It has been said that as in the world of life the localisation of function made the organ subsequently to become responsible for that function, so may the differentiation of labour develop individual talents, just as the exercise of our vital activities has led to the differentiation of parts in a house. Thus, as satisfaction of hunger is a first necessity, eating made the kitchen, where means for the gratification of this instinct were localised. By degrees the growth of men’s social and intellectual demands led to the setting apart of a chamber for conversation; that is, the parlour. Storage of bread called the pantry into existence; increased refinement necessitated a scullery for the washing of cups and platters. Centuries, however, elapsed before the enlarging personality of the individual demanded privacy for the toilet and the right to isolate himself periodically from the bustle and publicity of group life. The general provision of separate bedchambers for each unit of a household is not even yet habitual, though most desirable in the interests of health. Reparation of the omission will mark a further 272 phase of social evolution, and will remove one disintegrating force now continually at work in home life. Here again the artist will most advantageously collaborate with landlord and with health authorities to devise means for the suitable satisfaction of this laudable demand.
Further objections to the adoption of any comprehensive schemes for training housewives of all ranks are found in the apparent want of time available for the purpose and the prohibitive cost incurred if the period of education be prolonged. The best answers to both objections are found in the movement now active all over Europe and North America to furnish more and fuller opportunities for this training, and to extend, not curtail, its duration. More than this: this movement, which generally originated in the desire to improve home life among the poorest, has recently extended itself just as generally to institutions for higher education, upon whose pupils and students its claims are now recognised. There is no suggestion, for instance, in Germany or England, Norway or the United States, of restricting the education of girls by this movement or of prematurely enforcing upon them technical instruction. The growth of public opinion is due rather to a belated realisation that the end of all education is the betterment of life, and that suggested applications to the practical concerns of daily life in the course of a girl’s general education make for the sounder assimilation of theory by the pupil, and are thus contrived a “double debt to pay.”
The progress of preventive medicine has also introduced another incentive to the diffusion of this training; for it affords convincing proofs that the foundation of the national health is laid in the home. If, however, the foundation is permitted to be imperfect the edifice must necessarily be unstable.
Among other influences prejudicial to family life, the force of which was for a long time unsuspected, mention must be made of modern industrialism, the reopening of professional life to women, with its associated financial independence and the increasing seductions of society. For a century past the tendency has been to discredit housekeeping as an unsystematised occupation, which has emphasised the common and sometimes humiliating financial dependence of its representatives. The first nation to perceive the importance of stemming this dangerous tide was the United States, where conclusive demonstrations are now offered of the fact that intelligent housekeeping calls for a high degree of capacity, and that its problems demand the resources of a university for their solution. By the recognition of housecraft as a profession, American colleges accomplished even more than at first they anticipated. A satisfactory proportion of their students return to home life convinced of its scope and importance, and satisfied to perform the duties which there present themselves, instead of seeking outside occupations and divorcing themselves from family interests. The King’s College Course for 274 graduate students in Home Science and Household Economics bids fair to exercise an influence of as satisfactory, though naturally of a slightly variant, character.
XV. THE FUNCTIONS OF THE HOME
If the functions of the home are briefly enumerated under three heads, no hint of exaggeration will attach to the assertion that by its atmosphere children are modified in soul and body, and that upon its outlook depends the ideals and health of all its occupants.
The first function of the home may be fitly defined as Protective. If its evolution be traced it will be found that home life originated in a craving for warmth, safety, and shelter; in the desire for a place where the weary could rest and where security from ill was assured. Physical comfort, sympathy and sanctuary are, or should be, primary characteristics of every home.
The second function of the home is Educational. It is largely responsible for the systematic formation of good habits, which should here be stimulated by example and precept, and every advantage taken of the imitative instincts so powerful in early life. Within its precincts care can be exercised to afford opportunity for the development of individuality; it is also, par excellence, the place for early training in the judicious expenditure of energy and in the acquirement of self-control. Such training 275 improves brain power, relieves nervous tension, and obviates the tendency to mental and moral confusion and disorderliness which is associated with its absence. In a good home the child’s sanitary education should be fairly complete, at least in its main principles, before the infection of bad habits from without can interfere with automatic practice or weaken faith in home standards and conduct. Regular washing of the teeth, for instance, should be early inculcated, and rigid conscientiousness in matters of personal cleanliness:—external, by bathing, rubbing, and brushing; internal, by strict daily attention to the bodily functions. Slow and thorough mastication of food should be cultivated, as well as good habits of posture, of enunciation, and of regular exercise. Last, but not least, habits of prompt and cheerful obedience, of truthfulness, and in due course of moral purity, must be wrought into the very fibre of a child’s being. The discipline of home ought to be above all things consistent; gentle, though firm and well considered. The virtues of obedience, of self-restraint, and of respect for others should become instinctive almost from infancy; for they sow the seeds of physical morality in later life.
The third function of the home is Social. Before the present era of “only” children, the exaggerated individualism was uncommon, of which many of them are now unfortunately the victims. When large families were the fashion, the give-and-take in nursery and schoolroom 276 gave early training in the duty of participation in the interests, the pleasures, or the sorrows of others; it rubbed off the rough angles of selfishness and gave invaluable lessons in consideration for those whose circumstances varied from immediate individual experience. The wider social sphere, for which much of the rough and tumble of family life was an excellent preparation, was not familiar then to young children as it is now, when the modern child’s premature introduction to its attractions is not only a constant source of physical detriment and of mental exhaustion, but tends to disguise its real character and to stimulate precociously the capacity to respond to its demands. Occasional glimpses of this larger life are a desirable part of home education; but constant familiarity with its excitements is to be sternly deprecated in the causes of health and of mental stability.