Conclusion
Although the electrical campaigns during the inter-war years, and the work of the EAW are hard to evaluate as either successful or failures in terms of a rapid increase in electrical consumption, or whether recommendations and lobbying were considered and accepted, the EAW is significance for its’ collective work, its campaigns and lobbying from “a woman’s point of view”. In fact by the late 1930s the efficacy of the EAW was already being doubted as they were still preaching to those already converted, the middle-classes, the elite of society, further enhancing an already privileged and affluent lifestyle; and the suspicion arose that they only existed to provide patronage for wives of senior electricity supply managers. The idea of the woman’s point of view was also somewhat of a myth as most women, judging by the perceived problem of housework as boring, unstimulating and tiring, would rather not have done it themselves; instead the path uncritically taken by the EAW was the patriarchal ideology advocated by the Electricity Industry of women actively consuming many appliances to privately service the needs of the male.
The Economist in 1938 was still criticising the lack of standard voltage, inadequate wiring and insufficient points, campaigns for which both EAW and EDA had been involved many years before, but equally as importantly electrical appliances were still seen by the public as luxuries, which advertising only served to reinforce, creating the impression of elitism; and manufactures were still unable to drop their prices.
Part of significance of the EAW was its role in enabling women to consume actively, setting standards for consumer evaluation of products, allowing “ordinary” women to take part in a democratic design process where their “expertise” because of their domestic role, allowing them to make a collective contribution to industry and design. Although in fact that the EAW ordinary membership had a fairly inactive role mediated via the more active leadership, and very little chance of dialogue except through questionnaires.
The EAW did not significantly change the conduct of housework except it could be argued for the worse- by not attempting to take their collective action further and advocate communal housework and facilities, (although probably because of their middle-class origins the EAW would genuinely not have considered any other option),concentrating instead on the individual and the individual home. However they never seemed to believe that they would ever entirely get rid of housework, their aim was purely to reduce drudgery and through scientific planning, to give the housewife status.
Electricity was seen by the EAW as a civilising force allowing its members to carry out some form of social philanthropy that would keep the working-class in their place, thereby stabilising society. It was not seen as a means to overthrow the class system. In their attitudes to different strata of society, the EAW believed that each strata had disparate needs and desires, however when making this differential, they did not seem to appreciate the real concerns and needs of the working-class, merely projecting their own class ideology
However the EAW were of considerable significance in their ideas about women, technology, status, skill and technical careers. Feminist writers on technology describe women’s exclusion from technology, yet the introduction of the modern source of power allowed the EAW and the WES to push into areas traditionally identified as male strongholds;
The EAW believed in the liberating potential of electricity, and made sure that women had access to techniques, schooling and training, formal and informal ways of becoming familiar with technology.
With the WES, they helped fight for access to paid workplaces of scientific and technological production.
In their surveys and building proposals, they fought that designed for and by men to oppress women .
But the exclusion of women from the design of technology also has the incidental effect of producing techniques which are appropriate to male needs and male bodies, not to female ones...Even when techniques are intended to be used by women...it is clear that women’s needs and priorities are not incorporated into the design process.
They fought the positivist and masculine character of scientific, technical knowledge with their own publications, their use of planning and scientific knowledge, and conceptual participation within the industry.
They were also inventors, designing for women’s needs.
They recognised technical skills through examination, certificates and diplomas.
The ideology of the EAW involved the conquest of technical ignorance, modernisation of the home and enrichment of leisure.
The EAW were involved in electrical technology as both producers and consumers, they genuinely believed that it was not an instrument of male power, whilst paradoxically servicing the nedds of the male-dominated electrical industry; nor did it hold out the immediate promise of liberation from day to day labour. Whilst using the terminology of the labour-saving movement and never challenging the nature of housework they believed that technology could make labour easier for women, and allow more time in which to do other things. It was the future that would be of importance for some women when they would be able to have a technical profession and skill.