Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
mission was to build a “foundation for the promotion and diffusion of
knowledge—a group of agencies organized to advance the arts and science
of every sort, and to train young men as scholars for all the intellectual
callings of life” (Scheuring 1995, 15). Despite strong support from the
California Grange, Carr's vision for the College of Agriculture lost out, and
Carr was dismissed in 1873, just four years after he took the job. Eugene
Hilgard, German-born and educated in the German university system, was
Carr's replacement. Unlike Carr, Hilgard believed in the primacy of scien-
tifi c research and education, claiming that the university's mission should
be “aimed at progress for the industry rather than training in specifi c farm
skills.”
5
Thus, opinions about the land-grant mission and its implementation
were divided from the start. Even when different actors and interest groups
agreed that a farm problem existed, their prescriptions were rarely the same.
But the sense remained that something needed to be done to improve
farming in the United States. Increasingly, farm life was seen as backward
and out of step with the lifestyle and effi ciency of modern urban life and
industry. As the nineteenth century ended and the land-grant system
approached its fortieth anniversary, this perception increased and was
combined with the philosophical and practical concerns of Progressivism.
Progressivism and the Country Life Movement: Foundations of Cooperative
Extension
The Progressive Era, roughly from 1890 to 1920, followed the widespread
changes and confl icts of the late nineteenth century. Historical work on
Progressivism is often divided on key questions, but certain elements of
Progressive thought stand out as generally accepted tenets.
6
These are
especially important for the study of Cooperative Extension in California
agriculture, for several reasons. First, Progressive thought and politics had
a large impact on California in the early decades of the twentieth century,
in large part as a reaction to the control that “machine politics” held over
the state. The Southern Pacifi c Railroad held a monopoly over the state's
railways, elections, and courthouses, and machine-style political systems
in both San Francisco and Los Angeles controlled the policies and purse
strings of California's two largest cities. The election of Progressive Gover-
nor Hiram Johnson in 1910 was a turning point in breaking this control
