CHAPTER V.

THE INSTITUTIONS: THE HOME.

AT about the age of ten or eleven we pass on to a series of studies connected with the "institutions," or what we might call "institutional life," taking up from year to year, first the "Home," then "Citizenship and One's Country," and afterwards the "Self," or "The Duties to Oneself".

We begin with the Home as the simpler study, and a subject most easily understood by the young. Naturally we do not talk to them of "institutions or "institutional life". To them it is just home. The teacher at the outset, talking about the subject for the year's study, may have a bird's nest in his hand, and introduce the subject of "home" with a talk about the "nest". There is the question as to what makes home. Is it the house we live in? the place? the locality? or the people? What constitutes "home"? In what way is home unlike any other place in the world? And here the point comes out that in the home, more than anywhere else, we

.

belong together. We do not work for pay, nor do we share, in the home, according to what we do but rather according to what we need. The young can see how it is, therefore, that in the family there is a "clinging together" that exists nowhere else in the world.

Along with this must come the study of the relations between the different members of the home, beginning, naturally, with the relation of the child to the father and the mother. There comes the query what the young owe to their fathers and mothers. Obedience," for instance, is the answer. Then, what does obedience mean? There must be a series of lessons telling about the subject of obedience and submission to father and mother. There comes in the old illustration about "eye-service" and obeying in the letter and not in the spirit, with some of the reasons why the young should obey father and mother. Then there should be a talk about what father and mother do for their children. The children are to name over everything they can possibly think of that is done for them by their parents. But when the final question comes as to why one should obey, this theme always ends with the one crucial answer : Because they are my father and mother. These words are to be lodged with a fixity in the mind as if beyond analysis or explanation.

Then there is to be a talk concerning obedience in the larger sense, and what it means. The young are to understand that they are not to obey simply because they are young, but because obedience is a great, universal rule of life, and that all persons of all ages are obliged to obey. They can see from their school life how their teacher, whom they have to obey, must submit to the rules prescribed by the principal of the school; how the principal must submit to the rules of the school board, and how the school board must submit to the rules laid down by the city government or by the people; and it can be shown how, in the work we have to do, whatever employment we have, while we may be in a position to command certain persons, there are others who are in a position to command us. The wage earner must submit to the man in the office; the man in the office to the president of the company; and the president to his board of directors.

One very important lesson is concerned with what we owe to our fathers and mothers when we are grown up, and it is to be shown how mean and base those people are who neglect their aged parents.

As an illustration of these various lessons I select from the course of the year's study a portion of the one dealing with the "Meaning of Obedience":—

66

Did you ever hear of the phrase eye-servant"? 'No," you say, "you have never heard of it."

Have you ever

But can you guess what it would mean? Suppose I give you an example. known a pet dog to take food from the family table when no one was in the room, although he would never do it if anybody were present? "Some dogs would not do it," you say. Yes, that is true; but how about all kinds of dogs?

"Oh," you answer, "there are other dogs which would steal in just that way." And so you really call it stealing, do you? But why was it that the dog dared to take the food when nobody was present? Because," you answer, "he somehow felt that nobody was seeing him, and so that nobody would know anything about it." You mean, do you, then, that he was a dog which would obey when somebody had an eye on him?

Well, what does it

Do you begin to see what is meant by an eyeservant"? What sense is there in that kind of a term? "You know now," you answer? mean? "Oh," you say, "it means anybody who obeys when he is being watched, and disobeys when nobody can see him." Yes, I suspect that you have found out what is meant by "eye-service".

Did you ever see any persons working harder when somebody is near looking at them-when, for instance, their teacher or father or mother is near-and then working more carelessly when nobody is near? What is the difference between such conduct and the dog we have talked about? "It is pretty much the same," you say.

Then what would you call such persons? "Eyeservants?" Yes, that is the word; we should call them eye-servants.

And do you think people who follow rules in that way can say that they are obedient? Is that real obedience, or is it "make-believe"? You answer, "it is makebelieve".

What is it, then, that you lose in the mind of your father and mother when they discover your disobedience? You have answered that question already in the other illustration. "Their confidence and trust," you say. Yes, that is just it.

Then when a person disobeys under those circumstances, he has done something else besides showing disobedience, has he not? He has shown, besides, that he cannot be trusted.

But do you think that this sort of disobedience ever takes place among grown people? Perhaps you don't understand my question, as you don't answer.

But if, when you are grown up and there are a number of you working together, and you have agreed to work according to certain rules; then suppose that only one of you should be present at the work for a time, and he should break the rules because it would be easier, although it would make more work for the rest of you when you came back.

Now when you found that other one out, what would he have lost in your respect? "Your confidence," you say? Exactly. And what would you be inclined to call that man; would he not be like the dog you have described ? How would you name him? "An eyeservant? Yes, that would be it, exactly.

Do you think then that a boy or girl who would do that way with a father or mother might have the same habit when grown up, in dealing with other people? I wonder if you can think of another term for that sort of