Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T16:16:58.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Connecting Household History and Labour History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2009

Marcel van der Linden  and
Lee Mitzman
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Labour historians have always shown an interest in working class men and women who participated in strikes, unions, and political parties. However, even when historians are receptive to the importance of family life behind public activism these scholars continue to use the “public sphere” as an approach for studying the family. This approach runs counter to historical logic because the daily life of those who join social movements and organizations involves far more than merely labour activism. To understand the true causes of collective resistance among workers, it is necessary to use the “private sphere” as an approach for studying labour protests as well. While this reverse perspective may not prove a panacea for all problems associated with analysing labour history, it will provide insight into the rather obscure motives of the working class for deciding whether or not to support the development of workers' movements. Furthermore, Jean H. Quataert wrote that examining working-class households makes it possible to keep “in focus at all times the lives of both men and women, young and old, and the variety of paid and unpaid work necessary to maintain the unit”.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 38 , supplement S1: The end of labour history? , April 1993 , pp. 163 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1993

References

1 For essays using this approach that are excellent in many other respects, see Benenson's, Harold “The Community and Family Bases of U.S. Working Class Protest, 1880–1920: A Critique of the ‘Skill Degradation’ and ‘Ecological’ Perspectives”, Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 8 (1985), pp. 109–132Google Scholar, and Scates', Bruce “Gender, Household and Community Politics: The 1890 Maritime Strike in Australia and New Zealand”, Labour History, 61 (1991), pp. 70–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Quataert, Jean H., “Combining Agrarian and Industrial Livelihood: Rural Households in the Saxon Oberlausitz in the Nineteenth Century”, Journal of Family History, 10 (1985), pp. 145–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 158.

3 It is extremely difficult to provide a generally valid definition of households. Attempts to find “a precise, reduced definition” have been unsuccessful, as households are “inherently complex, multifunctional institutions imbued with a diverse array of cultural principles and meanings”. Yaganisako, Sylvia Junko, “Family and Household: The Analysis of Domestic Groups”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 8 (1979), pp. 161–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 200.

4 McGuire, Randall H., Smith, Joan, and Martin, William G., “Patterns of Household Structures and the World-Economy”, Review, vol. 10, No. 1 (Summer 1986), pp. 75–97Google Scholar, 76.

5 Bender, Donald R., “A Refinement of the Concept of Household: Families, Co-Residence, and Domestic Functions”, American Anthropologist, 69 (1967), pp. 493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 498.

6 The Canadian bushworker camps in Radforth's, IanBushworkers and Bosses: Logging in Northern Ontario, 1900–1980 (Toronto, 1987)Google Scholar, Ch. 5, are examples of secondary households.

7 Yaganisako, Sylvia Junko, “Explicating Residence: A Cultural Analysis of Changing House-holds among Japanese-Americans”, in: McC. Netting, Robert, Wilk, Richard R., and Arnould, Eric J. (eds.), Households. Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Croup (Berkeley, Calif., 1984), pp. 330–352Google Scholar, 330.

8 Yaganisako, “Family and Household”, pp. 167–175; Maume, David J. and Dunaway, R. Gregory, “Determinants of the Prevalence of Mother-Only Families”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 8 (1989), pp. 313–327Google Scholar; Mitterauer, Michael, “Faktoren des Wandels historischer Familienformen”, in: Mitterauer, , Familie und Arbeitsteilung. Historischvergleichende Studien (Vienna, 1992), pp. 214–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Bruce, Judith, “Homes Divided”, World Development, 17 (1989), pp. 979–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolf, Diane L., “Daughters, Decisions and Domination: An Empirical and Conceptual Critique of Household Strategies”, Development and Change, 21 (1990), pp. 43–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Peter Laslett, “The Family as a Knot of Individual Interests”, in: Netting, Wilk, and Arnould, Households, pp. 353–379, 370–371.

11 See Becker, Gary S., A Treatise on the Family (Cambridge, Mass., 1981)Google Scholar.

12 Sennett, Richard and Cobb, Jonathan convincingly argued this point of view in The Hidden Injuries of Class (New York, 1972)Google Scholar.

13 Lipset, Seymour Martin, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (Garden City, N.Y., 1959), p. 232Google Scholar; Rimlinger, Gaston V., “The Legitimation of Protest: A Comparative Study in Labor History,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 2 (1959–1960), pp. 329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leggett, John C., “Economic Insecurity and Working-Class Consciousness”, American Sociological Review, 29 (1964), pp. 226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zeitlin, Maurice, “Economic Insecurity and the Political Attitudes of Cuban Workers”, American Sociological Review, 31 (1966), pp. 35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Scott, James C., The Moral Economy of the Peasant. Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven and London, 1976), 34Google Scholar.

15 Trempé, Rolande, Les mineurs de Carmaux 1848–1914 (Paris, 1971), vol. I, p. 224Google Scholar.

16 Gugler, Josef, “Life in a Dual System Revisited: Urban-Rural Ties in Enugu, Nigeria, 1961–87,” World Development, 19 (1991), pp. 399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 405.

17 “In the realm of ends everything has either a PRICE or a DIGNITY. Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent. But what is raised above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity. [ … ] but that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be [an] end in itself, has not a mere relative value, that is a price, but an intrinsic value, that is dignity.” Kant, Immanuel, “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten” [“Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Ethics”, translated by Manthey-Zorn, Otto (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1938] (1785), Werke in Sechs Btin den, vol. IV (Darmstadt, 1983), p. 68Google Scholar.

18 Moore, Barrington Jr, Injustice. Vie Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (White Plains, N.Y., 1978), p. 326Google Scholar. Also see Hatch, Elvin, “Theories of Social Honor”, American Anthropologist, 91 (1989), pp. 341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Barrington Moore, Injustice, p. 455. Cf. Godelier: “ [ … ] for relations of domination and exploitation to be formed and reproduced in a lasting fashion, they must be presented as an exchange, and as exchange of services.” Godelier, Maurice, The Mental and the Material, translated by Thorn, Martin (London, 1986), p. 160Google Scholar.

20 Schoeck, Helmut, Der Neid. Eine Theorie der Cesellschaft (Freiburg, 1968)Google Scholar.

21 Bendix, Reinhard, Work and Authority in Industry: Ideologies of Management in the Course of Industrialization (Berkeley, 1974)Google Scholar, Ch. 7.

22 Pitt-Rivers, Julian, “Honor,” Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 6 (1968), pp. 503–511Google Scholar, 503.

23 Negt, Oskar/Kluge, Alexander, Geschichte und Eigensinn (Frankfurt/M., 1981), p. 604Google Scholar.

24 This distribution is based in part on Claude Meillassoux's three categories of reproduction costs: “The value of the work force is derived from three factors: supporting workers during periods of employment (retaining the existing work force), maintaining workers during periods ofidleness (such as unemployment or illness), replacing workers by providing for their progeny (known as reproduction).” Meillassoux, Claude, Femmes, Greniers & Capitaux (Paris, 1975), p. 152Google Scholar.

25 Friedman, Kathie listed the first five of these sources of income in “Households as Income-Pooling Units”, in: Smith, Joan, Wallerstein, Immanuel, and Evers, Hans-Dieter (eds.), Households and the World-Economy (Beverly Hills, Calif., 1984) pp. 37–55Google Scholar, 46.

26 Bradbury, Bettina, “Pigs, Cows, and Boarders: Non-Wage Forms of Survival among'Montreal Families, 1861–91, Labour/Le Travailleur, 14 (Fall 1984), pp. 9–46Google Scholar; Cabedoce, Béatrice, “Jardins ouvriers et banlieue: le bonheur au jardin?” in Faure, Alain (ed.), Les Premiers Banlieusards. Aux Origines des Banlieues de Paris 1860–1940 (Paris, 1991), pp. 249–279Google Scholar.

27 See Barrett, James R., Work and Community in the Jungle. Chicago's Packinghouse Workers 1894–1922 (Urbana and Chicago, 1987), p. 104Google Scholar.

28 Benson, John, The Penny Capitalists. A Study of Nineteenth-Century Working Class Entrepreneurs (Dublin, 1983)Google Scholar; Jaumain, Serge, “Contribution à l'histoire compared: les colporteurs beiges et québécois au XIXe siècle,” Histoire socialelSocial History, 39 (1987), pp. 49–77Google Scholar.

29 Faure, Alain, “Classe malpropre, classe dangereuse? Quelques remarques à propos des chiffoniers parisiens au XIXe siècle et de leurs cités,” Recherches, 29 (12 1977), pp. 79–102Google Scholar; Birkbeck, Chris, “Self-Employed Proletarians in an Informal Factory: The Case of Cali's Garbage Dump,” World Development, 6 (1978), pp. 1173–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sicular, Daniel T., “Pockets of Peasants in Indonesian Cities: The Case of Scavengers,” World Development, 19 (1991), pp. 137–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Bradbury, “Pigs, Cows, and Boarders”; Modell, John and Hareven, Tamara, “Urbanization and the Malleable Household: An Examination of Boarding and Lodging in American Families,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 35 (1973), pp. 467–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brüggemeier, Franz and Niethammer, Lutz, “Schlafgänger, Schnapskastnos und schwerindustrielle Kolonie. Aspekte der Arbeiterwohnungsfrage im Ruhrgebiet vor dem ersten Weltkrieg,” in: Reulecke, J./Weber, W. (eds.), Fabrik, Familie, Feierabend. Beitra'ge zur Sozialgeschichte des Alltags im Indus-triezeitalter (Wuppertal, 1978), pp. 153–174Google Scholar; Ehmer, Josef, “Wohnen ohne eigene Wohnung. Zur sozialen Stellung von Untermietern und Bettgehern,” in: Niethammer, Lutz (ed.), Wohnen im Wandel. Beitra'ge zur Ceschichte des Alltags in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft (Wuppertal, 1979), pp. 132–150Google Scholar.

31 See Randall, Adrian J., “Peculiar Perquisites and Pernicious Practices. Embezzlement in the West of England Woollen Industry, c. 1750–1840,” International vReview of Social History, 35 (1990), pp. 193–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Grüttner, Michael, “Working-Class Crime and the Labour Movement: Pilfering in the Hamburg Docks, 1888–1923,” in: Evans, Richard J. (ed.), The German Working Class 1888–1933. The Politics of Everyday Life (London and Totowa, 1982), pp. 54–79Google Scholar. Freund, William reveals the possibility of a smooth transition to theft as a collective act in “Theft and Social Protest Among the Tin Miners of Northern Nigeria,” Radical History Review, 26 (1982), pp. 68–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Perrot, Michelle, Les ouvriers en grève. France 1871–1890 (Paris and The Hague, 1974), vol. I, pp. 210–212Google Scholar; Tebbutt, Melanie, Making Ends Meet. Pawnbroking and Working'Class Credit (New York, 1983)Google Scholar; Johnson, Paul, Saving and Spending. The Working-Class Economy in Britain 1870–1939 (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar, Ch. 6.

33 Smith, Joan and Wallerstein, Immanuel, “Households as an Institution o f the World-Economy,” in Smith, Joan et al. , Creating and Transforming Households. The Constraints of the World-Economy (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar,11–12.

34 Schulz, Günther, “‘Der konnte freilich ganz anders sparen als ich’. Untersuchungen zutn Sparverhalten industrieller Arbeiter im 19. Jahrhundert,” in: Conze, Werner and Engelhardt, Ulrich (eds.), Arbeiterexistenz im 19. Jahrhundert. Lebensstandard und Lebensgestaltung deutscher Arbeiter und Handwerker (Stuttgart, 1981), pp. 487–515Google Scholar; De Belder, Jos, “Het arbeiderssparen 1850–1890,” in: Van Put, August et al. (eds.), De Belgische Spaarbanken. Geschiedenis, Recht, Economische Funktie en Instellingen (Tielt, 1986), pp. 91–119Google Scholar; Johnson, Saving and Spending, Ch. 4.

35 Modell, John, “Changing Risks, Changing Adaptations: American Families in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” in: Lichtman, Alan J. and Challinor, Joan R. (eds.), Kin and Communities: Families in America (Washington, D.C., 1979), pp. 128–129Google Scholar; Barrett, Work and Community in the Jungle, pp. 104–107.

36 Hareven, Tamara K., “A Complex Relationship: Family Strategies and the Processes of Economic and Social Change,” in: Friedland, Roger and Robertson, A.F. (eds.), Beyond the Marketplace. Rethinking Economy and Society (New York, 1990), pp. 215–244Google Scholar.

37 Rosenbaum, Heidi, Proletarische Familien. Arbeiterfamilien und Arbeiterväter im frühen 20. Jahrhundert zwischen traditioneller, sozialdemokratischer und kleinbürgerlicher Orientierung (Frankfurt/M., 1992), p. 153Google Scholar.

38 Peterson, Jean Treloggen, “Interhousehold Exchange and the Public Economy in Three Highland Philippine Communities,” Research in Economic Anthropology, 11 (1989), pp. 123–142Google Scholar,136.

39 Wellman, Barry, Carrington, Peter J., and Hall, Alan, “Networks as Personal Communities,” in: Wellman, Barry/Berkowitz, S.D. (eds.), Social Structures. A Network Approach (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 130–184Google Scholar,163.

40 Compare personal communities in London between 1870 and 1914 in Ross, Ellen, “Survival Networks: Women's Neighbourhood Sharing in London Before World War I,” History Workshop Journal, 15 (Spring 1983), pp. 4–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, to those in Lebanon in the 1970s in Joseph, Suad, “Working-Class Women's Networks in a Sectarian State: A Political Paradox,” American Ethnologist, 10 (1983), pp. 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Mintz, Sidney W. and Wolf, Eric R., “An Analysis of Ritual Co-Parenthood (Compadrazgo),” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, vol. 6, No. 4 (Winter 1950), pp. 341–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Zwahr, Hartmut, Zur Konstituierung des Proletariats als Klasse. Strukturuntersuchungenüber das Leipziger Proletariat während der industriellen Revolution (Berlin, 1978), pp. 163–189Google Scholar.

41 Y. Michal Bodemann, “Relations of Production and Class Rule: The Hidden Basis of Patron-Clientage”, in: Wellman and Berkowitz, Social Structures. A Network Approach, pp. 198–220, 215.

44 For a comprehensive analysis of industrial paternalism, see Sierra, Alvarez, El obrero sonado. Ensayo sobre el paternalismo industrial (Asturias 1860–1917) (Madrid, 1990), pp. 7–164Google Scholar.

45 Robin Theobald and Michael A. Korovkin debate historical conditions necessary for patronage in Theobald, Robin, “The Decline of Patron-Client Relations in Developed Societies,” Archives Europiéennes de Sociologie [henceforth: AES], 24 (1983), pp. 135–147Google Scholar; Korovkin, Michael A., “Exploitation, Cooperation, Collusion: An Enquiry into Patronage,” AES, 29 (1988), pp. 105–126Google Scholar; Theobald, Robin, “On the Survival of Patronage in Developed Societies”, AES, 33 (1992), pp. 183–191Google Scholar.

46 Scott, Joan Wallach, The Classworkers of Carmaux. French Craftsmen and Political Action in a Nineteenth-Century City (Cambridge, Mass., 1974), pp. 68Google Scholar, 83–87; Southall, Humphrey, “Mobility, the Artisan Community and Popular Politics in Early Nineteenth-Century England”, in: Kearns, Gerry and Withers, Charles W. J. (eds.), Urbanising Britain. Essays on Class and Community in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 103–153Google Scholar.

47 The discussion of personal communities provided some examples of this transformation. It may also occur with patronage – patrons and patronesses can become godfathers or god-mothers respectively – or self-organizations. Emily Honig's example of female textile workers in Shanghai during the first half of the twentieth century illustrates this point: “After working together for several years, six to ten women would formalize their relationship with one another by pledging sisterhood. Once they had formed a sisterhood, the members would call each other by kinship terms based on age: the oldest was ‘Big Sister’, the next oldest ‘Second Sister’, and so forth. [ … ] Often the sisterhoods functioned as an economic mutual aid society”. Honig, Emily, “Burning Incense, Pledging Sisterhood. Communities of Women Workers in the Shanghai Cotton Mills, 1919–1949,” Signs, 10 (1984), pp. 700–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 700–701. Better known than this case of surrogate kinship among women are the countless fraternal organizations that have sprung up in workers' movements over time. For examples, see Clawson, Mary Ann, Constructing Brotherhood. Class, Gender, and Fraternalism (Princeton, N.J., 1989)Google Scholar.

48 See Zwahr, Zur Konstituierung des Proletariats. Furthermore, Altena, Bert convincingly argues that “family acquaintance played an important part” in the formation of early working-class organizations in “The Dutch Social Democratic Workers' Party in the Province of Zeeland, 1898–1920”, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis, 18 (1992), pp. 389–403Google Scholar,401.