Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:59:10.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feminism and Bureaucracy: The Minimum Wage Experiment in the District of Columbia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Vivien Hart
Vivien Hart
Affiliation:
Vivien Hart is Reader in American Studies at the University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BNI 9QN, England.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Bureaucrats, female or male, have never been popular, a fact which may, in part, explain neglect of their role by the growing band of students of women and politics. Theories of bureaucracy predict that this will be the least promising of settings for the empowerment of women. Max Weber's classic account depicts bureaucratic activity as a routinized and sterile process of technical determinations and rules of procedure. Some feminists argue that such modes of action epitomize the masculine. Each model portrays a rational, depersonalized, technocratic sphere of activity, hierarchical in structure, rule-bound both in what is done and how. In addition, the state itself has sometimes been presented as wholly oppressive to women, adding public power to private power to create a comprehensive system of male domination.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , April 1992 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A remark made to the author, 1984. Beyer, who died at the age of 98 in 1990, inspired this paper and is fondly acknowledged. This is a revision of my paper “Watch What We Do: Women Administrators and the Implementation of Minimum Wage Policy,” presented at the Eighth Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, Douglass College, June 1990. I am particularly grateful to the panel: Eileen Boris, Catherine East, Phyllis Palmer.

2 Weber, Max, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, translated and ed. Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), 196–244.Google Scholar

3 See especially the account discussed below: Ferguson, Kathy E., The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984).Google Scholar

4 See, for example, McIntosh, Mary, “The State and the Oppression of Women,” in Feminism and Materialism: Women and Modes of Production, ed. Kuhn, Annette and Wolpe, AnnMarie (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978), 254–89Google Scholar; Elshtain, Jean B., “Antigone's Daughters: Reflections on Female Identity and the State,” in Families, Politics and Public Policies, ed. Diamond, Irene (New York: Longman, 1983), 300–11Google Scholar; MacKinnon, Catherine A., “Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: An Agenda for Theory,” Signs, 7 (1982), 515–44Google Scholar, and Toward a feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

5 There are a few exceptions. See, for example, Aron, Cindy Sondik, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Civil Service (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Ware, Susan, Beyond Suffrage: Women in the New Deal (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981).Google Scholar

6 For example: Dye, Nancy Schrom, As Equals and As Sisters: Feminism, Unionism, and the Trade Union League of New York (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Goldin, Claudia, “Maximum Hours Legislation and Female Employment: A Reassessment,” Journal of Political Economy, 96 (1988), 189–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kessler-Harris, Alice, “The Debate Over Equality for Women in the Workplace,” in Women and Work: An Annual Review, Volume 1, ed. Larwood, Laurie, Stromberg, Ann H. and Gutek, Barbara A. (Newbury Park: Sage, 1985), 141–61Google Scholar; Landes, Elizabeth M., “The Effect of State Maximum Hours Laws on the Employment of Women in 1920,” journal of Political Economy, 88 (1980), 476–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lehrer, Susan, Origins of Protective Labor Legislation for Women, 1905–1925 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Milkman, Ruth, Women, Work and Protest: A Century of U.S. Women's Labor History (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985)Google Scholar; Steinberg, Ronnie, Wages and Hours: Labor and Reform in Twentieth Century America (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

7 As campaigners, we now know that women have been effective political participants since at least the mid-nineteenth century. For example, Baker, Paula, “The Domestication of Politics: Women and American Political Society, 1780–1920,” American Historical Review, 89 (1984), 620–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ryan, Mary P., Women in Public: Between Banners and Ballots, 1825–1880 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990)Google Scholar. The scholarly tendency to treat women as passive recipients and the victims of policies has been corrected by reports of initiatives which clients in the most disadvantaged situations have taken. For example, Gordon, Linda, Heroes of Their Own Lives: The Politics and History of Family Violence (New York: Viking, 1988)Google Scholar, and the memories of Mamie Garvin Fields, of claiming access to National Youth Administration benefits in the 1930s (“Yes sir, I let her know that I wouldn't stand up in there another minute. And after that, they certainly did fly right …”), Mamie Garvin Fields with Fields, Karen, Lemon Swamp and Other Places: A Carolina Memoir (New York: Free Press, 1983), 239.Google Scholar

8 See Lowi, Theodore, The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy and the Crisis of Public Authority (New York: Norton, 1969)Google Scholar. Lowi criticizes delegation and defines “juridical democracy” in which legislation contains not only a precise and specific statement of purpose but also clear and formal rules for administration. The constitutional doctrine of procedural due process makes similar requirements.

9 For example, the implementation of comparable worth laws, described by Evans, Sara and Nelson, Barbara, raises identical questions of the “simultaneous necessity and difficulty of using technocratic means to achieve a just and democratic social transformation.” Wage justice: Comparable Worth and the Paradox of Technocratic Reform (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), esp. 164.Google Scholar

10 Lewis, Eugene, American Politics in a Bureaucratic Age: Citizens, Constituents, Clients, and Victims (Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1977), 172.Google Scholar See also Heclo, Hugh, A Government of Strangers: Executive Politics in Washington (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1977), ch. 1.Google Scholar

11 Women's interest in bureaucracies seems also to grow with the development of agencies, offices and policies specifically concerned with women's issues. Thus there is little written on the subject in Britain; some in the United States, for example, Martin, Patricia Yancey, “Rethinking Feminist Organizations,” Gender and Society, 4 (1990), 182–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The most substantial literature is Australian: see Watson, Sophie, “The State of Play: An Introduction,” in Playing the State: Australian Feminist Interventions, ed. Watson, Sophie (London: Verso, 1990)Google Scholar; Franzway, Suzanne, Court, Dianne and Connell, R. W., Staking a Claim: Feminism, Bureaucracy and the State (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Eisenstein, Hester, “The Gender of Bureaucracy: Reflections on Feminism and the State,” in Women, Social Science and Public Policy, ed. Goodnow, Jacqueline and Pateman, Carole (Sydney: George Allen and Unwin, 1985), 104–15.Google Scholar

12 Ferguson, , The Feminist Case, 17, 203.Google Scholar

13 Ferguson, , The Feminist Case, 25, 122.Google Scholar

14 See Bringing the State Back In, ed. Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, D. and Skocpol, T. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Orloff, Ann Shola and Skocpol, Theda, “Why Not Equal Protection? Explaining the Politics of Public Social Spending in Britain, 1900–1911, and the United States, 1880s–1920,” American Sociological Review, 49 (1984), 730–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 See, for example, MacKinnon, Catherine A., Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), esp. ch. 2, “Difference and Dominance: On Sex Discrimination.”Google Scholar

17 See Hewitt, Nancy A., “Beyond the Search for Sisterhood: American Women's History in the 1980s,” Social History, 10 (1985), 299–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kerber, Linda K., “Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman's Place: The Rhetoric of Women's History,” Journal of American History, 75 (1988), 9–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and in the study of women's work the destruction of the same dichotomy in the form of distinctions between home and factory, domestic and industrial spheres, for example, in Kessler-Harris, Alice, A Woman's Wage: Historical Meanings and Social Consequences (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1990), esp. ch. 3Google Scholar; Turbin, Carole, “Beyond Dichotomies: Interdependence in Mid-Nineteenth Century Working Class Families in the United States,” Gender and History, I (1989), 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Eisenstein, , “The Gender of Bureaucracy,” 115.Google Scholar

19 See Bartlett, Katherine T., “Feminist Legal Methods,” Harvard Law Review, 103 (1990), 829–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the extensive literature she cites; Olsen, Frances E., “The Family and the Market: A Study of Ideology and Legal Reform,” Harvard Law Review, 96 (1983), 1497–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Bartlett, , “Feminist Legal Methods,” 830–31, 832.Google Scholar

21 Cott, Nancy F., The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987), 4–5.Google Scholar

22 The images of crusaders and servants come from two studies of women in the bureaucracy in Britain, published fifty years apart and almost alone in their field: McFeely, Mary Drake, Lady Inspectors: The Campaign for a Better Workplace 1893–1921 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988)Google Scholar; Martindale, Hilda, Women Servants of the State, 1870–1938 (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1938).Google Scholar

23 See Brandeis, Elizabeth, “Labor Legislation,” in History of Labor in the United States, 1896–1932, ed. Commons, John R. (New York: Macmillan, 1935), vol. 3.Google Scholar

24 Statutes at Large, 40, pt. 1, ch. 174, 960–64 (1918).Google Scholar

25 Graebner, William, “Federalism in the Progressive Era: A Structural Interpretation of Reform,” Journal of American History, 64 (1977), 331–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harrison, Robert, “The Ideal of a ‘Model City:’ Federal Social Policy for the District of Columbia, 1905–1909,” journal of Urban History, 15 (1989), 435–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Adkins v. Children's Hospital of Washington, D.C., 261 U.S. 525 (1923).

27 Gordon, Mildred, The Development of Minimum-Wage Lams in the United States, 1012 to 1927, Bulletin of the Women's Bureau no. 61 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1928), 326.Google Scholar

28 U.S. Congress. House of Representatives, 65th Cong., 2nd sess. Congressional Record (8 07 1918), 56, pt. 9, 8872.Google Scholar

29 The Annual Reports are cited below; Clara Mortenson Beyer Papers and Elizabeth Brandeis Raushenbush Papers, both in Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe College; “Conversation Between Clara Mortenson Beyer and Vivien Hart, Washington, D.C., November 14, 1983,” (mimeo, Beyer Papers, Schlesinger Library); Murray, Meg McGavran, “The Work Got Done: An Interview with Clara Mortenson Beyer,” in Face to Face: Father, Mothers, Masters, Monsters, ed. Murray, Meg McGavran (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1983), 203–32Google Scholar; Mortenson, Clara E., “The Minimum Wage at Work in the District of Columbia,” Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, New Orleans, Louisiana, April 14–21, 1920 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press [1920]), 298–304Google Scholar; “Facts So Far Obtained on Workings of Eight Hour and Minimum Wage Laws in the District of Columbia (; Aug. 1922),” National Woman's Party Papers, 1913–1974 (Sanford, N.C.: Microfilming Corporation of America, 1979), reel 16.Google Scholar

30 Beyer's, memories confirm this, “Conversation Between Beyer and Hart,” 10–11Google Scholar. The D.C. budget was held at $5,000 annually, regardless of rising costs from inflation and of widening coverage. In states where some serious attempt at implementation was made, only California and Massachusetts received regular increases. See Gordon, , The Development, 327.Google Scholar

31 Beyer became a key figure in the Labor Department during the formative years of the federal minimum wage and was still advocating and defending minimum wage policy in her nineties. She also served in the Children's Bureau, 1928–34, as Associate Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards, Department of Labor, 1934–1958, and in the International Cooperation Administration until her retirement in 1972.

32 “Conversation Between Beyer and Hart,” 6.Google Scholar Clara Mortenson married Otto Beyer in 1920, remaining at the Minimum Wage Board until 21 September 1921 when she moved to New York. I refer to her as Beyer throughout.

33 “Conversation Between Beyer and Hart,” 7.Google Scholar Brandeis went to Europe for the summer of 1920, with her father, Justice Brandeis, and the Frankfurters. She wrote regularly to Beyer, forgoing her salary, querying developments, reporting on thes British minimum wage, gossiping about shipboard life and being stunned by Beyer's marriage. Her letters give detail and atmosphere of their collaboration. Brandeis, Elizabeth to Beyer, Clara Mortenson, 16 06–22 07 1920, Raushenbush Collection.Google Scholar

34 McFeely, , Lady Inspectors, 42.Google Scholar

35 Minimum Wage Board, Washington, D.C., First Annual Report, 1918 (Washington, D.C.: mimeo, 31 12 1918), 3.Google Scholar

36 Second Annual Report of the Minimum Wage Board of the District of Columbia, for the Year Ending December 31, 1919 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1920), 6.Google Scholar See also Kessler-Harris, , A Woman's Wage, ch. 1.Google Scholar

37 Second Annual Report, 6.Google Scholar

38 Second Annual Report, 6.Google Scholar Only Oregon was faster in implementing an industry rate, with nine months from law to order. Action took between two and three years in California and Massachusetts and a record five years and five months in Arkansas.

39 Second Annual Report, 6.Google Scholar Theoretically, the female workforce included a further 40,000 clerical workers, but most were employees of the federal government and outside this law.

40 Mortenson, , “The Minimum Wage at Work,” 299.Google Scholar

41 “Conversation Between Beyer and Hart,” 31.Google Scholar

42 Mortenson, , “The Minimum Wage at Work,” 298.Google Scholar

43 Second Annual Report, 33–51, esp. 44.Google Scholar

44 See Harley, Sharon, “For the Good of Family and Race: Gender, Work, and Domestic Roles in the Black Community, 1880–1930,” Signs, 15 (1990), 336–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Third Annual Report of the Minimum Wage Board of the District of Columbia for the Year Ending December 31, 1920 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1921), 16, 17.Google Scholar

46 See Beyer, , “Reflections on My Personal Life,”Google Scholar typescript notes excerpted from reports submitted to the Schlesinger Library, for her involvement in racial politics in northern Virginia; Beyer could also have called on Commissioner Brownlow, who supported the black community, for example establishing a black platoon in the Fire Department and condemning the instigation of racial violence in 1919 by white agents provocateurs; see Green, Constance M., The Secret City: A History of Race Relations in the Nation's Capital (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), 187, 192.Google Scholar

47 Harley, , “For the Good of Family and Race,” 547.Google Scholar

48 Green, , Secret City, chs. 8 and 9, charts major changes for the worse in race relations in the District in the early twentieth century.Google Scholar

49 Fourth Annual Report of the Minimum Wage Board of the District of Columbia for the Year Ending December 31, 1921 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1922), 12.Google Scholar

50 Fifth Annual Report of the Minimum Wage Board of the District of Columbia for the Year Ending December 31, 1922 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1923), 12.Google Scholar

51 Fourth Annual Report, 21.Google Scholar

52 Gordon, , The Development, 233, 243, 246.Google Scholar

53 Third Annual Report, 29.Google Scholar

54 Fourth Annual Report, 2.Google Scholar

55 Quoted in McFeely, , Lady Inspectors, 8.Google Scholar

56 Murray, , “The Work Got Done,” 215–16.Google Scholar Beyer describes the regular sexual harassment in “Conversation Between Beyer and Hart,” 11.Google Scholar

57 Fourth Annual Report, 2.Google ScholarFifth Annual Report, 12.Google Scholar There is evidence from other states of employers using legal challenges to distract and delay enforcement rather than, as Mildred Gordon disapprovingly noted, making proper “efforts to aid in making the law work effectively by using the means provided in itself for securing redress of grievances.” Gordon, , The Development, 81, 84.Google Scholar

58 West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937); Annual Report of the Minimum Wage Board of the District of Columbia for the Period June 10, 1937 to December 31, 1937 [no imprint].

59 A much fuller discussion of this measure of the Board's success is contained in my book ms. in preparation, Bound By Our Constitution: Women, Workers and Minimum Wage Lays, ch. 6.

60 Perry, Elisabeth I., Belle Moskowitz: Feminine Politics and the Exercise of Power in the Age of Alfred E. Smith (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), esp. xii and 150–60Google Scholar; Cott, , Grounding of Modern Feminism, ch. 7, esp. 231Google Scholar. See also Hart, Vivien, “Behind Every Successful Man?” journal of American Studies, 23 (1989), 91–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McGerr, Michael, “Political Style and Women's Power, 1830–1930,” journal of American History, 77 (1990), 864–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Ross, John Gordon, “Ladies in Politics: The Gentle Experiment,” Forum, 95 (1936), 211.Google Scholar

62 On Beyer's reputation, see, for example, Frankfurter, Felix to Cohen, Ben, 5 06 1923Google Scholar: “I suggest also that you get hold of Clara Mortenson Beyer … Get her practical experience in the actual ascertainment of the awards … we will have a powerful recruit for our point of view.” Frankfurter Papers, Library of Congress.

63 Murray, , “The Work Got Done,” 215.Google Scholar

64 “Conversation Between Beyer and Hart,” 41, 44Google Scholar; Perry, , Moskovitz, 158.Google Scholar

65 On this transitional period, see Smith-Rosenberg, Carroll, Disorderly Conduct: Visions of Gender in Victorian America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 245–96.Google Scholar My “conviction bureaucrats” may be contrasted with the individualistic male “heroic bureaucrats” studied in Lewis, Eugene, Public Entrepreneurship: Toward a Theory of Bureaucratic Political Power (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980).Google Scholar See esp. 228–29: “What is it about these men and these organizations which makes it possible for them to twist and turn the confines of the law, custom, role, and received value in order that their will be done?”

66 See Cook, Blanche Wiesen, “Female Support Networks and Political Activism: Lillian Wald, Crystal Eastman, Emma Goldman,” Chrysalis (1977), 43–61Google Scholar; Freedman, Estelle, “Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and American Feminism, 1870–1930,” Feminist Studies, 5 (1979), 512–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sklar, Kathryn Kish, “Hull House in the 1890s: A Community of Women Reformers,” Signs, 10 (1985), 658–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67 See Gelb, Joyce and Palley, Marian Lief, Women and Public Policies (rev. edn. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 78–79Google Scholar, on the implementation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 by the Federal Reserve Board; Gelb, Joyce, Feminism and Politics: A Comparative Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 220–21Google Scholar and passim, on equal rights legislation in the USA compared with Britain; Jo Freeman on agencies with and without the support of networks, The Politics of Women's Liberation (New York: Longman, 1975), 188–92, esp. 192Google Scholar; Ryan, Lyndall, “Feminism and the Federal Bureaucracy, 1972–1983,” in Playing the State, ed. Watson, , 71–84Google Scholar; and the “variety and flexibility” between British departments and over time portrayed in Davidson, R. and Lowe, R., “Bureaucracy and Innovation in British Welfare Policy, 1870–1945,” in The Emergence of the Welfare State in Britain and Germany 1950–1950, ed. Mommsen, W. J. (London: Croom Helm, 1981), 263–93.Google Scholar

68 Gelb, , Feminism and Politics, 221.Google Scholar

69 McFeely, Mary, Lady Inspectors, ch. 18, and Kathryn Kish Sklar, “Florence Kelley and the Decline in Power of Women's Political Culture in the 1920's,” Paper presented at the Organization of American Historians, St. Louis, 1989, discuss the collapse of Progressive era women's networks in the 1920s and the simultaneous changes of style and organization in women's policy activism. The causal relationship remains unclear.Google Scholar

70 I owe the question of the automatic association of marginalization with ineffectiveness to Elisabeth Perry. See also Watson, , “The State of Play,” in Playing the State, ed. Watson, 10–11.Google Scholar