Progress in the household

by Lucy Maynard Salmon

A glance at our periodical literature does indeed show unusual interest in all questions affecting domestic life. Economists are asking why the wages paid for domestic service are higher than those paid the average woman in other occupations, and why, in spite of this, the demand for household workers is greater than the supply. Philanthropists are puzzled to know why girls prefer to live in crowded tenement-houses on the merest pittance rather than enjoy many of the comforts of home life as a household employee. Experienced housekeepers find life a burden when it becomes necessary to change the divinity who rules the kitchen or the nursery, and wonder why it is so difficult to secure efficient help. Educated women without homes who desire to learn the principles of domestic science can find no explanation for the fact that the United States with its hundreds of thousands of schools affords scarcely one where this subject can be studied as a serious profession as is law, medicine, or theology. None of these questions has been satisfactorily answered. The editor who discourses of “half-baked writers on political economy” settles one of them by saying that there is no reason whatever why women should dislike domestic service. But the autocratic assertion has not visibly increased the number of women desiring employment as house-servants. The benevolent individual who has not yet learned that thousands of girls have neither mothers nor homes, blandly answers another of these questions by saying, “Let girls learn housekeeping at home.” The world at large cuts the gordian knot and says, “It is an unfortunate condition of affairs, but we cannot reform all evils at once.”

Before considering the relation that college women sustain to the general subject of domestic science, it must be noted that the subject is one of general interest.

It is of interest to all women, because so large a proportion of them marry and become actively engaged in housekeeping; the number of married women who do not keep house is possibly equaled by the number of unmarried women who do. Moreover, the majority of women whose primary occupation is not housekeeping are at various times called upon to spend a portion of their time in household duties. It is of interest to all men, whether they have a full appreciation of it or not, because all questions affecting the house and the home are so inextricably bound up with all questions of life.

It must be assumed at the outset that there is a necessity for improvement in the conduct of household affairs. As the household is at present organized, the duties of the housekeeper are multifarious. The ideal housekeeper must have a knowledge of culinary affairs. Not only must she know how to make food palatable, but she must understand its nutritive and its economic value. She must be able to superintend the cutting and making of ordinary garments. She must understand the over-sight of her household employees; the details of marketing; the principles of laundry work; the keeping of household accounts; the care of the sick. She must know how to care for the house and all of its furniture, from attic to cellar. She must be master of all these special lines of work, and know a thousand and one things about the household not enumerated. She must not only be the housekeeper, but the homekeeper. She must furnish her house with taste, and often at the same time with economy. She should understand the principles of the kindergarten, and not shrink from applying the fundamental ideas of ethics and psychology to the training of children. She must at all times be ready to perform her social obligations in the circle in which she moves.

It is generally assumed that the only preparation necessary to become proficient in these multiform tasks is found in the instinctive love of domestic life common to all women. But this of itself does not make a woman a successful housekeeper any more than a taste for medicine renders a young man a skillful surgeon, or a talent for law constitutes a learned jurist. There has been a growing recognition of this fact, but at the same time it is said that the home training of every girl ought to be sufficient. There are many reasons why this is not so. If we apply the principles to the case of girls who become household employees, it is seen to be at fault. It is from the ranks below the so-called middle class, to use an invidious phrase, that the great army of household employees is recruited. It is impossible for a girl belonging to this class to go into a family whose social advantages have been greater than her own, and become at once an adept in the conventional forms of table service, an expert cook, or a good general houseworker. She has had neither the means, nor the opportunity, to gain even a knowledge of what duties will be required of her, to say nothing of knowing how to perform them. An incompetent mistress is unable to give the necessary instructions; a competent one has often neither the time nor the patience to undertake such training, and indeed it ought not to be expected of her any more than it is supposed that a banker who desires an expert accountant will teach the applicant the process of addition and subtraction.

If, on the other hand, it is assumed that the home training in domestic affairs is sufficient for girls of the middle and upper classes, there is also danger of error. It is often quite as difficult to give regular instruction in the home in these matters as it is in the ordinary school branches. The Law School of the University of Michigan, after thirty years’ experience, said a few years since in regard to the previous reading of law: “It is not often that the student receives the needed assistance except in law schools. The active practitioner, engrossed with the care of business, cannot, or at least, as proved by experience, does not, furnish the students who place themselves in his charge the attention and assistance essential to give a correct direction to their reading, and to teach them to apply it usefully and aptly in their subsequent professional life.” This same principle too often applies in regard to housework, even when the teacher is the mother. The most competent mothers often have the most incompetent daughters—it is far more easy to do the work than to teach another how to do it. Sometimes it is assumed that the daughter can learn, as the mother has learned, by the hard road of experience. It is, also, too often a question of how the blind shall lead the blind. Again, many girls are early left without homes, and thus deprived of the opportunity.

There are evidences of some appreciation of these facts. Cooking-schools spring up spasmodically, where in “ten easy lessons” the mysteries of theoretical and practical cooking are disclosed. Some of our fashionable boarding-schools, ever on the alert to foresee a public demand, announce courses in domestic science. Charity schools in our larger cities attempt to teach girls cooking and sewing in connection with arithmetic and grammar. The great interest in industrial education has had its influence. In some cities cooking and sewing have been made a part of the required work in all the public schools, not so much, however, from a desire to teach these branches as from a belief that the hand as well as the brain needs training. New York is the home of the kitchen-garden, where the thought of the originator has been to teach the children of the poorer classes how to make their own homes brighter, rather than to train them to do housework for remuneration. In many of our large cities schools have been established to give domestic training, but this training, unfortunately, is often given more in name than in reality. All these forms of activity are indications of a desire to help lessen, wholly or in part, the widespread ignorance of domestic work and aversion to it.

Several reasons for this ignorance have already been suggested. Housework has always been classed in the category, not of skilled but of unskilled labor. Nor has it in every-day business life received that practical consideration which the ponderous volumes on the influence of woman would lead one to expect. Popular sentiment has not yet demanded that when a woman marries she shall possess at least a theoretical if not a practical knowledge of household science; it is deemed sufficient if she acquire it after marriage at an enormous cost of time, patience, energy, sometimes even of domestic happiness. Nor has public opinion demanded that every woman who does not marry should have a general knowledge of domestic affairs; it is assumed that she has no use for such knowledge, either practically or as an accomplishment.

When popular opinion insists that every woman who marries shall have a practical familiarity with these subjects as strongly as it insists that every man who marries shall be able to provide a comfortable home for a wife; when public opinion insists that every woman, whether she marries or not, shall have an education so symmetrical that she can fulfill any duty which as an individual she may be called upon to perform, then will more serious efforts be made toward lessening this ignorance.