Search results

Hazel Kyrk’s recognised contributions include a shift in analytic focus from production to consumption, pioneering work to measure household production as part of family income, empirical studies of family behaviour, and contributions to policy. But her account of ‘wise’ consumption and its intersection with ‘high’ living standards is not well understood. The three aims of this chapter are to explain ‘wise’ consumption across Kyrk’s three major books, to consider its role in Kyrk’s empirical studies, and to explain why it fell into oblivion. Tackling what Wesley Mitchell described as the ‘most baffling of difficulties’, Kyrk explained what constitutes a family’s ‘good’ in a manner that was critical of mere emulation. Her 1923 book required that wise consumption include new and personal elements. Her 1929/1933 book detailed five qualitative criteria (balance between interests, full and varied experiences, originality, rational sources of satisfaction, and the use of scientific information). But her 1953 book weakened this normative language, reflecting Margaret Reid’s view that Kyrk’s account was too demanding. Although Kyrk felt wise consumption avoided paternalism, her peers disagreed (Hoyt, 1938/1945; Reid, 1938/1945). We close with some problems with Kyrk’s account and a brief consideration of its continuing relevance.

Universities traditionally have had two primary cultural functions. One is to maintain the “eternal verities” of the tribe. The other is to “advance the frontiers of knowledge.” While not wholly antithetical, these two functions do at times pose a delicate balancing act. To advance the so-called frontiers of knowledge may well undermine the very foundations of conventional tribal wisdom and appear to undermine the instituted hierarchy or status system of the society. This can provoke outrage on the part of the beneficiaries of the hierarchy; it may also disturb the cultural contentment of all the rest of the tribe upon whom complicity in the faith is essential for domestic tranquility. Although one might wonder at the outrage of those who might well be viewed as victims of the system, on reflection it is easily understood. To admit that which they believe is a hoax would mean that they were dupes. And no one likes to think that he or she has been taken. In other words, the British people do not like to be reminded of the cultural sham of a Royal Family.