I would like to thank Jim Buckley, Marta Gutman, and Elaine Jackson-Retondo for their help in preparing this essay, and David Montgomery for his assistance in conceptualizing several sections.

1. “M'Cormick Branch of International Harvester Builds $75,000 Clubhouse”, Chicago Evening American, August 2, 1904.Google Scholar

2. On the clubhouse, see Woolrich, B. R., “The Club Houses at Deering and McCormick”, Harvester World, September 1914; “Fine Club for Employes”, Chicago Tribune, January 19, 1906;Google ScholarBetsky, Aaron, James Gamble Rogers and the Architecture of Pragmatism (New York, 1994), 75–78.Google Scholar

3. On Progressive era environmentalist beliefs, see Boyer, Paul, Urban Masses and Moral Order in America, 1820–1920 (Cambridge, 1978), 125–31, 179–87, 220–51.Google Scholar

4. Histories of the era of welfare capitalism include Nelson, Daniel, Managers and Workers: Origins of the New Factory System in the United States, 1880–1920 (Madison, 1975), 101–21;Google ScholarBrandes, Stuart D., American Welfare Capitalism, 1880–1940 (Chicago, 1976), passim;Google ScholarBrody, David, Workers in Industrial America: Essays on the Twentieth Century Struggle (New York, 1980), 48–81;Google ScholarCohen, Lizabeth, Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919–1939 (Cambridge, 1990), 159–211;Google Scholarand Meyer, Stephen, “Adapting the Immigrant to the Line: Americanization in the Ford Factory. 1914–1921,” Journal of Social History 14 (1980):67–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarExaminations of some of the spatial aspects of welfare architecture include such fine studies as Biggs, Lindy, The Rational Factory (Baltimore, 1996), 55–75;Google ScholarCohen, Lizabeth, “Embellishing a Life of Labor: An Interpretation of the Material Culture of American Working-Class Homes, 1885–1915” in Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture, ed. Upton, Dell and Vlach, John Michael (Athens, 1986), 261–78;Google ScholarCrawford, Margaret, Building the Workingman's Paradise: The Design of American Company Towns (London, 1995).Google ScholarSome of the more notable books published between 1900 and 1930 that describe welfare efforts are Meakin, Budgett, Model Factories and Villages: Ideal Conditions of Labour and Housing (London, 1905);Google ScholarPrice, George, The Modern Factory (New York, 1914);Google ScholarShuey, Edwin L., Factory People and their Employers (New York, 1900);Google ScholarGilman, Nicholas Paine, A Dividend to Labor (Boston, 1899);Google ScholarRipley, Charles M., Life in a Large Manufacturing Plant (Schenectady, 1919).Google Scholar

5. On the success of welfarism, see Brody, Workers in Industrial America, 48–81; and Nelson, Managers and Workers, 101–21. On its lack of effect on workers, see Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism, 136–41. Workers' mixed or qualified acceptance is portrayed in Cohen, Making a New Deal, 183–211;Google ScholarZahavi, Gerald, Workers, Managers, and Welfare Capitalism: The Shoeworkers and Tanners of Endicott Johnson, 1890–1950 (Urbana, 1988). 102–4.Google ScholarOn the impact of outside factors on the decline of labor activism, including the role of the state, see Montgomery, David, The Fall of the House of Labor: The Workplace, the State, and American Labor Activism, 1865–1925 (Cambridge, 1987) 453–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. On the failure of the architecture of welfarism and an examination of class-related problems of designing for workers, see Cohen, “Embellishing a Life of Labor”, 264–68; Crawford, Building the Workingman's Paradise, 129–51.Google ScholarAn overall critique of welfarism can be found in Dunn, Robert W., The Americanization of Labor: The Employers' Offensive Against the Trade Unions (New York, 1927).Google Scholar

7. The McCormick Works is one of the featured firms in Meakin, Model Factories and Villages; General Electric and McCormick are discussed at length in the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employers' Welfare Work, Bulletin No. 123 (Washington, 1913).Google ScholarThe best overall histories of the McCormick Works are Ozanne, Robert, A Century of Labor-Management Relations at McCormick and International Harvester (Madison, 1967);Google ScholarMarsh, Barbara, A Corporate Tragedy: The Agony of International Harvester Company (Garden City, 1985), 35–58;Google Scholarand Hutchinson, William, Cyrus Hall McCormick: Harvest, 1856–1884, (New York, 1935).Google ScholarThe figures on McCormick employment are from Nelson, Managers and Workers, 7–9. The International Harvester Company was founded in 1902, following the consolidation of several agricultural implement companies, including the McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. of Chicago.Google Scholar

8. On the history of General Electric and the Schenectady plant in particular, see Hammond, John Winthrop, Men and Volts: The Story of General Electric (Philadelphia, 1941).Google ScholarThe “I” method of laying out industrial plants is described in detail in Becker, O. M. and Lees, William J., “Building a Factory: Site and General Design,” System 10 (1906):239–50.Google ScholarOn the pioneering layout of the Schenectady plant, see “The Battlefields of Business,” System 7 (03 1905):258–59. General Electric's corporate headquarters were in New York City. Edison founded the plant for his own electrical machine company before the creation of General Electric.Google Scholar

9. Labor activity at the McCormick Works is described in Ozanne, A Century of Labor–Management Relations, passim. On strikes at the Schenectady plant, see Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labor, 312–14, 438–57; Antonelli, Henry and Quirini, Helen, The Story of Local 301, IUE-AFL-CIO: Reflections (self-published, 1987), 3–6;Google Scholarand Leahey, Philip J., “Skilled Labor and the Rise of the Modern Corporation: The Case of the Electrical Industry,” Labor History 27 (1985–1986):51–52;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSchatz, Ronald W., The Electrical Workers: A History of Labor at General Electric and Westinghouse, 1923–60 (Urbana, 1983), 11–24.Google ScholarThe background and influence of the Haymarket Affair are described in detail by several authors in a special issue of International Labor and Working-Class History 29 (1986).Google ScholarOn the public image of the McCormicks, see Ozanne, Robert, Wages in Practice and Theory: McCormick and International Harvester, 1860–1960 (Madison, 1968), 32–33.Google Scholar

10. Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labor, 236–40; Nelson, Managers and Workers, 101–21; Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism, 30–37.Google Scholar

11. Quoted in Korman, Gerd, Industrialization, Immigrants, and Americanizers (Madison, 1967), 108.Google Scholar

12. Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labor, 438–57,Google ScholarNye, David E., Image Worlds: Corporate Identities at General Electric, 1890–1930 (Cambridge, 1985), 79–85;Google ScholarOzanne, A Century of Labor-Management Relations, 29–43, 71–95.Google Scholar

13. Owen Young is quoted in Schatz, The Electrical Workers, 15–16.Google Scholar

14. On early company towns, see Garner, John S., ed. The Company Town: Architecture and Society in the Early Industrial Age (New York, 1992), 3–12;Google ScholarKostof, Spiro, A History of Architecture: Settings and Rituals (New York, 1985), 580–82;Google ScholarRoth, Leland M., ed. America Builds: Source Documents in American Architecture and Planning (New York, 1983), 202–4;Google ScholarCrawford, Building the Workingman's Paradise, 29–45; Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism, 10–19; Nelson, Managers and Workers, 102–5; Meakin, Model Factories, 383–416.Google Scholar

15. Ely, Richard T., “Pullman: A Social Study”, (1885), reprinted in Roth, America Builds, 207.Google Scholar

16. Boyer, Urban Masses and Moral Order, 127–31, 179–87, 220–51; Crawford, Building the Workingman's Paradise, 47–48, 57–60.Google Scholar

17. Roberts, Peter, English for Coming Americans, Teacher's Manual: A Rational System for Teaching English to Foreigners (New York, 1918), 100.Google Scholar

18. Roberts, Peter, The Problem of Americanization (New York, 1920), 224–25.Google Scholar

19. Nye, Image Worlds, 80.Google Scholar

20. Nelson, Managers and Workers, 104–5; Crawford, Building the Workingman's Paradise, 43–45.Google Scholar

21. Roberts, The Problem of Americanization, 207.Google Scholar

22. On the didactic purpose of welfare buildings, see Cohen, “Embellishing a Life of Labor”, 261–68.Google Scholar

23. Meakin, Model Factories, 78–80.Google Scholar

24. See photographs of such structures in Meakin, Model Factories; Whitney, Anice L., “Health and Recreation Activities in Industrial Establishments, 1926,” US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 458 (Washington, 1928), 31–32.Google Scholar

25. Mumford, John Kimberly, “This Land of Opportunity: The Heart of a ‘Soulless Corporation,’” Harper's Weekly, part 2, July 18, 1908, 22.Google Scholar

26. Images and descriptions of clubhouses can be found in Shuey, Factory People and their Employers; Meakin, Model Factories; and Gilman, A Dividend to Labor.Google Scholar

27. On the saloon and its uses, see Rosenzweig, Roy, Eight Hours for What We Will: Workers and Leisure in an Industrial City, 1870–1920 (Cambridge, 1983), 49–64;Google ScholarDuis, Perry R., The Saloon: Public Drinking in Chicago and Boston, 1880–1920 (Urbana, 1983), 86–113.Google Scholar

28. Chicago Evening American, August 2, 1904.Google Scholar

29. McCormick Works Guide (Chicago, 1908), 31.Google Scholar

30. Chicago Tribune, January 19, 1906; Betsky, James Gamble Rogers, 75–78.Google Scholar

31. Betsky, James Gamble Rogers, 9–38, 67–74. Rogers is perhaps best known for his work at Yale University, including the Harkness Memorial Quadrangle, which was built in 1917–1921.Google Scholar

32. Bruère, Henry, “Recommendations for Dealing with Social Betterment Problem at Reaper Works”, June 1903, Series 1C, box 24, 2, McCormick Collection, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison (hereafter cited as SHSW); Betsky, James Gamble Rogers, 76–77.Google Scholar

33. Woolrich, “The Club Houses at Deering and McCormick”.Google Scholar

34. Chicago Tribune, January 19, 1906.Google Scholar

35. Whitney, “Health and Recreation Activities”, 36; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Welfare Work for Employees in Industrial Establishments in the United States”, Bulletin 250 (Washington, 1919), 76; Crawford, Building the Workingman's Paradise, 143–45.Google Scholar

36. Woolrich, “The Club Houses at Deering and McCormick”.Google Scholar

37. Becker, O. M. to Darling, S. M., January 11, 1904, Series 2C, box 40, folder “IHC Technical Schools, 1904–05,” McCormick Collection, SHSW.Google Scholar

38. Barton, Bruce, “The Welfare of the Laborer: How the International Harvester Company Provides for It”, Home Herald, April 14, 1909. See also Mumford, “This Land of Opportunity”, 24; Chicago Tribune, January 19, 1906.Google Scholar

39. Works News, October 18, 1929, 5; July 18, 1930, 25; September 5, 1930, 1; Whitney, “Health and Recreation Activities”, 31–36.Google Scholar

40. On outdoor sports, see Cohen, Making a New Deal, 176–79; Nye, Image Worlds, 83–85.Google Scholar

41. On employee lounges see “Hospital Service”, Hammond File, Schenectady Museum, 1702, Hall of History, Schenectady, New York (hereafter “Schenectady Museum”); Whitney, “Health and Recreation Activities”, 31–33; US Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Welfare Work for Employees”, 68–72; Beeks, Gertrude to Clarke, E. A. S., “Canvas Room, Deering Works”, June 27, 1903, Series 1C, box 24, 2–3, McCormick Collection, SHSW; Cohen, “Embellishing a Life of Labor,” 266; Ripley, Life in a Large Manufacturing Plant, 73, 77–78.Google Scholar

42. On the use of preindustrial architectural forms by European industries, see Meakin, “Model Factories”, 217–23; for an American example see the photograph of “The Casino” Gorham Manufacturing Company in Shuey, Factory People, 81. The restaurant and worker clubs are described in Ripley, Life in a Large Manufacturing Plant, 16–31, 92–104.Google ScholarSee also Crowther, Samuel, John H. Patterson: Pioneer in Industrial Welfare (Garden City, N.Y., 1926), 251. The spinning wheel and other furniture is shown in photograph AA1288, Glass Negative Series, SHSW.Google Scholar

43. On the social meaning of the Colonial Revival, see Rhoads, William B., “The Colonial Revival and American Nationalism,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 35 (12 1976): 239–54, 341–61;CrossRefGoogle ScholarCohen, “Embellishing a Life of Labor,” 263–67;Google ScholarGowans, Alan, Styles and Types of North American Architecture: Social Function and Cultural Expression (New York, 1992), 235, 241–44.Google Scholar

44. Dickinson, Roy, “Using Art and Type to Build Industrial Morale,” Printers' Ink Monthly 1 (02 1920):24.Google ScholarBetween 1915 and 1930, advertising was promoted in the journal as a way to create harmony between workers and managers, defeat unions, and to compel workers to accept “labor-saving” machinery and pay cuts. On advertising to employees, see “Labor's Opposition to Time-Saving Devices,” Printers' Ink, 116 (07 21, 1921):93;Google ScholarWhitsett, George F., “Getting the Employees of Large Corporations to Work in Harmony”, Printers' Ink 93 (02 22, 1917):3–4;Google ScholarNichols, G. A., “How to Sell Employees on Working for Smaller Pay,” Printers' Ink 115 (06 2, 1921):3–8, 166–68;Google ScholarDuffy, John, “Unfair Labor Agitation—How Corporations Are Using Advertising to Fight It”, Printers' Ink 93 (03 22, 1917):3–8.Google Scholar

45. Wingfield, S. G., “Pictures for the Employees' Magazine”, Printers' Ink 113 (10 7, 1920): 125–26.Google ScholarOn worker magazines and their role in welfare capitalism, see Yates, JoAnne, Control through Communication: The Rise of System in American Management (Baltimore, 1989), 15–17, 74–77;Google Scholarand Nye, Image Worlds, 79–88.Google Scholar

46. “The Man in Back of the Turbines You Sell”, Hammond File, L 804, Schenectady Museum; Works News, December 8, 1922.Google Scholar

47. Monogram 6 (January 1929):15–16; General Electric Review 25 (December 1922):714–19; Monogram 2 (July 1925): 25.Google Scholar

48. On parades in general, see Ryan, Mary, “The American Parade: Representations of the Nineteenth-Century Social Order,” in The New Cultural History, ed. Hunt, Lynn (Berkeley, 1989), 131–53;Google Scholarand Davis, Susan, Parades and Power: Street Theatre in Nineteenth-Century Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1986), 113–53.Google ScholarFor examples of these activities, see Works News, May 1918; November 1918, 6; May 23, 1919, 1–16.Google ScholarA description of a parade is in Ripley, Charles M., Romance of a Great Factory (Schenectady, 1919), 160–64.Google ScholarOn patriotism and the motivation of workers, see Meyer, Stephen, The Five Dollar Day: Labor Management and Social Control in the Ford Motor Company, 1908–1921 (Albany, 1981), 149–68.Google Scholar

49. DrArmstrong, David, “Physical Examination of Employes”, Harvester World, April 1916; Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism, 36.Google Scholar

50. On medical departments, see Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism, 98–102;Google ScholarGitelman, H. M., “Welfare Capitalism Reconsidered,” Labor History 33 (Winter 1992):15–18;Google ScholarMcCormick, Harold F. to McCormick, Cyrus, June 28, 1900, McCormick Collection, Series M/T, B6, F6, SHSW. Photographs of early medical rooms include Glass Negative Series, MC3661 MC1779, MC3659, SHSW. On the condition of the McCormick hospital, see Cyrus McCormick to Gertrude Beeks, April 9, 1915, Series 1C, box 123, McCormick Collection, SHSW.Google Scholar

51. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Welfare Work for Employees,” 14–33; Whitney, “Health and Recreation,” 2–13; Reider, Edith, “The New First Aid Building at McCormick Works”, Harvester World, January 1916.Google Scholar

52. On the increasing sophistication of personnel departments, see Jacoby, Sanford M., Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions, and the Transformation of Work in American Industry, 1900–1945 (New York, 1985), 147–54;Google ScholarNelson, Managers and Workers, 148–56. For a critical look at medical care for workers, see Dunn, The Americanization of Labor, 243–47.Google Scholar

53. “Medical Examinations and Photographing of New Employees”, February 19, 1923, Swope Papers, FF113.8, #1, Schenectady Museum.Google Scholar

54. Armstrong, “Physical Examination of Employes,” 23;Google Scholar“Medical Service and Hospitals”, General Electric Review 20 (1917):661–70.Google Scholar

55. “Medical Examinations and Photographing of New Employees”.Google Scholar

56. The restaurant is described in detail in Ripley, Life in a Large Manufacturing Plant, 92–104;Google ScholarNoble, David F., America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism (New York, 1977), 278–79.Google Scholar

57. Steele, George F. to McCormick, Harold, April 18, 1905, McCormick Collection, Series 2C, box 40, SHSW.Google Scholar

58. Price, C. W. to Steele, George F., April 10, 1905, Series 2C, box 41. 1, McCormick Collection, SHSW; C. E. Eleveth to Gerard Swope, December 6, 1924, Swope Papers, FF 118.10. #1, Schenectady Museum; E. B. Merriam to G. E. Emmons, November 25, 1924, Swope Papers, FF 118.10, #1, Schenectady Museum.Google Scholar

59. Mumford, “This Land of Opportunity,” 23.Google Scholar

60. On the problems of the gardens at the Schenectady Works, see “Schenectady Works Annual Report for 1924,” Swope Papers, FF601, #1, Schenectady Museum.Google Scholar

61. Figures of sports participation by workers can be found in the memo, Eleveth to Swope, December 6, 1924, Swope Papers, 118.10, #1, Schenectady Museum.Google Scholar

62. Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labor, 454; Cohen, Making a New Deal, 183–211.Google Scholar

63. On workers' acceptance of welfare work at other plants, see Jacoby, Employing Bureaucracy, 54–56; Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism, 135–48; Meyer, Five Dollar Day, 195–202. On contemporary commentary on this acceptance, see Price, The Modern Factory, 330–31; Whitney, “Health and Recreation,” 31.Google Scholar

64. “Minutes of conference on Welfare Work at Chicago Commons,” Report on Welfare Capitalism at McCormick Works by Price, C. W., April 17, 1906, Series 2C, box 42, McCormick Collection, SHSW.Google Scholar

65. Meyers, James, Representative Government in Industry (New York. 1924), 18.Google ScholarOn spying in clubhouses, see Dunn, The Americanization of Labor, 202–3.Google Scholar

66. On the presence of staff at welfare work structures, see Bruère, Henry to McCormick, Cyrus, August 5, 1903, Series 2C, box 40, McCormick Collection, SHSW; Gertrude Beeks to E. A. S. Clarke, June 27, 1903, “Canvas Room, Deering Works,” Series 1C, box 24, McCormick Collection, SHSW. Also see photographs of lounges in the Glass Negative Series, SHSW.Google Scholar

67. Works News, September 1923;Google ScholarAsplet, J. C., “How Swift & Co. Advertise to Employees,” Printers' Ink 84 (08 7, 1913):10–12;Google ScholarDickinson, “Using Art and Type to Build Industrial Morale,” 24–25;Google ScholarBrewer, Louis, “Uneeda Biscuit—An Agent of Americanization,” Printers' Ink Monthly 5 (06 1922):31;Google ScholarMurphy, John Allen, “Advertised Products Are Americanizing Immigrants,” Printers' Ink Monthly 7 (07 1923):38–39, 124–26.Google Scholar

68. On the twine employees, see Beeks, Gertrude to Clarke, E. A. S., “Twine Mill,” June 27. 1903, Series 1C, box 24, McCormick Collection, SHSW.Google Scholar

69. Hoyle, Ralph, Interview with author, Schenectady, New York, February 3, 1996.Google Scholar

70. Whitney, Anice L., “Rest and Recreation Rooms and Rest Periods for Employees,” Monthly Labor Review 5 (10 1917):155.Google Scholar

71. Price, The Modern Factory, 292–94; Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism, 138–41.Google Scholar

72. Ozanne, A Century of Labor-Management Relations, 43.Google Scholar

73. Wise, George, Willis R. Whitney, General Electric, and the Origins of US. Industrial Research (New York, 1985), 213.Google Scholar

74. Theodore Bodde's impressions of the plant in 1902 are quoted in the Schenectady Gazette, April 26, 1983.Google Scholar

75. Cohen. Making a New Deal, 201–5, 209.Google Scholar

76. On European discussions of the spatial aspects of strikes and other labor actions, see Perrot, Michelle, Workers on Strike: France, 1871–1890, trans. Turner, Chris (New Haven, 1987), 144–87;Google ScholarBiernacki, Richard, The Fabrication of Labor: Germany and Britain, 1640–1914 (Berkeley, 1995), 105–44.Google ScholarDiscussions of the American scene can be found in Kulik, Gary, “Pawtucket Village and the Strike of 1824: The Origins of Class Conflict in Rhode Island,” Radical History Review 17 (1978):5–37;CrossRefGoogle ScholarZonderman, David, Aspirations and Anxieties: New England Workers and the Mechanized Factory System, 1815–1850 (New York, 1992), 195–233.Google Scholar

77. The description of these marches at the Schenectady plant are from the Schenectady Union-Star, November 29, 1913; October 4, 1915; June 18, 1917; Schenectady Gazette, October 5. 9. 1915. Also see Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labor, 441–42.Google Scholar

78. Schenectady Gazette, October 9, 1915.Google ScholarOn labor marches in the community, see Marston, Sallie, “Public Rituals and Community Power: St. Patrick's Day Parades in Lowell, Massachusetts, 1841#1874,” Political Geography Quarterly 8 (07 1989):255–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79. On the companies' battles against monopoly prosecution, see Marsh, A Corporate Tragedy, 43–49: Ozanne, A Century of Labor–Management Relations, 71–74; US Bureau of Corporations, “The International Harvester Co.,” March 8, 1913 (Washington, 1913), 1–37; Hammond, Men and Volts, 340–43.Google Scholar

80. “Making Cripples and Dodging Taxes,” Colliers, April 18, 1908, 22, 30; “Harvester Co. ‘Sweats’ Women, Probe Shows,” New York Tribune, August 22, 1912.Google Scholar

81. Johnson, Roy W. and Lynch, Russell W., The Sales Strategy of John H. Patterson (Chicago, 1932), 116–17.Google ScholarOn the publicity value of welfare work, see Ozanne, A Century of Labor–Management Relations, 71–100, 245–46; Dunn, The Americanization of Labor, 35; Crawford, Building the Workingman's Paradise, 55; Brody, Workers in Industrial America, 51–52; Brandes, American Welfare Capitalism, 18, 31, 90.Google Scholar

82. Barton, “The Welfare of the Laborer.”Google Scholar

83. On the National War Labor Board visit to the Schenectady plant, see Report of Nelson, John, Examiner, 07 21, 1918, in Papers of the National War Labor Board, 1918–1919 (Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America, microfilm, 1985), Reel 2, Number 0379. Docket 127.Google Scholar

84. Booklets describing welfare programs at International Harvester include The Story of Twine, 1831–1931 (Chicago, 1931), SHSW; and McCormick Works, (Chicago. 1924), Chicago Historical Society.Google Scholar

85. Ripley, Life in a Large Manufacturing Plant.Google Scholar

86. In Workers in Industrial America, David Brody, has argued that workers appreciated managerial attempts to counteract some of the excesses of the new factory system, which led to a reduction in labor-management conflict. Much current scholarship posits that welfare capitalism had a much more limited impact, including Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labor, 453–54; Zahavi, Workers, Managers, and Welfare Capitalism, 102–4; and Cohen, Making a New Deal, 183–211. Robert Ozanne in A Century of Labor-Management Relations evaluates the value of welfare programs in improving public relations for McCormick and finds that it was only partially successful; 70, 72, 96–99, 242–52.Google Scholar

87. On the decline of the Progressive movement in the 1920s, the role of advertising, and the rise of a consumerist ethic, see Hofstadter, Richard, The Progressive Movement, 1900–1915 (Englewood Cliffs, 1963), 14–15;Google ScholarEwen, Stuart, PR!: A Social History of Spin (New York. 1996), 126;Google ScholarMcCraw, Thomas, Prophets of Regulation (Cambridge, 1984), 143–52;Google ScholarGuimond, James, American Photography and the American Dream (Chapel Hill, 1991). 78–79:Google ScholarMarchand, Roland, Advertising the American Dream: Making Way for Modernity, 1920–1940 (Berkeley, 1985), 10–13.Google Scholar