-
Posted
Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:04 PM
| By
E.J. Graff
Dayo, you write that you were sent away to boarding school at age 14. In that, you
had a more traditional upbringing than most Americans.
Contrary to popular opinion, American children now spend far more time
living under the same roof with their bio-parents than have most children in
Western history. Traditionally—by which I mean, until capitalism separated work from home—children were sent away to live
with others somewhere between ages 8 and 14 (at the latest). The aristocracy
sent adolescents off to be pages and maids-in-waiting, to get an education in manners. Working folks sent children off to be apprentices (boys) or domestics
(girls—although some girls might instead work in laundry, spinning, or
weaving). They'd work for about 7 to 10 years, when they'd finally be paid (no
weekly wages!), giving them a lump sum that was enough to marry and start a little shop of their own. Working through adolescence was how
most girls earned their dowries and boys learned their trade...and how most
working women (and aristocrats as well) avoided being their own children's
nannies. Adult women ran the house and shop, in partnership with their husbands. Diaper-wiping was the work of teenagers.
That was the system even if you were lucky enough to have two
bio-parents who survived until you were an adult. Most lost at least one parent
before then, and had to live under a step-parental regime (cf: Cinderella), or,
for impoverished gentry, were sent off to be governesses or law clerks.
Which makes me wonder: Is it a healthy system for anyone, parents or children, to
keep adolescents home until age 18? But I agree that boarding schools
for poor children whose parents are in flux and financial distress might be a good—or at least, a very traditional—idea.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?