Abstract
Gender Equality is the sixth volume in the Real Utopias Project, a series of workshop conferences sponsored by the A. E. Havens Center for the Study of Social Structure and Social Change at the University of Wisconsin. The purpose of the project is to propose “realistic, institutionally-based solutions to social problems.” Workshop participants—all of whom are distinguished scholars—are asked to engage in a serious discussion of radical alternatives to existing institutions. The conference on which this volume was based examined institutional changes necessary to eradicate the persistent gender-based— and inequitable—division of family and household labor. The resulting book is a vast, comprehensive overview of research documenting conditions, causes, and outcomes of the gendered division of family labor. It is essential reading for newcomers to the conversation about the work-family interface and provides a fascinating glimpse into dialogues that occur among a brilliant and dedicated assembly of scholars. Because the book consists of numerous essays, it is difficult, if not impossible, to comment on all of the comprehensive and thoughtful essays that are included. I will address instead the overarching theme of the book (and the conference itself), which was anchored by Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers’ essay “Institutions that Support Gender Egalitarianism in Parenthood and Employment.”
Gornick and Meyers provide a detailed overview of research on the gendered division of household labor, drawing on their own extensive studies in all fifty states in the United States and in fourteen other countries. In their workshop paper, they focused on existing conditions in six “rich” European nations (i.e., Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, and France) to provide evidence regarding the efficacy of their own proposal. They argue that in order to reconcile in an egalitarian manner the interests of men, women and children within the emerging “dual earner and dual-caregiver” model of the family, three sets of institutional innovations are needed: (1) a generous mechanism of paid parental leaves for care-giving activities which is allocated to mothers and fathers individually, thus requiring fathers to “use or lose” their paid leave time; (2) effective working-time regulations that limit full-time work hours and raise the quality and availability of reduced-hour work; and (3) an expansive, universal program of early childhood education and care.
There is absolutely no doubt that such changes in the demands emanating from employment are essential. Indeed, the changes proposed by Gornick and Meyers go beyond many of the earlier “solutions” aimed primarily at individuals, usually middle and upper middle class women (e.g., prioritize goals more clearly, use time more efficiently, lower standards for household labor, get help with household labor, etc.) by recognizing that these challenges originate in structural factors and not in individual shortcomings. However, changes in the demands of employment alone are not sufficient to produce change of the magnitude necessary for a revolution in the gendered inequities in household labor and family care and a more complete reconciliation in families and work. Ann Orloff in Chapter Six argues that the institutional changes proposed by Gornick and Meyers are not radical enough. She believes, in part, that the proposal is too similar to existing Nordic policies and practices which have not eradicated the gendered division of household labor and family caregiving. I believe that the proposal is limited because it only looks at one side of the workplace/household equation. Homes are workplaces, too. Hence, attention must be shifted to the demands they generate.
Contemporary homes are “greedy,” to adapt a phrase from Rose Laub Coser (1974). Truly radical proposals for institutional change would address ways in which the demands of houses themselves can and should be reduced. Out of necessity, I will focus on the United States here. American houses have gotten larger over the past 60 years. The average square footage of American houses increased from 983 in 1950 to 2,349 in 2004 (National Association of Home Builders). As houses have expanded, so have their contents, thus increasing the sheer amount of space and objects to be cleaned and maintained.
Another significant trend concurrent with the increase in the size of homes has been an increase in ownership of so-called “labor saving”devices. As Vanek argued almost 40 years ago, the “labor-saving” devices that promised to reduce the demands on homemakers’ time did anything but that. In their paper published in the British Journal of Sociology, Australian sociologists Bittman, Rice, and Wajcman (2004) reported that “domestic technology rarely reduces women’s unpaid working time and even, paradoxically, produces some increases in domestic labour. The domestic division of labour by gender remains remarkably resistant to technological innovation” (p. 401). Thus, more machines are purchased to reduce women’s time in household labor but they generate more work and require even more hours of employment to pay for them. Further, the increase in household size and the private ownership of devices for cleaning, communication, education, and entertainment may be, as Stilgoe (2006) suggests, an indicator of the atomization of American families.
Rather than maintain homes as cluttered command centers where household members spend more and more time tending “labor saving” machines or, in more privileged households, supervising workers who are hired to perform work that cannot be done by these machines, the tasks could be outsourced to communal services that are more efficient economically and less detrimental to the environment. In other words, a more radical proposal would be to move even more of the “traditional” household functions out of the private home. Indeed, in one of the only papers that addresses the demands originating from the household side of the work-family equation, Johanna Brenner in Chapter Eight proposes a more extensive development of co-housing. This would involve a reduction in private household space and a concomitant increase in communal space along with shared use of appliances and additional caregivers for children, the elderly, and the ill. This directly addresses the atomizing of families, as noted above. But it would still locate household labor in private spaces rather than in the commercial sphere.
Sociologists have debated the “loss” of family/household functions extensively in the past. Indeed, much of the work of healing (including those associated with birth and death), spiritual tending, educating and socializing of children, financial management, and entertaining have been relocated at least in part from individual families to other institutions. Safety and protection have also been shifted from individuals to governmental agencies. Many of the “remaining” tasks of families and households have been moving out of the home in a more surreptitious manner. Many of the tasks associated with feeding families, for instance, are being outsourced to a certain degree. As we well know, pre-industrial households produced most if not all of the goods they consumed. Then mechanization of the production of staples such as bread, beer, and soap maximized economies of scale, and manufacture of these items began to move outside of homes, while consumption remained largely in the homes. Today, meal preparation and consumption are increasingly moving out of the home. Eating food prepared by commercial establishments is common in the United States.
The 2010 restaurant industry report (produced by the National Restaurant Association) concluded that restaurants have become an essential part of Americans’ daily lives. Restaurants will provide more than 70 billion meals and “snack occasions” in 2010. In this same year, more than 130 million people will be food service patrons. Opinion polls show fairly enthusiastic endorsement of this trend. Forty percent of adults say that purchasing meals from restaurants or take-out and delivery makes them more productive in their daily lives. Twenty-nine percent say that doing so is essential to the way they live. And over three-quarters regard buying prepared meals as a better way to use their leisure time than cooking and cleaning up. Meals that are purchased “ready to eat” at the super market have the allure of a home-cooked meal, with reheating the only time and effort required. These public opinion data suggest that the importance of feeding a family lies not in the actual preparation but in the presentation and consumption of a shared meal with one’s family members. It is the social and communal dimension that is valued most highly by the persons, typically women, who buy and serve the food (see DeVault 1994). Family life is created in large part through consumption of shared food, perhaps regardless of who prepares it. And, as Brenner might argue, regardless of the setting in which it is shared.
Which instrumental tasks related to individual and family lives remain located in homes? To what extent could more, if not all, of these tasks be outsourced to commercial and/or communal enterprises? How much of our conception of “house and home” would we be willing to give up in order to reduce the time and energy required to maintain them? Can we radically change the institution of “house and home” in order to restore some balance between families and work? Can we make the home solely—or primarily—a place of emotional support rather than a secondary work place?
How much of house and home would we (privileged Americans and citizens of other rich nations) be willing to give up in order to reduce the time and energy we must allocate to keep them going? Could we live in houses covered in surfaces that can be easily cleaned (i.e., rubber, plastic, tile) but offer few if any of the tactile comforts and opportunities for artistic expression? Could we live in smaller, more homogeneous homes with standard furnishings and more public space? How much further can the outsourcing of domestic labor be pushed?
The insatiable demands of American homes and their machines must be met in a way that allows householders to create and recreate the idea of “family” while reducing the time inputs they currently require. Are we willing to give up the convenience associated with domestic ownership of machines that do the jobs for us? Are we willing to give up the privacy associated with domestic performance of household tasks? Are we willing to give up the pride of ownership and the status associated with large homes and all of their accoutrements? Will we relinquish performance of the remaining bits and pieces of domestic labor to community-based services that perform these tasks more efficiently and reduce the conflicting demands of families and households? Can we really address work-family conflict without taking a realistic look at the demands of our greedy houses? In the end, it may be the looming threat of severe energy shortages and environmental degradation that answers these questions for us.