Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:45:25.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mary Van Kleeck and Social-Economic Planning

Part of: JPH 30th Anniversary Most Cited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Guy Alchon
Guy Alchon
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

“We are, most of us,” Mary Van Kleeck said in November 1957, “getting too old to talk.” Near the end of more than two hours of interrogation by officials of the State Department's Passport Office, Van Kleeck tried to impress upon her questioners the commitment to social research and to social justice that underlay her career. The Passport Office, however, was more concerned about her Communist front and party affiliations, and she was in their offices that Thursday morning appealing their refusal to renew her passport. She was seventy-three years old and retired from public life. She wanted to travel, as had been her practice, to Holland, her ancestral home and the home of her closest friends. “I date way back of you young people,” she told her two interrogators. “I think the work of my generation and our attitudes in international affairs is one of sympathy … to developments in other countries.” But, she continued, “I don't think you people who don't know the period prior to the First World War can possibly see how deep our concern is.”

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1991

References

Notes

1. “In the Matter of Miss Mary Van Kleeck,” transcript of hearing, Passport Office, U.S. Department of State, 21 November 1957, 74–75, Box 1, Folder 14, Mary Van Kleeck Papers, Sophia Smith Collection, Women's History Archive, Smith College (hereafter MVK Papers).

2. Overviews of Van Kleeck's life (1883–1972) include Lewis, Eleanor M., “Van Kleeck, Mary Abby,” in Sicherman, Barbara and Green, Carol Hurd, eds., Notable American Women (Cambridge, Mass., 1980), 707–9Google Scholar; and Hagen, Jan L., “Van Kleeck, Mary Abby,” in Trattner, Walter I., ed., Biographical Dictionary of Social Welfare in America (Westport, Conn., 1986), 725–28.Google Scholar The quoted phrase is from Cott, Nancy F., “What's in a Name? The Limits of ‘Social Feminism’; or, Expanding the Vocabulary of Women's History,” Journal of American History 76:3 (December 1989): 823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cott explores the limited utility of “social feminism” as an analytical category. Historians usually apply the term to the labor and social-reform activities of the first generations of college-educated women and their working-class allies during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Through the settlement-house movement and such organizations as the Women's Trade Union League (WTUL) and the Industrial Department of the YWCA, a network of women reformers, including Florence Kelley, Mary Dreier, Florence Simms, Mary Anderson, and a host of others, arose to shape public debate and policy. Their efforts apparently projected prevailing notions of women's “domestic responsibilities” onto a larger “public household” in which women workers, in particular, required protection from exploitation. Like Van Kleeck, whose early career was devoted to this cause, social feminists sought to advance women's opportunities by recognizing and defending women's “difference” from men. Van Kleeck's feminism, then, seems to embody what Cott, in another context, terms “feminism's characteristic doubleness, its simultaneous affirmation of women's human rights and women's unique needs and differences.” See Cott, Nancy F., The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven, 1987), 49.Google Scholar On social feminism, see, for example, O'Neill, William L., Everyone Was Brave: A History of Feminism in America (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; Lemons, J. Stanley, The Woman Citizen: Social Feminism in the 1920s (Urbana, 1973)Google Scholar; Freedman, Estelle, “Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution-Building and American Feminism, 1870–1930,” Feminist Studies 5:3 (Fall 1979): 512–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dye, Nancy Schrom, As Equals and As Sisters: Feminism, the Labor Movement, and the Women's Trade Union League of New York (Columbia, Mo., 1980)Google Scholar; Matthaei, Julie, An Economic History of Women in America: Women's Work, the Sexual Division of Labor, and the Development of Capitalism (New York, 1982)Google Scholar, pt. 2; and Black, Naomi, Social Feminism (Ithaca, 1989).Google Scholar

3. Kleeck, Van, “Women and Machines,” The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 127, February 1921, 253.Google Scholar Van Kleeck would not be among the women's network surveyed in Ware's, SusanBeyond Suffrage: Women in the Neiv Deal (Cambridge, Mass., 1981). Lewis, “Van Kleeck, Mary Abby”; Hagen, “Van Kleeck, Mary Abby.”Google Scholar

4. On women's and organizational history, see, for example, Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, “The Feminist Reconstruction of History,” Academe (September/October 1983): 26–37; and Galambos, Louis, “Technology, Political Economy, and Professionalization: Central Themes of the Organizational Synthesis,” Business History Review 57:4 (Winter 1983):471–93.Google Scholar Van Kleeck appears occasionally and briefly in histories of U.S. labor, social welfare, communism, planning, and women, but only a handful of scholars devote more than a few words to her. See, for example, Chambers, Clarke, Seedtime for Reform: American Social Service and Social Action, 1918–1933 (Minneapolis, 1963Google Scholar) and Paul U. Kellogg and the Survey: Voices for Social Welfare and Social Justice (Minneapolis, 1971)Google Scholar; Greenwald, Maurine Weiner, Women, War, and Work: The Impact of World War 1 on Women Workers in the United States (Westport, Conn., 1980)Google Scholar; Daniel, Cletus, The ACLU and the Wagner Act: An Inquiry into the Depression-Era Crisis of American Liberalism (Ithaca, 1980)Google Scholar; Fisher, Jacob, The Response of Social Work to the Great Depression (Boston, 1980)Google Scholar; Klehr, Harvey, The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression Decade (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; Alchon, Guy, The Invisible Hand of Planning: Capitalism, Social Science, and the State in the 1920s (Princeton, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and two unpublished papers by Ruth Oldenziel, Department of History, Yale University: “Mary Van Kleeck: A Career of Idealism” (1983), and “The International Institute for Industrial Relations, 1922–1946” (1987).

5. We know little about Van Kleeck's youth and family, and my characterizations rely especially upon the remembrances of J. Dyck Fledderus, the nephew of Mary Fledderus, and the closest friend of these two women from the late 1940s until their deaths in the early 1970s; interviews with Fledderus, 24 February and 16 October 1989 (hereafter Fledderus interviews). On the Mayer family, Mayer, Brantz, Memoir and Genealogy of the Maryland and Pennsylvania Family of Mayer (Baltimore, 1878), in the possession of J. Dyck Fledderus, is helpful. Other genealogical material and short biographical sketches are contained in several collections of Van Kleeck papers, including the two central deposits at the Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College and the Reuther Library, Wayne State University. See, for example, Frank Van Kleeck, “The Van Kleeck Family,” Box 2, Folder 23, MVK Papers; see also an untitled two-page piece in Box 2, Folder 18, Russell Sage Foundation Papers, Rockefeller Archive Center (hereafter RSF Papers).Google Scholar

6. Fledderus interviews; On Van Kleeck's college years, her memorabilia book, personally inscribed “Ye book of ye 1904 girl,” is a rich and only recently discovered source of college pamphlets, letters from friends and family, poetry, and self-commentary. Van Kleeck, “Memorabilia,” in the author's possession (hereafter MVK Memorabilia). See also Smith College Class Book, 1904 (Northampton, Mass. 1904), College Archives, Smith College.Google Scholar

7. Van Kleeck's transcript, Smith College Office of the Registrar, Box 4, Folder 14, MVK Papers. Van Kleeck's memorabilia book is filled with notes and letters from classmates, friends, and family congratulating her on her several achievements and inductions; see MVK Memorabilia. On Sophia Smith, the origins and early nature of Smith College, and the emerging world of women's higher education in the late nineteenth century, see, for example, “Last Will and Testament of Miss Sophia Smith,” Smith College Archives; Hanscom, Elizabeth Deering and Greene, Helen French, Sophia Smith and the Beginnings of Smith College (Northampton, Mass., 1925)Google Scholar; Davis, Gladys Wookey, Miss Sophia's Legacy (Oxford, 1950)Google Scholar; Solomon, Barbara M., In The Company of Educated Women: A History of Women and Higher Education in America (New Haven, 1985)Google Scholar, chaps. 4–6; and Horowitz, Helen L., Alma Mater: Design and Experience in Women's Colleges from Their Nineteenth-Century Beginnings to the 1930s (New York, 1984).Google Scholar

8. Annual Report, 1903–1904, Smith College Association for Christian Work, Van Kleeck's copy, in MVK Memorabilia. See also SCACW Minutes, April 1902-April 1905, 9, 13; and SCACW Reports, 1902–3, 1903–4, 82–83, 104, College Archives, Smith College. On the early industrial work of the YWCA, see Carner, Lucy, “The Background of the Industrial Work of the Y.W.C.A.,” Box 1, Folder 18; and The Y.W.C.A. and Industry (New York, 1928)Google Scholar, Box 16, Folder 4, both in the National Board of the YWCA Records, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College; and Frederickson, Mary, “Citizens for Democracy: The Industrial Programs of the YWCA,” in Frederickson, Mary and Kornbluh, Joyce L., eds., Sisterhood and Solidarity: Workers’ Education for Women, 1914–1984 (Philadelphia, 1984), 75–106.Google Scholar

9. Several of Van Kleeck's college poems indicate her ambivalence toward graduation and adult life. In one, “Voices,” she refers to voices calling to her. “But I knew I dared not follow,” she writes, “for my heart was full of fear.” Still, as the poem refrains, “Far away from toiling cities, … they called me, gently called me, chanting softly—”Will you go?” MVK Memorabilia. This dilemma, now a staple of the history of the New Woman, was examined by Jane Addams in her “The Subjective Necessity of Social Settlements,” first delivered as a lecture in 1892. But it could also describe the more general personal predicament of the increasingly self-conscious intellectual then emerging in distinctly modern form. See, for example, Addams, , Twenty Years at Hull House (New York, 1910)Google Scholar; Antler, Joyce, “‘After College, What?’: New Graduates and the Family Claim,” American Quarterly 32 (1980): 409–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lasch's, Christopher earliest essays on these matters in The New Radicalism in America, 1889–1963: The Intellectual as a Social Type (New York, 1965).Google Scholar

10. Van Kleeck, “Memorandum No. 1,” 2 November 1956, and “Memorandum No. 2,” 14 November 1956, both addressed to the Smith College Library, in Box 1, Folder 18, MVK Papers. Van Kleeck refers to Kellor in a letter to Mary Dreier, 3 March 1952, Box 9, Folder 152, Mary E. Dreier Papers, Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe College. See also Kellor, Frances, Out of Work (New York, 1904).Google Scholar On Kellor, see Fitzpatrick, Ellen, Endless Crusade: Women Social Scientists and Progressive Reform (New York, 1990).Google Scholar On Kelley urban reform, and the women's world of the social settlements, see Sklar, Kathryn Kish, “Hull House in the 1890s: A Community of Women Reformers,” Signs 10:4 (Summer 1985): 658–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Van Kleeck, “Daily Record,” The College Settlement, entry of 27 September 1905, Box 77, Folder 1202, MVK Papers. The second quotation is from Van Kleeck to Mary Beard, November 18, 1935, Box 1, Folder 3, MVK Papers. Van Kleeck, “Working Hours of Women in Factories,” Charities and the Commons, 16 October 1906, 13–21; “Child Labor in New York City Tenements,” Charities and the Commons, 18 January 1908, 1405–20.

12. On the origins and history of the Sage Foundation, see Hammack, David, “Russell Sage Foundation,” in Keele, Harold and Kriger, Joseph, eds., Foundations (Westport, Conn., 1984), 373–80Google Scholar; and the two-volume history of the foundation by Glenn, John M., Brandt, Lilian, and Andrews, F. Emerson, Russell Sage Foundation, 1907–1946 (New York, 1947).Google Scholar See also Slaughter, Sheila and Silva, Edward T., “Looking Backwards: How Foundations Formulated Ideology in the Progressive Period,” in Amove, Robert, ed., Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad (Boston, 1980), 55–86.Google Scholar On the history of the public role of private foundations, see, for example, Karl, Barry D. and Katz, Stanley N., “The American Private Philanthropic Foundation and the Public Sphere, 1890–1930,” Mineroa 19:2 (Summer 1981): 236–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On similar, but earlier, urban social survey work, see Sklar, “Hull House in the 1890s.”

13. See, for example, Van Kleeck, “The Artificial Flower Trade in New York City,” 30 November 1909, Box 13, Folder 3; Van Kleeck to John M. Glenn, Russell Sage Foundation, 31 March 1910, Box 13, Folder 4; and Van Kleeck, “A Program for a Committee on Women's Work,” 25 April 1910, Box 13, Folder 6, all in Mary Van Kleeck Papers, Reuther Library, Wayne State University (hereafter MVK/R Papers). See also Van Kleeck, “Memorandum Regarding Investigations for the Winter of 1910–11”, and the several letters from Van Kleeck to John Glenn, all in Box 15, Folder 132, RSF Papers. Several of these studies were published under Kleeck's, Van name as Artificial Flower Makers (New York, 1913)Google Scholar, Women in the Bookbinding Trade (New York, 1913)Google Scholar, and A Seasonal Industry (New York, 1917).Google Scholar See the discussion of these matters in Alchon, The Invisible Hand of Planning, chap. 1, and Seixas, Peter, “Unemployment as a ‘Problem of Industry’ in Early-Twentieth Century New York,” Social Research 54:2 (Summer 1987): 403–30.Google Scholar The quotation is from Van Kleeck to Beard, 18 November 1935.

14. Nelson, Daniel, Frederick W. Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management (Madison, 1980)Google Scholar; Nadworny, Milton, Scientific Management and the Unions, 1900–1932 (Cambridge, Mass., 1955)Google Scholar; Haber, Samuel, Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressive Era, 1890–1920 (Chicago, 1964)Google Scholar; Noble, David F., America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism (New York, 1977), 264–65, 275–77Google Scholar; Cooke, Morris L., “Scientific Management as a Solution of the Unemployment Problem,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (hereafter Annals), vol. 61 (September 1915), 146–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feiss, Richard A., “Scientific Management Applied to the Steadying of Employment and Its Effect in an Industrial Establishment,” Annak, vol. 61 (September 1915), 103–11Google Scholar; Kleeck, Van, “The Effect of Unemployment on the Wage Scale,” Annals, vol. 61 (September 1915), 90–102.Google Scholar

15. “Remarks of Mary Van Kleeck at Annual Business Meeting of the Taylor Society, 4 December 1924,” Box 24, Folder 488; Van Kleeck to Mary Beard, 18 November 1935, Box 1, Folder 2, both in MVK Papers.

16. Van Kleeck to Cooke, 9 June, 11 June 1921, Box 16, Morris L. Cooke Papers, Franklin D. Roosevelt Library (hereafter Cooke Papers); see also Van Kleeck, “What Industry Can Do to Raise Standards of Work for Women,” 8 December 1925, Box 24, Folder 488, MVK Papers.

17. Kleeck, Mary Van and Taylor, Graham R., “The Professional Organization of Social Work,” Annals, vol. 101 (May 1922), 158–68. Van Kleeck's plans for her department's expansion are set forth in an unsigned memorandum to John M. Glenn from the Division of Industrial Studies, 25 October 1919, Box 23, Folder 456, MVK Papers; See also Alchon, The Invisible Hand of Planning, Chap. 3, and Glenn et al., Russell Sage Foundation, chaps 27, 37.Google Scholar

18. The best treatments of these themes and this period include Hawley, Ellis W., The Great War and the Search for a Modern Order: A History of the American People and Their Institutions, 1917–1933 (New York, 1979)Google Scholar, and Maier, Charles, Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in the Decades After World War I (Princeton, 1975).Google Scholar On Hoover, his thought and significance, see Hawley, , “Herbert Hoover, The Commerce Secretariat, and the Vision of an ‘Associative State,’ 1921–1928,” Journal of American History 61:1 (June 1974): 116–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, William A., The Contours of American History (Cleveland, 1961)Google Scholar; and Hoff-Wilson, Joan, Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive (Boston, 1975).Google Scholar

19. This story is the subject of Alchon, The Invisible Hand of Planning. See also Grin, Carolyn, “The Unemployment Conference of 1921,” Mid-America 54 (April 1973): 83–107Google Scholar; Metcalf, Evan, “Secretary Hoover and the Emergence of Macroeconomic Management,” Business History Review 49 (Spring 1975): 60–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Reagan, Patrick D., “From Depression to Depression: Hooverian National Planning, 1921 — 1933,” Mid-America 70:1 (January 1988): 35–60.Google Scholar

20. Committee on Business Cycles and Unemployment of the President's Conference on Unemployment, Business Cycles and Unemployment (New York, 1923); Alchon, The Invisible Hand of Planning, chap. 5–8.Google Scholar

21. Kleeck, Van, “Unemployment in Passaic, American Federationist 35:5 (May 1928): 597–602Google Scholar; ibid., “Changes Toward Social Control,” Report of the Twelfth Biennial Convention, YWCA, 5–11 May 1932, 59, YWCA Papers, YWCA of the USA., New York; Alchon, The Invisible Hand of Planning, chap. 8.

22. Lillian Gilbreth to L. W. Wallace, 3 February 1926, Container 124, File 0816–160, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth Papers, Purdue University (hereafter Gilbreth Papers); Hamilton is quoted in Perriton Maxwell to Van Kleeck, 5 January 1933, Box 1, Folder 3, MVK Papers.

23. Kleeck, Van, “Employment or Unemployment? That Is the Question,” American Labor Legislation Review 20:1 (March 1930): 13–19; Van Kleeck to New York Times, 18 October 1930, p. 16, Col. 7. Van Kleeck's criticisms of the New Deal were widely reported, especially when in August 1933 she accepted, then abruptly resigned from, an appointment to the Federal Advisory Council of the U.S. Employment Service, citing the government's insufficient support for collective bargaining and the labor movement. See, for example, “Mary Van Kleeck Scores NRA Policy,” New York Times, 7 August 1933, p. 5, col. 7; and “NRA Is Criticized as Failing Labor,” New York Times, 26 May 1934, p. 14, col. 1.Google Scholar

24. Jacoby, Sanford, Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transformation of Work in American Industry, 1900–1945 (New York, 1985)Google Scholar, chap. 2, 5, and McFeely, Mary Drake, Lady Inspectors: The Campaign for a Better Workplace, 1893–1921 (New York, 1988), treat American and British developments in personnel management during these years.Google Scholar

25. Few records of the conference survive, except for a few pieces in the Odencrantz Papers, including a copy of the Program, the paper she presented (“Personnel Work in America”), and a report of her impressions. See, especially, Folder 1, Louise Odencrantz Papers, Schlesinger Library (hereafter Odencrantz Papers).

26. “Report of the Interim Committee Appointed at the First International Conference on Industrial Welfare,” Folder 8, Odencrantz Papers; and “Officers and Members of Council,” in Report of the Proceedings of the International Industrial Welfare (Personnel) Congress (Zurich, 1925), 486. Organized initially as an association, the IRI would reorganize and rename itself the International Industrial Relations Institute in March 1932, but even from its earliest days was known as IRI.Google Scholar

27. For this and other aspects of postwar “self-consciousness,” see, for example, Maier, Recasting Bourgeois Europe; Alchon, The Invisible Hand of Planning, chaps. 2, 3; and Merkle, Judith, Management and Ideology: The Legacy of the International Scientific Management Movement (Berkeley, 1980).Google Scholar See, especially, Kleeck, Van, “Women Workers During Reconstruction,” American Labor Legislation Review 9:1 (March 1919): 62–68Google Scholar; and “The Task of Working Women in the International Congress,” 28 October 1919, Box 24, Folder 487, MVK Papers. This address was given before the First International Congress of Working Women (ICWW), called by the National Women's Trade Union League to protest the ILO's refusal to admit women or their concerns to its first conference in October-November 1919 in Washington, D.C. The ICWW pointedly held their meetings in Washington also in October-November 1919. Throughout the early 1920s, the ICWW and later the IRI struggled to establish a place for themselves and for women workers within the deliberations of the ILO, a creation of the League of Nations, and the major international labor agency of the period. See the relevant documents in Boxments in Box 19, the ICWW Papers, Smith College. The quotation is from the “Introduction to the Report of the Proceedings of the International Industrial Welfare (Personnel) Congress, Flushing, 1925,” Folder 8, Odencrantz Papers. It is attributed to Fledderus by Van Kleeck, “Comments on Work of Mary L. Fledderus,” 17 February 1945, Box 1, Folder 19, MVK Papers.

28. See “Ten Years IRI,” a short history of the organization written, apparently, by Fledderus and Van Kleeck in 1935 and found in Box 15, Folder 142, of the Paul U. Kellogg Papers, Social Welfare History Archives, University of Minnesota; “IRI Summer School: Preliminary Suggestions,” Container 131, File 0830–9, Papers, Gilbreth; Fledderus, Mary, ed., Report of Summer School: The Elimination of Unnecessary Fatigue in Industry, Raveno, Italy, June 1927 (The Hague, 1930); and “List of Persons Present,” IRI Cambridge Congress, Box 84, Folder 1318, MVK Papers.Google Scholar

29. Van Kleeck, “Summary of the Conference …,” Box 84, Folder 1319, MVK Papers.

30. The quoted phrase appears in Van Kleeck's remarks in the “Report of the IRI Summer Meeting, Schloss-Elmau, June—July, 1929,” Box 83, Folder 1311, p. 7; on the IRI's methodology, see Van Kleeck, “Comments on Work of Mary L. Fledderus: Addendum,” 17 February 1945, Box 1, Folder 19, both in MVK Papers. See also “Informal Notes of a meeting …,” 27 October 1928, Folder 8, Odencrantz Papers. The IRI, from its inception, was able to function as a truly international organization due to the linguistic abilities of Mary Fledderus, who was capable of simultaneous translations in Dutch, French, English, and German. These skills carried over into the IRI's major publications during the 1920s and 1930s, with English, French, and German versions appearing within each volume.

31. The IRI material in the two main Van Kleeck collections and the IRI papers at the International Institute for Social History in Amsterdam are revealing of most of these points. Whenever separated during the years from the late 1920s through the late 1930s, for example, Van Kleeck and Fledderus corresponded daily, on IRI stationery, about the organization's affairs. They often mentioned, too, a parallel and personal correspondence, but no such letters and little else touching on their lives together survive. Thus, the remembrances of Dyck Fledderus are most important. He, for example, is able to provide some details on their living arrangements and the mutually supportive nature of their relationship; Fledderus interviews.

32. Van Kleeck, “Memorandum,” 17 April 1930, Box 23, Folder 467, MVK Papers; “Call For the Congress,” February 1931, IRI Papers, 1925–39, Folder: 1RI Social-Economic Congress, Amsterdam, 1931, International Institute for Social History, Amsterdam (hereafter, IRI Papers/1).

33. “Ten Years IRI,” 3; “Statement at Final Session By Mary Van Kleeck …,” 23–28 August 1931, IRI Papers/1.

34. Neurath, Otto, International Picture Language (London, 1936)Google Scholar and Modern Man in the Making (New York, 1939).Google Scholar On Neurath, see Neurath, Marie and Cohen, Robert S., eds., Otto Neurath: Empiricism and Sociology (Dordrecht, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Twyman, Michael, “The Significance of Isotype,” in Graphic Communication Through hotype (University of Reading, 1975)Google Scholar; Kinross, Robin, “Otto Neurath's Contribution to Visual Communication,” M.A. thesis, University of Reading, 1979Google Scholar; Faludi, Andreas, “What's Positivism Anyway? Otto Neurath and the Planners,” Working Paper, No. 102, September 1988Google Scholar, Planologisch en Demografisch Instituut, University of Amsterdam, and “Planning According to the ‘Scientific Conception of the World’; the Work of Otto Neurath,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 7 (1989): 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Voysey, Brenda, “The Vienna Method of Pictorial Statistics,” Labour Magazine (May 1933).Google Scholar A summary of Neurath's Amsterdam presentation is in MS 1091, Folder 3.1/63, Otto and Marie Neurath Isotype Collection, Department of Typography and Graphic Design, University of Reading (hereafter, Isotype Collection). The quoted phrase appears in “Statement at Final Session by Mary Van Kleeck …). See also her “Analysis and Overview of the Congress,” in Fledderus, M. L., ed., World Social Economic Planning, 2 vols. (The Hague; 1932).Google Scholar Van Kleeck had Neurath illustrate two of her books with Isotype. See Miners and Management (New York, 1934)Google Scholar and Creative America: Its Resources for Social Security (New York, 1936).Google Scholar

36. Van Kleeck, “Analysis and Review of the Congress,” 3; V.V. Obolensky-Ossinsky, “The Nature and Forms of Social Economic Planning,” reprinted in Fledderus, ed., World Social Economic Planning, 291–340. Press coverage included such articles as “Geneva and Soviet in Clash at Parley: Russians at Amsterdam Congress Assail Labor Organization Delegate as Pro-Capitalist,” New York Times, 29 August 1931, 4, column 4; and a live radio address by Van Kleeck, broadcast from Amsterdam to the United States. See “Radio Address of M. Van Kleeck, Delivered August 26, 1931,”in MS 1091, Folder 3.1/63, Isotype Collection. See also George Soule's review of the congress and its published proceedings, “A World Symposium,” Saturday Review of Literature, 5 November 1932, 228–29.

37. On the IRI's plans and work, post-Amsterdam, see “Minutes of the Meeting of the Interim Committee …,” Paris, September 20, 1931,” File 353, Folder: International Industrial Relations Institute, 1931–52, F. M. Wibaut Papers, International Institute for Social History, Amsterdam; Van Kleeck, “Report on Present Outlook …,” 19 January 1932, Box 9, Folder 7, MVK/R Papers. Among the IRI's later publications are Kleeck, Van and , Fledderus, On Economic Planning (New York, 1935)Google Scholar; Fledderus, and Kleeck, Van, Technology and Livelihood: An Inquiry into the Changing Technological Basis for Production as Affecting Employment and Living Standards (New York, 1944)Google Scholar; idem, The Technological Basis for National Development (New York, 1948).Google Scholar

38. Van Kleeck's relations with the Soviet Union during the 1930s are extensively documented in correspondence, speeches, and articles in both major collections of her papers. See, for example, her manuscript, “Notes on Six Weeks in the Soviet Union, July 25 to September 4, 1932,” Box 29, Folder 541, MVK Papers. Some of her activities on behalf of the Soviet Union are further documented in Lyons, Eugene, The Red Decade (New York, 1941)Google Scholar, and Harvey Klehr, The Heyday of American Communism. On the nature and history of fellow traveling, see Caute, David, The Fellow Travelers: Intellectual Friends of Communism, rev. ed. (New Haven, 1988)Google Scholar; Hollander, Paul, Political Pilgrims: Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, 1928–1978 (New York, 1981)Google Scholar; and O'Neill, William L., A Better World—The Great Schism: Stalinism and the American Intellectuals (New York, 1982).Google Scholar W. B. Spofford to Van Kleeck, 16 April 1931, Box 1, Folder 3, MVK Papers. Some of Van Kleeck's State Department and FBI files have been released to the author and to the Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College. Leonard Boudin represented Van Kleeck before an executive session of McCarthy's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in 1953, “where she astounded McCarthy and Roy Cohn with the statement that she had never been a member of the Communist Party.” Boudin to author, 27 February 1989.

39. Margaret Storrs Grierson, Archivist Emeritus, Smith College, to author, 10 April 1989; interview with Eleanor Flexner, 19 April and 1 June 1989; interview with Sidney Hook, 3 May 1989; anonymous interview, 8 June 1989; interview with Corliss Lamont, 7 April 1989; interview with Edith Tiger, 12 May 1989; interview with Leonard Boudin, 7 April 1989; Mary Dublin Keyserling to author, 29 April 1989; Philip Foner to author, 27 February 1989; Jan Tinbergen to author, 11 December 1988; Herbert Aptheker to author, 20 November 1989.

40. See, for example, Ware, Susan, Beyond Suffrage, and Dorothy Brown, Setting a Course: American Women in the 1920s (Boston, 1987)Google Scholar; Interpretations, however, are changing. See Nancy Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism, and Ware, Susan, Partner and I: Molly Dewson, Feminism, and New Deal Politics (New Haven, 1987).Google Scholar

41. Among the better studies of social feminism's continuous history are Black, Social Feminism; Sealander, Judith, As Minority Becomes Majority: Federal Reaction to the Phenomenon of Women in the Work Force, 1920–1963 (Westport, Conn., 1983)Google Scholar; Lemons, The Woman Citizen; Chambers, Seedtime of Reform; and the several essays in Hoff-Wilson, Joan and Lightman, Marjorie, eds., Without Precedent: The Life and Career of Eleanor Roosevelt (Bloomington, 1984).Google Scholar

42. On organizational history's discoveries, see Galambos, “Technology, Political Economy, and Professionalization,” and Hays, Samuel P., “The New Organizational Society,” in American Political History as Social Analysis (Knoxville, 1980).Google Scholar The history of twentiethcentury U.S. corporatist planning, the role of social science and expert elites in such planning, and the central importance here of the 1920s are the subject of a diverse and recent literature within organizational history, much of it proceeding, in turn, within New left and modernization frameworks. See, for example, Hawley, The Great War and the Search for a Modern Order, and “The Discovery and Study of a ‘Corporate Liberalism,’ ” Business History Review 52:3 (Autumn 1978); 309–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Noble, America by Design; Collins, Robert M., The Business Response to Keynes, 1929–1964 (New York, 1981)Google Scholar; Alchon, The Invisible Hand of Planning; Reagan, Patrick D., “Architects of Modern American National Planning” (Ph.D. diss., The Ohio State University, 1982)Google Scholar; and Brown, Jerold E. and Reagan, Patrick D., eds., Voluntarism, Planning, and the State: The American Planning Experience, 1914–1946 (New York, 1988).Google Scholar

43. On the impersonality of organizational history, see, especially, Sealander, Judith, Grand Plans: Business Progressivism and Social Change in Ohio's Miami Valley, 1890–1929 (Lexington, Ky., 1988)Google Scholar, chap. 1. The meanings and utility of the idea of gender are discussed, for example, in Scott, Joan W., “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” American Historical Review 91:5 (December 1986): 1053–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the history of the modern professional woman's marginality, see Glazer, Penina Migdal and Slater, Miriam, Unequal Colleagues: The Entrance of Women into the Professions, 1890–1940 (New Brunswick, 1987).Google Scholar