QUEEN MARY AND HO M E SCIENCE. T HE fact that Queen Mary
has in so prominent a way associated herself with the ideals of Home Science —ideals pressed forward with so much zeal and self- sacrifice by the able band of ladies connected with King's College for Women in the University of London— is, we venture to say, a matter of far greater im- portance than has hitherto been appreciated by the Press or the public. The Queen has, on her birthday and in the most clear and impressive manner, let it be known that she is not only in favour of remedying, but means to devote care and attention to the great omission in women's education, whether in primary or secondary schools or in the universities. What this great omission is can be best understood by recalling the famous gibe of Herbert Spencer in regard to education in general— a gibe, however, which comes home with double intensity and poignancy in the matter of the education of women and of the ideals on which that education is founded. Herbert Spencer told the world that if in some age to come a scholar or a philosopher were to discover the curriculum of our schools or universities, he would be forced to believe that our course of studies had been created by, and esta- blished for, a body of celibates. There is nothing in our system to prepare the citizen for the duties of parentage or for the arts and, sciences that affect the home. The gibe, as we have said, goes specially home in the case of women. Hitherto that has been discouraged and neglected which concerns the rearing and nurture of better citizens and the economy of the home in the widest sense. That only has been encouraged or put upon an intellectual pedestal which concerns the celibate outlook on life. This neglect of the realities of existence cannot be excused on the gymnastic theory of educa- tion. It is quite right to strengthen the muscles of the mind and to set up a humane rather than utilitarian ideal in education, but no wise trainer of the mind or of the body would ever desire to banish from his gym- nasium exercises which may be of use in after-life and for which the body or the mind is instinctively adapted. Certainly no sound educationist would ever put under the stigma of academic neglect the things of practical value, and idealize only the unpractical. The wide-minded teacher can find means of encouraging the humane side of education for women, while at the same time freeing it from the reproach brought by Herbert Spencer. This is what has been done by those who, in King's College for Women in London University, have insisted that Home Science shall be given a university status, with all that this means in the world of education. They do not ask that women should do nothing but serve tables or even cradles, but they do say that, hand in hand with the ordinary university course, women shall receive training in a higher Home Science, or else shall, in a post-graduate course, give special study to the arts and sciences that have to do with the home. This means that women who intend to be teachers shall in early life be influenced and have their minds bent in the directions we have named, and that henceforth ambitious and clever girls shall not be made to feel that Home Science is on a lower level than, say, botany or mathematics, and not worth troubling about— a mere matter of the butcher and the baker—and that if they want intellectual distinction they must concentrate upon anything rather than that which fits women to be the rulers of the home.
The action taken by the ladies who have given Home Science a University status at King's College wanted not a little of perseverance and still more of courage. It is very easy to distort, misrepresent, and caricature their point of view, and to declare that they want women to be nothing but efficient wielders, or directors, of pots and pans, and to neglect the higher things of the mind. The committee over which Lady Rucker has presided so ably have not, however, been deflected from their wise purpose by this mistaken, if well-meant, criticism. Though there is not a member of the committee who does not recognize fully that education in the highest sense must be a mental inspiration, and not a mere accumulation of knowledge, they have determined that lip service to this most important principle shall not prevent them from letting the beneficent influence of Home Science affect the homes of England. Happily their work may now-, in metaphor and in fact, be described as crowned with success. They have enlisted in their cause the highest lady in the land, the nation's most representative woman—one to whom these words can be applied in no mere courtier-like sense, but in reality. Queen Mary, as wife and mother, knows the meaning of Home Science in its fullest sense, and therefore can judge of the matter for herself. She is a woman of strong sense as well as of high character. All her acts before she wore the crown, and all her acts since, have shown that she is not inclined to give her name lightly to this or that cause merely because it looks well on paper or is one about which pleasant and easy things can be said. When she takes up a cause and gives the weight of her name to it, she does so because she believes in it and means to do her best to make it succeed. The Queen's patronage will no doubt ensure King's College for Women getting the money they require for the College in general and for Home Science in particular ; but it will do, we venture to say, a very great deal more than that. It will secure a wide publicity for the aims and ideals which are practised at King's College —aims and ideals which it is the desire of Lady Riicker's Committee to spread throughout the length and breadth of the land till the whole of women's education, and the whole attitude of the nation towards that education, shall be changed.
Consider for a moment how lofty and inspiring are the aims of those with whom the Queen has now become a, co-worker, and we may add the King, for the very close relations which bind the King and his wife, and also the King's well-known desire to keep strong and sound the manhood and womanhood of the nation, make it certain that the Queen's action has his approval in no formal and perfunctory sense. It is often said that under modern conditions it is impossible for all women to be mothers and home-mistresses, and that therefore the ideals which we have touched on can only affect one section of women, and must not be regarded as of universal application. There could be no greater mistake. It is true that there are a large number of women who will not be mothers, but in some form or other almost every woman has at some time of her life the care and management of children and the responsibilities of a home. The professions and occu- pations which are most widely taken up by unmarried women are those of nurses, domestic servants, and teachers. But these professions and occupations are deeply concerned with the rearing and nurture of the future citizens. There- fore in• a very special degree they are concerned with the ideals of Home Science. It would be the idlest pedantry to say that a girl, whether in the primary or the secondary school, or the university, should not be taught the principles which underlie the bringing up and nurture of children, and the care of the home, because she may never marry. Even so, it is almost certain that home duties will fall to her lot.
The argument that it is unnecessary for men to learn how to defend their hearths and homes, their liberties and their country, because many of them will prob- ably never be called upon to bear arms, or because they may be able to hire someone to do the work for them, offers to this argument an almost exact analogy. The wiser minds of the generation see that the benefits of a training in arms ought not to be withheld from men merely because it is possible that some men may never want to put them into practice. So the ideals of motherhood and of the nurture of childhood must never be absent from the education of women, even though it may be possible that the knowledge thus acquired will, in some cases, never be actually used. He is no full citizen who has not at some time in his life learnt how to defend his country, and she is in no full sense a full citizen who has not learnt for herself, and also learnt how to transmit to others, the duties of the mother, the home-keeper, and the home-mistress.
Previous page
