The Term “Home Economics” - Part Two

Although Nazarenes have been ordaining women to preaching ministries for their whole existence, over a hundred years now, Olivet is no hotbed of feminism. My sense for why the name change from Home Economics to Family and Consumer Sciences worked not only for the field as a whole but also for Olivet is that the new name has effectively bridged the gap in the field between the generalists and the specialists. Those in the Christian community who appreciate the integrative elements of the many practical, personable, and scientific skills appropriate for use within the family will find plenty in the Olivet FACS programs to make them happy. Dr. Richardson admits that there are a few young women in the department who are more interested in an MRS degree than a BS, but that seems now to be more of an exception these days where most students want to specialize in a profession that gives them professional and salable skills in the marketplace. It appears that the students identify more with their specific major than the fact that it is included in a department that has the word “family” in it. One Olivet student put it this way: “I do not identify with it [the word “family”]. I am a housing and environmental design major and I plan on concentrating on using my skills for the commercial and environmental aspects.”

There’s no doubt that the family has been undergoing stressful changes and the institution itself has been getting re-thought and re-experienced. Studies have been done (e.g., P. Sanday, PhD, University of Pennsylvania) examining cultures world-wide to determine the factors that make families male dominant. Those factors include food scarcity, hard and dangerous living conditions, large game animals being a prized food, infants being raised solely by women, and limited female representations in sacred symbols. It’s hardly fair to blame a social/political action group like “feminists” for causing changes within the family when these same factors are waning in western and/or first-world societies anyway. When sheer muscle power is no longer needed to bring down large game animals to feed the family and life is not harsh and dangerous, what’s to keep men who now have the time from wanting to know the joys of getting to know their children better? Of course it is important for such social/political action groups to exist so they can point out the obvious to the blind, let alone the fairness of it all.

I’m aware that in some quarters of the Christian community there are rear-guard actions going on that involve defending and/or resuscitating the old “home economics” and “homemaker” terms. In a certain way, I agree with the intent behind these efforts – that of trying to help the family in a modern world where so many confusing changes bombard us all, and who’s to know what is harmful and what is not, particularly when there is so much bad advice going out on the media about marriage, home, children and family relationships. I appreciate that concern. But my main feeling on that approach is that it lacks on a number of fronts. First, most Christians would agree that the message of Christianity is universal in that it has something important to say to every culture on earth during every time and era. It may point a finger of correction at the culture or it may not make an issue out of some beliefs and behaviors and simply adapt its message within the cultural framework. History shows us that Christianity can survive and do well within male dominated cultures; certainly it can do the same within egalitarian cultures that look on patriarchy as evil or barbaric. The question then becomes which culture needs more of the corrective finger. And before we jump too awfully fast that we know the mind of God on that issue, perhaps a dollop of humility would be in order, as A. W. Tozer reminds us, “cast of mind” can all too easily determine what our “scriptural” views are when we must deal with biblical interpretation issues near border lines where good people disagree. (Tozer, 38)

Secondly, turning to the past for answers is not the only option available. While we need to learn from history, we also need to do research and learn new ways of seeing and understanding. I believe that the more we understand the modern family the better: growing that knowledge will take not only learning the individual component areas of Family and Consumer Sciences more deeply and more fully, it will also take learning an integrated knowledge of all those areas (marriage, child development, hospitality, dietetics, housing and environmental design, etc.), particularly as they relate to the family.

It’s also important to continue studying marriage and family relationships. Dr. John Gottman, the premier researcher in this field, for example, has uncovered scientific reasons why it is extremely important to save your marriage as well as dispelling many myths like “men are not biologically ‘built’ for marriage” and “men and women are from different planets.” “Gender differences,” he says, “may contribute to marital problems, but they don’t cause them.” (Gottman, 13-17) To have a happy marriage, he says, whether the couple is egalitarian or not, the husband and wife have to figure out how to show each other honor and respect. If a husband does not allow his wife to influence him, then there is an 81 percent chance that the marriage will end in divorce. (Gottman, 100). I highly recommend his book, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work.

And thirdly, it’s not practical. Why insist that a dated and hated title like “home economics” be used when a more widely accepted title has already been agreed on by both the Family and Consumer Sciences professionals and by the culture at large? Unless you want to do nothing except preach to the choir, why put off potential students from being attracted to your school program before they get close enough to experience it? It’s entirely possible to stick to your message while using the language and knowledge of your culture just as Paul did on Mars Hill in Acts 17. It’s simply unnecessary as well as being counterproductive.

Changes in the way Americans live their family lives have been coming at us faster than we can comprehend them. So it is a good thing that institutions of higher learning get out of the way of outdated and stigmatized terms and continue to draw talent into the field so quality study of the family can continue.

Anonymous. 1999. “Future Homemakers of American (FHA) Changes Name.” Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 91:3: 132.

Gottman, John, and Nan Silver. 1999. The Seven Principles for making Marriage Work. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 13-17, 100.

Irvine, Martha. 2000. “Survey Finds Traditional Families on the Decline.” Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 92:1: 74.

Simerly, Coby B., et. al. 2000. “The Scottsdale Initiative: Positioning the Profession for the 21st Century.” Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 92:1: 75-80.

Tozer, A. W. 1979. Gems from Tozer: Selections from the Writings of A. W. Tozer. Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publishers, 38.