INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 3 0 0 North! Z e e b R oad, Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 U SA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9305779 Good life in the country: Rural households and the American pie, 1900-1930 Lcirson, Sarah Sue, Ph.D. The American University, 1992 Copyright ©1992 by Larson, Sarah Sue. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 GOOD LIFE IN THE COUNTRY: RURAL HOUSEHOLDS AND THE AMERICAN PIE, 1900 - 1930 by Sarah Sue Larson submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Signatures of Committee: Chair: Dean off the College Date 1992 The American University 1350 Washington, D.C. 20016 TEE mmiom UNIVERSITY LIBRARY © COPYRIGHT by SARAH SUE LARSON 1992 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED GOOD LIFE IN THE COUNTRY: RURAL HOUSEHOLDS AND THE AMERICAN PIE, 1900 - 1930 BY Sarah Sue Larson ABSTRACT This dissertation focusses on the dialogue within the rural community and between the country and the city about the "good life," about how the rural community fit into a modern, consumption-oriented, industrial-based economy. Sentiments of farm families usually were expressed by rural women—literate women. Previous histories have looked to the messages going into the rural community from reformers and advertisers. This study looks, instead, at the desires and demands emanating from farm families, often in letters to federal agencies. As another source. Country Life reformers and national advertisers were making a concerted effort to tap into rural opinion, distributing surveys and sponsoring essay contests in farm journals. These efforts were aimed toward "progressive" rural families; not necessarily those who were currently affluent and influential, but those who were so placed by education and initiative as to benefit from reform efforts and become affluent and influential. -ii- In the words of rural women about quality of life, in their buying patterns, are shades of nuances that add depth and perspective to our understanding both of rural life and of Progressive era reform. The piece of the debate over rural life controlled and directed by "progressive" farm women suggests that there was no homogeneity of opinion within the rural community. Families were neither fully resistant nor fully accepting of the changes of the twentieth century. Though they were clearly intrigued by the accoutrements of industrialism, rural women differed as to how crucial such acquisitions were to living the good life. They picked and chose what they bought and what they expressed a desire to buy. Likewise, they embraced certain Progressive reforms and ignored others. The promises of Progressivism came packaged in the household technologies and entertainments of a new era; debate over the good life hinged directly on the comforts of the industrial age. Every modern convenience acquired was, in a sense, a promise kept. Letters and essays and surveys stemming from the rural community suggest that enough conveniences were flowing into enough farm houses as to make the promises of Progressivism seem both valid and possible. -Ill- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Foremost, I wish to thank Alan Kraut, my advisor and friend. Dr. Kraut's intuitive understanding of the immigrants who people his own scholarship, his generous assumption of the myriad responsibilities of the historical profession, and his high expectations of his students has inspired and sustained me throughout my graduate career. Dr. Kraut understands that women who choose to combine babies with comprehensives bring their own sort of intense commitment and perspective to history. He has never failed to argue our case in the halls of academia and he has never accepted any less than our best work. It has been an honor to be his student. Without Melissa Kirkpatrick, this dissertation would never have been written. Over the years, we have argued in symposia together, picked-up each other's children at day care, started a business, shared books and moments of inspiration, car-pooled to libraries and archives, commented on each other's outlines. Dr. Kirkpatrick provided insightful suggestions on this project during the research, read the entire manuscript, and wrestled the tables into the proper font. She has suffered through my dark nights of the soul (which usually come mid-aftemoon) and I am more grateful than I can express. -IV- I also deeply appreciate the contributions made by Pete Daniel, of the Smithsonian, and Peter Kuznick, of American University, both of whom served on my dissertation committee. Each took the time to give the manuscript a rigorous and critical reading, providing the suggestions that directed its revision. One gains particular insight and encouragement from hearing of the work of others. Thus, I send thanks to Lu Ann Jones, who generously discussed her own research, guided me to tlie books of other scholars, and made me feel a little less isolated in my forays into rural social history. Likewise, I gained much from talking with Katherine Jellison and from Pat Evans, who may well be the most skilled researcher I ever m et I wish also to thank Vivian Wiser for warning me not to get too immersed in USD A Extension records and Wayne Rasmussen for explaining agriculture records, sharing agency lore, and making me feel unfailingly welcome at Agriculture History Society luncheons. Douglas Helms of the Soil Conservation Service took time to brief me on agricultural history and make pertinent suggestions on the research design; Charles McGovern of the Smithsonian did likewise on advertising history. I am particularly glad he directed me toward the J. Walter Thompson archives. John Flecknor, also of the Smithsonian, gave me a valuable overview of advertising archives across the nation. All historians are indebted to staff at research institutions, graduate -V - students with no travel money perhaps the most slavishly. Christin Lutz of Interlibrary Loan at American University proved to be absolutely gifted in tracking down ancient articles from popular magazines and agricultural journals. Elaine Engst and Nancy Dean, Department of Manuscripts and University Archives at Cornell University, transformed what could have been a frustratingly brief visit into many folders of useful photocopies. Ellen Gartrell, advertising specialist with the J. Walter Thompson Archives, Special Collections Department at Duke University, went even further, arranging to have microfilm marketing surveys photocopied for a researcher who couldn't even come to her library. Lisa Mangiafico and Cynthia Swanson, Women's History and Resource Center at the General Federation of Women's Clubs headquarters, were gracious and helpful and interested; Jimmy Rush, Civil Reference Branch at the National Archives, spent the better part of an afternoon tracking down a particular document—and found it; Jean M. Dee, Population Division at the Bureau of the Census, saved the schedule at a critical juncture by filling a reference request with unbelievable speed. All of these people know their records well and are fascinated by the research possibilities. This dissertation was enriched—and enlivened—by their assistance. I want also to thank Nancy and Cal Larson for piquing my curiosity in history and proofreading this manuscript, Susan Mook for her advice on the intricacies of library and special collection research, and John Mook for his -VI- memories of a Progressive era childhood in rural Indiana. My husband Jonathan Mook provided moral and financial support over the course of my graduate career, served as a sounding board during the long period I was researching this project, read the manuscript critically, and helped me prepare for my defense. Living up to Jon's expectations was a great impetus over the years. He assumed I could do whatever I chose— finish my degree, raise kids, do consulting research, edit books, run a youth group, continue my civic work—whatever. He did, however, point out that it was not necessary to do everything simultaneously. Finally, I wish to acknowledge my children: Ben, Nate, and Galen Mook. They clutter my house and animate my days. Life with the boys may not be serene, but, then, not all scholars were meant to labor in quiet contemplation. Some of us actually do better against the backdrop of trumpet practice, fevered descriptions of magnificent hook shots, and time out for a little lap. -Vil- PREFACE When I was in college, in between late-night discussions of philosophy (Was it even possible for a student at a small university in Appleton, Wisconsin to properly be considered a nihilist?) and days spent watching the Vietnam War wind down, I visited my grandparents' farm.