in reform efforts were seen as an extension of their roles in the home, a view that also influenced their envisioning of the role of the state. 6. As discussed later, while comments such as these about the attitudes of men appeared in other venues as well, they were never used to challenge patriarchy or patriarchal relationships on the farm or in the home.

Women and Rural Society

31

was “to develop and maintain on our farms a civilization in full harmony with the best American ideals” (24). The composition of the Commission has been used to support arguments that they was elitist and focused on serving urban interests (e.g., Danbom 1979). Indeed, the same month that the Commission submitted their report, Charlotte Perkins Gilman criticized women’s exclusion from the Commission’s membership in an article in Good Housekeeping.7 Calling her article and the Commission “That Rural Home Inquiry,” Gilman argued that the “conditions affecting domestic economies in the country, together with the happiness and efficiency of these mothers, wives and daughters, are distinctly the business of women” and that “women must be appealed to direct, as responsible citizens; not studied into and recommended about as if they were part of the live stock” (1909, 120).8 Even though women were not among the Commission members, they still participated in the meetings and forums called by the group. In addition, it may be more notable that despite the lack of women serving on the Commission, the report considered women’s roles at all, much less named women as an integral part of rural life and identified their needs as a specific deficit requiring redress. Because of its inclusion of women, just as the Commission’s report played a key role in shaping future 7. While Gilman called the Commission to task for not including women among its members, her critique both reflected her urban orientation and focused on women’s roles in the home, “the woman’s long defined province” (1909, 120). Arguing that a women’s commission should confer with the State Federation of Women’s Clubs and the National Council of Women, she does not mention the Grange, an important agricultural organization wherein women had full participation (Knowles 1988; Marti 1991). Urban-based views of women are also reflected when, after equating women’s work in the kitchen to a sweatshop that pays no wages (1909, 121), she argues that women should be “free to take up productive labor of any kind preferred” (122), overlooking the fact that farm women were already producing for incomes and participating in farm labor. For Gilman, a leading feminist voice of the time, women’s power and independence lay in their attaining economic independence, something increasingly seen as more possible within the context of urbanization. Farm women were again a topic for Gilman in a 1920 article. Elaborating on her vision for a village-based physical layout for rural areas that she discussed in 1909, Gilman argued that such a plan would solve the “general cause” of all the “troubles” for farm women—loneliness. For an overview of Gilman’s and others views, see, for example, M. Dimand (1995) and R. Dimand (2000). 8. Gilman’s article prompted the magazine Good Housekeeping to make its own survey of farm women, initiating what it called “the first opportunity of farm women of America to make their voices heard” (“Good Housekeeping Commission” 1909, 122). Still, in an editorial in the next month’s issue, the magazine distanced itself from Gilman: “While we cannot subscribe to all details of her plan, nor indorse her every word, we feel her criticism to be a just one” (218). The editors went on to question the Commission’s assumption that farm women’s conditions are “unfortunate,” noting that “farmers live better by far than members of the corresponding classes in the cities” (219). For an in-depth discussion of the Good Housekeeping campaign, see Thierer (1994).

32

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

­ evelopments focused on rural America, so too did it establish that the d role of women must be a part of those developments.

the growth of home economics As the Country Life Commission was assessing problems faced by rural life, the field of home economics was growing and gaining in recognition. In 1908, the same year the Commission conducted its inquiry, the American Home Economics Association (AHEA) was formed, and its professional journal appeared the following year. In 1914, the Smith-Lever Act included home economics by name and provided funding for home economics extension work. The legislation was seen as “the first specific legislation for the home by the Federal Government” (Bevier 1917, 6), and it provided both resources as well as formal recognition that home economics was parallel to agricultural education. A year later, the Office of Home Economics was established in the USDA’s States Relations Service (e.g., Knight 1915). In 1923, the same year that the Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced into Congress, the Office of Home Economics became its own bureau (e.g., Stanley 1923), placing the management of the rural household on the same organizational level as the Bureau of Agricultural Economics within the hierarchy of the USDA.9 Like other emerging social science fields, home economics had its differing factions that changed in prominence over time. Apple and Coleman argue that early home economists saw conditions in the home as dependent on conditions in the community, and so linked women’s role within the home to the need for civic engagement and responsibilities as “members of the social whole” (2003, 104). For some women, such as Ellen Richards, who emphasized the role of chemistry in understanding nutrition, their focus was on scientific knowledge. Seeing home economics as part of a liberal arts education, they were also strong supporters of women’s access to higher education, which was necessary not only for scientific training but for women’s wider participation in society (Apple and Coleman 2003; Stage 1997; Richardson 2002). Like the Country Life Commission, early home economists envisioned that the time freed

9. While the Bureau of Home Economics was on the same organizational level as the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, it did not receive the same amount of funding. As reported in the financial statement in the 1927 Yearbook of Agriculture, the Bureau of Home Economics expended $126,890 for its “regular work” compared to $5,014,293 for the BAE. While not all work of the USDA’s bureaus were limited to “regular work,” this figure is the lowest of any of the USDA bureaus (USDA 1928, 87).

Women and Rural Society

33

up for women by relieving them of some of their endless work in the home would then be available for them to participate in community and social issues (Apple and Coleman 2003, 112). Even as some home economists argued for women’s social participation, others espoused the ideals of an urban-based ideology of separate spheres. This approach saw womanhood in relation to Victorian domesticity, within which women’s power lay in their roles in the home (e.g., Folbre 1991; Kerber 1988; Norton 1979). Focusing on the home as a unit separated it and those within it from community or public affairs. This separation also meant that, instead of focusing on women’s participation in communities, it was argued that women’s time freed up by labor-saving devices should be used for their personal development and individual leisure (e.g., Garvin 1917, 311; Langworthy 1914, 161). At the turn of the century, the joining of home economics with the growing agricultural sciences provided the field with new funding, legitimacy, and opportunities for growth. But it also helped move it from the broad-based liberal arts education desired by early home economists to a vocational field, further facilitating its narrowing focus on the home (Apple and Coleman 2003; see also Powers 1992). Within a division of labor with the agricultural sciences, for instance, Edna White reassured those at the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations that the field of home economics had no intention of being an interloper but instead would focus on that which was already the realm of women—the home (1917).10 Despite the linking by early home economists of women’s education for the home with their roles as community participants (Apple and ­Coleman 2003), the urban-based Victorian-era ideology of domesticity and separate spheres won out.11 Catharine Beecher (1800–1878) became seen as one of the field’s predecessors (Andrews 1912). Opposed to suffrage, Beecher argued that the elevation of women lay within their separate sphere of the home (e.g., Sklar 1973). Consequently, two fundamental concerns became the focus for home economics: “(1) the wellbeing of the family and the home and (2) the education of women for a fixed role in the family as a way of promoting family wellbeing” (Brown 1985, 239).

10. At the time, Edna Noble White was a professor and chair of the Home Economics Department at Ohio State College. The next year, she served as president of the American Home Economics Association, holding the position until 1920. She also served on the committee that laid out the fields of study for the unit that became the Division (USDA, Office of the Secretary 1919b). 11. Early visions of the interconnectedness of home and community were still evident in the 1930s, but became the minority voice in home economics (Apple and Coleman 2003).

34

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

While home economists balked at equating their field with simply cooking and sewing, books and articles methodically addressed the best way to perform a wide range of tasks in the home, including sweeping and dusting, how to set a table for a meal, and ironing clothing (e.g., Van Rensselaer, Rose, and Canon 1920).12 The growing popularity of scientific management in the 1920s provided fuel for home management and a new scientific emphasis for women’s role in the home.13 In the foreword to Christine Frederick’s book Efficient Housekeeping or Household Engineering (1925),14 Harrington Emerson, author of The Twelve Principles of Efficiency, wrote, “The World War was fought with woman’s direct help, women doing the work of men successfully because they followed the labor-saving principles of work established by men. Let women introduce these same principles into the work of the home and, thus, similarly make a success of their work as they have so signally done with men’s work.” Using the same principles of scientific management as in business, home economics sought to give women’s work within the home an authority similar to that of men’s work outside the home.15 Helen Atwater, a key figure in the early home economics movement, described it this way: “Good management is recognized as one of the most important elements of success in business or industry, and is equally important in the success of a home” (1929, 15).16

12. Martha Van Rensselaer was a “pioneer and leader in home economics.” Among her distinguished contributions, she was president of the American Home Economics Association from 1914 to 1916, established the extension section in the national association, and developed home economics at Cornell University (American Home Economics Association 1929, 34). 13. Membership in the American Home Economics Association grew tenfold during the 1920s. Student clubs, nonexistent prior to that decade, numbered 908 by 1929 (Baldwin 1949, 101). It was also during this time that the Office of Home Economics in the U.S. Department of Agriculture was elevated to bureau status. 14. For an extended discussion of Christine Frederick, see, for example, Strasser (1982, 214–19) and Ehrenreich and English (1978, 146–48). 15. During the 1920s, scientific management grew in popularity and was increasingly applied in a wide range of venues, from business to government to education to the home. And it was not limited to U.S. shores. Nolan (1990), for instance, traces the incorporation of scientific management of the household through home economics in Germany during this time. As Ehrenreich and English point out, there were some disagreements on the appropriateness of applying the principles of Taylorism to the household, since the unit was too small and management and labor were one and the same (1978, 146–47). Nevertheless, as in business, scientific management in the household was promoted in books, magazines, advertising, and classrooms as the secret to modernity. 16. For a short biography of Helen Atwater, see AHEA (1929). In 1923, she was the first full-time editor of the American Home Economics Association journal Home Economics.

Women and Rural Society

35

Focusing on the home meant that women’s relationship with (and participation in) the world beyond the home was mediated by the household and their roles within it. This relationship not only brought the science of business into the organization and running of the home, it also meant being an efficient consumer of the increasingly available products of mass production. As a result, instructions for women grew to include how to be effective consumers of products directed at the home or its members (e.g., Friend 1930).17 As the role of science entered the home, it brought greater authority to home economics, increased job opportunities, and increased professionalism for women in the field. As home economics became seen as an area of learning, it also opened access to education for women and girls (e.g., Powers 1992). While some institutions admitted women prior to 1907, that year is generally seen as when graduate schools “opened their highest degrees to women” (Rossiter 1982a, 176).18 And, as Carrie Chapman Catt reminded banquetgoers at the Third Triennial Conference of the Associated Country Women of the World, “the denial of education to women . . . was [because of] the opinion that women’s brains could not grasp higher learning, and . . . [that] learning was inappropriate for women whose God-appointed sphere was subservience” (1937, 221).19

17. Home economics also had a direct relationship with business. Home economists exhibited household equipment at fairs and educated consumers on the value of mechanized appliances in the household. Utilities hired home economists to “calm public fears” and demonstrate new equipment (Goldstein 1997; Strasser 1982, 212), as did banks to advise their clients on household budgeting. From early on, the American Home Economics Association subsidized its journal with advertisements from manufacturers of home-related products. In some cases, home economists educated the “man’s world” of industry. Critical of their role, Ehrenreich and English point out that home economists instructed advertisers on how to reach the female consumer (1978). But the relationship between home economics and business was not seen as one-way. For instance, primarily through their work on textiles, home economists pressured business to standardize their household products. The AHEA and its journal also urged members to support federal legislation such as the Misbranding Bill. Nevertheless, links with business were seen as important in that they also increased employment opportunities for home economists. 18. While women’s colleges had begun to open access to higher education, graduate education remained elusive (see Rossiter 1982a, 1982b). In the late nineteenth century, some colleges admitted women as “special students” in graduate education, but they could still be denied a degree. Moreover, women graduate students had to seek the approval of professors to attend their lectures. Cravens (1990, 132), for instance, argues that Ellen Richards’s shift from chemistry to home economics provided opportunities beyond “serv[ing] ideas to men . . . anonymously” or being isolated to the laboratory. In the end, as Shapiro argues, “domestic scientists gained second-class citizenship in man’s world and died feeling victorious” (1986, 9). 19. Indeed, as Rosenberg details, some in the nineteenth century believed that women’s education damaged women’s reproductive organs and impaired their ability to produce healthy children (1982). In 1926, Scott argued against sociologists who contended that

36

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

Despite its being a “woman’s field,” the rise of home economics provided the prospect of not just attending as students but even being hired by institutions of higher education. The Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing women the right to vote, was ratified in 1920. But the years after World War I also saw an increasingly conservative tone and backlash (e.g., Rapp and Ross 1983, 1986). As a result, while some women’s groups stagnated, others modified their efforts. But it was those that promoted women’s traditional role in the home that grew, followed up with “generous servings” of heterosexuality, family and home, and the companionate marriage (Duggan 1983). Shapiro aptly sums up the era: “The women who chose domestic science had no quarrel with women’s rights, but neither did they have any desire to call themselves feminists. They wanted a career and they needed a cause, but they weren’t interested in breaking very many rules, reordering society, or challenging men on their own turf. What they really wanted was access to the modern world, the world of science, technology, and rationality, and they believed the best way for women to gain access was to re-create man’s world in woman’s sphere” (1986, 9).

rural women and home economics The urban Victorian ideal, focused on women’s roles in the home, found voice in rural policy and action, even as it contradicted the realities that rural women faced. On the farm, work done by women transcended the boundaries of separate spheres. In addition to working within the home, women also engaged in work beyond it, including poultry raising, fieldwork, milking cows, selling farm products such as eggs and butter, and keeping the account books for the farm (e.g., Kleinegger 2001; Elbert 1988; Ward 1920). Farm women were well aware of the multiplicity of their roles and over the years expressed that awareness on numerous occasions, including directly to the secretary of agriculture.20 In his first year as secretary, women’s college education “tends to lower the standard of home life by removing from it many capable women” (1926, 257). See also Hollingworth (1916). 20. In addition to that conducted by Houston, there was also the previous effort by Good Housekeeping (Thierer 1994) and future letter campaigns by the magazines the Farmer’s Wife (Atkeson 1924; Casey 2004b; Lundquist 1923), Farm and Home (Atkeson 1924; Sawtelle 1924), and Florence Ward’s study (1920). Others included the Ladies’ Home Journal in 1909 and Harper’s Bazaar in 1912. For a discussion of these and others, see Kline (1997, 359–67). While letters such as those in the Farmer’s Wife are a form

Women and Rural Society

37

David Houston sent out fifty-five thousand “letters of inquiry” to farm women across the country.21 The letters did not contain specific questions, but “left every woman free to discuss any need which occurred to her” (Houston 1914, 40). Women were also invited to discuss the issues with neighbors and report their concerns as well.22 In his 1913 report on the Department of Agriculture, in the section “New Fields of Work,” Secretary Houston used the letters to argue that “The Woman on the Farm” needed attention (38–41). Drawing on the responses he received, Houston noted that “women want help in practically every phase of home management, from the rearing and care of children to methods of getting the heavy work, such as washing, done by cooperative agencies” (40). He went on to detail other areas that women requested help with, including “increasing the precious personal income which they receive from poultry, butter making, or the garden in their care. Many asked the department to suggest new handicrafts or gainful home occupations, and others seek better means of marketing the preserves, cakes, or fancywork that they now produce” (40). Despite women’s requests for help in areas beyond housekeeping, in laying out the rationale for a new field of work, Houston focused on the home. Requesting congressional assistance, Houston specifically addressed “Home Management,” arguing that “the department believes that intelligent help to women in matters of home management will contribute directly to the agricultural success of the farm” (39). In particular, the area’s focus would be on understanding “domestic conditions,” experimenting with “labor-saving devices and methods” as well as sanitation and diets (39). Even though Houston acknowledged that “the woman on the farm is a most important economic factor in agriculture” (38) and that she cares for field hands, he also wrote that “hers is largely

of ­self-narrative, Casey argues that they are a unique form of narrative compared to that found in women’s diaries (2004a). 21. Fink (1992, 26) notes that it was the effort initiated by Good Housekeeping soliciting women’s responses to questions about their lives, and conducted as a result of Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s criticism of the Country Life Commission (1909), that “prodded” the USDA and led to Houston’s survey. Nevertheless, each of the reports based on the letters attributes the direct impetus for Houston’s survey to a particular letter received by Houston in 1913 (e.g., USDA, Office of the Secretary 1915d, 5–7). 22. In his Report of the Secretary, Houston notes that “time has been lacking for a complete analysis of these letters” (1914, 40). While the letters have been lost, the USDA divided the themes contained within them into four categories and published reports through the USDA Office of the Secretary: social and labor needs (1915d); domestic needs (1915a); educational needs (1915c); and economic needs (1915b). While Jellison refers to these as pamphlets (1993, 190), each report runs one hundred pages long. The letters were also drawn upon in Mitchell (1915). For a discussion, see Jellison (1993, 10–16).

38

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

the responsibility for contributing the social and other features which make farm life satisfactory and pleasurable” (39). Even though women’s work extended beyond the home and women’s letters to Houston requested help for it, the urban model, focused on women’s roles within the home, would prevail. Describing the lines of work for the new Bureau of Home Economics, for instance, the area called the “economic phase of home economics” addressed putting only a monetary value on the housework of women (Stanley 1923, 680), ignoring the economic nature of farm women’s contributions beyond the home. This model was particularly evident in home demonstration and home economics extension (e.g., Jensen 1982; Babbitt 1993; Neth 1995; Sturgis 1986).23 Jane Adams argues that “their domestic ideology was so strong that these home economists failed to perceive the farm home as structurally distinct from the urban home. . . . Despite the centrality of farm women’s commodity production” (Adams 1991, 5). Home economics’ focus on the home also influenced how women’s work “beyond the threshold of the home” was interpreted. For some, relying on an urban-based frame of reference and appeals to uplift, farm women’s work outside the limits of the home represented backwardness (Elbert 1988, 250–51) and was seen as similar to the work of lowerclass women in urban areas.24 In discussing women’s calls for income­producing work, Florence Ward, for instance, noted that the home demonstration agent follows the activities of the farm woman beyond the house “when these contribute to home comfort” (1920, 455). A similar rationale was also used by agents to justify their attention to incomegenerating ­activities—without them, women could not purchase modern conveniences for the home (e.g., Babbitt 1993).25 Women’s work in production and marketing, falling at the margins of men’s work, was also seen as already being handled through male 23. Not only was the model urban- and class-based, it was race-based as well, universalizing white women’s experiences (see, for example, C. Harris 1997; Hilton 1994; Jensen 1986a). Adams argues that it was the very disjuncture between the ideal presented in home economics and farm women’s lives that led to their resistance to adopting fully all of its proscriptions (1993). 24. Uplift as an impetus for home economics work in rural areas was promoted by some but was not necessarily appreciated. In 1917, Edna White began her presentation to the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations by noting that the farm women she knew “were in no need of being uplifted” (1917, 293) and that asking for assistance should not be confused with “reforming scheme[s]” (292). 25. In Jellison’s examination of the role of women in “efforts to industrialize agriculture,” she also argues that while USDA Extension during the twenties was urging the adoption of modern household equipment, the economic and political reality of women’s lives often precluded it (1993, 64).

Women and Rural Society

39

agricultural agents (Ward 1920, 451–52; Babbitt 1993, 86–87)—even if done so in ways inappropriate or inaccessible to women. In response to their requests for help with income-generating work, for instance, women were directed to information and work not developed with their needs in mind, but “primarily for the purpose of assisting those who depend [on such efforts] for their livelihood” (Langworthy 1914, 146). For rural and farm women, the joining of home economics with the world of the agricultural sciences also meant that home economics needed to differentiate itself. In defining its place among the agricultural sciences, instead of arguing that the farm included the home and acknowledging women’s economic contributions to the farm, home economics assured the agricultural sciences that the field would not trespass on men’s authority in the science of farming and agriculture, nor would it challenge men’s authority within the home. As Edna White put it, “Loyalty being one of the chief virtues of the family it is not to be tampered with” (1917, 293). Writing to demonstrate how the USDA already had materials responding to the needs that farm women had expressed in their letters to Secretary Houston, Mitchell said it most clearly: “the Department of Agriculture can not very well interfere with the domestic arrangements of a farm household” (1915, 314).26 Despite the lack of information and the promulgation of urban classbased ideals, at the local level agents were engaging women’s work beyond the home, particularly in the South (Hoffschwelle 2001). While some local programs focused on traditional topics, such as those in Iowa (e.g., Schwieder 1986, 1997), others included poultry raising and income-generating work (e.g., A. Harris 1917; Moore 1917). Moreover, farm women did not passively accept instruction that focused solely on the home (Hoffschwelle 2001). Babbitt, for instance, shows how local women’s insistence on learning about income-generating crafts befuddled agents (1993). This is not to say that all education based on women’s role in the home was of no value. Home economics did offer practical information and education. Some of the new “modern” approaches held tangible advantages, including health care, sanitation, and better nutrition. Labor-saving devices included not only machines such as the fireless cooker but also basics such as a sink with a drain (Kleinegger 2001, 179–80), something Carl Taylor later noted was widely desired

26. While feminists such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman identified patriarchy as key to women’s subordination, the problem for those in the USDA, as Jellison notes, was not patriarchy itself, but men’s failure “to live up to their patriarchal responsibilities” (1993, 18).

40

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

(1937, 198).27 Moreover, home economics clubs provided women with leadership opportunities (e.g., Schwieder 1986; Jones 2002, 15–22). Even though the Country Life Commission had laid out a holistic role for women in the needs of rural life—be it on the farm or in the community—broad arguments would be replaced with arguments for separate spheres of work (and authority) for men and women.28 This meant that the premise that time freed up by labor-saving devices should allow women more time to participate in community life was replaced by calls that women’s newly freed up time should be directed to leisure, recreation, self-development, and a “sense of the higher life” (Garvin 1917, 311; Langworthy 1914, 161). In addition, criticisms of men’s failure to understand that the whole of the farm included the home, such as those expressed by the Country Life Commission (1917, 106), were replaced with admonitions that problems concerning women’s use of income or their lack of labor-saving devices were women’s own fault because they were unable to “develop the right attitude” toward their work (White 1917, 296) and failed to see it in a professional manner (e.g., Garvin 1917, 310). By focusing on and placing women solely within the home, home economics divided the worlds of home work from farm work, with women inhabiting the former and men inhabiting the latter (e.g., Adams 1991; Jellison 1993). Despite the split between the urban ideal and the reality of rural women’s lives, the urban class-based model became the standard and was seen as the route to modernization. Proponents of both viewpoints wanted to reorganize the home. But while rural holism posited a role for women in the whole of rural social organization, it never provided a resolution for its apparent contradiction with the idea of separate spheres. What’s more, appeals to Victorian domesticity were not inconsistent with the moralistic ideals of romantic agrarianism (e.g., Theirer 1994).

27. For a discussion of the effects of labor-saving technology for farm women, see Kline (1997). 28. Agnes Harris used language that resonated with a holistic approach when she explained the role of the home economics county agent to the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations: “Our chief, Bradford Knapp says: ‘There is a striking difference between the rural home and the town home. The rural home is a part, and a very important part, of the organized effort to produce wealth, that is to produce things which can be sold or exchanged for money. The country home is a necessary part of the farm, whereas the town home is not a necessary part of the business in which those who live in the home are engaged’” (1917, 305). While the story Harris shares echoes a holistic approach, and Knapp may have indeed seen the rural home as part of the farm, nonetheless, he adhered to a rather strict gender-based division of labor (Hilton 1994, 118–19), and such arguments were not often heard.

Women and Rural Society

41

women and the division Standing at the crossroads of these two viewpoints was the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life. In developing and elaborating home economics as a field of intellectual inquiry conducted by professionals, home economists “consciously created and defined a place in the new economic order for the private home and for the married women who stayed in it” (Strasser 1982, 245). Yet the Country Life Commission had also named women’s lives as an area needing attention in addressing the whole of rural life. The USDA’s first steps into work that extended beyond techniques of agricultural production were made when Secretary of Agriculture Houston approved the General Education Board’s funding of the Rural Organization Service (Wickware 1914, 468; “To Organize Rural Forces” 1913; Baker et al. 1963, 73).29 Initial descriptions of the Service emphasized the need for farmers to work together and the role of cooperative organizations, particularly in the area of marketing (e.g., Carver 1914a, 1914c). But a broader focus quickly emerged, one that stressed the need for all residents to work in cooperation with one another. In 1913, as the unit’s head, Thomas N. Carver spoke on the role of the Rural Organization Service at the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations (1914b). Carver extended to women his logic concerning the need for associative action, noting how “every mail brings letters” about the concerns of farm women (91).30 In “the social improvement of rural life,” Carver argued that while women were undoubtedly “over-worked” and “their lives worn out in drudgery,” the cause was not reducible to the lack of labor-saving devices (91).31 While such devices could be of help, what was also needed was for women to organize around their own interests. For Carver, one result of women coming together would be to decrease competitive consumption by creating living standards other than life in the city. With the ending of the General Education Board’s funding of the Rural Organization Service, the unit’s work continued in what eventually became the USDA Bureau of Markets. Anne M. Evans, “Investigator in Women’s Organizations,” conducted research on women’s organizations and, after the transition to USDA funding, authored two of the reports

29. More details on the Rural Organization Service are given in the previous chapter. 30. It is likely that he is referring to the fifty-five thousand “letters of inquiry” to farm women initiated by Secretary of Agriculture David Houston (Houston 1914). 31. See also Carver’s speech at the American Home Economics Association (1913).

42

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

produced by the unit. Evans’s first report focused on the extent of rural women’s organizations nationally and their activities (1918b), and her second reported on the role of women’s organizations in setting up rest rooms for women in marketing centers (1918a). When it came to establishing the unit that became the Division, the idea that rural life included women had been evident in the work of the Country Life Commission, as well as in that of the unit’s forerunner, the Rural Organization Service. Moreover, home economics was on the rise, gaining a position within the USDA. So when the committee set about delineating what would be the scope of work for the Farm Life Studies unit, not only were women’s lives included in the fields of study, but, unlike the Country Life Commission, women also had a place at the table participating in the decisions. When Secretary Houston formed his advisory committee to create the Farm Life Studies unit of the Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics, while the Office of Home Economics was part of the States Relations Service, the Bureau of Home Economics was yet to be established.32 Of the twenty-eight members of Houston’s committee, seven were women, including key leaders in home economics such as Florence Ward and Ola Powell, both from within the USDA. Those from land grant colleges included Alice M. Loomis, head of the Home Economics Department at the University of Nebraska, and Edna N. White, who was not only the head of the Department of Home Economics and supervisor of home economics extension work at Ohio State University, she was also president of the American Home Economics Association.33 Laying out their recommendations establishing the unit’s work, the Committee gave rural home life “first place in the [ten] suggested fields of study,” calling the farm home both the “fundamental unit of rural social organization” and “the basis of national welfare” (USDA, Office of the Secretary 1919b, 4, 7; Reprint 3). Under “rural home life,” the Committee separated the work of those in the home (wife and children) from the organization and running of the home itself and called for an investigation into each. In addition to a focus on the home, women’s work both in the home and beyond it was also integrated into the other 32. The State Relations Service was established in 1915 to be the “coordinating agency” between the USDA and state extension and experiment stations (Baker et al. 1963, 80–81). 33. The committee also included Alfred Charles (A. C.) True, a key supporter of home economics (USDA, Office of the Secretary 1919b, 4; American Home Economics Association 1929). In 1917, as bibliographer of the Association of the American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, True compiled a list of published sources on farm women (True 1917), including Paul de Vuyst’s Woman’s Place in Rural Economy (1913).

Women and Rural Society

43

suggested fields of study for the Farm Life Studies unit. This inclusion of women in the new unit’s charge was particularly significant as the 1919 Committee’s report “served as the official charter” not just for the Farm Life Studies unit, but for the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life that followed it (Galpin 1938a, 205). Even though the unit’s charge reflected many of the views of the Progressive era on rural conditions, included a specific focus on women, and echoed the Country Life Commission’s call for surveys on rural life, the Division would still face a key challenge. Although women had been named in both the Commission’s report (1917) and its 1919 Committee’s report (USDA, Office of the Secretary 1919b), home economics was increasingly the intellectual home for inquiry into women’s lives and ­concerns. For Charles Galpin, the unit’s first head, his approach to the conditions and needs of rural life had already included women even before he went to Washington.34 While at Wisconsin, Galpin wrote that women were part of the “human element” of farming and rural life and that they had a role to play in its development. While he focused on women’s role in the home, Galpin expected that if freed from some of the home’s heavy work, women could be “leader[s] in rural social enterprises” and in “the modernization of rural institutions” (1918, 117). At Wisconsin, Galpin also wrote a “forebook” to what was to be an eight-book series on rural life (Nelson 1969a, 38–39).35 In his book, published after his arrival in Washington, Galpin not only allocated a chapter specifically to farm women, but had Mary Meek Atkeson author the first book in the series that focused solely on farm women (Galpin 1924b; Atkeson 1924).36 He even urged those in the newly forming field of rural sociology not to forget the farm home and the farm wife (1917). The fact that farm family living lay “on the borderland between home economics and rural sociology” was not a problem for Galpin

34. Galpin expressed his commitment to the inclusion of rural and farm women throughout his career. Melissa Kirkpatrick reports Galpin’s interest in women’s participation in the 1922 National Agriculture Conference organized by the USDA (1993, 3–5). And while distinctly following romantic agrarianism, Galpin again named the importance of farm women when in 1930 he laid out his “philosophy of rural life” (1948). 35. Nelson notes that while eight books were planned, only five saw publication (1969a, 38–39). 36. For her analysis, Atkeson used letters from farm women from both the Farm and Home and the Farmer’s Wife campaigns as well as her own work published in popular magazines. She also went on to write the article on farm women in the volume of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science entitled “Women in the Modern World” (1929). More about Mary Meek Atkeson is given in the next chapter.

44

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

(1938b, 53–54). Understanding that women played important roles in the whole of rural life, he also understood that there should be a relationship between the growing field of home economics and studies of rural life.37 In 1919, the same year that his unit was established, Galpin spoke at the twelfth Annual Meeting of the American Home Economics Association (Galpin 1920; Reprint 4).38 In his speech, Galpin outlined what would, and would not, be covered in research conducted by his unit. Concerning the farm home, he assured his audience that the unit would be selective in the aspects of women’s lives that would be part of its pursuits: “Farm Life Studies will not undertake to explore the technical aspects of food, dietetics, clothing, household equipment, household work, or household management of the farm home” (1920, 159; emphasis added). Galpin thus distinguished the Division’s focus from that of home economics and emphasized the integrated role of the home within a holistic approach to the social organization of rural life. The areas that the Division would examine included the “social elements in the farm home situation,” the “use and distribution of leisure on the part of members of the farm home,” the “family cycle which is a little larger than the unit usually associated with the home,” and the relationship of the farm home to neighborhoods and communities (159–60). Four years later, Galpin again delineated the relationship with home economics, arguing that rural life can be thought of as “where the farm manager and home manager meet” (Galpin 1924c). Similar boundaries were evident under Carl Taylor’s headship of the Division.39 Twenty years after the unit’s establishment, for instance, the field guide for the community stability/instability studies included women. The guide stated that women’s roles were to be considered as part of the totality of rural life but, “areas of behavior usually ­practiced

37. While Galpin clearly delineated the differences between the two fields, he also sought cooperative relationships with home economics. Indeed, USDA and land-grant college home economists were involved in numerous levels of living studies, especially during the 1920s. Galpin later reflected that he was always confident that both a division of labor and cooperative relationships between the two fields could be worked out (see also Galpin 1924c). 38. It is not clear what in particular instigated Galpin to speak at the American Home Economics Association. The Association had previously sought collaborative interactions with other disciplines, such as economics and sociology (e.g., “Third Annual Convention” 1911, 3–4). In addition, while director of the Rural Organization Service, Thomas N. Carver had also spoken at the AHEA (1913). 39. In his description of the Division for a 1936 issue of Rural America, Manny likewise notes the differentiation in the work conducted by the unit and that of the Bureau of Home Economics (1936, 12–13). Manny served as the acting head of the Division after Galpin’s retirement in 1934.

Women and Rural Society

45

by housewives” were not the focus of the studies (Taylor et al. 1940, 25; see also J. Zimmerman 2007).

conclusion A holistic approach concerned with rural life as a totality, set the tone for much of the work of the Division. Just as the rural landscape included the whole of those living there, so too did the Division’s approach include women: not as a specific topic, but embedded within that larger landscape. As a result, women’s work was included in the Division’s standard of living studies (Bibliography 3), women were named in field guides and included in research on rural community social organization (Bibliography 4, 5, 6), and paid work of women was documented in the hired farm labor and wage rate studies (Bibliography 7). While early home economics linked home and community, the field quickly narrowed. Not seeking to challenge patriarchal relations, urbanand class-based ideals of domesticity focused the field of home economics on housekeeping, cooking, consumption, and child rearing. Within this perspective, women’s relationship to society became seen not as one of direct participation, but as mediated through their roles as consumer and purchaser. Despite the growth of home economics, the Division had been established under the principle that the whole of rural life needed attention and that agricultural production neither explained rural dificiencies nor was alone capable of addressing rural needs. In this context, while women had roles within the home, they were also seen as playing a part in the larger social landscapes that was rural life. Faced with these two divergent views, the Division kept its sights on the larger social whole and left women’s work within the home and to home economics.

4 Finding Women in the Division’s Research

Over its thirty-four-year history, the Division produced more than 1,200 research publications, including 21 books and 234 restricteduse reports and manuscripts (Larson, Moe, and Zimmerman 1992c). This body of work covered forty-four states and thirteen regions in the United States as well as countries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Major areas of research included the rural and farm population, levels and standards of living, services and institutions, the social organization of communities, the sociology of agriculture, and farm labor. The Division conducted applied research in areas such as the impact of the Second World War on rural communities and on social security for farmers, to name just a few. The unit worked with many federal agencies and programs, including the Resettlement Administration and Farm Security Administration’s programs such as the Rural Rehabilitation loan program for low-income farmers, the subsistence homesteads projects, and planning for the Columbia River Basin Irrigation Project.1 Within the Division’s body of research, there are three areas in particular where women’s lives can be found: the early standard of living studies (e.g., E. Kirkpatrick 1923; Bibliography 3); the social organization of community studies (e.g., Bell 1942; Bibliography 4, 5, 6); and the hired farm labor and wage rate studies (e.g., Ducoff and Hagood 1946; Reagan 1946; Metzler and Sayin 1950; Metzler 1946a, 1946b; Bibliography 7). The embeddedness of women is not limited to these areas (Bibliography 1, 2),2 but is most clear and consistent within them.

1. For a full description of the applied work of the Division, see Larson and ­Zimmerman (2003, chaps. 12, 13). 2. For instance, research on the farm and rural family or, at times, research on social participation and rural organizations such as that conducted by Kirkpatrick et al. (1929) also included women.

Finding Women in the Division’s Research

47

situating the division’s research In order to understand the nature of the research conducted by the ­Division, it is important to understand the context within which it was conducted. For the Division, part of that context included its location as a unit of the federal government. This location influenced the Division’s research and the areas within which women were embedded. At times the influence was positive, while at others it was negative (Larson and Zimmerman 2003). While in academia researchers are ostensibly free to pursue their own interests, being a part of the federal government meant that the unit’s work also needed to respond to changing national needs. One such instance came with the Second World War in the area of farm population and agricultural employment (Taeuber 1945, 170–73). In order to understand the labor needs of agriculture, a special appropriation from Congress led to the Division’s studies on the farm labor force, which, among other factors, included information on women (Bibliography 7). Changing national needs also greatly increased the demands placed on the Division. During the New Deal, for instance, Division head Carl Taylor characterized his unit as being “swamped almost to the point of confusion” (1939b, 225). According to a 1942 annual report, “many of the special studies in progress earlier in the year have either been greatly curtailed or abandoned entirely” (USDA, BAE, DFPRW 1942, 15). One of the projects that was never completed was the summary report for the community stability/instability studies (Bibliography 5). As a unit of the federal government, the Division also sought to remain true to both its charge and its mission. For instance, “rural home life” had been at the top of the list of topics for study outlined by the 1919 committee establishing the unit (USDA, Office of the Secretary 1919b). This led to the early standard of living studies (Bibliography 3). The Division’s federal location also meant that the unit needed to be able to respond to the information needs placed on it. For this to be possible, a systematic knowledge base upon which Division staff could draw needed to be built. Indeed, this was one of Carl Taylor’s motivations for examining the social organization of rural communities across the country (Taylor 1944), leading to the community stability/instability studies that Jellison found (1991) and the most ambitious project pursued by the Division, the 71-county “laboratory” study (Bibliography 6). Being a part of the federal government also influenced the environment within which the Division conducted its research. At times, this influence was positive. For instance, Secretary of Agriculture Henry C. (Cantwell) Wallace’s elevation of the Division’s parent bureau, and

48

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

with it the Division, brought new resources. And both Henry A. (Agard) Wallace’s and M. L. Wilson’s support for the social sciences cultivated a strong intellectual climate within the USDA. Later, Walter Kollmorgen, reflecting on his time in the federal government, noted, “For the first time in American history, representatives of the American academic community seemed welcome in Washington to participate in the great debate” (1979, 80). But the political climate, both within and beyond the Department of Agriculture, also curtailed research in the Division. One of the seventyone county community studies became a lightning rod and was used in the larger attack against the Division and the BAE. The result was that in the appropriations bill that followed, in addition to funding cuts, Congress issued a ban on using any of the funds for “cultural surveys” (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 50–53; J. Zimmerman 2004; Kirkendall 1966; U.S. Congress, House 1946).3 Congress’s ban ended the area of research wherein the richest treatment of women was embedded. For the Division’s research, the reconfigured social organization studies that came out of the banned cultural reconnaissance surveys still had women embedded within them, but the focus of the unit’s research changed thereafter.

the embeddedness of women in the division’s research Because the intended focus of the Division’s research was always on the broader landscape—the whole of rural life—women were never examined on their own.4 Instead, they were embedded within larger studies. In three different research areas, the embeddedness of women was particularly clear: the level of living studies (Bibliography 3); the social organization of community studies (Bibliography 4, 5, 6); and the hired farm

3. While this was not the only time the Division’s research met with controversy, it was the most consequential in its impact (Larson and Zimmerman 2002, 49–56; J. Zimmerman 2008b). From nearly its beginnings, Division research encountered challenges. One of the earliest was when Galpin raised the ire of Congress for his research on the use of time on farms, which he intended to be helpful for planning activities directed at farm families. The chair of the House Committee on Printing spoke from the floor, “booming, ‘this is the stuff the Department of Agriculture wants to print. It tells the farmer that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening’” (Galpin 1938b, 41–43). USDA historians Wayne Rasmussen and Gladys Baker later wrote that “of all the Department’s research bureaus, the Economic Research Service and its predecessor, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, have engendered the most controversy” (1972, 77). 4. The one exception was Sawtelle (1924), which is discussed later.

Finding Women in the Division’s Research

49

labor and wage rate studies (Bibliography 7). In different ways, rural and farm women can be found in each of these. Standards and Levels of Living Despite the changing demands placed on the Division over the years, research on standards and levels of living was one of the continuities in its research (Bibliography 3).5 Since the recommendations of the 1919 advisory committee to Secretary Houston put rural home life at the top of the list of topics the new unit should investigate (USDA, Office of the Secretary 1919b), Galpin ensured that it would be the first major area pursued by the Division. Even though research had been conducted on industrial workers and urban residents, the standards and levels of living research conducted by the Division was the first time that living conditions on farms were systematically examined (E. Kirkpatrick 1923, 28–32).6 Building on his dissertation, rural sociologist Ellis L. Kirkpatrick established the research area, led many of its studies, and continued work in it even after leaving the Division. In his first study of family farm living, Kirkpatrick laid out his main argument. Differing from contemporary urban studies, he argued that a family’s standard of life was more than just the amount of goods consumed (5). Echoing Progressive-era arguments that increasing profits did not guarantee how those profits would be distributed, Kirkpatrick similarly argued that the standard of life on farms could not be equated with the profitableness of the farm as a business. For Kirkpatrick, the profitableness of the farm and the consumption of goods contributed to the standard of life only to the degree to which they facilitated and maintained the well-being and advancement of family members (7). As a result, he distinguished consumption and spending for daily living from that directed to other purposes, such as education, “improving their immediate environment,” or using leisure time to participate in community affairs (17). Developing a point system, he sought to describe in detail the physical living conditions, such as the presence of a sink, running water, laundry equipment, systems for sewage, and indoor toilets. He also counted “items of comfort” such as telephones,

5. For a more detailed discussion of this area of research and its contributions to understanding rural life, see Larson and Zimmerman (2003, chap. 6). 6. In 1916, A. C. True compiled a bibliography of literature on farm women (1917). Included in his list are a few publications that examined farm living. However, these were isolated, varied in their particular focus, often occurred in individual states, and were not part of a larger systematic effort.

50

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

musical instruments, and automobiles, as well as the contributions of the farm to family living. He even speculated about how to quantify the labor contributions of women on the farm and set up categories to examine household expenditures.7 Using the methodology he had developed, Kirkpatrick produced scales for different family sizes and the presence of hired labor, and he examined differences between owner and tenant households. Just as Galpin had outlined in his speech to the American Home Economics Association (1920), the Division’s early standard of living research focused on family living as it related to being a part of the farm. Instead of taking the separate spheres approach, which isolated the farm, Kirkpatrick examined the farm as not only being an economic enterprise but including the family living on it. Still, the area of research clearly overlapped with both home economics and farm management and had implications for Cooperative Extension efforts in both areas. Galpin remained true to his word (161); the research was often conducted through cooperative agreements with home economists as well as farm management specialists in agricultural economics. In his first six years in the Division, Kirkpatrick focused exclusively on levels and standards of living, and between 1922 and 1924 he established cooperative projects in eleven states.8 He not only developed the methods used but also broke new ground in statistical analyses in rural sociology (Zimmerman and Larson 2003, 75–76).9 In addition to the work led by Kirkpatrick, Galpin established cooperative projects examining levels and standards of living in at least nine states (e.g., Rankin 1923, 1927, 1931a, 1931b, 1932). As with many of the cooperative projects with researchers at universities, leadership for the project lay with the cooperating university. For instance, early in his years at North Carolina State University, future Division head Carl Taylor led a study comparing homes and home-produced food by tenure and race in the state (Taylor and Zimmerman 1922).

7. At the time, keeping household accounts was not widely practiced. So, in order to determine the use and expenditures in the farm home, he interviewed the women themselves (E. Kirkpatrick 1923, 9). Estimated prices of items purchased (i.e., food, clothing, hired help, insurance, and other items) were gathered, along with estimates of the value of items produced by the farm for home use. 8. In addition to individual reports in each state, these were combined into a single report (E. Kirkpatrick 1926). 9. In Kirkpatrick’s Livingston County study, he went beyond the standard descriptive analyses that relied on tabular numbers or percentages. He also reported results from simple correlations. Larson and Zimmerman note that “this was one of the first times, if not the first, that this statistical test was used in rural sociological research” (2003, 75–76).

Finding Women in the Division’s Research

51

After leaving the Division to join the faculty at the University of ­Wisconsin, Kirkpatrick carried on his work on the standards of living of farm families (e.g., Kirkpatrick, McNall, and Cowles 1933; Kirkpatrick, Tough, and Cowles 1934). By the end of the 1920s, five thousand farm families in fifteen different states had been studied in detail by the Division (Galpin 1929, 73).10 In 1926, former BAE chief Henry Taylor noted that “no single type of rural study has awakened more thought than the study of the standard of living and cost of living of farm families” (1992, 145–46).11 Although the approach changed over time, research on standards and levels of living continued throughout the lifetime of the Division. While early research relied on the family as the unit of analysis and used interviews and farm records to document differences in living conditions, this was replaced with the level of living indexes. Most well known is the work of Margaret Jarman Hagood and her influential aggregate level of living index (e.g., 1943a, 1943b, 1952). The indexes relied on secondary data from censuses and changed the unit of analysis from the family to the county. Using factors such as the prevalence of electricity and automobiles, indexes were developed to assess the level of living for all counties in the United States. While the methodological shift meant that it was now possible to develop indexes for every county, they did not contain the detail found in Kirkpatrick and others’ descriptive data about living on farms. Community Social Organization Studies Just as the farm was seen as including the home, so too were its members seen as coming together to form the totality of rural and community life.12 With greater resources and basic information on rural areas growing, Division head Carl Taylor went beyond the type of locality group ­studies

10. The area had become so popular that in 1931, the BAE librarian developed a bibliography of publications on rural standards of living. In the seventy pages of citations, the Division’s work in the area figures prominently (Bercaw 1931). See also Williams (1930). 11. The area also became popular in rural sociology (e.g., Duncan 1941) and over time developed in directions not taken by the Division (e.g., C. Zimmerman 1936). For a contemporary discussion putting this area of research in historical perspective, see also McDean (1983b). 12. While rural sociologists were initially credited with introducing community studies to sociology and with being the first to recognize “the importance of geographical and spatial relations for social organization on a community scale” (Bernard 1929, 67), few mentions, except for Galpin’s work, are made in a recent history of community research (Williams and MacLean 2005).

52

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

supported by Galpin (e.g., Sanderson 1934) to spearhead a focus on understanding the social structure of communities and their relationships to agricultural and social change.13 With increased resources, instead of cooperative projects, oftentimes Division researchers now served as the principal investigators. While they were not the only community studies conducted by the Division, two major research endeavors formed the core of the area (Bibliography 4, 5, 6). The first of these examined the social organization of six communities across the nation. Chosen to reflect differences in community stability, these have become known as the community stability/ instability studies. The other major project was the 71-county “laboratory” study. Similarly intended to provide an in-depth investigation into the social organization of a community, using a national sample of counties, these became known as the cultural reconnaissance surveys. While the two projects experienced very different fates, aspects of women’s lives are embedded and contextualized as part of their richly descriptive studies of rural communities across the nation. Community Stability/Instability Studies The community stability/instability studies were in-depth ethnographic studies of six communities across the country.14 As Division head Carl Taylor explained in the foreword to the first community report, “The six communities selected for study . . . were not chosen in an attempt to obtain a geographic sampling of contemporary rural American communities, but as samples of, or points on, a continuum from high community stability to great instability” (Leonard and Loomis 1941, foreword). Begun in 1939 and officially named the Cultural, Structural, and Social-­Psychological Study of Selected American Farm Communities (Taylor et al. 1940, i), the project used a multidisciplinary and multi-method approach to understanding community life.15 Combining secondary data, historical narrative, extensive interviews, and partici13. For a discussion of the differences in the community studies conducted under Galpin and Taylor, see Larson and Zimmerman (2003, 95–100). 14. While the project was originally planned to include seven communities, the study in Valencia, New Mexico, was never conducted (Taylor et al. 1940, i). For a more detailed discussion of these studies, see Larson and Zimmerman (2003, 100–103) and J. ­Zimmerman (2007). 15. Of the nine researchers involved in the studies, five were sociologists, three were anthropologists, and one was a social psychologist. While Kimball Young was the social psychologist, titles during this time can cause confusion. Even though trained as a geographer, Kollmorgen was hired in a job line titled “social psychologist” (Kollmorgen 1979, 79).

Finding Women in the Division’s Research

53

pant observation, the purpose of the project was “to investigate the cultural, community, and social psychological factors in land use and rural life, with special reference to those factors which either facilitate or offer resistance to change, contribute to adjustments and maladjustments, and to stability and instability in the individual and community life” (i).16 The six communities chosen spanned the nation and reflected a diverse range of communities. The Old Order Amish in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, reflected the most stable community (Kollmorgen 1942). At the other end of the spectrum was Sublette, Kansas, a Dust Bowl community (Bell 1942). Standing at the center was Irwin, Iowa (Moe and Taylor 1942). The remaining three communities, El Cerrito, New ­Mexico (Leonard and Loomis 1941), Landaff, New Hampshire (MacLeish and Young 1942), and Harmony, Georgia (Wynne 1943), were never given a clear place on the continuum. Not only did each community exhibit aspects of both stability and instability, but two of them contained sub-communities. In Harmony, for instance, the larger community was divided by race. The research and the resulting reports provide rich descriptions of the communities: their history, land use, agriculture, and community life. Stability was determined by the culmination of a wide range of factors, including: the strength of institutions such as the family as a regulatory body or the role of family solidarity (Taylor et al. 1940, 38); the shifting importance from primary to secondary groups and its impact on leadership structures (45); the movement from an agrarian to a market economy and the impact of increasing commercialization (54); the role of value systems that emphasized “hard work, thrift, steadiness of behavior, reliability, honesty, and similar ‘virtues’” (32); the impact of urban influences (63); and individual factors such as levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction and the “changes in the relationships of individual members of the community to each other” that would “affect the personality integration of rural people” (77–78). Any individual feature was not seen as mutually exclusive or in ­isolation. Rather, each factor was seen in relation to its role in ­contributing to, 16. The dual goals of knowledge building while also applying that knowledge are ­ articularly evident in how the findings of each community study were to be interpreted. p For instance, the field guide noted that “an attempt will be made to ascertain the implications of the findings with reference to extension services; agricultural monetary benefits; subsidies, grants, loans, etc.; rural rehabilitation; soil conservation; county land-use planning, and any other service or action programs of the United States Department of Agriculture” (Taylor et al. 1940, ii). As a result, many of the resulting reports make specific reference to these programs.

54

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

or undermining, a ­community’s stability. For instance, in some cases the presence of a radio was interpreted as a positive indication of linkages with society at large (Moe and Taylor 1942, 53; Wynn 1943, 54). In the report on the Old Order Amish, by contrast, the absence of radios was seen as being “helpful, if not essential” in maintaining a “degree of separation with outsiders,” which contributed to their high degree of community stability (Kollmorgen 1942, 94). Radios could also be interpreted in a negative light, as in one instance when they were noted as one of the factors undermining young women’s willingness to adhere to traditional roles (MacLeish and Young 1942, 46). While a holistic approach meant that women were considered a part of community social organization, they were but one element or facet needed in order to understand the whole. The field guide directing the project made it explicit that the role of women was never intended to be a specific focus of the studies. While the guide called for the role of rural and farm women to be included in the investigations, it also specified that “this is not a study of the areas of behavior usually practiced by housewives” (Taylor et al. 1940, 25). Instead, the “ultimate aim” and treatment of any topic area within the studies “should be oriented in the direction of discovering the tendencies toward community stability or instability” (28).17 In all six studies, the roles of women were integrated throughout. For example, the preserving of meats, vegetables, and fruits were to be considered among the broad range of economic techniques followed by the farm, which also included the sale of crops, the use of banks, and the seasonality of income (31). And the prevalence and use of “‘modern conveniences’ in the household” was named as one of the aspects indicative of the overall impact of mechanization (65). Women were specifically named as important in understanding local leadership structures. For instance, investigators were asked to discover, “Can women be as good leaders as men?” (46). In Iowa, this led Moe and Taylor to note, “There is little prejudice against women being active in community matters” (1942, 69). Still, they go on to say that “women have never held offices in farm organizations, except in auxiliary 17. While the male household head was the typical informant, the investigators were not limited to them. The field guide directed the researchers: “Informants are not necessarily restricted to men. A cooperative woman farm operator or school principal will be equally acceptable as a man” (Taylor et al. 1940, 25). It also noted that “where the informant wishes to discuss the answer to a question with some other family member, this should be permitted” (24). In many of the reports, farmers seemed to defer to their wives regarding areas for which they held primary responsibility. However, without the researchers’ field notes, there is no way to know to what degree women were actually used as informants.

Finding Women in the Division’s Research

55

organizations, specifically set up for women” (69). This is in contrast to Bell’s comments about women’s participation and leadership roles in Sublette, Kansas: “The men, generally speaking, try to avoid leadership whereas the women seek it and they are more inclined to try to force their opinions and wishes upon other people” (Bell 1942, 81). All of the reports provide a window onto living conditions, making references to electrification, running water, and the use of purchases. Radios receive frequent comment, especially as being important to women. Phones, though still not widespread, and the role of the car are discussed both as facilitating some facets of community but also in relation to the diminishing importance of visiting for maintaining social ties. Discussions of the changing role of the church in community life often elicited comments about the importance of women in maintaining the institution. Roles and aspirations for youth are discussed, sometimes distinguishing among those for boys and girls. Self provisioning and self sufficing also shed light on the differing degrees to which gardens were used or purchased items relied upon. The embeddedness of women in these larger community studies means that their inclusion can be subtle and sometimes invisible. At times, while the researchers do not specifically mention women, they are clearly referring to them. For instance, in Harmony, Wynne refers generically to families as generating home produced goods: “Some families occasionally make articles of clothing, generally dresses, and some make quilts. A few families make their own laundry soap” (Wynne 1943, 34). Moe and Taylor use similarly broad language without actually naming women: “Washing, ironing, mending, and about half of the baking done by farm families is done in the farm homes” (1942, 43). Because of the variability of both the researchers and the communities they studied, a topic discussed in one report may not be discussed in others. For instance, the movement from home births to relying on hospitals, while named in the field guide, is briefly broached in only one study (Moe and Taylor 1942, 59). Even the same topic can be approached differently, depending upon the researcher. For example, while Bell (1942, 58) discusses the use of gardens in Sublette in relation to the responsibilities of different family members, Kollmorgen contextualizes it in relation to increasing mechanization (1942, 90). The project resulted in six publications, one for each of the communities studied. While a comprehensive comparative report had been planned, it was never completed due to the increasing demands associated with the Second World War that were being placed on the Division. But even without its capstone, the community stability/instability studies found wide use in rural sociology. They provided the standard for

56

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

community research and served as the baseline for future restudies (e.g., Loomis 1958, 1959; Luloff and Krannich 2002; Mays 1968; Nostrand 1982; Ploch 1989). The 71 “Laboratory” County/Cultural Reconnaissance Surveys After the stability/instability studies, and following the same type of research methods, came the most ambitious project conducted by the Division (Bibliography 6).18 It was also one of the studies in the project that engendered such controversy that the project had to be aborted, a direct result of the congressional ban on “cultural surveys.” Intended to be a study of rural life across the nation, seventy-one ­“laboratory” counties were chosen to reflect seven different type-of-farming areas (Raper and Taylor 1949, 330) as well as variations within each. The goal for the project was twofold: “(1) to more systematically build the body of scientific knowledge about rural life in the United States and (2) at the same time to improve the quality of sociological information useful to farm people and agricultural agencies” (Larson, Williams, and Wimberley 1999, 549). The impetus for the large study came from Carl Taylor’s concern that sociological research being conducted at the time was not producing the needed larger body of knowledge about rural areas (C. Taylor 1944). The embeddedness of women in these studies is much like that in the community stability/instability studies. Never a specific topic of focus, women are, however, discussed in the context of the social organization and structure of the community as well as the relationship of farm families within it. For instance, in Longmore and Pryor’s report on Desha County, Arkansas, as part of their study they examined race- and classbased differences among farm families, noting differences in living conditions, diets, and the roles of women and children (1945, 14–18). The researchers found that women and children in upper-class families were not expected to work in the fields. All of these families were white. By contrast, women and children of the other social classes, both white and black, were expected to work in the fields or be hired to work on others’ (17). These differences were all placed in the context of the larger community, one marked by plantations, segregation, and “racial factors” (5). Despite the many geographic locations covered, in the available cultural reconnaissance study reports there is some continuity in references to women. Family relationships, work expectations, and leadership roles in the ­community and community organizations are usually places where information specific to rural women is embedded. But just as the amount

18. For a detailed discussion of these studies, see Larson and Zimmerman (2003, 104–8).

Finding Women in the Division’s Research

57

of information on rural women varied from place to place in the community stability/instability studies, so too does the extent and depth vary in the cultural reconnaissance reports. It was the review draft of one of the cultural reconnaissance reports that affected the fate of the larger project and contributed to the ultimate demise of the Division (F. Alexander 1944). Just as Alexander’s study of Coahoma County, Mississippi, was not the first conducted by the ­Division to describe race-based inequalities (e.g., Doggett 1923), ­neither was it different from the other cultural reconnaissance surveys in the South (e.g., Montgomery 1945; Pryor 1945; Raper 1944).19 Even still, it engendered the most controversy of any research conducted by the ­Division. ­Running counter to powerful interests, Alexander’s research was called “a misuse of public funds,” and the report “an indictment of the ­people of Coahoma County” (U.S. Congress, House 1946, 234–42). In the appropriations bill that followed, in addition to funding cuts, ­Congress issued a ban on using any of the funds for “cultural ­surveys.” As a result, before the first phase of the larger study could even be completed, the project was brought to an abrupt halt.20 The effects of the controversy were felt throughout the field of rural sociology (e.g., Hooks 1983). For the 71 county cultural reconnaissance surveys, the congressionally mandated ban meant that none of the reports were ever published beyond internal working copies.21 Only one reconnaissance study would lead to a publication: Oscar Lewis’s book

19. During the Galpin years of the Division, any focus on race was on the social organization and relations among blacks and black communities (e.g., Doggett 1923). During the Taylor years, however, there was a greater focus on the effects of structural inequality and the relations between blacks and whites. This focus likely reflected his own views, for which he found himself in trouble before coming to the Division (Larson, Williams, and Wimberley 1999). Other reconnaissance reports that examined race included the study of Union County, South Carolina (Montgomery 1945), which described segregation in the courts, residences, eating and entertainment places, hotels, schools, churches, public offices, and hospitals. It also discussed how, with few exceptions, blacks were not permitted to vote. A study of Greene County, Georgia, described how the poll tax and white primaries were used to prevent virtually all poor and black people from voting (Raper 1944). Similarly, Pryor’s study of Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, also reported high levels of stratification and complete separation of the races (1945). In a special chapter, Yvonne Oliver (2003) examines the Division’s research on race and interviews Edward B. Williams, the only African American to serve in a professional role in the Division. According to Williams, “had better use been made of these studies, it may have alleviated much of the tension” that later developed in the 1950s and 1960s (184–86). 20. More on the reaction to Alexander’s draft report is discussed in the next chapter. 21. Many of these reports, each of which was identified as “for administrative use,” have been deposited in the National Agriculture Library (Larson, Moe, and Zimmerman 1992c, xxi) (for a list, see Bibliography 6).

58

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

On the Edge of the Black Waxy (1948). While his book was based on his cultural reconnaissance survey in Bell County, Texas, it was published outside the Division. Still, results from the unpublished reconnaissance surveys did provide a basis for other research within the Division (Taylor et al. 1949) and may have been reconfigured and used as part of the “impact of the Second World War” studies (e.g., F. Alexander 1945; A. Anderson 1945; Dahlke 1945; Frame 1945; Longmore 1945; Lyall 1945; Neiderfrank 1945; Pryor and Vaughan 1945; Raper 1946). Hired Farm Labor and Wage Rate Studies The third area of the Division’s research where women were consistently included was the hired farm labor and wage rate studies. With the Second World War came the need to better understand the labor needs of agriculture. Because of this, Congress made a special appropriation to the Division’s parent agency, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE), to collect, analyze, and publish data on agricultural wages and wage rates. In contrast to previous research on farm labor conducted by the BAE, this research was led by the Division, resulting in one of the unit’s significant areas of research. And it was because of the methods used in these surveys that data were disaggregated by sex and women’s hired labor in agriculture was documented (Bibliography 7). Division staff led the project and authored nearly all of its reports (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 136).22 While other wage rate studies conducted by the BAE used an ongoing questionnaire mailed to crop and livestock reporters, the Division-led studies interviewed about twenty thousand farmers for each of the three national surveys. Because they relied on interviews as their methodology, it was possible to gain more detailed information, which also meant that the resulting data could be disaggregated using a number of variables, including sex. The Division conducted three national surveys on farm wage rates. Implemented in the spring, late spring, and fall, they captured the seasonal hiring of farm labor. In addition, seventy-four local surveys in sixteen states focused on harvest workers in specialty crop areas (e.g., Metzler 1946a, 1946b).23 In addition to the national surveys, and to

22. For a detailed discussion of the development of this area of research and its uses, see Larson and Zimmerman (2003, chap. 9). 23. After these national and special surveys were implemented, the responsibility for ongoing surveys on hired farm labor and wage rates was transferred out of the Division to a statistical division of the BAE. “The transfer coincided with the drastic cutbacks then being experienced by the Division’s budget and staff” (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 136).

Finding Women in the Division’s Research

59

provide ongoing data, an arrangement was further made with the Census Bureau to include questions regarding farm work in the Monthly Report on the Labor Force (known today as the Current Population Survey). This method produced a national sample of about twenty-five thousand households containing individuals who had engaged in the hired farm workforce. As with the national surveys, the data were sufficiently detailed so that they could be disaggregated by a number of variables, including age, race, and sex. The 1945 national and special wage surveys produced a large number of reports.24 Data on women are often included in the tables, documenting differences in the labor and wages among men and women in a particular area. Especially in the major reports, differences between men and women are also discussed in the accompanying analysis. For instance, in their regional comparisons, Ducoff and Reagan (1946) find that wage rates were higher for men than for women in the Cotton Belt. Women are also included in Reagan’s analysis of perquisites (noncash benefits such as a room, meals, garden space, and other items) (1946). And, in addition to the individual reports, the summary analysis of thirty-three of the seventy-four local surveys focused on harvest workers in specialty crop areas also reports differences by sex (Ducoff and Persh 1946). The survey data from the Census Bureau provided ongoing data on the hired farm labor force and for analyses disaggregating, among other variables, by sex. For instance, using the national survey of about twentyfive thousand households, the summary analysis describes in detail the employment and wages of the hired farm workforce (Ducoff and Hagood 1946). Among their many findings, Ducoff and Hagood note that while the majority of the labor force was men, women formed a distinct group within it. For instance, women and girls were disproportionately found among the younger age groups (1946, 6) and were paid less than men (1946, 9). In 1945, the national average daily wage for women was $2.40, compared with $3.10 for men. As the authors note, this could be because a larger proportion of women were in the South, where all wages were lower. But the discrepancy held even for short-time workers. Usually seasonal and working less than one month, women earned on average $2.80 a day, compared to $5.00 for men. For those working one to six months, women averaged $2.70 a day, compared to $3.55 for men (1946, 9).

24. In the bibliography documenting the work of the Division (Larson, Moe, and ­ immerman 1992c), the keyword “Farm Wage Rates” is used for forty-one different Z research publications.

60

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

Several other analyses in this area are significant. Ducoff’s analysis of the migratory farm workers, for instance, was the first to provide detailed comparisons between migratory farm labor and other hired farm labor (1950). He examined differences in the two labor forces by a variety of variables, one of which was sex. By doing so, Ducoff found, for example, that women comprised a larger proportion of the migratory farm labor force than of other hired farm labor (1950, 3). He also found that the median age of men in the migratory labor force was younger than that of the women (1950, 4). A special analysis of California’s San Joaquin Valley was also unique (Metzler and Sayin 1950). Faced with sampling and interviewing challenges, this research focused on the household rather than individual workers. As a result, detailed information on farm and nonfarm work was obtained for every household member, including women. While farm and hired labor was an ongoing area of research for the Division from nearly its beginning, it was the special congressional appropriation that led to the large hired farm labor and wage rate studies. Indeed, it was not until these national surveys that any attempt had ever been made to get a national count of migratory farm workers (Ducoff 1951, 218). While at the time the role of women was not examined in great detail, today these analyses and reports open a window onto the hired work of women in agriculture across the nation.

the singular exception Being embedded as one aspect of the whole of rural life meant that women were never the sole focus for the Division’s research. In its thirtyfour years, there was only one exception: Emily Hoag Sawtelle’s 1924 draft report “The Advantages of Farm Life: A Study by Correspondence and Interviews with Eight Thousand Farm Women” (Reprint 5).25 There is no evidence, however, that a final report was ever formally published. Sawtelle’s research was based on visits with farm women as well as an examination of letters elicited by two magazine articles. The first set 25. Emily Hoag Sawtelle, a former graduate student of Galpin, was one of two women he recruited to Washington when he set up the Farm Life Studies unit. While she lists her last name as Hoag in her earlier report on migration (1921), in her unpublished report she lists her name as Emily Hoag Sawtelle (1924), an indication that she married during her time working in the Division. A year or two after writing “The Advantages of Farm Life,” Emily Hoag Sawtelle left the Division, it is believed that she may have returned to Wisconsin.

Finding Women in the Division’s Research

61

was in response to the article “The Women God Forgot,” published in Farm and Home in 1920. The other set was seven thousand letters from farm women responding to the question “Do you want your daughter to marry a farmer?” posed in the Farmer’s Wife in 1922. Sawtelle’s analysis relied extensively on quotes and covered all “sides” of women’s lives— the work side, the social side, and the home side (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 259). It is not clear why Sawtelle’s report was never published. It could be significant that Mary Meek Atkeson’s The Woman on the Farm (1924) was published the same year.26 Atkeson’s work was part of the book series Galpin initiated before going to Washington (Nelson 1969, 38–39). While Atkeson acknowledges Galpin’s role in providing her access to materials, she makes no other reference suggesting that the book had any formal connection with the Division. Although Atkeson relied on letters from the same sources that Sawtelle used, the two analyses are distinctly different. Sawtelle’s, which draws upon interviews as well as letters, was intended to be a researchbased report. She also chose a different approach. For instance, instead of beginning with the traditional focus on the home, Sawtelle focuses on women’s work on the farm as a whole, often echoing themes of being a partner in the larger enterprise that linked home and farm. Likewise, Sawtelle refers to work in the home as “working conditions.” And while women did have primary responsibility for the farm home, when she discusses the role of increased use of modern conveniences, Sawtelle reflects on the interconnectivity of gender roles on the farm (1924, 12). Later in the report, when she specifically focuses on the farm home, instead of treating it as a separate sphere, she considers it in relation to the farm as a whole. By contrast, Atkeson’s book was intended for a general audience. This was the case for all of the books in the series, as Galpin held a particular interest in combating the negative images of rural areas pervasive at the time (Galpin 1938a, 48). Consequently, Atkeson’s approach differs from that of Sawtelle. In addition to following a framework more familiar in the popular press at the time, she also relied on her own earlier works

26. Mary Meek Atkeson earned her Ph.D. from Ohio State University in 1919 and taught English at the University of Missouri and West Virginia University. While she is remembered today mostly for her novels and plays, she also published commentaries. Atkeson also coauthored a book with her father, Thomas Clark Atkeson, a professor and university administrator in West Virginia who was prominent in the National Grange. The book was published three years after his death in 1935. His prominence and Mary’s relationship to him are sometimes noted by editors in her magazine articles (e.g., Atkeson 1921, 27).

62

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

published in leading magazines.27 Although Rexford Tugwell’s review of The Woman on the Farm criticized Atkeson for her romanticism (1925), the fact that she also went on to be the writer on farm women for the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (1929) is evidence of her popularity and visibility. While Sawtelle’s report was never formally published, it did not go unnoticed. For instance, Sorokin and Zimmerman cited it in their Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology (1929), and nearly a decade after it was written, Carl Taylor continued to cite it in his textbook (1933). Even today, Emily Hoag Sawtelle’s report on farm women endures as a resource to which scholars turn (e.g., Jellison 1993; Neth 1995).

conclusion Over the more than three decades of its life, the Division was a central force in establishing and building systematic research on rural life and a leader in the development of rural sociology. Its staff often moved between the unit and academic positions, further solidifying linkages between the Division and the larger field of rural sociology. Nearly 150 professionals spent time working in the Division, and today their names read like “a Who’s Who of Sociology, Rural Sociology, Economics, and Demography” (Levine and Zuiches 2003, ix). The interconnectedness between the Division and the field of rural sociology meant that just as the Division’s research reflected some of the field’s trends, so too were similar topics pursued by others—most often in land grant universities. For instance, W. A. Anderson’s study of varying levels of social participation based on religious affiliation, published in Rural Sociology, examines differences in the social participation of husbands and wives (1944). Before joining the Division’s professional staff, Frank D. Alexander examined tenancy in McNairy County, Tennessee. In an article published in the journal Social Forces, he devoted an entire section to the “Work of Wives” (1940, 394–95). Areas of research also often extended beyond any particular person’s time in the Division, as with Kirkpatrick. Even for those who were not

27. In her foreword, Atkeson acknowledges the editors of several magazines for their permission to use her previously published work (1924, viii). Her earlier magazine articles included plays for rural communities (e.g., Atkeson 1920) as well as commentary, such as her article in Good Housekeeping, in which she chastises national women’s organizations for their exclusion of country women (Atkeson 1921).

Finding Women in the Division’s Research

63

members of the Division, it could extend beyond their association with one of the unit’s projects. Indeed, awareness of a project could lead those not associated with it or the Division to conduct related research. This may have been the case, for instance, when Murray Strauss at Washington State University published an article examining the role of women and marriage in the families who were settlers in the Columbia River Basin project (1958). Despite its breadth and depth, until recently much of the research conducted by the Division has remained invisible.28 One of the factors contributing to this was the high degree of collaborative research relationships. Faced with limited resources and wanting to build the nation’s capacity for research in rural sociology, first Division head Charles Galpin had a particular interest in conducting research through collaborative agreements with researchers at colleges and universities (Galpin 1938b, 51). As funding for the Division increased during the New Deal and Second World War, collaborative agreements with other federal agencies grew. Similar to those in Galpin’s cooperative agreements, many of the studies were published through the collaborating agency. As a result, the role of the Division in the research is often not readily apparent. This was the case, for instance, with Lively and Taeuber’s comprehensive work on migration (1939) which was published through the Works Progress Administration. Over the years, the areas covered by the Division’s research changed. In part, these changes reflected shifts in the demands being placed on the Division as well as changes in intellectual trends.29 But the ­Division was also affected by political controversies surrounding some of its research. The Arvin and Dinuba study in California (Goldschmidt 1944, 1978a, 1978b) and the Coahoma County study in Mississippi (F. Alexander 1944) led to a congressional ban on “cultural surveys,”

28. For a discussion of some of the conceptual linkages with early American sociology, see J. Zimmerman (2009). 29. The invisibility of the Division’s research is also shaped by the position of rural sociology within histories of American sociology (see J. Zimmerman 2010). While the American Sociological Association joined forces with the Rural Sociological Society to support the original project documenting the work of the Division, the recent official history celebrating the centennial of the American Sociological Association contains only brief references to the field of rural sociology. Even though rural sociology is acknowledged as “initially and until World War II one of the field’s largest branches” (Calhoun 2007b, 3), most of the references are concentrated in a single chapter (Camic 2007). An alternative history of sociology focusing on the areas and people often overlooked also contains only a few individuals from rural sociology (Blasi 2005), even in a chapter focusing on the history of community studies (Williams and MacLean 2005).

64

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

forever changing the Division and the nature of its research.30 While a holistic approach could still be seen over the years, it would not have the prominence it once had. Soon after Carl Taylor left and Margaret Jarman Hagood took over as Division head, Ezra Benson abolished the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and with it the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life.

30. Additional details about the congressional ban are given in the next chapter.

5 The Test of Time

For more than three decades, the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life worked to bring a sociological perspective to changing national needs and helped build a broad knowledge base about rural life. From its first analyses of farm population, rural institutions, and locality groups, over the years the Division’s research grew to include extensive community studies and develop new tools for understanding the variations among rural areas. The researchers saw themselves first and foremost as sociologists seeking to better understand the whole of rural life and, in so doing, provide information needed for a better rural America. Women were never the sole focus of the Division’s research. Instead, it was in defining their object of study as the totality of rural life that women became embedded in some of the Division’s research as one of the facets needed to understand the rural social landscape. As only one part of the larger whole, this means that women were also never critically examined. Today our focus on women is deliberate. Women’s lives are being rescued from historical obscurity (e.g., Bernhard et al. 1994), and their diversity and social location are being explored (e.g., Sharpless 1999). Their views and experiences are used to reexamine the assumptions we make in our theoretical models and conceptualizations (e.g., Jones 2002). And the socially embedded nature of the research process itself is now examined for how it can contribute to women’s invisibility (e.g., S. Harding 1986; Folbre and Abel 1989). Contemporary insights and theoretical perspectives such as these offer new opportunities to return to the Division’s body of work and visit the women living there.

epilogue for the division The Division and its parent agency, the BAE, existed from 1919 to 1943. As the years passed, industrialized agriculture and separate spheres of work for women were increasingly being promoted. Despite the changing atmosphere surrounding it, the unit’s Progressive-era roots remained

66

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

strong.1 As Henry Taylor later reflected, the BAE saw itself as having a “larger task”—that of “laying the foundations of progress” (1954, 13). Even as the USDA increasingly focused on farmers, particularly commercial farmers, BAE chief Tolley defended his unit’s work, maintaining that “to keep abreast of the . . . status of the agricultural situation and its people in this country” meant understanding the larger social conditions surrounding agriculture (U.S. Congress, House 1946, 239). It also meant looking beyond the needs of commercial farmers alone to examine issues ranging from tenants and rural poverty to communities.2 For Tolley, focusing on one group only meant ignoring the needs of others. “If economic democracy is to be anything more than a phrase to cover the selfish desires of any given class,” he advised, “it must mean that the welfare of each individual and class in the nation is in the long run best served by that type of policy which will best serve all individuals and all classes” (quoted in Kirkendall 1965, 28). The role the BAE had differs from today’s expectations for similar units in the federal government. As Bowers and Harrington put it in their review of Henry Taylor’s autobiography, the BAE “expected to influence policy, and its head reported directly to the secretary” (1995, 227). It felt that the government had a role to play—a kind of “assisted laissez faire” (Hardin 1946, 639). Central to this idea was the belief that not only were better conditions and resources needed, but, through research and education, solutions were possible. Appleby described the Bureau’s sense of purpose as focused on “more common learning, more advanced learning, dissemination of learning, coordination, and top-level policy guidance” (1954, 8). Indeed, Tolley made Robert Lynd’s 1939 book Knowledge for What? “required reading for everyone in the Bureau” (Kirkendall 1965, 31; 1966, 185). The fallout that included the Coahoma County reconnaissance study not only affected the Division and its research but also made it clear that views and expectations had changed and the BAE and the Division were not  adhering to them.3 Using references to segregation and 1. Gilbert, for example, calls into question the “outsider” status of several key leaders in the New Deal (2000, 2001; Fitzgerald 2001). See also Gilbert and Baker (1997) and Gilbert and Howe (1991). David Hamilton tries to explain why the USDA contained contradictions such as this (1990). For more detail, see Jellison (2001). 2. It was during this time that the Division produced the classic report Disadvantaged Classes in American Agriculture (Taylor, Wheeler, and Kirkpatrick 1938) and its large multi­site community studies. Indeed, Jellison argues that they became a “minority voice” in their support for smaller farms based on family labor (2001). For a discussion of the BAE’s work concerning rural poverty, see Kirkendall (1966, 106–32). 3. The Coahoma County study, while prominently used in the congressional hearings, was only part of the attacks on the BAE. Opponents both inside and outside the USDA were also attacking the BAE’s role in planning and the controversy came on the heels of

The Test of Time

67

the “race question,” Congress grilled BAE Chief Tolley about the Division’s study during the USDA’s appropriation hearings (U.S. Congress, House 1946, 235). Mississippi congressman Jamie Whitten called the Coahoma County research report “vicious attacks on a county and its people” (238), “slanderous” (235), a “gross misrepresentation,” and an “indictment” of the “fine folks” of Coahoma County (241). In contrast to that portrayed in sections of the report, he countered that the people of the county were “getting along in perfect harmony” (241). Among his questions, Whitten asked why the BAE was conducting this type of research when “the primary purpose” of the Bureau was “accumulating statistics and not reworking the social set-up of my section of the nation” (241). The study, Whitten told Tolley, “strays far from the facts and from the intended work of your Department. . . . The money that is supposed to be going to the farmers and for the benefit of agriculture and for the benefit of the farmers of this country is being used by the Department of Agriculture for this sort of a thing which is nothing in the world but something which we may politely call socialization” (235). Whitten was not alone in his views about the proper role of the BAE.4 During their congressional testimony, the Farm Bureau also made it clear that the BAE should “serve the business interests of the farmers” (Kirkendall 1966, 241). They argued that the unit should be “confined to statistical and fact-finding research” (U.S. Congress, House 1946, 1644). After all, as Hardin reflected on the conflict, “men can count the number of sheep in a field and get the same result, be they Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Marxists, or whatever” (1946, 641). According to the Farm Bureau, the BAE’s role was to provide “farmers and their organizations with basic economic information” (U.S. ­Congress, House 1946, 1645), and not to engage in “social surveys, agricultural planning and promotion, and opinion polls” (1644). But just providing facts and data alone was not enough. Schultz later noted the “profound unfriendliness which these organized political forces, both inside and

that surrounding Goldschmidt’s study of Arvin and Dinuba (1978a). The events involving the Arvin and Dinuba studies have been reported in detail from the perspectives of the BAE economist who coordinated the set of Central Valley studies (Clawson 1946, 330–32; 1987, 150–60), a historian (Kirkendall 1964, 195–218), and Walter Goldschmidt, who conducted the research (1978a, 467–73; 1978b). For more on the unit’s role in planning and the fallout surrounding it, see Gilbert (1996), Larson and Zimmerman (2003, chap. 13), and Kirkendall (1966). 4. For a detailed examination of the differing views and actors involved in the ending of the BAE, see Kirkendall (1966).

68

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

outside the government, can feel for agricultural economics research that does not provide the ‘right’ answers” (1954, 19).5 Needless to say, the fortunes of both the Division and its parent bureau deteriorated. Along with the appropriations bill for 1947 came a ban on conducting “cultural surveys” and the BAE’s regional offices were eliminated.6 Soon afterwards, BAE chief Howard Tolley was effectively forced out, “resigning” in frustration (Baker and Rasmussen 1975, 61–63; Kirkendall 1966, 227–30, 240–43). In Tolley, the Division lost a strong supporter (e.g., Tolley 1939; Kirkendall 1965). Under his successor, O. V. Wells, the work in the BAE shifted to less of a focus on “social issues” (Baker and Rasmussen 1975, 65) and resources dwindled.7 For the Division, congressional restrictions and the lack of support meant that its research was curtailed. The Division had gone from its first BAE chief, Henry Taylor, remarking that “there are no lines of research more worthy of the state and federal research funds than the scientific study of farm life and the methods of making this life more attractive”8 (1920, 242) to Congress specifically banning “cultural surveys.” Frustrated, Carl Taylor wrote that “rural social research must be done on some other than an episodic or cafeteria basis” (Pinkett 1984, 370) and, as Kirkendall reported, he “was unhappy that ‘vested interests’ . . . had forced him to cut back sharply on the sociological work in the USDA” (Kirkendall 1966, 253–54).9 5. At a dinner meeting of agricultural economists, Schultz also remarked that “in Washington in the U.S.D.A. there is a disease that one might call a vested interest in a particular index number” (Boger 1954, 306). Years earlier, Russell Smith of the National Farmer’s Union observed that “the devil can also quote statistics” and praised those, including the BAE, who had “declined to yield to the exigencies of political necessity” (1947, 1212). 6. The regional offices were important in supporting the BAE’s planning program. In addition, Frank Alexander, who conducted the Coahoma County reconnaissance study, was based in the regional office in Atlanta, Georgia, and Walter Goldschmidt, who conducted the Arvin/Dinuba studies, was based in the regional office in Berkeley, California. For more on the regional offices, see Larson and Zimmerman (2003, 39, 224–26). 7. Wells even prohibited the new BAE journal from publishing articles dealing with agricultural policy (O. Wells 1949, 9) 8. This is not to say that relationships between the agricultural economists and rural sociologists were without disagreements (Kirkendall 1966, 220–22). But as John Black noted, as long as “we interpret agriculture as meaning people as well as crops and livestock,” then the other social sciences have “important contributions to make to agriculture” and should “find at least a temporary home within the Bureau of Agricultural Economics” (1947, 1042; emphasis in original). 9. After leaving the Division, Carl Taylor, like others, became more involved in international development (Larson 1999; C. Taylor 1960, 1965). See also Larson and Zimmerman (2003, 266–68), Kirkendall (1966, 253), and Gilbert (2001, 239). After leaving the BAE, Howard Tolley served as chief economist for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and later worked for the Ford Foundation (see Benedict and Wilson 1959).

The Test of Time

69

In 1953, Ezra Benson became the first Republican in two decades to be appointed secretary of agriculture. Determined to make changes (Rosenbaum 1965, 3), he reorganized the structure of the USDA. Within less than a year after he took the position, and by his order, the BAE, and with it the Division, were abolished. Benson moved quickly, allowing only a short period of time between his announcement (October 13) and the date it would become effective (November 2). Some called it a sneak attack (Hardin 1954, 218). Upon the ending of the BAE, both former BAE chiefs Henry Taylor and Howard Tolley stated that it came as a “shock” (Taylor 1954, 12; Tolley 1954, 14; Wells et al. 1954). Variously seen as a “dismantling” or “dismembering,” the changes brought by Benson’s reorganization included grouping individuals around particular problems. This broke up the cadre of rural social scientists in the BAE, who now had to compete among the natural and biological scientists to be heard (see Boger 1954, 308). Appleby observed that the new organizational structure appeared “to integrate them for control purposes, and to confine interaction” (1954, 11). With the reorganization came a viewpoint and “policy attitudes” fundamentally “different from those generally obtaining for almost two decades” (Appleby 1954, 10). Classical economics, a business-focused orientation, and a faith that economic advances would trickle down now encompassed the whole Department of Agriculture.10 Hardin noted that “the general orientation of the Department’s high command is toward business” (1954, 210) and that the “dismembering of the BAE” was part of Republican moves to “break up apparently unfriendly concentrations and to create their own positions of strength” (227). 10. The events of 1953 may have signaled the winning out of business over other interests, but it was not their first emergence. “Business interests” also played a role in the firing of the BAE’s first chief, Henry C. Taylor. Taylor lost a key defender when Henry C. Wallace died in 1924 while secretary of agriculture in Calvin Coolidge’s administration (1923–29). Even though Wallace had not been in favor with the administration, he had been a supporter of Taylor. Coolidge sided with his secretary of commerce, Herbert Hoover, who felt that the Department of Agriculture should focus on production, leaving marketing to the Department of Commerce (Baker et al. 1963, 102). Additionally, Hoover “distrusted the farm economists, who . . . had too many socialistic ideas” (Conkin 1959, 78), and “Coolidge perceived Taylor’s views to be openly and disloyally in conflict with administration policies” (Vaughn 1994, 1320). Five months after Wallace died, the press reported Coolidge’s plans to “clean up” the USDA (H. Taylor 1992, 210–11). Refusing to resign, Henry Taylor was fired in 1925. H. A. Wallace later reflected that “certain business interests felt that the department was now in safer hands” (1961, 24). For a detailed description of the events leading up to his termination, see H. Taylor (1992, 207–19). More on the relationship between Hoover and agriculture can be found in D. Hamilton (1991). For a discussion of business interests in the Progressive era, see Glad (1966), and for a ­discussion of the shifting of agrarianism from moral towards economic terms in the twenties and ­thirties, see C. Anderson (1961).

70

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

Benson’s reorganization cut up the BAE, with parts of the unit going to the Agricultural Research Service and parts going to the Agricultural Marketing Service (Baker et al. 1963, 463–66, 498–501). The Division was downgraded to a “branch.” The majority of its work was moved to the Farm Population and Rural Life Branch of the Agricultural Economics Division in the Agricultural Marketing Service, while aspects of the Division’s work on farm labor that were closely related to farm management were transferred to the Agricultural Research Service. In 1954, first BAE chief Henry Taylor questioned the treatment of the Division, asking of Benson’s reorganization, “What considerations led to the break up of the already very small division of Farm Population and Rural Life and assigning part of its activities to the Agricultural Research Service and part to the Agricultural Marketing Service?” (1954, 15). As part of the reorganization, O. V. Wells moved from serving as the BAE chief to being appointed the administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, where the majority of the Division’s work was housed. This ensured that the post-Coahoma (and Arvin/Dinuba) climate persisted (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 281). In 1961, with another reorganization, the current Economic Research Service was established (Bowers 1990; Koffsky 1966).11 For many, the Economic Research Service was seen as the chance to bring social scientists back together again. However, there were also concerns that the conditions that had led to the abolishment of the BAE not be recreated (see Bowers 1990). As historian Allan Bogue surmised, “The specter of the past was always there to remind ERS personnel that agencies survive only if their administrators ensure that . . . they and their staff members are indeed marching to the drumbeat of the right imperative” (1990, 251).12

seen but not heard With its Progressive-era genesis, the Division followed a holistic conceptual approach to understanding rural life. While this afforded women’s lives some visibility in the Division’s research, women were also only one

11. A discussion of this transition and continuities from the time of the Division is provided in Larson and Zimmerman (2003, 277–82). For a discussion of the organization of Economic Research Service and its differences from the BAE, see Bowers (1990). 12. Controversy continued to follow the work of the former Division, including the “burning” of the 1957 farm population estimates (Rosenbaum 1965).

The Test of Time

71

small piece of a larger integrated picture.13 This means that even though women were to some degree “seen,” it did not mean that they were necessarily heard. While parts of women’s lives were included in the Division’s research, their experiences and voices were not used to critically assess the rural social organization being investigated, nor to interrogate the dominant theoretical models of the time. Neither were their roles critically examined. Carl Taylor, for instance, was a strong opponent of inequality, particularly racial inequality. Indeed, even though his views led to his dismissal from North Carolina State University (Larson, Williams, and Wimberley 1999), in Washington D.C. he remained a strong supporter of desegregation (J. Zimmerman 2006).14 For Taylor, inequality undermined rural standards of living and inhibited the development of community (e.g., C. Taylor 1927). Even with these views, Taylor never extended the same principles to examine gender-based inequality. The researchers in the Division saw themselves first and foremost as sociologists. As socialists, they sought to develop knowledge through “direct observation” (C. Taylor 1949, 4–5). In his presidential address to the American Sociological Association, Carl Taylor laid out his views on the nature of constructing sociological knowledge. Taylor believed that “men of common sense,” those who “live in the midst and are a part of the social situations and processes which sociologists seek to understand,” possess knowledge that could “amplify so-called theoretical knowledge” (1947b, 1–3). Despite seeking “authentic” knowledge through direct observation, researchers were not always listening. For instance, Taylor went on to argue that local knowledge and observation could be used to “validate theories if they are correct and modify them if they are incorrect” (1947b, 2). Since women’s work included farm production for sale or for use and  they participated in the farm labor force, the realities of rural women’s lives did not fit prevailing sociological models that focused on

13. This is not to say that at this time no research existed focusing solely on rural and farm women. It was, however, rare. For examples, see Ruth Allen’s lengthy report on women and cotton (1931) or the classic work Hagood conducted before coming to the Division (1939). 14. Taylor’s years at North Carolina State University would go from high regard and respect to turmoil. Raising the ire of the university president and expressing views counter to the increasingly conservative tone of the time, he would be “ejected” from his academic position at North Carolina State University (Larson, Williams, and Wimberley 1999). In 2006, Olaf Larson recounted how Taylor’s personal initiative led to the desegregation of dining facilities in the USDA’s South Building (J. Zimmerman 2006).

72

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

the home.15 However, despite the apparent disjuncture, any inconsistency between social theory and rural life, if addressed, was often treated either as an exception to the theory or as simply one of the ways in which rural life differed from that in urban areas.16 This approach is reflected in Margaret Hagood’s chapter (1949) on the rural family in a book written by current and former Division staff members (Taylor et al. 1949). While Hagood acknowledges the dominant model of patriarchal gender relationships found in sociology, she qualifies its strict application in rural settings, writing, “I have observed that while in many farm families both husband and wife declare that the man is the ‘boss,’ when the woman has the stronger personality, it is often her judgment that determines not only the allocation of money between farm improvements and family living expenses, but also many of the day-to-day decisions in the conduct of the farming operations” (46). Hagood also describes in detail the normative nature of women’s participation in agriculture and its variations by region and class. However, rather than using her observations to challenge theoretical models that posited separate spheres for men and women, Hagood describes these roles as a unique characteristic of rural life, contrasting it with the urban model, characterized by a “head of the household” who “generally keeps his family life pretty well separated from his work or business” (Hagood 1949, 42).17 The Division’s research did not privilege women’s lives in the ways we think of today. Seen as a part of the larger social whole needed to understand rural life, women were not given priority, nor were their roles critically examined. Still, even though women were never the specific subject of inquiry, the holistic approach underpinning the Division’s research opened room for rural and farm women to be seen. And it was because the whole of rural life was seen as including women that their lives can be found embedded in the Division’s investigations into rural life.

15. While not Division researchers, Sorokin and Zimmerman did consider the relative “emancipation” of urban and rural women, examining factors such as property rights, suffrage, and the right of marriage dissolution (1929, 353–65). They concluded that “in spite of the popularity of the opinion that the wife in a rural family is more subjugated to the husband, we do not find any valid evidence of such” (362). 16. Characterizing rural areas as the exception did more than leave theoretical models intact; it also added to the larger argument that rural social organization needed its own separate field of intellectual inquiry. 17. In his rural sociology textbook Nelson similarly drew on family theory at the time, indicating that the fieldwork done by women in rural areas was an “exception” to the theory of a strict division of labor based on sex (1955, 286).

The Test of Time

73

into the future Because the holistic approach followed by the Division saw women as embedded within the landscape of social relations, the fate of including women in these investigations was tied to the fate of the holistic approach of which they were a part. During the time of the Division, rural sociology was a relatively young intellectual field seeking to find its place within sociology, within the realm of scientific inquiry, and among the agricultural sciences.18 From its early years, as some in rural sociology firmly held that the scientific value of rural inquiry lay in applying existing sociological theory to understanding rural life (e.g., Waterman 1928; C. Zimmerman 1929), bottom-up, applied, and responsive research would clash with these theory-driven approaches. Despite that theory was often implicit in the studies, as Brunner later pointed out (1957, 151–52), criticisms persisted that, driven by sentimentality and not hypothesis testing or social theory, such “practical” research was not scientific. Eventually the approach would be seen as old-fashioned. Decades later, in his presidential address to the Rural Sociological Society, Tom Ford captured the ethos of the time, which he described as having “a secularized spirit of chivalry,” when social scientists “so fervently believed that scientific knowledge should be used to combat the evils of society” (1985, 535). He also reflected on the pursuit of scientism, noting, “It would be sadly ironic if, after discarding the dream in order to better our research products, we learn that what society values most highly is not the scientific quality of our knowledge but our willingness to pursue the dream itself” (536).

18. Early in its development, American sociology moved to separate itself from its social reformist roots, seeking to be more “scientific” and looking for generalizable principles (see, e.g., Calhoun 2007a). The exclusion of applied interests was formalized with the founding constitution of the American Sociological Society. While objections were raised that practical sociologists were not specifically included in the language concerning who could be members, it was decided that “the original wording of the article was ample enough to include everybody interested in sociology, so long as their interest is not exclusively practical” ([American Sociological Society] 1906; emphasis added). Later, interest in applied aspects of sociology led to the formation of the Society for the Study of Social Problems (Skura 1976). Similar debates occurred in the early years of the American Economic Association (Coats 1964), from which the American Sociological Society emerged. In rural sociology, although differing parts of the field have changed in prominence over time, neither side won out to the exclusion of the other. Indeed, the split between those who selfidentify as being more “scientific” or theoretically guided (e.g., W. Anderson 1947; Duncan 1954) and those who self-identify as more bottom-up, applied, or “practically minded” (e.g., Lively 1943; Hoffer 1961) has been seen in various forms in rural sociology over the years and continues in the field today.

74

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

As the years passed, new conceptual and methodological approaches steadily replaced the old. As quantitative and multivariate statistical methods would come to the fore in sociology (e.g., Abbott 1997), so too would they in rural sociology—helped along by restrictions related to World War II and the events leading up to the ending of the Division. With changing intellectual trends, the contextualized descriptive and holistic approach, which had included the embeddedness of women, lost favor and mentions of rural and farm women gradually disappeared. In the 1970s and 1980s, women would reemerge, this time in their own right (e.g., Kerber, Kessler-Harris, and Sklar 1995; Lerner 2004b; Fink, Grim, and Schwieder 1999; Jensen and Effland 2001; Kerber and De Hart 2000). Research began to examine women’s lives, to consider women’s agency and the diversity of their experiences, to recover their lost contributions to disciplines, and to examine the role of gendered assumptions in the social construction of knowledge. Emerging from the margins to become a field of its own, today’s scholarship on women has its own journals and professional associations, has focused attention on patriarchy and gender, and has produced an extensive literature placing women at the center of its inquiry.19

contemporary themes and the embeddedness of women While Division researchers never critically examined the roles and experiences of the women they encountered, the body of work they produced contains a nearly lost resource for understanding the diverse and changing nature of rural life in the first half of the twentieth century and opens new windows on the roles of women within that world. It provides a different vantage point for examining changes in agriculture and rural society at a time when much of the attention on women focused on their place within the home. It provides an interdisciplinary resource that complements primary sources (Springer 2004). And, while the oftentimes collaborative nature of the Division’s research has hidden the body

19. Those interested in the history of rural and farm women began to coalesce in the 1980s with the first Conference on Rural and Farm Women in Historical Perspective (Fink, Grim, and Schwieder 1999; Jensen and Effland 2001). Since then, the journal Agricultural History has produced two special issues in 1993 and 1999. Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies produced a special issue in 2001 focused on rural women. Perspectives and roles of rural and farm women have also been brought to research on current rural and farm women (e.g., B. Allen 2002; Chiappe and Flora 1998; Feldman and Welsh 1995; Hill 1981; Mearers 1997; Rosenfeld 1985; Sachs 1983; 1996; Tallichet 2006; B. Wells 2002), including a 1985 special issue of Agriculture and Human Values.

The Test of Time

75

of work the unit produced, within its approach reside echoes that still resonate today. Even though women are the majority of the population, their contributions have traditionally been overlooked (e.g., Danbom 2002; Faragher 1981; Scott 1988; Sharpless 1999). Historical accounts, analyses, and theoretical frameworks—focused on public roles—dismissed early women’s history as “pots and pans history” (Faragher 1981, 538). But as Fink, Grim, and Schwieder note, “The history of rural women does not flow in any direct or predictable way from that of rural men, who occupy the center stage in supposedly nongendered accounts of the rural past” (1999, 132). Consequently, one of the goals of contemporary research has been to rescue women’s lives from obscurity and reexamine dominant underlying assumptions (Lerner 2004b; Jensen and Effland 2001; Scott 1988). For instance, not only did the approach known as “separate spheres” ignore woman’s work beyond her “sphere” (Kerber 1988), but even definitions of what constituted “work” focused on the activities of men, further contributing to women’s invisibility (Folbre and Abel 1989). For rural and farm women, their participation in agriculture has been particularly invisible. Yet women are, and always have been, working in agriculture (e.g., Jensen 1981; Sachs 1983, 1985). Women have owned farms, worked the fields, produced products for sale and for the home, and been part of the migratory and other farm labor forces. Instead of strictly separating the organization of agricultural production from household reproduction, the Division saw the farm as including the home. Because of this approach, women’s work in agriculture became visible in the Division’s research. Decades later, Cornelia Flora (1985) posited how the very interdependence and coterminous nature of agricultural production and household reproduction are central to systems of agricultural production themselves. Seeing the farm as including the home meant understanding not only the work of all of its members but also the importance of their multiple roles. Jellison notes the nineteenth-century roots of the idea “that successful agriculture required the productive efforts of every member of the patriarchal farm family” (2001, 243). Today, for some, the concept of “mutuality” has become a way to examine the cooperative labor of men and women on rural farmsteads. Nancy Grey Osterude developed the concept, calling it a “common culture of reciprocity and respect among women and men” in her examination of the Nanticoke Valley in New York (1991, 276; 1987). The argument that women’s work was crucial to the survival of farms is also made by Mary Neth in her examination of the rural Midwest (1995).

76

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

The Division’s focus on the social whole—integrating individuals within community—meant seeing women’s activities, roles, and expectations as embedded in the landscape of rural life. The social organization of rural life reflected in the Division’s studies included facets recognized today, such as the importance of informal networks and social partici­ pation as well as the impacts of changing technology and the differential impacts of status and class. More recently, Marilyn Watkins extended the concept of mutuality from the farm to understand women’s social participation in farm groups (1995). Katherine Jellison has investigated the impact of changing technology on rural women’s lives (1993). And Joan Jensen, in her analysis of gender and mid-Atlantic farm women, ­differentiated between the household, domestic production performed for the market, and the public (1986b). Rather than being at the fringe, behind the scenes, or a subset in traditional frameworks, today women’s experiences are also being used to interrogate theoretical models. As Joan Scott aptly argues, “New facts might document the existence of women in the past, but they did not necessarily change the importance (or lack of it) attributed to women’s activities” (1988, 3). Deborah Fink, for example, uses an examination of the history of rural women in Iowa to assess both domestic and international models of development (1986, 229–43). More recently, Lu Ann Jones found that women were not tangential to the economy of the South, but instead played a major role and affected regional markets (2002). Using a different approach, the Division’s stability/instability community studies have been reexamined from the vantage point of the women described in the studies (J. Zimmerman 2007). Of the communities, those that had been cited for their stability were also the communities where women’s status was the lowest and women’s roles were the most restricted. One of the challenges in moving from a contributionist approach—one that adds women to existing conceptual models—to one that is womancentered is to account for the prefiguring impact of differences among women such as race and class. In other words, despite their commonality as women in a gender-stratified society, all women’s lives are not the same. For the Division, rural America was not undifferentiated, but made up of widely varying rural regions based on differing types of agriculture and characterized by differing patterns of class, status, land ownership, and tenancy (e.g., Raper and Taylor 1949). This rural differentiation both reflected and shaped the diverse forms of rural social organization found across the country. As a result, the multiplicity of rural women’s work and lives, as well as the expectations for women, also varied not

The Test of Time

77

only across rural communities but within them as well, stratified by age, race, class, and tenure. Today we caution against overly homogenizing the experiences and roles of women: of using the historical experience of women in one region to generalize to the experiences of all women, and of generalizing from only the records and lives of more educated white women (e.g., L. Alexander 2004). As Jensen and Effland recently wrote, “No one history of rural women exists” (2001, iv). Instead, there are a multiplicity of experiences and a multiplicity of histories (e.g., Bernhard et al. 1994; Brown 1976; Jensen 1981). And while there may be some common themes across women’s lives, there are also very distinct differences (e.g., Sharpless 1999). Even within the same region, the experiences and lives of rural women can vary, sometimes greatly (e.g., Schwieder and Fink 1999; Bernhard et al. 1994). Contemporary inquiry has also opened the door for understanding the social nature of the research process and the impact of the researcher’s point of view (e.g., Fonow and Cook 2005; Haraway 1991; S. Harding 1986, 2004). Sandra Harding put it well, writing that “science has always been a social product. . . . Its projects and claims to knowledge bear the fingerprints of its human producers” (1986, 137). Being able to look back at the Division and its research provides an opportunity to better understand the socially and historically embedded nature of the production of knowledge and the research process. And, as the overwhelming majority of Division researchers were men, this no doubt affected the way they recounted the women’s lives embedded in the rural social landscape they were describing. For instance, had Bell (1942) not held the men in Sublette with such disdain, as Jellison argues (1993, 124), would he have focused so much on the role of women in the community? Did being a woman writing what would turn out to be the Division’s only piece of research to focus solely on women influence Emily Hoag Sawtelle’s choices in her research, analysis, and writing (Sawtelle 1924; Reprint 5)? Today we seek to reconstruct the lives of women lost from history, to understand their relationships and roles in farming, homes, and rural society, to use that vantage point to better understand rural and social change, and to place rural women’s lives within the context of larger social relationships, communities, and place. Contemporary theories of gender, inequality, women’s roles, and women’s work bring insights not pursued at the time of the Division. Looking back with contemporary eyes holds the potential to shed new light on this early rural sociological research, including what was left out, glossed over, or interwoven in nongender-specific language.

78

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

women in the division Throughout the Division’s lifetime, women held professional positions within the unit. The first women to work in the Division arrived as it was being established. Galpin recruited his former graduate students Emily Hoag (Sawtelle) and Veda Larson (Turner) soon after becoming the unit’s first head (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 225). Together, they made up half of Galpin’s early staff.20 In addition to the only analysis to focus solely on women (Sawtelle 1924), Emily Hoag (Sawtelle) also conducted pioneering research that examined the influence, through migration, of a single small farming community (Hoag 1921). Veda Larson (Turner) directed the special tabulations on the farm population used to demonstrate the value of county-level data to the Census Bureau, leading to its inclusion in both the Agriculture Census and the Census of Population (Galpin and Larson 1924), and she played a major role in developing the initial farm population estimate procedures. Several distinguished women also served in the Division from the 1930s until its end. Eleanor Bernert (Sheldon) worked in the area of migration and later became the head of the Russell Sage Foundation. While never on the staff, Irene Taeuber, a distinguished demographer in her own right, published Division research with her husband, Conrad, who was in the Division. And in the 1930s and 1940s, Gladys K. Bowles’s research in farm population and migration made important contributions to the field of rural sociology (Willits, Gelfi, and Lipner 1988, 129). The most notable woman to serve in the Division was Margaret Jarman Hagood. Hagood became an internationally recognized demographer. Among her many professional roles, she served as president of the Population Association of America and was the first woman to be president of the Rural Sociological Society. She broke new ground in statistical analyses and “may have been the first to use techniques like analysis of variance and covariance, factor analysis, and principle components” (Eldridge 1964). Her study Mothers of the South is considered a classic to this day (Hagood 1939; J. Zimmerman 1998; Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 25–26; Riedmann 1991) and her textbook Statistics for Sociologists (1941) would “influence . . . a generation of social scientists” (Willits, Gelfi, and Lipner 1988, 128; Broschart 2002). Hagood joined the Division in 1942 and not only conducted some of its renowned work 20. In addition to Emily Hoag and Veda Larson, Galpin also recruited Walter Baumgartel from among his students to join his staff. Wayne Nason transferred to Galpin’s unit from the Bureau of Markets and Rural Organization (initially the Rural Organization Service) (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 14–15).

The Test of Time

79

but became its head for the unit’s final year. When the Division ended, she headed the Farm Population and Rural Life Branch of the Agricultural Marketing Service. Her career even extended into the current Economic Research Service, from which she retired a year after its formation. While women served in professional roles in the Division, life working in the unit likely still reflected gender-based norms of the day. For instance, in examining some of the correspondence of early women staff members, Mary Neth notes that they “received less money and less encouragement than their male colleagues and constantly had to defend the wider significance of their research” (1995, 113). Yvonne Oliver found similarly familiar circumstances in the treatment of the only African American professional to serve in the Division, noting that while “the BAE was probably the least racist part of the USDA, and among the least racist in the federal government,” it was still “a product of its time” (2003, 184). Over its thirty-four years, nearly 20 percent of those ever employed in the Division’s professional staff were women (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 227).21 This gender composition bettered that of the field’s national professional association, the Rural Sociological Society. Reflecting women’s limited access to academic positions, female membership in the Society averaged only about 12 percent during their overlapping years (Willits, Gelfi, and Lipner 1988, 135).

conclusion When it came to understanding and improving rural life, the Progressive era posited the importance of the social whole. In contrast to seeing farming as a separated economic enterprise—a business—and the problems of rural life as solvable through profits and production, the alternative put forth was that the farm included the home, that farming was a way of life connected to community, and to address them required an understanding of their social relations and organization. Within this context, research in the Division looked to understand the social organization of the farm and its interconnectedness with the organization of communities, placing both of them in the context of rural differentiation by region, locality, 21. In addition to those already mentioned, other women who served in professional roles in the Division include Eleanor M. Birch, Nettie P. Bradshaw, Mary P. B. Eselun, Dorothy C. Goodwin, Helen Wheeler (Johnson), Elsie S. Manny, Virginia C. Martin, Dorothy F. McCamman, Sarah Miles, Mary Montgomery (Clawson), Pauline Schloesser (Taylor), Rachel Rowe Swiger, Mary Splawn Taylor, Helen R. White, and Jane Woolley (Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 283–84).

80

Hidden Windows, Hidden Lives

and type-of-farming areas. As sociologists, Division researchers sought to understand the social nature of rural life and its role in charting a new and better future. While women were never a central focus, they were a part of the vision. When we first started work on documenting the USDA’s Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, the inclusion of women’s lives in the unit’s research seemed curious. These researchers were not champions for women, nor were they particularly critical about the lives of the women they found. Moreover, women cannot be found in every aspect of the unit’s research. But the more we looked, the more we found that the repeated references to women we had first noticed more than twenty years ago were not isolated incidences. Instead, they were the result of a much broader approach to understanding and investigating rural life. Just as the rural landscape included the whole of those living there, so too did it include women: not as a specific topic, but embedded within that larger landscape. So even though Division researchers never critically examined the lives of the women they encountered, then as now, the body of work they produced provides windows onto the hidden lives of rural and farm women in the early part of the twentieth century.

Citations from the Work of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1919–1953

introduction These citations are reprinted in full from Olaf F. Larson, Edward O. Moe, and Julie N. Zimmerman’s Sociology in Government: A Bibliography of the Work of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1919–1953, originally published in 1992 by Westview Press. However, unlike the original bibliography, which was organized chronologically, the citations reprinted here are grouped together by their common subject areas. The “bibliography,” as it has become known, documents more than 1,500 pieces of work conducted by members of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life.1 The majority of these are research publications or restricted-use manuscripts intended for publication. For each of the research publications in the bibliography, a system of keywords was developed. These keywords focused on the substantive content of the publication and, when applicable, any racial, ethnic, or cultural groups included in the study as well as its geographic location. Keywords listed first were considered the most inclusive or most important. Keywords for those publications that were part of a series were entered in the same order. As women were rarely the focus of the research, there are a limited number of publications with the keyword “women.” Consequently, we provide citations to research published in the areas where the embeddedness of women is most often a part of the larger study. In locating copies of, and bringing together, the research of the Division of Farm Population, much assistance was given by former members of the Division and their families. Copies obtained by the authors were donated to the National Agriculture Library in Washington, D.C. So that others may access the items we received, the depository of each is noted in the citation.

1. Since its publication, a few additions to the bibliography have been located (Galpin 1924c; C. Hamilton 1940; Kirkpatrick, Atwater, and Bailey 1924; Loomis 1940; C. Taylor 1937, 1940a, 1940b).

84

selected bibliography

Depositories {NAL} indicates that a copy is available at the National Agricultural Library, Special Collections. {NAL ##} indicates that a copy is available at the National Agricultural Library. {USDA #} indicates the number of the bound volume of Research Publications of Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, 1919–1953, located in the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. {CU Archives} indicates that a copy is available at the Cornell University Archives in Ithaca, N.Y. {National Archives RG ##} indicates that a copy is available at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., and the record group number where it can be located. Common Abbreviations AES Agricultural Experiment Station BAE Bureau of Agricultural Economics DFPRL Division of Farm Population and Rural Life DFPRW Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare, the official name of the Division from 1939 to 1947. FSA Farm Security Administration GPO United States Government Printing Office Mimeo Mimeographed RR Rural Rehabilitation USDA United States Department of Agriculture Other Notations [ ] Text in brackets is information not included in the original document but provided in Larson, Moe, and Zimmerman (1992c). * Citation not seen. Keywords based on title, abstract, or a review. [addendum] Citation was located after the publication of Larson, Moe, and Zimmerman (1992c).

citations from the work of the division

85

bibliography 1: research publications with keywords containing “farm women,” “gender roles,” “women,” and “women in agriculture” Farm Women 0114 Galpin, Charles J. 1929. “A high standard of living: Results of interviewing ten thousand ‘back-to-the-landers.’” Radio address published in Rural America 7 (8): 5–6 under title “Gentlemen preferring farms.” Also published in Hoard’s Dairyman 75 (1): 5, 45 under original title and in Bureau Farmer (Illinois Agricultural Association Section) 5 (3): 16 under title “Read what men and women who have left the city for the country say about it.” Keywords: Attitudes/opinions; farm women; rural life. 0277 Sawtelle, Emily H. (see also Hoag, Emily F.). 1924. “The advantages of farm life—a study by correspondence and interviews with eight thousand farm women: Digest of an unpublished manuscript.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Farm women; attitudes/opinions; rural life. 0592 Davidson, Dwight M., Jr. 1942. “Longview homesteads.” Pp. 162–69 in Russell Lord and Paul H. Johnstone, eds., A Place on Earth: A Critical Appraisal of Subsistence Homesteads. DC: USDA, BAE. Keywords: Subsistence homesteads; evaluation; farm women. WA. 0713 Mayo, Selz C., R. E. L. Greene, C. Horace Hamilton, and G. W. Forster. 1944. 1944 Farm Labor Problems: Farm Manpower Situation in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, North Carolina AES. Bulletin No. 344. Keywords: Farm labor; labor requirements in agriculture; farm women. NC. 0737 Raper, Arthur F., and F. Howard Forsyth. 1943. “Cultural factors which result in artificial farm labor shortages.” Rural Sociology 8 (1): 3–14. Keywords: Farm labor; culture of agriculture; farm women; social change/ trends; World War II.

Gender Roles [addendum] Galpin, Charles J. 1924. “Where the farm manager and home manager meet.” Journal of Home Economics 16 (8): 419–22. 0746 Robertson, Lynn, Harry F. Ainsworth, O. E. Baker, and Nat T. Fame. 1942. Rural Youth in Indiana (18–28 Years of Age). Lafayette, IN: Purdue University AES. Bulletin No. 467. USDA, BAE, [DFPRW] cooperating. Keywords: Youth; gender roles. IN. 0907 Hagood, Margaret Jarman, and Louis J. Ducoff. 1946. “Million veterans on farms of U.S.” Agriculture Situation 30 (8): 1–3. Keywords: Veterans; farm population; farm labor; gender roles; social change/trends. 0916 Hay, Donald G. 1951. “Social participation of individuals in four rural communities of the Northeast.” Rural Sociology 16 (2): 127–35. Keywords: Social participation; gender roles; age roles. ME; NY.

86

selected bibliography

Women 0510 Taylor, Carl C. 1939. “The interdependence of rural and urban women.” Pp. 154–59 in Disadvantaged People in Rural Life, Proceedings of the 21st American Country Life Conference, November 2–4, 1938, at Lexington, KY. Chicago: Chicago University Press for the National Country Life Association. Condensed version of this address was published under the same title in Rural America 17 (March 1939): 3–4. Keywords: Women; social participation. 0684 Longmore, T. Wilson, and Homer L. Hitt. 1943. “A demographic analysis of first and second generation Mexican population of United States: 1930.” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 24 (2): 138–49. Keywords: Population; population composition; socioeconomic status— individual/family; women. Mexicans. 0738 Raper, Arthur F., and Pearl Wheeler Tappan. 1943. “‘Never too old to learn new tricks’: The canning program in Greene County, Georgia.” Applied Anthropology 2 (3): 3–11. Keywords: Culture of agriculture; rural rehabilitation; women; Farm Security Administration. Blacks. GA. 0918 Hay, Donald G., Douglas Ensminger, Stacy R. Miller, and Edmond J. Lebrun. 1949. Rural Organizations in Three Maine Towns. Orono, ME: University of Maine. Maine Extension Bulletin No. 391. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups; community clubs/organizations; farm organizations; social participation; leadership; farm family; extension; women. ME. 0953 Longmore, T. Wilson, and Frank C. Nall. 1953. “Service, professional and other civic clubs.” Pp. 122–46 in Rural Social Systems and Adult Education, a committee report sponsored by the Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities and the Fund for Adult Education established by the Ford Foundation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State College Press. Keywords: Community clubs/organizations; women. 0994 Raper, Authur F., Tamie Tsuchiyama, Herbert Passin, and David L. Sills. 1950. The Japanese Village in Transition. Tokyo: Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, General Headquarters. Report No. 136. Keywords: Culture of agriculture; social change/trends; land tenure; social organization; leadership; farm family; women in agriculture; women; religion; education; rural life. Japan. 1031 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1953. Farms and Farm People: Population, Income, and Housing Characteristics by Economic Class of Farms; a Special Cooperative Report. DC: GPO. USDA, BAE, DFPRL, Division of Statistical and Historical Research and Division of Farm Management and Costs; and Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics, Family Economics Division cooperating. Keywords: Farm population; population composition; women; income; housing; occupations; farm size—economic class. Blacks. 1043 White, Helen R. 1953. “Population in farm-operator households.” Pp. 45–64 in Farms and Farm People: Population, Income, and Housing Characteristics by Economic Class of Farms; a Special Cooperative Report. DC: GPO. USDA, BAE, DFPRL, Division of Statistical and Historical Research, and

citations from the work of the division



87

Division of Farm Management and Costs; and USDA Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics, Family Economics Division cooperating. Keywords: Farm family; population composition; farm size—economic class; women; fertility. Blacks.

Women in Agriculture 0845 Bowles, Gladys K., Louis J. Ducoff, and Margaret Jarman Hagood. 1950. “The hired farm working force, 1948 and 1949, with special reference to coverage of hired farm workers under Old-Age and Survivors Insurance.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Keywords: Farm labor; social insurance; aging; population composition; women in agriculture. 0849 Clark, Helen M. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of grape harvest workers in Chautauqua and Erie Counties, New York, week ended October 14, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 15. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture; prisoners of war. Blacks; Indians; Jamaican nationals. NY. 0855 Ducoff, Louis J. 1950. Migratory Farm Workers in 1949. DC: USDA, BAE. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 25. Keywords: Migrant farm workers; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture; labor force. Blacks; Mexicans; Orientals. 0860 Ducoff, Louis J. 1953. “The hired farm working force of 1952, with special information on migratory workers.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Keywords: Farm labor; migrant farm workers; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks. 0864 Ducoff, Louis J., and Louis Persh. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of harvesters of special crops in selected areas of 13 states, 1945: A statistical summary.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 17. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks; Mexicans; Indians; Mexican nationals. 0865 Ducoff, Louis J., and Barbara B. Reagan. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of hired farm workers, United States and major regions, May 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 7. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; women in agriculture; population composition. Blacks. 0871 Ducoff, Louis J., and Eleanor M. Birch. 1952. “The hired farm working force of 1951 with special information on regular workers in 1950.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Keywords: Farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks. 0967 Metzler, William H. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm workers at selected USDA labor supply centers in North Central California, August–October 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 9. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. CA.

88

selected bibliography

0970 Metzler, William H. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm workers in USDA labor supply centers at Arvin, Woodville, and Firebaugh, California, November 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 13. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. CA. 0971 Metzler, William H. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm workers in the harvest of selected deciduous fruits, California, May–Sept. 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 12. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks; Mexicans; Mexican nationals; Filipinos. CA. 0972 Metzler, William H. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of farm workers in the potato, sugar beet, and cotton harvests, California, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 14. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture; prisoners of war. Blacks; Mexicans; Mexican nationals; Filipinos. CA. 0973 Metzler, William H., and Afife F. Sayin. 1950. “The agriculture labor force in the San Jaoquin Valley, California: Characteristics, employment, mobility, 1948.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. University of California Institute of Industrial Relations cooperating. Keywords: Farm labor; migrant farm workers; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks; Mexicans; Filipinos. CA. 0994 Raper, Authur F., Tamie Tsuchiyama, Herbert Passin, and David L. Sills. 1950. The Japanese Village in Transition. Tokyo: Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, General Headquarters. Report No. 136. Keywords: Culture of agriculture; social change/trends; land tenure; social organization; leadership; farm family; women in agriculture; women; religion; education; rural life. Japan. 0997 Reagan, Barbara B. (under the direction of Louis J. Ducoff). 1946. “Perquisites furnished hired farm workers, United States and major regions, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 18. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. 0998 Reagan, Barbara B. 1947. “Wages by type of farm and type of farm work, United States and major regions, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 19. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks. 1009 Senf, Catherine, preparer. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of potato harvest workers on Long Island, New York, week ended September 1, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 8. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture; prisoners of war. Blacks; Jamaican nationals. NY. 1010 Senf, Catherine, Helen Clark, and Elizabeth Christen, preparers. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm workers in the harvest of tomatoes,

citations from the work of the division

89

beets and strawberries in selected areas of New York State, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 11. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture; prisoners of war. Blacks; Jamaican nationals. NY. 1030 USDA, BAE, [DFPRL], and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. 1953. Unemployment and Partial Employment of Hired Farm Workers in Four Areas, May 1951–May 1952 (Summary Report). DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL], and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security. Keywords: Farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture; social change/trends. NM; AR; LA; GA. 1039 Wallrabenstein, Paul P. 1947. “Wages and wage rates of hired farm workers: United States and major regions, July 1946.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 20. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks. 1040 Wallrabenstein, Paul P. 1948. “Wages and wage rates of hired farm workers: United States and major regions, January 1947.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 21. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks.

bibliography 2: research publications with keywords containing “farm family” and “rural family” Farm Family 0063 Beers, Howard W. 1933. The Income, Savings, and Work of Boys and Girls on Farms in New York, 1930. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 560. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Youth; income; social participation; farm family. NY. 0071 Coen, B. F. 1927. Successful Farm Families of Colorado. [Fort Collins, CO]: Colorado Agricultural College. Colorado Agricultural Bulletin, Series 26, No. 3. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Successes in rural life; farm family. CO. 0099 Galpin, Charles J. 1926: “The challenge of the rural church.” Rural America 4 (3): 5, 7. Keywords: Church; farm family; rural life. 0148 Hill, Randall C., E. L. Morgan, Mabel V. Campbell, and O. R. Johnson. 1930. Social, Economic, and Homemaking Factors in Farm Living. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, AES. Research Bulletin No. 148. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology, Home Economics, and Agricultural, USDA, [BAE], DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Socioeconomic status—individual/family; level of living; farm family. MO.

90

selected bibliography

0153 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1923. The Standard of Life in a Typical Section of Diversified Farming. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES, Bulletin No. 423. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Based in part on September 1922 Cornell University Ph.D. thesis. Keywords: Standard of living; farm family; land tenure. NY. 0156 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1924. “Facts and factors with regard to the farmers’ standard of living.” Pp. 388–95 in Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Session National Conference of Social Work, May 26–June 2, at Cleveland, Ohio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the National Conference of Social Work. Keywords: Level of living; farm family. 0160 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1926. The Farmer’s Standard of Living: A SocioEconomic Study of 2886 White Farm Families of Selected Localities in 11 States. DC: USDA. Department Bulletin No. 1466. Keywords: Standard of living; farm family. Northeast; South; Midwest. 0165 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1927. “Family living level on the farm.” Pp. 351–53 in Yearbook of Agriculture, 1926. DC: GPO. Keywords: Level of living; farm family. 0170 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1928. “Family living in farm homes at the bottom of agriculture.” Catholic Charities Review 12 (4): 123–25. Keywords: *Farm family; income—low; level of living. 0195 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., P. E. McNall, and May L. Cowles. 1933. Farm Family Living in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 114. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology, Agricultural Economics, and Home Economics. USDA, BAE, DFPRL, and Farm Management and Costs cooperating. Supplementary tables published separately in mimeo form. Keywords: Farm family; income; standard of living; social participation. WI. 0196 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., Rosalind Tough, and May L. Cowles. 1934. The Life Cycle of the Farm Family—in Relation to its Standards of Living and Ability to Provide. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 121. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology and Home Economics. USDA, BAE, DFPRL, and Farm Management and Costs cooperating. Keywords: Farm family; family life cycle; standard of living. WI. 0208 Kumlien, W. F. 1931. Rural Health Situation in South Dakota. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts AES. Bulletin No. 258. Contributed by College Department of Rural Sociology. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating for the first year of the study. Keywords: Health; health and medical care; farm family. SD. 0261 Rankin, J. O. 1922. Reading Matter in Nebraska Farm Homes. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska AES. Bulletin No. 180. USDA, Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics cooperating. Summary report issued in February 1924. Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL], University of Nebraska cooperating. Keywords: Information sources—mass media; farm family. NE. 0262 Rankin, J. O. 1923. “A thousand Nebraska farm families and their homes in ten survey areas.” Pp. 186–209 in Proceedings of the 6th American Country Life Association Conference on November 9–11 at St. Louis,

citations from the work of the division

91

MO. Also issued for conference as “A thousand Nebraska farm families and their homes in ten survey areas.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. University of Nebraska cooperating. Keywords: Rural life; farm family. NE. 0263 Rankin, J. O. 1923. The Nebraska Farm Family: Some Land Tenure Phases. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska AES. Bulletin No. 185. USDA, Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics cooperating. Keywords: Structure of agriculture; land tenure; farm family; population composition. NE. 0269 Rankin, J. O. 1927. Cost of Feeding Nebraska Farm Family: A Comparison of Costs and Standards of Food Consumption of Owners, Part Owners, and Tenants. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska AES. Bulletin No. 219. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Level of living; farm family. NE. 0270 Rankin, J. O. 1931. The Cost of Clothing the Nebraska Farm Family. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska AES. Bulletin No. 248. [USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating]. Keywords: Level of living; farm family. NE. 0271 Rankin, J. O. 1931. Housing and House Operation Costs on Nebraska Farms. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska AES. Bulletin No. 264. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Level of living; housing; structure of agriculture; farm family. NE. 0287 Thaden, J. F. 1926. Standard of Living on Iowa Farms. Ames, IA: Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts AES. Bulletin No. 238. Contributed by Rural Sociology Section. USDA, [BAE], DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Standard of living; farm family. IA. 0300 Willson, E. A. 1933. Incomes and Cost of Living of Farm Families in North Dakota. 1923–1931. Fargo, ND: North Dakota Agricultural College AES. Bulletin No. 271. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Level of living; farm family. ND. 0326 Bankert, Zetta E., preparer. 1936. “The farm family standard of living in Codington County, South Dakota.” Typed. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State College, Rural Sociology Department. Standard of Living Studies, Bulletin 1. The W[orks] P[rogress] A[dministration], Social Research Division; South Dakota Works Progress Administration; USDA, [BAE], DFPRL; and South Dakota State College, Rural Sociology Department cooperating. {USDA 5}. Keywords: *Standard of living; farm family. SD. 0404 Kumlien, W. F., Charles P. Loomis, Zetta E. Bankert, Edmund de S. Brunner, and Robert L. McNamara. 1938. The Standard of Living of Farm and Village Families in Six South Dakota Counties, 1935. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts AES. Bulletin No. 320. Works Progress Administration, Social Research Division; USDA, Farm Security Administration, Social Research Section; and [USDA], BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Also identified as Social Research Report No. 12; DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration, and BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Standard of living; farm family; villages. SD. 0421 Loomis, Charles P. 1936. “The study of life cycle of families.” Contains the substance of a paper prepared for the 12th Congress de l’Institut

92

selected bibliography

International de Sociologie on August 25–29, 1935, at Brussels, Belgium. Rural Sociology 1 (2): 180–99. Reprinted as pp. 190–99 in Charles P. Loomis, Studies of Rural Social Organization in the United States, Latin America and Germany. East Lansing, MI: State College Book Store, 1945. Keywords: Family life cycle; farm family. NC. 0447 Manny, Theodore B. 1935. “Some economic and social conditions reported by farm families in Upper Freehold Township.” Pp. 35–56 in New Jersey Department of Agriculture, Upper Freehold Township: A Survey of the Life, Resources and Government of a New Jersey Rural Township, with a Program for Improvement. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Agriculture. {USDA 4}. Keywords: Level of living; farm family. NJ. 0584 Brady, Dorothy S., and Margaret J. Hagood. 1943. “Income of farm families.” Agricultural Situation 27 (8): 9–11. Keywords: Income; farm family. 0906 Hagood, Margaret Jarman. 1952. “Farm-operator family level-of-living indexes for counties of the United States: 1930, 1940, 1945, and 1950.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Keywords: Level of living; farm family; social change/trends. 0918 Hay, Donald G., Douglas Ensminger, Stacy R. Miller, and Edmond J. Lebrun. 1949. Rural Organizations in Three Maine Towns. Orono, ME: University of Maine. Maine Extension Bulletin No. 391. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups; community clubs/organizations; farm organizations; social participation; leadership; farm family; extension; women. ME. 0946 Larson, Olaf F., Donald G. Hay, Walter C. Levy, and William E. Mosher. 1951. “Family utilization of health resources in rural areas.” New York State Journal of Medicine 51 (3): 335–40. Keywords: Health and medical care; farm family; methodology—health research. NY. 0952 Longmore, T. Wilson, and Carl C. Taylor. 1951. “Elasticities of expenditures for farm family living, farm production, and savings, United States, 1946.” Journal of Farm Economics 33 (1): 1–19. Keywords: Level of living; farm family; income. 0994 Raper, Arthur F., Tamie Tsuchiyama, Herbert Passin, and David L. Sills. 1950. The Japanese Village in Transition. Tokyo: Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, General Headquarters. Report No. 136. Keywords: Culture of agriculture; social change/trends; land tenure; social organization; leadership; farm family; women in agriculture; women; religion; education; rural life. Japan. 0999 Reid, Margaret G., and Walter C. McKain. 1946. “Farm family living prospects in 1947.” Agricultural Situation 30 (11): 30–32. Keywords: Level of living; farm family; World War II—impacts on rural areas. 1043 White, Helen R. 1953. “Population in farm-operator households.” Pp. 45–64 in Farms and Farm People: Population, Income, and Housing Characteristics by Economic Class of Farms: A Special Cooperative Report. DC: GPO. USDA, BAE, DFPRL, Division of Statistical and Historical Research, and Division of Farm Management and Costs, and USDA Bureau of Human Nutrition and Home Economics, Family Economics Division cooperating.

citations from the work of the division



93

Keywords: Farm family; population composition; farm size—economic class; women; fertility. Blacks.

Rural Family 0207 Kumlien, W. F. 1930. The High School Education of Farm Boys and Girls in South Dakota. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts AES. Bulletin No. 250. Contributed by College Department of Rural Sociology. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating for the first year of the study. Keywords: Schools; education; children; rural family. SD. 0321 Baker, Oliver E. 1939. “The rural family and its significance to organized religion.” Address before the 4th annual meeting of the Christian Rural Fellowship on December 2, 1938, at New York, NY. New York: Christian Rural Fellowship. Bulletin No. 43. Keywords: Rural family; social change/trends. 0504 Taylor, Carl C. 1937. “The sociology of family life.” Journal of Home Economics 29 (8): 512–16. Keywords: Sociology—rural sociology; rural family. 0548 Alexander, Frank D. 1944. “Some effects of two years of war on a rural community.” Condensation of a paper read before the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Southern Sociological Society on March 31, at Atlanta, GA. Social Forces 23 (2): 196–201. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; population; community; social agencies; rural family. GA. 0884 Galloway, Robert E. 1948. “A contrast in the rural social organization of Rabun County, Georgia, and Franklin County, Washington.” Rural Sociology 13 (4): 384–400. Keywords: Social organization; level of living; rural family; schools; church; locality groups; leadership. Blacks. Appalachia; GA; WA.

bibliography 3: research publications with keywords containing “standard of living” and “level of living” Standard of Living 0110 Galpin, Charles J. 1929. “The standard of living of the farm population.” Pp. 70–76 in National Bureau of Economic Research (Herbert Hoover, chairman), Recent Economic Changes in the United States: Report of the Committee on Recent Economic Changes of the President’s Conference on Unemployment, Including the Reports of a Special Staff of the National Bureau of Economic Research, vol. 1. New York: McGraw-Hill. Keywords: Standard of living. 0113 Galpin, Charles J. 1929. “Standard of living may be improved by use of family budget.” Pp. 555–57 in Yearbook of Agriculture, 1928. DC: GPO. Keywords: Standard of living.

94

selected bibliography

0153 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1923. The Standard of Life in a Typical Section of Diversified Farming. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES, Bulletin No. 423. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Based in part on September 1922 Cornell University Ph.D. thesis. Keywords: Standard of living; farm family; land tenure. NY. 0158 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1926. “Farmers’ standards of living.” Pp. 13–25 in Henry Israel and Benson Y. Landis, eds., Handbook of Rural Social Resources. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Keywords: Standard of living. 0160 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1926. The Farmer’s Standard of Living: A SocioEconomic Study of 2886 White Farm Families of Selected Localities in 11 States. DC: USDA. Department Bulletin No. 1466. Keywords: Standard of living; farm family. Northeast; South; Midwest. 0162 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1927. “Rural church in its relation to the farmer’s standard of living.” Address before the annual meeting of the international Association of Agricultural Missions on December 2, 1926, at New York. World Agriculture 6 (4): 457–58. Keywords: Church; standard of living. 0163 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1927. “Observations as a measure of the standard of living among farmers.” Journal of Home Economics 19 (8): 459–62. Keywords: Standard of living; methodology—levels of living indicators/scales. 0166 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1927. “The effect of minimum and maximum economic status on the standard of life.” Pp. 125–33 in Dwight Sanderson, ed., Farm Income and Farm Life: A Symposium on the Relation of the Social and Economic Factors in Rural Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the American Country Life Association. Keywords: Level of living; standard of living; socioeconomic status—individual/family. 0169 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1927. “The relation of the standard of life to success in farming.” Address given at 10th National Country Life Conference, August 1–4 at East Lansing, Michigan. Published in Rural America 5 (October 1927): 28–31; and pp. 135–40 in A Decade of Rural Progress, Proceedings of the 10th and 11th National Country Life Conference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the American Country Life Association, 1928. Keywords: Standard of living; level of living; rural life. [addendum] Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., Helen W. Atwater, and Ilene M. Bailey. 1924. Family Living in Farm Homes: An Economic Study of 402 Farm Families in Livingston County, NY. DC: USDA, Department Bulletin No. 1214. 0184 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and J. T. Sanders. 1926. The Relation Between the Ability to Pay and the Standard of Living Among Farmers: A SocioEconomic Study of 861 White Farm Families of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas. DC: USDA, Department Bulletin No. 1382. Keywords: Level of living. KY; TN; TX. 0191 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., P. E. McNall, and May L. Cowles. 1930. “Rural standards of living in Dunn County, Wisconsin.” Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, College of Agriculture. Stencil Bulletin No. 104. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology, Home Economics, and Agricultural Economics. USDA, BAE, DFPRL, and Farm Management and Costs cooperating. {NAL v.71}. Keywords: Standard of living. WI.

citations from the work of the division

95

0192 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., P. E. McNall, and May L. Cowles. 1930. “Rural standards of living in Walworth County, Wisconsin.” Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, College of Agriculture. Stencil Bulletin No. 105. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology, Home Economics, and Agricultural Economics. USDA, BAE, DFPRL, and Farm Management and Costs cooperating. Keywords: Standard of living. WI. 0193 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and Aileen Cripps. 1931. “Rural standards of living in Dane and Green Counties.” Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, College of Agriculture. Stencil Bulletin No. 106. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology, Agricultural Economics, and Home Economics. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL, and Farm Management and Costs] cooperating. Keywords: Standard of living. WI. 0194 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., P. E. McNall, and May L. Cowles. 1931. “Rural standards of living in Portage, Langlade and Sawyer Counties, Wisconsin.” Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, College of Agriculture. Stencil Bulletin No. 108. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology, Agricultural Economics, and Home Economics. USDA, BAE, DFPRL, and Farm Management and Costs cooperating. Keywords: Standard of living. WI. 0195 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., P. E. McNall, and May L. Cowles. 1933. Farm Family Living in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 114. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology, Agricultural Economics, and Home Economics. USDA, BAE, DFPRL, and Farm Management and Costs cooperating. Supplementary tables published separately in mimeo form. Keywords: Farm family; income; standard of living; social participation. WI. 0196 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., Rosalind Tough, and May L. Cowles. 1934. The Life Cycle of the Farm Family—in Relation to Its Standards of Living and Ability to Provide. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 121. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology and Home Economics. USDA, BAE, DFPRL, and Farm Management and Costs cooperating. Keywords: Farm family; family life cycle; standard of living. WI. 0272 Rankin, J. O., and Eleanor H. Hinman. 1932. A Summary of the Standard of Living in Nebraska Farm Homes. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska AES. Bulletin No. 267. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Standard of living; structure of agriculture. NE. 0287 Thaden, J. F. 1926. Standard of Living on Iowa Farms. Ames, IA: Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts AES. Bulletin No. 238. Contributed by Rural Sociology Section. USDA, [BAE], DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Standard of living; farm family. IA. 0326 Bankert, Zetta E., preparer. 1936. “The farm family standard of living in Codington County, South Dakota.” Typed. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State College, Rural Sociology Department. Standard of Living Studies, Bulletin 1. The W[orks] P[rogress] A[dministration], Social Research Division; South Dakota Works Progress Administration; USDA, [BAE], DFPRL; and South Dakota State College, Rural Sociology Department cooperating. {USDA 5}. Keywords: *Standard of living; farm family. SD.

96

selected bibliography

0338 Davidson, Dwight M., Jr., and B. L. Hummel. 1940. Standards of Living in Six Virginia Counties. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 15. BAE, [DFPRW], Work Projects Administration, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute cooperating. Keywords: Standard of living. Blacks. VA. 0404 Kumlien, W. F., Charles P. Loomis, Zetta E. Bankert, Edmund de S. Brunner, and Robert L. McNamara. 1938. The Standard of Living of Farm and Village Families in Six South Dakota Counties, 1935. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts AES. Bulletin No. 320. Works Progress Administration, Social Research Division; USDA, Farm Security Administration, Social Research Section; and [USDA], BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Also identified as Social Research Report No. 12; DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration, and BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Standard of living; farm family; villages. SD. 0433 Loomis, Charles P., and O. E. Leonard. 1938. Standards of Living in an Indian-Mexican Village and on a Reclamation Project. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 14. BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Reprinted as a “A study of Tortugas, an IndianMexican village,” pp. 205–26 in Charles P. Loomis, Studies of Rural Social Organization in the United States, Latin America and Germany. East Lansing, MI: State College Book Store, 1945. Keywords: Standard of living; reclamation projects; irrigation. Indian; Mexican. NM; CA; OR. 0434 Loomis, Charles P., and L[inden] S. Dodson. 1938. Standards of Living in Four Southern Appalachian Mountain Counties. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 10. BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Standard of living. Appalachia. 0435 Loomis, Charles P., and Dwight M. Davidson Jr. 1938. Standards of Living of Residents of Seven Rural Resettlement Communities. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 11. BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Standard of living; resettlement; population composition. Blacks. 0436 Loomis, Charles P., Joseph L. Lister, and Dwight M. Davidson Jr. 1938. Standards of Living in Great Lakes Cut-over Area. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 13. BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Standard of living. MN; MI; WI. 0472 Schuler, Edgar A. 1938. Social Status and Farm Tenure—Attitudes and Social Conditions of Corn Belt and Cotton Belt Farmers. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 4. BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Land tenure; race; agricultural ladder; migration; level of living; standard of living; attitudes/opinions. Blacks. 0518 Taylor, Carl C., and Conrad Taeuber. 1937. “Social factors associated with farm tenancy.” Agricultural Situation 21 (2): 2–6. Keywords: Land tenure; standard of living; level of living. 0752 Schuler, Edgar A. 1944. “Some regional variations in levels and standards of living.” Rural Sociology 9 (2): 122–41.

citations from the work of the division

97

Keywords: Level of living; standard of living; graphic analysis. 0879 Fisher, Lloyd. 1947. “Standards and levels of living of prospective settlers on new irrigation projects.” Pp. 1–27 in U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Columbia Basin Joint Investigations, Standards and Levels of Living. Studies by the USDA for Problem 9. DC: GPO. Keywords: Planning—Columbia River Basin; level of living; standard of living; public policy. Columbia Basin. 1006 Schuler, Edgar A., and Rachel Rowe Swiger (see also Rowe, Rachel). 1946. “Trends in farm family levels and standards of living.” Dittoed. Revised in August 1947 by Walter C. McKain Jr. Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Keywords: Level of living; standard of living; social change/trends. 1013 Swiger, Rachel Rowe, and Edgar A. Schuler. 1947. “Farm family levels and standards of living in the plains and the Northwest.” Pp. 29–48 in U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Columbia Basin Joint Investigations, Standards and Levels of Living. Studies by the USDA for Problem 9. DC: GPO. Keywords: Planning—Columbia River Basin; level of living; standard of living; public policy. KS; ND; OR; WA.

Level of Living 0070 Clark, Edna, and E. L. Kirkpatrick. 1925. “Average quantities and costs of clothing purchased by farm families—Clothing purchased in one year by 1337 farm families of selected localities of Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]; USDA, Bureau of Home Economics; Ohio Wesleyan University; University of Kentucky; University of Missouri; Kansas State Agricultural College; and The Farmer’s Wife, cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. OH; KY; MO; KS. 0077 Dickey, J. A., and E. C. Branson. 1922. How Farm Tenants Live: A Social Economic Survey in Chatham County, North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Extension Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 6. Keywords: Land tenure; level of living. NC. 0097 Galpin, Charles J. 1924. “Spending the dollar wisely in home and community: A plea for a larger place in agricultural teaching for consumption.” Address at the Thirty-Eighth Annual Convention of the Association of LandGrant Colleges on November 12 at New Willard Hotel, DC. Published in Proceedings [U.S. Office of Experiment Stations, Miscellaneous Bulletin], pp. 198–204. Burlington, VT: Free Press. Also published January 1925 under the title “Spending the dollar wisely” in Rural America 3 (1): 3, 10. Keywords: Level of living, rural life. 0145 Hawley, Edith. 1926. “Average quality, cost and nutritive value of food consumed during one year by 1331 farm families of selected localities in Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]; Ohio Wesleyan University; University of Missouri; University of Kentucky; Kansas State Agricultural College; and The Farmer’s Wife, cooperating. Keywords: Level of living. KS; KY; MO; OH.

98

selected bibliography

0148 Hill, Randall C., E. L. Morgan, Mabel V. Campbell, and O. R. Johnson. 1930. Social, Economic, and Homemaking Factors in Farm Living. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, College of Agriculture, AES. Research Bulletin No. 148. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology, Home Economics, and Agricultural, USDA, [BAE], DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Socioeconomic status—individual/family; level of living; farm family. MO. 0154 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1924. “Living conditions and the cost of living in farm homes of selected localities of Missouri: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. University of Missouri, Agricultural Extension Service, cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Standard of living. MO. 0155 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1924. “Family living in farm homes.” Substance of an address before graduate students at [Columbia University] Teachers College in July. Teachers College Record 26 (4): 323–27. Keywords: Level of living. 0156 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1924. “Facts and factors with regard to the farmers’ standard of living.” Pp. 388–95 in Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Session National Conference of Social Work, May 26–June 2, at Cleveland, Ohio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the National Conference of Social Work. Keywords: Level of living; farm family. 0157 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1926. “The average quantities and values of fuel and other household supplies used by farm families—Fuel and other household supplies furnished by the farm and purchased in one year for family living purposes by 1,337 farm families of selected localities of Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]; USDA, Bureau of Home Economics; Ohio Wesleyan University; University of Kentucky; University of Missouri; Kansas State Agricultural College; and The Farmer’s Wife, cooperating. Keywords: Level of living. OH; KY; MO; KS. 0159 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1926. “Average expenditures of household furnishings and equipment purchased by farm families—Household furnishings and equipment purchased in one year by 1,299 farm families of selected localities of Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]; USDA, Bureau of Home Economics; Ohio Wesleyan University; University of Kentucky; University of Missouri; Kansas State Agricultural College; and The Farmer’s Wife, cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. OH; KY; MO; KS. 0161 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1926. “Housing conditions among 947 white farm families of Texas: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. TX. 0164 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1927. “Attitudes and problems of farm youth.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, Extension Services, [Office of Cooperative Extension Work], Circular 46. Keywords: Youth; attitudes/opinions; level of living. Blacks. 0165 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1927. “Family living level on the farm.” Pp. 351–53 in Yearbook of Agriculture, 1926. DC: GPO. Keywords: Level of living; farm family.

citations from the work of the division

99

0166 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1927. “The effect of minimum and maximum economic status on the standard of life.” Pp. 125–33 in Dwight Sanderson, ed., Farm Income and Farm Life: A Symposium on the Relation of the Social and Economic Factors in Rural Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the American Country Life Association. Keywords: Level of living; standard of living; socioeconomic status— individual/family. 0167 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1927. “The relation of types of farming to expenditure and culture.” Pp. 210–13 in Dwight Sanderson, ed., Farm Income and Farm Life: A symposium on the Relation of the Social and Economic Factors in Rural Progress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the American Country Life Association. Keywords: Level of living; farm systems; sociology of agriculture. 0169 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1927. “The relation of the standard of life to success in farming.” Address given at 10th National Country Life Conference, August 1–4, at East Lansing, Michigan. Published in Rural America 5 (October 1927): 28–31; and pp. 135–40 in A Decade of Rural Progress, Proceedings of the 10th and 11th National Country Life Conference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the American Country Life Association, 1928. Keywords: Standard of living; level of living; rural life. 0170 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1928. “Family living in farm homes at the bottom of agriculture.” Catholic Charities Review 12 (4): 123–25. Keywords: *Farm family; income—low; level of living. 0171 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1928. “Annual family living in selected farm homes of North Dakota: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. North Dakota Agricultural College cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. ND. 0172 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and Agnes Ellen Harris. 1924. “Living conditions and the cost of living in farm homes of selected areas in Alabama: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Extension Service cooperating. Keywords: Level of living. AL. 0173 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and B. L. Melvin. 1924. “Living conditions and the cost of living in farm homes of Delaware County, Ohio: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. OH. 0174 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and J. T. Sanders. 1924. “Cost of living in farm homes in several areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. University of Kentucky, Kentucky AES, and the University of Tennessee AES cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. KY; TN; TX. 0175 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and George H. von Tungeln. 1924. “Cost of living in farm homes in several areas of Iowa: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. IA. 0176 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., Walter Burr, and Ellen M. Batchelor. 1925. “Living conditions and family living in farm homes of selected localities of Kansas: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Kansas State

100

selected bibliography

Agricultural College Agricultural Extension and Departments of Economics and Sociology cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. KS. 0177 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and Myrtle Brook. 1925. “Living conditions and family living in farm homes of selected localities of Alabama: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Alabama College Department of Psychology and Sociology cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. AL. 0178 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and I. G. Davis. 1925. “Living conditions and family living in farm homes of Lebanon Town, New London County, Connecticut: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Connecticut Agricultural College, Agricultural Extension Service cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. CT. 0179 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and J. A. Dickey. 1925. “Living conditions and family living in farm homes of Schoharie County, New York: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL], New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University, Department of Rural Social Organization cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. NY. 0180 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and Lonny I. Landrum. 1925. “Living conditions and family living in farm homes of selected localities of South Carolina: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL], and Winthrop College. Extension Service cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. SC. 0181 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and Lucile W. Reynolds. 1925. “Living conditions and family living in farm homes of selected localities of Massachusetts: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL], and Massachusetts Agricultural College. Agricultural Extension Service cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. MA. 0182 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and J. T. Sanders. 1925. “The cost of living among colored farm families of selected localities of Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. University of Kentucky, Kentucky AES, and the University of Tennessee AES cooperating. Keywords: Level of living. Blacks. KY; TN; TX. 0183 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and Agnes Ellen Harris. 1926. “Living conditions and family living in farm homes of Alabama: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Extension Service cooperating. Keywords: Level of living. AL. 0185 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., Agnes Ellen Harris, and Myrtle Brook. 1926. “Living conditions and family living in farm homes of Alabama: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Extension Service and Alabama College Department of Psychology and Sociology cooperating. Keywords: Level of living. AL. 0186 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and Daisy D. Williamson. 1926. “Living conditions and family living in farm homes of Merrimack County, New Hampshire: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL], and the University of New Hampshire. Agricultural Extension Service cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. MN.

citations from the work of the division

101

0187 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and A. T. Hoverstad. 1927. “Family living in 25 farm homes of Askov, Pine County, Minnesota, for the year ending December 31, 1925: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. University of Minnesota Department of Agriculture cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: Level of living. MN. 0188 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and H. W. Hawthorne. 1928. “Family living among poorer farm people studied statistically.” Pp. 293–95 in Yearbook of Agriculture, 1927. DC: GPO. Keywords: Level of living; income—low. North Central. 0189 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., and H. W. Hawthorne. 1928. “Sources and uses of income among 300 farm families of Vinton, Jackson, and Meigs Counties, Ohio, 1926: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Ohio AES and Ohio State University cooperating. Keywords: Level of living. OH. 0223 Manny, Theodore B. 1932. “The human factor from the viewpoint of social relations.” Paper read before joint meeting of the Section on Rural Sociology of the American Sociological Society and the American Farm Economic Association on December 28, 1931, at DC. Journal of Farm Economics 14 (1): 128–37. Keywords: Level of living; social participation; farm population; population composition; migration. 0256 Nicholls, W. D., and E. L. Kirkpatrick. 1924. “Costs of living in farm homes, Mason County, Kentucky: A preliminary report.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. {NAL v. 63}. Keywords: Level of living. KY. 0257 Oyler, Merton. 1930. Cost of Living and Population Trends in Laurel County, Kentucky. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Kentucky AES. Bulletin No. 301. USDA, [BAE], DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Level of living; population composition. KY. 0269 Rankin, J. O. 1927. Cost of Feeding Nebraska Farm Family: A Comparison of Costs and Standards of Food Consumption of Owners, Part Owners, and Tenants. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska AES. Bulletin No. 219. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Level of living; farm family. NE. 0270 Rankin, J. O. 1931. The Cost of Clothing the Nebraska Farm Family. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska AES. Bulletin No. 248. [USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating]. Keywords: Level of living; farm family. NE. 0271 Rankin, J. O. 1931. Housing and House Operation Costs on Nebraska Farms. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska AES. Bulletin No. 264. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Level of living; housing; structure of agriculture; farm family. NE. 0286 Tetreau, E. D. 1931. Farm Equipment for Communication and Household Convenience as Found on 610 Ohio Farms, Madison and Union Counties, Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio AES. AES Mimeograph Bulletin No. 30. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: *Level of living. OH. 0292 Von Tungeln, George H., Ellis L. Kirkpatrick, C. R. Hoffer, and J. F. Thaden. 1923. The Social Aspects of Rural Life and Farm Tenantry, Cedar County,

102

selected bibliography

Iowa. Ames, IA: Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts AES. Bulletin No. 217. Contributed by Rural Sociology Section. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Level of living; community; attitudes/opinions. IA. 0293 Von Tungeln, George H., J. F. Thaden, and E. L. Kirkpatrick. 1926. Cost of Living on Iowa Farms [Part 1]: An Economic and Sociological Study of 472 Farm Families and Farm Homes in Boone, Story, and Sac Counties, Iowa. Ames, IA: Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts AES. Bulletin No. 237. Contributed by Rural Sociology Section. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Level of living. IA. 0300 Willson, E. A. 1933. Incomes and Cost of Living of Farm Families in North Dakota. 1923–1931. Fargo, ND: North Dakota Agricultural College AES. Bulletin No. 271. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Level of living; farm family. ND. 0332 Clawson, Marion, Davis McEntire, and C. P. Heisig. 1940. “The migrants: V. ‘Stump ranching.’” Land Policy Review 3 (3): 32–38. Keywords: Migration; level of living. 0339 Dodson, Linden S. 1937. Living Conditions and Population Migration in Four Appalachian Counties. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 3. BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Farm population; population composition; level of living. Appalachia. 0342 Draper, C. R. [1940]. “Levels of living in Maine.” Undated Mimeo. Orono, ME: Maine Agricultural Extension Service and USDA, BAE, [DFPRW] cooperating. {USDA 16}. Keywords: Level of living. ME. 0356 Foote, Connie C., and Donald G. Hay, compilers. [1940]. “Rural housing facilities of selected Farm Security Administration borrowers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas.” Undated mimeo. [DC]: USDA. Farm Security Administration and Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [DFPRW] cooperating. {USDA 14}. Keywords: Housing; level of living; Farm Security Administration. ND; SD; NE; KS. 0392 Jehlick, Paul J. 1941. “Level of living on the Ropesville Project, Hockley County, Texas.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 18}. Keywords: Level of living; Farm Security Administration; resettlement. TX. 0412 Leonard, Olen E., and Charles P. Loomis. 1939. “A study of mobility and levels of living among Negro sharecropper and wage-laborer families of the Arkansas River valleys.” DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Farm Population and Rural Life Activities 13 (2): 1–11. Reprinted as pp. 227–37 in Charles P. Loomis, Studies of Rural Social Organization in the United States, Latin America and Germany. East Lansing, MI: State College Book Store, 1945. Keywords: Land tenure; farm labor; migration; level of living; income— low. Blacks. AR. 0426 Loomis, Charles P. 1939. “Educational status and its relationship to reading and other activities.” Social Forces 18 (1): 56–59. Reprinted as pp. 238–40 in Charles P. Loomis, Studies of Rural Social Organization in the United States, Latin America and Germany. East Lansing, MI: State College Book Store, 1945.

citations from the work of the division



103

Keywords: Information sources—mass media; education; land tenure; level of living. 0444 Manny, Theodore B. 1935. “The conditions of rural life.” American Journal of Sociology 40 (6): 720–28. Keywords: Level of living; social change/trends. 0447 Manny, Theodore B. 1935. “Some economic and social conditions reported by farm families in Upper Freehold Township.” Pp. 35–56 in New Jersey Department of Agriculture, Upper Freehold Township: A Survey of the Life, Resources and Government of a New Jersey Rural Township, with a Program for Improvement. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Agriculture. {USDA 4}. Keywords: Level of living; farm family. NJ. 0472 Schuler, Edgar A. 1938. Social Status and Farm Tenure—Attitudes and Social Conditions of Corn Belt and Cotton Belt Farmers. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 4. BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Land tenure; race; agricultural ladder; migration; level of living; standard of living; attitudes/opinions. Blacks. 0518 Taylor, Carl C., and Conrad Taeuber. 1937. “Social factors associated with farm tenancy.” Agricultural Situation 21 (2): 2–6. Keywords: Land tenure; standard of living; level of living. 0519 Taylor, Carl C., Bushrod W. Allin, and O. E. Baker. 1938. “Public purposes in soil use.” Pp. 47–59 in Soils and Men: Yearbook of Agriculture, 1938. DC: GPO. Also published as Yearbook Separate No. 1608. Keywords: Soil conservation; migration; resettlement. 0595 Downing, James C., and Robert E. Galloway. 1942. “Farm resources and farming systems needed to meet living needs of farm families in five type-offarming areas: Part II—Lower Piedmont of Georgia and South Carolina.” Mimeo. Atlanta, GA: USDA, BAE. Keywords: Level of living; farm systems; planning. GA; SC. 0618 Fisher, Lloyd H. 1943. “What is a minimum adequate farm income?” Journal of Farm Economics 25 (3): 662–70. Keywords: Planning—Columbia River Basin; level of living. 0654 Hitt, Homer L. 1942. “A comparative analysis of the people on new ground farms, plantations, and old family farms in the upper Mississippi Delta of Louisiana.” Rural Sociology 7 (4): 404–14. Keywords: Population; population composition; level of living; plantations; resettlement; social change/trends. Blacks. LA. 0655 Hitt, Homer L. 1943. Recent Migration into and Within the Upper Mississippi Delta of Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA: State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College AES. Louisiana Bulletin 364. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Migration; population composition; land tenure; level of living. Blacks. LA. 0732 Peterson, George R., and Lawrence B. Lyall. 1942. “Farm resources and farming systems needed to meet living needs of farm families in five typeof-farming areas: Part V—North Central South Dakota.” Mimeo. Lincoln, NE: USDA, BAE. Keywords: Level of living; farm systems; planning. SD.

104

selected bibliography

0748 Rush, Donald R., and Olaf F. Larson. 1942. “Farm resources and farming systems needed to meet living needs of farm families in five type-of-farming areas: Part I—Summary.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Keywords: Level of living; farm systems; planning. 0751 Schaefer, George T., Ross V. Baumann, and F. Howard Forsyth. 1942. “Farm resources and farming systems needed to meet living needs of farm families in five type-of-farming areas: Part VI—South Central Minnesota.” Mimeo. Milwaukee, WI: USDA, BAE. Keywords: Level of living; farm systems; planning. MN. 0752 Schuler, Edgar A. 1944. “Some regional variations in levels and standards of living.” Rural Sociology 9 (2): 122–41. Keywords: Level of living; standard of living; graphic analysis. 0757 Sitler, Harry G., and Paul J. Jehlik. 1942. “Farm resources and farming systems needed to meet living needs of farm families in five type-of-farming areas: Part IV—Southeastern Colorado and northeastern New Mexico.” Mimeo. Amarillo, TX: USDA, BAE. Keywords: Level of living; farm systems; planning. CO; NM. 0758 Snyder L. B., and A. H. Anderson. 1944. Determinants of Levels of Living for Farmers of Lancaster County, Nebraska. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, College of Agriculture AES. Bulletin No. 368. Keywords: Level of living. NE. 0761 Standing, T. G. 1942. “Some recent changes in agriculture, with particular reference to the Southwest.” Adapted from a paper presented at the meeting of Section “K” of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on December 29, 1941, at Dallas, TX. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 22 (4): 273–86. Keywords: Social change/trends; level of living; land tenure; population; mechanization. Southwest. 0798 [USDA, BAE, DFPRW?]. 1942. “Neighborhood and community basis of rural organization.” Mimeo. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky AES, Agricultural Extension Service, and College of Agriculture and Home Economics, and USDA, BAE, [DFPRW] cooperating. Keywords: *Locality groups. 0841 Anderson, A. H., and C. J. Miller. 1953. The Changing Role of the Small Town in Farm Areas (a Study of Adams, Nebraska). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, College of Agriculture AES, Bulletin No. 419. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Villages; trade centers; level of living; population composition; social change/trends. NE. 0879 Fisher, Lloyd. 1947. “Standards and levels of living of prospective settlers on new irrigation projects.” Pp. 1–27 in U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Columbia Basin Joint Investigations, Standards and Levels of Living. Studies by the USDA for Problem 9. DC: GPO. Keywords: Planning—Columbia River Basin; level of living; standard of living; public policy. Columbia Basin. 0880 Flagg, Grace L., and T. Wilson Longmore. 1949. Trends in Rural and Urban Levels of Living. DC: USDA, BAE. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 11. Keywords: Level of living; levels of living indicators; rural-urban population comparisons; social change/trends.

citations from the work of the division

105

0881 Flagg, Grace L., and T. Wilson Longmore. 1952. Trends in Selected Facilities Available to Farm Families. DC: USDA, BAE. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 87. Keywords: Level of living; social change/trends. 0884 Galloway, Robert E. 1948. “A contrast in the rural social organization of Rabun County, Georgia, and Franklin County, Washington.” Rural Sociology 13 (4): 384–400. Keywords: Social organization; level of living; rural family; schools; church; locality groups; leadership. Blacks. Appalachia; GA; WA. 0895 Hagood, Margaret Jarman, summarizer. 1946. “Farm-population adjustments following the end of the war.” Mimeo. [DC]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 45}. Keywords: Migration; farm population; World War II—impacts on rural areas. 0905 Hagood, Margaret Jarman. 1952. “Farm operator families are living better, report shows.” Agricultural Situation 36 (7): 4–6. Keywords: Level of living; social change/trends. 0906 Hagood, Margaret Jarman. 1952. “Farm-operator family level-of-living indexes for counties of the United States: 1930, 1940, 1945, and 1950.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRL]. Keywords: Level of living; farm family; social change/trends. 0933 Jehlick, Paul J. 1953. “How high are we living?” Iowa Farm Science 7 (11): 209–10. Keywords: Level of living; social change/trends. IA. 0951 Longmore, T. Wilson, and Grace L. Flagg. 1949. “Farm living varies with distance to city.” Agricultural Situation 33 (10): 2–4. Keywords: Level of living; rural-urban population comparisons. 0952 Longmore, T. Wilson, and Carl C. Taylor. 1951. “Elasticities of expenditures for farm family living, farm production, and savings, United States, 1946.” Journal of Farm Economics 33 (1): 1–19. Keywords: Level of living; farm family; income. 0958 McKain, Walter C., Jr. 1947. “Farm-city living compared.” Agricultural Situation 31 (9): 9–10. Keywords: Level of living; rural-urban population comparisons. 0986 Raper, Arthur F. 1946. “Farm life and mechanization.” Agricultural Situation 30 (10): 4–5. Keywords: Mechanization; farm size; farm labor; level of living; social organization; social change/trends. Blacks. 0987 Raper, Arthur F., summarizer. 1946. “Uses being made by rural families of increased wartime incomes: Based on current field reports made by professional trained observers in a national sample of 71 counties.” Mimeo. [DC]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 45}. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; income; level of living. 0990 Raper, Arthur F. 1950. “Southern agricultural trends and their effect on Negro farmers.” Pp. 12–36 in Lewis W. Jones, ed., The Changing Status of the Negro in Southern Agriculture, Proceedings of the Tuskegee Rural Life Conference. Tuskegee Institute, Rural Life Council, Rural Life Information Series, Bulletin No. 3. Keywords: Rural life; social change/trends; population trends; mechanization; land tenure; level of living. Blacks. South.

106

selected bibliography

0999 Reid, Margaret G., and Walter C. McKain. 1946. “Farm family living prospects in 1947.” Agricultural Situation 30 (11): 30–32. Keywords: Level of living; farm family; World War II—impacts on rural areas. 1000 Riecken, Henry W., Jr., and Nathan L. Whetten. 1948. Rural Social Organization in Litchfield County, Connecticut. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture, Storrs AES. Bulletin No. 261. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; community clubs/organizations; agricultural agencies; level of living. CT. 1006 Schuler, Edgar A., and Rachel Rowe Swiger. 1946. “Trends in farm family levels and standards of living.” Dittoed. Revised in August 1947 by Walter C. McKain Jr. Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Keywords: Level of living; standard of living; social change/trends. 1013 Swiger, Rachel Rowe, and Edgar A. Schuler. 1947. “Farm family levels and standards of living in the plains and the Northwest.” Pp. 29–48 in U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Columbia Basin Joint Investigations, Standards and Levels of Living. Studies by the USDA for Problem 9. DC: GPO. Keywords: Planning—Columbia River Basin; level of living; standard of living; public policy. KS; ND; OR; WA.

bibliography 4: research publications with keywords containing “social organization” and “social participation” Social Organization 0060 Baumgartel, Walter H. 1923. A Social Study of Ravalli County, Montana. Bozeman: University of Montana AES Bulletin No. 160. USDA, Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics, Division of Farm Life Studies, cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; community development. MT. 0067 Berger, J. Wheeler. 1930. The Rural Community Club in Montana. [Bozeman, MT]: University of Montana AES. Bulletin No. 224. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Community clubs/organizations; community processes; social organization; rural life. MT. 0076 Denune, Perry P. 1927. The Social and Economic Relations of the Farmers with the Towns of Pickaway County, Ohio. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. [University Studies], Bureau of Business Research Monograph No. 9. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Social and economic areas (rural-urban relationships); towns; social organization. OH. 0079 Dorn, Harold F. 1931. The Social and Economic Areas of Yates County, New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 529. [USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating]. Based on a February 1930 Cornell University M.S. thesis. Keywords: Social and economic areas (rural-urban relationships); villages; social organization; community. OH.

citations from the work of the division

107

0118 Galpin, Charles J. 1930. “Rural community often too small to support adequate institutions.” Pp. 467–69 in Yearbook of Agriculture, 1930. DC: GPO. Keywords: Community development; social organization. 0125 Galpin, Charles J. 1931. “Complete organization of the community.” Rural America 9 (5): 9. Keywords: Community; social organization; community development; social participation; rural life. 0152 Hoffsommer, Harold C. 1934. Relation of Cities and Larger Villages to Changes in Rural Trade and Social Areas in Wayne County, New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 582. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Based in part on June 1929 Cornell University Ph.D. thesis. Keywords: Social and economic areas (rural-urban relationships); social organization; trade centers; towns; villages. NY. 0197 Kolb, J. H. 1921. Rural Primary Groups: A Study of Agricultural Neighborhoods. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 51. USDA, Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics cooperating. Keywords: Neighborhood; locality groups; social organization. WI. 0198 Kolb, J. H. 1923. Service Relations of Town and Country: The Service Organization of Town and Country. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 58. USDA, [BAE, DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Social and economic areas (rural-urban relationships); towns; social organization. WI. 0199 Kolb, J. H. 1925. Service Institutions for Town and Country. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 66. USDA, [BAE, DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Towns; social organizations; community development; schools; libraries; hospitals. WI. 0200 Kolb, J. H. 1933. Trends of Country Neighborhoods: A Restudy of Rural Primary Groups, 1921–1931. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 120. USDA [BAE, DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Neighborhood; locality groups; social organization; social change/trends. WI. 0201 Kolb, J. H., and C. J. Bornman. 1924. Rural Religious Organization: A Study of the Origin and Development of Religious Groups. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 60. USDA, [BAE, DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Religion; social organization; socio-cultural groups; social change/trends. WI. 0202 Kolb, J. H., and R. A. Polson. 1933. Trends in Town-Country Relations. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 117. USDA, BAE, DFPRL, and the President’s Committee for the Study of Recent Social Trends cooperating. Keywords: Social and economic areas (rural-urban relationships); towns; social organization; social change/trends. WI. 0203 Kolb, J. H., and A. F. Wileden. 1927. Special Interest Groups in Rural Society. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 84. USDA, [BAE, DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Voluntary associations; social organization. WI.

108

selected bibliography

0233 Melvin, Bruce L. 1929. Village Service Agencies, New York, 1925. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 493. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Villages; social organization; social and economic areas (ruralurban relationships). NY. 0253 Nelson, Lowry. 1925. A Social Survey of Escalante, Utah. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Studies No. 1. Contributed by University Division of Research. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Community; social organization; religion; sociology of agriculture. Mormon. UT. 0254 Nelson, Lowry. 1928. The Utah Farm Village of Ephraim. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Studies No. 2. Contributed by University Division of Research. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Community; social organization; religion; sociology of agriculture. Mormon. UT. 0255 Nelson, Lowry. 1933. Some Social and Economic Features of America Fork, Utah. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Studies No. 4. Contributed by University Division of Research. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Community; social organization; religion; sociology of agriculture. Mormon. UT. 0259 Paxson, Alfred Moore. 1934. Relationships of Open-Country Families of Onondaga County, New York, to Socio-Economic Areas, Villages, and Cities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 584. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Based in part on September 1932 Cornell University Ph.D. thesis. Keywords: Social and economic areas (rural-urban relationships); social organization. NY. 0265 Rankin, J. O. 1923. Nebraska Farm Tenancy: Some Community Phases. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska AES. Bulletin No. 196. USDA, BAE cooperating. Keywords: Land tenure; community; social organization; social change/ trends. NE. 0273 Sanderson, Dwight. 1933. Social and Economic Areas of Broome County, New York, 1928. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 559. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Social and economic areas (rural-urban relationships); social organization. NY. 0274 Sanderson, Dwight. 1934. Rural Social and Economic Areas in Central New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 614. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Social and economic areas (rural-urban relationships); social organization. NY. 0276 Sanderson, Dwight, and Harold F. Dorn. 1934. “The rural neighborhoods of Otsego County, New York, 1931.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES, Department of Rural Social Organization. Mimeograph Bulletin No. 2. [USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating]. Keywords: Neighborhood; social organization. NY. 0281 Taylor, Edwards A. 1934. The Relationship of the Open-Country Population of Genesee County, New York, to Villages and Cities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 583. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Based in part on September 1931 Cornell University Ph.D. thesis.

citations from the work of the division



109

Keywords: Social and economic areas (rural-urban relationships); social organization; trade centers; towns; villages. NY. 0282 Taylor, Edwards A., and F. R. Yoder. 1926. Rural Social Organization in Whitman County. Pullman, WA: State College of Washington AES. Bulletin No. 203. Contribution by College Division of Farm Management and Agricultural Economics. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; rural life. WA. 0283 Taylor, Edwards A., and F. R. Yoder. 1927. Rural Social Organization in Whatcom County. Pullman, WA: State College of Washington AES. Bulletin No. 215. Contributed by College Division of Farm Management and Agricultural Economics. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; rural life. WA. 0284 Taylor, Edwards A., and F. R. Yoder. 1928. Rural Social Organization of Clark County. Pullman, WA: State College of Washington AES. Bulletin No. 225. Contributed by College Division of Farm Management and Agricultural Economics. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; rural life. WA. 0294 Wakely, Ray E. 1931. The Communities of Schuyler County, New York, 1927. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 524. [USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating]. Based on September 1928 Cornell University Ph.D. thesis. Keywords: Community; social organization. NY. 0302 Zimmerman, Carle C., and Carl C. Taylor. 1922. Rural Organization: A Study of Primary Groups in Wake County, NC. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina AES. Bulletin No. 245. Contributed by North Carolina State College, Department of Agricultural Economics. USDA [Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics, Division of Farm Life Studies] cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups; community; trade centers. Blacks. NC. 0340 Dodson, Linden S. 1939. Social Relationships and Institutions in an Established Urban Community, South Holland, Illinois. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 16. BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; community; schools; church. Dutch. IL. 0419 Loomis, Charles P. 1935. “The modern settlement movement in Germany: I, Rural; II, Suburban.” DC: USDA, BAE, DFPRL. Social Science Research Council cooperating. Part I reprinted as pp. 3–40 in Charles P. Loomis, Studies of Rural Social Organization in the United States, Latin America and Germany. East Lansing, MI: State College Book Store, 1945. Keywords: Resettlement; social organization; population. Germany. 0455 McNamara, Robert L. 1941. “Farmers study their communities in Hand County, South Dakota.” DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]; Hand County Use Planning Committee; and South Dakota AES, Rural Sociology Department cooperating. {USDA 19}. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups. SD. 0471 Sanders, Irwin T., and Douglas Ensminger. 1940. Alabama Rural Communities: A Study of Chilton County. Montevevallo, AL: Alabama College. Bulletin No. 136 (Vol. 33, No. 1A). USDA, BAE, [DFPRW] cooperating. Keywords: Community; social organization; methodology—locality groups identification/classification. Blacks. AL.

110

selected bibliography

0547 Alexander, Frank D. 1944. “A mountain school in the life of a community.” Mountain Life and Work 20 (4): 3–8. Keywords: Schools; community; social organization. GA. 0586 Coleman, A. Lee. 1942. “Community organization and agricultural planning, Greene County, Georgia.” Mimeo. Atlanta, GA: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Keywords: *Community; social organization; planning. Blacks. GA. 0594 Dodson, Linden S., and Jane Woolley. 1943. Community Organization in Charles County, Maryland. College Park, MD: University of Maryland AES; University of Maryland, Department of Sociology; USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]; and Charles County Agricultural Planning Committee cooperating. Bulletin No. A-21. Keywords: Community; social organization. MD. 0612 Ensminger, Douglas. 1945. “What is the community made of?” Extension Service Review 16 (11): 168. Keywords: *Social organization. 0613 Ensminger, Douglas. 1945. “Social organization for extension education.” DC: USDA, Extension Service. Keywords: *Social organization; extension. 0632 Goldschmidt, Walter R. 1944. “Class denominationalism in rural California churches.” Prepared for the Regional Land Tenure Conference arranged by the Farm Foundation for the Department of Town and Country Work, Home Missions Council, and Federal Council of Churches on February 10, 1943, at Berkeley, CA. American Journal of Sociology 49 (4): 348–55. Keywords: Church; social class; social organization. CA. 0636 Greiner, Harold L. 1942. “Rural school problems in Ward County, North Dakota.” Mimeo. Lincoln, NE: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]; Ward County Land Use Planning Committee; and North Dakota AES, Rural Sociology Department cooperating. Keywords: Schools; social organization; land-use planning. ND. 0668 Kollmorgen, Walter M. 1943. “The agricultural stability of the Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.” American Journal of Sociology 49 (3): 233–41. Keywords: Social-cultural groups; religion; social organization. German; Amish; Mennonites. PA. 0763 Standing, T. G., and T. Wilson Longmore. 1943. “Civilian organization for total war, Calhoun County, Arkansas.” Mimeo. Little Rock, AR: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 30}. Keywords: World War II—mobilization of local areas; social organization; evaluation; extension; Farm Security Administration; Agricultural Adjustment Administration. Blacks. AR. 0765 Standing, T. G., Herbert Pryor, and T. Wilson Longmore. 1943. “Adjustments to wartime needs in the South Central Region.” Mimeo. Little Rock, AR: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 32}. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas. AR; OK; TX. 0828 Alexander, Frank D., and Robert E. Galloway. 1947. “Salient features of social organization in a typical county of the general and self-sufficing farm region.” Rural Sociology 12 (4): 395–405.

citations from the work of the division



111

Keywords: Social organization; social change/trends; population trends. Appalachia; GA. 0829 Alexander, Frank D., and Lowry Nelson. 1949. Rural Social Organization: Goodhue County. University Farm, St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota AES, Bulletin No. 401. USDA, [BAE], DFPRL, and University of Minnesota AES, Division of Rural Sociology cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups; community clubs/organizations; agricultural agencies; social agencies. MN. 0830 Alexander, Frank, and Carl F. Kraenzel. 1953. Rural Social Organization of Sweet Grass County, Montana, with Attention to the Sutland Characteristics. Bozeman, MT: Montana State College AES, Bulletin No. 490. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups; community clubs/organizations; social agencies; agricultural agencies. MT. 0831 Almack, Ronald B., and Lawrence M. Hepple. 1950. Rural Social Organization in Dent County, Missouri. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, College of Agriculture AES, Research Bulletin No. 458. Keywords: Social organization; culture of agriculture; rural life; extension; World War II—impacts of rural areas. MO. 0838 Anderson, A. H., and Randall C. Hill. 1948. Rural Communities and Organizations: A Study of Group Life in Ellis County, Kansas. Manhattan, KS: Kansas AES, Department of Agricultural Economics, Circular No. 143. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups; community clubs/organizations; agricultural agencies; social participation. KS. 0850 Conference on Extension Experiences Around the World, Committee on Social Sciences in Relation to Extension Work (Carl C. Taylor, chairman). 1949. Experience with Human Factors in Agricultural Areas of the World. Conference held May 16–20. [DC]: USDA, Extension Service and Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations, cooperating. Keywords: Rural development—less developed countries; extension; social organization. 0852 Draper, C. R., and Daniel Russell. 1951. “Rural organization in Val Verde County, Texas.” Mimeo. College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College System, Texas AES, Miscellaneous Publication No. 71. USDA, [BAE, DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups; community clubs/organizations; social agencies. TX. 0875 Ensminger, Douglas, and Robert A. Polson. 1946. “The concept of the community.” Rural Sociology 11 (1): 43–51. Keywords: Locality groups; social organization. 0876 [Frane, Nat T.] 1946. “Wartime influence on Jasper County, Illinois and community programs following the war: A study by the Jasper County Community Council assisted by the College of Agriculture, University of Illinois and [DFPRW], BAE, USDA.” Mimeo. Milwaukee, WI: USDA, BAE. {USDA 44}. Keywords: Social organization; social change/trends; rural life. IL. 0884 Galloway, Robert E. 1948. “A contrast in the rural social organization of Rabun County, Georgia, and Franklin County, Washington.” Rural Sociology 13 (4): 384–400.

112

selected bibliography



Keywords: Social organization; level of living; rural family; schools; church; locality groups; leadership. Blacks. Appalachia; GA; WA. 0892 Grigsby, S. Earl, and Harold Hoffsommer. 1949. Rural Social Organization of Fredrick County, Maryland. College Park, MD: University of Maryland AES. Bulletin No. A-51. University of Maryland, Department of Sociology and AES, and USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups; community clubs/organizations; social agencies; agricultural agencies. MD. 0986 Raper, Arthur F. 1946. “Farm life and mechanization.” Agricultural Situation 30 (10): 4–5. Keywords: Mechanization; farm size; farm labor; level of living; social organization; social change/trends. Blacks. 0994 Raper, Arthur F., Tamie Tsuchiyama, Herbert Passin, and David L. Sills. 1950. The Japanese Village in Transition. Tokyo: Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, General Headquarters. Report No. 136. Keywords: Culture of agriculture; social change/trends; land tenure; social organization; leadership; farm family; women in agriculture; women; religion; education; rural life. Japan. 1000 Riecken, Henry W., Jr., and Nathan L. Whetten. 1948. Rural Social Organization in Litchfield County, Connecticut. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture, Storrs AES. Bulletin No. 261. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; community clubs/organizations; agricultural agencies; level of living. CT. 1006 Schuler, Edgar A., and Rachel Rowe Swiger (see also Rowe, Rachel). 1946. “Trends in farm family levels and standards of living.” Dittoed. Revised in August, 1947, by Walter C. McKain Jr. Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Keywords: Level of living; standard of living; social change/trends. 1037 Wakely, Ray E. 1947. “The culture of Corn-Belt County.” Mid-West Sociologist 10 (1): 15–16. Keywords: Social organization; rural life. IA.

Social Participation 0063 Beers, Howard W. 1933. The Income, Savings, and Work of Boys and Girls on Farms in New York, 1930. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 560. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Youth; income; social participation; farm family. NY. 0068 Burt, Henry J. 1929. Contacts in a Rural Community. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, College of Agriculture AES. Research Bulletin No. 125. USDA, [BAE], DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Social psychology; community processes; social participation; villages. MO. 0073 Dennis, W. V. 1931. Organizations Affecting Farm Youth in Locust Township,  Columbia County [Pennsylvania]. State College, PA: Penn­ sylvania State College, School of Agriculture and Experiment Station. Bulletin No. 265. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Community clubs/organizations; social participation; youth. PA.

citations from the work of the division

113

0074 Dennis, W. V. 1933. Social Activities of the Families in the Unionville District, Chester County, Pennsylvania. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State College, School of Agriculture and Experiment Station. Bulletin No. 286. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Social participation; community clubs/organizations; youth. PA. 0111 Galpin, Charles J. 1929. “Discriminations against rural people.” Rural America 7 (4): 5–6. Keywords: Community; community development; attitudes/opinions; social participation; rural life. 0125 Galpin, Charles J. 1931. “Complete organization of the community.” Rural America 9 (5): 9. Keywords: Community; social organization; community development; social participation; rural life. 0139 Garnett, Williams E. 1930. Young People’s Organizations in Relation to Rural Life in Virginia—with Special Reference to 4-H Clubs. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Virginia AES. Bulletin No. 274. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Youth; 4-H clubs; social participation. Blacks. VA. 0190 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., J. H. Kolb, Creagh Inge, and A. F. Wileden. 1929. Rural Organizations and the Farm Family: A Study of 282 Families in Twelve Selected Districts of Five Wisconsin Counties. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 96. USDA, [BAE, DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Community clubs/organizations; social participation. WI. 0195 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., P. E. McNall, and May L. Cowles. 1933. Farm Family Living in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin AES. Research Bulletin No. 114. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology, Agricultural Economics, and Home Economics. USDA, BAE, DFPRL, and Farm Management and Costs cooperating. Supplementary tables published separately in mimeo form. Keywords: Farm family; income; standard of living; social participation. WI. 0218 Manny, Theodore B. 1931. “Cooperative spirit of farmer varies with schooling and habit.” Pp. 154–56 in Yearbook of Agriculture, 1931. DC: GPO. Keywords: Farm organization; land tenure; social participation. 0223 Manny, Theodore B. 1932. “The human factor from the viewpoint of social relations.” Paper read before joint meeting of the Section on Rural Sociology of the American Sociological Society and the American Farm Economic Association on December 28, 1931, at DC. Journal of Farm Economics 14 (1): 128–37. Keywords: Level of living; social participation; farm population; population composition; migration. 0285 Tetreau, E. D. 1930. “Farm family participation in lodges, grange, Farm Bureau, 4-H clubs, school and church.” Columbus, OH: Ohio AES. Mimeograph Bulletin No. 29. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: *Social participation; voluntary associations; community clubs/ organizations; farm organizations; 4-H clubs. OH. 0329 Beers, Howard W., Robin M. Williams, John S. Page, and Douglas Ensminger. 1941. Community Land-Use Planning Committees: Organization, Leadership, and Attitudes, Garrard County, Kentucky, 1939. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky AES. Bulletin No. 417. USDA, BAE, [DFPRW] cooperating.

114



selected bibliography

Keywords: Land-use planning; community; social participation; leadership; attitudes/opinions. KY. 0395 Johnson, Helen W. 1940. “Planning by the founding fathers.” Land Policy Review 3 (7): 36–37. Keywords: Land-use planning; local government; social participation. 0427 Loomis, Charles P. 1939. “Informal social participation in the planned rural communities.” Sociometry 2 (4): 1–37. Keywords: Social participation; informal groups; community; resettlement. 0429 Loomis, Charles P. 1940. Social Relationships and Institutions in Seven New Rural Communities. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 18. BAE, [DFPRW] cooperating. Reprinted as pp. 41–124 in Charles P. Loomis, Studies of Rural Social Organization in the United States, Latin America and Germany. East Lansing, MI: State College Book Store, 1945. Keywords: Resettlement; social participation; community. 0430 Loomis, Charles P. 1941. “Informal groupings in a Spanish-American village.” Sociometry 4 (1): 36–51. Keywords: Community; social participation; informal groups. SpanishAmerican. NM. 0510 Taylor, Carl C. 1939. “The interdependence of rural and urban women.” Pp. 154–59 in Disadvantaged People in Rural Life, Proceedings of the 21st American County Life Conference, November 2–4, 1938, at Lexington, KY. Chicago: Chicago University Press for the National Country Life Association. Condensed version of this address was published under the same title in Rural America 17 (March 1939): 3–4. Keywords: Women; social participation. 0750 Sanderson, Dwight, and S. Earl Grigsby. 1943. “The social characteristics of Erin—a rural town in Southern New York.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES, Department of Rural Sociology Mimeograph Bulletin No. 10. USDA, BAE, [DFPRW], and Cornell University, Department of Agricultural Economics cooperating. Revision of September 1942 Cornell University Ph.D. thesis by S. Earl Grigsby titled “Erin: A socio-economic study of families living on marginal land.” Keywords: Population composition; income; socioeconomic status— individual/family; social participation. NY. 0835 Anderson, A. H. 1951. A Study of Rural Communities and Organizations in Seward County, Nebraska. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, College of Agriculture AES, Bulletin No. 405. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Locality groups; community clubs/organizations; social agencies; agricultural agencies; social participation. NE. 0838 Anderson, A. H., and Randall C. Hill. 1948. Rural Communities and Organizations: A Study of Group Life in Ellis County, Kansas. Manhattan, KS: Kansas AES, Department of Agricultural Economics, Circular No. 143. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups; community clubs/organizations; agricultural agencies; social participation. KS. 0839 Anderson, A. H., and Glen V. Vergeront. 1948. Rural Communities and Organizations: A Study of Group Life in Wells County, North Dakota. Fargo, ND: North Dakota Agricultural College AES, Bulletin No. 351. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating.

citations from the work of the division

115



Keywords: Locality groups; agricultural agencies; community clubs/organizations; social agencies; social participation. ND. 0915 Hay, Donald G. 1950. “The social participation of households in selected rural communities of the Northeast.” Rural Sociology 15 (2): 141–48. Keywords: Social participation. ME; NY. 0916 Hay, Donald G. 1951. “Social participation of individuals in four rural communities of the Northeast.” Rural Sociology 16 (2): 127–35. Keywords: Social participation; gender roles; age roles. ME; NY. 0918 Hay, Donald G., Douglas Ensminger., Stacy R. Miller, and Edmond J. Lebrun. 1949. Rural Organizations in Three Maine Towns. Orono, ME: University of Maine. Maine Extension Bulletin No. 391. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups; community clubs/organizations; farm organizations; social participation; leadership; farm family; extension; women. ME. 0935 Jellico, Paul J., and J. Edwin Losey. 1951. Rural Social Organization in Henry County, Indiana. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University AES. Station Bulletin No. 568. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups; community clubs/organizations; social agencies; agricultural agencies; social participation. IN.

bibliography 5: research publications with keywords containing “community” Community 0065 Berger, J. Wheeler. 1929. Rural Community Halls in Montana. Bozeman, MT: University of Montana AES. Bulletin No. 221. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Community buildings and centers; community; community development. MT. 0072 Dadisman, Andrew J. 1921. French Creek as a Rural Community. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University, College of Agriculture AES. Bulletin No. 176. USDA, Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics cooperating. Keywords: Community; community development; community processes; migration. WV. 0078 Doggett, Allen B., Jr. 1923. Three Negro Communities in Tidewater Virginia. Hampton, VA: Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute. Bulletin, vol. 19, no. 4. Contributed by School of Agriculture. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Community; community clubs/organizations; leadership. Blacks. VA. 0079 Dorn, Harold F. 1931. The Social and Economic Areas of Yates County, New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 529. [USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating]. Based on a February 1930 Cornell University M.S. thesis. Keywords: Social and economic areas (rural-urban relationships); villages; social organization; community. OH.

116

selected bibliography

0111 Galpin, Charles J. 1929. “Discriminations against rural people.” Rural America 7 (4): 5–6. Keywords: Community; community development; attitudes/opinions; social participation; rural life. 0125 Galpin, Charles J. 1931. “Complete organization of the community.” Rural America 9 (5): 9. Keywords: Community; social organization; community development; social participation; rural life. 0147 Hayes, Augustus W. 1923. “Examples of community enterprises in Louisiana.” Mimeo. New Orleans, LA: Tulane. University of Louisiana. Research Bulletin No. 3. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. {NAL v.63}. Keywords: *Community. LA. 0149 Hoag, Emily F. (see also Sawtelle, Emily H.). 1921. The National Influence of a Single Farm Community: A Story of the Flow into National Life of Migration from the Farms. DC: USDA. Department Bulletin No. 984. Contributed by Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics, [Division of Farm Life Studies]. Keywords: Migration; community. NY. 0242 Nason, Wayne C. 1925. “Community building and the church.” Rural America 3 (8): 6, 8. Keywords: Community buildings and centers; church; community development; community. 0252 Nason, Wayne C., and C. W. Thompson. 1920. Rural Community Buildings in the United States. DC: USDA. Department Bulletin No. 825. Keywords: Community buildings and centers; community. 0253 Nelson, Lowry. 1925. A Social Survey of Escalante, Utah. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Studies No. 1. Contributed by University Division of Research. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Community; social organization; religion; sociology of agriculture. Mormon. UT. 0254 Nelson, Lowry. 1928. The Utah Farm Village of Ephraim. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Studies No. 2. Contributed by University Division of Research. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Community; social organization; religion; sociology of agriculture. Mormon. UT. 0255 Nelson, Lowry. 1933. Some Social and Economic Features of America Fork, Utah. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Studies No. 4. Contributed by University Division of Research. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Community; social organization; religion; sociology of agriculture. Mormon. UT. 0265 Rankin, J. O. 1923. Nebraska Farm Tenancy: Some Community Phases. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska AES. Bulletin No. 196. USDA, BAE cooperating. Keywords: Land tenure; community; social organization; social change/ trends. NE. 0275 Sanderson, Dwight, and Warren S. Thompson. 1923. Social Areas of Otsego County. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 422. USDA, [BAE, DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Locality groups; neighborhood; community. NY.

citations from the work of the division

117

0292 Von Tungeln, George H., Ellis L. Kirkpatrick, C. R. Hoffer, and J. F. Thaden. 1923. The Social Aspects of Rural Life and Farm Tenantry, Cedar County, Iowa. Ames, IA: Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts AES. Bulletin No. 217. Contributed by Rural Sociology Section. USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating. Keywords: Level of living; community; attitudes/opinions. IA. 0294 Wakely, Ray E. 1931. The Communities of Schuyler County, New York, 1927.  Ithaca, NY: Cornell University AES. Bulletin No. 524. [USDA, BAE, DFPRL cooperating]. Based on September 1928 Cornell University Ph.D. thesis. Keywords: Community; social organization. NY. 0302 Zimmerman, Carle C., and Carl C. Taylor. 1922. Rural Organization: A Study of Primary Groups in Wake County, NC. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina AES. Bulletin No. 245. Contributed by North Carolina State College, Department of Agricultural Economics. USDA [Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics, Division of Farm Life Studies] cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; locality groups; community; trade centers. Blacks. NC. 0329 Beers, Howard W., Robin M. Williams, John S. Page, and Douglas ­Ensminger. 1941. Community Land-Use Planning Committees: Organization, Leadership, and Attitudes, Garrard County, Kentucky, 1939. ­Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky AES. Bulletin No. 417. USDA, BAE, [DFPRW] cooperating. Keywords: Land-use planning; community; social participation; leadership; attitudes/opinions. KY. 0331 Bell, Earl H. 1940. “A resurvey of Shell Rock community.” Farm Population and Rural Life Activities 14 (2): 1–17. Keywords: Community; social change/trends. IA. 0333 Coleman, [A.] Lee. 1941. “Communities and administrative areas of Greene County, Georgia.” A set of maps from Coleman’s “Community organization and agricultural planning, Greene County, Georgia,” 1942. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 19}. Keywords: Neighborhood; community; graphic analysis. Blacks. GA. 0340 Dodson, Linden S. 1939. Social Relationships and Institutions in an Established Urban Community, South Holland, Illinois. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 16. BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Social organization; community; schools; church. Dutch. IL. 0345 Edwards, Allen D. 1939. Influence of Drought and Depression on a Rural Community—A Case Study in Haskell County, Kansas. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 7. BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Drought; community. KS. 0347 Ensminger, Douglas. 1940. “The community in county planning. “ Land Policy Review 3 (2): 44–51. Keywords: Community; planning. 0381 Hoffsommer, Harold C., and Herbert Pryor. 1941. Neighborhoods and ­Communities in Covington County, Mississippi. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Keywords: Locality groups; neighborhood; community; methodology— locality group identification/classification. Blacks. MS.

118

selected bibliography

0386 Holt, John B. 1940. “Report of a reconnaissance survey of neighborhoods and communities of Caswell County, North Carolina, with recommendations.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Caswell County Land Use Planning Committee; and [USDA], BAE, [DFPRW] cooperating. Keywords: Locality groups; neighborhood; community. NC. 0387 Holt, John B. 1941. Rural Neighborhoods and Communities of Lee County, Alabama. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Keywords: Locality groups; neighborhood; community. Blacks. AL. 0402 Kollmorgen, Walter M. 1941. “The German settlement in Cullman County Alabama: An agricultural island in the Cotton Belt.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Keywords: Community. German. AL. 0413 Leonard, Olen E., and C. P. Loomis. 1941. Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: El Cerrito, New Mexico. [DC]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Rural Life Series No. 1. Keywords: Community; rural life. Spanish American. NM. 0417 Longmore, T. Wilson, Milton Rossoff, T. G. Standing, and Merton Otto, preparers, and T. G. Standing, ed., in consultation with Douglas Ensminger (DFPRW), Roger Stewart (BAE), and Randall C. Hill (Kansas State College). 1940. “Kansas rural communities: A study of Nemaha County.” Mimeo. Amarillo, TX: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Kansas AES cooperating. Keywords: Methodology—locality group identification/classification; locality group; community. Amish. KS. 0418 Loomis, Charles P. 1935. “The group method in rural studies, based on German techniques.” Sociology and Social Research 20 (2): 127–35. Reprinted as pp. 173–77 in Charles P. Loomis, Studies of Rural Social Organization in the United States, Latin America and Germany. East Lansing, MI: State College Book Store, 1945. Keywords: Methodology; community. 0427 Loomis, Charles P. 1939. “Informal social participation in the planned rural communities.” Sociometry 2 (4): 1–37. Keywords: Social participation; informal groups; community; resettlement. 0428 Loomis, Charles P. 1940. “Rebuilding American community life.” Address before the American Sociological Society on December 27, 1939, at Philadelphia. American Sociological Review 5 (3): 311–24. Reprinted as pp. 144–50 in Charles P. Loomis, Studies of Rural Social Organization in the United States, Latin America and Germany. East Lansing, MI: State College Book Store, 1945. Keywords: Community; subsistence homesteads. 0429 Loomis, Charles P. 1940. Social Relationships and Institutions in Seven New Rural Communities. DC: USDA, Farm Security Administration. Social Research Report No. 18. BAE, [DFPRW] cooperating. Reprinted as pp. 41–124 in Charles P. Loomis, Studies of Rural Social Organization in the United States, Latin America and Germany. East Lansing, MI: State College Book Store, 1945. Keywords: Resettlement; social participation; community. 0430 Loomis, Charles P. 1941. “Informal groupings in a Spanish-American village.” Sociometry 4 (1): 36–51. Keywords: Community; social participation; informal groups. Spanish American. NM.

citations from the work of the division

119

0439 Loomis, Charles P., and Dwight [M.] Davidison Jr. 1939. “Sociometrics and the study of new rural communities.” Sociometry 2 (1): 56–76. Keywords: Methodology—sociometric; community; resettlement. 0440 Loomis, Charles P., Douglas Ensminger, and Jane Wooley. 1941. “Neighborhoods and communities in county planning.” Rural Sociology 6 (4): 339–41. Keywords: Division of Farm Population and Rural Life; research; locality groups; neighborhood; community. 0459 Nichols, Ralph R. 1941. “Locating neighborhoods and communities in Red River Parish, Louisiana.” Mimeo. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University. USDA, BAE, [DFPRW], and Louisiana State Extension Service cooperating. {USDA 18}. Keywords: Locality groups; community; neighborhood; methodology— locality group identification/classification. Blacks. LA. 0461 Nichols, Ralph R., and John S. Page. 1941. “Community and neighborhood areas, Lincoln County, Oklahoma.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Oklahoma Joint Land-Grant College—BAE Committee cooperating. {USDA 18}. Keywords: Locality groups; community; neighborhood; methodology— locality group identification/classification. OK. 0463 Page, John S., and Paul T. Sant, preparers. 1941. “Identification of neighborhoods and communities: Roane County, Tennessee.” Mimeo. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Agricultural Extension Service; USDA, BAE, [DFPRW], and University of Tennessee AES cooperating. {USDA 18}. Keywords: Locality groups; community; neighborhood. Blacks. TN. 0471 Sanders, Irwin T., and Douglas Ensminger. 1940. Alabama Rural Communities: A Study of Chilton County. Montevallo, AL: Alabama College. Bulletin No. 136, vol. 33, no. 1A. USDA, BAE, [DFPRW] cooperating. Keywords: Community; social organization; methodology—locality groups identification/classification. Blacks. AL. 0547 Alexander, Frank D. 1944. “A mountain school in the life of a community.” Mountain Life and Work 20 (4): 3–8. Keywords: Schools; community; social organization. GA. 0548 Alexander, Frank D. 1944. “Some effects of two years of war on a rural community.” Condensation of a paper read before the Eighth Annual Meeting of Southern Sociological Society on March 31, at Atlanta, GA. Social Forces 23 (2): 196–201. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; population; community; social agencies; rural family. GA. 0549 Alexander, Frank D. 1945. “A rural community in time of war: The Valley community in Rabun County, Georgia.” Mimeo. Atlanta, GA: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 41}. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; community. Blacks. GA. 0550 Alexander, Frank D. 1945. “Constructive measures for Southern rural communities.” Social Forces 24 (2): 181–85. Keywords: Community; rural life. Blacks. South. 0563 Anderson, Anton H. 1944. “Rural communities and neighborhoods in the Northern Great Plains.” Mimeo. Lincoln, NE: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 37}. Keywords: Locality groups; methodology-locality group identification/ classification; community; neighborhood. Northern Great Plains.

120

selected bibliography

0565 Anderson, Anton H. 1945. “The rural community and the war: A study of Ryder, North Dakota.” Mimeo. Lincoln, NE: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 41}. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; community. ND. 0567 Anderson, Anton H. 1942. “Survey of communities in Franklin County, Nebraska.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW], and Franklin County Land Use Planning cooperating. Keywords: *Community. NE. 0574 Bell, Earl H. 1942. “The Shell Rock Community in war, Butler County, Iowa.” Dittoed. [DC]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 21}. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; community. IA. 0575 Bell, Earl H. 1942. Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: Sublette, Kansas. [DC]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Rural Life Studies No. 2. Keywords: Community; rural life. KS. 0586 Coleman, A. Lee. 1942. “Community organization and agricultural planning, Greene County, Georgia.” Mimeo. Atlanta, GA: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Keywords: *Community; social organization; planning. Blacks. GA. 0590 Dahlke, H. Otto. 1945. A Rural Community in Time of War—Shelley, Idaho. Berkeley, CA: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 41}. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; community. ID. 0594 Dodson, Linden S., and Jane Woolley. 1943. Community Organization in Charles County, Maryland. College Park, MD: University of Maryland AES; University of Maryland, Department of Sociology; USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]; and Charles County Agricultural Planning Committee cooperating. Bulletin No. A-21. Keywords: Community; social organization. MD. 0612 Ensminger, Douglas. 1945. “What is the community made of?” Extension Service Review 16 (11): 168. Keywords: *Social organization. 0624 Frame, Nat T. 1945. “Rushmore: Village centered community in the ­cornbelt in wartime.” Mimeo. Milwaukee, WI: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 43}. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; community. MN. 0666 Kollmorgen, Walter M. 1942. Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: The Old Order Amish of Lancaster County Pennsylvania. [DC]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Rural Life Studies No. 4. Keywords: Community; rural life. Amish. PA. 0677 Leonard, Olen E. 1944. “Rural community adjustments to recent ­population shifts in selected areas of the Southeast.” Social Forces 23 (1): 41–46. Keywords: Population trends; migration; social change/trends; community. Blacks. Southeast. 0683 Longmore, T. Wilson. 1945. “Watson, Arkansas: Effect of war in a Mississippi Delta community.” Mimeo. Little Rock, AR: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 39}. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; community. Blacks. AR. 0698 Loomis, Charles P. 1944. “Visiting patterns and miscegenation at Oxapampa, Peru.” Rural Sociology 9 (1): 68. Keywords: Methodogy—sociometric; community; race. German. Peru.

citations from the work of the division

121

0708 Lyall, Lawrence B. 1945. “The rural community and the war: A study of Beaver Crossing, Nebraska.” Mimeo. Lincoln, NE: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 41}. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; community. NE. 0710 MacLeish, Kenneth, and Kimball Young. 1942. Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: Landaff, New Hampshire. [DC]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Rural Life Studies No. 3. Keywords: Community; rural life. NH. 0722 Moe, Edward O., and Carl C. Taylor. 1942. Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: Irwin, Iowa. [DC]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Rural Life Studies No. 5. Keywords: Community; rural life. IA. 0727 Neeley, Wayne C. [1944]. “The impact of the war on a Mid-West urban community.” Undated mimeo. [DC: USDA, BAE, DFPRW]. {USDA 28}. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; attitudes/opinions; community. IA. 0731 Niederfrank, E. J. 1945. “The Massachusetts hill towns in wartime.” Mimeo. Upper Darby, PA: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 43}. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; community. MA. 0733 Peterson, Howard L. 1942. “Survey of communities in Buffalo County, Nebraska.” Mimeo. Lincoln, NE: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Buffalo County Agricultural Planning Committee and Agricultural Extension Service cooperating. Keywords: *Community. NE. 0734 Pryor, Herbert, and Theo L. Vaughn. 1945. “A rural community in wartime: Roby, Texas.” Mimeo. Little Rock, AR: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 41}. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; community. TX. 0749 Rusinow, Irving. 1942. A Camera Report on El Cerrito, a Typical Spanish American Community in New Mexico. DC: USDA, BAE, USDA Miscellaneous Publication 479. Keywords: Community; graphic analysis. Spanish Americans. NM. 0795 Thomas, Howard E. 1945. “A study of the impact of the war upon a rural community.” Cornell University Ph.D. thesis. [USDA, BAE, DFPRW cooperating]. Keywords: World War II—impacts on rural areas; population trends; occupations; community. NY. 0823 Wynne, Waller, Jr. 1943. Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: Harmony Georgia. [DC]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Rural Life Studies No. 6. Keywords: Community; rural life. Blacks. GA. 0837 Anderson, A. H. 1952. “Community changes with coming of irrigation.” Nebraska Agricultural Extension Service News 41 (1): 2. Keywords: Irrigation; community; social change/trends. NE. 1032 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and USDA, BAE [Carl C. Taylor, chairman investigating committee]. 1946. Columbia Basin Joint Investigations, Problem 27 [Rural Community Centers]. Dittoed. DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and USDA, BAE. Keywords: Planning—Columbia River Basin; community; trade centers; social agencies; public policy. Columbia Basin.

122

selected bibliography

bibliography 6: the 71-“laboratory”-county cultural reconnaissance surveys and existing cultural reconnaissance survey reports Only thirty-one of the seventy-one reports have been located. Below is a list of all seventy-one counties included in the study. Reports for county names with an asterisk are available. The whereabouts of the remaining reports are unknown. For more information on the search for these and other research conducted by the Division, see Larson, Moe, and Zimmerman (1992c, xiv–xvi). Corn Belt Wyandot, OH *Jasper, IL *Henry, ID Randolph, MO *Nobles, MN *Hamilton, IA Seward, NE *Crawford, IA Cotton Belt *Dallas, AL *Desha, AK Calhoun, MS *Coahoma, MS *Avoyelles, LA *Union, SC *Izard, AR Ocones, GA *Harnett, NC Tuscaloosa, AL *Pottawatomie, OK *Bell, TX *Fisher, TX Dairy Region *Litchfield, CT Hampshire, MA *Oneida, NY Eaton, MI *Rutland, VT

*Frederick, MD *Goodhue, MN *Monroe, WI General and Self-Sufficing Region Belknap, NH Bradford, PA Huntingdon, PA Wilson, TN Greenbrier, WV Dent, MO Haywood, NC Humphrey, TN Rabun, GA Magoffin, KY Range-Livestock Region Summit, UT Sweet Grass, MT *Val Verde, TX *Custer, MT Santa Fe, NM Morris, KS Coconino, AZ Lyman, SD

Tulare, CA Butte, CA *Ada, ID *Bingham, ID Wheat Belt *Franklin, WA *Woods, OK Ward, ND Haskell, KS Wells, ND Ellis, KS Residual Polk, FL Camden, NJ Piscataquis, ME *Clark, WA Lafourche, LA *Taylor, FL Bent, CO *Sawyer, WI Columbus, NC Pittsylvania, VA Scott, KY Graves, KY

Western Specialty Crop Area *Imperial, CA Santa Barbara, CA

Existing Cultural Reconnaissance Survey Reports Like many of the restricted-use reports produced by the Division, these were originally intended for publication. However, the Congressional ban meant that these reports were never published.

citations from the work of the division

123

Alexander, Frank D. 1944. “Cultural reconnaissance survey of Coahoma County, Mississippi. For administrative use.” Dittoed. Atlanta, GA: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Almack, Ronald B. 1944. “Cultural reconnaissance: Crawford County, Iowa.” For administrative use. Typed. Milwaukee, WI: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Christensen, Harold T. 1945. “A cultural reconnaissance of Rutland County, Vermont.” For administrative use only. Dittoed. Upper Darby, PA: [USDA, BAE, DFPRW]. {NAL} Dahlke, H. Otto. 1945. “Clark County, Washington, cultural reconnaissance ­survey.” Administrative use. Typed. [Berkeley, CA]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Dahlke, H. Otto. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance survey, Bingham County [Idaho].” [Administrative use]. Typed. Berkeley, CA: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} [Frame, Nat T.] 1944. “Preliminary cultural reconnaissance: Nobles County, Minnesota.” [For administrative use]. Typed. Milwaukee, WI: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Frame, Nat T. 1944. “Report of a cultural reconnaissance of Goodhue County, Minnesota.” [For administrative use]. Typed. [Milwaukee, WI]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Frame, Nat T. 1944. “Report of a cultural reconnaissance of Hamilton County, Iowa.” Preliminary Report. Typed. Milwaukee, WI: [USDA, BAE, DFPRW]. {NAL} Hay, Donald. 1944. “Cultural reconnaissance of Oneida County, New York.” For administrative use only. Typed. [Upper Darby, PA: USDA, BAE, DFPRW.] {NAL} Jehlik, Paul J. 1944. “A cultural reconnaissance report of Jasper County, Illinois.” [For administrative use]. Typed. Milwaukee, WI: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Jehlik, Paul J. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance: Henry County, Indiana.” [For administrative use.] Typed. Milwaukee, WI: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Jehlik, Paul J. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance: Monroe County, Wisconsin.” [For administrative use.] Typed. [Milwaukee, WI: USDA, BAE, DFPRW]. {NAL} Jehlik, Paul J. 1945. “Rural cultural reconnaissance: Sawyer County, Wisconsin.” [For administrative use.] Typed. [Milwaukee, WI: USDA, BAE, DFPRW]. {NAL} Larson, Olaf F. 1945. “A reconnaissance survey of Ada County [Idaho].” For administrative use only—not to be released for general distribution. Typed. Portland, OR: [USDA], BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Lewis, Oscar. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance: Bell County, Texas.” For administrative use only. Dittoed. Little Rock, AR: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Lewis, Oscar. 1945. “A reconnaissance survey of Franklin County, Washington.” For administrative use only. Typed. [Berkeley, CA: USDA, BAE, DFPRW]. {NAL} Longmore, T. Wilson, and Herbert Pryor. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance: Desha County, Arkansas.” For administrative use only. Typed. Little Rock, AR: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL}

124

selected bibliography

Lyall, Lawrence. 1944. “Cultural reconnaissance: Custer County, Montana.” [For administrative use.] Typed. Lincoln, NE: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Mathews, M. Taylor. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance: Woods County, Oklahoma.” For administrative use only. Dittoed. Little Rock, AR: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} McKain, Walter C., Jr. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance: Imperial County, California.” For administrative use. Typed. [Berkeley, CA: USDA, BAE, DFPRW]. {NAL} Montgomery, James E. 1944. “Reconnaissance report, Frederick County, Maryland.” For administrative use. Dittoed. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 40} Montgomery, James E. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance survey of Taylor County, Florida (summary).” For administrative use. Mimeo. [Atlanta, GA]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Montgomery, James E. 1945. “Reconnaissance survey of Union County, South Carolina (summary).” For administrative use. Mimeo. [Atlanta, GA]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Montgomery, James E., and Edward B. Williams. 1945. “Reconnaissance survey of Dallas County, Alabama.” For administrative use. Mimeo. [Atlanta, GA]: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Neiderfrank, E. J. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance of Litchfield County, Connecticut.” Not for publication—for administrative use only. Dittoed. Upper Darby, PA: [USDA, BAE, DFPRW]. {NAL} Pryor, Herbert. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance: Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.” For administrative use only. Dittoed. Little Rock, AR: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Pryor, Herbert. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance: Fisher County, Texas.” For administrative use only. Dittoed. Little Rock, AR: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Pryor, Herbert. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance: Izard County, Arkansas.” For administrative use only. Dittoed. Little Rock, AR: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Pryor, Herbert. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance: Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma.” [For administrative use.] Dittoed. Little Rock, AR: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Roberts, Roy L. 1945. “Reconnaissance survey of Harnett County, North Carolina.” For administrative use. [DC: USDA, BAE, DFPRW]. {NAL} Vaughan, Theo L. 1945. “Cultural reconnaissance: Val Verde County, Texas.” For administrative use only. Dittoed. Little Rock, AR: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL}

Other Publications Anderson, Anton H. 1945. “The culture of the wheat area: A summary of reconnaissance surveys in six sample counties.” Typed. Lincoln, NE: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Dodson, Linden S. [1944.] “An approach to the study of a ‘laboratory’ county in the Appalachian region: Pocahontas County, West Virginia.” [For administrative use.] Undated. Dittoed. [DC: USDA, BAE, DFPRW]. {USDA 35}

citations from the work of the division

125

Raper, Arthur F. 1944. “Cultural reconnaissance: Greene County, Georgia.” [For administrative use.] Dittoed. [DC: USDA, BAE, DFPRW]. {NAL} [Taylor, Carl C.] 1944. “Guide for reconnaissance survey of sample counties.” [For administrative use.] Dittoed. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {NAL} Taylor, Carl C. 1944. “Report of a cultural reconnaissance of Shelby County, Iowa.” [For administrative use.] Dittoed. [DC: USDA, BAE, DFPRW]. {USDA 39}

bibliography 7: research publications with keywords containing “farm wage rates” Farm Wage Rates 0349 Folsom, Josiah C. 1936. “Farm labor supply down—wages up.” Agricultural Situation 20 (8): 13–14. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor. 0585 Brooks, E. M., L. J. Ducoff, C. A. Gibbons, and Wylie D. Goodsell. 1943. “Farm wage rates, farm employment, and related data.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Keywords: Farm wage rates; labor force; income. 0597 Ducoff, Louis J. 1943. “Farm wage rates.” Agricultural Situation 27 (9): 9–13. Keywords: Farm wage rate. Blacks. 0598 Ducoff, Louis J. 1944. “Do larger farms pay higher wages?” Agricultural Situation 28 (10): 17–20. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm size. 0599 Ducoff, Louis J. (prepared in consultation with a committee of the BAE under the project leadership of Carl C. Taylor). 1945. Wages of Agricultural Labor in the United States. DC: USDA. Technical Bulletin No. 895. Keywords: Farm wage rates. 0605 Ducoff, Louis J., and Gladys K. Bowles. 1945. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm workers in special crop areas of Louisiana, April–May, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 3. Keywords: Farm wage rates. Blacks. LA. 0607 Ducoff, Louis J., and Hagood, Margaret J. 1945. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm workers in special crop areas of Florida, February–March, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 4. Keywords: Farm wage rates. Blacks. FL. 0608 Ducoff, Louis J., and Hagood, Margaret J. 1945. “Wages and wage rates of hired farm workers, United States and major regions, March 18–24, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture Report No. 4. Keywords: Farm wage rates. Blacks. 0627 Fuller, Varden. 1943. “Should farm wages be regulated?” Pp. 107–13 in Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Western Farm Economics Association of June 25–26 at University of California, Berkeley, CA. Keywords: Farm wage rates.

126

selected bibliography

0644 Ham, William T. 1942. “To fix or not to fix farm wage rates.” Land Policy Review 5 (7): 35–39. Keywords: Farm wage rates. Great Britain. 0646 Ham, William T. 1944. “Stabilization of farm wages.” Agricultural Situation 28 (1): 18–21. Keywords: Farm wage rates. 0647 Ham, William T. 1945. “Wage stabilization in agriculture.” Journal of Farm Economics 27 (1): 104–20. Keywords: Farm wage rates. 0656 Holcomb, Ernest J. 1942. “Wartime wage rates.” Land Policy Review 5 (5): 33–37. Keywords: Farm wage rates; World War II. 0720 Metzler, William H. 1945. “Wages and wage rates of farm workers in the citrus harvest, Los Angeles Area, California.” April–June 1945. Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 5. Keywords: Farm wage rates; Mexican nationals; Mexicans. CA. 0721 Metzler, William H. 1945. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm workers in USDA Labor Supply Centers at Arvin, Linnell, and Shafter, California, June 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 6. Keywords: Farm wage rates. CA. 0740 Reagan, Barbara B., and William H. Metzler. 1945. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm workers in Maricopa County, Arizona and Imperial County, California, February–March, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 2. Keywords: Farm wage rates. Spanish American; Mexican nationals. AZ; CA. 0801 USDA, [BAE, DFPRW]. 1942. “The farm labor situation on Wisconsin dairy farms.” Mimeo. Milwaukee, WI: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. FederalState Crop Reporting Service, Wisconsin AES and Extension Service, Wisconsin USDA War Board, Jefferson County USDA War Board, the U.S. Employment Service cooperating. Keywords: Farm labor; labor force; farm wage rates; World War II—impacts on rural areas. WI. 0802 USDA, [BAE, DFPRW]. 1943. “Labor and other factors influencing dairy production in the Los Angeles milkshed, November 1942.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 26}. Keywords: Farm labor; farm wage rates; agricultural production. CA. 0806 USDA, [BAE, DFPRW]. 1945. “Farm wage surveys of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 43}. Keywords: Farm wage rates; research. 0849 Clark, Helen M. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of grape harvest workers in Chautauqua and Erie Counties, New York, week ended October 14, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 15. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture; prisoners of war. Blacks; Indians; Jamaicans; Nationals. NY. 0854 Ducoff, Louis J. 1948. “Farm laborers: 4.1 million drew wages in ’47.” Agricultural Situation 32 (7): 13–14. Keywords: Farm labor; farm wage rates.

citations from the work of the division

127

0859 Ducoff, Louis J. 1953. “Wages in agriculture.” Pp. 482–92 in W. S. Woytinsky and Associates, Employment and Wages in the United States. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; World War II—impacts on rural areas. 0862 Ducoff, Louis J., and Margaret Jarman Hagood. 1946. “Employment and wages of the hired farm working force in 1945 with special reference to its population composition.” Mimeo DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 47}. Keywords: Farm labor; farm wage rates. 0864 Ducoff, Louis J., and Louis Persh. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of harvesters of special crops in selected areas of 13 states, 1945: A statistical summary.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 17. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks; Mexicans, Indians, Mexican nationals. 0865 Ducoff, Louis J., and Barbara B. Reagan. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of hired farm workers, United States and major regions, May 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 7. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; women in agriculture; population composition. Blacks. 0866 Ducoff, Louis J., and Barbara B. Reagan. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of hired farm workers, United States and major regions. September 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 16. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks. 0867 Ducoff, Louis J., and Margaret Jarman Hagood. 1947. “Farm and nonfarm wage income of the hired farm working force in 1946.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE, [DFPRW]. {USDA 45}. Keywords: Farm labor; farm wage rates; World War II—impacts on rural areas. 0868 Ducoff, Louis J., and Margaret J. Hagood. 1947. “Wage income of hired farm labor.” Agricultural Situation 31 (8): 7–8. Keywords: Farm labor; farm wage rates. 0967 Metzler, William H. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm workers at selected USDA labor supply centers in North Central California, August–October 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 9. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. CA. 0969 Metzler, William H. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm workers in the harvest of selected truck crops, California, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 10. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition. Mexicans; Mexican Nationals; Filipino. CA. 0970 Metzler, William H. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm workers in USDA labor supply centers at Arvin, Woodville, and Firebaugh,

128

selected bibliography

California, November 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 13. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. CA. 0971 Metzler, William H. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm worker in the harvest of selected deciduous fruits, California, May–Sept. 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 12. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks; Mexicans; Mexican nationals; Filipinos. CA. 0972 Metzler, William H. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of farm workers in the potato, sugar beet, and cotton harvests, California, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 14. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture; prisoners of war. Blacks; Mexicans; Mexican nationals; Filipinos. CA. 0979 Motheral, Joe R., William H. Metzler, and Louis J. Ducoff. 1953. Cotton and Manpower—Texas High Plains. College Station, TX: Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College System, Texas AES. Bulletin No. 762. USDA, BAE, [DFPRL] cooperating. Keywords: Farm labor; mechanization; farm wage rates. Blacks; Mexican nationals. TX. 0997 Reagan, Barbara B. (under the direction of Louis J. Ducoff). 1946. “Perquisites furnished hired farm workers, United States and major regions, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 18. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. 0998 Reagan, Barbara B. 1947. “Wages by type of farm and type of farm work, United States and major regions, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 19. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks. 1009 Senf, Catherine, preparer. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of potato harvest workers on Long Island, New York, week ended September 1, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 8. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture; prisoners of war. Blacks; Jamaican nationals. NY. 1010 Senf, Catherine, Helen Clark, and Elizabeth Christen, preparers. 1946. “Wages and wage rates of seasonal farm workers in the harvest of tomatoes, beets and strawberries in selected areas of New York State, 1945.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 11. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture; prisoners of war. Black; Jamaican nationals. NY. 1039 Wallrabenstein, Paul P. 1947. “Wages and wage rates of hired farm workers: United States and major regions, July 1946.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 20.

citations from the work of the division



129

Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks. 1040 Wallrabenstein, Paul P. 1948. “Wages and wage rates of hired farm workers: United States and major regions, January 1947.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 21. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor; population composition; women in agriculture. Blacks. 1041 Wallrabenstein, Paul P., and David O. Mesick. 1950. “Wages and wage rates of hired farm workers, United States and major regions, January 1947.” Mimeo. DC: USDA, BAE. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 22. Keywords: Farm wage rates; farm labor. Blacks.

reprint 1 Woman’s Work on the Farm (1917) Selection from Report of the Commission on Country Life

woman’s work on the farm Realizing that the success of country life depends in very large degree on the woman’s part, the Commission has made special effort to ascertain the condition of women on the farm. Often this condition is all that can be desired, with home duties so organized that the labor is not excessive, with kindly coöperation on the part of husbands and sons, and with household machines and conveniences well provided. Very many farm homes in all parts of the country are provided with books and periodicals, musical instruments, and all the necessary amenities. There are good gardens and attractive premises, and a sympathetic love of nature and of farm life on the part of the entire family. On the other hand, the reverse of these conditions often obtains, ­sometimes because of pioneer conditions and more frequently because of lack of prosperity and of ideals. Conveniences for outdoor work are likely to have precedence over those for household work. The routine work of women on the farm is to prepare three meals a day. This regularity of duty recurs regardless of season, weather, planting, harvesting, social demands, or any other factor. The only differences in different seasons are those of degree rather than of kind. It follows, therefore, that whatever general hardships, such as poverty, isolation, lack of labor-saving devices, may exist on any given farm, the burden of these hardships falls more heavily on the farmer’s wife than on the farmer himself. In general her life is more monotonous and the more isolated, no matter what the wealth or the poverty of the family may be. The relief to farm women must come through a general elevation of country living. The women must have more helps. In particular, these matters may be mentioned: development of a coöperative spirit in the home; simplification of the diet in many cases; the building of convenient and sanitary houses; providing running water in the house, and also more The report was originally published in 1909 as a Senate Report. This reprint is from the 1917 edition by Sturgis and Walton (Commission on Country Life 1917).

134

Reprints of Selected Publications

mechanical helps; good and convenient gardens; a less exclusive ideal of money-getting on the part of the farmer; providing better means of communication, as telephones, roads, and reading-circles; and developing of women’s organizations. These and other agencies should relieve the woman of many of her manual burdens on the one hand, and interest her in outside activities on the other. The farm woman should have sufficient free time and strength so that she may serve the community by participating in its vital affairs. We have found good women’s organizations in some country districts; but as a rule such organizations are few or even none, or, where they exist, they merely radiate from towns. Some of the stronger central organizations are now pushing the country phase of their work with vigor. Mothers’ clubs, reading-clubs, church societies, home economics organizations, farmers’ institutes, and other associations can accomplish much for farm women. Some of the regular farmers’ organizations are now giving much attention to domestic subjects, and women participate freely in the meetings. There is much need among country women themselves of a stronger organizing sense for real coöperative betterment. It is important, also, that all rural organizations that are attended chiefly by men; should discuss the home-making subjects, for the whole difficulty often lies with the attitude of the men. There is the most imperative need that domestic, household and health questions be taught in all schools. The home may well be made the center of rural school teaching. The school is capable of changing the whole attitude of the home life and the part that women should play in the development of the best country living.

reprint 2 The Woman on the Farm (1914) Selection from “Report of the Secretary,” in Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1913

mr. president: I respectfully present my report for the Department of Agriculture for the year 1913. I shall deal as briefly as possible with the business of the department, point out the changes in organization that have been made, summarize the more important results and ­developments, and indicate the recommendations submitted to Congress for action. Those interested in the details of the work of the several bureaus and divisions will find in the reports from the several officers full and detailed information.

the woman on the farm The woman on the farm is a most important economic factor in agriculture. Her domestic work undoubtedly has a direct bearing on the efficiency of the field workers, her handling of the home and its surroundings contributes to the cash intake, and, in addition, hers is largely the responsibility for contributing the social and other features which make farm life satisfactory and pleasurable. On her rests largely the moral and mental development of the children, and on her attitude depends in great part the important question of whether the succeeding generation will continue to farm or will seek the allurements of life in the cities. According to the testimony of many who are thoroughly familiar with conditions, the needs of the farm woman have been largely overlooked by existing agricultural agencies. Endeavor has been largely focused on inducing the field workers to install effective agricultural machinery and to employ the best methods of crop production. The facts that the woman’s work and time have a real monetary value and that her strength is not unlimited have not been given the consideration they deserve. As a result, This reprint is from David F. Houston’s first report as secretary of agriculture. See Houston (1914).

136

Reprints of Selected Publications

on many farms where there is always money enough to buy the ­latest agricultural appliance there is seldom a surplus to provide the woman in her productive work with power machinery that will lighten her physical labor, running water that will relieve her of the burden of carrying from the pump all water used in the household, or kitchen equipment and household devices that will save her time, increase her efficiency, and enable her to make important monetary saving.

home management The department believes that intelligent help to women in matters of home management will contribute directly to the agricultural success of the farm. It purposes, therefore, to ask Congress for means and authority to make more complete studies of domestic conditions on the farm, to experiment with labor-saving devices and methods, and to study completely the question of practical sanitation and hygienic protection for the farm family. The farmer’s wife rarely has access to the cities where labor-saving devices are on competitive exhibit, nor does she often meet with other women who are trying these devices and gain from them first-hand information. It seems important, therefore, that the department, cooperating with the proper State institutions, should be ready to give the farm home practical advice. Some work has already been accomplished in studying the problems of nutrition and advising the women in the country as to the economical use of various foods and methods of using these foods to obtain variety in diet. Apparently, there is need also for advice on general diets that will be healthful and varied, because the farm home usually has but a limited number of foods at its disposal and has not the opportunity to add novelties to the diet, such as the city woman finds in her convenient store.

fields in which help is desired To ascertain the fields in which farm women desire specific assistance, a letter of inquiry was addressed to the house-wives of 55,000 progressive farmers in all the counties of the United States. This letter asked no questions and left every woman free to discuss any need which occurred to her. She was invited to take the matter up with her neighbors and make a reply which represented not merely her personal need but the recognized

The Woman on the Farm

137

need of the women of her community. Replies to this letter have been received in great numbers. Time has been lacking for a complete analysis of these letters, but from those which have been read so far it is evident that women want help in practically every phase of home management, from the rearing and care of children to methods of getting the heavy work, such as washing, done by cooperative agencies. Many women seek means of increasing the precious personal income which they receive from poultry, butter making, or the garden in their care. Many asked the department to suggest new handicrafts or gainful home occupations, and others seek better means of marketing the preserves, cakes, or fancy work that they now produce. The overwork of farm women and their fear of the effect of overwork on their children is the text of many of these letters. The difficulty of securing domestic help, due seemingly to the fact that daughers of farmers no longer take positions as home makers, has added to the farm housekeeper’s burden. Many ask the department to prove to the men that their work is worth something in dollars and cents. Still others express a realization that their own lot is hopeless and self-sacrificingly ask that better things in the way of education, cheaper schoolbooks, improved schools, lectures, libraries, and museums be provided for their children. Many request that the department establish a woman’s bureau, and issue weekly or other publications designed for women and dealing with matters of cooking, clothing, home furnishing, education of children, care of the sick, etc.

reprint 3 Recommendations of the Committee (1919) Selection from Report of Committee to Consider the Subject of Farm Life Studies as One of the Divisions of Research Work of the Proposed Bureau of Farm Management and Farm Economics may 1, 2, and 3, 1919 In accordance with the recommendations of the committee appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to consider plan of organization, scope of work, and projects for the Office of Farm Management (Circular No. 132, Office of the Secretary), it is proposed to transfer to the Office of Farm Management (Bureau of Farm Management and Farm Economics) the farm-life studies heretofore conducted in the Bureau of Markets in connection with its rural organization project. Much valuable work has been done under this project in the Bureau of Markets, but since that bureau deals almost exclusively with a specialized farm problem—­ marketing—while the proposed Bureau of Farm Management and Farm Economics must necessarily conceive of the farm as a whole and its relations to the community and to the Nation, it seems logical and desirable that the work in this field should be supervised by it. The Bureau of Markets, of course, will continue to consider cooperation so far as it affects the marketing of farm products, and the two agencies will work in cooperation where their projects touch. At the request of the Secretary of Agriculture a committee composed of rural social workers and students of farm-life problems met in Washington May 1, 2, and 3 to outline the work to be undertaken in farm-life studies by the proposed Bureau of Farm Management and Farm Economics. The committee outlined the subjects which require investigation, suggested methods of cooperation with the State colleges and experiment stations, with the other bureaus and departments of the Federal Government, and with the various social agencies at work throughout the United States. The report of this committee has met with the hearty approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and is published in full in the following pages. This reprint is the report of the committee appointed by Secretary David Houston to ­consider the fields of work for the Farm Life Studies Unit of the Office of Farm ­Management and Farm Economics. See USDA, Office of the Secretary (1919b).

recommendations of the committee

139

charles j. galpin appointed to head this work On May 12, 1919, Prof. Charles J. Galpin, in charge of country-life studies in the college of agriculture in the University of Wisconsin, was appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture as economist in charge of farmlife studies. Prof. Galpin was born at Hamilton, N. Y., in 1864; reared on farm and in village; graduated with A. B. degree from Colgate University in 1885; studied social science in Harvard University, and received the degree of A. M. from that institution in 1895. He was professor of history in Kalamazoo College from 1888 to 1891, and in charge of the Union Academy at Belleville, N. Y., from 1891 to 1901, where he established one of the first courses in agriculture in secondary schools in the State of New York. Since 1911 Prof. Galpin has been in charge of the country-life studies at the University of Wisconsin, and has made some of the most careful inductive studies of farm-life problems and published some of the most stimulating reports available in this field. Prof. Galpin comes to the department unusually well prepared to give a new stimulus to the work in this field, not only in the department but throughout the United States. Both the Department of Agriculture and the people of the United States are to be congratulated on having his services at their command. G. I. Christie, Assistant Secretary, May 21, 1919.

recommendations of committee May

3, 1919.

Hon. D. F. Houston, Secretary of Agriculture. dear mr. secretary:

The committee called by you for consideration and discussion of the subject of farm-life studies as one of the divisions of the research work of the proposed Bureau of Farm Management and Farm Economics submits the following report: We have considered principally these subjects: 1. An outline of the subject matter which can come logically under the head of farm-life studies.

140

Reprints of Selected Publications

2. Suggestions for cooperation with the State colleges and experiment stations in the carrying on of farm-life studies. 3. Suggestions for cooperation with the Bureau of the Census and other Federal agencies for the collection of data relating to farm life. 4. Lines of cooperation with other social agencies. In view of the growing importance of problems of life in rural communities, we recommend that ample provision be made to enable the Bureau of Farm Management and Farm Economics to investigate the topics which we have outlined under the head of “Suggested fields of study,” without, of course, subtracting anything from the work in farm management in the more strictly business sense. We recommend also that the closest cooperation be sought with the Bureau of the Census in order to collect more information relating to our farm population as distinguished from what past censuses have called the rural population. Respectfully submitted. T. N. Carver. O. F. Hall. H. N. Morse. Mabel Carney. A. C. True. E. C. Branson. J. L. Dumas. F. O. Clark. Mrs. Oliver Wilson. H. E. Van Norman. Florence E. Ward. Edna N. White. Elizabeth Herring. Bruce R. Payne.

Ola Powell. C. B. Smith. Dwight Sanderson. C. W. Thompson. Geo. H. Von Tungeln. E. K. Eyerly. O. E. Baker. A. M. Loomis. Chas. A. Lory. L. C. Gray. C. J. Galpin. Bradford Knapp. H. C. Taylor. G. I. Christie.

farm-life studies The growth of national wealth makes possible the improvement of the conditions of life in farm homes and rural communities, as well as in towns and cities. Throughout the Nation, cities have given active attention to the improvement of living conditions. For many years efforts have been made by cities to provide desirable and satisfactory houses, schools,

recommendations of the committee

141

churches, streets, hospitals, medical service, recreation, sanitation, and other necessary modern improvements. The arts and institutions of modern civilization, however, have not been so rapidly introduced into the homes of the farmers and into the social life of the rural communities. This has been due partly to the smaller opportunity for human contact in the country than in the city and partly to the fact that some of the city conveniences can not be provided so economically on a small scale as on a large scale. Country progress has been further retarded by the tendency of farmers who have become prosperous to move to the city in order to enjoy its advantages or to devote their means to buying more land rather than to the improvement of the conditions of life in their homes and neighborhood. Agricultural production has increased materially during recent years through the use of improved machinery, seeds, live stock, and farm methods. Farmers are demanding and should receive fair prices for these products. It is understood and admitted by all that if farming is to be attractive and profitable the farmer must receive a reasonable return on his labor and investment. The economic side of agriculture should continue to be emphasized and advanced. But if American agriculture is to develop in a large and satisfactory way, the conditions of farm life must improve in many communities. As the Secretary of Agriculture stated in his remarks before this conference: “Merely making farming profitable will not solve the problem. Very many farmers become prosperous and move to town. We must make the farm comfortable, attractive, and healthful.” The people on the farms should have the same opportunities for education, worship, recreation, and social contact as the people in the cities and towns. There should be within easy reach of farm people suitable and satisfactory hospitals and medical service. The farm home should be adapted to the social needs of the family and should have modern equipment. If paved streets are desirable and necessary in the city, roads in the country which can be used both winter and summer for the ­transportation of farm products and the easy and convenient movement of the people between country and town are equally necessary and should be provided. The natural opportunities for a full life in the country are better than those in the city, and with the increase in production and income it is now possible to bring into many farm homes and rural communities the conveniences and institutions which make for comfort and an efficient, wholesome life. In many rural communities splendid results already have been achieved in providing the facilities of modern civilization and in organizing for the maintenance of a vigorous social life. In other rural districts little, if any, progress has been made. It is desirable to study the causes of failure

142

Reprints of Selected Publications

and the conditions of success to determine the actual needs in different localities and develop plans and methods which will help farmers in their efforts to reach out for the better things of life. The following list of topics is submitted as an outline of the subjects which should thus be studied with a view to facilitating advancement in the life of American farmers and their families:

suggested fields of study

I. Rural home life: a. The farmer’s wife, the boy, the girl. 1. Their attitude toward farm life. 2. Their part in the work of the farm. 3. Their relation to the income of the farm. 4. Their interest in the management of the farm. 5. Facilities for safeguarding their health and caring for them in sickness. 6. Their opportunities for contact with the world outside the home. b. The farmhouse. 1. Its structural adaptation to the promotion of social life. 2. Equipment for the promotion of family comfort. 3. Its equipment for the promotion of social life, such as vehicles, musical instruments, etc. 4. Its surroundings in the way of beautification, shade trees, etc. II. Opportunities for social contact in typical rural communities: a. Social gatherings. b. Entertainments. c. Recreational activities. d. Influence of improved means of communication and transportation. e. Race elements and social classes as affecting social life. III. The relation of educational and religious institutions to farm life problems: a. Elementary schools. b. Secondary schools. c. Higher institutions of learning. d. Rural churches. e. Other religious institutions.

recommendations of the committee

143

IV. Problems relating to geographical population groups: a. Their definition. 1. The neighborhood. 2. The rural community. 3. The country village. 4. Other geographical units. b. Their planning and organization. 1. Mapping. 2. Surveying. 3. Organization. 4. Government. c. Community centers, buildings, etc. d. The relation of urban and rural populations. e. The shifting of rural populations. V. Rural organizations (without definite geographical boundaries): a. A directory of rural organizations. b. Types of rural organization. 1. Their efficiency. 2. Their principles of success. 3. Extent and causes of failure. 4. Their scope. 5. Their activities. 6. Their results. VI. Social aspects of tenancy and landlordism: a. The cause of tenancy. b. The shifting of the tenant population. c. Effect upon rural life and institutions. d. Effect upon town and village life. e. Social responsibilities of landlords and tenants. f. The retired farmer. VII. Social aspects of various types of farm labor: a. The married farm hand. b. The unmarried farm hand. c. The seasonal laborer. d. Household help. e. Child labor. VIII. The relation of various forms of disability to farm-life problems: a. The aged. b. The infirm. c. The illiterate. d. The defective. e. The dependent.

144

Reprints of Selected Publications

f. The delinquent. g. The neglected. IX. The social consequences of local disasters due to natural causes. X. The social consequences of thrift and agencies for promoting thrift: a. Savings institutions. b. “Blue Sky” laws. c. Information as to safe and unsafe investment. d. Rural credit organizations. The fundamental unit of rural social organization is the home. The farm home is also in large measure the basis of national welfare, because it is the source and support not only of country life but also to a considerable degree of city life and leadership. The attitude of the farmer’s wife, the boy, the girl, toward farm life is therefore a matter of great importance, as is also their health and welfare. Their attitude toward farm life is determined in no small measure by the farmhouse, its adaptation to the promotion of social life, to economy of labor in household work, and to family comfort. For these reasons rural home life is given first place in the suggested fields of study. Outside contacts add much to the life of any farm home, however excellent its appointments may be. Very important among the institutions which provide these outside contacts are the school and the church. Wherever the school and church decline in efficiency and in the respect and affection of the people the more intelligent and able members of the community gradually move away and both cultural and racial decay set in. On the other hand, in those places where the school and the church are progressive and are endeavoring to meet the needs of the community the countryside usually is prosperous and the people contented. The study of educational and religious institutions in relation to farm life is, therefore, scarcely less important than the study of the rural home. The farm home has relations also to other homes in the neighborhood; to the country village, where most of the trading is done; to the township or town; to the county seat and State capital; and, finally, to the distant city, where much of its products are sent for consumption and to which some of its boys and girls eventually will go. The relationships to these population groups deserve careful study. Farm life is related also to many organizations without definite geographic boundaries. Some of these organizations are occupational or professional and aim to promote better farming, better living, and clearer thinking. Other rural organizations are of a philanthropic, social,

recommendations of the committee

145

or cultural nature. It is important to study these various organizations in relation to farm life and the causes of their success or failure. In addition to studies relating to rural home life and to rural organizations, two other large fields deserve careful study. Farm tenancy is an economic problem, but it also has important social aspects. Much confusion has arisen in discussion of tenancy, which could be clarified by recognizing that in its social aspects tenancy presents two sides, a bright and a dark. Tenancy is the means by which many landless but ambitious and able young men acquire enough capital to buy a farm and enough experience to run it successfully. On the other hand, as retiring land-owning farmers move into the cities the farms are not infrequently rented to tenants less capable and less cultured, who take little interest in local affairs and whose advent results in a gradual decline in the social and educational conditions of the community. Related to the tenancy problem in its social aspects is that of farm labor, household help, and child labor. The treatment of rural disability—the defectives, dependents, delinquents—is a social problem deserving immediate attention. A study of this problem, your committee suggests, might advantageously be undertaken in cooperation with the Public Health Service and similar agencies. Finally, the social effects of local disasters due to natural causes appear worthy of consideration, and also the social benefits of thrift and of agencies for promoting thrift, such as savings institutions, rural credit organizations, and the like.

reprint 4 Farm Life Studies and Their Relation to Home Economics Work (1920) Charles J. Galpin

The life side of the farm home will be one of the research projects in Farm Life Studies in the Office of Farm Management, just as the physical basis of the farm home is at present one of the subjects of investigation by the Office of Home Economics in the States Relations Service. Farm Life Studies will not undertake to explore the technical aspects of food, dietetics, clothing, household equipment, household work, or household management of the farm home, but will be concerned primarily with the state of mind of the members of that home. Farm Life Studies will give attention to the social situations facing farm life and the consequent problems arising in the home. While home economics work, on the investigative side, is concerned mainly with the physical basis of the farm home, Farm Life Studies will be centered on the analysis of the social elements in the farm home situation. An analysis of household situations, neighborhood situations, and community situations in such a way as to display the states of mind of the people concerned should assist in the wholesome adjustment of all sorts of human relationships on the farm. The farm home, for example, may be out of the general current of present day life, having little to do with the thought and activity of the world at large. The life of the home consequently may be so simple as to be too simple. The wants of the members may come to be so belated and backward that the home will fail to see the value of an expanded physical basis for its life. Publicity of the causes of farm home isolation should tend to remove this isolation and enable farm homes to participate in the current of affairs, making it easier for all to raise the standard of physical life on the farm.

This is a reprint of Galpin’s address to the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the American Home Economics Association, Blue Ridge, N.C., June 1919, which was reprinted in the Journal of Home Economics. See Galpin (1920).

Farm Life Studies and Home Economics

147

Farm home life is peculiar in the fact that, as at present organized, it involves an economic partnership of the man, the woman, and the child. This partnership, moreover, frequently reaches its maturity only when the farm itself passes from the hands of the man into the complete ownership of the child who, by that time, will have reached manhood. The social situation of the farm home, therefore, in many cases constitutes a family cycle which is a little larger than the unit usually accounted as a home. The grandfather and grandmother, the father and mother, the children, make up this family unit, even though living in two separate houses. The farm, owned by the grandfather, is apt to pass from entire management by the grandfather through the several stages of management by the son, tenancy by the son, possibly part ownership by the son—all within the grandfather’s life. Farm Life Studies will observe carefully this family cycle and situation; studying the child as an apprentice to farming; as manager for his father; as tenant of his father; as owner with his father; as complete owner. It will study the retreat of the father from the farm as his energy wanes; as he gives over his farm by degrees to his son; as he finally retires from farming to the town or to a house on the land. Farm Life Studies will observe the spiritual rôle of the woman in the home as the interpreter of one family (her own) to another (her husband’s) and of her children to their father, and the father to his children. The rôle of the child as the bringer in to the family of the things of life which are new will not be overlooked. The use and distribution of leisure on the part of members of the farm home will be studied. Diaries are already available showing just when this leisure comes in the day at the different seasons, and exactly what has been done with the leisure. Certain social aspects of the location of the farm house will be included in our study. The farm house has too frequently shunned even the roadside, going back into a field for its site. The stream of life meanwhile moves along main roads. The question of the social value of location on residence roads and the social detriment of location on back roads will engage our attention. Such home questions as the following will also be considered in Farm Life Studies: Is home-making on farms popular with superior country-bred young women? If not, why not? If so, in some localities and not in others, what are the reasons? Are young men, of a superior type, especially after some educational advantages, attracted to farm life in open competition with other occupations? If not, why not?

148

Reprints of Selected Publications

What is the distribution of time among tasks of the household, farm work, and leisure in contented farm homes? What is the relation of the man, the woman, and the child to the farm income in the intelligent, contented farm home? Do the woman and child participate in the management of the farm in the intelligent, contented farm home? How are the necessary unsightly parts of farm work screened from the view of the farm house on farms where beauty is organized into farm home life? The Division of Farm Life Studies seeks to assist the various departments of rural life work by a careful exploration of the social aspects of all phases of farm life, and to coöperate to the full with all those at work upon one phase or another of agriculture or of home life in a common task.

reprint 5 The Advantages of Farm Life: A Study by Correspondence and Interviews with Eight Thousand Farm Women: Digest of an Unpublished Manuscript (1924) Emily Hoag Sawtelle

reason for study The Country Life Commission appointed by President Roosevelt found many unfavorable conditions prevalent in the open country, and gave them wide publicity in its report. This report was not an indictment of country life, but a candid statement of some of the handicaps to the development of the innate power of rural social institutions. The Commission felt that the country was not making progress as fast as the cities and towns and made some pointed recommendations looking toward improvement. The findings of the Commission stimulated much further discussion and research in which, rather naturally, attention was centered on the evils to be removed and their sources. A rather gloomy picture was painted and put before the people and the impression it made persists in the minds of city people and writers on rural topics. As late as 1914 the Secretary of Agriculture, the Honorable D. F. Houston, received more than two thousand letters, in response to a questionnaire regarding the needs of farm people, which brought to light many undesirable phases of life on the farms. These letters were published as Reports of the Office of the Secretary Nos. 103, 104, 105, and 106. This gave direction to ­further work in agricultural and home economics extension, credit, roads, schools, and other measures and were therefore decidedly helpful. But with the movement for improvement of conditions well under way, ­protests against calamity stories began to appear and farm

This is a reprint of Sawtelle’s study on farm women, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, March 1924. Sawtelle was Associate Economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture. This copy was provided by the National Agriculture Library at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Sawtelle 1924).

150

reprints of selected publications

people now resent ­characterization and cartooning as ignorant objects of m ­ isguided pity. The every day life of the bulk of the people of this country is not news. So there would be no point to any statement of country life at its best if there had not been previously so generally entertained a conception of country life that is woefully one-sided. With the popular conception in mind and a conviction that it was misrepresentative, the author set out to visit farm women in their homes and to report in their own words their attitude toward farm life. Others were reached by letters, some of which were written in refutation of a misrepresentation of farm life which appeared in the press.1 Views of hundreds of these farm women on many phases of farm life are here presented. These women are strong, resourceful, capable and leading personalities in their communities. Living full and active lives they see the best side, and choose to consider the handicaps and the undersirable features of temporary and minor importance and to emphasize the possibilities of farm life.

the work side Satisfactions in Good Farming The true country woman finds pleasure in her occupation because, first of all, she likes the basic material with which she has to work. She loves the land. The sight of the broad acres of the farm causes her daily pride and satisfaction, and she glories in the fact that she and her husband are workers in the soil. “It is almost sinful,” confesses a West Virginia woman, “how I love these old acres here, how I lay store by each inch of the land, how I cherish and enjoy each flower, each tree, each blade of grass or grain it grows, how I believe there is no spot in the universe so dear.”

1. Acknowledgment is made to the Phelps Publishing Company, Springfield, Mass., for the courtesy of lending to this Bureau volunteer letters written by farm women in reply to the article, “The Woman God Forgot,” published in the September, 1920, issue of “Farm and Home.” Recognition is hereby given of the rare favor rendered by the Webb Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minn., of allowing us the invaluable opportunity of reading and analyzing 7,000 letters of farm women in reply to the question appearing in the January, 1922, issue of “The Farmer’s Wife,” “Do you want your daughter to marry a farmer?”

The Advantages of Farm Life

151

Tonic Virtues of the Land Those races, nearer to nature, not so civilized as our own, speak without fear of ridicule of the bracing, steadying, satisfying stimulation that comes out of the soil to those who live, walk, and work on it. “I like to get off the city sidewalks and get my feet on the good, solid, strong, real ground,” Booker T. Washington was fond of saying. “Strength comes out of the earth,” says an eminent American Indian scholar. Children of our own race, in the country, wait impatiently for the first warm day in spring when they may discard shoes and stockings. They exult in the touch of the oozing mud, the dry prickling sand, the cool upturned clods of the plowed fields, the yielding green sod, the smooth surface of boulders and rocks beneath their bare feet. “The very fact,” asserts a Wisconsin woman, “that many farm women are working calmly, patiently along, without moving pictures, fashions, electrical conveniences, and all modern improvements show that they are deriving a certain other satisfaction from life. Just as the plant sends its roots down into the earth, and the rose, or the potato draws up materials for its individual existence, beauty or usefulness, so does each person’s life absorb from the surroundings the thing which it requires for its needs. We, the farm women, are where we belong. I feel that this close-to-nature elemental existence, is the fullest, richest source of emotional satisfaction. And we pay the price. We give our services, and we give up the superficial, sensational stimulants of society and fashion, so we feel square and honest as we take our gifts.” Even the long hours of labor on the farm hold compensations. Nature is at her best in the early morning, and most farmers would not give up their habit of early rising. A farmer’s wife in Utah says: “The farm woman rises early and watches the sun come up over the tops of the Rocky Mountains, capped with perpetual snow.” When the naturalist farmer, John Burroughs, lived in the city of Washington he spent every free moment in the open country. “Away from the farm,” he once wrote to a friend. “I am like a fowl with no gravel in its gizzard. I am hungry for the earth. I could eat it like a horse.”

152

reprints of selected publications

Truly rural-minded folks, without the farm environment, are like plants without soil and water. When they try the experiment of moving to town the result is often a pathetic failure. Witness this experience of a farm family in Michigan described by the impatient daughter of the house-hold: “We’re living in the city right now,” she writes, “but at heart we are farmers; anyway, we’re going back to the farm at a very early date. I’ll describe mother. She’s almost forty-five and the mother of two husky boys and three healthy girls. Practically all her life she has worked on a farm. We moved into the city less than a year ago and we are ready to go back to the farm tomorrow, even today. We—but what is the use of further discussion? We’ve tried both farm and city life and we’re going back to the farm! And there it is, in a nut-shell, for it’s mother who wants to go back worst of all.” Appeal of Science Every occupation to be fully satisfying, must have in it some elements of experimentation, exploration or adventure. Even the most home-loving of folk like some change and variety, and one of the reasons why farm women like agriculture is because it possesses a many-sided character. Farming comprises, not one science only, but a great number of combinations. In the last twenty-five years mechanical invention and scientific research have brought about such a Renaissance of agriculture that it appeals to alert, keen-minded men and women. Especially does it interest the independent, resourceful woman who is a product of the twentieth century. “When I go with my husband down to Farmers’ Week at the Agricultural College,” writes a woman from the Southern Appalachian mountains, “I do not spend all my time in the Home Economics Department. I attend the lectures on soil chemistry and animal husbandry. I go to see the new agricultural machinery and watch them judge the stock, because I’m interested in everything that goes on at the farm.” “Our Jerseys give us so much pleasure,” writes another Southern woman, “It’s a joy to work with fine purebred stock.” “I used to assist my husband in his photographic studio in the city, before his health failed him,” relates a North Carolina

The Advantages of Farm Life

153

woman. “And now, since we have moved to the farm, I still help him with his work, but it is so much more alive and interesting! We bought an old deserted farm which we have started building up. Farming makes photography look like empty routine with all its mechanical repetition. You can go just so far in that art and it is fascinating enough, but there comes a time when you are bound to repeat yourself, going over and over the same ground, the same motions, with no new field for thought, —no advance. With farming it is so different. The things you can discover and learn and experiment with are endless. The combinations are so varied, the results so satisfying. There is the dealing with live, growing things, too, that we like. One gets tired of chemicals.” The farm woman is the strongest supporter of our basic democratic principle—she believes that everyone in America should work, and that everyone in America should share the higher life. She admits of no second place for American farmers. She makes no apology for her chosen occupation. Rather, she believes its possibilities boundless. “If you know of legislation for bettering farmers’ credits, for improving country roads, building consolidated schools, cooperative creameries and laundries—boost for it and vote for it, and you may be sure that the farm women will fall in line with every improvement and wave of progress that is made,” writes a woman from Wisconsin. “In the meantime, they are calmly and willingly giving their services that the life from the earth may flow in a steady stream towards a better and kinder world of people.” Partnership on the Farm Nowhere does a woman have a better chance to be her husband’s partner in every sense of the word. The business itself is spread out in front of her door. Its details come into her kitchen. She sees the plans for the work going on around her. She hears the talk of the business at her table. The farm papers come into her living room; farm bulletins are on her desk. She has every opportunity for studying the technique of a science, and for acquainting herself with the inside workings of a thriving ­business. The farm woman can feel that in real ways she has helped to earn the farm home.

154

reprints of selected publications

“My husband and I started life on $200, 6 years ago,” announces the wife of an Ohio farmer, “and today by hard work we are making good, and are looking forward to a home of our own in the near future.” Many women on American farms are on an equal financial footing with their husbands. “We have one common pocketbook at our house,” asserts a wife from the Northwest, “and whether it is a dozen eggs or a bunch of fat steers that are sold, the proceeds go into that pocketbook and each feels that the other has a right to draw from it for farm, household or personal use.” “The farmer and his wife lead a life of cooperation,” writes a Massachusetts woman. “We do not call it an addition to our own affairs to be interested in our husbands’ work. It is part of the farm life.” “I actually feel sorry for the woman who doesn’t get a chance to help her husband once in awhile,” says the wife of a wheat farmer in Illinois. A farm woman can always start on her way to partnership or economic independence with her garden, her butter, and her hens. “It is quite true we must work hard to hold up our end of the farmer’s burden,” observes a Virginia woman who markets her own products, “but we are interested in our work and work never seems difficult and monotonous when mind and heart are in it. What farmer’s wife is not proud to go to the nearest city market with her rolls of butter, her fresh eggs and crisp vegetables?”

Mutual Advantage in Partnership The helping on the farm is not all on one side. The farmer often gives his partner a helping hand with the garden and the heavier indoor work. “Slowly and surely,” writes an Iowa farmer’s wife, “electricity and gasoline are finding their way into the farm home. The

The Advantages of Farm Life

155

farmer has been criticized about modernizing the farm outbuildings first. This is true to a certain degree, yet there’s a reason for it. Naturally, if the outbuildings are modernized, it enables the farmer to work faster and realize more capital with which to make further improvements. There’s truth in the old saying: ‘A barn can build a house sooner than a house can build a barn.’” The work of the husband on the farm is of such a nature that he is able to share in the discipline and training of children. “I prefer living on a farm,” contends a young college-bred woman in New York, “my husband is such a help in the care, management, and discipline of the children. He takes the children all over the farm with him and lets them ride in a basket, or box or seat securely fastened on rake, cultivator or plow.” This interchange between house and garden, barn and field, is looked upon by many women as a refreshing change and tonic. “Up on the hill the other morning,” writes a Pennsylvania woman, “I say [sic] my neighbor, Mrs. R. herding the cows. I went up for a chat. ‘Is it monotonous herding the cows?’ I asked. ‘Decidedly not,’ she replied. ‘With all this great valley and the hills beyond, it is a change. I have a good woman doing the work inside. I have the latest magazines with me to read. I have the pure air and the sunshine, and I can take memories of the autumn mornings with me through the winter. It is only for a few hours each morning and I like the change.” The man and woman on the farm are constantly exchanging opinions about the work. The farm is not a man’s world entirely, nor yet completely a woman’s world. It takes both man and woman to make a successful go at building up a true home and a successful business on the farm. “Here in the South,” says a woman from the Coastal plains, “the men look for the big returns, the big crop, like cotton. The women look to the little crops, in order to have something coming in all the time, such as peanuts, potatoes, corn and nuts. The women are for diversification. So we keep the business balanced, and earn a good living.”

156

reprints of selected publications

Many times on the farm if the farmer lacks a certain quality or ability, his Wife is able to come to his assistance as this Wisconsin woman did in the early days of farming with her husband. “I’ve always been quite a hand to keep accounts, and help my husband with the business end of the farming,” she proudly affirms. “Every week I used to drive my fast driving horse into Milwaukee and get the checks all made out for the men who were working for him, and attend to the other business.” Long hours of planning and working together with hands and brains and hearts, hour by hour, month by month, year by year, give the farmer and his wife a trust in one another that is well nigh unbreakable. Almost more than any other women, farm women profoundly influence their husbands’ lives. A woman from the Pine Tree State, who now has a beautiful country home and every social advantage, shows that it makes a great deal of difference to a farmer whether his wife is ready to believe in him and stand by him when a test comes. “When I married my husband,” she tells us, “he was a salesman in his father’s store. We decided to buy a little farm and did. We worked along on this little farm, hardly making ends meet, but we always paid our debts and met our obligations, and people knew we were to be depended upon. I helped in the fields and with the milking. After 7 years, a man with a 600 acre estate noticed that my husband was ambitious and reliable and offered him the managership of the farm. At first my husband said ‘No, I don’t dare attempt it, I don’t know enough about farming—we might fail.’ But I thought we ought to take the chance, so I said, ‘Let’s try it. We have the little place to come back to, if we do fail, and it’s better to try to get ahead than to stay here and go behind as we are doing.” So we tried it and succeeded, and that one successful venture has given us courage ever since to start and do something, rather than to merely think, dream and plan. The start is the main thing, and probably the hardest thing, too.” In 1775, Abigail Adams, wife of John Adams, third President of the United States, was left to manage the farm in Braintree, making a living for herself and children while her young husband went out to do his duty for his country. Here is an extract from one of her letters:

The Advantages of Farm Life

157

“I take my pen and write just as I can get time; my letters will be a strange mixture. I really am ‘cumbered about many things’ and scarcely know which way to turn myself. I miss my partner and find myself unequal to the cares which fall upon me. I find it necessary to be the directress of our husbandry. I hope in time to have the reputation of being as good a farmeress, as my partner has of being a good statesman.” The Work Habit for Farm Children One of the chief sources of satisfaction that farm life affords the ­American woman lies in the opportunity the farm work gives her to enjoy her ­children. Opportunity Open to Children In the first place worry and anxiety keep many mothers from taking as much pleasure in their children as they might. On the farm, however, there is so much in the way of occupation among the farm animals and in the woods and fields that farm women find their children are not great causes of worry. They feel that the youngsters are safe—if they are in mischief it is not often the kind of mischief that does harm to anyone, for there is room enough on the home farm for the boys and girls to have a good time, without bothering the neighbors. “My little five-year-old girl,” declares the wife of a tenant farmer, “loves everything out of doors and will dress up in overalls and jumper and follow her father over the farm all day long from morning till night.” “All the children,” says a mother of ten grown children, “learned to ride horseback and bareback as soon as they could run. They grew up with a family of cousins living on the next farm and had a world of fun just helping with the work.” “You ought to see how my children enjoy the farm,” says a Southern woman who has recently moved from the city to the country. “It was worth coming just for that. Here at our backyard are cysters for picking and fine fish and crabs, and all about us are good hunting, wild turkeys, ducks, rabbits, partridges, and squirrels.”

158

reprints of selected publications

“The farm work has kept our children busy and occupied and happy,” writes a Massachusetts woman. “It is making men and women out of them, we think. We want our children to be selfhelping, independent, resourceful and we think the country life is a great help in making them so. They all have their work to do. The two boys help with all the outdoor work. They both can run the tractor. The two girls clean and dust the house, the older girl running the vacuum cleaner and the little one going along with dusters and mops. We have the self-carry system at the table too, everyone at our house, no matter who, picks up his own dishes and carries them to the kitchen after the meal is over. It saves lots of steps for the housekeeper.” A widow left to support herself and her children on a Maryland garden-truck farm says: “No opera music, (and I love music) could be sweeter to me than the call of my boy to the team as the wagon starts off to the canning factory well loaded with tomato crates that I have worked hard to fill. I am tired, yes—but proud of my work, and proud that my little son is learning to like work.” A woman from North Carolina whose children are now grown to useful manhood and womanhood believes that work taught her children the best in life. She says: “I had to bring up my family on the gospel of hard work and cheerfulness. I couldn’t afford to get downhearted myself with five children looking to me for courage. I had to go out into the fields and work myself, and see that the house kept running right and regularly too. The children learned the meaning of work right along with me, and they were trained not to look on it as drudgery and hardship either. I felt that the girls needed to get a higher education to support themselves and I knew the boys could get along with a High School education and their farm training. The boys agreed with me and gave up going to college and helped me put the girls through Normal. Then the boys went on and earned their own way through college. My oldest daughter finished college, taught and did county agent work and is now married to a prosperous farmer. People wonder how she has the energy to take care of her little children, look out for their local Home Bureau Club, act as President of the County

The Advantages of Farm Life

159

Bureau and take an active part in the State Bureau. It is because she got in the habit of working at home, of never wasting time, of taking responsibility, of expecting to take her share of all the work that goes on.” Effacement of Drudgery Casual observers of country life are in the habit of contending that the present day farm woman is more restricted by her household duties than was her Puritan or Revolutionary ancestress; that there has been in the average American farm home, no substantial improvement of conveniences in the past 50 years. When they say this, they are doubtless thinking of the work of the early women in picturesque terms. They have in mind the romantic vision of Priscilla Mullens: “Seated beside her wheel, and the carded wool like a snow drift “Piled at her knee, her white hands feeding the ravenous ­spindle, “While with her foot on the treadle, she guided the wheel in its motion.” Beside this picture of home industry, present day work in a farm home looks like drudgery. The March of Progress The modern farm woman herself may at times think that improvement in farm homes has been mortally slow and that conditions are far from what they should be. But when she stops to compare present conditions on the average farm in this country with the state of affairs that existed on the majority of farms 200 years ago, 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, it is brought home to her strongly that great and important strides in progress have been taken by farm women. Abigail Foote, of Connecticut in the year 1775, wrote in her diary at the close of the day a narrative that makes a modern woman’s head whirl. “Fix’d gown for Prude, mended mother’s ridinghood, - spun short thread, - Fix’d two gowns for Walsh’s girls, - Carded tow - Spun linen, worked on cheese basket, - Hatcheld’d flax with Hannah, we did 51 lbs. apiece, - Pleated and ironed - Read a sermon of Doddridge’s, - Spooled a piece, - Milked the cows, - Spun linen

160

reprints of selected publications

did 50 knots, - Made a broom of Guinea wheat straw, - Spun thread to whiten, - Set a Red dye, - Had two scholars from Mrs. Taylor’s, - I carded two pounds of wool and felt Nationaly, Spun harness twine - Scoured the Pewter.” Coming down to a span of years within the memory of present day women, we find a total change of conditions: “I was the daughter of a pioneer farmer from the Michigan lumber woods,” says one woman who still lives on a farm. “I have lived to see towns and cities, where once I saw bear and deer and lynx. In the Wild Wood I married a young man who worked in the lumber yards and we hewed a home out of the wild woods. What was a wilderness when I was a child is now beautiful farms. The old log cabins have been replaced with fine dwellings; wild animals with fine stock. We farm women do work hard but we are not lonesome or discouraged. Fifty years ago my mother never heard of a gasoline engine. Most farmers use them now to saw wood, pump water, churn, run the cream separator, run the washing machine.” Women who have lived through the great period of transformation appreciate most heartily the new life that has come to the farm home. Even a young farm woman can point out great improvements that have come about in her lifetime to make work in the farmhouse easier. “Some 30 years ago,” relates a Miami valley woman, “I was the third and last child to come to my parents in a 2-room log cabin built by father himself, on a 40-acre tract of land. From childhood, I knew what work meant. Mother was always busy; her work was all done by herself. She had a little 4-hole wood stove, and iron kettle, 2 iron pots, 2 iron skillets, 2 iron griddles, and enameled lined iron kettle and a granite 6-quart preserving kettle, the prize of the neighborhood in canning time. In a big iron soap kettle she made most of the soap for the neighborhood where we lived. Later, when we moved into a larger house, our only floor covering was a rag carpet woven by mother herself. I filled shuttles for her to weave it. We surely were proud of that new carpet, and a few new small rugs from what rags we had left from the carpet.

The Advantages of Farm Life

161

“Now I am mother of two lively children. We have been on the farm over two years. We have over a hundred acres. I have gas lights in every room, a 3-hole hot plate for hot summer cooking and an extra large coal range, a washing machine that can be run sitting or standing or by gasoline engine, if I ever am lucky enough to possess one. I can all my vegetables by ‘cold pack’ in a steam cooker. I have all the pans and kettles I can use in aluminum and granite, and I haven’t a heavy iron pot in the house. I have a big roomy kitchen with large cupboard cabinet, chest of drawers for towels, 2 large roomy work tables and 2 stoves in it.” All sorts of varying conditions are found in farm homes, but as a rule farm women are working toward the many conveniences. The spirit displayed by this young Iowa farm woman is typical: “My washing machine has been run with an engine for six years and now I use electricity. I also have a mangle, that is run by electricity that I iron all my flat clothes with. We farm women never have to watch a meter as we have our own electric plants. Within three miles of my home there are only three out of 14 farmers that haven’t electric plants of their own. Eleven of us farm women have the use of electricity and we don’t have someone always sending us a light bill either. There are many things I haven’t got, such as an electric vacuum cleaner, but I intend to have one before long to use in place of the hand one I have had for 10 years, and yes, I am going to have a grill to cook my light meals on, as well as other things as soon as I can get them. I have the dustless mop which lightens one’s work so much and which is in use every day on my hardwood polished floors. My sewing machine is run by an electric motor and while I am busy sewing I have the electric fan to keep me cool.” Making the Most of the Released Energy Fortunate farm women who possess modern electrical helps, freed as they are from some of the most immediate, urgent demands, have had the time to look about them and discover new ways to lighten their labors. They are constantly devising new means and methods to make their work more pleasant and profitable. On the walls of many modern farm kitchens are schedules of weekly and daily work. These schedules are usually briskly followed by their progressive makers who believe in living, not

162

reprints of selected publications

drifting through life. Some women know exactly how long each piece of work should take. “I know from actual experience,” declares an energetic Western woman, “that what helps most in house work is system. Have a day for your special work and see it is done on that day. Now I do the washing Monday, rain or shine, and usually I can find a time in the day to dry the clothes. If I can’t I let them lie in the bluing water till next day and it only whitens them the more. Then they are ready for the line bright and early Tuesday morning. While I do the ironing, I usually do my bread baking to use the same fire. I do everything up in the forenoon (unless it is canning time) then the afternoon is free.” Many farmers’ wives find it advisable to plan their work and improvements at least a year ahead, if not longer. “I believe in improving the place you live on,” contends a young Southern woman living on an old plantation that has been in her husband’s family for generations, “just a little bit every year instead of waiting ten years, living in bad conditions, just to fix things all up in a burst. We added the wide veranda last fall and next I want to fix this living room and lighten it up—paint the dark doors and other woodwork white ivory, put on a light paper and have some blue and white curtains. We want it to be a cheerful place.” A woman from central Massachusetts recites her yearly schedules: “I set myself to do 40 pieces of sewing every year and I get it off before spring when the heavy part of the gardening and canning begins. Towels, dresses, hats, sheets, etc., all come in, but I get 40 pieces done every year. I make most of my clothes and my daughter’s clothes. Yes, I took the clothing efficiency course and enjoyed it greatly. Then there’s our mending club, which meets every week to darn stockings and mend and visit, and we do have the best time.” Conveniences and improvements, long planned for, come about surely: “One year,” writes a Missouri woman, “we had ‘a big try’ for running water at the house and barn. The year of the big try we had a trio of geese, raised 40 goslings; a trio of Indian run-

The Advantages of Farm Life

163

ner ducks, raised 80 ducklings; and had 1,000 chickens, hatched under hens. This work was done mostly by the wife, a boy sometimes fed them after they got older, and the farmer often shut their doors after they were in for the night. These were all sold with the exception of some pullets that were kept to replace some of the hens in the fall. Also the wife sold the cow, keeping the calf to raise; the husband sold one of his cows and a sow when fattened, and both farmer and wife sold a litter of pigs each. The farmer and hired man did the digging and when you dig 450 feet between home and spring and then over 200 feet more to barn, in clay, with pick and shovel, it takes some courage. But that and some of the butter money settled the water question in one family that fall. The 1 1/2 horse-power gasoline engine pumps the water and before spring we had a washing machine (run by engine) sent in on trial. It was never taken out. Now we are planning for a car.” Removing the Stigma from Agriculture As in every occupation, so in farming, there are bound to be some disagreeable aspects which nothing can entirely eliminate. As in surgery, dentistry, nursing, there are diseases to be dealt with at first hand. As artists, sculptors, printers, must deal with dauby paints, clays and inks; as electricians and engineers must deal with oil and grime; so on every farm there are stables to be cleaned, there are chickens to be picked, there are weeds to be pulled, there are kitchen floors to be scrubbed. The surgeon, the artist, the engineer, are not stigmatized in public thought. Why? Because the glorified part of their calling obliterates the materials with which they work. In contrast, farmers, the world over, have been stigmatized. The soil, the clods - the farmer’s medium have been too much stressed; the wheat, the cattle, the fruit, his finished products, have been too little remembered too little identified with his calling. It is the problem of the farmer and the farmer’s wife to take the stigma from agriculture, so to elevate it by motive that farming shall cease to take its general reputation from the meaner aspects and begin to assume the character of a lofty calling. Already farmers are objecting to the caricatures in the press which represent them as sorry and disheveled, hay-seedy and dirty. A western woman speaks for the majority of her sisters on the farm in this description of her work: “There is beauty around us in every process of nature. Even the smell of warm wet soil is pleasant. A little dirt and engine grease

164

reprints of selected publications

does not make farming objectionable. Men can wear wash suits which can be cleaned by the machine so they can be comfortable and neat. My hoe has accounted for thousands of weeds. The young crops have thrills for me. There is a primitive love for the soil and growing things in every healthy-minded person. Any real work will have occasional hardships and vexations, but so long as you love the work it need not be drudgery.”

the social side President Roosevelt said, in appointing the Country Life Commission in 1908: “If there is one lesson taught by history, it is that the permanent greatness of any state must ultimately depend more upon the character of its country population than upon anything else. No growth of cities, no growth of wealth, can make up for loss in either the number or the character of the farming population.” In his introduction to the Country Life Commission report in 1910, we find this telling statement: “If country life is to become all that it should be, if the career of a farmer is to rank with any other career in the country as a dignified and desirable way of earning a living, the farmer must take advantage of all that agricultural knowledge has to offer and also of all that has raised the standard of living and of intelligence in other callings.” In certain pre-frontier enterprises in the country, the motive for the undertaking has been purely economic and the development wholly in the hands of men removed from family influence. Our forests have been cleared by migratory lumber-jacks; our fur trade has been conducted by lone trappers; our mining camps have been made up of detached prospectors and adventurers; our railroads and waterways have been opened up by groups of engineers, working alone, living in bunk houses. The kind of life produced under these conditions, because one-sided, has always been lacking in permanent satisfactions. It is only as families have entered in that such camp communities have ever really become settled, and formed into an integral part of national life.

The Advantages of Farm Life

165

Just so, in ordinary communities as we find them to-day, where the economic motives and practices have come to hold the center of attention in the public mind, where the financial, commercial and trade sides of life have far superseded the social side in public thought, rural life has become unsatisfactory, one-sided, incomplete, unstable, almost a soilmining venture for the purpose of obtaining money with which to return some day to more congenial atmosphere and mode of life. “The chief figure of the American West,” says Emerson Hough, “the figure of the age, is not the long-haired, fringed-legging man riding a raw-boned pony, but the gaunt sad-faced woman sitting on the front seat of the wagon, following her lord where he might lead, her face hidden in the same ragged sunbonnet which had crossed the Appalachians and the Missouri long before. That was America, my brethren! There was the seed of America’s wealth. There was the great romance of all America, —the woman in the sunbonnet; and not, after all, the hero with the rifle across his saddle horn. Who has written her story? Who has painted her picture?” The rural woman through all our agricultural development has held like a creed the determination that while gaining financial advantages, her family should not be needlessly deprived of social privileges. She has endeavored by dint of labor and thought, by substitution and combination, to bring to her family the best that life has to offer. The American farm woman has always been a courageous social pioneer as well as a resourceful agricultural frontierswoman. Country life in America has been built up gradually in the course of the last three centuries in which may be considered a series of wave movements; including rude pioneering, primitive civilization, and modern organization. Each section of the country whether settled early or late, has experienced or seems likely to pass through, each of these stages before reaching a settled type of national life. The Stage of Modern Organization In a general way we have now reached the third movement of American country life. The out-grown, scattered small-scale agencies such as the cross-roads-store-postoffice, the four-corners blacksmith shop, the riverroad-mill, and the country dressmaking-millinery store, are being assembled into single large concentrated trade centers, and there transformed to meet the needs of that larger group of farm people brought together by

166

reprints of selected publications

adequate transportation and a high type of common needs. Distance has no longer the completely isolating force which it formerly possessed. A Minnesota farm woman says: “Country roads are being rapidly improved—in proportion to the population, much more rapidly than city streets. Almost every farmer has his car; often his son has one too, and it is but a matter of minutes to drive into town for a new plow point or a new dress pattern. There’s travel from the first thaw to the first snow, by motor, and by sleigh during the brief winter.” Time means much to the modern scientific farmer and to the upto-date social-minded farm woman. It is only under vigorous protest that farm people now make numerous trips entailing miles of travel over poorly-kept and widely diverging roads to a half-dozen or more incomplete duplicating centers in order to find the lawyer, the miller, the veterinarian, the dentist or the banker. They greatly prefer to make one longer trip on a finely surfaced road to a consolidated trade center which displays all grades and varieties of facilities and services. Farm people who have reached the stage of complete organization, demand that their bank and grocery stores be in close proximity to one another; that their shipping point be coincident with their milling destination; that they be able to purchase dry goods at the same town from which they haul their seed, feed, and fertilizer. They want to be able to buy a plow point or a victrola record a block or so from where the milk has been deposited at the creamery and they want to have their service facilities grouped together with their trade facilities in a compact, easily accessible cluster. “I wonder,” says a North Dakota farm woman, who is well acquainted with all the new forms of rural organization, “whether a farm woman who can drive a car over a smooth road, who is but three quarters of a mile from good neighbors, and only five miles from a thoroughly equipped trading town, is any more isolated, or completely hidden away, or forgotten by the world, than many a city woman?” It is but a short step from educational consolidation to social affiliation. Farm people whose boys and girls go to consolidated schools begin attending with their children, functions of a social nature; lectures, concerts, plays.

The Advantages of Farm Life

167

“Now with cars coming into favor,” says a Nebraska farm woman, “distance is of little consequence to us and we rural folks attend lecture courses, Chautauquas, and similar affairs as well as city people.” “The other day,” says a Pennsylvania farm woman, “we attended an afternoon concert given by Sousa’s band. Of course the place was filled, but a good percentage of country women present were certainly well dressed. The majority of them came in their own cars and showed as keen an appreciation of good music as did their city sisters.” “We have stereoptican films in our church,” says an Ohio woman. “Our children are being transported to a consolidated school and we have our community meetings, picnics, reunions, fairs, supplying all the good honorable attractions wanted.” Town libraries have come to be widely patronized by farm families in communities where organization has sufficiently progressed to make a complete mutual understanding possible between urban and rural subscribers. “There are very few farm homes around here, lacking in a supply of newspapers and periodicals,” says a Nevada woman, “and most of our rural communities have access to the library in the neighboring town or city.” The splendid music furnished by great talent and genius in the town or city is no longer out of the reach of the farm family. “As to enjoying the music of the cities,” says a Nebraska farm woman, “what is there to hinder any one of the country sisters from getting into a car and speeding over the fine roads to the center of activity?” The modern farm home through electrification is brought near to town in communication and general atmosphere. “On the ranches in our country,” says a Nevada farm woman, “we have many of the modern conveniences. For instance, we use electric power for lighting and running our household machin-

168

reprints of selected publications

ery such as the churn, the separator, the washing machine, and the small farm tools. We have hot and cold water in the house and farm buildings, and are equipped with carpet sweepers, vacuum cleaners, fireless cookers, coal oil stoves, dustless brushes, o’cedar and oil mops, food choppers, patent fly traps, screened porches, ice cream freezers, ice boxes, pianos, phonographs of latest patent, as well as the latest improved sewing machines, kitchen cabinets and ranges. But why say more? Most parts of this county have their women’s clubs, and one would have to look far to find more congenial groups of women. We have our parties too; and if we want to go to the theater we have our cars and can run into town.” Native Social Advantages in Farm Life In the year 1791, Miss Hannah Adams, the historian, in writing to John Adams, made reference to the “humble obscurity” of their common origin. In reply, John Adams wrote that, could he “ever suppose that family pride were any way excusable, (he) should think a descent from a line of virtuous, independent New England farmers for a hundred and sixty years was a better foundation for it than a descendant through royal or noble scoundrels ever since the flood.” The farmer and his wife, it is generally acknowledged, never have to fear that change in public sentiment in regard to the value and ethics of their services will force them hurriedly to seek some other means of earning a livelihood. They are safe in throwing their whole souls into their work with enviable social independence. “As a farmer’s wife,” says a Utah farm woman, “you have the satisfaction of knowing that you are a producer of the essentials of life, that your work feeds the world, for if we farmers should stop work for one single year, the wheels of industry would be silent, and not only humans, but ninety percent of the dumb creatures, by reason thereof, would perish from the earth. The wealth of the world is torn from the earth in rural districts by the plow and pick. The city is but the counting house for the wealth of the soil, on its surface or beneath it—the only wealth of intrinsic value for all who live and for the millions yet unborn.” Farmers’ wives everywhere are noted for their conscientious ambition to do something that amounts to something.

The Advantages of Farm Life

169

“Certainly most farmers’ wives do not shirk their tasks,” says an Illinois woman, “there is a day of honest work but not a day of drudgery.” “I have lived on a farm more than forty years,” says a New York woman proudly, “and my back is straight as a dart yet. Worked any? Yes, indeed, at a good stiff pace and why not? The world’s work must be done and I am no shirk.” “The days are filled with healthful honest labor,” admits the Vermont farm woman, “and I am content and happy. I am in my fiftieth year and have no grey hairs.”

Neighborliness In the country, the homes are not usually close together. Meeting one’s neighbors is a pleasure. Greetings are natural and recognition not at all perfunctory. “Folks are folks.” The city woman has been trained and drilled in casualness; the country woman has never known such a number of people that she has lost interest in meeting a new person. “The wife of the man who reads our electric meter,” says a Massachusetts farm woman, “belongs to the town church we attend. She has been up here with her husband again and again when he reads the meter, and she just sits in the car and reads her paper. Often I’ll be out hanging up clothes or some such thing and you would think she’d at least say ‘good morning,’ but no, not a look does she send in my direction, but picks up a paper and reads it, as though she was in her library at home instead of sitting in my door-yard.” “Almost everybody comes to our weekly community suppers,” says a Massachusetts farm woman. “But I wish there were more newcomers. Sometimes you get so you know everyone so well, it would seem nice to meet some new personalities.” This does not mean that the older acquaintances in the country are the less valued. “There is nothing in the city,” says a Wisconsin farm woman, “to compare with the spirit of comraderie that exists in the rural

170

reprints of selected publications

districts among folks who share a party line telephone whose branches extend to several neighborhoods where dwell a lot of people you’ve known well enough for years to call them by their first names.” “Caste is unknown in the country,” says an Ohio farm woman. “I can count nine farm houses from my kitchen window and when I am working in my garden or with my chickens I can see my neighbors doing the same thing.” “My next door neighbor and I,” says a South Carolina farm woman, “make our work easier and pleasanter many times by sharing, and doing it together. If she has setting hens and I have eggs, she loans me hens and I give her eggs. If we want to can, we do it together at my house or hers, and our families have dinner together, and we get so much done, with such a nice social time thrown in, that it’s a fine scheme all around.” “It’s only in very, very rare cases,” says an Iowa farm woman, “that you find farm neighbors aren’t acquainted and haven’t visited back and forth and exchanged help at threshing or shredding time.” “Nobody needs to pity the farmer’s wife,” says a West Virginia farm woman. “She has the best of everything the world can give her—a home of her own, the finest kind of surroundings, with splendid scenery and good air and neighbors who stay year after year and mean something in her life.” In rural America, family hospitality is the rule. “One reason I like to live in the country,” says a New York farm woman, “is that here our families spend their recreation time together. We attend the Grange, and there the young folks have their dances with the older folks present. Our boy and girl hardly ever go off in the car alone, but mother and father go along too. Our whole family enjoy pleasures in common, whether it be a trip or a play or a Grange meeting or a high school entertainment.” Because of the sheltering isolation which the land throws around the farm home, the development of strong individual family characteristics is possible. Since each family stands out alone as a distinct entity, family

The Advantages of Farm Life

171

pride is easily built up and fostered in the country. In case of marriage between farm families, land inheritance is given careful consideration. Thus, country custom and family tradition work out an actual social selection of the finer types among the moderately well-to-do farmers. Even the traditions of the country community are usually of the kind which link the neighborhood together by associations connected with family history, land ownership and the land itself. “We have such a good view from our house,” says a Massachusetts woman. “Off in the distance we can see Wigwam Mountain. The last Indian squaw in those parts lived on that hill and had her tepee there. That’s how it comes to be called Wigwam Mountain. That’s where I got my blush pink rose too. One of the first ministers brought his bride here on horseback and she brought her rose bush with her and planted it over there where she settled. It has always been called ‘Parson’s Rose’ ever since, and about every family round about has a bush from it.” Possibilities Open to Country Life The pioneer women of America took the culture of their New England or Southern homes and triumphantly transplanted it at the edge of the frontier. The pioneer woman’s daughter in the succeeding age wrought out from her environment, crude but forceful social instruments which were made to do double, treble and quadruple duty in preparing her sons and daughters to face the more intricate problems of a newer age and a bigger nation. That newer age is now upon us. Farm life is now on trial to demonstrate whether it can pass into and on through this era of organization as triumphantly as it has passed through earlier eras. The thinking farm women of America believe that nothing can or will prevent the modern organization of farm life. One type of farm woman says: “All this that is said about rural life’s having come to the end of its possibilities for Americans with high standards, is a mistake, a pathetic, a ludicrous mistake. Social life in rural America is just coming into its own. It is stepping over the threshold into a new destiny. The farmer has been and still is the American parexcellence. If he finds a way to culture, it will be an American way, a democratic open-handed, open-hearted free way which all can follow. This is possible, provided the farmers of this generation stay farmers. If we, the farm women, make the mistake

172

reprints of selected publications

of not waiting for the new day, then we can not say what the future American rural life, left in the hands of unpractised and uninitiated newcomers may be.” Another type speaks: “Some say that American rural life is cracking and bound to break up. This is absurd. Why should it? Why should we people who love our occupation and do well in it, whose children thrive in it, be driven out of that occupation just because we have reached the point where we demand certain wider social advantages? Other people such as contractors, tradesmen, carpenters, painters and engineers, do not have to leave their business to educate their children and obtain cultural privileges for themselves. Why should we? Then again, if we leave farming, we are not advancing in a business way, for removal from agriculture does not usually mean business promotion to us. It is rather an acknowledgement of defeat, for we consider farming on no lower round of advancement than merchandizing or any other business. As a matter of common sense and justice, it should be so arranged in public policy that we have those institutions which will permit us to remain in the occupation we love, without suffering the penalty of an unhappy and unfulfilled life.” Experiments in Rural Organization Throughout the country, many concrete, practical and definite experiments for attaining social facilities of a high character for the rural home and community are found. When the farm home and community have been put in close relation with the outside world through well-planned social mechanics, the farmer’s wife is both willing and glad to sound the praises of the social advantages of the open country. An Indiana farm woman says: “We are not behind the times, by any means. Last week ended a fine Chautauqua where we heard some of the best lecturers, concert companies, and readers in the United States. We also have one of the best organized Sunday schools and churches in the country, thoroughly progressive in all methods, from the Men’s Brotherhood to the Cradle Roll. We have an up-to-date, wideawake college-bred minister. We have a fine consolidated school building, modern throughout; the children are taken to school in hacks, well heated, in the winter time. A great many of the

The Advantages of Farm Life

173

people in our community are college-bred men and women and even those who are not, nearly all plan to send their children to college.” “When we buy a farm,” says the wife of a Maine tenant farmer, “we want three things, good land, a good market, and a good community. And those three things are not so easy to find when you come to look for them. We’ve been hunting for a farm this whole year, making trips to find it in Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts but in one way or another they’ve failed to measure up. We want a community where folks are neighborly, where the church life is congenial, where people are friendly and pleasant, where there is plenty of sociability and then too, we want a community where our younger children will get the advantages of the High School our older children didn’t have.” “Communities are much the same as people,” says a North Carolina doctor’s wife who has recently moved to the farm. “There are sick rural communities with diseases of inertia and ignorance that need preventive and curative methods used upon them.” “We believe in mapping out the social life of our community,” says another young Southern farm woman. “We plan at least four big events for our community each year. This year, for instance, we have decided on a community fair, a community play, a big social, and a community Christmas tree.” “My husband and I,” says a North Carolina farmer’s wife, “think if you want to live in a fine neighborhood you shouldn’t leave it to luck but should go to work and build it the way you want it. Pick out your neighbors and when you get them, act neighborly and stick by them. We have in our community a club which is organized much on the order of the commercial clubs of the town. It’s to boost our little community center, seven miles from the railroad. We print on our community letterheads: ‘Our community offers many advantages to those seeking desirable locations for homes. Splendid opportunities are open for a number of business enterprises. We invite the fullest investigation. Full information will be gladly furnished to interested parties.’ “We have already got an empty store opened up and occupied by an enterprising merchant and we have brought a man who

174

reprints of selected publications

has a splendid little chair-and-basket manufacturing business to the village. Several new homes are being built up around the Academy and just now we are trying to persuade one of the boys who used to live here to open up his garage business in this community instead of elsewhere. Several times when we have heard of young farmers, we have made it a policy to go to these young farmers, one at a time, perhaps half a dozen of us, and tell him of some farm we knew was vacant in the neighborhood, suggesting to him we’d like him for a neighbor. We’ve got several live-wire farmers in our midst just that way. We are apt to let communities drift too much.” “In our southern mountain community,” says a Tennessee woman, “a rural hospital has proved a source of great blessing, appreciated especially by the mothers of farm families. This hospital serves a territory of fifteen square miles, remote from the railroad. It is well equipped with modern apparatus and has a staff of two doctors, four nurses and one orderly. There have been treated at this hospital in the three years of its existence, patients with blood-poisoning, broken bones, appendicitis, typhoid, bullet wounds, paralysis, burns, cuts, injured eyes, grip, influenza, ear trouble. The hospital force also conducts weekly lectures, and physical examinations of children at the consolidated school; frequent clinics for diseased tonsils, adenoids and teeth, and for tuberculosis; dispensary work for outside patients; instruction and observation of mothers and children by visiting nurses, and baths for electrotherapy.” There is every reason to believe that the courageous spirit with which American farm women are now attacking their problem of social organization will soon be widely reflected in the press. Presently we shall have appearing in our magazines and newspapers strong truthful pictures of farm life. Already, occasional glimpses into farm life given in current periodicals show us that we have in the making a new rural literature. Women of rural America today have before them as great and as worthy a task as ever faced their predecessors of pioneer days. They can win a lasting place by stating and restating what they know to be the satisfactions of country living; what they feel to be the value of productive work and unimpeachable service; and what things of the spirit they are determined to bequeath to their children.

The Advantages of Farm Life

175

the home side At the National Agricultural Conference called by the President of the United States in January, 1922, the farm women said clearly: “We stand for the conservation of the American farm home, where husband and wife are partners, and where children have the opportunity to develop in wholesome fashion.” At the national meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation in November, 1921, the women representatives set forth this statement as their creed: “As goes the rural home in the United States, so goes the Nation, and not otherwise.” In fact, in the last few years, there has been a repeatedly-expressed desire among earnest, thinking rural women that the farm women’s real attitude towards farm life should no longer be misrepresented, lest in those days of publicity and critical unrest, this misconstruction of her attitude may have more influence than her actual daily unprejudiced courage and contentment. These excerpts from hundreds of letters and interviews may be taken as representative of the whole country. The Physical Setting The farm home is most fortunate in its setting. “Two few people,” says a New York farm woman, “in balancing the returns from the farm, start the credit sheet with that comfortable item, the country home. We do not often stop to realize that farmers are almost the only people who can afford the luxury of a country residence while still on a small income.” One woman from Michigan says: “Our work is harder than the city woman’s and there is more of it, but we are free to do as we like in some things. I am raising my family without fear of a landlord ordering me out, because there are too many babies. The little vine-covered cottage is better than an apartment in the city where no children are wanted.” Farm women appreciate space, outdoors and in, to a greater degree than is commonly recognized. “What is there that you city people have,” asks a Connecticut farm woman, “that you do not pay for? You can not even

176

reprints of selected publications

enjoy a moonlight night because of the electric lights. In some of your homes you do not know what sunlight is, or fresh air, or green grass, or the beautiful wild flowers or the ever-changing woods. Did you ever see the trees hanging loaded with ice and all glittering in the sunlight? In a few weeks, those same trees put forth new leaves, and then later change to a dress of most beautiful autumn colors. Did you ever look out some morning, or just at night, and see a deer or a fox far off in a distant field? We country folks get up early in the morning; when the air is fresh; the meadow covered with dew; the fog hanging over the river and perhaps the sun just peeping over the mountain.” Children in town are all too often forced to seek a playground in the street. The city mother is kept in a constant state of anxiety as to the safety of her children. A city woman, who, with her four children, was visiting a farmer’s wife said: “I live in an apartment building with four other families and each has several children. There’s absolutely no place for them to play except on the side-walk and in the street, and all day long they battle for supremacy and I live in hourly dread of someone getting hurt. Here in the country I have complete rest from the constant anxiety and the children are reacting to the quiet surroundings and they play instead of indulging in constant quarrels and fights.” The farm woman is reasonably sure that no one will erect an objectionable building near her home which will shut off her much valued view of the landscape. “For months now,” says a Virginia farm woman, “I will have more beautiful scenes at my back door than any but the Master can paint, for what is there that can compare with an autum woods? Just yesterday I saw the evening sun send its rays through the cool woods that were splashed with the scarlet of the black gum, next will come the gaunt bare trees and the lovely snowstrewn fields and after that, whispers of the seedlings waiting for the spring rains and suns and the bluebird’s call. Then everything thrills to nature’s touch and even the poor tired farm woman forgets all worries and thrills too.”

The Advantages of Farm Life

177

The Farm The farm home is something more than a country residence. We speak of the homestead and farmstead interchangeably because the farm includes the home and the home encompasses the farm. “You don’t think of your home on a farm,” says a Middle West farm woman, “as just a space inside four walls. The feeling of home spreads out all around, into the garden, the orchards, the henhouses, the barn, the springhouse, because you are all the time helping to produce live things in those places and they, or their products, are all the time coming back into your kitchen from garden, orchard, barn, or henhouse, as a part of the things you handle and prepare for meals or market every day. It is one of these peculiarities of making a home on a farm.” The broad fields, the upland pasture, the woodlot, the orchards, the avenues of trees, the miles of fences and walls are never disassociated from the home idea in our thoughts of farm life. Every farm person will understand the land-and-home-sick feeling which prompted John Adams, during his long absence from Quincy, to write this to his wife Abigail, who was active farm manager during his absence: “. . . I want to take a walk with you in the garden, to go over the common, the plain, the meadow. I want to take Charles in one hand and Tom in the other, and walk with you, Abby on your right hand and John upon my left, to view the corn fields, the orchards.” Abigail Adams later wrote to her two sons, John and Thomas, in regard to this very close connection which this family felt existed between their indoor and outdoor home. To her son John, after his long absence in England, she wrote: “Four years have already passed away since you left your native land and this rural cottage. If you live to return, I can form to myself an idea of the pleasure you will take in treading over the ground and visiting every place your early years were accustomed wantonly to gambol in; even the rocky common and lowly whortleberry bush will not be without their ­beauties.”

178

reprints of selected publications

The Farm House The northern hillside cottage with its gleaming window panes, the southern plantation mansion with its wide and comfortable hearth, the western ranch house with its spacious verandas, all proclaim that the land with its crops, livestock, and barns, exists for the prime purpose of supporting a fine type of American home. A Place to Rest The good farm house provides a relief and change from work to members of the family. American farm homes have always been detached from farm animal quarters and a barn is now seldom built directly opposite the house; farm machinery is not usually stored in the front yard, nor are the various farm animals pastured in the vicinity of the house. By planting vines, hedges and trees skillfully most of the work suggestions are shut off from the view. “We want our farm to be a restful place,” says a young South Atlantic woman, “so we are fixing it up as we go along, and as we can afford it. We have picked up enough stone to make the pillars for our porch and the fireplace and chimney. We are planting shrubbery and vines and later we expect to cut out some of the timber across the road so we can see daylight and won’t feel quite so much in the wilderness.” “It seems to me I couldn’t stand it if I could not look out from my work on trees, and green grass, flowers, and hills and valleys,” says a North Carolina woman. “When we first moved to this farm an old barn shut off our view just where the shade was best. We had the old buildings torn down and I’ve planted my rose garden where it used to be, near trees that have been standing there a hundred years.” Indoor Aspects The indoor setting of the farm home sometimes constitutes one of the most satisfactory features of farm life. The ordinary farm house is a capacious affair providing ample opportunity for privacy to the various members of even a large family. Rent is never discussed in the farm home and the boys and girls know that they are welcome as long as they will stay. As a Wisconsin woman says:

The Advantages of Farm Life

179

“In the country there is a lot of room indoors and out for things to grow in. Our families, like the crops, grow up naturally.” The new farm house of this day does not differ materially from the city home in its opportunities for conveniences as has been shown by the Census. Because a house is located on a farm it does not mean that it must be merely a crude headquarters for work, completely pervaded by an air of grim business. An Idaho woman who started with her husband on a forty acre claim with a one-room shack five years ago writes: “We now have a hundred and sixty acres of land, with an attractive four-room house painted white. My kitchen is done in white with light oak-stained woodwork and is furnished with a white cabinet and table and chairs to match the woodwork. I have blue and white linoleum on the floor and white cheesecloth curtains at the windows. A plain range, a cream separator and a canary bird complete the kitchen equipment. The walls of the other three rooms are finished with plain oatmeal papers with flowered cretonne over-drapes and white curtains. All summer I put roses and sweet peas in bowls everywhere. We have large comfortable chairs, restful couch, a good library table and bookcase, a piano, a violin, a ukelele and a new two-hundred and eighty-five dollar phonograph with lots of good records, not of the popular type. As for magazines, I take the farm paper from most every state and read them all. We also subscribe for seven of the best monthly magazines.” When the farm woman has fully determined for herself that her permanent home is to be upon the farm, she sets about getting all the indoor conveniences as rapidly as practicable. The furnace, the bathroom, electricity, hardwood floors, and other pleasant features, may, through wise planning be introduced into the house once it is finally decided that the family does not mean to retire from active farming as soon as it reaches a competency. But while working for them the family is by no means discontented with what it has. “I know,” says a New York woman living on a hill farm, “that bathrooms and electric lights are great helps in country living but think they are not all, and that deep satisfying things may come to us in country life without these artificial aids. I dream of

180

reprints of selected publications

making our home ideal in physical attractions, some day, but in the meantime we have tried to make our living as true and beautiful as possible, and we do truly believe in the future of country life in America.” Economy No critic will deny to the farm home the quality of economy. The members of farm families have before them so many direct incentives for thrift, so many enterprises, calling for investment of savings, that they get in the habit of making every dollar count. Because the farm brings in greater returns as time advances, the young country woman feels justified in working her hardest and living modestly in her early days on the farm, knowing with this investment, the fruits of labor will increase with the years. She is willing to practice frugality, economy, thrift, for she knows, in the ordinary course of events, on the farm, the older she gets, the easier it will be—she has a feeling of stability, a permanency, a lack of strain, that more than makes up for the loss of early frivolities. “We started our life’s journey in a sod-shanty on a Government claim,” says an elder Kansas woman. “Oh! those happy days, while we toiled and worked with the expectation of having something laid up to support us in our old days. Work was a pleasure, not a drudgery. We now own eight hundred acres besides Government bonds. Although we have retired we still live on the farm because we love the farm life. We have a nice and convenient home.” Books Most farm families like to read. A Massachusetts farm mother tells us here a story which many another country woman will recognize as typical of her own experience in the world of children and books. “As I write my sixteen-year old boy sits across the table from us reading the Youth’s Companion. He put down ‘Sailing Alone Around the World’ (Capt. Joshua Slocum) to take up the paper. Last night he finished a book which he bought himself at a secondhand book shop ‘In Kentucky with Daniel Boone.’ You will see he is living in the midst of adventures, as a boy of his age should, and getting it from the real experience of others rather than from the falseness of the movies. Outside of reading his mind is taken up with basketball and other athletics, skating, sliding and other

The Advantages of Farm Life

181

out-door activities and the girl question doesn’t bother him. He simply hasn’t time for anything more. He reads the newspaper some but scarcely any out-and-out fiction. He was slower to start general reading than any of the other children, but now that he has the line that he likes he can hardly be pulled away from a book any more than the rest of them. His first year’s school work was done at home as the little school near us was closed then and I couldn’t bear to send him three miles every day with a cold lunch. “Magazines have always interested our small children, mainly the illustrations including the advertisements. The oldest girl often amused the two younger brothers long before she could read herself by taking one on each side of her on the couch with a magazine on her lap. The boy on her left had all the things that were pictured on the left-hand pages, the other, all on the righthand pages. Like a real little mother she kept none for herself. “The Knight’s of King Arthur’ was also a great favorite with them and had much the same effect. I asked one of the boys why he liked the book so much and he said ‘Because it has a fight on every page.’ “Nearly all of these books that were read to them were more or less edited by their father, the long prosy descriptions or other objectionable parts being cut out. “The children have all had a steady diet of fairy stories before they were ten, read to them and later read by themselves. We probably have over 200 books of fairy tales of all nations and those have served to cultivate the children’s imaginations remarkably well. ‘Alice in Wonderland’ they have all enjoyed but especially the girls. “The children have all had times of pouring over the dictionary which is the biggest and best we can afford but not too good to be taken to the window-seat where they got down on their knees and studied it. A big atlas has been used much the same way especially to follow the journeyings of friends and relatives. Our books have mainly been bought at second-hand stores and the married daughter is now picking up a similar collection beginning with the things she has already read and liked.

182

reprints of selected publications

“I haven’t said much of the kinds of books I have most enjoyed as a farm home mother. We really are not creatures of a different species. We like fashion books and articles on proper table etiquette, too. I have read the necessary amount of careof-children books, food-for-the-family, and so on, but mainly we have read as a family and when my boy pokes ‘Daniel Boone’ at me and says, ‘You’ve just got to read this,’ why I just read it as I do his catalogues on motor-boats, yes, and the older boy’s love letters, too, though not all of them, I suspect. “Because we live on a farm doesn’t mean that we must necessarily confine our reading to chickens and fertilizer. I remember after my daughter was married and went to live on a farm in the wilds of The Berkshires, a native from the town called on her and mused along: ‘A Maxfield Parrish picture and Kipling’s poems. Well, you won’t be staying here long.’ Nevertheless, they are still on a farm and read the New Republic and the Atlantic Monthly regularly.” Music Music makes an excellent companion to literature in the American farm home. Busy farm women find that music provides the finest kind of ­relaxation. “With all my work,” says a New Hampshire farm woman, “I find time for music which is my hobby. I am even dreaming of going to the New England conservatory of music for voice culture. I, for one, am not growing old and gray before my time.” “The first few years I was married,” says a New York woman, “I gave up my music, and how I did miss it! Then I took up playing the organ for church and Sunday School. Of course I had to practise, and it took time, but I found to my surprise and relief, that I could finish my day’s work just as early as I had before. The music was really better than a rest to me. It was a recreation and an inspiration. My husband saw the difference and said, ‘Now never give up your music again. If you do, you’ll get the habit of dropping out.’ I say, even though you have seven children to raise without much help, as I’ve had, you cannot afford to let music die out of your home.”

The Advantages of Farm Life

183

Far from cutting one off from life, the farm opens up many an avenue leading out to world interests. Gene Stratton-Forter, a farmer’s wife, became interested in the wild flowers, the moths, butterflies, and birds in the swamps surrounding her Indiana farm home. “I kept a cabin of fourteen rooms,” said Mrs. Stratton-Forter, “and I kept it immaculate. I made most of my daughter’s clothes. I kept a conservatory in which there bloomed from three-hundred to six-hundred bulbs every winter, tended a house of canaries and linnets, and cooked and washed dishes three times a day. In my spare time (mark the word, there was spare time, else the books never would have been written and the pictures made) I mastered photography, to such a degree that the manufacturers of one of our finest brands of print paper once sent the manager of their factory to me to learn how I handled it. “Upon this plan of life and work I have written ten books, and please God. I live so long, I shall write ten more. Possibly every one of them will be located in Northern Indiana. Each one will be filled with all the field and woods legitimately to its location, and peopled with the best men and women I know and have known, and unless my barrel fails me they will be seasoned with plenty of molasses.” Marietta Holley living in New York State, became interested in the way her farm neighbors thought and talked. She began writing for the local papers. One day she wrote about an ordinary country woman, Betsy Bobbit. After that, she wrote under the name of “Samantha Allen,” for hundreds of thousands of readers and her books about her country neighbors have been translated into nearly every language in the world. She still lives on the farm where she was born. “I don’t know that you could exactly call me a farm woman,” says Miss Holley, “I guess it would be more appropriate to call me a ‘hen-yard woman,’ my place is so small. But I do enjoy living in the country. I used to like to go to New York for a few weeks at a time, but not to stay. Life is too hurrying and rushing. I like to stay at home where I can look out and see my Jerseys feeding peacefully on the knoll of the hill.”

184

reprints of selected publications

Home Traditions The farm homes of America keep alive the sacred traditions of our land. New England and Southern soil has become dear to Americans, not because of money values alone, but because of associations. Every farm in America is a little native land in and of itself, with its traditions and its history. Every field has its story; this splendid old orchard, for instance, was drained with laborious toil by the grandfather and planted with high hopes by the father and is now tended with pride by the grandson who reaps the harvest of fruit and victory. In the older states, home traditions have sometimes accumulated until, the farm as it has been handed down from one generation to the next, has become a venerated spot, not only to the family representative now living upon it but to all those migrants and descendants of migrants who have gone out from that farm. In newer sections of our nation the land becomes endeared to us because here have striven and conquered the pioneering parents. Daniel Webster used to say of his boyhood home where his father and grandfather had lived and worked: “I make to it an annual visit. I carry my children to it. I love to dwell on the tender recollections, the kindred ties, the early affections, and the touching narrations and incidents which mingle with all I know of this primitive family abode.” Daniel and Ezekiel Webster owed their greatness not so much to the humbleness of their origin, as to the sterling qualities which their farm home bred up in them. There came a day when both boys wished to leave the farm to go to college. Neither wanted to go without the other, and one of them was needed at home, for the father was old and in debt. Here came the supreme test of the Webster farm home. Did it exist for financial purposes or was it an expression of spirit, only justified in existing so long as it maintained this spirit? This was the question Daniel Webster’s mother asked herself. Should she hold back her sons, keeping the semblance of home, or should she fearlessly trust the spirit of the home, giving up the material house, dear and sacred as it was, to perpetuate the inner meaning of the home, and to give the best that it expressed to the nation? Her trust in the home spirit as embodied in the hearts of her sons, Daniel and Ezekiel, was complete, and she said: “I have lived long in the world, and have been happy in my children. If Daniel and Ezekiel will promise to take care of me in

The Advantages of Farm Life

185

my old age, I will consent to the sale of all our property at once, and they may enjoy the benefit of all that remains after our debts are paid.” The farm home is a home to the whole nation, not merely to those that live within its walls. The nation, in a way, borrows and depends upon the traditions of its farms. This, it seems, is our rock-bed of patriotism, the stabilizer which shall continue to make us a strong and permanent nation. Without it we should be like floating plants without roots.

References

Abbott, Andrew. 1997. “Of Time and Space: The Contemporary Relevance of the Chicago School.” Social Forces 75 (4): 1149–82. Adams, Jane. 1991. “‘A Woman’s Place Is in the Home’: The Ideological Devaluation of Farm Women’s Work.” Anthropology of Work Review 12 (4): 2–11. ———. 1993. “Resistance to Modernity”: Southern Illinois Farm Women and the Cult of Domesticity.” American Ethnologist 20 (1): 89–113. Alexander, Frank D. 1940. “Family Life in a Rural Community.” Social Forces 18 (3): 392–402. ———. 1944. “Cultural Reconnaissance Survey of Coahoma County, Mississippi: For administrative use.” Dittoed. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. ———. 1945. “A Rural Community in Time of War: The Valley Community in Rabun County, Georgia.” Mimeo. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. Alexander, Leslie M. 2004. “The Challenge of Race: Rethinking the Position of Black Women in the Field of Women’s History.” Journal of Women’s History 16 (4): 50–60. Allen, Beverlyn Lundy. 2002. “Race and Gender Inequality in Homeownership: Does Place Make a Difference?” Rural Sociology 67 (4): 603–21. Allen, Ruth. 1931. The Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton. Bureau of Research in the Social Sciences, Study No. 3, University of Texas Bulletin No. 3134. Austin: University of Texas, September 8. [American Economic Association]. 1914. “Notes.” The American Economic Review 4 (3): 762–70. American Home Economics Association. 1929. Home Economists: Portraits and Brief Biographies of the Men and Women Prominent in the Home Economics Movement in the United States. Baltimore: American Home Economics Association. [American Sociological Society]. 1906. “Organization of the American Sociological Society: Official Report.” The American Journal of Sociology 11 (4): 555–69. Anderson, Anton H. 1945. “The Rural Community and the War: A Study of Ryder, North Dakota.” Lincoln, Neb.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. Anderson, Clifford B. 1961. “The Metamorphosis of American Agrarian Idealism in the 1920s and 1930s.” Agricultural History 35 (4): 182–88.

188

references

Anderson, W. A. 1944. “Social Participation and Religious Affiliation in Rural Areas.” Rural Sociology 9 (3): 242–50. ———. 1947. “Rural Sociology as Science.” Rural Sociology 12 (4): 347–56. Andrews, Benjamin R. 1912. “Miss Catherine E. Beecher, the Pioneer in Home Economics.” Journal of Home Economics 4 (3): 211–22. Apple, Rima D., and Joyce C. Coleman. 2003. “‘As Members of the Social Whole’: A History of Social Reform as a Focus of Home Economics, 1895– 1940.” Family and Consumer Science Research Journal 32 (2): 104–26. Appleby, Paul H. 1954. “An Administrative View.” In Wells et al. 1954, 8–12. The Associated Country Women of the World: Proceedings of the Third Triennial Conference Held at Washington, May 31–June 11, 1936. 1937. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Association of American Colleges and Experiment Stations. 1908. Report of the Commission on Agricultural Research. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Experiment Stations. Atkeson, Mary Meek. 1920. “The Good Old Days: A Pageant of County Life for Field Day Meetings, Patriotic Celebrations and Other Occasions.” Country Gentleman, July 17, 6, 44, 46. ———. 1921. “A Place in the Procession.” Good Housekeeping, August 1921, 132–34. ———. 1924. The Woman on the Farm. New York: Century. ———. 1929. “Women in Farm Life and Rural Economy.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 143 (1): 188–94. Atwater, Helen W. 1929. Home Economics: The Art and Science of Homemaking. Chicago: American Library Association. Babbitt, Kathleen R. 1993. “The Productive Farm Woman and the Extension Home Economist in New York State, 1920–1940.” Agricultural History 67 (2): 83–101. Bailey, Liberty Hyde. 1911. The Country-Life Movement in the United States. New York: Macmillan. Baker, Gladys L., and Wayne D. Rasmussen. 1975. “Economic Research in the Department of Agriculture: A Historical Perspective.” Agricultural Economics Research 27 (3–4): 53–72. Baker, Gladys L., Wayne D. Rasmussen, Vivian Wiser, and Jane M. Porter. 1963. Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: USDA, Centennial Committee. Baker, O. E., and Conrad Taeuber. 1940. “The Rural People.” In Yearbook of Agriculture 1940: Farmers in a Changing World, 827–48. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office. Repr. as Yearbook Separate No. 1763, 1941. Baldwin, Keturah E. 1949. The AHEA Saga: A Brief History of the Origin and Development of the American Home Economics Association and a Glimpse at the Grass Roots from Which It Grew. Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics Association.

references

189

Bell, Earl H. 1942. Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: Sublette, Kansas. Rural Life Studies 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare], September. Benedict, M. R., and M. L. Wilson. 1959. “Howard Ross Tolley, 1889–1958.” Journal of Farm Economics 41 (1): 1–2. Bercaw, Louise O. 1931. Rural Standards of Living: A Selected Bibliography. Miscellaneous Publication 116. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Berlage, Nancy K. 2001. “Organizing the Farm Bureau Family: Family, Community, and Professional, 1914–1928.” Agricultural History 75 (4): 406–37. Bernard, Jessie. 1929. “The History and Prospects of Sociology in the United States.” In Lundberg, Bain, and Anderson 1929, 1–71. Bernhard, Virginia, Betty Brandon, Elisabeth Fox-Genovese, Theda Perdue, and Elizabeth Hayes Turner, eds. 1994. Hidden Histories of Women in the New South. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Bevier, Isabel. 1917. “The Development of Home Economics.” Journal of Home Economics 9 (1): 1–7. Black, John D. 1947. “The Bureau of Agricultural Economics: The Years in Between.” Journal of Farm Economics 29 (4): 1027–42. Blasi, Anthony J., ed. 2005. Diverse Histories of American Sociology. Leiden: Brill. Boger, L. L. 1954. “Important Professional Problems Facing the Agricultural Economist.” Journal of Farm Economics 36 (2): 304–8. Bogue, Allan G. 1990. “Comment: Policy Making in the USDA.” Agricultural History 64 (2): 244–51. Bowers, Douglas E. 1990. “The Economic Research Service, 1961–1977.” Agricultural History 64 (2): 231–43. Bowers, Douglas E., and David H. Harrington. 1995. Review of A Farm Economist in Washington, 1919–1925, by Henry C. Taylor. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77 (1): 227–28. Bowers, William L. 1971. “Country-Life Reform, 1900–1920: A Neglected Aspect of Progressive Era History.” Agricultural History 45 (3): 211–21. ———. 1974. The Country Life Movement in America, 1900–1920. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press. Broschart, Kay Richards. 2002. “Research in the Service of Society: Women at the Institute for Research in Social Science.” The American Sociologist 33 (3): 92–106. Brown, Marjorie M. 1985. Philosophical Studies of Home Economics in the United States: Our Practical-Intellectual Heritage. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Brown, Minnie Miller. 1976. “Black Women in American Agriculture.” Agricultural History 50 (1): 202–12. Brunner, Edmund de S. 1957. The Growth of a Science: A Half-Century of Rural Sociological Research in the United States. New York: Harper and Brothers.

190

references

Buenker, John D., John C. Burnham, and Robert M. Crunden. 1977. Progressivism. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman. Bulmer, Martin, and Joan Bulmer. 1981. “Philanthropy and Social Science in the 1920s: Beardsley Ruml and the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, 1922–1929.” Minerva 19:347–407. Calhoun, Craig, ed. 2007a. Sociology in America: A History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 2007b. “Sociology in America: An Introduction.” In Calhoun 2007a, 1–38. Camic, Charles. 2007. “On Edge: Sociology During the Great Depression and the New Deal.” In Calhoun 2007a, 225–80. Carlson, Laurie Winn. 2005. William J. Spillman and the Birth of Agricultural Economics. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Carstensen, Vernon. 1960. “An Historian Looks at the Past Fifty Years of the Agricultural Economics Profession.” Journal of Farm Economics 42 (5): 994–1006. Carver, Thomas N. 1913. “Home Economics from a Man’s Point of View.” Journal of Home Economics 5 (4): 291–300. ———. 1914a. “The Organization of Rural Interests.” In Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1913, 239–58. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ———. 1914b. “The Relation of the Rural Organization Service to the Colleges of Agriculture.” In Hills 1914, 87–92. ———. 1914c. “The Rural Organization Service.” The American Economic Review 4 (1) Supplement: 101–3. ———. 1915. “The Organization of a Rural Community.” In Yearbook of Agriculture of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1914, 89–138. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ———. 1949. Recollections of an Unplanned Life. Los Angeles: Ward Ritchie Press. Casey, Janet Galligani. 2004a. “Farm Women, Letters to the Editor, and the Limits of Autobiography Theory.” Journal of Modern Literature 28 (1): 89–106. ———. 2004b. “‘This Is YOUR Magazine’: Domesticity, Agrarianism, and The Farmer’s Wife.” American Periodicals 14 (2): 179–211. Catt, Carrie Chapman. 1937. “Address of Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, Delivered at the Banquet, June 4, 1936.” In Associated Country Women of the World 1937, 221–23. Chiappe, Marta B., and Cornelia Butler Flora. 1998. “Gendered Elements of the Alternative Agriculture Paradigm.” Rural Sociology 63 (3): 372–93. Clawson, Marion. 1946. “Discussion.” American Sociological Review 11 (3): 330–32. ———. 1987. From Sagebrush to Sage: The Making of a Natural Resource Economist. Washington, D.C.: ANA. Coats, A. W. 1964. “The American Economic Association, 1904–1929.” The American Economic Review 54 (4): 261–85.

references

191

Collard, Clyde V. 1984. “The Founding of Rural Sociology and the Rural ­Sociological Society.” The Rural Sociologist 4 (4): 324–35. Commission on Country Life. 1917. Report of the Commission on Country Life. New York: Sturgis and Walton. Conkin, Paul K. 1959. Tomorrow a New World: The New Deal Community Program. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Cravens, Hamilton. 1990. “Establishing the Science of Nutrition at the USDA: Ellen Swallow Richards and Her Allies.” Agricultural History 64 (2): 122–33. Culver, John C. 1996. Seeds and Science: Henry A. Wallace on Agriculture and Human Progress. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Dahlke, Otto H. 1945. “A Rural Community in Time of War: Shelley, Idaho.” Berkeley, Calif.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. Danbom, David B. 1979. The Resisted Revolution: Urban America and the Industrialization of Agriculture. 1900–1930. Ames: Iowa State University Press. ———. 1991. “Romantic Agrarianism in Twentieth-Century America.” Agricultural History 65 (4): 1–12. ———. 2002. “Rural Girls in Fargo in the 1930s.” Agricultural History 76 (4): 659–68. ———. 2006. Born in the Country: A History of Rural America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Dethloff, Henry C. 1990. “Edwin T. Meredith and the Interregnum.” Agricultural History 64 (2): 182–90. Dimand, Mary Ann. 1995. “The Economics of Charlotte Perkins Gilman.” In Women of Value: Feminist Essays on the History of Women in Economics, edited by Mary Ann Dimand, Robert W. Dimand, and Evelyn L. Forget, 124–49. Aldershot: Edward Elgar. Dimand, Robert W. 2000. “Nineteenth-Century American Feminist Economics: From Caroline Dall to Charlotte Perkins Gilman.” The American Economic Review 90 (2): 480–84. Doggett, Allen B., Jr. 1923. Three Negro Communities in Tidewater Virginia. Bulletin 19 (4). Hampton, Va.: Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute. Contributed by School of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Farm Population and Rural Life cooperating. Ducoff, Louis J. 1950. Migratory Farm Workers in 1949. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 25. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. ———. 1951. “Migratory Farm Workers: A Problem in Migration Analysis.” Rural Sociology 16 (3): 217–24. Ducoff, Louis J., and Margaret J. Hagood. 1946. “Employment and Wages of the Hired Farm Working Force in 1945 with Special Reference to its Population Composition.” Mimeo. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare].

192

references

Ducoff, Louis J., and Louis Persh. 1946. Wages and Wage Rates of Harvesters of Special Crops in Selected Areas of 13 States, 1945: A Statistical Summary. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 17. Mimeo. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Ducoff, Louis J., and Barbara B. Reagan. 1946. Wages and Wage Rates of Hired Farm Workers, United States and Major Regions, May 1945. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 7. Mimeo. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Duggan, Lisa. 1983. “The Social Enforcement of Heterosexuality and Lesbian Resistance in the 1920s.” In Swerdlow and Lessinger 1983, 75–92. Duncan, Otis Durant. 1941. “Contemporary Sociological Research in Farm Family Living.” Rural Sociology 6 (4): 300–310. ———. 1954. “Rural Sociology Coming of Age.” Rural Sociology 19 (1): 1–12. Dye, Nancy S. 1991. Introduction to Frankel and Dye 1991, 1–9. Ehrenreich, Barbara, and Deirdre English. 1978. For Her Own Good: 150 Years of the Experts’ Advice to Women. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press. Elbert, Sarah. 1988. “Women and Farming: Changing Structures, Changing Roles.” In Haney and Knowles 1988, 245–64. Eldridge, Hope T. 1964. “Margaret Jarman Hagood (1907–1963).” Population Index 30 (1): 30–32. Ellsworth, Clayton S. 1960. “Theodore Roosevelt’s Country Life Commission.” Agricultural History 34:177–72. Evans, Anne M. 1918a. “Rest Rooms for Women in Marketing Centers.” In Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1917, 217–24. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ———. 1918b. Women’s Rural Organizations and Their Activities. USDA Bulletin No. 719. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Markets. “The Exodus of Farmers.” 1908. Wallace’s Farmer 33 (September 25): 1146. Faragher, John Mack. 1981. “History from the Inside-Out: Writing the History of Women in Rural America.” American Quarterly 22 (5): 537–57. Feldman, Shelley, and Rick Welsh. 1995. “Feminist Knowledge Claims, Local Knowledge, and Gender Divisions of Agricultural Labor: Constructing a Successor Science.” Rural Sociology 60 (1): 23–43. Fink, Deborah. 1986. Open Country, Iowa: Rural Women, Tradition and Change. Albany: State University of New York Press. ———. 1992. Agrarian Women: Wives and Mothers in Rural Nebraska, 1880– 1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Fink, Deborah, Valerie Grim, and Dorothy Schwieder. 1999. “Introduction.” Agricultural History 73 (2): 131–35. Fitzgerald, Deborah. 2001. “Accounting for Change: Farmers and the Modernizing State.” In Stock and Johnston 2001, 189–212. Flora, Cornelia B. 1985. “Women and Agriculture.” Agriculture and Human Values 2 (1): 5–12.

references

193

Folbre, Nancy. 1991. “The Unproductive Housewife: Her Evolution in Nineteenth-Century Economic Thought.” Signs 16 (3): 463–84. Folbre, Nancy, and Marjorie Abel. 1989. “Women’s Work and Women’s Households: Gender Bias in the U.S. Census.” Social Research 56 (3): 545–69. Fonow, Mary Margaret, and Judith A. Cook. 2005. “Feminist Methodology: New Applications in the Academy and Public Policy.” Signs 30 (4): 2211–36. Ford, Thomas R. 1985. “Rural Sociology and the Passing of Social Scientific Chivalry.” Rural Sociology 50 (4): 523–38. Fosdick, Raymond B. 1962. Adventure in Giving: The Story of the General Education Board, a Foundation Established by John D. Rockefeller. New York: Harper and Row. Frame, Nat T. 1945. “Rushmore: Village Centered Community in the Cornbelt in Wartime.” Mimeo. Milwaukee: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. Frankel, Noralee, and Nancy S. Dye. 1991. Gender, Class, Race, and Reform in the Progressive Era. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Frederick, Christine. 1925. Efficient Housekeeping or Household Engineering: Scientific Management in the Home. Chicago: American School of Home Economics. Friend, Mata Roman. 1930. Earning and Spending the Family Income: A Textbook in Home Economics. New York: D. Appleton. Galpin, Charles J. 1917. “Discussion: Professor C. J. Galpin, University of Wisconsin.” In The Sociology of Rural Life, 212. Publications of the American Sociological Society, vol. 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ———. 1918. Rural Life. New York: Century. ———. 1920. “Farm Life Studies and their Relation to Home Economics Work.” Journal of Home Economics 12 (4): 159–61. ———. 1924a. “The Division of Farm Population and Rural Life: An Outline of its Establishment, Staff, Cooperative Policy, Research Problems, Publications.” Mimeo. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Life]. ———. 1924b. Rural Social Problems. New York: Century. ———. 1924c. “Where the Farm Manager and Home Manager Meet.” Journal of Home Economics 16 (8): 419–22. ———. 1929. “The Standard of Living of the Farm Population.” In Recent Economic Changes in the United States: Report of the Committee on Recent Economic Changes of the President’s Conference on Unemployment, Including the Reports of a Special Staff of the National Bureau of Economic Research, vol. 1, 70–76. New York: McGraw-Hill. ———. 1934. “Fifteen Years of Research.” Farm Population and Rural Life Activities 8 (2): 1–3. ———. 1938a. “The Development of the Science and Philosophy of American Rural Society.” Agricultural History 12 (3): 195–208. ———. 1938b. My Drift into Rural Sociology. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

194

references

———. 1948. “My Philosophy of Rural Life.” Rural Sociology 13 (2): 164–70. Galpin, Charles J., and Alonzo B. Cox. 1919. Rural Social and Economic Problems of the United States. Bulletin No. 3. Madison, Wis.: Office of the Secretary of the Association for Agricultural Legislation. Galpin, Charles J., and Veda B. Larson. 1924. Farm Population of Selected Counties: Composition, Characteristics, and Occupations in Detail for Eight Counties, Comprising Otsego County, N.Y.; Dane County, Wis.; New Madrid and Scott Counties, Mo.; Cass County, N. Dak.; Wake County, N.C.; Ellis County, Tex.; and King County, Wash. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Farm Population and Rural Life cooperating. Garvin, Alma L. 1917. “The Function of the Woman Extension Worker—(b) The State Delegate at Large.” In Hills 1917, 310–12. Gee, Wilson, ed. 1940. Proceedings of Southern Conference-Seminar on Teaching and Research in Rural Sociology. Blue Ridge, N.C., August 26–30, 1940. Gilbert, Jess. 1996. “Democratic Planning in Agricultural Policy: The FederalCounty Land-Use Planning Program, 1938–1942.” Agricultural History 70 (2): 233–50. ———. 2000. “Eastern Urban Liberals and Midwestern Agrarian Intellectuals: Two Group Portraits of Progressives in the New Deal Department of Agriculture.” Agricultural History 74 (2): 162–80. ———. 2001. “Agrarian Intellectuals in a Democratizing State: A Collective Biography of USDA Leaders in the Intended New Deal.” In Stock and Johnston 2001, 213–39. Gilbert, Jess, and Ellen Baker. 1997. “Wisconsin Economists and New Deal Agricultural Policy: The Legacy of Progressive Professors.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 80 (4): 281–312. Gilbert, Jess, and Carolyn Howe. 1991. “Beyond ‘State vs. Society’: Theories of the State and New Deal Agricultural Policies.” American Sociological Review 56 (2): 204–20. Gillette, John M. 1910. “City Trend of Population and Leadership.” Quarterly Journal of the University of North Dakota (October 1910): 54–76. ———. 1911a. “City Trend of Population and Leadership.” Quarterly Journal of the University of North Dakota (January 1911): 117–24. ———. 1911b. “The Drift to the City in Relation to the Rural Problem.” The American Journal of Sociology 16 (5): 645–67. Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. 1909. “That Rural Home Inquiry—Why Are There No Women on the President’s Commission?” Good Housekeeping, January 1, 120–22. ———. 1920. “Applepieville.” The Independent, September 25, 365, 393–95. Glad, Paul W. 1966. “Progressives and the Business Culture of the 1920s.” The Journal of American History 53 (1): 75–89. Goldschmidt, Walter R. 1944. “Large Farms or Small: The Social Side.” In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Western Farm Economics Association, 216–27.

references

195

———. 1947. As You Sow. New York: Harcourt, Brace. ———. 1978a. As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness. Montclair, N.J.: Allanheld, Osmun and Co. ———. 1978b. “Reflections on Arvin and Dinuba.” Newsline 6 (5): 10–19. Goldstein, Carolyn M. 1997. “From Service to Sales: Home Economics in Light and Power, 1920–1940.” Technology and Culture 38 (1): 121–52. “A Good Housekeeping Commission.” 1909. Good Housekeeping 48 (January): 122. Hagood, Margaret J. 1939. Mothers of the South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ———. 1941. Statistics for Sociologists. New York: Reynal and Hitchcock. ———. 1943a. “Development of a 1940 Rural-Farm Level of Living Index for Counties.” Rural Sociology 8 (2): 171–80. ———. 1943b. “Rural Level of Living Indexes for Counties of the United States, 1940.” Mimeo. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. ———. 1949. “The Farm Home and Family.” In Taylor et al. 1949, 39–54. ———. 1952. “Farm-Operator Family Level-of-Living Indexes for Counties of the United States: 1930, 1940, 1945, and 1950.” Mimeo. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Life]. Hall, Tom G. 1983. “Professionalism, Policy, and Farm Economists: Comment.” Agricultural History 57 (1): 83–89. Hambidge, Gove. 1940. “Farmers in a Changing World—A Summary.” In Yearbook of Agriculture 1940: Farmers in a Changing World, 1–100. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Hamilton, C. Horace. 1940. “Charting Needed Areas of Rural Sociological Research in the South.” In Gee 1940, 145–54. ———. 1950. “Some Current Problems in the Development of Rural Sociology.” Rural Sociology 15 (4): 315–21. Hamilton, David E. 1990. “Building the Associative State: The Department of Agriculture and American State-Building.” Agricultural History 64 (2): 207–18. ———. 1991. From New Day to New Deal: American Farm Policy from Hoover to Roosevelt, 1928–1933. Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press. Haney, Wava G., and Jane B. Knowles. 1988. Women and Farming: Changing Roles, Changing Structures. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Haraway, Donna J. 1991. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” In Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, 183–204. New York: Routledge. Hardin, Charles M. 1946. “The Bureau of Agricultural Economics Under Fire: A Study in Valuation Conflicts.” Journal of Farm Economics 28 (3): 635–68. ———. 1954. “The Republican Department of Agriculture: A Political Interpretation.” Journal of Farm Economics 36 (2): 210–27.

196

references

Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ———. 2004. The Feminist Standpoint Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. New York: Routledge. Harding, T. Swan. 1951. Some Landmarks in the History of the Department of Agriculture. Agricultural History Series 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Harris, Agnes E. 1917. “The Function of the Woman Extension Worker—(a) The County Agent.” In Hills 1917, 304–10. Harris, Carmen. 1997. “Grace Under Pressure: The Black Home Extension Service in South Carolina, 1919–1966.” In Stage and Vincenti 1997, 203–28. Hill, Frances. 1981. “Farm Women: Challenge to Scholarship.” The Rural Sociologist 1 (6): 370–82. Hills, J. L., ed. 1914. Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Convention of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. Burlington, Vt.: Free Press. ———. 1917. Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Convention of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. Burlington, Vt.: Free Press. ———. 1920. Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Convention of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations. Burlington, Vt.: Free Press. Hilton, Kathleen C. 1994. “‘Both in the Field, Each with a Plow’: Race and Gender in USDA Policy, 1907–1929.” In Bernhard et al. 1994, 114–33. Hoag, Emily F. 1921. The National Influence of a Single Farm Community: A Story of the Flow into National Life of Migration from the Farms. Department Bulletin No. 984. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Contributed by Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics, [Division of Farm Life Studies]. ———. See also Sawtelle, Emily Hoag. Hoffer, Charles R. 1961. “The Development of Rural Sociology.” Rural Sociology 26 (1): 1–14. Hoffschwelle, Mary S. 2001. “‘Better Homes on Better Farms’: Domestic Reform in Rural Tennessee.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies 22 (1): 51–73. Holik, John S., and Edward W. Hassinger. 1986a. “The RSS: Coming to Formalization.” Rural Sociologist 6 (6): 407–20. ———. 1986b. “The Rural Sociological Society: Its Beginnings.” The Rural Sociologist 6 (5): 331–40. Hollingworth, Leta S. 1916. “Social Devices for Impelling Women to Bear and Rear Children.” American Journal of Sociology 22 (1): 19–29. Hooks, Gregory M. 1983. “A New Deal for Farmers and Social Scientists: The Politics of Rural Sociology in the Depression Era.” Rural Sociology 48 (3): 386–408. Hooks, Gregory M., and William L. Flinn. 1981a. “The Country Life Commission and Early Rural Sociology.” The Rural Sociologist 1 (2): 95–100.

references

197

———. 1981b. “Toward a Sociology of Rural Sociology.” The Rural Sociologist 1 (3): 130–38. Houston, David F. 1914. “Report of the Secretary.” In Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1913, 9–74. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ———. 1920. “Report of the Secretary of Agriculture.” In Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1919, 9–59. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Jellison, Katherine. 1991. “Farm Women in American History: A Note on Sources Available in Washington, D.C.” The Annals of Iowa 51:168–77. ———. 1993. Entitled to Power: Farm Women and Technology, 1913–1963. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ———. 2001. “An ‘Enviable Tradition’ of Patriarchy: New Deal Investigations of Women’s Work in the Amish Farm Family.” In Stock and Johnston 2001, 240–57. Jensen, Joan M. 1981. With These Hands: Women Working on the Land. New York: McGraw-Hill. ———. 1982. “Canning Comes to New Mexico: Women and the Agricultural Extension Service, 1914–1919.” New Mexico Historical Review 57:361–86. ———. 1986a. “Crossing Ethnic Barriers in the Southwest: Women’s Agricultural Extension Education, 1914–1940.” Agricultural History 60 (2): 169–81. ———. 1986b. Loosening the Bonds: Mid-Atlantic Farm Women, 1750–1850. New Haven: Yale University Press. ———. 1991. Promise to the Land: Essays on Rural Women. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Jensen, Joan M., and Anne B. W. Effland. 2001. “Introduction.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies 22 (1): iii–xvii. Jesness, O. B. 1959. “The First Fifty Years.” Journal of Farm Economics 41 (5): 900–908. Johnstone, Paul H. 1940. “Old Ideals Versus New Ideas in Farm Life.” In Yearbook of Agriculture 1940: Farmers in a Changing World, 111–70. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Jones, Lu Ann. 2002. Mama Learned Us to Work: Farm Women in the New South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Kerber, Linda K. 1988. “Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Women’s Place: The Rhetoric of Women’s History.” Journal of American History 75 (1): 9–39. Kerber, Linda K., and Jane Sherron De Hart. 2000. “Introduction: Gender and the New Women’s History.” In Woman’s America: Refocusing the Past, 5th ed., edited by Linda K. Kerber and Jane Sherron De Hart, 2–24. New York: Oxford University Press. Kerber, Linda K., Alice Kessler-Harris, and Kathryn Kish Sklar. 1995. Introduction to U.S. History as Women’s History: New Feminist Essays, edited by Linda K. Kerber, Alice Kessler-Harris, and Kathryn Kish Sklar, 1–14. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

198

references

Kinely, Davide. 1909. “The Movement of Population from Country to City.” In Cyclopedia of American Agriculture, edited by Liberty Hyde Bailey, vol. 4, 113–19. New York: Macmillan. Kirkendall, Richard S. 1964. “Social Sciences in the Central Valley of California: An Episode.” California Historical Society Quarterly 43 (3): 195–218. ———. 1965. “Howard Tolley and Agricultural Planning in the 1930’s.” Agricultural History 39 (1): 25–33. ———. 1966. Social Scientists and Farm Politics in the Age of Roosevelt. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. ———. 1986. “The Agricultural Colleges: Between Tradition and Modernization.” Agricultural History 60 (2): 3–21. ———. 1990. “The Second Secretary Wallace.” Agricultural History 64 (2): 199–206. Kirkpatrick, Ellis L. 1923. The Standard of Life in a Typical Section of Diversified Farming. Bulletin No. 423. Ithaca: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Farm Population and Rural Life cooperating. ———. 1926. The Farmer’s Standard of Living: A Socio-Economic Study of 2886 White Farm Families of Selected Localities in 11 States. Department Bulletin No. 1466. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., Helen W. Atwater, and Ilene M. Bailey. 1924. Family Living in Farm Homes: An Economic Study of 402 Farm Families in Livingston County, N.Y. Bulletin No. 1214. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Kirpatrick, Ellis L., J. H. Kolb, Creagh Inge, and A. F. Wileden. 1929. Rural Organizations and the Farm Family: A Study of 282 Families in Twelve Selected Districts of Five Wisconsin Counties. Research Bulletin No. 96. Madison: University of Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, November. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Life] cooperating. Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., P. E. McNall, and May L. Cowles. 1933. Farm Family Living in Wisconsin. Research Bulletin No. 114. Madison: University of Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology, Agricultural Economics, and Home Economics; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, and Farm Management and Costs cooperating. Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., Rosalind Tough, and May L. Cowles. 1934. The Life Cycle of the Farm Family—in Relation to its Standards of Living and Ability to Provide. Research Bulletin No. 121. Madison: University of Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station. Contributed by University Departments of Rural Sociology and Home Economics; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Farm Population and Rural Life and Farm Management and Costs cooperating. Kirkpatrick, Melissa. 1993. “‘Faith in the Farmstead’: Women’s Voices in Rural Life Reform.” Presented at the 15th annual meeting of the American

references

199

S­ ociety of Church History. Williamsburg, Va., April 3, 1993. Portland, Ore.: ­Theological Research Exchange Network. Kleinegger, Christine. 2001. “Out of the Barns and into the Kitchens: Transformations in Farm Women’s Work in the First Half of the Twentieth Century.” In American Technology, edited by Carroll W. Pursell, 170–88. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Kline, Ronald R. 1997. “Ideology and Social Surveys: Reinterpreting the Effects of ‘Laborsaving’ Technology on American Farm Women.” Technology and Change 38 (2): 355–85. Knight, H. L. 1915. “The States Relations Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.” Journal of Home Economics 7 (8): 421–26. Knowles, Jane B. 1988. “‘It’s Our Turn Now’: Rural American Women Speak Out, 1900–1920.” In Haney and Knowles 1988, 303–18. Koffsky, Nathan N. 1966. “Agricultural Economics in the USDA: An Inside View.” Journal of Farm Economics 48 (2): 413–21. Kollmorgen, Walter M. 1942. Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: The Older Order Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Rural Life Studies 4. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare], September. ———. 1979. “Kollmorgen as a Bureaucrat.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 69 (1): 77–89. Langworthy, C. F. 1914. “What the Department of Agriculture Is Doing for the Housekeeper.” In Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1913, 143–62. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Larson, Olaf F. 1958. “Liberty Hyde Bailey’s Impact on Rural Life.” Baileya: A Journal of Horticultural Taxonomy 6 (1): 10–21. ———. 1968. “Rural Sociology at Cornell, 1915–1965.” In Papers for Fiftieth Anniversary of Rural Sociology at Cornell, 5–14. Ithaca: Department of Rural Sociology, New York State College of Agriculture, Cornell University. ———. 1999. “Taylor, Carl Cleveland.” In American National Biography, edited by John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, vol. 21, 355–56. New York: Oxford University Press. Larson, Olaf F., and Thomas B. Jones. 1976. “The Unpublished Data from Roosevelt’s  Commission on Country Life.” Agricultural History 50 (1): 583–99. Larson, Olaf F., Edward O. Moe, and Julie N. Zimmerman. 1992a. Social History of Rural Sociology: Reflections. Panel moderated by Jess Gilbert at Rural Sociological Society annual meeting, University Park, Pa., August 1992. Videotaped for RSS Archives. ———. 1992b. “Sociology and Government. The Case of Rural Sociology in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.” Paper presented at Eighth World Congress, International Rural Sociology Association, University Park, Pa., August 1992. ———. 1992c. Sociology in Government: A Bibliography of the Work of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, U.S. Department of Agricul-

200

references

ture, 1919–1953. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, in cooperation with the American Sociological Association and the Rural Sociological Society. Larson, Olaf F., Robin M. Williams Jr., and Ronald C. Wimberley. 1999. “Dismissal of a Sociologist: The AAUP report on Carl C. Taylor.” Rural Sociology 64 (4): 533–53. Larson, Olaf F., and Julie N. Zimmerman. 2000. “The USDA’s Bureau of Agricultural Economics and Sociological Studies of Rural Life and Agricultural Issues.” Agricultural History 74 (2): 227–40. ———, assisted by Edward O. Moe. 2003. Sociology in Government: The Galpin-Taylor Years in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1919–1953. Rural Studies Series. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, in cooperation with the American Sociological Association and the Rural Sociological Society. Leonard, Olen, and G. P. Loomis. 1941. Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: El Cerrito, New Mexico. Rural Life Studies 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare], November. Lerner, Gerda. 2004a. “Reply to Responses.” Journal of Women’s History 16 (3): 61–64. ———. 2004b. “U.S. Women’s History: Past, Present, and Future.” Journal of Women’s History 16 (3): 10–27. Levine, Felice J., and James J. Zuiches. 2003. Foreword to Larson and Zimmerman 2003, vii–ix. Lewis, Oscar. 1948. On the Edge of the Black Waxy: A Cultural Survey of Bell County, Texas. Washington University Studies, new series, Social and Philosophical Sciences, no. 7. St. Louis: Washington University. Lively, C. E. 1939. “Cooperative Rural Research.” Social Forces 18 (2): 200–210. ———. 1943. “Rural Sociology as Applied Science.” Rural Sociology 8 (4): 331–42. Lively, C. E., and Conrad Taeuber. 1939. Rural Migration in the United States. Research Monograph No. 19. Washington, D.C.: Works Progress Administration, Division of Research. Lobao, Linda. 2007. “Rural Sociology.” 21st Century Sociology: A Reference Handbook, edited by Clifton D. Bryant and Dennis L. Peck, vol. 1, 465–75. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Longmore, T. Wilson. 1945. “Watson, Arkansas: Effect of War in a Mississippi Delta Community.” Mimeo. Little Rock: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. Longmore, T. Wilson, and Herbert Pryor. 1945. “Cultural Reconnaissance: Desha County, Arkansas.” Typed. For administrative use only. Little Rock: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. Loomis, Charles P. 1940. “A Review of Some Recent Studies of Southern Culture.” In Gee 1940, 121–38.

references

201

———. 1958. “El Cerrito, New Mexico: A Changing Village.” New Mexico ­Historical Review 33 (2): 53–75. ———. 1959. “Systemic Linkage of El Cerrito.” Rural Sociology 24 (1): 54–57. Luloff, A. E., and R. S. Krannich. 2002. Persistence and Change in Rural Communities: A 50-Year Follow-up to Six Classic Studies. New York: CABI. Lundberg, George A., Read Bain, and Nels Anderson, eds. 1929. Trends in American Sociology. New York: Harper and Brothers. Lundquist, Gustav A. 1923. What Farm Women Are Thinking. Special Bulletin No. 71. University Farm, St. Paul, Minn.: University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Division, May. Lyall, Lawrence B. 1945. “The Rural Community and the War: A Study of Beaver Crossing, Nebraska.” Lincoln, Neb.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. McConnell, Grant. 1953. The Decline of Agrarian Democracy. New York: Atheneum. McDean, Harry C. 1983a. “Professionalism, Policy, and Farm Economists in the Early Bureau of Agricultural Economics.” Agricultural History 57 (1): 64–82. ———. 1983b. “‘Reform’ Social Darwinists and Measuring Levels of Living on American Farms, 1920–1926.” The Journal of Economic History 43 (1): 79–85. ———. 1984. “Professionalism in the Rural Social Sciences, 1896–1919.” Agricultural History 58 (3): 373–92. MacLeish, Kenneth, and Kimball Young. 1942. Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: Landaff, New Hampshire. Rural Life Studies 3. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare], April. Manny, Theodore B. 1936. “The Division of Farm Population and Rural Life— United States Department of Agriculture.” Rural America 14 (2): 12–13. Marquis, J. Clyde. 1920. “The Country-Life Question Revived: After Several Delays a National Movement to Improve Farm Life Is Underway.” Country Gentleman, March 6, 48, 74. Marti, Donald B. 1991. Women of the Grange: Mutuality and Sisterhood in Rural America, 1866–1920. New York: Greenwood Press. Martindale, Don. 1976. “American Sociology Before World War II.” Annual Review of Sociology 2:121–43. Mays, W. E. 1968. Sublette Revisited: Stability and Change in a Rural Kansas Community. New York: Florham Park Press. Mearers, Alison C. 1997. “Making the Transition from Conventional to Sustainable Agriculture: Gender, Social Movement Participation, and Quality of Life on the Family Farm.” Rural Sociology 62 (1): 21–47. Metzler, William H. 1946a. Wages and Wage Rates of Seasonal Farm Workers in the Harvest of Selected Deciduous Fruits, California, May–Sept. 1945. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 12. Mimeo. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

202

references

———. 1946b. Wages and Wage Rates of Farm Workers in the Potato, Sugar Beet, and Cotton Harvests, California, 1945. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in Agriculture, Report No. 14. Mimeo. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Metzler, William H., and Afife F. Sayin. 1950. “The Agricultural Labor Force in the San Joaquin Valley, California: Characteristics, Employment, Mobility, 1948.” Mimeo. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Life]; University of California Institute of Industrial Relations cooperating. Mitchell, Edward B. 1915. “The American Farm Woman as She Sees Herself.” In Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 1914, 311–18. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Moe, Edward O., and Carl C. Taylor. 1942. Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: Irwin, Iowa. Rural Life Studies 5. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare], December. Montgomery, James E. 1945. “Reconnaissance Survey of Union County, South Carolina (summary).” For administrative use. Mimeo. [Atlanta]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. Moore, Virginia P. 1917. “Organization and Administration Under the SmithLever Act, of the Department of Home Economics, Division of Extension, College of Agriculture, University of Tennessee and Its Relation to the Farm Homes of Tennessee.” In Hills 1917, 129–32. Moran, J. Sterling. 1917. The Community Fair. Farmers’ Bulletin No. 870. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Nason, Wayne C., and Carl W. Thompson. 1920. Rural Community Buildings in the United States. Department Bulletin No. 825. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Country Life Association. 1919. Proceedings of the First National Country Life Conference: Baltimore, 1919. Ithaca, N.Y.: National Country Life Association. Nelson, Lowry. 1955. Rural Sociology. 2nd ed. New York: American Book Co. ———. 1965. “The Rise of Rural Sociology: The Pre-Purnell Period.” Rural Sociology 30 (4): 407–27. ———. 1969a. Rural Sociology: Its Origins and Growth in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ———. 1969b. “Sir Horace Plunkett: A Promoter of Rural Sociology.” Rural Sociology 34 (1): 91–95. ———. 1970. “Henry C. Taylor and Rural Sociology.” Rural Sociology 35 (1): 97–98. Neth, Mary. 1995. Preserving the Family Farm: Women, Community, and the Foundations of Agribusiness in the Midwest, 1900–1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

references

203

Niederfrank, E. J. 1945. “The Massachusetts Hill Towns in Wartime.” Upper Darby, Pa.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. Nolan, Mary. 1990. “‘Housework Made Easy’: The Taylorized Housewife in Weimar Germany’s Rationalized Economy.” Feminist Studies 16 (3): 549–77. Norton, Mary Beth. 1979. “The Paradox of ‘Women’s Sphere.’” In Women of America: A History, edited by Carol Ruth Berkin and Mary Beth Norton, 139–49. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Nostrand, R. L. 1982. “El Cerrito Revisited.” New Mexico Historical Review 57 (2): 1009–122. Odum, Howard W. 1951. American Sociology: The Story of Sociology in the United States Through 1950. New York: Longmans, Green. Oliver, Yvonne. 2003. “The Division and Black Populations.” In Larson and Zimmerman 2003, 171–87. Osterud, Nancy Grey. 1987. “‘She Helped Me Hay It as Good as a Man’: Relations Among Women and Men in an Agricultural Community.” In “To Toil the Livelong Day”: America’s Women at Work, 1780–1980, edited by Carol Groneman and Mary Beth Norton, 87–97. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ———. 1991. Bonds of Community: The Lives of Farm Women in NineteenthCentury New York. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. “Our National Farm Home Inquiry.” 1909. Good Housekeeping 48 (February): 218–19. Penn, R. J. 1969. “Henry Charles Taylor.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 51 (5): 999–1002. Peters, Scott J., and Paul A. Morgan. 2004. “The Country Life Commission: Reconsidering a Milestone in American Agricultural History.” Agricultural History 78 (3): 289–316. Pinkett, Harold T. 1984. “Government Research Concerning Problems of American Rural Society.” Agricultural History 58 (3): 365–72. Platt, Jennifer. 1996. A History of Sociological Research Methods in America, 1920–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ploch, Louis A. 1989. Landaff—Then and Now. Bulletin 828. Orono: University of Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Powers, Jane Bernard. 1992. The “Girl Question” in Education: Vocational Education for Young Women in the Progressive Era. London: Falmer Press. Pryor, Herbert. 1945. “Cultural Reconnaissance: Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.” For administrative use only. Dittoed. Little Rock: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. Pryor, Herbert, and Theo L. Vaughan. 1945. “A Rural Community in Time of War: Roby, Texas.” Little Rock: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare].

204

references

Rankin, J. O. 1923. Nebraska Farm Homes: A Comparison of Some Living Conditions of Owners, Part-Owners, and Tenants. Bulletin 191. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Life Cooperating]. ———. 1927. Cost of Feeding the Nebraska Farm Family: A Comparison of Costs and Standards of Food Consumption of Owners, Part-Owners, and Tenants. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 219. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, College of Agriculture, Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Life Cooperating]. ———. 1931a. The Cost of Clothing the Nebraska Farm Family. Bulletin 248. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Life Cooperating]. ———. 1931b. Housing and House Operation Costs on Nebraska Farms. Bulletin 264. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Life Cooperating]. ———. 1932. A Summary of the Standard of Living in Nebraska Farm Homes. Bulletin 267. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Life Cooperating]. Raper, Arthur F. 1944. “Cultural Reconnaissance: Greene County, Georgia.” For administrative use. Dittoed. [Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. ———. 1946. “Uses Being Made by Rural Families of Increased Wartime Incomes: Based on Current Field Reports made by Professional Observers in a National Sample of 71 Counties.” Mimeo. [Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. Raper, Arthur F., and Carl C. Taylor. 1949. “Rural Culture.” In Taylor et al. 1949, 329–43. Rapp, Rayna, and Ellen Ross. 1983. “The Twenties Backlash: Compulsory Heterosexuality, the Consumer Family, and the Waning of Feminism.” In Swerdlow and Lessinger 1983, 93–107. ———. 1986. “The 1920s: Feminism, Consumerism, and Political Backlash in the United States.” In Women in Culture and Politics: A Century of Change, edited by Judith Friedlander, Blanche Wiesen Cook, Alice Kessler-Harris, and Carroll Smith Rosenberg, 52–61. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Rasmussen, Wayne D. 1990. “The People’s Department: Myth or Reality.” Agricultural History 64 (2): 291–99. Rasmussen, Wayne D., and Gladys L. Baker. 1972. The Department of Agriculture. New York: Praeger. Reagan, Barbara B. 1946. Perquisites Furnished Hired Farm Workers, United States and Major Regions, 1945. Surveys of Wages and Wage Rates in

references

205

Agriculture, Report 18. Mimeo. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Rhoades, Lawrence J. 1981. A History of the American Sociological Association, 1905–1980. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association. Richardson, Barbara. 2002. “Ellen Swallow Richards: ‘Humanistic Oekologist,’ ‘Applied Sociologist,’ and the Founding of Sociology.” American Sociologist 33 (3): 21–57. Richardson, Theresa, and Donald Fisher, eds. 1999. The Development of the Social Sciences in the United States and Canada: The Role of Philanthropy. Stamford, Conn.: Ablex. Riedmann, Agnes. 1991. “Margaret Jarman Hagood.” In Women in Sociology: A Bio-bibliographical Sourcebook, edited by Mary Jo Deegan, 157–63. New York: Greenwood Press. Rosenbaum, Walter A. 1965. The Burning of the Farm Population Estimates. Inter-University Case Program Series 83. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Rosenberg, Rosalind. 1982. Beyond Separate Spheres: Intellectual Roots of Modern Feminism. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rosenfeld, Rachel Ann. 1985. Farm Women: Work, Farm, and Family in the United States. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Rossiter, Margaret W. 1982a. “Doctorates for American Women, 1868–1907.” History of Education Quarterly 22 (2): 159–83. ———. 1982b. Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sachs, Carolyn E. 1983. The Invisible Farmers: Women in Agricultural Production. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld. ———. 1985. “Women’s Work in the U.S.: Variations by Region.” Agriculture and Human Values 2 (1): 31–39. ———. 1996. Gendered Fields: Rural Women, Agriculture, and Environment. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press. Sanderson, Dwight. 1934. Rural Social and Economic Areas in Central New York. Bulletin 614. Ithaca: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Farm Population and Rural Life cooperating. ———. 1939. “The Beginnings of Rural Social Studies in the U.S.D.A.” Rural Sociology 4 (2): 219–21. Sanderson, Dwight, John H. Kolb, M. L. Wilson, Andrew Boss, F. D. Farrell, and O. G. Lloyd, eds. 1927. Farm Income and Farm Life: A Symposium on the Relation of the Social and Economic Factors in Rural Progress. New York: University of Chicago Press. Sawtelle, Emily Hoag. 1924. “The Advantages of Farm Life—A Study by Correspondence and Interviews with Eight Thousand Farm Women: Digest of an Unpublished Manuscript.” Mimeo. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Life], Washington, D.C. cooperating. ———. See also Hoag, Emily F.

206

references

Schapsmeier, Edward L., and Frederick H. Schapsmeier. 1967. “Henry A. Wallace: Agrarian Idealist or Agricultural Realist?” Agricultural History 41 (2): 127–38. Schultz, Theodore W. 1954. “Some Guiding Principles in Organizing Agricultural Economics Research.” In Wells et al. 1954, 18–21. Schwieder, Dorothy. 1986. “Education and Change in the Lives of Iowa Farm Women, 1900–1940.” Agricultural History 60 (2): 200–215. ———. 1997. “Changing Times: Iowa Farm Women and Home Economics Cooperative Extension in the 1920s and 1930s.” In Midwestern Women: Work, Community, and Leadership at the Crossroads, edited by Lucy Eldersveld Murphy and Wendy Hamand Venet, 204–22. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Schwieder, Dorothy, and Deborah Fink. 1999. “U.S. Prairie and Plains Women in the 1920s: A Comparison of Women, Family, and Environment.” Agricultural History 73 (2): 183–200. Scott, Joan Wallach. 1988. Gender and the Politics of History. New York: Columbia University Press. Scott, Nancy E. 1926. “The Effects of Higher Education of Women upon the Home.” American Journal of Sociology 32 (2): 257–63. Shapiro, Laura. 1986. Perfection Salad: Women and Cooking at the Turn of the Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Sharpless, Rebecca. 1999. Fertile Ground, Narrow Choices: Women on Texas Cotton Farms, 1900–1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Sklar, Kathryn Kish. 1973. Catharine Beecher: A Study in American Domesticity. New Haven: Yale University Press. Skura, Barry. 1976. “Constraints on a Reform Movement: Relationships Between SSSP and ASA, 1951–1970.” Social Problems 24 (1): 15–36. Smith, Russell. 1947. “The Devil Can Also Quote Statistics.” Journal of Farm Economics 29 (4): 1209–13. Smith, T. Lynn. 1963. “Sorokin’s Rural-Urban Principles.” In Pitirim Sorokin in Review, edited by Philip J. Allen, 188–205. Durham: Duke University Press. Sorokin, Pitirim A. 1963. A Long Journey: The Autobiography of Pitirim A. Sorokin. New Haven: College and University Press. Sorokin, Pitirim A., and Carle C. Zimmerman. 1929. Principles of Rural-Urban Sociology. New York: Henry Holt. Sorokin, Pitirim A., Carle C. Zimmerman, and Charles J. Galpin, eds. 1930–32. A Systematic Source Book in Rural Sociology. 3 vols. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Springer, Kimberly. 2004. “Unexpected: Women, Sources, History.” Journal of Women’s History 16 (4): 28–33. Stage, Sarah. 1997. “Ellen Richards and the Social Significance of the Home Economics Movement.” In Stage and Vincenti 1997, 17–33. Stage, Sarah, and Virginia B. Vincenti, eds. Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

references

207

Stanley, Louise. 1923. “Plans for the Bureau of Home Economics.” Journal of Home Economics 15 (12): 679–83. Stock, Catherine McNicol, and Robert D. Johnston, eds. 2001. The Countryside in the Age of the Modern State: Political Histories of Rural America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Strasser, Susan. 1982. Never Done: A History of American Housework. New York: Pantheon Books. Strauss, Murray A. 1958. “The Role of the Wife in the Settlement of the Columbia Basin Project.” Marriage and Family Living 20 (1): 59–64. Sturgis, Cynthia. 1986. “‘How’re You Gonna Keep ‘Em Down on the Farm?’: Rural Women and the Urban Model in Utah.” Agricultural History 60 (2): 182–99. Swerdlow, Amy, and Hanna Lessinger, eds. 1983. Class, Race, and Sex: The Dynamics of Control. Boston: G. K. Hall. Taeuber, Conrad. 1945. “Some Recent Developments in Sociological Work in the Department of Agriculture.” American Sociological Review 10 (2): 169–75. Tallichet, Suzanne E. 2006. Daughters of the Mountain: Women Coal Miners in Central Appalachia. Rural Studies Series. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Taylor, Carl C. 1927. “Effects of Difference in Economic Status.” In Sanderson 1927, 146–52. ———. 1933. Rural Sociology in Its Economic, Historical, and Psychological Aspects. Rev. ed. New York: Harper and Brothers. ———. 1937. “A Summary Interpretation of the Group Discussions.” In Associated Country Women of the World 1937, 196–201. ———. 1939a. “The Interdependence of Rural and Urban Women”; with responses: “From the Standpoint of a Rural Homemaker” by Mrs. T. M. Johnson and “From the Standpoint of An Urban Homemaker” by Mrs. W. E. Nichols. Rural America 17 (3): 3–6. ———. 1939b. “The Work of the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture.” Rural Sociology 4 (2): 221–28. ———. 1940a. “Cooperation in Rural Sociological Research on an Interstate and Regional Basis.” In Gee 1940, 163–75. ———. 1940b. “Training in Rural Sociology at the Ph.D. Level: Discussion.” In Gee 1940, 72–74. ———. 1944. “Notes on Measuring the Long Time Culture Changes in Rural Communities.” With an “Introduction” for the July 1944 conference of Division staff at which the “Notes” were used. [For administrative use.] Dittoed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare]. ———. 1947a. Foreword to U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Columbia Basin Joint Investigations, Standards and Levels of Living: Studies by the USDA for Problem 9, iv–v. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

208

references

———. 1947b. “Sociology and Common Sense.” Presidential address, annual meeting of the American Sociological Society, Chicago, December 28–30, 1946. American Sociological Review 12 (1): 1–9. ———. 1948. “Dr. Galpin at Washington.” Rural Sociology 13 (2): 145–55. ———. 1949. “Rural Life and Rural Sociology.” In Taylor et al. 1949, 3–12. ———. 1960. “Early Rural Sociological Research in Latin America.” Rural Sociology 25 (1): 1–8. ———. 1965. “The Development of Rural Sociology Abroad.” Rural Sociology 30 (4): 462–73. Taylor, Carl C., Charles Loomis, John Provinse, J. E. Hulett Jr., and Kimball Young. 1940. “Cultural, Structural, and Social-Psychological Study of Selected American Farm Communities. Field Manual (preliminary and confidential).” For administrative use only. Mimeo. Washington, D.C.: [U.S. Department of Agriculture], Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare. Taylor, Carl C., Arthur F. Raper, Douglas Ensminger, Margaret Jarman Hagood, T. Wilson Longmore, Walter C. McKain Jr., Louis J. Ducoff, and Edgar A. Schuler. 1949. Rural Life in the United States. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Taylor, Carl C., Helen W. Wheeler, and E. L. Kirkpatrick. 1938. Disadvantaged Classes in American Agriculture. Social Research Report No. 8. Washington, D.C.: USDA, Farm Security Administration; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Life] cooperating. Taylor, Carl C., and Carle C. Zimmerman. 1922. “Economic and Social Conditions of North Carolina Farmers: Based on a Survey of 1000 North Carolina Farmers in Three Typical Counties of the State.” North Carolina State College of Agriculture, Raleigh, N.C.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Farm Population and Rural Life cooperating. Taylor, Henry C. 1920. “The Office of Farm Management of the United States Department of Agriculture and Its relation to the State Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations.” In Hills 1920, 237–46. ———. 1922. “The Development of the American Farm Economic Association.” Journal of Farm Economics 4 (2): 92–100. ———. 1927. “Living Standards and Farm Income.” In Sanderson 1927, 68–75. ———. 1929. “The New Farm Economics.” Journal of Farm Economics 11 (3): 357–67. ———. 1939. “A Century of Agricultural Statistics.” Journal of Farm Economics 21 (4): 697–734. ———. 1948. “Galpin Undertakes the Study of Rural Life.” Rural Sociology 13 (2): 119–29. ———. 1954. “The Reorganization of the Economic Work in the USDA.” In Wells et al. 1954, 12–14.

references

209

———. 1959. “A Note on the Early History of our Association.” Journal of Farm Economics 41 (4): 841. ———. 1962. “Agricultural Economists: An Unfinished Task.” Journal of Farm Economics 44 (5): 1156–57. ———. 1992. A Farm Economist in Washington, 1919–1925. Madison: Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Taylor, Henry C., and Anne Dewees Taylor. 1952. The Story of Agricultural Economics in the United States, 1840–1932. Ames: Iowa State College Press. Tenny, Lloyd S. 1947. “The Bureau of Agricultural Economics: The Early Years.” Journal of Farm Economics 29 (4), pt. 2:1017–26. Testi, Arnaldo. 1995. “The Gender of Reform Politics: Theodore Roosevelt and the Culture of Masculinity.” The Journal of American History 81 (4): 1509–33. Thelen, David P. 1969. “Social Tensions and the Origins of Progressivism.” The Journal of American History 56 (2): 323–41. Thierer, Joyce Mae. 1994. “The Country Life Movement and Rural Women, 1908–1931.” Ph.D. diss., Kansas State University. “Third Annual Convention, American Home Economics Association.” 1911. Journal of Home Economics 3 (1): 3–8. Tolley, Howard R. 1939. “Contributions of Agricultural Economics to the General Welfare.” Journal of Farm Economics 21 (1): 8–21. ———. 1954. “Dismemberment of the BAE.” In Wells et al. 1954, 14–16. “To Organize Rural Forces.” 1913. Survey 30 (April–September): 241–42. Tower, Walter S. 1912. “The Country Life Movement in the United States by L. H. Bailey.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 42:353. True, A. C. 1917. “Published Sources of Information About Farm Women.” In Hills 1917, 90–108. Tugwell, Rexford Guy. 1925. “The Woman in the Sunbonnet.” Nation, January 21, 73–74. Turner, Stephen P. 1998. “Did Funding Matter to the Development of Research Methods in Sociology?” Minerva 36:69–79. ———. 1999. “Does Funding Produce Its Effects?” In Richardson and Fisher 1999, 213–26. U.S. Congress, House. 1946. Hearings Before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, Agriculture Department Appropriation Bill for 1947. 79th Cong., 2nd sess. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. USDA. 1927. List of Technical Workers in the Department of Agriculture, and Outline of Functions of Major Branches of the Department. 1927. Miscellaneous Publication No. 5, July 1. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

210

references

———. 1928. “Financial Statement.” In The Yearbook of Agriculture, 1927, 87–90. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. USDA, BAE, DFPRW. 1942. “Annual Report: Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare, July 1, 1941 to June 30, 1942.” Typed. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Washington, D.C.]. USDA, Office of Markets and Rural Organization. 1915. Work of the Office of Markets and Rural Organization. By Charles M. Brand, Chief. Issued July 31. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. USDA, Office of the Secretary. 1915a. Domestic Needs of Farm Women. Report 104. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ———. 1915b. Economic Needs of Farm Women. Report 106. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ———. 1915c. Educational Needs of Farm Women. Report 105. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ———. 1915d. Social and Labor Needs of Farm Women. Report 103. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ———. 1919a. Report of Committee Appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to Consider Plan of Organization, Scope of Work, and Projects for the Office of Farm Management. Office of the Secretary Circular 132. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ———. 1919b. Report of Committee Appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to Consider the Subject of Farm Life Studies as One of the Divisions of Research Work of the Proposed Bureau of Farm Management and Farm Economics. Ofice of the Secretary Circular 139. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Van Rensselaer, Martha, Flora Rose, and Helen Canon. 1920. A Manual of Home-Making. New York: Macmillan. Vaughn, Gerald F. 1994. “A Farm Economist in Washington, 1919–1925 by Henry C. Taylor.” Journal of Economic Issues 28 (4): 1318–20. Vuyst, Paul de. 1913. Woman’s Place in Rural Economy: A Study in Sociology. Translated by Nora Hunter. Glasgow: Blackie. Wallace, Henry A. 1939. Report of the Secretary of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ———. 1940. Foreword to Yearbook of Agriculture 1940: Farmers in a Changing World, v–vi. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. ———. 1961. “The Department as I Have Known It.” In Growth Through Agricultural Progress: Lecture Series in Honor of the United States Department of Agriculture Centennial Year, edited by Wayne D. Rasmussen, 19–31. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Graduate School. Wallace, Henry C. 1921. Report of the Secretary of Agriculture: 1921. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Ward, Florence E. 1920. “The Farm Woman’s Problems.” Journal of Home Economics 12 (10): 437–57. Waterman, W. C. 1928. “Present Tendencies in Rural Sociology.” Social Forces 7 (1): 50–58.

references

211

Watkins, Marilyn P. 1995. Rural Democracy: Family Farmers and Politics in Western Washington, 1890–1925. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Wells, Barbara. 2002. “Women’s Voices: Explaining Poverty and Plenty in a Rural Community.” Rural Sociology 67 (2): 234–54. Wells, O. V. 1949. “Agricultural Economics Research: Some Notes on the New Journal.” Agricultural Economics Research 1 (1): 9–10. Wells, O. V., John D. Black, Paul H. Appleby, H. C. Taylor, Howard R. Tolley, Raymond J. Penn, and Theodore Schultz. 1954. “The Fragmentation of the BAE.” Journal of Farm Economics 36 (1): 1–21. White, Edna. 1917. “Home Economics Extension in Its Relation to Woman’s Work in the Home.” In Hills 1917, 292–97. Wickware, Francis G., ed. 1914. The American Year Book: A Record of Events and Progress. 1913. New York: D. Appleton. Williams, Faith M. 1930. Bibliography on Studies of Costs and Standards of Living in the United States: A Preliminary Report. July. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Home Economics. Supplemental bibliography, January 1932. Williams, Joyce E., and Vicky M. MacLean. 2005. “Community Studies as Trajectories in the Development of Sociology.” In Blasi 2005, 370–404. Willits, Fern K., Linda M. Gelfi, and Michele E. Lipner. 1988. “Women in the Rural Sociological Society: A History.” The Rural Sociologist 8 (2): 126–41. Wilson, M. L. 1938. “New Horizons in Agricultural Economics.” Journal of Farm Economics 20 (1): 1–7. ———. 1940. “Beyond Economics.” In Yearbook of Agriculture 1940: Farmers in a Changing World, 922–37. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Winters, Donald L. 1970. Henry Cantwell Wallace as Secretary of Agriculture, 1921–1924. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ———. 1990. “Ambiguity and Agricultural Policy: Henry Cantwell Wallace as Secretary of Agriculture.” Agricultural History 64 (2): 191–98. Wiser, Vivian. 1990. “Public Policy and USDA Science, 1897–1913.” Agricultural History 64 (2): 24–30. Wunderlich, Gene. 2002. “The Community Idea in American Country Life.” Agriculture and Human Values 19:81–85. ———. 2003. American Country Life: A Legacy. Dallas: University Press of America. ———. 2004. “Teddy Roosevelt’s Silent Echo: The Second Country Life Commission.” In “Two Essays on Country Life in 20th Century America,” 13–19. Unpublished manuscript, summer. Wynne, Waller. 1943. Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community: Harmony, Georgia. Rural Life Studies 6. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, [Division of Farm Population and Rural Welfare], January. The Yearbook of Agriculture, 1940: Farmers in a Changing World. 1940. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

212

references

Young, Cristobal. 2009. “The Emergence of Sociology from Political Economy in the United States: 1890–1940.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 45 (2): 91–116. Zimmerman, Carle C. 1927. “Objectives and Methods in Rural Living Studies.” Journal of Farm Economics 9 (2): 223–37. ———. 1929. “The Trend of Rural Sociology.” In Lundberg, Bain, and Anderson 1929, 221–60. ———. 1936. Consumption and Standards of Living. New York: D. Van Nostrand. Zimmerman, Julie N. 1990. “Studies of Women by the USDA’s Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, 1919–1953.” Special Session, The Uses of Sociology in Government: The Case of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, American Sociological Association annual meeting, August 1990, Washington, D.C. ———. 1994. “Recovering Rural Sociology’s Past: The Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1919–1953.” Rural Sociological Society annual meeting, August. Portland, Ore. ———. 1998. “Margaret Jarman Hagood.” In American National Biography, 791–92. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2004. “Voices from the Past, Lessons for the Future: Rural Sociology and Government.” Invited panel: Building upon Previous Contributions to Rural Sociology, Rural Sociological Society annual meeting, August 2004, Sacramento, Calif. Videotaped. ———. 2006. “A Conversation with Olaf Larson: Part 3.” Rural Sociologist 26 (2): 13–15. ———. 2007. “From a Woman’s Point of View: A Re-examination of Six Classic Community Studies.” Rural Sociological Society annual meeting, August, Santa Clara, Calif. ———. 2008a. “Neuter or Nurture? Rural Sociology’s Engagement with Public Sociology.” Rural Sociological Society annual meeting, July, Manchester, N.H. ———. 2008b. “Roles, Responsibilities, and Repercussions: Public Sociology and the USDA’s Division of Farm Population and Rural Life.” Rural Sociological Society annual meeting, July, Manchester, N.H. ———. 2008c. “Voices from the Past, Lessons for the Future: Learning from the History of Sociology in Government.” Equal Opportunities International 27 (2): 132–46. ———. 2009. “An Unexpected Legacy: Women and Early Rural Sociological Research.” Rural Sociological Society annual meeting, July/August, Madison, Wisconsin. ———. 2010. Review of Sociology in America: A History, edited by Craig Calhoun, and Diverse Histories of American Sociology, edited by Anthony J. Blasi. Rural Sociology 75 (1): 174–76.

Index

ACLA. See American Country Life ­Association Adams, Jane, 38 “The Advantages of Farm Life” (Sawtelle), 60–61, 62, 149–85 African Americans. See also race desegregation, 71n, 79 Division staff, 57n, 79 research, 24n, 50, 53, 56, 57, 57n, 59 segregation, 57n, 66–67 social organization of communities, 57n voting rights, 57n agricultural depression, 10, 12 agricultural economics. See also Bureau of Agricultural Economics farm management, 14, 19, 50, 70 history of, 13n, 14, 14n, 17, 19 professional organizations, 11n, 14n, 20n relationship with rural sociology, 14, 19, 19n, 20, 22, 25, 68n Agricultural Economics Division (USDA), 70 agricultural labor. See labor, agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA), 70, 79 agricultural production, 10, 12n, 12–13, 15, 26, 27, 45 Agricultural Research Service (USDA), 70 Agriculture, Department of. See U.S. Department of Agriculture Agriculture Census. See censuses, agriculture AHEA. See American Home Economics Association Alexander, Frank D., 57, 62, 63, 68n, 93, 110, 111, 119, 123 Allen, Ruth, 71n American Country Life Association (ACLA), 11n, 13n, 20n, 90 American Economics Association, 14n, 15n, 73n American Farm Economics Association, 11n, 14n, 20n, 101, 113 American Farm Management ­Association, 14n

American Home Economics Association (AHEA), 41n establishment, 32 Galpin’s speech (1920), 44, 50, 146–48 membership, 34n presidents, 33n, 34n, 42 product manufacturers and, 35n American Sociological Association (ASA), 13–14n, 63n, 73n, 101, 113, 118 name change, 14n presidents, 25n, 71 Rural Section, 13n American Sociological Society. See ­American Sociological Association (ASA) Amish, 53, 54, 110, 118, 120 Anderson, W. A., 62 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 18, 27, 43, 62 Apple, Rima D., 32 Appleby, Paul H., 66, 69 Arkansas, Desha County, 56, 122, 123 Arvin, California, 63, 66–67n, 70 ASA. See American Sociological Association Association of Agricultural Economists, 14n Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, 13n, 33, 38n, 40, 42n, 41, 86, 97 Atkeson, Mary Meek, 43, 61–62, 61n Atkeson, Thomas Clark, 61n Atwater, Helen W., 34, 94 Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, 57n, 122, 124 Babbitt, Kathleen R., 39 BAE. See Bureau of Agricultural Economics Bailey, Liberty Hyde, 10n, 12, 13n, 27–28 Baumgartel, Walter, 78n, 106 Beecher, Catharine, 33 Bell, Earl H., 55, 77, 117, 120 Bell County, Texas, 58, 122, 123 Benson, Ezra, 64, 69–70 Bernert, Eleanor, 78

214

Black, John, 68n blacks. See African Americans; race Birch, Eleanor M., 79n, 87 Bogue, Allan G., 70 Bowers, Douglas E., 66 Bowles, Gladys K., 78 Bradshaw, Nettie P., 79n Brunner, Edmund de S., 73, 91, 96 Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE). See also Division of Farm Population and Rural Life changing expectations, 66–68, 70 elevation, 22 end of, 64, 69, 70 establishment, 20–21 functions, 22–23, 66, 67–68 funding cuts, 48, 68 predecessor unit, 17–20 Progressive-era roots, 65–66 regional offices, 22n, 68 social sciences within, 19–20, 21–22, 66–67 successor unit, 70 Bureau of Home Economics (USDA), 32, 34n, 38, 42, 44n, 97, 98 Bureau of Markets (USDA), 15n, 16, 41 Bureau of Markets and Rural Organization (USDA), 16 Bureau of Reclamation, 24 Bureau of the Census. See Census Bureau burning of the farm population ­estimates, 70n business interests, 69n California Arvin and Dinuba study, 63, 66–67n, 70 San Joaquin Valley, 60, 88 Carver, Thomas Nixon, 15, 16, 18, 41, 44n Catt, Carrie Chapman, 35 Census Bureau, 23, 59, 78, 86 Current Population Survey, 59 censuses of agriculture, 24n, 78 decennial, 23, 24n, 51, 78 class differences, 56, 76–77 Clawson, Marion, 25, 102 Clawson, Mary Montgomery, 79n Coahoma County, Mississippi, 57, 63, 66–67, 122, 123 Coleman, Joyce C., 32 Columbia River Basin project, 4n, 24, 25n, 46, 63, 97, 104, 106, 121 Commerce Department, 69n, 86. See also Census Bureau

Index

community participation, women’s, 5, 27, 29–30, 32–33, 40, 43, 54–55, 56, 62, 112–15 community social organization studies, 5, 45, 46, 47, 51–58, 106–12, 115–25 community stability/instability studies, 4n, 5, 118, 120, 121 communities chosen, 53 context, 47, 51–52 factors, 53–54 influence, 55–56 motives, 47 multidisciplinary approach, 52 recent citations, 7, 76 rediscovery of, 3 summary report, 47 women’s inclusion, 44–45, 52–56 community studies, 115–25 community social organization studies, 5, 45, 46, 47, 51–58, 106–12, 115–25 community stability/instability studies, 3, 4n, 5, 7, 44–45, 47, 52–56, 76 in rural sociology, 3, 51n 71-county “laboratory” cultural ­reconnaissance studies, 5, 8, 24, 47, 48, 52, 56–58, 122–25 Congress appropriations, 47, 48, 57, 58, 60, 68 ban on cultural surveys, 56, 57, 63–64, 66–68 criticism of social research, 48n, 56, 57, 63–64 consumers, women as, 9, 35, 45 Coolidge, Calvin, 20n, 69n cooperative agreements, 7, 23, 25n, 44, 50, 63 Cornell University, 13n Country Life Commission Charlotte Perkins Gilman criticism, 31, 31n establishment, 10n, 12 holistic approach, 29 importance of, 12, 13, 18, 16n recommendations, 29–30 relationship to the Division of Farm Population and Rural Life, 16n, 18, 19 report, 10, 12–13, 18, 28, 29–32, 133–34 views on women’s roles, 28–32 “Women’s Work on the Farm,” 133–34 Country Life Movement, 10n, 12, 13, 18n. See also Bailey, Liberty Hyde; Country Life Commission Cultural, Structural, and Social­Psychological Study of Selected American Farm Communities. See community stability/instability studies

Index

cultural reconnaissance surveys. See 71-county “laboratory” cultural reconnaissance studies cultural surveys, congressional ban, 56, 57, 63–64, 66–68 Current Population Survey, 59 Desha County, Arkansas, 56, 122, 123 Danbom, David B., 10n, 11n Dinuba, California, 63, 66–67n, 70 Disadvantaged Classes in American Agriculture (Taylor, Wheeler, and Kirkpatrick), 66n Division of Farm Population and Rural Life “The Advantages of Farm Life” (Sawtelle), 60–61, 62, 149–85 advisory committee recommendations, 42–43, 49, 138–45 African Americans working in the Division, 57n, 79 changing demands, 23, 46, 49, 55, 58, 63 changing expectations, 65–68, 69, 70n collaboration with other federal agencies, 4n, 7–8, 24, 46, 53n, 63 congressional appropriations, 57, 58, 60, 66–68 congressional ban on cultural surveys, 56, 57, 63–64, 66–68 cooperative agreements, 7, 23, 25n, 44, 50, 63 elevation, 22 ending, 69–70 establishment, 18–20, 22–23 “Farm Life Studies and Their Relation to Home Economics Work” (speech), 44, 146–48 mission, 18, 22, 43, 44, 47 name change, 21n New Deal, 21, 23, 47, 51, 63 organizational position, 22 position titles, 19n predecessor units, 15–16, 17–18, 21, 138–45 Progressive-era roots, 65–66, 70 regional offices, 4, 68, 68n, 22 relationship to Country Life Commission, 19, 16n, 18 relationship to Land Grant Colleges and Universities, 11n, 18, 44, 50, 63 role as a government unit, 4, 19n, 21, 21n, 22, 22n, 23, 47–48 role in planning, 22, 22n, 66n, 67n staff 19n, 22–23n, 25n, 57n, 62, 77, 78–79 successor units, 70, 79

215

women working in the Division, 24n, 77, 78–79 World War II, 13, 15–16, 17, 18, 41 Division of Farm Population and Rural Life research. See also women in ­Division research agenda, 23–25, 26, 47, 53n, 65, 71, 73 Arvin and Dinuba study, 63, 66–67n, 70 bibliography of research, 4, 5, 8, 59n, 81–129 Coahoma County study, 57, 63, 66–67, 122, 123 community stability/instability studies, 3, 4n, 5, 7, 44–45, 47, 52–56, 76 context, 47–48 controversies, 48, 48n, 56, 57, 63–64, 66–68 farm population, 23, 24n, 46, 49, 78 hired farm labor and wage rate studies, 5, 45, 46, 47, 58–60, 125–29 holistic approach, 9, 25, 26, 44, 45, 70 impact of World War II studies, 48, 58 locality groups, 52, 65 number of publications, 46 race, 24n, 50, 53, 56, 57, 57n, 59 recent scholarship using, 7, 74–75, 76 rediscovery of, 3–4 rural differentiation, 56, 72, 76–77, 79–80 rural poverty, 66, 66n, 71 71-county “laboratory” cultural ­reconnaissance studies, 5, 8, 24, 47, 48, 52, 56–58, 122–25 social organization of community ­studies, 5, 45, 46, 47, 51–58, 106–12, 115–25 standards and levels of living studies, 5, 24, 45, 46, 47, 49–51, 93–106 statistical analyses, 50, 74, 78 Ducoff, Louis J., 59, 60, 85, 87–88, 125, 126–27, 128 Dust Bowl, 53 Economic Research Service (ERS) (USDA), 48n, 70, 79 burning of the farm population estimates, 70n economics, field of, 14, 14n, 15, 15n Effland, Anne B. W., 77 Eisenhower administration, 64, 69–70 El Cerrito, New Mexico, 53, 118, 121 Ellsworth, Clayton S., 12–13 Emerson, Harrington, 34 ERS. See Economic Research Service Eselun, Mary P. B., 79n

216

Evans, Anne M., 16, 41–42 Extension Service (USDA), 4n, 12n, 19, 24n, 32, 34n, 50. See also States Relation Service home economics, 32, 34, 38–40, 40n, 42, 53 Farm and Home, 36n, 43n, 61 Farm Bureau, 11n, 13n, 67, 113 Farmer’s Wife, 36n, 43n, 61 Farm Foundation, 20n farm homes. See also women’s roles, on farms conveniences and improvements, 39–40, 61 as part of farms, 61, 75 separate spheres view, 27, 33, 38, 40, 50, 61, 65, 72, 75 farming as business, 9, 11, 19n, 19–20, 23, 49 Farm Life Studies unit (USDA), 17–18, 19, 21, 42–43, 49, 60n, 138–45 farm management, 14, 19, 50, 70 farm organizations Farm Bureau, 11n, 13n, 67, 113 National Farmer’s Union, 68n National Grange, 31, 61, 113 farm population research, 23, 24n, 46, 47, 48, 48n, 49, 78 Farm Population and Rural Life, Division of. See Division of Farm Population and Rural Life Farm Population and Rural Life Branch (USDA), 70, 79 Farm Security Administration, 46, 84 farm women, 85–93. See also women federal agencies and programs, 4n, 7, 24, 46, 53n, 63 Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), 7 feminism, 36, 39n FERA. See Federal Emergency Relief Administration Fink, Deborah, 7, 27n, 76 Flora, Cornelia B., 75 Ford Foundation, 68n Frederick, Christine, 34 Galpin, Charles J. American Country Life Association and, 13n career, 61, 139 congressional hearings, 48n as Division head, 23–24, 49, 52, 63, 78

Index

“Farm Life Studies and Their Relation to Home Economics Work” (speech), 44, 146–48 as head of Farm Life Studies unit, 18, 19 publications, 43–44, 85, 89, 93, 97, 107, 113, 115 Taylor and, 19 on women, 43–44 Galpin subventions, 23 GEB. See General Education Board gender, 3, 6, 72, 76. See also women’s roles Country Life Commission on, 30 patriarchy, 28n, 30, 35–36, 39, 40, 72, 79 separate spheres, 27, 33, 38, 40, 50, 61, 65, 72, 75 urban-based views, 31n, 33, 38, 72 Victorian domesticity, 33, 40 General Education Board (GEB), 15, 16, 17n, 41 Georgia Greene County, 57n, 86, 110, 117, 120, 125 Harmony, 53, 55, 121 Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, 31, 37, 39n Goldschmidt, Walter R., 7, 63, 67n, 68n, 110 Good Housekeeping, 31, 31n, 36n, 37n, 62n Goodwin, Dorothy C., 79n Grange. See National Grange Greene County, Georgia, 57n, 86, 110, 117, 120, 125 Hagood, Margaret Jarman, 51, 59, 71, 72 career, 25n, 78–79 as Division head, 64 Mothers of the South, 78 publications, 59, 78, 85, 87, 92, 105, 125, 127 Hambidge, Gove, 22 Hardin, Charles M., 67, 69 Harding, Sandra, 77 Harding, T. Swan, 15 Harmony, Georgia, 53, 55, 121 Harper’s Bazaar, 36n Harrington, David H., 66 Harris, Agnes, 40n, 99, 100 hired farm labor and wage rate studies, 5, 45, 58–60, 125–29 context, 47, 58, 60 difference from previous surveys, 58 methods, 59–60 migratory farm labor, 60 number of reports, 59 Hoag, Emily. See Sawtelle, Emily Hoag holism

Index

Country Life Commission approach, 29 in Division research, 9, 25, 26, 44, 45, 70 in Progressive era, 6, 11–13, 26, 27, 70 in rural sociology, 25, 26, 73 in USDA research units, 18, 138 women’s roles in rural life, 27–32 home economics. See also American Home Economics Association Bureau of Home Economics, 32, 34n, 38, 42, 44n cooperative research, 50, 86, 87, 89, 90, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 104, 113 Extension Service, 32, 34, 38–40, 40n, 42, 53 factions, 32 growth of field, 32–36, 39, 42 history of, 6, 7, 19, 27, 32–36, 33n, 41, 42, 43, 44n, 59 home management, 34, 37, 44, 59 Office of Home Economics, 32, 34n, 42 practical information, 39–40 relationship with business, 34–35, 35n relationship to rural sociology, 43–44, 45, 146 rural women and, 36–40 scientific management, 34, 34n scope, 39, 45 women’s roles viewed by, 9, 27, 31n, 32–33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 45 Hoover, Herbert, 20, 69n Houston, David F. advisory committee recommendations to, 42–43, 49, 138–45 farm women’s letters to, 36–38, 136–37, 149 Rural Organization Service and, 15, 16, 17, 41 as secretary of agriculture, 14–15 as treasury secretary, 20n “The Woman on the Farm” (1913), 17, 37, 135–37 impact of World War II studies, 48, 58 income generating activities, 30, 31n, 36, 37, 38–39, 45 inequality, 57, 71 international linkages, 46, 68n Irwin, Iowa, 4n, 53, 54, 121 Jellison, Katherine, 3, 7, 38n, 66n, 75, 76, 77 Jensen, Joan M., 7, 76, 77

217

Johnston, Helen Wheeler. See Helen Wheeler Jones, Lu Ann, 7, 76 Kansas, Sublette, 53, 55, 77, 120 Kirkendall, Richard S., 11n, 21, 66n, 67n, 68 Kirkpatrick, Ellis L., 49–51, 62, 68, 90, 94, 95, 97–101, 102, 113, 116 Knowledge for What? (Lynd), 66 Knowles, Jane B., 11n Kollmorgen, Walter M., 19, 48, 52n, 55, 110, 118, 120 labor, agricultural hired farm labor and wage rate studies, 5, 45, 46, 47, 58–60, 125–29 migratory, 60, 75 needs during World War II, 47, 58 surveys, 58–60 labor–saving devices, 29, 33, 34, 37, 39–40, 41, 54, 61 Ladies Home Journal, 36n Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, 53, 110, 120 Landaff, New Hampshire, 53, 120 Land grant colleges and universities, 11n, 18, 44 cooperative agreements, 7, 23, 25n, 44, 50, 63 Larson, Olaf F., 4, 4n, 92, 104, 123 Larson, Veda, 27n, 78 leadership, women’s, 40, 54–55, 56 level of living indexes, 51. See also ­standards and levels of living studies Lewis, Oscar, 8, 57–58, 123 Lively, C. E., 7–8, 63 locality groups, 52, 65 Longmore, T. Wilson, 56, 86, 92, 104, 105, 110, 118, 120, 123 Loomis, Alice M., 42 Loomis, Charles P., 25n, 91–92, 96, 102, 109, 114, 118, 120 Louisiana, Avoyelles Parish, 57n, 122, 124 Lynd, Robert, 66 Manny, Elsie S., 79n Manny, T. B., 44n, 92, 101, 103, 113 Marquis, J. Clyde, 18n Martin, Virginia C., 79n McCamman, Dorothy F., 79n McDean, Harry C., 20 McNairy, Tennessee, 62 men, 30, 40, 54, 72, 79

218

Meredith, Edwin, 20 migration from rural to urban areas, 10 research, 7, 60, 63, 78 migratory farm labor, 4, 45, 60, 75 Miles, Sarah, 79n Mississippi, Coahoma County, 57, 63, 66–67, 122–23 Mitchell, Edward B., 39 Moe, Edward O., 4, 4n, 54–55, 121 Montgomery, Mary. See Clawson, Mary Montgomery Nason, Wayne, 78n, 116 National Farmer’s Union, 68n National Grange, 31, 61, 113 Neth, Mary, 75, 79 New Deal, 7, 21, 23, 47, 51, 63 New Hampshire, Landaff, 53, 120 New Mexico, El Cerrito, 53, 118, 121 Valencia, 52 Nineteenth Amendment, 36 North Carolina State University, 50, 71 Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics (USDA), 17, 19–20, 21, 42–43 Office of Home Economics (USDA), 32, 34n, 42 Office of Markets and Rural Organization (USDA), 16 Old Order Amish, 53, 54, 110, 118, 120 Oliver, Yvonne, 79 On the Edge of the Black Waxy (Lewis), 7, 57–58 Osterud, Nancy Grey, 75 Page, Walter Hines, 10n patriarchy, 28n, 30, 35–36, 39, 40, 72, 79 Penn, R. J., 19 Pennsylvania, Lancaster County, 53, 110, 120 Plunket, Horace, 10n Pinchot, Gifford, 10n political climate, 48. See also Congress Population Association of America, 78 poverty. See rural poverty Powell, Ola, 42 Progressive era experts, 14 holism, 6, 11–13, 26, 27, 70 influence on USDA research units, 65–66, 70 women, 11n, 30n, 32–33, 38n Pryor, Herbert, 56

Index

race, 50, 53, 56, 57, 59, 66, 71, 76–77, 79 Reagan, Barbara B., 59, 87, 88, 126, 127, 128 Report of Committee to Consider the Subject of Farm Life Studies as One of the Divisions of Research Work of the Proposed Bureau of Farm Management and Farm Economics, 43, 49, 138–45 Report of the Commission on Country Life, 10, 12–13, 18, 29–32, 133–34 “Women’s Work on the Farm,” 28, 133–34 research methods, 13, 50, 50n, 52–53, 54n, 56, 58, 67, 71–72, 74 Resettlement Administration, 46 Richards, Ellen, 32, 35n Roosevelt, Theodore, 12, 16n, 28n, 164 ROS. See Rural Organization Service Rowe, Rachel. See Swiger, Rachel Rowe Rural and Farm Women in Historical Perspective, conference on, 74n rural areas contemporary research on, 74–77 differentiation, 56, 72, 76–77, 79–80 Rural Organization Service (ROS), 15–16, 17, 41, 42, 44n rural poverty, 66, 66n, 71 Rural Rehabilitation Loan Program, 46, 84 Rural Sociological Society, 13n, 62n, 63n, 73, 78, 79 presidents of, 25n, 73, 78 rural sociology. See also sociology community research, 3, 51n, 55–56 early research, 23–24, 24n, 46, 52, 65, 78 evolution, 73–74 history of, 3–4, 12n, 13, 13–14n, 15n, 18–19, 51n, 57, 62, 63n holistic approach, 25, 26, 73 relationship to home economics, 43–44, 45, 146 relationship with agricultural economics, 14, 19, 19n, 20, 22, 25, 68n scientific approach, 73, 73–74n statistical analyses, 50, 74, 78 theory, 24, 71, 72, 77 Russell Sage Foundation, 78 Sawtelle, Emily Hoag, 6, 60n, 60–61, 77, 78, 116 “The Advantages of Farm Life,” 60–61, 62, 85, 149–85 Schloesser, Pauline. See Taylor, Pauline Schloesser

Index

Schultz, Theodore W., 67–68 scientific management, 34, 34n Scott, Joan Wallach, 76 separate spheres view of women’s roles, 27, 33, 38, 40, 50, 61, 65, 72, 75 71-county “laboratory” cultural reconnaissance studies, 5, 8, 24, 48, 52, 122–25 communities chosen, 122 context, 47, 51–52, 56 end of, 57–58 future research, 58 goals, 56 women’s inclusion, 56–57 Shapiro, Laura, 36 Sharpless, Rebecca, 7, 8 Sheldon, Eleanor Bernert, 78 social organization in rural areas, 76, 106–12 71-county “laboratory” cultural reconnaissance studies, 5, 8, 24, 47, 48, 52, 56–58, 122–25 community stability/instability studies, 3, 4n, 5, 7, 44–45, 47, 52–56, 76 social organization of community studies, 5, 45, 46, 47, 51–58, 106–12, 115–21 social sciences. See also economics; home economics; sociology; rural sociology; women’s history in New Deal era, 21 in Progressive Era, 14 in USDA, 21–22 Society for the Study of Social Problems, 73n sociology. See also rural sociology distinction from economics, 14 history of, 3–4, 13n, 14, 14n, 15n, 16n, 25, 25n, 51n, 65, 73n scientific approach, 73n theory, 24, 71, 72, 77 Sorokin, Pitirim A., 24, 25, 62, 72n South Carolina, Union County, 57n Southern states community studies, 53, 55, 57, 63, 66–67 home economics, 39 racial discrimination, 57, 66–67 senators, 67 71-county “laboratory” cultural reconnaissance studies, 57, 122 wage rates, 59 women’s economic role, 7, 39, 59, 76 Spillman, William, 17n standards and levels of living studies, 5, 24, 45, 46, 47, 49–51, 93–106 States Relation Service (USDA), 32, 42n. See also Extension Service (USDA).

219

statistical analyses, 50, 74, 78 Strauss, Murray A., 63 Sublette, Kansas, 53, 55, 77, 120 suffrage, 33, 36, 72n Swiger, Rachel Rowe, 79n, 97, 106, 112 Systematic Source Book in Rural Sociology (Sorokin, Zimmerman, and Galpin), 24, 62 Taeuber, Conrad, 7–8, 63, 78, 96, 103 Taeuber, Irene, 78 Taylor, Carl C. American Country Life Association and, 13n career, 25n, 50, 68n, 71 community studies, 52, 54–55 as Division head, 23, 24, 44, 47, 52, 64, 68 on inequality, 71 on labor-saving devices, 39–40 publications, 7, 62, 86, 92, 93, 96, 103, 105, 109, 111, 114, 117, 121, 125 on sociological knowledge, 71 Taylor, Henry C. approach, 19–20, 23, 68 on BAE abolition, 69, 70 as BAE chief, 22–23, 66, 68 at Farm Foundation, 20n Galpin and, 19 as Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics head, 17, 19–20 on standards and levels of living ­studies, 51 Taylor, Mary Splawn, 79n Taylor, Pauline Schloesser, 79n Tennessee, McNairy, 62 Texas, Bell County, 58 Thompson, Carl W., 16, 116 Tolley, Howard, 66, 67, 68, 69 Tower, Walter S., 27–28 True, Alfred Charles, 42n, 49 Tugwell, Rexford Guy, 62 Turner, Veda Larson. See Larson, Veda Union County, South Carolina, 57n, 121, 124 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). See also Bureau of Agricultural ­Economics; Division of Farm ­Population and Rural Life Agricultural Economics Division, 70 Agricultural Marketing Service, 70, 79 Agricultural Research Service, 70 Bureau of Home Economics, 32, 34n, 38, 42, 44n, 97, 98

220

Bureau of Markets, 15n, 16, 41 Bureau of Markets and Rural Organization, 16 changing expectations, 66–68 commercial focus, 66, 67, 69 desegregation, 71n, 79 Economic Research Service, 48n, 70, 79 Extension Service, 4n, 12n, 19, 24n, 32, 34n, 50 Farm Population and Rural Life Branch, 70, 79 Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics, 17, 19–20, 21, 42–43 Office of Home Economics, 32, 34n, 42 Office of Markets and Rural ­Organization, 16 reorganizations, 47–48, 69–70 research functions, 14–21, 70 Rural Organization Service, 15–16, 17, 41 social sciences within, 21–22 States Relation Service, 32, 42, 42n United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 68n University of Wisconsin, 19, 43, 51 urban areas concerns, 10, 23, 24, 49 development, 10 migration to, 10 separate spheres view, 27, 33, 38, 40, 50, 61, 65, 72, 75 views of women’s roles based on, 31n, 33, 38, 72 USDA. See U.S. Department of Agriculture Valencia, New Mexico, 52 Van Rensselaer, Martha, 34n Vaughn, Gerald F., 21 Victorian domesticity, 33, 40 voting rights of African Americans, 57n of women, 36 wages. See hired farm labor and wage rate studies Wallace, Henry A., 13n, 21–22, 48, 69n Wallace, Henry C., 20–21, 47–48, 69n Ward, Florence E., 38, 42 Watkins, Marilyn P., 76 Wells, O. V., 68, 70 Wheeler, Helen, 79n White, Edna Noble, 33, 38n, 39, 42

Index

White, Helen R. 79n, 86, 92 Whitten, Jamie, 67 Williams, Edward B., 57n, 124 Wilson, James, 14 Wilson, M. L., 11n, 13n, 22, 48 The Woman on the Farm (Atkeson), 61–62 women in agriculture, 45, 47, 56, 59, 60 contemporary research on, 65, 74–77 Division staff members, 24n, 77, 78–79 early rural research, 41–45 education, 32, 35–36 feminism, 36, 39n hired farm labor, 5, 45, 47, 56, 58, 59 invisibility, 28n, 70–72, 74–76 labor–saving devices, 29, 33, 34, 37, 39–40, 41, 54, 61 letter writing campaigns, 11n, 17n, 36–38, 41, 60–61 migratory labor, 5, 45, 60, 75 Progressive era, 11n, 30n, 32–33, 38n sociological theory, 71–72 suffrage, 33, 72n voting rights, 36 wage rates, 59 women’s organizations, 16, 29, 31n, 36, 41–42, 54–55, 62 women in Division research in agriculture, 87–89 bibliography, 83–129 in community stability/instability ­studies, 44–45, 52–56 embeddedness, 5–6, 48, 72, 75, 80 Galpin’s approach, 43–44 in hired farm labor and wage rate ­studies, 5, 45, 46, 58–60, 125–29 lack of voice, 70–72 recommended fields of study, 42–43 relationship to home economics field, 43–44, 45 in the 71-county “laboratory” cultural reconnaissance studies, 48, 52, 56–57, 122–25 in social organization of community studies, 5, 45, 46, 51–58, 106–12, 115–21 in standard and levels of living studies, 5, 45, 46, 49–51, 93–106 women’s history, 6, 7–8, 74n, 75–77 women’s letter writing campaigns, 11n, 17n, 36–38, 41, 60–61

Index

women’s organizations, 16, 31, 41–42 women’s roles community participation, women’s, 5, 27, 29–30, 32–33, 40, 43, 54–55, 56, 62, 112–15 community stability and, 76 as consumers, 9, 35, 45 economic, 9, 38–39, 45, 76 on farms, 29, 36, 50, 61, 75 holistic view, 27–32 home economics views, 9, 27, 31n, 32–33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 45 income generating activities, 30, 31n, 36, 37, 38–39, 45 leadership, 40, 54–55, 56 patriarchy, 28n, 30, 35–36, 39, 40, 72, 79 in rural life, 27–32, 43–44, 72

221

separate spheres view, 27, 33, 38, 40, 50, 61, 65, 72, 75 urban-based views, 31n, 33, 38, 72 Woolley, Jane, 79, 110, 120 Works Progress Administration (WPA), 7, 63, 91, 95, 96 World War II, 48, 55, 58, 63, 63n, 74 WPA. See Works Progress Administration Wynne, Waller, 55, 121 Yearbooks of Agriculture, 7, 11n, 17, 21, 22, 32 “The Woman on the Farm” (1913), 37, 135–37 Young, Kimball, 25n, 52n, 120 youth, 55, 56, 59 Zimmerman, Carle C., 7, 24, 25, 26, 62, 72n, 109, 117