Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:59:05.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Mothercraft not learnt by instinct’: An investigation of the infant welfare movement in Australia 1919–1939

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Rachael Kitchens
Rachael Kitchens*
Affiliation:
Sociology Program, Murdoch University, South Street, Murdoch, WA 6150. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing from the work of Norbert Elias, this paper examines the infant welfare movement in Australia in the inter-war years. Elias maintains that during the course of what he describes as the ‘civilising process’, the psychological and behavioural distance between adults and children has increased. As a result of this growing distance, the period of childhood has become longer and the process of the transition to adulthood more complex. In this way, parenthood is experienced as an increasingly difficult task, and one that does not come naturally but requires education and training. It is the contention of this paper that the infant welfare movement, with its emphasis on parental education, can be understood as part of the civilising process: as an unintended consequence of the growing distance between children and adults.

Type
Historical perspectives …
Information
Children Australia , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , 2006 , pp. 31 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archard, D. (1993) Children: Rights and childhood, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aries, P. (1962) Centuries of childhood: A social history of family life, New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Arnup, K. (1990) ‘Educating mothers: Government advice for women in the inter-war years”, in Arnup, K., Lévesque, A. & Pierson, R. R. (eds.), Delivering motherhood: Maternal ideologies and practices in the 19th and 20th centuries, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arnup, K. (1994) Education for motherhood: Advice for mothers in twentieth-century Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Brown, M., Finlayson, C. & Mayo, H. (eds.) (1938) The Australian mothercraft book, Adelaide: Rigby Limited.Google Scholar
de Mause, L. (1974) ‘The evolution of childhood’ in Mause, L. de (ed.), The history of childhood, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Deacon, D. (1985) ‘Taylorism in the home: The medical profession, the infant welfare movement and the deskilling of women’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 21 (2), 161–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donzelot, J. (1980) The polking of families, London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Dunlop, G. (1928) Our babies, Sydney: The Australian Medical Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Elias, N. (1939) (jberden Prozess der Zivilisation, Basel: Haus zum Falken.Google Scholar
Elias, N. (1998) “The civilizing of parents’, in Goudsblom, J. & Mennell, S. (eds.), The Norbert Elias reader, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Elias, N. (2000) The Civilizing Process, trans. Jephcott, E., Maiden MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Fletcher, R. (1966) The family and marriage in Britain, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gandevia, B. (1978) Tears often shed: Child health and welfare in Australia from 1788, Sydney: Pergamon Press (Australia) Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
Harper, M. (1926) The Parent’s Book, Sydney: Angus & Robertson Ltd.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, M. (1982) Critical theory, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Infant Health Association of Western Australia (1927) Keep the babies healthy, Perth: Government Printer.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. (1980) The politics of motherhood: Child and maternal welfare in England, 1900–1939, London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Mayo, H. (1938) ‘Introduction’, in Brown, M., Finlayson, C. & Mayo, H. (eds.), (1938) Australian mothercraft book, Adelaide: Rigby Limited.Google Scholar
Mennell, S. (1977) ‘“Individual” action and its “social” consequences in the work of Norbert Elias’, in Gleichmann, P.R., Goudsblom, J. & Korte, H. (eds.), Human figurations, Amsterdam: Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift.Google Scholar
Peck, M. (1927) Your baby, Melbourne: Ramsay Publishing Pty. Ltd.Google Scholar
Pollock, L. (1983) Forgotten children: Parent-child relations from 1500–1900, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Primrose, M. (1938) ‘Mothercraft as essential as mother love’, The Housewife, November, 30–31.Google Scholar
Purcell, A. (1928) The Australian baby, Melbourne: Cook & Healhcote.Google Scholar
Reiger, K. (1985) The disenchantment of the home: Modernizing the Australian family 1800–1940, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shorter, E. (1975) The making of the modern family, London: Collins.Google Scholar
Smith, P. M. (1991) ‘Infant mortality: A historian’s view’, Australian Economic Review, 93(1), 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, L. (1979) The family, sex and marriage in England 1500–1800, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
van Krieken, R. (1998) Norbert Elias, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Krieken, R. (2002) ‘The paradox of the two sociologies: Hobbes, Latour and the constitution of modern social theory’, Journal of Sociology, 38(3), 254–272.Google Scholar
van Krieken, R., Smith, P., Habibis, D., McDonald, K., Haralambos, M. & Holborn, M. (2000) Sociology: Themes and perspectives (2nd ed.), Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia Pty Limited.Google Scholar