Division of Labor within the Family - Research Paper Example

GENDER AND SOCIETY Family has always been a fundamental element in the well-recognized theories and principles of human development. Furthermore, it occupies a unique niche among social groups because of: 1) the intimacy involved in the unit; 2) how it shares common living arrangement; and, 3) how it endured through long period of time. In the process of the family’s development, some of the needs have changed while others stay the same. It is these needs that give rise to the roles known in modern society. According to James White, the theory of family development operates in three possibilities: 1. The cultural system of signs and symbols and the processes of change in these signs and symbols; 2. The individual system of biological and psychological growth and development; and, 3. The social system of interaction and behavior in groups and social institution, and the processes of change within and between these groups and institutions. (5) These three elements, as spelled by White, highlight how three needs – the social, natural and biological – have forced the family into the division of roles. This is demonstrated in the way family, in its history, has taken many forms and how each member has been given tasks to ensure it the best chance for survival. This paper will outline the significant forms that the family and community have taken through the years and how the sociological, biological and natural needs are being met. Specifically, this paper will identify its bearing on the division of labor and responsibilities within the family. In order to be able to establish the foundation of this paper, it is necessary to explain the fundamental concepts of the family, the division of labor and their relationship. In the process, the social, biological and natural factors that cause the division of labor within the family will also be identified. Scholars began to take interest in the development of the human institution called the family in 1860s and this resulted to the investigation of its history. According to Patricia Rosof, these scholars sought the origins and examined the development of the family because by doing so, they would be able to understand patterns of kinship structures, marriage, and inheritance, as well as explanations to familial traditions, among other matrimonial values. (1) With this scholarly interest, the definition of family became a necessity. Because of development and cultural differences, there is no standard definition or clear legally outlined meaning for the family but for the purposes of this study, the definition offered by the US Bureau of Census will be used. It states that, “a family consists of two or more persons who are living together and who are bound to each other by kinship, marriage or adoption.” (Skirbekk 118) The structure of family and the relationships therein at a particular time and place can yield invaluable insights in regard to the individual decisions and actions that result to developments and trends in family life. This paper will examine tribal family, the patriarchal family, the family at the turn of the 20th century, the modern family and the anticipated family in the future. But before that, the fundamentals of division of labor in the context of family life are outlined below. When the biblical Adam delved and his Eve span, the division of labor became obvious: the female endured childbirth and home tasks while the male toiled for food. Further on, the concept of the division of labor had been used by Plato in the Republic and before him; Anaxagoras and Diogenes have talked about it, although the concept assumed the name of progressive differentiation. In the Republic, Plato talked about how men come together to live in a city because they are not self-sufficient and each needs each other’s work and that through their common need for food, housing and clothing, the city comes to contain a mixture of farmers, builders, and weavers, each of whom then finds it convenient to trade both for himself and for others. (369b-370c) Adam Smith, introduced division of labor in the 20th century. Smith used division of labor – a phrase he invented - to refer to the single type of work for people, the kind of labor specialization with manifold implications. His arguments for its significance are: 1) it will bring about an improvement in the skill and dexterity of the worker; 2) time is saved by avoiding the changeover from one type of work to another; and, 3) much labor can be facilitated or rendered unnecessary by the use of machines. (Vivenza 129) The principle of the division of labor become a prerequisite in the Kantian idea that differences of individual powers and faculties leads to a whole of ultimate value. (Voegelin 155) The academic discussion of the division of labor has always adopted societal proportion and not in familial microcosm, until recently. Nonetheless, in regard to family, division of labor has existed as early as the time of Adam and Eve. Gender primary determines the division of labor within the family as would be demonstrated in the following discussion. The allocation of work on the basis of sex operates through a series of dichotomies that are driven by social, biological and natural factors. The social roles delegated to the division of labor within the family are related to the basic dynamic that governs relationship in our society because gender relations and class relations shape each other. According to Frank Stilwell and George Argyrous: Gender refers to the social meaning of being a man and a woman. It includes not only the construction of masculinity and femininity as psychological characteristics which we all share in different proportions, but more fundamental questions of identity and sexuality. (233) And, so in the discussion of division of labor, the domain of social relationship is explored because it is about the relationship between the men’s and women’s jobs. Meanwhile, division of labor is also affected by biological roles because of the supposed differences in characteristics and abilities between male and female. Men’s and women’s work are always distinct. Although what is considered to be man’s work and woman’s work changes through time, there would always be a distinction in the work allocated even if they would be working on the same job, as demonstrated in modern capitalist societies. The natural dimension to the roles delegated to the division of labor is related to the biological variable previously mentioned. Marx and Engels are credited to have advanced this proposition as they argued that division of labor developed spontaneously or naturally by virtue of natural predisposition such as physical strength, needs, accidents, etc. Marx, for instance, stated that family: Possesses a spontaneously developed system of division of labor. The distribution of the work within the family, and the regulation of the labor-time of the several members, depends as well upon the differences of age and sex as upon natural conditions varying with the seasons. (Marx 90) The social, biological and natural roles delegated to the division of labor within the family are demonstrated in the following family structures: traditional nuclear family structure, female-headed family, modern family structure and anticipated family structure. The following is a brief outline of the development of the family through the ages, starting from the tribal society, then the antiquity, the pre-modern society, until the modern family in America in the 21st century. Tribal Family Scholars believed that in the primitive age, when early humans communed into tribes, families did not exist. They have only one institution then and this was the clan – the unit that embodied all the mutual relations of its members. According to Peter Kropotkin, marriage-relations and possession-relations are clan relations and age primarily dictates divisions in roles as he posited that a strictly-kept classificatory group system existed in the primitive tribes where all individual of the same category address each other as if they were brothers and sisters, while the individuals of a younger category addressed their mother, their mother’s sisters, and so on, as mother and same with father and his group. (317) This is what Kropotkin argued a simple facon de parler or the way of expressing respect for age. From this perspective it appears that those biological and natural factors take precedence over social variables in regard to delegating roles in the clan. For instance, one could assume that since women bore children, they had the responsibility to rear them but not as mothers known today, but as a group. This is further underscored by the idea that gender division transpired not in the context of family but in the context of clans. Such division based on sex, furthermore, is eclipsed by the division dictated by age. Everything is dictated by necessity and survival rather in form of social mores and traditions, because these variables did not exist then. The early family after the primitive tribal society was patriarchal as demonstrated in the most important resource of all, the biblical accounts. Family histories that abound in the narratives in Genesis reflect a specific stage in the emergence of father-centered family in the ancient near-East. In this regard, John Miller wrote: The discovery (as it was thought) that life originates in male semen had revolutionary impact on the form of family in the cultures of ancient Near East. It not only solidified the role of fathers in families, but increased the potential for wife and child abuse. In the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of his son, it was demonstrated the father had an absolute power over his children to the extent of giving him the right to kill him and this is true as well for the wives. The male dominance of the female in marriage is guided by the “reproductive theory” (which also result to the natural and biological dimensions to the delegation of roles within the family) mentioned above: the male is only one to concoct, to cause to take shape, and to discharge semen possessing the principle of the form, whereas the female is that which receives semen, but unable to produce it. (White 20) In contrast with the modern point of view, the father is then thought to be the primary source of the progeny and the perpetuator of the lineage, which is one of the most important social role then. The extremely patriarchal society would continue to permeate to the other ancient societies such those in ancient Greece. For instance, in the Furies, the last play in the Oresteia trilogy by Aeschylus, an argument in regard to mother-right or female role in the family was declared: The mother is not the parent of the so-called child, which is called hers. She is the nurse who tends to the growth of young seed planted by its true parent, the male. (Aeschylus 127) Changes in the division of roles in modern family illustrated how social, biological and natural trends and their demands have evolved through the years with the advent of social, scientific and economic change. The most important change occurred when the economic production shifted from subsistence culture to the modern-day industrial economics characterized by working for wages. In this period, the foundation of the traditional nuclear family was established. The father earns the money and the female tends to the house and the family. This kind of family structure is susceptible to the pressures of efficiency and the distribution of responsibilities, which override individual preferences. This environment illustrates the biological variable in the division of labor. Here, women are better suited to household task because they are biologically more effective in it, as nurturers and caretakers while men are better suited to the workplace because they are more free from reproductive responsibilities. Men, here, are seen to be physically and emotionally better suited to the harshness of the working world. (Paterson 42) In regard to natural roles, women assumed the household tasks because, again, they are naturally nurturing and caring. Meanwhile the male is relegated to provide for food and other necessities because of his physical strength and other characteristics that are perceived to allow him to navigate better at the workplace. It is important to note that, here, social factors do not significantly affect the conjugal role responsibility pattern. However, the possibility of the wife’s employment has significant effect, as demonstrated in the modern family setup discussed later in this paper, because it disrupts the pattern of division and specialization putting a strain on the female role and the dispensation of responsibilities within the home. (Peterson 216) The modern family is drifting more and more towards a more egalitarian division of labor because women are increasingly joining the labor force. Research found that men and women are more amenable to this setup in their desire to have a better life. An interesting fact here is that while women started to work, they did not relinquish their traditional role of household management, at least entirely. Men, as well, devote fewer times to family tasks and more toward outdoor tasks and traditionally masculine activities. An important development, however, is that men are increasingly helping, although at lesser degree, in family related tasks such as cooking and in taking care of the children. (Chadwick & Heaton 24) The current family structure and the division of labor at work therein demonstrate significant adjustments in socially delegated roles. Today, working mothers/wives are already an accepted norm and often considered to be a necessity in the family. This is demonstrated in the willingness of men to allow their wives to work and the acceptance of the consequence this entails – overlap and adjustment in roles. Sussman, Steinmetz and Peterson developed what they called as Resource Model that posits employment provides women earnings, which they can use as a resource to gain power within marriage and that this power can be used to push to share domestic work. (581) However, it is interesting to note that traditional gender division still persists in the division of labor even among couples most likely to practice equality in modern families. It is easy to attribute this to the biological and natural factors previously mentioned – with men as the traditional and capable provider and the women the one who take care of the family. Research, for instance, discovered that many of modern wives somehow feel they are a failure as a wife and/or mother if they don’t manage the household, even though they work full time outside the home. (Chadwick & Heaton 24) Here, the natural and/or biological assumption of roles is again highlighted – women nurture and men provide. There are a number of significant factors that could alter families in the future. For instance, there is the family that results from interracial marriages in the highly globalized world. There is also the increasing recognition of homosexual union that could create a novel family type. In these two anticipated family structures; one could still draw important insights from the vignettes presented in the traditional and modern family structures. For example, while values and traditions may differ between a husband and wife from different races, the natural and biological variable to the division of labor would still be constant. This is proven by the development of family structures itself – in traditional family, the gender division breeds stability; in single-parent environment, the lack of gender division result to dysfunctional family; and, finally, while the modern family saw some renegotiation of socially delegated roles in the division of responsibilities, gender division is still very prominent. In regard to homosexual family structure, one is tempted to label it as dysfunctional because the division of labor is organized around heterosexual relationship. But that the presence of two people in the union, although of the same gender, could result to some form of role-playing setup that is akin to gender division. Conclusion The family, as mentioned earlier in this paper, has endured through the ages. Such was the case because it has evolved according to the changes that occurred in the society it is in. Now, this highlights the fact that the changes that happened in the division of roles within it are mostly driven by the changes in social requirements, which, in turn, are driven by the dynamism of the social landscape as man, not really evolve, but develop and find ways to change and better his way of life. On the one hand, the family has also endured because it remained constant because of the persistence of gender division in the division of labor in families. It is seen in the interpersonal dynamics between husbands and wives. Roles are always renegotiated between them with the emergence of social changes but always as a man and a woman – consonant with the gender theories particularly those about the natural and biological principles in gender relations. Another important aspect that must be highlighted is that the division of labor based on gender within the family is not necessarily about domination wherein one status is not equal to the other. Rather, the sexes dominate in their own spheres and that because both were vital to survival; the sexes are viewed as equal in importance. The analogy with the way the right and left hands complement each other demonstrates the complementarity of gender – the equation of female is to male as left is to right - within the family. According to Mary Douglas, from this simple complementarity, political hierarchy has been derived and the chief territorial divisions and functions are taken. The natural distinction of sex specializes women for child bearing and rearing and the men for provision. (Douglas 49) Ultimately, the whole system of division of labor is anchored on the natural, such as with the preeminence of the right hand over the left. Then this is also demonstrated by the relationship of head to hand. Douglas stated that in the division of labor, head to hand, represents the division between intellectual and manual worker. (49) This the reason why traditional family tends to be more stable, productive and lasting through the ages. Works Cited Aeschylus. The Oresteia of Aeschylus. BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009. Chadwick, Bruce and Heaton, Tim. Statistical handbook on the American family. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. Douglas, Mary. How institutions think: The Frank W. Abrams lectures. Syracuse University Press. 1989. Kropotkin, Peter. Mutual Aid. Cosimo, Inc., 2009. Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy - Vol. I-Part I: The Process of Capitalist Production. Friedrich Engels (ed.). Cosimo, Inc, 2007. Miller, John. Calling God "Father": essays on the Bible, fatherhood, and culture. Paulist Press, 1999. Paterson, Wendy. Unbroken homes: single-parent mothers tell their stories. Routledge, 2001. Plato. The Republic. Forgotten Books, 2006. Rosof, Patricia. Family history. Routledge, 1985. Stilwell, Frank and Argyrous, George. Economics as a social science: readings in political economy. Pluto Press Australia, 2003. Skirbekk, Sigurd. Dysfunctional culture: the inadequacy of cultural liberalism as a guide to major challenges of the 21st century. University Press of America, 2005. Sussman, Marvin, Steinmetz, Suzanne and Peterson, Gary. Handbook of marriage and the family. Springer, 1999. Vivenza, Gloria. Adam Smith and the classics: the classical heritage in Adams Smiths thought. Oxford University Press, 2001. Voegelin, Eric. The history of the race idea: from Ray to Carus. Klaus Vondung (ed.). University of Missouri Pressm, 1998. White, James. Dynamics of family development: a theoretical perspective. Guilford Press, 1991. Read More