TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
A superscript is denoted by ^{xx}: for example, n^{th}.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have
been placed at the end of the relevant section.
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.
Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation in the original has
been retained: for example, overcrowded/over-crowded,
saucepans/sauce-pans, and subtile/subtle, etc.
Duplicate headings have been removed to eliminate repetition.
PROGRESS IN THE HOUSEHOLD
PROGRESS IN THE
HOUSEHOLD
BY
LUCY MAYNARD SALMON
[Illustration: Colophon]
BOSTON AND NEW YORK
HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY
The Riverside Press, Cambridge
1906
COPYRIGHT 1906 BY LUCY MAYNARD SALMON
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
_Published October 1906_
APOLOGIA
In 1897 the author of these sketches published a book entitled
“Domestic Service.” It was an attempt to consider certain historical
and economic aspects of a common occupation and its aim was to induce
others to investigate by scientific processes a neglected field of
inquiry. It distinctly disclaimed any and all attempts to square the
circle by proposing a plan to do away with all difficulties in the
present condition of household service.
The book was not one of “the six best sellers” of the season, it was
never duplicated by a public library, and it never secured a lodgment
at the Tabard Inn. A modest second edition, not yet exhausted,
represents its present rating in the authors’ “Bradstreet’s.”
The book was a disappointment to many housewives who had noted
its appearance because they had hoped to find in it a sovereign
remedy for all domestic ills. Instead of that they found only
rather repellant footnotes, statistical tables, appendices, and
bibliographies. “What connection,” they probably asked, “exists
between the far-away fact that there is one domestic employee to
every one hundred and fifty-six inhabitants in Oklahoma and the
near-at-hand fact that there is a dearth of good cooks in Pantopia?”
But Moses Coit Tyler, _beatissima memoria_, once instructed a class
of college seniors about to begin the study of certain works in
English literature that the initial step in all literary criticism
was to find the author’s object and to judge him by his success
in attaining that object; that an artist who intends to paint a
landscape must be judged by his success in landscape painting, and
not criticised because the landscape is not a figure piece. To the
charge therefore that a book of three hundred odd pages contained
no panacea with virtues attested by hundreds of housekeepers whose
domestic ills had been cured by its application, the apologetic
answer might be made that the writer professed to be only a seeker
after facts, not a domestic physician,--she therefore craved judgment
on the facts collected, not on the cure-all unsought and therefore
unexploited.
But the author had secretly craved a hearing from the economists,
although conscious that she was not one of the guild and therefore
might be open to the charge of trespassing on the domain of others.
She had also secretly hoped for a hearing from her fellow-workers
in the field of history, although conscious that the proportion
of history to economics in the book was in inverse ratio. Gaining
admission to the salon, however, does not prevent the work of an
amateur from being “skyed,” and “Domestic Service” was hung above the
line. To the economists whose attention may have been called to the
book, it doubtless seemed unreasonable that one who had apparently
always been connected with work in history should meddle with
economics; to the historians, it probably seemed apostasy to wander,
even for a moment, from the path of history. _Ergo mea apologia._
In September, 1887, I became associated with Vassar College with
the understanding that I was to give instruction in history and
economics. The work in history proved unexpectedly heavy and it
was therefore necessary for me to defer taking up the work in
economics until the following year. The same conditions existed
for three successive years and I then definitely abandoned all
thought of undertaking regular work in economics. But although
unable to carry out all that had been expected, it seemed possible
to make some compensation and therefore at the end of the first
year an investigation of domestic service was planned. A series of
schedules was drawn up and these were distributed to the members
of two successive classes graduating from Vassar College. The
publication of the results of the investigation was delayed in order
to incorporate with them certain returns of the United States Census
of 1890 and these were not available until late in the year, 1896.
A second explanation may be needed concerning the choice of the
subject. A residence in several communities differing somewhat
widely in geographical location and in industrial conditions had
disclosed the fact that in every place the demand for capable
household employees was greatly in excess of the supply, largely,
it was commonly believed, because in each place the conditions
were “peculiar.” These unusual and peculiar conditions were the
competition of factories, the competition of shops, the loneliness
of farm life, the loneliness of a great city, the inaccessibility
of suburbs, the heat of the Western prairies, the dampness of the
sea-shore, the life of a college town, and numerous variants of these
general principles. All of the conditions that most attract to a
place other residents and all the conditions most favorable to other
occupations seemed to be always attended with fatality in the case
of domestic employees. But as the union of the seven colors of the
rainbow forms white light, was it possible that all these peculiar
conditions could be reduced to a single fundamental cause that should
explain the discrepancy between demand and supply?
Another consideration in favor of selecting domestic service as a
reasonable subject for investigation lay in the accessibility of
the material. Every household, whether with or without domestic
employees, could add its contribution to the inquiry. Moreover, in an
age that collects everything from baggage tags and cigar ribbons to
old china and old masters, could not a zeal for collecting be turned
in the direction of collecting the hitherto untabulated experiences
of different households?
But it is true that while the material was accessible, it was
not on that account necessarily procurable, and the investigation
was undertaken with some realization of the difficulties to be
encountered. Yet if, deferring to the example of the British
“Who’s Who,” carpentry, cabinet-making, mountaineering, gardening,
spectroscopy, and animal chemistry are by some considered as
recreations while to others they would imply tasks difficult of
achievement, could not, for college women, this collection of
material be classed as recreation, although to others it might seem a
burdensome task?
It is possible that another element may more or less consciously have
been a factor in determining the choice. College education is not
even yet universally accepted as necessary and desirable for women.
If Society should in a sense expect an apology from college women for
having removed themselves from general society and passed four years
in college halls, could not that apology take the form of making
some small contribution to a domestic question even though those who
rendered the quasi-apology did not altogether recognize its necessity?
Another consideration akin to this lies in the frequent assumption
by Society that all women marry. Cold, enduring statistical tables,
as well as observation, go to show that there is an error in this
assumption, and when this fact is pointed out, Society, forgetting
that there are some who would but cannot, and others who can but will
not, attributes the discrepancy between theory and reality to college
education for women. If a few college women could add something to
our knowledge of how household affairs are conducted, would that
contribution serve to atone for both voluntary and involuntary
neglect of matrimony?
But an apology implies not only an explanation of the past but
a promise for the future,--the erring one must err no more if
absolution is to be given. The economist may pardon the poacher,
but he must poach no more. The historian may forgive the one who has
wandered from the fold, but the wanderer must in future remain within
the pale. Yet how shall the collector of experiences be diverted from
his diversion of collecting? The collector of old mahogany depletes
his bank account and turns his modest dwelling into a veritable
second-hand shop, but still his pony chaise is tied before every
farmhouse that has advertised an auction sale of household effects.
The lawyer whose country estate produces green peas that yearly
cost him five dollars a peck, cheerfully proclaims that it pays to
be a gentleman farmer. The New York merchant hunts in Montana and
charges up to profit and loss the expressage on the game secured. The
luxuries of one are the necessities of another, the recreations of
one are laborious occupations for his neighbor, a habit once formed
holds its victim in an ever-tightening grasp. If then, in spite of
apology and all that it implies, the collector of experiences still
accumulates much that to others may be of little practical benefit,
if she still indulges in what her friends deem an extravagant luxury,
if she still finds her recreation in what others may consider an
onerous pursuit, if the habit once formed of connecting with the
present the facts and experiences of the past cannot apparently be
broken off, if at times she still poaches and still wanders, she will
once more claim indulgence if perchance there be any to grant it.
It has been in anticipation of this indulgence that these sketches
are reprinted. If they seem slight, it is hoped that behind the
shadow will be found the substance of a great, and still unsettled
problem. The hope that lies still beyond is that the household may
in time to come be recognized as a legitimate field for scientific
investigation.
CONTENTS
I. RECENT PROGRESS IN THE STUDY OF DOMESTIC SERVICE 1
II. EDUCATION IN THE HOUSEHOLD 35
III. THE RELATION OF COLLEGE WOMEN TO DOMESTIC SCIENCE 51
IV. SAIREY GAMP AND DORA COPPERFIELD 81
V. ECONOMICS AND ETHICS IN DOMESTIC SERVICE 93
VI. “PUT YOURSELF IN HIS PLACE” 121
VII. OUR KITCHEN 133
VIII. AN ILLUSTRATED EDITION 145
IX. THE WOMAN’S EXCHANGE 159
The author takes pleasure in acknowledging the courtesy of _The
Atlantic Monthly_ for permission to print the chapter on “Recent
Progress in the Study of Domestic Service;” of the _New England
Magazine_ for that on “Education in the Household;” of the _Boston
Cooking School Magazine_ for the chapter on “Sairey Gamp and Dora
Copperfield;” of _The Chautauquan_ for that on “Economics and
Ethics in Domestic Service;” of _The Outlook_ for that entitled
“Put Yourself in his Place;” of the _Craftsman_ for the chapter
on “Our Kitchen;” and of _The Forum_ for that on “The Woman’s
Exchange.” The author also acknowledges the kind permission of The
Macmillan Company to reprint several passages from her work on
_Domestic Service_.
RECENT PROGRESS IN THE STUDY OF DOMESTIC SERVICE
A lady recently called at the house of a friend who answered in
person the ring at the door. With careworn expression and flurried
manner she apologized for the confusion that apparently reigned in
the house, saying:
“My parlor maid is upstairs ill,--not ill enough to go to the
hospital, too ill to work, too far from home to go there, yet needing
attention from me. My waitress is having a fit of the sulks, and I
have sent her out to do an errand and get some fresh air. The cook is
just now not on speaking terms with her husband,--the coachman,--and
is seeking a divorce, so that one or the other must go. The footman
came home drunk last night, and had to be discharged this morning. My
house is at sixes and sevens, my husband lunched downtown, my mother
has taken the children and the nursery-maid home with her, guests
arrive this evening, and I have spent the day in a vain search for
help in the house. I belong to a club studying household economics,
and have allowed it to turn a search-light on all my household
affairs in the interests of society at large. I am now ready to
call a halt, to refuse to have my domestic arrangements considered
a hunting-ground for theorists, to pronounce all such clubs vain
mockeries, snares, and delusions, inventions of the enemy for
squandering time, and showing the bitter contrast between abstract
theory and concrete reality. The only club I am interested in must
provide on tap maids who never get ill or sulky, cooks without a
temper, and coachmen and footmen of unimpeachable habits.”
It is possible that such conditions are not confined to “the
uninhabited districts west of Schenectady,” and that elsewhere
there may be despairing housekeepers ready to cry out against all
serious study of domestic questions, because such study has not yet
had an immediate and practical bearing on the management of their
individual households. It is, indeed, not improbable, for there is
in every clime the tradition of a time when household helpers were
abundant, competent, and cheap,--a golden age when harmony reigned
in the household and domestic discord was unknown. Has this peaceful
condition been rudely broken up by the meddlesome interference of
domestic busy-bodies? Has progress been hindered by the club studying
household economics, by the investigator seeking for facts, by the
theorist trying to square the ideal with the real, and by students of
social conditions anxious to explain the present by the past? Is the
only remedy for present ills the suppression of all discussion, since
discussion breeds contempt and unhappiness? Is the club to revert to
Browning, the investigator to confine himself to the comparatively
safe field of ancient history, the theorist to live in the future,
and the student of social conditions to content himself with flower
missions and soup-kitchens? If it can be shown that conditions are
worse than they have ever been before, and that discussion and
investigation are responsible for this deterioration, then assuredly
the club should change the field of its activity, and all discussion
of the household affairs should cease.
But the immediate dissolution of the club studying household
economics is not imminent. The premises on which its detractors
base their criticisms are false, and hence the conclusions deduced
from these premises are illogical and unreasonable. All literature
goes to show that an ideal condition of domestic service exists and
has existed only in the castles of Spain. And recent literature and
recent legislation do show that some little progress has been made in
the study of domestic service as an occupation, in spite of the fact
that individual housekeepers still have and always will have trials
and perplexities that at times seem almost overwhelming. The Hudson
empties its waters into the ocean, yet twice each day the mightier
force of the ocean tide turns the current back upon itself,--in
winter it bears upstream the moving mass of ice, and in summer it
makes its overbalancing power felt almost to the very source of the
great river.
The individual housekeeper feels only the force of the household
current that bears her helpless to her destination,--she forgets
the still stronger force of society that makes itself felt over and
beyond that of the individual home.
* * * * *
In balancing the accounts of domestic service and in asking what
has been accomplished in the past ten years in the direction of
improvement, it must be frankly said at the outset that it is
probably just as difficult to-day to secure good household employees
as it was ten years ago,--perhaps even more difficult; that wages
are probably even higher than at that time; that the service
rendered is no more efficient; that recommendations are no more
reliable; that cooks still have tempers; that coachmen sometimes
drink; that maids have “followers;” that nursery girls gossip in
the parks with policemen; that new employees engaged fail to keep
the engagement; that valuable china is broken, and that household
supplies are wasted.
But if the work of these years has not borne immediate fruit, it
has not been without results that will sometime come to fruition.
These results are seen in the distinct, positive, and direct
improvement in the literature of the subject; flippancy is giving
place to seriousness in considering the relations of mistress and
maid; historical and statistical investigations of the question
have multiplied and become more thorough and elaborate; substantial
facts are supplanting sentimentality and visionary theories in the
discussions on the subject; a diagnosis of the case is being made,
and the prescription of a remedy is withheld while the examination
is progressing; humble-mindedness and willingness to learn are now
found where formerly there were absolute certainty and positiveness
of conviction in dealing with the question; in a definite way an
improvement in legislation has been made, disreputable methods of
employment agencies have been exposed, social oases have been planted
in desert places, and, in general, a concrete method of procedure has
been substituted for polite abstractions and innocuous generalities.
All this means that a long step forward has been taken within the
past decade.
The great improvement in the character of the general literature
of the subject is seen in the gradual disappearance of the
fault-finding, the sentimental, the goody-goody magazine article,
and the appearance in its place of genuine contributions to the
subject, like those recently made to the “Atlantic Monthly” by Miss
Jane Seymour Klink and Miss Frances A. Kellor. Miss Jane Addams
in “A Belated Industry”[1] has dealt most thoroughly with the
economic phases of the subject, as has Mrs. Mary Roberts Smith in
her admirable article on “Domestic Service; the Responsibility of
Employers.”[2] Mr. Bolton Hall has set forth most vigorously the
employee’s side of the case in “The Servant Class on the Farm and in
the Slums;”[3] while a symposium on the subject by a group of men has
recently discussed in an impartial manner many of the difficulties of
the situation.
Pure literature also makes its contribution, and Mrs. Mary Hartwell
Catherwood has recently given a charming picture of “A Convent
Man-Servant.”[4] Nothing could prove more effectively the change
in the attitude of the public mind toward the subject than does
the contrast presented between such a sketch, drawn with light and
sympathetic pen, and that given in the satires of Dean Swift and of
Defoe. The very absence of the figure of a domestic servant in the
modern novel, and in current popular literature in every form, is in
itself an indication of a changed attitude of the public mind toward
the question as a whole. Figaro, and even Sam Weller, are almost as
far removed from us as are the servants of Potiphar and of the Queen
of Sheba.
The attitude of the daily press toward the subject of domestic
service certainly leaves something yet to be desired,--the stock
jests on the impertinent maid and the ignorant mistress, like those
on the mother-in-law and the summer girl, die hard, but they will go
in time.
The historical investigations of the subject have been few in number,
but they have been of great value. Mr. Albert Matthews has placed all
students of the subject under obligation to him by his exhaustive
study, “The Terms Hired Man and Help,”[5] as Mr. James D. Butler had
previously done by his investigations on “British Convicts shipped to
American Colonies,”[6] and Dr. Karl Frederick Geiser by his work on
“Redemptioners and Indented Servants in the Colony and Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.”[7]
The public library is always first to create as well as to satisfy
a demand for literature on subjects of general interest. It is
therefore not surprising to find that the Providence Public Library
as far back as 1893 issued a bibliography of all works and magazine
articles on domestic service, which has been followed by the still
more exhaustive reference-list published in 1898 on the general
subject of domestic science; and that the Salem Public Library
has a similar list. The New York State Library has published a
comprehensive bibliography of the whole subject of domestic economy,
and it sends out, to all parts of the state, traveling libraries
of the best volumes on the same subject,--the list of the volumes
included being in itself an excellent guide to the study of household
economics. But the greatest of all steps in advance has been made
by those libraries that have changed the classification of works
attempting to treat scientifically the subject of domestic service
from the class of Domestic Economy to that of Economics proper. The
change seems slight, but it is a recognition of the intimate relation
that exists between domestic service and other forms of industry.
The statistician, like the librarian, is also quick to create as well
as to respond to the demand for information of a serious nature, and
this has been shown in the growing recognition of the importance
of domestic service as a field for statistical research. Among the
most thorough of these statistical investigations is that carried on
by Miss Isabel Eaton,--recently fellow of the College Settlements’
Association,--in regard to negro domestic service in the seventh
ward of Philadelphia.[8] Miss Eaton has made an exhaustive study of
one phase of the subject in a limited area, considering not only the
number of negroes thus employed, but the methods of living, savings,
and expenditures, amusements and recreations, length and quality of
the service, conjugal condition, illiteracy, and health. The work has
been done in a thoroughly scientific manner, and the results form an
admirable presentation of negro service in a single ward of one city.
Similar thorough investigations of special aspects of the question
have been carried on by Miss Mary W. Dewson and Miss Edith G. Fabens
for the Women’s Educational and Industrial Union of Boston, and by
Miss Gertrude Bigelow, fellow of the Association of Collegiate
Alumnæ, at the School of Housekeeping. They have collected statistics
in regard to the hours of labor in domestic service, the social
conditions of domestic service, household expenses, and the relative
cost of home-cooked and of purchased food. The results of these
investigations have been collected by the Massachusetts Bureau
of Statistics of Labor, and the reports based on them have been
commented on by the press. Scientific information in regard to the
subject has thus been widely circulated, and this must have been
effective in changing somewhat the attitude of the public mind
toward the subject as a whole. Mention must also be made of the
“Twentieth Century Expense Book,” prepared by Miss Mary W. Dewson;
its widespread use would be of service in affording opportunity for a
comparative study of household expenses.
It was early recognized that some of the most difficult factors of
the problem concerned the intelligence office, and investigations
on a somewhat limited scale were carried on in several cities;
but, largely owing to political considerations, it was not deemed
advisable to publish the results. The most thorough and systematic
investigation undertaken in this direction has been that of Miss
Frances A. Kellor, whose “Out of Work,” based on a study of more than
seven hundred agencies, has laid bare the evils of the present system
of securing new employees, as seen by employer, employee, and manager
of the agency. A body of facts has thus been made available that
must prove of the highest service in any attempt to cope with the
notorious evils attending many agencies.
The state bureaus of labor have in several instances done valiant
service to the cause through the official investigations carried
on. As far back as 1872 the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of
Labor devoted four and a half pages of its annual report to domestic
labor. But the first real investigation of the subject made by a
state bureau of labor was probably that undertaken by the Minnesota
Bureau in 1890. This has been followed by special investigations in
other states,--notably Kansas and Michigan,--and in Canada. Moreover,
it must be remembered that many bureaus, while making no special
investigation of domestic service, have incidentally considered
the subject in connection with their investigations of general
labor questions. Most of all is encouragement to be found in the
comprehensive investigation recently carried on under the direction
of the Industrial Commission.
These investigations enumerated have been of a severely scientific,
statistical nature, and have been carried on by state or national
organizations. But other studies no less important have been made
by organizations of a purely private or of a semi-public character.
Notable among these has been the Association of Collegiate Alumnæ,
several branches of which have been most active in making studies of
domestic service, both as a special field for investigation and also
in connection with the larger subjects of home economics and domestic
science. Students in colleges and universities have made special
studies in the same field, and in some instances have made distinct
contributions to the subject. This work has been of most value,
however, in the indication it has given of a desire on the part of
college-trained investigators to make domestic service a subject of
serious consideration.
Domestic service has been until very recently a field untouched by
the statistician and investigator. The studies already made show not
so much what has been done as how much yet remains to be done. But
the territory is already being occupied. Trained investigators are
mapping out the field, workers are at hand, and in a few years we
shall have a body of facts that will afford a sufficient basis for
scientific deductions in regard to the condition of domestic service
in the entire country.
Opinions may honestly differ as to whether it is advisable to
substitute in schools and colleges subjects along the line of
household affairs for other subjects more properly classed as liberal
studies. But it is interesting to note how much has been done in this
direction. Courses in household economics have been given in recent
years in the state universities of Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, and
Wisconsin, as well as in the Leland Stanford Junior University, while
Columbia University through Teachers College has offered similar work.
In many agricultural colleges, and in seminaries and academies like
those in Auburndale, Massachusetts, and Painesville, Ohio, there are
such courses in the curricula. On the other hand, there can be no
question whatever as to the propriety and necessity of introducing,
as has already been done, courses in domestic science into the great
technical schools, such as Pratt, Drexel, and Armour institutes.
The School of Housekeeping established in Boston in 1897 under the
auspices of the Women’s Educational and Industrial Union went still
further, in that it was not so much a technical school as a more
truly genuine professional school for the training of experts in
the great profession of housekeeping. The honorable record it made
while an independent institution gives reason to believe that, now
that it has been merged in Simmons College, it will go on to still
greater achievements under the new conditions. The establishment of
similar schools elsewhere has been much discussed, while in some
places there have been sporadic efforts to establish classes in
household training. Indeed, it must be said that in certain classes
of fashionable schools it is at this moment the latest fad to have
instruction in all household matters, quite is much as in art and
music.
Study and investigations have led to organization, and the first
association in the field was the National Household Economic
Association, formed in 1893, with branches in many states, some of
which did admirable work.
The Lake Placid Conference that met first in 1899 is not strictly an
organization, but an informal gathering of workers who have discussed
the subject particularly on its scientific side, since the attendance
has been largely made up of those interested in the educational and
scientific side of household economics. Its proceedings give an
admirable summary of the latest scientific discussions of the subject.
The most recent as well as the most important of all such
organizations has been that of the Inter-Municipal Research Committee
formed “for the purpose of studying existing phases of household
work, to aid in securing fair conditions for employer and employee,
and to place their relations on a sound business basis.” Much
has already been accomplished by it, especially in the direction
of investigating employment agencies, establishing a bureau of
information, and studying the conditions under which colored girls
from the South are brought to the North to enter domestic service.
Its programme for the future lays out a constantly enlarging sphere
of activities.
All these investigations and educational measures have been
undertaken in the belief that household employment has its economic
side, like other forms of industry. The widespread recognition
of this fact has been a most significant advance, since earlier
discussions of the subject had considered only the ethical factors
involved. But an interesting reversion to the more purely ethical
consideration of the question has been seen in the various efforts to
follow the injunction of Charles Reade: “Put yourself in his place.”
A number of young women have entered domestic service in disguise,
and from personal experience have narrated the life of a domestic
employee. It may well be questioned whether the actual results
reached are commensurate with the effort expended;--the experiment
has meant months of unnatural life and strained relationships, and
in the end we probably know little more in regard to the condition
of domestic employees than could be known by turning the inner light
of our own consciousness on our own households and those of our
acquaintances. But the experiment has been interesting as indicative
of a determined effort to look at the subject from every point of
view.
It is not surprising, in view of all the agitation of the question
in our own country, to find that a similar interest has been aroused
elsewhere. In Germany, that home of conservatism in all domestic
affairs, an elaborate statistical investigation has been carried on
by Dr. Oscar Stillich, and its results published in an exhaustive
work entitled “The Status of Women Domestics in Berlin.”[9] Nor again
is it surprising to find that neither official nor domestic Berlin
has taken kindly to the investigation, since bureaucracy has in it
no place for private initiative, and the _Kinder, Küchen, Kirchen_
theory of domestic life has resented what has been deemed unwarranted
interference in private affairs. But it is a matter of congratulation
that the author has been of undaunted courage, and that his work
stands as a thoroughly scientific investigation, and therefore the
most valuable contribution yet made in any country to the theory and
condition of domestic service.
Two things of special encouragement must be noted. One is the
changing attitude of domestic employees themselves toward their own
occupation, and the other is the introduction of men into a field
where it has always been held that by divine ordinance women ruled
supreme.
The number of domestics who have shown any interest in the question
is indeed, as yet, infinitesimal in comparison with the total number
in the occupation, but five righteous men shall save the city. Here
and there one is found who realizes that domestic employees must
be ready to help themselves if help is to come from others, that it
is possible for them to improve the conditions of domestic service
through their own efforts, that respect for any occupation comes,
as those connected with it command respect for it, through their
own attitude toward it. This is as yet realized by so few that no
appreciable results can be seen with the naked eye, but the leaven is
working.
A very welcome and appreciable change has come through the practical
interest in the question shown by men. They have lectured and written
on the subject, and have listened to the lectures on it given by
women. This means that the subject is being recognized by them as
worthy of study and discussion and as of importance to all--to men
and to women alike--who are interested in the welfare of society.
On its practical side also the interest of men is making itself
felt. Chafing-dish courses have been opened for men, where they
have learned the preparation of the luxuries of the table, as
the rough-and-ready experiences of camp-life in summer vacations
and in military campaigns have taught them how to prepare the
necessities of life. Young men in college and young men living in
bachelors’ apartments are proud of their attainments in afternoon
teas and chafing-dish suppers, while men trained as nurses learn the
preparation of delicacies for the sick. It is true, indeed, that
cooking-classes are but indirectly connected with domestic service,
but everything that breaks down artificial barriers, and permits
the free industrial entrance of both men and women into whatever
occupation they prefer, is a direct gain to every line of work. Any
one whose attention has been turned in the direction of securing
household employees must constantly come in contact with the fact
that there is a considerable number of men engaged in household
employments for remuneration.
Does this enumeration of the progress of the past ten years seem
indeed like an Homeric catalogue of the ships? It may, yet the ships
are bound for a definite haven, and must in time enter port.
If one lasting gain of these years has come to be an appreciation
of the necessity of diagnosing the disease before prescribing
a remedy, it must follow that the remedy prescribed fits the
disease. Has it been shown as a result of exhaustive and exhausting
investigation that the great barrier to the entrance of competent men
and women into domestic employment is the social one,--it follows
that efforts are being turned toward leveling this barrier. If we
have learned that the loneliness of the life is in sharp contrast
to the opportunity for comradeship presented in other industrial
pursuits, we have thereby learned to ward against this loneliness by
encouraging means of wholesome recreation. When scientific research
has disclosed the plague spots in the employment agency and the
intelligence office, restrictive legislation has followed. If it has
been found that the weak and the ignorant have been taken advantage
of by the strong and the knowing, efforts for moral regeneration
have been put forth. Since we have realized that in the household,
as elsewhere, it is impossible for the blind to lead the blind,
technical schools have offered instruction in household affairs to
employers of household employees.
Yet when we look over the field still to be reclaimed in the
interests of comfortable home life, more than enough causes for
discouragement remain. Housekeepers still carry on their households
in defiance of all business methods; ignorant women boast that they
“have never so much as boiled an egg in their life,” and complain
that their cooks will not stay with them; idle women spend their time
in playing bridge, and wonder why their maids are discontented; men
boast at their tables of their shrewdness in obtaining something for
nothing, and cannot understand why petty thieving goes on in their
households; society receives the once, twice, and thrice divorced,
but draws the social line at the cook and the butler; communities
tolerate by the score the places where domestic employees, as others,
can find recreation and amusement of every questionable kind, but
the communities can yet be counted on one hand where they can obtain
genuine, wholesome, attractive recreation; the church, with a few
exceptions, is prone to close its doors, except for Sunday and
midweek evening service, and to expend its efforts on fine music,
with church suppers to foot the bills,--forgetting the poverty of
interests in the lives of so many in the community.
But when all has been said, it must be felt that the balance shows
much to the credit of domestic service,--a balance due to the capital
invested in it through the study of conditions made by both men and
women. In no country are these conditions so favorable as they are
in America to-day. England has its well-trained, obsequious butler,
Germany has its police regulations of servants, France has its chef,
Italy has hopeless machines who are “really servants.” America has
none of these, but it has men and women who believe that if the
future holds for us a solution of the problem it lies, not in the
direction of reproducing on American soil the English flunkey, or in
the introduction of German governmental control, or in increasing the
number of French chefs who shall give us endless varieties of new
soups and salads, or yet in crushing all interest in life out of the
hearts and souls of those who serve us, as a pitiless fate seems to
have done in Italy; but men and women who believe that the solution
lies in the path of hard, toilsome investigation, to which students
must come without prejudice and with a fearless acceptance of the
results of such investigations.
In no country are the conditions of domestic service so hopeful as
they are to-day in America, and it is in large part due to our
theory of education which has been in practical force for more
than a generation. Men and women receive the same school, college,
and university training, and this training enables women to order
their households, on their mechanical side, in the same systematic
way that the business enterprises of men are managed. The result
of this is that matters pertaining to the household command the
respect as well as the sentimental consideration of men, and that
men and women are more and more becoming co-workers in all efforts
to secure improvement. Each year the proportion of housekeepers
with trained minds increases, and in the same proportion the number
increases of housekeepers who make intelligent demands on their
employees, who do not encourage poor service by tolerating it, who
realize their responsibility to other households, and understand
that “every irresponsible mistress makes life more difficult for
every other mistress and maid.” It is at least significant that
this progress has been made in a country where the education of men
and women is precisely the same, and that the least advance has been
made in those which arrange a special curriculum for women and which
profess to train girls and young women specially for domestic life.
America holds that education means for women, as well as for men,
intellectual training rather than the accumulation of information
without it, and that the value of this is seen, in the case of women,
in the intelligent study they are everywhere making of household
affairs.
When the vital question in Italy was that of independence from
Austria and of unity under an Italian government, Mazzini said, with
a sublime appreciation of the principle involved, “Without a country
and without liberty, we might perhaps produce some prophets of art,
but no vital art. Therefore it was best for us to consecrate our
lives to the solution of the problem, ‘Are we to have a country?’”
It is possible to have peace and contentment in individual households
along with ignorance of the economic laws that govern the household,
but there can be no radical reform in domestic service in this or
any other country that does not recognize the inseparable connection
between domestic service and all other forms of labor, and that does
not make this fact its starting-point. If the difficulties in the
present situation, which are all too evident, are to be overcome, it
can only be by devoting our energies, as did Mazzini in Italy, not so
much to temporizing in our households as rather to the slow methods
of careful, patient investigation of the conditions without. The
immediate gain to ourselves may be slight, but those who come after
us may reap the benefits.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _American Journal of Sociology_, I, 556-559, March, 1896. Cf. the
chapter entitled “Household Adjustment,” in Miss Addams’s _Democracy
and Social Ethics_, 1902.
[2] _The Forum_, August, 1899.
[3] _The Arena_, September, 1898.
[4] _The Atlantic Monthly_, January, 1897.
[5] _Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts_, vol. v.
[6] _American Historical Review_, II, 12, October, 1896.
[7] New Haven, Connecticut, 1901.
[8] Isabel Eaton, “A Special Report on Domestic Service,” in _The
Philadelphia Negro_, by W. E. B. Du Bois. Publications of the
University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, 1899.
[9] _Die Lage der weiblichen Dienstboten in Berlin_, von Dr. Oscar
Stillich. Berlin. 1902.
EDUCATION IN THE HOUSEHOLD
It is reported that a distinguished foreigner was once visiting a
well-known woman’s college, and after listening to the explanation
of the work carried on there, inquired of its president, “Pardon
me, but how does this affect the chances of the young ladies?” Some
years since several persons were speaking of the recent marriage of a
college woman and the remark was made, “What a pity to have so fine
an education wasted in keeping house!” Not long ago a college woman
was discussing the education of women with a young German Ph.D., and
found that her arguments in its favor were met by her opponent with
the triumphant question, “But can these young women cook?”
These three incidents, which could be multiplied in kind
indefinitely, are illustrations of the somewhat contradictory but
current opinions regarding the mutual relations of education and
household affairs. It is apparently the common belief, first, that
educated women never marry; second, that if they do marry, their
education is wasted; third, that if such women marry and do not
consider their education wasted in the household, the education
received has at all events given evidence of nothing either useful or
practical.
It is not surprising that the mental agility involved in reaching
these somewhat diverse conclusions finds its parallel in the remedy
usually proposed for alleviating so distressing a condition. If
college women never marry, but find when they do marry that their
education is wasted because they have not learned in college how to
bake bread, then, it is argued, let us have compulsory teaching of
domestic science in the public schools and send our daughters to
private schools.
The beneficial results of the introduction of domestic science into
the public schools would undoubtedly be very great, did any one
understand very clearly what is included under the head of domestic
science, were any one at present prepared to teach it, and were it
quite evident who should study it. At present these difficulties
would seem to militate against the widespread introduction of this
subject into our educational system.
If it is asked what is meant by domestic science, there is a
temptation to make the irrelevant reply that historians, economists,
political scientists, and sociologists are still attempting to
delimit their respective fields, each claiming that its territory
includes that preëmpted by the other three. It is as difficult to
define the domain of domestic science as it is that of sociology.
Does it include the architectural construction of a house? May it
perhaps go back of the construction and include the selection of a
site? Does it even involve the principles in the choice of a suitable
residential city? Is it possible that behind this lies the question
of selecting that state of the Union that is most advantageous?
If the problem is to be worked backwards, it must also be worked
forwards, and it must be decided whether the interior decoration of a
house comes within the jurisdiction of domestic science. Would this
comprise instruction in wood-carving, pyrography, china painting,
and basketry? But it seems reasonable to pass from the house itself
to the activities carried on within it. Should these activities be
separated into different classes, such as those pertaining to the
care of the house, the preparation of food, the making of clothing,
the physical care of children, the instruction of household helpers,
the entertainment of guests, the training of husbands and wives? If
this or any other classification is made, should domestic science
consider one, all, or any combination of these classes?
But one of the tendencies of the time is toward intensive work,
and the courses in domestic science should perhaps reflect that
tendency. If so, should we not look for courses to be offered in
napkin embroidery, Hardanger work, and Mexican drawn work, in the
preparation of wheatena, toast water, and flaxseed tea, in the making
of cheese fondu, pineapple canapes, and ornamental frosting? Should
not the mysteries of thin sauces, medium sauces, and thick sauces be
elucidated? If on the other hand the opposite tendency is observable,
should we not expect courses in the formal and informal entertainment
of guests and the philosophy of a menu, even that of a bill of fare?
The difficulties of the situation are comparable only to those of the
Bellman who
“Had only one notion for crossing the ocean,
And that was to tingle his bell.
He was thoughtful and grave--but the orders he gave
Were enough to bewilder a crew.
When he cried ‘Steer to starboard, but keep her head larboard!’
What on earth was the helmsman to do?”
But granting that some agreement could be reached as to the content
of the term domestic science, there would still remain the question
as to how instruction in it could be given. We have learned in
nearly every other department of education the extreme difficulty of
teaching what we do not know, but we still cling to the superstition
that it is possible to teach domestic science in private and public
schools when the university has not as yet made the household the
subject of scientific or economic investigation. The one or two
notable exceptions to this statement do not invalidate its general
truth.