Domestic service

by Lucy Maynard Salmon

The plan of co-operative housekeeping would, if carried out successfully, undoubtedly remove many of the difficulties of the question of service. But it presents others, some of which are inherent in human nature and therefore not easily or speedily removed. It presupposes that all persons are equally endowed by nature with business instinct, which by cultivation will develop into business success; it overlooks the fact that ninety-five per cent of men do not succeed in business when conducting it independently, and that these are in the employ of the few gifted with executive talent, “one of the rarest of human endowments.” Again, the same difficulty exists as was presented to Louis XVIII. when he attempted to create a new order of nobility after the restoration of the Bourbon line; history tells us that he could find many willing to be dukes and earls but none willing to be anything less. Most persons are willing to co-operate in the management of an association, but modern industry, Nicholas Payne Gilman has well said, “takes on more and more the character of a civilized warfare in which regiments of brigadier-generals are quite out of place.”

Co-operation also requires for its success certain positive characteristics. It implies an ability to subordinate the individual to the general welfare, to sacrifice present comfort to future good, to decide whether an act is right or wrong by making it general, to put all questions on an impersonal basis. The principles on which the family is organized and the conditions surrounding the housekeeper make these necessary qualifications peculiarly hard to attain. Ideal co-operative housekeeping implies ideal co-operators, and these it will be difficult to find before the majority of the employers have more business training and more unselfishness than are now found.

All the arguments that prevail against co-operation in ordinary business enterprises must prevail against the system in household management. “All that is needed is the proper person to take the charge,” it is often explained. But it is at this very point that the theory breaks down. If the competent manager is secured, the plan ceases to be co-operative housekeeping. But the competent manager is the most difficult person in the world to find. “The man we want to manage our farm has a farm of his own,” said a city lawyer of the old family homestead; the same principle holds in the household. It must be said too that neither productive nor distributive co-operation has yet proved an unqualified success in other industries where the difficulties to be encountered are far less than in the case of that most complicated of organisms—the modern household. A larger number of successful experiments in co-operation must have been tried in this country in other and simpler fields before co-operative housekeeping can prove a panacea for all the troubles attending domestic service.

Certain practical difficulties have also been found. In all experiments in pure or partial co-operative housekeeping it has been found impossible to deliver cooked food hot and invariable in quality at the same hour to all the members of the association. In one city a company was organized as a business enterprise to furnish hot lunches to business men at their offices and also to supply family tables. The prices charged were double those of ordinary table-board, but the expenses were very heavy, no dividends were ever declared, and the object was ultimately changed to that of supplying clubs and private entertainments. That clock-like regularity in the serving of meals, demanded alike by health and business hours, is impossible, unless co-operation is universal, where families in the association reside from five to twenty blocks apart.

But the most insuperable objection to co-operative housekeeping as a remedy for the troubles with servants is the fact that the majority of persons do not wish it. The proposition suggests to many the homely adage of curing the disease by killing the patient. When its friends say in its favor, “Every time an apartment house is built having one common dining-room and one kitchen a blow is aimed at the isolated home,” the great majority of Americans rise up in protest. The semi-co-operative system of living is apparently rendered necessary in New York City by reason of the enormous value of land, but wherever the detached house having light on four sides is possible, as it is everywhere else, the American home-lover will rally to its support. Unless the desire for co-operative housekeeping and co-operative living becomes more general than it is at present, some other means of relief must be sought.

Much, however, of the so-called co-operative housekeeping is in reality co-operative boarding. This is true of “The Roby” experiment tried successfully for a time at Decatur, Illinois.[290] Fifty-four of the leading persons in the city formed a club, adopted a constitution and bylaws, elected officers, and found that through this organization they could “live off the fat of the land for $2.75 per week.” The plan in its essence is an old one; it has been followed for years by college students in institutions that do not provide dormitories. In many college towns it is rendered almost necessary by virtue of the residence there of many persons owning houses who wish to take lodgers but not boarders and of many women without capital who wish to act as housekeepers. But probably few college students consider it an ideal way of living, it is tolerable only at a time of life when new experiences are always welcome, and few have ever been known to continue it beyond college days.

Undoubtedly by a system of co-operative boarding many families could live better, at much less expense, and at a saving of time and certain kinds of friction. But co-operative boarding is to the employer what high wages are to the employee—he is willing to sacrifice something for what seems to him life, that is, in this case, the unity, privacy, quiet, and independence of family life. The friction with servants is obviated since the plan includes a housekeeper who is to stand between the co-operators and the employees, but the common interest of desiring freedom from the care of servants and of securing the best board at the lowest rates is not a tie strong enough to bind together those whose interests in other directions are most diverse. Co-operative boarding will do much for the vast army of persons obliged to board, but all such plans should receive their proper designation and not be called co-operative housekeeping. For the great majority of housekeepers who do not care to give up their individual homes, the system proposed will bring no relief.

Still a third scheme called co-operative housekeeping is that proposed by Mr. Bellamy.[291] This is a union of co-operative housekeeping and co-operative boarding, with the application to both of certain business principles already recognized in the housekeeping of to-day. In so far as it is a combination of the two plans already discussed, it is open to the same criticisms as are its component parts, while the business principles suggested are the result of the same unconscious, not conscious, co-operation that governs all industries.

It must be said, therefore, that all of these various measures of relief proposed to meet the difficulty fail, because, like the golden rule and the admission of the employee into the family life of the employer, they do not touch the economic, educational, and industrial difficulties; or because, like the license, the importation of negro and Chinese labor, the training-school for servants and co-operative housekeeping, they run at right angles to general economic, educational, and industrial progress. The question how to improve the present condition of domestic service is, however, not a hopeless one, but the answer to it must be based on an examination of the historical and economic principles underlying the subject.