Partnerships for adult learning:
Extension and learning communities in Saskatchewan, 1910 – 1963
Scott McLean,
University of Calgary, Canada
Introduction
Between 1910 and 1963, the development of learning communities in the province of Saskatchewan (Canada) was undertaken through a systematic and ambitious programme of nurturing and supporting local organisations for men, women, and youth. This programme was supported financially by the provincial government, and managed by the University of Saskatchewan through its Department of Extension and Department of Women’s Work. These two departments supervised and facilitated three extensive networks of local organisations around the province: Agricultural Societies, Homemakers’ Clubs (later known as Women’s Institutes), and Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs (later known as 4-H Clubs).
In this paper, I critically examine the partnership-based and learning community work of the University of Saskatchewan from 1910 to 1963. Using archival data and sociological concepts, I argue that such university-based adult education rose and fell due to the transformation of the provincial economy from one based on mercantile relations of production, to one based on capitalist relations. Using foucauldian insights, I further argue that university-based adult education was deployed by the state as a means of building adults’ capabilities to engage in productive roles in a changing economy – first as independent commodity producers, and later as wage labourers.
Description: University extension and learning communities
In 1909, founding university president Walter Murray set the tone for the relationship between the University and the people of Saskatchewan:
But whether the work of the University be conducted within the boundaries of the college campus, or throughout the length and breadth of the province, there should be ever present the consciousness that this is the University of the people, established by the people, and devoted by the people to the advancement of learning and the promotion of happiness and virtue. (p. 12 – Note that here, and in subsequent citations from University of Saskatchewan Annual Reports, a page number is given instead of a full bibliographic reference.)
Extension work became a key element of the connection between the University of Saskatchewan and the people of the province. The University of Saskatchewan was the first university in Western Canada to establish a department of university extension. From 1910 through 1963, the Department of Extension was an integral part of the College of Agriculture. Between 1913 and 1950, a separate Department of Women’s Work was responsible for extension programming to women across the province. In 1963, the Department of Extension was renamed the Extension Division, and moved out of the College of Agriculture.
The work of Extension in the early 1900s was largely practised by building partnerships with local organizations, and nurturing learning communities through developing leaders and members of such organizations. University of Saskatchewan Extension staff members supported, supervised, and facilitated the efforts of a network of Agricultural Societies, Homemaker’s Clubs, and Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs. Extension staff coordinated annual provincial and regional conventions for these organisations, organised educational field days, and provided lectures to public meetings and rallies around the province. The University’s 1911–12 Annual Report described one such event:
The annual Convention of Agricultural Societies, held at the University in February together with the Homemakers’ Convention, brought upwards of 200 representative men and women from all parts of the province. The Convention lasted for four days and besides questions relating to the management of the Agricultural Societies, lectures and demonstrations of an educational nature were given for purpose of arousing interest in the delegates in educational work that might be carried on in their districts. (p.9)
Through conventions, lectures, and less formal activities, Extension staff developed the capabilities of men and women who were providing leadership to local organisations that, in turn, organised numerous events with educational elements. The Department of Extension also administered grants to local groups for providing educational content at events such as exhibitions, seed fairs, ploughing matches, crop competitions, field days, poultry shows, farmers’ rallies, and other meetings of farmers and homemakers. As further support to the members of societies and clubs across Saskatchewan, Extension units produced and distributed bulletins and other publications, and organised excursions to the College of Agriculture and to various experimental farms.
In 1925, Robert Stinton, Chair of the University of Saskatchewan Advisory Council in Agriculture, praised the work of the university with Agricultural Societies, arguing:
While the work of research and teaching at the University is exceedingly important, the work of getting useful practical information in usable form to the men and women on the farms is not less so. It is very necessary that any information that will result in greater economies, in higher production yields and quality, in better methods of marketing and merchandising farm products, should be gotten out to the farmers as quickly as possible. (p.29)
The full impact of the work of the societies and clubs is difficult for contemporary readers to appreciate. From 1910 through the 1930s, Saskatchewan did not have the range of government services that are now taken for granted. Social services, social assistance, child welfare, health care, economic development, municipal planning, recreation, and culture were not served by federal or provincial government departments as they are now. In a bootstrap manner, the Agricultural Societies and the Homemakers’ Clubs actively engaged in the development and provision of these services. As an illustration, in 1928, Abigail DeLury, Director of Women’s Work, described some of the work undertaken by Homemakers Clubs:
… looking after the sick and needy, helping hospitals, helping secure nursing homes and nurses, securing and assisting with clinics, bringing the various government extension agencies to the attention of the people, welcoming and helping immigrants and other new comers, helping with the social life of the community and the needs of the children, tree planting and beautifying homes, towns and cemeteries in the neighbourhood, helping schools in many ways, such as helping to beautify their grounds, and procuring games and playgrounds for the school children, pictures for the school room, purchasing of pianos for school and community use, scales for the weighing of school children, looking after sanitary arrangements, etc. (pp.58-59)
In this era, the livelihood of the majority of people in Saskatchewan depended on producing food and agricultural commodities on small farms. Many farmers had recently immigrated to the province and often lacked the knowledge required for efficient production in their new environment. Indeed, many were farming for the first time. Providing information and education about how to grow crops and raise animals was a vital function, challenged by geographic distance and the absence of convenient methods of communication.
In addition to their work with societies and clubs for adults, Extension units at the University of Saskatchewan undertook educational and leadership development work with youth. It involved two primary activities: facilitating a network of Boys’ Clubs and Girls’ Clubs across rural Saskatchewan and organizing camps and conventions for farm boys and farm girls. In his 1935–36 Annual Report, John Rayner described the dual pedagogical aspects of the Boys’ Clubs and Girls’ Clubs:
The first is the technical project which involves the carrying out of a practical agricultural program such as the growing of grain or the raising of pigs, calves, colts or chickens, and the exhibiting of these at the club achievement day or fair. The second includes what might be termed the citizenship features of the movement through which the members learn to serve as officers of the club, to co-operate with their fellows, to conduct meetings, to take part in discussion, to speak in public, to take part in debates, plays, sketches, etc. Experience with the club movement leads to the conclusion that these citizenship features are not less important than the immediate economic agricultural purpose of the club program. (p.58)
In addition to participating in the agricultural and citizenship aspects of the programmes, many girls also completed sewing, dressmaking, and cooking projects. By 1937, the Extension units reported that 7,000 boys and 2,000 girls were engaged in local club work.
Boys’ Clubs and Girls’ Clubs provided educational, social, and leadership development opportunities for young people in their home communities, while regional and provincial events organised by Extension staff brought together youth from different communities. Farm Boys’ Camps were initiated in Regina in 1915 and in Saskatoon in 1920 in conjunction with the annual Industrial Exhibitions in these cities. A few years later, Farm Girls’ Camps were also added to the exhibitions in Regina and Saskatoon. As an event separate from the exhibitions, a Farm Girls’ Convention was held each summer at the University of Saskatchewan campus, beginning in 1920. The Farm Girls’ Convention was eventually re-named 4-H Homecraft Club Week.
By the thirties, Boys’ Camps and Girls’ Camps were also held at exhibitions in ten regional centres around the province. Youth attendance was sponsored by local agricultural societies, and the camps were supported by the Provincial Department of Agriculture, the Exhibition Boards, and the University of Saskatchewan. The curriculum of all camps included life skills, personal hygiene, citizenship, recreation, and music. In addition, the boys learned about crop and animal production, and the girls learned about a range of topics in home economics. In 1939 about 1,200 boys and 900 girls took part in these camps.
Between 1940 and 1960, Saskatchewan 4-H Clubs (previously known as Boys’ Clubs and Girls’ Clubs) had an average annual membership of 7,570 young people, participating in an average of about 500 clubs around the province. The most popular clubs focused on beef or grain production, and home economics, but a significant number were specialised poultry, dairy, and garden clubs. Just as local 4-H club work continued in these decades, so did the practice of holding farm boys’ and farm girls’ camps in conjunction with various exhibitions across the province. Between 1940 and 1960, an average of 717 boys and 582 girls participated in these camps each year.
Between 1910 and 1963, the University of Saskatchewan accomplished a remarkable amount of work in partnership with local organisations around the province. The number of Agricultural Societies in the province increased from 77 in 1910 to 162 in 1928, and then declined to 85 in 1957. The number of Homemakers’ Clubs in Saskatchewan increased from nil in 1910, to 228 in 1927, and 315 in 1957. Following the establishment of the Extension Division in 1963, the University of Saskatchewan gradually withdrew from the direct supervision and support of such local organisations, to concentrate its extension efforts on providing continuing education programmes and services directly to adult learners.
Analysis: critical perspectives on learning communities and partnerships
University extension workers in Saskatchewan from 1910 to 1963 were engaged in developing leaders for networks of local organisations that would in turn undertake extensive community and educational work. It is now commonplace to look back upon the history of extension in these decades with a warm, nostalgic feeling. Those seemed to be ‘the good old days’, when extension was funded through government contributions to universities, and when extension programming did not have to recover costs or generate profits through tuition charged to participants. Ideas such as ‘building learning communities’ and ‘nurturing local leaders’ seem politically appealing when so much contemporary extension work in North America is perceived to be oriented toward packaging and selling educational commodities to those who can afford to pay. Upon closer inspection, however, even in those ‘good old days’, extension work had ambivalent political implications.
Rather than accepting the emergence and expansion of Agricultural Societies, Homemakers’ Clubs, and Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs as some natural expression of grassroots yearning for learning, I argue that these organisations were in fact orchestrated by representatives of the state, and explicitly managed in order to build adults’ capabilities to engage in productive roles in a changing economy. In order to make this argument, I first introduce two key sociological concepts: subjection and modes of production. While an extensive literature review is outside the scope of this article, readers wishing recent examples of related works inspired by Foucault should consult those by Beckmann & Cooper (2005), Fejes (2005), and Olssen (2006). Recent studies incorporating Marxian insights include those by Crowther (2004) and Murphy (2000).
Prior to the work of Michel Foucault, it was common to argue that political power was exercised by convincing or coercing autonomous citizens to act in certain ways. However, since Foucault many sociologists have suggested that political rule may sometimes be less of an explicitly coercive project than a diffuse structure of experiences through which human beings take on the capacity and the desire to govern themselves. Foucault (1982, 789) argues:
the exercise of power is not violence; nor is it a consent which, implicitly, is renewable. It is a total structure of actions brought to bear upon possible actions; it incites, it induces, it seduces, it makes easier or more difficult; in the extreme it constrains or forbids absolutely; it is nevertheless always a way of acting upon an acting subject or acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable of action.
Power refers to processes which enable or restrict people's capacities for particular forms of action or consciousness. Power inheres to all social relations, because all relations promote or discourage alternative forms of action or consciousness. Rose & Miller (1992, 174) claim that
the political vocabulary structured by oppositions between state and civil society, public and private, government and the market, coercion and consent, sovereignty and autonomy and the like, does not adequately characterise the diverse ways in which rule is exercised in advanced liberal democracies. Political power is exercised today through a profusion of shifting alliances between diverse authorities in projects to govern a multitude of facets of economic activity, social life and individual conduct. Power is not so much a matter of imposing constraints upon citizens as of 'making up' citizens capable of bearing a kind of regulated freedom. Personal autonomy is not the antithesis of political power, but a key term in its exercise, the more so because most individuals are not merely the subjects of power but play a part in its operations.
Local organisations and learning communities are not simply sites through which autonomous citizens come together for learning, social action, and entertainment. Rather, they are also sites for the production and regulation of citizens – sites at which certain forms of thought and action are promoted at the expense of alternative possible forms.
The forms of power through which human subjects are produced and governed vary according to historical circumstance (Foucault, 1982, 781). A simple way to incorporate this key theoretical insight into the analysis of university extension and learning communities is through the concept of ‘modes of production’. In the 1970s, various authors argued that a key to understanding the nature of society was to analyze the social relations through which the members of any given society produced and exchanged the goods and services required for their subsistence and reproduction. Such writers contrasted the capitalist mode of production with various ‘pre-capitalist’ or ‘non-capitalist’ modes. Capitalism was defined, in essence, as a mode of production in which resources required for production (such as land, equipment, and raw materials) are controlled by one social class (the ‘bourgeoisie’), so that the majority of people (the “proletariat”) are compelled to sell their labour in order to make a living. Non-capitalist modes of production, such as the feudal mode, were seen to co-exist with capitalism through various forms of ‘articulation’.
Simplistic notions of historical materialism were soundly criticised in the 1980s. Nevertheless, the concept of modes of production helps correct an important shortcoming of existing literature about university extension inSaskatchewan: the fact that many authors ignore or underestimate the fundamental political-economic transformation that took place in that province in the twentieth century. While Canada and the United States are undoubtedly ‘capitalist countries’, there were significant areas within North America – including the province of Saskatchewan – where the majority of people, for significant periods of time, made their living in ways other than selling their labour within capitalist relations of production.
To understand the changing role of university extension and local organisations in Saskatchewan, one must recognise the fundamental transformation that took place in the province in the middle of the twentieth century. In the early part of the 1900s, the provincial economy was dominated by a mercantilist system, in which independent producers (primarily farmers) sold commodities to the marketplace. In the middle decades of the century, there was a profound shift in the mode of production, and wage labour replaced commodity production as the primary means of earning a living. By the 1970s, capitalism had matured in Saskatchewan, and wage labour had become taken for granted as the source of most people’s subsistence.
Conclusion: partnerships, learning communities, and political rule
The rise and fall of local organisations and learning communities as the primary method for university extension work in Saskatchewan reflected a consistent interest on the part of government officials with building the capabilities of citizens to undertake productive roles in a changing economy. The University of Saskatchewan was given government funding and an explicit mandate to work with Agricultural Societies and Homemakers’ Clubs. Local societies and clubs could access government grants for specific activities, as long as specific reports were submitted to the University of Saskatchewan to document the accomplishment of those activities. The activities of the local societies and clubs were directed and supervised by university personnel, through messages delivered at annual conventions and regional gatherings, and through direct correspondence and administrative procedures.