Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5cfd469876-fsxpr Total loading time: 0.21 Render date: 2021-06-25T02:58:26.197Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Editors' Note

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2019

Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Editor's Note
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 2019 

One of the great pleasures of editing The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era is observing shifts in the currents of scholarship on our era and trends in submissions as they come across our desks. We often receive proposals for specific forums and special issues highlighting new directions in the field, showcasing pathbreaking methodologies, or commemorating historical milestones. These curated forums and special issues are wonderful opportunities to take stock of specific historiographical trajectories, to reflect on our collective endeavor of scholarship, and to focus our attention on some of the most pressing issues of the day. But because of the uncertainty of the peer-review process and the intricacies of our publishing schedule, it is often more difficult to showcase the unheralded trends that emerge from among the everyday submissions to the journal.

This issue on the history of food in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era is an exception. Drawn from the welter of submissions we've received over the last two years, it created an opportunity for us to explore how ideas about food and health changed as Americans encountered new consumer products and new understandings of the body. As Megan Elias points out, “Historians have long understood the Progressive Era as a time of social transformation, but we can also see it as a time when the American body was transformed.” Collectively, the essays in this issue argue that “changes in thinking about and producing food result both actually and symbolically in changes to the human body.”

While revealing as a group, each essay stands on its own. Megan Elias opens the issue with an introductory essay locating the articles within the broader historiography on food and the Gilded Age and Progressive Era and argues that scholarship on food and foodways ought to be included within intellectual history. In her contribution, Helen Veit offers a history of the emergence of Cottolene as an everyday food product by the early twentieth century. A manufactured product derived from cottonseed oil—a substance long discarded as a non-foodstuff for much of the nineteenth century—the invention, marketing, and widespread adoption of Cottolene, Crisco, and other cottonseed oil products obfuscated their origins as an industrial by-product, paving the way for the American consumers’ growing comfort with highly processed foods and their concomitant ignorance about the ingredients they consume. While Veit's article explores one form of intellectual abstraction, Chin Jou's essay explores another. She investigates the popularization of the idea of the calorie and the rise of calorie counting as a dieting strategy in the 1910s and 1920s to argue that calorie-restriction programs acted as a form of surveillance and control over women's bodies, but also promoted ideals that could trouble the traditional gendering of bodies.

The mutability of bodies was a concern for dieters; it was also a goal of social reformers. When writing about the New England Kitchen, a dietary reform experiment in 1890s Boston, historians have focused largely on the movement's failure to change working-class diets. But, in analyzing the movement's interrelated and sometimes contradictory ideas about food and bodies, Nicholas J.P. Williams argues instead for the importance of the New England Kitchen to the broader intellectual history of the Progressive Era. Pulling apart the interconnected conceptions guiding the movement's experiment, he argues that “reformist thought was not only defined by plurality across reform efforts; it was contradictory and internally inconsistent, and above all, it was messy—a work in progress.” Finally, Alana Toulin delves into the uses of advertising and outreach by American food manufacturers in an effort to sway public opinion after the 1906 passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act. Focusing on the co-option of reform ideals and rhetoric by the food industry, Toulin argues that that Act was not the watershed food reform moment it's often depicted as being. Instead, she uses a cultural historical approach to explore how unresolved questions about the safety of food continued and have persisted despite legislation and the marketing efforts of industry.

You have Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Editors' Note
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Editors' Note
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Editors' Note
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *