Stir It Up: Home Economics in American Culture

by Megan J. Elias

For Americans who came of age in the mid-twentieth century, home economics conjures memories of burnt toast and sewing disasters. But as historian Megan Elias shows in Stir It Up, home economics began as an idealistic reform movement in higher education in the early 1900s. Leaders of this movement sought to discover and disseminate the best methods for performing domestic work while creating new professional options for women that were based on elements of home life. Home and family were treated as subjects for scientific analysis; students wore lab coats while baking bread and performed rigorous tests on the palatability of their work. The Federal Bureau of Home Economics supplied a grateful audience with informational bulletins as Americans seemed to accept the idea that home could be a site for social change.

A major shift occurred in the 1950s, when new ideas about women's roles seemed to divert home economics into more traditional channels, and "home ec" became identified with the era's conformist culture. Even as home economists were redefining family dynamics and influencing government policies, such as school lunch programs, their field was becoming an object of scorn, especially to the feminists of the 1960s. Stir It Up explains what the successes and failures of home economists can tell us about American culture. The book concludes with an examination of contemporary attitudes toward domesticity, putting the phenomena of Martha Stewart, Rachael Ray, Ty Pennington, and the "Mommy Wars" into historical context.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Food, Pop Culture

240 pages, Paperback

First published May 18, 2008

Reviews

[Amy Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

~2.5/5
I read this for class and it definitely felt like homework. There were sections of each chapter that were fascinating, but I often found myself feeling bored. The chapters were long and felt disorganized, moving sporadically from topic to topic. The writing was overly academic and did not flow well. I would have to read the same paragraph several times just to figure out what the author was getting at. The overall point of the book was to teach about the history of home economics. However, I didn’t close the book feeling like I had a clear historical timeline of home economics from past to present. I only gained a mild amount of historical knowledge from this book. There was only so much I could learn in between my bouts of confusion and aggravation with the author and the writing.

Speaking of aggravation with the author, they largely focused on the struggles of straight white home economists throughout history. This was disheartening, as I’m sure POC and LGBTQ+ home economists experienced plenty of discrimination and were excluded from the HE movement. I would have loved more information about this. I feel that discussing this further would have challenged me to acknowledge my own privileges in my field of study.

[Heather · Rating 4 out of 5]

This history definitely challenged my assumptions about home economics and its relationship to women's gender roles in America. It was interesting to see how some progressive aspects of home economics were effaced in the 60s feminist movement, covered in the "Burn your Brasiers" chapter. Elias' discussion of how Americans linked women purchasing things for the home to nationalism was also compelling as it parallels some current discussions on what and what not to buy.

[Barbara Phillips-Farley · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very dry reading for the first half of the book -- this surprised me, as I had read that Elias's most recent book is a history of lunch. Somehow I expected more entertainment. But her academic approach lends weight to the subject --which is one that has struggled to be taken seriously. She concludes with a 3-page analysis of Martha Stewart, very smart.

[Natalie G · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written with a strong argument but it lost me after about 60 pages in so -1 star