Keywords: home economics, consumer rationality, business manipulation, consumer education

JEL codes:B29, D10

In 1933, Elizabeth Hoyt, a professor of economics and of home economics at Iowa State College, explained that the agenda of home economics was “to raise the consumption of economic goods. . . to the dignity of an art,” which she called the “high art of living.” That suggestion was in line with advice given to housewives in nineteenth century books. But in a context of growing concern with the alleged irrationality of consumers, the responsibility of business in manipulating consumer choices, and the rise of technocratic management, the art of consumption took a new meaning for home economists. It was conceived as an effort to raise family welfare which was endangered by business.

American families experienced unprecedented affluence during the Roaring Twenties.  The development of mass consumption permitted to absorb the massive amount of goods and services produced. In particular, the “phenomenal growth of advertising,” of marketing and salesmanship –  which all greatly benefitted from the development of new radio programs and women’s magazines – were used to increase and direct consumer demand (Donohue, 2003). The development of the market certainly brought new comforts for families but many also worried about the increasing influence of business. Social critics like Frederick J. Schlink, Stuart Chase, Paul Douglas, Rexford Tugwell and Robert Lynd denounced the manipulation of consumers during the 1920s and 1930s. For Thorstein Veblen (1904), who was increasingly popular in the 1920s, consumers were the primary victims of an industrial system ruled by businessmen. Similarly, home economists criticized the “exploitation” of the American public which was considered as “a great pool of suckers” by advertising and, more generally, by business (Busch, 1939, 438). A growing social movement of consumers, in which home economists were important actors, voiced these concerns during the 1930s (see Cohen, 2003; Glickman, 2009).

A group of home economists with an educational background in economics, started to investigate this problematic consumer behavior during the 1920s. In particular, Hazel Kyrk, worked on a Ph. D. dissertation on “The Consumer’s Guidance of Economic Activity” at the University of Chicago which was published as A Theory of Consumptionin 1923. Besides, Hoyt became interested in consumer choice as she wrote her dissertation on “Foundations of Economic Value” (PhD 1925, Radcliffe College). Both Kyrk and Hoyt questioned neoclassical demand theory (Kyrk, 1923; Hoyt, 1928).[1]Influenced by institutionalists Veblen (1909) and Wesley C. Mitchell (1912), they doubted the rationality assumption could be applied to firms and consumers alike. In fact, the assumption that consumers were maximizing their utility hindered the fact that most of the motives behind consumption choice were unclear even to consumers themselves. Consequently, it was necessary to consider the behavior of the individual with no a prioriassumption. Participating in the new behavioral research of the interwar period, home economists claimed that measures of levels of living through empirical observation and collection of data would shed light on the motivations of consumer choice. They forged the term “standards of living” to account for the motivations behind consumer choices. Standards of living encompassed all that was considered necessities by families and evolved according to psychological and social factors.

According to home economists, major changes in standards of living of American families of the period were due to the increasing influence of business.  Through advertising, salesmanship and fashion, business constantly created new necessities which entered people’s standard of living. But since families failed to satisfy them, they were frustrated and dissatisfied. Consequently, a large part of the new abundance of commodities was wasteful. Besides “wasteful” or “futile” wants encouraged by business, another source of consumer “waste” resulted from the multiplication of consumer goods and the lack of accurate information on these commodities. It was more and more difficult for consumers to know which product to purchase, especially since sellers spread misleading information on commodities.

In order to avoid consumers’ manipulation, various alternatives were envisioned.  Veblen (1921) pleaded for a technocratic management of firms by engineers who will be concerned with the efficiency of production rather than with profits. He had no faith in the possibility of transforming consumers into rational individuals while some consumer activists like Schlink wanted to produce a technical product-centered expertise in order to transform consumer spending into “scientific buying.” Home economists supported a mix of technocratic management and “empowerment” of consumers. They considered that consumers could be made more rational thanks to expert advice and education. Home economists’ studies on consumption were thus focused on a practical aim: to educate women – who were the main consumers – for their role (Miller, 1922).[2]

Home economists proposed to direct consumer’s spending – like advertisers did – but from a welfare standpoint. First, they argued that consumers needed an objective, disinterested guidance to remake their own valuations and to establish more beneficial wants (at the expense of “superficial wants”). The question of how making a “best” budget could be grounded into scientific and objective analysis was central.Second, home economists also produced and disseminated technical information on consumer goods to help buying decisions along. In fact, home economists envisioned a scientific approach to consumption: by exploring the links between consumption and welfare, science could reveal what the consumer should look for. As such, they were close to many contemporary social scientists who had faith in the ability of science to further social progress. The influence of pragmatist philosopher and educator John Dewey – who advocated a scientific spirit applied to life and emphasized the importance of education for that purpose – is significant.[3]

The “art of rational consumption” disseminated through American federal government (in particular, through the Bureau of Home Economics of the U.S. Department of Agriculture created in 1923), consumer organizations (Consumers Research, Consumer Union, Good Housekeeping Institute) and education system during the Great Depression and World War II. It represented a practical help for many families who had to take another look at their levels of living due to shrinking income. In schools, colleges and universities, there was an explosion of consumer courses during the 1930s, in which home economists were dominant actors (Marshall, 1940). It was a response to growing concerns about consumer problems but also a new way of teaching economics deemed more close to market realities and students’ interest. The success of the “art of consumption” contributed to popularizing a different vision of the (woman) consumer than that of the neoclassical demand theory: thanks to scientific and technical advice, consumers were capable of “rational” behavior (i.e. deliberate and satisfying choices) and could overstep the influence of customs, social interactions and advertising.

The new success of consumer education led to a renewed interest for consumption among social scientists in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Sociologists like Carl C. Zimmerman and Robert Lynd but also economists like Warren C. Waite, Paul H. Douglas, Charles S. Wyand, as well as economists joining the new field of marketing (Paul H. Nystrom, Harry R. Tosdal, Theodore N. Beckman) became interested in consumption and consumer education in the 1930s. As shown by a number of publications in the Journal of Marketingand, to a lesser extent, in the American Economic Review, these scholars discussed home economists’ view of consumption in some detail (Kyrk, 1940; Hoyt, 1940; Cassady, 1940; Widener, 1940; Reid, 1940; Coles, 1940; Atkins, 1940; Vaile, 1940; Gordon, 1940). Some of them (especially entering the new marketing field) initially welcomed home economists’ vision of the consumer which appeared closer to market realities than the neoclassical theory of demand. Besides, the “art of rational consumption” appeared to fall within the scope of Lionel Robbins’ 1932 definition of economics as the study of the allocation of economic resources (Hoyt (1940) explicitly referred to Robbins’ definition). But some economists (like Waite, 1933; Ward, 1940) claimed that the allocation of family resources was too remote from economics’ main focus, namely, the market. Besides, most economists (like Cassady, 1940) rejected home economists’ normative efforts to improve consumption choices. Consequently, economists distanced themselves from home economics.

Using the archives of the Journal of Home Economics, as well as publications and archives of key home economists who were active in the field of consumer and family economics - namely Hoyt and Margaret Reid at Iowa State College, and Kyrk at the University of Chicago – this paper documents how context shaped home economists’ view of their intellectual and social role. It also analyzes home economists’ institutional and intellectual influence.

In section 1, I trace the emergence of home economists’ interest in rationalizing consumption during the affluent 1920s in an effort to counterbalance the negative influence of business on consumption. In section 2, I claim that home economists proposed to direct consumer’s spending – like advertisers did – but  from a welfare standpoint. In section 3, I trace the institutional success of home economists’ education to rational consumption in American high schools, colleges and universities as well as in federal government and consumer organizations. Yet, I explain in section 4 that the “art of rational consumption” was not well received by economists: whereas some economists initially welcomed home economists’ realistic vision of the consumer, most economists rejected their concern for non-market resources (time and effort) as well as their normative efforts to improve consumption choices.

Overall,the “art of rational consumption” is exemplary of the faith in science and expertise as vehicles for social progress which was widely shared at that period. But it is also evidence of the active role consumers took in the development of the consumer society. Home economists both aroused and benefited from consumers’ requests for information and expertise on consumption.

Besides, while science is often said to influence education, the “art of rational consumption” is an example of the opposite. The great success of consumer education led to a renewed interest for consumption among social scientists. In particular, it questioned the neoclassical explanations of consumer behavior in economics. It also led to the clarification of the frontier of the economic discipline. According to contemporary economists, the question of the allocation of family resources as well as normative endeavors to better consumption choices were not part of economics.

Atkins, W. E. (1940). "Economics for Consumers" by Gordon and" Income and Consumption" by Vaile and Canoyer. Journal of Marketing, 4(4), 138-146.

Busch, H. M. (1939).A Sociologist Looks at Home Economics as a Foundation for the Home.Journal of Home Economics, 31(7), 433-438.

Cassady R. (1940). “The Consumer and the Economic Order" by Waite and Cassady," Consumption in Our Society" by Hoyt: Discussion. Journal of Marketing, 4(4), 119-123.

Cohen, L. (2003). A consumers’ republic: The politics of mass consumption in postwar America.

Glickman, L. B. (2009). Buying power: A history of consumer activism inAmerica. University of Chicago Press.

Gordon, J. L. (1940). "Economics for Consumers" by Gordon and" Income and Consumption" by Vaile and Canoyer: Discussion. Journal of Marketing, 4(4), 146-148.

Hoyt, E. E. (1928). Consumption of wealth. NY: Macmillan.

Hoyt, E. E. (1933). What is a balanced standard of living?. Journal of Home Economics, 25(4), 303-305.

Hoyt, E. E. (1940) "The Consumer and the Economic Order" by Waite and Cassady," Consumption in Our Society" by Hoyt: Discussion, Journal of Marketing, 4(4), 117-119

Kyrk, H. (1924). A Theory of Consumption. London: Pitman.

Kyrk, H. (1940). "The Consumer and the Economic Order" by Waite and Cassady," Consumption in Our Society" by Hoyt. Journal of Marketing. 4(4), 111-117.

Marshall, A. R. (1940). College courses in consumption economics. The Journal of Marketing 5(1), 26-34.

Miller, E. (1922). Lines of Research in Home Economics. Journal of Home Economics, 14(11), 572-573.

Mitchell, W. C. (1912). The backward art of spending money. The American Economic Review, 2(2), 269-281.

Reid, M. G. (1940). [Marketing Rewritten from the Consumer's Point of View]: Discussion. The Journal of Marketing, 4(4), 134-137.

Vaile R. S. (1940). " Economics for Consumers" by Gordon and" Income and Consumption" by Vaile and Canoyer: Discussion. Journal of Marketing, 4(4), 149-150.

Veblen, T. (1909). The limitations of marginal utility. Journal of political Economy, 17(9), 620-636.

Veblen, T. (1921). The Engineers and the Price System. New York: BW Huebsch.

Waite, W. C. (1933). Some contributions of economics to the problem of home economics. Journal of Home Economics, 25(7), 567-572.

Ward, F. B. (1940). An Economist Looks at Home Economics. Journal of Home Economics, 32(6), 366-370.

Widener H. W. (1940). Marketing rewritten from Consumer Point of View. Journal of Marketing, 4(4), 124-134.

[1]Kyrk  had a joint appointment in the Department of Economics and the Department of Home Economicsat the University of Chicago since 1925. Hoyt had the same joint appointment at the Iowa State College. Both taught consumption and household economics.

[2]Many home economists claimed that women were responsible for 90% of family purchases (like Miller, 1922). We do not know where does this number come from.

[3]Dewey had been chairman of the Chicago department Philosophy, Psychology and Pedagogy from 1859 to 1904. This department had housed the newly created department of Household Arts in 1901, later transformed into a Department of Home Economics and Household Administration. Dewey’s influence may still have been significant  while Kyrk was a graduate student in economics at the University of Chicago in the late 1900s (she completed her Ph. B. degree in 1910)