'Psychological Governance’, Nuns and the 'Wayward Girl'

A series of pieced-together extracts from a series of articles regarding certain religious houses for ‘morally wayward girls’ that existed through the 1950s and even up until the 1970s, offering “shelter and guidance to vulnerable girls and women.”

“The Sisters and courts working together decided when a girl was ready to leave the Home, but since the courts in turn relied on the Mother Supior's recomendations, her word was effectively law" and woe betide the girl who threatened the status quo - or who she took a shine to!
"Security and rehabilitation were big issues. The girls could not be trusted and neither could the outside world. To prevent residents from seeing the outside world and leaving the Home, locked doors and opaque glass had been installed behind barred windows, barbed wire fences, and alarm systems. There was no television, nor radio; listening to music was allowed, though the girls weren’t allowed to listen to male voices. [At mealtimes] the girls [were obliged to maintain] silence as they entered the dining room and sat down. Two nuns supervised lunch from an elevated platform and they frequently used the time to read and censor the girls' mail. In the dormitory, [each girl’s] toiletries [had to be kept] lined up with precision, with each item being assigned a specific placement.

Though these measures appeared harsh for some; for others, it offered protection and safety and enabled to them to concentrate on [rehabilitation]. In the sewing room, the girls and nuns made school uniforms, all clothing being [marked with a number, designating the individual girl.].”

From another source we hear of the “unfortunate necessity” to employ “certain drastic measures and remedies [in order] to control the risk of the introduction and spread of head lice”. And that although “alternatives were available and marketed at very little expense”, a preventative approach was to be preferred and “conferred certain other advantages”. The article goes on to guardedly hint at these ‘advantages’ pertaining to “good order and discipline” and to “the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience”. We are left in blissful, blameless ignorance as to the details of these ‘unfortunate’ “drastic measures and remedies” and their ramifications – but we might hazard a guess.

Here again there is mention of the importance of an “emphasis on silence as a means of focussing attention on God”, “frugality in all things” and the provision of what is described as a “bare ‘maintenance diet’ – sufficient to keep from losing weight, yet [insufficient] t o risk encouraging the sin of gluttony with its associated unwarranted weight gain”. This particular institution was said to have “embodied regimented discipline”, imposed “extreme restriction on freedom of movement and privacy” and to have “embraced a culture of petty rules and restrictions” that “limited to the extreme [the] opportunities [for] forming personal one to one relationships between inmates”. The emphasis throughout was “one of conformity” with a “reliance on corporal punishment [for the maintenance] of discipline and good order”.

Elsewhere, albeit regarding an entirely separate establishment, it is somewhat enigmatically stated that “…the more closely [the institution] is modelled on the judicious application of the principle of psychological governance, the more salutary will be its discipline, and the fewer occasions will arise for resort to actual [physical] punishment”.

What this cryptic ‘principle of psychological governance’ might have consisted of is not expanded upon. However, it is noteworthy that in the same pamphlet it goes on to state that: “…any physical chastisement [may] consist of moderate childish punishment with the hand or punishments with the cane, strap, or birch” and that “only a light cane or rod [should] be used for the purpose of corporal punishment inflicted on an open palm”. Certain orders of nuns had experience of setting up and governing correctional facilities for women stretching back three hundred years or more, so one may assume that they knew what they were doing when it came to exercising control – psychological or otherwise – and that any young woman, however blameless, once delivered in to their hands would have quickly come to the conclusion that defiance was not an option. Nor was the likelihood of absconding particularly buoying, as I am given to understand it – after all the nuns had had time aplenty to refine the security precautions surrounding their ‘sanctuary for wayward young women’. And security was essential if they were to protect a young woman from further sin – even if (particularly if, some would say) that ‘sin’ or ‘moral infraction’ amounted to little more than having run from a craftily manipulative stepparent, an intolerably overbearing governess or a cruelly exploitative and equally manipulative guardian or indeed just having foolhardily rejected certain amorous advances.

One should never lose sight of that old “Victorian propensity to commit errant wives and stepdaughters to the asylum at the drop of a hat (or at the hint of an inheritance)”. And often a charitable donation made to such an institution spoke volumes, certainly carrying as much weight, if not more, than a learned doctor’s opinion (although the latter could be easily enough swayed if one had sufficient influence). There seems little doubt that certain of these ecclesiastical ‘shelters’ may well have fulfilled a similar purpose, a simple statement attesting to the poor thing’s ‘hysterical instability’, propensity to ‘overwrought imaginings’ and ‘delusion and derangement’ being enough to ensure that none would pay heed to any objections, accusations or entreaties the pretty, doe-eyed teenager might voice. Some mention of sexual impropriety included in the documentation, and a ‘well appointed’ buxom teenager could be assured a very hard time indeed under the reforming hand of the Mother Superior. And of course there was the added attraction of the possibility of visitation and the knowledge that any complaints, especially as such became - as they were sure to over time - more insistent and hysterical, would simply be recorded as yet more evidence of “the poor thing’s mental aberration”; more evidence to be recounted to the governors of the local asylum when the time came, should that be her guardian’s or stepmother’s wish.

The nun’s own isolation was sacrosanct and they had not been averse to adopting new modern ways over time to ensure it remained so. Similarly, it seems they had not been fazed when it came to applying modern methods to wielding the rigid control over their charges they deemed necessary in order to protect the more defiant, incorrigible and diffident of their young inmates ‘from themselves’ and once again one’s imagination is stimulated to muse over the cryptic use of that term; ‘psychological governance’.