The Pre-schooler and Child Development

  • Philippa Mein Smith

Abstract

As infant survival chances improved, ‘mothercraft’ broadened to include the pre-school child. Infant welfare expanded its focus from infant feeding to the child’s all-round development — physical, mental, social and emotional — as captured in the change of title of Dr Vera Scantlebury Brown’s textbook in 1947 from A Guide to Infant Feeding to A Guide to the Care of the Young Child.1 From the 1930s mothering ‘became the focus of new guidelines; not only the physical care of children, but responsibility for their psychological and emotional development was increasingly laid at mother’s door’.2 At the same time inter-war discourse became more gender-neutral.3 ‘Mothercraft’ became ‘parentcraft’ and debates family-centred, although the onus of responsibility for a child’s development stayed firmly with the mother. After the Depression, mothers were exhorted to aspire to the optimum standard of nutrition and development, a Utopian ideal for producing good citizenry set for Western countries by the League of Nations.

Keywords

Sugar Depression Pneumonia Propa Income 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Scantlebury Brown, A Guide to Infant Feeding, Melbourne, 1929Google Scholar
  2. Scantlebury Brown and Kate Campbell, A Guide to the Care of the Young Child, Melbourne, 1947.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gisela Bock, ‘Poverty and Mothers’ Rights in the Emerging Welfare States’, in G. Duby and M. Perrot (eds), A History of Women in the West, Vol. v: Toward a Cultural Identity in the Twentieth Century, F. Thebaud (ed.), Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1994, p. 424.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T.H. Hull, ‘Sex Differentials in Child Mortality, Australia, 1909–1984’, Research Note on Child Survival, no. 13CS, 26 November 1986, IPDP, ANU.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    City of Melbourne, Report of MOH, 1938, CMCP, 1938–9, p. 486.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    The best source on Cumpston and his conservative social theory is Michael Roe, Nine Australian Progressives, Brisbane, 1984, ch. 5.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    CPP, 1926–8, Vol. 4, p. 39 (1285)Google Scholar
  8. J.H.L. Cumpston, The History of Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever, Measles, and Whooping Cough in Australia 1788–1925, Canberra, 1927, pp. 102, 107;Google Scholar
  9. Hilda Bull, ‘The Control of Diphtheria by the New Methods’, TAMC, 1934, p. 326Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Christine Heinig, ‘Education in the Lady Gowrie Child Centres’, Australian Institute of Anatomy, Pre-School Child Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 1, April 1940, p. 3.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Historical overviews of the kindergarten movement are given in Peter Spearritt, ‘Child Care and Kindergartens in Australia 1890–1975’, in Peter Langford and Patricia Sebastian (eds), Early Childhood Education and Care in Australia, Melbourne, 1980, pp. 10–38;Google Scholar
  12. Deborah Brennan, The Politics of Australian Child Care, Melbourne, 1994, ch. 1.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    Christine Heinig, ‘Education in the Lady Gowrie Child Centres’, Australian Institute of Anatomy, Pre-School Child Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 1, April 1940, p. 3.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    Madeleine Mayhew, ‘The 1930s Nutrition Controversy’, Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 23, no. 3, July 1988, pp. 445–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 17.
    Clements has charted his treks, in F.W. Clements, A History of Human Nutrition in Australia, Melbourne, 1986, p. 97Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    C.C. Jungfer, Child Health in a Rural Community. Report of the Work of a Health Survey in the Adelaide Hills District, Canberra, 1944.Google Scholar
  17. 21.
    Kincaid, Report on Child Welfare, 1932, CMCP, 1932-3, pp. 477–8.Google Scholar
  18. 23.
    Kincaid, Report on Child Welfare, 1933, CMCP, 1933–4, p. 481;Google Scholar
  19. 24.
    Dale, Report of MOH, 1936, CMCP, 1936–7, p. 544;Google Scholar
  20. Kincaid, Report on Child Welfare, 1930, CMCP, 1930–1, p. 421, 1936, p. 557;Google Scholar
  21. 26.
    Richard J. Bernstein, ‘John Dewey’, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, pp. 380-5;Google Scholar
  22. 27.
    Richard Casey, Treasurer, Budget Speech, CPD, vol. 154, 27 August 1937, p. 270;Google Scholar
  23. On Cumpston and national hygiene see James A. Gillespie, The Price of Health, Melbourne, 1991, pp. 51–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 31.
    Mary L. Walker, ‘The Development of Kindergartens in Australia’, MEd thesis, University of Sydney, 1964, p. 193; Brennan, p. 37.Google Scholar
  25. 34.
    For a detailed description of the centres, see J.H.L. Cumpston and Christine M. Heinig’s Preschool Centres in Australia, Canberra, 1944Google Scholar
  26. 35.
    R. White, Inventing Australia, Sydney, 1981, p. 140.Google Scholar
  27. 36.
    F.W. Clements and Margaret MacPherson, The Lady Gowrie Child Centres. The Health Record, Canberra, 1945, p. 11.Google Scholar
  28. 38.
    Vera Scantlebury Brown, ‘Nutrition of the Pre-School Child’, MJA, 30 July 1938, p. 153.Google Scholar
  29. 43.
    Edna Hill observed in 1948 that the best records were in Perth, in The Lady Gowrie Child Centres: A First Analysis of Case History Records of Children Attending the Lady Gowrie Child Centres (1939–1946), Canberra, 1949, pp. 3–4Google Scholar
  30. Crawford, ‘Early Childhood in Perth, 1940–1945: From the Records of the Lady Gowrie Child Centre’, in Hetherington (ed.), Childhood and Society in Western Australia, p. 204.Google Scholar
  31. 46.
    M. McKernan, All In! Australia During the Second World War, Melbourne, 1983, p. 158Google Scholar
  32. 47.
    On bread and dripping, see Judy Mackinolty (ed.), The Wasted Years? Australia’s Great Depression, Sydney, 1981, p. 105.Google Scholar
  33. 48.
    F.W. Clements, ‘The Medical Programme to be Carried Out at the Lady Gowrie Child Centres’, Pre-School Child Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 1, April 1940, p. 8.Google Scholar
  34. 55.
    J. Spence, W.S. Walton, F.J.W. Miller and S.D.M. Court, A Thousand Families in Newcastle upon Tyne: An Approach to the Study of Health and Illness in Children, London, 1954, p. 61.Google Scholar
  35. 68.
    A. Constance Duncan and Christine Heinig, ‘War Time Children’s Centres’, 8 July 1943, CRS A1928, Item 155/19.Google Scholar
  36. 71.
    See also Arnold Gesell and Frances Ilg, who advised that instead of ‘striving for executive efficiency’, mothers should be perceptive to their children’s behaviour, in Infant and Child in the Culture of Today: The Guidance of Development in Home and Nursery School, 21st edn., New York, 1943, p. 57.Google Scholar
  37. 72.
    See C. Urwin and E. Sharland, ‘From Bodies to Minds in Childcare Literature’, in R. Cooter (ed.), In the Name of the Child: Health and Welfare 1880–1940, London, 1992, ch. 7.Google Scholar
  38. 75.
    Cedric Swanton, ‘Psychology, Baby Health and Child Welfare’, MJA, 13 August 1938, pp. 235–8;Google Scholar
  39. Australian Institute of Anatomy, Pre-School Child Bulletin, vol. 2, no. 1, April 1940, pp. 10–11Google Scholar
  40. 76.
    Benjamin Spock, The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, New York, 1946 (1st published 1945).Google Scholar
  41. 77.
    Bateson, With a Daughter’s Eye: A Memoir of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, New York, 1984;Google Scholar
  42. 82.
    ‘£500 Gift to Creche by Matthews Family Acclaimed at Meeting’, Bendigo Advertiser, 7 March 1945.Google Scholar
  43. 83.
    Bowlby’s report, Maternal Care and Mental Health, WHO, 1950, became the book, Child Care and the Growth of Love, 1st published 1953.Google Scholar
  44. 84.
    Amirah Inglis, Amirah. An un-Australian Childhood, Melbourne, 1983, p. 149Google Scholar
  45. 88.
    Ian W. McLean and Jonathan J. Pincus, ‘Did Australian Living Standards Stagnate between 1890 and 1940?’, Journal of Economic History, vol. XLIII, no. 1, March 1983, pp. 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 89.
    also McLean and Pincus, ‘Living Standards in Australia 1890–1940: Evidence and Conjectures’, ANU Working Papers in Economic History, Canberra, 1982, pp. 13–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Philippa Mein Smith 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippa Mein Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations