University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law

Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship

Fall 2002

Just Like Home: ‘Home Cooking’ and the Domestication of the American Restaurant

Samantha Barbas University at Buffalo School of Law

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles

Part of the Food Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons

Recommended Citation Samantha Barbas, Just Like Home: ‘Home Cooking’ and the Domestication of the American Restaurant, Gastronomica, Fall 2002, at 43.

Published as Samantha Barbas, Just Like Home: ‘Home Cooking’ and the Domestication of the American Restaurant, Gastronomica, v. 2, n. 4, at 23 (Fall 2002) . © 2002 by the Regents of the University of California. Copying and permissions notice: Authorizati

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected].

investigations | samantha barbas Just Like Home “Home Cooking” and the Domestication of the American Restaurant

The 1920s marked the end of an era. Gone were slow- ticity that urbanization, modernization, and culinary stan- cooked dinners, cookies baked from scratch, and homemade dardization had stolen away. bread. The days of old-fashioned home cooking, critics The “home cooking” campaign, as it came to be known, lamented, had long since disappeared. As the home econo- proved extraordinarily successful. Enticed by grey-haired, mist Christine Frederick reported in 1927: “Woman is no matronly servers, inventive slogans, and cozy Victorian or longer a cook—she has become a can opener.”1 Colonial decor, millions of middle-class Americans, once wary Critics claimed that the causes of the decline were easy of restaurants, gradually began to eat out. Though the “home to identify. Small kitchens in cramped urban apartments cooking” campaign gave way to other industry initiatives in gave wives too little room to prepare complex meals. Canned, the 1930s, restaurants would continue to woo customers by frozen, and precooked foods eliminated the need to make promising to revive traditional middle-class domesticity. meals from scratch, and a trend toward lighter eating put Throughout the twentieth century, in fact, Americans were an end to elaborate multi-course lunches and dinners. But lured into restaurants with promises of home. most to blame for the dismal state of affairs were women, or so the critics contended. Preoccupied with activities out- The Domestic Front side the home—social and leisure activities, and, for many, paid employment—they had lost their interest in cooking. In their celebrated 1925 study of “Middletown” (Muncie, Once upon a time, claimed one nostalgic observer, mothers Indiana), sociologists Robert and Helen Lynd reported that took pride in well-cooked dinners and perfect pies. But the role of cooking in middle-class homes had changed “mothers today, many of them, do not make pies. They significantly. Once “one of a woman’s chief glories,” cooking aren’t particularly interested in pies. Their time is taken had, for many, become little more than a tedious routine. up with other things—movies, bridge parties, automobile In the 1890s, housewives bought “big chunks of meat and rides.” The modern woman who could cook “was about as cut them up and used them in various ways.” The modern rare as corned beef and cabbage in a Paris restaurant.”2 wife, by contrast, bought meats that could be easily and What for many critics was cause for lamentation quickly cooked. In the 1890s, women spent weeks each sum- became for the American restaurant industry a precious mer canning fruits and vegetables; in 1925, they selected

opportunity, and “home cooking” became the order of the cans from grocers’ shelves. “The modern housewife,” 2002 FALL day. For decades, restaurants had been seen as “greasy spoons” lamented the local butcher, “has lost the art of cooking.”3 43 catering to single male workers. The 1920s furor over “home Had the Lynds gone from Indiana to Boston, or to cooking” offered restaurants an unparalleled chance to California, Georgia, or Maine, they would have heard simi- win a mixed-sex, middle-class clientele. In an industry-wide lar laments. “Gone are the days of the big, old-fashioned campaign that lasted throughout the decade, restaurants home kitchen, and with it, much of the old-fashioned home advertised themselves as “country kitchens” serving hearty, cooking,” wrote a contributing editor of The Ladies’ Home GASTRONOMICA GASTRONOMICA traditional, “home style” fare. As surrogate homes, they Journal in 1926. “The housewife has turned her thoughts and would restore to the middle class the old-fashioned domes- energies to other channels.”4 According to Collier’s magazine, modern “flappers” focused their attention on careers,“clothes, clubs, and climate,” not housework, children, cooking, or 5 Left: Cover from The American Restaurant: The Magazine any other “‘home’ stuff.” The result was lunches of soggy for Eating Places, February 1927. sandwiches and canned soups—or worse yet, the dreaded

gastronomica—the journal of food and culture, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 43–52, issn 1529-3262. © 2002 by the regents of the university of california. all rights reserved. 44 GASTRONOMICA FALL 2002 half ofthen nalists, and nutritionists had been making that decision for them. Forroast andpotatoes. years,inventors,foodproducers,jour- peanut butter sandwiches andsoupfromacaninsteadofpot tennis (or go to work) rather than cook, or to serve their families simply thatwomenwokeuponemorning andchose toplay views ofdiet andhealth,theroleofwomen.Itwasnot preparation, urbanandsuburbanlivingarrangements,public had dramaticallyalteredmethodsoffoodproductionand years ofsocial, technological,anddemographicchanges that phenomenon. Rather,itwastheproductofmorethanfifty of homecookingwasnotanexclusivelytwentieth-century have contributedtotheretreatfromkitchen,death afford tobewithoutthissuperhuman “electricservant.” freezer andfreezestheicecream.” Nohousewifecould cake, andwhenthisisfinished itchopstheicefor “willingly andquickly beatseggs,and stirsupadelicate maid, boastedSunset undeniably moreefficient andobedient. Unlikethetypical appliances easiertoobt tics inmiddle-class households;notonlywereelectric the centuryhaddrasticallyreducednumber ofdomes- fifteen minutes inthefirstpartof flat.A“servantshortage” skillet, andtoaster,preparebreakfastforherhusbandin in asmallcity apartmentwitha“kitchenette,” thebusiness- fitted perfectlythedemandsofmodern,urbanlife.Living the newblenders,ovens,mixers, refrigerators,andskillets Heavily advertisedandpromotedinwomen’s magazines, class homesinthe1910sand1920s,acceleratedtrend. electric appliances,whichappearedincreasinglyinmiddle- duction intoaunit ofconsumption. domestic life,thehomehadchangedfromarealmofpro- most significant transformationsinthehistoryofAmerican factories increasinglyd ling their orpreparingsoupsfromscratch,as own vegetables country, womenwerediscouraged fromcanning andpick- can openersas“necessarykitchenequipment.” Acrossthe empires, andbythe1880scookbooksbeganrecommending gave risetotheCampbell’s, Franco-American, andHeinz foods. Inthe1870sand1880s,improvedmethodsofcanning to premixed, condensed,bottled,canned,andprecooked processing conglomeratesintroducedAmericanhousewives man’s wife ofthe1920scould,withanelectriccoffeepot, wife,” he quipped, “is the best little can opener in the world.” husband fromDetroit expressedthesentimentbest: “My “delicatessen dinner.” Perhaps ahalf-proud,half-disgruntled The initial blow tohomecookingcameinthesecond Though movies,automobiles,careers,andnightclubs may If cannedfoodsbegantosimplifyAmericancooking, ineteenth century, whennewlyorganized food- magazine in1927,theelectricmixer id theworkforthem.Inoneof ain thanservants,theywerealso 7 8 6 Middletown hadbeenproduced by commerc 1920s, fifty-fivetoseventypercentof all breadconsumedin Middletown wivesof1890 and cannedfoods.AccordingLynd, few toRobertandHelen with replacing their time-consuming, from-scratchpreparations lament.Manywomenwere,infact, than justanostalgic cry over thedeclineofhomecookingin magazine editors, andothercontemporaryobservers,theout- appeared inAmericankitchens. the kindofsimplified,unskilledcookingthatincreasingly ovens producedprecise, unvaryingresults)encouraged more “hygienic” thanthosepreparedathome,andelectric for cannedfoodsandelectricappliances(cannedsoupswere “labor saving”cooking,thehomeeconomists’ enthusiasm Shapiro haswritten.Thoughtheydid notexplicitly endorse confined tosuchapastweredoomed,” historianLaura were tothemthesymbolsofdegeneracy, andthewomen with mince pies—allthesefamiliar symbolsofwell-being old-fashioned countrykitchen,thegroaning boardladen not todeviatefromtheinstructions.“Mother’s cooking,the rec teins, carbohydrates,andfats.Cooksweretofollow the adeq coveries: eachsimple,inexpensivedishan contained precise (ifbland)recipes backedbythelatestnutritional dis- science. EastCoastcookingschoolspromoteda batteryof thoroughly thatitresembledlessanartthanaregimented The homeeconomists attemptedtorationalizecooking so Gilman in tionally unsound:“Ignorance,” wroteCharlottePerkins was largelyunhygienic, economically inefficient, andnutri- turn ofthecentury tionists, cooks,and“domesticscientists,” organized atthe an all-consum ics movement,thetransformationofhomecookingbecame their productsonhomecooking.Butforthe econom- and appliancemanufacturers caredlittleabouttheeffectof Concerned primarilywithprofit,food-processingcompanies Home Economics 930 by In National consumptionofcannedgoodssimilarly increased. writers may have resembled the women described by Sinclair on electriccookingmethods inundated withlettersfromreadersrequesting recipes based 1909, womenspent162 1919 ipes precisely, usingonlylevelmeasurements;theywere Judging fromthediverse accountsofsociologists, writers, million. the labor-saving alternatives offered by processed, pre-made, uate numberratioofpro- ofcaloriesinanacceptable the figurehadrisento575 1903, “isanessentialcondition ofhomecooking.” 12 ing goal.Thisnationwidecoalitionofnutri- In 1925, , wasconvincedthatAmericancooking Good Housekeepingmagazinewas million dollarsoncannedgoods; purchased their bread,butbythe and cannedfoods. 10 million andby1929 , to ial 1920 13 bakers. s wasmore The letter 11 9 Advertisement for None Such Mince Pies. From The American Restaurant, November 1925, p.63.

Lewis in his 1922 novel, Babbitt—housewives who purchased Though obviously a product of industry, and unappetiz- most of their food from bakeries and delicatessens and served ing by today’s standards, the new streamlined cooking

dinners of “burnt steak with canned peaches and store-bought seemed for millions of women in the 1910s and 1920s less a 2002 FALL cake.”14 Popular cookbooks of the period, responding to the retreat into a kind of culinary barbarism than an important 45 new cooking style, offered such recipes as Ginger Ale Salad step forward. Recent breakthroughs in nutrition—in particu- (canned fruits congealed with ginger-ale-tinged Jell-O), lar, the discovery of vitamins—supported the trend towards Pineapple Fluff (canned pineapple served with marshmallows), salads, sandwiches, and other light dishes, as did the new or the latest in international cuisine, Italian Spaghetti (noo- vogue for slimness. Perhaps most enticing about the new dles covered with processed American cheese and canned cuisine were its timesaving possibilities. Women’s magazines GASTRONOMICA GASTRONOMICA tomato sauce). In the 1920s, a craze for “icebox cooking”— of the 1920s reported that with electric appliances, canned dishes chilled in the refrigerator, rather than cooked—produced and prepackaged foods, and agile kitchen maneuvers that the ever-popular Monkey Pudding (vanilla pudding and ’Nilla eliminated “wasted motion,” modern housewives could lib- wafers), frozen cream-cheese salad, Icebox Cake (ladyfingers erate themselves from unnecessary physical exertion and layered in custard), and Tomato Frappe, chunks of frozen, old-fashioned “kitchen slavery.” “Here’s a woman who can condensed tomato soup served atop lettuce.15 prepare, cook, and serve breakfast and dinner for two in 71 46 GASTRONOMICA FALL 2002 cealing herexhaustion. juggle heroverwhelming slateofcommitments whilecon- “superwoman” wascoined todescribeawomanwhocould Scanlon hasnoted,itwasduringthisperiodthattheterm between BureauofHomeEconomicsthe United indicate States that supervision thaninpreviousdecades.Stud dren weresupposedtoberaisedundergreatermaternal higher, mealswereexpectedtobemorevaried,andchil- ofcleanlinesswere for “convenience” foods,butstandards only boretheburdenofplanning, budgeting,and shopping time doing houseworkastheyhadbefore.Housewives not town. Inreality, however, womenofthe1920sspentasmuch the kitchentoseeamovieorspendleisurely day onthe the seeds of family conflict and marital strife.Farthe seedsoffamily conflictandmarital toomany were accusedofbeing “homewreckers,” carelessly sowing women whopurchasedcanned goodsort ment, feminism, orother“distractions” fromtheir duties; other women’s magazineswarnedwives againstemploy- inThekitchen. Didactictales Ladies’ HomeJournal commercial leisure—anything toavoid dreadedtimeinthe indulged inmovies,rad mothers cookedtopassthetime,whereasmodernwomen century, wroteChristineFrederick, hard-workinggrand- that gaveriseto“canopener”cuisine.Inthenineteenth women’s lazinessandselfishness,ratherthanindustriousness, and energy…inthesameway.” exactly how shedoesit,andhow anywomancansavetime minutes,” boastedCollier’s The Ladies’HomeJournal busiest ofhousewives,thebusinesswomenaredemanding,” t sional anddomesticobligations.Meals“thatcookwhilethe even moreformidable challengeofbalancing their profes- field, inaddition andindustry)facedthe tomillions inretail many ofthemmarried,workedintheburgeoning clerical during the1910sand1920(by who embarkedonpart-timeorfull-timepaidemployment home care,andlaundrysimilarly increased. which weredevotedtomeals.Time involvedinfamily care, housework hadincreasedtofifty-threehours,twenty-sixof food planning andpreparation;by1929,thetimespenton week ondomesticwork,including twenty-threehourson In ofcannedgoodsandelectricappliances. advantage taking on householdchores,eventhoughtheywereincreasingly many articleson“hurry-updinners.” able isbeing setandthesaladarranged,thatiswhat 1926, housewivesspentanaverageoffifty-onehoursper It istemptingtoimaginethisyoungwiferushingoutof To manysocial reformersandcritics,however, itwas 1926 and 1929 19 women spentmoretime,notless, io programs,andotherformsof announced in1926 magazine in1926.“Shetells 16 two million women, 18 As historianJennifer ake-out meals ies conductedby 17 The women in oneofits and honeymoons, warned one observer, “end up with the hus- The “Home Cooking” Campaign band in anger and the wife in tears over a poorly prepared In 1924, the National Restaurant Association held its annual dinner.” 20 Similarly, a “sporting” woman might seem attrac- conference in Chicago. An event that promised to be “prac- tive before marriage, but what comfort was a wife who tical, profitable, and pleasing,” according to industry journal played a “good game of tennis” if, as a consequence, she National Restaurant News, the exhibition centered around served “delicatessen dinners”?21 an issue of vital interest to modern restaurateurs: the art of Like many social reformers of the period, the critics of “commercializing home cooking” —preparing entrees, modern cooking in the 1920s held conflicting allegiances soups, breads, and desserts that tasted “just like home.”23 and impulses. Enthusiastic supporters of industry and tech- For an industry long associated with rowdy working-class nology, they championed processed foods, yet longed for the customers, unpalatable meals, and near-certain indigestion, “pies mother used to make.” They encouraged the use of talk of “home baked” pies and “home cooked” dinners labor-saving devices and praised the quest for household seemed distinctly out of character. Though opulent estab- efficiency, yet criticized women who used canned goods for lishments like the famed Delmonico’s in New York served their apparent lack of interest in cooking. One writer yearned wealthy patrons the latest haute cuisine, the word “restaurant” to be back in the time when mothers spent hours cooking typically conjured images of inexpensive lunch counters roasts, thickening puddings, and kneading bread—when a and coffee shops catering to a predominantly male, working- mother baked “her temperament, her own loving care and class clientele. Throughout the first two decades of the kindness” right into her meals! Yet even this die-hard senti- century, recalled one restaurateur, “‘greasy spoon’ was an mentalist could not approve of the inconsistency of even the all-too-common appellation for almost any restaurant.”24 best old-fashioned “home cooking,” which varied on “wash “A blue fog of mixed tobacco smoke and grease” hung days and ironing days,” when meals received less attention.22 ominously over the tables, and sawdust covered many a Many critics, it seemed, envisioned a kind of domestic dining-room floor.25 Although by the late 1910s many restau- utopia in which women used the latest technological inno- rants had upgraded their cuisine and decor and white-collar vations yet lost none of their devotion to home and family. workers had begun venturing into urban cafeterias and Of course, many women did precisely that—they spent lunchrooms for a quick meal, very few restaurants were longer hours on housework in spite of their blenders, can deemed acceptable or appropriate for a middle-class, mixed- openers, and toasters. Those, however, who used labor- sex clientele. To most Americans, eating in restaurants was saving technology as a way to help balance job and home, a hurried, unappetizing, and generally unpleasant experi- or who preferred other activities to cooking, threatened crit- ence—nasty, brutish, and short. ics who saw in the new culinary style nothing less than For the National Restaurant Association—a coalition of the demise of traditional womanhood. With one foot in the restaurant owners, suppliers, and managers organized in 1919— future and the other in the past, these critics dreamed of changing the rough, working-class image of the restaurant a modern, electric-powered “cult of domesticity,” in which took on overtones of a moral crusade. Determined to win a women used twentieth-century technology but retained a respectable middle-class patronage, prominent restaurateurs nineteenth-century frame of mind. urged their colleagues to revamp their menus and decor. The outcry over the demise of “home cooking,” then, “Efficiency in ventilation has…a very pleasing effect on was not only a reaction to the commercialization and stan- 2002 FALL women patrons, as well as carefully planned, soft lighting,” dardization of American cuisine, but also a reflection of advised one article in National Restaurant News. “Improper 47 contemporary fears about changing gender roles. Afraid that lighting creates a hard, cold repellent environment, and the the shift from apple pie to icebox cake signaled more than waste light reflects and glares into eyes already wearied by a just a harmless culinary fad, critics bemoaned the death of strain of work until the entire nervous system is jangled out traditional American cooking and the vision of domesticity of tune.”26 “Larger cash register totals…have been the lot of that accompanied it. Homemade bread became the emblem those who have given more than ordinary thought to…the GASTRONOMICA of the stay-at-home mother; mincemeat pie the symbol of cleanliness of their restaurants,” counseled another. “It has the docile, devoted wife. As they hurtled headlong into the been proven that guests will gravitate to the place that future, Americans in the 1920s clung desperately to nostal- always looks clean.”27 Yet despite the innovations, public gic remnants of the past. resistance to restaurants remained strong. People didn’t eat out, observed one restaurant owner, “on their own free will,” but visited restaurants only “when they have no place else 48 GASTRONOMICA FALL 2002 be gro petitor—a formidable opponent,butonethatseemed to “Home,” remarkedacafeteriaowner, washisprimarycom- to theveryideaofeatingaway fromtheir own kitchens. the restaurant’s“greasyspoon”image,butwerealsoaverse but don’t.” ing…the kindoffood[patrons]oughttogetinthehome, chain; intheir placeSchrafft’s offered“old-stylehomecook- an inexperiencedwife,” claimedtheSchrafft’s restaurant Most family dinners were“poorlypreparedandcookedby foodsaseasilyhamandeggs. could servethesenostalgic and cakes“oldfashioned”roastsstews,restaurants their family meals;iftheylongedfor“homestyle”breads class Americans,particularlyhusbands,wereunhappywith meals wasagodsend,sparkingvisionsofprofit.Ifmiddle- “homey”? Lace curtains andplushcarpets?Picturesonthe “homey”? Lacecurtains and strudel?Andwhat,precisely, madeanatmosphere or biscuitsandgravy?NewEngland clamchowder orsausage exactly, did “homecooking”mean?Was itchiliconcarne passed, campaignpromotersfaced seriousquestions. What, Restaurant News industry.the restaurant Intradejournals the “homecooking”campaignconsumedeffortsof “abused word in the entire restaurant language.”“abused wordintheentirerestaurant ”home,” hadbecomethemost jokedonerestaurateur, bread, “homey”atmosphere,“homemade”dinners— word, ‘homey.’” “Homestyle”recipes, “home-baked” but allthetimetheremust behominess. Rememberthat cheeriness wheneveritisdesirable…plainnesswhen “There must berefinementwhereisrequired; shouldmakeherthinkundeniably ofhome. a restaurant nost phere, industryleadersclaimed,complementedtheculinary edd ipa rso hrvrte,to r edd cozy needed; display orshow whereverthey, too, areneeded, to eat.” the chancesareallagainstwifey.” “Really,cafeteria?” boastedapopularCalifornia restaurant. or bettersaladmaking,thancanbedoneinthenewBoos even betterthanmothercan.” made food,cookedaswell‘mother’cancookit—yes, todayneeds…realhome Mary Wilson.“Therestaurant urged writerandself-appointed “homecooking”expert mustin everyrestaurant surpassthattheaveragehome,” lunchrooms, coffeeshops,andcafeterias.“Thecooking and exhortedcolleaguestoadopt“homecooking”intheir leaders reaffirmedthewisdomoftheir publicity scheme Launched aroundthetimeof1924 For industry, therestaurant demise ofhome-cooked Yet aftertheinitial flurryofoptimism andambition had algia in important ways:apatron’salgia inimportant firstimpressionof wing weaker. 28 Americans, itseemed,werenotsimplywaryof 30 “Can wifeydobettercooking,orbaking, and 29 The AmericanRestaurant, 32 A quiet, “homelike”atmos- 31 convention, National industry 33 flavors insteadofhid ers. Itwas“foodcookedslowly soastobringoutthenatural condiments promotedbyfoodproducersandmanufactur - to regionaltradition andrejectedtheartificial flavorsand and foreign flavors.” m of Maryland,foraslicewhichGeneralLeewouldwalk pone uine clamchowder ofNewEngland,thesweetpotato seasonal, andlocal—“thescrappleofP foods, namebrands,andnationwidechains,itwashumble, antithesis ofmoderncooking.Inaneraprepackaged mired informidable contradictions. foundthemselves reproduce andmarketit—restaurateurs awkwardly, todefine“home”—andmoredifficult yet,to how coulditbepackagedandsold?Astheyattempted, If theessenceofhomewasitsindividuality andintimacy, “Home SweetHome”ifeverypatron’s homewasdifferent? Rest the hecticroutinesofmodernlife.InDayton’s GreyManor linguistic andtheoreticalissues.Ho wrangledwithsticky ment thenewcampaign,restaurateurs Astheybegantoimple- mantle andcandlesonthetable? name, andstrangersbecamefriends. broke breadwithlawyers, proprietorsgreetedcustomersby becamemembersofa“bigfamily”—secretaries restaurants longer justfacesinanurbancrowd, patronsof“home” “you immediately feelathome,” boasted theowner. No decorations.” weretoprovideacheerful, Theserestaurants poppies,” “donotbelonginthewall warnedonerestaurateur, and art-decodesigntrends:“Goldendragonspurple buckedmodernstreamlined “home atmosphere”restaurants reminiscent ofVictorianparlorsandColonial kitchens, modernity. Withrefined,oftenantique, furniture anddecor one participating restaurant, “is a la salt, pepper, and butter.” of itsskilledandmeticulouscreators. that revealedthepride,“individuality,” and“lovingcare” processed, factory-madefood,itbore“distinctive flavors” home cookingwashandcraftedandpersonal.Unlikecanned, Perhaps inanageofmassproduction, mostimportant, they shallhaveFrench ormayonnaise dressingontheir wants; whethertheir teashallbegreenorblack,whether atmosphere, “waitresses remember[patrons’]particular Oregon, and halfaninchthick,atleast.” codfish cakes,and“ham,boiled orfriedbutofthebestflavor was hearty, creamy, andrich:cornmealmush, friedeggs, ile.” “Home cooking,” theyeventuallyconcluded,wasthe aurant, housedinanimposingwhiteantebellummanor, “Home atmosphere,” too,borefew, ifany, marksof , andrestfulsanctuarytocity dwellersexhaustedby 34 In adecadeofincreasingcalorie-consciousness, it cafeteria, notedforitsexceptionally “homelike” 36 ing themunderneutralizingsauces “The only‘ala’tooursteaks,” boasted 35 Home cookingadhered w wouldtheyduplicate 39 38 At onePortland, ennsylvania, thegen- 37 claimed restaurateurs, was less what was served and where it was served, than who served it. At the core of “home cook- ing” and “home atmosphere” was cheerful and diligent female service. “Deep down in every man’s heart is a desire to have food handed to him by a woman,” reported a trade journal in 1928. “A woman with a ‘homey smile’ does more to make a man feel at home in a strange eating place than anything.” “Mature types,” they suggested, were “superior to flappers,” as they conjured up nostalgic “visions of Mother.”41 National Restaurant News reported that one cafeteria in an East Coast city even hired a “dear old lady of 65 years” to speak with guests in the restaurant. “With snow white hair, parted in the middle, a nice, clean calico dress that just touched the floor, and a snow-white muslin apron starched stiff…she was a real mother, complete to the last detail, even to the old fashioned band ring on her finger.” Not only did she successfully sell the daily lunch special, Ye Old Tyme Vegetable Soup with Dumplings, she attracted many new customers entranced by the possibility of getting “a look at ‘mother.’”42 Far more dignified than the male “hash slingers” of dis- reputable “greasy spoons,” women cooks lent a veneer of gentility and domesticity to the restaurant. According to one restaurateur, they furnished a powerful psychological effect that caused customers to think uncontrollably of their moth- ers, and, in the process, to open their wallets. Schrafft’s restaurant chain publicized its use of “women cooks only,” while one chain of Kansas City cafeterias promoted its breads, dinners, and desserts as entirely “woman made.”43 “I want everyone to know that there is one place in Kansas City where you can get good old-fashioned strawberry short- cake,” announced proprietor Myron Green in a local newspaper advertisement. “I serve it this way because it’s better, and as my cooks are all women right out of Kansas City homes, they don’t know how to make it any other way.” Readers could use a coupon at the bottom of the advertise-

ment for “one full order of woman-made strawberry 2002 FALL Grey Manor, Dayton, Ohio. From The American Restaurant, shortcake,” free with the purchase of any lunch or dinner 49 March 1926, p.45. fifteen cents or more.44 Sentimental and highly contrived, the “home cooking” combination salad.” Like “home cooking,” “home atmos- campaign of the 1920s tried to ease public fears about culi- phere” became a code word for the customized service that nary standardization and commercialization—and perhaps was fast disappearing in an age of mass production. To feel most important, about the changing status of women— GASTRONOMICA GASTRONOMICA at home, suggested industry leaders, was to feel the increas- by generating nostalgia for an idealized premodern past. ingly elusive “personal touch.”40 Bathed in soft lighting from antique fixtures, soothed by the aroma of freshly baked bread and by warm personal greet- ings from grey-haired “Mothers,” patrons would forget the Visions of Mother stresses and strains of modernity, and of women’s rapidly But what truly made the “home” restaurant “homelike,” changing social and domestic roles, all for a modest price. 50 GASTRONOMICA FALL 2002 traditional “homecooking”ithaddonesomuch todestroy. Brown promised thatmodern“science” wouldrestorethe achieved naturally. Inavisionshesharedwithmanyothers, to reachthe“point ofperfection”thattheir mothershad cooksneededprecise, standardized recipesfemale restaurant and memory. Butbecausemodernwomenlackedculinary practice,”skill and“constant their cookingrestedontradition had littleneedforcookbooksandrecipe cards.Guidedby old days,wroterest ment thatservedconsistentandpredictablemeals.Inthe - of individuality:wastherareestablish thebestrestaurant on consistency. Sotheindustryheldtoadifferent standard accord with the“self-expression”ofhousewifeorcookvarying dictions. Ideally, “home cooking” was individual and personal, products theysoferventlydenounced. wholly supportedboththeinstitutionsandcommercial wouldadmit it,thehomecookingrestaurants restaurateurs a practiceantitheticaltotheir domesticvision.Thoughfew dependedonthepaidlaborofmarriedwomen, restaurants and bannerspromising “realhomeservice,” “old-fashioned without fundsforlarge-scalerenovations purchasedsigns m ily popularand,ultimately, spent successful. Restaurateurs “home cooking”campaignof the 1920sprovedextraordinar- training andhadlittlepracticepreparingmealsathome, Green cafeterias. quicker thanotherplacesgenerallycan,” boastedtheMyron of itallisthatinourquick servicecafeteriasweserveyou on thebasisoftheir prompt,efficient service.“Thebeauty cro rooms advertisedas“homelike”infactbustledwithnoisy to beneither rushednorloud,manycafeteriasand lunch- equipment.restaurant Though“homeservice”wassupposed entirely bym prepared atleastpartiallybyhumanhands,ratherthan ized recipes; the“personaltouch”meantthatdishes were - home cookingpromised wereachievedthrough standard seasonings, andcereals.The“distinctive flavors”thatmuch Kellogg’s shamelesslypromotedthemanufacturers’ flours, featured “homestyle”recipes fromFleischmann’s Yeast and industryjournals,while O filledthepagesofrestaurant for Campbell’s soup,Borden’s cheese,Wesson oil, andJell- not entirely, onmass-manufactured products.Advertisements dependedheavily,“home cooking”ofmostrestaurants if Hardly anantidotetocannedandprocessedgoods,the The ironies implicit inthiscommercial utopiaweremany. illions on“homestyle”menus, cuisine, anddecor;those wds. Far fromleisurely orrelaxed,they attractedpatrons When pressed, restaurateurs triedtofinessethecontraWhen pressed,restaurateurs In spiteofitsevidentironies andcontradictions, the ing to her taste or mood. But restaurants depended ormood.Butrestaurants ing tohertaste ixers, ovens,steamers,andotherlarge-scale 45 aurant consultant LindaBrown, mothers aurant consultant Perhaps mostironically, “home cooking” - 46 The P cooking,” and“foodspreparedinagenuine homeway.” place “WhereHomeCookingisKing.” Like PlacetoEat”;andY Jealous”; theMarylandLunchinBaltimore,“TheHome moted itselfasthe“HomeofCookingthatMakesMothers Americans from“realhomes, larity of restaurants. Many of the customers were middle-class and reapedtremendousfinancial rewards. the cafeteria,owner overcamea“slumpinpatronage” paid off:“byputtingsomevisualevidenceofthehome”in Though costlyandtime-consuming, thesecreative efforts illum ing.” To createtheeffectofaroaringfire,redtissuepaper, dressed inanold-timewhiteapron,andtwochildrenplay- Restaurant News, One elaborate cafeteria window display, described in invested innewfurniture, lighting,andwindow displays. 1920s. whoprofitedduringthe was hardlytheonlyrestaurateur achieved amuch-deserved measure of dignity. News, tion, socially,” claimedNationalRestaurant restaurants, Once considered“beneathconsidera- flocked torestaurants. men andwomenforgotthe“greasyspoon”image improvements infoodquality “respectable” andsanitation, its associations withtraditional domesticity, aswell asby of“homecooking”and Impressed bythecreativenostalgia cooking” campaignalsocontributedvastlytothenew women workingoutsidethehome.Nevertheless,“home popularization oftheautomobile,andgreaternumbers of complex developments,including continued urbanization, rants intheworld.” Times more than120,000 patrons” spending millions ofdollarsadayatthenation’s fledged “nationalhabit.” Withan“army ofdailyrestaurant or occasionalnecessity rooms, coffeeshops,andcafés.Nolongerararediversion appearedonplatesandtraysincafeterias,lunch- States in cess. Between1915 suc- enjoyedfantastic throughout thenation,restaurateurs percent ofallmeals. servedtwenty-fivetothirty-five in somecities, restaurants consumed inrestaurants 1929 The cafeteriaowner withhisinventivewindow display Perhaps evenmorethanthemiddle-class husbandsand diningThe increaseinrestaurant sprangfromseveral inated byelectriclights,shonebrilliantlyinthestove. ark Lunch Restaurant inPlainfield,NewJersey,ark LunchRestaurant pro- National RestaurantNews - claimed, hadbecome“thegreatestpatronsofrestau in largepartbecauseof“home cooking, nearly one-sixthofallfoodeatenintheUnited featured “asmallcookstove,Mother eating establishments, Americans,the eating establishments, and 50 49 According totheNewYork Times, , dining outhadbecomeafull- 1930 increased from increased e Yum Yum ShopinPasadena, the , the percentage ofdailymeals percentage , the ” notedtheNewYork Telegram. reported proudlythat 47 three tofifteen; Other restaurants Other restaurants 48 51 ” hadatlast National popu - businessmen toward whom the “home cooking” campaign is, it’s always fair weather when you take the family out to had been primarily directed, women were attracted to this dinner,” promised a 1931 advertisement. “Hot weather, family new type of eating establishment. Though fewer than twenty squalls, and gloomy days all disappear before the anticipated percent of restaurant customers in 1910 were female, by 1926 pleasure of eating dinner at a restaurant.”55 women constituted more than sixty percent of the clientele.52 Portrayed by the restaurant industry as the solution to Drawn by healthy, traditional foods, neatly attired female “troublesome kiddies,” family fights, and even troubled mar- workers, and clean, “home like” furnishings, women, at riages, restaurant dining held the key to domestic harmony. least initially, felt safe in the “home atmosphere” restaurants. To weary wives, the new campaign promised relief from nightly “kitchen slavery” and, in some cases, nothing less than complete “emancipation.” “It is our thought,” wrote noted The Decline of “Home Cooking” newspaper columnist Damon Runyon, who was paid to Despite its initial popularity, the vogue for “home cooking” endorse the campaign, “that every new restaurant…is eventually declined. By the early 1930s, patrons were grow- another step towards the final emancipation of the American ing tired, if not downright skeptical, of the “old fashioned” woman from that bondage known as cooking for the family.”56 slogans and motifs. Customers who had once been lured by For husbands fearful of such revolutionary possibilities, pro- the promise of home-cooked foods discovered that “the food moters ran advertisements assuring men that restaurant they are eating at these restaurants is not, after all, home dining led not to liberation, but to greater female docility. cooked. Then they are angry at the restaurants and return to “The reason most marriages fail,” announced National their old resolution not to eat in a public place unless they Restaurant Association leader Ray Fling, “is because the absolutely must.” 53 Even female interest in “home cooking” time the wife formerly spent in making herself look pretty is soon began to decline. Weary housewives and mothers sought taken up in backbreaking work which has the effect of mak- an escape from home; they didn’t want to be reminded of ing her homely. Romance fades in proportion as the wife’s it. Bored with grey-haired Mothers, overstuffed couches, hands roughen from hot, soapy water, as her complexion and home-baked pies, the new female restaurant patrons coarsens from standing over a stove, and as her temper gets yearned for more effective and inventive solutions to their out of control.” Wives remained happy, pretty, and compli- domestic woes. ant, he assured, if taken out to restaurants on a regular basis.57 As for the “home cooking” slogan, “[i]t is seen on the “The wise husband of today gives his wife frequent outings windows of Chinese, Greek, Russian, Italian, French, so as to avert the danger of her going on strike. TAKE HER Hungarian restaurants—it means nothing!” complained OUT TO DINNER AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK.”58 proprietor Helen Ewing in 1931. “Its virtue has been com- The campaign succeeded: “Hundreds of families…are pletely destroyed. It is like over-emphasis which announces now dining out regularly as a result of the campaign,” a lie.”54 Many restaurants gradually abandoned the “home reported The American Restaurant in 1932.59 This lucrative cooking” theme, replacing the antique tables and lace cur- approach to restaurant advertising continued throughout tains with more modern décor. However, restaurants did the century, with the restaurant industry claiming that the not give up on their efforts to capitalize on middle-class simple act of dining out facilitated domestic cohesion, domestic anxieties. For years, the restaurant industry would rather than impeded it. As historian Andrew Hurley has

continue to lure patrons with promises of family harmony, written, working-class proprietors of 1950s diners skillfully 2002 FALL female subservience, and the feasibility of domestic bliss. used this approach to lure a “respectable” family clientele. 51 Sensing the change in clientele and climate, in the early “Wives who cook and do dishes should be granted these 1930s industry leaders announced the start of a new public- three wishes: a graceful mate, a well-kissed cheek, and a ity drive, a “large-scale cooperative advertising movement” restaurant dinner every week,” read the place mats at one to be carried out in newspapers, movie theaters, shop win- East Coast diner. Eating out promised “evenings free and dows, and even over the airwaves. Like “home cooking,” the uncluttered with cooking chores and dirty dishes,” enabling GASTRONOMICA GASTRONOMICA “Take Her Out to Dinner at Least Once a Week” campaign families to spend more satisfying time together. A popular promised middle-class patrons domestic utopia. Unlike “home advertising campaign in the 1950s, designed and promoted cooking,” however, which had sought to revive domesticity by the National Restaurant Association, urged families to through a retreat to the past, the new campaign attempted “Enjoy Life—Eat Out More Often.” Ads juxtaposed the to revitalize middle-class homes by actively restructuring slogan against images of happy families seated together in family relationships. “No matter what the weather actually diner booths. Following in the footsteps of the “home 13. “Summer Meals in Electric Ranges,” Good Housekeeping, July 1925: 72. cooking” restaurateurs of the 1920s, the owners of diners, 14. Sinclair Lewis, Babbitt (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1922), 146, 75. lunchrooms, roadside restaurants, and other inexpensive eating establishments found that the most effective means 15. Sylvia Lovegren, Fashionable Food (New York: Macmillan, 1995), ch.1. to profit lay in appeals to family and home.60 16. “Come Out of the Kitchen,” Collier’s, 20 November 1926: 18. “Home cooking” has persisted to this day as a popular 17. u.s. Bureau of Home Economics statistics cited in Joann Vanek, “Time Spent in Housework,” Scientific American, November 1974: 118–19. theme for restaurant cuisine and decor, although perhaps 18. Caroline B. King, “Quick-Cooked Meats for Hurry-Up Dinners,” The Ladies’ with less fervor than in its 1920s heyday. In one of the great Home Journal, May 1926: 45.

ironies of the modern social experience, restaurants have 19. Scanlon, Inarticulate Longings, 80, 107.

lured middle-class Americans by promising to restore the 20. “‘Breaking Up Homes,’” Restaurant Management, October 1926: 47. very traditions they helped to destroy. Beginning in the 1930s, 21. “‘Home-Cooking’ Made This Man Famous.” famed restaurateur Howard Johnson built a roadside empire 22. Mary A. Wilson, “Dishes That Bring Visions of Mother,” National Restaurant of orange-roofed, Colonial-style “home cooking” restaurants News, November 1924: 7.

that remained popular for over half a century. The Denny’s 23. T.T. Frankenburg, “National Convention Program Memorable One,” coffee-shop franchise currently markets a line of “Mother National Restaurant News, July 1924: 22. Butler” pies, and the Wendy’s fast-food chain features “old 24. H.C. Siekman, “The Parade of Restaurant Progress,” The American Restaurant Magazine, October 1939: 39. fashioned” hamburgers in a kitschy atmosphere with faux 25. “Chicago Restaurant Methods and Development,” National Restaurant News, stained-glass lamps, wooden chairs, and tables imprinted with August 1923: 26. images from Victorian-era newspapers. Other well-known 26. Lillian Cassels, “Efficient Lighting,” National Restaurant News, May 1923: 18. chains, such as Marie Callender’s and Friendly’s Ice Cream, 27. J.W. Wiley, “Combining Art and Sanitation,” National Restaurant News, invoke similar motifs. Despite the recent passion for ethnic July 1923: 32.

foods, nouvelle cuisine, and ever more fanciful theme restau- 28. Clifford E. Clinton, “‘I’ll Say’,” Cafeteria Management, October 1926.

rants, there persists within the middle-class American psyche 29.“The New Mecca Lunchroom,” National Restaurant News, January 1923: 16. g a longing for an idealized home. 30. “‘Home-Cooking’ Made This Man Famous.”

31. Clarence M. Lindsay, “Doing It Better Than Mother Did—at Boos’,” notes National Restaurant Magazine, March 1925: 13.

1. Frederick goes on to say: “The bride has lost her grip on the egg-beater and 32. Wilson, “Dishes That Bring Visions of Mother.” biscuit cutter. We can not deny that old-fashioned ‘home cooking’ is passing, and that woman has to a great degree already yielded the palm as a cook to the restau- 33. L.D. Roueche, “Singling Out the Class Best to Cater To,” Restaurant News rant and hotel chef.” Christine Frederick, “‘Vamping’ Hubby from His Home,” and Management, December 1925: 7. Cafeteria Management, December 1927: 11. 34. Frederick, “‘Vamping’ Hubby from His Home.” 2. “‘Home-Cooking’ Made This Man Famous,” The American Restaurant 35. Ewing, “What About this ‘Home Cooking.’” Magazine, December 1926: 80. 36. Robert S. Merrell, “How they Are Urged to Dine Out,” National Restaurant 3. Robert and Helen Lynd, Middletown (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1926), 154–6. News, November 1923: 38. 4. Mary Wilson, “Public Food Service Demands Application of Science,” 37. Warren P. Staniford, “How Merchandising American Cookery Increased Our Cafeteria Management, November 1926: 18. Volume Despite the Depression,” Restaurant Management, June 1931: 364. 5. William Johnson, “What Has Happened to Home?” Collier’s, 16 August 1924: 8. 38. “News of the Cafeteria Field,” Cafeteria Management, December 1926: 22. 6. Helen Ewing, “What About this ‘Home Cooking,’” The American Restaurant 39. Mary C. Budroe, “How We Secure True Home Atmosphere in Our Magazine, March 1931: 45. Restaurant,” Restaurant News and Management, March 1926: 27. FALL 2002 FALL 7. Susan Strasser, Never Done: A History of American Housework (New York: 40. Florence Marquis Hunt, “They Do Not Pass Our Door,” Cafeteria Pantheon, 1982), 23. 52 Management, June 1928: 15. During the 1920s, “tea rooms”—small roadside cafés, 8. “Your Obedient Servant,” Sunset, January 1926: 76. In the 1890s, newspapers often run by women, serving light lunches, snacks, and desserts—became nation- and magazines reported a “servant crisis” among the middle class, as domestic ally popular for their nostalgic Colonial and Victorian decor. See Jan Whitaker, servants left their employers to pursue the growing number of factory, clerical, “Catering to Romantic Hunger: Roadside Tea Rooms, 1909–1930,” Journal of and retail jobs available in major cities. See Harvey Levenstein, Revolution at the American Culture 15 (Winter 1992): 17–24. Table: The Transformation of the American Diet (New York: Oxford University 41. “The Woman Behind the Counter,” Cafeteria Management, Press, 1988), ch.5. November 1928: 13. GASTRONOMICA GASTRONOMICA 9. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, The Home: Its Work and Influence (1903, reprint 42. “‘Mother’ Was There in Person to Greet Patrons,” National Restaurant News, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1972), 136. January 1925: 18. 10. Laura Shapiro, Perfection Salad (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 43. Mabel Anderson, “The Three R’s of Food Preparation,” National Restaurant 1986), 190. News, April 1927: 123. 11. Lynd, Middletown, 154. 44. Advertisement for Myron Green Cafeterias, National Restaurant News, 12. Jennifer Scanlon, Inarticulate Longings (New York: Routledge, 1998), 73. May 1925: 9. 45. Ibid.