To the Editor
Correspondence.
Dear Sir,
In the July number of “Studies in Mental Inefficiency” a correspondent voices the objection which is sometimes raised against large Institutions, i.e., the alleged lack of personal interest in the well being of the inmates which a large institution seems to entail. I use the term ‘alleged’ advisedly because the objection appears to arise from a misconception of the actual conditions which exist. On the contrary I believe that the advantages secured for the inmates themselves to be gained from a large institution are so great that these would far outweigh such an objection even it if had an element of truth in it.
It is obvious that a similar objection might be applied to any large institution whether it be a Public School, such as Eton with its 1,100 boys, a large elementary School, or an Asylum. The head of any large undertaking has so many and varied duties that he must inevitably be unable to be in close personal touch with each individual member of the community over which he rules. He has however a staff of assistants who in their more circumscribed sphere are brought into a much closer personal relationship with those who come within the scope of their activities. The larger the institution the more possible is this subdivision of duties and of personal interest. This is more essentially true of institutions for the feeble-minded than for any other type of corporate life. Small homes and institutions cannot in the nature of things provide for this subdivision of labour nor can they provide for the variety of occupation, yet the happiness of the inmates depends largely upon the degree of success with which their interests and activities are brought into fullest play. Indeed one of the chief causes of unrest and reduced efficiency is the uniformity of occupation and the resulting monotony of life which is inevitable in a small institution.
For example, many small homes for girls and young women depend upon laundry work as their main industry with the result that after a few months the inmates, from want of a change of occupation, sink into a state of apathy or rebellion, according to their temperaments. In a large institution where many different kinds of work can be carried on and where classification is possible, things are very different, for here a right proportion of grading of different types of defectives is of the greatest value in keeping the inmates contented and in aiding them to self-realisation and discipline. Some years ago it was my privilege to spend a week at the Massachusetts Colony for the Feeble-minded at Waver ley. Nothing could be more instructive than the system and organisation of the ten pavilions in which were housed the various grades of inmates nor the variety of industries which were followed. There were 1,500 feeble-minded “colonists” upon 150 acres of land while sixty miles away was Templeton, where 280 young men were leading a healthy life on 2,000 acres of rough country which they were gradually bringing under cultivation. Small institutions cannot supply sufficient scope for a resident medical and nursing staff nor for highly trained manual instructors. Yet if the institution is to be more than a store house for inefficients an adequately trained staff is essential.
The experience of the members of the Royal Commission who visited the American Institutions is of value in this connection.
They write (Report Vol. I. 297):
‘ ‘They were impressed with the large “size of American Institutions, some of “which contained from 500 to 2,000 “inmates. This seems to them to secure “proper classification, the general plan ‘’being that each institution contains three ‘’departments the custodial for the lowest “grade, the school for the higher grade “children, and the industrial. Our mem’ ‘bers are of opinion that the large size of an “institution tends not only to better “classification, but to greater economy.”
It cannot be too clearly laid down that if colony treatment is to be a real solution of the problem, two main conditions must be fulfilled.
The institutions must command the complete confidence of the public and of the relatives of the persons committed to them;
(2) they must be a “business proposition,” i.e., they must so develop the individual capacities of the inmates that there will be some sort of financial return m proportion to the outlay involved.
The key to success is proper grading and classification and this can only be attained by establishments of sufficient size. It will be disastrous to an adequate solution of the problem of mental deficiency if the country is studded with small, inadequately equipped, imperfectly staffed, institutions where satisfactory grading is impossible and where there is too little opportunity of utilising the productive capacity of the inmates.
It may be argued that such a policy would be inimical to the numerous small homes for the feeble-minded which have already done such magnificent work. There is, however, no ground for such a view and it would be a simple matter to affiliate the smaller homes “with some large centrally situated institution, in much the same way as the numerous V.A.D. Hospitals were attached during the “War to the large Military Hospitals. The success of the large colonies in America has already been mentioned and the experience of other countries tells the same tale, e.g., Darenth in England, Bielefeld and Alsterdorf in Germany, and Ebberogaard in Denmark.
We cannot afford to be misled by the fetish of individualism in dealing with a question of national inmportance.
I am, Yours faithfully, G. A. Auden. Birmingham October, 1920,
- Reference type:
Journal Article
- Record-number:
17147
- Author:
Auden, G. A.
- Year:
1921
- Title:
Correspondence
- Journal:
Studies in mental inefficiency
- Volume:
2
- Issue:
1
- Pages:
20-21
- Epub-date:
1921/01/15
- Date:
1921/01//
- Short-title:
Correspondence
- Alternate-journal-name:
Stud Ment Ineffic
- PMCID:
PMC5109145
- Accession-number:
28909988
Note
Auden, G A eng, England, Stud Ment Ineffic. 1921 Jan 15;2(1):20-21.
- URL:
- Author-address:
Birmingham.
- Name-of-database:
PubMed
- Language:
eng
- Copyright:
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.