what do you think of this quote from Keeping House

[Dawn in Ohio]

I just finished reading Keeping House by Margaret Peterson. (I thought it had been discussed here, but I can't find the thread.) This quote from the last chapter really struck me as profound. As a homeschooler, I often feel like I have to achieve "maximum efficiency"... which I don't achieve... and then I am very frustrated. What are your thoughts?

 

"Efficiency can be the enemy of hospitable housekeeping, especially in the face of small or large emergencies. All too often, efficiency is just another name for being spread too thin. A few years ago there were massive cascading power failures all over the eastern United States that were eventually attributed in part to design features meant to make the distribution of power as efficient as possible. It turned out that because all parts of the system were working at maximum efficiency all of the time, the system as a whole had no way to adjust to problems, and small-scale disruptions rapidly became large-scale catastrophes.

 

Maximum efficiency in housekeeping routines can have the same effect. If we are working as fast as we can, all the time, there is no way to adjust to the inevitable disruptions. Moreover, maximum efficiency easily turns into no rest for the weary. You are never done because the plan is never to be done; the plan is to be working at something or other, full speed ahead, all the time."

[KristenS]

Margins ... that's a good concept.

[flyingmommy]

I agree. Excellent analogy. And also an excellent quote. Makes a lot of sense. Everybody needs down time.

 

After all, the dust will still be there thirty minutes from now. But right now, I can hold my child on my lap and read her a story. Later, she won't fit on my lap. The dust can wait.

 

Jeannie

[LaxMom]

Huh.

 

Well, ok, I can almost see that argument. Except... there is a fallacy (and I will leave that to the bigger, more diligent nerds to name) in there.

 

A few years ago there were massive cascading power failures all over the eastern United States that were eventually attributed in part to design features meant to make the distribution of power as efficient as possible. It turned out that because all parts of the system were working at maximum efficiency all of the time, the system as a whole had no way to adjust to problems, and small-scale disruptions rapidly became large-scale catastrophes.

This is not a problem with "efficiency". This is a "design flaw". Efficiency, while on its surface seems the antithesis of redundancy, actually requires that some is built in, so as to avoid the single point of failure problem.

 

So, in housekeeping (or networking, or power distribution) cross-training (or duplication of switching) is essential to provide for the necessary redundancy, should an emergency crop up. So, if the major hub (Mom) should be incapacitated, the load (housework) can effectively be balanced and seamlessly taken up by the other hubs (other family members) without overloading them and taking them down one at a time, as the load snowballs. Load balancing at the outset makes it unlikely that any hub will drop off the grid at all, but redundancy allows for degradation of any one, without affecting the whole.

 

And thus concludes my one lucid thought of the evening.

[Tracey in TX]

WOW. What an amazing analogy. I wholeheartedly agree with the statement. When we work (in my home) at maximum efficiency we burn out rapidly. Phasing in and out of various activities allows us more energy to devote to any given task.

Thanks for sharing this.