Elite Bostonian Women's Organizations As Sites of Science
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Beyond the University: Elite Bostonian Women’s Organizations as Sites of Science Learning, 1868-1910 The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Baca, Katie Ana. 2019. Beyond the University: Elite Bostonian Women’s Organizations as Sites of Science Learning, 1868-1910. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:42013065 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Beyond the University: Elite Bostonian Women’s Organizations as Sites of Science Learning, 1868-1910 A dissertation presented by Katie Ana Baca to The Department of History of Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of History of Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts September 2019 © 2019 Katie Ana Baca All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Janet Browne Katie Ana Baca Beyond the University: Elite Bostonian Women’s Organizations as Sites of Science Learning, 1868-1910 Abstract This dissertation examines the women-centric science learning opportunities established by Boston-based women’s organizations in the Progressive Era. It focuses on two such organizations: the New England Women’s Club (NEWC, founded in 1868) and the Woman’s Education Association (WEA, founded in 1871). At a time of trenchant opposition to women in science and advanced education for women, these groups were able to establish learning opportunities through which thousands of Bostonian women engaged with science. This dissertation uncovers the strategies deployed by these groups to engender these opportunities, ranging from focusing on feminized sciences to self- funding. It finds that the groups diverged significantly in their political outlooks; the NEWC was distinctly pro-suffrage while the WEA was generally anti-suffrage. These political divergences shaped the character of each group’s science offerings and justifications for women’s science learning. As such, this dissertation suggests the co- construction of questions surrounding women’s suffrage and women in science. This dissertation also grapples with the shortcomings of the science learning opportunities established by the NEWC and WEA. It argues that these groups often developed science learning opportunities that were short-lived, focused on feminized sciences, and unable to substitute for university-based science educations. Further, it finds that the groups’ members were almost wholly white, non-immigrant, and upper iii class, and it showcases the manner in which their spaces of science learning reified their worldview. Finally, this dissertation examines the breadth of male support enjoyed by these organizations, pushing back on the historiographical tendency to paint nineteenth century male opposition to women in science as a foregone conclusion. iv Table of Contents Title Page ......................................................................................................................... i Copyright ........................................................................................................................ ii Abstract .......................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ v Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ................................................................................................................. x Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: The New England Women’s Club: Appropriating the ‘Club’ Model and Establishing a Publicly Engaged Female Sphere ............................................................ 28 Chapter 2: “The whole atmosphere was kept as womanly as possible”1: Establishing the Woman’s Education Association .................................................................................. 81 Chapter 3: Suffrage and Science at the NEWC and WEA ............................................ 125 Chapter 4: Women-Centric Subcultures of Science Learning ....................................... 160 Chapter 5: “To confer with the ladies upon the subject of a laboratory”2: Male Supporters of Women-Centric Subcultures of Scientific Learning ................................................. 204 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 274 Appendices ................................................................................................................. 281 Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 287 ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Ellen H. Richards, “Waste of Energy in Organization,” Outlook, vol. 63, no. 16 (December 16, 1899): 930. 2 MHS WEA Records, “Woman’s Education Association,” February 10, 1876, n.p., Box 2, Folder 2. v Acknowledgments As an historian of women in science, I am all too aware of the problem of invisible technicians. Acknowledgments provide an opportunity to work towards making visible the support of those who are not otherwise recognized in my dissertation. Though I am eager to recognize all who aided me in this process, no acknowledgments could ever be truly complete; it is incredible to contemplate the number of people – from the staffs of my favorite eateries (Chipotle!) to the Harvard College undergrads who shelve our library books – whose work enabled my studies. In the spirit of recognizing the breadth of support that enabled me to produce this dissertation, I want to begin by issuing a broad thank you to the communities I considered “home” during my PhD – Harvard Square, Back Bay, and Brookline. Direct intellectual support of this dissertation was provided by my committee members: Janet Browne, Anne Harrington, and Sarah Richardson. I feel honored to have worked with this wonderful group consistently for almost a decade, from my undergraduate career to the present day. Each of them has provided detailed and insightful feedback on this dissertation. Janet Browne shepherded me through my transition from finance to academia by welcoming me to the Darwin Correspondence Project with open arms. In addition to overseeing my coursework and dissertation, she regularly found me employment opportunities that provided both funding and a welcome reprieve from the archives. Anne Harrington provided me with the intellectual seeds from which this dissertation topic grew. She has been a constant inspiration of scholarly mentorship. Sarah Richardson has given fastidious and nuanced feedback on my dissertation at each vi phase. Her critical engagement with my writing has encouraged me to question my assumptions at every turn. The Department of the History of Science has proved a warm and welcoming environment throughout my undergraduate and graduate studies. Thanks to Linda Schneider, Allie Belser, Michele Biscoe, Emily Bowman, Sarah Champlin-Scharff, Ellen Guarente, Michael Kelley, Sylvie Papazian, Nicole Terrien, Deborah Valdovinos, and Karen Woodward Massey for their support. My fellow graduate students, colleagues, and Teaching Fellows have been stellar colleagues throughout this process. Particular thanks are owed to Melinda Baldwin, Margo Boenig-Liptsin, Cara Kiernan Fallon, Megan Shields Formato, Kit Heintzman, Devin Kennedy, Gustave Lester, Wythe Marschall, Jacob Moses, Eli Nelson, Jennifer Park, Yvan Prkachin, Miriam Rich, Myrna Perez Sheldon, Jenna Tonn, and Anya Yermakova. Various library systems and archives played a tremendous role in this dissertation. Special acknowledgement is owed to Fred Burchsted, Emily Bell, and Amanda Strauss, as well as to the Schlesinger Library archivists. Thanks also to Jack McGrath for scanning seemingly innumerable microfilms so that I could read them while on maternity leave. The archives and archivists at the Massachusetts Historical Society, the Sophia Smith Collection, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Gray Herbarium, and the Farlow Library have enriched this project greatly. The professors and lecturers for whom I have taught – Ned Friedman, Anne Harrington, vii Sarah Richardson, Séan O’Donnell, and Nadine Weidman – have been stellar models of engaged scholarship and mentorship. And to my students at Harvard College and the Harvard Summer School Pre-College Program, thank you for sharing your energy and enthusiasm with me! Childcare has played an immense role in my ability to complete this dissertation. To my children’s daily teachers and caregivers: Diane Houghton, Margarida Lobo, Geraldine Yorett, Mile Paternina Sossa, and the entire team at the Brookline Early Education Program, I owe my sincere gratitude. And to my children’s backup caregivers – most especially my parents and parents-in-law – thank you for being a loving support when we needed you most! My deepest thanks go to my family. I am indebted to my grandparents,