The position of modern woman towards matters domestic is somewhat
undefined, and at best can hardly be considered satisfactory. Her
attitude towards housekeeping is not one of enthusiasm. The Lancashire
mill-girl is proud to have a house of her own, but prefers her life at
the mill to one spent in ordering that house; the elementary school
teacher considers housekeeping of so little economic interest that she
is injured if she may not devote her married life to a profession
demanding the best of her energy; the university graduate pretends to a
mind superior to physical comfort and welfare unless it can be produced
by a creature less specialised than herself.
In the field of paid occupations for women, educated and uneducated,
domestic work stands low; not necessarily low in scale of payment, but
uninviting as a sphere of work and lacking the dignity of skilled
employment. That good housewives may be found in every grade of society
is evident, but the general trend of our social evolution demands that
some organised effort shall be made to simplify actual work and to raise
the appreciation of that work.
In history and philosophy, the moral advantages of a good home have been
acknowledged and extolled. The physical advantages are only now being
fully emphasised, and there is an ever-increasing demand that women
shall diligently apply their best efforts, first to the problems of the
individual household, and then beyond it to those forms of housekeeping
that fall to municipal and national control. We need a different
estimate, a better realisation, of the enormous responsibility that lies
in feeding, housing, and general hygienic conditions, and such a
realisation must work from the top downwards in our social and
intellectual strata.
In the care of the sick we have seen a complete revolution. Even so
recently as the days of our grandparents "Sarah Gamp" was the
general refuge--now her name is a byword. The work of nursing and the
care of an invalid's room, be it home or hospital, has been raised
from mere manual labour. Intellect has established formulae and dogma
on which workers can be trained, and the work itself has been proved
not alone a suitable means by which a woman can earn her living, but
also a profession demanding a dignified respect and admiration. The
researches of medical laboratories--the accumulated experience of the
great physicians and surgeons of the world--are constantly placing
valuable knowledge in the hands of nurses and those who train them.
Elaboration and fuss have gone in favour of a simplicity of service
based on scientific facts; the influence of the trained worker has to
some extent permeated the untrained service of home nursing. Great
may still be our ignorance and great the need for a more adequate
service, especially in the homes of the poor, but taken as a whole the
care of the sick has been raised to what we may, without ambiguity,
call a scientific art. Nursing may be popular from a love of such work
and from its financial return, but the real strength of the nursing
world lies in its organised provision of skilled women sent out to
their work with a knowledge of its detail and a training in routine,
paid for by service during years of apprenticeship.
The changes that have been effected in regard to the care of the sick
may not form a perfect analogy of what can be done in other forms of
domestic work, but they at least constitute a lesson in cause and
effect, with many suggestions for the would-be reformer. Improvement
in nursing owes its first impetus to a realisation of the part a nurse
must of necessity play in curing or alleviating suffering, and any
real improvements in our general domestic work and conditions will
only be seriously considered when they are properly appreciated in
their relation to the health and efficiency of the nation. To bring
this home to individuals and classes must be the work of education. Let
us magnify the office of the housewife unduly rather than leave it
unrecognised. We must demand something more than mere manipulative
skill from the manual worker--a knowledge and interest from those who
direct her work; a place in laboratories and schools for the many
problems worthy of elucidation. To make lessons in housecraft a part
of the curriculum of elementary and secondary schools has its own good;
to make lessons in sick-nursing also a part might be good; but to leave
both there would be only to patch, not mend, a rent in our social
conditions. The matter must find its way into universities and
research schools for its physical and economic investigation--as in
other kinds of work we need an aristocracy of brains to guide the
democracy of hands to found an apprenticeship system that shall
provide efficient workers to bring the mighty forces of chemical,
physical, and biological science to bear directly on such matters as
selection of foods, methods of cooking, better apparatus for cleaning
purposes, and an evolution of house-planning and furnishing that shall
reduce the present elaboration of service and cleaning. It is not
possible that every woman who cooks a potato shall be intimately
acquainted with the structure of starch-cells or the effect of heat on
those cells, nor is it likely that we shall aim at a system that makes
the cooking of our food as exact as a laboratory experiment, but that
thermometer, microscope, and test-tube have their own part to play
is evident. The use of a disinfectant by a nurse is a scientific
operation, the scope of which has only been made possible by many
and careful investigations in which the specialised effort of the few
has resulted in a definite formula and a handy preparation only to be
used with intelligent appreciation of its purpose. She understands its
use and abuse, how to adapt it to circumstances, and probably how to
find a substitute for it if occasion requires.
It is much on these lines that many of the problems of kitchen and
household interest must be attacked.
We need a simple and reliable classification of foods that shall be
useful to the practical cook. A quantitative analysis of proteid or
carbo-hydrate qualities of wheat, lentils, or milk may form excellent
exercise for laboratory classes, but even there it is too often taught
without any relation to the assimilative properties of the average
digestion and their consequent effect on food values. For ordinary use
we want all this brought to a general outlook of the value, and
comparative value, of such ordinary food as bread, oatmeal, eggs, and
beef; not only as to suitable proportions in our diet and to methods of
cooking, but also as a help in providing suitable substitutes for a
particular commodity in time of scarcity. Beyond the inevitable victims
of the Irish potato famine, many suffered quite unnecessarily for want
of ability to replace the familiar potato by a possible substitute; and
to-day we are little more intelligent in our catering. Quantity and
quality of the potato crop must each year to some extent make itself
felt on small purses, and while not dependent on this one article of
diet we might often help a meagre table by a good substitute such as
rice, hominy, dumplings, and an increased supply of fresh vegetables.
Substitutes for butcher's meat too often suggest the purely vegetarian
dish that to most people is but a _pis aller_. To replace part or even
most of the meat in a dish with a food of approximate dietetic value
would generally be more acceptable. A dish of haricot beans cooked with
a little minced beef is, for example, a very different dish from the
vegetarian treatment of the same article. Pea-soup made with the
addition of a ham or beef bone will generally win approval over its less
"tasty" rival. The value of eggs and the many ways of using cheese--the
possibilities of oatmeal beyond mere porridge--are all matters worth
understanding; so also is the problem of our milk supply.
The fact that legislation is active in securing the hygienic conditions
of the wholesale milk supply cannot excuse individual indifference to
either its actual value or suitable treatment. The inferiority of skim
or separated milk to "whole milk" has been so emphasised that in many
places a useful article is lying as a drug in the market. That skim milk
is as useful as many "stocks" and much better than water for making
porridge, maigre soups, sauces, for mixing bread and scones, has yet to
be appreciated, and will only be so when the true economic use of food
is removed from its present haphazard position among the instinctive
arts!
The constructive consistency of meat, fish, and vegetables must be
clearly set out if we are to understand the effect upon them of heat.
The primary methods of cooking and the standard proportions of
ingredients may already be used with an intelligence that at least puts
aside the recipe book; but the research that can produce a satisfactory
system of catering and cooking has yet to invade the higher education of
men and women. A suggestion of the scientific treatment of domestic
matters too often presumes an elaboration of work rather than a
reduction of it, and yet we all realise the labour-saving and economic
return that has been the result of science applied to commercial
industries. There must be a definite aim to simplify housekeeping and
domestic work; the conditions of life have gone that made a women find
scope for _all_ her energy in administering the affairs of her house or
in employing others to that end.
To the uninitiated the various culinary processes seem endless, and to
arrive at a proper accomplishment of these is generally considered a
matter of continuous practice. A better understanding of the matter
readily shows that while many processes can only be perfected by
repetition, there are even more that fall under science rather than art.
Take, for example, the principles underlying the cooking of meat by
stewing. This is surely a process where manipulation is _nil_. To make
pastry or bread we must have a certain practice in the manipulation to
give the deftness (on which final success depends) in addition to any
understanding of the principles involved; but with regard to stewing and
many similar processes it should be possible to have one lesson made so
explicit that the actual process was known for all time--the Irish stew
of an artisan's home or the dainty entree of the "Ritz" being only an
adaptation of given principles to different foods.
In order to reduce primary methods to such business-like proportions, it
is necessary to consider them in their effect on different foods, having
due regard to texture and to the effect of a moist or a dry heat. It
would be a matter of interest to know how the established methods of
cooking meat and fish all really conduce to one end, viz. to soften the
fibres by steam formed from their own juices. The rules for most methods
of cooking these foods lead to this assumption, though nominally based
only on a means of retaining these juices in order to save a valuable
part of the food. The actual part played by the liquid in which foods
are cooked is possibly very small, but not to be ignored; the presence
of salt in the water in which beef or potatoes is cooked makes an
appreciable difference in the flavour and probably in the food value.
The relation of the fat used in frying to the food fried in it is too
often quite misunderstood, and a dyspeptic patient consequently is
ordered "no fried food."
To "fry in butter" sounds well, but it is practically impossible; to
_saute_ in butter at a temperature allowing some of the butter to enter
the food, is quite a valuable method of cooking; but to raise the
temperature to a point at which frying can be done is to char the
butter. To fry properly, the food should be immersed in fat so hot that
the outside of meat is immediately "set." Then allow the heating of the
juices inside the meat to perform the necessary cooking. The immersion
of the cold food soon lowers the temperature of the fat and makes
continued immersion possible. The best kind of fat for this purpose and
the relative temperature at which different fats may be used needs more
investigation. At present for ordinary kitchen use we have no more
reliable test of temperature than to venture a bit of bread and judge by
result. One thing we may accept--frying is not a greasy or rich method
of cooking. The fat used is merely a means of excluding atmosphere and
cooking food at a high temperature; it bears no more relation to the
food itself than does the atmosphere of the oven in baking.
This question of temperatures and their relation to the kind of food, as
also to the various cookery processes, needs careful handling; we want
not alone a definite dogma established on a scientific basis, but we
want the means to apply it brought within easy reach--reach of a limited
purse and a limited intellectual capacity, for we are not all scholars.
There is no reason why a thermometer should not become part of our
kitchen equipment just as readily as that old sand-glass which
regulated the boiling of an egg, but, before it is the case, many other
matters must fall into line. It is probable that a careful investigation
of the best means of frying, boiling, stewing, &c. would effect a
considerable revolution in our household pots and pans. Is it impossible
to produce a pan in which a given quantity of fat or oil should be
easily brought to, say, 400 deg. Fahr., and yet be unable to exceed that
temperature? It would so safeguard expense from burning that the most
delightful frying medium, olive oil, would be readily used by many
people.
The matter of watching, and waiting, and judging the exact minute for
certain operations takes far more time than is generally supposed, and
the gloom surrounding the average kitchen range increases the
difficulty. The cook who understands the use of double pans for oven and
range has done something to save both time and anxiety, but it is
evident that much more might be done to render many cookery processes
almost automatic. The science that controls the production of such
commercial products as biscuits, tinned foods, pickles, and jam, and
turns them out to a uniform standard, is at present remote from the
household kitchen. Such scientific knowledge has been produced at a
commercial value for commercial enterprise. We need _our_ problems
brought into universities and colleges; into the channels where research
is made public; into the laboratories of schools, where, if no wonderful
result may be proclaimed, we have at least established a scientific
method of approaching the work of kitchen, laundry, and storeroom. The
ordinary teaching of the domestic subjects too often tends to magnify
the difficulties in order to show how they may be overcome. The
simplification of methods by classification would do much, and the
evolution of possible devices for saving labour would do still more, to
establish a favourable view of housekeeping. What is worth doing is
worth doing well; but it is "doing" unnecessarily that spells drudgery.
Our attitude in considering household problems turns almost
involuntarily to cooking, but the need for an intellectual grasp of
matters domestic is equally potent in methods of cleaning. If the word
"hygiene," which we use so glibly, were really understood and
appreciated, the modern house-builder and furnisher would quickly be
sent to swell the ranks of the unemployed, and we should demand
construction and fittings which would minimise the problems of dust and
tarnish, provide suitable storage for food, and allow cleaning to be
simple, straightforward, and efficient. The advent of the vacuum cleaner
is less valuable in itself than in the establishment of a new principle
for dealing with dust, and one that may eventually revolutionise our
house-cleaning. We need a simple appliance of equal scientific value to
reduce some at least of the labour entailed in "washing-up." Pots and
pans, plates and dishes may be economised in number by a careful
worker, but cleaned they must be, and the average "sink" of scullery or
pantry is little removed from the pristine incompleteness of its first
appearance. There is, in the cloisters of Gloucester Cathedral, a sink,
evidently used by the monks of the sixteenth century, which is identical
with those found in sculleries of to-day, and yet chemistry and physics
have revolutionised our industries and produced all sorts of scientific
methods for cleaning, lighting, and heating on a large scale. Perhaps
when the same woman who takes a D.Sc. bestows some of her energy on the
washing of dishes we shall get to something less primitive than washing
each individual greasy plate with a mop or cloth. The only scientific
treatment of "washing-up" used at present seems open to criticism, and
is only suited to large establishments, but it should be possible to
construct every sink with some sort of douche and general fittings
suited to this work.
The question of the position of modern woman towards laundry-work
seems to have resolved itself into one of income. If she can pay for
the services of a steam laundry she does so. In the United Kingdom it
is estimated that there are 30,000 public laundries, but we have yet
to find one that can produce a list of charges within reasonable
limits of a small income. In the homes that are run on incomes of
L100 to L400 a-year, and where the laundry-work is done at the
public laundry, the amount of "washing" must be small, or some other
side of the expenditure must be seriously curtailed. Laundrying
performed intelligently and under suitable conditions is neither
difficult nor unpleasant. To stand over a wash-tub rubbing each
article by hand; to strain every muscle emptying that tub; to dry
garments on a rail across a kitchen and iron them near a blazing fire is
_not_ intelligent, and can only be followed by women driven by
custom to wash clothes at all. Perhaps in no section of household work
are scientific methods within reach as in the laundry; the existence of
the public laundry and the rivalry of different firms has produced an
open market for appliances of all kinds, and the exhibition of
laundry utensils, machines, &c., has become an annual event. Though many
of the inventions are destined for the "power" and general scope of
the public laundry, there are always a number of home appliances to
be seen; many more would be adapted if there were more demand. Any
real scope for these must rest in the first place with architect and
house-builder. In the North of England it is usual to build a small
"wash-house" to nearly every house, but the general construction of
these wash-houses is such as to discourage any desire to use them.
Only cold water is provided; the boiler is arranged as a detached
unit; the possibility of a drying cupboard in connection with kitchen
stove or hot-water cylinder is never considered, and the economical
heating of irons is generally overlooked. The use of irons heated by
gas, charcoal, and methylated spirit would be more general if these
were more efficiently constructed and less expensive. The provision of
electricity at a cost within the reach of ordinary folk will simplify
many things in laundry-work as in cooking and cleaning. Instruction is,
to some extent, already available as to soaps, detergent solutions and
bleaching agents. We need more appreciation of the part that may be
played by the process of "steeping" and the minimum of handling with
which clothes may be efficiently washed and finished. The profit and
loss in the matter cannot be estimated only in labour, time, soap, and
firing; the wear and tear of fabric in public laundries compared with
home handling and the risk of infection involved must both be taken
into account. If we make laundrying easy we do much to make a frequent
change of garment possible to a section of the community inclined to
economise in this direction, and we should probably make fashionable
those household materials that may be consigned to a wash-tub, instead
of paying a reluctant visit to the dry-cleaner--chintz, cretonne, and
Bolton sheeting instead of serge, tapestry, and plush. We owe one debt
of gratitude to the public laundry--it has raised a section of household
work to the level of a skilled industry, though as yet there seems
no system of apprenticeship that turns out the "complete" laundress.
For the limits of a short paper these matters have perhaps been treated
somewhat discursively, but the object has been attained if, by the few
illustrations selected, some attention has been drawn to the field of
inquiry which lies open, and the urgent need for a definite application
of scientific minds to problems which, amid all the advances of this
progressive age, seem to lag behind. The inclusion of housecraft as part
of the curriculum of elementary and secondary schools may do much to
rouse interest and overcome some difficulties of cooking, &c., but to
any one familiar with these classes it is evident that their scope is
very limited, if only for the reason that the teaching so often treats
the work of housekeeping as an imitative art, based, for want of
reliable scientific data, on rules and recipes that are practically
organised tradition no more. In secondary schools, the introduction of
laboratory work has opened up fresh possibilities of a more reasonable
treatment of housecraft, for it is certain that, when teachers are
properly equipped for their work, biology, physics, and chemistry
(organic and inorganic) can be successfully taught along lines that
bring within the scope of school science such matters as food and
feeding, cooking and washing, fuels, heating, ventilation, and hygiene.
To teach chemistry and physics in the usual academic manner and then
tack on a course of cookery and laundry-work at the end of school life
cannot possibly be of the same value as the co-ordinated courses; we
want scientific method even more than "science" for these schools girls,
who shall so soon be the housekeepers and home-makers. We may say with
Stevenson, "A dogma learned is only a new error--the old was perhaps as
good; but a spirit communicated is a perpetual possession." For those
girls who pass on to a university or technical school we want an
intelligence alert to all that may lie in further investigation of those
problems suggested at school.
A certain jealousy may be pardoned that the possible evolution of
housekeeping may be the work of women; the leaders of the "woman's
movement" have so often spoiled their work by following the lines of
men's activities and aiming at a goal essentially masculine. The things
that go to housekeeping seem so intimately connected with motherhood
and mothering that it must be hoped our most able women will bring
their intelligence, their education, and their sense of national
responsibility to the task of housekeeping--to the simplification of its
problems, the reduction of the labour involved, and the organisation
of the paid service. There is certainly scope for master-minds.
We touched on the organisation of the nursing service. If it is
possible to duly care for the sick and at the same time train an
efficient nurse, it is surely possible to provide proper service in the
huge caravanseries of our modern life, and at the same time provide a
suitable apprenticeship for the domestic worker. Good instruction at
school, followed by one or two years of definite training in a hostel
or boarding-house, should produce a class of skilled women workers who
can be organised and employed on the same lines as those of the
nursing service.
In many branches of labour the women are ousting the men; unless we can
make good the present breach in our home bulwark and train our army of
defence, we may find men ousting women in their own particular sphere.
America and Canada, realising that their coveted nationality must be
founded on homes, have brought into their universities the "science of
home affairs." England, in spite of the warning note sounded by
inquiries into physical deterioration, infant mortality, and kindred
evils, has been content with a _tradition_ of good homes, and has so far
done little more than provide a smattering of cookery lessons for
elementary school girls.
There is, however, a promise of better things. One university college
has made a venture into home science, and other universities would soon
be at work if the necessary money could be secured. Oh, for some
silver-tongued evangelist to cry in the ears of our philanthropic
millionaires all that might be done for this country by bringing its
_best_ brains to consider the material things that go to the making of a
good home!