A Commentary on Research on American Farmwomen

P e g g y J. Ross

I ,JL

,

PEGGY ROSS is a Rural Sociologist in the Economic Development Division, Economic Research Service, USDA. She is currently Project Leader for Research on Income Distribution Problems of Nonmetropolitan People. In the past she has done research on social well-being; U.S. farm women; and rural education and has had papers published on those subjects. She has also served the U.S. Department of Agriculture as Technical Representative to the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), who conducted the 1981 National Survey of Farm Women.

Introduction Despite widespread national interest in the c h a n g i n g social a n d economic roles of w o m e n in the United States, relatively little is k n o w n about contemporary f a r m w o m e n a n d their participation in agricultural production. A l t h o u g h it is commonly recognized t h a t historically f a r m w o m e n have participated in various aspects of farm operation a n d m a n a g e m e n t , the nature a n d m a g n i t u d e of their involvement remains largely undocumented. (Boulding, 1979; Haney, 1982; Hill, 1981a; Huffman, 1976). The knowledge gap, as Boulding labeled it, stems from several inter-related sources. One contributing factor is the sparsity a n d inadequacy of national d a t a on the characteristics a n d behavior of farm people generally, a n d f a r m w o m e n in particular. The Census of Agriculture did not report n u m b e r s or basic characteristics of farm operators by sex until 1978 (see Kalbacher, 1982). Furthermore, national statistics only partially account for farm work done by farm wives a n d other family members, because such workers have •been traditionally counted as u n p a i d family

workers, if counted at all (Huffman, 1976). A second factor is the prevailing view of the f a r m w o m a n as a f u n d a m e n t a l m a t e r n a l a n d domestic being -- nurturer, mother, wife, helpmate, h o m e m a k e r (Bernard, 1968; Haney, 1982). This h a s resulted in the tendency for researchers a n d policymakers to see farmwomen primarily from the traditional viewpoint, as occupants of home a n d h e a r t h roles, a n d thus, to keep women on the fringe of agricultural public policy (Paarlberg, 1980). A n o t h e r contributor to the paucity of knowledge about f a r m w o m e n ' s economic roles in agriculture is the lack of broad-based social science research on farmwomen, per se. Almost all of the sociological studies of the 1950s a n d 1960s approach the topic of farmwomen "as they related to m e n a n d family life as wives a n d mothers -- a n d restrict the analysis to the spheres which included these functions" (Joyce a n d Leadley, 1977: 19). This article h a s two purposes: to review the major sociological research on U.S. farmwomen during this century, a n d to e x a m i n e two alternative theoretical perspectives w h i c h 19

AGRICULTURE AND H U M A N V A L U E S - WINTER 1985

attempt to account for variations in farmwomen's productive behavior. These perspectives undergird m u c h of the research. One explanation, which served as the rationale (at least implicitly) for most post •World War II studies on farmwomen, links differences in productive activities a m o n g f a r m w o m e n to variations in their individual and family characteristics, particularly their stage in the family cycle. The second explanation, exemplified by some of the current research on the structure of agric u l t u r e , s u g g e s t s t h a t v a r i a t i o n s in farmwomen's productive behavior stems from economic a n d political conditions affecting agricultural production systems. A c o m p a r i s o n of t h e s e two e x p l a n a t o r y perspectives is preceded by an examination of the social science research literature on farmwomen.

The interest in women's labor on the farm carried over into the 1970s and 1980s with attention to classifications of f a r m w o m e n ' s roles (Boulding, 1979; Buttel and Gillespie, 1984; Lodwick and Fassinger, 1979; Pearson, 1979). Other studies concentrated on farmwomen's off-farm work (Bokemeier, 1980; 1983; Sweet, 1972), a n d the interrelated labor roles of m e n and women (Buttel and Gillespie, 1984; Coughenour a n d Swanson, 1983). Review

Early

Overview Studies of f a r m w o m e n in the United States are few in n u m b e r and cover a relatively short time since World War II. Except for a few pieces of research, information about U.S. f a r m w o m e n and their lives in the early 1900s has a p p e a r e d , m a i n l y in journalistic and h i s t o r i c a l s o u r c e s - - books, j o u r n a l s , m a g a z i n e s , a n d newsletters. 2 A l t h o u g h seldom recognized, an invaluable source of information about the f a r m w o m e n of the early 1900s is a series of USDA publications dealing with the social, labor, domestic, educational, and economic needs of wives of 55,000 crop correspondents (U,S. Department of Agriculture, 1915a; 1915b; 1915c; 1915d). These publications contain~xtracts of letters received in response to an inquiry about ways the U.S. Department of Agriculture m i g h t better serve farmwomen. The impetus for sociological research on farmwomen's roles came from two sources during the 1950s. One was the development of f a m i l y sociology, a sub-discipline t h a t spawned interest in the study of the division of labor in conjugal units, including the family farm (e.g., Blood, 1958; Blood a n d Wolfe, 1960; Smith, 1969; Straus, 1958; 1960). The other source was an emphasis within the Extension Service on farm a n d home development and a consequent interest in farmwomen's roles in farm work, decisionmaking a n d information processing within the family (e.g., Burchinal a n d B a u d e r , 1965; W i l k e n i n g , 1958; Wilkening a n d Bharadwaj, 1967; Wilkening a n d Guerrero, 1969; Wilkening and Morrison, 1963). 20

of Literature

This review centers primarily on studies, b e g i n n i n g with the 1950s, t h a t have addressed issues of decisionmaking and the division of labor in farm families. Although little sociological research on f a r m w o m e n occurred before 1950, a few earlier studies do deserve special recognition. Studies

In the 1920s, four investigations of time use by rural homemakers, in Idaho, Oregon, Minnesota and South Dakota, resulted from passages of the Purnell Act of 1925, which financed research in rural areas. These studies revealed t h a t f a r m w o m e n worked longer hours inside and outside the h o m e t h a n their u r b a n c o u n t e r p a r t s . On t h e a v e r a g e , f a r m w o m e n spent more t h a n 50 hours per week working in the home a n d more t h a n 10 hours per week in other farm labor (Crawford, 1927; Wilson, 1927; Wasson, 1930; Studley, 1931). These studies were i m p o r t a n t because they were the first to focus on the behavior of rural women, including farmwomen. During the hard times of the 1930s, research attention shifted from rural women's roles as h o m e m a k e r s to economic problems. In Mothers of the South, Margaret Hagood (1939) reported on the social a n d economic plight of Southern white t e n a n t farmwomen. Her work documented the strains experienced by t e n a n t f a r m w o m e n as they tried to fulfill the roles of mother, h o m e m a k e r a n d farm laborers. It also revealed t h a t women yielded responsibility for m a n a g e m e n t of the farm to their husbands. Most important, however, Hagood explicitly recognized the influences of structural forces (including the state of agriculture and the economic injustices of tenancy) on depressed living conditions, low incomes, and inadequate diets a n d housing conditions for t e n a n t farm families (1939:6). Another of the early studies is Beers' (1937) widely cited analysis of changes in the structure of the New York farm family. His research indicated a lessening of patriarchal dominance, greater specialization in division

Ross: A C o m m e n t a r y on Research

of labor (particularly among sexual lines), and a tendency toward democratic decision. making. Beers found that m a n y decisions, especially about borrowing money, were made jointly by h u s b a n d s a n d wives. On the other hand, Beers observed that m e n on larger farms tended to take sole responsibility for financial decisions. He foresaw t h a t an increased scale of agriculture would lead to greater specialization within the family, with m e n a s s u m i n g responsibility for the farm and women for the home. This study was a conceptual forerunner of m a n y mid-century studies t h a t would deal with sexual division of labor a n d patterns of decisionmaking within the American family, including the farm family.

Routine household decisions were handled by women, but major decisions affecting the family, such as large purchases, children's well-being, and family recreation, were often made jointly.

Decisionmaking Studies Wilkening (1958) applied the concepts of status a n d role to examine joint decisionm a k i n g a m o n g h u s b a n d s a n d wives on 600 Wisconsin farms. Viewing women's participation in farm m a n a g e m e n t decisions as a function of her social status, he tested the hypothesis t h a t farmwomen's involvement in joint decisionmaking could be explained by differences in two indicators of the women's social status: education a n d joint decisionm a k i n g and a positive relationship between social participation and decisionmaking only a m o n g women at relatively high income levels. He concluded t h a t sexual roles in d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a r e s h a p e d m o r e by individual perception about the needs of farm a n d households t h a n by cultural definitions of h u s b a n d s ' and wives' roles.

He concluded that sexual roles in decision making are shaped more by individual perception about the needs of farm and households than by cultural definitions of husbands" and wives" roles. Subsequent studies also failed to find clearcut patterns of differentiation of authority in farm families. Using data from a statewide study of 500 Wisconsin families, Smith (1969) found egalitarian patterns of decisionmaking between the sexes, although spouses assumed leadership in decisions related to t h e i r respective responsibilities: h u s b a n d s usually m a d e decisions about farm operations, and wives made decisions about domestic matters including food, housework, a n d entertainment. Responsibilities for decisions about farm resources, furnishing a n d m a i n t a i n i n g the home, and socialization of the children tended to be shared.

Burchinal and Bauder's (1965) work with rural and urban families in Iowa and Blood and Wolfe's 1960 study of city and farm families in Michigan both found egalitarian patterns of decisionmaking among families regardless of farm or urban residence. Burchinal a n d Bauder (1965) did not, however, consider decisions about the farming operation. The participation of women in farm decisions varies with the kinds of decisions involved. Wilkening a n d Bharadwaj (1967) Contended t h a t joint decisionmaking in Wisconsin families was more prevalent for major farm resources decisions involving considerable outlay of family f u n d s - i.e., purchase of land or automobiles -- t h a n for farm operation decisions involving day-to-day operation of the farm. This same study also found t h a t women's i n v o l v m e n t in major decisions about farm operations was unrelated to their involvement in family a n d home decisions. In a more recent report, Wilkening (1981) compared changes in labor and decisionmaking patterns for 1962 a n d 1978 samples of Wisconsin farm families. The percentage of f a r m w o m e n who shared responsibility for major farm decisions equally with their h u s b a n d s decreased slightly between 1962 and 1978. In the later sample, women were more involved in farm business decisions if they kept the farm books. Routine household decisions were h a n d l e d by women, but major decisions affecting the family, such as large purchases, children's well-being, and family recreation, were often m a d e jointly. Other research has examined the relation between women's involvement in decisions a n d the economic size of the farm operation. Sawyer (1973) reported t h a t women at lower income levels were more apt to participate in farm m a n a g e m e n t and adoption decisions. On the other hand, Wilkening (1958) found a curvilinear relationship between women's involvement in farm decisions a n d farm income; middle-income farm families in Wisconsin were more prone to joint decision21

AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN V A L U E S - WINTER 1985

making t h a n low or high income farm families. Straus (!960) speculated that the curvilinear relationship appeared because fewer managerial decisions were made by the lower income families, and the kinds of decisions required of higher income families lay beyond the technological ability of the farm wife. Labor Studies Studies of farmwomen's labor have tended to focus on one of several aspects of women's work: f a r m work, h o u s e h o l d a c t i v i t i e s (including child rearing), a n d off-farm work. Some studies (e.g., Straus, 1958; 1960)have n o t recognized the traditional home and familyrelated activities as economically productive labor. But Fassinger and Schwarzweller (1980) argued that women contribute to t h e economics of the farm unit through farm labor such as field work and farm chores, through housework and child care, incurred as hidden factors of production, and through off-farm emplqyment. A similar stance was taken by Colman (1981) and Elbert (1981), who suggested t h a t farm and farm family are separate but highly integrated systems, and labor within the family arena such as "reproduction, supervision and feeding of future farms" can appropriately be construed as farm activities (Colman, 1981:935). The following review of studies dealing with farmwomen's work is generally organized around the three areas of work mentioned above. A number of studies have considered the amounts and kinds of work women do on the farm. Wilkening's (1981) research with Wisconsin farmwomen in 1978 revealed t h a t 12 percent worked 30 hours or more a week doing farm chores, 48 percent worked at least sometimes in the fields, a n d 6 percent worked in the fields 60 or more days a year. In a study measuring the productive value of women's work, Huffman (1976) estimated t h a t the v a l u e of farm work was comparable to returns from non-farm work. F a s s i n g e r a n d S c h w a r z w e l l e r (1980) discovered that the number of hours of farm work by Michigan farmwomen increased with farm size. Nonetheless, women on the hobby, small and large farms all contributed about the same proportion (25 percent) of total person-hours of farm work. The multidimensionality of women's labor has been frequently assumed, but Wilkening and Bharadwaj (1967) were a m o n g the first empirically delineate and define multiple dimensions. They factor analyzed 15 farms and household tasks performed by Wisconsin

22

families a n d identified six dimensions of tasks labeled field work, barn chores, money matters domestic tasks, household maintenance, and children's socialization. Money m a t t e r s included both farm business records and family expenses, but the researchers classified it as a household-family activity. The families, they found, exhibited a division of labor not only between farm and family dimensions but between family dimensioins as well. In a comparison of city and farm families in M i c h i g a n , B l o o d (1958) f o u n d t h a t f a r m w o m e n do more work t h a n city women. "Farm wives not only take over from their h u s b a n d s a substantial share of household tasks and from commercial enterprises a l a r g e proportion of consumer goods production, but they also help their h u s b a n d s with the farm work. By contrast, most urban wives feel t h a t they cannot help their h u s b a n d s at all or at best can give t h e m emotional support a n d encouragement" (1958:172).

B y contrast, m o s t urban wives feel that they cannot help their h u s b a n d s at all or at best can give t h e m emotional support a n d encouragement. Regarding household work, studies have consistently demonstrated t h a t responsibility for the traditional women's activities in the home, including child rearing, rests with the farmwomen. In both the 1962 and 1978 Wisconsin studies, Wilkening (1981) reported t h a t household chores in farm work were done almost solely by women. Women's participation in farmwork, Wilkening observed, h a d increased much more than men's participation in household work. Fassinger a n d Schwarzweller's findings in Michigan supported those in Wisconsin. Women primarily did the household work regardless of farm size. Furthermore, level of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in h o u s e h o l d t a s k s w a s associated with higher levels of participation in farm work, but not affected by off-farm employment. Straus (1958) related farm success to Columbia River Basin wives' involvement in two traditional h o m e m a k i n g activities -- care of a vegetable garden and canning. High success wives, he observed, h a d a greater tendency to m a i n t a i n a vegetable garden and preserve food t h a n low success wives. In his view, however, these activities were not economically beneficial for the family unit.

Ross: A C o m m e n t a r y on Research

High success wives, he observed, had a greater tendency to maintain a vegetable garden and preserve food than low success wives, In his view, however, these activities were not economically beneficial for the family unit. Sweet (1972) was one of the first to document the increasing n u m b e r of rural f a r m w o m e n employed in off-farm jobs. He found t h a t offfarm employment was greater a m o n g women who were in the South, better educated, or married to m e n with non-farm jobs. Nearly 40 percent of women in the Michigan survey held off-farm jobs, regardless of farm size (Fassinger and Schwarzweller, 1980). On the larger farms, however, women who worked at off-farm jobs tended to be the sole source of off-farm income. A 1980 study of nearly 14,000 farm women in a 29-county area of Mississippi a n d Tennessee found t h a t nearly 40 percent held off-farm jobs, m a i n l y in the m a n u f a c t u r i n g a n d service sectors. About 5 percent worked both off a n d on the farm. Women's economic contributions from off-farm work m a i n t a i n e d solvency in m a n y households, refuting the notion t h a t women work out of the home by choice r a t h e r t h a n necessity (Salant, 1983). In looking at the labor force participation of farm, non-farm and metropolitan Kentucky women, Bokemeir et al. (1980) found t h a t 38 percent of farm women were employed in either full- o r part-time jobs. F a r m w o m e n on the smallest farms were less likely to enter the labor force t h a n women in the middle-size farms, reflecting possibly t h a t on the very small farms women's farm labor m a y be worth more t h a n their off-farm labor. The presence of children under 18 years old in the family was related to working outside the h o m e for nonfarm women, but not for farmwomen. The r e s e a r c h e r s s u g g e s t e d t h a t c h i l d care a r r a n g e m e n t s m a y be more readily available for f a r m w o m e n t h a n for women living in offfarm locations. In an additional analysis of their Kentucky data, the authors concluded t h a t marital status and stage in family cycle are less i m p o r t a n t determinants of off-farm employment t h a n marketable skills a n d education (Bokemeir et al., 1983). Different findings regarding stage in family cycle a n d off-farm work were reported in the Michigan study (Fassinger a n d Schwarzweller, 1980). F a r m w o m e n living on hobby and small farms were more apt to be employed off-farm if they h a d dependent children at home. Several have examined the relationship between stage in family cycle a n d other

aspects of women's work a n d decisionmaking. Wilkening a n d Ahrens (1980) reported t h a t stage in family cycle was negatively related to farm record keeping responsibilities. They also found t h a t women in the early stages of the family cycle were more involved in farm work t h a n women who h a d older children (particularly sons) to w h o m responsibility for work could possibly be transferred. Jones and Rosenfeld (1981) analyzed the relationships between selected individual a n d farm characteristics and U.S. f a r m w o m e n ' s performance of farm tasks included h i g h e r education, h a v i n g fewer children age 6 a n d under at home, single marital status, off-farm e m p l o y m e n t of h u s b a n d a n d of self. In addition, size a n d nature of the farm operation a n d its regional location h a d significant effects on t a s k involvement. Together, however, the combined set of individual a n d farm characteristics accounted for less t h a n 20 percent of variations in task performance. When Fassinger and Schwarzweller (1980) examined the effects of stage in family cycle a n d participation in f a r m i n g activities, they found t h a t w o m e n without dependent children at h o m e were more involved in farm tasks on hobby farms a n d to a lesser d~egree on small farms. Stage in family cycle was not related to level of farm labor for women living on larger farms. Buttel a n d Gillespie (1984) found t h a t hours of on-farm work for New York f a r m w o m e n was only modestly associated with stage in life cycle variables, and t h a t the presence or absence of children of various ages in the family h a d little or no effect on off-farm work. Education h a s been identified as a factor related to both farm tasks and off-farm employment. In the 1978 Wisconsin studies, education of h u s b a n d a n d wife was associated with record keeping and seeking information via m a s s media (Wilkening a n d Ahrens, 1980). Education h a s also been related to off-farm e m p l o y m e n t (Sweet, 1972; Bokemeier et al.; 1980; 1983). Moving away from the personal attitudes of the individual, a few studies have shown t h a t farm characteristics are associated with labor activities. In the 1978 Wisconsin study (again), dairy f a r m w o m e n were more likely to do farm chores, field work, farm-record keeping, a n d information seeking t h a n their non-dairy 23

AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - WINTER 1985

farm counterparts (Wilkening and Ahrens, 1980). This same study also showed that women's involvment in the farm was greater on larger farms t h a n those with no hired help. Use of hired help affected the propensity of Michigan hobby farmwomen to hold off-farm jobs (Fassinger and Schwarzweller, 1980). Similarly, size of farm (expressed as a n n u a l sales volume) was positively related to hours of on-farm work and inversely related to hours of off-farm work for New York women living on small farms that gross under $40,000 annually. The relationships did not hold up for women living on large farms with over $40,000 gross sales (Buttel and Gillespie, 1984). The interrelationships between the various components of women's work and decisionm a k i n g on-farm, in the family and off-farm have been frequently investigated. Noted above, data from the Michigan survey indicated that women's participation in work on hobby and small farms was positively c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in household activity, but neither area of activity w a s a f f e c t e d by off-farm e m p l o y m e n t (Fassinger and Schwarzweller, 1980). In contrast, Wilkening and Ahrens (1980) reported t h a t off-farm employment h a d little effect on Wisconsin wives' farm record keeping but decreased their involvement in farm work. In an earlier Wisconsin study, farmwomen's off-farm jobs affected their involvement in family decisions but not in farm decisions (Wilkening a n d Bharadwaj, 1967). Using a different perspective which foc~uses on the interrelated spousal work roles within Kentucky farm family units, Coughenour and Swanson examined the effects of off-farm employment on farm structure. They found that farms where women h a d off-farm jobs were considerably smaller t h a n farms where the women remained on their farms. However, they argue that greater involvement of the women in the f a r m i n g operation cannot compensate for the loss of the m a n ' s labor to off-farm employment and the scale and size of the operation will be smaller. -In a different approach to the linkages b e t w e e n t h e v a r i o u s d i m e n s i o n s of farmwomen's involvement with farm operation and management, several studies have attempted to identify the types of women's relat i o n s h i p s to a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n . Boulding's (1979) classification, based on a small study in Colorado, proposed that farmwomen can be characterized according to three general types: the farmwife who works with her h u s b a n d in their farm business, the 24

woman farmer who is the principal operator of a farm, and the farm housewife who lives on the farm but assumes little direct interest or activity in the farm business. In another Colorado study, Pearson (1979) developed a four-fold scheme to describe women's relationships to their farms. Two of her types, independent agricultural producers and farm homemakers, a corresponded to Boulding's (1979) women farmers and farm housewives. In addition, she differentiated between agricultural partners w h o functioned as cooperators of their farms, and farm helpers, females who helped with the farm work during the peak times. Lodwick and Fassinger (1979) added two additional types to the Pearson typology when : they classified farmwomen in two Michigan t o w n s h i p s . The category, agriculturally active, included women who participated daily in farm work, but w e r e n o t generally involved in farm m a n a g e m e n t or decisionmaking. A second category identified by Lodwick and Fassinger was the peripheral helper, referring to women who h a d little or no direct contact with farm work or p l a n n i n g with the possible exception of m a i n t a i n i n g a vegetable garden. In the six-fold classification of Michigan farmwomen, the percent of women in the various categories was as follows: 2 Percent Independent Producers 15 Agricultural Partners 21 Agriculturally Active 17 F a r m Helpers 35 F a r m Homemakers 11 Peripheral Helpers The Michigan researchers concluded t h a t the results of their typology "underscore the h e t e r o g e n e i t y of f a r m w o m e n ' s w o r k " (1979:18). Using a different approach t h a t crossclassified the on-farm and off-farm work of h u s b a n d s a n d wives, Buttel and Gillespie (1984) i d e n t i f i e d e i g h t t y p e s of f a r m households in New York, and developed descriptive profiles of the types. In four types of the joint work roles, women do not participate in the off-farm labor market. In two of these, they work neither on nor off the farm. Four additional types covered joint work roles where the women held an off-farm job. The most prevalent type was the traditional, specialized full-time family farm where both the m a n a n d w o m a n worked on the farm, but not off. In the second most common type, the m a n worked on-farm only, a n d the woman worked neither off nor on the farm.

Ross: A Commentary on Research

Alternate Theoretical Perspectives Nearly all the studies mentioned above have utilized (at least implicitly) a structural functional approach to family organization. Applied in empirical research with farm families b e g i n n i n g in the 1950s, this perspective grew from a broader concern with patterns of family life within the context of social-cultural c h a n g e a n d e m p h a s i z e d differences in personal and social attributes of the individual as an explanation for women's behavior in the farm family. An alternative perspective, increasingly used as a framework to analyze a range of issues pertaining to the organization of agriculture in advanced societies, has been proposed as a theoretical explanation for farmwomen's productive relationships to agriculture (Flora, 1981; Sachs, 1981, i9-83). Referred to here as the structural approach, the latter perspective has only been recently employed in a major empirical research study dealing with U.S. farmwomen's involvement in production agriculture (e.g., Buttel and Gillespie, 1984). The Individual P e r s p e c t i v e Talcott Parsons (1955) concentrated on the structural and functional relations within the American nuclear family. In his view, the family was a solidarity unit ascribed membership and status. Its primary functions w e r e s o c i a l i z a t i o n of c h i l d r e n a n d stabilization of adult personalities through the marriage relations. To fulfill its central functions, the family had a specialized and highly differentiated role structure with the male assuming leadership responsibility for instrumental/task activities and the female assuming leadership for the integrative/ supportive activities. Zelditch (1955) examined the patterns of instrumental and expressive (integrative/ supportive) roles in familial systems in 56 societies. He postulated that the nuclear family would exhibit a differentiated role structure in terms of instrumental and expressive roles. He further posited that leadership for the roles would be allocated on the basis of sex. He concluded that the American family demonstrated most clearly "equal a l l o c a t i o n of i n s t r u m e n t a l a n d expressive activities" (1955:339). Applying this perspective to the farm family which has both economic and non-economic functions, researchers interested in the division of labor and decisionmaking in the farm family deduced that farmwomen would

e m p h a s i z e the traditional roles, care of the children and maintenance of the home and their participation in the economic aspects would be shaped by their familial obligations. Thus, farmwomen's research has focused on variables such as stage in family cycle, family composition, and indicators of the wife's status such as education and social participation as factors affecting variations in farmwomen's productive behavior.

The Structural P e r s p e c t i v e Emerging from a broader socioeconomic and ecological critique of agriculture in the United States (e.g., Buttel and Newby, 1980; Havens, 1982; Rodefeld, 1978, 1983), the structural perspective provides another theoretical vehicle for an understanding of f~rmwomen's roles. Proponents of this perspective have focused on the organization and scale of agriculture and its bearing on a range of topics including socioeconomic and political c o n d i t i o n s , l a b o r issues a n d agricultural environmental concerns (see Buttel and Newby, 1980). For example, Rodefeld (1978) centered on specific issues surrounding the structure of agriculture, particularly mechanization and the growth of

In a carefully developed treatise, Sachs (1981) argues that farm womens" positions in agriculture were shaped by two sources: the structure of American agriculture and the predominant societal ideology of women's domesticity. corporate agriculture. On the other hand, Buttel et al. (1981) contrasted the effects of farm scale and wealth versus indicators of social status on environmental attitudes of Michigan and New York farmers. Few empirical studies have employed the structural perspective to focus on the roles of farmwomen. Glazer-Malbin's (1976) essay on housework drew heavily from theories representing the structural perspective, and de Leal and Deere (1979) applied structural theories to study the sexual division of labor a m o n g v a r i o u s a g r i c u l t u r a l g r o u p s in C o l o m b i a . I n r e l a t i o n to A m e r i c a n farmwomen, two sociologists have theoretically addressed the topic of farmwomen's roles in production agriculture from the structural perspective. In a carefully developed "treatise, Sachs (1981) argued that farmwomens' positions in agriculture have been shaped by two forces: 25

AGRICULTURE AND H U M A N V A L U E S - WINTER 1985

the structure of American agriculture a n d the p r e d o m i n a n t societal ideology of women's domesticity. In her view, the features of largescale agriculture, particularly the trend toward industrialized methods of production for m a n y commodities, have reduced the farm family's control of production decisions, displaced large numbers of agricultural workers, a n d forced m a n y farmers to leave f a r m i n g or supplement their incomes through off-farm employment. While the c h a n g i n g structure of agriculture h a s affected m e n as well as women, the impacts on women are unduly severe because the prevailing domestic ideology in the society h a s emphasized women's domestic work to the devaluation of their labor and involvement in farm operation and management.

While emphasizing the structural variables in her conceptual scheme, Flora nevertheless recognized that the individual's life-cycle variations must also be considered. According to Sachs, the domestic ideology has served "the interests of both capitalism and male domination" (1981:41). It h a s deprived women of involvement in the productive activities, including decisionmaking, on the farm, but in turn has resulted in the creation of a reserve labor force, surplus value in the marketplace and increased • consumption. The transfer of production of food, clothing, other goods, and even services from the farm family to the marketplace has created a surplus value in the marketplace a n d greater consumption. In addition, women can be m a i n t a i n e d as a reserve labor force. "When the d e m a n d s of capital are such t h a t women laborers are needed, they can be hired. As the labor market shrirlks, women can return home to their proper place without creating unemployemnt." (1981:42). In a related line of argument, Flora (1981) observed t h a t an explanation for the behavior and attitudes of U.S. f a r m w o m e n should be sought in a consideration of agricultural structure and farming systems. Flora argued t h a t f a r m w o m e n contribute to the f a r m i n g system through their inputs of labor, land, capital (including off-farm income), and m a n a g e m e n t (directly via participation in d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a n d indirectly t h r o u g h responsibility for farm records). Variations in women's inputs primarily are due to the nature 26

a n d organization of the farm and the class position of the household. Within the larger context of the structure of agriculture, Flora sees women as an i m p o r t a n t element in struggles to represent interests of their agricultural factions. While emphasizing the structural variables in her conceptual scheme, Flora nevertheless recognized t h a t the individual's life-cycle variations m u s t also be considered. She observed: It is critical t h a t a n y research on farmwomen document changes over time in women's input to the f a r m i n g system a n d link them to changes in the structures of agriculture, which have been particularly swift in the current generation. Researchers should nevertheless be aware of the potential of life-cycle phases of causality a n d try to separate out the two types of effects on changes in w h a t f a r m w o m e n think and do (1981:83). Buttel a n d Gillespie (1984) argue t h a t familybased agricultural production is shaped by external forces in the larger economy a n d society, including product markets, capital a n d labor markets, n o n f a r m labor markets, a n d public policies. They observed: Some of these ... have served to maintain or preserve family, while others have h a d the effects of causing differentiation of f a r m i n g households ..: leading to ... an emerging dualism ... characterized by growth of ... a few large farms, by a larger n u m b e r of ... stable, but economically viable small farms, and by 'disappearing' ... of medium-sized, full-time family farms." (1984:185). However, they contend t h a t the flexibility of the farm household labor of both m e n and women to adjust to the external stimuli h a s contributed to the persistence of family farming. The two perspectives contrasted above have offered essentially opposing hypotheses for the explanation or' U.S. f a r m w o m e n ' s relationships to agricultural production. The individual perspective, based on assumptions a b o u t s e x u a l d i v i s i o n of l a b o r a n d differentiated roles, h a s tried to explain variations in women's behavior in terms of differences in personal and family characteristics. The structural perspective, on the other hand, has pointed to indicators of the nature and organization of the f a r m i n g system for the major explanatory factors for farmwomen's behavior. Hypotheses relating variations in behavior to either structural or individual factors have

Ross: A C o m m e n t a r y on Research

n o t b e e n f u l l y v e r i f i e d . S t u d i e s on f a r m w o m e n ' s labor and decisionmaking have yielded inconsistent and sometimes contradictory findings. (However, the wide range of measurement techniques, methodologies and sub-populations represented in this literature m u s t be taken into account.) In their research on environmental attitudes, Buttel et al. (1981) examined competing hypotheses derived from individual and structural perspectives a n d failed to find unequivocal support for either perspective. They concluded t h a t "while the critique of large-scale agriculture is more compatible with the evidence we assembled, the environmental attitudes literature also contributes to our understanding of agrarian e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s m (1981:407). My contention is t h a t neither perspective solely provides a totally adequate explanation for f a r m w o m e n ' s relationships to agricultural production. An explanation of f a r m w o m e n ' s l a b o r roles r e q u i r e s e l e m e n t s of b o t h perspectives, a n d several assumptions. First, w o m e n ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a g r i c u l t u r a l production is a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l p h e n o m e n o n which encompasses activities in the home and family, and in the farm a n d offfarm workplaces. 4 Second, women's labor roles are intricately linked to a larger system of labor allocation within the family. To understand women's participation in on- a n d offfarm work requires recognition of the interdependency of women's a n d men's labor inputs. Third, an explanation o f f a r m w o m e n ' s involvement in various aspects (dimensions) of farmactivity involves not only a consideration of both the structural organization of the farming system and the social and d e m o g r a p h i c attributes of the individual, but the linkages between them. Because women's responsibility for the traditional work a n d m a n a g e m e n t activities in the h o m e a n d family is a u n i v e r s a l characteristic of American society, one m i g h t expect t h a t variation in f a r m w o m e n ' s roles within the home a n d family will be due to differences in individuals, including age, family composition, and social status. On the other hand, the expectation is t h a t f a r m w o m e n ' s participation in the economic aspects of farm production (including off-farm employment) will be affected by an interplay of individual characteristics with primary structural characteristics of the farm. Directions for Future Research The general body of research on f a r m w o m e n

Studies on farm women's labor and decision m a k i n g have yielded inconsistent and sometimes contradictory findings. is limited in several respects. Research tends to be p r o v i n c i a l a n d is m a r k e d by methodological problems: generalizations from very small a n d unrepresentative samples, inadequate d o c u m e n t a t i o n of research i n s t r u m e n t s a n d overly simplistic analysis. A m u c h more f u n d a m e n t a l issue, however, pertains to the t r e a t m e n t of f a r m w o m e n only as i n c u m b e n t s of traditional roles. Researchers' acceptance of a traditional division of labor in farm families h a s h a m p e r e d exploration of the full r a n g e of women's roles on the farm, a n d a n ideological bias toward traditional views of women h a s sometimes been imposed on interpretations of findings. A need for better definitions and improved methodologies in the study of f a r m w o m e n is definitely indicated. Directions for future research include: • More in.depth information on women's activities in the agricultural production process. More detailed a n d specific information about women's on-farm work, their other contributions to farm operation, a n d their involvement in farm m a n a g e m e n t will contribute to a fuller u n d e r s t a n d i n g of w o m e n ' s participation i n agriculture. Because the kinds of in-depth i n f o r m a t i o n needed cann o t be acquired t h r o u g h general survey research, it will be i m p o r t a n t to seek alternate methodologies to obtain adequate data. • Longitudinal analyses to document transition over time of the life cycle of the family. Nearly all research on farmwomen has been based on cross-sectional data. A better u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the relationship between stage in family cycle and changes in women's role requires over-time tracking. • A consideration of women's primary relationship to the farm. M a n y studies fail to take into account the importance of the diverse roles women m a y play at various points in their lives. Is she the principal operator -- a farmer --, o r i s she the principal operator's spouse -- a farmwife -- or does she have some other relationship to the farm non-operator owner, or non-resident farmer or farmwife? Certainly, w o m e n farmers m a y behave differently from farmwives, at least some of the time, with respect to farm operation a n d m a n a g e m e n t . -

-

27

AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES - WINTER 1985

• A n understanding of women's roles in the context of labor allocation within the family unit. A frequent criticism of farm women's research has been the tendency to view farmwomen as they are part of the family farm, more specifically as the incumbents of traditional roles of wife, mother as homemaker. Only recently, has attention directly focused on the importance of the interre~ lated work roles within the farm family and the relationship of these interrelationships to farm structure and functioning. This is an area which deserves much more attention. In conclusion, interest in farmwomen and farmwomen's research seems to be on the upswing (e.g., Buttel and Gillespie, 1984; Coughenour and Swanson, 1983; Hill, 1981a; Haney, 1982; Flora, 1981). Emphasis also appears to have shifted to improved conceptualization that is considering the structure of the farm setting. The hope is that future research can avoid the pitfalls of ideological underpinnings which marred some of the research in the past. ENDNOTES 1. Parts of this article are drawn from unpublished documents by the author (Ross, 1982, 1983). 2. Bibliographies prepared by Fowler (1979), Joyce and Leadley (1977) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (1977) contain numerous references to the general literature on farmwomen. 3. Pearson's description of the farm homemaker role included sporadic involvement with farm operation during peak season through cooking for hired men and errands.

REFERENCES Baker, Elizabeth F. 1964 Technology and Women's Work. New York and London: Columbia University Press.

Beers, Howard 1937 "A portrait of the farm family in Central New York state." American Sociological Review 2 (October): 591-600. Bernard, Jessie 1968 "The status of women in modern patterns ofcultare." Annals of the American Academy of Political and social Science 275 (January): 3-14. Blood, Robert O. 1958 "The division of labor in city and farm families." Marriage and Family Living 20 (May): 170-174. Blood, Robert O., and Donald M. Wolfe 1960 Husbands and Wives. New York: Free Press. Bokemeier, Janet, Verna Keith, and Carolyn Sachs 1980 "What happened to rural women? A comparative study of labor force participation." Paper presented at the Rural Sociological Meeting, Ithaca, New York. Bokemeier, Janel L., Carolyn Sachs and Verna Keith 1983 " L a b o r force p a r t i c i p a t i o n of m e t r o politan, nonmetropolitan and farm women: a comparative study." Rural Sociology 48 (Winter) 519-539.

28

Boulding, Elise 1979 "The labor of farm women in the United States: a knowledge gap." Paper presented at the American Sociological Association Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts. Burchinal, Lee G., and Ward W. Bauder 1965 Family Decision-making Patterns Among Iowa Farm and Non-Farm Families. Ames: Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Bulletin 528. Buttel, Frederick H. and Gilbert W. Gillespie 1984 "The sexual division of farm household labor: an exploratory study of the structure of on-farm and off-farm labor allocation among farm men and women." Rural Sociology 49 (summer): 183-209. Buttel, Frederick H., Gilbert W. Gillespie, Jr., Oscar W. Larson, III, and Craig K. Harris. 1981 "The social bases of agrarian environmentalism: a comparative analysis of New York and Michigan farm operators." Rural Sociology 46 (Fall): 391-410. Buttel, Frederick, and Howard Newby (eds.) 1980 The Rural Sociology of the Advanced Societies: Critical Perspectives. Montclair, New Jersey: Allanheld, Osmun, and Company. Colman, Gould P. 1981 "Notes on methods for studying farm women." The Rural Sociologist (November): 394-395. Coughenour, C. Milton and Louis S w a n s o n 1983 "Work statuses and occupations of men and women in farm families and the structure of farms." Rural Sociology 48 (Spring): 23-24. Crawford, Inex 1927 The Use of Time by Farm Women. Moscow: Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 146. deLeal, Magdalena Leon, and Carmen Diana Deere 1979 "Rural women and the development of capitalism in Colombian agriculture." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5 (Autumn): 60-77. Elbert, Sarah 1981 "The challenge of research on farm women." The Rural Sociologist 1 (November): 387-390. Fassinger, Polly A., and Harry K. Schwarzweller 1980 "Exploring women's work roles on family farms: a Michigan case study." Paper presented at the Rural Sociological Society Meeting, Ithaca, New York. Flora, Cornelia B. 1981 "Farm women, farming systems and agricultural structure: suggestions for scholarship." The Rural Sociologist 1 (November): 383-386. Flora, Cornelia B., and Sue Johnson 1978 " D i s c a r d i n g the d i s t a f f : new roles for rural women." Pp. 168-181 in Thomas R. Ford (ed.), Rural USA: Persistence and Change. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. Fowler, Becky 1979 Rural women: an annotated bibliography. Morgantown: West Virginia University. Galpin, Charles Josiah 1924 Rural Social Problems. New York and London: The Century Company. Glazer-Malbin, Nona 1976 "Review essay: housework." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1 (Summer): 905922. Golomb, Susha 1981 "Changing patterns of employment in agriculture in the United States, 1967-1977." Depart-

Ross: A Commentary on Research

ment of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Hagood, Margaret J a r m a n 1939 Mothers of the South. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Haney, Wava G. 1982 "Women." pp. 124-135 in Don A. Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs (eds.) Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Havens, Eugene A. 1982 "The changing structure of U.S. agriculture." pp. 308-316 in Dillman, Don A., and Daryl J. Hobbs (eds.), Rural Society: Issues for the 1980s. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Hill, Frances 1981a"Farm women: challenge to scholarship." The Rural Sociologist 1 (November): 370-382. Hill, Frances 1981b"Farmwomen and vocational education." Pp. 6792 in Stuart A. Rosenfeld (ed.), Brake Shoes, Backhoes, and Balance Sheets: The Changing Vocational Education of Rural Women. Washington, D.C.: Rural American Women, Incorporated. Huffman, Wallace 1976 "The value of the productive time of farm wives Iowa, North Carolina, Oklahoma." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58 (December): 836-841. Jones, Calvin, and Rachel A. Rosenfeld 1981 American Farm Women: Findings From a National Survey. Chicago, Illinois: National Opinion Research Center. Joyce, Lynda M., and Samuel M. Leadley 1977 A a s s e s s m e n t o f r e s e a r c h n e e d s o f women in the Rural United States: literature review and annotated bibliography. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University, AERS 127. Kalbacher, Judith Z. 1982 Women Farmers in America. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, ERS 679. Lodwick, Dora G., and Polly A. Fassinger 1979 "Va'ciations in agricultural production activities of women in family farms." Paper presented at the Rural Sociological Society Meeting, Burlington, Vermont. Paarlberg, Don 1980 Farm and Food Policy: Issues of the 1980s. Lincoln, Nebraska and London: University of Nebraska Press. Parsons, Talcott 1955 "The American family: its relations to personality and the social structure." Pp. 3-33 in Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales (eds.), Family Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. Pearson, Jessica 1979 "Note on female farmers." Rural Sociology 44 (February): 189-200. Rodenfeld, Richard D. Pearson, Jessica 1982 "Who will own and operate America's farms?" Pp. 328-335 in Dillman, Don A., and Daryl J. Hobbs (eds.), Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Rodefeld, Richard D. 1978 "Trends in U.S. farm organizational structure and type." Pp. 158-177 in Richard D. Rodefeld, J a n Flora, Donald Voth, Isao Fujimota and Jim

Converse (eds.), Change in Rural America: Causes, Consequences and Alternatives. St. Louis, Missouri: The C.V. Mosby Company. Ross, Peggy J. 1982 "Farmwomen's participation in United States agricultural production: selected assessments." Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Ross, Peggy J. 1983 "Farm structure and variations in U.S. farmwomen's participation in four dimensions of farm labor". Paper presented at the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia. Sachs, Carolyn 1981 "The displacement of women from agricultural production; the case of the United States." Department of Rural Sociology, University of Kentucky. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Sachs, Carolyn E. 1983 The Invisible Farmers: Women in Agricultural Production. Totawa, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld. Salamon, Sonya, and Maekey Keim 1979 "Land ownership and women's power in a midwestern farming community." Journal of Marriage and the Family 41 (February): 109119. Salant, Priscilla 1983 Farm Women: Contribution to Farm and Family. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service and Mississippi State University, AERR 140. Sawer, Barbara 1973 "Predieators of the farm wife's involvement in general management and adoption decisions." Rural Sociology 38 (Winter): 412-426. Smith, Herbert 1969 "Husband-wife task performance and deeisonmaking patterns." Pp. 500-520 in J.R. Eshleman (ed.), Perspectives in Marriage and the Family. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon Publishing Company. Smuts, Robert W. 1972 Women and Work in America. New York: Schocken Books. Straus, Murray A. 1960 "Family role differentiation and technological change in farming." Rural Sociology 25 (June) 219-228. Straus, Murray A. 1958 "The role of the wife in the settlement of the Columbia Basin Project." Journal of Marriage and the Family 20 (Winter): 59-64. Studley, Lucy A. 1938 Relationship of the Farm Home to Farm Business. St. Paul: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 279. Sweet, James A. 1972 "The employment of rural farm wives." Rural Sociology 37 (December): 553-577. United Sates Department of Agriculture 1915 Social and Labor Needs of Farm Women. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report 103. 1915 Domestic Needs of Farm Women. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report 104. 1915 Educational Needs of Farm Women. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report 105.

29

A G R I C U L T U R E A N D H U M A N V A L U E S - W I N T E R 1985

1915 Economic Needs of Farm Women. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report 106. United States Department of Agriculture 1977 Women in American Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service and National Agriculture Library, Library List 103. Wasson, Grace E. 1930 The Use of Time by South Dakota Farm Homemakers. South Dakota State College: Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 247. Wilkening, Eugene A. 1958 "Joint decision-making in farm families as a function of status and role." American Sociological Review 23 (April): 187-192. Wi:kening, Eugene A. 1981 Farm Husbands and Wives in Wisconsin: Work Roles, Decisionmaking and Satisfaction, 1962 and 1978. Madison, Wisconsin: Uaiversity of Wisconsin, R3147. Wilkening, Eugene A., and Nancy Ahrens 1980 "Women's involvement in farm tasks and decisions." Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin. Unpublished paper.

30

Wilkening, Eugene and Lakshmi Bharadwaj 1967 "Dimensions of aspirations, work roles and decision-making of farm husbands and wives in Wisconsin." Journal of Marriage and the Family 29 (November): 703-711. Wilkening, Eugene A., and Sylvia Guerrero 1969 "Consensus in aspirations for farm improvement and adoption of farm practices." Rural Sociology 34 (June): 182-196. Wilkening, Eugene A., and Denton Morrison 1963 "A comparison of husband and wife responses concerning who makes farm and home decisions." Journal of Marriage and the Family 25 (August): 349-351. Wilson, Maud 1927 Use of time by Oregon farm homemakers. Moscow: Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 256. Zelditch, Morris J. 1955 "Role differentiation in the nuclear family: a comparative study." Pp. 307-351 in Talcott Parsons, and Robert F. Bales (eds.), Family Socialization, and Interaction Process. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.