Agricultural History Review, Volume 51 Part 2 (2003), p. 246

Margreet van der Burg’s Ph.D thesis not only satisfies a need but also signifies a break with the themes and approaches of the Wageningen School. Van der Burg researched the importance to women of agricultural education between 1863, when the first Dutch law on secondary education was adopted, and 1968, when another major law on secondary education was approved. She combines an anthropological approach with an historical perspective on culture and ethos. She chooses agricultural education for farmers’ spouses, other rural women, and their daughters as her subject matter because this type of education was a means of involving women in agricultural modernization and rural development. Education is defined broadly here and includes the vast network of organizations and individuals who acted as advocates of the interests of women.

Two chapters introducing the topic are followed by five chapters that discuss the pioneers of women’s agricultural education, the special position of women in dairy farming, the emergence and evolution of agrarian home economics and a concluding one with suggestions for further research. These five core chapters are drafted clearly and offer a wealth of new material. The introduction is a bit lengthy. After all, is not the lack of current historical studies of agrarian women evident to all?

Men had a large role in the debate about women’s labour and training. Among the pioneers – A.M.M. Storm van der Chijs, W.C.H. Staring, B.W.A.E. Sloet tot Oldenhuis and J.P. Amerfoort – the feminist Storm van der Chijs (1814–1895) was the only woman. She carved a unique position for herself at the annual conferences on agrarian home economics with her pleas to expand the occupational roles and education of women. During the nineteenth century, these conferences constituted national forums on agricultural and rural issues. The events were dominated by men. In agrarian history, Storm van der Chijs’ contributions to the agricultural debates were kept out of sight, the rare authors excepted who portrayed her as an eccentric. Van der Burg shows that this qualification was unmerited.

To some extent, the important themes of ‘Geen tweede boer’ (‘Not another farmer’) trigger comparisons with today’s debates about the double responsibilities of women. Family and farm being one, farmer spouses were often occupied by many varied tasks such as running the household, milking the cows, helping with the harvest, tending to chickens and young animals, growing vegetables and assisting with dairy processing. These tasks left history review them little time for their tasks of spouse, mother and educator. The bourgeois, urban ideal that put the latter tasks to the forefront had little applicability to everyday life on the farm. Practical know-how and a hands-on mindset were considered more important than offering a cup of tea and an attentive ear. In the long term the supporting and educating tasks of spouse and mother gained the upper hand but even then they were viewed as strengthening the farming business.

The curricula for agricultural home economics that emerged after 1900 expressed this view. As debates were waged whether curricula should stress general home economics or agriculture, there was agreement that the training should not turn the spouses into ‘another farmer’, hence the title of the thesis. The 1919 law that made agrarian home economics a branch of general home economics was contested by agricultural circles. When protest proved ineffective, a few female teachers of agrarian home economics, inspired by experiences abroad and supported by farmers’ leaders, expeditiously brought about the professionalization of Dutch agrarian home economics. They and the male leaders shared the view that modern agricultural education should benefit both the individual and rural society. Groningen native Theda Mansholt took the lead as director of the first national training institute for teachers of agrarian home economics (1913–41). She prepared farmer spouses and other rural women from the wealthier layers of rural society for missionary work among their less prosperous and less modernization-minded sisters.

The great merit of ‘Geen tweede boer’ is that it establishes links between agrarian and rural history on the one hand and female and gender history on the other. Hitherto, the former neglected gender while the latter paid little attention to differences between town and country. In short, then, unambiguous praise for this Wageningen thesis that not only presents much new information on the history of agricultural education of the spouses of farmers and rural women but also provides a lead for scholarly debate on the gender dimensions of over one hundred years of agricultural modernization and rural development in the Netherlands.