Brandon Ching
PAF 602 (Fall 2008)

Abstract

Stivers, C. M. (2002). Bureau Men, Settlement Women: Constructing Public Administration in the Progressive Era (Studies in Government and Public Policy). University Press Of Kansas.

Camilla Stivers’ Bureau Men, Settlement Women is a historical reconstruction of the early days of public administration with a particular emphasis on gender influences. Focusing on the Progressive Era, Stivers dichotomizes municipal research bureaus and settlement houses as distinct yet complimentary forms of governmental reform organizations central to the rise of the administrative state. Research bureaus, focused on objective and procedural efficiency in administration, are identified as masculine; while settlement houses, focused on substantive social improvement, are seen as feminine.

The research bureaus in the Progressive Era were formed to combat the corruption and poor living conditions of municipalities. Charged with the goal of social and governmental reform, research bureaus set out to make efficiency in government a top priority. Essentially male dominated organizations, early research bureaus focused on bringing science and business practices to government. This was seen as the best way for government to meet social needs; better government processes meant better social well being.

While sharing the identical goals of social reform and improvement, settlement houses, operated and occupied predominantly by women, sought these goals through different means. Politics, being seen as an aggressive and manly endeavor, was no place for the, “piety, purity, submissiveness and domesticity”  (p. 49) of women. Thus, suffrage not yet a reality, middle and upper-class women joined in groups and settlements seeking social change through more substantive measures like learning about the sources of poverty by living in poor neighborhoods.

Given that contemporary public administration is descended from the bureau methods of objective and scientific approaches, Stivers work highlights the gender based reasons for this: the woman driven settlement house approach to fixing social and governmental problems was seen as too feminine against the more masculine methods of the male driven research bureaus.

Through a thorough historical analysis of the New York Bureau of Municipal Research paralleled with the contributions of socially minded settlement houses and social reformers, Stivers has given public administration a more complete historical foundation paying tribute to the often overlooked contribution of women in American history and given reason for the mode of the modern administrative state.

Critique

Bureau Men, Settlement Women was a surprisingly insightful text. While I should now be used to finding incredible insight in every book we read, I continue to be pleasantly surprised! While I was well aware of the diminished role that history often pays to women, I found Stivers’ justification for the modern mode of the administrative state quite enlightening. After finishing the book, I kept wondering how things would be today if our modern state adopted more of the methods of the settlement houses; more of a focus on results and people rather than simply processes. Would we be in a socialist state? What might our gender roles look like?

The coverage of the New York Bureau of Municipal Research was quite extensive and well done. While I appreciated the depth of history presented, after reading it I sort of felt that it was a little too extensive for what I thought the book was trying convey. In all honesty, it got a little boring after a few pages. I think that Stivers could have easily shortened that chapter while still retaining the thrust of her argument. Though it certainly does give credence to the bureau processes.

With regard to the current global financial crisis and the ideas presented in this book, I find it very interesting, and somewhat hurtful actually, that many people still regard socially conscious actions as feminine in nature. However, it seems that in place of gender, today we have shifted to the taxonomy of economics; socialism in place of feminine and capitalism in place of masculine. While I would imagine they were much more obvious at the turn of the twentieth century, I feel that the gender undertones of modern social welfare are disrespectful and inhibiting of social growth. Being a man, when people learn that I don’t care much for everything capitalism has to offer, I immediately get associated with being a soft socialist who wants to take everyone’s money and give it to the poor. Socialism, having some “feminine” qualities like caring for the well being of others, sharing, and simply being reasonable to your fellow human being, is in stark contrast to the masculine, cutthroat, and aggressive nature of capitalism. I never really made these associations until reading Stivers.

Tags: abstract, efficiency, Progressive, public administration, reconstruction