The fact that Huey’s advice was so similar to that of Child (1831) and
Martineau (1848), and was modeled in the mothering work of “Mrs. Scripture,”
raises questions about the extent to which women’s experiential knowledge
of children’s literacy acquisition constituted a basis for, rather than
a break from, scientific theorizing on this much debated topic. At the same
time as literacy work in the home was naturalized as women’s work, the
fruits of which have undoubtedly produced considerable knowledge among many
mothers about how children learn to read and write, mothers were also positioned
as ignorant of the processes of children’s literacy acquisition and in
need of expert advice. Another effect of these literacy advice discourses, which
will be pursued in Chapter Five, was that advice also represented children as
passive actors, absent of literacy identities of their own, who fell without
conflict under the influence of their parents.
The advice reviewed above is powerful and persuasive in its critique of the
“constant training”
of children in schools that commentators felt
dulled children’s imaginations and rendered reading a meaningless chore.
However, its attention to the domestic sphere as an alternate ideal for more
natural and pleasurable learning implied the need for “constant training”
of mothers, if they were to occupy desired positions in the discourses of intensive
mothering, domestic pedagogy, and the normal family, upon which their children’s
reading success relied. This supports the insights of Weiss (1977) who observed
that advice for directing the behaviour of children is really advice for directing
mothering practices. Given the social importance placed on children’s
reading, and hence mothers’ domestic literacy practices, it is not surprising
that both children’s and women’s literacy practices could be considered
dangerous. This theme crossed the Nineteenth Century, and by way of a summary
to this chapter is considered next.
Perhaps, this is the most important question with which a virtuous and godly mother is concerned, in training up her offspring — what shall they read? (Mothers’ Magazine, 1862, p. 145)
Victorian literacy advice discourses implied a direct connection between women’s literacy practices and those of their children. The duties ascribed to mothers as their children’s moral instructors, and prevailing beliefs about the effects of reading on women’s reproductive capacities, contributed to advice texts aimed at regulating women’s and children’s access to reading materials. However, “corrupting” reading practices railed against in such advice suggests that it was rarely heeded, though perhaps succeeded in creating a mystique and sense of danger surrounding reading too much of the “wrong” sorts of texts.