As we begin to address these questions, it is important to note that most of the Harvey Girls were eager to join the Fred Harvey organization. They were not primarily immigrants from other lands seeking employment that would enable them to meet the basic needs of survival. Does this mean that caring habits of the heart reside more often in the lives of these young women? The answer is a bit mixed. Here is the scorecard, using the same de Tocqueville categories engaged in our review of the life and work of the Mill Girls.
Equality of opportunity, knowledge, and status exists in the community: it is certainly the case that the Harvey Girls epitomized the opening of not only the American West but also employment opportunities for women. There was a real chance for women in early 20th-century America to remain unmarried (for at least a few years). They could follow a new dictate: “Go west [young woman]”. Fred Harvey certainly discovered the right formula in mobilizing the energy of these adventurous women. What happened, however, after these women arrived on the scene? Was it any better than becoming a dutiful housewife? Were there career advancement opportunities for these women? Not really.
Settings exist in the community for vivid and sustained dialogue: A vital culture was created among the Harvey Girls. Lively conversations were going on into the evening (there being not much else to do in the small railroad towns of the West or in the splendid but often quite remote locations of the National Parks). There were reports that the Harvey Girls sometimes participated in the many educational activities offered at the parks. However, we suspect that these activities soon became repetitive. What was of interest to these women after the tenth lecture of the month concerning the flora and fauna of their park. How many times can these young ladies find excitement (or good food) at the local eatery?
As in the case of the Mill Girls, we found little evidence that there were any meaningful dialogues between the Harvey Girls and Harvey management. Even potential insights regarding ways to improve the quality of service in the restaurants were not requested by those managing these restaurants. There was the Fred Harvey way of doing things. This way was not subject to much dialogue or deliberation.
Shared interests and reasons of mutual support are to be found in the community: As in the case of Mill Girls, there were many shared interests and reasons for mutual support among Harvey Girls. However, there was little shared interest or support at a broader level. The “heartful” community was established among the Harvey Girls, but not among all members of the Harvey community. The Harvey Girls experienced none of the more dramatic (and even drastic) conditions of abuse and economic confinement that were common among Mill Girls and that brought these Mill workers together. Nevertheless, there was still the social “glue” that is to be found in the shared aspirations and flight from traditional domestic roles that reinforced and provided direction for the Harvey Girls community.
Civic associations (non-government community-oriented institutions) are prevalent in the community: This de Tocqueville criterion held no relevance for the Harvey Girls. There was no broader community within which these women lived. There was only their restaurant located in the railroad town or the National Park. There were also very few attempts by outside “agitators” to advocate for better working conditions among the Harvey Girls. Their life was glamorized in the outside world. The Harvey restaurants were certainly not portrayed as hell holes. Just as restaurant workers in general have been among the slowest and most reticent to unionize in the United States, there were no notable attempts to form a union among the Harvey Girls or for these women to join existing unions.
