THE BREAKING UP OF FAMILIES The breaking up of a family by any outside agency is justified only when it is merely the outward expression of a destruction which has already taken place. The stern scriptural injunction, " Whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder," gains increased solemnity and force when children are born of the union so that the family bond includes the relation between parent and child as well as that between man and wife. The separa tion of husband and wife, the removal of children, the involuntary displacement of an aged member of the family, are the more usual forms of separation which are included under the expression the breaking up of families. Any one of these may be dictated by mere caprice ; circum stances may exist under which public opinion will approve any one of them ; conditions may arise under which the strong arm of the law may give its sanction to such a course. The presumption, however, is against either com pulsory or voluntary breaking up of the family except by the natural and evolutionary withdrawal of children who have attained their growth and who come to rely upon their own exertions or establish new families of their own.
The family is the ultimate unit of our social organiza tion. Other social institutions are supplemental to it, and it is not an unfair test of their value whether they strengthen and support the family and the ends for which the family exists, or on the contrary tend to disintegrate the family and to thwart its objects. Even the church does not relieve the family of its duty as a religious institution, but only aids and supplements it. The school only takes up the work of education where the family leaves it, and H 97 upon the latter remains a responsibility parallel with that of the school and extending far beyond it. Hospitals and other agencies of medical relief are expedients for restor ing as quickly as possible to their active and normal places in the family those who are disabled from perform ing their part. Homes for aged persons and for incur ables are agencies for the care of that limited proportion of the class to which their inmates belong, for whom, because of exceptional reasons, a normal life has become impossible. Orphan asylums and other institutions for children are primarily to provide shelter and training for children who are deprived of their natural birthright in the opportunity for a growth and development in the family, and for the parental care which, to the child, is the chief element in family life. The social club, the boarding-house, the tenement-house, the employment of women in factories, the higher education of women, all of these, and countless other social innovations and institu tions, are judged instinctively more by their influence upon the family than by any other single test, although each will naturally involve other considerations of greater or less importance.
The application of the test is not always easy. For example, if it be asked whether homes for aged persons supported by charitable contributions have the effect of removing from the family those who should be supported by their children or other near relatives, it is necessary to ascertain how far the inmates of such homes really have such relatives and how far it would be possible for them to provide a home for the aged dependents in their own families; how far such support, if given, would deprive young children in the same families of the opportunities DOW afforded to them ; and how far, if at all, there would be a reduction of the physical comforts now secured both by the aged persons and by families who are by the present plan relieved of the burden of their support. Such facts as these lend themselves to statistical inquiry. There are other more subtle but equally vital facts which it will be necessary to ascertain. What is the effect upon young children of the example set by their parents, when the latter too easily throw off the burden of caring for their own aged parents or their near relatives ? Is there a social disadvantage in the policy of sacrificing the most fruitful and ' active years in caring for those who no longer contribute to the family income and who are of no direct service ? In other words, using the lan guage of natural selection, will the community which merely from sentiment cares for its aged dependents by uneconomical methods compete successfully with the com munity which disregards such sentiment and places those who are past active service in institutions where they can be supported on some uniform, and therefore economical, plan ? Is there a conflict between the economic and moral standards, and, if so, which should prevail ? If our homes for aged men and women are found to be as humane as, and more economical than, the plan of caring for the aged members of our families at home, their numbers should doubtless be increased and multiplied. If we reach the conclusion that they should be utilized only for those who are absolutely without near relatives or friends able to care for them, it may still be necessary to increase their number merely to provide adequately for all persons who are in this unfortunate position.