Nils G. drew my attention to a fascinating now-abandoned America educational practice that nicely illustrates how ideas about ideal parenting shift over time. Between 1919 and 1969, the Home Economics departments of about 50 colleges and universities served as foster homes for orphans. Writes Emily Anthes at Wonderland:
During this time, homemaking… was considered to be something that could be conquered by science. Running a home based on instinct was considered to be woefully old-fashioned; the idea that raising a child and maintaining a home could be optimized by following a set of scientific rules was gaining currency.
Accordingly, getting a degree in Home Economics included a labratory set up exactly like a home: “practice apartments.” And what better to fill these homes with than “practice babies!” Students would practice applying the latest science-endorsed parenting techniques on orphans. An article published in the Journal of Home Economics in 1920, by Elizabeth Vermilye, explained the rotation of care:
Each girl, in rotation, carried the work of “baby manager” for one week… The “baby manager” assumed the entire responsibility for the care of the child during her period. She herself did the actual work of caring for him between the hours of 6.00 to 8.00 a.m. and from 4.30 to 6.00 p.m. During the day the child was in the care of three or four other students during the time they were not in class, the manager making the program for this care, giving instructions regarding food and other matters needing attention. The baby manager did the baby’s laundry work.
A student taking care of a practice baby:
Far from being exploited, it was believed that these babies would get not just excellent, attentive care, but the best, most scientifically-valid care. Vermilye claims that the examining physician was highly impressed with the children’s development during their stay with the students. She quotes him saying, “The improvement in the condition of these children speaks highly for your cooperative motherhood.”
These pictures of orphan and practice baby Bobby Domecon (surnamed after his role in the Domestic Economics department) reveal his chubbification.
A skinny 6 pounds at 2 months old:
Perking up at age 10 months:
Nice and chubby 5 months later:
Because these children were believed to be benefiting from the latest science of parenting, they were highly adoptable; many couples were eager to get their hands on a child that had such a good start in life (source).
Eventually, however, ideas about mothering began to change. In particular, scholars began to talk about Attachment Disorder and argue that a child’s development required that it strongly bond to one unique person. In 1954, a short Time magazine article on the subject included experts suggesting that the program was harmful. Starting with the Superintendent of the Illinois State Child Welfare Division, the author writes:
“It is not a normal family setting,” said he. “There are just too many persons involved in the handling of that child.” Heaven only knows, added the superintendent, how many neuroses little David might develop. Other officials seemed to agree. “Imagine.” cried Mrs. Babette Penner, director of the Women’s Services Division of United Charities, “what anxieties there are in a child who is given a bottle in twelve or more pairs of arms.”
The scientific consensus eventually changed and, as a result, by 1969, then, “practice babies” were a thing of the past.
In this video from ABC Doris Mitchell, Cornell University graduate and Home Economics major, sweetly remembers her experience helping raise a practice baby at Cornell University:
For another fantastic example of historic management of children without parents, see our post on the Orphan Trains.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 30
MissDisco — January 17, 2011
Did he develop a load of neuroses though?
TheophileEscargot — January 17, 2011
"Not the least important part of his progress came from being loved and played with and taught the baby games. It was necessary to see that this was not overdone, but this took care of itself as the instructor and the girls became acquainted with their problem."
From Page 31 of "Journal of Home Economics" article. Wouldn't want to overdo the love...
Muscat — January 17, 2011
So...are there any studies that looked at outcomes for these babies?
Amy — January 17, 2011
I am seeing some really interesting parallels to the current day care system in the country. We're using "best practices" and research based methods in these institutions too, and a lot of pride is taken in choosing a reputable institution to help raise our children. The "baby manager(s)" are the parents, but the idea of leaving the baby in the care of a group of college students for the day hasn't changed much. Of course babies placed in day care bond with their parents, but if we're talking about the neuroses that can result from being given a bottle "in twelve different pairs of arms," we might want to look at the turn over/shift changing/staff shuffling that occurs in even the best day care centers.
Basiorana — January 17, 2011
http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/homeEc/cases/apartments.html
This site confirms that these children never stayed in the program past one year of age before being adopted, so it's unlikely they were much worse off than the average child of that time who would have spent that period in an orphanage, or such a child today, who would have spent it in foster care.
Birdienerdie — January 17, 2011
There is a new book which fictionally chronicles the life of Bobby Domecon titled "The Irresistible Henry House: A Novel". I listened to an interview with the author, Lisa Grunwald, on NPR. Through her extensive research to create this work of historical fiction she never once could locate an adult who was raised a practice baby. She attributed this to the anonymity of adoptions during the time. Although, she stated after publication that many practice mothers contacted her to share their stories.
Amelie — January 17, 2011
Has there been any studies on the actual orphans growing up to determine whether multiple caretakers were a harmful thing ? It is known that in some cultures, the young is brought up by the whole community, not by specific parents. So is it still a living paradigm or not today ?
Danny — January 17, 2011
Transcription (please ignore my terrible spelling):
“I was born August 21, 1903.”
I: “1903.”
D “I entered Cornell. In… I need to think a minute. I graduated in 1925, so I must have entered in 1921. And became a graduate of the First college of home economics at Cornell.”
I “What did you learn in home economics?”
D “Ah, all sorts of things about cooking and sewing and getting along with people. And I lived in the practice apartment with a baby, and learned something about the care of babies.”
D “During the senior year, each senior year, a group lived in the practice house. One of the semesters, it just happened that mine was the second semester, of the year I was a senior, was divided into three sections. One of them was practice teaching. One of them—I did it in [mumbled]—one of them was living in the practice house with a baby. And the third one, only it happened that mine it was the first one, we had our regular classes. During that last five-weeks, one week, well, taking the various jobs. One week you were baby specialist, one week you were cook ,one you were system cook, one you were house keeper, and one you were hostess. And each one of them, every one of us, had to be… we changed each week.
D “And we had this adorable baby whose mother had died. And her sister was going to adopt the baby and take care of her, but didn’t feel that she wanted to take care of such a young baby. So she was in the practice house for that year. And she was eight months—nine months old when I went into the practice house.”
D “Oh I enjoyed that practice house very much. And that was the first time that I’d ever lived away from home.”
I “What’s the most important thing about home economics that girls today who are in human ecology should know? What would you say is the most important thing?”
D “Oh, most important thing would be learning to make a good home that was cared for. And taking care of children in a good way. So in other words, doesn’t matter whether you had a job or were married. It was your choice and the type of life you did. But you had to control the way you worked with whatever you had to do to get enjoyment out of it. As well as, well, some people have a job that they think of as drudgery. I never did. I liked everything I did.”
D “Cornell to me is a wonderful place. I’m so glad I had an opportunity to have as much schooling at Cornell as I did have. And I had almost 6 years. I think Cornell is a marvelous place.”
End.
D is Doris and I in the interviewer.
Danny — January 17, 2011
So. Wait a minute. Does that mean that all the times I held my baby sisters I was actually ruining their development? Children don't just form bonds with *a* primary caregiver. They bond with siblings, other parental figures, grandparents, babysitters, aunts, uncles, etc.
This seems to be placing undo pressures on the mother to be the only caregiver.
Meaghan — January 17, 2011
I wanted to mention that in 1919 Home Economics departments may have been filling a very real need as the 1918 influenza had recently orphaned many children. Cities often were unable to properly cope with the large numbers of children without guardians during this time. It would be interesting to see what would happen today if a similar epidemic struck. Would attachment disorder issues take a backseat to the needs of homeless, parent-less children? Or would our modern society try to find a different solution?
Collegiate “Practice Babies”: Changing Ideas of Parenting … | Baby Images — January 17, 2011
[...] the original post: Collegiate “Practice Babies”: Changing Ideas of Parenting … Posted in Am, Dome, Me, Of, St, The, Uncategorized, age, an, and, art, at, baby, ft, i, in, part, [...]
Philip Cohen — January 17, 2011
I've written about this practice a little in the context of the educational hierarchy of mother/parenthood: http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/educated-motherhood/
On the well-being of the kids, by understanding of the orphanage-vs.-foster research (in poor countries at least) is that foster care systems are better for kids' development, but that good orphanage care - adequate numbers of trained staff, kissing and cuddling, medical care, nutrition, etc. - does not have lasting negative developmental effects. As usual, the question needs to be, compared with what (realistic) alternative?
I would be happy to see more of today's college students spend a few hours a week taking care of orphans, sick or disabled people, as part of their education and service training (not just those going into nursing and teaching).
Luey — January 17, 2011
As a twenty-something whose peers are beginning to have children, I often find that both new mothers and new fathers may have never even held a baby before they were presented with their own. Even though I don't yet have kids, I volunteered alongside a parent in the infant nursery at church and babysat a ton, and so I have a good handle on how to hold, change, feed, burp, etc.
The complete newness of parenthood is a recent phenomenon. People used to grow up in groups where there were small children and (at least the girls) were integral in raising younger children in the community. Now we have to learn how to do all of these things the hard way, as adults with our own children. While the parents I know who are my age are all great parents who had steep learning curves, I think many would have been less terrified about the details of raising a child if they had had practice babies and practice apartments.
Daycare is so expensive. What if we had a system where children could be watched by enthusiastic (and monitored) college students who would then learn how to actually take care of small children?
Or is that a weird idea?
Liz — January 17, 2011
Children are not guinea pigs.How many of you writing here are adoptees and understand loss of attachment from the point of view of having experienced it, as adoptees? Most adoptees wouldn't wish that on anyone.Some of these children have stepped forward if you know where to look, I repeat they are not guinea pigs.
Raksha — January 19, 2011
This is really interesting. In one episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, they riffed on an old short called "The Home Economics Story" (Part 1 Part 2) and I was wondering where the hell that random baby came from.
Liz — January 20, 2011
"There is a lot more to human relationships than who’s genetic material we share." Of course but when you know the genetic connection you can place less emphasis on it than someone who does not know and may never now.It is vital to our sense of who we are whether or parents are abusive, loving, hopeless or wonderful.
Being raised by narcissistic, abusive and neglectful parents is the fate of adoptees and non-adoptees and is never what we would choose for children, never what children would choose for themselves but children don't have choice.It is always a tragedy. Loss of attachment or too much attachment is not really the apples and pears question, it's the trauma and abuse that are constant across the board for many children.
Leigh — January 23, 2011
Reminds me of the 1939 U of Iowa "Monster Study" where 22 orphans were abused in the name of science. -- The Doc and his assistant tried to create stuttering in the kids by harshly criticizing the way the kids spoke :(
8 Babies Changing Sites - 8/31/2011 - Bathing & Skin Care | allaboutbabies.org — August 30, 2011
[...] Collegiate Practice Babies: Changing Ideas of Parenting .Collegiate Practice Babies: Changing Ideas of Parenting. by Lisa Wade, Jan 17, 2011, at 10:20 am. Nils G. drew my [...]